I've been buying a game or two on Ebay lately for my shiny new PS3 (OK it's a few months old now, but whatever). I hadn't used Ebay in almost a decade and returning to it I was struck by how little it has changed. In many ways it looks and feels like a relic of the last century. More surprising though was the behaviour of some of Ebay's userbase, who seem like relics of the stone age.
Let me expound upon that last statement.
As far as I'm aware most auctions on ebay work using a secret bidding process whereby the bidder with the highest maximum bid wins. I'm sure there's a technical term for this, but frankly I can't be bothered finding out what that might be as it's not relevant to this rant. What it means in layman's terms is that when you bid on something you can stipulate what your maximum bid is, i.e. the most you are willing to pay for an item. This bid is hidden from other users. The system then automatically bids on your behalf until you become the high bidder or your limit is reached (i.e. someone else has stipulated a maximum bid that is higher than yours).
Now, if you are bidding on an item the rational thing to do is to immediately enter your maximum bid and leave it at that. There's simply no point in bidding a bit more than the current bid, seeing if you're the high bidder and then bidding again if you aren't. The system automatically bids till one of the maximum bids prevails over the others (I believe the oldest of the two bids wins out if maximum bids are equal).
Unfortunately, a fair number of the users of Ebay appear to be morons. Here's why. What these MORONS do is wait till the last minutes of the auction and then rapidly start increasing their bids, as if they are - like a dramatic movie auction - engaging in some kind of bidding war against the clock.
This phenomenon is irritating to say the least, since on many an occasion I've seen myself as the top bidder for days, only to suddenly lose at the last minute (literally). I never change my maximum bid - after all that is the most I'm prepared to pay for the item. If these idiots put in their maximum straight away then we'd find out who the winner was straight away instead of in the final moments of the auction.
What's hilarious is that on occasions in which I've won I can see (in the bid history) that some idiot tried to outbid me in the dying seconds of an auction by raising their maximum bid in increments and then running out of time because my maximum bid still trumped theirs. News flash moron, if you'd just put your maximum in straight away, you may have beaten me! I on the other hand don't engage in such foolishness and so will not increase my bid at the eleventh hour.
Seriously, is there some kind of explanation for this? Are people that foolish? I suppose in an irrational world where most of the bidders behave this way it makes some kind of sense, but really, if there's something you want you place a value on it and leave it at that. If these last minute bidders beat me then they were willing to pay more, plain and simple. It matters not at all that they beat me 5 seconds or 5 days before the end of the auction.
There must be some sociological or psychological explanation* for this truly bone headed phenomenon, or I'm missing something fundamental about the way Ebay works. I doubt the latter because apart from the annoyance of it all, at the end of the day I pay no more than I'm willing to pay, and often when I win I pay less than that. It's the rest of the loons who are missing something - probably a few brain cells.
* One theory is that perhaps by increasing the bid value too early they increase the perceived value of the item. I.E. not bidding till the end is feigning disinterest in the product, in the hope that others will also not be interested or will not bid higher values, thereby 'tricking' people into not bidding too high. This allows these last minute vultures to swoop in at the end and win by making marginal increases to their maximum bid. Of course this strategy doesn't work against rational bidders who will still set a maximum for an item regardless of its current bid price (as a basis for comparison I look at how much the item costs on other online retailers' sites and set a maximum bid that is lower than the cheapest of those prices - why bother buying second hand from Ebay if the price goes above Amazon's, for example? And yes, I have seen people paying more for something second hand on Ebay that could have been purchased for less brand new somewhere else! THE FOOLS!)
Showing posts with label computers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label computers. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Password Safe
I have around 60 different accounts with passwords to manage. That includes all of my various website login details - online banking, mail, message boards, social networking sites, etc... - and my computer account credentials. And this count doesn't include my dozen or so work accounts, only my personal ones. So all in all, I have to manage around 75 different credentials - that's 75 usernames and passwords! And I'm certain there are sites out there I've registered with but can't even remember! Don't ask me how or why I have so many accounts, I just do. And truth be told some of them I hardly ever use anymore, and I probably ought to get rid of them... But I digress...
So the question is, how on Earth does one manage so many usernames and passwords?
Usernames tend to be simple enough, since you rarely obfuscate a username. It's the passwords that are tricky. The simplest method of remembering passwords is to use a single password, or a small set of passwords, for all of your accounts. The drawback is self-evident however - if one password is compromised, a whole bunch of accounts are also compromised with it! As far as I'm concerned, this is not a viable option.
It should be immediately obvious that - barring an eidetic memory - it isn't feasible to memorize 75 different passwords either. From a practical standpoint, you need to write them down somewhere so that you can look them up when you need to use them; the risks involved in doing this should also be immediately obvious.
My solution - and the solution of many others - is to use Password Safe (or something similar, but this one is open source and fairly well known). It's a piece of software that allows you to manage your passwords and keep them secure by storing them in an encrypted file, making them accessible only via a master password. On the one hand this system introduces a single point of failure, but as long as you pick a complex enough password it becomes computationally infeasible to crack it, and as long as you don't write it down somewhere (this is the one password that absolutely must be committed to memory) no one can accidentally stumble upon it. Of course, you'll probably still give it up under torture if it came to that, but if someone's torturing you for your password, you've probably got major issues that make your passwords pale into insignificance!
So, I use Password Safe with a very strong master password and use a wide array of passwords for all of my accounts, safe in the knowledge that they are stored securely and can be readily looked up. Not every account needs a unique password, only the important ones that are associated with finances or personal information; I still share passwords between accounts that I consider trivial, although even then I tend to ensure that there's no link between those accounts. That is, I group accounts under a common password only when those accounts are completely independent of each other.
Of course, I still have frequently used passwords committed to memory (it's just practical and happens automatically over time in any case), but there can't be more than 10-15 of those. One of the things I've noticed about using a password safe is that it's very easy to come up with complex passwords when they don't need to be 'memorable' - sometimes when I look one up even I'm surprised by it, since they do not adhere to any pattern or 'system'! (the downside is that the ones that I need to commit to memory take a little longer to memorize)
There are other issues surrounding passwords - such as what constitutes a good one and how long you should use the same one before changing it - but I'm not going to go into that right now! What I will do right now, however, is recommend Password Safe to anyone who feels overloaded by the number of passwords that they have to manage.
So the question is, how on Earth does one manage so many usernames and passwords?
Usernames tend to be simple enough, since you rarely obfuscate a username. It's the passwords that are tricky. The simplest method of remembering passwords is to use a single password, or a small set of passwords, for all of your accounts. The drawback is self-evident however - if one password is compromised, a whole bunch of accounts are also compromised with it! As far as I'm concerned, this is not a viable option.
It should be immediately obvious that - barring an eidetic memory - it isn't feasible to memorize 75 different passwords either. From a practical standpoint, you need to write them down somewhere so that you can look them up when you need to use them; the risks involved in doing this should also be immediately obvious.
My solution - and the solution of many others - is to use Password Safe (or something similar, but this one is open source and fairly well known). It's a piece of software that allows you to manage your passwords and keep them secure by storing them in an encrypted file, making them accessible only via a master password. On the one hand this system introduces a single point of failure, but as long as you pick a complex enough password it becomes computationally infeasible to crack it, and as long as you don't write it down somewhere (this is the one password that absolutely must be committed to memory) no one can accidentally stumble upon it. Of course, you'll probably still give it up under torture if it came to that, but if someone's torturing you for your password, you've probably got major issues that make your passwords pale into insignificance!
So, I use Password Safe with a very strong master password and use a wide array of passwords for all of my accounts, safe in the knowledge that they are stored securely and can be readily looked up. Not every account needs a unique password, only the important ones that are associated with finances or personal information; I still share passwords between accounts that I consider trivial, although even then I tend to ensure that there's no link between those accounts. That is, I group accounts under a common password only when those accounts are completely independent of each other.
Of course, I still have frequently used passwords committed to memory (it's just practical and happens automatically over time in any case), but there can't be more than 10-15 of those. One of the things I've noticed about using a password safe is that it's very easy to come up with complex passwords when they don't need to be 'memorable' - sometimes when I look one up even I'm surprised by it, since they do not adhere to any pattern or 'system'! (the downside is that the ones that I need to commit to memory take a little longer to memorize)
There are other issues surrounding passwords - such as what constitutes a good one and how long you should use the same one before changing it - but I'm not going to go into that right now! What I will do right now, however, is recommend Password Safe to anyone who feels overloaded by the number of passwords that they have to manage.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Firefox 3!
The latest version of the best web browser around, Mozilla's Firefox, is out now. Get version 3 here. There's also this attempt to break the record for most number of downloads in a day, I believe it's still going on right now (based on when the thing became available on their site).
I've been using Firefox for around four years, and I honestly can't imagine browsing the Web without it (sorry Opera, I hate you). If you're still using Internet Explorer a)my sympathies and b)it's time to switch! I'm not going to go into the details as to why, but, in summary Firefox offers - better security, better web standards compliance, more and better features, the ability to customize and add functionality via myriad 'extensions', and a faster and smoother browsing experience (IE 7 is fairly decent now, but still relatively rubbish).
Get it now!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
OLPC has been assimilated!
No, not by the Borg, but by Microsoft! In news that's been expected for some time now, it's been announced that the XO laptop will be made available with Windows XP as well, with even project founder Nicolas Negroponte admitting that in the future they may well end up being XP only. For the time being, though, the plan is for the machines to dual boot to either Windows XP or the customized Linux OS. Not that XP hasn't been customized - apparently Microsoft have done a bit of work to get their bloated OS (and this is XP; imagine Vista!) working on the modest XO hardware, and it's still not perfect - the innovative mesh networking technology doesn't function with it. The hypocrisy of this move from MS is astounding - this is the company that repeatedly slammed the OLPC project during it's initial phases as being a fundamentally flawed idea. Apparently with Microsoft software on the laptop, it's now a great idea!
I can kind of understand why this happened. The project hasn't come close to the $100 pricepoint initially envisaged - it's at around $180 now, plus orders haven't exactly been brisk. Apparently there was a lot of demand from governments for XP. Again, understandable - Windows is in a sense the de facto standard operating system, and many governments were reluctant to invest in laptops that weren't equipped with the OS used by most of the world. They figure their kids should have the opportunity to gain experience with Windows in order to be globally competitive. Fair enough. They should also realize, however, that by investing in Microsoft for a low cost today means an investment in Microsoft for a much higher cost in the future as well, when everyone growing up with these laptops is conditioned to associate their costly, properietary, and excessively restrictive software with 'computers' in general, and is thus incapable of using any alternatives. The continued establishment of Microsoft tech is like a vicious circle where everyone needs to use it because it's established, but it becomes all the more established because everyone keeps using it. Which is exactly why Microsoft will be well pleased that Windows XP is on these laptops.
Negroponte's explanations for this move make sense, but at the end of the day it can't be seen as anything but capitulation by OLPC to corporate behemoths. The big bad MS wins again, sinking their claws into the future knowing that the low price of this basic XP will guarantee continued revenue in the future.
OLPC is still a great project though, just one that's been sullied a bit by this news. Let's also not forget the influence it's had in helping to establish low cost laptops as a viable and quite lucrative market; indeed, even Microsoft has got in on the act to ensure their presence in this growing sector. The other good news is that the innovative user interface developed for the XO will live on as a multi platform technology no longer tied down to one kind of machine! Every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.
I can kind of understand why this happened. The project hasn't come close to the $100 pricepoint initially envisaged - it's at around $180 now, plus orders haven't exactly been brisk. Apparently there was a lot of demand from governments for XP. Again, understandable - Windows is in a sense the de facto standard operating system, and many governments were reluctant to invest in laptops that weren't equipped with the OS used by most of the world. They figure their kids should have the opportunity to gain experience with Windows in order to be globally competitive. Fair enough. They should also realize, however, that by investing in Microsoft for a low cost today means an investment in Microsoft for a much higher cost in the future as well, when everyone growing up with these laptops is conditioned to associate their costly, properietary, and excessively restrictive software with 'computers' in general, and is thus incapable of using any alternatives. The continued establishment of Microsoft tech is like a vicious circle where everyone needs to use it because it's established, but it becomes all the more established because everyone keeps using it. Which is exactly why Microsoft will be well pleased that Windows XP is on these laptops.
Negroponte's explanations for this move make sense, but at the end of the day it can't be seen as anything but capitulation by OLPC to corporate behemoths. The big bad MS wins again, sinking their claws into the future knowing that the low price of this basic XP will guarantee continued revenue in the future.
OLPC is still a great project though, just one that's been sullied a bit by this news. Let's also not forget the influence it's had in helping to establish low cost laptops as a viable and quite lucrative market; indeed, even Microsoft has got in on the act to ensure their presence in this growing sector. The other good news is that the innovative user interface developed for the XO will live on as a multi platform technology no longer tied down to one kind of machine! Every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Tech Stuff
There's a brain control headset for gaming. It reads electrical impulses in the brain and can map facial expressions, emotions, and movements of a person directly into a gameworld. Needless to say - awesome! If the success of the Nintendo Wii has taught the gaming industry anything, it's that more intuitive and simple interfaces are the type of things that can lead to more entertaining, accessible, and innovative gameplay (which translates into greater profits, of course). And this type of interface should be just as usable for interaction with any computer system, not just games. This is the stuff of sci-fi come to life people! I for one welcome our new brain scan controller overlords!
There's also another interesting BBC article about the evolution of mobile phones as gaming platforms. Damn, these things are becoming more and more powerful; forget Tetris, we're talking genuine home console level gaming on mobiles. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, seeing how Sony's PSP did something similar by fitting last generation level console gaming into a handheld, but in the more limited and energy conserving form factor of mobiles? I'm impressed - I mean, these things have dedicated 3D graphics chipsets on board! Also cool are the potential interfaces, which include iPhone style touch interfaces and Wii style motion sensitive control systems.
Another (somewhat related) article is this one about how mobile smartphones will soon overtake laptops and become the mobile computer of choice. I have to confess, a few years ago I was one of those smug jackasses who'd sneer with contempt at gadget phones, arguing that there was no use for so much multimedia functionality. Phones should be for calls and texting, I argued. Well I'm eating humble pie, because to be honest the potential is huge and it's amazing what you can now do with these relatively affordable smartphones. They're getting some fairly powerful low energy consumption processors in there (even multicore!) that can match low end laptops in terms of basic functionality and applications both for work and for multimedia, including proper gaming (as above) and high def (720p) video. And this is on top of its use as a digital camera, a GPS device, and of course a phone! Yeah the size and interface are probably big stumbling blocks, but then some of these screens are decent sized and very high res, and there's even potential for a mobile projector. And there's always a roll up keyboard for typing. Even if you're not interested in mobile computing technology, the potential for more compact and energy conserving devices is something to be welcomed, as it will eventually filter through to the rest of the industry.
And finally, how could I not comment on the impending death of HDDVD? Yep, the format war is all but over and Sony and the Blu-Ray camp can rest easy. It's a good thing too, because the lack of a standard would have sucked and killed the possibility of there being a next gen successor to DVD. Actually, there still might not be - DVD is still pretty terrific and the leap from DVD to Blu-Ray is only in terms of picture quality. The leap from VHS to DVD was huge and allowed people to make the most of their existing televisions. Hi-def formats offer no significant new improvements apart from the picture (and sound), which require more expensive equipment to take advantage of in any case. And in the meantime, with ever improving video compression and global bandwidth increases, there's also the possibility that people will simply migrate from DVD to buying (or renting) movies online directly instead of moving en mass to a new disc format. Personally, I think Blu-Ray will take off but will never be as huge as DVD, and I think online video is still a long way off from becoming ubiquitous, simply because the network infrastructure isn't quite there yet and won't be for a while, and because there is no standard for online video distribution on the horizon.
And finally, a little humour to wrap up this post, courtesy of XKCD.
There's also another interesting BBC article about the evolution of mobile phones as gaming platforms. Damn, these things are becoming more and more powerful; forget Tetris, we're talking genuine home console level gaming on mobiles. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, seeing how Sony's PSP did something similar by fitting last generation level console gaming into a handheld, but in the more limited and energy conserving form factor of mobiles? I'm impressed - I mean, these things have dedicated 3D graphics chipsets on board! Also cool are the potential interfaces, which include iPhone style touch interfaces and Wii style motion sensitive control systems.
Another (somewhat related) article is this one about how mobile smartphones will soon overtake laptops and become the mobile computer of choice. I have to confess, a few years ago I was one of those smug jackasses who'd sneer with contempt at gadget phones, arguing that there was no use for so much multimedia functionality. Phones should be for calls and texting, I argued. Well I'm eating humble pie, because to be honest the potential is huge and it's amazing what you can now do with these relatively affordable smartphones. They're getting some fairly powerful low energy consumption processors in there (even multicore!) that can match low end laptops in terms of basic functionality and applications both for work and for multimedia, including proper gaming (as above) and high def (720p) video. And this is on top of its use as a digital camera, a GPS device, and of course a phone! Yeah the size and interface are probably big stumbling blocks, but then some of these screens are decent sized and very high res, and there's even potential for a mobile projector. And there's always a roll up keyboard for typing. Even if you're not interested in mobile computing technology, the potential for more compact and energy conserving devices is something to be welcomed, as it will eventually filter through to the rest of the industry.
And finally, how could I not comment on the impending death of HDDVD? Yep, the format war is all but over and Sony and the Blu-Ray camp can rest easy. It's a good thing too, because the lack of a standard would have sucked and killed the possibility of there being a next gen successor to DVD. Actually, there still might not be - DVD is still pretty terrific and the leap from DVD to Blu-Ray is only in terms of picture quality. The leap from VHS to DVD was huge and allowed people to make the most of their existing televisions. Hi-def formats offer no significant new improvements apart from the picture (and sound), which require more expensive equipment to take advantage of in any case. And in the meantime, with ever improving video compression and global bandwidth increases, there's also the possibility that people will simply migrate from DVD to buying (or renting) movies online directly instead of moving en mass to a new disc format. Personally, I think Blu-Ray will take off but will never be as huge as DVD, and I think online video is still a long way off from becoming ubiquitous, simply because the network infrastructure isn't quite there yet and won't be for a while, and because there is no standard for online video distribution on the horizon.
And finally, a little humour to wrap up this post, courtesy of XKCD.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Liquid Crystal Displays
I'll never buy another CRT based display. Ever. Unless I become destitute and can't afford anything better. My crummy old 17" CRT monitor decided to betray me yet again (it has its moods) by tinting the picture in yellow, permanently. Needless to say this was an unacceptable state of affairs; staring at a monitor teary eyed is generally not recommended, although it does happen often enough when I read those overly polite, cold, heartless, rejection e-mails. Sniff. But I digress! Instead of getting the old thing (it's not even that old) repaired, I decided an upgrade was in order, and got myself a nice shiny 19" widescreen LCD monitor. Did I mention it was shiny?
Long story short, I love it. It's no secret that I consume a lot of movies and tv shows (no really, I do!), and watching them on an LCD display is a revelation. I had no idea how dark and blurry and indistinct stuff looked on my old monitor! Now it's bright, vivid, and vibrant, and the picture is bigger thanks to the larger size and widescreen aspect ratio. The aspect ratio also allows for more screen real estate in general, which is great for reading webpages and stuff like spreadsheets, though a lot of websites are designed with a fixed width (like this blog!) that leaves half the screen wasted blank space. Text looks razor sharp, and pretty much everything just looks more vivid and pleasing to the eye.
Pros:
Cons:
That sounds like a lot of cons, but truthfully the pros outweigh the cons. Even with the uneven backlight, and even if there were dead pixels, the improved picture quality (despite the other drawbacks), screen real estate, reclaimed desk space, and power savings make it a worthwhile upgrade. Prices will continue to fall, and these will be par for the course in the average PC set up within the next 10 years, if not sooner. For people like me whose lives revolve around sitting in front of a computer screen (I can hear obesity, diabetes, and heart failure knocking on my door already), it's a no brainer.
Long story short, I love it. It's no secret that I consume a lot of movies and tv shows (no really, I do!), and watching them on an LCD display is a revelation. I had no idea how dark and blurry and indistinct stuff looked on my old monitor! Now it's bright, vivid, and vibrant, and the picture is bigger thanks to the larger size and widescreen aspect ratio. The aspect ratio also allows for more screen real estate in general, which is great for reading webpages and stuff like spreadsheets, though a lot of websites are designed with a fixed width (like this blog!) that leaves half the screen wasted blank space. Text looks razor sharp, and pretty much everything just looks more vivid and pleasing to the eye.
Pros:
- Flat panel takes up little space
- Lightweight
- Lower power consumption
- Superior picture in general
- Aspect ratio better for movies/TV shows and desktop
- Easier on the eyes (subjective, and I'm not sure if there's any solid medical evidence to corroborate this assertion)
- Looks much sexier than a CRT (not that I'm superficial enough to care... Awww, who am I kidding?)
Cons:
- Expensive (costs 50%-100% more than a CRT)
- You could end up with dead pixels (I almost had a heart attack when I saw what I thought was a dead pixel, only to realize that it was dust on the screen)
- Picture quality limitations - Fixed optimal resolution; contrast range not as good as CRT - blacks are not as deep; limited viewing angle
- Could have an uneven backlight (like mine, which has a contrast gradient from the top to the bottom of the screen) - virtually unnoticeable though, unless you fixate on it (which is generally true for dead pixels as well, depending on where they occur)
- Lifetime not as long as a CRT, though I believe the backlight can be replaced once it fails.
That sounds like a lot of cons, but truthfully the pros outweigh the cons. Even with the uneven backlight, and even if there were dead pixels, the improved picture quality (despite the other drawbacks), screen real estate, reclaimed desk space, and power savings make it a worthwhile upgrade. Prices will continue to fall, and these will be par for the course in the average PC set up within the next 10 years, if not sooner. For people like me whose lives revolve around sitting in front of a computer screen (I can hear obesity, diabetes, and heart failure knocking on my door already), it's a no brainer.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Synctoy!
Everyone using a PC should be aware of the importance of backups by now (if you're not, then a - welcome back from the caves friendo, the war is over, and b - backups are important if you give a damn about your data), but probably don't maintain any discipline in managing backups and consequently don't do it nearly as often as they should. Well, Windows users should consider using Synctoy, an excellent piece of software from Microsoft. Now that you're done doing a double take, let me say again - Microsoft has made an excellent piece of software! This one comes under their Power Toys line, a selection of useful little applications that make life easier for Windows users (we need all the help we can get).
As the Wikipedia article explains
It's been around for a while, but I've only recently started using it and it has completely eliminated the need for my old fashioned manual process, which started off as adequate but steadily grew to be a massive headache to carry out. The software is fast, intuitive, and does what it says on the box and it shouldn't take more than 15-30 minutes to install and set up backup folder 'pairs'. There's a bunch of fairly straightforward options that can be configured with ease, and it provides a useful preview button so that you can see what it's about to do (in case you're paranoid and worried that it'll overwrite your secret stash of whatever it is you're into). The actual backing up (or synchronising) is simply a matter of clicking one (or two, if you preview) button.
Important point to note. Backing stuff up onto the same hard disk is useful if you want to have older versions of your software available, but is useless for recovering your data if your computer gets screwed or the disk breaks down. I personally use a second hard disk to back stuff up, plus a USB flash drive for all the extra important stuff. Given the capacity and price of flash drives, that's probably the optimal solution, unless one is backing up gigabytes of data, like digital photos (which ought to be backed up to DVD or CD, really).
Anyway, my backup process has now been reduced to a few clicks once a week, and I'm a much happier chipmunk as a result. Synctoy is a godsend - this is one Microsoft product that I can wholeheartedly recommend! Although, if it somehow winds up eating my hard drive and destroying my data, there may be another blog post on this topic in the future!
As the Wikipedia article explains
SyncToy is a free PowerToy designed by Microsoft that provides an easy to use graphical user interface that can automate synchronizing files and folders. It is written using Microsoft's .NET framework.
SyncToy can manage multiple sets of folders at the same time; it can combine files from two folders in one case, and mimic renames and deletes in another. SyncToy can keep track of renames to files and will make sure those changes get carried over to the synchronized folder.
It's been around for a while, but I've only recently started using it and it has completely eliminated the need for my old fashioned manual process, which started off as adequate but steadily grew to be a massive headache to carry out. The software is fast, intuitive, and does what it says on the box and it shouldn't take more than 15-30 minutes to install and set up backup folder 'pairs'. There's a bunch of fairly straightforward options that can be configured with ease, and it provides a useful preview button so that you can see what it's about to do (in case you're paranoid and worried that it'll overwrite your secret stash of whatever it is you're into). The actual backing up (or synchronising) is simply a matter of clicking one (or two, if you preview) button.
Important point to note. Backing stuff up onto the same hard disk is useful if you want to have older versions of your software available, but is useless for recovering your data if your computer gets screwed or the disk breaks down. I personally use a second hard disk to back stuff up, plus a USB flash drive for all the extra important stuff. Given the capacity and price of flash drives, that's probably the optimal solution, unless one is backing up gigabytes of data, like digital photos (which ought to be backed up to DVD or CD, really).
Anyway, my backup process has now been reduced to a few clicks once a week, and I'm a much happier chipmunk as a result. Synctoy is a godsend - this is one Microsoft product that I can wholeheartedly recommend! Although, if it somehow winds up eating my hard drive and destroying my data, there may be another blog post on this topic in the future!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Rootkits - not just for dentists!
As if there weren't enough reasons to not use Microsoft's Internet Explorer, here's one more [BBC News].
To be fair though, this apparently only applies to unpatched browsers. But hey, the article gave me an opportunity to have a go at the evil MSFT empire, so sue me!
The interesting thing about this virus is that it is classified as a rootkit, a type of program that is very difficult to detect and remove. We can all expect to see more of these nasties in the future. The days of ostentatious malware are well and truly over, with clandestine and insidious malware designed to steal your data or use your computer's resources being the new modus operandi of these fiends.
Security experts are warning about a stealthy Windows virus that steals login details for online bank accounts.
...
Many are falling victim via booby-trapped websites that use vulnerabilities in Microsoft's browser to install the attack code.
To be fair though, this apparently only applies to unpatched browsers. But hey, the article gave me an opportunity to have a go at the evil MSFT empire, so sue me!
The interesting thing about this virus is that it is classified as a rootkit, a type of program that is very difficult to detect and remove. We can all expect to see more of these nasties in the future. The days of ostentatious malware are well and truly over, with clandestine and insidious malware designed to steal your data or use your computer's resources being the new modus operandi of these fiends.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Why Intel are a bunch of dicks!
The BBC reports on how "Intel 'undermined' [the OLPC] laptop project". Intel, screw you. I have little doubt that Intel are the wrongdoers in this scenario. These are, after all, the same pricks who publicly badmouthed the very idea of such a laptop a couple of years ago before suddenly churning out one of their own.
Here's OLPC's press release regarding the matter (from http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Intel#INTEL_RESIGNS_FROM_OLPC):
Here's OLPC's press release regarding the matter (from http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Intel#INTEL_RESIGNS_FROM_OLPC):
January, 4 2008 - We at OLPC have been disappointed that Intel did not deliver on any of the promises they made when they joined OLPC; while we were hopeful for a positive, collaborative relationship, it never materialized.
Intel came in late to the OLPC association: they joined an already strong and thriving OLPC Board of Directors made up of premier technology partners; these partners have been crucial in helping us fulfill our mission of getting laptops into the hands of children in the developing world. We have always embraced and welcomed other low-cost laptop providers to join us in this mission. But since joining the OLPC Board of Directors in July, Intel has violated its written agreement with OLPC on numerous occasions. Intel continued to disparage the XO laptop in nations that had already decided to partner with OLPC (Uruguay and Peru), with countries that were in the midst of choosing a laptop solution (Brazil and Nigeria), and other countries contemplating a laptop program (Mongolia).
Intel was unwilling to work cooperatively with OLPC on software development. Over the entire six months it was a member of the association, Intel contributed nothing of value to OLPC: Intel never contributed in any way to our engineering efforts and failed to provide even a single line of code to the XO software efforts – even though Intel marketed its products as being able to run the XO software. The best Intel could offer in regards to an "Intel inside" XO laptop was one that would be more expensive and consume more power – exactly the opposite direction of OLPC's stated mandate and vision.
Despite OLPC's best efforts to work things out with Intel and several warnings that their behavior was untenable, it is clear that Intel's heart has never been in working collaboratively as a part of OLPC. This is well illustrated by the way in which our separation was announced singlehandedly by Intel; Intel issued a statement to the press behind our backs while simultaneously asking us to work on a joint statement with them. Actions do speak louder than words in this case. As we said in the past, we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market.
The benefit to the departure of Intel from the OLPC board is a renewed clarity in purpose and the marketplace; we will continue to focus on our mission of providing every child with an opportunity for learning.
Monday, December 03, 2007
OLPC Update
The OLPC saga continues, and things are looking a little grim according to this BBC article. The likes of perennial bad guys Microsoft and Intel seem to have taken off the gloves and entered the ring, and have already fired off a few low blows. They've also influenced the referees it seems, since demand for the thing isn't quite what was expected. It's not all doom and gloom however, and there is still optimism for the project.
An interesting related story tells of the pros and cons of the laptop in the wild, as evinced by its use in a 'test school' in Nigeria.
An interesting related story tells of the pros and cons of the laptop in the wild, as evinced by its use in a 'test school' in Nigeria.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A good use for CAPTCHA!
You know those annoying CAPTCHA things that show up on websites in order to verify that you are a human being and not a spam bot? Well, a bunch of clever people have found an ingenious use for them. See, the CAPTCHA asks you to identify a distorted looking word or string of characters that the character recognition software of a computer can't. Book scanning projects have a problem where computer character recognition software can't always recognise text scanned in from books. By taking this unidentified scanned text and using it for CAPTCHAs, the folk at Carnegie Mellon have found an effective way for people everywhere to help identify the unrecognisable words, thereby facilitating the accurate digital archival of books!
While users of websites still have to go through the hassle of entering a CAPTCHA, at least now it's for a good cause!
While users of websites still have to go through the hassle of entering a CAPTCHA, at least now it's for a good cause!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
XO (OLPC) - Give one, get one
At one for the price of two, as reported by the BBC. I've written about this particular project several times now, as I think it's pretty cool and worthy of everyone's attention. I think I've also mentioned how I thought it would be a cool idea if they made it available for sale, and now it is in the US with the 'give one, get one' scheme that essentially allows you to buy one laptop and pay the cost of another laptop for a child in a developing country, making it effectively a charitable donation. The cost at present is considerably higher than initially envisaged (2x$100 < $399), but it's expected to come down eventually...
Monday, July 02, 2007
Binary marble adding machine
For anyone who has a basic understanding of binary numbers and arithmetic, here's something cool... [it's a youtube video]
The creator's website has more details, and also features a bunch of other woodwork related content.
The creator's website has more details, and also features a bunch of other woodwork related content.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Ubuntu installed!
After some ranting and some more ranting, I finally installed Ubuntu Linux (Edgy Eft) on my home PC, on a partition I had left in advance many moons ago. The last version I tried was Dapper Drake, which didn't support my graphics card. Fortunately, Edgy Eft does (though still not very well), and the installation process was a breeze in the end, with the whole process clocking in at under an hour (including taking a few quick backups and double checking my MBR backup).
I haven't played around with it much yet, and my first order of business will be to upgrade it to the latest version, Frisky Fox. I mean, Fiesty Fawn. I've already run into a couple of problems though. Upon installation, there were numerous updates available that amounted to over 200 MB of downloads. I decided to break the update process down into two sessions (each comprising a number of updates) to save time because my Net connection isn't that fast. Both times the Window manager got screwed up after completing the update, requiring me to reset. Not sure what caused it, but it was annoying. The second problem was with the graphics - I may need to do some additional configuration, but at the moment the GUI is quite sluggish; a driver update may be necessary to improve things. Hopefully upgrading to Fiesty will resolve this issue. The final problem is with the GRUB boot loader, which allows you to select which operating system to load during boot. It's supposed to have a time out, and the GRUB configuration file is set up correctly, but the time out doesn't work, which means I have to manually press enter to load my default OS!
I'll have to resolve these problems after upgrading to Fiesty, assuming they're not resolved by the upgrade and any subsequent updates. After that, I can actually start mucking about and see what Ubuntu has to offer, and what I can and can't do with it. It looks pretty slick so far, with a clean interface and logical menu organization (though I'd already noticed this when using the live CD).
I haven't played around with it much yet, and my first order of business will be to upgrade it to the latest version, Frisky Fox. I mean, Fiesty Fawn. I've already run into a couple of problems though. Upon installation, there were numerous updates available that amounted to over 200 MB of downloads. I decided to break the update process down into two sessions (each comprising a number of updates) to save time because my Net connection isn't that fast. Both times the Window manager got screwed up after completing the update, requiring me to reset. Not sure what caused it, but it was annoying. The second problem was with the graphics - I may need to do some additional configuration, but at the moment the GUI is quite sluggish; a driver update may be necessary to improve things. Hopefully upgrading to Fiesty will resolve this issue. The final problem is with the GRUB boot loader, which allows you to select which operating system to load during boot. It's supposed to have a time out, and the GRUB configuration file is set up correctly, but the time out doesn't work, which means I have to manually press enter to load my default OS!
I'll have to resolve these problems after upgrading to Fiesty, assuming they're not resolved by the upgrade and any subsequent updates. After that, I can actually start mucking about and see what Ubuntu has to offer, and what I can and can't do with it. It looks pretty slick so far, with a clean interface and logical menu organization (though I'd already noticed this when using the live CD).
Monday, April 30, 2007
OLPC sells out?
Has the OLPC project sold out? It seems that the XO-1 $100 laptop (now priced at $175 with the expectation that the price will eventually drop) will soon be able to run MS Windows as well.
The project has long been hailed as a triumph for open source principles, but this latest development has been met with some criticism (on Slashdot, at least). Some have pointed to the recently beefed up specs and subsequent higher price tag as a sign that the project has bent to the will of Microsoft and changed specs to support the resource hungry Windows and associated software.
Couple that with the fact that Microsoft have announced a $3 package of Windows and productivity applications for "governments that subsidize student computers", and we might see a scenario where the OLPC becomes primarily a Windows based machine instead of the Linux based one many had been expecting. After all, governments probably won't mind paying $3 on top of the $175 dollars to acquire the de facto standard operating system. Which would mean that a whole new generation will be weaned on Windows, on which they will be dependant when they grow up, which will further Microsoft's stranglehold on the OS market. Heck, if these countries become more developed, implement stronger IP laws, and foster societies that have more disposable income, Microsoft may actually make money off of them directly in addition to maintaining their ubiquity!
It's still too early to say what will happen, but the announcement has left a bitter taste in my mouth. While I can understand why some might think it's a good idea to allow these laptops to run what everyone else is running so that the skills of the laptop's users will be transferable, I think the sentiment overlooks the long term consequences. The OLPC project could have been a pioneer in effecting a movement away from proprietary software to open source and (more importantly) open standards; at the least, it would have been a worthy attempt. Now it seems that it'll be yet another tool to help Microsoft become even more ubiquitous, which will continue to hinder genuine competition and innovation in the industry.
At the end of the day, most of the good things about the XO-1 still remain true, and I still think it's a great idea and hope it succeeds. Making technology available to more people in this manner is a noble endeavour. It'll just be a crying shame if one possible significant benefit of the project never sees fruition.
However, Negroponte disclosed that XO's developers have been working with Microsoft Corp. so a version of Windows can run on the machines as well.
The project has long been hailed as a triumph for open source principles, but this latest development has been met with some criticism (on Slashdot, at least). Some have pointed to the recently beefed up specs and subsequent higher price tag as a sign that the project has bent to the will of Microsoft and changed specs to support the resource hungry Windows and associated software.
Couple that with the fact that Microsoft have announced a $3 package of Windows and productivity applications for "governments that subsidize student computers", and we might see a scenario where the OLPC becomes primarily a Windows based machine instead of the Linux based one many had been expecting. After all, governments probably won't mind paying $3 on top of the $175 dollars to acquire the de facto standard operating system. Which would mean that a whole new generation will be weaned on Windows, on which they will be dependant when they grow up, which will further Microsoft's stranglehold on the OS market. Heck, if these countries become more developed, implement stronger IP laws, and foster societies that have more disposable income, Microsoft may actually make money off of them directly in addition to maintaining their ubiquity!
It's still too early to say what will happen, but the announcement has left a bitter taste in my mouth. While I can understand why some might think it's a good idea to allow these laptops to run what everyone else is running so that the skills of the laptop's users will be transferable, I think the sentiment overlooks the long term consequences. The OLPC project could have been a pioneer in effecting a movement away from proprietary software to open source and (more importantly) open standards; at the least, it would have been a worthy attempt. Now it seems that it'll be yet another tool to help Microsoft become even more ubiquitous, which will continue to hinder genuine competition and innovation in the industry.
At the end of the day, most of the good things about the XO-1 still remain true, and I still think it's a great idea and hope it succeeds. Making technology available to more people in this manner is a noble endeavour. It'll just be a crying shame if one possible significant benefit of the project never sees fruition.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Linux Part II
I've received a lengthy comment on my earlier post. Given that it goes into a great deal of depth on the topic (longer than my post, by the looks of it!), I've decided to reply with a separate post.
Firstly, thank you anonymous individual for taking the time out to make a well reasoned and insightful comment. Having read over my post again, I realize that my tone was occasionally a bit harsh. I was (understandably, I reckon) more than a little annoyed at the state of affairs. Still, I think I made it clear even then that I wasn't anti Linux; if anything, I expressed my eagerness to embrace Linux.
Perhaps I went too far in making such an all encompassing statement - that Linux wasn't 'read for the desktop'. While looking into my particular problem, I did overlook the fact that I was in the minority - most people have no problems installing Ubuntu, and the installation process is reputed to be much better than that of Windows, probably in part due to the fact that it can be installed from a Live CD. And yes, I am aware that Windows has problems with driver support as well. The thing that irked me about my experience with Ubuntu was that it didn't fail gracefully, it just left me in the lurch. And the problem is apparently a glitch with the installer. I've had issues with Windows where drivers weren't available, but it was able to run with basic VGA drivers; I'm not sure why this didn't happen with the Ubuntu installer.
I am well aware that Linux is getting better all the time with regard to these sorts of problems, and with regard to general usability. And yes, driver issues are the biggest stumbling blocks, but even here things are improving. This is one of the reasons I felt it was time to start using it. This is also why, if I don't find a way to resolve my current problem, I'll get the next release of Ubuntu and give that a try - the driver issues will hopefully be resolved by then.
Once again, I agree my comment was unjustified with regard to the actual usage of a Linux desktop, seeing as how I have very little experience with a modern distro! I am aware that most basic things can be done with a Linux distro straight out of the box, with minimal effort. And the new package managers are meant to be a piece of cake to use. A person with some technical skill shouldn't have many problems. I have no doubt that once I get Linux installed I'll still have issues that need to be resolved, but I should be able to find solutions online, as you mention. I suspect you're right when you say that someone, somewhere has already experienced whatever problems that might crop up...
I think the major contentious point is in terms of advanced usability. You mention that to do things besides basic web-browsing and email will require some effort. The reason being that it takes time to get used to the Linux way of doing things. Quite often, though, from what I've read I get the impression that sometimes getting things done can be complicated - as in more complicated than the Windows way. If Linux is to be ready for the desktop, these things need to be made easier. Now I acknowledge that I could be wrong, seeing as how my practical knowledge on this matter is limited, but that's the general impression I get. Perhaps once I get used to Linux, things won't seem quite as complicated. And quite often the reason things are harder is because Linux always faces an uphill battle when it comes to getting support from developers and manufacturers, which results in complicated workarounds to get things done.
But I do believe that for the average user, these problems are an issue when compared to Windows. Most software used by the average Joe is designed to work with Windows and is not likely to cause problems. With Linux, however, it may be a bit more complicated for the average person - being used to Windows, and having to deal with problems that they might not have to deal with normally (the reasons for these problems are irrelevant to most people; I understand that it might not really be the 'fault' of Linux that things don't always work - i.e. lack of driver support from manufacturers). Basically, Windows' ubiquity is a hindrance to Linux being 'ready for the desktop'. It can involve jumping through hoops to get proprietary file formats and software to work with Linux, if it's possible at all. Most people expect these things to 'just work'.
It's an interesting point you make about advanced Windows users being wary of going in to Linux - like jumping into the deep end! I think there's some truth to that statement. It's hard to get used to a new way of doing things, following instructions and stumbling around, but I guess it's a good way to learn. And yeah, it is easy to just give up without trying, especially for relatively advanced users, and I agree that it is a feeble excuse. And while I did come close to using that kind of excuse, you'll note that I haven't given up.
Anyway, in short I agree with most of what was said in your comment... Linux is getting better and will continue to do so, and the type of problem that I encountered is an exception. Most Linux problems can be resolved with a little effort. Much of what can be done on Windows can be done on Linux. But it does take time to get used to the Linux way of things. The only thing I'm not sure of is that it's as usable for the average Joe as it is for those who are more technically inclined. For my part, I will (as I originally stated) be trying again, and look forward to having a dual boot system set up in the near future.
Firstly, thank you anonymous individual for taking the time out to make a well reasoned and insightful comment. Having read over my post again, I realize that my tone was occasionally a bit harsh. I was (understandably, I reckon) more than a little annoyed at the state of affairs. Still, I think I made it clear even then that I wasn't anti Linux; if anything, I expressed my eagerness to embrace Linux.
Perhaps I went too far in making such an all encompassing statement - that Linux wasn't 'read for the desktop'. While looking into my particular problem, I did overlook the fact that I was in the minority - most people have no problems installing Ubuntu, and the installation process is reputed to be much better than that of Windows, probably in part due to the fact that it can be installed from a Live CD. And yes, I am aware that Windows has problems with driver support as well. The thing that irked me about my experience with Ubuntu was that it didn't fail gracefully, it just left me in the lurch. And the problem is apparently a glitch with the installer. I've had issues with Windows where drivers weren't available, but it was able to run with basic VGA drivers; I'm not sure why this didn't happen with the Ubuntu installer.
I am well aware that Linux is getting better all the time with regard to these sorts of problems, and with regard to general usability. And yes, driver issues are the biggest stumbling blocks, but even here things are improving. This is one of the reasons I felt it was time to start using it. This is also why, if I don't find a way to resolve my current problem, I'll get the next release of Ubuntu and give that a try - the driver issues will hopefully be resolved by then.
Once again, I agree my comment was unjustified with regard to the actual usage of a Linux desktop, seeing as how I have very little experience with a modern distro! I am aware that most basic things can be done with a Linux distro straight out of the box, with minimal effort. And the new package managers are meant to be a piece of cake to use. A person with some technical skill shouldn't have many problems. I have no doubt that once I get Linux installed I'll still have issues that need to be resolved, but I should be able to find solutions online, as you mention. I suspect you're right when you say that someone, somewhere has already experienced whatever problems that might crop up...
I think the major contentious point is in terms of advanced usability. You mention that to do things besides basic web-browsing and email will require some effort. The reason being that it takes time to get used to the Linux way of doing things. Quite often, though, from what I've read I get the impression that sometimes getting things done can be complicated - as in more complicated than the Windows way. If Linux is to be ready for the desktop, these things need to be made easier. Now I acknowledge that I could be wrong, seeing as how my practical knowledge on this matter is limited, but that's the general impression I get. Perhaps once I get used to Linux, things won't seem quite as complicated. And quite often the reason things are harder is because Linux always faces an uphill battle when it comes to getting support from developers and manufacturers, which results in complicated workarounds to get things done.
But I do believe that for the average user, these problems are an issue when compared to Windows. Most software used by the average Joe is designed to work with Windows and is not likely to cause problems. With Linux, however, it may be a bit more complicated for the average person - being used to Windows, and having to deal with problems that they might not have to deal with normally (the reasons for these problems are irrelevant to most people; I understand that it might not really be the 'fault' of Linux that things don't always work - i.e. lack of driver support from manufacturers). Basically, Windows' ubiquity is a hindrance to Linux being 'ready for the desktop'. It can involve jumping through hoops to get proprietary file formats and software to work with Linux, if it's possible at all. Most people expect these things to 'just work'.
It's an interesting point you make about advanced Windows users being wary of going in to Linux - like jumping into the deep end! I think there's some truth to that statement. It's hard to get used to a new way of doing things, following instructions and stumbling around, but I guess it's a good way to learn. And yeah, it is easy to just give up without trying, especially for relatively advanced users, and I agree that it is a feeble excuse. And while I did come close to using that kind of excuse, you'll note that I haven't given up.
Anyway, in short I agree with most of what was said in your comment... Linux is getting better and will continue to do so, and the type of problem that I encountered is an exception. Most Linux problems can be resolved with a little effort. Much of what can be done on Windows can be done on Linux. But it does take time to get used to the Linux way of things. The only thing I'm not sure of is that it's as usable for the average Joe as it is for those who are more technically inclined. For my part, I will (as I originally stated) be trying again, and look forward to having a dual boot system set up in the near future.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Linux just ain't there yet
I'm a huge fan of the concept of free and open source software, which is essentially an inexhaustible free resource that people can use in any way that they wish. The idea of software that can be freely customized, modified, and improved, and that can be scrutinized by anybody, and that belongs to everyone, appeals to me greatly. I try to use open source software wherever possible - i.e. when it is available and when it is of reasonably high quality. I try to use the Open Office suite as an alternative to Microsoft's overpriced Office software. I use 7-zip, Filezilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, GAIM, and even GIMP on occasion.
But the biggie in the Open Source pantheon (ok, maybe after Firefox, but that's still only a browser) is surely the Linux operating system as an alternative for Microsoft Windows (or rather, a GNU/Linux system, if we're going to be pedantic). Now, I've used Linux at uni and at work, but I've never used it on a home PC. The problem is that I am simply comfortable with using Windows (and am competent enough to keep it secure - haven't had a trace of malware or viruses in years) and I can do pretty much everything I need to do with it. The average Linux distribution has a lot going for it though, such as being more secure, customizable, and feature rich than Windows, and it has been improving steadily in the area of drivers and available software.
Switching to Linux from Windows has some major drawbacks though - many applications only work on Windows, especially games and multimedia related ones. Things are done differently and need getting used to - the user interface is different, the system management utilities, the command line, the software installation methods. And there are problems - a lot of this stuff isn't easy to set up and configure, and is sometimes lacking in the documentation department. However, Linux distributions have been continuously improving as home desktop systems, and I've wanted to start using it as an alternative for some time, with the hope that one day it would be my primary system with Windows being used as an alternative where necessary. Linux advocates have been going on forever about Linux being a suitable desktop system, and that it's such a piece of cake to install and configure and start using that there's simply no excuse not to. I figured, now is the time to get totally familiar with Linux.
The first major issue comes with distributions - there are so many groups offering their own customized version of Linux, and there is no clear standard. If you use one Linux 'distro', you might not be familiar with another one, which can be quite different. Different distros have their own strengths and weaknesses. They can have different installers, boot loaders, file systems, GUIs, and bundled applications. Interestingly though, one recent distro called Ubuntu has been gaining popularity and appears to have a large support base, so I picked this as a good one to start with.
I spent ages preparing ('be prepared', as the Scouts say) - I figured out how best to use my existing disk partitions, how to configure the partition manager to set things up exactly as I wanted to, basically the whole installation process. I backed up my boot sector in case the installation screwed things up. I backed up all my data. I burnt multiple copies of the CD just in case it failed on me during installation. And after all that, I was raring to go, I was totally psyched about finally, finally installing Linux. This was actually the second time I'd tried this by the way, the first time ended badly because I didn't really do my research properly and started the process on a whim. The installer for that distro had a bug that required downloading a patch and running it during the installation process, and the partition manager was a nightmare to figure out, so I gave up pretty quickly. I figured I wasn't ready for it, and the distro just wasn't user friendly enough.
This time was supposed to be different, because I was ready, and apparently Linux was ready as well. It was time to throw my weight behind open source more fully, time to broaden my operating system horizons, etc... So, I boot off my Ubuntu Linux CD, and it starts loading, and then... UGH! An ugly screen pops up with an error about the graphics system not loading properly. I start again and re-check the CD using a handy utility that is provided, which reports that the CD is A-OK. I try again. Same result. I try the backup disc I burnt. Disk is OK, same result. So basically, I can't even start the INSTALLER for Ubuntu on my machine. I haven't even BEGUN to install it.
I boot back into trusty Windows (I feel dirty just saying that) and look up the error. It seems some other people have had the same problem. The installer is buggy and it has problems with certain graphics cards. There doesn't appear to be a clear way to fix it. Some suggestions are present on message boards, but people who've tried them have reported failure. An alternative exists involving using the command line to install. I don't want to do this, because I'm not familiar enough with it and it'll take time to read up on it, and if I screw up the partitioning part somehow, I can potentially kiss my Windows goodbye. Besides, wasn't it supposed to be easy? I've heard people claim that Linux distros are now easier than Windows to install. As someone who has installed Windows dozens of times on various machines, both at home and at work, I can assure these people that I have never had an instance where the installer failed to run because of the graphics card. In fact, the default VGA drivers in Windows seem to work fine on just about anything.
Now, I'm not knocking Linux here. Ok, well maybe I am, just a bit. I'm just stating what is obvious. Despite what advocates think, Linux just ain't ready for mainstream use. If I can't even get the installer running on my machine, what am I supposed to do? I don't have any bizarre hardware, it's just a bog standard desktop machine. The Windows setup process may be clunky, but at least it's standard - there aren't multiple distros and installers to contend with, each seemingly having its own set of bugs.
I'm not ready to give up just yet. I'm going to try some of the suggestions people have made online. And failing that, I'm going to look into another distro. If Linux were truly ready for the desktop though, I wouldn't have to. The experience has been really, really disappointing. I may just put together another machine on the cheap that I can experiment with to my hearts content, because I know that with some effort and experimentation (and many, many mistakes), a well configured Linux box is something worth having, and something worth learning about. From a professional point of view, it's something that I really need to be familiar with. From a personal (and I suppose, ideological) point of view, it's something I want to be familiar with. I just wish that my second attempted foray into seriously using Linux at home hadn't ended up being such a quick and decisive punch in the face!
But the biggie in the Open Source pantheon (ok, maybe after Firefox, but that's still only a browser) is surely the Linux operating system as an alternative for Microsoft Windows (or rather, a GNU/Linux system, if we're going to be pedantic). Now, I've used Linux at uni and at work, but I've never used it on a home PC. The problem is that I am simply comfortable with using Windows (and am competent enough to keep it secure - haven't had a trace of malware or viruses in years) and I can do pretty much everything I need to do with it. The average Linux distribution has a lot going for it though, such as being more secure, customizable, and feature rich than Windows, and it has been improving steadily in the area of drivers and available software.
Switching to Linux from Windows has some major drawbacks though - many applications only work on Windows, especially games and multimedia related ones. Things are done differently and need getting used to - the user interface is different, the system management utilities, the command line, the software installation methods. And there are problems - a lot of this stuff isn't easy to set up and configure, and is sometimes lacking in the documentation department. However, Linux distributions have been continuously improving as home desktop systems, and I've wanted to start using it as an alternative for some time, with the hope that one day it would be my primary system with Windows being used as an alternative where necessary. Linux advocates have been going on forever about Linux being a suitable desktop system, and that it's such a piece of cake to install and configure and start using that there's simply no excuse not to. I figured, now is the time to get totally familiar with Linux.
The first major issue comes with distributions - there are so many groups offering their own customized version of Linux, and there is no clear standard. If you use one Linux 'distro', you might not be familiar with another one, which can be quite different. Different distros have their own strengths and weaknesses. They can have different installers, boot loaders, file systems, GUIs, and bundled applications. Interestingly though, one recent distro called Ubuntu has been gaining popularity and appears to have a large support base, so I picked this as a good one to start with.
I spent ages preparing ('be prepared', as the Scouts say) - I figured out how best to use my existing disk partitions, how to configure the partition manager to set things up exactly as I wanted to, basically the whole installation process. I backed up my boot sector in case the installation screwed things up. I backed up all my data. I burnt multiple copies of the CD just in case it failed on me during installation. And after all that, I was raring to go, I was totally psyched about finally, finally installing Linux. This was actually the second time I'd tried this by the way, the first time ended badly because I didn't really do my research properly and started the process on a whim. The installer for that distro had a bug that required downloading a patch and running it during the installation process, and the partition manager was a nightmare to figure out, so I gave up pretty quickly. I figured I wasn't ready for it, and the distro just wasn't user friendly enough.
This time was supposed to be different, because I was ready, and apparently Linux was ready as well. It was time to throw my weight behind open source more fully, time to broaden my operating system horizons, etc... So, I boot off my Ubuntu Linux CD, and it starts loading, and then... UGH! An ugly screen pops up with an error about the graphics system not loading properly. I start again and re-check the CD using a handy utility that is provided, which reports that the CD is A-OK. I try again. Same result. I try the backup disc I burnt. Disk is OK, same result. So basically, I can't even start the INSTALLER for Ubuntu on my machine. I haven't even BEGUN to install it.
I boot back into trusty Windows (I feel dirty just saying that) and look up the error. It seems some other people have had the same problem. The installer is buggy and it has problems with certain graphics cards. There doesn't appear to be a clear way to fix it. Some suggestions are present on message boards, but people who've tried them have reported failure. An alternative exists involving using the command line to install. I don't want to do this, because I'm not familiar enough with it and it'll take time to read up on it, and if I screw up the partitioning part somehow, I can potentially kiss my Windows goodbye. Besides, wasn't it supposed to be easy? I've heard people claim that Linux distros are now easier than Windows to install. As someone who has installed Windows dozens of times on various machines, both at home and at work, I can assure these people that I have never had an instance where the installer failed to run because of the graphics card. In fact, the default VGA drivers in Windows seem to work fine on just about anything.
Now, I'm not knocking Linux here. Ok, well maybe I am, just a bit. I'm just stating what is obvious. Despite what advocates think, Linux just ain't ready for mainstream use. If I can't even get the installer running on my machine, what am I supposed to do? I don't have any bizarre hardware, it's just a bog standard desktop machine. The Windows setup process may be clunky, but at least it's standard - there aren't multiple distros and installers to contend with, each seemingly having its own set of bugs.
I'm not ready to give up just yet. I'm going to try some of the suggestions people have made online. And failing that, I'm going to look into another distro. If Linux were truly ready for the desktop though, I wouldn't have to. The experience has been really, really disappointing. I may just put together another machine on the cheap that I can experiment with to my hearts content, because I know that with some effort and experimentation (and many, many mistakes), a well configured Linux box is something worth having, and something worth learning about. From a professional point of view, it's something that I really need to be familiar with. From a personal (and I suppose, ideological) point of view, it's something I want to be familiar with. I just wish that my second attempted foray into seriously using Linux at home hadn't ended up being such a quick and decisive punch in the face!
Thursday, February 08, 2007
OLPC Project - Tech Specs
As a follow up to my earlier post on the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, here's a link to the offical site, which contains all kinds of info on the device which is now officially named the XO. The Executive Officer? Anyway, it's a nicely designed site which seems to give a broad overview of all aspects of the project.
[Edited to include the next paragraph]
There's also a story at Wired about the security paradigm that is being implmented in the XO's Operating System. It sounds restrictive but sensible, and as long as the option is there for advanced users to tweak things it might be a viable system for other operating systems as well.
[Edited to include the next paragraph]
There's also a story at Wired about the security paradigm that is being implmented in the XO's Operating System. It sounds restrictive but sensible, and as long as the option is there for advanced users to tweak things it might be a viable system for other operating systems as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)