Dawn of Tux, the Linux Penguin.

I was unaware that the familiar Linux Penguin logo is named Tux. This logo (or mascot, or both, depending on who you ask) got its start in the mid-1990s, when people started debating the idea of what would make for a suitable Linux logo. The ideas ranged from various lampoons of other OS logos to various symbols of animals , such as a lion, tiger, or other such powerful creatures, and even a fox. Somewhere along the line, it was discovered that the father of Linux, Linus Torvalds, just happened to like penguins. Soon after, in about 1996, Tux was born in a contest for the best penguin logo. The winning Tux artist, Larry Ewing, reportedly used the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) to draw and paint the logo character. The name Tux is apparently an acronym for Torvalds UniX, which also links right in with penguins looking like they wear tuxedos, so the name stuck. But all this did not happen right away. It took a couple of years for Tux the Penguin to become firmly entrenched as the logo and mascot of Linux that he is known as today. Now that he is here, it seems unlikely that he will ever go away, unless Linux itself goes away.

Net Neutrality: Comcast and the FCC.

Net neutrality is the term used to describe the philosophical ideal that data should be able to move across the internet without regard to content, destination, or source. Net neutrality is often times called the "First Amendment of the Internet". In the United States, high-speed Internet carriers, such as Comcast, are attempting to get legislative support for a two-tiered Internet service model. In such a model, carriers would be able to charge web site owners a premium for priority placement and higher speed access across their available network bandwidth links. Those that oppose this say that the internet was built to work in a traffic-neutral manner, and that the internet is what it is today specifically because of that. These people want Congress passing bills more in favor of net neutrality.

Recently, a federal appeals court ruled that regulatory agencies such as the F.C.C. currently have limited power over controlling internet traffic. This will allow internet service providers to block or slow specific sites, charging video (and other similar) site owners an additional fee in order to deliver their content faster to web browsers. This court ruling came after Comcast asserted it has the right to slow cable customer access to file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. This court decision may force the F.C.C. to change its methods of attempting to maintain net neutrality on the web. Currently, internet service providers, including even Comcast, are apparently not actually planning on making immediate use of this court ruling to restrict specific types of internet content, but as things stand now they could do so in future.

The F.C.C. may look for other ways to legally implement consumer internet service protections as part of its current commitment to maintaining an open internet. This may require an act of Congress, which many people, even those in favor of the principle of net neutrality, are very wary of. I can certainly understand that, but I think it's too soon to say if legislative action is required, or even desirable, in this case. There may very well be enough competition available among internet service providers that such a step will be unnecessary. Ever increasing technological advancements, as well as ever changing customer needs and demands, make it very difficult to judge how all this will really turn out down the road, and whether or not this is something we should be concerned about as customers. We may just have to take a wait and see attitude, rather than jumping the gun on demanding legal interventions that could cause more harm than good.

I personally favor the principle of net neutrality, as I think would most any other consumer. Our government does have a legitimate place in providing and enforcing legal protections of our personal freedoms, as well as in maintaining a free and open marketplace, but its track record in this is very mixed to say the least. In this case, for now, I trust the internet service providers and their customers' influence on them slightly more than I do the government. If further legislation is required, I'm sure we will get it, and then some, so I hope our internet service providers do not force the issue. Hopefully they are wise enough to realize this and leave things well enough alone as they are.

The New iPad, Should Anyone Really Get One?

In my opinion, no. The iPad may at first glance be a nifty idea, but in comparison to the similar more open source competitor devices coming out later this year the iPad is just too limited in its abilities, especially considering its hefty price tag. One of the major limitations of the iPad compared to its up and coming competitors is that its source code, at least for now, will apparently NOT be available for outside developers to use in creating applications for the device. This is very much unlike how things are for Apple's iPhone, which has tens of thousands of applications developed for it, which is one of the reasons why that device is so popular. Apple taking a different approach with the iPad seems like an idea that will shoot the iPhone's ultimate usability in the foot before it even gets out of the starting gate. Android smart phones are beginning to overtake the iPhone in not only popularity but in user satisfaction rates as well. It is very possible that the Google Android (Linux based) iPad-like devices coming out soon will be just as user friendly and well received. Several of these devices will cost less than the iPad, though one can also expect prices for iPads to drop as well as time goes by, much as was the case after the initial excitement over the introduction of the iPhone passed. In other words, unless you really need it, and really...you probably don't, I would take a pass on buying an iPad right away, at least long enough to check out its competitors, as well as for pricing on ALL these devices to drop as they compete with each other. Due to competition, Apple also may later change its tune as regards the iPad's closed source operating system code, but by then things might be too late. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a recent purchaser and user of an iPhone and I really think it is a very useful and nifty device, but the iPad is not the same as a bigger and better iPhone. It is a different animal and so the potential iPad shopper should be very wary of buying on impulse base on any prior iPhone experience. If I myself was not an AT&T customer (and considering my wife was already an iPhone user anyway) I may very well have gotten an Android phone instead. The bottom line is that other tablet devices like the iPad that are coming out will likely be much more flexible machines than the iPad, but many users may not need or use that level of flexibility either, so what kind of user will you be?

A Brief Review of the SCO v. Novell Trial.

This was a multiple part court trial in a lawsuit originally brought on by the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Group computer software company against the Novell computer software company. This was a process that started around 2003 and continued on until the end of March, 2010. SCO claimed ownership of the UNIX computer operating system (OS) from which the well known LINUX OS can trace its roots. Novell claimed these allegations were false and that Novell still owned the copyright to UNIX. In the end, the SCO group lost its lawsuit and was ordered to pay an approximate $2.5 million reward to Novell. Due to SCO losing its original allegations, it was also ruled by the court that SCO was not authorized to enter into an earlier 2003 agreement it had made with the Sun Systems computer software company regarding the UNIX OS.