Being a bit of a purist, I ran Debian{for very many years but found their stable releases lagging behind far too much. This was largely due to their perfectly understandable view of it being ready only when it is right.

For a while, I ran their unstable distribution called Sid{ based on the disturbed, hyperactive 10 year old boy in the film Toy Story{ The idea being that Sid breaks things, and it certainly did. While it taught me a heck of a lot about linux (and the terminal), my computer was broken on a very regular basis.

I switched down to the testing version and that helped ease the pain to a very large extent. I had always thought that Debian with a more regular and shorter release cycle would make a world of difference. Clearly, Canonical had the same idea.

Thus Ubuntu was born and it has grown from strength to strength. Its latest distribution of 9.10 codename karmic koala released October 2009, is a massive step forward.

Stephen{ the head of krayatec{was so impressed by the new release that he conducted an experiment. He asked three people in the office who are not tech savvy to install and try out the new release. My view was that it was still too early for such kind of an adoption. I felt that pushing people to try it out at this stage would damage the reputation of the user friendliness of Linux rather than help it.

I must admit that I was proven wrong.  All of the installations went smoothly and it was possible to log in and do the things that they wanted to do.

Do they now use Linux instead of Windows - No! There is still a learning curve and with tight deadlines and little time for re-learning how to navigate around a computer, it remains an experiment.

However, it does answer one question. Can a user who is not tech-savvy, pick up a CD/DVD of the latest version of Ubuntu and run with it? The answer, from this very tiny experiment is a resounding Yes!

As someone who is technically very demanding, I have very few complaints about the latest version. The only one is that it still looks largely the same as the previous version. Then, the release is a collection of tools, so this is understandable.

My three favourite things about the new release are:

• substantially faster bootup times
• Empathy (particular for people-nearby which works great in the office)
• Cloud (Client & Server)

In my opinion, this is the beginning of the end. Linux, has finally taken a leap that shows its potential to change everything… I would wish it luck, but it looks like it doesn’t need it ;-)

Why not download a live cd and try it out?

I have since used:

• Filemaker Pro,
• Microsoft Access,
• Microsoft SQL Server,
• MySQL,
• PostgreSQL,
• SQLite and
• HSQLDB.

I have not yet used:

• IBM DB2,
• Oracle.

Wikipedia has a list of database systems.

Having worked with this range of database systems and having done copious amounts of research into DB2, Oracle and other DB systems I have not mentioned, I like answering the age old questions. Which is the best database system?

Ah! if only it was that simple. There is no database system that is appropriate for any given requirement. But then, if you have been in the technology sector long enough, you would already know that. It's all about using the right tool for the job.

I separate these systems into two broad categories and Oracle. There are the Desktop based database systems:

• DBase
• Foxpro
• SQLite
• HSQLDB
• Filemaker Pro
• Microsoft Access
• MySQL

DBase, FoxPro, Filemaker Pro and Microsoft Access are essentially a GUI frontend that has a database backing.

Access is the best choice for this purpose under the majority of circumstances. Filemaker Pro is relevant in some. The usual reason to use DBase or FoxPro is simply that the developer is used to it. This is not a good enough reason.

I have used DBase III+ for developing an office management suite back in 1994. I have since used Filemaker Pro to develop a simple contact management database in 1998, Microsoft Access to develop a patient management system for a clinic.

SQLite, HSQLDB and MySQL are database engines that are to be utilised by popping a frontend on top; sometimes the frontend is Microsoft Access. Microsoft Access can also be used for its database engine.

Access is usually the worst choice for this except as a stopgap. There are exceptions to this. One is for a web frontend if the site is not too busy and its running on a microsoft platform. You don't have to go to the hassle of installing anything on the server. The drivers will take care of it all.

HSQLDB becomes an obvious choice for a light java based application and SQLite for any other lightweight applications.

MySQL is substantially more powerful and scales a lot better. I include it in this section because it is a server grade database system that can also work well in a desktop environment.

I have used Access for several web based systems and I have used HSQLDB for unit testing hibernate and for a quick and dirty MP3 library that linked into musicBrainz. I have used SQLite in passing to be utilised by open source products.

I have used MySQL with an Access frontend as a management suite for a website as well.

And we have the server based database systems:

• MySQL
• Microsoft SQL Server
• IBM DB2
• PostgreSQL

MySQL was used as the backed database system for the edFringe.com website. This was the perfect choice since the most important requirement was speed. Particuarly with the Query Cache and Master Slave replication, MySQL was the best choice.

SQL Server was used as the backend system for an online course for the Scottish Enterprise around 1999/2000. While MySQL would have been a good choice this, it was not of production quality at the time.

We have also used Ms SQL Server for an insurance company since all the infrastructure was based on Windows and PostgreSQL did not have a viable Windows version at the time.

We use PostgreSQL for megabus. While speed is absolutely critical, it is a ticketing system which means that transactionality is absolutely critical.

While MySQL now has transactionality with innodb, it is still nowhere near as good as the transactionality provided by PostgreSQL through MVCC (Multi-version Concurrency Control). We could have used Ms SQL Server but the cost savings are dramatic.

To summarise, each system has a specific use, specific strengths and weaknesses and which should be used is highly dependent on what it is to be used for. I am hopeful that the summary of what we have used each of these systems for us useful in determining which one is best placed to solve any specific problem :-D

We have not yet used Oracle and it was a strong contender for megabus but the serious heavyweight functionality provided by Oracle comes at a price and it is not yet a cost effective option.

According to W3C, as of November 2008, IE(6/7) dominate 46.6% of the market with Firefox at 44.2%. Compare this to November 2007 when IE (5/6/7) dominated 56% of the market and Firefox only had 36.3%

It is interesting to note that between Nov 2007 and Nov 2008, Linux adoption (as far as internet browsing is concerned) went up a meagre .5% from 3.3% to 3.8%.

This means that a very large proportion of the firefox users are from the Windows Platform. Why is this impressive? There is technically no reason for a user on Windows to download Firefox. Windows comes with Internet Explorer, which should be adequate for all the internet browsing needs.

If 44.2% of all windows users went to the effort to download, install and use firefox instead of Internet Explorer which comes pre-installed, let me ask the question - if Windows came pre-installed with Firefox instead of Internet Explorer - how many would go to the effort of downloading and installing Internet Explorer.

While it is possible to install Internet Explorer on Linux, it might be a little unfair to answer this question based on the number of Internet Explorer's running off linux. People who run linux have proven to be biased against Microsoft anyway, so it would be a loaded statistic.

While I have no doubt in my mind that Firefox is better than Internet Explorer, I still don't feel that Firefox is perfect. It still feels far too bulky, with disproportionate memory usage and it is still not as fast as Safari in terms of page display.

Sure, the addons and themes functionality is great and useful. However, it would be nice if it was faster to load, faster to use and just felt more lightweight... like Safari does.…

Having said that, I am not going to switch to safari. I like the browser but it is still just not as good as firefox.

One of the points of open source software, should be to bring all the benefits of all the competing pieces of software into one but it just doesnt work like that. If Firefox had all the benefits of firefox as well as the benefits of Safari, I am sure the adoption rate would be far higher...

Lets take it one step at a time... I vote for firefox feeling a lot quicker and snappier for a wishlist... :-)

This explains why, for a long time, I used a fairly bland desktop environment. My desktop itself was just pure black with no wallpaper. Ironically, I would remove all the icons, so it would be pure black and nothing else.

This should have tipped me off on my own desire for design. I thought my desire for black stemmed from the “good old” days of DOS when the screen was black and my love for the linux terminal. As an aside, I used to reconfigure the terminal windows in X to have a white on black background as well - so much better for the eyes. In fact, I still don’t understand why everyone uses a white background for terminals and such like. Paper was white because that was easier. There is really no reason for the screen to be white too…

Now, this was before I bumped into Enlightenment (at this time, it was E16) and to put it bluntly, I was captivated. This was absolutely gorgeous. Fairly unusable since I was used to GNOME and of course Microsoft Windows. I thoroughly enjoyed this until it became more of a distraction…

I ended up reconfiguring GNOME to be prettier - in fact, I had the Mac OS X theme for a while which I enjoyed.

I then dabbled with E17 and it was absolutely gorgeous - E16 paled in comparison. I ran into a bug where some java applications would jump a few pixels when changing the decorations. This was a real pain since I was developing a Java application at the time. I spent an entire day trying to “fix” this before I realised that it was E17 screwing it up and not my code… :-(

More recently, I thoroughly enjoyed Compiz with the shaky windows and such like - I just always wished that I could actually throw a window and watch the momentum carry it that extra distance.

Nevertheless, this bridged the gap enough to E17 to keep me happy for a little while.

Last week, I dabbled with E17 again to see if the issue with Java was resolved. To my surprise E17 had changed more or less completely - it was bridging the gap between a window manager and a full fledged Desktop environment.

However, there was a problem. It looked like I couldn’t get it back to its old glory of absolutely fantastic graphics without some effort in configuration. One other issue I ran into was that maximising a screen would fill it up across both my monitors. Another thing I could configure but then, it all seemed like too much effort.

E17 gives me the feeling that this is where user interfaces will end up - it automates so many of the things that makes it quicker to do anything. However, it still lacks some of the “basics”.

E17 is a very good example of a UI that tries to conform to what I call the “Invisible Interface” which I will be writing about later.

To bring it all back to now, I found it a hassle to go through all the available themes for WordPress for the Company Blog as well as my own.

I used to take great pleasure in going through dozens or hundreds of themes and picking ones that I liked but after doing it a few times (for Firefox, Thunderbird, my phone, GNOME, GDM and my flat), it gets a bit repetitous.

Now, for a wish. A website that pulls in all the different themes for all over the world for everything. A one-stop-theme shop. Here, I could go through and pick a general theme that I liked and download it for all the applications, my phone(s), mp3 players (and of course, taking it to the next level, all the gadgets at my flat).

That gives my life more uniformity. Perhaps this is something that Designers could take on… Say Hugo Boss, and design something that even matches your clothes, shoes, hair - everything.

That way, you could have your own unique branding… and while you are at it link it into Gravatars and you are also instantly recognisable

Now for the issue of privacy - I think I best leave that for another day.

I could only ponder about the sheer stupidity of this teacher and wonder about the next generation of students brought up under this ignorance.

I grew up with Microsoft, with DOS 3 as my first Operating System and went through DOS 5, 6, Windows 3.1, 95, NT, 98, & ME.

I also played around with BeOS, and various versions of Mac.

I was then introduced to Linux turned into an open source zealot and wiped out my Windows installation in anger. Since then, while my primary operating system is Linux, I still have Windows running on my Laptop and have both Windows & Linux on my home computer.

I have since worked with Windows 2000, XP, 2003 & Vista. I love what Microsoft does with these products. They do innovative things, pick up features from other products that are useful and try to simplify things.

My Laptop came pre-installed with Windows and I never went to the effort of installing Linux and I use my home computer to play games, which (whether I like it or not) just handles games so much better.

As per the old joke, It is the software engineers job to make software as idiot proof as possible. It is the job of the universe to create bigger and bigger idiots. So far the universe is winning.

Linux & Open Source software (in general) takes a different approach to software. It should be easy to use and manage software but it also expects you to understand (or at least think about) what you are doing or trying to do.

Microsoft seems to be under the impression that this is not necessary. The user does not need to know what they are doing - they just need to know what is to happen. e.g.

Lets take a simple operation - deleting a file. Before Windows 95, this used to be a simple, difficult to undo operation. Windows 95 brings in the concept of the Recycle Bin (or Trash), a concept that was available on the Mac platform for quite some time.

After this point, you no longer delete a file on Windows - you move it to the Recycle Bin, which will delete them from the disk when the number of files in there exceeds the set capacity.

Now, from a users perspective, what they are doing is deleting a file - in fact, thats what the menu item says - Delete. But what happens is completely different. The file disappears from their folder. What they aimed to do - “make this file disappear” has happened. However, the file has not been deleted.

Windows has effectively lied to the user since it is “smarter”. If the user later discovers that they deleted the wrong file, it can be recovered easier. However, that is not the point.

Microsoft software, are in general rife with such miscommunications. I find this fairly insulting and this was one of the main reasons that I started using Linux.  If you ask it to delete a file - it deletes it. If you want to move something to recycle bin, it can do that too.

To go back to the original point, the ignorance shown by the teacher in this school is exactly the kind that Microsoft panders to. Microsoft allows (nay encourages)  its users to be as “simple” as possible and let Microsoft worry about the rest.

Don’t get me wrong. I think that Microsoft do a fantastic job in making software accessible and easy to use but it should also help educate it users on what they are doing and help them think about what they are trying to do. Don’t pretend or try to do their thinking for them. Thats their job.

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish ; and you have fed him for a lifetime”