My machine at an older office. It
ran Ubuntu Linux (see daily photolog)

OME would argue that the ‘market share’ of Linux has long ago exceeded 4%. Installed based, as opposed to market share, is difficult to gauge. People install Linux as they download or pass CD’s around. They do not buy Linux because Microsoft has a chokehold on OEM’s (AKA ‘Windows tax’, c/f 1, 2, 3). It’s a strategic, anti-competitive tactic.

Web statistics studies are still biased because they usually exclude Linux sites, they throw away “unknown” (often Linux with diverse http-header footprint/string), they ignore Squid, they don’t account for agent forgers (not just for MISE-only sites), and they neglect to account all the traffic that comes from Windows zombies (Windows/IE). In short, they cannot be relied on.

What is the true ‘market share’ of Linux then? There is no way of knowing. Software that is passed from hand tom hand or gets downloaded remains quiet and obscure. But the truth is out there. One just needs to sweep away disinformation which is enforced by companies that have plenty in stake. One of my Web sites, which boasts over 1,000 visits a day, indicates that Linux has a market share of over 40%. It’s not a typical and mainstream site. But will Web survey ever wish to include such a site in a survey? Who will ‘sponsor’ Freedom and encourage outing of the truth? Studies are typically backed and funded by commercial bodies which select their desired hypothesis and fit the conclusions to it, by carefully choosing the methods and data.

Take everything with a large barrel of salt. Just some thoughts to ponder…

S another year opens, I would like to wish all the readers a happy and joyous new year. I am wishing and hoping to see a continued trend where not only is Open Source being promoted (2006 was the year of desktop Linux in my eyes), but also Freedom gets properly understood, appreciated, and embraced.

I could probably count on hand the number of times I used Windows and other proprietary software this year. I never use Windows, yet I am fairly familiar and even proficient with it, owing to memory. Yes, it is not because it’s intuitive. It’s because it has neither changed much nor evolved for a decade. It remained widespread for the same reason Britney Spears and Macdonald’s are popular (or just “successful”).

I’ll close with an odd and sarcastic statement.

“Windows is used by the most people, so it must be the best“, says Hugh-Gotta B. Kiddin Mae.

Make prevalence no indication of quality. Same with cost. If needed, make it your new year’s resolution. Again I say:

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Bill Gates arrested in his younger days (photo in public domain)

NYONE who has followed my writings in recent years already knows that I have a strongly negative view on Microsoft. I perceive them as an enemy to capitalism because they push it to the radical end and become extremely predatory. This ruins the perception of a healthy democratic and capitalistic society/industry. They strive to establish an economy that is a monopoly or an oligopoly. Capitalism is about competition, not a collective effort that’s not open to alternatives (i.e. closed).

To me, you see, Microsoft Corporation is the equivalent of a military country. It can be quite political too. Over the years Microsoft has used almost every fraudulent practice out of the criminal’s book. The authorities tend to turn a blind eye because it serves them well, locally at least. Each action that can be considered fraudulent was coming from one among different available tactical classes. Collectively, this force was essentially used to attain a dangerous monoply over everything. The extension is/was endless and corruption has reached governments too, even overseas.

There is plenty of evidence to support this. I have just grown a little tired of linking and referencing the sources. More worryingly, on top of all this mess, some people, albeit not the most talented ones, have worked for Microsoft. Knowingly or unknowingly they have become similar to those people who 50 years ago claimed that they were “merely following orders” (make no comparsions though). Ballmer and his gang, sheltered by radical governments with personal interests, continues to pollute the planet and kill the middle class, leading to supression, and destroying humble businesses. What’s to gain? Ego and a sense of total control, to them.

Rebellion is here though and the entity which has become an enemy rather than a Big Brother will soon be overthrown. The change will begin (and has begun) outside the United States. It takes only a few over-the-line reactions and sharing of information (largely thanks to the Internet) to reveal the plot and respond accordingly. That’s what I have been spending a lot of time on recently. I merely pass information around, backed by news stories and facts. The truth will win. Mainstream media is often controlled by companies and it is thus moderated by them. Open information and open sontent, much like open source software, is the worst of enemies to corrupt entities. Transparency helps our world.

PEN Source development is fast. Patching and development using this paradigm is particularly fast owing to modularity. Any change to the code is rather predictable within the isolated black (glass rather) boxes, so patches can be issued without laborious patching. Then comes the introduction of innovation and incorporation of code that leads to beautiful complex systems (video) very rapidly.

See video! Really, please do. I’m waiting. After I had wiped the coffee off my screen and keyboard from the excitement (well, figuratively-speaking), I came to realise that another trait of Open Source development is that it’s very responsive to user demands and needs. It’s nice to be able to submit a feature request of a bug or a patch to a project and then receive it from the development team the next cycle, for free. It’s nicer to know that millions more benefit from the same changes/inclusion, which gives the 15 pixels of fame many crave for.

IEBOLD machines—or more generally—closed-source E-voting remain problematic. There must be transparency for trust and validation. A standard, old-fashioned and paper-based election has the whole protocols recorded, so votes involve supervision and public understanding. Likewise, algorithms should be made public. The public can then spot bug and make suggestions (patches) until the code is bug free and can be trusted. Is there any ‘paper trail’? If so, how is it encoded? Proprietary formats? Many question clearly arise.

UPLICATE entries are some of the evil residues of sites where editorial involves many people. There are ways of preventing duplicates (dupes), but none is perfect.

I personally find Digg’s dupe detector somewhat flawed because, by the time the user finds matches based on similarity, much of the entry (and effort) has already been put into it. The user is thus tempted never to retract and concede the submission. Netscape, on the other hand, checks for title and URL similarity (identity only) in-line.

Wishlist items:

• Have matches that are more ‘fluid’ appear on the side while input is entered (not just exact matches)
• Permit the user to preview without entering a channel and without tags. This enables the submitter to check for dupes before giving some supplemental information. I am aware that it requires some parsing of the text, which is harder than using tag-based similarity.
• What would be nice is an option for supplemental items, URL’s, and followup news. Maybe have a hierarchical connector between related items, or at least some linkage that connects an item with a correction, clarification, op/ed, etc.

Season of the playful penguins from Oyonale

OR the past few years I have been advocating Open Source technologies, which I confidently argue will pummel proprietary equivalents. Packages mature in a layered fashion (thanks, GPL!), which makes them too hard to beat over time. They strengthen at a high pace owing to parallel development while the costs of code are minimal or non-existent. Their complexity is high and level of functionality breathtaking.

Take PHP-Nuke for example. Sure, I have this (software) package installed in a couple of places, but it doesn’t make me a prick (pardon the subtle pun). It makes me efficient and it makes any projects economically viable. So, why is it that such projects mature so nicely? I guess one can always harness some PHP skills by looking at that transparent (non-binary) code and rely on ‘heredity’ from prior project. When a project contains some of people’s ‘DNA ‘footprint’, there is individuality, creativity and self-expression involved. This leads to greater dedication, a sense of responsibility, and ownership. And money can by all means be made in this process of self-expressions. Take for instance the Linux patchmaster/janitor, Andrew Morton, who left to join Google while working on the kernel, still.

Open Source software is bound to be the sole winner. Give Open Source a few more years and find out for yourself. Check it out, mate. Checkmate!