OS Mentality and such.

The word on the street is that Microsoft still doesn't understand the concept of playing well with others. It's hard to imagine a way that after all this time, MS doesn't understand the direction computers are headed. They still seem to think that they can monopolize the entire industry, while that is proving to be further and further from the truth. This time it's a mere issue of being able to virtualize Windows on a Linux operating system. Nothing new, really, thanks to things like VMWare you can practically seamlessly run multiple operating systems in countless configurations all on one computer. I guess MS just tends to go with the denial route every time.

Speaking of advanced virtualization and nifty things to do with your computer, I recently installed Ubuntu Linux on my laptop, and I love it, perhaps even more than I've ever loved Windows (truly, not that hard). Things went a lot smoother than when I tried to make the switch to Mandrake, and consequently lost half the data on my hard drive. Anyway, I had heard stories and seen the YouTube videos of an advanced desktop manager, "Beryl", in action. It wasn't long before I installed it and got it running smoothly. Apparently Beryl has since merged with Compiz and is dubbed "Compiz Fusion". It's a first release I'm looking forward to, as I've grown more and more addicted to shiny things on my computer.

It's been my goal since I first learned of Beryl to install it on my tower, and run VMWare to emulate MS Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OSX on three sides of its virtual desktop cube, practically being able to switch between operating systems at a whim, depending on what I needed to do. Granted, that would take a bit of system resources, but I figure that under the right configuration, I could make it work fairly smoothly.

Having used all three major OS choices, I can say that they all have their pros and cons, and none of them are perfect on their own. Each fills the gaps that the other two leave open. I wish they would merge, into some kind of a power-rangeresque super-operating system... with the creativity and shininess of OSX, the down-to-earth productivity and gaming experience of Windows, and the open source (free) and stable (also a plus) nature of Linux. I know this will never happen... but it's good to dream.

In its place, however, are makeshift solutions, such as the GTK+ runtime, which essentially allows programs to be easily portable from one OS to another, without the need for major coding changes. Another good substitute, is the phenomenon of solely web-based applications. Google and it's entire suite, for instance. I can go to practically any computer in the world with an internet connection and use my Google applications without a hang-up. The files are all stored in the cloud, and it's becoming ever similar to having my own personal storage computer anywhere I go. What web applications currently lack, however, is a clean user interface that's past the "awkward stage" of usability. Multitasking, man, multitasking. Using practically any web application is a lot like trying to use the original dos text editor. What if I want to play Gorillas while I'm writing my english report? Oh well, kid, multitasking won't be around until the late 80's... Oh... wait. I guess that's my entire point. One could argue that you could just open new windows in your OS to use different web applications. I would have to say that that's incredibly short sighted.

I envision a day when a computer comes installed with little more than a kernel that is, simply, an internet connection, some settings, and your desktop is your web browser. Your computer then connects to the server, you log in, and presto! Your files! Your windows! All your stuff, same as you left it when you logged in from that computer in the public library. Sure, it isn't that different from using VNC software, except the bandwidth only encompasses what needs to be saved, the UI and all the "processing" takes place on the end-user's computer. Problematic for huge amounts of data, such as video editing, I know, but it's just a concept.

New PASS Alarm Concepts

Being a firefighter for only a few short months, I've yet to witness the majority of the dangers on the fireground. However, having an interest and some expertise in technology had caused me to question the reliability of current PASS alarm systems. Apparently I'm not alone. PASS devices currently come in a couple flavors as I've seen them, but they're usually not the most sturdy looking things. Generally made of a plastic casing, with minimal thermal protection, it's always been questionable in my mind whether they would actually stand up to a real, life threatening encounter. Out of the many close calls, it seems that only a few incidents can actually place blame on PASS failure, but still. A firefighter's last line of defense should still be reliable, and adequate to let other firefighters know when someone's in danger. A couple other articles caught my interest too, in the ever-evolving field of firefighter safety.
Certainly, we've come a long way from bucket brigades, tin helmets, rubber coats, and high boots. The NFPA has done a great deal over the years to increase safety standards, I'll admit, but when it comes to firefighting, too much is never enough. Eventually, we'll see more and more technology take over, until the need for risking one's life in a fire is practically eliminated. Until then, though, some sturdier lines of defense are certainly in order.