Best Free Software Recommendations for 2008

For almost ten years now, I still find myself fixing computers for friends. It's not so much hardware these days as it is cleaning out viruses and installing software to handle a certain task. I don't mind so much, but I just hope my friends learn something from what I do and explain rather than to just rely on me to fix everything for them each and every time.

Anyway, for protecting a computer running Windows, an Antivirus software is required along with receiving regular updates. Just having it installed without updating it say once a week/month doesn't give the computer the best protection.

For installing productivity software, I often get asked, Where can I download Microsoft Office? Photoshop? Or Antivirus? The truth, my friends, is that you shouldn't go out there and download these software illegally, you should pay for them. Actually, I'll give a better recommendation, you should just download the freeware equivalent of them.

There is absolutely no need to risk your computer getting a virus by downloading a pay-for antivirus program illegally, to protect your computer from viruses. Somehow that logic seems lop-sided, but a surprising number of people do it anyway.

So I put together a list of software for 2008 that I recommend to friends and colleagues:

Function	Pay ($$$)	Free
Antivirus	Norton Antivirus and Mcafee	AVG Free
Compress files	WinZip and WinRAR	7 Zip
Office Suite	Microsoft Office	Open Office
Photo Editor	Photoshop	Paint.net and Gimp

Others worthy of mention:

• Comodo Firewall (Firewall)
• Digsby (IM client)
• Filezilla (FTP Client)
• Foxit Reader (PDF Reader)
• Mozilla Firefox (Web browser)
• Mozilla Thunderbird (Email client)
• Programmer's Notepad (Notepad)
• utorrent (Torrent client)
• VLC Media Player (Media player- also get Divx)

Friends often ask how these companies can survive by giving away free software. And to be honest, I'm not sure I have the answer to that. Part of the answer would be in donations, advertising, and even some VC funding.

Some friends even say they don't feel comfortable not paying for software, that instead they are getting some second-rate software or that they will get constant nag screens. This may have been true 5-6 years ago, but not so for today. Those companies have either gone out of business or changed their business model. Besides, many people, including myself, have at least vouched for these software as being quite good and most importantly, legit.

Facebook to become the new AOL?

I used to use Prodigy as my Internet Service Provider (ISP) back in the 1990s. It was fun to post to bulletin boards and participate in various discussions. I then jumped over to use America Online (AOL) because of it's nicer interface, live chat rooms, email, instant messaging, buddy lists, and overall better features. To be honest, back then I used the Internet for two things: to talk about wrestling and find Dragonball Z pictures.

 

Today, I find myself hooked on Facebook. I'm just fascinated with reading up on friends' profiles, what they're doing, events, birthdays, pictures, etc. In many ways, it's everything that I used to use AOL for, and more. If Web 2.0 is the current version of the web, then Facebook is basically AOL 2.0. Of course I don't mean this literally, because then we'd be going back quite a few versions.



With Facebook, I can:

• Send/Receive Messages (like Email)
• Maintain a social network (buddy list)
• IM with friends (Chat)
• Join discussion groups (bulletin boards)
• Play games

I enjoy Facebook, but I do wonder if it will go the ways of AOL. Although it's a hot startup right now, I wonder what if their business is truly sustainable. There are so many social networks out there (MySpace, Friendster, Hi5). And there are other similar services (Twitter, FriendFeed, Digg), many of which operate on a more open network. What I mean by that is that Facebook requires users to login and only upon login to view and use their services. Although this provides a certain level of community and security/anonymity, it's far from being open which is what the Web is all about.

Having a closed network promotes the idea that only their users will benefit from their services. I like how they offer services to share links found on the web with a simple click (Heck, I use it!), but it seems to only drive traffic into Facebook, and not anywhere else. I feel many business minds out there are thinking What's wrong with that? That's great! What company wouldn't want to do that where all arrows point inwards?!

I'll tell you what's wrong, it doesn't contribute to making the web any better. The sharing that takes place is centralized on the here and now. Since when can we search to find that interesting post a friend shared from 3 months back? And even if we could find it, how can we share that with anyone else outside of Facebook users?

For instance, I would like to be able to download all my friends' contact information and store it in my Blackberry. But the current privacy setup prevents any application from getting to such information. I'm sure many privacy advocates love that idea, but if such information was to be really kept private, why publish it to be shared amongst your closest 100+ friends to begin with? The important thing is not how it acts by default, but that there is no option to turn it on, to share this information in such a way. The same can be said with picture sharing.

But maybe I'm just jumping the gun a little too soon here. Maybe down the road they will open up their network some more and play with everyone else a little bit more. Hopefully that will occur while people are still interested in them and not on the next fad.

Interesting Reads:

• Facebook is the New AOL
• Facebook is Not the New AOL

Software Development Comic

I find this comic to be hilarious.

Tapping into the Cloud

A few years ago I envisioned a world where computers would return back to acting more like terminal PCs connected to a mainframe. A world where accessing files/applications locally would be a thing of the past. In a way, that's what Cloud Computing seems to be about. A user can be on any computer (albeit a PC, a Mac, or a Linux box), all that is required is Internet connection and a web browser, and the user can run most of his/her computing needs.



I think it's interesting that applications these days are almost synonymous with web applications than with the original desktop application. I wanted to share some of my favorite online applications with everyone, and encourage you to also tap into the cloud.

Email and RSS feeds
I'm relying less on using Microsoft Outlook and/or Mozilla Thunderbird to collect my email and RSS feeds. I utilize both Gmail and Google Reader for all that now. I can read/add/search for anything on either my home PC, laptop, or work PC.

Bookmarking
One of the main reasons I wrote my own blog application back in 1999/2000 was because I wanted a way to bookmark interesting websites. I hated that I could bookmark a website on one computer, but I wouldn't be able to get at it from another PC. A classmate originally wrote it in Perl, but I translated it to PHP. Here is the link.

Delicious does a fantastic job of this. Good job Yahoo on acquiring them in 2005! As far as I know, this was the first site that I started to tag with.

Pictures, Videos, and Instant Messaging
Picasa is my favorite site to store all my picture albums. YouTube isn't so much a greta place to store videos, as it is to share them. But more or less becoming the same thing. Meebo is pretty nice in how it collects all the IM services in one place. Although, honestly, I'm still a big user of the Digsby desktop application.

Office Suite
I can't say I write my word docs or excel spreadsheets online yet. I know there's Google Docs, but I haven't really caught onto that just yet. I'm just really more of a Blogger.

Agile Software Development

Up to this point in my consulting career, too often I've seen consultants (myself included) spend time writing documents describing what will be and won't be included in the project. And pretty much every time, whatever the client committed to on paper, isn't what the client wanted in the end. Requirements change between the start and end of a project. This is software development as it truly is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying documentation is bad all together. I can see the importance of writing some functional specification. Maybe some screenshots, workflows, and even the major business rules. I mean, as developers, we can't write code out of thin air.

But if change is so natural in the software world, should it not be built right into the development process?

The traditional Waterfall Model is simply not practical for software development. The phases/stages are like a series of dominoes. Phase 1, Phase 2, then 3, and so forth, much like a waterfall. But I have never seen a project run like this. Projects are more like the Phases jumping back and forth between each other because everything needs to be revisited multiple times!

Agile Software Development recognizes that change happens, and it happens often. The work is done iteratively in short cycles with close contact with an expert user/client. It ensures that:

1. The client gets their hands on something they can use right away.
2. Feedback is given often.
3. Changes/adjustments can be made quickly.

In the end, it should be a better product for the client that is developed with a more reasonable methodology.

Some Good Reads:

• Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide
• The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition (2nd Edition)
• The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master