Time and time again, Bill Gates is urging his engineers to push harder towards successful penetration into the Web. His main rival has been identified already and it has a name: Google. Now begins the fight to win over large corporations that can give an exposure boost and yet more marketing pipes. After talks and negotiations with both sides, AOL appear to be getting close to Google. In stake: communication, media, and more.

Under the deal, Google would pay $1bn (£565m) for a 5% stake in AOL, the Wall Street Journal website has reported. The two firms have declined to comment.

Here is an interesting quote comes from Blake Ross on the state-of-affairs between Google and Microsoft Windows. In particular, emphasis is put on the decline of the Windows brand.

As a user, how many times a day do I see “Windows” versus “Google”? My generation doesn’t know or care about “Windows,” and why should they? For all the talk about Google trying to “get onto the desktop,” you rarely hear about the incredible brand strengthening that takes place every time a user types “www.google.com”. Users go to Google and know it; Windows is a foam peanut that comes in the computer box. More than Google trying to get onto the desktop, Microsoft is trying to get onto the Web.

F I ever undertake a repetltive task that pertains to research, I wish to either automate it using existing (preferably free) tools, script it (e.g. bash, Perl or MATLAB which is by all means expenesive), or costomise the desktop environment to minimize the number of moves, clicks, etc. Productivity through convenience can be achieved using clipboard stacks, mouse focus policies and so forth.

I find Linux to be a powerful tool in research. Windows, for instance, could not replace the multi-tasking capabiltities and expresiveness of Linux. Macs likewise, although they are most popular among designers, technical designers included. They are not, as far as I can tell, an optimal programming platform considering the price which they sell for. Singularity from Microsoft is intended to address the deficiencies related to Windows in the research sector. It is Singularity, as well as Monad, that ought to endow Microsoft with the platform that suits so-called “power users”. Monad is a command-line tool for Windows, that has been hacked a few months ago and will therefore be excluded from Windows Vista. In the mean time, KDE will remain my favourite desktop environment. Linus Torvalds could give a polite nod.

Desktop environement productivity tools and essays:

• Desktop Mouse Gestures
• Program Invocation Methods
• Keyboard Accelerators
• Previews on Desktop

“Joy O’ Joy. You got mail. 10,000 of it…”

S if hijacked Windows boxes were not enough to attribute spam to Windows, have a look at the following story. As it comes from The Register, it is not reluctant to point out that mail floods were initiated by a Microsoft Small Business Server:

The problem was attributed to an improper server configuration, causing five servers to send out more than half a million emails to Dublin solicitors. The deluge of mail originated with a publishing company’s email marketing message, which was sent to solicitors. When some solicitors attempted to reply to the mail, a fault in the solicitors’ configuration of Microsoft Small Business Server sent the original email to their entire email database tens of thousands of times.

Putting the factors above together, Microsoft can no longer deny the fact that spam sometimes originates in their improperly-built operating system. The Windows advocates would argue that the server was configured badly, but should it not be intuitive and protect the users from themselves? Fortunately, there is no doubt in my mind that Dublin lawyers all use Windows, which makes it a dog-eat-dog situation.

Let us hope that the sysadmins have learned their lesson and realised that mail should not be administered by ‘Toy O/S‘. Other companies have learned that mail is better handled by Linux.

[HP’s] Schulz said that HP’s entire email infrastructure… is run on Linux and delivers in the region of three terrabytes [sic] of mail annually.

Isolate yourself from noise and life will get easier

UIET in a technical context is a scenario where users require little or no support. Yes again, the principles described in this post apply to most things in life. Some time ago in the Palm newsgroups, somebody raised a question and then made the observation that few people ever mention Tungsten E devices. The Tungsten E is a modern, lower-end PDA, which is certainly popular, so how could its quiet existence be explained?

The discussion groups tend to have a troubleshooting, technical nature, so fault are usually reported while praises are deemed irrelevant and almost frowned upon. Should a person assume that the Tungsten E does not sell well? No. The very few mentionings of it simply imply that the model is reliable and nobody complains about it. Quiet, you see, is often a sign of success. It means that people carry on with their work and never bother to complain. Noise, on the other hand, is an indication of failure. To use a popular example, if Windows hits the headlines very often, it is in the context of security exploits. If people speak to their friends and colleagues about their computer, even while in the pub, this often involves a rant or a request for advice — a cry for help perhaps.

Better Palm PDA’s can be compared to a power plant. Linux servers likewise. We do not hear about Linux success stories quite so often despite the fact that many organisations happily use it. Google and Hewlett Packard are almost shy to admit that they use Open Source for their operations. We rarely hear about server problems that involve Linux because mail servers running Linux can go on for many years without even requiring a reboot. All they do is collect dust and often be forgotten about. The independence of a workstation often leads to forgetting the value of stability and low maintenance requirements.

As we hear about large migrations to Linux across schools in Macedonia, one wonders if the story will ever be used as a case study. When all operations succeed, nobody will bother to say a word. Nobody can fund or promote media commotion either because Linux is not directly bound to a profit-making organisation. Only when matters go out of hand, enemies are able to grab the opportunity and amplify the story of failure. With large budgets, a certain company can also fund and echo deceiving facts — a ‘disinformation’ perhaps — which can only be described as falsified propaganda.

The bottom line: be aware that information (or conversely misinformation) can receive varying levels of amplitude, which is sometimes affected by financial incentives in companies. Also remember that when problems are not echoed, the implication is that work carries on smoothly. People are good at making a fuss when things go wrong, but choose to remain focused and isolated when no problems crop up.

Has Google become Microsoft’s Big Brother as well as ours?

ET us assemble and review at a list of ideas where Microsoft have been claimed to imitate rather than innovate. Most of all, they appear follow Google’s footsteps, rather anxious about the looming threats .

By embarking on projects which have been recently proposed, Microsoft simply make an inimitable Google appear highly inspirational. All are implementations, which have been within their capabilities for years. These were ignored until Google initiatives surfaced or when innovative value was finally realised. It seems as though brainstorming is suppressed in Redmond. Examples:

• New classified lists service
• Satellite maps that make use of AJAX
• Online software/services, namely live.com
• Book scanning
• Search based and encouraged by backlinks
• Context-sensitive advertisement
• (Arguably) Google personalised

There must be more, but I cannot think of any at the moment.

The clock ticks for Microsoft while their competition evolves

AKERS of Windows are expected to ship its next version in line with their promises. Release dates get postponed time after time while immature products develop and skip the conventional testing cycle. Having had to re-build Windows Vista from scratch, this becomes worrisome. More worrisome if the fact that a million users migrated from Windows to Apple Mac last year alone. With a flow of critical, and yet unpatched flaws, one wonders: why has Microsoft not fixed them all?

Almost 4 years after the launch of Trustworthy Computing, I found myself wondering why am I staying up till 4:00 AM to deliver an emergency set of instructions (Home and Enterprise) to my readers because Microsoft felt it unnecessary to patch a flaw six months ago that was originally low risk but mutated in to something extremely dangerous.

Timely link: Novell: Vista to Drive User to Linux

The Trojan horse effect

News headlines refer to this recent critical flaw, which affects Windows users (as Internet Explorer can never be uninstalled).

The security bug, exploited by the Trojan downloader, was originally reported in May

[...]

The vulnerability puts computers running Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP at risk. An attacker could gain complete control of vulnerable systems by hosting malicious code on a Web site. Once an IE user visits the site, the malicious program would run without any user interaction.

Sounds re-assuring. In the mean time, until a patch gets released, Internet Explorer users are discouraged from clicking ‘stuff’ or strongly advised to disable necessary functionality. Otherwise, the Internet may continue to suffer from the existence of Windows zombies, which persistently carry out Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.

Related items:

• Yet Another Windows Patch
• 3 More Critical Flaws in Windows