Michael Koby

Last week, Microsoft announced the latest generation of their Zune media players.  While the devices themselves are nothing to quickly write home about, one thing definitely was.  One fact stood out above all the rest in the announcement of the new Zunes, and that was the fact that the original 30GB Zunes will get a software update that gives them all the new features of the newest generation.  So the original Zunes will have podcasting support, as well as support for the updated video codecs.

You might be asking yourself, why was this such a big deal?  Why did every gadget website I read last week mentioned this little tidbit of news?  Well, there is a reason for it.  You see Apple does not do this with its iPod products.  Nope, in fact, Apple’s stance is simple, if you want to latest features then you need to purchase the latest device.  Sure, Apple ports some of the newer model features into the older iPod generations.  But if you are sitting one and half generations behind, you will find yourself completely out of luck and needing to upgrade.  The fact that Microsoft listened to this one complaint that runs rampant on iPod forums, is extremely important.  In fact it is almost key to their marketing of their device.  If people know that they can always have the latest features regardless of generation (limited by hardware of course), that is something that will make people want to buy their product.  The reason is because people like to have longevity out of their three hundred dollar devices.  People are going to pick a product that they know they can get the best longevity out of.

However, because Apple and iPods are so synonymous  with portable music, it is going to take a while for the concept of buying a non-iPod for portable media.  However, if the new Zune interface can be as intuitive and easy to navigate as the iPod’s then there will be little issue in selling folks on getting a Zune.  Especially since Apple has taken a sharp turn in how they are dealing with the customers of their iPod product line (including the iPhone).  Apple is making it difficult for people to use the device the way they want to use it, at the same time they have been releasing products without proper quality controls in place.  This is going to cost Apple dearly if the Zunes can prove themselves to be viable counter products.

I have already considered buying one of the new flash based Zunes to carry in my laptop bag rather than carrying my iPod with me everywhere and just leave it in the car hooked up to the Alpine.  Mainly because I think that Microsoft has a really decent second generation product on their hands.  I will hold off on buying a flash based player until the new Zunes are released and I can play with one in order to make the best purchasing decision.  Microsoft has definitely caught my attention, and I will be watching these new Zunes carefully.

In my realatively short existence in the IT world, I have run into two kinds of people when it comes to Linux.  There are those that are okay with would consider using, but do not.  These people understand the reason(s) some would choose to use it but it is just not for them.  Then there is the other type of people.  Those that will find any reason to shoot down the operating system and openly mock those that choose to use it.

Why are there people like those in the second group?  And more to the point why must there be an operating system war?  All the operating systems that exist, do so because someone needed something that was not available in any already existing operating system.

You have the Linux crowd that hates anything to do with Windows and believes that everyone should be using Linux.  You Windows users who ask “why would you need something like Linux?”  Then you have the OSX folks who just wonder what all the arguing is about in the first place.   Why can some people not accept the fact that different people like to use different operating systems to be productive.  Some are just more productive on a non-Windows machine.  Some people like OSX because it is easier for them to use in their day to day life.

What I find really just plain idiotic are those that bash another operating system without having used it for longer than a couple of hours.  I find that most people who complain about Linux or Mac OSX, only used it for a couple of hours.  More specifically they got to point where they were going to have to do research to figure out how to do something and wrote the whole OS off as unusable.  It takes weeks, sometimes months to truly become associated with a new operating system.  You are not going to start off knowing how to do every little thing, most of you Windows users did not know how to do a lot of what you do now before you googled or had a person show you how.  So why give up so easily on a new operating system?

The operating system flame wars really should be a thing of the past now.  All the major operating systems out exist for a reason.  Everyone can use the operating system the feel most comfortable in and they should not feel superior or inferior to anyone.

If you roll web browser over to the ever so wonderful Digg.com website, you’ll probably notice a lot of talk about Linux, Microsoft, and patents. The basic argument rolls down to this,

Microsoft: Linux violates some of our patents.
Linux Folk: Show us the offending code.
Microsoft: No, but we’re not going to sue you anyway so it doesn’t matter.
Linux Folk: Yea right…

So what you end up with is a lot of back and forth.  Really the debate should have ended with the “we do not intend to sue” remark from Microsoft’s law team.  However, because Microsoft (as well as a lot of other big companies) has a history of suing even after they say they will not, the Linux community is working to find ways to resolve the problem before anything else can happen.

The real heart of the issue is in the United States Patent system.  Our patent system has become so messed up that you can patent just about anything if you are willing to fill out the paperwork and pay the appropriate fees.  There is even a patent for music navigation on a portable device, hence the Creative Labs lawsuit against Apple a year or so ago.  The patent system is suppose to help inventors place a mark on their inventions so that others have to pay them money if others utilize their inventions in a profitable manner, however when you get a patent you have to make the invention’s technology public but in exchange for doing so the invention is limited to use only by you.  And while it is extremely more complicated then that, I just wanted to touch on some of the higher points of the system.

The question at hand is, what exactly can be classified as an invention?  The concept that match, numbers, and binary can constitute an invention is pretty out there.  In fact up until recently the idea of a “software patent” was outrageous and greatly frowned upon.  But we have seen a drastic change in feelings toward this mentality.  A few years ago Europe introduced the idea of software patents and it caused a huge stink, but politics won out and now you can patent software in Europe.  Here in the United States, the laws have not been actually changed, the patent office is just granting the patents where they probably should not be in the first place.  Whether or not this is how things should be is still up for debate though and I have a feeling that it will not be settled anytime soon.

Until the issue is settled, Linux has an uphill battle on its hands because there is always going to be some company out there that will want a piece of the action and will go through any means to get it.  In fact, SCO attempted to sue for intellectual property infringement against Linux but was then sued by Novell because of questions over ownership of said intellectual property.  By the way, SCO is still in court over this issue.  I think that until the question of  “software patents” is answered will continue to see companies threaten the Linux community.

InformationWeek, has a very in depth look at Ubuntu Linux in comparison to Windows Vista.

I just read the entire article and it points out the good, the bad, and the ugly on both sides.  And while it gives Ubuntu fairly high marks in the end, it does point out that Windows is better in most cases.

I am okay with Windows being better in most cases, because Microsoft spends money on development, research, and user testing to ensure they have all the kinks worked out before shipping a product (at least for the most part).  Microsoft has an entire team of people paid to do nothing more than work on the Windows operating system.  While several of the Linux developers are now paid, there are still a lot of them that are not.  They also do not have the research and user testing budgets the Microsoft has.

Overall, Ubuntu Linux is a free alternative to Windows that works as well as Windows, most of the time.  You can get all the special coolness out of Linux that you can with Windows but with a little more reading and effort.  Free is a good price in my book.