Practical Technology

for practical people.

December 15, 2006
by sjvn01
2 Comments

Getting Vista to work with Samba

I was tinkering with my Vista system the other day, when I found it wouldn’t connect with a pair of NAS (Network Attached Storage) drives. I was not a happy camper.

The drives, a pair of Seagate 400GB USB2.0 External Hard Drives, were connected to my Fast Ethernet network by a Linksys NSLU2, aka Slug, network storage link. All my other systems, which include XP Pro, MEPIS 6.01, Fedora 6, openSUSE 10.2, and SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 10, had no trouble at all accessing these drives, so what was the problem?

Continue Reading →

December 11, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

What’s up next in Linux desktop standardization?

Over the past week, some of the Linux desktop’s foremost developers gathered together in Portland, Oregon at the OSDL (Open Source Development Labs) Desktop Architects Meeting to work further on bringing order to the Linux desktop. According to John Cherry, the OSDL‘s Desktop Linux initiative manager, there was a good turnout of about 45 developers from the community, including major Linux vendors such as Novell and Red Hat, and ISVs (independent software vendors) like Google and Adobe.

It was the ISVs, according to Cherry, who had a strong and clear message for the Linux distributors: “Application vendors, esp. those like Google that distribute their software through the Web, and not necessarily bundled with a distribution, want to be able to count on any distro. continuing to keep and not depreciate or eliminate software libraries.”

Cherry explained, “They want to be able to count on libraries being there so that they don’t need to release a slightly different version for each distribution or each dot upgrade of a distribution.” In short, “They want to be able to release a Google Earth just once.” This message came across, “very clearly.”

As another part of this, the ISVs also want stable, consistent interfaces. How stable? They don’t want any interface to be obsoleted.

At a breakout session, these matters were talked about further. It was decided that a survey should be made of exactly what libraries and APIs are being used by ISVs. This information could then be converted into a platform that ISVs and Linux distributors could commit to supporting.

Everyone at the meeting was also concerned about the remarkably murky area of Linux audio support. As one anonymous developer put it, “Audio on Linux sucks.”

In the area of audio, there was a laundry list of problems. Most agreed that there is no clear vision from anyone — kernel, distro, or application developers — on how to handle audio in Linux. Making matters even worse, there’s no venue to discuss audio problems, and what consumers want from audio is not the same thing as what an audio professional wants.

What exactly are the problems? The list includes, CODECs, configuration, how to handle multiple applications competing for the same hardware device, and a lack of APIs (application programming interfaces).

It was decided to start addressing these issues by creating a focus group and mailing a list of what’s needed from audio APIs, and how to deal with bringing consistency to Linux audio.

The issue of hardware drivers in general, always an area of concern in Linux, was also discussed. It was decided to create a kit for assessing platforms for their driver support and Linux compatibility. It was also noted that there’s a business opportunity for an entity to manage IHV (independent hardware vendor) drivers.

As Cherry said before the developer meeting, though, there are no perfect answers for hardware support in Linux, so long as vendors keep interface and device driver details proprietary.

At the conference, there was also, according to Cherry, “A great deal of interest in DAPI (Desktop Application Programming Interface).” In particular, the printer IHVs were very interested in getting DAPI out as soon as possible for print dialogs.

DAPI will be built on top of D-Bus. This, in turn, supplies both a system daemon and a per-user-login-session daemon. So, for example, a D-Bus system daemon can provide a single common way for any Linux desktop to check for when a new CD or DVD is placed in a drive.

D-Bus, itself, is rapidly being adopted by Linux desktop developers. KDE, in particular, is well on its way to moving from its existing IPC (interprocess communication) system to D-Bus for its next major version, KDE 4.

There will be a preview release of DAPI by January, 2007. If all goes well, the first release, DAPI 1.0, will be out by June, 2007. Everyone at the meeting pretty much supports D-Bus and DAPI. In particular, the ISVs would like to see D-Bus universally supported across distributions and, for that matter, operating systems. The D-Bus team, in turn, promised that they’d maintain backwards compatibility so that application vendors can feel comfortable making it their default IPC.

In the related issue of the Portland Project xdg-utils, a common set of APIs for KDE, GNOME, or any other Linux desktop environment, work is progressing on increasing its utility. A terminal emulator, xdg-terminal, is already in the xdg-utils CVS (Concurrent Versions System). Also in the works are a file manager context menu, a set/query default mail/browser/terminal/file manager, a General way to access “protocolhandlers” and Autostart. These should appear in the next version 1.1, in April, 2007.

Looking down the road, xdg-utils 1.5 will appear in July, 2007. By that time, prototypes will be available for both the Gtk and Qt Toolkits, and for the GNOME and KDE desktops.

The end result of all this desktop plumbing standardization will be Linux desktops and applications that, by the third quarter of 2007, should have a far more consistent look and feel across distributions and between KDE and GNOME. Thus, both users and software vendors should find Linux to be a far more friendly and inviting desktop.

A version of this story first appeared in Desktop Linux.

December 7, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

Top-level vendor neutral Linux certification launches soon

The Linux Professional Institute (LPI) has long been the world’s premier vendor-neutral Linux certifier, but even after years, it was never able to get its top-level certification out the door. Next month, that will change, with the release of LPIC-3 (Linux Professional Institute Certification level 3).

LPIC-3 will be LPI’s senior certification level for Linux professionals. To get it, candidates will be required to hold both LPIC-1 and LPIC-2 designations.

LPI will launch the program in January, and will hold the first North American exam lab at Novell Inc.’s BrainShare conference in March, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

LPI recently changed its certification rules. People who already have an LPIC will now have to re-certify every five years, or, alternatively, earn a higher certification status. Previously, recertification was only required after ten years.

To get recertified, candidates must pass all up-to-date exams that are required for their highest earned certification designation. Certification designations earned before Sep. 1, 2004 are no longer be considered “lifetime” designations. Instead these certifications will only have active status for five years from the date of certification. However, certification designations earned prior to September 1, 2003 will be considered “active” certifications until Sep. 1, 2008.

Jim Lacey, president and CEO of LPI, also noted that Novell will be launching a series of initiatives to promote Linux professional credentials. In particular, LPI welcomed the cooperation of Novell on the development of the LPIC-3.

Lacey also praised Novell’s recent announcement of an innovative free online “Train the Teacher” program: “This resource is beneficial to our own channel needs and is reflective of the open and resource-sharing nature of the Linux community. We welcome Novell’s initiative in this regard as it will be an excellent tool in promoting open-source education.”

Commenting on the new, top-level LPIC certification, Novell’s VP of Training Services, Dan Veitkus, stated, “Novell has always supported LPI’s dedication to the development of Linux professionals. We believe in offering our customers and partners the best set of choices for raising their Linux IQ, and we’re in full support of LPIC-3 as the next step for Novell’s Linux Certified professionals. LPIC-3 specifically targets the needs of large enterprise, IT professionals and IT consultancies that require a broad architect level professional credential.”

November 30, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

An iPod Tax?

Most of you probably know that a bunch of movie and television studios recently ganged up to sue the iPod service firm Load ‘N Go Video , for the ‘crime’ of loading DVDs onto video iPods.

Load’N’Go’s business was selling customers both DVDs and iPods. For an additional fee, they’d rip the DVD onto the iPod and then send you both your DVDs and your iPod. Sounds legal to me, but Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Bros Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Columbia TriStar Television and Columbia Pictures all disagreed.

Then, on November 28th, Universal Music CEO Doug Morris said he may try to get Apple to agree to an iPod royalty fee. You see Microsoft, had agreed to pay Universal a fee for every Zune they managed to sell.

The idea behind the fee is that Universal assumes that you’re going to rip them off; therefore Apple should agree to ‘tax’ you for iPods to recoup some of their losses.

Is this a wonderful country or what? First, they assume you’re going to steal from them. You know what guys; we’re a long, long way from Napster’s bad old days when no one paid for music for their MP3 players.

Continue Reading →

November 29, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or None of the Above?

This holiday season, if you have big bucks for your home theater, you’re probably thinking about adding a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player to the entertainment center.

On the one side, Intel, Toshiba, and Microsoft are pushing HD-DVD while Blu-Ray has the full support of Samsung, Pioneer, and Sony. Or, if you want to look at your television as a gaming platform, you’ve got a choice of an add-on HD DVD player for Microsoft’s Xbox 360 game console or a built-in Blu-Ray for Sony PlayStation 3 game system.

Continue Reading →

November 20, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

Novell counters community, Microsoft FUD

Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian today issued an “Open Letter to the Community from Novell,” in which he defends his company’s recent accord with Microsoft, and challenges recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents.

In the weeks since Novell and Microsoft announced this agreement, many open-source figures have objected strongly to it. In particular, the agreement on patents has drawn the ire of open-source programmers, like The Samba Group; open-source supporters such as Pamela Jones, editor of Groklaw; and rival Linux distributors such as Red Hat.

Some open-source figures have defended Novell’s move, but for the most part the open-source community has rejected the move as being potentially very harmful to Linux.

Hovsepian opens his letter by reminding the community that the patent deal was only part of the agreement. He states that Novell and Microsoft have also agreed to work to improve Linux and Windows interoperability, and that Microsoft will distribute “more than 350,000 subscriptions for SUSE Linux Enterprise to the Windows customer base over a five-year period. This agreement is at the heart of what IT users demand — to deploy both Linux and Windows, and to have them work well together — and many companies have spoken out in support of this new cooperation.”

“Customers told us that they wanted Linux and Windows to work together in their data centers, and so we agreed to develop new technologies and standards in server management, virtualization and document file format compatibility,” Hovsepian continued.

All this means that not only Novell but, “The Linux community will benefit from the creation and release of the open source code to improve Linux’s interoperability with Windows that will result from this agreement.”

Then, he moved to the meat of the matter. “Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other’s customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities. Novell has a significant patent portfolio, and in reflection of this fact, the agreement we signed shows the overwhelming balance of payments being from Microsoft to Novell.”

In the patent cooperation section of the companies’ contract, Microsoft agreed to make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments totaling at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft. The exact amount will be based on percentages of Novell’s Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues.

Moving on, Hovsepian said, “Since our announcement, some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way, and with a perspective that we do not share. We strongly challenge those statements.”

First, Hovsepian makes it clear that he disagrees “with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents.”

For example, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer recently said that Microsoft made the deal with Novell because Linux “uses our intellectual property” and Microsoft wanted to “get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.”

In his open letter Hovsepian strongly disagrees with Ballmer, stating, “Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. To claim otherwise is to further sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, and does not offer a fair basis for competition. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents. We strongly object to the usage of our agreement to suggest that members of the Linux community owe Microsoft any remunerations.”

He then continued, “Our stance on software patents is unchanged by the agreement with Microsoft. We want to remind the community of Novell’s commitment to, and prior actions in support of, furthering the interests of Linux and open source, and creating an environment of free and open innovation. We have a strong patent portfolio and we have leveraged that portfolio for the benefit of the open source community.”

He then lists:

* We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies.

* We have spoken out against EU legislation that would liberalize the standards for granting software patents.

* We offer indemnification to our Linux customers accused of intellectual property infringement.

* We have teamed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other industry leaders to reduce the issuance of “bad patents” in the software area [story].

* In 2005, we co-founded Open Invention Network (“OIN”), “an intellectual property company that was formed to promote Linux by using patents to create a collaborative environment.” (See www.openinventionnetwork.com) Novell’s substantial contributions to OIN were made to benefit not only ourselves, but also other Linux vendors, distributors and developers, and anyone else willing to commit not to assert their patents against Linux.

Hovsepian closed with, “We wish to be extremely clear that Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software. We recognize that the community of open source developers is essential to all our activities in Linux, and we welcome dialog with the community as to how we can continue to work together toward these common goals.”

Will this be enough to calm the waters? Perhaps not, but if nothing else, Novell has made it clear that it is not going to stand quietly by while Microsoft makes vague intellectual property claims about Linux.

A version of this story first appeared in Linux-Watch.