Technical Mire

The Cost of Operating Systems

2016-10-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

Things have changed a lot in the past nine years. Nine years ago, the iPhone was released. This was the first smartphone that got a lot of consumer attention, and it has changed everything. A year later, Android was officially released. In 2013, MacOS became entirely free for all users, although you must purchase an Apple computer that comes with the OS installed to begin with. Finally, last year, Microsoft released Windows 10 as a free upgrade from Windows 7 or higher (for a limited time), with the promise of free updates forever. Linux, of course, has always been free to install, and most Unix variants are never likely to be free. There are, of course, various other Operating Systems (OS), including BSD, Windows Phone (now merged with Windows), Blackberry OS, Chrome OS, and others, but Linux, Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android make up the majority of what most people encounter.

So how do all of these affect the average person? Well, because the vast majority of people will only ever use the OS installed on their system when they purchase it, it means that the OS is largely free. Obviously they are not all actually free, but the consumer doesn't see what part of the cost of an Apple computer goes to the OS division and what part goes to the hardware division. They don't see what the manufacturer paid Microsoft in order to preload it with Windows. They don't see any of that, so it doesn't really matter. People only see how much it costs to upgrade, and what works or doesn't work. They really don't see the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), or even really know what that means. So what does it mean?

Well, the purpose of the OS is to run your computer. Ideally it should start up as quickly as possible, start your programs easily, connect your peripherals effectively, and generally stay out of your way. The less you even think of it, the better. Every time you notice your OS because it is slowing you down, that increases your TCO. Every time you need to fix something with how the OS is working, that increases the TCO. Every time you need to replace hardware because it is no longer compatible, that increases your TCO. So what OS gives the lowest TCO?

It depends, of course, on what you are using it for. For the average home user, there is going to be a higher TCO if you have to install or reinstall your OS. For some businesses, that may lower it or not be relevant, because everything is installed from a single consistent image that is copied to each computer. If you need to upgrade your computer more frequently because your OS needs more resources, that is going to increase your TCO. On the other hand, if you can virtualise everything to a central server and have thin clients connecting in, that can reduce TCO as well. Of course, if your software won't run on a given OS, than trying to work around that is going to hit the TCO as well.

In most cases, once the system is set up and configured, if done properly, the ongoing TCO should be small, and limited to user training, update glitches, and hardware updates. The trick is to minimise the cost when you must upgrade, and limit the amount of user training that is necessary. As for update glitches, those should be caught before the update is general, by testing updates in advance of them occurring for the end users.

So what will your cost be for a system? It depends on what you use it for, but don't forget the costs down the line, from when you get it to when you replace it.

The Open Source Community

2015-01-14T14:01:00.007-08:00

Do you know what the community of open source is? It's a term that really doesn't mean anything in particular. Is it a term that you have ever heard before? It probably should not be a term you have heard. However, it is a term that people should understand.

OK, now that sound like total nonsense, doesn't it? What on earth am I talking about? Well, the community of open source is a useful concept, even if it doesn't really refer to anything in particular.

Open source software is software that has two characteristics. First, the source code is available for the end user to look at, review, and change. Second, there is a process for users to submit changes back to the main branch of software. There are other common traits, but these two are common to all open source software. There are other open source implementations, such as hardware, research, and so on, but software is what gets the most attention because of the closed nature of compiled code, and the ease of sharing the source code.

The nature of open source naturally gives rise to communities. This can be suppressed, and does occasionally happen when the project is managed by a company and developed for profit, but it is tremendously valuable. The community is a loose grouping of developers, users, and designers, many of which fit into all of those roles.

So why is this beneficial? This is helpful for several reasons. First, developers do not find bugs. Users find bugs, and try to communicate then to the developers. When the user is also the developer, then they can figure out the bug more easily. Second, there are more developers potentially available to fix the problems. Third, it speeds up the development cycle by encouraging the developers to work on a specific issue until it is finished. They also need to finish it so that the remainder of the project can move forward. Fourth, more developers seeing the code means best practices are more likely to be followed. Fifth, that number also means that problems are more likely to be seen.

There are also, however, issues with some projects. Because it is owned by the community, some projects do not have full time developers, and the project may not move forward as quickly as it might. Second, open source communities have trouble attracting designers to keep the design cohesive. This can also easily in too many options and settings that cannot be easily found. Third, there can be a lack of somebody responsible for the whole project.

There is also another interesting aspect of open source software. Changes that are only being used privately, such as locally used software do not need to be available to the community. Software that is only used internally at the office can be modified without any issues. Of course, if you do, there is the risk of becoming incompatible, but it is easy and allowed. Software that is sold or used in products used by external users (clients and customers) often requires that the changes and full code of the open source software be made available, though not always.

So why would developers contribute to an open source project? Well, it improves their skills by practising and being exposed to other code. It gives them tools that they can improve if something goes wrong. Also, it's good to belong to a community. Anyone is welcome, and everyone can participate. Act! Belong! Contribute!

Online Video and Television

2013-02-04T07:03:00.001-08:00

A traditional television is something that has existed for years, and we have used it in the same way for a long time. There have been minor changes at various times, such as the ability to pre-record shows using VCRs or PVRs, the shift from analogue sources to digital sources, HD and 3D content, but in large measure, nothing has really changed since television was developed and distributed. The content is produced and paid for in the same ways, by flat advertisements being displayed throughout the content to help pay for it.

But with the advent of the Internet, everything is changing. It's changing the way we look for content, and it's changing the way we consume content. We expect to have content on our devices, with us wherever we go, or accessible on our TVs as well. We use services like Netflix and Youtube, but the market is only just starting to reflect that. We are starting to get content designed specifically for the new media, streamed online, supported by interactive advertisements, although they still have a ways to go.

There are really two issues with the content. Are we getting what we want? Are they being able to make money to support their content?

I think we are starting to get what we want. We have Youtube exclusive channels, that are designed for Youtube. They take advantage of the ability to embed links in the video. They can tell where we are watching from, so they can localize the links, although they are not doing this much, yet. They give us a forum to voice our opinions through comment feeds.

Are they properly monetizing it, though? I don't think so. I have my channels that I watch on Youtube, and I don't mind sitting through some ads to pay for the content. I understand that they need to be paid for somehow. I don't really think it's a good use of my time, however, to watch ads for companies that are unable to provide services to me. I live in Canada, and I am regularly getting ads for Sprint, for example, which is a mobile phone company available only in the USA. I will never use Sprint, simply because I cannot, so why are they paying for me to watch their ads?

I think we are getting close to the day when there will be shows produced either exclusively online, for example through Youtube, or simultaneously online and on TV. The Internet is going to change the way things are done. It already has changed it, in fact. There already are Internet exclusive shows. Revision3, for example, exclusively distributes their shows online. It looks like that is where the world is headed. So what will we do with our TVs? Well, that's going to be the easiest way to play 4KHD content, which will probably stream from online before anything else.

Life Should Be Open

2012-11-07T12:00:00.000-08:00

Life is an interesting challenge. So much of what we honour and desire is for freedom. We want understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom. We want utopia, but how far are we really willing to go in order to get it? That is an important question. But that is what we, as a whole, really seem to want.

Individuals, on the other hand, are different. They want power, and money, and they want to be right. Of course, these goals in many ways oppose the goals described in the previous paragraph. Power and money for individuals, while not incompatible with understanding, knowledge, improvement, and freedom, does not work towards it above all else. People wanting to be right, on the other hand, tends to be directly in opposition to those ideals.

Power and money are the main results of patents, for example. In theory, patents were designed to protect innovators by giving them a chance to monetize their inventions before everyone started using the technique, but in the modern landscape, many claim that it actually prevents others from building on past success. In other words, it stifles improvement, and represses knowledge and understanding. I'm not going to argue either side of this today, although I will likely cover it in a future blog post.

Life should be based on principles of openness, however. There are benefits to closed systems, primarily economical, but as a whole, that isn't what we want. This is particularly so in the world of science. Research, comparison, learning, and so on is always going to be improved the most by co-operation. That is the key tenet of an open society. Co-operation. Working together so that we can build on our earlier mistakes, and our earlier successes.

That is a big problem with the world today. All scientific endeavours require co-operation, but there is no system in place to ensure co-operation happens, or even to make it possible. Instead, people want to use it as a means to make even more money, and so scientists are forced to work in their own little bubbles, slowed down in their effort to make our lives better. Life would be better in an Open society.

I use Linux

2012-11-05T14:51:00.001-08:00

As the title says, I am a Linux user.

This is an interesting statement, because I use Windows a lot. I use Windows more than I use Linux. I have purchased several licences to install and use Windows over the years, and I have Linux and Windows installed in a dual-boot setup on my computer. I am very familiar with Windows, and I have been using Windows since Windows 3.1. I used MS-DOS before that. So I have been using Microsoft products for a long time. It is not out of a lack of familiarity. Nor is it that I don't have them available to me. It is not a matter of being too cheap for it.

I simply choose to use Linux. I have used Linux on and off since about 2004, and used it consistently since about 2009, usually side by side with Windows.

I will certainly admit that Windows has improved over the years. Windows ME was a disaster, and so was Vista. However, XP and Windows 7 each had significant strengths. However, Linux has greater strengths. There are those who would say that Windows is better, simply because it makes more money than Linux, and has more widespread support, but that is really a nonsense argument, and is more a result of monopolistic practices.

Linux is naturally a better product. This is because Linux developers are free to choose their own direction. They are not required to develop in a particular way. It can be designed however you want, giving to the rise of free choice, choice for both users and developers. Also, because the only requirement is functionality, there are no corporate policies delaying things. There is flexibility to move quickly, and implement the tools that users want.

That is why, for example, the KDE interface is superior in functionality to Aero, the Windows desktop environment of Windows 7. An example of this is Aero Snap versus KDE hotspots. Both are effectively the same concept, you move a window, it tiles in particular ways. With KDE, it's fully customizable, so you can turn on and off hotspots, whereas Aero is just the way Microsoft designed. Hotspots also give you an extra five hotspots, giving you five extra choices. By default, 7 of the 8 hotspots are enabled, giving you maximize, tile top left, left half of the screen, tile bottom left, tile bottom right, right half of the screen, or tile top right. Aero has 3 of these, either left half, right half, or maximized.

This is the functional difference. In Linux and the related environment, developers are free to follow functionality to its conclusion, while in Windows, the decisions are made at the top, with no alternative available. In Linux, whatever you want, it's probably available. So I use Linux.

The Power of Apple

2012-10-29T12:55:00.002-07:00

You know, it's funny how things change so much at times. There was a time when the power of Apple was in providing an alternative. They have never been first to market, but so what, they have something different to offer! Or at least, they did, and they made a good deal of fuss about how different it was. Then something happened.

First, it was the mobile music player market. It was a minor market, hardly anyone was there, just a few mp3 players and CD players, which had their places, but they weren't tremendously popular. Then Apple jumped in to provide an alternative, and everything went crazy. Suddenly they became the dominant player, because it hadn't been developed. The iPod was revolutionary, not because it was the first, but because it penetrated.

Next was the smartphone market. It was a nominal market, split primarily between Blackberry and Palm Pilot at the time, with some interest from Nokia and Windows Mobile. But it was still a tiny, developing market until Apple came along with the iPhone. They didn't dominate it the way they dominated the mobile music player market, but they were the ones who really put the market on the map. Now they have competition from Android, while Blackberry struggles to stay in the marketplace.

Finally, there is the tablet market. Until Apple's iPad and the various Android tablets, there were a couple of tablets on the market, but the market never stuck until Apple released the iPad. Now they have dominated the market, although Android is competing with them, the iPad is the dominant player. So in all of their new ventures in the past decade, they have not been in the position of alternative.

Why is it that they never succeeded in laptops and desktops as they did in mobile, portable devices? Why have they not managed to dominate the market? They have the power to do it, when it comes to those devices, whether they are the biggest player or not. They aren't just a minor alternative, yet they let their laptops slide.

The reason, in the end, is simple. They failed to appeal to businesses at the beginning, and so businesses ignored them. Developers found a different place to take their apps, and we are still struggling to recover from that. Apps are stuck in Windows, and only just starting to expand beyond that. As the software world expands, the dominance of Windows on traditional computers will subside, and alternatives will begin to be considered.

A Need For Openness

2012-10-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

Windows Update and Uncommunication

2012-10-15T12:47:00.001-07:00

Sorry to anyone who was hoping for a useful post, this is more of a rant than anything else.

The implementation of Windows Update is something that I have long considered to be a thorn in the side of anyone who tries to use Windows. Back in the days of Windows XP, for example, the most typical problem would be that it wouldn't tell you that there were updates available, unless you went to the Windows Update. Otherwise, it would just forcibly install them the next time you shut down your computer. There was no way to force a refresh or check or anything. It would just install them without approval, even if you had set it to notify you and let you choose.

Then there is the problem that continues to plague Windows users, that of automatic restart. Really, the fact that Windows allows automatic restart without authorization of the user is rather irritating, but necessary due to the fact that restarts are required so frequently. However, the implementation of Windows Update is that you can't tell it to wait until you manually restart the computer. That would be ideal, but instead, it forces the restart, unless you manually postpone it. The amount of work that has been lost because of this is incalculable. Of course, you can turn it off, if you are willing to hack the registry, or if you know where to find the Group Policy setting. (Group Policy settings are available only in Professional, Ultimate, or Enterprise versions of Windows 7.)

Also, Microsoft products that they think everyone should have and be using are constantly being pushed to users, unless they take active steps to prevent that from happening. Saying ignore update to install software only ignores the current update. Next time they update it, it will be offered for installation once again. There is no option to ignore software, short of hacking your registry. You can't simply deny the new version of Internet Explorer, for example.

Of course, by all accounts, in Windows 8 it looks like it is being made to work more like Linux than it currently is. It likely will still have the restart issues, but Windows has always required an inordinate number of restarts. However, rumour has it that it will be able to install and update all software that is available for your computer, or at least all of the software that was distributed using Windows Update, or Windows Store. On the other hand, there will be far more reason to distribute through means other than the Windows Store, as compared to Linux.

Windows Update, however, has proved to be buggy, pushy, inconsistent, and limited. Someday, I suppose, it might be effective and efficient. It is improving, after all. They did fix it so that you could go to an application and force a refresh since Windows Vista.

What's Better With Proprietary

2012-09-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

FLOSS has its advantages. It has its supporters. It has attractive qualities. And then there are the things we love to hate.

As with any community, FLOSS is made up of hundreds and thousands of sub-communities. There is a community around each piece of FLOSS software. There are communities that revolve solely around themselves, producing content, although no FLOSS. There are communities which are part of the FLOSS community, but not truly FLOSS in and of themselves. And as with any other community, it can be difficult to gain membership to a community.

Once you have gained admission to the community, there are still disagreements. One of those disagreements in particular is the thing I don't like. Unfortunately, it can be hard to describe. Is it elitism? Is it exclusivism? It is a particular idea that somebody can define the community, and think that they are right. The community as a whole is undefinable.

Part of that is as a result of how the community has formed. There are many individuals who are drawn by the concepts of freedom, and an interest in technology. That is how I was drawn to the community. I am a computer programmer, and an IT consultant. I love freedom, and while I may differ in my views on how best to obtain freedom, and what to use it for, I know what freedom is.

Freedom is the ability to define oneself in the way that works best. It is to not be defined by others. It is to believe what you choose to believe, and act how you wish to act. There are limits, of course, because you must respect the freedoms of others, but to choose your own course, and allow others to do so as well is the goal of freedom. I do not have to agree with your decisions, nor with how you live your life, but because of the respect I have for freedom, I understand that all I can do is disagree. I cannot stop you from making your decisions, although if you are willing to listen, I might explain why I disagree.

Part of the problem, then, is the people who are drawn to the community. They are the so-called Liberal movement. Many people who call themselves Liberal are not truly open to freedom. Take Richard Stallman for example. He has a rather narrow definition of freedom when it pertains to software. If you are unwilling to use his methods, he will fight against you. Many Liberals are the same in their beliefs. They would consider themselves open-minded, and yet if you took a stance that contradicted theirs, they would try and force you to adopt their beliefs.

You cannot have freedom and agreement. To have freedom, you must be willing to permit a degree of chaos, and difference of opinions.

What I Like About FLOSS

2011-07-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

The greatest things about FLOSS is freedom. It is freedom to do what is right. It is freedom to share and share alike. It is not that it is free, but that we are free from it. If you use Windows, especially, you are bound up by the EULA that they enforce upon you. You are not free to use Windows, because it has rights over you. With FLOSS, however, your only responsibility is to maintain the freedom that it gives you. You are not required to do anything specific. You cannot take it and present it as something you have created, but just about anything else you want to do is cool. You can use it for work, unlike the more reasonably priced version of MS Office. You can take it and sell it if you want, because you are free to do that. Of course, in practical terms, the only way to do that is if you make some improvement or modification in such a way that it isn't a direct change which needs to be returned to the community who developed it. You are free to study it and learn how it works, so that you can create things that are better.

The curious thing is that in many cases it is better software as well. The complaints that people tend to have about FLOSS are rarely about it working properly. The software, in most cases, does what it is meant to do, and does it well and properly. I will discuss the problems people have with it in another post, as I wish to focus here on the good it has. And the good is how stable and effective it usually is.

The last thing I wish to bring up here is the community. Community is a concept that has been adopted, admittedly by proprietary software. That is what makes a forum work. Forums are dependent on community. However, it isn't so real a community as it is in FLOSS. There are problems in many of the communities, but they are still more good than anything else. They are what gives life to the software and the projects. Once there is a community, the project is likely to succeed, because there is a community to support it and maintain it. It no longer rests in the hands of one, but of many with their own reasons for supporting the project.

Why I dislike Microsoft

2011-07-14T15:45:00.000-07:00

Do I dislike Microsoft?

There are many people who hate Microsoft fundamentally. They build conspiracy theories. They plot the downfall of the company. They seek to replace it. They spread the worst evils of Microsoft's past. Somehow, they feel that if only Microsoft were gone, life would be better. Whether things would be better or not, they cannot know, but they believe it.

There are those who love Microsoft. They ignore any evil done by the company, and they believe that choices in design, marketing, and development are excellent. They would put the blame for problems on the heads of the enemies of the company, and on developers who don't follow proper practices. They seek to protect the company at every step.

I dislike absolutes. When you deal with absolutes, odds are that you are wrong. And anyway, Microsoft is not Evil. It is not capable of being evil. It is a corporation, and as such, ambivalent to either goodness or evilness. They simply are not capable of it. So why should I hate Microsoft? They are not evil. They are simply capitalist.

However, they are not out to protect anyone except their bottom line. They are after money. Microsoft and its employees will do what they think best to earn the most money. Unfortunately, some of what they are willing to do is actually quite unfortunate. If you want something bad enough, there is a good chance that you will become a bully, willing to do whatever it takes, and hurt anybody in your way. If they do this, does that make Microsoft evil? Not really, however evil their methods.

The things they have been doing, though, deserve comment. Looking back now at Windows Phone 7, it is basically a flop of a product. It didn't sell, except for a handful here and there. They may be fighting to bring it back, but really, it hasn't gained traction, and there is nothing drawing people to it. It simply exists by itself. So in order to make up for it, they seem to have decided to do what they can to gouge the competition. They are charging you and I to use somebody else's software, namely Android. The curious thing about how is by going to companies, threatening lengthy court battles, and forcing them to not tell anybody else about it so that each company using Android has to fight on their own. Whether or not it would stand up in court doesn't matter, because most companies can't afford the fight as long as Microsoft can. Yet they're trying to get every Android device manufacturer to do it. Why not Apple? Because Apple is bigger than Microsoft now. They may sell fewer PCs, but they sell at a higher profit thanks to Vertical Integration and more entertainment devices. And why are they not suing Google directly? Google would fight them, and their patents might not be up to the task of an actual court battle. If they lost, they would never be able to even hint that Linux infringes on their Patents, because the Linux Kernel is part of the Android Kernel.

So it's simply a tactic in bullying, and I do not approve of that. I do not approve of paying Microsoft in order to use somebody else's product. And that is why I dislike Microsoft.

The Power of FLOSS

2011-07-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

FLOSS, or Free/Libre Open Source Software, also known as FOSS, OSS, Open Source, Free Software, and so on, is Software that is provided with the source code available to the users, and allows those users to modify and redistribute that code in accordance with the licence. It is completely alien to the Proprietary way of thinking. The idea behind FLOSS is that people are free. They cannot be artificially restricted by licences. They will want to modify the code anyway, so let's make it part of the program. It is a system that encourages the sharing of code with the expectation that anybody who uses it will do so in order to learn from it, or make it better, and by so doing improve things for everybody.

I was drawn into this community through Linux, and through business. My business is IT, and in order to make things work the best possible for my clients, I need the best tools, and if they happen to be the least expensive, so much the better for my clients. While searching for these tools, I stumbled across the concepts of open source software, and discovered the power and strength of the community as compared to the corporation. I am not going to say that one is better, that community always triumphs over the corporation, or that corporations are inherently superior. That conversation is already settled, with neither as being inherently better. But the community is a natural strength, because it is not limited in the way a corporation is limited. A corporation may have greater focus, but it lacks the diversity of a community.

The reason I am drawn ever more within the open source community is however a belief that all people have value, and they are all part of the community. They are all part of my community, the global community. They are all working for freedom, and freedom is the basic right of humanity. So often, corporations are so focused on protecting what is theirs, that they seek to strip us of our rights. If we agree to give up those rights, then that is our individual decision, but those rights exist, and they must not be taken away from us. The right to learn is ours, the right to share what is ours, and use the tools that we have available to us without fear of reprisal. The right to speak our minds, which can best be protected by the community, and not the corporations. The right to believe what we please, whether I agree with your beliefs, or find them to be evil. Those are rights I fear to lose. Those are rights that could too easily be stripped from us if we put our trust in corporations. Corporations have no interest in my life, or protecting freedoms, they have interest in profit. All well and good, that is the reason corporations exist. But they cannot be trusted. They will sell my rights if I give them away. They will turn my data over to the right bidder. And that is why I advocate for Open Source. I own myself.