Google has recently added a function to Gmail to allow a user to make calls to "normal" telephones right from Gmail. All you have to do is click the phone button in the chat window, select your country, enter the telephone number and click "Call". This allows you to call internationally at very reduced rates and apparently it's free to the United States. It seems that each user has a token $0.10 credit by default to give it a try. so... why not? I've tried to call my cellphone and... well, it works!
YAY! Eventually Google has added video call support for Linux. This allows a user with a web cam to initiate a video call with another user from within their browser. This feature has been around for a while in the Windows though, but can finally be installed from within the browser by clicking on a button in the chat window. So far, apparently, only Ubuntu/Debian based systems are supported with RPM's to follow.
Cloud computing in the extreme - Is this really the "future"? I'm doubting it a bit in spite of this being the big buzz word in IT at the moment. I've come accross eyeOS (http://eyeos.org/) and the excellent OOS (http://oos.cc), which is a complete "OS" running in the could. In the eyeOS case, you can run it in your cloud. WHAT? Basically, it's a complete operating system which runs on a server somewhere on the Internet, or it can be deployed on servers within a company's network and is accessed via a standard web browser. What are the advantages of this? There are numerous theoretical advantages from security (fewer viruses and better document security hopefully), low hardware requirements for end users and associated cost benefits, instant upgrades to universal accessiblity from numerous devices. So for all the advantages, it seems an obvious direction.
Well, back in the day, this was largely what the IT world looked like - There were servers and dumb terminals which had a network connection and little else. Everything was executed, stored and processed on the server. So what happened? PC became more powerful and useful as standalone devices and so we ended up with disconnected home computers, being able to play video games movies etc. So, it seems as though we're moving back to the "old way"... OK, this time round is a little different as many devices have a 24/7 internet connection and therefore network connectivity is less of an issue, but there are still many applications that don't lend themselves to fully online operating system such as 3D graphical games. Ok, once again, there are exceptions to this rule as I've seen Quake running over the net. But just because it can be done, it doesn't mean that it's ideal. There are plenty of other classes of software that doesn't lend itself to this either.
There wouldn't be the huge amounts of money pumped into this if it wasn't a possibility... Well, I believe it's going to be a mixed world. There will be numerous online apps which we will (and already do) use, but there will always be a need for the "normal" desktop computer. So... will the online operating system become the defacto standard...? I doubt it.
Well, back in the day, this was largely what the IT world looked like - There were servers and dumb terminals which had a network connection and little else. Everything was executed, stored and processed on the server. So what happened? PC became more powerful and useful as standalone devices and so we ended up with disconnected home computers, being able to play video games movies etc. So, it seems as though we're moving back to the "old way"... OK, this time round is a little different as many devices have a 24/7 internet connection and therefore network connectivity is less of an issue, but there are still many applications that don't lend themselves to fully online operating system such as 3D graphical games. Ok, once again, there are exceptions to this rule as I've seen Quake running over the net. But just because it can be done, it doesn't mean that it's ideal. There are plenty of other classes of software that doesn't lend itself to this either.
There wouldn't be the huge amounts of money pumped into this if it wasn't a possibility... Well, I believe it's going to be a mixed world. There will be numerous online apps which we will (and already do) use, but there will always be a need for the "normal" desktop computer. So... will the online operating system become the defacto standard...? I doubt it.
Hmmmm.... Gave Gnome Shell a try recently to try get a peak at what the new upcoming Gnome 3 may look like.
Apparently Gnome shell won't be compatible with Compiz. I.E. you can't run both at the same time - So it's a question of which one? I've used it for a while now and not sure i like it... It's better than the "standard" interface (minus compiz), but all in all, I'd rather use Compiz. Not considering any technical reasons such as speed, memory use etc. the reason is because a few of my favourite features wont be available, "Wobbly windows", Desktop Cube, Expo, Ring Switcher etc. So... If the new Ubuntu/ Gnome does ship with it, for now I'd rather change back to Compiz. Fortunately it's should be easy enough. though. And once again... the beauty of Linux - use whatever you like.
Apparently Gnome shell won't be compatible with Compiz. I.E. you can't run both at the same time - So it's a question of which one? I've used it for a while now and not sure i like it... It's better than the "standard" interface (minus compiz), but all in all, I'd rather use Compiz. Not considering any technical reasons such as speed, memory use etc. the reason is because a few of my favourite features wont be available, "Wobbly windows", Desktop Cube, Expo, Ring Switcher etc. So... If the new Ubuntu/ Gnome does ship with it, for now I'd rather change back to Compiz. Fortunately it's should be easy enough. though. And once again... the beauty of Linux - use whatever you like.
According to ABI research, Linux will be the dominating operating system on Mobile devices by 2015:
"The number of recent Linux-oriented initiatives in the mobile industry attests to the fact that Linux will be a key technology in the next-generation of netbooks, media tablets, and mobile Internet devices (MIDs). Led by both Google’s Chrome OS and Google’s Android, the growth of Linux-enabled mobile devices will outstrip the growth of total mobile devices, and will comprise 62% of the operating systems shipping in all mobile devices by 2015." http://www.abiresearch.com/research/1005531-Linux+for+Mobile+Devices
This is a very interesting forecast which has spin-off effects for the rest of the Linux world. If a user is running "Linux" on their cellphone, there's firstly a lot more awareness of Linux based desktop operating systems and secondly, a greater chance that they'd be prepared to try a Linux flavour on their desktop. Finally, if Linux desktop usage achieves the required critical mass, there will be a much larger availibility of applications for Linux (both open source as well as proprietary). With the widespread adoption of the Linux kernel on various devices, contributions to the kernel are coming from many different sources. It's no longer only work done by a few "hackers" sitting at home - it's now really big corporates. With many mobile operating systems including Google Android running on a slight modification of the standard Linux kernels, I'm sure there will upstream contributions, ensuring an even better OS for mobile, desktop and server Linux OS's. With so many role players (and big ones at that), I can't fail to see how this wont end up being the dominant operating system over all spheres.
The future I see for the IT world of the future is one of a Linux kernel for most devices and a mix of open source and proprietary software running on top. Standards are becoming more and more important in every area which must be "owned" by everyone. Until now many standards have been defined in terms of protocols, but I see the actual operating system kernel as a potential "standard". The writing is pretty much on the wall for the Microsoft Mobile OS, unless Windows Phone 7 can change this. In the same way that Mac's were one of the leading players, their market share has dropped off significantly over the past 20 years to somewhere between 5% and 6%. The long time use of the PowerPC processor has been eventually dropped for the more widely used Intel based processors. One advantage for Microsoft at this point, is the interoperability of their software and devices which they have leveraged very effectively in the past (see the history of Word/Office, Internet Explorer etc.). Users are probably less likely to want to change devices unless it is supported by their laptop, XBox, tablet PC and coffee machine. Unless Windows Phone 7 is out of this world, I feel that it will just be a matter of time before Microsoft will have to concede the mobile market, however I doubt that it would be a sudden switch over - change takes time.
As a wild question, would Microsoft ever move over to Linux kernel if they realised that they were in a loosing battle???
"The number of recent Linux-oriented initiatives in the mobile industry attests to the fact that Linux will be a key technology in the next-generation of netbooks, media tablets, and mobile Internet devices (MIDs). Led by both Google’s Chrome OS and Google’s Android, the growth of Linux-enabled mobile devices will outstrip the growth of total mobile devices, and will comprise 62% of the operating systems shipping in all mobile devices by 2015." http://www.abiresearch.com/research/1005531-Linux+for+Mobile+Devices
This is a very interesting forecast which has spin-off effects for the rest of the Linux world. If a user is running "Linux" on their cellphone, there's firstly a lot more awareness of Linux based desktop operating systems and secondly, a greater chance that they'd be prepared to try a Linux flavour on their desktop. Finally, if Linux desktop usage achieves the required critical mass, there will be a much larger availibility of applications for Linux (both open source as well as proprietary). With the widespread adoption of the Linux kernel on various devices, contributions to the kernel are coming from many different sources. It's no longer only work done by a few "hackers" sitting at home - it's now really big corporates. With many mobile operating systems including Google Android running on a slight modification of the standard Linux kernels, I'm sure there will upstream contributions, ensuring an even better OS for mobile, desktop and server Linux OS's. With so many role players (and big ones at that), I can't fail to see how this wont end up being the dominant operating system over all spheres.
The future I see for the IT world of the future is one of a Linux kernel for most devices and a mix of open source and proprietary software running on top. Standards are becoming more and more important in every area which must be "owned" by everyone. Until now many standards have been defined in terms of protocols, but I see the actual operating system kernel as a potential "standard". The writing is pretty much on the wall for the Microsoft Mobile OS, unless Windows Phone 7 can change this. In the same way that Mac's were one of the leading players, their market share has dropped off significantly over the past 20 years to somewhere between 5% and 6%. The long time use of the PowerPC processor has been eventually dropped for the more widely used Intel based processors. One advantage for Microsoft at this point, is the interoperability of their software and devices which they have leveraged very effectively in the past (see the history of Word/Office, Internet Explorer etc.). Users are probably less likely to want to change devices unless it is supported by their laptop, XBox, tablet PC and coffee machine. Unless Windows Phone 7 is out of this world, I feel that it will just be a matter of time before Microsoft will have to concede the mobile market, however I doubt that it would be a sudden switch over - change takes time.
As a wild question, would Microsoft ever move over to Linux kernel if they realised that they were in a loosing battle???
Ok, so I said that I was going to give the latest Ubuntu a go and that I did a while ago. Coming from a MS Windows point of view, I've always been accustomed to the next version being a big "upgrade" on the previous version. (Ok, this is a very controversial view seeing that it's not always true.) But, what I mean is that there were always pretty big changes. When it comes to Ubuntu, 6 months doesn't give a huge amount of time to introduce changes. So, it's a double edged sword - on the one hand it's the latest and greatest, but on the other, it's kinda more of the same. But in all fairness, I think their release cycle strategy gives the best of both worlds - those that want the absolute latest can have it and those that don't want to be upgrading every 6 months can stick to the LTS (Long Term Support) version. So, Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx is the LTS version and therefore is quite an important milestone as Canonical will be supporting it for the next 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on the server. But, does it live up the the hype?
Firstly, I'll concerntrate on the changes between 9.10 and then later for those upgrading from the previous LTS.
Pressing the power button had me booting into Ubuntu on an "average" machine in a timed 16 seconds. (with the obligatory disclaimer, "actual results may vary.") So far so good, very impressive... Once booted, There's no longer an Orange/brown theme - it's now a purple kinda hue. Not my favourite as mentioned before, but not a big deal. Three clicks and it's gone.
At some point there had been rumors of Gnome 3 possibly being in 10.04. Not so - It's currently still using the Gnome 2.30 interface. In other words, it doesn't look massively different from before. It's just slightly more refined. There are two more themes introduced called Ambiance and Radiance. They're OK, but I normally end up setting my own anyway. Interestingly, the close/ minimise/ maximise buttons have moved to the left hand side of the title bar à la Mac style. If that doesn't suite you (and personally, I'm used to it on the right) it can be changed however.
One of the bigger changes in terms of applications/functions is the social networking side. The "Me Menu" integrates with Google Talk, AIM, Yahoo Messenger and ICQ, and allows users to broadcast to services like Facebook and Twitter via the built-in Empathy chat client and Gwibber microblogging client. A one stop shop for all social accounts could come in handy for many users and it's probably a big plus. There are also a few changes to applications - some added and Gimp removed. Interesting...
On the technical side, there have been improvements to hardware support, kernel etc, but overall it's not a massive change from 9.10. But as mentioned before, this being an LTS version, canonical probably doesn't want to introduce massive changes as they'd have to support it for a while.
So... The million $$$ question is... is it worth changing to the new 10.04? About two month's after giving it a go on another machine, I still haven't swapped from 9.10 to 10.04 on my primary work machine as yet. I found one or two small problems with it and the additional social functionality wasn't quite enough to warrant an upgrade to the new version. That said however, if you're new to Ubuntu/ Linux, it's definitely a brilliant operating system.
Firstly, I'll concerntrate on the changes between 9.10 and then later for those upgrading from the previous LTS.
Pressing the power button had me booting into Ubuntu on an "average" machine in a timed 16 seconds. (with the obligatory disclaimer, "actual results may vary.") So far so good, very impressive... Once booted, There's no longer an Orange/brown theme - it's now a purple kinda hue. Not my favourite as mentioned before, but not a big deal. Three clicks and it's gone.
At some point there had been rumors of Gnome 3 possibly being in 10.04. Not so - It's currently still using the Gnome 2.30 interface. In other words, it doesn't look massively different from before. It's just slightly more refined. There are two more themes introduced called Ambiance and Radiance. They're OK, but I normally end up setting my own anyway. Interestingly, the close/ minimise/ maximise buttons have moved to the left hand side of the title bar à la Mac style. If that doesn't suite you (and personally, I'm used to it on the right) it can be changed however.
One of the bigger changes in terms of applications/functions is the social networking side. The "Me Menu" integrates with Google Talk, AIM, Yahoo Messenger and ICQ, and allows users to broadcast to services like Facebook and Twitter via the built-in Empathy chat client and Gwibber microblogging client. A one stop shop for all social accounts could come in handy for many users and it's probably a big plus. There are also a few changes to applications - some added and Gimp removed. Interesting...
On the technical side, there have been improvements to hardware support, kernel etc, but overall it's not a massive change from 9.10. But as mentioned before, this being an LTS version, canonical probably doesn't want to introduce massive changes as they'd have to support it for a while.
So... The million $$$ question is... is it worth changing to the new 10.04? About two month's after giving it a go on another machine, I still haven't swapped from 9.10 to 10.04 on my primary work machine as yet. I found one or two small problems with it and the additional social functionality wasn't quite enough to warrant an upgrade to the new version. That said however, if you're new to Ubuntu/ Linux, it's definitely a brilliant operating system.
