Practical Technology

for practical people.

November 9, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Shearing Firesheep

Thanks to the Firefox plug-in Firesheep, anyone today can snoop on anyone else on the same network. Worst still, Firesheep enables any user to seamlessly hijack another user’s Web session. Programs are beginning to show up that will block Firesheep from looking over your shoulder. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the ones I’ve seen are Firefox specific and they don’t deal with the problem’s root causes.

I’ve also been finding that even now many people don’t really understand just how dangerous Firesheep can be in the wrong hands. Sure, a network hacker could always WireShark or another professional-level network sniffer tool to see what you were doing and harvest your user IDs and passwords, but Firesheep lets anyone do it.

Oh, and this may sound hopelessly simple to some of you, but you only need Firefox to run Firesheep. If someone is watching you with Firesheep, it doesn’t matter what browser or operating system you’re running or whether they’re up to date with their patches. Someone with Firesheep can watch you no matter what you’re using on your PC, tablet, or smartphone if your network connection isn’t secure.

More >

November 8, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

The iPad stands alone, lacking real competition

Where is the iPad’s competition?

By this time, I’d expected to see some real comers gunning for Apple’s iPad tablet. Hasn’t happened.

You want to talk about HP’s just-released Slate 500? It has a starting list price of $799. An iPad can cost that much, but the price starts at $499, and people have demonstrated that they’re willing to pay that much and more. Are people going to feel the same way about the Slate 500? Highly doubtful.

The Slate has an 8.9-in. screen, compared to iPad’s 9.7 in., and it runs Windows 7. Now, tell me, how many Windows 7 apps are there for a pure touch-screen tablet? The iPad boasts over 5,000. And get this: For your 800 bucks, you get a Wi-Fi-only device. Makes you wonder whether HP’s goal is to see whether it can ship a product that can die even faster than Microsoft’s Kin did.

Some people would tell you that since Windows is under the hood, the Slate is going to get snapped up by business users who wouldn’t touch an Apple product. Really? Thousands of people are already buying iPads for business use.

More >

November 8, 2010
by sjvn01
2 Comments

The new Linux Desktop: Ubuntu’s Unity

The Linux desktop has been around for more than a decade now. Despite its best efforts, and Microsoft’s dumbest missteps — I’m looking at you, Vista — it’s never owned more than a fraction of the market. Canonical, Ubuntu‘s parent company, plans on changing that with its Unity desktop.

The more I look at Unity, the more I see Ubuntu taking a radical new approach to the Linux desktop. As my friend Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier observed, "Look at the Ubuntu.com site and you’ll notice — there’s nary a mention of Linux or GNOME on the front page or on several of the ‘About’ pages. The company and project are pursuing branding that doesn’t even mention the Linux heritage of the project. That might be a good strategy, considering the perception of Linux for many users [as] ‘something just for geeks, not for me.’ But at the same time, some of the rest of the community are a bit — dare I say — jealous of Ubuntu’s success and wishing the project were more effusive with its acknowledgement of its heritage."

That’s no accident. Yes, Ubuntu is based on Linux, and the Unity desktop is built on GNOME, but at this point I think Canonical has decided that everyone who’s ever going to use a "Linux" desktop is already there. Therefore, to broaden the Ubuntu Linux desktop base, they needed to reach users who know nothing about Linux.

Ubuntu has always been about making it easy for new users to use Linux. Now, I think they’ve decided to go recreate the Linux desktop in order to make "Linux" easier for still more users. For starters, that means dropping a graphical desktop that’s reminiscent of Windows and Mac OS X. Say what you will about Unity, it doesn’t look much like any other desktop interface. Indeed, Unity is an interface that will work for desktops, netbooks, tablets, or even smartphones. That’s quite deliberate. Unity is meant to be a universal interface.

This isn’t just skin deep. While it won’t show up in Ubuntu 11.04, Canonical plans on making Wayland, the OpenGL-based display management system, in place of the X Window System, the foundation for its GUI. While developers for years have gotten sick and tired of the Byzantine complexities of X Window, no one had the guts to say enough was enough and dump it from their desktop plans until the Ubuntu developers did it.

I’ve also noticed that Ubuntu is making unusual application choices for its next desktop. These include the Mono-based Banshee for its music-player and LibreOffice, the OpenOffice fork, for its office suite. In other words, Canonical is going its own way with applications, too.

So what are they up to? You put it all together and I see Ubuntu striving to create a new kind of Linux desktop. It’s one that will run on every device with a user interface and will use whatever Canonical believes will deliver the best possible user experience. If that means it won’t look or work much like everyone else’s desktop Linux, so be it.

Can they do it? I think they have a shot. I do know that the traditional Linux desktop, much as I may love it, has reached about as broad an audience as it ever will. That said, the Ubuntu programmers have a lot of coding to do to make this happen. Then, we’ll see if Ubuntu has found a new way to popularize the "Linux" desktop, or if they’ve gone up a blind alley.

The first version of this story appeared in ComputerWorld.

November 8, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

RockMelt: Dumb or Stupid? You Decide

By my count, there are three really important Web browsers today: Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer. There are also two others that are good enough, Opera and Safari, that they’re worth considering. So, really why the heck should I think that there’s room for yet another Web browser, the much ballyhooed RockMelt?

Seriously, as the guy who first reported on the Web for a popular publication back in 1993, I’ve seen more Web browsers than I can recall, and I really don’t see a lot of reason for yet another one. Sure, there was a time when we really needed a new Web browser to free us from the horror that was, and is, IE 6, but that was in 2004, and Firefox unlocked us from IE 6. Today, we already have many excellent Web browser choices. So, really, what’s the point of another one?

The logic behind RockMelt is that you can take the open-source Chromium Web browser code, which powers Chrome, and pair it up with Facebook, Twitter, and RSS integration to produce a super social-network savvy Web browser. I’d be a lot more impressed by the potential of this idea if it wasn’t that it’s already been tried in Flock.

Technically, I wouldn’t call Flock, which is also built on top of Chromium and also works hand-in-glove with Facebook and Twitter, a failure. In fact, I rather like it. The bottom line though is that after years of being on the market, according to Net Applications’ NetMarkets statistics for October 2010 Flock has a pathetic 0.05% of the Web browser market.

More >

November 6, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Dealing with the Pain of Giving Up IE6

I hate, hate IE 6. If I were the CIO of a company that was still running IE 6, which it turns out 20% of businesses still are, I’d blast it out with dynamite. But, some companies, said Browsium CEO, Matt Heller, just can’t seem to get rid of IE6. That’s why his company came up with an extension that lets you run IE6 inside newer, safer versions of IE.

I’m not crazy about the idea of enabling companies to continue their bad IE6 habit, but Heller explained, “We want to see IE6 go away too. Having spent years working with business customers around the world, it’s clear they just can’t make that happen without a decent amount of pain. It’s not our intent to keep enterprises browsing with IE6 and we believe UniBrows will actually help remove IE6 from the Web.”

More >

November 6, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Ubuntu abandons X server for Wayland

I didn’t see this coming: Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu backer Canonical, has announced that somewhere down the road, Ubuntu will be switching Ubuntu’s base graphics system from the venerable X Windows System to Wayland.

In his blog posting, Shuttleworth wrote: "The next major transition for Unity [Ubuntu’s new GNOME-based desktop interface that will be introduced in the next Ubuntu release] will be to deliver it on Wayland, the OpenGL-based display management system. We’d like to embrace Wayland early, as much of the work we’re doing on uTouch and other input systems will be relevant for Wayland and it’s an area we can make a useful contribution to the project."

That’s pretty gutsy. The X Window System, which is the networking windowing system that provides the foundation for almost all Unix and Linux desktops, has been too slow for ages. But no one as big as an Ubuntu has ever said that they were willing to replace X with another windowing system.

Wayland is not an X server nor is it an X Server fork, as has sometimes been said. As the Wayland FAQ states, "It’s a minimal server that lets clients communicate GEM (Graphics Execution Manager) buffers and information about updates to those buffers to a compositor. To do this, it uses OpenGL, a high-performance, cross-language, cross-platform graphics applications programming interface (API). Wayland also doesn’t require new drivers; it builds on the existing Linux graphics APIs and drivers.

Couldn’t Canonical just use X? Shuttleworth admitted they could have, but "We don’t believe X is setup to deliver the user experience we want, with super-smooth graphics and effects. I understand that it’s *possible* to get amazing results with X, but it’s extremely hard, and isn’t going to get easier. Some of the core goals of X make it harder to achieve these user experiences on X than on native GL, we’re choosing to prioritize the quality of experience over those original values, like network transparency."

You won’t need to give up X-based applications though to use Wayland. Shuttleworth also said, "We’re confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we’ll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all its GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop. We’ll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there’s no reason for them not to be there on day one either."

Whether KDE or GNOME will want to join is a still unanswered question. Some users have other concerns.

Someone going by the name Simon wrote on Shuttleworth’s blog: "I understand network transparency isn’t used by everyone – however, for some of us it’s critical functionality. In my office, being able to ssh into a server or someone else’s desktop to run development tools (e.g. a gtk-based code-review tool) is vital, and losing that ability *would* be a showstopper as far as Ubuntu desktops are concerned." Another writer on the blog, Diego, replied, "network transparency is beyond the scope of Wayland. You are completely free to implement wayland clients that use network protocols (not just X11: VNC, RDP, Spice…). In fact, it will possible to run X.org as a Wayland client. So, you will be able to run remote X11 apps on Wayland servers."

We’ll have plenty of time to see how this works out in practice. Shuttleworth wrote, "I’m sure we could deliver *something* in six months, but I think a year is more realistic for the first images that will be widely useful in our community. I’d love to be proven conservative on that, but I suspect it’s more likely to err the other way. It might take four or more years to really move the ecosystem. Progress on Wayland itself is sufficient for me to be confident that no other initiative could outrun it, especially if we deliver things like Unity and uTouch with it. And also if we make an early public statement in support of the project. Which this is!"

Shuttleworth concluded, "In general, this will all be fine – actually *great* – for folks who have good open source drivers for their graphics hardware. Wayland depends on things they are all moving to support: kernel modesetting, gem buffers and so on. The requirement of EGL is new but consistent with industry standards from Khronos – both GLES (Graphics Layout Engine) and GL will be supported. We’d like to hear from vendors for whom this would be problematic, but hope it provides yet another (and perhaps definitive) motive to move to open source drivers for all Linux work."

A version of this story first appeared in ComputerWorld.