If you've been following my Ubuntu articles here on CMX, or if you've read about Ubuntu elsewhere and have considered installing it, you may be curious about today's announcement of an Ubuntu "maintenance release", Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS.

Not to worry: if you installed Ubuntu 6.06 ("Dapper Drake") earlier, and have installed the updates as they were announced, chances are you're already running 6.06.1. You can easily find out: press Ctrl-Alt-F1 to escape the GUI, and you'll see your Ubuntu version number (press Ctrl-Alt-F7 to revert back to the GUI).

This .1 update is mainly concerned with fixing various glitches with the 6.06 installer, although it also incorporates all the updates and security patches since the initial Dapper release. If you've already installed Dapper you can safely ignore this maintenance release (assuming you've been good about installing updates when prompted). If you haven't yet installed Ubuntu, this new maintenance release promises to make the process smoother, and also save you from downloading a lot of updates.

When I last wrote about Apple's switch to Intel, nearly a year ago, I wasn't so sure I saw the benefits.

Today, I do.

That's because today, Apple announced Boot Camp—software which will permit users to easily install Windows XP, and then dual-boot with OS X. Boot Camp will be built into Leopard, the next version of OS X, but a beta version is available for use now (you need an Intel Mac, of course, as well as your own copy of Windows).

Apple's share price rose 7% on the news. As well it should: this is very BIG news, and it's going to result in Apple gaining significant market share, especially in light of Microsoft's recent delay of Vista, the next Windows version.

Apple's release of Boot Camp is a very smart move.

I've needed a few days to try and assimilate Apple's Monday announcement of a switch from PowerPC to Intel processors.

Waiting a few days hasn't helped much.

My initial, gut-reaction assessment was very negative. Why would Apple switch from PowerPC, which has been generally acknowledged to be a superior processor? Why would it inflict the pain of transitioning upon its loyal users?

For kicks, maybe?

It's not the first time Apple has made a major architectural shift. But this seems to be the most random, "for the hell of it" example yet.

I don't know— nor does anyone, really—what Intel will do two years out, vs. IBM. It had better be damned good, to justify all the pain-in-the-ass stuff Mac users are going to have to endure, in order to transition to "MacTel".

Regular readers on this site will know I am a major advocate of OS X, and perhaps an even greater advocate of Linux and open source (Mac and open source are rather closely related, after all).

I hope Steve Jobs has more business acumen than I'm giving him credit for. I also hope that Apple has enough cash on hand to sustain it through two years of slumping sales, as people wait for "Intel Macs".

I myself was in the market for an Apple notebook—I think I may now wait, or, more likely, buy a PC notebook instead.

IF Apple makes it through this transition—and again, I must question the need for this transition in the first place—then good things may yet accrue.

If Joe Six Pack can buy a Mac and also run Windows on that very same Mac, then Apple stands to gain significant market share. However, we don't yet know all the details, or whether this will actually be possible.

Apple has said they won't do anything to prevent people from running Windows on their "MacTel" machines, but it is way too early to tell exactly what the real scenario will be. Apple has also said that OS X will run only on their own (undoubtedly higher-priced) computers; whether or not they will be able to enforce this is very much open to debate. While I love the idea of being able to triple-boot OS X, Windows and Linux on one machine, I think the jury is still out.

Meanwhile, I offer this solace to PPC Mac owners: Debian will continue to work just fine.

It's been a while since I used video on a commercial web site, but I remember it well—what a royal pain it was. First there was the need to select your player and platform, then the struggle with compression and codecs, and on and on. Compromise everywhere you looked. But that was then.

And this is now: Flash Video is a brilliant new solution to the longstanding problems of quality and compatibility. It looks great, and it works on just about everything. "Write once, run anywhere" is actually true with Flash Video (I can view it on a Linux box, a handheld computer, and just about everything in between).

You won't find a better introduction to the subject than Paul Newman's excellent series here on CMX—Part 2 has just appeared today. Paul teaches you everything you need to know about building an exemplary Flash Video Player. If you use Flash or video in your site projects, this is a must read.

Why do the "OS wars" persist? Everyone knows they ended a long time ago, somewhere back in the mid-90s. We are a Windows world, and despite Microsoft's endlessly scrutinized business practices and spectacular security problems, that's not entirely a bad thing.

But it's not entirely a good thing, either, which I suppose is why the skirmishes continue.

I myself am a Mac guy. I do most of my work in Windows, but I think I must have contrarian genes--I just prefer the Mac. Just because.

"Just because" was all the rationale I could muster in the bad old days of OS 9. My Mac had all the stability of a feather and I still ... just preferred it.

But things are different now. OS X, the whole range of Big Cat variants, is a completely different animal, and operating system. Smooth, sleek and stable. Superb uptime. As I said, I do most of my work in Windows--don't ask why just now--and I favor W2K because it's pretty stable and doesn't have a lot of XP gunk to get in the way. But I have to reboot my W2K machines every few days to keep them humming. Panther, though, just keeps purring along, whatever I throw at it.

All of this is by way of preface to an article that's making the rounds on Mac sites, and Open Source sites like Slashdot. It's on John Gruber's Mac blog site Daring Fireball, and it's titled "The Art of the Parlay, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Platform Licensing and Market Share".

Gruber's thesis is that the conventional wisdom about Apple blowing a chance to become the monopoly platform is false. He contends that whatever decisions Apple might have made back in the 80s, Microsoft would still have prevailed. I don't know whether I agree, or whether it even matters anymore.

My own take on Apple's market share is simple: I don't care. Is the Mac a niche platform? Sure--it's a luxurious little enclave, well-designed and sophisticated, that's free of bugs and worms. It's the high-style, high-performance, high-rent district.

This may seem an elitist stance, but hey--the Mac has become an elitist platform. OS X is luxury computing, folks. Think about it: where else can you run mainstream apps like Photoshop and Dreamweaver, and also run renegade open source apps like Open Office and the GIMP side-by-side? Not to mention thousands of other Linux/Unix apps. And all of this capability is wrapped up in what is hands-down the handsomest GUI on the planet, and an OS that, I would contend, is among the most powerful.

I'm willing to pay more for this experience, and to savor it. So market share be damned. I am one of the Nouveau Niche, and I like it.