Brazil is Jumping out of Windows

     In response to a podcast dated Sept. 15 2004, Brazil made a big push against Microsoft and I say “way to go!” The president at that time declared that the country was no longer going to support Microsoft and in fact was going to switch over to Linux and or other open-source options. He even went as far as calling Microsoft drug pushers and claimed that the “free” software to low income families Microsoft was offering was just a way to get the country hooked on Windows. Microsoft of course wasn't very pleased by this but played it cool and responded with:

"We strongly believe that governments and computer users should be free to choose whichever software and other technology best meets their needs. But when all the costs and benefits are taken together, we think Microsoft offers the best value."

     Not only would it cost an estimated 2 billion dollars a year to license all the pirated software the government admits to using, but also by making the switch from Windows to open-source software, Brazil would save another 120 million dollars a year. This movement has a lot to do with finances and the fact the the government feels Windows is too expensive, but this change also has some other feelings and reasons behind it as well.

     There is a large community that think not only about the fact of the software being free, but also about the fact that a lot of times the free software works better, faster, and is more secure when it comes to things like viruses. Also some feel that nationalism comes into play and in ways freeware and open-source software is not only anti-Microsoft but also anti-American. These feelings are being supported with Brazilian based distros of Linux.

     One last plus side to note is that some of the largest open-source tech support companies are based out of Brazil. With the open-source movement increasing the business to those companies, it also in turn, is helping Brazil's economy by supplying more jobs and cash flow. I feel this was a very good decision on the part of Brazil and it's government. I can't wait to see the outcome in the next few years and also really hope to see more of this happening world wide.

Other resource:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4602325.stm

Moving along with the Linux based propaganda...

Organizational Transition

Your organization wants to use open source but does not understand how the licensing works.  Explain in a well-written memo to your boss, in laymans terms, how it works and what suggestions you have for your organization using Linux. Check for typos and make it professional.

Chris Jackson

XYZ Inc.

817 Plumas

Reno, NV 89509

Bob DeBoss

XYZ Inc.

1000 River Run Rd

Reno, NV 89999

Dear Mr. DeBoss,

I was informed that you wanted to move in the direction of open source for you company and could use some help if figuring out which direction is the right one. One thing I can tell you right off the back is that with any open source license it must be kept in mind that this will give anyone the right to download, modify, and distribute any software you release under the license. They will be able to do this without paying for any of the software or royalties to you as well.

Now if you are looking to go completely open and are more concerned with collaboration than commercial use then you can go for something like the GPL. This license really pushes for an open community where use of open source in conjunction with commercial proprietary software is looked down upon. Where BSD is the opposite and gives one the right to use the software any way one see's fit. This includes open source, proprietary and commercial software.

This subject is a really large one and can be very intimidating. With what little I know, my recommendation would be the BSD path because of the commercial presence of your company. Keep in mind that there are at least 20 different licenses for open source and more research may prove useful. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Chris Jackson

Linux Kernel Numbers

      The numbering system for the Linux kernel in actually pretty simple once broken down. Thus far three different numbering schemes for the kernel has been used. Linus Torvalds released the very first version of the Linux kernel in September 1991 with version 0.01. Many other versions using this numbering system followed like 0.02, 0.03, 0.11,0.12, etc. So the numbering system was just counting up with each release. Then came version 1.0 released in 1994, and it was at this point the version numbers moved to a 3 part set up like so, 1.x.x. In this format, the first number was the kernel version, the second number indicates major kernel revisions, and the last number is for smaller revisions such as bug and security patches or new features and drivers. With that being the case it can be said that the kernel number and the kernel version are related, but two different things.

      Moving along to the release of kernel 2.6.8, there was a critical error so bad it demanded immediate attention. Once attended to, some felt that not enough code had been changed to justify a minor revision, so instead of changing the numbers from 2.6.8 to 2.6.9 the four number system was established and kernel 2.6.8.1 was released. Again once it is broken down the numbering of the Linux kernels are not so hard to understand and can even be helpful at times. It could be very good to know that a certain kernel revision does not work with your hardware or has a major bug in it and that you may want to avoid updating or using a distro that comes with that kernel.

      This was just my few thoughts to the questions, how are Linux kernels numbered? Are they the same as versions? What is the advantage (or disadvantage) of this numbering system?  And now for something completely different...