Last week I promised to demonstrate why I am not a GNOME zealot simply looking to try to give KDE a hard time. In actuality, I don't use GNOME much at all, these days. Or KDE. I do keep up with them, but my actual desktop home is elsewhere. “Hey, Clippit! Stop staring at me.”
I knew when I mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in my column last week, I would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. I knew this would happen despite my qualification to the argument that I had released code under the GPL myself. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license?
It started out as a simple project: with the prospect that I'd be away from my desktop computer for a few weeks, I wanted to beef up my laptop's meager 256 megs of RAM. Having purchased my 12” PowerBook one release cycle before Apple boosted the RAM to the 512 megs it really should have had to begin with, it was long past time I embarked on opening up the case and upgrading. One thing was stopping me: I couldn't open it.
Thinking on the issue of licensing and KDE, an old hymn came to mind. “As it was in the beginning, is now, And ever shall be…” Yes, the issue of licensing has been a perennial problem for the Free/Open Source desktop and I would suggest its biggest licensing issue remains: the GPL.
This time last year, we inaugurated the Tim's Gadgets column by looking at Skyrocket Software's excellent Digital FireworX (review) screen saver and stand alone application. Digital FireworX was and is an impressive screensaver that displays the largest collection of simulated fireworks I have encountered anywhere. But, what if it could get even better?
Sure, it has been rumored for years. Sure, any technology observer even slightly familiar with Apple knew that Mac OS X had been run in house on Intel. But, Apple parting ways with the processor it has spent all of these years promoting? If Apple was a few millennia older, without doubt this would have been prophesied as a sign of the apocalypse. The real apocalypse may not be here yet, but the computing world has just seen one of the biggest earthshaking announcements in years. Now Apple faces one of the hardest projects ever put forward for a computer company in its position: keeping backward compatibility.
Having read the CNet News.com story about Apple's supposed impending switch to x86, let me propose an excellent code name for this forthcoming system: “Nessie.” Like Nessie's namesake Loch Ness Monster, the rumor of Mac OS on x86 rings of the stuff of tabloids, not something that people take seriously. Of course, that leaves us to ask what we are to make of it when one of the most respectable online computer news sources, News.com, reports as virtual fact that Apple will be switching to Intel, and the story apparently seems credible enough to get Reuters to pick it up.
To say one could see a train wreck coming from hundreds of miles away when the Linux kernel development process switched to using BitKeeper to manage development is to make an understatement of the largest kind. The idea that the best known Free Software kernel would be developed with the aid of a non-Free development tool just seemed peculiar at best and dangerous at worst. OfB's Timothy R. Butler asserts that the moral of this story is one that every business ought to pay attention to.
It is a cliché worth recalling when designing software. Ninety percent of users, it is said, use ten percent of the features in a software package. For that vast majority of “average users,” the other ninety percent of the features only add needless complexity that make the key ten harder to learn. These extra features simply serve to increase the TCO of software deployments and headaches at the helpdesk, not productivity of the business.