Popular thoughts on my mind... and in my public journal:

My prediction... in the press

Biting the hand that feeds IT
Google at work on desktop Linux
By Ben King
Published Tuesday 31st January 2006 13:46 GMT

Google is preparing its own distribution of Linux for the desktop, in a possible bid to take on Microsoft in its core business - desktop software.

A version of the increasingly popular Ubuntu desktop Linux distribution, based on Debian and the Gnome desktop, it is known internally as 'Goobuntu'.

Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project called Goobuntu, but declined to supply further details, including what the project is for.

It's possible that it's just one of the toys Googleplex engineers play with on Fridays, when they get time off from buffing the search engine code or filtering out entries about Tiananmen Square (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/25/google_censors_chinese_results/).

It could be for wider deployments on the company's own desktops, as an alternative to Microsoft, but still for internal use only.

But it's possible Google plans to distribute it to the general public, as a free alternative to Windows.

Google has already demonstrated an interest in building a presence on the desktop. At CES Las Vegas this month, it announced the Google Pack (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/07/google_ces_pack/), a collection of desktop software bundled together for easy downloading.

The pack includes many apps which compete directly with the Windows bundle, such as Google Talk, Google Desktop, Mozilla Firefox, the Trillian instant messenger client, RealPlayer, and Picasa photo management.

Going the whole hog and distributing a complete desktop software suite would merely be another step down the same path.

However, entering the desktop software world would be a huge step. Making Goobuntu as easy to use as XP will require a lot more development. It's unlikely to be ready for showtime any time soon, and it's possible Google itself hasn't finalised where the project should go.

Whatever Google's intentions, the input of Google engineers and developers, writing new features and fixing bugs, will be a huge boost to the Ubuntu project.

Ubuntu, funded by the South African internet multimillionaire and occasional cosmonaut Mark Shuttleworth, is already emerging as a leader in the desktop Linux world.

It has built considerable momentum in the Linux community, and is starting to appear more widely. Shuttleworth is seeking to persuade white-box PC manufacturers to start shipping machines with Ubuntu preinstalled.

It is top of the Distrowatch download chart, is installed on up to six million computers, and doubling every eight months, according to estimates from Shuttleworth's company, Canonical.

It has spawned a number of different offshoots, including Xubuntu, Kubuntu and Edubuntu (for schools).

The word Ubuntu means "humanity to others" in several African languages, including Zulu and Xhosa. It's one of the founding principles of post-apartheid South Africa. The origin of the word 'Goobuntu' is not clear, though it does not appear in online Zulu dictionaries.

The Goobuntu.com domain has been registered in the past couple of days, though presumably not by Google. It now redirects to a Cuban portal. Perhaps Google will have to think of a new name for the system before they launch it to the wider public.
Related stories

© Copyright 2006

This entry was posted on Jan 31, 2006 at 1/31/2006 11:03:00 AM. There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here. You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;

Technorati Stumble

Street Art

A great idea for '06

This entry was posted on Jan 28, 2006 at 1/28/2006 01:00:00 PM. There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here. You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;

Technorati Stumble

Hamas & the future of Israeli-Palestinian Relations

My friend and former Intern, Gavin just wrote me this email:

The extended cease-fire from last year may be lost. Unless they feel the pressure from our government to clean up or we won’t deal with them. This which has already been stated by Bush in my mind is one of the few positives. But with men behind bars who are massively intelligent terrorists, coupled with deep hate still having much influence in a now voted on government, I wait with curiosity and hope that the peace process will not be abandoned.

What’s your take?

Here it is (for now):

I was just constructing the outline for a blog on this issue... my quick response - I don't believe Hamas will change for the worse... if anything this is the best outcome we could hope for. Hamas will have to show results, now that they are the ruling authority in the PA. Their marching cry & rise to power came from first blaming Israel for the Palestinian's problems, and then blaming Fatah for their problems (both are well-justified claims). I believe that most Palestinians appreciate that armed struggle is not the way to stabilize their situation... but their leaders haven't given them other options.

Hamas' leaders aren't stupid. They engineered this rise to power over many years. Hell, look at how they stuck to the cease-fire... if they were crazy, disorganized bandits, they wouldn't have been able to do that. Furthermore, they didn't take over with a coup d'etat - they used the democratic process. Personally I'm impressed.

Now they've attained the control they sought - and have the power to live up to their claim that they will make life better for Palestinians... While living peacfully with Israel wasn't in their plans, I'm confident that Hamas leaders acknowledge that pushing the Jews into the sea isn't possible. But pushing them out of the West Bank is... and now that they have political control, pushing will require a lot less blood - something neither side want's to spill. I'm confident that Hamas understands that if they don't make life better for Palestinians, they won't remain in control for long. And as long as there's violence, the problems for the Palestinians will only get worse. Hamas has no option but to start real negotiations. They can't improve the lives of Palestinians without working with Israel.

At this point I'm more concerned with how Israel will respond... I'm concerned that Israel will work to tear apart & embarras Hamas - the first organization that has real control of and respect from the people - as opposed to using international influence to help Hamas become less militant, while not loosing face amongst their people.

This entry was posted on Jan 26, 2006 at 1/26/2006 12:48:00 PM. There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here. You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;

Technorati Stumble

"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary,"

I often wonder if Bush cares at all about how absurd his statements are. To propose that spying on AMERICAN CITIZENS without obtaining a warrant is "legal", and "designed to protect civil liberties" is simply outrageous.

Someone asked me the other day, "well, don't you think that if they (the State) strongly believe someone is involved in terrorism that they should be monitoring that person?" My answer was very simple...

"When it comes to invading a person's privacy, the law is VERY clear... the State must get a warrant. If the State has even a shred of evidence that someone is doing something wrong and feel the need to conduct intrusive surveillance, go get a warrant. Why is Bush so adamant about avoiding a very clear process? The laws our founding fathers set up were pretty good, and the relatively few amendments made over the past several centuries have made a great rule book even better. If Bush doesn't like the rules, then change them, don't just act as if they don't exist."

I think in this "war" on terrorism, Bush & the majority of Americans he's successfully frightened have forgotten the war is on terrorism, not our civil liberties. One of the principles this country was founded on was that the State is "for the people, by the people." At no point should the State forget that it must fear the people, rather than vice-versa. Today we can see that our State is in no way frightened of the people... and the people have much to fear from our State. I wouldn't be surprised if this posting gets me put on some "watch-list" for anti-American ideology.

The other night at around 12am I walked into the Bleecker St. Uptown 6 train station with Lon. There were two cops there who asked me to put my bag on the table so they could search it. They didn't ask me if they could search it, they simply asserted the State's right to search my private property without any reasonable cause. I looked at them and said, "you're joking, right?" And one of the said, "no." And I said, "without any probable cause, you're not searching my bag." His response was, "well then you're not getting into this train station." I asked Lon if he minded walking three blocks North to the Astor Place Uptown 6 station. He responded, "absolutely - under no circumstances should you let them search you."

At that point, Lon and I were geared up for a debate, and couldn't hold back. I asked the cops to put their badge aside, pretend they're civilians, and consider what they're doing. To consider that they're clearly breaking the law, which provides that all citizens have the right to private property, and that without probable cause (something I learned about in Social Sciences in 7th grade) he can't just search me or my property. Hell I've seen many episodes on Law & Order where cases were thrown out because a cop searched someone, searched someone's car or apartment, etc... general personal property, without a warrant or probable cause.

Their response was that you can't get on an airplane without being searched. Lon & I responded that when taking a plane there are several factors:

1. Airlines aren't run by the state.
They retorted that neither is the MTA... to which we asked what other private company has it's board members appointed by the Governor of a given state? And what other private company is funded almost exclusively by tax dollars? They gave up quickly. In case you're wondering... the MTA writes on their homepage: "A public-benefit corporation chartered by the State of New York." Wikipedia does a good job of describing a Public-Benefit Corp. They also give a good explanation of Public-Benefit Corporations in New York.

2. When flying, you almost always have other options of transportation. If you don't want to be searched, you can take a bus, a train, a car, etc... Furthermore, flying is often the most expensive option, and therefore, highly elective.

They said we don't have to take a subway.... to which we both responded that in general in NYC, more than any other city in the world, where few people have cars, the Subway is the main form of transportation - especially when traveling inter-borough. Furthermore, it is the most cost-effective, and an option most people can't afford not to take.
They also didn't have much of a response to this.

3. You are inspected at EVERY airport. There isn't a plane you can board without being checked. There is no chance for discrimination or cause for someone to feel as though they were being targeted by the government. Furthermore, it is difficult for the government to actually try to target one group when they have to check everyone.

This they had no answer to.

I asked the cop, "you think there's something in my bag, yet you'll let me walk out of here and go to another station 2 minutes away, and potentially cause havoc over there?" And he said, "if you want to go there, that's your option."

Lon & I thanked them for talking with us & doing their job, asked them to consider what we had discussed, and wished them a safe evening.

The laws this country is based on give the people the fundamental right to dismantle the gov't when the gov't isn't doing what the majority of people want. Bush is working hard to make sure that's not the case. If you're in NYC and are asked to be inspected, don't give in to the State's misguided attempt at protecting us. You're just helping them do more harm to our way of living than the terrorists could have ever hoped. While this issue is being debated in court - the state will go as far as the people will let them, regardless of what the court says. Send a message to the State - your state.

I leave you with, as Jon Stewart puts it, "your moment of zen:"

Associated Press
Update 4: Bush Confident Surveillance Is Legal
01.26.2006, 10:47 AM

President Bush defended anew his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change it.

"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.

"I'm going to continue using my authority. That's what the American people expect."

Bush used the beginning of his first news conference of the year, and 10th in office, to preview some of the issues he will discuss in his upcoming State of the Union speech.

This entry was posted on at 1/26/2006 11:45:00 AM. There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here. You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;

Technorati Stumble

Too bad for MSFT

you know what's remarkable about the story below...MSFT should totally be in GOOG's seat here... it shows how fickle people can be... and that in any system, balance is the strongest force.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/256748_yahoo24.html

Yahoo! gives up quest for search dominance
Tuesday, January 24, 2006

By JONATHAN THAW
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Yahoo! Inc., one of the first Internet search companies, has capitulated to Google Inc. in the battle for market dominance.

"We don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot of share from Google," Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an interview. "It's not our goal to be No. 1 in Internet search. We would be very happy to maintain our market share."

Yahoo!'s comments underline the difficulties any Internet company faces in trying to challenge Google's dominance of the Web search industry. Google has at least double the market share of Yahoo! and Microsoft Corp. in Internet search, the largest and most profitable segment of online advertising.

"In some countries, it's already game over in search, with Google the clear victor," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan in New York. "Google's product development pipeline runs at such a fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or Yahoo! to catch up."

Shares of Yahoo! fell as much as 13 percent Wednesday, the day after the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company reported fourth-quarter profit that missed analysts' expectations. The stock rose 43 cents to $34.17 Monday in Nasdaq stock market composite trading.

"It kind of makes you wonder about how serious they are about search," said Danny Sullivan, editor of London-based SearchEngineWatch.com, which tracks the search industry. "It really ought to be their goal" to be No. 1, he said. "Whether it's realistic or not."

Yahoo! founded in 1994 as one of the first online directories of Web sites, switched from Google's search engine to its own technology two years ago.

To boost revenue from each search, Yahoo! plans to make ads more relevant to search terms, meaning people will be more likely to click on them. Advertisers pay Yahoo! a fee when Internet users click on the ads.

"We have held our own, and we should gain revenue share in the industry as we roll out these new initiatives," Decker said in the interview after the company reported earnings last week.

"Our goal has been to hold our share and to be a leading, if not the leading, total marketing platform, which would include both brand and search."

Yahoo! handled 19 percent of global Internet searches in November, a drop from 27 percent a year earlier, according to Web tracker ComScore Networks Inc.

Google's share, by contrast, rose to 60 percent from 47 percent.

Decker last week cautioned analysts on a conference call against taking the ComScore figures too literally, saying the data exclude Asian countries where Yahoo! is "exceptionally strong."

© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

This entry was posted on Jan 24, 2006 at 1/24/2006 05:49:00 PM. There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here. You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;

Technorati Stumble