Like many gearheads, I've owned a lot of portable computers over the years -- and I've wanted to replace every last one with a smaller, sleeker upgrade, from the "luggable" Apple IIc onward. But most of those upgrades have left me disappointed: with the lack of software; with cheap, hard-to-use interfaces; and with "optional" add-ons that were in fact very much necessary to make the machine useful. And then the Asus Eee came around, leaving a trail of effusive reviews and eager buyers. I started to feel the same old hope

There has been a wide range of discussion on the subject of Mono and its inclusion in Ubuntu by default. Some people believe that Mono may infringe on Microsoft patents while others believe that it is useful to include. Personally, I have no idea about whether Mono does infringe on Microsoft patents, but I see other reasons why Ubuntu should remove it.

"Interoperability" has become a weasel word. The word is regularly used to insinuate that two (or more) computer systems should work very well, but they usually work well for the wrong reasons. The method adopted to make these systems work is flawed. This approach monetizes something that should be free and something that typically requires no research and development whatsoever. It is an unfortunate case where the role of standards is being ignored and replaced.

Just as a brief summary for those not familiar with the topic: A vendor of proprietary software can store data in closed, proprietary data formats. Thus, if you are a customer of that vendor it becomes very difficult for you to move to a competitor's product, for example if you like the features or price/performance of that offering better. Instead, the cost of moving, the risk of loosing all your data may be too great. You are 'locked in' to the current vendor...

Year after year, industry pundits state, "This is the year of Linux," and year after year, those same pundits say, "The market is just not ready yet." So the big question here is, "Where are the Linux desktops?" For the most part, they're not anywhere.

Clem and crew have done nothing less than a magnificent job in creating a superb Linux Distro. But now they've went and done it...they can't be happy with remaking one distro into something better...they have to set their sights on another distro. Here's what's rubbing many against the grain. It's Fedora Core. They are going to make a "Mint Flavor" Fedora.

The recent interview with Linus Torvalds cemented a number of things I've believed about Linux for a while now. Linux isn't an OS, or even a kernel: it's an embodiment of a design philosophy. One aspect of that philosophy could be described as "ignore the competition."

The three biggest community Linuxes are Fedora, OpenSUSE and Ubuntu. They're all popular. They're all good. But which is the best?