Google’s Chrome OS … too much hype before it even started!

Google announced that it is doing a operating system known as Chrome OS. It says it is starting small, i.e., with netbooks first. but it has plans to extend it later to larger, more powerful computers.

Google doing an operating system for netbooks? That is not suprising. It does Andriod for smartphone. The next logical step is of course, to play with netbooks. Not that others have not thought about it. We already have netbook manufacturers playing with Andriod on netbooks. If Google has no plan an operating system for netbooks, it would had started one then. May be a supercharged Andriod, but as we now know, an “new” operating system.

I cannot see Google keeping Andriod and Chrome OS separate. If Chrome OS takes off, then the two will have to be merged to achieve the economy of scale and optimize the use of existing resources.

Chrome OS is still vapourware. Even when it materialize, it will take time, perhaps a year or two, and not before Google deliver a scale up of the operating system for box-standard computer before Microsoft is actually threaten. That is a lot of uncertainty yet, so those obligatory obituary for Microsoft, like this one, is permature at best. However, given the schizophrenic nature of Microsoft’s top management, I can imagine them freaking out.

What does this means for Linux? That’s my second thought, after Microsoft. It feels like: here we go again, yet another distribution. Move on…

Current plans put it as a fully web-enabled operating system. I can see that for the extreme low end netbook with no storage capacity whatsoever except for the operating system. This means it has to pull in everything from the internet. The appeal here will be price. The key challenge here will be how much it will cost to hook up to the internet. I cannot see access to internet to be free anytime soon. (Buying a cup of coffee to use the coffee shop’s WiFi means WiFi is not free).

Anything thing costing more will need offline or standalone functionality. This is the bigger challenge for Chrome OS: How it integrate the internet with standalone function that duplicate the on-line functionality. This is the space to watch.

As from the operating system front, expect Microsoft to hit back by injecting more vigour into operating system development. Like what Firefox does for browser, Chrome OS just have to be a viable challenge to Microsoft’s Windows from the view point of low end PC market to make operating system sexy again.

The part that Mono tries to imitate is now part of Microsoft Community Promise

The latest news about Mono tries to imitate, C# and .NET framework, is to be plaa placed under Micrsofot “Community Promise“.

I cannot remember anything like Mono that can divide the open source community so clearly. On one hand we have people that thinks Mono is not a problem like Canonical, and on the other hand people like  RedHat thinks it should be avoided. The two Linux vendors quoted are not those that we normally classify as ideologically pure (SFLC) or the creator of the technology (Novell). I do not think the camp can be reconciled properly, at least not anytime soon.

My problem with Mono is about control over the technology. While the patent threat is real, I think it is remote enough that it will never happens. My concerns for Mono is exactly the same as the concern I have with any technology that appears to be directed by one company. I do not think any technology where there is one player that dictate its evolution is good for open source or free software. It is quite simply, too open to abuse.

Look at Eclipse, IBM had been doing a very good job before it hands it off to an independent foundation. It’s stewardship, however benevolent, proved to be a major hindrance to Eclipse’s adoption. If you do not believe me, simply compare Eclipse’ adoption rate before and after the Eclipse Foundation took the stewardship of the technology.

Microsoft’s decision to put it under the Community Promise banner certainly strengthen the pro-Mono camp, but only a bit. If you go and look into what is covered under that promise, you will find only a few “fringe” projects in Microsoft is covered, and the most valuable one, Visual Basic Application, comes with caveat. That is not very inspiring.

Moreover, it did not address my concerns about stewardship. I cannot accept any technology where one party can change the specification at its wimp, or a technology where one party can put the other implementations into a disadvantage by developing it in secret then spring it onto the market. This means the party will forever dominate the market, as others are forced to play catch up. To me, any open source projects and certainly Free Software should not rely on technology which is developed in such an opaque fashion and does not treat every major participant equally.

I am still reserving my judgement over Mono though. To use a human development anology, Mono left infancy and is no longer a toddler, it is growning up quickly. At this stage, to not give it a say towards the direction C# and .NET is going is still not a problem to me. However, it will be a problem two years down the line when Mono matures into an adult. At that point, I do requires Mono having a say in where C# and .NET is going before I will accept it as a technology suitable for open source project.

The argument over Mono seems to be reflecting the arguement aboug Java when it was in its infancy. It’s all about control. With Java, however flawed you think the Java community process is, at least you can say Sun tried.

Right choice for BT to back away from Phorm

TheRegister is reporting that BT finally back away from deploying Phorm.

Personally, I think Phorm as a technology is too intrusive for my liking, I think if the technology on this line does not violate any law, then the law should be amended so that it will be a violation.

The manner in which BT had chosen to run the Phrom trial, especially with regards to getting consent is extremely troubling for me. It boils down to the trial is too complicated to explain to you and I so they would simply not bother to ask for permission. Besides insulting yours and my intelligent, i.e. BT’s potential customers, I feel that if a technology is too difficult to explain, then it should not be trialed at all. What surprised me is OfCom agreed with BT. Thank god those bureaucrats in EC disagree  and threaten to prosecute it. It is so bad for BT that regardless whether it is right or wrong to not seek prior consent, it left a bad taste and is proof to me that BT only pay lips services to customer privacy.

I can understand why BT had insisted it will go along with Phrom roll out when the technology behinds it blown up on its face in the public domain. It wants to “save face”. It is unlikely that BT thinks that the benefit it gets from installing Phrom malware outweigh the cost of the further PR disaster.

Let’s face it, with all the bad publicity, it does not matter whether what BT did/do is legal or not, or does it matter whether it is ethical or not or for that matter, what moral rights BT might have to implement Phorm. The damage is done. The way to contain the damage is not to deploy the technology at all. All other moves will quit simply, damage the company.

Hence BT make the right decision to back away from Phorm. The only question is, why did it took so long?

If you asked me, I think a decision had been quietly made to ditch the technology when the whole thing blow up on BT’s face. So why didn’t it announce this then to calm down the storm? As I said, it wants to save face. I actually disagree with it on the grounds that abandoning the malware at the time, and apologize instead would greatly smooth the public’s concern. However, this means losing face. Something one’s pride make it very difficult to do.

Therefore, they took the other route available: Let the storm pass, and when the sea is calm, ditch the malware. Hopefully no one’s watching…. except TheRegister who had been watching it like a hawk over the issue. But then again being caught by TheRegister is something that cannot be avoided altogether.

Luckily for them, the economy downturn gives them plenty of excuses to back down.

Is Phrom dead? I think so. Other ISPs is very much less likely to adopt Phorm now that BT, its major backer, backs down.

Windows Platform not good enough for London Stock Exchange? Not so fast…

Steven J Vaughan-Nichols believes that the rumour that London Stock Exchange is preparing to dump its Window Platform-based trading system is proof that Windows is not suitable for mission-critical system is probably a bit too far fetch. I do not think even if LSE did indeed dump its current trade platform, it is validation that Windows Platform is not suitable.

First of all, we still do not know whether the new platform will not be Window-based. In fact, if LSE did indeed dump its current system but keep the new platform Window-based, I will say it is an endorsement of Windows for mission-critical system. If it does not, it is bad PR for Windows-based system, but there is so many other variables, e.g. cost, in play that we cannot say Windows is no good for mission-critical system.

Second and perhaps the most important factor, if you look at the objectives  for the trading platform that Vaughan-Nichols listed, you will find them tough to achieve. The skill of the development team is a more critical factor in deciding the failure/success of the platfom than the choice of Windows-based technology that powers it.

If London Stock Exchange indeed dump its current trading platform, all it says is its current trading platform is not up to standard. There will be plenty of eggs on a lot of peoples’ face, but to infer the failure of Windows Platform from this piece of news is a bit too far reaching.

Biggest win for MPAA

And, … they did not have to do a thing at all. Well, they did help it along but they are not directly involved.

So what is it? Pirate Bay sell itselfs in order to go legit. Am I surprised by the news? Not at all. You and I know from day 1 one day Pirate Bay will go legit, but not before it makes its point on P2P issues. In a sense it achieved its aim and now it is time to sell.

So, how about the news that  Pirate Bay users jump ship? That is only to be expected. If you ask me, this fact had been factored into the sales price.

It is a big win for MPAA, bigger than the conviction of the founders itself. In a sense, MPAA deserves this win.

MPAA might had won this round, but you and I know that it is a golden opportunities for Pirate Bay wannabes. The cat wins today, but not the day.

Microsoft appears to be picking a fight with EC, a public fight…

When Microsoft announce that Windows 7 will not be shipped with IE in Europe, quite frankly, I do not know how to interpret this move. Microsoft finally bowing to EC without fighting to the bitter end? Microsoft acknowledging EC has a case against it on IE? or another tactic Microsoft is using to fight EC? I think we know the answer now, it is the last option on the list.

What we have today is Microsoft announcing that “EC is stopping it from permitting user to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7 because of IE“. Quite frankly, I cannot see EC doing this. EC is know to be in favour of wanting alternative web browser to be delivered alongside IE in windows. It did not ask Microsoft to strip IE completely from Windows. If it does, this act will probably be thrown back by the EC’s own court of appeal. It is Microsoft who choose to strip IE instead of having rival web browser installed for EU bound Windows 7. And since a copy of EU-bound Windows 7 is going to be in store soon, I cannot see how an upgrade from Vista cannot be performed via this copy of Windows, unless of course Microsoft doesn’t want you to.

What I see is Microsoft trying to get PC makers to set pressure on EC in its favour in its war with it over IE. PC makers will be hurted by this no-upgrade decision. However, let’s make it clear: Microsoft has the ability and resources and given EC’s coverage, the incentive and market size consideration,  to remaster any upgrade disk to remove IE if need be. It choose not to. If PC makers are hurted, then it is Microsoft they should be blaming.

I don’t think Microsoft is hoping that when you and I go into store asking for Vista to Windows 7 upgrade, the shopkeeper will tell you and I that “EC stop Microsoft from selling you an upgrade”. Why? Most sales assistants are stock pusher, they don’t care about the politics behind it.

Perhaps you Vista cloud is so small that Microsoft is willing to use you as a pawn in its war against EC. In any case, I hope this decision of Microsoft comes back to hurt it with people going onto alternative operating systems instead of Windows.

Silver lining?

Dana Blankenhorn’s post on why Linux appears to be disappearing from Netbooks starts the next round on the internet on about Microsoft killing Linux on Netbooks.

In a sense, nothing new here, i.e., a big company using its market muscle to try to stop a smaller rival. We are all expecting it.

That of course bring back memory of DoJ’s antitrust case against Microsoft. However, I think this time there is a small, but significant difference: Manufacturers appear to be willing to spill the beans, if you asked the right question, like Blankenhorn did. Previously, they “suffer” in silence.

It will probably take another anti-trust suit to  tell us whether this is happening. If we follow the anti-trust convention, it would had been too late, as the damage is already done. That is why it is interesting to see how the European Commission is changing the anti-trust game from remedying the damage to preventing the abuse in the first place. It is going to be difficult, but lets see whether this will lead the way in a change in anti-trust cases.

Most interesting, and perhaps the silver lining, is the fact that even if we accepted that Microsoft had been strong-arming manufacturers, it still had not stopped them from experimenting with non-Microsoft operating system. This fact, to me, has been the objective for this round of Windows vs the world. I think to ask that Linux be accepted by the joe public today is too much to ask. What this round has to do is to raise awareness that there are alternatives, and the alternatives are viable.

If the rumour that Windows 7 Netbook edition is going to cost much more than Windows XP is true, manufacturer will probably want to maintain the capability of taking potshots at Microsoft if only to keep the price they pay for Netbook down.

As Blankenhorn’s post shows, even computer manufacturers are clear that the attack on the Netbook market comes not only from scaling down laptops, but also smartphones beefing up. Everyone, including Microsoft, is aware that we live in interesting time.

Microsoft to ship Window 7 without IE

The news last Friday is Microsoft is to ship Window 7 without IE. You get the traditional Groklaw, ECIS and Opera (Ina Fried article) complaining that this is not enough. EC itself “reminds” us that this is a unilateral action by Microsoft that might not be itself be enough. EC’s statement is by far the most impartial, short and straight to the point.

Microsoft acknowledging the current EC antitrust action against IE has merit? Likely. I am  glad that Microsoft did not want to regain the title of the biggest fine by EC from Intel.

EU put the fear of god into Microsoft? At least on the surface, yes.

Marketing ploy to ensure IE’s continue dominant? I do not think Microsoft dare to do so. It will make the potential fine much larger. EC is competent enough and will use it in the appeal process to boaster it case. It is a losing situation for Microsoft if it even attempted.

Legal maneuver to pull the eye over EC or appeal judges? Like my comment about marketing ploy, it will only backfire.

One thing is sure: IE is now a separate component from Windows. Whether it was is still the subject of debate. I do not think the Window Engineering Team intermingle the two sets of code. But if they did, they undid it and deserve to go through it for the bad decision.

Mozilla to let enterprise customize Firefox? Good idea

Customizing Mozilla is nothing new. A lot of distributions do it. Look at Debian, they did so much work in it that the cannot call their browser Firefox!

However, customizing Mozilla is stiill not for the faint-hearted. Most joe user would just want a box-standard firefox and can find no reason to customize the browser specifically for our own use even if we have the technical capability. With distribution, the number of users makes it a worthwhile effort, especially if you want Firefox to play nice with your system, or simply wants to give your user a better experience by pre-installing some modules etc.

What Mozilla is planning to do is to lower the barrier to customize Firefox. That is a good thing. At present, it is slightly out of the reach of organization (or enterprise if you must) to customize Firefox when it comes to potential gains vs the cost of doing it.

I am sure the web app to build the browser will take one through the step-by-step process of creating a unique customized browser. What will be really nice is the customized installer is then delivered over the web to the user and there is a “setting file” that allows you to upload your setting the next time for your next custom-build job.

Give Alex Brown some credit please!

BoycottNovell posted something I just cannot agreed with: It is complaining that Alex Brown was made editor for wikipedia’s article on ODF.

Alex Brown’s blog and his past activity certainly shown that he is biased towards OOXML, mainly for business reasons. However, compared to others in the ODF vs OOXML debate, he is one of the those who you cannot say to be radical/zealot.  Therefore, in my opinion, he is the best choice for editorship of the wikipedia article. Rob Weir, Rick Jelliffe, Doug McHugh need not apply. Brian Jones? His is more a overall manager instead of technical man. Before you flame me on this, please take note that I am a pro-ODF guy.