Linux Club Online Shop

Radio Shop Online is the virtual store front of Linux Club LLC. Radio Shop Online anchored by ALAN VU2AUZ, has more than 5 years of experience in the communications equipment business - wholesale and retail, domestic and international. Radio Shop Online provides a full suite of communication productions, including:

	• Amateur / Ham Radio Equipment
	• Commercial / 2-Way / Land Mobile Radio Equipment
	• Marine Radio Equipment
	• Avionics Radio Equipment
	• Receiver / Scanner Equipment

Radio Shop Online  is an authorized dealer for many of the top manufacturers in the market, including: Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu/Vertex, Motorola, Uniden, Garmin, Cushcraft, Larsen, Comet, Diamond and many more.

Radio Shop Online   uses state of the art secure e-commerce shopping technology consistent with the highest standards online to ensure that your information is safely and securely transmitted. All personal information collected is used only for fulfilling orders and telling you about our exclusive offers. We guarantee your information to be safe with us and is never shared with any third parties.

To ensure your transactions are secure when placing orders online, Radio Shop Online uses Verisign on every order processed. We take extra care to protect your information by using advanced encryption and firewall technology throughout the ordering process. We also use state-of-the-art Verisign SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) encryption to protect personal information from unauthorized use.

FrOSCamp Zurich

FrOSCamp Zurich, an intense event with discussions, demos, and interaction from attendees from all over Europe on Open Source and Open Standards. It is an international network of user generated non-traditional social conferences: open, participatory workshop-events,  often focusing on early-stage web applications, and related open source technologies, social protocols, and open data formats. Oh and super fun!!

FrOSCamp was  First of its kind in  the ETH University premises, The camp was being organized by Sandro of ORGA Team ,I think this program is an excellent start in the right direction by ORGA team to facilitate open source Promotion.We will also had a fancy party with creative commons licensed beer [Free Beer] and music in the evening of the first day of the event.

An Open Source Beer, which means that the recipe is under a creative commons license. It is open to everyone and everyone can make the brew beer or make yourself.You may even sell it and get rich with free beer,It Is produced by the Wadi Bräu as organic beer.It is a bright, naturally cloudy beer in special bio-quality buds. Brewed and bottled beer free from the Wadi-Brau-Huus AG in Wädenswil on the beautiful lake of Zurich.

OpenSUSE 11.3: The Linux for layman users

One week back I have installed a fresh copy of OpenSUSE 11.3 on my personal laptop (Copmaq Presario CQ61),This is very stable and optimized for performance without using much CPU resource, and what I feel this is a lightweight distribution.

I have used KDE 4.5 which is the better than any other propitiatory Operating System in performance and User Interface.I can say that this is for layman users or normal users of computers. With my experience in using various Linux distributions,OpenSUSE  resists to all update events and don't crash. This is the part that what I suggest this for a final user, for his daily activities.
OpenSUSE 11.3 uses KDE 4.5 along with Compiz Fusion for Desktop Cube kind of animations, which create an illusionary effects in UI for a normal user.

Compiz Fusion  seeks to provide an easy and fun-to-use windowing environment, allowing use of the graphics hardware to provide impressive effects, amazing speed and unrivaled usefulness, Compiz Fusion is an open-source software project, meaning anyone can use it and contribute to it freely.

All in all, I've found that openSUSE is, once more, a great Linux distribution.

KDE 4.5 Screen Shots

KDE 4.5 Screen Shots are here, I have successfully updated the KDE 4.5 Beta on my openSuse 11.2 Machine, See the screen shots of KDE 4.5 Screen Shots , after these updates I have solved another problem with Amarok Audio Player, Initially it had no sound.openSuse with KDE 4.5 is not so light or fast in machines having less than 1GB RAM. In my experience it is not a lightweight desktop distribution, when we compare with other linux distros, openSUSE 11.2 has a good Network Manager. Overall openSuse 11.2 with KDE 4.5 is an excellent release, I am using Compaq Prasario CQ61. I have put more screen shots of openSUSE 112. with KDE 4.5 here. In my experience openSUSE 11.2 runs faster, smoother, utilize  power more wisely, has a more polished desktop, and simpler installation. I got a decent, colorful choice of programs, lots of useful utilities, plus centralized management by YaST, which is smarter and easier to use than ever before. The one sore point is package management - it's slow. It works great and makes some quite intelligent choices, but waiting a whole minute for it to complete caching the repository info is too much. If only this could be solved - somehow, openSUSE 11.2 would be perfect. When they release the Final we hope it will be solved.

Installing and Running Linux on Sony PS2 Devices and Intel / Mac Computers

Linux can be installed in any INTEL based Mac Machine, here I have used a Mac Mini. It was successful (*please search for @installing Linux on Mac"), the same way and we can install on the Sony Play Station 3 video game console (try Mandrive,Fedora, Ubuntu, openSUSE, Yellow Dog, Gentoo. Linux kernel supports PlayStation 3, so no worries about patches or hacks are required to install and run a full-featured distro.

Use Xross Media Bar (XMB) menu of your Playstation,
XMB menu, select System , Format Drive to PS3 HDD.then do a classic a partition for the hard drive by selecting to Custom Partition and allocate atleast 10GB to the PS3 System. your Play station will restart after this.After restart login and insert your favouraite Linux CD/DVD installer. After this step go again from the XMB menu, go to "System" and then "Install Other OS". The PS3 will search for others.bid from the installer. Once found, install it. After the installation, you can now set the PS3 to boot Linux by default by navigating to System (Default System to Other OS) thats all..your PS3 is a PC

The Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement

The Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are completely different. Stallman represents the former. Torvalds and Raymond represent the latter. For your freedom, download this video to your disk and watch it with a freedom-respecting program. ......

The Simple Economics of Open Source

Why in the world would anyone take the time to write complicated software programs for free?


It's a good question, one that has piqued the curiosity of a number of economists, who wonder what benefits, if any, lie behind the burgeoning "open source" movement in technology.


After all, outwardly the situation smells of economic anarchy. Where are the market forces, when thousands of talented programmers—and even many commercial firms—spend inordinate amounts of time writing and sharing computer source code: an activity that apparently gives the individuals and companies involved no pay-off, no reward?


Could it be driven, as some media reports have admiringly suggested, purely by intellectual fervor on the part of programmers, perhaps coupled with a noble desire to share and dispense knowledge to benefit mankind?


Not so fast, say HBS Professor Josh Lerner and his colleague Jean Tirole, an economist at the University of Toulouse and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In their new working paper, "The Simple Economics of Open Source," Lerner and Tirole make the case that an idealistic notion of programmer altruism only goes so far. After all, the pair argues, generosity and knowledge-bearing have not really been guiding factors in other industries: so why would they dominate the computer field?


Instead, they suggest, laboring on open source brings developers and companies specific, tangible and very favorable economic benefits: benefits that are sensible, potentially quite lucrative and, in a word, simple. Altruism is just a nice by-product.

A marriage between Web and Mobile

A marriage between Web and Mobile can lead to produce a new business era. it can be a combination of web services, socket services and mobiles, Opera mini can play a good role in web based applications in mobile phone. Apple iPhone and Blackberry can make a huge market in Financial trading worlds.

Using Fast Enumeration

Using Fast Enumeration

The following code example illustrates using fast enumeration with NSArray and NSDictionary objects.

NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:

        @"One", @"Two", @"Three", @"Four", nil];

for (NSString *element in array) {

    NSLog(@"element: %@", element);

}

NSDictionary *dictionary = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:

    @"quattuor", @"four", @"quinque", @"five", @"sex", @"six", nil];

NSString *key;

for (key in dictionary) {

    NSLog(@"English: %@, Latin: %@", key, [dictionary valueForKey:key]);

}

You can also use NSEnumerator objects with fast enumeration, as illustrated in the following example:

NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:

        @"One", @"Two", @"Three", @"Four", nil];

NSEnumerator *enumerator = [array reverseObjectEnumerator];

for (NSString *element in enumerator) {

    if ([element isEqualToString:@"Three"]) {

        break;

    }

}

NSString *next = [enumerator nextObject];

// next = "Four"

For collections or enumerators that have a well-defined order—such as NSArray or NSEnumerator instance derived from an array—the enumeration proceeds in that order, so simply counting iterations will give you the proper index into the collection if you need it.

NSArray *array = /* assume this exists */;

NSInteger index = 0;

BOOL ok = NO;

for (id element in array) {

    if (/* some test for element */) {

        ok = YES;

        break;

    }

    index++;

}

if (ok) {

    NSLog(@"Test passed by element at index %d", index");

}

iPhone SDK installtion on PowerPC G4 Mac Mini (Non Intel Mac)

These are contents from different blogs,sites and forums combined together for a successful installation of iPhone SDK on PowerPC G4 which I've used to install iPhone SDK.

I managed to install the SDK completely (in the right place) without using Pacifist, fully working on a Mac Mini PowerPC G4 32 Bit. My root partition is still spammed with 5 gb of redundant crap for following this "Tip", but thats why i decided to let others know there's another better way of getting it to work:

Pre Installation Steps( Create Installation Package for PowerPC G4)

1. Make the iPhone SDK.dmg read/write-able with Disk Utility using convert -> to read/write.
2. Mount the R/W dmg.
3. You need to delete some unneccessary file so that you can modify the installer config file, because the image is completely full. I choose the PDF in the root of the dmg.
4. Modify iPhone SDK/iPhone SDK.mpkg/Contents/iPhoneSDK.dist :(Right Click on "iPhone SDK.mpkg" from the Mounted disk ans Selelct "Show Package Contents"

Once we Select this menu, We will get a list of files . From this list ,Select iPhoneSDK.dist and edit with any text editor and you have to edit three functions from this file as follows..

- Goto Line number 70 and

function agreedToSLA()
{
var res = system.run("tempfileexists", "insttmp_37253734");
if( res == 0 ){ return true; }
my.choice.tooltip = system.localizedStringWithFormat('TT_NOIPHONESDK');
return true; // By default it is false
}

function SDKPresent()
{
var res = system.run("tempfileexists", "insttmp_37253735");
if( res == 0 ){ return true; }
system.log("To install the iPhone SDK you need to agree to the iPhone SDK License agreement through the GUI interface.");
return true; // By default it is false

}

function isIntel()
{
var res = (system.sysctl('hw.byteorder') == '4321');
// by default is 1234 change this to 4321
if( !res ){ my.choice.tooltip = system.localizedStringWithFormat('TT_NOINTEL'); }
return res;
}

/// End of File
Note :
- Line 71 ( in function agreedToSLA() ) - modify "return false;" to "return true;"
- Line 81 ( in function SDKPresent() ) - modify "return false;" to "return true;"
-Line 103 (in function isIntel() change var res = (system.sysctl('hw.byteorder') == '1234'); to var res = (system.sysctl('hw.byteorder') == '4321');

Save this File, Now we are ready for installation

Once we completed this step, we can directly install IPhone SDK into Power PC . From the Installation Screen do not select Mac OS X 10.3.9 Support and Web Objects (Web Objects is Optional if you want you can select)

Post Installation Steps

1. Once we completed the installation we have to replace a configuration file, which is used to identify the Architecture ( Make sure backup of original) as follows

Once you've moved the iPhone platform directories to their appropriate location under /Developer/Platforms, drill into: /Developer/Platforms/iPhoneSimulator.platform/Developer/
Library/Xcode/Specifications/


In this directory, you will find a file called "iPhone Simulator Architectures.xcspec" Make a backup of it and open the original in your favorite editor

Replace the file contents of "iPhone Simulator Architectures.xcspec" with the following line

(
// 32-Bit
{ Type = Architecture;
Identifier = Standard;
Name = "Standard (iPhone Simulator: i386)";
Description = "32-bit iPhone Simulator architectures";
ListInEnum = YES;
SortNumber = 1;
RealArchitectures = ( i386, ppc7400 );
ArchitectureSetting = "ARCHS_STANDARD_32_BIT";
},

// Old-style Debug
{ Type = Architecture;
Identifier = Native;
Name = "Native Architecture of Build Machine";
Description = "32-bit for build machine";
ListInEnum = YES;
SortNumber = 101;
ArchitectureSetting = "NATIVE_ARCH";
},

// G3
{ Type = Architecture;
Identifier = ppc;
Name = "Minimal (32-bit PowerPC only)";
Description = "32-bit PowerPC ";
PerArchBuildSettingName = "PowerPC";
ByteOrder = big;
ListInEnum = No;
SortNumber = 201;
},

// G4
{ Type = Architecture;
Identifier = ppc7400;
Name = "PowerPC G4";
Description = "32-bit PowerPC for G4 processor";
ByteOrder = big;
ListInEnum = NO;
SortNumber = 202;
},

// G5 32-bit
{ Type = Architecture;
Identifier = ppc970;
Name = "PowerPC G5 32-bit";
Description = "32-bit PowerPC for G5 processor";
ByteOrder = big;
ListInEnum = NO;
SortNumber = 203;
},

// Intel
{ Type = Architecture;
Identifier = i386;
Name = "Intel";
Description = "32-bit Intel";
PerArchBuildSettingName = "Intel";
ByteOrder = little;
ListInEnum = NO;
SortNumber = 105;
}
)

Location of Configuration File iPhone Simulator Architectures.xcspec



Xcode Location after iPhone SDK installation

Windows Mobile and Fring

Take all your buddies mobile with fring™, call and chat with them for free and see who’s online before dialling!

---

fring™ is a mobile internet service & community that enables you to access & interact with your social networks on-the-go, make free calls and live chat with all your fring, Skype®, MSN® Messenger, Google Talk™, ICQ, SIP, Twitter, Yahoo!™ and AIM®* friends using your handset’s internet connection rather than costly cellular airtime minutes.

Bringing PC-benefits to the mobile, fring will empower you with mobility and availability as never before, integrating all contacts in to one, searchable buddy list, allowing you to see who’s online before dialing with contact availability indicators, engage in multiple conversations simultaneously, send & receive files and more.

You can even make affordable local and international calls to landline and regular cellular numbers using your SkypeOut/SkypeIn account or almost any internet voice service (SIP) such as SIPNET, EuteliaVoIP, VoIPVoIP and VoIPTalk, even from non-SIP enabled handsets.

View fring features:

		take all IM buddies mobile and view them from one, integrated contact list
		free calls
		live chat instead of SMS
		call landlines and regular cellular contacts using SkypeOut or SIP
		view call history
		invite friends to fring
		send & receive files
		choose incoming call and message tones
		auto-roam in and out of WiFi hotspots

* fring is compatible with Symbian 8, 9.1, 9.2, Windows Mobile 5 & 6 and UIQ handsets.
** Voice for Yahoo!^TM and AIM® is still not enabled.

HTC Touch Review - Skype

Performance:

We are not pleased with the operating speed of HTC Touch, the fault for which lies with the 200 MHz processor used in most 2G other manufacturer’s phones. Yet it has been optimized for the device and there are no serious delays, but you often have to wait a little when moving trough the menus and applications. Symbian S60 OS which is much faster in the new smart-phone models of N76, 6120, N95 has a serious advantage here.

We are happy that the Touch can use Skype application for VoIP calls. The processor is not very fast and the system lag when you are during a call, but still you will be able to switch to different tabs and send a chat message for example, while you talk. The Voice is not lagging if you are using fast internet connection. For Skype calls, Touch uses the loudspeakers and you will not be impressed by its quality, but it is still usable. The other party hears you clear, but some echo also appears. For the test, we used WiFi connection.

We also installed Fring application, which connects to both Skype and Google Talk, but strangely, we weren't able to do a call. The application said that the phone has to restart in order to do a voice call, but after a few restarts nothing changed. In order to get installation file for Fring, we had to choose the phone model from the Fring's webpage. The Touch was not listed, so we selected an another HTC smartphone with touch-sensitive display.

We used Spb Benchmark to compare the Touch system performance with other PocketPC Phones. We are pleasantly surprised by the results, showing way better performance than the Wizard, although the two have similar system resources.

During our typical test with decreasing signal Touch did not perform very well and the grade mark we give it is 3.75/10, which places it in the category of Poor, below the standard level. The manufacturer claims 5 hours of talk time, but we are surprised that in our test it scored 6 hours of continues talk time. This is just an excellent result!

We are disappointed by the incoming sound during conversation and particularly by its volume: the loudspeaker is not heard very strongly and as the one for music snuffles at ‘max’ position and has to be turned down. On the other hand, voices through it sound very close to reality, clear and distinct.

Not so however in the opposite direction – you are heard just perfectly, very strongly, clearly and realistically. We have no remarks in this respect.


Conclusion:

We remain with mixed feelings about Touch – the Touch Flo technology is a good idea, but poorly realized and its actual functionality is quite limited opening only one shortcut menu and scrolling through long pages. To be competitive to what iPhone will be, a number of new extras should probably be added, such as a new way of imputing text with fingers, a more innovative display locking/unlocking, menus handling (back/forward), photos handling (zoom in/out, previous/next), etc.

On the other hand, Touch is a small and beautiful WM6 phone with the full functionality of the operating system and with all personalization possibilities, which, on functional level, places it to some extent above iPhone, PRADA and Samsung F700 which are not smart phones. Unlike them, Touch is very flexible thanks to a heap of 3rd party applications. Its interface may be not as interesting and beautiful as that of the competitors – the fashionable PRADA and the innovative iPhone, but if you want a really good-looking small phone using Windows Mobile 6 Professional, Touch is your perfect choice.

2007: A Year of Open-Source Acceptance

2007 has barely begun, and already I've been asked to look back on 2006! The trends of 2006 are still playing out, and will continue to do so through the first quarter of 2007, making it harder than usual look into the crystal ball for the upcoming year. But in a few years, we will all look back at 2006 as the year everything changed again.


Agile methodologies cemented themselves in the development environments of companies of all sizes, helping to shape the year to come. With increased customer interaction early in the cycle, the reliance on continuous integration tools grew paramount, especially with the maturity of Cruise Control and Cruise Control .NET. Continuous integration will become a cornerstone software development practice, increasing the quality of software releases industry wide. That being said, 2007 will be the year that Cruise Control captures the continuous integration market. The ability to support most major and minor platforms for free will be nearly impossible to compete with.


This brings us to the second trend of 2007, the increased reliance of Open Source software in the revision control and software release fields. Across the industry, companies using CVS, RCS, and looking at Perforce will start the move to Subversion. Visual SourceSafe and Vault will continue to lose ground in their respective niches, while Subversion captures the customer base. The ease of use and integration into all three major operating systems (Windows, OSX, and Linux), combined with its price and stability will force companies to reduce their expenses through quality software. For the first time in nearly fifteen years, free revision control systems can again compete with commercial ones, and on any platform.


Speaking of platforms, the crystal ball holds one more platform surprise in 2007. Having finally (officially) moved to Intel, Apple has guaranteed an interesting year is ahead. Companies will start the groundwork for releasing software on the Mac, with many companies announcing OSX releases in 2007. The Mac will return as a viable platform for software releases as companies slowly move to the Mac OS. Movement will develop slowly at first, but definite groundwork will be laid out for a multi-platform future.


With a revolution year behind us, we have to ask ourselves if 2007 can be even half as groundbreaking as 2006. In truth, I don't know if it's possible to have another year like 2006 so soon on its heals. Either way, 2007 will certainly be an interesting year.

Open source gets European boost

The European Commission has added its voice to the debate about the use of open source software.
A report funded by the Commission concludes that the software could offer considerable savings to organisations with little effect on their business.


The report found that in "almost all" cases long-term costs could be reduced by switching from proprietary software produced by firms such as Microsoft.


However, it warned that a move to open source could increase short term costs.


This would be largely be due to increased training for users of the software, said the authors of the report who are based at the United Nations University in Maastricht.


But some proprietary manufacturers such as Microsoft do not believe that open source always means cheaper. In 2004 the company launched a campaign called Get The Facts that gave examples of where its software was cheaper and more reliable than open source products.


Voluntary contribution


Open source software refers to software where the underlying programming code is made available to users to read, alter and improve. This is in contrast to proprietary software where a company controls the source code to prevent changes being made.


A great deal of open source software is produced and distributed for free by volunteer programmers, although some companies, such as Red Hat, do sell open source products and associated services to get them up and running.


The study estimates that just one-third of open source programs are produced by businesses in Europe.


Software made by volunteers includes operating systems, such as Linux, and Microsoft Office-like programs such as OpenOffice.org.


Open source programs are already used by many companies particularly to run web servers, the computers that store and deliver web pages.


According to the study, the number of existing open source programs already available would have cost firms 12 billion Euros (£8 billion) to produce.


It estimates that the available programs represent the equivalent of 131,000 programmer years.


"This represents at least 800 million Euros (£525 million) in voluntary contributions from programmers alone each year," the report said.


At the moment, the report said, public organisations were the dominant beneficiaries of this work.


To continue this uptake, the report recommends "correcting current policies and practices that implicitly or explicitly favour proprietary software".


As well as providing incentives to the open source industry it also recommends that schools start to introduce more of the software.


This would instil "an attitude towards information technology that favours the ability to create and actively participate rather than just consume," the report said.


This view echoes those of 111 UK MPs who signed an early day motion in December 2006 to support the use of open source in schools.


The motion also criticised the "outdated" methods used to purchase software for schools that locked them into buying proprietary software.

The Microsoft/Novell Deal: Has It Divided The Linux Community?

When Microsoft and Novell announced that they would work together, Linux enthusiasts were shocked. How has the agreement affected the open-source community, and can it recover?
By Jacqueline Emigh InformationWeek


In November, 2006, Microsoft and Linux vendor Novell knocked the software industry for a loop with their multifaceted, multimillion dollar business agreement unveiled. However, the biggest effect may be on Linux, the open-source software operating environment that many companies (and some consumers) are increasingly adopting as an alternative to Microsoft's proprietary but pervasive Windows operating system.

Initially announced on news conference November 2, 2006, the deal called for Microsoft, long seen as an enemy by many Linux advocates, to start working hand-in-hand with Novell, producer of the SuSE Linux operating system, in areas that included licensing, support, and joint research and development around Windows/Linux interoperability.

Also under the agreement, the two software makers inked a software patents covenant stating that Microsoft won't be able to sue Novell's customers for any potential infringements of Microsoft's patents, and Novell won't be able to sue Microsoft's customers for potential infringements on Microsoft's patents.

Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars will change hands between Microsoft and Novell over the next three years for software licensing and patent protection, with a net balance of $118 million going to Novell.

The deal does have supporters among industry analysts ISVs, and VARs, who foresee benefits to Novell and to the advance of Linux in the enterprise. "Novell needs to look at its opportunity to gain Linux customers from highly Microsoft-loyal accounts. And when you consider the money, there'll be a lot of it going into Novell's coffers," said Raven Zachary, an analyst with The 451 Group.
Recognition by Microsoft lends more credibility to Novell as a second major Linux distributor (behind industry leader Red Hat Software), according to Adam Braunstein, an analyst at the Robert Frances Group. "No enterprise customer wants to get locked into a single distribution," Braunstein said.

The Linux Community ReactsBut what about the developers who create the actual Linux code, and who form the heart of what's known as the open source community? How will they be affected? As the calendar turns the corner into 2007, is this community of ISV and corporate developers, already split into hundreds of different distributions, only becoming more divided? Or conversely, is this community growing even more unified through joint opposition to the deal?

So far, the answer seems to be yes on both counts. By and large, Linux developers see the deal as an unwelcome intrusion by Microsoft, a huge and unabashedly proprietary vendor, into the open source world, where software development is highly collaborative, a lot of code is available free of charge, and vendor business models are frequently based more on service contracts than on software licensing.

Linux organizations that sounded disapproval for the Microsoft/Novell plan range from Red Hat to smaller Linux distributors such as Linspire and Mandriva, and open source projects such as Samba, a group that includes even some Novell employees. "I obviously can't speak for the entire community, but I see more banding together [against Microsoft] than divisiveness," said Nicholas Petreley, a professional open source consultant, author, and editor, and the creator of VarLinux.org.

But beyond shared distaste for Microsoft's perceived intrusion, reactions within the Linux community vary, from a cautious watchfulness to a conviction that the deal represents an intentional ploy by Microsoft to destroy the open source movement by pitting one Linux distributor — namely, Novell — against the rest of the Linux community. "[It] is clearly true [that] the agreement sets SuSE apart from the rest of the crowd. The Microsoft message here is clear. 'I can pick and choose among the players and bribe whomever I want,'" contended Francois Banchilhon, CEO of the French-based Mandriva.

The top five open source stories to follow in 2006

Following a year that bore witness to the proliferation of open source business applications and increased adoption of Linux across the board, experts predict that 2006 will be another big year for open source.


There's been a lot going on, including a hard-at-work open source community ironing out GNU General Public License (GPL) loopholes, plus open source virtualization hitting the mainstream and Sun Microsystems and Novell Inc. anxiously waiting to see if their open source gambits pay off. Indeed, the experts promise plenty more open source news to follow in 2006.


TechTarget spoke to a couple of IT industry experts to get their predictions for the five biggest open source trends and stories to follow in 2006. In no particular order of importance, here's what they had to say:


You can expect the GPL debate to go on for quite some time, but it's really going to take off in 2006 Tony Iams,vice president and operating systems analyst, Ideas International 



1. Debate will heat up over GPL version 3


Discussions over exactly what the next version of the GPL should look like have already begun, and experts say the debate could get fairly contentious as 2006 unfolds.


At issue will be what some believe are loopholes in current versions of the license -- loopholes that some think allow vendors to get around the "inconvenience" of having to reveal source code.


Created by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, the GPL is one of the major open source software licenses. It lists the terms and conditions for copying, modifying and distributing free software.


"The GPL version 3 is being developed through an open process, whereas, in the past, the GPL was pretty much developed by individuals and sort of presented to the community," said Tony Iams, a vice president and operating systems analyst with Ideas International in New York City.


Iams said one of the major issues to be debated centers on whether software makers should be forced to reveal source code for applications that are only available on the Web.


"Right now under the terms of the GPL code, you do not have to release the source code unless you distribute the software," Iams said. "But some people are saying that if you're going to take advantage of open source programs to create a really attractive and profitable Internet service, you should also have to make those modifications available."


"You can expect the GPL debate to go on for quite some time, but it's really going to take off in 2006," Iams added.


2. Open source virtualization for the masses


There was a lot of talk about Xen open source server virtualization over the past year, but with Xen version 3 set to debut and vendors like Novell and Red Hat planning to bundle it with their Linux distributions, 2006 could be the year that Xen truly hits the mainstream.


"The parties that are going to be most interested in this are people that run data centers and want to consolidate, improve the way they run their data centers and lower their cost of ownership through better utilization and so forth," Iams said. "Those people are very closely looking at virtualization to help them achieve some of those goals."


Proprietary virtualization technology was pushed into the mainstream by VMware Inc., and later by Microsoft with its Virtual Server. But Iams said those well established players could be significantly disrupted when Xen is included with Red Hat's Linux and Novell's SuSE.


"The disruption is really going to be at the foundation of the virtualization stack with the basic ability to run multiple IS operating systems on a single server [becoming] more or less a commodity," Iams said. "That's going to push the differentiation to the upper levels of the virtualization stack, notably to virtualization management. That's where you're going to see lots of investments and activity in managing virtualized infrastructures."


3. Sun and Novell: Will their open source bets pay off?


Sun Microsystems and Novell have reshaped their respective businesses around open source over the past year, and in 2006, the world will find out if their gambits pay off.


Experts say those two companies are worth watching -- and even rooting for -- in 2006, because their success will have major implications for both IT pros and the industry as a whole. Those implications, says Iams, have to do with choice.


For Novell -- a traditionally proprietary vendor that has refocused its business on open source SuSE Linux -- success means that users will have a greater choice when it comes to Linux vendors.


For Sun -- a company that has opened up all of its source code and is now focusing on providing support for its flagship Solaris operating system -- success means that users will have a viable, high-end and Unix-based alternative to Linux.


"The industry should hope that this pays off, because this would be further affirmation that the open source business model is truly viable, and not just for pioneers like Red Hat and JBoss, but also for the established proprietary players," Iams said.



4. A growing open source challenge to MS Exchange?


When it comes to corporate e-mail systems, the combination of MS Outlook and MS Exchange are king. But more and more open source e-mail vendors -- such as Scalix Corp. -- are emerging to try and take a bigger share of the e-mail market, at least on the back end.


As 2006 unfolds, said Michael Osterman, principal of Osterman Research Inc. in Black Diamond, Wash., those vendors will focus on providing systems administrators with the functionality they need to swap out Exchange for open source on the back end, while keeping Outlook on the clients.


And keeping Outlook on the client, he said, is the key to building e-mail market share, because users are reluctant to take on new desktop e-mail applications. "I think that by and large [open source e-mail providers] have a growing market," said Osterman, whose firm focuses on enterprise messaging issues. "I anticipate that there is going to be increased use of open source e-mail [in 2006]."


5. Desktop Linux ready for take off -- again


Although it has been said before, experts predict that desktop Linux will gain a stronger foothold in corporate America in the coming year.


But this time, says Iams, don't expect an explosion in desktop Linux adoption rates, but rather slow and steady adoption.


Iams said this sure but gradual move forward for desktop Linux in 2006 will take place with the help of a number of software companies.


Linspire Inc. will continue innovating desktop Linux for the consumer crowd while Mandriva, a Linux and open source products, technology and services company, continues putting heavy focus on corporate desktops. In the embedded space, Iams said MontaVista Software Inc. will be hard at work pushing Linux into clients and mobile phones.


"Every year someone makes [the big desktop Linux] prediction, though it never seems to achieve quite the momentum that the optimists have predicted," Iams said. "But every year moves the bar forward a little bit, and so I expect that to continue this year."

Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win?

Want to get a heated debate going among technologists? Ask them this question: Can the open source software movement defeat (or severely cripple) Microsoft in the marketplace?


With little academic attention focused on this question, Harvard Business School professors Pankaj Ghemawat and Ramon Casadesus-Masanell decided to dive in. Most research to date into the OSS movement has focused on the organization and management issues surrounding OSS. Ghemawat and Casadesus-Masanell chose to explore the fundamental competitive dynamics question: Will OSS ever displace traditional software from its market leadership position?


"We believe that there is still a great deal of confusion and puzzlement on how this competitive battle will develop," say the authors of the academic paper Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows, which has just been accepted for publication in a special issue of Management Science.


Ultimately, the authors believe, neither side is likely to be forced from the battlefield—Microsoft has too much market share and OSS offers too many benefits for users. But there are strategies each can use successfully against the other, as they detail in this e-mail interview.


Sean Silverthorne: Why should OSS ever displace traditional software?


Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Pankaj Ghemawat: One main advantage of open source software is that because users can modify the code directly (as they encounter problems or have new ideas on how to improve it), the development cycle is significantly shorter. Proponents of OSS claim that if this demand-side learning (as we call it) is sufficiently strong, OSS will oust traditional software. In addition, software engineers claim that the better architecture of most OSS projects make them a potentially superior product, adding to the probability of success.


However, OSS has disadvantages too. Most importantly, it comes from behind in terms of market share (installed base). Because the value of an operating system depends critically on the number of users, traditional software has an advantage. Clearly, a larger installed base implies that there will be stronger direct and indirect network effects, and this will enhance the value of the operating system to current and potential users. In addition, a larger installed base also implies that there will be more feedback on bugs and more suggestions for new features.


Our paper introduces a dynamic mixed duopoly model in which a profit-maximizing competitor (Microsoft) interacts with a competitor that prices at zero (Linux), with the installed base affecting their relative values over time. We use a formal model to ask what conditions are needed for Linux to take over Windows. The questions that we address are: Is Linux's superior demand-side learning sufficient to win out? What is the effect of forced procurement by governments and some large corporations on the long-run equilibrium? How do cost asymmetries play out? Can Microsoft use piracy strategically to improve its market position?


From a managerial perspective, these are significant questions. If it turns out that OSS will incontestably displace traditional software, software firms need to adapt as quickly as possible to the new competitive landscape by, for example, incorporating some aspects of the open source development model, or else be ready to exit. In fact, the model suggests ways in which the likelihood of OSS winning out can be minimized (see below). If, to the contrary, OSS turns out not to be a threat to the traditional model, firms should not waste time and attention trying to figure out ways to fight this battle.


Q: Could you summarize your results?


A: First of all, let us make a caveat regarding our approach. Our methodology is formal economic modelling. What this means is that we construct a stylized mathematical model of the relationship. The model captures what we believe are the most important features of the Linux-Windows competitive battle (faster demand-side learning on the part of Linux and an initial installed base advantage for Windows), but makes important assumptions regarding other aspects. Without these simplifications, the model would not be tractable and it would not be possible to obtain results. After having analyzed the base model, we relax some of these assumptions.
Harnessing demand-side learning more efficiently is not sufficient for Linux to win the competitive battle against Windows.


Our main result is that in the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero), Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position. This result holds true regardless of the strength of Linux's demand-side learning. Furthermore, the result persists regardless of the intrinsically better design and potential differential value of Linux. In other words, harnessing demand-side learning more efficiently is not sufficient for Linux to win the competitive battle against Windows.


Having obtained this basic result, we investigate the conditions that will warrant that Linux ends up forcing Windows out. We do this by modifying the model in two ways. First of all, we look at the effect of having buyers such as governments and some large corporations committed to deployment of Linux in their organizations. We call such buyers strategic. In addition to cost-related reasons, governments back Linux because having access to the source code allows them to verify that sensitive data is treated securely. Binary code makes it hard to figure out who has access to information flowing in a network. Companies such as IBM, in contrast, back Linux because they see in OSS one way to diminish Microsoft's dominance. We find that the presence of strategic buyers together with Linux's sufficiently strong demand-side learning results in Windows being driven out of the market. This may be one main reason why Microsoft has been providing chunks of Windows' source code to governments.


Second, we look at the role of cost asymmetries. In the base model we assume that the cost structures of Windows and Linux for the development, distribution, and support of software coincide. A natural question is then whether the central result that Windows survives in the long-run equilibrium regardless of the speed of Linux's demand-side learning persists if there are cost asymmetries. We find that because OSS implies lower profits for Microsoft, the larger the cost differences are between Linux and Windows, the less able Microsoft is to guarantee the survival of Windows.


We also show that it is not all bad news to Microsoft. We analyze the effect of having forward-looking buyers and the presence of piracy, and conclude that both benefit Microsoft.


We question the effectiveness of influencing forward-looking buyers' perceptions on the value of an operating system. The model suggests that the more forward-looking buyers are, the more advantageous it is to use fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) tactics to drive the competing system out. Consider SCO, a small "vulture" firm that had bought up the intellectual property rights to a particular version of Unix and threatened Linux users with lawsuits over infringement of those rights unless they agree to pay substantial licensing fees. IBM, which was one of the prime corporate sponsors of Linux as well as the target of a lawsuit by SCO that sought $1 billion in damages, alleged in mid-2003 that SCO was in cahoots with Microsoft. Our model indicates that if buyers are sufficiently forward-looking, such actions may jeopardize the ability of Linux to continue as an effective competitor in the operating system space.


We also look at the effect of piracy and ask whether piracy can ever be beneficial to Microsoft. This extension was motivated by analyzing data on a cross-section of countries on Linux penetration and piracy rates. We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate. The model shows that Microsoft can use piracy as an effective tool to price discriminate, and that piracy may even result in higher profits to Microsoft!


Finally, the paper investigates the societal welfare consequences of OSS availability by comparing different industry structures (monopoly and duopoly). We find that while a monopoly of Linux is always preferable (from the point of view of societal welfare) to a Windows monopoly, it is ambiguous whether a duopoly Linux-Windows is better than a Windows monopoly.


The basic trade-off is the following: With a duopoly, more individuals and organizations use PCs because prices are lower, and this raises welfare. However, with a duopoly, no operating system ends up exploiting fully its potential because developers' efforts wind up divided between the two systems. However, with a monopoly, the efforts to develop new software and improve the platform are directed towards one system only and this may turn out to be better from a social welfare perspective.


Q: In general, what surprised you about the results? What assumptions did you have going in that didn't hold up?


A: When we began the project, we thought that network effects and demand-side learning would result in Linux forcing Windows out. After all, we reasoned, if Windows is sold at a positive price and Linux is free, there will always be Linux users, and if the strength of Linux's network effect is large, the value of Linux to prospective users should eventually become larger than that of Windows.


Well… we were wrong (and this illustrates the usefulness of developing a formal model). What we had missed is that Microsoft's initial advantage (larger installed base) together with its pricing power allow the company to price strategically to control Linux's market share going forward. By lowering the price of Windows, the demand for Linux shrinks to the point where Linux is not a threat to the survival of Windows. The model also shows that a "milking strategy" (setting high prices in the short term and leaving the market at some point in the future) is not desirable to Microsoft. The reason is that if Microsoft follows such a strategy, as the last period becomes closer and closer, the relative benefit of abandoning it and lowering prices to survive a few more periods increases dramatically.
The model shows that Microsoft can use piracy as an effective tool to price discriminate, and that piracy may even result in higher profits to Microsoft!


The "Windows persistence" result turns out to be robust to different specifications of the model. In fact, in the first few months into the project we had developed several alternative models and every one of them yielded this very same finding.


In addition to this main result, we were also surprised to find that piracy may end up increasing Microsoft's profits. To understand why, notice that there are two types of pirates: those who would not have bought Windows in the first place because it is too expensive, and those who would have bought Windows but now decide to pirate it. The first category increases Windows' installed base without affecting sales. As a consequence, this group increases the value of Windows. And thanks to these pirates, Microsoft is able to set higher prices in the future (because the value of the system goes up). In addition, having these pirates means that Linux's installed base does not grow as much as it would have if piracy weren't there. The second type of pirates (those who in the absence of piracy would have bought Windows) reduces Windows' sales and profit. Thus, if the proportion of first-type pirates is sufficiently large, Microsoft's profits will increase with piracy.


Finally, the social welfare result that a Windows monopoly is not always worse than a Linux-Windows monopoly was also unexpected. This questions the social desirability of policies aimed at guaranteeing Linux's survival.


Q: You mention in the paper that the model is not to be taken as a literal model of the Linux/Microsoft competition. But can you say anything about why Linux has enjoyed success against Microsoft?


A: Linux's success against Microsoft is still relative. In the client space, Windows is the undisputable leader, and in the server space, Linux and Windows have both been gaining positions for the past ten years. The big losers are Novell, Unix, Solaris… everybody except Linux and Windows.


Despite this, Microsoft is visibly concerned about Linux's upsurge. The Halloween memos (see http://www.opensource.org/halloween/) are an obvious testimony of this concern: "OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long-term developer mindshare threat."


Microsoft has a great deal to lose if Linux wins the operating systems battle. Microsoft is a software company, and a defeat in operating systems would point to the vulnerability of its entire business portfolio. In addition, the operating systems group is one of Microsoft's biggest revenue generators. Moreover, to a large extent Microsoft's sustained success over time in such a dreadfully rugged landscape has been due to its dominant position in operating systems. It is well known that Microsoft won the browser wars leveraging its dominant position in client operating systems. And the same will happen in the media player space unless the American or European antitrust authorities prevent it. We expect Microsoft to put all its ammunition to fight this battle.


Part of the reason why Linux has made significant inroads is the determination of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation to have a free (as in freedom) operating system. According to Stallman, application software will never be truly free unless there is a free operating system that supports it. Thus, since the moment Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman joined forces, a big chunk of the foundation's efforts have been directed at building a free operating system.


Then there are some large corporations and governments backing the development of Linux. These players use Linux as a way to curb Microsoft's dominance. This support is important because there are tedious portions of the code that would rarely be developed spontaneously by members of the Linux-developer community.


Q: From your modelling, what can Microsoft do strategically to remain competitive against a product that is argued to be of better quality, is updated more frequently, and is free?


A: A few actions that the model suggests Microsoft could do to remain competitive are:
Increase its own demand-side learning.
Listen to the demands of the user community to better exploit the benefits of demand-side learning. Microsoft must facilitate communication between the user base and the company to have prompt feedback on the performance of its products.
Make an effort to incorporate improvements in the code (fix bugs and introduce new features) as soon as possible.
Reward those who propose improvements for the code. At the very least, Microsoft could publicly acknowledge those who proposed new features or discovered bugs.
Feed its direct and indirect network effects.
Support as much as possible the independent software vendor community so that the quantity and quality of complements is substantially above that of Linux.
Encourage competition between the different ISVs. The lower the prices of applications, the more appealing the Microsoft system will be.
Price discriminate. Give Windows and applications away to schools and universities so that users build their file libraries on Microsoft, not Linux.
Minimize the number of strategic buyers.
Let governments access the source code and give guarantees that sensitive data is treated confidentially.
Price discriminate. Give binary away to organizations and individuals who are not willing to spend money on Windows but who would be willing to use Linux because it is free.
Reduce costs to be able to sustain long periods of time with low prices.
Decrease Linux's demand-side learning.
Because the way to do this involves some questionable (from a legal point of view) actions, we will refrain from suggesting specifics.
Lessen Linux's direct and indirect network effects.
Make it as hard as possible for Windows applications to work on Linux.
Same for MS Office documents.
"Promote" Linux's code forking.
Infuse fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the Linux user community. For this to work, the statements must be perceived as credible. Credibility requires some past FUD announcements to be realized.


Q: Is there a scenario where Linux could be kicked out of the market by Microsoft?


A: Strictly speaking, within our model the only way in which Microsoft can get rid of Linux is by setting the price at zero. But, even if Microsoft did that, the company would still be selling MS Office for a positive price. Thus, we conjecture that even in this case, there would be people developing and using Linux.


The more important question is: What motivates developers to contribute to open source projects in the first place? As long as the drivers are there, Linux will persist. Given that Linux was born in 1992 in an industry already dominated by Microsoft, and given that the financial motive is secondary, it will be very hard for anyone to oust Linux.


The organizational stream of research on OSS has identified several drivers of motivation to contribute to open source projects. For Microsoft to have a chance to kick Linux out of the market, it needs to successfully fight them.


First, some developers see software as scientific knowledge to be shared "like the sharing of recipes among cooks." In fact, some describe software developers more like artists seeking fun, challenge, and beauty in their work than like calculative, square-minded engineers. Second, some individuals find it fun to go against Microsoft. As the OSS/free software movement gains momentum and developers foresee that victory is within reach, they increase their effort to accomplish this. Third, because most OSS projects have a log file listing all contributors to the code, some developers find it desirable to participate in OSS projects to signal their ability and to enhance their chances of promotion and professional advancement. Finally, user-developers sometimes fix bugs that they find and then release the improved code so that everybody can benefit.
It will be very hard for anyone to oust Linux.


To the motivations of independent developers to contribute to Linux, we have to add the important support that the free operating system receives from companies and governments. As long as the motives that induce these organizations to back Linux persist, Linux will not go away.


Finally, and as we mentioned above, having a free operating system is central to the mission of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, and Linus Torvalds. It is thus hard to see how Microsoft can "persuade" Stallman or Torvalds to cave. And even if it did… Linux is no longer Stallman's or Torvalds' property. The project is dispersed and there is no "owner" of the code. Thus, someone else can take the lead.


Q: What's next for the both of you for future research projects?


A: There are several ways in which our work on Linux can be extended. One avenue would be to empirically estimate the difference in demand-side learning between Linux and Windows. This would allow us to make educated guesses on the chances of survival of Windows and make managerial and policy recommendations to OSS advocates, Microsoft, and administrations.


In its present form, the paper models the organization of Linux's development in a very stylized way. Having a closer look at issues of effort coordination may help us better understand how to deal with code forking, one of OSS's biggest potential problems.


A second organizational issue that could also benefit from formal analysis is that of incentives to contribute to OSS. While most research on this issue has been sociological in nature, the economic approach may shed light on why supposedly rational individuals are willing to spend valuable time and effort without extrinsic, financial incentives.


A final question that we believe is of utmost importance but that has not attracted much attention thus far (at least among academics) is: What are the drivers of adoption of OSS? Aside from its empirical relevance for both individuals and organizations, it is an interesting question from a theoretical point of view, too. The presence of network effects and demand-side learning make this a non-trivial problem. We conjecture that there are multiple equilibria and that the use of FUD to mold perceptions about future value becomes crucial.