What it seems like, the view from my chair.

I am having some interesting email conversations with a resource person at a local public library. I was browsing through the shelves in the computer section and I could not believe the number of books written about Microsoft products. Talk about redundancy and a glut of information. I believe this is because MS stuff is viewed as the standard that everyone has, both business and home users. It is as if MS products have totally dominated the computing scene and with the libraries help the perception is complete. There is a large array of books on XP and MS Office and before Vista was even warming the shelves, in anticipation there appeared a glut of Vista books and new MS Office books. Well, I really do have it out against Microsoft, but only because they are so big. This library has a few books on Apple products, not as popular and some books on Linux, what's that. So, what is my beef? Every time Microsoft comes out with a new product there is a requirement on the users part to spend more cash on hardware, software, books, and training. The library seems to back this up like an enabling parent. Yet, there are other viable computing solutions in the world besides MS.

I always thought libraries were about the free flow of information and educating the public about history, possibilities of the future and what's going on today. The thought stuck in the back of my head is that some computer companies have the desire and intent to return computing to its roots. This is that we users would access dumb terminals hooked up to large mainframe computers. Of course we have to pay for access and have no control over what is stored on the mainframe. Rights and access would be limited, content controlled and the book "1984" would become a reality, common experience. Heck, we have cable TV and Internet broadband service now, how far a jump would it be to have to pay for computer service also? Desire and intent, who is in control of the direction of technology takes us.

Some how I don't think of Apple as the company to be the juggernaut to hold Microsoft in check, after all they have carved out a niche for themselves. In the computing world there has always been a faction of those outside of the making money business. Who knows, they might even develop into a Jobs or a Gates, spearheading a company. Anyway, they just became a part of the movement because they like to code and solve computer problems. They wanted to do it themselves, not waiting for some company to do it or even because they thought their solution was better than what companies offered. Some are so caught up in who thought it first, who has right to develop the idea and who profits from it. Jobs and Gates started out with the liberty to process an idea and wound up fighting to keep you from doing the same. But what if you didn't process your idea with the intent to make money or you shared your idea freely with others who had the same drive, the same desire as you. Would that idea be processed without the aid of a so-called company or commercial entity? I really marvel at the way Linux and open source software came about. I also remember that personal computing began with the sharing of free software between persons. I am so glad that spirit has not been killed off by the greed to make money off of everything. There is room in the world for free stuff.

We have in our recent history embraced the backyard mechanic, the do it yourself handyman and everyone and his momma has a cellphone and can "text", yet computer savvy folks are still gurus, geeks, nerds and techies. A lesser species who violate patents, product warranties, end user agreements and pirates without effort. And when they take their own handiwork and share them with the public, they become criminals subversive to the way things are done in business and a threat to the bottom line. And when you yourself use that approved code that you have paid for from a certified company, are you really getting anything better than what has been labeled as renegade code? How would you know, after all you don't have the ability to examine both products under the microscope. And you don't really care about the motives of the company supplying the code or the consequences of having it. You just want it to work. It is too bad a big and influential company like Microsoft wouldn't/couldn't put out a unbiased comparison report of computing solutions like what Progressive Insurance advertises they do. Honest assessments of ones competition is not the way business is done.
Well, I can not vouch for Progressive, but historically Microsoft is unlikely to give a fair review.

So having said all of the above, is it worth being bothered with open source software or this thing called Linux? I guess you will have to educate yourself and decide. The value of anything becomes apparent by using it. This is true in the computing world and in much of life.

Jobs, Gates and Torvalds, Icons of computing history

You know when it comes to the history of the popular and personal computer, images of two people comes into my head, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. These two are life long soul mates of sorts in the short but colorful history of the personal computer. They inflict on each other wounds of friendly fire in commercials for the public to side up to their respective company's products. The actors who portray them resemble them so closely that even in caricature we are deluded to believe the rivary between them is real. In them and in their rivary we compare their companies and their products as if they themselves embody the reason to choose between them. They carry on and via for the public's attention and dollars to the exclusion of anything else going on in the computer world. To most people, at least to my knowledge, Apple and Microsoft are the two left standing after all the rest have come and gone. With Microsoft being the defacto standard and Apple being the official alternative platform, you would think commercial success would indicate the user has gotten the best and brightest a user could ask for. Fortunately computing history has more stories than just about Jobs and Gates. Let's see, before computers became personal, there was this thing called Unix which ran on university and government mainframe computers. Being inaccessible to most and expensive to all, it was not destined to be put on something so insignificant as a personal computer. Yet there was this bit of code called Minix and the desire of a guy, his name Linus Torvalds. He wanted to write an free operating system that would run on this personal computer. I won't get into who came first the chicken or the egg, but the development and use of Linux grew up along side of Microsoft Windows and Apple Macs, yet in the background. From the get go, Microsoft and Apple were business ventures, but Linux was the backroom project, the passion of folks who just like to code. The rest is history, only you have to insist that the ones telling it include the whole story, not just the popular parts. It seems romance and legions have not been forth coming in including Linux. Even Jobs and Gates have refused to include Torvalds publicly (in commercials). After all, Jobs and Gates were friends first then rivals. Who the heck is Torvalds anyway? And who ever heard of the Dynamic Trio? In the final analysis, if you look at the circumstances from which Linux came to life, it is a pretty miraculous story with events that are as intriguing as the Jobs and Gates story. But the real thing is the results that are seen and experienced on the desktop, what the user sees. If you are not totally blinded by the Jobs and Gates story, you might enjoy the inclusion of the Torvalds story. And you might even enjoy the fruits of his initial labor. It seems that Jobs and Gates are admired for their business savvy which have driven the production of the products we see on the desktop today. We don't seem to acknowledge Torvalds who has driven Linux to the same desktop result by a different set of rules. This story is far from over, stay tuned.

KDE, Gnome, Xfce or what desktop you like

After re-installing my XP and Xubuntu Linux systems I couldn't help wondering what the next step in desktop design would look like. All eyes once again have turned to Apple. Actually Apple can not really make a claim to fame for having the most original desktop, the new Leopard OS desktop has features that have been introduced in Linux years ago. But Apple can say they have perfected and extended an idea that Linux folks should have developed further. I'm talking about a desktop icon docking system. If you are familiar with Linux at all, you might recall Window Maker had a docking system. Anyway Apple has taken the string of icons, in reality application launchers , and integrated the file system with them. Sort of like drawers that pop out of the icon revealing the contents of the folders behind them. It is very sweet once you learn to work it. Sounds like Window Maker? For one thing, Apples' Leopard Desktop is polished to perfection and is the one to emulate. Is there any hope for Linux? Well, as we speak or write, there is a load of icon docks for Linux. Some have sought to copy Apple's look and feel and some not. Please, don't get into the rip-off and copy-cat argument, borrowing ideas is a big part of the computing industry. If we felt that about ink pens we would still be using quills.
As usual, Linux folk aline themselves with a desktop environment. Kool Dock, Ksmooth Dock, Kira Dock, KX Docker, Tuxbar, and a couple of others are all compatible with KDE. Avant Window Navigator and Enlightenment's Engage will work with any window manager. XFCE has a built-in icon bar. Each of these icon docks have an assortment of features and requirements. Some require the support of special video drivers to do what is called compositing. This makes for transparency and animation and such. I myself am a little shy on the special effects. It's a resource thing. Of course I am amazed that Enlightenment has a history of doing special effects without special drivers. The Engage dock comes in two packages. One integrated into the Enlightenment desktop and one stand alone program. The stand alone program is sort of hard to find. They are not pushing it out there. Then there is Avant Window Navigator (AWN). It is absolutely beautiful, like Apples' dock system. AWN is still kind of new, buggy for some and is being sought after by many. I hope they develop it more and put it out there for us to enjoy. From what I understand, AWN does require special sauce to work. Then lastly there is the icon bar in XFCE. This is what I am using now. It is not a real looker or is it tweakable to the degree that the other icon bars are. I tried the transparency and shadowing effects and was not impressed. Xfce is a low resource user, but I hear that more development is on the way. Oh, by the way, MS Windows users are not really left out, there are a few Apple like icon bars for Windows. RKLauncher which I have used is pretty cool. The single click icons are such a relief over the double click ones. I don't exactly know just how much you can do to a desktop, because the object is to get at your files and stuff. It all has to be very usable. But as software developers try new tricks and revisit rough old ideas, we users get new desktops to rave about.

Picking at the scabs of old wounds XP vs Linux

Nothing but nothing test your techie mantle like repairing or re-installing an operating system. I want to say to all those who have never done it, you are under the illusion of a plug-n-play dream. I mentioned before that my MS Windows XP installation failed. I thought it was my playing with Grub, a Linux boot loader. Actually it was some corrupted XP system files. There was no change with Grub config files, MS Windows XP just would not boot. So first I tried to use the thoughtfully prepared recovery disk set I made (13 CDs) and then the HP recovery tools included with my PC. Neither worked at all. I discovered that if you have stuff like extra drives, printers and such, disconnect them. Recognizing your equipment is something recovery tools don't do well. In my case, there was no recovery, I had to re-install everything. Now comes the fun and you learn why some operating systems are better that others. At one time, when MS Windows was still attached to DOS, you could boot into DOS mode and do disk repair and maintenance. You could load the tools onto a floppy and fix stuff. Now you can not, period. I relied on Linux tools to partition and format my disk. The MS recovery tools could not read my disk arrangement until my extra drive was removed. Since I was re-installing everything anyway I made the XP partition smaller and the Linux partition bigger. I kept the HP loaded XP Home install archieve partition even though it was useless in my recovery efforts. I wish they just could have given me an XP Home CD instead. Microsoft dosen't want you to own anything you might put on more than one computer, I guess. It was a good thing I had an official XP Pro CD. The XP install went fine and then came the service packs and upgrades. As expected MS XP owns the computer and there is little to accomodate another operating system on the same computer. (Why would I do that anyway?) Well, when I made the partitions, I made a couple formatted for Linux. MS Windows can't even see them without help. I installed Xubuntu Linux, simply and straightforward, downloaded the upgrade files and the programs I liked. Xubuntu Linux installs GRUB but didn't ask me where or if I wanted it. MS XP does have multiboot ability from its NT heirtage but could not find the Linux boot files. You must go through hell to figure out how to find and edit the XP boot.ini file. But Grub is very handy, easy to edit and if you don't put it in the master boot record, XP won't overwrite it, ever. Long story short, it all works. So, comparing MS XP and Xubuntu Linux, I'd say their installs were nearly equal, but Microsoft needs to include the disk prep tools in a place where you can easily use them. Also it is so disheartening to agree to so many end user agreements while installing MS Windows. Linux does not have that except for Java and some multimedia plug-ins. Sorry there is no cost savings, I already owned the MS XP CD. Most people get their Microsoft OS pre-installed so it seems free. But if you build and load from scratch, Linux can be had for free and used freely. I had fun doing all this stuff and now have a great running machine. One more thing, if you ever have to open the computer case to disconnect a drive, vaccum it out. I now know where dust bunnies come from.

New kid among old friends on the web browser scene

Well, I still have yet to fix MS XP, I working on it. In the mean time I fell into an interesting entanglement. I've been using Firefox as my browser of choice for some time because I value my freedom from Microsoft Internet Explorer. It's more than a security question to me. Before that I entertained myself with Netscape which I thought came to an end after competing with Internet Explorer. I thought all development had stopped on Netscape and that Firefox under the hand of Mozilla took over. I was looking at a web site which said it was compatible with Internet Explorer and Netscape version 8. What, Netscape didn't die? It just so happened Netscape version 9 has also been compiled for Linux. I had to have it. I found out that it is a twin to Firefox, there is no apparent functional difference between the two except for the obvious brand name which shows that Netscape is in cahoots with AOL. Now that's a twist. I don't know all the background details but it leaves me to wonder why there should be two web browsers so alike under development. Kind of redundant, ya think? Now in this new kid on the block called Flock. Yeah, it's sort of like Firefox and Netscape only it is a little more in your face. Its claim to fame is that it has a social focus. There are direct links to blogs and Youtube and other interactive social web sites. Being a little better and a little different than Firefox, you'd think it would be better received by the user community. Time will tell I guess. I like Flock because it offers a little more access, but it's not a giant leap forward by any one's standard. So why would you need or want more than one web browser on your computer? My thought is that there is always one pesky web site that just won't read right in my browser of choice. I need another point of view. Alas, there are still some web site builders who think MS Internet Explorer is the standard. Not so folks!!

What's up in my world of Linux?

Let's see, I am a cat person, I play with Linuxes named after dogs and then I use a window manager whose symbol is a mouse. Can't seem to get my loyalities straight. Somehow in the mix of things I've lost the use of my MS XP install. I think it is a GRUB problem but I'm not sure. When you mess around too much with a boot loader, strange things can happen. So, while I investigate a solution I'm not missing XP a bit. Linux provides all the comforts of home, except for a couple of gov web sites that rely on MS Internet Explorer to work right. In school we learned, first rule of good web design is that you must believe not every one uses Microsoft Internet Explorer. You must consider a wider audience. Linux has a number of very good web browsers, Firefox is my choice. I am told it has fewer security holes. I am not a big fan of integration. When you integrate too much into one system it is easier to break and more complicated to fix. Then, when something does break the whole system is crippled or non-functioning. Remember those TV/VHS combo units. Components cost a little more but when you need service you don't bring the whole setup in, just the part that's broke. Hey, maybe it's XP that's broke and I need to re-install it, again!!

Narrowing down the choice in Linux

You know I really wish there was a directory that listed all the available Linux software in one place and reviews so that it would be a little easier to explore what's out there. You could find it in Synaptic (the package installer) after you install it but not so much before you install Linux. Anyway I switched from Kubuntu Linux to Xubuntu Linux last week. Kubuntu has the KDE desktop which is a large complete desktop environment. I doesn't lack for much in the way of installed software and is configurable for a variety of looks. I liked it but thought that it perhaps was too much, too big, like MS Windows. The Gnome desktop environment which comes with Ubuntu is also complete and has a large footprint like KDE. It is a little less configurable than KDE. Xubuntu has the Xfce desktop. It, in comparison to KDE and Gnome is leaner and is less of a resource hog. It is faster, snappier and even less configurable than Gnome. It probably could stand some theme work, but it is OK. I like Xfce because it is a solid design whose elements don't get in the way (less integration). I was a little disappointed with Xubuntu because it was skimpy with the installed applications. They could have taken a page from the Wolvix playbook, small but adequate. I did take the liberty to add the applications I like. Xubuntu is like Ubuntu only it is like driving with a standard shift. It is lacking fully automatic CD mounting and unmounting for one. And another thing is that if you have to edit a file as root you can't just right click it and choose edit as root. You have to use the command line to evoke the editor in root mode. Once you get the work flow down I think it is pretty efficient. Xubuntu does give you a sense of stability. People in software circles talk of polish, look and feel, other subjective things. Xfce is OK for someone who is not overly critical with comparative looks and more into overall resource use. So, for the record, KDE and Gnome both have some amenities that make computing easier. In Xfce you learn to do things a little different, not much. One thing is for certain, Xfce is still growing and developing. It is very impressive that you can do so much with less.

Another thing I did was switch email clients. I am using Thunderbird. I have used Kmail/Kontact, Evolution and a couple of other email programs. Thunderbird does the same things and also lets you insert pictures into the body of the email. That is very handy because pictures as attachments are often not sent in a format that can be read by the reciever. Thunderbird has a number of plug-ins and add-ons to round it out. Pretty good stuff.

Old school Linux made new again - Wolvix

I have to tell that one of the myths of Linux being hard to use has been busted and I am glad. Using a Slackware based distro has never been so easy. Slackware which has a reputation of being the original hacker's toy has been upgraded. I downloaded a program and proceeded to install it via the command line. I immediately entered into "dependency hell". That's when one program needs others to operate and you have to find out what they are and download and install each one. I had forgotten about Slapt-get and its gui front end called Gslapt, installed with Wolvix Linux. I opened Gslapt, added the repository name where I found the program and then the name of the program, fired it up. Gslapt downloaded and installed the program plus the six or so dependency programs it needed to run with one click of the button. It was a myth busting moment. I still can't get over an easy to use Slackware. Slackware as easy as any other distro, Debian or RPM. Oh yeah, there are some who prefer old school but you really have to cheer for modern conveniences.

Arno's Art presents more Linux propaganda!!

Well, what are you waiting for a golden invitation? You want a coupon? You want me to come over and force you to look at it? Nah, even when things are had for free, you can't force people to get into it. But a little enticement here and there doesn't hurt. My oldest daughter needs a laptop and ask me to check out the HP's since I have an account. She also needs some MS windows stuff for business purposes. It is sad but I must give her what she wants. I think the investment in hardware and software is too big for my budget. I myself don't have a need for MS products being a home user. I am not under the illusion that MS stuff is the defacto standard. As long as I can read/write MS document standard file types I can get around having to purchase MS products. Alright, what do I have against MS stuff? Cost issues, ownership/license issues, security issues, and then there is the stuff most users don't care about, big corporation market manipulation and domination, political clout, and the spreading of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about anything not MS. What about Apple? Come on, they are exclusive and high priced. If you want them, you can get them.
I bought an HP desktop, a Pavilion a1030e to be exact. Has a 80gig HD, 512 ram, 64-bit CPU, a CD burner and loaded with XP, MS Works (not Office compatible), the usual MS minimal tools. I could do all of my computing task in a limited way. But needed a serious upgrade if I wanted to get some real work done. Good thing for MS Windows compatible open source software that I could download and install for free. I have enhanced and upgraded my computer for little or no cost and not increased MS coffers. And I have not bought any other professional grade software simply because it was the "standard". I have known many who just had to have Photoshop, MS Office, and others. Imagine buying Photoshop just to have it so you perhaps could work on some family photos or doodle a little. No wonder there are so many pirated copies out there.
What do you get with Linux that makes it so attractive? You have to sit a while, the list is extensive, but I'll just tell you a little. With my small but powerful Wolvix installation (about 460MB), I got the complete Open Office.org suite, 2 email programs, calender, several graphics programs including the Gimp (like Photoshop) and Blender 3D, multimedia stuff, games, utilities, tools, etc, etc, etc. I didn't need to buy anything extra. All the file formats that MS Windows stuff can dish out Linux programs can read/write with the exception of propriety ones. So, for average and personal computing needs you can have it all without straining the wallet or spending all sorts of time downloading freeware. But can you run and play MS Windows stuff in Linux? I guess, but why? You can do it with a program called Wine or Crossover office and you could install MS Windows as a virtual machine in VMware or VirtualBox. But, then Linux is very adequate to replace MS Windows completely. Now you can argue with me about polish and quality and familiarity and what not, but you have to admit, it's pretty darn good for free. If you feel guilty about using free stuff, you can always donate cash to support it. All would be appreciated, I'm sure.
That's all for now folks, I have given you a piece of my mind.

More howl from a Wolvix Linux user

How did I get in this blogging business anyway? Being a guy who rarely spoke out about anything, over the years a lot of stuff was left unsaid. Blogging is a way to tell it. Computers are a daily part of my life now and I have seen things come and go in the computer world. It is amazing what other people (computer users) are totally blind to, unaware of, or will kill you over if you change what they are using. Some are even claiming supremacy in spite of having to pay for stuff and not having complete control over what they bought. Lets see, I have to purchase one copy of the OS for each machine I own because it is illegal to do otherwise. I have to pay big bucks for major "professional grade" software that I only use some of the time. These are what the stores are selling and everybody is buying it. There are hundreds of reasons why people don't know about Linux and open source software. Then when they find out, they don't want to break old habits or stop using what they are use to. I am not talking to you people. If you are curious, fed up, want a change, want a choice, want to escape, ta da, ta da, ta da.........and still get your computing done, now we can talk.

In my try this and that world I am looking for the best all around Linux that runs on my assortment of equipment. That was impossibly hard 10 years ago, today we have liveCDs.
Linux can be tried out without messing up your precious MS Windows install. Yes, I still have XP but it doesn't get much air time. If Linux only had Incredimail and what's the name of that other program.................it's been so long. I am using Kubuntu by day, it's big full bodied but it still doesn't have a few utilities I found in Wolvix. After five I switch over to Wolvix, the howl of the wolf is very intoxicating. Don't let the gray clothes fool you, it can be tweaked. If you like the shadowy, smoky stillness then Xfce is the desktop for you. But if you like color with flexibility go with Fluxbox. In a lot of distros having more than one window manager creates confusion. In Wolvix it is nice to see some synergy. I have a hard time deciding if Xfce or Fluxbox is better. In any case KDE and Gnome are not missed at all. Less is really more here. I get pizazz just short of eyecandy and stability I can count on. Does Wolvix come up short in anything? Well, being Slackware based does put you at a variety disadvantage when it comes to applications but who needs 4 or 5 versions of programs that do the same things. But you can learn to compile programs from source and have practically any program you want. Besides I am not a programmer, nor a avid gamer, just a user who does "stuff" on the computer. And I don't as yet have a laptop with wireless, so I don't see special needs or exotic hardware. Wolvix is great for me, you, what are you looking for? Would I recommend Wolvix to a new user? I think a newbie to Linux could do well with Wolvix if they didn't dig to deep into its secrets. Wouldn't want them to learn something now would we? Lets see, plug-n-play, gui's, menus, oops there's a command line. It kills me, MS Windows users try to pretend their computers have a big off/on switch that they flick and it does everything. It is not true folks. If you don't like MS Windows you also don't have to buy an Mac. Linux is very good, 10 years of testing by yours truly has proven it.

Linux is a Linux like a car is a car

You heard me say it before, a Linux is a Linux is a Linux, which is true if you blur the details. People being humans, always want to know what is the best Linux, the most popular Linux. These are impossible questions to answer, because it depends on what you are looking for. The reason there are so many Linux choices is because folks have put together different versions to meet so many different desires. Language sets, tool sets and application sets, all in various combos. It is all very much like buying a car. Some folks want small, efficient or sporty and some want a fully loaded SUV or crossover. Some will kill for a Lexus or a Hummer, a status thing, and some refuse to buy American. But in the final end, a car is still a car. Now you have to give it to Linux folks who have tried to formulate a Linux distro to meet specific needs/desires. This means that you, if you find a distro that meets your criteria, don't have to make a generic Linux match your particular needs. Its been done already. That is an ideal situation. I worked at a private school for a short spell. I had to configure a couple of MS Windows XP laptops for Korean students. It was not so easy to figure out how to do it. In Linux there's a Korean language distribution already figured out. I haven't tried it so I don't how that would work. But it is out there. Like with any car, the one everybody wants is the one where the advertising puts you in the driver's seat. You can see yourself, looking good behind the wheel. Some Linuxes enjoy the popular press spotlight and get a lot of attention. These are what most people see first. Name recognition is a big thing among us human beings. Red Hat, Linspire, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora and Suse all come to mind. There are more that are in the forefront. Being a long time Linux user, of course I have my favorites and my observations about the popular choices. First these so called popular Distributions are formulated to meet the needs of a large and diverse user group. They try to include something for everyone. Which is why some Linuxes are so large. It is getting so you must have the kind of internet connection you use to download movies just to download a distribution. A DVD's worth of stuff you might never use, but you have it all. If you only have a fast DSL like me, 1 hour for 700MB, it could take all day to download 1 DVD or several CD's of stuff. I really like the repository system of some distros. That way I don't have to have CD's laying around not being used and not being updated. I can download updated software as I need it. I am not naming names, but when you go to download your copy of Linux, you will find some popular distros not so convenient. Better to order the CD's or DVD's online. The latest trend by far is the liveCD/DVD. To be able to have a complete Linux on 1 CD is of great value. It also means it is very accessible to a great number of people. In my years of Linux use I have found that I do not use regularly all the software put in most distributions. This means I could use a smaller distro with no side effects. The smaller distros are not so popular, they don't include everything, less choice, less, less, less. Is it easier to get rid of what you don't need or want or is it easier to add what you want? You have to ask this question. I really like the smallish distros because they provide for my everyday computer needs and the ability to add the stuff I want. I have on my computer Kubuntu Linux which is good for me and I choose it because I liked the philosophy behind it as well as its look and feel and software selection. But I tried Puppy Linux which showed me that all that I wanted and used in Linux could be put onto a jump drive. Hummm..........SUV or sports car? But actually I settled for something a little larger that a sports car. Wolvix which is adequate for my needs, yet can grow, be tweaked and made personal. Yeah, it's not popular, up front, flashy, or edgy, but it does not miss when it comes to stability, longevity or support. Wolvix can have the wizbang that attracts a lot of Linux users today, but it is nice and comforting to know my system can operate without it. I am not struggling anymore with MS envy. Linux has caught up and passed MS a long time ago in my book. So now to add to my sayings, a Linux is a Linux is a Linux, smallish is better I think.

Yeah! Linux still gets a bum rap!

Well, it's still Sunday and I have been sitting here considering and fussing with some Linux stuff. I'm looking at this Wolvix distro, which I did install to my spare 8gig hard drive by the way. Puppy exist on the liveCD. What pushed me over the cliff was that Wolvix makes it easy for me to get into Slackware. Now Slackware is the oldest most venerated Linux distro there is and as such is probably the source of many of the myths about Linux being hard to digest. Slackware has a reputation of being a true Linux (a hackers toy), real men get Slack. Slackware is known for not being able to resolve dependencies for installed programs. Which meant if you installed a program that requires other programs/libraries to work, you had to install those programs yourself, after you found out what they were. Then as I recalled my first encounter, you would assign partition sizes to each folder in the root file system. This diving up the disk was confusing. There are others things that people complained about that became the myths that keep people from pursuing Linux. I tell ya, Linux's got a bum rap!
Not only have these problems been solved in other distros years ago, believe it or not, even the old Slackware has been brought up to date. So, I am saying GO Slackware, welcome to my world. It is a shame that other distros are enjoying the popularity because of glitz and glamor. I'd say Slackware deserves a second look by guys like me who been around the block a few times and by you young folks who missed out on history still making progress. Slackware based distros are up to the edge. Wolvix is very cool and if you want unique check out Goblinx, it is slammin. Now we'll go back to our regularly scheduled program.

from Puppy to wild dogs, Linux is still Linux

It's Sunday and I am off to church, but before I go I have to comment. There are far too many Linux versions to explore, so little time. Many of the versions are of no special use for me. Many Linux versions don't get much press because they are not "popular" or is it they are not "popular" because they don't get much press? The Debian based distros are reigning right now and the .rpm distros are coming in next. Even Puppy has generated a following. One of the earliest distros is called Slackware, it is the "grand daddy" of Linuxes. When I first encountered it I was a newbie. It was difficult to understand all the details required to get it running. I should check it out again to see how it has improved. And to see how much my own understanding has grown. In the mean time I am checking out a Slackware based distro called Wolvix. From Puppy to the wild dogs, I go. Wolvix is not a huge distro but neither is it a small one. As I see it you could possibly put it on a larger jump drive. But still it is a liveCD with provisions to save configs and personal files on a hard drive or jump drive. It has all the stuff you could want in a portable Linux and still be small both in size and resource use. This means it will run on older machines and run like crazy on new machines. Slackware is a kit builders dream, if you like to control every aspect of what goes into your system. Wolvix is a nice combination of Linux stuff and still allows you to build on if you must. Wolvix can be "remastered" which means that modules can be added then a new liveCD.iso created. Also it can be installed to hard drive and use standard Slackware application packages. I don't know what to do now, I have Kubuntu and these other equally able Linuxes. Let's say it together, a Linux is a Linux is a Linux. Which one is best is highly subjective. Wolvix uses Xfce and Fluxbox window managers which I appreciated through using Puppy Linux. Wolvix, because it is Slackware, is traditional Linux. You log in as root, create user accounts and the file system is standard Linux. It is comical how I can like every Linux I try. I really like Linux. Makes it hard to recommend one version over another, especially to new users. Folks have gone out of their way to make Linux accessible. Believe me, if you had to download and install MS Windows (any flavor), you would not be so forth coming either. This is why the liveCD is so great. Imagine you get to try Linux on your machine without changing a single thing on it. Just insert, reboot and be amazed. Then ask your local nerd, geek, techie or knowledgeable friend for help (provided they have experience with Linux). As for Wolvix, it makes Slackware very friendly, even a newbie can use it. I may have to stop reviewing distros as I need to live with my choices a while so that I can dig into them. You can't learn if you just skim the surface and run off to something else. From the bark of the dog to the howl of the wolf, and it's all Linux.

DSL and Puppy Linux, tiny Titans

I think I am over my fascination with Puppy Linux, but it did open my eyes to new possibilities. I found that as wonderful as it is to have a big full Linux distribution, very often it is just a lot of stuff you don't use very often. The small footprint Linuxes go a long way to meeting the needs of everyday use and are portable to boot. Puppy Linux has a couple of strikes against it in my book. First, you start up as a root user. This means you have access to all your system files and so does everyone else. Not a problem if you are the only one who uses your computer, but still not the safest setup. Then I can't seem to get it to run in VirtualBox. I could just run it from the installed partition, but I don't want to have to reboot every time I want to use it. Or I could just run it off the CD which also requires rebooting. Puppy also does not seem to shutdown cleanly. After using Puppy, I reboot into Kubuntu and the screen says it must do some sort of disk check because the Puppy did not shutdown cleanly or unmount the drive correctly. My computer does a time consuming disk check. So I am re-thinking my relationship to Puppy and will find a situation that works well. In any case, Puppy is a fine rescue disk with cool tools. I mentioned DSL a couple of times. Damn Small Linux is another of those tiny Linuxes. It like Puppy will fit on a jump drive or can be burned on a CD, even on one of those business card CDs. But what I liked about DSL was that I got it to work in VirtualBox. It is not as snappy as running off the CD or the hard drive but it works. DSL has a variety of tools, utilities and applications. I am using the DSL-N version which is larger than the original DSL. It has some larger applications. DSL follows some Unix conventions. You can boot as root and add users just like in normal Linuxes. This is good for security. I'm not sure but I think DSL was the first Linux I ever tried. I found it in a book a long time ago. I could be mistaken. Seems to me there was a DSL of German vintage years ago. I will have to check into that someday. Anyway, there is a battle of wits going on between the Puppy crowd and the DSL crowd. Besides all the name calling and jabs, there is the feeling that there is a Linux configuration out there that fits every type of user. So if you want to set up a computer to access the internet, email, type a letter, play a CD and not much else, it can be done for very little or no cost on hardware you know wouldn't run MS Windows (any flavor), yet be up to date. If your grandma can maneuver a mouse, it's a point and click world. Go green and recycle/resurrect that old spare PC into an appliance somebody can use.

Here is an update........
I looked it up on a public library site. The first Linux I saw was called LST, Linux 2.0 and the book was Power Linux by Stefan Probst in the year 1997. So I have been struck with Linux for 10 years. We will have to see what was happening in computing 10 years ago to fully appreciate what is going on today. I must say that Linux has really grown up from an operating system of hackers to one that anyone can use. Don't let so called computer knowledgeable people dissuade you, this is your second opinion, MS Windows products are not all that easy to use either, just more familiar. Linux on the desktop is as good as Linux on the server and as good as any Microsoft product on the market. You have ridden the black horse all your life, now you can ride the white one with brown spots.

Things get very interesting in Linux country

I been looking at Puppy Linux. And have come to the conclusion that it is a great tool/toy. As a tool it can be a rescue disc to give you access to all your drives including MS Windows partitions. It has utilities and can be reconstructed, reformulated with the software you want and made into a designer liveCD. If you wanted just some portable office apps, you can do that also. And as a toy you can play with Linux to your hearts content to see what Linux is all about. I myself have loaded and unloaded the various window managers and am having fun trying out different Linux stuff. Some are even using Puppy Linux as their main distro. When I think about what I mainly use my computer for, I don't need a lot. Just internet access, my email, office and picture tools and I am happy. Puppy can do that with ease. It is like a sweet little foreign sports car. Small, snappy and it gets me there with a rush of excitement........... What about that big pimped out SUV of a Linux I also use? Kubuntu has its' limitations of course and its designers have tried to put into it all best choices to satisfy a large swath of users. Like I said before trying to make a flexible product fit a large and picky a group as users are is no small feat. With all its bigness, Kubuntu is very manageable. I can do all my computing with confidence and without pirating software I can't afford to buy. If you can get past the illusion of needing MS products, I highly recommend open source software. A lot of business types have little choice, but home users can actually have a different and cheaper choice. Some would compare MS stuff and Linux stuff only to complain about subjective things, looks, quality, polish, etc. But in reality they don't want to change from what they are used to. I have felt no discomfort in switching to Linux. It is growing and changing, getting better with each new version. I have been using Linux for a several years. It is sooooooo much easier to use Linux today than it was even a few years ago. Many people say they want Linux to be like the MS Windows they know and love, but what is the point in that? Besides, the Linux folk tried to do just that very thing and Microsoft jumped all over them with their legal army. The point is that there is more than the MS way to operate a computer. Programmers the world over have known this from the beginning, now you know it also. I know that I can not convince everyone and that being "free" does not change a lot of minds. But if you venture to try Linux out and have a good experience with Linux, you will be changed. Now, is Linux that different from MS Windows? From a users perspective, no. Windows, mouse clicks, it is all the same. You might not recognize the arrangement of some things but then you are not tied to the MS way of doing things either. So give Linux a try, if you are so inclined. I hope you have a good experience.

Here's some screenshots of my Puppy Linux desktop.
This is one of the default desktops, uses a window manager called Joe's Window Manager or JWM for short. Kind of Win95ish. You have icons plus the popup menus.

This is the default XFCE desktop, very sort of Mac like. Quite, clean, the popup menus are such that desktop icons are redundant.

This is where I am at today. XFCE desktop is very clean. I am looking into dressing it up with themes and such. I upgraded Puppy Linux from 2.17.1 to 3.00 which just came out yesterday. While not as flashy as some desktops, Xfce is easy to deal with and has a solid feel. Puppy is amazingly functional for its small size. Version 3.00 is supposed to be Slackware compatible. Slackware is the granddaddy of Linuxes. The really neat thing about Puppy is that you can use it as a universal rescue disk. You can have access to all your drives and media. Other Linuxes are a little restrictive on that aspect. While some distros go out of their way to be MS Windows like, or overly user friendly (we call it dummimg down), Puppy Linux has a good mix so that you are not robbed of learning something about Linux. It seems the computer industry will never shake the idea of dumb terminals hooked up to some really big computer. Some companies would like nothing better than to rent you a terminal and computer time. Like so many people today use subscription TV. Linux is about owning your equipment and the software you put on it while giving you access to the world. And with the Puppy Linux disc or jump drive, you can take it with you.

From Linux delight to a Linux eppiphany

I was digging into another Linux distro when I noticed I had downloaded and burned one I haven't tried yet. So, I popped the CD in and fired it up. It was Puppy Linux 2.17.1. I laughed, I cried, I was truly amazed. This Puppy is only 92.8MB and competes with the big boys. Here I was trying to squeeze Mandriva (700MB) onto my 8Gig spare hard drive, which shrunk up really fast by the way. So, I blew off DreamLinux, (sorry folks) and installed Puppy. I didn't have to since Puppy runs completely in ram and allows you to save settings and other docs to file on your hard drive or flash drive or multisession CD/DVD. The question came up, how many people can you fit into a VW?
You could really put the whole system on a flash drive or burn it onto one of those tiny business card CD's. What's the story with Puppy? Usually a Linux distro is based upon another distro and "reformulated" into a new distro, you know, .deb, .rpm or .tar.gz. But Puppy is a Linux written from scratch, by Barry Kauler, to be very lean.
I know I have always complained about software bloat, in spite of all the stuff you get with it, but this is the extreme opposite. It has its own file format .pup and yes there are popular Linux programs, some reformulated to be smaller, that are available. It is great to play with as I have tried several window managers and uninstalled them with no ill effects. You probably could use Gnome or KDE but that defeats the purpose of lean and mean. You could as some have use it for your main Linux. It is that good!! Yeah, it's all a matter of taste, choice, etc. I am truly impressed with the practical usefulness put into such a small package. It is portable and you can use it to do real work. I heard about it on a Ubuntu fourm of all things. Being one who likes to explore, I am very interested in Puppy Linux and will keep it around for a while. On one of the main Puppy web sites there are user's screenshots, pretty attractive, quite creative. If you buy into the small Linux concept, you will be assimulated, you will be playing with Puppy all the time. Puppy has Metisse!, it's not even main stream yet. Puppy has Open Office2. After all, Linux is a Linux is a Linux, but it's so small!! No, It is not the smallest, but I am hearing such good stuff about Puppy Linux I just had to try it. I will have to show you some pictures when I finish tweaking/playing with my Puppy.

Linux explorations, Linux delight

Linux is a Linux is a Linux. If you look long enough at the 300+ Linux distributions, you begin to realize that there is only one Linux. But that one Linux can be configured to run on anything from a flip phone to a large server farm. Thus are the many configurations of Linux, called distributions, each with a particular focus. What will work on your hardware will take a little looking into. Some distros have compatibility list that document what hardware is known to work with that OS. You can always go to the forums to see what trials, problems and luck other users have encountered.
In my latest trials I have tried to get Mandriva 2007 Spring to run. The liveCD worked great, the install to disk was smooth, but the reboot after the software update proved to be too much for my machine. I have a HP Pavilion a1030e, AMD 32000 Athlon, 64-bit, Nvidia Geforce Fx5200 video card, 512MB memory and a 8 gig partition. So, I really don't have exotic hardware by any means.
It is distressing when things don't go smoothly. My Kubuntu lives!! But I in my Linux curiosity state must explore, some more. I downloaded something called "DreamLinux". Its from Brazil and of course they made an English version. It is a mix of Debian and Morphix with Xfce for the window manager. Its focus is multimedia because it has a lot of programs all set up for multimedia and even the web browsers are setup already with codecs and plugins. Dreamlinux has the icon dock bar from the Enlightenment window manager folks. It is called Engage and dresses up the desktop quite nice. The menus are simpler than in Gnome and KDE. There is less confusion when you click around. But like most desktop distros, the default look is a struggle to look at. A little wallpaper and ah!!, sweetness!! Dreamlinux has the setup for Beryl with Aiglx and requires Nvidia drivers and such. I still don't trust the stability of that setup so I will bypass that for now. Perhaps they will consider Metisse instead for a bang that doesn't require special stuff behind it. Hey, maybe I will construct my own "distro". I want to see a combination of my favorite Linux stuff I haven't seen yet, all on a CD so I don't have to look all over the internet. And that is why there are 300+ distros. Duh, duh duh, the adventure continues..........

Another day another Linux

Linux is all about choice, so I thought. Actually it is more about variety of the same thing. There are at least 300+ Linux versions out there today. Do you have to choose out of that mess? Linuxes are distinguished by the type of packaging system they use. There are only three that I know of, .rpm (red hat package manager), .deb (Debian), and .tar.gz or .tgz (tape archive something or other). Linux seems to have started with these 3 file types and then branched out by language types and then special purpose Linuxes. So, there is Red Hat with .rpm, Debian with .deb and then Slackware with .tar.gz. There are versions that branched off these main ones and became popular distros in their own right. Remember I said before that Linux is a kit of sorts. A kernel plus utilities and applications that make up a distribution. So you can have a tiny Linux like Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux or a big Linux like Red Hat, Mandriva, Ubuntu. It all depends what you put with the kernel. Once again the live CD distros are the easiest to experiment with. You just pop in the CD and reboot your computer. Some live CDs will allow you to save your system settings and personal files on a MS Windows folder. Some are so small they will fit on a jump drive. I used to be into model cars as a kid. Putting together a car kit was the most fun. Imagine putting together a working Linux distribution. It is quite a hobby. Some people really like doing this kind of thing. The reason I chose Kubuntu Linux was because it is being maintained by a group rather than one or two persons. The bug fixing and updates are available faster and the fan base tends to be larger. It doesn't mean Linuxes maintained by one or two persons are low quality, but they are often tight on time and budget to get things done.
Do I have my picks? Yes, of course. Kubuntu is my present favorite and main distro. Right now I favor the Debian distros, I've had good luck with them and I am beginning to understand how Debian things work. I also like SimplyMepis. Also Debian based, it is very much like Kubuntu with KDE desktop but still has a different flavor. I am beginning to think that after you settle on a Linux version, you will discover a Linux is a Linux is a Linux. A kernel, a number of utilities, some tools, and some applications. It's all in how it is packaged together. If you were to include all of the various functions, languages and formats in one .iso file you would need a few DVDs to hold it all. You would never not ever use or need that much Linux to meet your particular computing needs. So, it is very good that some industrious persons have packaged together different combinations of Linux stuff to meet different requirements. And as is and has been the Linux culture, the various versions or "distros" of Linux are available for download on the internet. So, go ahead and ask the big question, what would programmers do if they did not work for a company (like Microsoft)? Linux is the answer, they would do Linux. Linux is the result of lots and lots of programmers who really wanted to see a free operating system work.

Trying old new stuff in Linux.

It's getting late, I should be going to bed, but I started a couple of things here I can't seem to put down. As I was saying earlier about Metisse being so interesting I was marveling at the fact that it does it's magic without the aid of special Nvidia and Ati drivers or the Xgl graphic extensions. It is a wonder of modern programming. I got the feeling I have been there before. Back in my early Linux days there was a window manager called Enlightenment and it was pretty fancy for it's time. Many of the graphic tricks like transparency was accomplished in Enlightenment probably before Win98 was born. So, I checked it out and sure enough I found it is still being worked on. I found it listed in the Ubuntu repositories. I down loaded it, installed it and it is still a wonderful thing. Intimidating at first, yes, it has several menus of tweakable settings. But it also has a built in document that explains what the functions are. Like any interface you have to grow into it. It is not like Gnome or KDE, both seem very MS Windowish in comparison. In "E" as it is called, you have control over everything. Many users just don't care how it looks as long as it works. I have been around the block a couple of times. The stock appearance of both Gnome and KDE are OK but not great. "E" is a tweaker's paradise and various users have posted themes on the net. So you don't really have to go crazy with settings, just download a theme and go. I would post some pictures but I have not played enough with this yet. "E" has a number of things I have raved about in previous post, a graphic pager, virtual desktop, hhmmm... I wonder if background video could be playing while I working in the foreground? I also wonder why "E" isn't more popular among Linux users. Gee we are a picky lot. But it is very easy to slide into a Gnome or KDE groove because they are pre-installed in most Linuxes. Kind of like MS Windows on PC's ain't it?

Here we go again, more Linux madness.

I'm between jobs so I got a little time on my hands. While I am waiting for the Fedora 7 DVD 64-bit to magically appear on my door step, I downloaded another distro. Mandriva 2007 Spring KDE 64-bit iso. and guess what? It all fits on one CD. I couldn't wait to load it, install it and though I didn't like the colors, it was very good. Until, after I did the first system software upgrade. I rebooted the computer and got a black screen with a working cursor on it. I couldn't input commands or anything. Being still by lack of geekness, a newbie, I really have no clue what went haywire. I am a bit disappointed because Mandriva like Fedora 7 is a bit cutting edge in terms of new stuff that will eventually show up in all Linuxes. Mandriva has virtual machine services installed, so I hear. I was going to check that out. Mandriva also has this desktop paging system called Metisse. It is 3d or pseudo 3d as some say, it blows away Vista's Aero. It supposedly doesn't even need the special video drivers for nvida and ati cards. Metisse is not in the Ununbu program repositories. No one has compiled it for .deb yet, as far as I know. It has all kinds of snazzy features for the desktop. I was going to check all this out when, my screen went dark. I don't know if I have the heart to dig deeper into this problem, I am not the first to have it by internet accounts. Meanwhile, in another partition of the same machine my Kubuntu is working just fine.

Now, why you want to do that? (virtual machines)

The other day I was talking to a friend about computers. I was telling him about using a virtual machine to run one operating system inside of another. I thought I was explaining it pretty well, then he hit me with the Why? question. Man I hate when that happens. My friend is a typical computer user, he only sees what he bought, a machine loaded with MS Windows. I don't know if its XP or Vista but that doesn't matter. He is totally unaware of the wider computing world out there. That there are other choices besides MS Windows has never come up in his mind. He uses at home what he uses at work and there is no need for anything else to exist. He has never installed an operating system and admits to not being computer savvy. He is a typical user.

So, just why would you run one operating system inside of another? Isn't MS Windows sufficient?
He is asking this of a guy who has been using Linux for a few years now. Of course the Linux is free answer is weak because you usually buy a PC with MS Windows already on it, seems free too. But in my experience you have to invest quite a bit of extra funds to acquire an array of applications to do every thing you want to do. Those Windows bundle package deals are mighty skimpy. Linux comes with lots of applications to do lots of stuff all for free. Still there's some major programs people cry out for that you can only find written for one operating system and not the other, like Photoshop and Incredimail. Besides this most computer users, like my friend, being creatures of ingrained habits, prefer to use MS stuff because they are used to it. So, the answer to this twisted why question is that I don't have to dual-boot anymore. Dual-booting is when you choose which operating system to start up when you turn on your computer. You can only have access to one operating system at a time with dual-booting. With virtual machines you can run as many operating systems as you have resources for. They will run as would any program on the computer. I could start Linux, (my habit) open a virtual machine running XP, start and use Photoshop and Incredimail. It seems to be the best of both worlds.
I know this is a bit extreme for the typical computer user, but being exposed to the wider computer world has open new possibilities.
Now to answer the question, isn't MS Windows sufficient? I myself have been using computers as a user since the DOS days. I have lived through the history of using MS Windows in various versions. Sure you could find programs to do everything you want to do in MS Windows. But, a history of blue screens, crashes and costly upgrades has not made me a very good friend of Microsoft products. This is besides the cumbersome licensing agreements and how they can check your computer to see if you pass the legality test. The endless security patches also help make me wonder about the quality and safety of putting Microsoft stuff on my machine. Since I have discovered and have been using Linux, I have little concern about the problems of using MS Windows. There are only a few applications for MS Windows I really use. I could get rid of MS Windows all together. Even though XP has been the best MS Windows yet, I prefer Linux. What about Vista? I will not pay for Vista. If I buy a new PC with Vista on it (seems free) I will take it but most likely I will build my next PC myself and install Linux on it. Maybe I will run XP in a virtual machine. Yes, it is wonderful to have choices.

Almost an answer to using large .iso files

I my last post I complained and weeped about having a large .iso file and no DVD burner. Today I almost found an answer. It is called a virtual machine. A What? Let's say you are running Linux on your machine everyday and you want to use a program that's only found in MS Windows. You could install and setup an emulator which forms a so-called compatibility layer, allowing you to run some MS Windows applications.. "OR", you could run MS Windows inside of a file setup as a virtual machine that resides in the Linux file system. That means that MS Windows would run as if it were a Linux application. I believe you also would have Windows settings, internet connectivity, etc. Are there any advantages to this madness? Yes, the most obvious one is that you don't have to dual boot into one or the other operating systems. You could use both at the same time!! There are possibilities here. The second is that you don't need to burn a CD or DVD at all.
So, how does this virtual wonder work? It is hard to explain but, computers are all about managing memory and keeping one operation from crossing over into another. A virtual machine allocates some disk space and some memory space separating it from the main operating system's usage so that a second operating system could function in that space. Then through the magic of the GUI, you can interact with it as if it were the main operating system. It will turn a .iso file into a virtual disk so you can boot from it as if you were starting a program.
One virtual system is called VMware which has been around for ages. I think it is a little complicated for me but it has a lot of bells and whistles. Then there is VirtualBox. VirtualBox comes in MS Windows flavor and Linux flavors. I loaded it on both my XP and my Kubuntu installs.
It was quick and fairly painless. So, now I don't have to burn or boot from a CD.
Are there any problems, I mean since I did mention I almost had an answer? Well, yes. If you live in a 32-bit world as most do then there is no problem. If you , are running a 32-bit or a 64-bit main (or host) operating system then you can not install a 64-bit OS as a (guest) virtual machine. There is no support (yet) for 64-bit OS to run as a guest. To be a little more precise, it depends on what CPU you are using. You have to read the fine print in the docs.

So, to answer my main question, is it possible to take a .iso file copied to a hard drive and boot it as if it were a CD/DVD? Yes and No. Sure I can run a Fedora 7 32-bit .iso but I want the 64-bit one that was made for my system. I will just have to byte the bullet and buy a DVD burner.

I've got the upgrade blues, again.

"Well, I've got the upgrade blues, again."
Thanks to the wonderful Fedora 7 people, I've got to consider the cost and pay the boss. Do I really need a DVD burner? We live in a world where it is possible to save all our precious and expanding personal data, pictures and the like on optical media. We can even copy movies, which is why most people even bother with DVDs. But personal data, I can hardly fill one CD as it is. 700MB is a lot of space actually. Being from the floppy generation, I am still impressed with that. Now a DVD can hold about 4.7 Gigs (single layer) and about 8.5 Gigs (double layer) if you have that technology. I was looking at Tom's Hardware web site. You can get a DVD burner for $30-$100+, and you get what you pay for. I my self don't recommend the cheapest you can find, speed and quality does matter.
Anyway Fedora 7 folks, you have barely crossed the boarder by offering an .iso image of just 833MBs, why not just put it on 2 CDs? Hey, it's a liveCD dummy! It just wouldn't work spread across 2 CDs.
So, what can you do with a new DVD burner that you could not do with your CD burner? Besides copying movies and music. You could backup or Ghost your whole system onto a DVD. I guess the potential to do big things is there. And speaking of downloading movies, what is your download speed. I am always surprised by the number of computer owners/users who don't have cable or DSL. Using a modem is akin to using floppies in my book. What is so weird about this DVD thing is that you don't have to justify the cost because it can be reasonable. You just have to figure out what to do with the technology now that you have it. Is buying a DVD burner one of those life changing things? Hey, we do still live in interesting times.

The life and times of a Linux Learner

Been really busy these days with my pending graduation from college and all. I finished an externship at Lake Ridge Academy and am looking forward to finding full time employment. I was starting to make some noise about PCLinuxOS because the live CD looked so promising. I had some problems with PCLinuxOS and the boot loader Grub. PCLinuxOS does not give you the option of not installing Grub nor does it recognize a previous Grub installation. I fiddled with Grub until I got it to work. Then booting into PCLinuxOS I found that it wasn't saving my settings, having to re-setup internet connections and re-tweak the desktop with each startup is not good. Needless to say I am not having a good day with PCLinuxOS on my machine. So................

Here I am having downloaded a very attractive looking Red Hat Fedora 7. Now I had at one time used Fedora Core 2 which had I think 3 CDs. This Fedora 7 is now a LiveCD but to get the version that is right for my machine, the 64-bit one, the iso file is TOO BIG to fit on a single CD. It is meant for a DVD weighing in at about 833MB, a CD only holds 700MB. I guess their thought is that everybody has a DVD burner. Well, maybe a DVD player (to watch movies?) but not a burner. No Fedora folks I watch DVDs on my player that's hooked up to my television set. Hummm....... that was very Microsoftish of you to force me to upgrade my equipment or hunt down somebody to burn a DVD for me. This has lead to a the question, is it possible to run an iso file from a hard drive as if it were on a DVD/CD? You'd be surprised at all the methods and techniques posted on the internet. Not one of them is clear enough for the likes of me. The smoothest way seems to be to work from a MS Windows partition and use a boot loader that recognizes iso images. But I think you have to explode the iso image into a directory and tell the boot loader what to boot. I tried several ways from a Linux partition but it is too complex for me. I guess that puts me in the market for a DVD/CD burner.

My thought is to have one Debian based Linux version and one Red Hat type version so I can gain experience with them. Fedora 7 is closer to the commercial Red Hat used in business but is cutting edge. Debian (Kubuntu is Debian) uses .deb files and Fedora uses .rpm files. Both systems have improved over the years. It is said that the .deb system resolves the dependency problem better than the .rpm system. Dependency is when one file or program needs another to operate. This is why when one program is installed, companion files are installed with it. Microsoft does the same with .dlls. You gotta love computers. So far this cyber adventure has taken me far, far past point and click computing. Although you can be quite happy with point and click computing, you also miss out on the power to do things the GUI just can't do. On a Linux system it is very useful to get over command line fears. You will become a powerful Jedi.

Further adventures in Arno's Linux world

I really, really hate eating my own words but, maybe I was a bit hasty proclaiming PCLinuxOS as equal to a little better than Kubuntu. At least considering how I multi-boot several operating systems. Something a normal computer user would probably not do. So, PCLinuxOS might still fit the bill for single boot machines, but for multi-boot it sucks because it loads GRUB (Grand Unified Bootloader) in a place that causes problems. It does not give you the option to not install it nor recognize that GRUB might already be on the machine. Needless to say my system was non-functioning for a while, forcing me to look deeper into the mysteries of GRUB and multi-booting. If you are at all familiar with boot loaders, first there was LILO and then there is GRUB. GRUB is more flexible of course than LILO but still a bit of a tweak to manage. There are programs to manage GRUB called Grubed and Start UP Manager (SUM) but you still might have to learn to edit from the GRUB menu screen or the config file. If you want a sweet explanation see the article entitled "Guru Guidance, A better way of booting" in Linux Magazine, April 2002. It gives a quick but through run down of GRUB and how to edit/understand the menus and config files. So, armed with new knowledge I will attempt to tweak GRUB to make it work for me. Yeah, it is probably too much for most computer users but, I'm "learnin linux" folks. I am hoping one day a single boot/multi-boot option would be put right in the system rom on the motherboard and be quite automatic once selected.
Well, does this deter me from using PCLinuxOS? Not yet, but it is quite a let down, the LiveCD was so inviting. But why on earth would anyone want to have more than one operating system on one computer? For me it is looking first-hand at the fresh ideas that drive folks to put together different Linux distributions. Linux is really a "Kit"of lots of pieces that fit in various ways. Some distributions are for different purposes. General use, desktop style Linux has been fully reviewed and experienced by their many users and documented on many web sites. It is all waiting for you to look into it.

It's been at least a half an hour since I typed the above story. I have edited my GRUB config file, deleting a couple of old entries and adding a new one for PCLinuxOS. I am now triple-booting MS Windows XP, Kubuntu, and PCLinuxOS. It is not rocket science to learn about Linux, we'll leave that to the programmers. But users can benefit from learnin a little linux.

Living the Linux life in Arno's world

I have to say that I never thought of myself as being a fanboy of anything, but recently I downloaded a copy of PCLinuxOS. It is a live CD Linux distro and when I popped it in I immediately started comparing it to my experience with Ubuntu Linux. I was negative and skeptical and nit-picky. I could not believe I was having this reaction. Have I really been a Ubuntu fanboy all this time? Imagine what MS Windows users go through looking at Linux. This brings to mind a couple of thoughts on Linux. When looking at the Linux world, the MS Windows user sees the confusion of choices. How does one make a good Linux choice? I look at what other people are downloading (Distrowatch) and the many reviews on each of the top versions. Is the most popular version the best place to start? I think it is safe to assume that, at least until one is more knowledgeable. Then if it doesn't come as a live CD then it is a little more riskier to install. I'd stick with the live CD's.
I think more and more the live CD is popular because you can try it before you commit it to your hard drive. If Linux could do as AOL did, Linux disc would be all over the place (not going to happen).
So, having downloaded PCLinuxOS, what did I find? I find that it doesn't take a well moneyed backer to put together a well thought out Linux distribution. Well, being Debian based and using KDE desktop makes it very close to how Kubuntu looks and feels, BUT. PCLinuxOS seems faster, snappier. The config tools are a little better and compressing the software archive and putting it on the CD is a great idea. It has some Windows XP looks for you transition types and can be changed to look very different. PCLinuxOS has one flavor, not one for 32-bit and another for 64-bit CPU's. This means you don't have to get special 64-bit drivers and codecs or use "wrappers" to get 32-bit plugins to work in 64-bit programs. I'm not clear on the legal/illegal inclusion of propietary code in free software. All I know is PCLinuxOS worked on my hardware pretty good. The rest of the review will come from living with the day to day use and perhaps I will even put it on a spare hard drive on my main box. This Ubuntu fanboy has to say that I have seen something that appears a little nicer than Ubuntu (what am I saying!!). There are still some lingering questions concerning updates, security support and the like. These things are of interest especially if you are a business user, but I am a single user so I can let those questions slide for now. I could recommend PCLinuxOS with the same fervor as Kubuntu. They are very close but PCLinuxOS seems better, this I will explore further.

Desktop revenge of the nerds

Well, as of now all is well on my Linux desktop. Previously I got a little greedy for desktop video playing in the background of my near perfect setup. I changed the video drivers to accommodate the fancy graphics and boom! my Linux wouldn't boot at all. I tried all kinds of rescue boot disks to no avail, the system was hosed. There is something to be said of non-programmers waiting for stuff to reach the mainstream. I heard that both Mac and even MS Windows could do background video, I thought surely Linux could do it too. I am not alone in my quest. Others are seeking this in Linux also. It is possible but, I want to see it without adding both extreme hardware and software. After all, I am a man of modest means.

Hosing your system brings on a whole slew of lessons to be learned. The biggest one is to backup both personal data and settings. It also gave me a chance to practice things only a Linux user can appreciate. I am talking about using the dreaded command line. It does come in handy when a Gui just can't be summoned. I can not understand the gasp! at the thought of using a command line. A little knowledge goes a long way in Linux and there is very little to figure out if some helpful person gives you the script to type in and shows you what to expect on a web page. I think command line fear is over rated. I also use the command line in MS Windows because some things you just don't have access to in the Gui.

I figured a few hours of downloading and tweaking and playing around and all is restored on my Linux desktop. I even found a program to dress up the boot loader with color. My Linux desktop now plays the Airwolf theme song on startup and the Knightrider theme on shutdown. Dumb but cute. There is quite a list of software packages to explore in Linux, all for free. Finding the ones to do what I want to do is a job in itself but, part of the fun of computing. Do I have a wish list of things I'd like to see in Linux? Well, the desktop background video for one, but also I would like to see something like Incredimail, a Window's program that has full color email, for Linux. Gee, I'll have to give some time to XP one of these days just to visit the few programs I miss.

Taste and Choice on the desktop

With all the kinds of people out there it is very, very hard to satisfy all the different taste people have. We users are very choosy when it comes to the look and feel of our desktop or not. Some are just comfortable with what is offered and others must tweak and adjust until out desktop is just right. The problem has always been for software writers, just how much tweaking can you allow users to do before it becomes a headache to manage? You know, you don't want your upgrade package to wipe out the after market add-ons if you can help it. This I experienced when I tried to install the FlyakiteOSX desktop in MS Windows XP. The program produced a DLL relocation error because it was incompatible with some security patches. So in the quest to tweak the look and feel there are some pot holes to navigate around.

Well, what is hot and what is not? These days it seems that the Mac desktop is the one to emulate. The Mac desktop in my humble opinion is simply the most functional thing I've seen so far. The Mac desktop is clean and not littered with shortcut icons and desktop folders. Of course the clutter option is always present, but I myself like the clean look. Here are some screen shots of my desktops.
This shot is my Kubuntu Linux Desktop. I made the row of icons on the bottom smaller than the ones on the Mac screen so they don't get in the way. The icon dock program is called KoolDock and it works in the KDE desktop environment, nicely.
Now, this is a shot of my MS Windows XP desktop. It has a skin applied that has a decided Mac look. The icon dock on the bottom is called RKLauncher. Again I put all those many desktop shortcuts into a desktop folder so I can get at them when I need them. The launcher cleans up the desktop rather nice. The icons on the side still are double-click to use but the ones on the bottom are single click. MS should give you a choice to single click, my fingers don't always get double-click on the first try.

So, is Mac emulation flattery or envy? You have to decide for your self. Desktop arrangements are just tools to get at the files and programs on your machine. Look and feel is a very personal thing if you discover you can do something about it. The question you are all dying to ask is, what do I think of the new MS Vista look and feel? I think it is more of the same Microsoft you know and love. But fear not, there are already tweakers at work extending the look and feel of Vista into personal statements of otherworldliness. Why? Because they can. Do I have a favorite desktop? At this point, I still favor the Kubuntu Linux desktop mainly because of the crisp response to my mouse clicks. I like the way windows pop in and out, not fading in and out of existence in slow motion but, crisp and snappy. I like another feature Kubuntu has, the desktop background can be set to change every so often, your choice, so that you don't see the same constant view. Now if some enterprising tweaker can get movies to run as the background image, full screen, that would be interesting.

Are there more desktop ideas to be exploited in the future? Why yes. I have seen on the web several desktop arrangements in the works. Apple is improving on the icon docking system for sure making it even more functional. Linux has had desktop docking applications for a long time now in different window managers but a serious overhauling would be needed if that idea would be explored again and integrated into the popular Gnome and KDE desktops. It is all very much like cars, same function, different look and feel (and price).

Some Vista concerns

It occurred to me that I didn't really give Vista a fair shot, after all it wasn't on my computer and I didn't spend time alone with it. So, my judgment is probably not to be entirely trusted. Still, first impressions do say a lot. I was struck by the fact that Vista is a different animal than XP. They have done things differently in Vista to where us XP users will have to "learn" MS Windows all over again.

How does Vista with Aero stack up against the latest Linux offerings?
I saw in one comparison between Vista and Linux with Beryl a complaint that Beryl was an add-on software and not built into the Linux desktop. Beryl is a very flashy, 3d, animated, desktop interface for Linux. This is really funny because in Linux "everything" is an add-on. But I must say that most people will buy a computer with Vista Home Premium installed, which has the Aero desktop, rather than the Vista Home Basic which does not. I wonder why Microsoft even bothered with Home Basic. Well its all a money thing. Anyway, some versions of Linux do include Beryl as an optional desktop and yes, I have the option to use it(but don't). OK, so there is NOT a comparison between Vista Home Basic and Linux minus the graphic enhancements. That perhaps would show what the real worth the basic operating systems have. Microsoft doesn't show off Vista without the "Wow" factor. That is its' biggest selling point. My point is that Vista can be had without Aero and Linux can be had without Beryl. Is Vista Home Basic really an improvement over XP is what we all want to know? Is "Wow" what we really want? Are you a secret geek at heart? These questions I will have to dig into in the future.

Now, what does all this desktop fuss do to the question, "can my grandma use my computer?" Sorry, grandma will have to "learn" to use it. Computers just are not simple intuitive devices. If and when computers can provide a speech driven interface, then we can perhaps approach that kind of interaction. Still, there are so many problems with speech input and we will have to "learn" that also. I think it is funny that the goal of the intuitive desktop interface equals "does not have to learn". There is no real intuitive interface between man and machines. I don't think we want to have millions of people with Borg like integration with computers. But we will keep trying to find the holy grail of interfaces until one day we are assimilated.

Some additions, it turns out that Vista Home Basic is a slight improvement over XP. Microsoft has done somethings better. What will happen is a cost comparison between Vista Home Premium (with Aero) and Vista Home Basic & pimping it out yourself. There are already a number of free and non-free software packages to pimp out Vista. This simply shows that lots of Microsoft users are already working past what Microsoft offers. But all said and done this compares to what you can get in Linux, probably for free.

On the Desktop Again!!

As I wrote in my last blog, I pimped my XP desktop. It looks and acts pretty sweet compared to the stock xp desktop. The green and blue start bar is no more and the skin has an Apple flavor. And with RKLauncher, it is a efficient looking, yet very sporty desktop. My Ubuntu Linux desktop looks almost the same but is a little more polished. Microsoft doesn't like you messing with their software. So, without 3rd party add-on software you can't change it very much. Then there is the problem of 3rd party software not being compatible with the security updates, which is why I can't use FlyakiteOSX.

Got a chance to fuss with a laptop with Vista on it. I had to go hunting for all the functions that were up front in XP. I wasn't very comfortable using Vista. People will be glad when there is an arm load of programs to load on it to do regular stuff. My friend who had the laptop was saddled with MS Works for free. This is not even an Office compatible suite. You can change some files to Office file format but it can screw you up. But it beats the trial version of Office I got with my desktop. So I loaded Open Office 2 on the laptop until they could obtain a copy of MS Office. I myself will not buy MS Office for myself. I am very happy with Open Office. So my immediate advice to anyone getting Vista is to go to the library, get the books. Vista is different than XP by a long shot. It looks and feels different and things are in different places. I have witnessed the new boy gleam of a couple of new Vista users. I don't plan to be around them when the wants and needs kick in. The pre-installed OS always gives you a "I don't want anything else" sleep. It will be a while before there is a boatload of hardware drivers and utilities that are Vista compatible. And don't have a 64-bit processor, you will be waiting a long time for support.

Well, that was my small Vista adventure. Did discover Oxygen Office Premium. It is a version of Open Office that has extensions, clip-art, extras and I think Visual Basic programming. I got the MS Windows version running in XP and Vista, but I could not get the Linux version to run because it is 32-bit and I have a 64-bit processor. But I still have Open Office in 64-bit. Yes, there are 64-bit problems in Linux too. Also I discovered the famous Linux program Evolution, which is a email/calender/PIM program, has been ported over to MS Windows. The package installer works in XP and eariler only. So Vista users will have to deal with Outlook and security holes, I mean patches.

So, is there any big differences between MS XP/Vista and Linux that stick out? I know you can add a very slick, graphic intensive, 3d, moving display in Linux but Linux has always had a little program called a pager. It can be assigned any number of desktop spaces. You could open programs in one space, switch to another while the original program is still running. Plus you get a tiny graphic of each desktop in the task bar. It is very handy and practical. XP doesn't have this and Vista, if you get the higher priced fancier versions, has the 3d rotating stack of windows. Sorry, but it is not very much advanced over a non-rotating stack of over laying windows. In Linux you can move open windows between desktops. I just don't think MS has created something cool enough to warrant a new operating system. It may take a while for the tweak geeks to take Vista off-road. So, again, if you buy a new computer you most likely are saddled with Vista, good luck and have fun. I am still dual-booting XP and Ubuntu Linux. They are neck and neck in many aspects but I like and prefer the look and feel of Ubuntu Linux with the latest KDE desktop. MS XP is very workable in its older state, except for the security patches. Vista is too new to be practical yet.

MS vs Linux steps up a notch

Well, I got tired of bitching about how my Windows XP desktop was cluttered and unresponsive. So I put most of the desktop shortcut icons in a desktop folder, that way I could get at them when I needed them. They weren't being used regularly anyway. Then I installed something called RKLauncher (RKDock). This handy item places a few most accessed icons on the desktop for fast easy access. It looks just like the icon tool bar on the Mac. When you hover over the icon with your mouse, the icon magnifies.
I tried out a few other freebies but they were buggy because of all the security fixes to XP. The best one was called FlyakiteOSX. It looked very, very nice compared to what I could do to the standard XP desktop. It had a DLL relocation problem that I couldn't fix. I really liked the Mac look but would have settled just for the better functionality. All in all I like my XP desktop again. I think it is amazing that some inventive programmers have figured out how to change the look and feel of MS Windows by adding on some software.

My next major shakeup was what to do with the Linux desktop. I have been a Gnome desktop fan since I first installed Red Hat years ago. I didn't like KDE because it was complicated in its look and feel. The little dragon symbol I also thought was hoke. KDE users bragged about the ability to reconfigure the look and feel of the desktop. All I saw was menu after nested menu, especially in the control panel. Gnome was simple to set up, my grandmother could use it. I guess even Linus T. himself had something to say about the simplicity of Gnome. But he was questioning the attitude of its programmers. They were, according to him, underestimating the mental capacity of the users of their desktop. I thought simple was nice so I didn't have a problem. A funny thing happened to KDE, it was improved for the better. So I backed up my personal files and bookmarks, my address book. I installed Kubuntu (with KDE) over Ubuntu (with Gnome). I like what I see of KDE, the convoluted double nested menus are gone. It has a nicer look and feel. It is still tweakable. I am not head over heels satisfied yet, there are some differences to get used to. I want to say out loud that KDE is not like MS Windows and people who say that are smoking something. I thought Gnome was more like MS Windows but thats my opinion. So, I am tweaking my KDE desktop to get the best out of it. I miss the Synaptic Application Manager that was in Gnome, but the Apt-get interface works quite well. KDE seem to have a better variety of programs written for it that integrate well into it. I installed a little program called KoolDock. It again is like the Mac icon toolbar that sits at the bottom of the screen. It is very handy and works with KDE. Change is good and it all seems to get better.

The Microsoft VS Linux debate.

I guess the root question has to be can I do all the things in Linux as I can in MS Windows? I don't know. You can not account for all the hardware/software situations that people have in any Operating system. Can I do the basic things that people do on their computers? Yes. Is there a Linux answer for every piece of MS Windows software. No. Why should Linux or Open Source software be saddled with competing in that kind of way? Linux and Open Source has provided free solutions to many computing needs but there doesn't seem to be a push to compete with Microsoft. I think people compare stuff and hope for point for point alternatives. Microsoft has said that Open Source software, Open Office in particular, is not as advanced as their office suite.
Yet how many of those advanced features do you really use? The same with comparing Photoshop to the GIMP that comes with Linux. How much of Photoshop does the average person really use? And what do you want for free? A lot of persons are critical of assumed limitations and "lack of features". They never quite get across to folks that you get a lot of usefulness for free. They only see that it doesn't match up, therefore it is not good stuff. How on earth can you compare a $500 program with a free one and hold them to the same standard.
You get the feeling that people are saying that they would take the free one only if it were like the $500 one. They would even pirate the $500 one rather than use the free one. I really don't understand user logic. I myself would have a computer full of pirated software if it weren't for Open Source. The software I received with my PC was dismal. I got a trial version of MS Office and MS Works. MS Works while useful is not even compatible with MS Office let alone other productivity suites. How could you waste my money, time and disk space with that junk? I don't believe Microsoft or my hardware vendor had me in mind when they packaged that system. They assumed that what ever I buy I will use and not ask for more.
OK, I will admit that there are some things that only run on Windows that are desirable to have. When I was doing drafting AutoCAD was a hot program for instance. And I hear of folks who need Windows for other professional type programs. I am exploring the use of virtual machines where you can run other operating systems inside of the main one. That might be a solution, but will it answer the Microsoft or Linux question? I don't know but, I like Linux. I like the history of it, the progress of it and the look and feel of it on the desktop. I am still comparing the two OS's in my present computer. Linux is winning. Why should I have to pay so much just to do the basic stuff? Then, why should I have to rely on one companies' whims and wiles? I'm talking about the software/hardware upgrade dilemma when new versions come out. Can I really afford to learn the ins and outs of a new operating system? Well , it really hasn't been that painful. And I have been watching Linux for some time now. Linux has grown up. Linux is more ready for the desktop than critics think. I think since the computer has become "popular" with people who are use to turning appliances off and on, the expected results of plug and play, portability and the idea of anyone having access, the reality that a computer is a complex piece of machinery is being lost. The cry for standardization and dumbing things down (user-friendliness) so that even you can use it has been made. Linux has done a lot to accommodate easier use and offers a lot at a price that can not be beat. Why not give it a try? Once the smoke of marketing and user inertia clears, I think Linux will come up in the average users realm of choice.

Linux or Microsoft, where do you stand?

Linux or Microsoft, where do you stand? Why, is it that the choice of a computer operating system and its associated products, support services, and even user base becomes a question as to wither or not you are the proper kind of person or country? I have been reading a few blogs lately and it seems that some alarmist are quite convinced that Linux is anti-American, anti-capitalism, the choice of terrorist, a threat to national security and the work of godless people. These types of opinions are leaking into the "FUD" machinery of Microsoft supporters. Some have even claimed that using Microsoft products as opposed to Linux is the god approved way to live.
Well, I don't have the words to defend Linux from all the various attacks. It seems to me that some folks see conspiracy in everything that didn't originate in America. I myself believe that America has not always provided the best ways to deal with things, the history of slavery and immigration comes to mind. You can also see that America has not always produced products suited for use by the whole world. There are in the world, other products and other solutions to problems.
Some have rallied against global competition by this notion of protecting "American technology secrets" and "Intellectual Property". It seems America is always leery of anything dubbed international in scope. We still have a hard time with co-operating with other countries. America, as a government and as a business is always seeking an economic or political advantage.
I can make any number of observations and pronouncements but what has all this to do with Linux? Does using Linux really make you anti-American, or even ungodly? Well just whose side am I on anyway? I myself never thought that using an operating system was a matter of loyalty to my country. I never thought using Linux meant I was participating in undermining the American way or that using Linux was equal to being anti-Christ. I can't see what is so right about using Microsoft products in lieu of some other choice. I don't think that the history of Microsoft's growth and development or its dominance in the marketplace qualifies it a kind of sainthood. There is nothing American about using only Microsoft products. We import products from just about every producing nation on earth. We really need to see that, especially when it comes to electronics, we import just about everything.
The obvious thing is that Linux is not a child of our American economic model and has been a solution produced and provided by the very people of the world who use computers. It is an amazing thing that an idea freely communicated across the internet has grown into a workable operating system. Linux is the work of thousands of programmers and users in a world wide effort to produce a free alternative to what is on the market. Linux has been free from many of the barriers imposed by businesses and governments and language. It is in its own medium of exchange in the world. It has become a "Rosetta Stone" of sorts. I can understand the mistrust of some who must be concerned with property rights and protecting the rights and liberties of their countrymen. Linux does not fit into the vision of controlled access and deployment. Linux does not fit well into the profit motive or the political/legal leverage ideal.
Linux is not owned or developed by one person or company but is a solution produced by world wide collaboration. This is dream stuff. We have always talked about this kind of effort among the nations whose governments can never agree on anything. I think it is a pretty good effort and a pretty good product. I don't think you can compare the Linux world to the Microsoft world point for point and come up level and clean. It is comparing a nonprofit endeavor to a for profit operation. In the whole world of computing, who meets your needs? In a whole world of choices, will you pay, pirate or choose the free one? I don't think you can account for all the reasons and motives behind the things we deal with in life. I don't think everything can stand up to that kind of scrutiny. The best things in computing have been used to harm people whither it is paid for or pirated or freely accessed. Linux is a choice and has been a choice from the beginning. Choosing Linux does not mean you are anti-American, a satanist, a queer, or any such thing. The world is full of choices that are good ones.