Computers and security

Here's an awesome article about computer security, written by one of my favorite computer writers. Anyone interested in computer security should take the time (and it's a long article!) to read this.

Apple and the DNC

Apple is giving away audio files of the key speeches at the Democratic National Convention. Click here for more.

Good stuff.

Dying to defeat Bush

http://www.local10.com/news/3598475/detail.html

John Kerry's acceptance speech...

...was awesome. Expertly crafted to lay out a rational and passionate appeal to a broad spectrum of America, while providing preemptive defenses to the most obvious potential attacks on his positions.

I won't go into the details of the speech here; that will certainly be covered by people better than me elsewhere.

I shared the experience tonight with a group of friends who came to a party my wife Clara and I hosted to celebrate the event. We had a great time, and by doing what we did, we all actively participated in our democracy. Check out a few photos of the evening here.

The Democratic National Convention has left me inspired and hopeful for our future as Americans and as citizens of the world.

The blog software I'm currently using does not provide a feature for people to respond to any of my entries with their own thoughts. Because of this, I invite anyone that has anything to say that they would like to be posted here to e-mail me and specifically mention that they'd like specific remarks posted. Otherwise, I will treat all e-mail as personal and not for public consumption.

Tonight was an inspiring night for Americans.

As such, it's time to post the American flag once again:

Linux, PowerPC, and Apple

Here's a great article about Linux running on PowerPC. It's well-written, easy to follow for the not-too-technical, and does a great job of explaining the current situation.

The "big idea" that I draw from this article is such: Linux, PPC, and the Mac (i.e., non-Microsoft-Intel-AMD architectures) provide a tremendous value to people who are willing to try new ways of doing things. I think the combo of PPC and Linux offers great benefits to people who use it now, but the real potential has yet to be explored.

There's no doubt that Apple provides a uniquely easy, seamless, and powerful computing solution with their proprietary hardware systems and Mac OS X. Much of the success of Apple lies in the fact that they control the full vertical chain of the computing experience, so they can ensure that everything works well together. It's because of this fact that many people think, rightly so, that were Apple to port their operating system to the world of non-proprietary hardware out there, they would be unable to provide the same level of seamless elegance with their operating system.

That is true, to an extent, and is also one of the reasons why Windows is so difficult for Microsoft to maintain; they've got to support the entire world's hardware and software, while Apple need only support its own stuff and the wares of their small universe of hardware and software developers.

It's also true that, as good as the Apple experience is, they will simply never be able to seriously compete with Windows on a market-share basis because a closed hardware platform from a single vendor simply cannot compete with everyone else in the world who creates products around a competing standard.

The real threat to Windows is Linux, because it runs on the "world standard" PC architecture. The only thing holding Linux back from being a serious competitor (yet) to Microsoft for the average desktop computer user is that Linux is simply not easy enough or compatible enough for that average user to use. Windows is still better on those points.

But imagine if Apple took the best part of their computer experience- their great interface and philosophy of software design- and ported it to Linux. Then, suddenly, Linux users would be able to use the Mac interface as their own, and suddenly Microsoft's biggest competitive advantage over Linux would be not only equalized, but bested.

For this to succeed, Apple would need to provide the OS X interface to Linux in a way that makes it work as much as possible like it works on the Mac, but preserve as much as possible the Linux innards so that they don't create something that loses the benefits of inherently "being Linux."

In other words, "Mac OS X for Linux," so to speak, would need to work like Mac OS X for the Mac, and would need to use device drivers that work with standard Linux (i.e. not Mac-specific drivers), and would need to make it very easy for developers of all of the great Mac software to port their programs to the Linux version of Mac OS X.

This is definitely a technical challenge, but one that I propose would be worth tackling. The result would be, to end-users, the Mac OS running on their PCs, using their existing drivers and software, and also a library of great Mac software that's been ported to the Linux platform.

The Cocoa development environment for Mac OS X is especially well suited to porting to other architectures, so the program-porting aspect of this may not be as difficult to achieve as it sounds.

The net result would be the Mac OS for all Linux users. It would not be quite as seamless or rock-solid as the Mac version of OS X, but it would be, if done right, a hell of a lot better than what we've got today on the PC platform (Windows and Linux with no awesome GUI).

And doing it this way would preserve Apple's hardware department, because they would continue to develop Mac hardware (for the immediate future, at least) that would work even better than the PC hardware. But they would be free to sell their greatest asset to the entire world of PC users. The Mac OS deserves to be used by more people because it's really great. Bringing it to Linux would be a tremendous step forward for everyone.

Microsoft is trying to patent their way out of the jam they're in

Microsoft is suffering from serious competition these days, and I have long argued that Microsoft needs to abandon its dominatrix attitude toward the market and adapt to customers' needs in order to succeed.

Well, Bill Gates seems to believe that the answer to the challenge is to acquire as many patents as they can, and then sue their competitors away from them. I hope any patents that Microsoft is asking for that are not for technologies purely created by Microsoft and truly at risk of being stolen are denied. For if Microsoft succeeds in gaining all of the patents it wants, it will be gaining a further unfair advantage over the market it currently dominates- the market that is trying desperately to compete with Microsoft by competition.

Outfoxed

From MoveOn.org:

"Since Fox News is unable to rebut the basic premise of 'Outfoxed,' its anchors have resorted to slamming the film's technique. Fox News' convention correspondent Carl Cameron, who is portrayed in the movie sucking up to then-Governor Bush before an interview, complained 'It was an unfortunate piece of editing in the movie that gave a far worse impression than the reality.'

"To counter this charge, director Robert Greenwald has released the entire footage of Cameron's pre-interview moments with Bush, when he didn't realize the tape was rolling. The full clip makes Cameron look even worse. He spends a full three minutes fawning over Bush. See this outrageous footage here."

From Jeff: Wow. This video is amazing for two reasons. One, Carol Cameron is a partisan Republican hack. Two, George W. Bush comes across as a likeable, reasonable man. I've got to give credit where credit is due- my biggest take-away from this video is a bit more respect for W. I bet that's not what MoveOn.org had in mind!

Hubris, and its pals Microsoft and the USA

Consider for a moment the similarities between the US and Microsoft in their respective "worlds." Both are the dominant powers over their smaller peers, and are often accused of using their strength and mammoth assets to gain further power through unfair tactics.
Both the US and Microsoft have also suffered dramatic challenges to their ages-old standard operating procedure. For the US, such a challenge took the form of the deadliest terrorist attack of all time. For Microsoft, it was a combination of legal actions taken against it by the government and the onslaught of the open-source software movement, which is proving to be cheaper and more nimble than the Microsoft way of doing business.
We can also find similarities between the extremist enemies of both Microsoft and America- the onslaught of anti-Windows viruses that have been plaguing Microsoft of late are no different to Microsoft than al Qaeda is to the US.
And so on and so forth.
My point with this exercise is to attempt to use the analogy to gain insight into the issues facing America during this election year (sorry, Microsoft- you can draw your own conclusions). It is clear that both America and Microsoft have both adversaries and enemies- and that there is a difference between the two.
It is also true that, while the enemies of both are clearly engaging in amoral tactics to prove their point, it would be delusional to, as a result, reflexively take the opposite point of view of those enemies.
As has become a mantra these days, strength and wisdom are not mutually exclusive.
Microsoft needs to adapt to the evolving rules of the computer software world and realize that, to ensure the continued success of both itself and the industry as a whole, it needs to do a better job of working with the industry, as opposed to against it. It's not too late for Microsoft, and success does not demand a complete retooling of who they are.
It does, however, require harnessing the best assets they have- their experience, their strength, power, money, and spirt- and applying them to a goal that allows for the existence and even success of people and companies beyond the borders of Redmond, Washington. Such an attempt would make everyone who deals with Microsoft- but most of all, Microsoft itself- far more secure in its "world".
America would be well advised to do the same.

Evaluating the other side

With the Democrats in the spotlight these days, the best place to turn to get a gauge on how they're doing is not to Democrat-friendly sources, but rather to Republican-friendly sources. It's good to watch the first-hand news- the convention and the speeches- but to get analysis from the opposition, to see how they're responding to things and how they're countering the arguments put forth by the Democrats.

Rush Limbaugh is ranting and raving about the silly photo of John Kerry in his "sperm suit". No discussion of issues based on the audio clips posted today on his site- just blatant mockery of John Kerry and the silly photo of him in a funny-looking position during a tour of NASA.

Anne Coulter is talking about how the convention is over-run with teachers, and how the Democrats are doing such an effective job of discussing issues at their convention because they have stolen their ideas from Republicans.

Anne does, however, rightly claim that "The only 'issues' Democrats dare discuss publicly are the things everyone can agree on: They are for 'jobs,' a good economy and the middle class. None of their blather ever touches on any issue on which Democrats and Republicans could possibly disagree.

"The issues on which the parties differ are: pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, gay marriage, gun control, partial-birth abortion, taxes, letting non-citizens and felons vote."

All right, Anne, good point. The Democrats are currently showing that they are, in fact, in agreement with most Americans on the major issues of our time- which is something that many Republicans, in an attempt to make Democrats appear out-of-step with average Americans, have claimed is not the case.

But once we turn away from the obviously-we-all-agree-on-these issues, I- unlike Anne Coulter, apparently- believe that the majority of Americans support the Democrats' take on pre-emptive attacks on terror producing nations (assuming the intelligence prior to such an attack is accurate), gay marriage (maybe not for it, but more opposed to ammending the Constitution to outlaw it), and taxes (informed voters, I believe, would be shocked to truly understand Bush's tax policies, given the fact that we're at war, if nothing else).

The other few issues that Anne mentions- gun control, partial-birth abortion, and, quote, "letting non-citizens and felons vote", are open to debate and are probably pretty evenly split.

But, at the end of the day, more Americans clearly support more of the Democratic positions than they do the Republican.

How watching the speeches at the Democratic Convention makes me feel

Democrats: make sure you have a strategy for what to do immediately following a terrorist attack

Reports are showing that the issue Bush is viewed by the public as strongest on is terrorism. The Democrats are doing a very good job at portraying themselves, and their candidates, as being on the public's side on virtually every other issue that the public as a whole considers important.

This is good news for people who believe that we should elect a President and a party that represents the will of the people.

This is bad news for people, such as myself, who are cynical about the Bush Administration's abilities and motives when it comes to defending us from the al Qaeda terrorist threat.

Why the public believes Bush is better at fighting terrorism than Kerry would be is interesting to ponder. But what's even more interesting- and scary- is what would happen in the event our country suffers a serious domestic terrorist attack between now and the election.

We know this is a strong possibility.

From the cynical vantage point of Bush's political team, a terrorist attack on our soil would be welcome, because it would allow the president to act on the issue he is viewed by the public as being most effective on. I seriously doubt the fact that Bush is a better leader than John Kerry would be, but if we're hit by terrorists, expect the Bush Administration to do as much politically as they can to promote Bush and attack Kerry. And I bet they'd expend more energy on that effort than on really, honestly defending the nation against the terrorists.

Call me cynical, call me crazy, but I suspect there's at least some truth to such a claim, and the fact that it's even conceivable that the Bush administration would act that way is a profound damnation of them.

Holy s#!*

Florida is headed toward another vote-counting disaster!

Is it me, or does it seem like Republicans in Florida cannot be trusted to ensure that voting in their state is fair?! Jeb Bush- First Brother and Florida governer- do you have an answer for me?

Enough with the anti-Bush and Anti-Microsoft stuff for a moment...

This Saturday Night Live skit is seriously funny. Particularly the "crazy weekend in Jamaica" bit at the end.

One more thought about Microsoft

Check out this article about NASA's decision to use Linux to power it's new, 10,240 computer cluster.

In the middle of reading it, I came to the conclusion that decisions like that are signs that the computer industry has reached the tipping point where it's becoming obvious that Microsoft is no longer the obvious first-choice "go to" company for innovative computer solutions. And that Linux is.

Want to build an innovative computing solution that requires custom software? It's taking Microsoft long enough to get their standard software working properly, so they're certainly not going to be able to do it in a timely manner. Want to do something innovative that requires a hell of a lot of software, and you don't have a massive budget to accomodate Microsoft's draconian pricing and licensing structure? Linux is available, open, and free.

Microsoft has been slowly drifting away from top-of-mind for the people who need innovative, inexpensive software. Events like NASA's supercomputer illustrate that the rate of the drift is quickening.

I predict- and hope- that some day soon, these facts will apply to users of typical personal computers as well as those looking to build massive supercomputers.

Still don't dislike Microsoft?

If you've been reading my blog, you'll know that I don't trust Microsoft to do right by its customers. I think it's a behemoth of a company that achieved its monopolistic success at the expense of the people who used its products. Worse, I think it is being guided by a mentality that believes that it can continue to release products that further its own agenda of user lock-in and proprietary, closed standards.

The industry, and informed consumers, believe otherwise. The open source software movement, as well as Apple, have siezed on this hubris to release products that in many cases do a much better job of serving software consumers' needs than Microsoft's software- often for much cheaper, and sometimes even for free.

One would like to think that Microsoft would be capable of realizing these trends and begin using its massive power for the good of its customers and the industry. That would be good for Microsoft, too, in the long run.

But all signs point to the fact that they still don't get it.

There are many examples of why I think Microsoft is neglecting its customers, and today comes news that they are delaying the release of three important products. The "why" behind these delays can be discussed and debated, but the bottom line is that a company with the power and resources of Microsoft should be able to release well-written, secure software in a fairly timely, predictable manner. The fact that they don't- can't- is just another reason I dislike Microsoft.

Even Microsoft can't fix Internet Explorer

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If it needs fixing, break it?

Read this

It's your last chance.

Goodbye IE, hel-lo Firefox!

Microsoft Internet Explorer's been taking a lot of fire from industry folks who rightly criticize it as being a profoundly insecure and underdeveloped web browser- so much so that, despite the fact that it comes installed as the default web browser on all versions of Windows and as such benefits directly from Microsoft's monopoly, people are beginning stop using it.

Today, I made the transition on my office PC from IE to Mozilla Firefox, one of several alternative web browsers that are both more functional and more secure than Internet Explorer.

The fact that people are willingly swapping out Internet Explorer- a key part of the Windows operating system- in favor of replacement products (some of which actually cost money) shows that Microsoft has done a rotten job with IE.

The fact that Microsoft has done such a rotten job with IE shows that, even though they've got billions of dollars, a stranglehold over the computer industry, and the ability to do just about whatever they want, they have chosen not to make Internet Explorer a web browser that addresses the needs and concerns of a large number of their customers.

This is further proof that Microsoft does not have its customers' best interests at heart, and that better alternatives to Microsoft products- many of which are open-source and free- exist.

Now WE have a choice. We can continue using Microsoft products and supporting a company that takes us for granted, or we can begin to use alternatives when they make sense.

It makes sense to use an alternative to Internet Explorer, and my vote goes to Firefox because it's open-source, free, and- better yet- an awesome web browser.

The more people that ditch IE and use something else, the further Internet Explorer's market share will drop. And the further it drops, the more it will be clear to the industry, and hopefully Microsoft, that they need to do a better job.

9/11 Commission: a scathing indictment of the Bush Administration

The 9/11 Commission's report is remarkably fair and even-handed in its analysis of how the Clinton and Bush administrations have handled the terrorist threats against our country. Both governments receive stern criticism for not doing enough.

But the fact that the 9/11 Commission's report is even-handed and non-partisan does not mean that its conclusion is not a scathing, damning condemnation of the Bush administration's reaction to the events of 9/11. The very fact that the 9/11 Commission's report is so clear, so concise, and so furiously adamant that the government has not done enough to make us safer from terrorism is proof that, having had three years to do whatever necessary in the wake of the worst terrorist attack in history, the Bush administration has failed to do enough to make us safer.

Is there H-U-B-R-I-S- in M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T?

Here's a great article about what Microsoft can do to combat the global threat that is posed by Linux and open source software. It spells out the real and legitimate weaknesses that Microsoft's high-priced, vendor lock-in strategy is facing in markets outside of the US.

Microsoft needs to be smart about how it handles this threat, and I've got a stack of bills (no pun intended) that says its corporate culture and invincible attitude will prevent them from doing what needs to be done for true long-term success.

When you think about it, Microsoft's attitude toward how it maintains power in the world of computer software is awfully similar to a certain administration's attitude about how to best steer the world's only superpower.

There's a great essay to be written about the similarities between Microsoft's attitude toward its role in the computer world and the neo-con, Bush administration's view of America's role in the real world.

Star Wars: Episode III now has a title...

...and it's really cool!

The new iPod

I had a chance to play with one of the new iPods (4G) today at an Apple Store. It's every bit as cool as you'd think, with one exception: the controls on the scroll wheel don't light up. Since the nature of the scroll wheel means the controls operate in an intuitive way and don't need to be seen to be functional, this is not a design problem. But the light-up controls on the 3G iPods were one of that model's coolest features, and I miss their cool red glow.

Take a break from what you've been doing...

...and read this.

It's the executive summary of the 9/11 Commission's report.

I'm only on page 2 myself at this moment, but I'm already inspired and profoundly moved to be reading what I'm reading.

This is a brutally honest document that is plainly, calmly, and honestly describing why we were attacked on September 11. I have not heard mainstream politicians of any ilk describe 9/11 with such apolitical honesty before, and the fact that these words are coming from a bi-partisan commission formed by our government is very meaningful to me.

Reading this makes me proud to be an American, and hopeful that it's not too late to put aside the rampant, ignorant, inflammatory bullshit that has been espoused by many in our government in the name of September 11.

Now, back to the report, and I urge you to go there as well.

The 9/11 Commission Report

I knew this was coming out today, but I didn't realize that "released" meant released in bookstores!

U2's new album

Pre-mature release?

Securing Mac OS X

If you're running Mac OS X and are interested in being as secure as possible, check out this site and read the referenced PDF, which provides a good overview and some details on how to make OS X more secure.

Upstanding citizen

CNN posted this article under it's "offbeat" section, but this is pretty profound.

Insomnia

I can't sleep because of articles like this.

This land...

...belongs to you and me.

Fourteen Syrian musicians walk onto a plane...

Hmmm...

Improv Everywhere

My friend Trevor turned me on to this group Improv Everywhere, which creates uncanny experiences in public places. You've got to see it to get it, but these people are extremely hilarious and very, very clever.

Meet the Fockers

In-defensible

So it's pretty clear that the most dramatic intelligence that lead many people to support the war in Iraq was wrong. To many (including myself), this is no surprise.

We can talk all day about whether or not we should have gone to war, and whether or not the Bush Administration pressured the intelligence community to come up with their misleading intelligence, but the undeniable fact is this:

As a nation, we invaded another country based on intelligence that most people in the country now realize was seriously flawed. The president MUST address the nation on this issue. The fact that Bush has not sat down in the Oval Office and talked to all of us about what happened- be it a bold defense of his policy , or some sort of apology, or something (ANYTHING!) in between- shows us that he is not a man who takes his job as president seriously.

We are owed some words from our president after what happened. Is Bush capable of paying us- and his office- the respect of obliging?

Another perspective on current times

I just had a fascinating conversation with the woman who cleans my company's office. She's from Mexico and is the only member of her family to live in the US. She is a Mexican citizen working in the US, who is grateful to have a job in America and who believes in the idea of "America" more than most people I know.

I asked her what she thinks about the current political climate, and I was a bit surprised that she is vehemently pro-Bush- because, she explained to me, it was Bush who was President when we were attacked and for us to replace Bush mid-stream would be giving in to the terrorists. My belief is that this is not the case and is an oversimplification, but I've got to admit, this woman represents the American Dream in a very pure way.

So, in the spirit of her POV, I declare the opinion of this site to be- for tonight only- BUSH/CHENEY 2004!

Spider-Man 2

Wow- Spider-Man 2 is exactly what a comic book movie should be. Exciting, funny, romantic, cheesy, over-the-top... This is an excellent film on all levels that captures the magic of superheros in a way that I haven't seen in a movie in a long time.

Virtual desktops in OS X, and some other interesting stuff

Here's an interesting chat with a developer named Rich Wareham, who's created a virtual desktop program for OS X.

Some interesting topics are covered, including some speculation on Linux. Well written and worth reading for those who care about such things.

Kerry/Edwards

So the media was way out of control on this one. They've been talking up the issue of John Kerry's looming VP choice for so long that when Kerry announced his decision to go with Edwards today, it seemed like he'd been holding out for ages. In reality, the announcement coming at this point in the election cycle is actually the earliest a presidential candidate has chosen a running mate in recent electoral history. So that's the power of the media for you (never mind The New York Post, which actually went to press with the wrong headline!).

I really like John Edwards. Of all the Democrats who ran in the primaries, I was most impressed with his attitude and presence as a politician. He's a great speaker, calm and collected, and is good at answering questions and not sounding like he's full of crap.

So I like him, and I'm glad John Kerry chose him.

Glad as I am, however, I'm a bit disappointed that Kerry didn't pull a surprise move and do something really bold and inspiring. Edwards was the safe choice, and I guess we now know for sure that John Kerry is going to play things safe. That's okay, but I would have been really impressed if Kerry had made a decision that threw everyone for a loop and confounded Washington with its uniqueness.

PS: That said, I am happy- GRATEFUL- that Kerry did not pick Dick Gephardt.

E-mail client feature suggestions

We all use e-mail all the time. Here are two features that I think would go a long way toward making e-mail better (particularly the first suggestion):

When a user clicks "send", the e-mail program should scan the outgoing message for the words "attached", "attachment", and all other varieties of "attach" and- if there are no attachments actually included in the message- prompt the user to attach a file if they'd like. This would eliminate one of the most embarrassing e-mail gaffes- the message that claims to have an attachment but contains none.

On computers that have built-in or attached microphones, there should be a "record message" button in message windows that, when pressed, allows the user to dictate a voice message. When the user's finished recording, the program automatically attaches the recording to the outgoing message as an .mp3 file. This would be perfect for those occasions when you want to send someone an e-mail that's a bit too wordy to type out, but you don't want to call them.