Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?

© Copyright 2005, Charles Tryon

One of the questions I keep hearing again and again is, “Is Linux ready for the desktop yet?” It's pretty clear at this point that Linux is a top flight server OS. Not only is it less expensive over the long haul than certain other proprietary options, but it has shown itself to be more secure, flexible and robust. The market share of Linux in the server market is still relatively small when compared to both more traditional Unix variants and to Windows, however it is the only OS that has been showing consistent, double-digit growth over the past several years. Long standing problems with enterprise support and scalability, such as support for large numbers of parallel processors and huge memory sizes, have eliminated through deep refactoring of key parts of the kernel. With companies like Red Hat, IBM and Novel throwing their full weight behind Linux support, enterprises now have a level of comfort with the kind of technical support they need. While there is still a great deal of change still under way, the kernel is showing signs of the kind of maturity that enterprises require before they are ready to put full reliance on the OS for their mission critical applications and data.

Linux is now firmly entrenched in the server space, especially in the Web server space, where combined with the Apache Web Server, it is a force to contend with. There is still plenty of competition between Linux, Windows and the various Unix flavors, but you aren't going to hear anyone saying, “Linux? What's that?”

However, most of us don't spend our time building Linux servers. It's on the desktop that most of us touch computers and all of the technologies that have become so pervasive in our day. It is also on the desktop that Microsoft has shown its greatest strength in marketing and market saturation. That is where Microsoft has been able to leverage its monopoly position to gobble up more and more application markets, from office productivity suites to Media and home entertainment. It is even through its hold on the desktop that Microsoft has tried to force its way into the server space, tying its desktop clients tightly to enterprise applications such as Exchange, Directory services and enterprise management tools. At one point, it seemed poised to gobble up the Internet itself, squeezing it between IE on the client and IIS on the server.

It is also on the desktop that much of the most interesting developments in human-computer interactions are taking place. We are re-thinking how we interact not only with the piece of hardware sitting on our desk, but with distributed computing, and even with other people spread across the world. It is on the desktop that much of the newest hardware is being introduced, and it is from desktop like platforms that the game and home entertainment industry is branching out.

So, in order to really impact the greatest number of people, Linux must be strong on the Desktop as well as in the server room. It doesn't necessarily have to conquer Microsoft and drive it into oblivion, but it must present a viable alternative in people's minds, appealing to a significant chunk of the computer using population.

Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?

People have been asking this question for a long time – at least since the late 90's. For a long time, it was clear that Linux was, “By Geeks. For Geeks,” but that is quickly changing. But, the question is still being asked, and it still raises heated arguments as to the correct answer. Whenever I have happened on these arguments (or “flame-fests” as they often degrade into), I have invariably found that the opposite sides are really talking about completely different questions. The questions I see break down into basically three categories: (1) Is Linux ready for the desktop? (2) Is the Desktop ready for Linux? (3) Is Linux ready for MY desktop? I believe that, if we really understood the questions behind The Question, we would not only be able to understand each other better, but we would probably gain a greater understanding of where Linux needs to grow in order to continue to conquer the desktop.

(1) Is Linux ready for the Desktop?

If, by this question, the intent is to determine if it is possible to run Linux as one's primary working environment, then the answer is unmistakably YES. Personally, I have been running Linux as my primary working environment, both at home and at my job, for over seven years. Now, I've always been one to swim against the current, and it certainly hasn't been easy all this time. There have been compatibility glitches (running Ximian Evolution in an Exchange world), and sometimes updates have broken things. Over the years, I've spent lots of time on Google and USENET looking up esoteric configuration setting and boot parameters. I still have problems now and then getting hardware to work, or finding support for sound cards or non-standard video drivers. However, I've always managed to somehow get what I need. With stable releases of Firefox, the Evolution email client, and OpenOffice, there is very little that I still can't do on my Linux desktop. If I really needed to, I could get Wine to run most Windows applications, though I still find it easier to have a spare Windows box near by running VNC for the occasional application where there just is no Linux equivalent.

Measured this way, Linux is ready for my desktop, and for the desktops of a steadily increasing number of people. My wife knows nothing about Linux, but she runs it on her desktop. Since she was already using Firefox on Windows, it took her several days to even realize that I had changed anything when I replaced her Win98 install with Fedora Core. I have another friend who was constantly calling on me to clean out viruses and spyware on his system. With his permission, I replaced XP with FC4, and now all he says is that, “My computer runs ten times faster than it used to!” In many situations, especially where people primarily use Web browsing, word processing, email and perhaps IM, Linux is usually a better, more stable, more reliable solution. The list of completely supported hardware and applications is growing. Standard devices like USB drives work just as you would expect them to on a Windows box. There are still plenty of games and other specialized hardware devices which are not fully supported, or that may take extra “heroic” efforts to get working, but that list keeps shrinking.

So, the answer to the first question is, in many cases, a resounding YES.

(2) Is the Desktop Ready for Linux?

The second question is, unfortunately, more of a political, sociological question. Most people, especially those in decision making positions, are familiar with Windows and Windows based tools such as Outlook and MS Office. They are comfortable with the tools, and in spite of the bugs and crashes and security holes and the general attitude of, “We're Microsoft. We know better than you do,” they have learned to navigate their way through the tools they use. They may only need 10% of the features, but they have grown to rely on them. They are comfortable not only with what the applications do, but how they do it. They know the terminology. They are used to the quirks. They have set up macros to format their files how they want them. They have their Access databases set up and their mail-merge files configured. They have other custom tools which are integrated with the Microsoft way of doing things. They may grumble and complain about the costs of licensing, but they know that their purchasing department is already set up to OK the yearly costs, so they just bite the bullet. They have IT groups who's very organizational structure is built around Microsoft's tool chain and licensing requirements.

When it comes down to it, people don't really care what operating system they run. They don't even think of it as something separate from the computer. For all they know, Windows is just something that comes for free when they buy the hardware. They want to run their applications, or their games, and Windows is the way they run them. They think word processing is “Microsoft”, and they have no concept of the distinction between hardware, OS and application.

When you tell the average user about Linux, they give you this confused look and ask, “What will Linux do for me?” It doesn't matter to them that it's free (as in “free beer”, or “freedom”), since they don't think they paid anything extra for Windows. Chances are, they didn't pay anything for MS Office either, either having it as part of a bundled system, or installed from a friend's copy. (They don't even really think of themselves as pirates. It's there, and so they use it.) They don't “get” the philosophical or moral significance of Free Software, since it doesn't seem to directly impact them, or they way they use the computer.

Put simply, the average user doesn't see any particular benefit to using Linux, or at least not yet. More and more “average” users are beginning to feel the pain of poor security, and they are starting to notice that some other people, such as people using Mac's, don't seem to be getting as many viruses. People are starting to hear about this “Linux thing”. Lord knows that Tux is a recognizable icon. IBM is making really cool advertisements on TV spots. Slowly but surely, the word is getting out.

Still, it will be a while before Linux gains the critical mass in the minds of the majority of computer users in order to really take off. It is very likely that this will happen sooner overseas than it does in the US, since there is an understandable distrust of American technology and monopolistic companies pushing their weight around. Massachusetts and its adoption of the Open Document Format is still a curiosity. The EU pushing for the use of Open Source software is not. The Desktop may not be ready for Linux yet, but it is headed in that direction.

(3) Is Linux Ready For MY Desktop?

In arguments about whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop, those who claim that it is not ready invariably point out that, “I have to use application X, and there simply is no equivalent application on Linux.” There may be applications which are close, such as The Gimp is to Adobe Photoshop, but there is still some kind of gap. It is even possible that the parallel Linux application may be superior overall to the required Windows based application (such as some would argue is the case between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft's Office suite), but there is some significant feature which is still missing. Sometimes it is simply a case of #2 above, where the user is comfortable with their current tools, and reluctant to have to learn everything all over again. In many cases, the required application is some highly specialized piece of software either custom written, or aimed at a very narrow market. It would be possible to port to Linux, but as long as the vendor feels no economic incentive to do so (i.e., no paying customers in the Linux or Mac market), the port will never happen.

However, whatever the underlying cause, there is a significant roadblock to the individual or group's path to adopting Linux on their desktop. It may in fact be that Windows, while it's not be the greatest tool, at the moment, is the only tool available. There are many efforts under way (some coordinated, and some not) to address these shortfalls, but others, mostly because of market size and interest, will never be filled. Hence, no matter how much the user may want to go to running Linux on their desktop, circumstances have painted them into a corner. In these cases, Linux is still a long way from being ready for those particular desktops.

Ready or Not...

So, the answer to the original question depends on which underlying question you are really asking. It also depends on the situation the individual user is in. Plainly, the answer is not the same for all people, or all groups. For some people, Linux has been ready for a long time, and has already been running as their primary desktop for years. For some others, Linux may never be a good fit. For others, it may only be a matter of making the decision to dive in and switch. For many, it is simply a matter of finding someone to help them through the process.

These questions, and their answers, may also give us a hint of the future, and how we can work to drive Linux on to more and more desktops. As noted, often the greatest roadblock to acceptance of Linux on the desktop is the psychological barrier of leaving something familiar for something new and uncertain. The friend I mentioned with the constant spyware problem wouldn't have had a clue how to install and configure a Linux desktop. For me, it was a simple half hour job. Once I did that for him, aside from the fact that some Web page plugins don't work, he hasn't had a single problem.

The problem of applications is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Without market penetration and demand, vendors aren't going to port their applications to Linux. Without applications, market penetration will stall. One answer is for the community to come up with viable alternatives, though this takes time and resources. While the Open Source community isn't directly driven by dollars, it has its own “currency” of recognition, teamwork and feedback. The community will not spend resources on a project unless there is the definite feel that a significant number of people want the product. That “significant number” may actually go to the number one, if the developer and the audience are the same person, but projects of one take a long time to get off the ground.

So Linux is truly ready for the Desktop, but there is still plenty to be done before it can gain the momentum to rise above the noise level and become a viable alternative in the eyes of typical consumers, software vendors and heads of corporate IT departments. In my opinion, the following points are where growth is needed:

• Software corporations (ISV's) taking the gamble that Linux on the desktop is growing, and that they need to consider it in their targeted platform plans. It is still a long shot for them, but the potential payout of grabbing “first mover” status is huge. As an example, there are signs that the Gaming industry is starting to catch on, as game titles are coming out with Linux releases, sometimes before the Windows release.

• In cases where they can't find a viable business plan to create Linux based versions of their products, software corporations need to consider open sourcing their products. Obviously, this is a complicated process, and not a decision to be made lightly, but there are strong examples of others, such as Sun with OpenOffice.org, who have been successful with this approach.

• The larger Open Source community – from developers to corporations that “get” FOSS, to government agencies – needs to keep up the fight against the use of software patents and other IP claims to try to create legal barriers to Linux where simple marketing dollars, threats and strong-arm tacts have failed. There are people in positions of power who are still deathly afraid of losing that power and influence to this “cancer” of open source.

• Individual developers and communities need to keep producing quality open source products. More and more the key needs to be driving consistency and integration. One thing which large corporations such as Microsoft have is the ability to enforce consistent interfaces, where users know what to expect, and to build integration between different products, so they work together. Obviously, they aren't always good at this, but they generally have been better than the community. There are efforts such as the LSB for system level consistency, and desktop environments such as Gnome and KDE, and now Mono which provide frameworks for integration, but developers need to keep their eyes and ears open to what is going on around them, and to consider how they fit into the whole computing “experience”..

• Individual Linux users need to look for more opportunities to help others. The community is known both for its helpfulness, and for its impatience with what it considers to be laziness or incompetence. Be patient with newbies! Don't scare off the non-geeks! Take a little time to help grandma with her computer by installing Linux, and then sticking around long enough to make sure she is not frustrated by some glitch she doesn't know how to fix. Volunteer your time to set up some computers at the local elementary school or community center. Give a seminar on Internet Security at your church. Hand out Ubuntu Live CD's at work. Donate cold hard cash to organizations working to spread inexpensive, Linux based computers in developing nations overseas.

• Use Linux yourself. Show your boss that, yes, you can run a Linux desktop at work, get your job done, and not make his job more difficult. (Chances are, once your IT person gets over the initial shock of seeing Linux on your computer, he or she will be relieved because yours will be one less desktop to worry about during the next virus outbreak.) Sell it to your boss by telling him that you are actually more productive using Linux than you are stuck on Windows, and then make sure it really happens.

Linux is ready for the Desktop, though not all desktops are ready for Linux. It will continue to grow, but our efforts can accelerate that growth. Wherever we are, and whomever we might be, there are things we can do to promote freedom in software. FOSS may not have the same impact as Solving World Hunger, but in its own way, Free Software, in the way it spreads knowledge and the ability to share, communicate, learn and participate in the communities around us, can serve to make the world we live in a little better place.

Frankenstein Rises from the Ashes

OK, so computers still drive me crazy, but sometimes I manage to get the upper hand, for a while at least...

If I may horribly trash my metaphors, the Frankenstein computer has once again risen from the ashes of its previous demise, or perhaps to stick better to the myth, with a couple of replacement parts, you can get almost anything back up and working again...

It took another trip to eBay to get a replacement motherboard (that, and another $43 with shipping), but with that in hand, I was able to fairly quickly move over all the other parts (CPU, SCSI card, NVIDIA video, etc), and get the system up and running again. This time, happily, the board was able to fit in to an old VAIO case someone had given me. I had to use a hack-saw to get the power supply to fit right, but I've done worse. The MB is a Shuttle AV49PN, which has lots of neat features, most of which I'm not using yet (e.g., SATA support), but which may be handy in the future. One quirk is that I can't seem to get it to overclock the 2GHz processor. The old motherboard, before it bit the dust, was running at a cool 2.666GHz, which is a pretty significant boost. However, even at the rated 2GHz, it's pretty snappy (compared to a dual 500MHz PIII), and the CPU should last longer.

So, I now have a system where I can play some games on, and almost keep up with my son Sam playing Enemy Territory.

Computers Drive Me Nuts.

May 15th? Sheesh! It's been a long time since I posted anything here!

Well, not to wallow in self-pithy, excuses or overly long contemplation of the navel, we will continue on.

Did I ever mention the fact the computers drive me nuts?

I finally tried to upgrade from my old dual PIII/500 main desktop (the Frankenstein) to a P4/2GHz motherboard. I didn't have a case to put it in, so I just tried to lay it out on a wooden board. Actually, it worked pretty well there, sitting on top of the SCSI enclosure where I put the 3x9Gig drives. It had a reasonable NVIDIA video card, and 768Meg of RAM. I was even able to over-clock the P4 to 2.666GHz, if I boosted the core voltage by a tenth of a volt. I regularly checked the cooling fins to make sure it wasn't getting too hot, and it never got more than slightly warm to the touch. One time when I got a process locked up where it was using 100% of the CPU for a long time, it did get a little warmer, but I didn't see any problems after that.

The system ran just fine there for a couple of weeks. I think this is the biggest jump in compute power that I've ever had, and I have to say I was pretty happy with the system. All I needed was a case to wrap it up and make it pretty.

Of course, I'm wondering now if it was the over-clocked that did me in...

I had an old case I'd pulled a toasted motherboard out of. (Queue: eerie soundtrack.) The power supply seemed OK -- in fact that was the power supply I was using for "Son of Frankenstein". All I had to do was pull out the old MB, and install the new one. Simple, eh?

Got everything put together, and hit the power button. Nothing. Nada. Started to sweat. Started disconnecting peripherals. Nothing. Pulled the entire system out and laid it out exactly as it had been before. Zilch. I think I now have two toasted motherboards. I have no idea what might have failed on the motherboard, but I don't even get the fan on the CPU cooler spinning up, and there's no signal on the video output.

One good sign was that I took out the CPU and put it in another computer and it worked fine, so at least that wasn't the problem. I don't think it is the RAM, though I haven't had a way to check that yet. The only sign that I have of any sort of problem is a slight bulge in the motherboard under the CPU. I don't know if it was there before, but it's entirely possible, since I did get the board used.

So, now I'm back to the old computer. Fortunately, since I have a Linux network, all of my critical files were on the file server, so I didn't lose anything significant. However, it still torques me that the new system was working FINE before, and I had to go and mess with it.

*sigh* Oh well. Sometimes I never learn.

Blogs and the "New Journalism"

Not too long ago, there was a lot of hype about how Blogging was about to become the "New Journalism." Certainly, there are a lot of advantages which blogging brings to the table.

• Anyone can start a blog... or at least anyone with an Internet connection and a minimal amount of computer skill. You don't need a degree or a lot of money, or for that matter, and particular skill in writing.
• Aside from minimal restrictions placed by your ISP or Blog site, you can say anything you want.
• Anyone in the world (or, anyone in the world with an Internet connection) can read your blog. Of course, this point combined with the previous point means that your boss can read your blog. People are suddenly realizing that they have to be careful what they say about their boss or place of work online!
• Blogging, if you became popular enough and you allow people to post replies, can create a community.
• Blogging is inexpensive, meaning that you don't need corporate sponsorship, with the ever-present threat of being shut down if you say something that upsets your sponsor.
• On a blog, you can "publish" as often or as rarely as you want. If you want to put up three "articles" in a day, and then nothing else for a month, you can do that.

Blogging is the ultimate electronic "soap box". Just as it was in the past when anyone could get a box to stand on, set it up on a street corner or park, and start talking to anyone who would listen to them, blogging gives a venue for anyone to speak their mind, only this "street corner" is the entire world! (or... the world as it is connected to the Internet.)

However, is blogging really Journalism? I would contend that, in a general sense, it is not.

Please note that I am saying this in the general sense. There are a lot of blogs out there, and obviously some are better than others. But what are the problems?

First, blogs are not really world wide. As much as we might like to think that the entire world is connected to the Internet, this simply is not the case (yet). True, here in the US, and in other developed nations, the percentage of people connected is quickly approaching 100%, but it's still not there. In other poorer nations, connectivity is steadily increasing. In many places, even if people do not have computers at home, there are often Internet Cafes where they can go online for a minimal charge. However, there are still plenty of places in the world where more traditional forms of journalism are still the only way for people to find out what is going on around them. Newspapers, periodicals, radio, TV. These still cover much more of the world than the Internet does, and they cover more of the less affluent part of the population. The Internet is still skewed toward younger, affluent people with a healthy chunk of disposable income.

Second, there are no checks and balances on blogs. Now, many would say that there are no checks and balances on traditional journalists either, and that they can publish any kind of lies and half-truths that they want (especially when the journalist in question is publishing something we don't like), but the fact is, there is at least some pressure for journalists to be honest. Journalists, when they write for established publications, have Editors. Usually, they have some kind of training. They have professional ethics to follow. There are certain legal ramifications if they publish out-and-out libel about someone. Certainly, these are no guarantee that everything published by an established media outlet will be honest, un-biased, factual or in good taste, but at least it's easier to call someone on the carpet if they are completely out of line.

In comparison, you can say anything in a blog. If you are a part of a hate group, you can spread hatred and bile. You can talk about all your favorite conspiracy theories. You can tell about your alien abductions, and your latest "scientific study" into the perpetual motion machine or cold fusion. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. All that matters is that someone out there thinks like you do and will listen. Blogs feed on group-think and mob mentality. If you can write well, it doesn't matter if the facts are there to back you up. Blogs, even if they begin to become popular, tend to limit themselves to like-minded people. If you make comments that everyone agrees with, then everyone else will chime in their support. On the other hand, it becomes all too easy for dissenters to be flamed into oblivion, or hacked to pieces electronically.

Of course, blogs have their own dangers. If you're not careful, and you start to publish confidential or otherwise unflattering information about your job or people you work with, you can suddenly find yourself in a heap of trouble. This has been coming up in real world cases recently, where people were writing in their blogs as if they were a private journal, and then being surprised when they were canned from their job for making all kinds of nasty accusations about their bosses. Surprise, surprise. Blogs are public (unless explicitly set up otherwise), and there is nothing to prevent the "wrong" people from reading what you write.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with blogs is that they are anonymous. "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Assuming the author isn't a well known personality, it is all too simple to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Of course, this is also one of the advantages of a blog -- you can publish unpopular ideas without the threat of reprisals. That only works somewhat, as it is usually still possible to track someone down in the real world, if you are persistent enough, but it still makes it harder, especially if the author is careful to hide his or her tracks. Thus, anonymity is a double-edged sword. It gives both freedom and an opportunity for abuse.

In a general sense, blogging has none of the normal checks and balances that tend to keep a real Journalist honest, and to make sure that the content of the blog is factual or correct.

Still, there are examples of the opposite. There are examples of blogs which have not only raised the bar on journalism, but they have created strong communities, communities which have themselves become an integral part of this New Journalism. These blogs take advantage of the strengths of blogging, without falling prey to the weaknesses. (Well, that was obvious, wasn't it...)

EXHIBIT ONE: Groklaw

I would like to look at Groklaw as an example of what makes a great blog. This is not to say that Groklaw is perfect, or that there aren't other blogs which have reached a similar level of excellence, but it is easy enough to point out a number of attributes that give this site its strength.

First, Groklaw, and in particular its author Pamela Jones (PJ), has kept a fairly narrow focus. Some people like to think they are experts in everything. Rather than let Groklaw wander all over the map, PJ has given it a specific focus on Open Source and the law. It started out primarily focused on the SCO vs. IBM (or as some would say, SCO vs. the World) case, but as that case has continued to lose steam, the site has begun to branch out into Copyright and Patent law as it affects software and the Free Software / Open Source ethic. PJ calls herself a Journalist with a paralegal background. She doesn't try to cover politics, or world hunger, or scientific research, or the lives and times of famous people, though she no doubt has her own feelings on those subjects. In sticking to a narrow focus, PJ keeps to what she is good at, and what she can speak about with some authority.

Second, the site has tried to maintain good taste. Obviously, when you are allowing comments (especially from anonymous posters), it is hard to control that, but in may ways, PJ sets the tone with her original stories. That's not to say that the posts are dry. Rather, PJ is incredibly funny, in her own understated way. She's just a little over the top in her style, but never crude or abusive. She has a touch of sarcasm, an occasional story, a penchant for pointing out contradictions in other people's statements, and perhaps most important, she isn't stuck on her own self-importance.

Of course, just to keep us off balance, once in a while she comes up with a story or comment that bubbles up from the depths of her heart. It's one of those touching observations that lets us see deep down into her soul -- the kind of thing you have to be really careful of publishing on the Internet. Still, it lets us see that there is a real, feeling person there writing those posts, not just a batch of prickers or sour grapes.

Third, Groklaw is a community, not just the ramblings of a single individual. It has become more than simply the sum of its parts. In the beginning, the intent of Groklaw was to create a sort of Open Source Journalism, in particular, digging into SCO and the accusations they were making against the Free Software community and the GPL (GNU Public License). PJ would publish a story, and then ask for help. She wasn't the expert on all this stuff, and certainly didn't know all the history, or even the meaning of all the technical bits and pieces. That's what everyone else was for. Groklaw was the gathering point, the collected eyes of a large group of individuals, each with his or her own skills. It created a place for many people to contribute and pool their resources, as well as a place for us techies who had no idea how the legal system worked to find out what all the legal gibberish actually meant. Eric Raymond said in his work, The Cathedral and the Bazaar that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." In a similar manner, given enough eyeballs, and research project is trivial.

Fourth, Groklaw isn't perfect, but it is ready to admit that fact. One of the standard threads in the responses to any post is, "Put Corrections Here." Where there are factual errors, the "many eyes" of the community can check PJ's post and find them. Then, the posts are corrected in near real-time. Unlike a print magazine where you have to wait a week or a month for the next issue to come out, the posts on Groklaw can be corrected right away. Admittedly, many of the corrections are picking nits at grammar, but some of them are significant, such as corrections to attributions of quotes and such.

Fifth, Groklaw is up to date, or even in some cases, up to the minute. Since it is a site focused on a legal case, Groklaw is usually the first site to report on court hearings with eye-witness accounts. It is usually the first place to find legal papers as they have been submitted, and they are usually transcribed to text form within a couple of hours. Again, this is the work of the community rather than one individual.

Lastly, and perhaps most critical, Groklaw is focused on integrity and presenting the facts, and then letting people come to their own opinions. While a lot of the personality (the heart and soul) of the site centers around PJ and her style of writing, the foundation is always the facts of the source documents to which it refers. There are plenty of people in SCO who don't like PJ, and complain intensely about Groklaw, but the one thing they can't do away with is the factuality of the documents presented there. PJ and the others who add their comments to her posts can add all the spin they want, but what really matters is that they present the facts, and allow you to come to your own conclusions.

The result of all of these factors is that, unlike blogs in general, Groklaw is based not so much on the personal opinion of one person, or even a group of people, as it is on the facts of the law. It doesn't matter if you like SCO or IBM. The source texts are there for everyone to see. It doesn't matter if you like PJ or agree with what she says. If all you want to do is read the source documents, they are there for you.

In a general sense, blogs and their content do not constitute a viable substitute for more conventional journalism. That is not to say that they are unimportant as vehicles for the discussion of ideas, and as a modern day equivalent to the old soapbox on a street corner, but are not the same as real journalism. However, in some cases, such as Groklaw, blogs have succeeded on harnessing the strengths of the Internet to rise to a new level that even the best of conventional journalists cannot reach. They do it through:

• Sticking to their strengths
• Maintaining an atmosphere of excellence (keeping Trolls and flame-fests in check)
• Building on the strength of the community - whole is greater than the sum of the parts
• Admitting fallibility and being ready to make corrections when needed
  
• Timely information
• Absolute dedication to objective truth and the ability of the individual to form his or her own opinion.

It is my own hope that other sites can follow this example, and that these sites will become an example of how the collaborative nature of the Internet can create new and constructive ways to share knowledge and ideas.

What's in a Name?

So, what's in a name?

My use of the name "Bilbo" goes back to the 80's, shortly after graduating from college. (I may have even used it before then, but this is when it really stuck.) A friend of mine was running a BBS on a C64 (any one remember those?), with a dial-up modem. Most BBS's at that time required you to use your real name, but on this system, everyone had taken on some pseudonym or another. The guy running it was Drool Rockworm. Another regular participant was "Lore Rastifarious". Another, one of the real grouches of the group, called himself "Lord Bah". Those were great times of lively discussions, from Religion to Politics to Technology. The funny thing was, though we strongly disagreed with each other, we always respected each other's opinion and thoughts. Arguments got pretty hot, but never descended into name calling or personal attacks.

In all that, I tried to maintain the persona of the unflappable one. I could argue without getting upset. I always saw Bilbo as being polite, even when his guests were a bit of a pain, and he never lost his wonder at the great world around him.

Since "Drool" and I worked together at Automation Gages (in Rochester), I started calling him Drool there, and he started calling me Bilbo, or Mr. Baggins. Ever since then, the name has stuck. That was close to 20 years ago, and Drool and I are still great friends (and still have some animated arguments about religion), and whenever we speak together, it's still Drool and Mr. Baggins...

And away we go...

Welcome to the world of my Blog. I have nothing of great resounding wisdom to add at this point, other than the fact that I am here, and ready to start.

Oh, and the name. My use of the nick-name "Bilbo Baggins" predates the current wave of popularity of the works of JRR Tolkien. In fact, it goes back to the days of modem based BBS's, though I'm afraid admitting that fact dates me. I've always enjoyed The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and I'm not so snooty and stuck up that I think of all the recent fans as wannabes or hangers-on. The greatness of the books is in no way diminished by popularity and fad. In fact, they will continue to be great long after the crowds move on to something else to tickle their fancy.

And, if you want to see my site, go to the real home of Bilbo Baggins