By Liam Tung, ZDNet.com Australia, News.com
Posted on ZDNet News: Jun 19, 2008 6:09:26 AM

The makers of Wine claim that version 1.0 is the first such “stable” release and have said that although compatibility is not perfect, thousands of applications are reported to “work very well.”

Member and former president of Linux Australia Jonathon Oxer told ZDNet.com.au that the Wine project is “an attempt to make Windows irrelevant.”

“Essentially, it’s an effort to supplant the underlying operating system layer and allow Windows software to run on a Linux platform without requiring Windows to be installed,” he said.

A challenge for the Wine project is creating libraries that perfectly emulate Windows libraries.

“It never will be stable because the target keeps moving. As each new version of Windows comes out, the underlying libraries are also changed and so, Wine has the same problem as a typical Windows developer who is attempting to write software to run on Windows,” said Oxer.

Oxer said he considers the tool a Linux “migration path” for existing Windows users because they can move their applications across, even where they haven’t been designed to run on Linux. Although Wine’s original purpose was to provide a compatibility layer for office applications, the most popular use of the tool today is for gamers who want to play Windows games on Linux systems.

The only non-gaming application in Wine’s top 10 most popular applications is Adobe Photoshop CS2, which is in second place behind Guild Wars.

Wine, not surprisingly, has been the target of anti-piracy campaigns by Microsoft. In 2005, Wine users were prevented under the Windows Genuine Advantage scheme from receiving Windows updates.

Fellow internet giant Google, however, has chosen to support the program, recently contributing cash to the open source project to ensure that Adobe’s Creative Suite software still runs on Linux systems.

A list of Wine-compatible applications can be found here.

Glassdoor sets up a way for people to rate the companies they work for — anonymously, of course. A Microsoft employee can respond to a survey of 16 questions about job satisfaction, enter information about his or her salary, reply to essay-style questions, and give CEO Steve Ballmer an approval rating. In exchange, the employee would get full access to the site — a “give to get” formula intended to convince people to participate.

If it works — if people enthusiastically jump in the way they do on TripAdvisor — then Glassdoor could be profound. Barton and Glassdoor CEO Bob Hohman showed me a preview. Anyone trying to decide what company to work for could get a view of the company previously only available by word of mouth.

You could starkly see how happy engineers are at, say, Google vs. Yahoo. One page Hohman showed me compared engineer salaries at Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and Apple, showing that Apple pays far less than the other three — but still woos engineers who believe in Apple’s philosophy. Another page shows that Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang has a not-great approval rating while VMware CEO Diane Greene has one of the top approval ratings in the industry.

Glassdoor won’t just be a boon to job seekers. It could become an important investment tool, helping Wall Street see more clearly into a company and its prospects — from an employee point of view. It certainly will be a resource for journalists — a window into a company almost impossible to come by otherwise.

Barton and Hohman initially funded Glassdoor, and it since raised $3 million from Benchmark venture capital firm. It plans to make money on advertising and keep the site free to anyone who contributes information. Hohman says filters will help prevent companies or disgruntled employees from gaming results.

All in all, Glassdoor struck me as one of the more important new Web ventures I’ve seen in a while.

How to take how Google treats its employees and use it to your advantage.

I had an opportunity to visit a friend of mine who works at one of Google’s satellite offices (not the main GooglePlex in Mountain View, Calif.). It was an eye-opening experience on several levels: the number of people still working late at night, the numerous perks, the free food, a fleet of bicycles that anyone could use for their errands, the evening exercise classes and the on-staff masseuse.

What, you don’t have an on-staff masseuse? Well, that might be a bit much. But it got me thinking about ways that you can make your own shop more desirable and your staff more willing, and most of these don’t cost a lot, either. Here are some suggestions.

Find someone in accounting that wasn’t schooled at Hogwarts.
I can’t tell you how many organizations where I have worked had accounting black holes or magicians working there.

You know the drill: You send in your paperwork, and nothing happens for weeks while someone has placed your paperwork at the bottom of their in-basket or, worse, lost it completely. Get accounts payable to actually reimburse the staff quickly, say within a day of receipt, and you will boost morale quickly and easily. No one likes to wait for checks, and you shouldn’t make your staff feel unworthy because they incur business expenses.

Listen to your staff’s needs.
Sure all those free snacks and catered lunches and dinners help, but understanding what your team really desires is key. At the Google offices, an expensive espresso maker was the centerpiece of the kitchen, but what impressed me was the wall of snacks that rivaled Trader Joe’s in its range of offerings. But what really mattered was that the staff had input into how these items were selected, and their suggestions were acted upon quickly.

Learn from how you communicate with your boss, and don’t make the same mistakes.
How easy is it to get your boss on the phone when s/he is out of the office? Or on e-mail? I remember at one place I worked it was rarer than some endangered species sighting, and when an e-mail arrived, it was treated like some artifact ala Indiana Jones.

There are some bosses who are too intrusive: They are on instant messaging, they subscribe to your personal blog and Twitter feeds, and they want you available 24/7 to respond to their queries. Find the best middle ground, and learn from your boss’ mistakes.

Hire someone to fix your desktop and laptop fleet in-house.
One of the best parts of the Google office was the room where you could bring your PC to have it repaired, upgraded or otherwise attended to. The room reminded me of my high school AV (audio-visual) squad days–of course, back then we barely had electricity, let alone computers. But what was more important was how this demonstrated the importance of having working machines for Google’s employees.

At many IT departments, the squad room is filled with antique parts and outdated supplies. Or worse yet, you outsource this function and your equipment disappears into that accounting black hole, never to be seen again.

Not at Google: You could get just about anything fixed while you waited, or a new machine if yours had a serious problem.

Finally, think of IT as managing creative people, not clock-punchers.
I have seen many different kinds of people working in IT, and the best companies understand that they have professionals who, let’s face it, are somewhat quirky and unpredictable. Understand these quirks and what motivates people, and you will attract the best and brightest.

Sure, it helps to have a stock that trades at several hundreds of dollars a share, and a cachet that you can’t buy for being at the center of the Internet revolution. And that masseuse, too. But start acting like a Google, and you will attract and keep the talent.

Posted by Matt Asay

And to think Microsoft used to be popular with the developer crowd…Not anymore. A recent report from Evans Data shows fewer than one in 10 software developers writing applications for Windows Vista this year. Eight percent. This is perhaps made even worse by the corresponding data that shows 49 percent of developers writing applications for Windows XP.

Such appreciation for history is not likely to warm the cockles of Microsoft’s heart, especially when Linux is getting lots of love from developers (13 percent writing apps for it this year and 15.5 percent in 2009). The Mac? I don’t have any equivalent data via Evans Data. But the Mac OS has rocketed by 380 percent as a targeted development platform, Evans Data told Computerworld.

The numbers don’t get much better for Vista in 2009: 24 percent (compared with 29 percent for XP). That’s a big step up from 8 percent, but is it a sign of momentum to come or just a temporary stopgap while developers wait until Windows 7?

Nor has Microsoft made it easy to develop Vista applications, according to an article in ITJungle.com:

Unfortunately, that improved security posture makes it more difficult for developers to write applications for Vista (read: no more kernel-level access and UAC to worry about), and it also causes compatibility problems with older applications. Ironically, the wave of attacks targeting operating system vulnerabilities has largely passed, and today hackers have moved on to target applications. At the same time, Microsoft has provided iterative improvements in Windows XP security, bolstering its status as “good enough” and further eating into Vista’s pie.

Indeed. Microsoft doesn’t need to handicap itself on the desktop given its difficulties competing everywhere else. With Linux and the Mac taking ever-increasing shares of the developer pie, Microsoft would do well to shore up developer support for Windows.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, that probably means re-investing in XP and forgetting its “New Coke” moment with Vista.

“Windows is too monolithic,” says Gartner

Microsoft’s Windows operating system is teetering on the edge of catastrophic collapse. So say analysts at respected technology consultancy Gartner.

Of course, since the release of the troubled Vista iteration of Windows, sticking the boot into Microsoft has been a popular sport for cranks and commentators alike. More recently, the chatter has concerned the possibility that many businesses might skip Vista altogether and jump straight to the next version of Microsoft’s cash cow, currently known as Windows 7.

But when a serious operation like Gartner weighs in with such a damning appraisal, it can’t be dismissed as the usual anti-monopolist moaning.

Where’s the beef?

So, what exactly is Gartner’s beef? According to analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald, “Windows is too monolithic”. Through a combination of feature creep, a desire to lock users into a single software environment and the need for backwards compatibility, the latest version of Windows has simply become too big. As MacDonald says, “one size no longer fits all”.

The situation is so acute, reckon Silver and MacDonald, it threatens to render Windows irrelevant. They claim they are now routinely quizzed by clients whether they should skip Vista and stick with XP until Windows 7 rolls out, probably no sooner than 2010.

The problem stems from the fact that the PC has evolved from a relatively simple productivity workhorse into a multi-form-factor beast used in a wide variety of environments, each with different priorities. A typical home user might prize efficient performance and scalability. In business, reliability and availability are often key concerns, while efficient virtualisation support and security factory highly for server machines.

Bigger, bloatier

But instead of tailoring different versions to suit specific usage models, with each new iteration Microsoft has been making Windows ever bigger and more unwieldy. It’s all a misguided attempt to force users to use essentially the same product, in other words.

Whether you agree with all that, there’s little doubt that a consensus is building around the idea that Vista is fundamentally broken. One intriguing example of the current mood is a recent – admittedly rather unscientific – survey by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of Zdnet. His online poll found that of those who had chosen to give Vista a miss, 45 per cent based that decision on the analysis and opinions of others, rather than first hand experience.

If that is reflected in the wider IT community, it’s scary stuff for Microsoft indeed. What, therefore, should MS do? The guys from Gartner note there are signs that Microsoft realises that Vista is too “big” for widespread adoption. The availability of Windows XP starter edition has been extended to June 2010, for instance, and Windows for Legacy PCs also remains based on the smaller less demanding Windows XP kernel.

Cut down kernel

What’s more, late last year, Microsoft engineers confirmed that a massively cut-down build of the Windows kernel known as MinWin was under development. In contrast to the flatulent 4GB required to house Vista, MinWin can be crammed into just 25MB. And it’s MinWin that will form the basis of Windows 7.

Needless to say, actual usable builds of Windows 7 will be much, much larger. The basic 25MB build of MinWin has no graphics support, for example. But current speculation suggests several modular variants of Windows 7 will be spawned by MinWin, each restricted to components relevant to specific usage models.

All of which is highly plausible. However, the crucial unresolved issue is backwards compatibility. Much of the bloatware that is part of the Windows experience is necessary to ensure that the best part of a decade of legacy software works smoothly on contemporary machines. Take away backwards compatibility and you remove the main reason why so many have put up with Windows’ shortcomings for so long.

By Jeremy Laird

Now, it appears, the acquired company, Fast Search & Transfer, may have some criminal matters to work out: Suspicions about the Norwegian search-engine company’s revenue reporting are now in the hands of the Oslo police.

Norway’s financial supervisory authority, Kredittilsynet, said its review of Fast Search’s previously disclosed accounting problems not only appeared to have violated accounting standards, they may have broken the law too.

The development is bad news for Microsoft, which snapped up Fast Search as a potential Google-buster. Fast Search, which for a while was also known as the Google of Norway, had search-engine technology that industry experts said was better than Google’s and could handle truly massive corporate projects.

Goldman Sachs estimated last year that the company would grow its revenue 27 percent in 2007. Over the years, Fast Search appeared to benefit from big contracts with customers such as AT&T, Comcast, and the Walt Disney Co.

At one point, Intel was interested in buying the Norwegian rising star, but Microsoft grabbed the prize. At the time, Microsoft was still digesting it $6 billion acquisition of the digital-advertising company aQuantive—a deal that came just one month after Google said it would pay $3.1 billion for DoubleClick.

In its haste to grab Fast Search, however, Microsoft looked past the company’s problems: They include, but aren’t limited to, accounting irregularities that began to appear as Microsoft began to look over its books.

In the second quarter of 2007, Fast Search reported an operating loss of $38 million on revenue of only $35 million—a full $20 million below forecasts. The loss widened in the following quarter, leading the Norwegian stock exchange to delist Fast Search on December 12.

That same day, Fast Search said it would review its accounting for all of 2006 and 2007. The latest unaudited results show revenue growth of 7 percent for last year, which is far below Goldman’s forecast.

Still, Microsoft pursued the acquisition, completing the deal on April 28.

Kredittilsynet, the supervisory agency, was equally determined. It referred Fast Search to investigators at Økokrim, the Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime.

Økokrim last week concurred that the nature of the irregularities and the amount by which Fast Search apparently inflated its accounts were serious matters warranting prosecution. But the agency said it was too busy to open a criminal investigation.

Rather than let the matter rest, the market supervisor turned it over to the Oslo police for investigation. Aftenposten, a Norwegian newspaper, characterized Kredittilsynet’s decision to involve the police as an unprecedented step in that country.

As of now, it’s unclear what the Oslo police have in store for Fast Search—or for former company C.E.O. John Markus Lervik, who is now the vice president for enterprise search at Microsoft.

Considering that the only value Facebook actually has is all the data you’ve entered into it, it shouldn’t really surprise anyone that the site doesn’t want to hand over control of that information, particularly to a competitor like Google.

And if that means denying Facebook users the right to share their own information with other networks, so be it. This isn’t really about your privacy, after all. This is about Facebook’s data versus Google’s data.

Don’t believe it? Read Facebook’s terms of service (TOS).

Facebook’s TOS make no bones about who controls your data. The answer is: not you.

It gets a little confusing because there’s the TOS you the user agrees to, which is fairly benign, but then there’s the Developer TOS, which, while it doesn’t directly apply to you, does end up affecting what sort of tools you can use on Facebook.

And Facebook’s beef with Google Friend Connect centers around those Developer restrictions. Here’s the relevant section of the Facebook Developer TOS:

You may not store any Facebook Properties in any Data Repository which enables any third party (other than the Applicable Facebook User for such Facebook Properties) to access or share the Facebook Properties without our prior written consent.

In other words, once a user has entered something in Facebook — a list of friends, a blog post, a status update, etc — it’s effectively stuck in Facebook, since developers are not allowed to store that information outside of Facebook.

By limiting what developers can do with your data Facebook in turn limits your ability to pull out the things you put into Facebook. This is why we’ve always referred to Facebook as a black hole.

When Facebook does make concessions and allow you to move data off the site, it’s always on Facebook’s terms — like the announced, but not yet launched, Facebook Connect.

“We’re disappointed that Facebook disabled their users’ ability to
use Friend Connect with their Facebook friends,” a Google spokesman
told Wired.com.

But don’t go getting the idea that Google is really all that concerned with
freeing up your data. Google, like every other site, wants a slice of
the pie. If Google helps you gain a little control at the same time,
consider it a happy coincidence, not a motivating factor.

What’s galling to many is that Facebook still tries to hide its blatant control complex behind the guise of protecting your privacy.

Any time Facebook shuts down a service like Google Friend Connect it brushes off complaints with warm, fuzzy words about keeping you safe. This time the excuse was that Friend Connect “doesn’t respect the privacy standards our users have come to expect.”

Yet Facebook’s own failed Beacon ad platform effectively showed that, deep down, Facebook doesn’t care about your privacy, it cares about making money off your data. And to do that it has to make sure it keeps that data locked up on the site. Letting Google siphon your info off to other social sites isn’t going to help line Facebook’s coffers.

In this particular case Facebook claims that its issue with Friend Connect is that there’s no way to turn Friend Connect widgets off from within Facebook. However, the reason for that is that Facebook doesn’t offer such features in its developer API, so there’s no way for Google to add that feature. If Facebook were really concerned about your privacy it could simply add in the API feature, and maybe it will at some point. But for now it strikes us as an awfully convenient way of keeping your data locked out of Friend Connect.

Unfortunately for Facebook, it seems unlikely the site will be able to maintain that control for much longer. As Robert Scoble points out in his take on the Google-Facebook scuffle, tools like Minggl are already making an end run around Facebook’s restrictions by simply screen-scraping what gets loaded into your browser. As far as I can tell there’s no way Facebook can stop Minggl, short of suing the company out of existence.

But this isn’t just a case of Facebook being overly restrictive and forbidding you from taking your data with you when you leave the site. While much of Facebook’s supposed concern for your privacy may be a desire to protect its own interests, it isn’t all smoke and mirrors.

The issues surrounding your ability to control your data are far more complex than that.

Before you can really address control of your data, you have to first decide what actually is your data. As we’ve pointed out before, how much of your data can be said to be “owned” by you is debatable. Obviously your Facebook Wall posts, updates and personal notes are yours and should be available for export, but what about your friends and all the connections you have on Facebook?

Just because you and I might be connected on Facebook, does that give you the right to export my e-mail and contact info and take it with you where ever you go? You didn’t enter that data into Facebook, I did. So what gives you the right to take it with you when you leave?

How you answer that question will more or less determine who you see as the good guy in this latest scuffle between Facebook and Google.

That’s the real take away from this latest tussle: If you’re looking for a truly open, distributed social network that works across the web, don’t look to existing sites for help.

If we want an open social web, we’re going to have to build it ourselves, using technologies that no one company controls.

Additional reporting by Betsy Schiffman

See Also:

• Google’s ‘Friend Connect’ Offers a Way to Bring the Social Web Together [Updated]
• Facebook Backs Down: Beacon Now Offers Partial Control Over Your Data
• Learning From Plaxo/Facebook: You are not Your E-Mail
• Facebook’s Zuckerberg on Growth, Money and the ‘Social Graph’
• The Next Social Network? It’s Web 2.0, And It Knows Where You Are
• A Slap In The Facebook Follow-up

But the day is nearly here, the first release candidate for Wine 1.0 is in the wild and the code base has been frozen. From here on out Wine 1.0 is concerned only with bug fixes and regression tests. So far there’s no date for the final release of Wine 1.0, but look for it to happen sooner rather than later.

Of course, as regular users know, Wine has been reasonably stable and perfectly usable for some time now, which makes the 1.0 milestone perhaps less significant than in some open source projects. Still, it’s nice to see Wine progressing.

If you’d like to help out, Wine is looking for volunteers to to some regression testing and other bug finding missions. Head over to the WineHQ site for more details.

Wine still doesn’t support every Windows app, but for those who’ve made the switch to Linux (or FreeBSD or Solaris), yet still need one or two Windows apps, Wine is nice lightweight way to go. Not only to you not need to buy and install Windows (as you would for a virtual machine), it’s generally much faster than emulator-based solutions. Head over to the apps page on the Wine site to see if your favorite Windows application works in Wine.

Now if only someone would create a similar project for running Mac OS X apps on Linux…

[via Slashdot]

See Also:

• Installing Apple’s Safari Web Browser in Ubuntu Linux
• Rumor: Windows Apps Running Native on Your Mac