Is Ubuntu for You?

---

I'm talking to you, potential user. You've used Windows almost all your life. You think you know a little bit about computers. Maybe you know a lot... about Windows computers. Thought you'd give the most popular distro on DistroWatch a chance, eh? Well, let's see if Ubuntu's the right choice for you.

Hardware
First of all, keep in mind that any OS will have its hardware limitations. People have endless arguments about why Linux doesn't support absolutely everything. It does come close, but there are some gaps. I know that wireless can be a toughie. I've heard Lexmark printers are almost a no-go. I'd say in the vast majority of cases, you'd be surprised at how much Ubuntu does recognize without any configuring, but you may end up with too low a screen resolution or something.

General distro rule of thumb: if the distro doesn't recognize more than two of your hardware pieces (say, the internet, sound, and screen resolution), you've got the wrong distro. Don't fight it. You can if you want to, but it'll be frustrating. Just get a new distro. I tried Ubuntu and only my screen resolution was off. I tried Mepis, and it recognized everything.

Software
There are many Linux equivalents for Windows software, but not for everything. Some Windows programs can be run in Linux with some helper applications, but some programs are just hopeless. Find out. Ask questions. If you think you have some Windows-only programs with no Linux substitutes, pop a question into a forum, "I use Macromedia Shockwave. Is there a way to get this working in Linux?" Don't expect too much (Linux can't run everything Windows has), but don't expect too little either (Linux often has more variety, and some programs are even better in Linux), especially if you have money for Cedega or Crossover Office.

Interface
Can you copy and paste instructions? I mean literally copy... and paste? You can't? You hate the command line? You'd never want to even touch the command line once? You don't have any frends who are willing to install Ubuntu for you? Okay. If you answered no, no, yes, yes, and yes to those questions, then Ubuntu is not for you. You're probably better off with Mepis or Linspire.

If, however, you embrace the command-line just for setting up Ubuntu you'll realize it's easy to copy and paste stuff that people tell you to type in, and that once you've got things set up, you can graphical user interface most of the regular programs (email, internet, etc.).

Free Price
Does the lack of having to pay for something (software, OS, or even shipping) appeal to you? Maybe Ubuntu is for you. A lot of other Linux distros will be free but have a more up-to-date edition you pay for, or some subscription that gives you a little more. Ubuntu is free, free, free--no money for anything. Of course, if you want to donate and you have the money, go for it.

Free Software
The software is also not proprietary. In practical terms that means you don't have to enter an activation code or limit how many computers you can install the software on. And if you're a programmer, you can even modify the code. However, you should realize that a lot of what you consider "basic" may, in fact, be proprietary. If you want Java support and MP3 support and DVD codecs right away, and you're not willing to copy and paste some simple commands to get them up and running, Ubuntu is not for you. Blag and Mepis have some pretty good out-of-the-box proprietary formats support.

Community
Ubuntu's community is amazing. We even put up with trolls and Linux-haters. You'll find the vast majority of users here are knowledgeable, supportive, responsive, and patient. There are a lot of HowTo's as well and some good links.

Not Windows
Do you want an OS that's Windows without the spyware? Linux isn't for you. Linux is not Windows. Linux can perform tasks that Windows can perform and even more, but it is not Windows. If you can't come with an open mind to Linux, then don't come at all. It's kind of like going from Windows to Mac. There's a learning curve. If you don't have time to learn, just cough up some money for anti-virus and learn more about securing your Windows computer. I've done it. It's not that hard.

I know this generally sounds like a downer. I say use Mepis. I say use Windows. I say something may not work, or you may have to do a lot of copying and pasting to get something working. I just want to warn you. I don't want you to come in with weird expectations about Ubuntu. Please don't twist what's basically a marketing slogan ("Linux for Human Beings") to mean that just about anyone can actually install Ubuntu on any computer and not have to learn anything to get it working. You can't even say that about Windows. If you want to complain about the first thing that goes wrong, don't even bother, because I know you'll complain even if nothing goes wrong. You have to have a positive attitude.

However, if you can get past all that and say, "Yes, I do want a free OS. I don't mind copying and pasting a few commands in the beginning. I want something stable and a little bit different. I don't mind learning things and being part of a supportive and fun community," then dive in! The water is nice. Ubuntu can be a wonderful experience.

P.S. - try it out
You don't have to reformat your hard drive to give Ubuntu a try. There's a live CD that won't affect your Windows installation (From the Ubuntu CD case: Note that a Live CD is much slower than the fully installed Ubuntu system, but allows you to test Ubuntu without affecting your existing software). You can also set up a dual-boot whereby you can choose whether to boot into Windows or Ubuntu.

P.P.S. If you don't have internet access (or have dial-up and little patience with hours of downloading), then please don't use Ubuntu. Software installation and updates will be painful if not impossible.

P.P.P.S. Other distros that include popular proprietary stuff and more graphical tools "out of the box" are PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint, and Sabayon.

RapidShare - No longer shared!!!

I’m trying to download a file from the evil Rapidshare (who make you wait about 2 painful minutes before giving you the file) and just after the wait time is over, I get a Captcha looking like this:

WTF man? I mean, does it really need to be this hard? Are you telling me that it has come down to us hiding domestic animals in our captcha characters in order to hold off bots? Plus, there are only 3 “letters” in that image but its asking for four.

Military Strategy - Blitzkrieg

Blitzkrieg means "lightening war". Blitzkrieg was first used by the Germans in World War Two and was a tactic based on speed and surprise and needed a military force to be based around light tank units supported by planes and infantry (foot soldiers). The tactic was developed in Germany by an army officer called Hans Guderian. He had written a military pamphlet called "Achtung Panzer" which got into the hands of Hitler. As a tactic it was used to devastating effect in the first years of World War Two and resulted in the British and French armies being pushed back in just a few weeks to the beaches of Dunkirk and the Russian army being devastated in the attack on Russia in June 1941.

Hitler had spent four years in World War One fighting a static war with neither side moving far for months on end. He was enthralled by Guderian’s plan that was based purely on speed and movement. When Guderian told Hitler that he could reach the French coast in weeks if an attack on France was ordered, fellow officers openly laughed at him. The German High Command told Hitler that his "boast" was impossible. General Busch said to Guderian, "Well, I don’t think that you’ll cross the River Meuse in the first place." The River Meuse was considered France’s first major line of defence and it was thought of as being impossible to cross in a battle situation.

Blitzkrieg was based on speed, co-ordination and movement. It was designed to hit hard and move on instantly. Its aim was to create panic amongst the civilian population. A civil population on the move can be absolute havoc for a defending army trying to get its forces to the war front. Doubt, confusion and rumour were sure to paralyse both the government and the defending military.

"Speed, and still more speed, and always speed was the secret……..and that demanded audacity, more audacity and always audacity." Major General Fuller

Once a strategic target had been selected, Stuka dive bombers were sent in to ‘soften’ up the enemy, destroy all rail lines, communication centres and major rail links. This was done as the German tanks were approaching and the planes withdrew only at the last minute so that the enemy did not have time to recover their senses when the tanks attacked supported by infantry.

Most troops were moved by half-track vehicles so there was no real need for roads though these were repaired so that they could be used by the Germans at a later date. Once a target had been taken, the Germans did not stop to celebrate victory; they moved on to the next target. Retreating civilians hindered any work done by the army being attacked. Those civilians fleeing the fighting were also attacked to create further mayhem.

How effective was Blitzkrieg?

In 1941, a diary kept by an unknown French soldier was found. In it are some interesting comments that help us understand why this tactic was so successful :

"When the dive-bombers come down, they (the French) stood it for two hours and then ran with their hands over their ears." "Sedan fell as a result of a bombardment……….it was a superb example of military surprise." "The pace is too fast……it’s the co-operation between the dive-bombers and the tanks that is winning the war for Germany." "News that the Germans are in Amiens………this is like some ridiculous nightmare."

All the above were written in a period of just 5 days : May 15th 1940 to May 19th 1940.

Why were the armies of Europe caught so badly prepared by this tactic?

Hitler had given his full backing to Guderian. Ironically, he had got his idea for Blitzkrieg from two officers - one from France and one from Britain and he had copied and broadened what they had put on paper. In Britain and France, the cavalry regiments ruled supreme and they were adamant that the tanks would not get any influence in their armies. The High Commands of both countries were dominated by the old traditional cavalry regiments and their political pull was great. These were the type of officers despised by Hitler and he took to his Panzer officer, Guderian, over the old officers that were in the German Army (the Wehrmacht).

In 1940, Britain and France still had a World War One mentality. What tanks they had were poor compared to the German Panzers. British and French tactics were outdated and Britain still had the mentality that as an island we were safe as our navy would protect us. Nazi Germany, if it was to fulfill Hitler's wishes, had to have a modern military tactic if it was to conquer Europe and give to Germany the 'living space' that Hitler deemed was necessary for the Third Reich.

It was used to devastating effect in Poland, western Europe where the Allies were pushed back to the beaches of Dunkirk and in the attack on Russia - Operation Barbarossa.

Firefox 3 Sets Download 'Record' - Are You Using It?

Firefox has already surpassed the 5 million download mark it set out to meet in its first 24 hours. As I write this, the browser just passed the 8 million download mark for its version 3.0 software, and with over 6800 downloads per minute (and rising) is on track to do 9 million or more. Whether that's a record is hard to say, but it's very impressive nonetheless. Are you using Firefox 3? Do you plan to upgrade?

You can watch the live count as it streams in from Mozilla's raw server logs, and according to the download day page, the majority of downloads have come from the US. Despite some hiccups yesterday, Firefox had no problem setting the record (though no one really seems to know if there was any old mark to break -- so anything might have been a record with Guinness watching).

Net Applications has been tracking the uptake of Firefox 3 since yesterday morning, and it is now at around 4.5% -- not bad for its first 24 hours. Firefox on the whole is closing in on 20% market share and is higher among tech savvy crowds (over 50% on this blog, for example). That 4.5% of Firefox web browser users are already using version 3 indicates that about 25% of its user base has upgraded overnight -- that's very impressive.

If you're still on the fence about upgrading, check out my overview of FF3.

Why Should You download Firefiox 3 Right Now!!!

Firefox 3 — available for download from Tuesday onwards — is the culmination of a two-year quest to build the best browser ever. And while it’s not perfect, it comes pretty close.

The open-source web browser is the fastest and most secure version of Firefox yet. Significant improvements have been made to the way it uses your computer’s resources, so the memory leaks and other performance problems found in Firefox 2 have been stamped out. Text and image rendering have also been improved, and the underlying code for Gecko, the engine that draws the actual web pages on the screen, has been updated. There are also heaps of useful features that have been added for both power users and newcomers alike.

It’s faster than Microsoft Internet Explorer, but it’s not the fastest browser in the world — depending on who you ask, either Safari on the Mac or Opera 9.5 claims that crown. Firefox 3 is also incomplete by design — users can customize the browser, adding additional bells and whistles through downloadable extensions.

Here’s why I think Firefox 3 is one of the most kick-ass software releases of 2008.

History, bookmarks and discovery

The most significant enhancement to Firefox 3 is also the most subtle. It’s the location bar, the text field at the top of the window where you enter the web address of your desired destination. Once a purely pedestrian feature, the location bar in Firefox 3 has been juiced up to the point where it is now central to the browsing experience.

Start typing a URL and the window leaps to your aid, searching the page titles and URLs in your browsing history and offering suggestions for the page you’re most likely looking for. Searches are instantaneous and happen as you type. Continue typing and your searches get narrower. Pick a URL from the list and Firefox will remember your choice. The next time you type that same term, your previous choice will appear near the top of the list, if not at the very top.

Early testers of Firefox 3 loved this new feature so much, they nicknamed it the “Awesome Bar.”

Much in the way Gmail’s powerful search box has replaced the old categorization paradigm of menus and folders for sorting and finding old e-mail messages, the Awesome Bar has largely replaced the need for a traditional bookmark filing system. Still, many users will continue to prefer the granular control and long term security afforded by a folder-based bookmark system. These users have not been ignored. With Firefox 3’s new bookmark manager, you can mark your favorite sites by “starring” them — click on the blue star in the URL bar and the page is automatically branded a favorite. Once favorited, bookmarks can be tagged and sorted into folders. You can also set up smart bookmark folders to display your most-visited sites, recently-favorited links or specific tags — just like similar smart playlists in iTunes.

Speed and performance

One of the biggest gripes about the previous version of Firefox was its often dreadful performance record. The browser grew so sluggish and unresponsive after a few hours of surfing that it became almost entirely unusable. The explosion of resource-sucking web applications over the last two years only made the problem worse. Wired.com addressed this stumbling block in an article in May of last year. At the time, Mozilla (the organization that makes Firefox) offered excuses ranging from outdated code to users running too many add-ons.Whatever the wrinkles, they have been ironed out in the new release.

Security

Firefox’s user base has traditionally been made up by the power users of the web’s elite — developers, software geeks and early adopters. But as the popularity of the browser has grown, it’s attracted casual users who tend to be less net-savvy and therefore more prone to attacks by phishing sites, malware and scripting attacks. This shift has prompted Mozilla to raise the bar on Firefox’s default security measures.

Firefox 3 introduces a new visual language to the browser security game. The subtle tinting and the tiny padlock icon in the location bar denoting a site’s safety are being phased out in favor of stark iconography and clearly defined, color-coded cues. Security warnings come in the form of the passport officer symbol used in international airport terminals worldwide. He shows up as a different color based on the level of security of the site you’re dealing with, and that color is matched by the large button on the left end of the location bar.

Verified, secure sites make the button glow green. Sites with very basic identity information show up as blue, and unverified sites show up as the default gray. Click on the color-coded button and you can see how often you’ve visited the website (if at all), information about the company that owns it and the link to its identity certificate.

Sites with invalid identity certificates show a yellow passport officer and an on-screen warning. Visit a known phishing or malware website and the page is blocked from loading, with a red passport officer and an explanation being shown instead. The list of known attack sites is maintained by the community and updated regularly.

Native look and feel

It’s a small enhancement, but it’s a noticeable one that many users will welcome. Older versions of Firefox were dressed in the same gray clothes no matter which operating system you ran. In Firefox 3, each OS gets its own skin for the browser. Mac users will see buttons, scrollbars and tabs that finally look not just “Macish” but entirely Mac-native. The same goes for a Windows XP version with green buttons and a Vista version with that OS’s glowing blue appointments. Ubuntu users even get a version that’s, appropriately, boxy and orange.

Also, on the major OSes at least, the back button is larger. Mozilla ran its own user tests and found that most people miss the back button with their mice. So, the team made it about 50% bigger.

A better fit for your workflow

For advanced web users, especially those who favor webapps like Gmail or Yahoo mail over their desktop counterparts like Outlook, Firefox 3 provides a more seamless integration into their modern workflow.

Application-specific links on web pages can be set to trigger webapps. For example, you can set up the browser so that clicking on a mailto link opens up in Yahoo Mail rather than in Outlook, or that a calendar event gets added to Google Calendar instead of iCal. This is an extension of what we saw when Firefox 2 asked you how you like to read your RSS feeds — in a desktop app, with Live Bookmarks or in an online tool like Bloglines or Google Reader.

There’s also support for running your webapps off-line. If you go through a quick set up procedure, you can answer messages in Gmail and work on a document in an online word processor, then sync up later when your net access is restored.

Finally, search is everywhere in Firefox 3. Not only are your bookmarks accessible directly from the location bar, but recent downloads and Firefox’s add-on library now have a search box. Most web-based tools use search as an essential component, and it’s because of this emphasis on dynamic search capability that Firefox 3 feels much more in tune with the way we expect our applications to behave on today’s web.

So go ahead - break free from the ubiquitous 'Internet Explorer', download the FireFox and enjoy surfing.

Microsoft vs Google

Napoleon Bonaparte was arguably the most strategic mind set to war. As we shall see later, his strategic brilliance, however, is equally applicable to the competitive world of Business; and in this case, Microsoft’s rivalry with Google.

A little history

Microsoft, the world’s largest software vendor, has been around for quite a long time. Its target market is mainly selling operating systems and office applications for the desktop computers. Microsoft products are sold to computer manufacturers, i.e. Dell Computers, who in turn install and ship Microsoft software package to the consumers. So in a sense, consumers end up writing Bill Gates a $100+ check without ever knowing it. This is how Microsoft became to dominate the computer desktop industry and turned Bill Gates into modern day Henry Ford.

Google, on the other hand, is a relatively new company. It blossomed during the dot com boom, and eventually came to dominate the online search engine business. Today, Google attracts more than 200 million unique queries on its search engine every day; statistically speaking, each query generates 12 cents for the company…that is 8 zeros multiplied by 12! Google, for the most part, profits through its search based advertisement technology known as Adwords. Adwords makes online advertisement approachable in terms of easiness and affordability. Adwords, combined with a similar technology called Adsense, made Google endless amounts of cash. Google, today, is the undisputed champion of the online world.

How they became enemies

“When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna” - Napoleon

Until recently, both Google and Microsoft were living in harmony. The masses used Microsoft’s Internet Explorer to surf Google’s search engine. However, internet’s seemingly unstoppable growth since the early 2000 began to attract the attention of many industries. Microsoft executives clearly saw Internet as the next big thing; possibly a market worth pursuing. Meanwhile, Google continued to make unprecedented strides within its search engine market. Having generated enough cash, however, Google took a different direction; founded by technology enthusiasts, Google began to enter various markets unrelated to its search business. Rumors began to spread that Google is building an online “free” Operating System and various other tools such as an alternative version to the dominating Internet Explorer. This, as you might have guessed, ticked off Microsoft, and it took the bait and decided to roll its war drums against Google. Microsoft, by the way, is not the only company that feels threatened by its presence. Other internet giants, such as AOL, Yahoo! and eBay, are also feeling the heat ever since Google embarked on its journey towards dominating any market of technological interest. Google innovated in markets that already existed and, surprisingly, came about to dominating them. For Microsoft, it was a threat worth neutralizing. Today, Google has its hands in web search, email, online videos, calendars, news, blogs, desktop search, photo sharing, online payments, social networking, instant messaging, WiFi, word processors, web hosting, web browser, search tool bars, spreadsheets, discussion groups, maps and more.

Before long, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo! and eBay maneuvered to encapsulate Google’s ever-growing strength. Over two hundred years ago, Emperor Napoleon, the Google of his day, found himself in a similar situation. Russia, Prussia, Austria and Britain had decided to go to war.

The drums of war

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” – Napoleon

Microsoft’s take on this war is quite different from that of Google. Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has repeatedly alleged that the online market is not a zero-sum game; in other words, it is possible for two or more players to dominate a large share of this market. Microsoft is not used to this. In the past it has decisively eliminated any competition, and taken the throne for itself. Consequently, Microsoft has publicly declared an all out war on Google.

Ironically, Google is the company that is on the attack; it has been aggressively pursuing Microsoft’s market. However, using clever tactics, it has intimidated Microsoft to appear as the aggressor, while Google quietly carries on with its business. In other words, Google has lured Microsoft into a rash attack; when it ends up in disaster, Microsoft will have only themselves to blame, and everyone around them will blame them, too. Google will win both the battle of appearances and the battle on the field. Very few strategies offer such flexibility and power.

It takes more energy to take land than to hold it. Throughout history, defensive tactics have won more battles than the aggressors. After the first wave of siege, the aggressor loses the advantage of surprise attack and leaves himself exposed to a counter attack. The defender can clearly see his strategy and take protective action. Napoleon’s most celebrated victory, the battle of Austerlitz was a counter attack, defeating a larger army with a kill ratio of 15 to 1. A defensive position has become the perfect way to disguise an offensive maneuver, a counter attack. Google has repeatedly asserted that it is not interested in competing with other businesses; it is a web search business only. They have used this facade to make Microsoft’s concerns with the company seem paranoid; a clever move that worked. The fact remains that Google is a powerful secretive company, driven by smart people, and for a cause.

Do No Evil

“In war the moral is to the physical is as three to one”- Napoleon

In his day, most emperors preferred to hire mercenary armies simply because maintaining a healthy army of their own came at too much of an expense. Napoleon reversed this setback by recruiting young French loyalists more eager to fight for a greater France than for the money. As a result, during battle, French soldiers swiftly defeated much larger mercenary armies. My point? Bring people together around a cause and you create a motivated force.

With a 60% stake in the U.S. web search market, one might expect Google to have mottos of the kind “Let Google do the searching” or perhaps “Search fast, search Google”. On the contrary, Google’s motto is a simple “Do No Evil”. Recently, web search companies were asked by U.S. intelligence agencies to transfer private data on user searches over to them; while other web search companies concurred with them, Google saw it as evil and denied. This decision alone drove Google’s shares dwindling down several points on the NASDAQ, but Google remained true to its “Do No Evil” maxim. Google has come to be seen as a company driven not by the incentive of making money, but rather by the pursuit of knowledge through technological innovation; as a result, the company has used this justification to convince its competitors that it is not interested in defeating competition, but rather providing easier access to information for everyone, and hence making the world a better place. Google keeps its business silent and only attracts attention to the technological goodies it has brought to the masses. In fact, Google’s Machiavellian tactics have worked so well that most of its users do not even know how or if Google makes money.

Google’s army of 7000+ employees are loyal to the company. Over at Microsoft, the employees, especially senior executives, feel caged within the company; leaving Microsoft for Google might bring a lawsuit from the company, as it did for Kai-Fu Lee. To Microsoft’s credit, Google is simply reaping fruit from the hype that Microsoft once enjoyed. Sooner or later, the quality and quantity of potential employees will inevitably decrease in size as the excitement around Google is neutralized.

Mobility through decentralized command

“Separate to live, unite to fight” - Napoleon

Genghis Khan, like Napoleon, was a master of mobility in war. In a very short period of time, his empire stretched from Korea all the way to Europe. Neither two conquerors could have expanded like they did if it weren’t for mobility. Mobility was the key to decisive maneuvering during battle. Varying in size, from 15, 000 to 30, 000 men, each corps was a miniature army headed by a miniature Napoleon. Fluid, Fast, and Nonlinear. At the battle of Ulm, Napoleon completely surrounded the Austrian army within a few hours; cutting off any channels of escape or reinforcements. The Austrian emperor was forced to surrender an army of 30, 000 soldiers.

For a large company like Google, the hierarchy within the company is quite small. Google organizes employees in teams of three to five people. Each team is self directed, while the middle managers provide the required resources to support development within the teams. As a result, Google has fashioned a powerful self-directed decentralized approach towards product development. The consequence of such an arrangement is that there is no keystone employee or manager within the company. It is almost as if the company could run on its own even if it were divided into several smaller pieces. Forbes magazine described the phenomena this way: “Innovation will flourish for as long as the masses are running Google. When management forcefully steps in, the pace of change will slow.” Microsoft, on the other hand, has a well known bureaucratic problem. There are over 12 layers of middle managers between executives and the developers. As a result, the company takes the course that its top managers set for it. Instead of allowing innovation to originate from developers, it flows from top level managers to code-monkeys at the lowest base. This is quite common in other companies as well. The natural tendency of a top manager in any company is to want to control the group, to coordinate its every movement, but that ends up tying the company to the past and to the slow moving armies in history. It takes strength of character to allow for a margin of chaos and uncertainty-to let go a little-but by decentralizing army and segmenting it into teams; company managers gain in mobility what they lose in complete control. A critical step in creating an efficient chain of command is assembling a skilled team that shares the same goals and values; once this is achieved, the top managers at Microsoft can contentedly allow the teams to think and direct on their own. As Joel Spolsky puts it, “The goal of any business owner should be to break his/her job into functional pieces that can be replicated over and over.”

“The goal of any business owner should be to break his/her job into functional pieces that can be replicated over and over.” – Joel Spolsky

Google Achilles:

“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets” - Napoleon

Napoleon demanded unprecedented loyalty from his men. When in 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to the mainland, King Louis XVIII sent the Fifth Regiment, led by Marshal Michel Ney who had formerly served under Napoleon in Russia, to fight him at Grenoble. Napoleon approached the regiment alone, dismounted his horse and, when he was within earshot of Ney's forces, shouted "Soldiers of the Fifth, you recognize me. If any man would shoot his emperor, he may do so now". Following a brief silence, the soldiers shouted "Vive L'Empereur!" and marched with Napoleon to Paris. The strength of his image echoed in the hearts and minds of, both, his allies and enemies. He described this himself as “I have destroyed the enemy merely by marches”

Whatever a company’s strength might be, it is actually a potential weakness, simply because the company relies on it: neutralize it and the company is vulnerable. A company’s task is to put its competitor in a situation in which it cannot use its advantage. Google’s advantage is its brand.

”Public opinion is the thermometer a monarch should constantly consult” - Napoleon

The Wall Street judges Google’s worth in terms of its shares value in the stock market. Google’s out of the charts performance in the stock market is a weakness in disguise. Wall Street isn’t thrilled with Google’s secretive style of management, so the investor loyalty could be swayed quite easily. Google will lose its extraordinary command of the NASDAQ as soon as conditions stop favoring them. Google might have a strong user base, but its investor loyalty is at dismay. Without Wall Street’s backing, Google will lose its share not only in the stock market, but in the public relations department as well. Google feeds off its brand, so any successful attack on its image will cripple the company even when it continues to generate cash.

Google depends on its hype. But hype does not stick around forever.

What Can Microsoft Do

”To extraordinary circumstances we must apply extraordinary remedies” - Napoleon

Google is successful not just for its technological innovation, but also for the command structure that makes this innovation possible and. Hence, to solely attack Google’s technology is a mistake since Google will always manage to innovate with quick decisiveness, as it has in the past. Google’s Achilles heel is its Adwords system; its money machine. Without it, Google can neither grow nor innovate.

The general rule for defeating any large army is to launch the attack on as narrow a front as possible. Whereas a defender must defend all their borders, an attacker has the advantage of being able to concentrate their forces at one place. By releasing, what seems to be a product every week, Google has stretched too thin. Aside from search and email, Google products are essentially at the mercy of another competitor, say Microsoft. Microsoft, with its MSN Search, cannot possibly defeat Google in search business, it is Google’s core business and the company will protect it however possible. Sun Tzu stated this in the Art of War as “Put your enemies in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeting. If they are to die then, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go, they are firm, when they are deeply involved, they stick to it. If they have no choice, they will fight to death.”

“Put your enemies in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeting. If they are to die then, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go, they are firm, when they are deeply involved, they stick to it. If they have no choice, they will fight to death“ – The Art of War

Microsoft should adopt a partial non-competitive strategy. Instead of publicly and pragmatically target Google’s main business, it should, with surgical precision, covertly attack products Google doesn’t pay much attention to. Google’s policy to let beta products become widely accepted organically is a weakness waiting to be exploited.

There are many non-conferential strategies Microsoft can adhere to:

1. The giant can enter markets that Google would never tackle; Microsoft’s success in the gaming and music industry strengthens this point. Furthermore, Microsoft can let its allies (i.e. Yahoo!, AOL, eBay etc) confront Google in markets Microsoft wouldn’t want to.

2. Google, with its recent release of Open Source project hosting, has subtly brought on its side a smart culture of developers who already dislike Microsoft. This form of passive strategy is what Google is best at. CEO Eric Schmidt once stated that a company’s success lies in its programmers. Microsoft can hire more talented engineers. If there are two equally intelligent students competing for the top position, all they have to do is study 5 minutes more than the other would. Taking that one extra step in hiring employees will have a significant impact on the company’s business.

3. Be more reserved. An attack kept silent has a better chance at succeeding than one that is clearly perceived and understood by the enemy. As Niccolo Machiavelli puts it “No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution.”

“No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution.” - Machiavelli

4. Decentralize product releases. Instead of passing product decisions through a layer of eleven managers, let the product innovation come from the engineers responsible for designing them. A much more effective road that Microsoft can take is to provide seed capital for other startups releasing products competitive to Google. This has several advantages. Startups are more focused and motivated. Microsoft wouldn't have to expend excess resources into startups since they can also rely on other VC's. Since startups can think and manage themselves, this will decentralize innovation and also rid Microsoft off its 11 layers of management.

5. As mentioned previously, Google’s vital organ is its ad delivery mechanism. If Microsoft successfully releases a better system for delivering advertisements, it will decisively capture Google’s hold on ad publishers. Due to Microsoft’s huge hotmail user base, the company has an excellent opportunity at delivering more targeted advertisements.

6. Lastly, Google focuses a very small team, usually 3 to 5 engineers, on its beta products. Microsoft can take advantage of this by focusing more resources on similar products. Even though, smaller teams innovate faster, larger, more resourceful teams, have a better chance at success. A successful product requires the collective effort of more than just the engineering department.

”Between a battle lost and a battle won, the distance is immense and there stand empires” - Napoleon

Conclusion
In the end, despite his genius, it was Napoleon who became overwhelmed by counter forces and lost. Unprecedented success often causes blindness. My advice for Google is to continue its rapid innovation but also put a tap on its uncontrolled product releases. As for Microsoft, despite the company’s several ill conceived tactics, it has a lot of potential for improvement and much to learn from its rival, Google.

The Need for Speed - Karting

Have you ever wondered how it feels behind the wheels, trail-blazing through the racing tracks? If you want to experience life on the fast lane head to your nearest go-karting club.

Go-karting is not just a sport! It’s the only way for those who are obsessed with speed, to put their wildest dreams right onto the tracks and enjoy the experience akin to that of participating in a Grand Prix! Driving little, mean go-karts in closed circuits surely requires you to be a master of wits to be able to control the flow of your adrenaline.

Here are few snaps of mine indulging in my favourite hobby

Steve Jobs - A Maverick

Pundits will debate about the new iPhone feature they like best. Some will rave about the fact that it is “lighter and thinner at the edges” as almost everyone writing about the product has parroted. Others will probably tout its 3G credentials—initials that translate into faster Web access. What makes this product a real winner, though, is the price. Steve Jobs has managed to arm-twist AT&T into subsidizing the cost of the phone (this is linked to a subscription plan) and the new iPhone now costs as little as one-third of the original that went on sale about a year ago. By doing so, Jobs has once again proved that he is a consummate marketer. Marketing isn’t just about what are popularly known as the four Ps (product, price, place, promotion), but also about when to use which P.

Jobs has, in happier economic climes, used Apple stores that rapidly became shrines to the company’s obsessive fans, and innovative campaigns to good effect. Trust him to use the price card at a time when the US economy is at its weakest in several years.

The blackberry imbroglio

Canadian smart phone maker RIM’s whimper that the Communications Ministry was targeting it selectively has opened a Pandora’s box full of complicated issues that India’s Department of Telecom (DoT) has no answers for.

RIM, which makes the BlackBerry smart phone, and has about 1,15,000 customers in India, mostly corporate or professionals, has argued that if its services were in violation of India’s security guidelines, then DoT should also look into similar offerings of at least four other players.

While this may be the last line of defence by RIM, which has been under the country’s security agencies fire and has been pushed to the corner with little negotiating options, the Canadian company’s argument has highlighted the larger picture, which DoT has been trying to brush under the carpet.

The proposed solution by DoT and security agencies are — set up a server in India and channel all data traffic originating from Indian mobile networks to these servers; RIM and operators like Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Reliance Communications that provide this service create a mirror image of all emails and data sent on these devices in India and save these images for at least six months; and reduce encryption code to less than 40-bit.

It is essential to understand that the security concerns are only related to BlackBerry Enterprise Solutions (BES), which are largely used by corporates. The BlackBerry Internet Service (BIS), which is sold to individual customers, has very little security facilities and is not encrypted. At the same time, it is also important to note that the arguments presented by both sides – DoT and RIM – have several flaws, and any solution to the ongoing imbroglio will have to address each of these issues.

First is the issue of encryption. It is no secret that India’s security agencies have been unable to keep pace with the march of technology. But punishing RIM for the failure of Indian agencies to anticipate technological developments reflects poorly on the government here. While DoT may be demanding that RIM reduce encryption standards to 40 bits, it comes at the cost of the customers who use this service.

A simple indicator of this is that globally, most countries stipulate that the Internet service providers (ISP) ensure a minimum of 128-bit encryption before any financial transaction can be made online. Many industry experts accept that 40-bit encryption standards may turn back the clock on the internet emerging as a platform for commerce in India and will also give a free run to hackers.

In fact, DoT’s double standards on the issue stand exposed as almost all commercial portals in India, some of which are owned by government departments such as the Railways, Indian Airlines, telecom and bank PSUs, offer services at the 128-bit encryption standards.

This also brings into question the ultra cheap Internet telephony services offered by Skype and other such global majors where the encryption standards are well above 40 bits. Considering that more Indians use Internet telephony than they use BlackBerry services, DoT must first explain why only these services of RIM are considered a security threat.

The second issue relates to the fact that other handset majors in India, including Nokia and Motorola and software players such as Microsoft and Seven Networks, offer similar email solutions on mobile handsets. Consider what RIM said in a presentation to DoT: “In addition to BlackBerry, four other mobile e-mail solutions in market in India use comparable encryption levels — Windows Mobile ActiveSync, Nokia Intellisync, Motorola Good and Seven Networks. Furthermore, several other technologies widely used in India use strong encryption to secure communications over the Internet.

These include Web browser, WAO 2.0 mobile browser software, IIPSec VPN, PGP and SMIME. All these technologies are widely available and used throughout India. Functionally, all of these solutions use encryption similar to BlackBerry. Thus, focusing on BlackBerry alone will not solve any security concerns over encryption.” The issue assumes importance considering that tens of thousands of customers in India use Motorola Good for services such as RSS news feeds and customised email alerts and filters.

Ditto for the solutions provided by Seven Networks, which offers real-time access to work and personal information, including email, calendar, corporate directories, personal contacts and documents. Windows Mobile e-mail solutions are available on several high-end handsets and PDAs sold in the country such as HTC Touch, O2, iPAQ and even on some handsets from Samsung and Motorola.

Finnish handset major Nokia on its website states that its Nokia Intellisync wireless email solutions support a wide range of mobile devices and platforms, including Palm, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile Smartphone, Symbian, and IMAP client. Therefore, if DoT were to ask operators to discontinue BlackBerry services, the government in the next stage may be forced to extend similar orders on other players offering similar solutions.

On the other hand, RIM too is at fault on several fronts. Government officials here say that the Canadian company’s argument that it did not possess the encryption keys and the company’s public stance that it would “simply be unable to accommodate” any such request from the India government does not have any merit.

Instead, DoT has correctly pointed out that since RIM’s BlackBerry service meets the provisions of US Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 1994 (CALEA) regulations, all BlackBerry data traffic originating on Indian mobile networks can be tracked electronically by CALEA sleuths in the Federal Communications Commission. The officials added that the US would not been able to monitor this data unless RIM had opened its networks to American agencies.

In response to DoT’s request to set up servers in India, RIM in an update to its customers said: “The location of data centres and the customer’s choice of wireless network are irrelevant factors from a security perspective since end-to-end encryption is utilised.” Additionally, RIM in its presentation to DoT also said that all data that flows through its data centres is encrypted to protect it from unlawful hacking or interception, while adding: “Routing it through data centres in India will not make it any more decipherable.”

Even if RIM’s argument deserves consideration, it cannot be denied that the company is in violation of several Indian laws. Under Indian regulations, the control of remote access, i.e. activation, transfer of data, termination etc., shall be within the country and not at a remote location abroad. Also, the government agency should be given all support to record the transactions for online monitoring.

Additionally, DoT on its part is also right in demanding a solution from RIM since Indian regulations clearly state that suitable technical device should be made available at Indian end to the designated security agency/licensor for monitoring purposes

Federer slips on clay once again...

The reign of Rafael Nadal on clay continues as he produced a flawless exibition of clay court tennis to demolish the World Number 1 Roger Federer and win his fourth successive French Open title. The spaniard was at his relentless best to equal Bjorn Borg's feat of four consecutive titles at Roland Garros. Federer chasing the only grand slam title to elude him was clearly not at his best. Intending to attack Nadal he came near the net, but he was let down by the drop shot. He showed glimpses of his class in the second set but that was not enough for Rafa - the king of the clay.

Federer now as few days to take his mind of this debacle and regroup his energies for the Wimbeldon starting on June 23.

The D Day Planning

6th of June marks one of the important days in the world history. It was the day when the tide of the world war 2 was turned and marked the decline of the Nazi hold on the Europe. The military operation was Operation Overload - a carefully planned military operation for allied troop assault on the french coast of Normandy. It was the largest seaborne military operation involving over 85000 troops.

Long criticized by Stalin for not relieving the pressure on the U.S.S.R. by invading northern Europe, Roosevelt and even Churchill, who favored peripheral campaigns, understood from the start that an invasion of France would ultimately be necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. Planning for a cross-Channel operation began in 1942 and accelerated with the Mediterranean successes of 1943. The Italian campaign faltered partly because the Americans insisted on concentrating troops and materials in England for a Channel crossing. The Soviets launched a huge mid-1944 ground assault against the Germans partly to facilitate the Anglo-American landings.

Operation Overlord was in fact one of the most carefully planned and spectacularly successful military operations in history. An elaborate ruse involving General Patton and a phantom army in Britain confused Berlin as to the probable landing site, leaving Normandy defenses thin and Hitler reluctant to commit reserves even as the landings were occurring. The British and Canadians ran into important panzer divisions, but even these were only accidentally in position while resting and refitting from fighting on the Eastern Front.

The Allied beach targets conformed to the areas of troop buildup in Southern England, which in turn reflected the fact that the American area was close to the Atlantic approaches for the U.S. soldiers and equipment required to assault Fortress Europe. The two American beaches were on the Atlantic (western) end of the invasion area across from the American embarkation ports; the three British and Canadian beaches were on the European (eastern) end, across from their respective ports. Beach assignments in turn largely determined the paths of advance toward the Reich, with the British and Canadians moving north along the coast and the Americans sweeping inland and north to avoid crossing the supply lines of their Anglo-Canadian allies.

The landings on June 6 were a masterpiece of amphibious warfare and combined arms, in part because of experience gained in the Mediterranean theater. Predawn air drops on either end of the beachhead area helped sow confusion and prevent German flanking maneuvers. Precision naval gunnery helped reduce German seaward gun emplacements. Destroyers screened the ends of the Channel to prevent U-boat penetrations. Allied air power kept the skies largely free of Luftwaffe fighters, already scarce from losses in Russia and Italy. Specialized landing craft ferried troops and equipment (from telephone wire to filing cabinets to mortars) and provided covering fire. Specialized tanks (with flails to explode land mines, carpet rolls to provide traction on sand, and the like) supported the landings.

By day's end, 125,000 troops were ashore. Casualties—some 9,000, fewer than half of them dead—were light for so large and complex an operation. The biggest losses came in the morning hours at Omaha Beach, where Americans of the 1st Infantry Division, the famed "Big Red One," encountered crack German infantry after being dropped prematurely into the surf. But the invaders were onshore to stay, and by June 12 they had linked up in a continuous 40-mile beachhead that both permitted full lateral movement and provided a narrow space for further reinforcements 850,000 men, 150,000 vehicles, and 600,000 tons of supplies by the end of the month.

History Reckons - Nadal or Federer?

Roger Federer Switzerland VS. Rafael Nadal Spain

BACKGROUND As in 2006 and 2007, Roger Federer has reached the final of the only Grand Slam tournament that he has yet to win. Victory here would make him the sixth player in the history of tennis to have won the four major championships. It would also give him his thirteenth Grand Slam crown which would help bring him closer to Pete Sampras’s record fourteen titles. Three-time winner Rafael Nadal has never been beaten at Roland Garros. He is also looking to write his name in the history books by taking a fourth title here. If he does, he will have equalled Björn Borg’s record of four French Open crowns. CURRENT FORM Federer does not appear to have been playing his best tennis this tournament yet here he is in the final. Lapses of concentration have so far cost him three sets. But the Swiss player’s immense experience has made the difference at the vital moments. Also, his aggressive game has meant that he has spent only 17 minutes more on the court than Nadal (13 hours 7 minutes as opposed to 12 hours 50 minutes). Nadal seems to be even stronger this year than in previous years. By his own admission, he has never played as well at Roland Garros. He has yet to drop a set. An air of invincibility surrounded him during his wins over Fernando Verdasco (6-1 6-0 6-2), Nicolas Almagro (6-1 6-1 6-1) and - for the first two and a half sets - Novak Djokovic (6-4 6-2 7-6). Technically, tactically, physically and mentally the world No2 is at the top of his game. STRENGTH Federer is the incarnation of the perfect player. His twelve Grand Slam titles are the result of his superb and pure technique. His serve, forehand, variety, attack and fluid movement are as effective on clay as they are on other surfaces. The courts of Roland Garros have not seen a player as at ease on clay since Björn Borg. The left-hander makes life difficult for his opponents with his outstanding top-spin forehand. Power, stamina, mental strength, great anticipation, speed around the court, great touch… the Spaniard has them all. TACTICS Federer has only beaten Nadal once on clay and that was in the final at Hamburg in 2007. The Swiss player's attacking game worked wonders against a rather tired Nadal. In other matches, he has worried the Spaniard without defeating him. In the semi-final here in 2005 and in the finals in 2006 and 2007, he could not find a way to beat the Spaniard. Nadal is the king of the Philippe Chatrier court. His forehand tortures Federer’s backhand. If he is on his game, he should record his 28th straight victory at Roland Garros and his fourth straight French Open title. HEAD-TO-HEAD The statistics are not in Federer’s favour. Nadal leads their head-to-head 10-6 overall and 8-1 on clay! But the world No1 has repeatedly affirmed that he no longer has a complex about Nadal and has the game to beat him. Is he trying to convince himself? Nadal once again got inside Federer’s head and extended his lead over the Swiss player with his two Master Series’ wins in the finals of Monte Carlo (7-5 7-5) and Hamburg (7-5 6-7 6-3). Federer frequently led in the matches and had his chances, but Nadal was able to wipe out Federer’s advantage and continue his dominance over the world No1.

Its Dream Semifinal - Nadal vs Djokovic

Rafael Nadal Spain VS. Novak Djokovic Serbia

BACKGROUND Rafael Nadal has been unbeaten in his 26-match career here at Roland Garros. If that were not impressive enough, in none of those was he pushed to five sets. He is the king of clay, the master of his art, and his outstanding performance in his first five matches (25 games lost, an Open era record) only serves to reinforce his commanding status. The Spaniard is far and away the favourite to win. Winner of the Australian Open and of the Masters Series at Indian Wells and Rome, Novak Djokovic has been the in-form player in first part of the 2008 season. To such an extent that the Serb, like Nadal, can consider himself to be a serious contender for Federer’s number one crown. From this perspective, if he shocks Nadal, he will move closer to the top spot. He has the weapons to worry the Spaniard, as he proved here last year in the semi-finals, but he still lost in straight sets… CURRENT FORM Outstanding. Rafa has been suffering from blisters on his foot since Rome and he still wears a protective bandage but as he said himself, he is physically in excellent condition. Just ask any one his five defeated opponents, especially Nicolas Almagro who was crushed 6-1 6-1 6-1 in the quarter-finals. Nadal has perhaps never been as strong at Roland Garros. Nole lost the first set he played at the tournament, to the German Gremelmayr. Since then he has become stronger with every round. The Serb played a very good quarter final in what could have been a tricky match against one of the surprise stars of the tournament, Ernests Gulbis. But he made an even better impression in his fourth round clash with Paul-Henri Mathieu. He is in good physical form, but questions could be asked about his mental freshness, after playing, and winning, so much in the first five months of the year. STRENGTH We are getting to know Nadal’s strengths very well. Firstly, he is extremely strong physically. His footwork and movement are exceptional, as is his stamina. But he also has an almost superhuman eye and anticipation. His cover of the ground is unmatched by anyone on the tour, he is mentally unshakeable and his confidence is sky-high. Add to that his devastating top-spin forehand, his great touch on the ball (ah, those drop shots…) and the fact that he’s a left-hander means that his opponents have practically no solution. Djokovic, like Nadal, has no weaknesses and is a force to be reckoned with. A great server with a fantastic first serve percentage and brilliant return, Nole has a destructive forehand and a solid backhand. His shots are very difficult to read and he can play inside-out shots or crossing shots at will, on the forehand or on the backhand. He is comfortable at the net and has improved his stamina over the last year. The man from Belgrade overflows with ambition and his confidence rocketed after his win in Melbourne. TACTICS Nadal is already being compared with Björn Borg, even though the Spaniard does not welcome this comparison. But, like the Swede, he seems indestructible. We have yet to see any mistakes in his game here at Roland Garros and he has never shown any signs of weakness, even against Federer or against those rare players who have tested him, like Puerta or Mathieu. If Rafa plays at his best level and moves quickly into the lead, he will win. It is almost a certainty. Djokovic is not afraid of anything, but nevertheless he faces a huge hurdle. He will have to connect again and again, take risks, vary his game, come to the net…in short he will have to play some exceptional tennis in order to win. If he wants to keep the scores level he will have to get a large percentage of his first serves in. The first set will, without a doubt, be vital. He will have to take the lead rapidly in order to sow the seed of doubt in Rafa’s mind. HEAD-TO-HEAD Nadal leads 7-3 in his head-to-head with Djokovic. In last year’s semi finals here at Roland Garros, the Mighty Mallorcan blew Djokovic away in 7-5 6-4 6-2, despite a strong start by the Serb. Even at Wimbledon, just afterwards, Rafa was stronger. On clay the head-to-head is even clearer cut: 4-0 to Nadal. Djokovic has beaten his opponent three times, each time outside on hard court. This year at Indian Wells he won 6-3 6-2. He also showed great resistance against the Spaniard in their last clash at Hamburg. Nadal won 7-5 2-6 6-2, but it was undoubtedly one of the most spectacular clay-court matches of the year.

Another BRIC in the wall

An investment bank economist first grouped the nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China together based on two shared characteristics: large populations and rapid economic growth. The so-called BRIC nations had little else in common -- they covered the full scale of democratization, with varying degrees of financial transparency and vastly different economies. Yet after Goldman Sachs' 2001 report that coined the acromym was released, the BRIC nations became inexorably linked, at least in the collective mind of the investment community.

Last week, the BRIC nations took their union out of the realm of analyst reports and formed a political alliance to challenge the dominance of the economic institutions created in the aftermath of WWII.

Brazil, Russia, India and China, the world’s biggest emerging market economies or the BRIC countries vowed to turn their four-way group into a powerful instrument for changing the world, affirming their global economic clout. On the last day of their meeting in Yekaterinburg, in the Ural mountains, the BRIC countries institutionalised BRIC, agreeing to hold regular meetings at the level of Foreign Ministers.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said BRIC would work to “support global stability and ensure uninterrupted and manageable global development.”

Speaking at a joint press conference later, Mr. Lavrov said it was only natural that the BRIC grouping had taken shape. “We are the world’s fastest growing economies, we have many common interests in the globalised world and share many views on how to build a more democratic, fair and stable world.”

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee hailed BRIC as a “unique combination of mutually complementary economies” and platform to promote energy and food security, fight terrorism and reform global political and financial bodies.

The four BRIC countries, which account for more than one tenth of the world’s gross domestic product, said they would boost cooperation on a range of fronts and work on ways to ease the burden of soaring global food prices.

Thoughts on China...

I was reading an article in ET and a questions suddenly occurred to me. What kind of government does China has? Isn't it supposed to be communist and pro-labor, then how come Chinese companies are exploiting the worker category and US, supposed to be a free economy propagator, is imposing restrictions on China in order to promote better working conditions for workers.

The biggest irony of the US economy now is that it is looking forward to the chinese market to ward off an impending recession. US is hoping against hope the BRIC ( Brazil, Russia, India and China ) would prevent it from a great fall.

It's really sad to see that whatever form of government you have, economic factors take precedence over human factors.