Open-source software is everywhere, and developers use it to speed up their development on a regular basis. This is as it should be, for the most part, assuming the developers follow the licensing for whatever open-source software (OSS) they use. Along with licensing, the open-source community is, probably rightly so, very focused on attributing credit correctly. Considering that most OSS developers do not make any money for their contributions, credit and reputation are really the only compensation they can expect.

Imagine the horror in the OSS community then, when a mini-TEDTalk was released today that had presenter Chris Hughes showing off augmented-reality software that is built on very powerful open-source toolkits, but fails to attribute any credit to them, or even mention their existence.

Ralph Hauwert certainly took issue, and wrote a scathing blog post describing the offense. To TED's credit, they have updated the page for today's video, acknowledging the furor and offering an explanation. According to the update, Chris hadn't been intending on presenting at TED, but after privately showing his project to a number of people, he was invited to do a short 2 minute presentation. Due to the extremely short format, there was apparently no time for attribution of credit for the software frameworks his software was based on.

This is a cautionary tale. Clearly someone made a mistake, and Hughes' reputation may end up bearing the brunt of the error. It's important to remember that in the software business there are always two currencies at play: the typical financial currency that we usually think of (you know, money), and credit for the work that was done. Although there is a lot of open-source software that is licensed to be free to use, that fact amplifies the focus on correctly attributing credit for the work that went into the software.

My guess is this is a lesson Chris Hughes isn't likely to forget again.

The latest version of Amazon's ebook reader, the Kindle 2, has been attracting plenty of positive attention for its slimline form, style and functionality but has also drawn criticism from an unexpected quarter - from Authors Guild President and humorist, Roy Blount Jr, who isn't amused about the Kindle's new text to speech functionality.

The Kindle 2 has a function that allows published works that are downloaded onto the device to be converted into speech and played back through the small speakers in the device in either a male or female voice, functionality that will no doubt be attractive to the visually impaired, drivers on long trips or for people who are simply too damn lazy to read the book themselves.

The Authors Guild is in a tizzy because it feels that the Kindle 2 is going to undermine the billion dollar a year audiobook market. Blount apparently wasn't joking when he wrote in a New York Times editorial this week that 'authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2's version of books'.

If you're not familiar with it, the HeliOS project is an effort to get computers into the hands of kids who might not otherwise be able to afford them. To date this year, they've distributed over 300 machines. Apparently that's not enough to keep them from making an enemy.

A middle school teacher named Karen observed one of her students demonstrating the abilities of his Linux-powered laptop to his classmates. What a great thing, a student exposing his peers to technology they probably weren't familiar with before....Right?

Wrong. Karen sprang into action, confiscated the CDs the student had brought to share, and unleashed the Spanish Inquisition.

Who is the charlatan who convinced this poor, misguided student that "free software" is something that actually exists?

Who could be so evil as to distribute non-Microsoft software to children? How can that person expect our children to survive in an MS-powered world? Once she had her answer, she sent Ken an email.

In her own words:

At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline.

I just can't take it any more. I don't understand how people actually use their computers like this, but they do. Just take a look at Kaspersky's figures for August 2008. I look after a lot of computers for friends and family, and a dozen machines at work - and none are infected. Then again, all of them are well-protected and used responsibly.

Now, it's not my intent that anyone actually follow this horrible, horrible advice. It's just that so many people seem to think this type of behavior is perfectly normal computer use.

So here it is: my 5-point method for turning your computer into a quivering pile of malware-infested, hacker-friendly trash.

1. Don't bother updating your software. Things like Java, Flash, and your web browser are constantly updating. How annoying is that? If your Flash games play, and the little Java thing is always near your system clock, it's probably working just fine. Security holes in your outdated internet apps let the information move through faster.

2. Believe everything you see. If a pop up window tells you that Windows has found spyware on your computer or that you have 324 errors in your registry, you'd better click on it. That's not the kind of thing you want to take a chance on. I mean, the registry is where stuff...registers. And spyware removal software that advertises Shamwow style must be trustworthy, right?

I've decided once and for all that I'm going to make a serious effort to make Linux my primary operating system. Am I dissatisfied with Windows? No. In fact, I'm quite happy with it. It's just time for a change, that's all.

This isn't my first attempt to switch. I've made several others before with various distros: Ubuntu, Mint, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Fedora, Slax...There's always been something early on that made me bail out and head back to my trusty old Windows XP install.

Now, I'm not blaming Linux. It's more to do with my comfort level with the programs I have installed. Certain apps that I've been using for ages in Windows aren't available in Linux, and that's held me back. For me, it's always been Photoshop (CS2 in Wine has never worked very well for me).

Recently, however, I've been testing out so many other similar apps that I don't think I'll notice it missing this time. I'm getting comfortable with GIMP's UI, and I can always use Drpic.com for really quick edits.

Which brings me to the larger point: how much does your OS really matter any more? I use Firefox and a handful of addons and a number of web apps now, so switching ought to be relatively painless. So far, the only thing I've missed is being able to install a Windows app to review it for DownloadSquad, and VirtualBox will take care of that soon enough.

What about you? Could you switch to Linux and not miss a beat, or are there still some apps you just can't live without on your desktop?

Considering the Google brand in the popular vernacular and the launch of Chrome, I went to web marketing poster boy Seth Godin to get his perspective. Seth wasn't particularly loquacious (no doubt he's a bit busy) but here's the conversation:

Me: Would you be willing to take about 10 minutes to talk to us about your take on Google Chrome? While the tech is neat and pretty and awesome, I think you'll agree this is all about the brand. Where Firefox failed (sort of), Google has an honest shot. Once Chrome is out of beta (in 10 or less years) they are one Superbowl ad away from a true IE-killer. That's what I'm thinking, anyway.

Seth: 1. firefox is hardly a failure. 2. chrome is about web as operating system. not controlling ff is a huge risk for them going forward.

Later I explained what I meant by calling FF a "failure"

Me: I guess by "failure" I meant "failure to capture the average user's attention." There's no doubting they have gained market share against the IE juggernaut, but for the majority of users the Internet = Internet Explorer. Was wondering if you think Chrome has a shot at changing that perception, since people now think Internet Search = Google.

Seth: yep!

Like most of the rest of the Internet, I jumped on the Google Chrome download as soon as it went live. So far, I'm not really blown away.

Maybe I need to use it for more than a couple of hours. Maybe the blogosphere hype machine pushed my expectations to the point of being unrealistic. Sure, Chrome looks nice. It does render some pages a hair faster than Firefox - for example, Google Docs, reader, and GMail. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Still, I've already got a great web browser (Firefox) with some great addons that I use heavily. Some of the sites I use every day (including Blogsmith, our blogging platform) I'm not about to switch to Chrome just because it's shiny and new (no pun intended).

Maybe the point to all this is that Chrome isn't supposed to be for people that like Firefox. I can see average Internet Explorer user liking it just fine: the interface is clean and straightforward, and it's great at what it does do. Google's got massive brand power, and that may be enough to finally make some inroads with the people using IE "because it's there."

Me, I'm sticking with Firefox for now. We'll see what the competitors can muster for their final releases.

What do you think of Chrome so far? Is it good enough to make you switch? Let's see some comments.

OK, I'll admit I own an iPhone. Thing is, I refuse to pay AT&T's completely ridiculous rates. Why are iPhone data packets at a premium, exactly? Anyway, I use the thing as more of a PDA, and I like the mic, speakers and camera. Sure, my Palm has two of those, but that camera is great for sending shots while on the go (and within a wifi hotspot). If I had the dough I'd get a Nokia N95, however.

So after using this 1st-gen iPhone for a few weeks, here are five things that Apple got completely wrong:

5. Codecs? We don't need no steenking codecs!
Just like Apple TV, the Cupertino Ivory Tower refuses to acknowledge the existence of codecs outside their shiny white walled garden. That's a shame, as Divx and a couple of others are really superb codecs, providing efficient and gorgeous playback. On everything but iPhones and Apple TV's, that is. I'm not sure if they are afraid of competition, licensing fees or just snobs. Hm, one of those rhymes with Jobs...

4. Sandboxes are for kids, not a multitasking OS.
Oh copy and paste, where art thou? I'll keep banging this drum, because the beat goes on. The Macintosh pioneered the ease of a clipboard. Microsoft did one better in Office by providing multiple copy/paste repositories. And you're telling me copy/paste was an afterthought? I call malarkey on that! Every proper mobile OS can copy/paste. It's stuff like this that gives you a very solid feeling Apple rushed the entire iPhone experience out the door.

3. App Store? How about Crash Store?
Last night I saw the "App Store" ad. I laughed out loud. If only my iPhone could install apps so easily. The first time I tried using third-party apps, all downloaded via the iPhone, they locked up, started crashing and wouldn't come back. Guess what? A 5-hour journey to "Erase and Restore Land" made things mostly better. Yeah, I had to grab pen and paper to keep track of what I lost. And yeah, I had to re-enter all my settings. Even today installing an app is major fail. It never finishes the "installing" progress bar. I have to reboot a couple of times for it to appear. Google apps on my BlackBerry may hang up, but they install properly, at least. Don't get me started on the wonky "updates" system, either. Seriously.

2. The maze of settings a Minotaur could be proud of, with customization tossed to the wayside.
Wouldn't it be cool to have profiles so you don't have to tweak a dozen settings depending on whether you are at home (with wifi) or in the boonies (EDGE)? Too bad usability and simplicity were lost when the iPhone was born. Or how about the fact that you can't really customize the organization on the screen? Sure, you can try -- but either restoring or re-installing apps will shuffle things around. There's no category-based system, as you find on the Palm. There are no folders. Just a massive, sliding list of stuff with no rhyme or reason. This makes it very frustrating when you need certain apps to always appear front-and-center (like Camera, Evernote and ShoZu). I spend about 1/3 of my time shuffling apps knowing that all that hard work is one crappy install away from being shot to hell. Decades of UI and brain research gone with the flick of a finger.

1. Backups, only 3 hours to go!
Actually, I wish it was 3. Shoot, I wish it was at least predictable. Most iPhone users are now trained to plug the thing in at night. I guess that makes sense, but you know what also makes sense? Iterative backups. You know, like a little thing known as Time Machine? Once again, this smacks of sloppy, rushed coding. iPods do a fast sync and BOOM, you're ready to rock. The iPhone makes you wait hours for a backup, and even then you might wind up with a corrupted backup... Which isn't really a backup at all, is it?

I think the bottom line is that Apple rushed the App Store, rushed the OS 2.0 release and is currently playing the averages. The average iPhone user appears happy. They are wowed by the glitz and glamour of such an advanced machine. But like at Vegas, by the time the cocaine and hooch wears off, they are gonna wind up sore and bruised, wishing they could take it all back. I sincerely hope Apple takes the necessary time to fix this stuff instead of adding more bells and whistles to an already precarious platform.

While you're busy flicking and pinching and shaking your iPhone, watching apps crash and getting a white screen of death, I've been busy editing Office docs and playing Insaniquarium. What, you can't do that on your precious touch-screen of joy? Pity. And yes, Palm OS 5.whatever, aka "Garnet" is pretty old. So what? Let's change the name to "Helen Mirren." See? Infinitely sexier.

I wrote about my love of the Palm T|X a year ago today. The fact is, I never owned a Newton. I went Palm OS and never looked back. Chalk it up to the fact that my pockets wouldn't accommodate a MessagePad 2000. Since I bought my first Palm Pilot Pro many moons ago, I've owned a delectable Handspring Visor (the expansion port was too cool, but modules were also too expensive), a Palm V and a WristPDA. I'd still use the WristPDA except for the fact that it won't hold a charge.

OK, we're still waiting for the next version of Palm OS. Where are the multimedia features the Be acquisition would add? What about this Linux-based rewrite? Who cares? The fact is, Palm got it right when it came to synchronizing data: make it simple, fast and reliable. Nowadays true, ubiquitous data sync is like a unicorn with herpes -- you wish you could find it, but there's always this glaring flaw: datatypes don't match up, making mush of your info. I chalk that up to Palm losing the battle they started long ago and never opening up their tech to become a real standard. But when it worked, man it worked well. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, and using Palm OS is like sitting in a classic car. You aren't worried about all the buttons -- you just drive.

So yeah, the iPhone has advantages, like a pretty decent browser, multi-touch and video playback that isn't a battery-draining and soul-sucking experience. But I'll keep my soul and the Palm -- because nothing says love like an SD card full of memories, games and work documents. There are still lots of little touches in Palm OS worth keeping it around (how about keeping your icons organized?). As Riley and Huey's Granddad would say, "there's no school like the old school." Word. Did I mention I can edit Word docs?

In the gallery I list a few apps notably missing on the iPhone but readily available for Palm OS.

Sure, the iPhone is a flashy, iconic gadget. It's the crown jewel of the iPod family. It features a slick touch-screen, a slim form-factor, a whole library of new applications, and the MobileSafari browser. Do you know what I say to that? Forget about it. There's a device that has all of those same features, without the burden of a monthly fee to your favorite monopolistic phone-service provider.

It may not be as glamorous as the iPhone, but the iPod Touch is an underrated force to be reckoned with. With the ubiquity of wifi hotspots, particularly in major cities, it's not difficult to get an internet connection when you need one. In fact, it's the same internet connection the iPhone has. Although the phone has 3G, iPhone users often opt for the faster wifi connection when they're within range. I never have a problem finding a place to check my email or fire off a sassy Twitter post on the Touch. I also never receive bills for $70+ a month from AT&T.

In terms of applications, the iPod Touch is neck-and-neck with the iPhone. Unless an app uses the "phone" portion of the iPhone's capabilities, it's likely just as effective on the Touch. Sure, the new iPhone has GPS, but the iPod can triangulate your location using a wireless access point. I've navigated to many a restaurant by grabbing directions and leaving them open on the Maps app for reference. You don't need an iPhone for that.

That's what it comes down to, really. Do you need an iPhone? The answer may be yes, but if you're only looking to get one because it's the hottest thing out right now, think about whether an iPod Touch might serve you just as well, for what's ultimately less money. Personally, I just need something that can play music, check email, and use IM services on the go: the Touch fits the bill, and it looks just as cool as an iPhone, too.

The age-old battle of copyright and artist freedom keeps clanging away in the distance, and are we any better off than we were when DAT machines were castrated in the 80's? I read a report this morning about a UK band called "Show of Hands" who claims they are dependent upon so-called pirates who download their music and share it with friends. This isn't much different than Trent Reznor making his music freely available online (and my wife reports the show here in town didn't look any smaller than the ones in the 90's -- possibly even bigger since Reznor has a new legion of fans younger than us). But the music industry sticks by the mantra "a download is a lost sale, and that is theft." Or, as TorrentFreak puts it, "there is no such animal as 'piracy as promotion.'"

Oh really? This sad, antiquated logic continues to do one thing and one thing only: bolster sales of the top-paid performers while creating a chilling effect on artists who would love innovative promotion but fear free samples will incur the wrath of the mighty RIAA, or worse. It's one thing to send the FBI after some poor schlub who leaks some Guns N' Roses tracks, or sue the bejeebes out of hundreds of college kids, but it's quite another to threaten fair trade when artists (who own their own content, thank you) decide to market in ways they see fit.

The only ray of sunshine could be recent rulings regarding Creative Commons which might allow savvy artists to provide music in the manner they see fit, without the RIAA calling fans of the artists a bunch of pirates. Arrr, matey. At the end of the day there has to be some middle ground, but it's a pity the RIAA and other enforcement agencies see the world in black and white and tend to pull their concepts of ownership from the days when TV's were also monochromatic.

I download and install a lot of applications, and if you're a regular reader you probably do too. Like anything else that's free, downloading tends to some with some unfortunate perils. I'm not talking about trojans or malware, just regular run-of-the-mill annoyances.

Capping download rates. Asus...Oh, Asus. Some days I just want to fly over to Taiwan and slap you right in the mouth. Do they not realize that it works out the same whether I download for 2 hours at 9k or 4 minutes at 256k? I actually stopped building with their mainboard partially because of the crappy download speeds.

Falsely advertise as being free. I subscribe to a number of free software feeds, and there's nothing worse than seeing a cool application show up that someone has called free just to get it listed. You're not helping your app's popularity. In fact, you're probably turning off just about anyone that might have wanted to use it because they're ticked that the download was either stripped-down or only a trial.

Download a download manager first. Thankfully, I haven't seen the Adobe Download Manager in quite some time, but there are others out there. I don't need or want your help downloading. If I need help resuming my download, I've got DownThemAll, thanks.

I'm a Windows user, and it has served me well. That being said, I play with a lot of Linux distributions and there are some applications that are just so much better than anything Windows can offer that I find myself wondering how long it'll be until I make the switch.

For starters, there's the APT and the Synaptic Package Manager. Microsoft has been promising updates and installs without reboots for years, yet Windows Vista still can't seem to deliver the goods. The Linux Mint beta I installed on my laptop recently, however, located well over a hundred updates to various packages upon completion and quietly downloaded and installed them while I finished tweaking Firefox and tooled around on some websites.

And unlike Windows' Automatic Updates, APT actually handles all the software on your machine, not just updates to the OS. What I wouldn't give for a Windows app that did this - and I know there are various apps that try, like Sumo, but none of them really work all that well. Rebooting to complete updates is crap. Get that trash off my PC.

If you frequent our site (and you do, because you're cool), you've probably read this article about the 5 most annoying apps on your PC. Well, it's time for another installment - this time with alternatives that offer the functionality you want without the annoying, fetid bloat that you don't. Note: before the gripes start, to compare apples to apples I'm only offering apps that need to be installed - no portable apps, no web apps.

Ahead Nero
There was a time when Nero wasn't an overblown pig of a recording application, but over the years it's been "improved" to the glorious state of excess you see it in today. What sucks about Nero today? Well, let's see. First, it tries to install the Ask toolbar during setup. Then there's the hundreds of megs of DVD templates it piles on (none of them particularly attractive). Last but not least, there's Nero Scout. Has anyone ever found this useful? I don't know about you, but click and drag or browsing for files has always worked just fine for me.

The Alternative: CD Burner XP
I want burning software to burn discs, not transcode video, play media, serve it over my home lan, print labels, and scour my drives constantly for files I may want to burn. Not only is CD Burner XP free, it's also miniscule when compared to Nero, installs in seconds, not minutes, and doesn't bring any excess crap along with it. Launch it, and you're given clear choices: data, music, iso, copy, erase. The dual pane view makes creating compilations drag-and-drop easy, as does the totally slick dropbox.

Today we're committing blasphemy.

Okay, technically we're not. We're not saying that any one system or way of doing things is the only right way. Face it, the only place there was only one right answer to a question was eighth grade math class.

So while it may seem like it's blasphemy for us to suggest that Linux may not be for you (or your girlfriend, or your boyfriend, or your uncle), it might be true. You might be better suited to a Mac way of life, or a Windows sort of environment at the moment. It doesn't mean it'll always be that way. It doesn't mean, if it is always that way, that you (or Linux) are not up to the task. You're just not right for each other.

All right, let's quit the touchy-feely psycho-babble talk. There is a lot written about choosing distributions, desktops, and other fun stuff that comes with Linux. But how do you really know if it's something you want to invest time in trying at all?

There are liveCDs that allow you try to out a number of different distributions, and they can give you a pretty good feel of how Linux looks, and feels, and to some degree, how it works. You can see how your hardware is supported, and experiment a bit with alternative applications. That's great, but the truth is, it doesn't always give the whole picture of what you might encounter using Linux.