On Operating System

As an avid Linux user, I have seen a lot of debate about the pros and cons of various operating systems (henceforth referred to as OSs). And my current opinion is that there is no best OS for everyone. For me Linux is the best operating system, specifically, Arch Linux, with its extreme customizability, is the best OS for me. But not everyone loves taking things apart and putting them back together the way I do. And probably the majority of computer users don't want to spend multiple hours at a command prompt just so that they can have a system that is customized to their specific needs and wants. And so I will not religiously recommend GNU/Linux to anyone and everyone I meet. And although I personally hate using Mac OS X, I can understand why so many people love it. To put it simply: Macs make easy things easier and hard things harder, while Linux makes easy things harder and hard things easier.

Now, technology is pushed by competition, and so, much as I love Linux, I do not want it to dominate the operating system market. I want there to be competition and I don't care whether it is proprietary or open-source. But for this same reason I have a very big problem with Microsoft Windows. The problem is that they hold way too much of the market, and thereby stifle a good deal of competition. Furthermore, Windows isn't that great of an OS. I have used Windows for many years (including Windows 7), and I have used Linux for a couple of years, and I have used Macs from time to time. Of the three I like Windows the least. Here is a list of the advantages that Windows has, if anyone has something to add to it please post a comment:

1. It comes preinstalled on cheap hardware (admit it Apple hardware is more expensive).
2. It's what most people are used to. If you use it at work or at school, why not use it at home as well?
3. There are a lot of good programs that are only available on Windows. Especially games, and professional software.
4. Hardware drivers are sometimes only available for Windows
5. Compatibility with the rest of the Windows using world

The thing about this list, is that everything on it is a result of Microsoft's near monopoly, not the quality of the product itself. I'm not saying that Windows is a terrible operating system, because it isn't. But it isn't great either. In my opinion it is mediocre, and it relies far too heavily on market power. If computer distributors distributed desktops and laptops preloaded with Ubuntu, and schools and businesses used Ubuntu on all of their computers, then the above list would apply to Ubuntu.

For the betterment of technology through greater competition, I want a more even playing field. The OEM deals that put Windows on just about every consumer computer should be outlawed as monopolistic behavior. Consumers should have the opportunity to choose the Operating System of their choice when purchasing a computer, without having to uninstall an unwanted operating system and installing a new one. The government, and ideally businesses and organizations as well, should support open standards such as ODF, which are OS independent. And perhaps most importantly, schools should have computers running every major OS available to students, so that they can try each one, and find which one works best for them. I understand that some schools may not be able to afford this luxury, but then why are they paying for Windows licenses when Linux is free?

I would like to end this post by saying that although I support Open Source Software, I am not strictly opposed to proprietary software. I am, however, opposed to monopoly. I am perfectly okay with other people using Windows, and OS X. What bothers me is that I have to pay for an operating system I do not want in order to get the hardware I do want, and that when I go to a library or any public (or even private) computer lab, I have to use an operating system I don't really care to use.

Office in the Clouds

I recently heard that Oracle, recent acquirer of Sun Microsystems, and current owner of OpenOffice.org has released a product called "Oracle Cloud Office" in parallel with their latest version of Oracle Office (essentially the paid-for version of Open Office). The thing that interests me is that the Desktop version of the office suite could be integrated with the cloud version. However, I intend to migrate from OpenOffice.org to Libre Office in the near future. And I started thinking, that a really nice feature for Libre Office would be the ability to integrate with Google Docs. After all, many people already have Google accounts, and can easily access Google Docs. Or better yet, Libre Office could simply provide an infrastructure which would developers to create plug-ins that provide interoperability with any cloud office suite.

For simplicity's sake let's just look at Libre Office working with Google Docs. With this set-up multiple Libre Office users could collaborate on a document, using the full editing power of Libre Office, while taking advantage of the collaborative power of Google Docs. And if a collaborator doesn't wish to use Libre Office they can still edit the document using Google Docs. Or conversely, someone who doesn't want to use the Google Docs interface could edit a document using Libre Office.

Personally, I believe that while Cloud Computing is useful and interesting, it will never entirely replace traditional desktop computing, at least not for me. At the moment at least web applications are not as feature rich, or as fast as desktop applications. And with Cloud computing, an internet connection is absolutely necessary. When an internet connection is unavailable, or prohibitively slow, Cloud Computing simply can't compete with desktop computing. So the optimum solution is to have desktop applications which will work with or without an internet connection, and can interact with Cloud Computing services when an internet connection is available.

The future of film

My family recently tried the free month-long trial of Netflix. While it is kind of a cool service, I was rather disappointed in the "watch instantly" feature. Many of the movies that we were interested in were only available on DVD. I have been unable to find a pattern in what movies are available for online streaming and which aren't. Movies that aren't available include both old black and white movies and recent releases, popular movies and not-so popular movies. And while I can understand that obtaining licenses to stream popular films is expensive. Consumers would undoubtedly be willing to pay more for the service.

On another note, Disney has said that starting in 2011 they will no produce their movies on Blu-Ray only. DVD's have been protected by DRM for quite some time, which produces a legal roadblock to storing your movies on a hard-drive or flash drive (including iPods and other media players). However, the technical matter of overcoming the DRM was (well still is) incredibly easy (I won't go into the details, because they are easy enough to find, and I could get into legal trouble by "distributing" a means of circumnavigating DRM). Blu-Ray discs on the other hand have stronger DRM, and it is difficult to rip a Blu-Ray disc, in fact it is difficult simply to play a Blu-Ray disc with a computer (or so I have heard).

Now, my operating system of choice is Linux, which creates even more problems for me. I'm the first to admit that Linux is not for everyone, but it allows me to have much finer control over my computer than the two more popular OS's, and some of my favourite apps are only available for Linux. However, when it comes to playing movies, Linux does not prevail. In order to play most DVD's you need to install a library which is illegal to distribute in binary form in the United States, which means you either break the law, compile the program yourself, or don't watch DVD's on your computer. With Blu-Rays it's worse. At the moment the only way to watch Blu-Ray's is to first rip the disc, and then play it. Which is rather inconvenient if you just want to pop in a DVD and watch it once. And then there is the annoying fact that Netflix specifically blocks Linux from streaming from their service. Talk about discrimination.

So, what is my point? My point is that the film industry should be more concerned about the internet than about the next generation of digital discs. Our technology is becoming increasingly reliant on the internet, and increasingly more mobile. Blu-Ray's are nice, but I don't see them surviving long as the primary format for films. Rather I expect that soon, when we watch a movie it will be streamed from the internet. Look at the popularity of services like YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix Watch Instantly. I foresee that companies that provide similar services, if they provide quality products, will slowly replace physical media. But what such companies should remember, is that for it to be successful the streaming needs to be available to all platforms. Yes Linux is used by a small minority, but that is still thousands of potentially paying customers, and Android is based on Linux. All these millions of Android users will certainly want to stream movies on their phones. In today's technology world, physical media is becoming less and less relevant. Software is now downloaded and installed from the internet rather than installed from multiple CD-ROMs, music is played on portable media players and on hard drives, and is often streamed from the internet as well. In fact Google has recently released its Chrome OS with the intent that everything will be stored in "the cloud," meaning that all the user's data is stored on the internet, rather than tied to a single computer. I'm still waiting for the film industry to realize the importance of the internet though. You might object, Blu-Rays will still have a place in Blu-Ray players connected to TV's. However, I disagree, many Blu-Ray players are actually able to connect to the internet, and in fact a small, special purpose computer designed for streaming from the internet to the TV can actually be cheaper than a Blu-Ray player. And besides, if like me, you happen to have an old computer that you no longer need, you can convert it into a streaming device for your TV.

The internet is also already starting to change the movie industry in another way. That is, by allowing amateurs and hobbyists to cheaply produce and distribute their own creations. At the moment most amateur created content was created independently, and is generally low quality and short. However, it is possible that hobbyists from around the world could collaborate over the internet and produce full length films, that could then be distributed, either for free or for a price, over the internet.

I don't pretend to know the future, but I would be very surprised if the internet did not play an important role in the future of film.