A few days ago, we heard of the big news that Intel and Nokia have started consolidating their Moblin and Maemo codebases and have come up with a new distribution named Meego.

From the blog, it states that they “are taking the best pieces from these two open source projects and are creating the MeeGo software platform. Both teams have worked for a long time to support the needs of the mobile user experience – and MeeGo will make this even better.”

As I knew that Maemo’s interface was more suited for the mobile phone area for Meego, I decided to look into Moblin itself and see how it would serve the role of addressing the netbook part of the new platform.

As we see it currently, the pre-built Moblin live image is a largely Fedora 10 based distribution. It can however be built from Fedora 12, and Ubuntu 9.10. It is interestingly enough that the resulting build with be rpm based, not deb based.

Installing the live image to harddisk on my Benq Joybook was simple enough – it was actually similar to the Fedora/RedHat installs that I am used to.

Booting up was a treat: compared to Ubuntu Netbook Remix, the interface was intuitive and smooth.

The Miser interface upon first boot shows practically a wonderful display of your tasks, favorite apps, documents opened and other stuff that you’ve just used.

Different tabs allows the user to navigate through different sections of Moblin – easily categorized into media, internet, status, applications, zones, people and pasteboard.

The way that Moblin is organized is, in my opinion, one of the best interfaces that I’ve seen in a linux distribution for netbooks. It simply is the best optimization of space for 8″ to 12″ screens.

There are drawbacks however.

For one thing, NTFS is not supported in moblin. And due to licensing issues, the MP3s and H264 video is not supported out of the box, as well as proprietary codecs.

Another thing is that Moblin’s repository is still rather small. Understandable though, because this distribution is meant for netbooks.

There are a number of hacks you can do though, one is you can use the Fedora 10 (and sometimes 11) repository to download other programs.

Another option is to compile the source rpms from the fedora repositories yourself. The trick is to enable the development tools of moblin by typing in the command:

sudo yum groupinstall “Development Tools”

If you’re a little lazy to compile gstreamer yourself, you can use a repository created by a Moblin user named Matthi. The repository, albeit small, includes some nice programs to install for Moblin, such as WINE, Blender, and the gstreamer plugins to make your Moblin distribution run codecs supported by ffmpeg. You can get instructions for his repository here.

What is the Moblin’s future as Meego? I would say, rather bright. Seeing how the interface really compliments the Intel Atom netbook specifications nicely, I believe that most of the GUI Moblin has implemented will be carried on in the netbook versions of Meego. A possible challenge will be on how to implement the user experience on the Qt toolkit (Meego will be based on it, rather on GTK that Moblin uses). Since Moblin uses the Mozilla codebase for it’s integrated browser, it is not farfetched to assume that Meego will implement the Webkit browser as it’s integrated browser for the Qt for it’s WM/Miser interface.

As Qt has integrated media, browsing, APIs, as well as a compositing engine compared to GTK (Gnome still uses Compiz as it’s compisiting engine), we would probably see a more integrated architecture internally, when Meego reaches it’s final stages of development into stable.

Nokia and Intel would benefit each other, because for one reason, Nokia has a netbook. Also, Nokia’s design principles are horrible and clunky (see the S60 interface on symbian as an example) and is also seeing pressure on their interface designs from competitors like Google and Apple. One thing that Nokia has, is that they’re great at hardware R&D (especially mobile), and it is my belief that Intel is also looking into the mobile sector, especially considering that OSes like chrome, and android run on ARM processors and are indirectly competitors with Intel on this space.

All in all, I would say that if both Intel and Nokia play their cards right, Meego will be a very good competitive platform for mobile and netbook apps in the future.

We all have our favorite plug-ins for our browsers. Many people can’t live without their flash plug-in for their games and watching Hulu and YouTube videos. Other people use Java applets for their enterprise applications. Still, others use Quicktime for watching .mov videos on the browser.

What happens if a rogue plug-in runs in your browser? This is when sandboxing plug-ins become apparent.

Sandboxing applications have had it’s purpose and use in Java applications, especially plug-ins, where the program is placed in a restrictive environment that is not allowed to access system functions unless it is given access to.

This allows the plug-in to run in it’s own environment without harming the other browser or system processes.

How is sandboxing applied? Either through the plug-in itself (like java, and in a lesser way, flash), or through the browser.

Newer browsers such as Google Chrome separate their browser windows through threads, allowing rogue plug-ins to crash the affected window only. Other browsers implement some sort of sandboxing of their plug-ins. Which is better?

Since most people are in the fad of flash-bashing these days, let us make a sample of a rogue flash application that crashes the browser. Here is the link.

Mind you, I would say that flash has its uses; however as someone who dabbled in ActionScript one time or the other knows that the Flash runtime has a number of quirks and bugs that are really downright bad. In my opinion, this example is one of them.

Browsers who do not sandbox their plug-ins or separate their windows as separate threads would find this page crashes their browser really bad.

This includes Firefox, IE and Safari.

The only way to avoid spectacular crashes is to use a browser which implements some sort of separation between the plug-in and the browser itself.

Opera and Google Chrome passes this test admirably.

Interestingly, due to the flash plug-in running in a separate process in 64 bit systems in Linux (through nspluginwrapper), only the nspluginwrapper crashes, and does not take the whole browser in it.

To end, this is what I like to see implemented in all browsers. Running plug-ins in a separate process, as well as limiting it’s scope in relation to access to the underlying operating system.

We’ve all seen the html 5 upcoming features and admittedly, it is very exciting.

Features such as canvas, and even a way for communication between servers (like a chat client), and geolocation are just one of the few highlights that html 5 offers.

One of the most anticipated features is the <video> tag which allows for embedding video without the use of an external browser plugin (ie flash).

Many pundits would say that it is the beginning of the end for Adobe Flash.  And I would agree, to an extent.  I believe that Flash’s days as a premium source of progressively streaming video content are numbered somewhat.

Things to keep in mind though:

1. HTML 5 does not include options for LIVE video streaming.  We can say that there is H264 streaming by the open source darwin server (created by apple).  But let’s be real.  Quicktime is a resource hog, and it’s frankly, its awful in windows.  And flash is practically present in over 90% of the computers worldwide – computers are then mostly live streaming content ready.

2. Games and RIA – Canvas and javascript have some neat tricks in HTML 5 (freeciv.net comes to mind).  One thing that flash trumps HTML 5 is how flash makes it easy for developers to create games (and elaborate ones at that!), with sound and effects to boot.  Flash simply trumps HTML 5 in Rich Internet Application features.

3. HTML 5 final draft is on 2022.  What would happen here is that as browsers race to implement HTML 5 features this early, they will have their own implementation.  We have already seen this in the implementation of the <video> tag.  Safari, Chrome support H264.  Firefox and Opera support Theora – IE has no support for the <video> tag.  From experience, I have to contend with different implementations of javascript, dhtml, and even css for different browsers.  What I am hoping is that HTML 5 will not descend into a web developer’s nightmare of supporting different browsers.  For flash, backwards compatibility is largely maintained: AS2 will still run on the newest Flash runtime, and developers will just develop flash applications without worrying that their applications won’t run on linux, windows or macs.

4. One thing about the video tag is that the actual video file is linkable, and thus, downloadable.  Content providers don’t like their videos readily downloadable by users, especially for premium video content.  Although not perfect, Flash offers a way hamper downloads of video content by users.  We live in the real world, and the fact is, however we want our videos to be openly available, content providers would think otherwise.

5. Concerning the video tag, is Firefox’s and Opera’s refusal to support H264.  Fact of the matter is, H264 is patent encumbered, and in order for Firefox and Opera to use H264, they would have to shelve off H264 licensing fees.  As a blog of a Mozilla developer states: “In other words, if you’re an end user in a country where software patents (or method patents) are enforceable, and you’re using software that encodes or decodes H.264 and the vendor is not on the list of licensees, the MPEG LA reserves the right to sue you, the end user, as well as the software vendor or distributor.” – Flash on the other hand, has licensed H264 for use in their player.

6. Flash has some excellent authoring tools available, which makes development easy.  One thing which bugs me in the Open Source world is that IDEs are found mostly wanting.  I wouldn’t mind an open source IDE as good as Visual Studio – Eclipse comes close, but I hate the bloatedness of the application, causing me to have out of memory errors for large amounts of source code (and that was during my Java coding days).

In short, will HTML 5 obsolete Flash completely?  My answer: in some ways, yes, in other ways, not.  What I believe is that both technologies will coexist together for quite some time, until of course, a new version of the HTML spec comes, which may drive Flash into obsolescence once and for all.

I’ve been reading a lot about Google’s flagship OS lately, and if one is to believe all the hype, it will definitely give microsoft a run for it’s money.

Everywhere, news sites such as CNET, OSNews and Ars have been talking about the coming Google sponsored Operating System.  And since we’re talking about Google here, that alone says much about the current buzz about it.

But what is Chrome OS exactly?

For those of you folks who don’t know what this is, here is a snippet of information from the Official Google Blog:

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we’re already talking to partners about the project, and we’ll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve.

So what’s the verdict?  Will Chrome OS replace Windows (or OSX, or even Desktop Linux) as a viable replacement?

I can give you an opinion right now of what I think of it… in the near future, not likely.

Here are the reasons why:

1. It is tied to a specific platform.  I consider this as an “apple-lesque” feature.  Come on, Google has set it’s limits to a netbook spec based machine, and a limited one at that (no harddisk, only SSDs, a specific sized lcd monitor, a specified keyboard size, etc).  I remember Intel doing these on netbooks; you can only run the graphics card only up to a certain size and resolution.  It’s pathetic.
2. The center of all activity is the browser.  What can you expect with Google?  Of course, all of the apps are tied up to the “cloud”, but what if I don’t want to use apps in the “cloud”?
3. It is application lock-in heaven.  Think of it.  All data, all your preferences are stored in Google.  Admittedly, I use google services all the time, but with this setup, you are guaranteed of this lock-in.
4. I like my gnome and kde apps.  I even like my games and applications in both Linux and Windows.  With the Google Chrome OS hardware spec requirements, I can only see netbooks coming with this OS installed as something of an internet appliance, nothing more.  I like my netbooks more featured, thank you.
5. Third world countries don’t have abundant internet connection (read: wifi)… so of what use is this to them?

I know, I know, it’s based on the linux kernel, and you can most probably modify the core of this OS. But my question is, what about the applications that Google bundles it with?  Most likely you cannot use these on a modified distribution.

I’m honestly more excited about the  announcement of a modified NX server months ago (called NeatX, which in my opinion is a good remote desktop solution for Linux servers, having used NX and FreeNX on some of the server boxes I manage), than on Chrome OS.

In conclusion, with all these hiccups, I don’t ever think we’ll see Chrome OS displacing Microsoft significantly in marketshare, for at least a number of years.

It seems like that the favorite browser everyone loves to hate is having a makeover.

From the msdn IEBlog site, developers from microsoft are in the process of updating Internet Explorer to have:

1. Speedier Performance – on par with Firefox 3.6.  It finally looks like that javascript will be accelerated like Firefox and Safari/Chrome builds are.
2. Standards Compliance – some HTML 5 support, as well as CSS 3 compliance are being done.  ACID 3 compliance is also being worked upon.
3. Hardware accelerated graphics and text via Direct2D.

Concerning #2, here’s a pic from the IEBlog, concerning Javascript execution speed:

On my own opinion, other browsers have the lead in JS acceleration, and IE is basically playing catchup.  By the time IE 9 gets ready to ship, developments and enhancements in Firefox and Webkit based browsers (Safari/Chrome) will have optimized their javascript engines further.  Furthermore, 3D acceleration has been in development for the other browsers as well.  What remains to be seen, and this is what I think is significant to watch, is whether HTML 5 will be able to unseat flash, considering future browsers are racing to implement HTML 5 compliance (IE included).