It's October and I haven't posted in over a month. Been doing some non-computer stuff, interrogating the Holy Bible and looking into Black history. I plan to keep the focus on Linux and on digital art, but the background world view has changed a lot in the past few weeks.
During all this time I have had neither glitch, hiccup, crash, or shut-down. I did build a platform with small wooden wedges to lift the back edge of my laptop off the table. Now I can run it all day without overheating and I run it each and every day.
On October 10th a new Ubuntu, version 10.10 will be out. You can't get it in stores, but if you go to the www.Ubuntu.com web site it will be there for download or you can buy a CD, I think for the cost of shipping. I usually just download it. There are versions for server, desktop/laptop and netbook, 32 bit, 64 bit, etc.
There are several ways to use Linux. The live-CD is very cool as it runs directly off the CD without installing. When you remove the live-CD your computer is unchanged. What ever applications are on the CD can be used by you and you can save your work to a jump drive. You can install while running the live-CD or not. You choose to make a hard drive partition or use the whole hard drive. If you want to run both MS Windows and Linux, a program called Grub gives you a menu to choose at boot.
If you have MS Windows running when you put in the Ubuntu Linux CD a program called Wabi will let you install Ubuntu in a MS Windows folder so that it runs sort of like a Windows application. I call this a pseudo virtual machine.
For me if you want both MS Windows and Linux on the same machine, dual booting is best. That way the two different operating systems are separate, not needing extra resources. Be sure you install MS Windows first to minimise booting problems. You can select the default OS in the Grub OS selector afterwards.
Another option is virtual machines. You can run Linux as a virtual machine on a MS Windows system and vice-versa. VirtualBox is my favorite application for this. There is a MS version and a Linux version. Virtual machines is about sharing resources, so running two OSs needs more memory and some hard disk space.
The last option is called Wine. Wine is a MS Windows compatibility layer which runs in Linux. Wine lets you, within limits, run MS Windows software on a Linux system. I can't run Photoshop Professional, but my Photoshop Lite runs fine. Can't tell you if MS Office will run, I use Open Office. But a special configuration of Wine called Crossover Office seems to handle MS Office products. I don't have experience with this.
The most cool thing is that you can slide the Linux live-CD into any MS compatible system, reboot and try out Linux. I recommend Ubuntu. If you have it installed or install it yourself, you gain access to the online repository of free installable applications. Some versions of Linux have live-DVDs so that the large selection of installable software is on the DVD. With my DSL internet it takes 1 hour to download the CD and 3 hours for the DVD. Once you have it, you own it, you can install it on as many machines as you want. You can copy it and give it to friends.
Now I will warn you, Linux is not as flashy as some like. This is so that it appeals to a broader swath of users and works on a broader swath of hardware configurations. You can tweak it up or dumb it down, that is what makes it what it is. So that's boom out the box but not flash-boom. You can add flash later.
Showing posts with label linux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linux. Show all posts
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
real world and virtual world collide
As a young teen really wanting a car filled my dreams. In the mail I would get this aftermarket car catalog "Whitney's". It was thick and full of fuzzy dice to bored and stroked engines. I used to mark it up with pencils, then pens, then highlighters, then markers. You could buy the parts to build a car from scratch. My favorite was the sports car built on a Volkswagen Beetle chassis. If you thought Pokeymon geeks were bad, you haven't known car geeks. Anyway, this is what Linux is like, a computer aftermarket. The only thing missing is the catalog. If the internet were not here, there would be a thick catalog, listing and describing all the parts. You would know what Linux is, how the parts work together and how to get it the way you want it. Actually if you know where to look the internet resources are quite good.
What's on the Linuxville guide's real desktop these days? Besides my excursion into the annals of computer graphics history, I am looking at the kinds of art that can be produced on a computer. Beyond digital photos, web pages, ad art, banners, game design, animation and special effects, if you have intent to print, there is still a lot. I have also discovered that if you plan to do more than web surfing and email you might need more computer resources than average users need. Graphics tend to be memory hogs the more complex they are.
Been library hopping lately. Even though I can reserve a book from anywhere in the system and have it delivered to my local branch, I am disappointed by what I see on the physical shelves. Book procurers only buy mostly MS windows related books. This is in spite of how many people already know about MS Windows in good detail. Linux which is free to own and use gets very little shelf space. I am not so worried about Linux as it lives on the web. But free and open source applications get even less shelf space. The GIMP books are rare, Open Office.org books are also rare. People use public libraries as a free resource, yet when they get there only find books about the most expensive software in the world. Talk about opportunities lost to lift and educate the masses. The reference librarian should be quick to say if you don't have this software try this open source one. Then I must complain about the Photoshop presence. The computer graphics sections has tons of Photoshop books then also again in the digital photography section. Two subjects not covered in my travels, digital art as in actual drawing/sketching and digital painting as in fine art. Yeah, you can find comic/game animation, sometimes computer fantasy art, but far too many digital photography books. Books you do find are on a professional level, not beginner or intermediate levels. Libraries should be in the educational opportunity and idea possibility business. Linux, open source software, computer art and design all fit into these themes.
What's on the Linuxville guide's real desktop these days? Besides my excursion into the annals of computer graphics history, I am looking at the kinds of art that can be produced on a computer. Beyond digital photos, web pages, ad art, banners, game design, animation and special effects, if you have intent to print, there is still a lot. I have also discovered that if you plan to do more than web surfing and email you might need more computer resources than average users need. Graphics tend to be memory hogs the more complex they are.
Been library hopping lately. Even though I can reserve a book from anywhere in the system and have it delivered to my local branch, I am disappointed by what I see on the physical shelves. Book procurers only buy mostly MS windows related books. This is in spite of how many people already know about MS Windows in good detail. Linux which is free to own and use gets very little shelf space. I am not so worried about Linux as it lives on the web. But free and open source applications get even less shelf space. The GIMP books are rare, Open Office.org books are also rare. People use public libraries as a free resource, yet when they get there only find books about the most expensive software in the world. Talk about opportunities lost to lift and educate the masses. The reference librarian should be quick to say if you don't have this software try this open source one. Then I must complain about the Photoshop presence. The computer graphics sections has tons of Photoshop books then also again in the digital photography section. Two subjects not covered in my travels, digital art as in actual drawing/sketching and digital painting as in fine art. Yeah, you can find comic/game animation, sometimes computer fantasy art, but far too many digital photography books. Books you do find are on a professional level, not beginner or intermediate levels. Libraries should be in the educational opportunity and idea possibility business. Linux, open source software, computer art and design all fit into these themes.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
lipstick on pigs and pitbulls, a true standard
Lipstick on a pig is a funny expression in America. Dressing up the same old thing as a new and exciting product is common practice. You already invested lots of resources, you believe so strongly in your product and you can't see anything wrong with it, yet people are complaining about it. So, you repackage it, describe it as something people want and hope they don't notice.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288 This link is to an NPR story, a farmer who tried to actually put lipstick on a pig.
Let's look at the problems. Pigs aren't very attractive, pigs don't have lips, people tend to eat pigs, pitbulls might look better than pigs, don't have lips either, have potential to bite their masters and neighbors. Of course I am eluding to the upcoming election but the trend is a common practice. Microsoft is using the sitcom comedian Seinfeld as lipstick for his pig and the Big 3 American car makers are pushing gas burning new cars as "greener" (green lipstick, yuck!). There is quite a list on which people are smearing the lipstick these days. If you have that kind of mind, you might think lipstick is an improvement, but there is something deceiving here. In a country that boast in technical prowess, inventiveness and more educated people per square mile, we certainly have a lot of pig salesman and lipstick peddlers. Oh, and don't forget, visionary people who put the two together.
I talk about many things but Linux mainly. If some company were to advertise Linux, thus marketing Linux as a product, would it become the posterchild for the whole Linux world? Would it represent or define what Linux is in the minds of would be users? Would people have an expectation of what Linux should be because some brandname product has set the standard? Would ad folks find ways to say Linux is a pig or pitbull so they could put lipstick on it? Truth be told, Linux is just the kernel. You could possibly fit it on a floppy disk. Hey, you could embed the kernel in the flashROM on the motherboard!! No, motherboards would no longer be useful for any OS of your choice and if Linux were a brandname we'd probably have to ditch the word "distro".
A friend hip me to Artweaver, a MS windows only program. It has two main features, it's free and it looks like Photoshop. Some folks are applauding it, some are bashing GIMP instead. Looking like Photoshop and being free seems to be a winning combo, yet GIMPshop takes the hits because it's still GIMP, go figure. GIMPshop is GIMP with the tools arranged to look like Photoshop. In this case free and like Photoshop is not winning, hummmmm....... It's really too bad comedians can't screen their audiences. Ever wonder how they smuggle in a sack of tomatoes to throw. I think the solution is simple. Make the Photoshop style interface the standard then have a button you can push to switch to the traditional GIMP desktop, if you want it. As for Artweaver, sorry, it's not really free or close to being free until an open source Linux version comes out. Look at Xara Xtreme. You have to ask if you need a conversion program for files to work with the other programs you are using.
The Linux class is going great, exploring the live-CD OS is fun. It is cool to hear what others have discovered and get their spin on it. One person is looking at ReactOS, a couple more at Puppy, DSL and whatever. It is hard to get all the best or preferred stuff in one distro, we like to emphasize different things. So read the instructions that say your basic "kit" includes this, build and adjust to suit and don't forget mileage may vary. I did Dyne:bolic Linux last class, it was fun and it has features I wish were in Ubuntu.
I have this view of Linux. The kernel is the part that can be compiled to run on any machine and orchestrates the interaction between the other parts (also compiled to suit), the libraries and utilities and user interface and the applications. All the pieces and parts may run great in some situations or poorly thus distros have been devised of stuff that work great together. It may be cosmetic (different GUI), an arrangement set for a purpose (server/desktop) or a hardware requirement (32 bit Intel/64 bit AMD) or a language/cultural thing that sets a distro apart. You the user can start by selecting a distro that seems right for you and adjust it for a better fit. I also believe from a user's side certain things should be transparent to any OS. Common fonts and file formats should be released from the control of any computer OS platform company. My documents should look great in any application, on any platform and in any web browser, and I should be able to move data without application specific conversion, between similar programs. The SVG format and the FLI formats are examples, different apps have different implementations of the same standard, thus they are not really standards, right! Come on folks, it's what the user uses that should be a standard.
On the Ubuntu front, Mark Shuttleworth has put out the call to all developers to sell their lipstick stock and put real effort into making Ubuntu look as good if not better than Vista and Mac OS. I am glad they won't waste time trying to discover which new mascot looks good in lipstick or a grille of human dentures. I think integrating all the effects of compiz was fun as in graffiti, but polish is more a fine art. Let's see Suse's got green, Mandrivia's got yellow, Fedora's got blue, Ubuntu's got brown, hey isn't that like branding, having a signature desktop? The default desktop is big stuff, it makes the first impression and sets the tone. Brown needs lots of help.
Ubuntu users need to weigh in, not complain, but offer alternatives, solutions and ideas. That's the Linux way.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288 This link is to an NPR story, a farmer who tried to actually put lipstick on a pig.
Let's look at the problems. Pigs aren't very attractive, pigs don't have lips, people tend to eat pigs, pitbulls might look better than pigs, don't have lips either, have potential to bite their masters and neighbors. Of course I am eluding to the upcoming election but the trend is a common practice. Microsoft is using the sitcom comedian Seinfeld as lipstick for his pig and the Big 3 American car makers are pushing gas burning new cars as "greener" (green lipstick, yuck!). There is quite a list on which people are smearing the lipstick these days. If you have that kind of mind, you might think lipstick is an improvement, but there is something deceiving here. In a country that boast in technical prowess, inventiveness and more educated people per square mile, we certainly have a lot of pig salesman and lipstick peddlers. Oh, and don't forget, visionary people who put the two together.
I talk about many things but Linux mainly. If some company were to advertise Linux, thus marketing Linux as a product, would it become the posterchild for the whole Linux world? Would it represent or define what Linux is in the minds of would be users? Would people have an expectation of what Linux should be because some brandname product has set the standard? Would ad folks find ways to say Linux is a pig or pitbull so they could put lipstick on it? Truth be told, Linux is just the kernel. You could possibly fit it on a floppy disk. Hey, you could embed the kernel in the flashROM on the motherboard!! No, motherboards would no longer be useful for any OS of your choice and if Linux were a brandname we'd probably have to ditch the word "distro".
A friend hip me to Artweaver, a MS windows only program. It has two main features, it's free and it looks like Photoshop. Some folks are applauding it, some are bashing GIMP instead. Looking like Photoshop and being free seems to be a winning combo, yet GIMPshop takes the hits because it's still GIMP, go figure. GIMPshop is GIMP with the tools arranged to look like Photoshop. In this case free and like Photoshop is not winning, hummmmm....... It's really too bad comedians can't screen their audiences. Ever wonder how they smuggle in a sack of tomatoes to throw. I think the solution is simple. Make the Photoshop style interface the standard then have a button you can push to switch to the traditional GIMP desktop, if you want it. As for Artweaver, sorry, it's not really free or close to being free until an open source Linux version comes out. Look at Xara Xtreme. You have to ask if you need a conversion program for files to work with the other programs you are using.
The Linux class is going great, exploring the live-CD OS is fun. It is cool to hear what others have discovered and get their spin on it. One person is looking at ReactOS, a couple more at Puppy, DSL and whatever. It is hard to get all the best or preferred stuff in one distro, we like to emphasize different things. So read the instructions that say your basic "kit" includes this, build and adjust to suit and don't forget mileage may vary. I did Dyne:bolic Linux last class, it was fun and it has features I wish were in Ubuntu.
I have this view of Linux. The kernel is the part that can be compiled to run on any machine and orchestrates the interaction between the other parts (also compiled to suit), the libraries and utilities and user interface and the applications. All the pieces and parts may run great in some situations or poorly thus distros have been devised of stuff that work great together. It may be cosmetic (different GUI), an arrangement set for a purpose (server/desktop) or a hardware requirement (32 bit Intel/64 bit AMD) or a language/cultural thing that sets a distro apart. You the user can start by selecting a distro that seems right for you and adjust it for a better fit. I also believe from a user's side certain things should be transparent to any OS. Common fonts and file formats should be released from the control of any computer OS platform company. My documents should look great in any application, on any platform and in any web browser, and I should be able to move data without application specific conversion, between similar programs. The SVG format and the FLI formats are examples, different apps have different implementations of the same standard, thus they are not really standards, right! Come on folks, it's what the user uses that should be a standard.
On the Ubuntu front, Mark Shuttleworth has put out the call to all developers to sell their lipstick stock and put real effort into making Ubuntu look as good if not better than Vista and Mac OS. I am glad they won't waste time trying to discover which new mascot looks good in lipstick or a grille of human dentures. I think integrating all the effects of compiz was fun as in graffiti, but polish is more a fine art. Let's see Suse's got green, Mandrivia's got yellow, Fedora's got blue, Ubuntu's got brown, hey isn't that like branding, having a signature desktop? The default desktop is big stuff, it makes the first impression and sets the tone. Brown needs lots of help.
Ubuntu users need to weigh in, not complain, but offer alternatives, solutions and ideas. That's the Linux way.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The approach, how to arrive safely in Linuxville
In the Linux past users have been IT specialist, coders and developers. Today Linux has spread to include less knowledgeable business and home users. The problem has always been that Linux is not in wide popular use because it hasn't been simply described and taught by the experienced users.
How do you approach Linux so that any user can want to begin to understand it? There are lots of Linux experienced people whose claim to fame is that they also are IT specialist, avid coders and developers. They know all the ins and outs of Linux but in truth have no need for the reassuring comfort of a GUI. I learned this from working at NASA, never ask an engineer for a quick overview of a project. They will impress you with the vital (interesting to them) details, important to know how they see it. With these type of folks the simple basic truth of Linux is the command line or terminal. So you need to learn something called the standard basic Bash commands and eventually learn to compile programs. Then you should learn how to use the text editor called Emacs (it does everything!) or Vim. "Only then can you know the true nature of the force." Yeah, you must become an auto mechanic before you can drive too. I have a great respect for IT folks, coders, developers and auto mechanics but the know what I know how I know it way of passing on knowledge is not the path to user enlightenment. Critics of Linux seem to perpetuate the attitude that the complexities of Linux are barely covered by the desktop GUI. Let's talk cars, you will find a dashboard, steering wheel, gas and brake pedals on a Ford Focus sedan and on a heavy-duty F-150 truck. Does more power under the hood require a different driver interface? How is it the Focus driver is able to drive the F-150? The driver interface is standard on cars/trucks and the GUI is the standard user interface on computers. The question of whether Linux is ready for the desktop is a stupid one. The Linux desktop has all the features the MS Windows or the Mac desktops have. The perception that Linux complexities and power is cheapened and degraded by the GUI is ignorant. The perception that Linux is only for geeks and techies in spite of having a GUI is also ignorant. Let's review the facts of computers. The OS (operating system) is a program that makes all the hardware work together at the request of a user. A GUI (graphical user interface) is an efficient (point & click vs type in commands) way to make those request.
Now we have settled the basic truths of computers (users point of view), you can argue all you want about who has the best or most popular operating system and who has the best or most popular desktop GUI. The fact is that the GUI is what the user expects after boot up. Robin 'Roblimo' Miller of "Point & Click Linux" fame (very good book) says that today's Linux can be used with six commands, point & click, drag & drop, and cut & paste. Linus Torvalds the inventor of Linux said that the OS (operating system) should be transparent to the user. The Linux desktop GUI does this very well and yet you can if you have the skills, tinker under the hood. Speaking of cars, even if you like the outward appearance, the engineering and the standard features, the interior look and feel is what sells the car. An awkward dashboard design and misplaced amenities will spoil the allure, you look good being seen in it but it doesn't look good to you while you are in it.
Of course when we talk about desktop Linux we also refer to the programs that run in Linux. We first want to run MS and Mac programs on it because we already know, love and use them. Then we want to know if Linux has equivalents (drop-in compatible replacements) of MS and Mac programs. Finally we come to realize that there are softwares for Linux that are better or worse than MS or Mac programs that do the same things. It is so hard to convince us users that the only true requirement is for file formats that are transferable between systems. The MS Office file formats that are widely used in business and home can also be read and written by Linux programs. There are other file formats like PDF and multimedia formats like Flash that can also be used in Linux also. You can safely use Linux rather than use MS or Mac and not miss a beat. Well, I guess there is a curve to over come. If you are a Ford Focus person and come to drive a F-150 (I've seen it done), you might have to adjust your judgment, perception and your techniques but you should have no problem working all the features.
OK folks, you got the GUI and the file formats, you just need to kick the tires and drive around the block. Don't worry about the terms and agreements of leasing because you can actually own it, to pimp it, junk it or drive it until it dies (if ever). You can fold, spindle and mutilate it without voiding the warranty. You can copy it, clone it, replicate it, even mutate it and yet, install it on as many machines as you have access to. With all the freedoms and liberties with Linux the only thing holding you back from using it is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). This is user inertia caused by extended MS and Mac product use. I assure you that the existence and pedigree of Linux are firm and the pleasure of using it is comparable to if not better than what you have previously known. Sorry there is no money back guarantee, Linux is free!
How do you approach Linux so that any user can want to begin to understand it? There are lots of Linux experienced people whose claim to fame is that they also are IT specialist, avid coders and developers. They know all the ins and outs of Linux but in truth have no need for the reassuring comfort of a GUI. I learned this from working at NASA, never ask an engineer for a quick overview of a project. They will impress you with the vital (interesting to them) details, important to know how they see it. With these type of folks the simple basic truth of Linux is the command line or terminal. So you need to learn something called the standard basic Bash commands and eventually learn to compile programs. Then you should learn how to use the text editor called Emacs (it does everything!) or Vim. "Only then can you know the true nature of the force." Yeah, you must become an auto mechanic before you can drive too. I have a great respect for IT folks, coders, developers and auto mechanics but the know what I know how I know it way of passing on knowledge is not the path to user enlightenment. Critics of Linux seem to perpetuate the attitude that the complexities of Linux are barely covered by the desktop GUI. Let's talk cars, you will find a dashboard, steering wheel, gas and brake pedals on a Ford Focus sedan and on a heavy-duty F-150 truck. Does more power under the hood require a different driver interface? How is it the Focus driver is able to drive the F-150? The driver interface is standard on cars/trucks and the GUI is the standard user interface on computers. The question of whether Linux is ready for the desktop is a stupid one. The Linux desktop has all the features the MS Windows or the Mac desktops have. The perception that Linux complexities and power is cheapened and degraded by the GUI is ignorant. The perception that Linux is only for geeks and techies in spite of having a GUI is also ignorant. Let's review the facts of computers. The OS (operating system) is a program that makes all the hardware work together at the request of a user. A GUI (graphical user interface) is an efficient (point & click vs type in commands) way to make those request.
Now we have settled the basic truths of computers (users point of view), you can argue all you want about who has the best or most popular operating system and who has the best or most popular desktop GUI. The fact is that the GUI is what the user expects after boot up. Robin 'Roblimo' Miller of "Point & Click Linux" fame (very good book) says that today's Linux can be used with six commands, point & click, drag & drop, and cut & paste. Linus Torvalds the inventor of Linux said that the OS (operating system) should be transparent to the user. The Linux desktop GUI does this very well and yet you can if you have the skills, tinker under the hood. Speaking of cars, even if you like the outward appearance, the engineering and the standard features, the interior look and feel is what sells the car. An awkward dashboard design and misplaced amenities will spoil the allure, you look good being seen in it but it doesn't look good to you while you are in it.
Of course when we talk about desktop Linux we also refer to the programs that run in Linux. We first want to run MS and Mac programs on it because we already know, love and use them. Then we want to know if Linux has equivalents (drop-in compatible replacements) of MS and Mac programs. Finally we come to realize that there are softwares for Linux that are better or worse than MS or Mac programs that do the same things. It is so hard to convince us users that the only true requirement is for file formats that are transferable between systems. The MS Office file formats that are widely used in business and home can also be read and written by Linux programs. There are other file formats like PDF and multimedia formats like Flash that can also be used in Linux also. You can safely use Linux rather than use MS or Mac and not miss a beat. Well, I guess there is a curve to over come. If you are a Ford Focus person and come to drive a F-150 (I've seen it done), you might have to adjust your judgment, perception and your techniques but you should have no problem working all the features.
OK folks, you got the GUI and the file formats, you just need to kick the tires and drive around the block. Don't worry about the terms and agreements of leasing because you can actually own it, to pimp it, junk it or drive it until it dies (if ever). You can fold, spindle and mutilate it without voiding the warranty. You can copy it, clone it, replicate it, even mutate it and yet, install it on as many machines as you have access to. With all the freedoms and liberties with Linux the only thing holding you back from using it is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). This is user inertia caused by extended MS and Mac product use. I assure you that the existence and pedigree of Linux are firm and the pleasure of using it is comparable to if not better than what you have previously known. Sorry there is no money back guarantee, Linux is free!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The mystery of history and the dusty PC in the attic
I was in college in the 70's and missed Viet Nam because of a medical deferment. My older brother though signed up and went. When he came back he filled in all the stories I had heard about the war. He also brought back with him something else, tapes of the music of the times. Jimmy Hendrix, Steppenwolf and others. There weren't any real west coast hippies in Ohio that I knew but hearing the stories and the sounds put me there. Yeah, we had records but the tapes were magical, they put me there. I can't remember when I first got computer cravings, I was into architecture in school. When that was no longer a practical pursuit, I guess I caught the technology bug. We live in amazing times even when we aren't in the center of where it's happening. I read magazines and journals not comprehending what I was looking at. It became real when I got my first computer (a Sinclair 1000). Many guys/gals like me dreamed of what I might of been like to be on the ground floor of earth shaking happenings. The 60's and 70's came and went so fast if all you can remember is hippies and disco you had your eyes closed. I just watched the movie "The Pirates of Silicon Valley". According to it, personal computing ultimately owes it's existence to Jobs and Gates. They weren't the originators but they did in huge part make computers personal and popular. They stand out today because their companies are big and in the forefront. But they don't tell the whole story as I have said before. Many, many users regard Jobs and Gates as iconic figures that overshadow their respective lives and characters. How they got there is no longer important because we just use the products of their companies. So if we criticize them we are sort of attacking their products creditability and such. Well, it is in fact good to inquire into the history of things. To know the circumstances from which things are born. Not for the technology itself, but the attitudes of peoples that caused opportunities to be taken or missed. The noise of the foreground focus often obscures the stuff going on the background. With the stage set, the stuff in the foreground happens because some seize the moment. If you were too young to remember or weren't born yet, I speak as an older guy, you have missed a lot of what has made today possible. If you only know part of the story then you will forever be short in your access to all the opportunities before you. This is why I say that if you know the truth, you should tell the Linux story, how it fits into the times to where it is today. I just saw "Pirates of Silicon Valley", and it is very eye opening as far as an example of American entrepreneurial spirit breaking the old notions and boundaries and developing into a mirror image of both their founders and the very entities they were repelling from. Absolutely nothing is said about Unix finding its way onto personal computers in the way of Linux. The development and growth of Linux was out of their scope though probably not out of their sight, after all Linux was born on the new thing called the Internet. I also just read one of many sites, http://www.sitepoint.com/article/real-history-gui , about the GUI. Many vocal users claim the superiority of Macs or MS Windows interfaces. You should look into the GUI history, the series of deals and misdeeds that took place to develop what we have today is not a glamorous one. For one vendor to claim a legal leg up is as stupid as claiming rights to turkey quills as the first ink pen. Sorry, to borrow or steal or appropriate or copy is just business to some. Who stole first, who drew first blood all happened before most of us were even aware of computers. Mr. Gates even insisted that computer hobbyist protect their ideas from being stolen. He, to this day still insist on rights of propriety and leasing the use of technology to other companies and to users. If you know these beginnings, you can understand the how and why of MS products and their relationship to users today. You can also ask the question of how can there be a Linux today if it didn't come about the same way that Microsoft and Apple came about? What was the source and the motivation that drove it because it wasn't market forces. Yet, Linux survives and flourishes, in spite of not being a commercial success. And you can ask if Linux is such a hot operating system, why am I just finding out about it, I grew up with computers?
In college you find out that the world is larger than even the media can expose. Things happen in your world, things happen elsewhere at the same time. The media shows you one thing and not another because it's not news worthy or something. Or the company that controls the media is in cohoots with someone paying for you not to know, or........it's the perception. Linux is for geeks and former IBM techies. How about Linus Torvalds not being American, how good can that be? You know the Edison/Tesla thing I keep bringing up. Well, I had an inkling that computers didn't need MS software to run because I read about it. One day I stumbled on a book (Power Linux) with a CD of LST Linux in the back in a local library years ago. I can't remember installing it but I must have tried. I do remember downloading Slackware Linux onto floppies. Then my first significant install was Red Hat Linux. I dual-booted with MS Win95, it was a total mess. I did a 5 year stint as an electrical draftsman at a NASA facility. There it was confirmed that computers can be designed to run without the aid of MS software. And that PC's could be run with Linux and that Linux was adequate on the desktop for most if not all of my computing needs. Engineers at NASA were still skeptical about Linux on the desktop and I heard all the typical user excuses for not using it from not looking right to not enough games. Getting back to the GUI, a touchy subject among users, it is such a subjective thing to pit one GUI against another. Sort of like comparing ink pens. Look, feel, and polish have all been expounded on. But GUI's improve with all the criticism in tow. Most of what we call a GUI is standardized down to point and click. If you point to it and click it, it's suppose to work and that is that. Most don't really care what the operating system actually is, as long as the point and click works. Most have bought into the pitch that one companies point and click is more natural than another or that you can only understand one style of point and click in your life. Also if you change from one point and click system to another, the learning curve is so high/costly. Gee, that says a lot about the confidence companies have in folks who grew up programming buttons on the microwave, TV remote, VCR and cell phones.
"Once you know it you can't change" has been the mantra of software vendors for years now. It is a marketing tool that says only our stuff fits you, forever.
I think I have said enough for now. Look into computing history and find out the how and why of things, it is interesting and it might change how you feel about things you accept as common place today. The larger lessons of ethical behaviors and outcomes of things and events all color the stuff going on today. Life did not begin with us, we stand on shoulders, take part in, mesh with and continue a pattern of in a time we pass through. Some of us make a difference and some are un-noticed but once we are here we experience and are a part of the story. To get the chance to tell the story is cool but to hear the same event from a number of sources is to hear the story in "HD".
In college you find out that the world is larger than even the media can expose. Things happen in your world, things happen elsewhere at the same time. The media shows you one thing and not another because it's not news worthy or something. Or the company that controls the media is in cohoots with someone paying for you not to know, or........it's the perception. Linux is for geeks and former IBM techies. How about Linus Torvalds not being American, how good can that be? You know the Edison/Tesla thing I keep bringing up. Well, I had an inkling that computers didn't need MS software to run because I read about it. One day I stumbled on a book (Power Linux) with a CD of LST Linux in the back in a local library years ago. I can't remember installing it but I must have tried. I do remember downloading Slackware Linux onto floppies. Then my first significant install was Red Hat Linux. I dual-booted with MS Win95, it was a total mess. I did a 5 year stint as an electrical draftsman at a NASA facility. There it was confirmed that computers can be designed to run without the aid of MS software. And that PC's could be run with Linux and that Linux was adequate on the desktop for most if not all of my computing needs. Engineers at NASA were still skeptical about Linux on the desktop and I heard all the typical user excuses for not using it from not looking right to not enough games. Getting back to the GUI, a touchy subject among users, it is such a subjective thing to pit one GUI against another. Sort of like comparing ink pens. Look, feel, and polish have all been expounded on. But GUI's improve with all the criticism in tow. Most of what we call a GUI is standardized down to point and click. If you point to it and click it, it's suppose to work and that is that. Most don't really care what the operating system actually is, as long as the point and click works. Most have bought into the pitch that one companies point and click is more natural than another or that you can only understand one style of point and click in your life. Also if you change from one point and click system to another, the learning curve is so high/costly. Gee, that says a lot about the confidence companies have in folks who grew up programming buttons on the microwave, TV remote, VCR and cell phones.
"Once you know it you can't change" has been the mantra of software vendors for years now. It is a marketing tool that says only our stuff fits you, forever.
I think I have said enough for now. Look into computing history and find out the how and why of things, it is interesting and it might change how you feel about things you accept as common place today. The larger lessons of ethical behaviors and outcomes of things and events all color the stuff going on today. Life did not begin with us, we stand on shoulders, take part in, mesh with and continue a pattern of in a time we pass through. Some of us make a difference and some are un-noticed but once we are here we experience and are a part of the story. To get the chance to tell the story is cool but to hear the same event from a number of sources is to hear the story in "HD".
Monday, January 21, 2008
"Hey. what's going on?" with Linux and the world?
Being one to unbashfully (is that a word?) suggest the use of Linux, I notice a lot friends with older PC's who still can't let go of Microsoft in spite of their equipment not being supported any longer. The older PC's still work but have low total memory, smaller hard drives, cheap video cards and slower processors. People install newer/larger hard drives, DVD players and all sorts of USB plugins. If you can't upgrade the flash ROM, add device drivers/codecs or if you don't have an original copy of Microsoft OS (can't get online updates), you are stuck with a doorstop. Aren't you? Conventional wisdom (a marketing ploy) says, if you can't find the treasure, dig deeper in the same hole or buy a new (same brand) computer. I guess I need specifics to make the point. A friend has an older PC running WinXP with only 64MB of memory. It's amazing it ran. I give it a 256MB memory upgrade and increase the page memory, it runs better, yet still not top shelf. It has a DVD player for which I can't find a reasonable driver and a cheap video card. The PC was not made for WinXP so it coughs and chokes when demanded to perform. As a techie friend, do I continue to recommend endless upgrades or abandoning this PC for a new one. A new one wins, but what to do with the old one, it still works? "Going to give it to my parents to use (just for email and internet)." And they inherit all the problems that come with it. Hummmmm.... Well, I suggest they give Linux a try of course. "But we need to have Microsoft to be compatible with other........" If you buy a new PC, most likely it will have Microsoft on it, but in reality you don't need Microsoft on past or present hardware. You only have to be concerned with file formats being compatible. I only suggest people try Linux because it is so easy to try it. If it does not work for you, that is fine, you are not betraying Microsoft by trying. You can try Linux without installing it, without Linux affecting your computer at all. It is called a live-CD Linux version. It runs from the CD. You can save settings and user files to a jump drive or to a shared MS Windows folder. And if you like it you have the option to install totally replacing MS Windows or by creating a special partition on your hard drive for it. Then using an operating system selector, you can choose either OS when you turn on the computer. Popping a CD in to try is akin to AOL's CD in every book, magazine and mailbox campaign, only not so pushy. You have the option to try or not. The most popular way of getting Linux is to download it off the internet for free and burn it to a CD. You could also order CD's at very low cost. What is in a name? Since Linux comes under so many names you need to educate yourself as to what are the choices. WWW.distrowatch.com list all the most popular "distributions" of Linux. It lists them by the most talked about, not the most used. Then, www.livecdlist.com list all the live-cd's with links to their descriptions and download sites. The different distributions of Linux are all Linux but target different types of users preferences. I recommend Xubuntu and Wolvix which I myself use, of course. They are good for lower hardware requirements. Dream Linux, Mepis, Knoppix, and Puppy Linux are all great portable and versatile Linuxes. A Linux distribution comes with a GUI desktop or two, and a selection of user software applications so you don't have to install anything extra to be able to do useful computing. With the live-CD, you have to be happy with the choices on the CD. When or if you install it on your hard drive, you can then add or delete the applications you want. With a live-CD and a jump drive you can move "your OS, apps and user files" to any compatible computer, then remove them without a trace. Some live-CD versions come with tools to let you design a new live-CD with the stuff you want on it. Is there a caveat? Yes, Linux will not run your Microsoft applications out of the box. You would need a virtual machine software like Virtualbox or something called Crossover Office or Wine to do the job. Mileage may vary as success is not a sure thing. Linux application equivalents to Microsoft applications is found at www.linuxalt.com and www.linuxquestions.org . Here there are links to descriptions of Linux softwares which are as good or better than MS stuff. If they fit the need, you have found a winner, if not maybe Linux is not for you.
Now that I said my unbashful Linux promotion we can look at other stuff.
We are approaching in computers, all avenues at once. From very green low power but highly functional laptops to light dimming during power up desktops. To get one machine that does it all is increasing impossible because we keep creating new extensions for every device. Look at USB external disk storage and video cards that handle computation intensive 3-d gaming and digital broadcast video, then cellphones and PDA's. Multi-function and cross-function consumer products have blurred the vision of typical buyers everywhere. I watched in a movie a bank robbery taking place, when the crooks said empty your pockets, it took ten minutes to unload all the devices people had. Computers once relegated to the study or den are now in the bedroom, living room and kitchen. Some of us are 24/7 connected to digital entertainment and/or digital work. I hope we do not forget our humanity in all this digital immersion. I hope we do not overlook the plight of those who do not have digital access to the mediums of exchange, be it money (credit) or information. Technology can make a people powerful but not always wiser. A good humanity is still highly valued in a world prone to selfishness and greediness while sharing supposedly scarce resources to meet our needs. We have said electrons moving at the speed of light is the holy grail and blood moves too slowly, even hindering the speed of our reason. We only look at each other when we need to and we don't regard each other so well. We need to be reminded that when we switch off the lights we can turn them on again, but when we turn off a human being, they are dead. We should appreciate life while we are on.
Now that I said my unbashful Linux promotion we can look at other stuff.
We are approaching in computers, all avenues at once. From very green low power but highly functional laptops to light dimming during power up desktops. To get one machine that does it all is increasing impossible because we keep creating new extensions for every device. Look at USB external disk storage and video cards that handle computation intensive 3-d gaming and digital broadcast video, then cellphones and PDA's. Multi-function and cross-function consumer products have blurred the vision of typical buyers everywhere. I watched in a movie a bank robbery taking place, when the crooks said empty your pockets, it took ten minutes to unload all the devices people had. Computers once relegated to the study or den are now in the bedroom, living room and kitchen. Some of us are 24/7 connected to digital entertainment and/or digital work. I hope we do not forget our humanity in all this digital immersion. I hope we do not overlook the plight of those who do not have digital access to the mediums of exchange, be it money (credit) or information. Technology can make a people powerful but not always wiser. A good humanity is still highly valued in a world prone to selfishness and greediness while sharing supposedly scarce resources to meet our needs. We have said electrons moving at the speed of light is the holy grail and blood moves too slowly, even hindering the speed of our reason. We only look at each other when we need to and we don't regard each other so well. We need to be reminded that when we switch off the lights we can turn them on again, but when we turn off a human being, they are dead. We should appreciate life while we are on.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Another question from the Linux realm
People are really funny, but I guess it depends on who you are talking about. For years we have been mesmerized by bigness. Big cars, huge trucks, big homes, when we got to put our body in it we want room to spare. Or we want everyone to know how well we are doing. With consumer electronics we thought big was cool for a while. You know, big case with that tiny circuit board on the inside. To this day we struggle with the size that matters. Here's the picture, a company (Microsoft) we all know and love makes software for computers. And without wavering, they over the years have required users to upgrade or buy new computers with every new version of that software. You, and it's been explained are supposedly driven by bigness, must have this bigger better hardware and bigger better software. Only there are three little problems. 1. The present hardware hasn't worn out before the new software comes. 2. Your computing habits haven't changed in the face of all the "new features". And 3. You can't always justify the cost of newness (or its' associated bigness) when it is not needed. Unfortunately, we are somewhat driven by fear of being behind, not being up to date. So, like the good consumers we are we go out and buy the big (normal) computer setup and the compatible software. This includes laptops, which brings me to the thing I am talking about. This group invents a small laptop for the One Laptop Per Child project. It's smaller than a traditional laptop in all respects. This laptop is small in size and capacity (sort of like my old stuff) yet, it is new, cheap too, and does all the stuff the big ones do. Kids are loving it. But wait, it doesn't do MS Windows Vista, it's too big, won't fit. Microsoft belts out, "it's not fair to design and sale a computer that can't run MS Windows".
Then this other company makes a small laptop, Asustek's eeePC and they have got Microsoft scrambling to trim down MS Windows of some sort to fit on it. Unfair they cry, how dare you make a computer we can't put our stuff on. So my question is, is there a law that says any computer that is bought or sold in America must be able to run some version of Microsoft software to be fair? Oh, did I mention these little PC's can run Linux just fine? Hey, Apple owns Mac's, don't we own PC's? No Bill, a marketing strategy does not give you ownership or squatter's rights. Computers don't have to be able to run MS Windows at all.
Wow, Linux will run on the older hardware Microsoft doesn't support any more and on some of the new stuff coming out that Microsoft can't. Linux does not stifle new computer designs or limit consumer choice. Linux this, and Linux that and Linux.............
Then this other company makes a small laptop, Asustek's eeePC and they have got Microsoft scrambling to trim down MS Windows of some sort to fit on it. Unfair they cry, how dare you make a computer we can't put our stuff on. So my question is, is there a law that says any computer that is bought or sold in America must be able to run some version of Microsoft software to be fair? Oh, did I mention these little PC's can run Linux just fine? Hey, Apple owns Mac's, don't we own PC's? No Bill, a marketing strategy does not give you ownership or squatter's rights. Computers don't have to be able to run MS Windows at all.
Wow, Linux will run on the older hardware Microsoft doesn't support any more and on some of the new stuff coming out that Microsoft can't. Linux does not stifle new computer designs or limit consumer choice. Linux this, and Linux that and Linux.............
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The lay of the Linux Landscape
If I am not mistaken, it was Henry Ford who not only established the production line as a fixture in American industry but also set in the American mind what constitutes product development. The rather linear approach to design and development ultimately concluded with one product, done well, no choice.
The publics answer to this was to develop an after-market industry to provide options that met all the varied taste and desires. Applied to the hardware side of computers, we have a few standards that regulate what a PC is to provide because companies have the ability to introduce new stuff with the intention to capture more of the market. PC hardware is not the "Wild West" it once was. Software on the other hand is a little more fluid than hardware. Just when Apple and Microsoft, which are firmly rooted in the American way of doing things, have established what constitutes an Operating System, someone from the outside invents an Operating System by a different means. This is Linux. With Apple or Microsoft, they provide a product, like it or not, and the after-market provides the options. With Linux it seems the production people and the after-market people are the same people. What brought all this up was that I was browsing the Internet after asking a question. What was the best low resource Linux. I uncovered many, many opinions, probably the result of having too much choice. What stood out was that many people like choice but not the choices. People like that Linux can provide so many solutions yet aren't satisfied because it is not "exactly" what they want. With Apple or Microsoft you buy a product which in reality only gets you permission to use it, and then get after-market add-ons to make up for lacking variety or you acquire Linux. With Linux you yourself have the right to configure it to your hearts content, even to the point of rewriting the code. But there is a point at which choice becomes a headache. Take Ubuntu Linux as an example. Ubuntu is a very good Linux but doesn't quite allow you to seamlessly install any desktop or window manager you want. So folks have developed GUI specific Ubuntu's to provide solutions. There is Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and a couple more. Of course some people are not happy with this and demand a unified approach to Ubuntu while still having a choice of GUI's. You have to see that because Ubuntu is so popular folks want to have it yet they want it according to what they think is cool. Other Linux distributions suffer a little less from this malady because they are known to support only a particular GUI. This is a curious thing, if you offer a vast assortment of choices, people complain they can't find what they want. If you offer one thing they put up and shut up.
What my original question points out is that the majority of people interested in Linux want a simple solution like what Apple or Microsoft provides yet still have it tailored to their particular wants. So I would say to the Linux community that Linux needs to allow for a more seamless integration of user choices. Parts or modules that fit well and don't break the system when added or removed.
In Linux user choices have grown so they don't fit on a single CD any more. This is why on-line repositories are so important. Why force users to download a DVD's worth of software only to have it obsoleted by upgrades anyway? Red Hat are you listening? So what that you can't provide every choice on one CD. You can provide a basic working system on one CD and supply options on another or in a repository. I really admire the Linux distributions that are smallish like Wolvix and Puppy Linux. They prove that small can be better and still allow you to add all the bloat you want. Let's see, a basic working system to which you could seamlessly add or delete the stuff you want. That is the best you could get with any product. The smallish Linux distributions do other things that the big, full featured, all inclusive ones don't. Like run great on older and low resource hardware or fit on a jump drive. And it is so much easier to add things than delete them. There is a tendency for software makers to add more functionality and features to programs as they age. This results in your favorite zippy application becoming a resource hog eventually. I heard this was the case with Xfce desktop which is still, in my opinion, pretty lean compared to KDE. It is a tough job to design software to fit such a diverse group as Linux users.
I hope Linux doesn't loose its' "Lego" nature or the "kit" mentality needed by users. I hope Linux doesn't evolve into a product of limited scope and usefulness. I also hope the trend to always put a name on various new configurations (distributions) of Linux doesn't distract from the fact that it's still Linux. User opinion is fuel for the media. Users argue over which GUI is better or leaner. They vie over the package formats and the installation tools and of course drivers and codecs. The result of all this is 400+ different and named distributions of Linux. Is this dissatisfaction with or innovation in Linux? What you can say is that users are a huge part of the dialog that causes Linux to evolve. Even though the business model that produced Apple and Microsoft products is considered the way things are done the world over, it is refreshing to see that things done differently can also produce a viable solution to computing needs. Perhaps the real solution is somewhere between one size fits all and custom made.
The publics answer to this was to develop an after-market industry to provide options that met all the varied taste and desires. Applied to the hardware side of computers, we have a few standards that regulate what a PC is to provide because companies have the ability to introduce new stuff with the intention to capture more of the market. PC hardware is not the "Wild West" it once was. Software on the other hand is a little more fluid than hardware. Just when Apple and Microsoft, which are firmly rooted in the American way of doing things, have established what constitutes an Operating System, someone from the outside invents an Operating System by a different means. This is Linux. With Apple or Microsoft, they provide a product, like it or not, and the after-market provides the options. With Linux it seems the production people and the after-market people are the same people. What brought all this up was that I was browsing the Internet after asking a question. What was the best low resource Linux. I uncovered many, many opinions, probably the result of having too much choice. What stood out was that many people like choice but not the choices. People like that Linux can provide so many solutions yet aren't satisfied because it is not "exactly" what they want. With Apple or Microsoft you buy a product which in reality only gets you permission to use it, and then get after-market add-ons to make up for lacking variety or you acquire Linux. With Linux you yourself have the right to configure it to your hearts content, even to the point of rewriting the code. But there is a point at which choice becomes a headache. Take Ubuntu Linux as an example. Ubuntu is a very good Linux but doesn't quite allow you to seamlessly install any desktop or window manager you want. So folks have developed GUI specific Ubuntu's to provide solutions. There is Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and a couple more. Of course some people are not happy with this and demand a unified approach to Ubuntu while still having a choice of GUI's. You have to see that because Ubuntu is so popular folks want to have it yet they want it according to what they think is cool. Other Linux distributions suffer a little less from this malady because they are known to support only a particular GUI. This is a curious thing, if you offer a vast assortment of choices, people complain they can't find what they want. If you offer one thing they put up and shut up.
What my original question points out is that the majority of people interested in Linux want a simple solution like what Apple or Microsoft provides yet still have it tailored to their particular wants. So I would say to the Linux community that Linux needs to allow for a more seamless integration of user choices. Parts or modules that fit well and don't break the system when added or removed.
In Linux user choices have grown so they don't fit on a single CD any more. This is why on-line repositories are so important. Why force users to download a DVD's worth of software only to have it obsoleted by upgrades anyway? Red Hat are you listening? So what that you can't provide every choice on one CD. You can provide a basic working system on one CD and supply options on another or in a repository. I really admire the Linux distributions that are smallish like Wolvix and Puppy Linux. They prove that small can be better and still allow you to add all the bloat you want. Let's see, a basic working system to which you could seamlessly add or delete the stuff you want. That is the best you could get with any product. The smallish Linux distributions do other things that the big, full featured, all inclusive ones don't. Like run great on older and low resource hardware or fit on a jump drive. And it is so much easier to add things than delete them. There is a tendency for software makers to add more functionality and features to programs as they age. This results in your favorite zippy application becoming a resource hog eventually. I heard this was the case with Xfce desktop which is still, in my opinion, pretty lean compared to KDE. It is a tough job to design software to fit such a diverse group as Linux users.
I hope Linux doesn't loose its' "Lego" nature or the "kit" mentality needed by users. I hope Linux doesn't evolve into a product of limited scope and usefulness. I also hope the trend to always put a name on various new configurations (distributions) of Linux doesn't distract from the fact that it's still Linux. User opinion is fuel for the media. Users argue over which GUI is better or leaner. They vie over the package formats and the installation tools and of course drivers and codecs. The result of all this is 400+ different and named distributions of Linux. Is this dissatisfaction with or innovation in Linux? What you can say is that users are a huge part of the dialog that causes Linux to evolve. Even though the business model that produced Apple and Microsoft products is considered the way things are done the world over, it is refreshing to see that things done differently can also produce a viable solution to computing needs. Perhaps the real solution is somewhere between one size fits all and custom made.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Cad on the technical desktop
In my latest round of what do you get in Linux I had to let life in the real world leak in a little. I have been for many years an Electrical draftsman and the software of choice in the profession is AutoCad. Now Autocad is only on the Microsoft Windows platform and because it is the industry standard, both Microsoft and Autodesk who makes AutoCad have a monopoly on the technical desktop. This is really apparent when you realize that most electrical cad work is 2D, wiring diagrams and schematics, and have basically have no need for things like parametric dimensioning and 3D capability. So in reality AutoCad is an extreme overkill. I think Autocad is used because of the file formats, DXF and DWG are handled so well. You could get into some 3D work involved with the physical layout and packaging of electrical parts, but for the most part, 2D is the ticket. There are some new Cad programs devised to better handle some electrical drawing tasks for a cheaper cost, but AutoCad pretty much retains a lock on the industry.
What of these other Cad programs? They handle DXF and DWG files with varying degrees of success. When you transfer drawings from one program to another, you can corrupt and or change data, which is not a good thing. So why isn't there a Linux version of AutoCad? There are two reasons. First Linux does not enjoy wide spread use in the tech industry. Then it seems that people who use Linux expect low cost or free software. Of course if a Linux version were the industry standard, you could get people to pay for it. With Linux there is always the question as to whether or not you can get a return on your investment of money, time and energy, which comes first the demand or the development? There is another reason that troubles me. It seems that people who use Linux applications do not develop or support industry user groups beyond the general purpose forums. This is a somewhat fuzzy view because people in the mechanical and architectural disciplines do share lots of information compared to the electrical which is mostly not mentioned.
The question comes up, can you really do Cad in Linux? Yes, by running a MS windows Cad application in a emulator like Wine or in a virtual machine under VirtualBox or VM. And there are a couple of Cad programs that run natively in Linux, namely Qcad and VariCad. Qcad is free and VariCad is not. There is also LinuxCad but I am not hearing good things about that one. Again, what troubles me about Qcad in particular is that everyone talks about it being easy to use but no one who uses it shares enough information about it to get a practical idea about how to use it. There are no Qcad users groups and the makers have left the users to figure it out. VariCad may suffer the same fate but I don't know. To be able to trade notes, symbol blocks, scripts and tips is what makes for an active support community. Right now I question as to if the software is even being used. There are a good number of Linux tools for printed circuit boards and electronic circuit design but simple drafting tools seems to have escaped the platform. The future of Cad on Linux seems iffy.
Now I will say a word to Linux users that may sting a little. Linux is "just" the operating system and means nothing without the applications which run on it. We users need to really around, support and promote the applications that make Linux a worthwhile platform. Perhaps the developers should consider putting among their application web pages, some promotional type pages and market their wares on other web sites. Then develop the user forms into user groups to share stuff that make use of the applications more useful. Linux could be the next great technical platform.
What of these other Cad programs? They handle DXF and DWG files with varying degrees of success. When you transfer drawings from one program to another, you can corrupt and or change data, which is not a good thing. So why isn't there a Linux version of AutoCad? There are two reasons. First Linux does not enjoy wide spread use in the tech industry. Then it seems that people who use Linux expect low cost or free software. Of course if a Linux version were the industry standard, you could get people to pay for it. With Linux there is always the question as to whether or not you can get a return on your investment of money, time and energy, which comes first the demand or the development? There is another reason that troubles me. It seems that people who use Linux applications do not develop or support industry user groups beyond the general purpose forums. This is a somewhat fuzzy view because people in the mechanical and architectural disciplines do share lots of information compared to the electrical which is mostly not mentioned.
The question comes up, can you really do Cad in Linux? Yes, by running a MS windows Cad application in a emulator like Wine or in a virtual machine under VirtualBox or VM. And there are a couple of Cad programs that run natively in Linux, namely Qcad and VariCad. Qcad is free and VariCad is not. There is also LinuxCad but I am not hearing good things about that one. Again, what troubles me about Qcad in particular is that everyone talks about it being easy to use but no one who uses it shares enough information about it to get a practical idea about how to use it. There are no Qcad users groups and the makers have left the users to figure it out. VariCad may suffer the same fate but I don't know. To be able to trade notes, symbol blocks, scripts and tips is what makes for an active support community. Right now I question as to if the software is even being used. There are a good number of Linux tools for printed circuit boards and electronic circuit design but simple drafting tools seems to have escaped the platform. The future of Cad on Linux seems iffy.
Now I will say a word to Linux users that may sting a little. Linux is "just" the operating system and means nothing without the applications which run on it. We users need to really around, support and promote the applications that make Linux a worthwhile platform. Perhaps the developers should consider putting among their application web pages, some promotional type pages and market their wares on other web sites. Then develop the user forms into user groups to share stuff that make use of the applications more useful. Linux could be the next great technical platform.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, October 12, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
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.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
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..........
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..........
Monday, September 24, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
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).
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).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)