I wrote yesterday about Google’s new Chrome browser, but one thing I didn’t really highlight (because I’d already written too much…need to keep these posts briefer!) was my thought that while many of Chrome’s features look cool, many of them are likely already available — at least in some form — with Firefox and add-ons.  And what isn’t already available using add-ons could very likely be made available in short order.

Well, all I had to do was wait till this morning…here’s a guy who already wrote about that very thing.  Also noteworthy is the fact that there have been ongoing discussions at Mozilla about addressing many of the same things that Chrome offers.  For instance, look at Aza Raskin’s ideas for the New Tab function, a conversation he started way before Chrome was announced.

If you have any doubts that Firefox can keep up with the innovative features of Chrome, check out the new Ubiquity extension that adds amazing mashup-style commands to Firefox…very early in it’s development, but it looks very cool.  I’ve embedded a video of Aza Raskin’s intro to Ubiquity below.

So let the comparisons — and the competition — begin!  It’ll be really interesting to watch how Firefox, Opera, IE, and other browsers respond to Chrome and its new features.

Google is hard to figure out.  Just when I think they’re the best thing that ever happened to the internet, they remind me that they’re ultimately about making money (they are a business, you know).  Then, just when I think they’ve about sunk to the level of “Evil Technopoly,” they make me think maybe they do have the best interests of the net in mind after all, and therefore my best interests…and yours too.

When they broadened their focus from search to online software, I wasn’t particularly enthusiastic, but I wasn’t overly alarmed either.  Look, I’m a huge OpenOffice supporter (and user), so on one hand, I thought “any effort that sucks users away from MS Office can’t be all bad in the long run.”  On the other hand, much as MS Office users have always said “why should I use OpenOffice when I have MS Office?” I pretty much thought along similar lines.  Why should I use an online spreadsheet or word processor when I can install OpenOffice on any machine I want, on any platform I want…for free?

In the end, of course, there’s room for all of these systems, and for all of us users.  If someone wants to pay for MS Office, great…it’s a very good office package.  If someone wants the freedom of OpenOffice and its open document standard, great…it’s also a very good office package.  (Like I always say, 95% of the functionality of MS Office, 0% of the cost.)  And if someone wants the ultimate portability of online office documents that can be shared by anyone with a browser and an internet connection, great…Google Docs also has its place.

Then there was the case of GoogleTalk, the great little IM client that could…almost.  When GTalk was first released, we all marvelled at its simplicity, at its “just plain works” capability, at its voice messaging quality.  I loved the fact that it used the open XMPP standard for communicating, the same standard used by Jabber servers and clients.  Everyone who used it loved the fact that it was a small download and simple install, and that it lacked all the bloated features of spyware-riddled and virus-prone AIM, Yahoo, and MSN.  All this in a beta?  Wow!

That was over 3 years ago.  They have improved the product in only a few, small — I would say trivial — ways.  You still can’t even get GTalk for any platform other than Windows.  How much of a splash do you expect your new IM client to make if you don’t even make it available for Mac and Linux users?  Heck, guess what you see when you go download GTalk 3 years after launching?

OK, fast forward to yesterday.  Google made a comic-book-style ebook available to officially announce that they intend to release their own browser called Chrome.  So here we go again…browser wars, round 3.  My first thought was “why don’t they just improve an existing open source browser like Mozilla/Firefox instead of starting from the ground up?”  My second thought was “competition should help spur innovation, and as long as it’s standards-based, that’s a good thing”  After all, I don’t think many people would argue that IE is a better browser today because it had to match some of the functionality made popular by Firefox, Opera, etc.  I still much prefer Firefox to any other browser, but if I have to use IE today, I at least like the fact that it has tabs.

Of course, the whole thing gets more and more interesting the more you look into it, and I think we’ll see a parade of good vs bad points as the story unfolds.

• Good: some of the features of Chrome look very cool indeed.
  Bad: some look similar to efforts already underway and planned for future versions of Firefox. It almost seems like Google’s quick (premature?) announcement could be meant to steal some thunder from Firefox 3.1′s TraceMonkey Javascript performance improvement features.

• Good: Google says up front they are open sourcing the code to Chrome, literally giving their new baby away to the masses, to anyone who wants to take it, improve on it, adapt it to other uses, etc.
  Bad: there are already indications that Google intends to push ads through Chrome in some way.  People like it when you give away your product for free…they don’t like it when they have to look at ads on that new product.

• Good: Google wants to use Chrome to push javascript-enabled, web-based apps to the next level and to general ubiquity and usability.
  Bad: introducing yet another browser platform for web pages — let alone web-based apps — means developers have more testing and/or hard choices to make, and users and developers alike have one more plug-in architecture to worry about.

Again, we’ll have to wait and see if Google steps up to the plate and hits a home run on this one.  As of right now, it’s another beta of another Google product.  Only time will tell whether they drop that “BETA” from the graphic and make Chrome a true Internet phenomenon.  Maybe the first test will be how soon we see a download for any platform other than Windows.

I’m starting to get ready to watch some Olympics (only 4 and a half days away!), and I thought I’d check out what NBC is offering in the way of online video.   They say they’ll have something like 2000 hours of video online…awesome…lemme have it (or at least a couple hundred of it).  Unfortunately, NBC doesn’t realize you can watch video on Linux, too. And they don’t realize that some of us ad-watching, website-clicking consumers use Linux, not Windows or Mac.

Sigh…Sorry, NBC, guess I won’t be frequenting your ridiculously overcrowded NBCOlympics.com website. Instead, I’ll just have to watch stuff on DirecTV. Oh, and by the way, I’m gonna record the stuff I want so I can fast-forward through your commercials. So there.

I meant to write about this back when the story broke, but I got caught up in non-blog activities.  Anyway, I just want to say that I think Dan Kaminsky is my kind of hacker.  He may have been criticized by some for how he handled the DNS flaw he uncovered — and he ultimately admitted that he was wrong in his approach — but I fully believe he said what he said and did what he did (or didn’t do what he didn’t do) for all the right reasons.

A flaw that’s common to basically every DNS server on the net, essentially a vulnerability that’s woven into the fabric of the net itself, HAS to be handled very carefully, quietly, quickly, and decisively.  Dan didn’t want to risk any unnecessary leakage of the flaw’s details, so he kept the details more or less to himself while he worked with vendors across the board to come up with a multi-vendor patch.  Eventually, he was kind of forced to reveal the details when another researcher (or group) correctly guessed the nature of the flaw.  However, I believe that Dan’s actions probably saved what could have been a massive attack before most of the vendors, ISPs, and clients could be patched.

An interesting sideline to this story is that I was pretty well safe from this flaw even before I read about it.  See, since I use Linux (Ubuntu) at home, I was safe from a client perspective because the Debian/Ubuntu patches for BIND and other DNS-related services were available only a couple of days after Dan first disclosed the flaw.  Second, I have a friend who suggested I switch my network to use OpenDNS instead of my ISP’s DNS servers.  Great decision, not only because OpenDNS allows me to do some very nice, unobtrusive filtering, but because OpenDNS’ servers were patched very early also.

I typically don’t worry too much at all about viruses and other OS or application vulnerabilities, simply because of the fact that I use Linux and open source software.  But it’s nice to know I’m safe even from a net-wide, ground-level flaw like this one.  This was a flaw in the infrastructure of the net itself, but the infrastructure of my net kept me safe when I didn’t even know there was a risk.

–

By the way, if you wonder whether you’re still vulnerable, or at least whether your ISP’s DNS servers are vulnerable, check out Dan’s handy DNS checker he put together, right on the front page of his website.  Very cool.

I don’t think this was major news outside the tech world, but Apple finally got around to suing the company (Psystar) who started selling Mac “clone” computers back in April. They threatened, intimidated, and generally acted like bullies leading up to Psystar’s release of the Open Computer, so I’m not surprised at all. I will be surprised, though, if this doesn’t end up hurting them (Apple) in the long run.

I’ve always thought Apple is snobbish about their systems…I know they’re good, but can we agree that they’re not perfect? I have friends who have Macs, and I’ve watched them struggle to get something to work right just like Windows users. I’ve heard them lament the fact that some piece of software isn’t compatible with their Mac. I’ve seen them buy the expensive Apple-brand peripherals at a premium instead of buying mainstream stuff from BestBuy or NewEgg. I’ve snickered at them clicking their silly little one-button mouse and claiming that it’s better than having 2 or 3 buttons. Right.

Here’s the deal…Macs are good machines. The Mac OS is very nice. Most stuff on a Mac does just plain work. But here’s the kicker…Macs are more expensive than comparably powered and configured Windows machines. Duh.

Apple has done a pretty good job of convincing people that if they’re tired of the performance and security problems inherent in Windows, you just have to shell out a few more bucks. It doesn’t hurt at all that they scored hits with the iPod, iTunes, and the iPhone. All those have led to the mystique of Macs being the “cool” alternative to Windows boxes. They’re hip…they’re fresh…they’re sleek. They’re kinda ugly if you ask me, but of course ugly can sell if it’s marketed well. And Apple can market the crap out of their products.

So what’s my rant all about? Apple already has the momentum going in their direction. They’ve successfully positioned themselves as the public’s favorite MS-killers. And they’ve done that primarily with brand, image, and reputation. But if they come down hard on a little guy like Psystar, they risk losing their cool guy image. Folks might think Apple is no different than any other monopolistic technology company out there. People just don’t like to see a bully beat up a helpless little kid and take his lunch money.

But I think Apple has even bigger problems. The reputation for a Mac’s quality is based on Apple’s assumption that they have to have complete control over their hardware platforms for their software to be worth anything. On one hand, that makes complete sense, even though I completely disagree with it philosophically. I mean, what better way to guarantee that your OS and apps “just plain work” than to make sure they get used ONLY on the hardware you’ve designed, tested, and sold? How else can you guarantee that a Mac always looks and feels like a Mac unless you sell every Mac yourself?

However, that’s not our tech world today, and certainly shouldn’t be our tech world of tomorrow. People want and expect alternatives. People want a free market. People want their Mac OS cake, and they want to eat it on a cheaper platform. But wait a minute…maybe Apple could use that to their advantage. What Apple needs to do (especially in respect to Psystar) is simply say “You want to run our OS on something other than a Mac? Fine, but don’t expect us to support it. We guarantee it will work on a Mac, but we make no such guarantee otherwise.”

They could easily come out of their Psystar nightmare smelling like roses if everyone who buys a Psystar gets fed up with things just plain not working. Anyone who buys a Mac clone and can’t get a printer to work, or can’t get on their wireless network, or otherwise has a sucky experience will A) come running to Apple for their next machine, and/or B) tell everyone who cares to listen to stay away from Mac clones. It could be that simple, right? They could sit back, save the money they’re paying their lawyers right now, and watch all the disgruntled clone users come skulking back to buy a Mac next time. Steve Jobs might even risk a little “I told you so” under his breath.

But wait…there’s one problem with that strategy. What if Mac clone users come to the conclusion that the lower cost of the system and the freedom of choice is a valid trade-off for compatibility problems? What if they realize they can go to the Linux community for software to run on their new Mac OS which, incidentally, is at its heart a Linux box? What if the genie gets out of the bottle and people realize that the Mac hardware isn’t anything super-secret and special, it’s just a configuration that Apple has tested and tweaked for the Mac OS? Pay no attention to the Mac behind the curtain! Well, then…all bets are off, and Macs don’t seem so special after all.

Finally, it seems to me that Apple is in a precarious situation with respect to Linux. See, the Mac OS really is just a form of Linux. I’m not saying you can take OpenOffice that’s been compiled for Ubuntu and throw it on a Mac, but you can’t throw it on Fedora either. There are lots of flavors of LInux (yeah, I know…distros) and Apple has gone to great lengths to cover up the fact that their OS is one of them. In their lawsuit against Psystar, they allege that the Mac clone infringes on their “trademark” and steals their “intellectual property,” but I don’t hear any mention of their debt to the rest of the Linux community for the use of their intellectual property. They’re on the verge of ticking off a large group of smart people who, when motivated and properly mobilized, could pose a serious threat. Does Apple really want the hacker community to be mad at them instead of at Microsoft? Yikes.

So there you have it. Seems to me Apple is in a bit of a “doggoned if you do, doggoned if you don’t, doggoned if you even think about it” situation. They’re kind of in a pickle. If they don’t crush Psystar (and future Psystars) then they risk the computer-buying public figuring out that what makes a Mac a Mac is simply tightly controlled hardware specs and a really nice version of Linux. If they do crush Psystar, then they risk looking like they can’t take a little competition, like the jock who acts like a jerk because really, deep down, he’s insecure. And either way, they risk a fallout with the Linux community and the potential loss of customers to other versions of Linux, most of which are free.

Good luck, Apple. I hope you can work it all out. Until then, I’ll keep using Ubuntu on just about any kind of hardware I want…for free…because I can.