|
Digital Document Quarterly Perspectives on Trustworthy Information |
Volume
6, Number 3, 3Q2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HMG Consulting |
© 2007, H.M. Gladney ISSN:
1547-8610 |
A 2005 cartoon by Pat Oliphant depicts God
working at a drawing board, with a bearded angel looking over His shoulder, and
ascribes to God the words,[1]
“I’ve been trying to perfect some kind of intelligent design, but all I keep coming up with is a bunch of simple-minded, right-wing, fundamentalist, religious fanatics. I think I’ll just let the whole thing evolve.”
Digital Preservation
Science fiction fans will welcome the digitization of the late Robert Heinlein’s works. The UC Santa Cruz Library is making available a collection of 106,000 pages, consisting of Heinlein's complete manuscripts—including all his published works, notes, research, and early draft manuscripts.
NDIIPP Funding Withdrawn
According to the Washington Post on May 17, “in February, Congress passed and the president signed legislation rescinding $47 million of the program's approved funding.[2] This jeopardizes an additional $37 million in matching, non-federal funds that partners would contribute as in-kind donations.” The effects start in fiscal 2008.
On August 3, the Library of
Congress announced eight grants in a new initiative, Awards to Preserve American Creative Works.
The latest NDIIPP achievements report is part of the LoC Strategic Initiatives Annual Review for fiscal 2005.
Another Task Force, and Also New NSF Funding
“Though significant progress has been made to overcome the technical challenges of achieving persistent access to digital resources, the economic challenges remain daunting.” With this motivating assertion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Mellon Foundation have announced yet another digital preservation study. Since the topic has been studied by several committees in the last decade, I cannot help but wonder what new ground this task force hopes to expose.[3]
The announcement calls for “economic sustainability of digital information for the science and engineering, cultural heritage, academic, public, and private sectors.” As I understand it, the economic problem for preservation of scholarly digital content is that research collections live by governmental and charitable funding and want to extend their reach to digital content without diverting funds from paper collections.
The U.S. Government has funded a substantial digital effort at NARA, but there are next to no similar efforts for state or local government holdings.
The private sector has expressed little interest in digital preservation.[4] Its priorities seem to be elsewhere, such as in satisfying Sarbanes-Oxley imperatives and continuing to make its digital infrastructure safe and effective.
My puzzlement is increased by an almost simultaneous NSF call for proposals for Sustainable Digital Data Preservation and Access Network Partners (DataNet). This seeks development of new types of organizations that "integrate library and archival sciences, cyberinfrastructure, computer and information sciences, and domain science expertise," and offers projected funding of $200,000,000 over ten years. In keeping with the NSF mission, this seems to be directed at mostly academic digital content.
While digital preservation for the
Little attention is paid records essential for utilities,
transportation, and social services, such as records needed to care for the 40%
of
What might be done to achieve the long-standing medical dream called
“the longitudinal patient record”?[5]
Presuming that citizens become interested in lifetime records,[6] what preservation tools might ensure these
records’ utility decades after they are created?
All this background suggests that the yet-to-be-identified task force members will have to ask themselves, “Precisely who are we trying to influence? What persuasion can we invent beyond what has been said before?”
Vintage Gadgets at the Computer History Museum
For an account of a different kind of digital preservation, see a San Jose Mercury News video. Behind the scenes at the Computer History Museum includes forgotten tales from the frenetic history of the electronics industry.
Epistemology
Notes on Natural Language
What does an American call the drink that is
made with milk and ice cream: a milkshake, frappé,
cabinet, or thick shake? His answer
helps suggest the
The more epistemology I read, the more sensitive I become to how difficult it can be to communicate precisely. For instance, I am immediately alert when I hear the word “just” used as a synonym for “only,” because it is likely to signal an excuse for unacceptable behavior, as in, “I just hit my little sister twice!”
Consider the phrase, “now let’s be sensible”. All too often, what the speaker means is, “What you have proposed is nonsense. What I’m about to propose is most prudent and likely to be effective!”
Within
a debate, it can help to remember that the universal quantifier, “all”, is
likely to introduce an assertion that can be refuted with a single
counter-example. Perhaps such
difficulties influenced the conversation of
Heavily used words are likely to be overloaded,[7] or to have meanings that depend on when they were uttered, or by whom. Some words that are key for careful thinking are burdened in such ways. A reader needs to be sensitive to the possibilities inherent in words such as “value”, “logic”, and “scientific” or “science”.
Value: among these examples, “value” is relatively straightforward. It can denote an abstraction (in contrast to an object, as in “mathematical values”) or a philosophical attitude (an ethical judgment). It can also be used as an economics attribute, as in “today’s value of gold is $602 per oz.” Often the usage context provides clear evidence which of these, or of several variants, is intended.
Logic: the issue is not so clear for “logic”. One needs to remember history. Whenever Kant used “logic”, he must have intended Aristotelian syllogisms,[8] because until the 1847 work of George Boole,[9] “logic” meant what we today call “syllogistic logic.” In modern professional usage, whenever ambiguity might lead to misunderstanding, a modifier is included to clarify, as in “first order logic” and in “modal logic”. However, in everyday conversation “logical” is usually a synonym for “reasonable”, in the sense of “carefully thoughtful.”
Science: “scientific” is more troublesome. In much of its modern usage, it is intended to claim academic prestige for some topic. In reaction, a student enrolled in university science courses—chemistry, zoology, psychology, …—is likely to snort derisively if the term is used outside this scope. The same student is unlikely to know that the word “science” originated with the Latin “scio,” and thus arguably would be correct for any form of knowledge, but not for religious beliefs, myths, aesthetic judgments, or ethical precepts.
Isaac Newton did not call what he did “scientific research,” but instead “Natural Philosophy,” a term which his contemporaries thought appropriate. When Immanuel Kant used (the German equivalent of) “science” in his Critique of Pure Reason, this was explicit allusion to Newtonian methodology. Kant’s immense influence led to “scientific” being used by philosophers to mean a combination of logical reasoning with empirical observation.
Nevertheless, the first reaction of a physics student to the title of Ernst Cassirer’s The Logic of the Cultural Sciences[10] is likely to be puzzlement about both “Logic” and also ”Cultural Sciences.” The title is eminently descriptive of the book’s theme: an exploration of the applicability of physics and mathematics methodology to topics that today we usually call “the Humanities.” Of course, Cassirer did intend to draw attention by usage that was unusual in 1942, so his choice was very successful.
A hallway joke, popular among 1960’s undergraduates, asserted: “If it has ‘Science’ in its name, it ain’t a science.” For instance, I think of Computer Science more as an engineering discipline (devising how to accomplish practical objectives) than as a science (studying the constituents of the world and their interactions.)
Knowledge and Information
The current DDQ number begins a DDQ discussion of the nature and prospects of Information Science. Some authors have promoted their information management projects as “knowledge management,” perhaps because the broader term helps them obtain enterprise support and funding, for instance in a suggestion that university Information Science Departments should be renamed “Knowledge Science Departments.”[11] To make what follows as clear as possible, it might help to say what DDQ means by ‘knowledge’ and by ‘information’.
What is the distinction between knowledge
and information? What is the distinction
between “knowledge” as an objective topic and “knowing” as a psychological
topic?
Authors usually seem to
take for granted that their readers understand what they mean by ‘knowledge’. The books in which one might hope to find a
definition provide none, perhaps because the concept is too primitive to be
defined in simpler terms.[12]
Instead, one finds ‘knowledge’ as a modifier, as in “knowledge
acquisition,” “knowledge base,” “knowledge engineering,” “knowledge level,” and
“knowledge source,” and also many scenarios describing how knowledge figures in
human and animal behavior.[13] There seems to be agreement that knowledge
has to do with whatever it is that we mean by “the mind.”
Consider Knowledge Management (KM)[14] as exemplary
use of ‘knowledge’ as a modifier. Under
various names, it has been considered by the artificial intelligence community
for about thirty years and by archivists grappling with records and information
discovery for about ten years. Perhaps
this is why The Semantic Web is
prominent in recent Information Science literature.[15]
Should KM be construed to include job-related training of the kind that IBM has for decades provided its employees? Should we think of schools and colleges as Knowledge Management institutions? When a father teaches a child how to ride a bicycle, is this elementary knowledge management? Apparently not, because KM literature[16] seems to focus on the use of information systems tracking employee skills so that, for instance, the best people can be assigned as consultants. It is not misleading to use KM as a descriptor for making the expertise of a for-profit enterprise available internally and for hire. However this is less than the untutored might suppose, so that ‘Knowledge Management’ might best be considered a technical term for what the cited papers describe. If so, KM would be part of Information Science.
What is the distinction between “knowledge”
as an objective topic (treating what can be known and communicated) and
“knowing” as a psychological topic (discussing how some person or animal
knows)?[17] Wittgenstein makes immense effort to treat
objective knowledge, separating this as much as possible from subjective
aspects. William James focuses on
psychology.[18]
Depictions such as Fig.1
of DDQ 3(3)
remind us of relationships between knowledge and information. Its 0→1
transition (saying or writing) is used to convert knowledge to information as
the first step of informing, and its 9→10
transition (hearing or reading) can convert information to knowledge. Thus, a distinction between knowledge and information
is that ‘knowledge’ is associated with the verb ‘to know,’ a descriptor of a
single human being, and ‘information’ with the verb ‘to inform,’ an interaction
between two human beings.
One might suppose that the set of all
possible information is a subset of all possible knowledge. However this is not obvious, as a speaker can
lie or be mistaken. We do not usually
consider false or mistaken assertions to be part of knowledge.
Precision about knowledge management might
be aided by using ‘knowledge’ exclusively for concepts, facts, behavior
patterns, … in the mind and ‘information’ for concepts, facts, behaviors, …
conveyed on physical media or signals.[19] This has been, and will continue to be, part
of the technical distinction used by DDQ.[20]
I believe that these distinctions conform to
predominant common usage, and are consistent with the cited works.12
Information
Science [InfoSci]
So-called “information science” seems to me a passing enthusiasm. Its claim to academic status commensurate to that of older disciplines, such as chemistry, psychology, and philosophy, is likely to evaporate within twenty years. This will be evidenced by the disappearance of university Information Science departments as organizational units parallel to Computer Science departments.[21]
I began to believe this when I noticed how much of my reading was of authors who identify themselves as information scientists.[22] For instance, long-term digital preservation seems to be an almost exclusive concern of information scientists.[23]
It is striking how little evidence exists for information scientists’ attention to related fields that have examined the fundamentals of human communication or to engineering of electronic tools. Nor do computer scientists or software engineers seem to pay much attention to the literature of information science.[24]
What is Information Science?
That the future of InfoSci as a prominent
academic topic merits DDQ attention is suggested by Zins’ articles[25] that
perhaps parallel other authors’ ideas. The following table excerpts fifty definitions
provided by InfoSci practitioners responding to a survey.[26]
|
From Zins’ Conceptions of
Information Science |
Knee-jerk reactions |
|
Elsa Barber: "InfoSci [studies] the
functions, the structure and the transmission of information and the management
of information systems. It is the
study of data, information, knowledge, and message … in the collective
domain, explor[ing] only the mediating aspects, focus[ing on] hi-tech and
included user studies." |
This seems to define a sort of meta-science that limits itself to
observing information structure and human reactions after the fact. |
|
Shifra Baruchson-Arbib: "InfoSci explores the methods for
allocation, organization, analysis, and dissemination of information, and the
human and the technological tools appropriate for these purposes. It is the study of the technological and
the social process that occurs while changing data to message." |
As in the prior definition, the creation of information tools does not
seem to be included. Is this intentional? |
|
Clare Beghtol: "InfoSci [studies] data, information, knowledge
and messages (however defined and [interrelated]) in relation to human
behaviour and use." |
How is this different from a definition of epistemology as represented
in PolanyI’s Personal Knowledge? |
|
Michael Buckland: “There [are] different views of InfoSci. One is … re-discovery of the primary
historical basis … : Documents and Documentation from 1880s onwards. Another is a more general InfoSci] that attempts
to include all of D-I-K-M. A third is an IT-constrained view anchored in
digital technology." |
This seems to confirm the passivity inherent in the Barber’s and
Baruchson-Arbib definitions. |
|
Charles H. Davis: “InfoSci is an interdisciplinary field encompassing
all aspects of data from data generation via measurement and observation,
through data capture, analysis, representation, organization, evaluation,
storage, transformation, presentation, protection, and retention. …” |
I.e., InfoSci is an interdisciplinary field, not a discipline in the
same sense as are chemistry and computer science. |
|
Anthony Debons: "InfoSci is the area which attempts to
determine the principles pertaining to the analysis, design and evaluation of
Data, Information and Knowledge Systems. It is based on the rationale that
all organisms are data, information, and knowledge systems, varying in the
degree with which they can process cognitive/affective functions. Each of
these functions is aided and augmented by technology that each species
generate, invent, and apply.” |
I.e., InfoSci is a study of technical tools that can assist the study
of epistemology. It is observational
like zoology, in contrast to proactive like engineering. |
|
Nicolae Dragulanescu: "InfoSci … studies the information (as a
process, as a product or as a state of awareness) as well as its five basic
sub-processes—generation, processing, communication, storage, and use—in
order to optimize them …. Its goal is to facilitate the knowledge transmission
[between people] and [between generations] in order to accelerate the
progress of mankind." |
The focus on optimization suggests large overlap with Computer Science
and with software engineering. |
|
Luciana Duranti: "InfoSci is a mathematical discipline that
studies technological ways of conveying information." |
If so, why does the InfoSci literature include so little explicit
mathematics? |
|
Raya Fidel: “InfoSci is the study of the interaction between humans
and information and all the mechanisms and elements of context that play a
role in this interaction.” |
I.e., if information is taken to be a subset of knowledge, then
InfoSci might be seen as part of epistemology. |
|
Donald Hawkins: "InfoSci is an interdisciplinary field concerned
with the theoretical and practical concepts, as well as the
technologies, laws, and industry dealing with knowledge transfer and the sources, generation, organization,
representation, processing, distribution, communication, and uses of
information, …" |
“The sources, …, organization, … and uses of information” suggests
significant overlap with sociology. |
|
Ken Herold: "InfoSci is the study of the transformations and
interactivities among data, information, knowledge and message objects,
structures and processes, in order to construct systems to communicate
culture as regenerated knowledge.
InfoSci is the mutable and transitory discipline at the confluence of
librarianship, documentation, media & communications, computation, and
applied philosophy." |
“In order to construct systems to communicate” sounds like computer
science. |
|
Birger Hjorland: "InfoSci is a field that aims at providing better library, documentation, and
information service … Historically, InfoSci
developed out of special librarianship and documentation. People in the field were originally subject
specialists who worked to improve … scholarly communication … [with] attempts
… to construe a theoretical framework for practical-oriented information
activities." |
This early part of this definition suggests that InfoSci is an
adaptation of librarianship. |
|
Michal Lorenz: "InfoSci is the study of the
nature of information, its attributes and forces governing information flow
for optimal accessibility and utilization.
InfoSci concerns both potential information[27] (recorded data) and psychophysical
information (stored in a brain and processed in a consciousness)." |
This definition suggests that InfoSci has significant overlap with
cognitive psychology. |
A further source of confusion is that, in German universities, what is called “Informatik” is what English speakers call “Computer Science.”
After seeing these definitions and many more, Zins provided the following:
Information Science is the study of the mediating perspectives of universal human knowledge (i.e., human knowledge in the universal domain). The mediating perspectives include cognitive, social, and technological aspects and conditions, which facilitate the dissemination of human knowledge from the originator to the user.
A working definition adopted by the Information Science Abstracts periodical seems more workable than most of the prior examples:
An interdisciplinary
field concerned with the theoretical and practical concepts, as well as the
[technology], laws, and industry dealing with knowledge transfer and the
sources, generation, organization, representation, processing, distribution,
communication, and uses of information, as well as communications among users
and their behavior as they seek to satisfy their information needs.
DDQ will assume this last definition whenever it refers to Information Science in the critique that follows in this and future DDQ numbers.[28]
Rename Information Science as Knowledge Science?
Zins suggests renaming Information Science to Knowledge Science.11 While the name chosen for a topic can be anything that does not create confusion with other topics, examining his rationale for renaming is interesting for what it reveals about contemporary thinking.
Notwithstanding this last viewpoint, a
rhetorical aspect of the proposal seems interesting. Often people seek grander sounding names as
part of a political agenda, e.g., in campus politics to enhance prestige.
This seems to me to be the case for what English-speaking universities now
call "Information Science." In 1960, at the
Within his work, an author is free to choose any words and definitions he believes will help convey his message. However, Zins goes further. By basing his renaming recommendation on idiosyncratic definitions of ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’, he is asking some community to use these definitions in its everyday discourse, whether or not they conform to shared prior meanings. Judging the renaming recommendation therefore requires examination of Zins’ definitions.
In several pages that include epistemological background,[29] Zins distinguishes subjective data, information, and knowledge from objective counterparts. Since his discussion of subjective knowledge more or less conforms to what is written above, it can be passed over here, in favor of abbreviated inspection of the proffered definitions for the objective sphere.
The second approach ascribes an independent objective existence to knowledge. Knowledge is the meaning, which is represented by expressed propositions. It is true and exists independently of, not depending on, subjective knowledge of the individual knower. …
…
… in the objective domain, “data” are sets of symbols, which represent empirical stimuli or perceptions. “Information” is a set of symbols, which represent empirical knowledge. “Knowledge” is a set of symbols, which represent the meaning (or the content) of thoughts that the individual justifiably believes that they are true.
For me at least, several difficulties are evident, but not explained away by Zins. A relatively minor difficulty is that these definitions of information and knowledge seem to make no reference to the cognate actions, informing and knowing. Of more importance is apparent inconsistency: in the first paragraph, objective knowledge is said to exist independently of anybody’s subjective knowledge; in the second, determination whether or not something is objective knowledge depends on some individual’s subjective knowledge.
However, what most diverges from my understanding is that “Knowledge is a set of symbols which represent meaning.” Had I attempted to define ‘knowledge’ (above I avoided doing so), I might have written something like “Knowledge is the meaning that might be represented by a set of symbols, and also the relationship between particular symbols and the concepts they represent.”
The renaming proposal depends directly on this unusual definition of objective knowledge, particularly on its independence from subjective knowledge, which Zins’ indicates is imperfect. The arcane reasoning involved might be appreciated by disciplinary professionals, but is unlikely to be noticed by any much wider community, much less studied sufficiently to become understood.
What might laymen think is meant by “Knowledge Science?” This label is likely to be confuse the general public about the distinctions from epistemology and normal psychology—a consequence not among Zins’ objectives.
Symptomatic Synopsis
Why is it reasonable to think that Information Science will wither? Here are some indicators that future DDQ numbers will consider.
· Most of the courses of a typical university Information Science Department have natural homes in other Departments.[30]
· The novelty of today’s and tomorrow’s methods for information dissemination is merely a technology change. Why have we never had a university Printing Science Department?
· Topics such as ontologies and Web search methods, treated as novelties in the InfoSci literature, are taken for granted by the children of the authors.
· A prominent current InfoSci topic is ontologies and ontological tools for other fields; however, historians (for example) neither want nor need help at organizing their topic.[31]
· Fundamentals underlying InfoSci include epistemology; however, the InfoSci literature mostly ignores this background.
· InfoSci practitioners seem to ignore the literature of Computer Science and of software engineering; software engineers pay little attention to the InfoSci literature.
· Compared to Chemistry, Computer Science, and other disciplines represented by university departments, InfoSci is shallow; that is, in a certain sense. a competent practitioner can know all of InfoSci, a feat not possible for Chemistry.
· Referees for the top scientific periodicals require that articles identify what is novel explicitly and also cite prior work that can help readers evaluate what is written. Similar rigor is missing from InfoSci articles, and much of this literature is, in fact, devoid of new ideas and new observations.
The doubts suggested by these speculations are hinted at in InfoSci primary literature wondering about the role and future of the field.[32] My concerns are not novel or unique, but seem to be shared by prominent InfoSci participants. Such doubts have never been primary literature topics for the established sciences.[33]
Reading Recommendations
While
vacationing in August, I read when my energy level was too low for much
else. Selections combined what a
relative calls "bummer books" (mysteries, political reminiscences
such as the memoirs of Louis Freeh, a
retired FBI Director, and similar light stuff) and some weightier books. Although I will not recommend the former
(even though it is competent story-telling), I don't hesitate to recommend the
latter books. Each is self-contained in
the sense that you can enjoy and learn from it without prior reading.
Umberto Eco, Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition
See
a Wikipedia summary. The reviews on an Amazon Webpage
are excellent.
Eric Kandel, In Search of Memory:
… a New Science of Mind
Again I find the reviews quoted by Amazon
fit my impression. One contains
"... for anyone interested in the relationship between the mind and the
brain, this is an important account of a creative and highly fruitful
career." The book is valuable for
three reasons:
·
It is a
remarkably readable account of scientific research whose significance cannot be
overemphasized.
·
It
presents some of the strongest evidence against dualism—the philosophical and
religious doctrine that mind is a separate entity from body.
·
It
includes a first-hand account of anti-Semitism in 1930’s
While I was looking into the last point, BBC World News[34] broadcast a squib about Mauthausen,
a Nazi concentration camp in
Alan Hirschfeld: The
Electric Life of Michael Faraday
This is another eminently readable biography accessible to scientific
laymen. It recounts nigh-incredible
academic snobbery. Faraday’s modest
background made university education inaccessible in the 19th
century. He educated himself in
scientific experimentation, and regretted that he was unable to extend this to
mathematics. As a consequence, he was
treated with condescension by Oxbridge scholars, even after he achieved
world-wide fame and Fellowship in the Royal Society.
Faraday nurtured the laboratory of his mind—a
test bed of the imagination, churning with ideas on force, light, and matter.
… His drawerful of medals didn't matter
to his critics; nor did the raft of less ornamental honors, or even his
international fame. He would always be
the outsider, simultaneously praised and disparaged by university-trained
practitioners—son of a blacksmith, and
now himself a kind of "scientist-smith" in their eyes, indisputably
good at forging experiments, but ill-equipped to tackle theoretical problems. p.161
Hirschfeld’s Chapter 13, describing the James Clerk Maxwell’s
collaboration with Faraday, shows scientific methodology at its best. It expresses scientists’ philosophy about
what is real with:
An electromagnetic field … is some fundamental alteration of space
wrought by embedded electric and magnetic sources. Maxwell's equations do not reveal what an electromagnetic field is,
just how to compute its mathematical properties and how these properties give rise to observable
phenomena. Inspired by Faraday's geometrical
musings, Maxwell created an electromagnetic universe that cannot be effectively reduced to mental
images. … Maxwell likened the situation to that of a bell ringer who tugs ropes
that dangle through holes in the ceiling of the belfry; the bells themselves and their actuating mechanism
remain a mystery. Maxwell's
contemporary, Heinrich Hertz, put it more bluntly: "Maxwell's theory is
Maxwell's equations." Or in the
words of Nobel [laureate] Richard Feynman, "Today, we understand better
that what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are
true or false. This is answered by
experiments, and untold numbers of experiments have confirmed Maxwell's
equations [as complete and accurate.] If
we take away the scaffolding he used to build it, we find that Maxwell's beautiful
edifice stands on its own." p.190
Andrew
Spielman & Michael D'Antonio, Mosquito
Like the previous two books, Mosquito: a Natural History of Our Most
Persistent and Deadly Foe is a self-contained, scientifically accurate account
presented without condescension for its intended lay audience. It describes the epidemiological history of
yellow fever, dengue, malaria, and
Practical Matters
One can hardly open a news or trade magazine without encountering prominent excitement about one or another person-to-person Internet service. Every reader has probably received several invitations to join, often forwarded by his business and personal acquaintances.
DDQ recommends strongly against
enrolling in such services because they represent
untapped opportunities for misbehavior—identity theft, fraud, and other
invasions of privacy. Articles about
such violations are likely to become, in a year or two, as prominent as
articles about spam and credit card theft are today.[35] If a
person-to-person service tempts you, consider waiting for two of years to see
how problems and protections develop.
Migrating from Microsoft Products to Open Source
Like many PC users, I have ideological and economic reasons for discontent about lock-in to Microsoft products. As must be common, I became locked in because Microsoft was first to market with key software in areas that require a great deal of user training and because its near-monopoly makes it unattractive for application vendors to enable for Linux machines.
I am working to extract myself, cautiously to avoid impacting day-to-day productivity. In this and future numbers, DDQ will report progress and suggest tools for readers who want freedom.[36] Consider the following technologies and user guides:
|
has emerged as the leader for desktop Linux because
it is so convenient to install and tailor.
I like it much better than Linux distributions I tried in 2006. |
|
|
is a good PC Magazine introduction for anyone
considering migration. |
|
|
compares Ubuntu 7.04 (codenamed "Feisty
Fawn") with MS Windows Vista, looking at the functionality of the operating
system and several key applications. |
|
|
is an open source free SFTP
client for Windows. Its main function
is safe copying of files between computers.
I have found it reliable and convenient for synchronizing Windows and
Linux directory contents. |
|
|
is a Computerworld article
discussing alternatives for moving from Windows to Linux. Especially interesting is an Ubuntu Linux
installation option that automatically migrates files from a Windows system
installed on the same machine. |
|
|
is a family of x86 PC virtualization products whose open-source version is free for home
use. It runs on Windows, Linux, and
Macintosh hosts and supports guest operating systems that include Windows XP
and Linux. |
The applications that most impede my abandoning Windows/XP are the workhorse office applications and my optical character recognition (OCR) tool. The problem with the office suite is not that MS Office™ is superior to free, open-source OpenOffice™—it isn’t. Instead the inhibitor is that I have a large sunk investment in learning how to use MS Office efficiently and effectively for what amounts to over half my working hours. The main challenge is in text processing. Since I use only the most basic spreadsheet, presentation, and graphics functionality, switching between the MS and open-source versions is easy and convenient. Converting files between the two platforms is trouble free; in particular, OpenOffice components readily import and export their MS-equivalent files. However, the presentation and handling of a text file by OpenOffice Writer is different from that by MS Word in a large number of small details—so many that my productivity is severely hampered.
Microsoft competitors and open-source contributors are working hard to address their competitive disadvantage. For instance, Sun Microsystems recently announced free MS Office plugins for handling the ISO-standard Open Document Format. IBM just announced that it will invest in improving OpenOffice technology. However, critics suggest that what is being done is not enough.
For OCR, I am wedded to Omnipage™ because it seems to have a lower error rate than any Linux offering.
Persistent Storage on Your LAN
Best prices for magnetic disk storage have changed little since they were reported in DDQ 6(2). Among emerging storage servers that can be shared among PCs, the most interesting is DROBO, a USB-attachable with Serial ATA drive bays for up to four drives as large as 1 terabyte each.
DROBO’s ease of use makes it especially suitable for customers without expertise in RAID storage. The unit employs its own virtualization algorithms to provide automatic data redundancy in a multi-drive array. With its own operating system and processor, DROBO allows you to swap a drive out without disrupting service.
Competitive offerings include Seagate’s Maxtor One Touch Plus
and various Iomega StorCenter devices with
RAID 5 data protection.
An emerging option for laptop computers is hybrid storage units which include a large buffer so that the HDD platters rest most of the time, instead of constantly spinning.
DDQ recommends that readers
unwilling to pay early-adopter prices wait and watch for about a year as
competition develops.[38]
For instance, my
home network already includes external drives purchased about a year ago and
having sufficient capacity. The setup
requires me to kick off backup from time to time; however this takes just a few
mouse clicks—not so burdensome that I’ve bothered to configure a timer-driven
background process. I’ll wait until the
prices for today’s more sophisticated devices drop.
Your Future PC
Your PC in 2008 and Beyond, suggests that blindingly fast chips
and other innovations will change everything about home, office, and mobile
computing. The
|
Technology described by PC World |
DDQ comment |
|
Plugless
power by pads on which you place your PC |
Uninteresting,
because the plugged power cord is replaced by a bigger and more expensive
gadget. |
|
Printers built into digital cameras |
Will
have marginal success similar to that of Polaroid cameras 40 years ago. |
|
Graphic processing integrated
onto CPU chips |
Will much accelerate graphics-intensive
computing, but at early-adopter prices until at least 2010. |
|
Flexible liquid
crystal displays |
Flexible color displays will not be offered at
attractive prices before 2011. |
|
High-speed wireless telephony
using packet switching |
The WiMax technology was standardized some time
ago, but seems to be perpetually “available next year”. |
|
Eight CPUs on a single
chip |
To exploit parallelism beyond dual processors
requires complex operating system and application software changes, beyond
what PC markets will sustain before 2012. |
|
Cable-free television
anywhere |
Wireless high-definition television might be
inexpensive by 2010. |
|
Five terabyte hard
disk drives |
HDD capacity and price improvements have improved
following the exponential curve steadily for a decade; extrapolation to the
next five years can be confidently predicted. |
|
Expansion of Internet
addressing to allow every device to be accessed |
32-bit addressing in the IPv6 standard has been
available for several years, but not widely adopted because ingenious tricks
have extended 16-bit IPv4 addressing at low costs; we will probably continue
with 16 bits painlessly for at least three more years. |
|
Touch screen PCs in
every surface |
This technology is of little interest for home
users, but might see significant business customer uptake in four years. |
|
Relief of current PC system
bus bottlenecking |
The system bus has become a significant source of
PC performance limits; devices supporting the PCIe standard will provide
relief in 2011. |
|
Tiny video projectors |
Cell phone video is painful; look for laser-based
projectors in pocket devices in 2010. |