Robert X. Cringely speculates on what’s really going on with SCO, Microsoft, and Linux. I think his basic point is right (that SCO kicking up FUD will create an opening for Microsoft to leverage Unix or Linux in a proprietary way), but a peek at an existing product, as well as one that’s in beta right now, suggests something simpler than “Windex” may be in the works.

Services for Unix
Cringely says “I can only come to the conclusion that Redmond is thinking of actually using that license, selling its own version of Unix.” I believe that Microsoft is covering its butt because they already sell their own version of Unix (sort of). It’s called Interix, and it ships as part of Services for Unix.

(And yes, “gcc”, “g++”, “g77″, and “gdb” are not typos; Microsoft ships
GNU software *and* charges money for it :-) On top of that, my
understanding is that there is significant proprietary goop between
Win32 and Interix such that you couldn’t build anything useful out of
the sources that the GPL requires Microsoft to ship, but I’d welcome corrections on that point.)

Microsoft Virtual Server
But wait–there’s more. Microsoft recently acquired a chunk of Connectix, Virtual Server. With Virtual Server, Microsoft
now has the technology to embed multiple operating systems within a
Windows 2003 Server. The first stated target for this is Windows NT, so
that users will be able to run legacy code alongside Windows 2003 without destabilizing the core operating system.

Since Virtual PC supports many flavors of Unix, why not embed an SCO flavor of Linux into Windows Server 2003 Web Edition ($399, no per-seat licenses), and say “OK, we’ve got all the advantages of Linux plus more.”? This could be an optional package, an Interix on steroids, and they could offer it for free
(or perhaps it would be serviced through SCO).

OK, time to come back down to earth: I think Microsoft won’t get in the business of shipping Unix. Instead, they’ll point to the Virtual Server technology and say, “bring any x86 Unix you damn well please; it will run in this sandbox, and SCO won’t sue you because we licensed Unix from them.”

What do you think? Is there really anything to read into this weirdness or is it totally random?

Related link: https://weblogs.oreilly.com/

For users of Mozilla, there’s a huge realm of additional plugins and techniques you can use to enhance your browser’s power. First off, appearance wise, I like subdued minimalism. I use the “Cold Mettle” skin for Trillian (when I’m stuck using Win32, that is), and I use the Pinball scheme for Mozilla - subdued and minimal.

As a web designer, you should attempt validity in your markup at all time. Checky is invaluable in this regard, giving instant access to dozens of validators, ranging from CSS, HTML, XHTML, accessibility, and RDF. Configure the services you want, jump to a page, and hit F12. I prefer tab loading, so up’ll pop four new tabs with my validation results waiting. Very time saving.

As a web programmer or server administrator, it’s often helpful to see the actual HTTP headers that are being passed from your server to the browser. livehttpheaders is your answer, offering a new tab under “View Page Info”, as well as a live viewer in a separate window. If you’re using Mozilla in the first place, this can save you time from jumping into a shell to issue a HEAD.

Care only for fun? cardgames and games

For those with many bookmarks (myself, I’m rounding 1600, all anally categorized), check out bookie, a server based data store of your favorites. It’s a little bit more than a plugin - you’ll have to run a Java application on a central server, but it can prove handy if you’re jumping from machine to machine (and don’t want to fiddle with email attachments - my current lowtech solution). You can dump more power into your Bookmarks with Bookmark Keywords (and here and here). Alternatively, you could make your own custom toolbar to further distinguish your collection.

Did I miss any? What has increased your browsing power?

Dateline: Sam’s Newsstand, NYC:

It has just been reported that six Butterfinger candy bars were illegally downloaded into a college student’s backpack from Sam’s newsstand in New York City. The candy was then distributed to friends who are know to have a craving for this chocolate-covered peanut butter confection.

Candy Makers Association spokesperson Rillary Hosen quickly responded by saying, “I thought Sam’s had adequately secured his newsstand. Apparently, offering single purchases of our candy for 99 cents just isn’t good enough for some people. We’re looking into once again, only offering case purchases, and from more responsible retail outlets.”

Crack industry reporter, Frankly Speaking, has published an article quoting Sam as saying, “Yeah, I lost a few bucks cause of those punks. But that happens sometimes. Overall, I had a very good day and sold nearly two cases of candy bars. I’ll try to keep a better eye on things, but I don’t want to inconvenience my good customers.”

While lawyers argue over the constitutionality of only offering case purchases of candy bars, no comment was available from the talented people who actually make the desired commodity.

———

I think the news flash above, and the article I read this morning, Hackers bite Apple in its iTunes by David Zeiler, is typical of the press I’ve seen about music sharing, the Apple Music Store, downloading music, etc.

I see quotes from industry analysts, RIAA, and the EFF. But once again, I don’t know what the actual artists are thinking. They are the ones who create the content that everyone else is arguing about. I’m tired of listening to the RIAA. I want to hear from the musicians.

Please post any links you have to music artists commenting on the Apple Music Store and related issues so we can hear what they have to say.

There’ve been a number of interesting releases in the game design arena lately, all of which are coming from New Riders. Two perk my interest immediately, the first being from Ernest Adams, one of my favorite game design speakers / writers / whatever’s. I first fell in love with his monthly Gamasutra columns, and I heartily expect the same with Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design. Next is another release from a highly-respected designer, Chris Crawford on Game Design, which should arrive in June. Then there’s a “new” (second/revised?) edition of Game Architecture and Design from Andrew Rollings, slated for October. Lastly, Designing Online Games: An Insiders Guide from Jessica Mulligan and Bridgette Patrovsky. Suffice it to say, New Riders will be getting a decent amount of my money in the coming months.

Note that these books focus on design - if you’re looking for heavy code usage, etc., you won’t really find them here. And that’s a good thing. Especially when you’re thinking of making a game in Perl. Which is my next project (for a very small sampling of where I’m heading, check out an old year 2000 screed I wrote: Where’s My Browser Based?!).

As I chat with friends online, there’s lots of enthusiasm for the upcoming MacHack and Mac OS X conferences. And there should be. Both of those events will be geek heaven on earth.

But when Macworld East comes up, the main thing I hear is, “Oh, well Steve Jobs isn’t going to do the keynote this year,” and little else. Now granted, since I’m on the faculty for this event, I have a certain amount of enthusiasm for it. But, also, from the O’Reilly perspective, I think this show is noteworthy, especially for those of you on the East Coast.

The focus of Macworld East is for general Mac users and for creative professionals and hobbyists. For some of us, this is the really fun stuff. Digital music, photography, video, Web design, graphics, publishing, and a host of other endeavors. Even when I’m plowing through a 7,000 word tutorial on Cocoa programming, I’m enjoying iTunes, Safari, iChat, and the other niceties that separate the Mac from other platforms. It’s these distinguishing characteristics that will be the focus of Macworld East.

O’Reilly & Associates didn’t even bat an eye as IDG reconfigured the show. We’re looking forward to it as much as ever. Why?

We have a great booth (322) that will be brimming with new titles, such as Mac OS X Hints, iPhoto 2, iMovie 3 and iDVD, the Digital Video Pocket Guide, and if you haven’t had a chance to browse through our wildly popular Mac OS X Hacks title yet, this would be a great opportunity to do so.

David Pogue and I will be teaching at the show too — both of us in the O’Reilly booth, and as part of the Macworld conference program. I have an all day workshop, Mastering Digital Photography, as well as an iPhoto Tips and Tricks session with Rick Smolan, and a Digital Photography Secrets seminar too.

Many of our O’Reilly writers have committed to hanging around the booth to answer questions, sign books, and visit with readers. And this stuff is just a tiny part of what’s going to prove to be a very stimulating conference.

It’s true, Steve isn’t going to be there (as far as we know), but the O’Reilly Mac division really values this East Coast show, and we don’t want to miss an opportunity to meet you, hear what you have to say, and hopefully show you a trick or two along the way.

Eric Burke’s recent weblog Simplicity and “Getting It” is so right in many ways. He makes great points about the training of programmers and refers to one of the books on my “must read more than once list”, Andy Hunt and Dave Thomas’ The Pragmatic Programmer. For related interviews by Andy and Dave, check out Bill Venners’ ten part series at artima.com. One of the most important points Eric makes is this.

What troubles me is the observation that we have legions of programmers who don’t seem to “get it” when it comes to writing maintainable code. They are happy to produce reams of code that seems to solve the immediate problem at hand, and are perfectly content to move on to the next problem, leaving all of this horrible code behind.

Compare that with Bob Cringely’s article Refactoring, refactoring.. Cringely doesn’t worry about maintainable code. He only cares about working code. He writes:

The key problem, as I wrote last week, is that refactoring means monkeying with working code. If the program isn?t working, you don?t refactor it. Refactoring is supposed to be IMPROVING code, not fixing it. By definition, you only refactor code that is already working, which where I come from is scary. Working code is a valuable asset since it is hard to get right (at least for me) and takes time. Touching working code is always a risk and so there should be a darned good reason for doing it. Adding features, worthwhile refactoring, or bug fixing are all possible good reasons. Tinkering with code or cleaning it up is not.

Ken Auer brought a group together a year ago to talk about software apprenticeship. If creating software is a craft, then we need to find better ways to get meaningful interaction between experienced practicioners (masters) and those entering the field (apprentices). If I could spend a year pairing with ((fill in the name of a software professional you really respect)) would you value that as much as an academic degree? What is a BS, MS, or PhD meant to convey?

Can we be certain that the people teaching at the college level are qualified to train new programmers? I argued at the summit that there was value in academic training. Others argued that too often those teaching programming had never developed or maintained code. They’d never written code for a client and weren’t experimenting with new languages. Check out chromatic’s article on Programming Annoyances. He continues to learn new languages so he can apply the best tool to the job at hand.

I’ve ended many of my talks to professionals these past couple of years with a challenge for audience members to adopt local colleges and universities. The professors can’t keep up — spend some time giving a talk or two on some new technique or technology you are using. Then this year a university position came open nearby. I encouraged a couple of friends to apply for the position. I even applied for the position. There are many reasons not to hire me — but the reason I and my friends were not considered was that we didn’t have a PhD in CS. The job listing explicitly said that that was ok. I think there are many with a PhD in CS who would be fabulous teachers but I think you unwisely limit so many talented people from the pool when you draw this line.

I read a posting like Eric’s and think, “boy, I could learn a lot from him.” I spend time with Uncle Bob Martin and think, “he is one of the best teachers I’ve ever had.” I go to lectures by James Duncan Davidson, Jason Hunter, and countless others and come away so much richer. This little school would only consider hiring them if they had a PhD in CS. Not being able to learn from this rich pool of talented people, in my opinion, is hurting the next generation of programmers.

Who should train programmers and how?

The question I used to be asked all the time, “Is digital photography going to replace film?” is now being replaced by the audio version, “Will online music replace CDs?” If you’re in a hurry and don’t have time for the rest of this post, the answer to both questions is “No.”

I’ll start with music because thanks to the Apple Music Store, many of us are all a buzz about legally buying single tracks online without having to bother with a subscription service. (Although, realistically speaking, Mac OS X is a subscription service. I seriously doubt that the next release, Panther, will be free.)

Aside from that, the convenience of buying music online through the Music Store is unmatched. It’s terrific. But it’s not CD quality. I read a nice little article where Gunnar Van Vliet, self-described Mac user and music lover, wanted to know how good AAC was in comparison to MP3, and finally to see if it could come close to standard CD. AAC is the codec that Apple is using for its Music Store. It’s very good, but according to Gunnar, it’s not CD quality. And my ears agree.

My view is that online music is a different way to acquire and listen to music. It sounds great when you plug in your earphones; it’s good over a DJ’s PA system, but on a high end stereo system in your living room, you can tell the difference between AAC and the original CD. Both versions are going to be around for a long time. They serve different purposes.

It’s the same with digital photography. I have a 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 10D. This is a great camera, and I enjoy shooting with it more than any other right now. So am I going to toss my Contax RX and Elan 7 35mm bodies? No way. Film is different than digital. I like both. And to be a complete photographer, I need both.

VHS did not put movie theaters out of business, AAC won’t hurt CD sales, and film photography is here to stay. We have parallel universes right now, and I’m digging it. What a great time to enjoy and create movies, pictures, and music.

You want 5,000 songs in your pocket? You got it. Want the clarity of CD on a high end stereo. Enjoy. Store all of your photos on a FireWire drive, or make fine art enlargements from film — it’s your choice. And I didn’t even have time to get to digital video…

Related link: https://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/tk4mpeg4

In an e-mail to the M4IF technotes mailing-list yesterday, IBM announced a new collection of all-Java MPEG-4 tools. This powerful media standard now has a player and a collection of tools that theoretically runs anywhere. Very, very cool.

Once you download the code, notice that only .bat files are included. If you are running a non-Windows OS, take the time to groan. Then convert it to a shell script or appropriate. For example, the M4Play.bat, which looks like this:

   java -cp .;IBMToolkitForMpeg4.jar M4Play %*

can be easily rewritten as a unix shell script m4play.sh:

   java -classpath .:IBMToolkitForMpeg4.jar M4Play $*

Run the batch-file or script with no arguments for an interactive mode, or with the the file path or URL of media to play:

I’ve only had enough time this morning to play with the decoder client, but it’s already a very encouraging improvement over the previous MPEG-4 codec, which could only play MPEG-4 video inside AVI files (a kludgy scheme popularized by DivX), instead of the real .mp4 format. In fact, “where do I get something that this can play?” was a popular comment on the old codec’s discussion forum. The new release contains over 100 samples, including 2D graphics, animation, various audio and video codecs, and XMT (MPEG-4’s XML-based markup).

And yes, it will play DivX AVI’s, real .mp4’s, and the AAC files created by the new version of iTunes, if you change their extension from .m4a to .mp4 (but it won’t play the DRM’ed AAC files from the iTunes Music Store).

If you’re on Mac or Windows and have paid for QuickTime Pro, it’s easy enough to use the Export menu-item to convert any movie to an ISMA-complient .mp4 file that the IBM player can handle. Here’s a shot from a video I made for an upcoming OnJava.com article:

Don Box says “Maybe that 17″ PowerBook isn’t such a bad idea.” Here are some hastily scrawled notes on my experiences running .NET apps under Virtual PC on a slightly underpowered PowerBook:

My primary machine is a 12″ PowerBook, which is somewhat crippled by a
small L2 cache and a lack of L3 cache (and Connectix strongly recommends
using it on a machine with L3). Still, Virtual PC runs pretty well.
It’s nowhere near as fast as VMWare on x86, simply because it has to
re-interpret x86 machine code where VMWare can simply hand it off to the
underlying processor.

Some things are slow; for reasons well over my head, the ngen portion of
the .NET Framework install takes longer than I’d expect. I used to use
VPC on a G3 iBook, and ngen was intolerable. It’s not as bad on my G4.
This seems like it could be related to the CPU cache size and speed,
though.

Visual Studio is pretty slow, but then again it’s pretty slow on my 600mhz
Pentium III laptop, and I use vim and the command-line compilers anyhow.
So, for most .NET programming, I don’t really notice any speed difference
(except the damn SDK documentation, which takes ages to load each
documentation node).

Also, my .NET programming is confined to some hefty batch jobs that use
reflection and XML to emit DocBook source for things like Part IV of C# in
a Nutshell. And to be honest, that app grew organically and
pathologically, and I have lots of ideas for making it run a lot faster
(something as simple as caching all the raw reflection data on disk and rewriting most of it in Perl :-). But it’s still a good test of performance, and
with each new release of VPC, this stuff has gotten a bit faster (it used
to be unbearably slow).

I’ve also done some tests of building Rotor, which may interest you. This
was with the older version of VPC:

https://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/11/19/mac_pc.html?page=3

Pretty disappointing numbers, I know, but remember that this was on my old
computer, and with the 5.x version of VPC. My experience has been that
it’s quite usable for day to day stuff. I use a second monitor with my
PowerBook, often with VPC in full-screen mode on the right hand side.
It’s so cool to just drag my mouse from the PC to the Mac.

I think you should go for it. My guess is that you’ll get a *really*
interesting perspective on performance optimization possibilities for .NET
and VS.NET :-)

Have you used Virtual PC on a Mac to do .NET work?

Our Mac DevCenter readers really have a handle on their site. They know what they want published, and many of them step up to the plate to fill the gaps when they don’t see subjects that they think should be there. If you haven’t been following the site, you might want to take a look at the article I wrote summarizing the results of our first reader survey. It’s really fascinating.

Along those same lines though, I don’t think the Mac Dev community fully realizes yet that they have the same influence over our annual Mac OS X Conference that’s approaching this coming October. In a sense, this event is Mac DevCenter in the flesh. It’s the breathing to life of all those thoughts and actions that comprise the toolset we call the Mac platform.

I’m bringing this up now because we approaching the deadline for our Call for Participation. As I look over the submitted papers, I see a lot of great stuff that I can’t wait to hear at the gathering in October.

But as the editor for Mac DevCenter, I also know there’s a lot more that hasn’t been submitted yet. I’m fielding your article ideas all the time, and I gotta tell you, a lot of those brainstorms would make terrific sessions at the conference.

So what do you say? Is sharing a little bit of your knowledge worth a conference pass (as in no charge!) and the opportunity to hang out with your peers this coming Fall? We’d sure like to hear from you.

The deadline for papers is Friday, May 16.

Wikis are cool. Really cool. If you haven’t played around with one yet, you really need to. But they’re not just for the web anymore. Gus Mueller has been working on a desktop Wiki application called VoodooPad which merges the thoughts of a desktop notepad with the linking goodness of a Wiki.

But, as they say, that’s not all. Gus has just released version 1.1 alpha 1 of VoodooPad which supports exporting your VoodooPad documents, with links and all, to the iPod. I had previously thought that I wanted to be able to sync notes from Stickies, but I think that this solution will be the cats meow. It’s still a little rough yet (it is an alpha after all), but the promise and potential is definitly there.

(Original post: https://x180.net/Blog/MacOS/iPod/WikiOnTheiPod.html)

I’ve had the new iPod for just about 24 hours and have played with it quite a bit in that time. In a nutshell, it’s a great improvement to an already very good product. Here are the things I’ve really liked about it:

• The cradle. Being able to sync and charge the iPod without dealing with plugging and unplugging the FireWire cable is a definite improvement.
• The line out on the cradle is a real line out, not a headphone jack. This makes it very nice to hook up to the home stereo.
• The backlighting. The red buttons are really cool when you are in a dark room.
• The iPod no longer goes through a boot cycle when you attach it to or detach it from your computer. It just goes into "Don’t touch me" mode until its sync is done (or you dismount the drive if you have it mounted on your desktop).
• If you want to listen to the iPod while you are charging it off your computer, you can as long as you aren’t in the process of syncing (or have it mounted as a drive on your desktop).
• Parachute. Much more fun than Breakout.

What’s not to like?

• The addition of a new connector to the FireWire cable. Yes, this enables the line out feature on the cradle (which is a big plus) and enables a smaller, thinner connector receiver on the iPod, but one of the things I really liked about the original iPod is that it used standard FireWire cables. Standard cables are a good thing.
• The new connector also means that my current car charger doesn’t work. Yet another new accessory to buy.
• There’s not a travel length cable available. For my old iPod I had a really small 12 inch FireWire cable which traveled well in my bag. I want a very short iPod cable so that I have the same benefit with the new iPod.
• The change of the headphone connector so that the old remotes don’t work on the new iPods (and vice versa). I wonder if the new remote plug has more leads so that more advanced functionality will be available to accessories? Without knowing this, the change is a negative.

Bottom line: A good improvement. I’m glad one came home with me in the car last night. But I’m not looking forward to waiting for the various accessories to become available.

Update: That said, my criticisms are limited to the new connectors—and even that critcism may not be entirely called for considering that new features may wait in store for us. I think that speaks volumes about how good the new iPod is. (grin)

What do you and don’t you like about the new iPod.

Maybe without realizing it, Apple’s Music Store has poured gas on an already hot fire. If you look at the comments following the Billboard story on O’Grady’s PowerPage, you’ll see what I mean.

One of the hottest issues has to do with how much of that 99 cents per song the actual musicians get, versus the slice that Apple and the record companies collect. Apparently, the musicians get very little. According to the conversation, it’s reported that Apple gets about 35 cents per track purchased, and the record companies get the rest. The musicians are paid from the cut the record companies collect, and it probably isn’t more that a few cents a song. I’m not trying to report the actual numbers here; I’m trying to frame the conversation. Maybe we’ll get hard numbers from someone in the know.

This is a conversation that merits discussion. Apple is not changing the music world. They are working with the existing model. In essence, the Music Store represents a new access point for consumers, and hopefully more sales for artists and their labels. Don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing. I think Apple has brought a degree of good Karma to the music scene. But I also think it could be the start of even better Karma.

If Apple is smart, and I think those in charge are, they will listen to both sides of this discussion. Because, even though the Music Store represents a new, but somewhat conservative way to purchase music, it could become a powerful engine for independent labels who want to treat their artists differently (aka better!) than the big five.

Talking about thinking differently. If Apple were to offer this service to artist-friendly companies, and let everyone compete side by side in their Music Store, then we could see a true revolution in music distribution. What would happen if indies were to offer their songs for 45 cents in the Music Store versus the big five’s 99 cents?

My heart races at the thought…