Oracle to run your computer?

Oracle has pledged to run your computer. Well, sort of. It's going to be offering support for the RedHat operating system; meaning users can get support from Oracle, rather than the original vendors of the OS.

This is an interesting move for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Microsoft database offering is taking a greater market share, possibly seen by Oracle as a treat to there core database business; Microsoft is locking down the Vista operating system, meaning other vendors cannot access its code or develop applications as easily; and finally, it's another big name supporting open source, 'free' operating systems.

Taking these one at a time, with Microsoft's database first.

Oracle have recently released a free version of its database (limited to 4Gb of data) that can be used for free, anywhere, for anything. One of the historical problems Oracle has had is that users and developers, the geeks of the future, won't touch Oracle, primarily not for any technical reason, there are just other free databases. Microsoft has also released a free version of its database so Oracle couldn't be left behind. The problem is that, although technically superior, coding for Oracle is far from easy to learn due to the lack of graphical interfaces and error messages being beyond useless. Oracle has started to change this and improve its offering, but is still far behind the use ability of the Microsoft offering. And no new geeks means no new company take-up of its (overpriced) database.

Secondly, Microsoft is locking down its next operating system, Vista. How is this related? Well, there will be a decision to be made by users - stick with Windows, an OS they know, but leave all there futures in the Microsoft basket, or switch to the increasingly useable Linux distributions. Will users change? For the majority, no. There are many reasons for this, but primarily Linux, although easier to install than ever before, is a massive mind switch in terms of how files are stored on the computer, how a machine is administered and how programs are installed. Does this different method give a home user any real advantages? Probably not. Will it give them a steep learning curve on backup, restore and the finding of files, undoubtedly. Secondly, the next major problem is finding basic notes on Linux. There aren't any. There is no Microsoft to Linux conversion manual for the uninitiated. There is no list (a high quality, impartial list) of you did it like this on Windows and you need program y to do that on Linux. There out there, but with several different applications performing the same tasks on Linux, which do you need? With Oracle pledging to support the RedHat distribution of Linux things must improve, but with there track record on database usability then the jury is out.

Thirdly, this is another big name pumping cash into open source software. Oracle has millions and millions to spend; and if this is diverted to an operating system then it can only improve, provided it hires the right people and listens to users. I'd suggest hiring some Windows users to take them though what they need to do; probably not many peoples view in the open operating system world, but something they need if there to make any inroads into the operating system market and gain a real user base (i.e. one consisting of the technically deficient as well as the uber geek).

Finally, if Oracle uses some common sense, they will take the open source distribution and use their Oracle database as the 'file system'; similar to the (failed) attempt by Microsoft for Vista. This has numerous (far too many to be listed here!) advantages and really would differentiate a Linux distribution from anything else out there.

The time is now, as the new Vista OS will require a mental shift in philosophy by Windows users making the jump to Linux less of a leap than it would otherwise be.

Blue-Ray V HD-DVD

With the time coming near to the launch of both systems, backed by different companies and incompatible with each other, the time has come to start making a choice.

With the advent of new technology in this ever increasingly geeky world, you may expect that the launch of these competing formats would be state-of-the-art presentations by the rival companies; so I thought I'd take a look.

The site's I checked are what I think are the current release sites, namely, http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/ (domain registered to 'goodby, silverstein & partners') for HD-DVD and http://www.blu-ray.com/ (registered and unknown due to Whois Privacy Protection Service) for the Blue-Ray offerings.

Could you get two more different sites? I think not! The HD site gives a swanky flash user interface with smooth graphics and high quality design; while the Blu-Ray site while providing a website with more information and greater detail on the technology its self, provides the user with a 1990's design that is basic and unimaginative beyond belief.

If the differences in these sites is reflective of the technology developers themselves then no wonder there was no agreement between the two technologies about a common way forward for the next generation of formats.

Purely based on the websites and available information on them (as being a geek I tend to do) then the HD site is going to win hands down in the long run; primarily because the technology is all about better display, clearer graphics and enhanced definition; clearly demonstrated at the HD site. The Blu-Ray technology is likely to be superior, as technologically Sony themselves tend to be, but is likely to lack the finesse of an all round product and fail to make the important first market share; reminiscent of the Mini-Disk v CD battle of a few years ago.

Technically superior does not usually mean success if followed up by poor marketing, bad promotion and limited manufacturer access.

Only time will tell, but I'll go for HD-DVD as a safe bet; although Blu-Ray seems a better format.

Apple sends virus to iPod users

You'd think you'd be safe (at least before you've even opened the box) when the biggest manufacturer of MP3 players sells you an iPod...

Oops. Think again!

http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/

With PC vendors and banks putting the onus on users to ensure there secure on-line, perhaps they should practice what they preach. If you can't even buy hardware virus free then it's hardly a users fault.

Who do Apple blame for the virus problem? You may expect it to be themselves, since there Apples products containing the virus, or you may expect it to be the virus writers. Apparently not.

"we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses"

Says the apple site. Hmm, it's hardly Microsoft shipping out viruses to it's customers now is it. That just smacks of the arrogance that seems to be prevalent across hardware and software vendors that 'dodgy' software is everybody else's fault except there own.

Come on guys, give it a rest. Who else can be to blame except themselves? A question only the reader can answer... but I know my view.

An EU VISTA Hybrid?

After having just read on the BBC site that there is to be a European version of VISTA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6049580.stm) what does this hold for our security?

Whether you agree or not with Microsoft locking down the kernel of it's next operating system, you can't help but wonder if the EU has just created a problem, and a rather large one at that.

The whole of the VISTA kernel was designed to be locked down, which raised problems for Symantec and other security firms. But does one company automatically owe another the right to a business based on competitors products? Apparently so. Strange.

Anyhow, will this new VISTA, with its open Kernel, be as secure as originally envisaged? Probably not, since it goes against the philosophy it was designed to.

Will Microsoft take as much care over the millions of PCs in Europe (after being taken to court yet again), when the bulk of its market is in the US and other countries? Probably not.

Is this going to pose a long term problem for the coming years? Probably.

Will Microsoft get blamed for making insecure software, when it's the EU legal team that's designing its software? Probably.

Is this a shoddy state of affairs when a company (whether you like them or not) can't operate to market demands and decide its own future? Definitely.

What does this hold for the rest of us? Does every application written have to be open source? While this may be some peoples favourite, whatever happened to the right to choice?

Worrying times.