Another Milestone Achieved : Google Buzz

Despite what the leaders of Facebook and Google say, lots of people still like privacy. That was the message many early Buzz users shouted in the days following the launch of Google's new social networking system. Google seems to have taken quick action to patch some of the privacy flaws people were complaining about, but why were these holes present at launch in the first place?

Google has just announced its new microblogging service designed to compete with established services such as Twitter with Google Buzz.

Google Buzz will be integrated within GMail and will allow for automatic contact and friend lists by email correspondence, public/private sharing and inline inbox integration with real-time updates and multiple source browsing in a single feed with photo browsing.

The service will also support @replies If you @reply someone, it will send a buzz towards an individual’s inbox. The service will also support geolocation by asking the user where their location is with choices automatically generated by triangulation.

Google Buzz also has a “recommended” feature that will show buzzes from people you don’t follow if your friends are sharing or commenting on that person’s buzz. You can remove it or change this in settings.

Google is now speaking about using algorithms to help filter conversations, as well as mobile devices related to Buzz. Google Buzz will also be accessible via mobile in three ways: from Google Mobile, from Buzz.Google.com and from a dedicated app.

Reference: Technews, Technewsworld

How to Connect Port-au-Prince with a Wireless Network

As you can see from the network diagram above, Inveneo's long-distance WiFi links connecting NetHope member organizations is starting to be far-reaching. Inveneo engineers Mark Summer and Andris Bjornson have been able to bring high-speed Internet access - critical communication capacity - to eleven relief agency locations with minimal equipment and installation time

Our long-distance WiFi network has made huge improvements in connectivity for NetHope member organizations. Some had no connectivity before. Others had limited connectivity, like a 160 kbit connection that jumped to 1.6 Mbit. That’s like going from 3 dialup connections to a cable or DSL connection.

These leaps in access have immediate impact when 20-100 people are sharing bandwidth at each location. International staff are able to make high-quality Skype video calls when before even voice calls were next to impossible, cutting resupply and rebuilding times by weeks or months.

We want to do more than just build out physical infrastructure; we also want to build the human capacity of local Haitian companies. Eventually, we hope they can deploy these technologies themselves, expanding the benefits of ICT beyond Inveneo's direct reach.

While we're fundraising for long-term capacity development, we're going to start the process of knowledge dissemination with a primer on deploying long-distance WiFI links in Haiti

How to deploy long-distance WiFi links in Haiti

Inveneo has created a methodology for deploying long-distance wireless networks from our many years of work in Africa. So while Port-au-Prince presents it own set of logistical and communication challenges, we were able to install and manage a high-functioning network relatively quickly using these basic steps:

1. WiFi Network Design - make sure your nodes are visible to each other and pointing at the right location

2. Location Capacity Survey - confirming the location can support a network node

3. WiFi Hub Antenna Pointing - aiming the dish for the highest signal strength

4. Installation Trip Preparation - determining what you'll need before your 30ft up a tower

5. Node Antenna Setup - aiming and connecting the antenna

6. Disseminating Internet Access - networking locally for end-user access

7. Network Management - making sure everyone has equal access to bandwidth

If you've read this far, you'll want to read the full How to Deploy Long-Distance WiFi in Haiti primer and how we and our Certified ICT Partners can bring Internet access to rural and underserved communities in the developing world.

Reference: Wired

The Linux Battle: Ubuntu vs. Fedora

The userbase of Linux operating systems is growing rapidly. More and more people are venturing away from Microsoft Windows and finding their way to open source operating systems. Just as more people are using them, more and more Linux distributions are available. According to DistroWatch, there are more than 400 Linux distributions available and active, with many versions for each, which in turn gives you thousands of options. With large PC manufacturers starting to offer Linux based operating systems as an option for a new computer, which operating system will come out on top and dominate this industry? Among the open source operating system crowd, there are 2 main contenders: Ubuntu and Fedora.

Ubuntu

First things first, the installation of Ubuntu was very simple and straightforward. No tricky, unfamiliar feats you must overcome. For the first time Linux user, Ubuntu is by far the easiest to start learning and also includes the most basic options which keep things simple. As you learn the operating system and desire additional features and options, they can be added separately which is great for those who are just new to the Linux scene. Most Ubuntu users are probably a little more computer literate than the average user but with a single disc install, anyone could set this operating system up. The set up process detects your hardware very well and things run smoothly. One of the driving forces to a Linux operating system is the unstable and hacker friendly Microsoft Windows. The biggest downside of Ubuntu is that there is no firewall on the system. There are solutions to work around this but this is one feature that should’ve been included. Another disappointment was the limited multimedia resources. You will probably have to look outside Ubuntu to find what you need in the multimedia department.

Fedora

This open source operating system has a strong history and has been a strong contender for awhile. Fedora has been the most consistent with stability issues which have plagued other open source operating systems. The recently added network tools are a great addition to this product and actually include eight tools into one easy to use interface. Your multimedia options are expanded somewhat but Fedora doesn’t provide any support for non open source programs that are really common among other users. The included Helix Player is fairly simple and provides a satisfactory replacement for the average multimedia user. Fedora also lacks some of the bells and whistles and human friendliness of other open source operating systems. The security options exceed those of Ubuntu, which is a strong point for Fedora.

Up to this point, Ubuntu appears to be taking the lead in the open source operating system world with a strong backing from Dell Computers. Both operating systems are fully functional and have surprisingly strong features. If you are new to Linux operating systems, Ubuntu is probably the way to go but Fedora users have no reason to jump ship quite yet.

Microsoft Research: The Vision

You can imagine the next level of the world we are entering in..

Watch this video:

How Google Could Have Changed the World With Nexus

If you thought that the world would change with the release of a Google-branded phone this month, be assured that sadly it did not.

At least not yet. It just got one more cool phone.

You can buy the Google Android OS phone, dubbed Nexus One, unlocked directly from Google. But in the United States the only place you can really take it to is the country’s fourth largest carrier, T-Mobile. Or you can buy it through T-Mobile for a hair under $200 and pay about as much per month as a Palm Pre owner and about $20 a month less than an iPhone user.

What would something revolutionary have looked like?

How about a smartphone starter plan, deeply subsidized by ads, that offered a cheap data plan to entice the “I don’t need a smartphone” crowd into joining the revolution? Even better, would have been an order form where you could buy the Google phone and then choose from three or more carriers who are competing to provide you with a data and voice plan — just as you do when you buy a laptop. Instead, there’s just the one option — T-Mobile, which costs basically the same as all the other smart phones.

Google clearly wants the mobile-phone world to look different, it’s just not clear that this phone or its current manufacturing strategy will actually bring about the changes in the telecom world that Google is looking for.

Now, getting on par with Apple (and in some ways past it) is no small feat, especially when Google made this phone in partnership with HTC, a business model that rarely leads to the hardware that the design team really wants. Compare the Nexus One, for instance, to the first Apple phone, which the world has seemingly forgotten — the Motorola ROKR. That phone was limited to having 100 songs on it, couldn’t buy songs over the air and was full of compromises. With the Nexus One, Google managed to make a device that Wired magazine’s Steven Levy called “curvy,” “classy” and “impressive.”

And that’s important, because Google has recognized that mobile computing is a massive part of the net’s future — and thus its own.

With the recent $750 million purchase of mobile-ad provider AdMob and its reported overtures to buy the popular local-business–rating site Yelp, Google is showing it clearly thinks that mobile (and local) is the next place on the net to mine for riches. But what it doesn’t like is all the ways that users could get detoured, from the time they pull the phone out of the pocket until the time their search travels to a Google server.

Remember that the more people use the internet and the faster the internet works, the more Google makes money. Low-cost, uncontrolled devices with low-cost connections equals more people using Google software and seeing Google ads, even if that phone is made by Motorola, Nokia or even Apple.

That’s why it’s pushing hard to break down barriers between the average user and an online Google ad, by finishing the mobile-computing revolution that Apple started, but didn’t finish because of Steve Jobs’ fanatical need to control the iPhone.

Google’s created the mostly open source Android OS, which manufacturers can and are using for free. That’s pushing Microsoft out of the market, and keeping carriers from doing stupid things like forcing a user’s browser home page to divert to its software store in perpetuity, no matter how hard they try to change it. And third-party-app developers can write programs for Android devices without getting permission, a stark contrast to Apple, which must approve every iPhone app and controls the only way to add programs to the device.

Google bet more than $4 billion in an FCC wireless auction in 2008 just to make sure that openness rules would adhere to new spectrum, which led the eventual winner — Verizon — to sue the feds. Google’s won a battle in D.C. to make the wireless companies subject to the same FCC rules that force cable and DSL companies to treat all online content similarly.

In short, Google wants to transform the phone market with its complicated charges, long contracts, bizarre fees and bundling of devices with service plans and make it more like how you buy a television or a computer: Buy the device. Then find the service. That’s even as cable and satellite providers look at the wireless companies and decide those contracts look like a mighty good way to keep customers.

But the question becomes how far does Google have to push, how much capital must it invest, how many devices must it design and regulators must it convince, before it can back out of the mobile hardware business and simply focus on software and advertising?

Here’s the scenario that might get us there: Google convinces HTC that it’s not suicide to create a phone that can be used on any U.S. 3G network (maybe two phones — one for GSM and one for CDMA) and then sells it unlocked. It’s a great phone, and lots of people want it, and there are lots of great apps that run on it.

Users then could then take it to whichever carrier they like, and get a data plan a la carte. The carriers will hate this, perhaps create unfairly high prices and very annoying “device registration fees” — trying to protect the money they make offering phones at an initial discount in exchange for a two-year contract.

But the FCC will have passed a rule forcing carriers to accept any device that doesn’t hurt their network — much as Ma Bell was forced to open its lines after 1968 — and Google, regulators and consumers will break down those barriers. Or the market could simply take care of it, with a desperate Sprint breaking ranks with the other large U.S. telecoms and accepting a Nexus or any other device with no registration fee and a fair price for users.

And that’s when Google will stop making phones, and you’ll know that the Nexus One actually meant something.

Source: Wired