After years of uncertainty, a memo has been released by the US Department of Defense (DoD) that makes it official: Open Source Software (OSS) is just fine and dandy in critical applications, and should not be discounted in officially supported solutions developed by or for the government. Despite continued criticism by Microsoft and other companies — who often have a lot to lose if their overpriced commercial solutions lose market share in the lucrative government market — there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with OSS.

The memo says it clearly, i.e. that “In almost all cases, OSS meets the definition of ‘commercial computer software’ and shall be given appropriate statutory preference…”

The “commercial software” part is key. If something is considered non-commercial, it requires special approval that, in many cases, probably makes its use in a government project far more difficult and time consuming. I suspect many agencies were probably avoiding the use or consideration of Open Source solutions because of this very conundrum. But now the rules are clear, with Open Source classified as “commercial” like anything off-the-shelf from a traditional vendor.

The other bit of confusion that should be cleared up by this new memo is in regard to warranties and “support” for particular applications. Previous rulings said that “if you use a binary program, you must either have a warranty or the source code for a program.” That, as David points out in his article, is perfectly sensible…but many departments apparently just read the “warranty” part and didn’t realize or understand that, with Open Source solutions, they already had full access to the source code by default.

This is really good news for Open Source developers, and for the movement in general. A lot of Linux applications are Open Source. So are many well-known languages (at least Perl, Python, and the Ruby on Rails web development environment, not to mention the venerable Gnu suite like gcc and g++). It’s probably sure to annoy commercial vendors, who have obvious skin in the game of keeping Open Source software on the back burner while they rake in big bucks. But them’s the breaks in the industry — any viable solution should have an equal chance of adoption if it meets a given need. Big-dollar vendors shouldn’t own this market. Competition is a good thing.

The rise of online data theft and malware that steals private data should concern everyone. Today, we bank, invest, communicate, and even view our medical records using online systems that could be hacked at the drop of a hat. Generally, banks and other sites are pretty good (though not bulletproof) in terms of security. The main concern is the home PC, which as often as not is infested with some sort of malware.

Now there’s a stark recommendation from various security pros: don’t use Windows. Period.

One of these recommendations comes from an Austrian security specialist, who flatly stated that he had two rules. The first is “never click on hyperlinks to the banking site.” The second was to “avoid Microsoft Windows.” Bet Redmond won’t be happy about that one. But it makes sense, since Windows is the most popular OS and therefore most targeted by malware vendors.

One of the suggested methods to avoid banking theft is the use of a LinuxLive CD, which is a read-only, bootable CD containing a copy of a slimmed-down Linux OS. The thing about this is that it’s nearly bulletproof (as would a read-only bootable Windows CD) since no one can write malware to the disk. Presuming the CD is clean when created, the only way anyone could attack your session is by monitoring the network itself in the hope of grabbing a password or other data.

Obviously, this is a bit inconvenient for many people. To use this solution, you’d need to shut down your usual OS, insert the bootable Linux CD, and boot your machine from it prior to running an online banking session. Then you’d shut down and reboot again from Windows to do normal work. But if the choice is between a minor inconvenience and possibly losing $100,000 or more (yes, this has happened to many people) the trade-off is worthwhile.

Data theft will just continue to worsen before it gets better. I think we all need to develop creative and interesting ways to avoid it. This is certainly another tool in the toolbox, and should be considered by anyone who banks or invests online.

In an amazing turnaround, a US Appeals court reversed a lower court decision from 2007 that awarded ownership of the UNIX operating system to Novell. Here we all thought this nonsense had been settled, and that UNIX could move on to bigger and better things. Instead, the owners of SCO are now reviving their dormant lawsuit against IBM and others. It’s sad, really.

There are two major issues involved in this long-running soap opera. The first is the claim that Linux contains code that was taken directly from the UNIX source listings — an assertion that has so far proven baseless. Huge amounts of otherwise productive development time have been consumed poring over source listings in an effort to weed out fact from fiction. To my knowledge, not a single line has been found. Last I read (several years ago) the courts had effectively thrown SCO’s assertions back in the company’s collective face due to their lack of substantive proof.

The other issue is “who owns UNIX.” This one is far more complex. Novell claims it owns the patents, having acquired them long ago during acquisition of another company that once owned this work. SCO claims ownership as well — and it was thought the 2007 case ended this battle. Now it’s reared its ugly head yet again, and SCO’s chairman is loudly claiming the company has been wronged all these years.

Probably the richest assertions made so far was Darl McBride’s assertion that “there are 20 million versions of Linux running around the world,” and that “Linux at the end of the day is a knock off of our Unix.” I seriously think he’s under-estimating the former. And, at best, Unix is potentially “their” product only in the strictest legal sense…the company hasn’t contributed a thing to the product in probably a decade.

And in the distance, I can hear Microsoft laughing hysterically. The company has always feared Linux, and upper management in Redmond is probably praying for this legal battle to continue for as long as possible. Alas, if past experience is any indication their prayers will not be answered. SCO is already in bankruptcy, and hopefully will stop troubling the I.T. world very soon. Good riddance.

In one of the more stunning announcements in some time, Microsoft has announced that it’s actually going to contribute code (a paltry 20,000 lines, but it’s a start) to Linux via a GPL (GNU Public License) scheme. I’m still reeling from this, and I suspect many others in the industry are as well.

This is Microsoft…the same company that once called the GPL “un-American” and conducted massive efforts to label Linux as an unstable, unready OS suitable only for hackers. It’s also the company that paid SCO a large “indemnification” sum during the heyday of SCO’s lawsuit against IBM over allegations of code theft. The latter was widely seen as an attempt to bolster SCO’s claims while providing the cash-poor company with sorely needed funding.

I, for one, remember well how Microsoft attacked Linux early on. There were the “1998 Halloween memos attacking Linux, CEO Steve Ballmer calling the open source operating system a cancer in 2001 and Microsoft’s claim Linux and open source violates 235 of its patents.”

Now, Redmond is supporting Linux. My, how times have changed. Many Linux proponents were stunned by the news, but are also very happy because it provides more traction for Linux to move into current Windows-only environments. “Obviously we are tickled about it,” said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation. “Hell has frozen over, the seas have parted,” he said with a chuckle.

The code being released is kernel-level material that provides support for virtualization under Microsoft’s “Linux Device Driver for Virtualization.” According to the article, “the drivers, once added to the Linux kernel, will provide the hooks for any distribution of Linux to run on Windows Server 2008 and its Hyper-V hypervisor technology.” Virtualization proponents and developers are probably overjoyed.

Are we seeing a newer, more open Microsoft? Possibly. But there’s certainly no egalitarian spirit involved. This is all about business, and Redmond wants to hold onto its piece of the pie.

Imagine this: you turn on your PC, and are greeted almost instantly with a loaded browser, email client, and word processor that are booted up and ready to run. And no, I don’t mean turning on your monitor – I mean hitting the power switch on the CPU. Sound too good to be true?

It’s not. In fact, it’s so obvious I’m surprised no one has done it before. Basically, some companies like Phoenix Technologies are developing mini Linux distributions on a chip that can be integrated directly into a motherboard. One of the newly developed mini kernels, known as HyperSpace, “is a compact Linux that loads almost instantly and gives the user a browser, word processor and a few other useful goodies.” The implication is clear.

Just think of your own usage habits. How often do you actually use any application other than Internet Explorer or Firefox? I suspect a large percentage of home users do nothing but work on the web…and that means they don’t need all the “features” of Windows. For that matter, they really don’t need full-blown Linux or MacOS either. And by eliminating all the cruft surrounding such full-featured OS architectures, you’d eliminate a whole host of support annoyances.

Upgrades? They can be distributed as a flash BIOS update. Rootkits? Almost impossible, since the OS is resident on a chip and can’t be written to by normal processes. Sure, you could still have virus or other malware issues since the PC still contains a disk, but putting the OS on a non-writable piece of solid state hardware makes serious infection a whole lot harder. It also removes disk fragmentation, startup and shutdown delays, and a host of other problems.

As the article author points out, the other thing that will make Redmond twitch is that HyperSpace comes with a built-in word processor called Haansoft Wite, which “makes a clone of Microsoft Office.” This product is “an out-and-out, menu-item-for-menu-item copy of Microsoft Word 2003. It even uses the red squiggly line for spell checking.” So why is it that we’re paying $300 or more for a copy of Office basic, which hasn’t had a new feature worth buying in about five years?

This type of stripped-down system isn’t for everyone. But it reminds me of the early days of radio; early radio units required lots of tweaking and tuning. They also took a long time to warm up. Then, instant-on solid state units appeared and took over the market. I suspect we’ll see the same progression in terms of PCs.

The OS wars between Windows, Linux, and (distantly, but always viable) the MacOS have been going on for years now. Each has its vocal proponents and detractors, while most other people just want something that works, is easy to use, and doesn’t cost too much. And that’s the point, isn’t it?

When all the hype and hyperbole are taken out of the equation, it comes down to this: Microsoft got to its position not because its OS was “better,” but because PCs were more widely adopted than Macs. Back during those critical early-adoption phase, Macs were more expensive and were seen as esoteric. Apple also insisted on a closed architecture, while PC hardware was the Wild West.

In OS terms, Linux was by no means ready for the masses a decade ago. UNIX (which you could run on a PC in the mid 1990s) just wasn’t ready for anyone but a developer. Then again, it really wasn’t intended to be.

All that has changed. Linux has been under furious development since it emerged in the late 1990s, and its proponents have been pushing for a user-friendly, no-techie-needed desktop capable of challenging Windows. Now, it seems, that day may have finally arrived.

Personally, I hope that’s true. It’s not because I hate Microsoft. Yes, I’ve disliked some of their more idiotic business decisions and practices. The irrational attacks against Open Source, close integration of stuff like browsers and email clients into the OS, insistence on forcing PC vendors to bundle only their products, and bloatware practices were just plain stupid. But overall they’ve brought computing to the people, and have done a fairly good job of it. If you don’t think that’s the case, feel free to build a bulletproof OS that will easily install and run on thousands of possible hardware configurations. Remember that your user base consists of everyone from a tech-paranoid 90 year old to a high end twenty-something developer who thinks in hex for fun.

Ready. Set. Go. We’ll see you in a decade or two.

No, the reason I’m hoping Linux is ready for home users is that it’ll give Microsoft some sorely needed competition. Redmond got lazy in the early years of the decade because they owned well over 90% of the desktops in the world. No competition spells laziness and a sense of “we’ll do what we want, because you have no choice in the matter.” A competitive Linux challenger (or any other, for that matter) gives Redmond incentive to do better.

Vista was a wake-up call for Microsoft. It told them they no longer had the luxury of dictating every user action, shipping bad code, or charging exorbitant fees for their products. Desktop-ready Linux will really put them to the test. And that’s good for everyone–including Microsoft.

While many users really like the Windows interface and have no problem with it, others despise it for a number of reasons. For me, the basic user paradigm is fine but the OS is just too huge and clunky these days. I would far rather see the current OS kernel with a feature set closer in size to Windows 98 or 2000, since (to be perfectly honest) I simply don’t use most of XP’s feature set and am not interested in it. I hate Internet Explorer, though recent versions have gotten better with WCC compliance. I will never, ever use Outlook willingly. Media Player is okay, but mainly I use Winamp.

While chatting with a colleague earlier this week, he raised the question whether it’s possible for someone to transition off Windows and onto Linux. He hates Windows for many reasons, and doesn’t want to fork over a large amount of cash to upgrade his current stable of 4 XP machines to Windows 7 when it’s released. (Like me, he hates Vista with a passion).

After mulling it over a bit, the basic conclusion is “it depends.” Yeah, the answer really does sound like something you’d get from a Magic 8-Ball. Here’s why.

If you’re a generic Internet user — i.e. you need a browser, email client, and almost nothing else — then the answer is definitely “yes.” You could transition easily to MacOS or Linux, taking your bookmarks and mail (presuming it’s not in some funky format) with you. Firefox, Opera, Safari, Eudora, Thunderbird, and other free software will handle everything you need.

But let’s say you’re currently a Microsoft Office user. Now things become more complex, because Open Office for Linux (or Windows, for that matter) may not provide every feature you need. And sometimes it’s not so good at handling import/export of MS Office documents. This said, you could create a VMware image of your current Windows environment (including Office) and run it as needed from a shiny new Linux system.

The same goes for gamers, in fact. While a few high end games are available under Linux or MacOS, most of that market is Windows only. So again, you’d need a VMware image or even a dual boot arrangement in order to handle all your needs.

Musicians and video artists, at least for now, may be stuck with Windows. At least some higher end specialized recording packages (e.g. Cakewalk SONAR) may not be available for non-Windows platforms. Graphic arts packages, on the other hand, often started on the MacOS and went to Windows from there. So graphics folk can probably move to the Mac if they want. What about Linux? I’m not sure at this point.

So, if you’re thinking of abandoning Windows you’ll need to inventory your system. Find out which of your critical applications are available for Linux or Mac. You may find free or shareware applications that’ll do just as good a job. Or you may discover it’s impossible, which means you should contact vendors and demand they write to other OS platforms. The competition would do Microsoft a world of good.