Apple’s 30th Anniversary show number one: Boot Camp

In case you missed it, this month is Apple's 30th Anniversary.

Those Apple fans and watchers among us are expecting big things, for example a new video iPod.

But today Apple made a surprise, but comparatively subtle, announcement: Boot Camp.

The software is an 83MB download, available right now, that makes the process of adding a partition and installing Windows XP SP2 (Home or Professional) onto your Intel-based Mac (iMac, Mini or MacBook Pro). The software even incorporates the bulk of the drivers you will need to get the best out of your XP on Mac installation. There's more information available here.

Microsoft Virtual Server and Linux is not news

A flurry of news sites yesterday carried the news that Microsoft were going to support Linux in Virtual Server 2005 R2. For example, Silicon quoted the story as Microsoft to 'virtually' support Linux - Operating Systems - Breaking Business and Technology News at silicon.com, while Tristan Louis commented:

What we are seeing here is nothing short of a major revolution at Microsoft
Sadly the announcement is hardly news. In fact, I blogged about it (and my successes of having used Linux OS in Virtual Server for years) back in September 2005.

Retool your Linux skills for commercial UNIX

Years ago, when I went to college, I was first exposed to Unix, actually HP-UX, and then later, in my first job, Solaris, I realize how lucky I was getting trained in the commercial UNIX distributions. Linux was yet to be a twinkle in Linus’ eye, although I’d been using (and selling) BSDI for a while by the time I started the new job.

Today, many individuals learn Linux, either at home or at work, but what happens if want to use those skills within a commercial Unix environment?

There are differences between Linux and Unix, from the basic tools, to the support applications and built-in systems, even to the way you startup and shutdown the system. My new tutorial, Retool your Linux skills for commercial UNIX covers the main differences so that you get up to speed on a commercial Unix platform using the techniques you already know from Linux.

Here’s the intro and outline:

The Linux operating system is based on the same principles as the UNIX operating system, and many of the principles that are familiar to a Linux operator are also familiar to a UNIX operator.
There are, however, minor differences, and it is understanding those differences that help you migrate your skills and abilities from Linux into a commercial UNIX environment. In this tutorial, you are going to look at the basics and history of Linux and UNIX to understand where the similarities lie, and then you’ll take a closer look at specific commands, functionality, and the abilities that are different between the Linux operating system and the commercial UNIX variants. This tutorial includes tips, alternative tools, and utilities that you can use to provide similar, or identical, functionality to the Linux commands.
Topics included in this tutorial cover:

  • Basic environment and principles
  • Booting and shutting down
  • Security and authentication
  • File system and device management

Read Retool your Linux skills for commercial UNIX.

Microsoft Virtual Server and Linux is not news

A flurry of news sites yesterday carried the news that Microsoft were going to support Linux in Virtual Server 2005 R2. For example, Silicon quoted the story as Microsoft to 'virtually' support Linux - Operating Systems - Breaking Business and Technology News at silicon.com, while Tristan Louis commented:

What we are seeing here is nothing short of a major revolution at Microsoft
Sadly the announcement is hardly news. In fact, I blogged about it (and my successes of having used Linux OS in Virtual Server for years) back in September 2005.

Date/time sequence not here yet

While I'll love all the fuss around the upcoming date sequence of 01:02:03 04/05/06.

I can't help but agree with some of the comments on that latter link.

It is only the Americans who would have seen this today, for the simple reason that the US is the only one to strangely put month before day in the date sequence. Most other Western countries (the UK included) put the day before the month, so we're waiting for next month, on the Star Wars themed 4th of May.

The changing face of performance statistics

I read Robert's post yesterday on the way companies are changing the way they measure performance from the current per-MHz/GHz to performance per watt. Robert's comments were based on the front page story yesterday, Power struggle: How IT managers cope with the data center power demands.

The result got me thinking about how we measure performance and what the yardstick should be.

My first comment is that power has long been a problem for data center managers, and I'm not going to repeat my own feelings and findings on the use (and often waste) of power, or the eco-friendly options that are available. I won't make the comment either about Sun's T1 CPU (Niagara) which was designed with high performance and low power requirements in mind and Sun's aptly named the servers CoolThreads. OK, I just made the comment anyway, but it nicely leads me on to part of the point I want to make.

The changing face of performance statistics

I read Robert's post yesterday on the way companies are changing the way they measure performance from the current per-MHz/GHz to performance per watt. Robert's comments were based on the front page story yesterday, Power struggle: How IT managers cope with the data center power demands.

The result got me thinking about how we measure performance and what the yardstick should be.

My first comment is that power has long been a problem for data center managers, and I'm not going to repeat my own feelings and findings on the use (and often waste) of power, or the eco-friendly options that are available. I won't make the comment either about Sun's T1 CPU (Niagara) which was designed with high performance and low power requirements in mind and Sun's aptly named the servers CoolThreads. OK, I just made the comment anyway, but it nicely leads me on to part of the point I want to make.

Licensing and multi-core CPUs

As CPUs move to multi-core architecture, companies - both OEMs and end users - are facing issues of licensing. If you have a multi-CPU machine, you often have to buy a multi-CPU licence.

The query is whether a multi-core CPU is really two (or more) CPUs, or just one?

Microsoft have already made the decision, classing a CPU as a CPU, no matter how many cores it has. The same model is being used by VMware for their software.

Office suites

Last month, my review of StarOffice 8 was published. It had a subtitle of “Office Killer? - Alternatives to Microsoft Office”. I’ve mentioned this before, and I’ve been giving the matter some more thought.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with the approach of an ‘Office killer’. We are of course referring to Microsoft Office, and while I’m happy to support a product based on open standards and the open document format, compared to the proprietary format offered by Office, I have general issues with combined ‘office’ application suites.

The concentration on a ’suite’ and the competition with Office means that what we have is a range of different applications that compete with each other with similar features and a similar interface to Microsoft Office.

While the compatibility - and the ease of migration for users - between the different solutions is an obvious advantage of these office suites, we also end up in a situation where the choice between office suites comes down to the price and the philosophy of their development. In terms of functionality or method and ease of use all of the office suites are more or less on a par for the 95% of features that most users want.

This is not a criticism of the suites, the developers or of their approach. Any company developing a package that is competing with a market leading product that has the enormous advantage that Microsoft Office has is obviously going to have to work very hard just to match the capabilities of that product.

It would be nice to see, for example, different interfaces or approaches to interacting with the application than an environment which directly duplicates the familiarity of Microsoft Office. I also think an alternative approach to the idea of separate applications for key functionality is beginning to feel restrictive. Within the Web environment we’re seeing the merging of different technologies and environments into a single, but powerful, application. Why can’t we see this on the desktop?