Jason Antman’s Blog

I just came by an interesting post on Slashdot, A Public Funded “Microsoft Shop?”. The author works at a publicly-funded hospital and comments that he received an email from management stating:

Information Services is strategically a Microsoft shop and when talking to staff / customers we are to support this strategy. I no longer want to see comments promoting other Operating Systems.

Initially, my anti-Microsoft buzzer went off. But the post also stated that they were ordered to remove Firefox from any computers not specifically authorized by management. As usual, the Slashdot conversation degenerated into a proprietary vs open debate.

As I have to comment on the Microsoft issue, I have two remarks. First, software (an OS, a browser, a text editor, whatever) is a tool. A tool should be chosen base on whether it’s the right one for the job, not just because of who makes it. I’d like to see a major construction company state decree that they’ll only buy Stanley and DeWalt tools. What will their answer be when the plumbers realize that neither of those companies make a simple pipe wrench? “Use a hammer”? Secondly, as is evidenced by history, popularity is a relatively poor indicator of quality, and always ephemeral. Wigs were popular for wealthy men. The telegraph was popular, and many thought the telephone would never catch on. The fluoroscope was popular for shoe fitting. Racism was popular. Smoking was popular. BASIC was the greatest programming language ever. Decisions based solely on popularity are rarely good in the long term.

But, alas, enough of the Microsoft-bashing. What struck me more was the prohibition against Firefox, and what it means for technically-apt employees. Times are changing, and many of the people now entering the workforce are well-versed with technology. The days when employers could expect to give their new hires initial computer training are long gone. And, while many may not see it, the days when every new employee could be expected to know only a common “popular” system (Windows, MS Office, MSIE) are gone, too. Many people who work at universities, such as myself, are seeing browser stats that report less than 40% Windows, with an explosion of Mac-based users and (perhaps thanks to Android, Netbooks, and Ubuntu) a strong growth in the Linux user base.

The Rutgers University student computing labs have both IE and Firefox installed on the Windows machines (and we also have a *very* large number of Mac or dual-boot Windows/Mac clients) and a walk through a busy lab will reveal a strong majority of users on Firefox. Many cash-strapped students, even the ones I knew a few years ago, were using OpenOffice rather than pay for MS Office.

A similar trend can be seen in the new hires and young professionals who simply won’t settle for a corporate cell phone – Windows Mobile, iPhone or Android, they already have a phone and OS that they like, and consider a part of their lives.

There’s a very simple point here – for an increasing number of people, especially those now entering the workforce, technology is an inextricable part of their lives. It’s part of their sense of self, of expression, of free choice. Telling many people what browser they can and can’t use is like telling a new hire a decade or two ago how their handwriting had to look or what size note pad they could use. Asking many of my (even non-techie) friends to switch cell phone OS would be like telling them what color clothes or tie they have to wear to work. Telling the average 20-year-old that they can’t use instant messenger or facebook at work is like telling the average 40-year-old they can’t receive a phone call from their spouse or child. Most especially, with the pervasiveness of Internet access, connected devices and choice in browsers and other software, these choices are being seen as a part of life, a part of technology.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly to many businesses, the role of IT as seen by the end-user is changing, and the role of technology in productivity is changing. For many young college-educated workers, IT is more of a procurement avenue than a support system. Many would happily install the software application of their choice (whether it is Firefox, OpenOffice, or something else) on their own, without the worry of a formal help desk. There’s also the issue of productivity – technologically proficient new hires are already used to a software environment. They’ve been able to choose their own applications, OS, browser, etc. Forcing them to switch – especially if they have been using an application for years and still do at home – will only result in lower productivity and some amount of frustration. I know that I, for one, have almost laughed when people advertising for Linux admin jobs said I’d be using the same Windows desktop environment as all of the users.

Ideas and Rants microsoft

I read a very interesting article on Linux-Mag.com today. The gist of it is that Microsoft (as happily announced in a press release) has submitted 20,000 lines of code for inclusion into the kernel. Specifically, the code is comprised of a number of drivers that will enable Linux to run better under Microsoft Hyper-V.

Yes, that’s right, Microsoft released code under GPLv2 and is asking for it to be put in Linux. They released it under the license that they call “cancer”. And the entire purpose is, essentially, saying “we want your project to run well as a guest under our hypervisor.

The Linux Mag article did touch on some recent news, such as Microsoft’s lawsuit against TomTom (settled in late March) claiming that the Linux kernel infringes their VFAT patents and the 2004 EU antitrust case (PDF).

A number of things are immediately apparent to me:

• The only reason for this is so Linux will virtualize well under Windows/Hyper-V.
• Microsoft doesn’t seem to be making any similar effort to allow Windows to virtualize well under Xen (and it seems to me that many more people would want Windows on a reliable Linux host than the other way around).
• Microsoft reached a settlement with TomTom, but never did anything to indemnify the Linux community at large.
• This is not a Microsoft endorsement (or even recognition) of the GPL.
• Microsoft made threats about Linux violating “over 228″ of its patents in 2007.

There’s a post on Greg Kroah-Hartman’s blog (he’s the kernel maintainer who will – or will not – eventually be in charge of the inclusion of the code). It should be noted that this all started due to a guy who I really admire, Stephen Hemminger, the principal engineer at Vyatta (whose router product I absolutely love, and their mock advertisements are just as wonderful). Steve has a post on his blog giving the background.

So what do I think should be done? Include the code. But first… (I know Microsoft doing all of this at once would be a dream, but maybe one or two of them would be nice)

1. If they haven’t already done so, Microsoft should publicly recognize the GPL and all of its terms as being a legally binding license.
2. Prior to having any Microsoft code included in the Linux kernel, Microsoft publicly states that the Linux kernel, as of the time they submitted their code, does not infringe on any Microsoft intellectual property.
3. It would be nice of Microsoft would agree to some level of cooperation with the Linux community.
4. Microsoft pledges to allow, support, and actively develop for Windows as a guest under Xen and KVM.

Ideas and Rants gpl, kernel, linux, microsoft

To keep it short, I’m sure anyone who winds up here has already heard about the recent Microsoft lawsuit against TomTom, alleging patent infringement. Coverage has been extensive, including GrokLaw and Linux Magazine. While the mentioned patents include car navigation technology (at least the names of the patents seem amazingly vague) and FAT . Most of the news stories I’ve read say that it’s “good for Linux” and will never see the inside of a courtroom.

Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I see the idea behind this as much worse than “good for Linux”. MS chose one company to sue. TomTom just happens to be not only a household name, but also posted a $1.2 Billion loss last year. It seems to me this is more of a FUD campaign than anything else… the best case for Microsoft is that they could strangle TomTom in a legal battle, perhaps force them to go under, and then ensure a media spin along the lines of “Know that company that made the GPS in every car? They used Linux in it, they got sued by Microsoft, and they’re no more.”

While I haven’t always been a fan of TomTom – and am still bothered by the fact that my (stolen, no longer in my possession) TomTom One ran Linux but wouldn’t give me a console or even let me see the filesystem – I’ll be watching this closely, and hoping that the powers that be will not let the angry dinosaur crush a company over a series of patents that are either horribly obvious (anyone other than Garmin having a claim to any GPS-related idea is beyond me) or just horrible (FAT?!?!?!).

On a final note – isn’t it about time that the US finally dealt with this damn software patent thing? Not only does it horribly stifle innovation (not good to do in a bad economy), and I have a hard time grasping the claim that Microsoft’s developers are so all-powerful that they’re the only people that thought of technology X, but it’s about time that the US government got the balls to look Microsoft in the eyes and say, “you’re not the only game in town anymore. Get used to it.”

Ideas and Rants lawsuit, microsoft, patents, tomtom

Internet Security

So, this semester I’m taking a class on Internet Security. Our textbook is Management of Internet Security, 2nd Edition by Michael E. Whitman and Herbert J. Mattord. It seems pretty basic, and very much focused on the management side of things (as opposed to technical). The table of contents is as follows:

1. Introduction to the Management of Information Security
2. Planning for Security
3. Planning for Contingencies
4. Information Security Policy
5. Developing the Security Program
6. Security Management Models and Practices
7. Risk Management: Identifying and Assessing Risk
8. Risk Management: Assessing and Controlling Risk
9. Protection Mechanisms
10. Personnel and Security
11. Law and Ethics
12. Information Security Project Management

Now, given that it’s really a “management” book, I can’t say I’m surprised that it reads like an essay that was graded on a scale of buzzwords-per-sentence. However, it seems to be missing the one chapter that’s the most important – actually, the only chapter that would be in the book if I wrote it – “How to get management to allocate the money you need for proper security.” In fact, skimming over the book, I found a lot of content on general management planning, job descriptions, sample policies, and a lot of other pie-in-the-sky stuff, but not one concrete section dedicated to the most difficult part of security – getting the “resources” to do it right!

Microsoft Lies

Why we would spend time analyzing corporate mission statements in an Internet Security class, I have no idea. That seems, to me, too much like what we covered in “Management of Technological Organizations.” But, we do, and one of the examples used is Microsoft’s Mission and Values statement. Perhaps, being the F/OSS advocate that I am, my reading of it was a bit cynical. Let’s take a look at it.

“At Microsoft, our mission and values are to help people and business throughout the world realize their full potential.” Well, we’re off to a good start. Aside from the fact that they want you to realize that potential using only their software, and use their power and money to actively monopolize (or attempt to) most industries that they enter, this seems pretty run-of-the-mill.

Corporate Citizenship: “Every successful corporation has a responsibility to use its resources and influence to make a positive impact on the world and its people. Microsoft’s Global Citizenship Initiative is focused on mobilizing our resources across the company and around the world, to create opportunities in the communities where we do business, and to fulfill our commitment to serving the public good through innovative technologies and partnerships.” Well. Now we’re getting somewhere. Apparently “a positive impact on the world and its people” is defined as trying to monopolize every sector that Microsoft touches, whether attempting to crush and then buy-out the competition, or through flat-out FUD and billion-dollar marketing campaigns. Hmm… innovative partnerships… as in Novell?

Legal and Corporate Affairs: “Microsoft’s Legal and Corporate Affairs Group works on the cutting edge of business and regulatory issues around the world.” Well, I can’t argue with that, they sure are on the cutting edge. What started with Bill Gates mailing out whiny letters about pirated Altair BASIC has now turned into a global juggernaut, capable of forcing the creation of ISO standards at their whim, and successfully quashing any dissent about obviously flawed and under-reviewed “standards” (which, in fact, simply describe current software, rather than setting any real standard).

Values: As a company, and as individuals, we value integrity, honesty, openness, personal excellence, constructive self-criticism, continual self-improvement, and mutual respect. We are committed to our customers and partners and have a passion for technology. We take on big challenges, and pride ourselves on seeing them through. We hold ourselves accountable to our customers, shareholders, partners, and employees by honoring our commitments, providing results, and striving for the highest quality.

1. integrity – i.e. not creating a draft ISO standard and then offering monetary incentives for acceptance.
2. honesty – when it works. Intentionally making Vista-Capable labeling so ambiguous that it even confuses Microsoft executives? Fine.
3. openness um… did they seriously say that? Openness like… protocol interoperability? Standards that can be implemented without patent violations? An “Open Specification Promise” that doesn’t come with a three page FAQ? Nope. Not Microsoft.
4. constructive self-criticism – Ok, I’ll give them this one. They do, rarely, criticize themselves. Though “constructive” usually means making comments about the poor design of a previous product, and suggesting that everyone upgrade to the new version.
5. continual self-improvement – I’ll give them this one too. In fact, they’re so crazy about it that they’ve been improving the same codebase for decades!
6. mutual respect – See above.
7. We hold ourselves accountable to our customers – Ok. They are offering to allow users to downgrade from Vista to XP.
8. striving for the highest quality – I don’t think so. They’re striving for products that have the highest market share. As long as the quality is acceptable to the majority of users, and the products do what the majority of users need, that’s fine. But wait… apparently they even missed that goal with Vista.

This is just the opinion of one person. My motivations may be diverse, and surely there’s a bit of zealotry in there. After all, if Ford told me I couldn’t put fog lights on my car myself, I had to bring it to the dealer and pay $400, I’d stop buying their cars – and make sure everyone else knew what they did. But there’s also my ever-present desire to make sure people know both sides of the story, and all the facts. The mainstream media (specifically dumbed-down television) rarely reports on the less cheerful side of Microsoft, like the ISO “standard” scandal, or the Vista letters, or the Vista-Capable fiasco. And I find this to be horribly disturbing. Many people don’t realize that there are alternatives to Microsoft products, even ones that are provided by such big names as Sun Microsystems and IBM. But, most striking, is Microsoft’s overwhelming monopoly. Windows’ market share is currently 90.66% or higher. I ask you, what other industries which affect not only consumers, but nearly every aspect of our daily lives (as computing does) would be allowed to have such a monopoly? It has happened in many other American industries – oil, steel, the railroads, telephone service. Where is the government now?

What happened to the America that made massive monopolies illegal? Have we forgotten a supremely part of our history that began in 1980 with the Sherman Act? Or even the recent events with Bell? In order to truly stimulate competition in the software industry, and provide for not only choice but the improved quality, reliability, and security that comes with true software competition, something needs to be done. For starters, how about breaking Microsoft into separate entities – browser, Office, OS, server, etc. And – the important part – preventing any package sales, discounts, or bundling between the separate types of software (and separate companies).

Ideas and Rants microsoft, rutgers, school, security

From PRNewsWire: Microsoft and Novell Deliver Joint Virtualization Solution Through Partners. The headline of the press release: “Supported by Dell and other channel partners, solution includes SUSE Linux Enterprise Server running as optimized guest on Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V.”

Now, maybe I’m not up on the news regarding my favorite distribution, but it seems to me that a deal allowing SuSE to be virtualized as a guest under Windows is not only “joint”, but plain moronic. Despite the marketing efforts of Microsoft, Unix-based systems (including Linux) have always had the upper hand in availability, reliability, and performance.

I must say, from what I’ve heard, Windows Server is getting *much* better in these areas – and I’ve even heard that the latest version includes an option to install without a graphical environment, and even includes a command-line that’s useful. It’s about time.

However, it seems to me, that any virtualization deal between Microsoft and a Linux distributor can provide only one logical solution: Windows Server virtualized as a guest in a high-availability Linux host. More importantly, without the insane per-processor licensing – a per-VM instance license that’s hardware-agnostic and allows VMs to be migrated across hardware as the admin sees fit.

Oh, and one more insight. If Microsoft wants to be a serious player in the virtualization arena, here’s a few “simple” steps:

1. Get Windows Server to work correctly under Xen, VirtualBox, etc. Certify it. Provide the correct guest OS tool packages
2. Provide simple management of Windows in a virtualized environment – minimally, a standard SSH server that’s compatible with OpenSSH, a GUI-less environment, and a serial console.
3. Get rid of per-processor licenses. Provide a basic license that allows for, say, 10 VMs to be running at once, and allows as many installs as needed – the only licensing is based on the amount of VMs actually running. i.e., if you have 10 VMs and one gets corrupted, you can bring that one down and online a back-up image, without violating the license.
4. Make licensing processor-agnostic. Want to migrate a Xen VM (Windows guest) from a dual-core Pentium to an 8-core Xeon, or even a 16 processor SPARC? Sure, no problem.

Ideas and Rants microsoft, novell, suse, virtualization

Well, that’s it. Not only did Verizon and AT&T come out on top in the 700MHz spectrum auction – promising an end to hopes of Google’s utopian ideals of a truly open network – but I just heard that “Office Open XML” was approved as an ISO standard.

I don’t think it even merits comment on my part. The world is run by corporations. Corporations with more money than brains, hopes, or balls. The 700MHz spectrum will become another copy of what American has now – a resource (frequencies) that are “owned by the people”, yet controlled by major corporations, and horribly biased against the interests of the consumer.

Well, OOXML is now a standard. Is it any less flawed? No. Is it any safer for me to implement? No. Does it even contain enough information for me to implement? No. But it’s a specification, and it’s here. While Jason Matusow may have stated that “the patents related to the technology are not a barrier to use – for anyone, in any country, for all time“, I’m still a bit worried about the issues that will crop up with OOXML – not to mention the fact that it’s a standard squarely aimed at eliminating choice (we all know Microsoft will push hard for organizations not to use ODF) and preventing competition in a sector already overwhelmingly dominated by *one* product.

In short, what happened in the past few weeks? A confirmation that the governments and organizations of the world care little about the individual, and fear change. They’re owned by big business, and the 700MHz spectrum will end up being, at best, a marginal improvement over the current restrictive cellular system. And big business doesn’t even have the balls to fight for itself. Or, even worse, doesn’t worry about vendor lock-in or proprietary software because, as long as they keep bending over backwards to follow Microsoft’s every whim, Microsoft will always be there to help them.

I’m surprised that even multinational corporations, who have a data center filled with redundant systems, and fiber running in every direction in case this or that CO goes up in flames, doesn’t consider closed standards, proprietary (possibly patent-encumbered) software, or closed-source software to be as obvious a single point of failure as a critical service running on a single desktop computer. Sure, your vendor might tell you their software will achieve five-nines. But if they discontinue support, or have a few bad quarters, and they won’t fix it for you, what then?

I’m just thankful that there are some people, few and far between, that don’t fall into the trap.

Ideas and Rants 700mhz, microsoft, ooxml, spectrum

Yeah, I almost forgot to link right to the article from Reuters about the EU fining Microsoft $1.35 BILLION USD (899 million euros).

Microsoft’s monopolistic business practices are costing it billions of dollars.

IDEA:
Actually be open. Open up all of your protocols, specifications, APIs. Even start opening up some of your source code, under GPLv3, and assigning patents to the Patent Commons.

Believe it or not, your sales will go up. Maybe then Bill can donate the next $1B in fines to some starving kids who need laptops.

Seriously though, if I could get Windows Server under GPLv3, and do whatever I want – fork it, whatever, I might buy a copy. I’m sure a lot of people would if they realized that they could change it, wouldn’t get locked in, etc.

Ideas and Rants microsoft, patents

Here’s another Groklaw article on recent Microsoft tribulations. This really is starting to get disgusting. It’s not that I hate Microsoft, I don’t. What I hate is their attitude, and their business practices. Everyone else – I mean everyone – makes software that interoperates with other vendors. Microsoft, even after a *billion* dollar fine, won’t. Everyone else uses open, industry-accepted standards. Microsoft doesn’t. Many other vendors open up their code. Microsoft tried to make some vague gesture to, but makes it incompatible with GPL’d code (okay, okay, I know about ZFS…) and says developers can only use it in non-commercial projects. So they open a few things up to hobbyists, and want a pat on the back. It boils down to how they treat customers and developers. Not very well. I don’t like that. I’m not going to start on the technical aspects of Windows, though it seems to be getting better, a baby step at a time. But the bottom line is that Microsoft actively tries to turn the software industry into a facist dictatorship, where you do it Microsoft’s way, or you’re taken out back and shot (ok, bought up and then shut down).

Anyway, from the blog of Zeheda Bhorat, Open Source Programs Manager at Google,

Google believes OOXML would be an insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office.

How can it be that the ISO – the International Organization for Standardization – would actually consider a second, competing standard for document formats. And one that’s as flawed as OOXML? These guys are the ISO. They practically run the world, at least technically. Why don’t they have the balls to look Microsoft in the eye and say, “Hey, moron. We already have a document format standard. It’s called ISO 26300. If you want to have anything to do with the ISO, which sets standards, you can take your 6,000 page specification, put it through a crosscut paper-burning radiation-producing shredder, pay the $320 for a copy of ISO26300, and implement it!”

Ideas and Rants iso, microsoft, ooxml

Well, while I haven’t made much progress on anything interesting – mainly my NMS comparison or any of my other projects – due to my busy schedule, I did get an hour or two to clean up my network at the apartment, swapping out my 24-port Linksys switch in my room for the 5-port Netgear previously used for printing. I threw all of the printers and the print server on their own VLAN on the main 3com switch.

I’ve also started thinking more about MythTV – I use it for TV in my room (feeding a grossly insufficient 21″ CRT monitor), and my roommate has a Dell GX270 by the big TV in the living room, though it was running Freevo (and now has a dead tuner and no RAM, or something like that). So, I decided that I might do things right – drop a 5- or 8-port GigE switch in the apartment, put GigE NICs in the two boxes with tuners (putting MythTV on the GX270 also), and setting up a centralized system. The problem is that the ideal solution would be a single dedicated back-end system for storage and control, with the two tuner/video out boxes just providing A/V I/O. Unfortunately, the two boxes with tuners are both high-spec’ed P4’s, and I’m not sure what I can come up with in terms of a server for the backend.

Now, the question for anyone who may be reading – I’d like to setup a good amount (1-2TB) of storage for this. My roommate wants a RAID configuration, but I don’t see the need for videos – if I lose my TV recordings, I set MythTV to record it again the next time it’s on. Anyway, I have an 8-bay external SCAI enclosure and cards in all of the servers, but SCSI disks are expensive. I was thinking of going to SATA 3.0. Most likely, I’d get some sort of 4-8 disk enclosure, start with 1-3 disks in the 400-750GB range.

So, the question – what type of system specs would be needed to stream audio and video, uncompressed, perhaps even HDTV (we have the TV and cable box, would just need an HD tuner) to remote storage over the network? I was thinking of doing either a Linux master MythTV backend with eSATA cards, or letting each TV computer be its’ own backend, and then doing Solaris/ZFS with iSCSI or ATAoE. Any suggestions? I’m pretty much thinking of using a PowerEdge 2550 for this.

Anyway, I’m also filling up my backup disks at home, and don’t want to shorten my expiration cycle. My nightly backup runs put quite a strain on my main Fast Ethernet LAN, so I’ve been planning for a while on moving to GigE. My thought at home is to setup a second, separate GigE switch/lan, with GigE NICs in all of the servers. Not exactly cheap, but I can pickup a Linux-/Solaris-compatible Negear GA311 for around $40, in addition to the Intel Pro/1000 XT and Asante GigaNIC that I already have. The problem here is finding a good GigE switch – I’d really like something with Telnet, SNMP, VLANs, the works.

In other news, I highly recommend reading the Groklaw story on Microsoft’s latest pledge for interoperability. I especially liked the one quote from the ECIS statement:

For years now, Microsoft has either failed to implement or has actively corrupted a range of truly open standards adopted and implemented by the rest of the industry. Unless and until that behaviour stops, today’s words mean nothing.

More fundamentally, today’s announcement is still all about the rest of the world interoperating with Microsoft on Microsoft’s own terms, not the other way around.

There’s even links to *ten* previous Microsoft statements promising interoperability.

The thing is, this is a promise to interoperate with old-fashioned competitors. It doesn’t enable interoperability with the GPL, which is not compatible with patent licenses, and that is Microsoft’s true competition.

From Michael Cunningham, VP and General Counsel of Red Hat:

Eight years ago the U.S. regulatory authorities, and four years ago the European regulators made clear to Microsoft that its refusal to disclose interface information for its monopoly software products violates the law. So, it is hardly surprising to see even Microsoft state today that “interoperability across systems is an important requirement” and announce a “change in [its] approach to interoperability.” Of course, we’ve heard similar announcements before, almost always strategically timed for other effect. Red Hat regards this most recent announcement with a healthy dose of skepticism. Three commitments by Microsoft would show that it really means what it is announcing today:

• Commit to open standards: Rather than pushing forward its proprietary, Windows-based formats for document processing, OOXML, Microsoft should embrace the existing ISO-approved, cross-platform industry standard for document processing, Open Document Format (ODF) at the International Standards Organization’s meeting next week in Geneva. Microsoft, please demonstrate implementation of an existing international open standard now rather than make press announcements about intentions of future standards support.
• Commit to interoperability with open source: Instead of offering a patent license for its protocol information on the basis of licensing arrangements it knows are incompatible with the GPL – the world’s most widely used open source software license – Microsoft should extend its Open Specification Promise to all of the interoperability information that it is announcing today will be made available. The Open Specification Promise already covers many Microsoft products that do not have monopoly market positions. If Microsoft were truly committed to fostering openness and preventing customer lock-in, it would extend this promise to the protocol and interface information it intends to disclose today. There is no explanation for refusing to extend the Open Specification Promise to “high-volume” products, other than a continued intention on Microsoft’s part to lock customers into its monopoly products, and lock out competitors through patent threats.
• Commit to competition on a level playing field: Microsoft’s announcement today appears carefully crafted to foreclose competition from the open source community. How else can you explain a “promise not to sue open source developers” as long as they develop and distribute only*/ “non-commercial” implementations of interoperable products? This is simply disingenuous. The only hope for reintroducing competition to the monopoly markets Microsoft now controls – Windows, Office, etc. – is through commercial distributions of competitive open source software products.

Amen!!!

Projects GigE, microsoft, mythtv, sata, storage

Some links for today:

Microsoft’s new promised on interoperability, open standards. etc. – somewhat ironic given the Office Open XML debacle on “standards”. And Red Hat’s worries about it. (Ars Technica)

Groklaw’s lengthy analysis of the promises.

Pakistan removed from the Internet, causes global YouTube outage.

A Guardian article on the WikiLeaks debacle – perhaps the biggest affront to the First Amendment this year.

An InformationWeek article about some guys from BlackHat D.C. who said that they will be able to crack GSM encryption in under 30 minutes with $1,000 of technology or 30 seconds with $100,000 (FPGAs – Maybe a cluster of PS3’s?)

A Princeton Unviersity blog about cold boots possibly able to crack the Windows BitLocker system.

Yay! Firefox has hit its’ 500 Millionth download!!! And there was much rejoicing…

An ArsTechnica article on Internet Explorer, what should be done to fix it, and how there can still be a non-standards-compliant browser.

Jeremy’s Blog – the mind behind LinuxQuestions.org – provides a recap of the 2007 LQ Members’ Choice awards. Some interesting winners were VirtualBox for virtualization package, Debain for server distro, Knoppix for Live Distro, Eclipse for IDE/Web Development Environment, Python for language of the year, and – much to my chagrin – vi/vim for editor.

A LinuxJournal article on What’s Next for Open Source and Public Meida.

LinuxInsider – EU taking Microsoft’s promises with a grain of salt, noting that MS has made “at least four similar statements” in the past.

Chris Siebenmann – Where the risk is with virtualization (and iSCSI) and Wireless, machine rooms, and the Asus eeePC.

IBM DeveloperWorks – OOXML: What’s the big deal? – outlining the technical objections to OOXML as a standard. Linked from a rootprompt.org article mentioning that “OOXML is essentially a complete replication of every chunk of data that a Microsoft Office application might possibly save in a file”.

Slashdot YRO – a guy who got hist stock photos stolen, entered into a long legal battle, and won.

Microsoft’s Windows Vista Capable lawsuit granted class-action status.

A Washington Post article on Hans Reiser’s Geek Defense strategy.

A Slashdot post linking to news that Apple sent a cease-and-decist order to the Hymn Project, which produces software to remove DRM from iTunes songs. Apple had their ISP remove all download links. (I guess the only solution is for us all to buy bandwidth right from a NSP…)

Yahoo’s shareholders are suing it for not gobbling up the Microsoft deal.

Comcast getting sued AGAIN for P2P filtering.

A leaked RIAA training video for prosecutors, going so far as to say that IP piracy can lead to arrests for drugs, weapons, or terrorism. It also includes instructions on how to get a RIAA investigator certified as a court expert.

A New York Times article on – gasp – women using the Internet. Linked from Tom Limoncelli’s blog.

Interesting Links and Resources apple, bitlocker, cellphone, EU, firefox, gsm, microsoft, ooxml, pakistan, riaa, virtualization, wikileaks, windows, youtube