Editorial Archive

Web 2.0 throws a lot of buzzwords at us. New technology has given us new terms to describe a particular design process. One of these is "user-centric" design. An example of a website that isn't user-centric would be microsoft.com. A static site where the users have no control over the content of the site, nor any choice in what they see. The company displays the information they deem important. This is considered web 1.0. (Note by AS: a new microsoft.com site has gone live since this submission). YouTube and Digg are examples of Web 2.0, user-centric sites whereby the users of the site contribute not only the content that the other users consume, but each user helps decide what content is promoted. Today, I'm going to coin a new term: self-centric design. To define this new term, I will compare OSNews to one of the leading web 2.0 sites: Digg.

We are on the brink of a very exciting time. The buzzword-friendly "Web 2.0" is here, and it's most punctuated by three terms: social networking, AJAX, and RSS. Nothing about these things is inherently new - AJAX existed as an ActiveX control present in Microsoft's Outlook Web Access long ago, social networking has existed for some time via sites like Friendster, and RSS is just a style of XML, which has been floating around in mainstream tech circles for about 10 years. But Web 2.0 is here, like it or not. The question is, as use of these technologies begins to become more widespread, how are we going to shape these technologies, and who is going to make those decisions?

It's conventional wisdom that computers need to be "easier to use." But do they? More reliable, yes. Easier to troubleshoot, yes. But now that so many people use computers so much, I think there's something to be said for making them less easy-to-use and less intuitive.

Today, we cannot know if people would still buy Microsoft products because the government protects the monopoly. What percentage of the market would Microsoft have in a fair market? The only way we can answer that last question is to stop manufacturers from preloading Windows. Until then, we do not have a free market. Microsoft has no way to prove itself otherwise, says LXer.

Many people take as a given that the desktop computer market is ossified and completely dominated by Microsoft. But, taking the global view, the PC market is anything but saturated. Some huge, untapped markets will ultimately decide how the market share pie will ultimately be divided. There will be room for Microsoft, Apple, and Linux, but how will it shake out?

It's the old catch-22 of the job market: It's hard to get a good job without experience, but it's hard to get respectable experience without a good job. But if you're looking to enter the job market, why not take advantage of the huge opportunity that Open Source Software provides? You can make a meaningful contribution to a high-profile project, based merely on your skills and initiative.

Most people switching to Linux aren't switching because of the ease of use, or the shiny graphics, or the pretty interface. They switch for a variety of reasons, some would say it lowers the operating cost, some do it to support Free Software, others may do it because of its technical capabilities, etc.

Today's confirmation that Apple is going x86 makes today a historic day in the industry. It may mean that Microsoft might see a few percent decline of their market share the next few years, but what about Linux? If Linux were to lose an equal amount of share it would alter its spread to the desktop, a spread that has been very positive so far.

What's the easiest way to ensure that GPS tracking technology doesn't become the tool of an evil elite? Make sure everyone has access to it! For people already thinking along these lines, the availability of tracking technologies such as RFID tags and (GPS) chipsets is confirmation that we're all living in a Panopticon. The saving grace is that the CIA and the Trilateral Commission don't have a monopoly on these technologies -- maybe we can turn a world of mass observation to our benefit.

Being the best doesn't always mean being the most popular. We all know of many inferior products that are immensely, sometimes perplexingly, popular. However, this does not mean that one must forsake the pursuit of excellence when pursuing a broad market share. As proponents of open source software, it should not be beneath us to pursue popularity or to look to proprietary developers as examples. And by following the right examples, we can help spread the usage of open source software without sacrificing the goal of software excellence, says NewsForge.

This article looks at user reactions to common problems with user interfaces and corporate policies, and how these reactions can make some common business decisions counterproductive. When it comes to inconveniencing your customers, and sometimes even offending them, are some sales tactics worth it in the long run?

A c|net editorial posits that Google may be well on its way to developing a complete suite of internet-based services that could act as a computing environment for any thin client that's capable of accessing it. And Microsoft may be planning a similar move.

With HP's high-flying CEO Carly Fiorina departing, the company's woes are well known. But how did a firm with such a storied history and vast assets get headed down the wrong path, and what do they need to do to set their course straight?

Amazing is the recent interest in full, live, operating systems that can fit on a 50 MB CD-ROM. It's totally astounding that they can cram so much onto such a tiny disk. But wait.. let's run back to the days of old.. back to say 1988.