was involved a rather mind-boggling discussion last night. In a very particular newsgroup, we had a powwow about the issue of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) tactics and how they are used to vandalise GNU/Linux adoption. In essence, it was realised that FUD creates zealots and leads to broad apathy. People are deterred by the very thought of using Linux. Yes, indeed they still believe that “it’s all command-line” or “it’s only for servers”. Moreover, some people are led to hate Linux due to stereotypes that are being spread constantly.

“FUD makes bigots”, one guy said. How correct was he, by all means. Such zeal and disgust makes difficult not only to persuade others to migrate. It also deters manufacturers of software from making it available for Linux. The general perception of Linux is dysphoric among those who do not understand it and behave merely like cattle, propagating the same myths onto others.

So when will Linux become a platform of the majority? Clearly, once more people experiment with it and, over time, judge it for themselves (rather than rely on hearsay), this shall start a domino effect.

Can you make sense of the numbers? They spell out “blog”.

Y blogging patterns have been rather patchy recently. When I first began blogging, back in 2004, a few short items per week seemed beyond sufficient. I even argued strongly in favour of short posts, which better suit the low attention span of people in the age of information overload.

In due time, I began sticking to a daily post. This was less sporadic then before. I perceived it as a rather steady and predictable pace that accommodated my readers. At some later stage last year, the figures began to climb up. I opted for 2 posts a day; then 3-a-day became a new ‘standard’. I kept this pace going for a long time, but at the back of my mind I kept saying to myself: “blogging is dying. Just enjoy it while it lasts”.

Much has been changing in recent weeks. At the moment I have several hundreds of readers, yet I seem to encourage little feedback in the form of comments. That is perfectly acceptable to some, although it is also nice to receive feedback from the readers. Comments are a very pleasant bonus, not a hindrance. Currently, with nearly 100 posts that I send to mailing lists and UseNet on a daily basis, I get more than enough interaction with people. I consider some level of interaction to be a basic necessity. Who is to oppose this aspect of human nature?

So, what does it all boil down to? I cannot deny the fact that the terrain of the Internet is changing and this includes the existence of over 100 million blogs, just a year or so down the line. I wish to cite less articles and submit more unique contributions to the Web, whenever I have something to offer or say. For the time being, I may as well stick to just a daily blog post. I will remain quiet when nothing noteworthy crawls among my synapses.

High-bandwidth slows kills
CD-based distribution of software

HEN I was in an Art museum at Washington I suddenly realised that Open Source will affect commercial applications in the same was photography affected realistic drawings. Photography put a lot of power in the hands of common people and thereby drove down the worth of graphical reproduction. Open Source likewise. Some would say it fixes the price at 0. I, however, would argue that this move is inevitable and support will become the means to sustain businesses. Software can be duplicated; support cannot.

Will Open Source mark the end of a convicted monopolist and withstand its utter aggressiveness? Will it obliterate Microsoft or at least elbow them off course? I, for one, would love to see that happening. Nowadays, I seem to revel in their miseries and taking pleasure in their inability to catch up with Google.

proposal for Google: This is probably a very long shot, but since Microsoft have invested so much money in the fight for Web services space (Google is a notable sufferer as a recent example shows) and even incorporated egocentric search bars in Windows Vista applications, would it not be sensible for Google to promote GNU/Linux in their SERP‘s, much as they already do with Mozilla Firefox? Google even financially reward for Firefox downloads, among other things, so why not Linux?

While Windows users can download and use Firefox, this will not eradicate search bars altogether. The only way to weaken Microsoft is to cut them off at the main plug, making Windows (and Office at al.) obsolete. The missing step is that of porting all of Google’s applications to GNU/Linux. This appears to be work in progress. They released a Windows distribution in the past, but they still have Goobuntu ‘in house’.

If this ever becomes a reality, it will be a great contribution from a company that has exploited Linux for a long while and owes much of its success to its power, scalability, portability, and affordability. At present, Google are essentially bribed to deliver the adverse message by putting microsoft.com as a sponsored link at the top of the search results for ‘linux’ (more details here).

AVE you ever thought of an (electronic) article that you once saw or read? Could you find it easily after a few weeks, months, or years? How about if you bookmarked it? Would it always allow the article to be found again? And if so, how quickly can it be found?

Mozilla Firefox offers some good facilities for previously-browsed pages to be found. Both History and Bookmarks in Firefox have a ‘find as you type’ widget. However, this only contains and uses page titles.

What would make a better feature that is able to perform a more fuzzy and full-body search? The first option is to permit a search engine to spy on you and retain a record of pages that you follow. In turn, it will index these in isolation and allow your pages of choice to be searched cohesively. It is as though the knowledge conveyed in the index partly corresponds to what you already know. So, it is somewhat of a brain search, which makes the assumption that you carefully read every Web page you visited.

The option which exposes the user to a lesser privacy invasions is this: allow the Web browser to index a page whenever one is visited or only once at the end of the day. The index is of course cumulative and it permits the user to search just a ‘subnet’ — that which he/she has already explored.

Links can lose their value and
get rusty, even with Google

was innocently browsing the Internet this morning. By serendipity, I then arrived at a page where Google boast their contributions to Open Source software through funding (Summer of Code). It is only one example among others. But then, upon immediate inspection, merely all links turned out to be rel="nofollow"ed. SearchStatus made it evident by highlighting those links with red shades.

I have always adamantly believed that the purpose of this new class for links was different. I thought it was introduced in order to prevent and deter spam, among other things such as accommodation for microsformats (e.g. XFN). Here is the snag: If Google themselves are using rel="nofollow" to obstruct dynamicity into relevant, on-topic links, why should anyone else be hesitant to do so? rel="nofollow", a concept that was put in place by Google, is confirmed to have become something that can be misused. Its use has gone beyond the so-called ‘link condom’ (for spam) utility. Otherwise, Google demonstrate hypocrisy herein.

AKING up early and staying focused permanently is a hard task, especially if maintained on a daily basis. I sometimes need some motivators and ideas for support. Exercise often gives me a mental boost, owing to natural extraction of endorphins, but there are also proverbial statements that I go by. They describe my relationship to work pretty well.

• Do what makes you hop out of bed in the morning and keeps you busy until it’s too late to stay awake.
• Do what you love, the money will come

The first among the two is an attempt to recapture a statement that I once read.