Showing headlines posted by Andy_Updegrove

Before Linux.com went dark late last year, it was one of the most visited open source news aggregation and discussion sites. In March, work got out that the Linux Foundation had taken Linux.com over, and was committed to making it bigger, better and richer than before. After months of effort (and some pretty impressive Web design work) the Linux Foundation delivered on that promise last night. The results are pretty cool, and different from anything else on the Web.

Let's imagine that you would like to have your dilapidated, wood-sided house painted. What would you do? If you're like most people, you'd get some recommendations, and then get some quotes from painters. You'd accept one, and then have your house painted for a fixed price you would have agreed on in advance. What a nice, logical system, especially for the buyer You'd be crazy to take on such a large financial commitment any other way, wouldn't you?

Any old standards hand forced to choose the single most disputed issue in standard setting over the past decade would likely respond with a deceivingly simple question: "What does it mean to be an 'open standard?'" A similar debate rages in the open source community between those that believe that some licenses (e.g., the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses) are "open enough," while others would respond with an emphatic Hell No! (or less printable words to similar effect).

It's said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I guess being the kind of organization that people love to leak news about might be the next. That seems to be the case with the Linux Foundation, which for the second time in a matter of weeks has seen an enterprising reporter scoop the opposition (and our own internal planning) by releasing a story ahead of our planned schedule. Who knew that an open source foundation could attract paparazzi?

It would be an understatement to say that Microsoft's patent suit against Dutch GPS vendor company TomTom has been closely watched. Why? Because Microsoft alleges that several of the patents at issue are infringed by TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel. In this first month of the dispute, the most urgent question has been this: will TomTom fight or fold?

Economic downturns have a tendency to accelerate emerging technologies, boost the adoption of effective solutions, and punish solutions that are not cost competitive or that are out of synch with industry trends.

So begins a new white paper from research analyst IDC. History supports the logic of the statement, but applying the same logic to predict the future is a dangerous game. Having good starting data can help considerably in that regard, though, and that's what makes this report interesting. It's title is Linux Adoption in a Global Recession, and it marshalls some impressive data to predict that Linux will be a significant gainer, while others are punished by the current global meltdown.

The headline act, if you will, was announced this morning for the third annual Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, and it promises to be an interesting show: the Foundation's Jim Zemlin, Microsoft's Sam Ramji, and Sun's Ian Murdock, each giving their respective futures on the future of the operating system they represent - and, I expect, the others' as well.

I first learned of Microsoft bringing suit against in-car navigation company TomTom NV when I got an email from a journalist asking for comment. Why all the buzz? Because apparently several of the patent claims relate to TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel - and while Microsoft has made noises publicly and threats privately for years alleging that Linux infringes multiple Microsoft patents, it has never actually brought a suit against a Linux implementer specifically alleging infringement by the Linux portion of their product. The result is that across the industry, everyone is asking the same question: What Does it All Mean? For what it's worth, here's my take. (hint: Don't Panic)

The Obama Administration plans to spend over $20 billion of the stimulus bill on open and proprietary software to enable "electronic health records." Just because the money's there, though, doesn't meant that the standards for the technology are. This interview covers what's ready, what's not, and what needs to be done to close the gap.

As these words are being written, the US Congress is debating the final terms of a stimulus bill that will result in the expenditure of almost $800 billion of public funds on a wide array of initiatives intended to address an equally challenging goal: resurrecting an economy that seems inexorably headed towards its worst performance since the Great Depression. Whether that fortune gets spent wisely or not will depend a lot on open source, and open standards.

Here in New England, where I practice law and have been representing startups for thirty years, we have a mixed blessing. The advantages won't surprise you, but some of the disadvantages might.

On January 20, a new show opened in Washington D.C. After eight years under one administration, the curtain cascaded down on one set of policies, and a moment later rose to unveil a new administration, with new ideas, new priorities, and a new agenda. Included in that agenda is a commitment to embark on a five year quest to dramatically decrease the cost of healthcare — by investing as much as $50 billion dollars of public funds in the design and deployment of something called "electronic health records," or EHRs. Readers of this Blog, but not the public at large, will be immediately aware that the foundation for the EHR vision is standards.

Vietnam will ring in the Tet New Year on January 26 this year, and 2009 will be the Year of the Buffalo. And for government servers, it appears that it will be the year of a few other animals as well, including the GNU and the Firefox.

Yesterday I filed a pro bono amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the Federal Trade Commission's petition for writ of certiorari in its suit against Rambus Technologies. I'm pleased to report that 19 standard setting organizations (SSOs), representing over 13,300 members, joined as amici curiae supporting this brief; the list of participants appears later in this blog entry.

If you haven't already heard the news, long-term kernel developer and pillar of the open source community Ted Ts'o has been named the new Chief Technology Officer of the Linux Foundation. Ted is a great choice for a variety of reasons, one of which is that few people have been knocking around the Linux world longer than Ted - he was the first North American kernel developer.

If you've ever wondered whether there is a SCO case for open standards, many people would say that the answer is "yes." And the stand in for SCO that they would pick is a company called Rambus incorporated.

The goals of the Obama administration are in tune with — but in some technical respects, ahead of — the technological times. Unless certain standards-related dependencies are promptly addressed, the timely achievement of the president-elect's innovation and technology policy will be jeopardized. Unfortunately, the government does not have the historical competency to address these dependencies. What, then, is the new administration to do?

Barack Obama promises to be the most technologically attuned U.S. president ever. More than a year ago, he released a policy statement on technology and innovation that detailed his plans to employ state of the art technology to pursue a broad spectrum of goals, such as increasing national competitiveness, providing next-generation broadband access for all, creating a "transparent and connected democracy," decreasing health care costs, acting to prevent global warming, and lowering American dependence on foreign oil. In pursuit of these goals, he also promised to appoint the nation's first Chief Technology Officer. Problem is, the standards do do all of this don't yet exist.

Although much of the brouhaha of the OOXML adoption process has abated, the post-partum process of reviewing how SC 34 gave birth to IS 29500 continues. It's not a pretty sight.

If you hail from one of the hot beds of high tech - Silicon Valley, say, or (in my case) the Route 128/495 area of Massachusetts, you've doubtless heard the phrase "serial entrepreneur." What those words describe is someone who has started several companies, and the phrase, when used, is invariably regarded as a compliment. These days, if such a serial entrepreneur has some major successes under her belt, that makes her one of the elite of the high tech nobility - someone with the golden touch, that can turn ideas into huge returns for founders and investors alike. But should this really be a compliment?