Practical Technology

for practical people.

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.

November 17, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

Ubuntu to add proprietary drivers

Reluctantly, the Ubuntu developer community has decided that with the next version of Ubuntu, Feisty Fawn, it will be including some proprietary drivers. Feisty Fawn’s emphasis on “multimedia enablement” appears to be the culprit.
Feisty Fawn, aka Ubuntu 7.04, is scheduled for release on Apr. 19, 2007. According to Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu’s founder, “The main themes for feature development in this release will be improvements to hardware support in the laptop, desktop and high-end server market, and aggressive adoption of emerging desktop technologies. Ubuntu’s Feisty release will put the spotlight on multimedia enablement and desktop effects.”

To accomplish, the Ubuntu developer community has decided that it must use, for now at least, proprietary drivers.

It’s not that Ubuntu’s developers like proprietary drivers. The developers felt that given that, “A large proportion of people using Ubuntu — including 70%-80% of people with new computers — need a non-Free driver for reasonable performance from their graphics card, wireless card, or modem, because there is no Free driver available, they had little choice in the matter.

In particular, the Ubuntu developers are working on adding binary ATI and NVIDA graphic card drivers to the distribution. This is because, “Currently, Ubuntu does little to enable 3D acceleration on cards that support these features. Composite support is enabled by default on X.Org since Ubuntu Edgy, but various video boards need specific options to support either Composite or 3D acceleration correctly, or have them explicitly disabled, in case these technologies are not supported.”

So it is that Ubuntu has “chosen to install non-Free drivers by default.” Specifically, it has been decided that “Both NVIDIA and ATI proprietary drivers will be installed by default, on Ubuntu Feisty.” That does not mean, however, that they will be enabled for all video boards. For example, since ATI proprietary drivers do not support Composite graphics, this “driver will only be enabled by default for users whose video boards are not supported by the open source ‘ati’ video driver.”

In addition, work has started on bringing proprietary drivers into Ubuntu for the so-called Win-modems (fritz isdn/dsl modules, lt-modem) and the Atheros (ath_hal aka madwifi) and Intel 3945 Intel wireless chipsets.

The developers are well aware of the problems with using these drivers. For example, there are the simple technical problems that support for the drivers is completely dependent on the hardware vendor. And, then, when the vendor does make a bug fix, that “improvement” will require careful testing, since the developers won’t know what was changed in the update. Of course, on top of that, there are the philosophical objections to using binary drivers in Linux.

Many public comments about this decision object to Ubuntu’s decision. One writer said, “We should not give up our freedom for a short term advantage.”

A public poll, on the Ubuntu forums, however, reveals far less outrage and far more desktop pragmatism. As of the evening of Nov. 17, on the question, “Should binary NVidia/ATI drivers be automatically installed & activated in Ubuntu?,” the answers were:

  • 32.62 percent — “Yes, while informing the user of the relevant issues, etc.”
  • 54.63 percent — “Users should be given a choice about this during installation”
  • and only 12.75 percent voted for “No, such drivers can stay in a non-free repo, just like now”

In any case, Ubuntu is moving forward with incorporating proprietary drivers. At the same time, though, Ubuntu will be trying to educate users about the issues around non-free drivers. The plan, now, is for this to be done by “using a notification bubble on login, an extra section in the Device Manager, and a CGI script on Ubuntu.com for providing up-to-date information about alternative hardware.”

Thus the goal is that while Ubuntu will be shipping “proprietary drivers in the short term, we should take steps to improve the situation in the long term. We believe the best way to do this is to convey the problem to people using Ubuntu – explaining why we distribute non-Free drivers at all, what the risks are, and what people can do to avoid such hardware in future.”

A version of this story was first published in Desktop Linux.

November 17, 2006
by sjvn01
0 comments

Ballmer rattles intellectual property saber at Linux

What a surprise! What a shock! Ballmer thinks Linux rips off Microsoft intellectual property.

According to Eric Lai in Computerworld, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell because Linux “uses our intellectual property” and Microsoft wanted to “get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.”

Isn’t “Microsoft innovation” an oxymoron like “military intelligence?” But I digress. Basically, Microsoft is SCOing us again.

SCOing? Mark Webbink, Red Hat’s deputy general counsel, tells me that it’s a verb from the Middle English, which in turn is from the Old English “screw,” that is, to stick it to some one, and in the modern vernacular it means to threaten your customers with IP (intellectual property) infringement.

You would have thought that by now Ballmer would have learned his lesson. After all, it was Microsoft that fueled up the SCO IP rocket, aimed it at Linux, and then watched as SCO’s anti-Linux lawsuits have blown up.

SCO’s IP claims against Linux have been proven time and again to be nothing more than bad jokes. Is there any reason to think that Microsoft’s IP claims wouldn’t be more of the same?

Yes, there is one key difference. Microsoft, if it actually had anything to show, would likely be relying on patents rather than copyrights, against Linux. However, there’s just couple of wee little problems with that approach.

First, let’s assume that Microsoft isn’t filled with morons. So, instead of threatening to sue customers — and we all know how well that worked out for SCO, don’t we? — they’ll have to sue a big Linux vendor. Let’s say, they decide to pick on Red Hat.

Now, as it just so happens, Red Hat isn’t the only company that distributed RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). There’s this other company named Oracle, which recently got into the RHEL business. Larry Ellison may call his version “Unbreakable Linux,” but Oracle makes no bones about it: Unbreakable Linux is RHEL.

Microsoft might think it could break Red Hat down with a long enough lawsuit, but Oracle? Do the boys in Redmond really want to spend the rest of the next decade locked in battle with Larry Ellison? I don’t think so.

Besides, does Microsoft think IBM will stay on the litigation sidelines, if it decides to play the patent card? IBM makes a lot of its billions from Linux, and I can’t see Big Blue paying Microsoft off to continue using its favorite operating system.

Now, I have no doubt that some way or another, Microsoft can find some kind of way to attack Linux with patents. After all, OSRM (Open Source Risk Management) back in 2004 found in a study that 283 issued, but not yet court-validated, software patents could conceivably be used in patent claims against Linux.

The patent law in this country is completely and totally broken. Earlier this year, a patent troll company named NTP squeezed $612.5 million out of Blackberry maker RIM using patents that had been rejected!

NTP, like the other patent trolls, however, doesn’t produce anything. Its only purpose is to leech onto successful businesses and drain them of cash. NTP, in short, could care less about what people think about them, they just want the money. Microsoft, on the other hand, does have to care that if it attacks Linux, it will also be attacking a lot of its own customers and partners.

Finally, leaving aside all of this, open-source software like Linux has one trump card against patent violations. If Linux violates a patent, Microsoft, unlike SCO, will have to spell out exactly what it is that Linux has violated. That being done, the Linux developers can simply rewrite around the patent problem.

So, from where I sit, if Microsoft really wants to try to slug it out with Linux in the courts, it will first have to deal with other industry heavyweights. It will also have to deal with all the negative PR that will result from taking on a much smaller company. And, after all that, Microsoft will still have the problem that trying to hit Linux on patents will be like trying to give the north wind a good punch in the jaw — it simply can’t be done.


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