Practical Technology

for practical people.

February 26, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

BitTorrent jumps into (DRMed) Video Distribution

Forget about HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, the future of television is the Internet. BitTorrent, the company behind the world’s most popular peer-to-peer protocol around gets that. What it doesn’t get is that restricting its rental and purchasable videos to Windows Media compatible formats is downright foolish.

First, here’s what BitTorrent is doing. It’s made a deal with a host of movie and television companies to make some of their content legally available over the net by the BitTorrent protocol. Its partners include: 20th Century Fox, Lions Gate, MTV Networks, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios.

BitTorrent claims that its network includes “The most comprehensive catalog of on-demand movies, TV shows, Music, and Games on the Internet, with over 5,000 titles (more than 10x what iTunes has to offer), over 40 hours of HD programming, first run films that will be available before they are released on DVD, and unique editorial content that won’t be found anywhere else.” New movies available from the service include Little Miss Sunshine, An Inconvenient Truth, Superman Returns, and The Poseidon Adventure.

Continue Reading →

February 25, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Show us the code: right pew, wrong church

Along the lines of early efforts to derail SCO’s claims that Linux infringes Unix copyrights, a gentleman going by the moniker, “digduality” has decided to fight recent claims by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents, by launching ShowUsTheCode.com.

As you might guess from its name, the website’s theme is: “since you, Microsoft, claim to be so sure of yourself: Show Us the Code.”

In the few days since its Feb. 23 launch, the website has gained a great deal of attention on such sites as Digg, Linux Today, and Slashdot. Most of the people who have weighed in with comments on the issue have strongly voiced their support. They too want Microsoft to show “the public the code within Linux that violates their intellectual property by May 1st, 2007.”

It sounds like a good idea; but unfortunately, it misses the point.

In Microsoft’s latest FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) campaign — make no mistake, that’s exactly what this is — Ballmer is not claiming that Linux contains any kind of Microsoft copyright violations. That was, at one time, SCO’s claim, not Microsoft’s.

In this assault on Linux, Ballmer is broadly hinting that Linux is infringing on Microsoft’s enormous patent portfolio. And, when it comes to patents, there is no “code” to be shown.

That is part of the diabolic evil, as I see it, of the American patent system. With many, perhaps most, software patents there is no specific language, no hard code, but only descriptions of general processes that can be implemented in multiple ways.

As Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) told me a few years back, it’s “difficult today to write any software program — be it free software or proprietary — from scratch that does not exercise the teachings of some existing software patent in the U.S.A.”

Back when Ballmer first started taking talking about Linux patents in 2004, Dan Ravicher, an attorney and executive director of PUBPAT (the Public Patent Foundation) said, “There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows, Unix-based or any other functionally similar operating system. Why? Because patents are infringed by specific structures that accomplish specific functionality.”

The issue has come up again because of the Microsoft/Novell agreement‘s patent collaboration agreement. Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian said of that agreement that it “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.”

Microsoft, then and now, says simply that “Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents.” And, Ballmer continues his FUD.

I’m sorry to say that the “show the code” campaign won’t stop this. It won’t impede the patent FUD at all.

What we really need is a complete revision of the U.S. patent system. Software patents should be done away with — it’s that simple, in theory. In practice, we’re stuck with this mess.

Ironically enough, Microsoft would agree. On Feb. 22, Microsoft was socked with a $1.52 billion patent judgment in favor of Alcatel-Lucent. The judgment was about one-third of what Alcatel-Lucent had asked for, and it was still the largest patent award in history. Perhaps Ballmer will be a little less inclined to threaten with the patent sword now. After all, the companies that support Linux, such as IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, and many others, have patent holdings that dwarf even Microsoft’s own. Does Microsoft really want to play a game of mutually-assured destruction by software patents? I doubt it.

The patent system is truly dysfunctional, both for proprietary and open source software companies. Behind Ballmer’s bluster, I think he knows that too. That won’t stop him, mind you. After all, it scares corporate customers into sticking with Microsoft, and protecting and growing Microsoft’s bottom line is what he gets paid the big bucks for.

So, since we’re stuck with this FUD, you may want to consider giving your support to PUBPAT, the Linux Foundation’s patent commons, and the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) for their work against software patents and for SFLC.

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.

February 21, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

ESR: “Fedora… you blew it”

At one time, Fedora was “the” free Linux distribution. Over the last year though, Ubuntu and openSUSE have consistently outpaced Fedora on DistroWatch’s tracking charts. Well-known, open source leader Eric S. Raymond is fed-up with Fedora, and explained why in a note to Fedora and Red Hat officials.

“Over the last five years, I’ve watched Red Hat/Fedora throw away what was at one time a near-unassailable lead in technical prowess, market share and community prestige.” wrote Raymond. “The blunders have been legion on both technical and political levels.”

What brought him to this point, was when, “after thirteen years as a loyal Red Hat and Fedora user, … an attempt to upgrade one (1) package pitched me into a four-hour marathon of dependency chasing, at the end of which an attempt to get around a trivial file conflict rendered my system unusable.” Thus, Raymond reached his “limit with Fedora.”

He elaborates: “The proximate causes of this failure were (1) incompetent repository maintenance, making any nontrivial upgrade certain to founder on a failed dependency, and (2) the fact that rpm is not statically linked — so it’s possible to inadvertently remove a shared library it depends on and be unrecoverably screwed.”

This technical snafu, however, from his viewpoint, isn’t Fedora’s real trouble. Rather, “The underlying problems run much deeper.” Raymond lists out Fedora’s problems as:

* “Chronic governance problems.

* Persistent failure to maintain key repositories in a sane, consistent state from which upgrades might actually be possible.

* A murky, poorly-documented, over-complex submission process.

* Allowing RPM [The Red Hat package management system] development to drift and stagnate — then adding another layer of complexity, bugs, and wretched performance with yum (http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum) [A wrapper for rpm that automatically retrieves packages from remote package feeds]

* Effectively abandoning the struggle for desktop market share.

* Failure to address the problem of proprietary multimedia formats with any attitude other than blank denial.”

“In retrospect,” Raymond continued, “[I] should probably have cut my losses years ago. But I had so much history with Red-Hat/Fedora, and had invested so much effort in trying to fix the problems, that it was hard to even imagine breaking away.”

“If I thought the state of Fedora were actually improving, I might hang in there. But it isn’t,” he added.

Fedora’s plans to bring Fedora Core and Extras into a single common program repository starting with Fedora 7 don’t address the issues that concern Raymond.

Raymond continued, “I’ve been on the fedora-devel list for years, and the trend is clear. The culture of the project’s core group has become steadily more unhealthy, more inward-looking, more insistent on narrow ‘free software’ ideological purity, and more disconnected from the technical and evangelical challenges that must be met to make Linux a world-changing success that liberates a majority of computer users.”

I have watched Ubuntu rise to these challenges as Fedora fell away from them. Canonical’s recent deal with Linspire [story], which will give Linux users legal access to WMF (Windows Media Format) and other key proprietary codecs, is precisely the sort of thing Red-Hat/Fedora could and should have taken the lead in. Not having done so bespeaks a failure of vision which I now believe will condemn Fedora to a shrinking niche in the future.”

Over the last year, Raymond has staked out a position that for Linux — especially desktop Linux — to be successful, it must be able to work with proprietary hardware and software. Thus, Raymond is certain that Linux must, support popular proprietary software at least on the level of ‘user-space’ applications. “If that means paying licensing fees to the Microsofts of the world so that people can watch Windows media files, then so be it” said Raymond in an interview last August. Afterwards, Raymond joined Linspire’s board. Linspire, with its Freespire distribution, has lead the way in mixing open-source programs and proprietary drivers in a Linux distribution.

It’s more than that, though. Raymond also just finds Ubuntu much easier to use. “This afternoon, I installed Edgy Eft on my main development machine — from one CD, not five. In less than three hours’ work I was able to recreate the key features of my day-to-day toolkit. The after-installation mass upgrade to current packages, always a frightening prospect under Fedora, went off without a hitch.”

“I’m not expecting Ubuntu to be perfect, but I am now certain it will be enough better to compensate me for the fact that I need to learn a new set of administration tools,” said Raymond.

He then concluded, “Fedora, you had every advantage, and you had my loyalty, and you blew it. And that is a damn, dirty shame.”

The only response, so far, from Red Hat and Fedora came from Alan Cox, the prominent Linux kernel and Red Hat developer. Cox spoke specifically to Raymond’s claims that Linux must work with proprietary software. “That would be because we believe in Free Software and doing the right thing (a practice you appear to have given up on). Maybe it is time the term ‘open source’ also did the decent thing and died out with you.”

February 15, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

SCO to Pamela Jones: please call

CEO Darl McBride said that his company’s primary attorneys, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, are indeed trying to serve a subpoena for a deposition on Pamela Jones, the editor of, Groklaw, the legal IT news site.

McBride said that the idea for serving Jones came from the law-firm. “It’s my understanding that she has some material of importance to our slander of title case with Novell. I don’t know the exact details.”

This case sprang from Novell’s contention that it, and not SCO, owns Unix’s IP (intellectual property) rights. Novell claims that neither the APA (asset purchase agreement) of Sept. 19, 1995, which transferred Unix and UnixWare to Santa Cruz Operations, nor Amendment 2 to the APA gave SCO any copyrights to Unix. If Novell wins this point in Federal Court, then SCO’s case against IBM for placing Unix IP code into Linux falls apart like a house of cards with the bottom card knocked out.

SCO responded to Novell’s attack with a “slander of title” suit. SCO can’t simply claim that Novell is in breech of contract. That’s because today’s SCO isn’t the same company that bought Unix from Novell in the APA (asset purchase agreement).

To put it in layman’s terms, SCO is claiming that it should have gotten the IP rights — the title, as it were — to the Unix car, but SCO tacitly admits that it has never gotten the “ownership on paper” or “instrument of conveyance.” Therefore, SCO wants the court to order Novell to give it the title, the ownership of Unix’s IP rights.

McBride was not able to say what information Jones might have about the slander of title case. Jones has always posted all of her SCO case materials to her Groklaw site.

McBride remains not entirely convinced that Jones is a real person. He asked several times about the author’s meetings with her, and whether he believed that this person was indeed Pamela Jones, editor of Groklaw.

He went on to say that he hopes that the process servers will soon be able to serve the subpoena on Jones. He added, “We’ve subpoenaed hundreds of people for our cases. This is just another one.”

McBride concluded, “Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat.”

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.

February 15, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Yes, there is a PJ

According to Forbes, SCO recently tried to subpoena Pamela “PJ” Jones, editor of the popular Groklaw legal news website. They were not successful. I’ve been unable to confirm with SCO that they indeed attempted to have Jones file a deposition for one of their Linux-related lawsuits. Since this incident was reported to have happened, Ms. Jones announced on Groklaw that she has “been sick more than once recently. I don’t seem to be getting back on my feet the way I’d normally expect, and so after some thought I’ve decided to take a little break from doing Groklaw, just until I get my strength back.”

Since then, Groklaw has been kept updated by the site’s webmaster, Peter Roozemaal, aka MathFox. Jones, herself, has been quiet.

As a result of all this, there are once more rumors flying about that “Pamela Jones” is not a real person. Or, as SCO CEO Darl McBride once put it, Jones is a front for anti-SCO parties, such as IBM, and she’s not who she says she is — a paralegal who’s also a journalist.

Let me address this directly. Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I’ve met her several times, and I’ve often “talked” with her on email and IM. I consider her a friend.

She is not a front for anyone. She is a paralegal, hence her excellent legal research skills, which are the foundation of her stories. And, she’s a journalist by any standard I know of.

What I find surprising, frankly, is that Jones has been able to keep up her production at as high a level as she has over the years. She has been driven by her passion for open source and fairness to produce a remarkable body of work.

Let me add that while I can sing her praises, we don’t always agree. I take it a far kinder view, for example, of Novell’s relationship with Microsoft than she does.

I also have an entirely different slant toward the public knowing about me. If you want to know more about me, it’s pretty darn easy to find out anything you might want to know. Jones, however is a highly private — even shy — person in her personal life.

She also was hoping that by being semi-anonymous “people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular.”

Regardless of PJ’s exact identity — no, she’s never shown me her passport — here’s what’s really important. Jones has made her reputation as a top legal IT reporter from her work detailing the defects with SCO’s case against IBM and Linux. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that her work has contributed enormously to everyone’s coverage of SCO’s cases.

Speaking as a writer who can argue that he’s covered The SCO Group, and its predecessor companies Caldera and The Santa Cruz Operation, more closely than anyone else, save one, in journalism over the years, I have to take my hat off to Pamela Jones. I’ve written hundreds of stories about SCO; she’s written thousands.

Groklaw, as the SCO lawsuits wind their way to what appears to their final ending, under Jones’s direction, has also been expanding its legal IT coverage to DRM (Digital Rights Management), Microsoft’s legal battles, and open document standards.

The SCO cases will go away. SCO may go away. But, once Jones has her health back, Groklaw will continue.

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.

February 12, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Microsoft, Novell expand on technical collaboration plans

Microsoft and Novell on Feb. 12 unveiled more specifics regarding their joint technical roadmap. As expected, the two companies are collaborating on four areas of technology that address significant problems faced by enterprises: virtualization, Web services for managing physical and virtual servers, directory and identity interoperability, and document format compatibility.

In virtualization, Microsoft and Novell are jointly developing a virtualization offering for Linux and Windows Server to consolidate server workloads in heterogeneous data centers. When the project is completed, users will be able to run SLES 10 (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) as a virtualized guest on an upcoming “service pack 1” update to Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2.

In addition, in the next version of Windows Server, codename Longhorn, SLES 10 will run as an enlightened guest using its built-in Longhorn’s virtualization technology. On the Linux side, Longhorn will run as a paravirtualized guest on SLES 10 using Xen virtualization technology.

All these new virtualization mechanisms are expected to arrive in 2007, according to the companies. Virtualization is the first goal for the recently announced Novell and Microsoft joint labs.

The unlikely operating system pair is also working on the foundation for joint Web services-based management tools for Linux and Windows Server. This collaboration on standards-based solutions for managing heterogeneous environments should make it easier for companies to manage their mixed Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise physical and virtual environments.

The Web Services for Management (WS-management) specification supports the DMTF (Distributed Management Task Force) initiative to expose model-agnostic management resources via a set of Web services protocols. At the same time, Novell is working with the open source community to develop an open-source implementation of the WS-Management specification. Novell ZENworks Orchestrator and Microsoft System Center Operations Manager 2007 is expected to incorporate WS-Management this year, the companies said.

WS-Management is a vendor-neutral core set of Web service specifications that’s meant to define the common set of operations that all systems management systems must use. WS-Management’s goal is to support interoperability between management applications and managed resources. In addition to Novell and Microsoft, Sun, Intel, and Symantec, among many others, support WS-Management.

Microsoft and Novell are working toward improving directory and identity interoperability between Novell eDirectory and Microsoft AD (Active Directory). The WS-Management tools will work with both AD and eDirectory to produce improved IT resource access control for network administrators, the companies said.

Microsoft and Novell are also continuing their work delivering seamless interoperability between office productivity applications. This is primarily being done through the joint open source project to create a bi-directional translator for documents, spreadsheets and presentations between OpenOffice.org’s ODF (OpenDocument format), and Microsoft’s Open XML.

The first version of the ODF/Open XML translator arrived on Feb. 2. This version of the Open XML/ODF Translator supports Microsoft’s Office 2007, Office 2003, and Office XP. Additionally, later this month, Novell will release an Open XML/ODF Translator for the Novell edition of OpenOffice.org.

Microsoft and Novell will also be developing a series of interoperability demonstrations that focus on interoperability between technologies and products from both companies. A more detailed roadmap for this collaborative effort will be available in the first half of 2007.

Jeff Jaffe, executive vice president and CTO at Novell, stated, “The majority of our customers have mixed-source environments, and they want their platform vendors to take responsibility for making things work together. That’s what our technical collaboration agreement with Microsoft is all about. We’re working together to deliver true interoperability between Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise, and we are standing together behind our products and our customers.”

Bob Muglia, Microsoft’s senior VP of the Servers and Tools Business, added, “We’re working on reducing costs and improving flexibility in the data center so customers can focus on managing their businesses, not their IT systems.”

Al Gillen, research VP for system software at IDC, stated, “With this first installment of the Microsoft-Novell development roadmap, we see that both companies are building on this relationship to develop real, product-specific solutions to deliver on the promises made to customers. The great potential of the November announcement between Microsoft and Novell could have been disappointing without a product-specific roadmap to execute against. With the roadmap, the technology benefits customers can expect will be tangible and delivered on a predictable basis.”

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