Yesterday Oracle announced that it is buying Sun. I learned Unix on a Sun Sparc workstation several years ago but at first it didn’t seem to have an impact on me (other than Oracle will now own the hardware as well) but then I thought … hmmm, Sun owns Open Office, MySQL, Java and other open source initiatives. What will happen to them? Will Oracle continue to develop and support it’s new open source holdings?

Back in 2004, Oracle bought PeopleSoft after a long struggle on PeopleSoft’s part to prevent the acquisition. A big concern for PeopleSoft users was that Oracle was going to stop supporting PeopleSoft’s enterprise resource planning software in favor of it’s own system. PeopleSoft has a very active user community that was very vocal about keeping the PeopleSoft system alive. In 2006, new versions of PeopleSoft’s Financial Management Solutions and Human Capital Management were released. Four years later, PeopleSoft is still alive and well.

PeopleSoft is a very expensive platform that is making Oracle money so it’s easy to see why they would choose to support it. But what about free, open source software? Why would they continue to support it?

Where this matters to the social media community is with regard to MySQL. If you are using WordPress, Joomla, Drupal and many other open source content management systems, it most likely has a MySQL database on the backend. As a matter of fact, it is likely that many of your favorite social media platforms have MySQL databases on the backend. MySQL is a direct competitor to Oracle’s database platform but since it’s open source, it’s free. Oracle’s database (that I admit I like) is very expensive with licensing costs ranging from $6,000-$23,000 per processor depending on the product. One can imagine how costly developing applications could be without MySQL. So that begs the question, what will Oracle do with the open source properties that it will acquire?

You might also be interested in:

• Larry Ellison Speaks on Sun Acquisition

Google is not the reason for this. I’m wondering why the iPhone has this limitation – if it is an limitation of the iPhone itself. I’m wondering if it may be a limitation of ActiveSync as well.

You might also be interested in:

• Google Sync Revisited
• Solar Charge on the Go
• iOS 4 Upgrade on iPhone 3G
• iPhone 4 and iOS 4 Introduced: Verdict Out

I’ve been watching these “I’m a Mac. I’m a PC.” commercials. In the beginning I thought they were funny but they’ve reached the point where they’re essentially saying “Hey, you’re cool if you use a Mac” and “You’re not cool because you use a PC”. When exactly did the term PC become synonymous with Microsoft Windows? I’m just saying. Does “PC” automatically equate to a computer running a Microsoft operating system?

From what I recall going over the history of computers as a computer science major (seemed every class included history), there are several types of computer – super computers, mainframes, mini computers, workstations, and microcomputers also known as personal computers. These are not platforms but instead based on scale and usage. A personal computer (PC) is any computer that is meant to have one user at a time. Whether the computer is running Microsoft Windows, Mac OS or Linux it is still a personal computer.

What is commonly referred to as PCs now was once called IBM or IBM-compatible computers. I’ve always heard that IBM and Microsoft made decisions that propelled them to have the majority of the personal computing market share and Apple made decisions that caused them not to, even though they had a graphical user interface long before Microsoft even dreamed of having one. It has been generally accepted that Mac had a better product than IBM. I’m not arguing for or against that. What I am disputing is that Mac could be “versus” PC when it is in fact a PC as well.

Did Microsoft claim “PC” as their own? Or did Apple seek to differentiate itself from the Windows-based computers by calling them PCs? It’s time for some conjecture and unsubstantiated speculation. What I imagine happened was that Microsoft claimed the term PC (IBM once claimed PC to differentiate itself from other microcomputers). Microsoft does, after all, have an overwhelming majority of the personal computer operating system market. Then Apple decided to sell the belief that their product is better than the PC. I’ll agree that the Mac operating system is better than Windows but that doesn’t mean the hardware is as well. Apple has to tell us that though because their machines cost twice as much as a comparable Windows-based machine. And along with this “belief” comes some free advertising from Apple as I notice some people who own Macs are very specific about their computers. They don’t say “I’m using my laptop” but instead “I’m using my Mac Book Pro.” Instead of just saying “computer” they say “Mac mini” or “iMac”.

The thing that bothers me about Apple’s commercials as well as Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” commercials is that neither are about the technology itself. Most consumers (Mac users included) don’t even know anything about the specs of their computers nor what the full capabilities even are. What these companies are selling is lifestyle. It’s not about the technology at all – it’s about marketing. If it were about technology, it would be “Mac OS vs. Windows” or “iMac vs. Dell” and so on. If they made it about technology someone might ask why Apple would allow Windows to run on the machines via Boot Camp. That also begs the question of whether Apple will allow folks to run Mac OS on cheaper non-Apple machines which probably won’t happen soon.

Anjuan Simmons, a fellow Twitterer, says this kind of marketing works because humans are tribal by nature. He’s probably right because the Windows vs. Mac argument tends to go the same way as the Republican vs. Democrat, Redskins vs. Cowboys, Coke vs. Pepsi and any number of other heated arguments. I personally don’t understand how so much emotion gets involved in what boils down to personal preference.

You might also be interested in:

• No Related Post

I’ve been using Linux (specifically Ubuntu 8.10) on my laptop faithfully for about two months now.  The only reasons I’ve had to revert to Windows is to use image editing and video editing software that I purchased.  I’m also using another Windows PC that I have to handle all my iTunes downloads and syncing.  Other than that it’s just been Linux.

I’ve had Linux (Fedora) installed on another PC for over three years but never used it for everyday tasks.  What made me go with Ubuntu this time is that, my aunts both are having problems with their older computers and are likely not to buy new computers.  I planned to install Ubuntu on them but wanted to use it myself to see if it was viable for an average computer user and to be able to answer their questions.  I was so pleased with my use of it that I’ve decided to continue using it.  For what most people do with their computers – word processing, spreadsheets, surfing, etc. – Ubuntu is a viable option.  I also decided to install it on my nephew’s laptop as he was also having issues with Windows and I’ve already reinstalled Windows twice for him.

Over Thanksgiving, I installed Ubuntu along with a few other apps onto hard drives (so graciously donated by Phil Shapiro) so that I could just swap the hard drives and go.  For one aunt this didn’t go so well.  I assumed that because Ubuntu ran so well on my old computers that it would run the same way on other old computers.  The mistake I made here was that I forgot that I normally have more memory and a better processor than the average user buys.  The other aunt has Ubuntu running now but her computer is slow as well.  For both aunts, I’m going to give them my old computers to make their experience better.  My nephew on the other hand has a laptop that’s only about two years old.  He’s having no problems whatsoever.  As a matter of fact, I didn’t even have to show him how to use Ubuntu.  He just figured it out.

That’s the real point of this post.  Even though I’m trying to help my aunts, this whole exercise is an experiment. I don’t believe that computers have to be expensive.  I also don’t believe that people should have to purchase a new computer every time Microsoft or whoever updates their operating system.  This current environment makes computer ownership more expensive than it has to be and it also increases the digital divide. Computers that are a few years old can be revived.  And wouldn’t it be great if some of these revived computers ended up in the hands of less fortunate kids whose parents can’t afford to buy the latest Vista or Mac machine?

While this is only an idea that I have at this point, Ken Starks of HeliOS Solutions in Austin, Texas is already doing this.  I stumbled upon this post where he talks about opposition he received from a teacher to distributing Linux.  The part of the teacher’s email that I took issue with most was the following:

I admire your attempts in getting computers in the hands of disadvantaged people but putting linux on these machines is holding our kids back.

This is a world where Windows runs on virtually every computer and putting on a carnival show for an operating system is not helping these children at all. I am sure if you contacted Microsoft, they would be more than happy to supply you with copies of an older verison (sic) of Windows and that way, your computers would actually be of service to those receiving them…”

Oh really?  If we are teaching kids to use computers aren’t the tasks that they are completing more important than navigation in the operating system.  If word processing, spreadsheets, email, and the internet all are the same, what does the OS matter?   If you can use Internet Explorer, don’t you automatically know how to use Firefox?  And if you know how to send email, does it matter that you’re not using Outlook?  My nephew’s laptop came with Windows XP installed and I’m sure that every computer he has ever used has Windows on it.  But he was able to figure out Ubuntu.  Am I doing a disservice to him?  I think not.  If the kid has experience using Linux he’s already ahead of the curve.  Not to mention that Linux will be safer for him in terms of catching nasty viruses and trojans on the internet.

The fact of the matter is that the tasks are what matters in using a computer, not the OS.  The OS’s job is to get the heck out of the way and let users do what they need to do.  It’s true that some operating systems, are better suited for certain tasks (i.e. Macs are better suited for design) but for everyday tasks, it really doesn’t matter.  What matters is that kids get experience using computers and access to the wealth of information available on the internet.

You might also be interested in:

• Virgin America Uses Linux
• Netbooks have arrived