ODAY I was reminded why, despite the fact that I never set my hands on Windows machines, they still manage to hinder my work. I was ready to upload experimental data to personal Webspace, in order to have it transferred to a colleague down in London. I was then faced with a hot red warning message saying that the large ZIP archive appeared to be a virus (merely based on file size and file type). Renaming the data file and changing its filetype would not help. I was forced to send to the entire lump of data (4 GB, yet compress) to a different computer and then FTP it, which is a really time-consuming PITA.

Why was I presented with a prompt saying that the file may be a virus in the first place? Allow me to generalise this question. Why is it that there are terms such as “trusted sites” or “dangerous, malicious E-mail”? Yes, Windows is still severely flawed. Windows is insecure by design and this has led society to take system crashes for granted and assume computer security to be a top-priority risk factor (not accidental data loss or physical, hardware dysfunction). Since everyone is assumed to be using Windows, everyone suffers.

Another impact on Windows of my life are the endless heaps of SPAM. A Symantec study has shown that 80% of all spam, which is the majority of the entire world’s E-mail traffic/volume, is being despatched from Windows zombies, i.e. Windows computers that are compromised, hijacked and controlled remotely, passively sending mail, requesting files, and scanning port. To add to this pain, I was on several occasions the victim of DDOS attacks. That broken Windows was virtually, if not practically, attacking my Web sites en masse, which I think is unacceptable.

HE potential AUT strike is keeping everyone occupied, so I have embarked on final persistent push to write and complete my thesis. This began on the 2^nd of the month and it primarily involve piecing together some past publications, elaborating where suitable, and glueing them sensibly.

When I first joined this scene of academic research, I was somewhat surprised to reveal that genuine and original content (as opposed to gross re-use) is not only perceived as acceptable; it is sometimes encouraged, as a matter of fact. I was truly disappointed to come to grips with this mentality, wherein peers say that good text should better remain unchanged and in most cases evolve or have some fine, cosmethic changes applied. If further progress is made, it can be appended to the existing text. This robs many people out of artistic integrity, in my humble opinion. It also leads to duplication and repeatability, which can make us feel like parrots.

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.

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.

The magnitude of mind games has reached detrimental level. Microsoft have become overly obsessed with Google and they come up with deceiving public statements. Here’s one:

Ballmer said Thursday he doesn’t think the company is lagging its competitors, noting that Microsoft has strong technical expertise and a loyal online user base with products like its MSN Messenger.

Here’s another one (from Gates):

Bill Gates has promised to keep Google “honest” by pushing the internet rival to “to better” despite coming late to the internet services market with an unfinished offering.

And yet, most recent figures show:

MSN’s search market share dropped from 14 percent to 11 percent

Google and Yahoo increased their market share in the online search arena as Microsoft’s MSN slipped, according to Web research firm Nielsen//NetRatings.

Moreover, on a separate and important Web services front:

But Microsoft is shying away from the 10-year-old name and hoping to freshen up its image as services such as Google’s Gmail creep up on its market share.

In short, Google mail’s annual growth stands at 114%; Hotmail, despite expansion of the Net, only grew by 16% in the same period.

Patents, copyrights and trademarks serve an important role. They prevent theft of one’s methods and reputations, which often require heavy investment (not necessarily financial). But what about intellectual property which is fuzzy and not concrete? I will use a case study to exemplify this.

Think about the case where Xerox patented the one-stroke Graffiti input, which Palm devices later used for stylus-based input. It is the method by which drawing on a screen is translated into discrete, atomic signals such as letters and numbers. Jotting a line from top to bottom to render a “1″ should not warrant anyone property of such an idea, right? Yet, that’s what Xerox achieved. They ‘invented’ the chalkboard interpretation language and took ownership. Ultimately, as to abstain from paying royalties perhaps, Palm invented “Graffiti 2″, which is a cumbersome method of achieving the very same thing. People’s habits were broken and input made slower just because Xerox ‘owned’ a more efficient input method that involved a single, unambiguous stroke. A common language was actually possessed by one master.

Let that teach us why patents in software are evil and are not accepted in Europe. The case would of course be different in fields like medicine and especially drug discovery.

couple of months back, Vista engineers ere bragging about Intel systems architecture which would enable quick startups from memory. This sounded like “hibernation mode” rather than standby, but it was still used as Windows Vista selling point, alongside updates without reboot. So here we shall address two issues.

Why should one bother rebooting? Linux rarely ever requires it. Frequency of updates is low and the severity of bugs is relatively low. And again, what is there to be gained from quick reboots or even the avoidance of bootstrapping? Saving a minute a couple of times a year? It would probably take longer to just set up such quick startup facilities. The whole scheme is unnecessary with energy saving modes, so again, why ever reboot in the first place? And why bother reducing booting duration?