"Well, I've got the upgrade blues, again."
Thanks to the wonderful Fedora 7 people, I've got to consider the cost and pay the boss. Do I really need a DVD burner? We live in a world where it is possible to save all our precious and expanding personal data, pictures and the like on optical media. We can even copy movies, which is why most people even bother with DVDs. But personal data, I can hardly fill one CD as it is. 700MB is a lot of space actually. Being from the floppy generation, I am still impressed with that. Now a DVD can hold about 4.7 Gigs (single layer) and about 8.5 Gigs (double layer) if you have that technology. I was looking at Tom's Hardware web site. You can get a DVD burner for $30-$100+, and you get what you pay for. I my self don't recommend the cheapest you can find, speed and quality does matter.
Anyway Fedora 7 folks, you have barely crossed the boarder by offering an .iso image of just 833MBs, why not just put it on 2 CDs? Hey, it's a liveCD dummy! It just wouldn't work spread across 2 CDs.
So, what can you do with a new DVD burner that you could not do with your CD burner? Besides copying movies and music. You could backup or Ghost your whole system onto a DVD. I guess the potential to do big things is there. And speaking of downloading movies, what is your download speed. I am always surprised by the number of computer owners/users who don't have cable or DSL. Using a modem is akin to using floppies in my book. What is so weird about this DVD thing is that you don't have to justify the cost because it can be reasonable. You just have to figure out what to do with the technology now that you have it. Is buying a DVD burner one of those life changing things? Hey, we do still live in interesting times.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The life and times of a Linux Learner
Been really busy these days with my pending graduation from college and all. I finished an externship at Lake Ridge Academy and am looking forward to finding full time employment. I was starting to make some noise about PCLinuxOS because the live CD looked so promising. I had some problems with PCLinuxOS and the boot loader Grub. PCLinuxOS does not give you the option of not installing Grub nor does it recognize a previous Grub installation. I fiddled with Grub until I got it to work. Then booting into PCLinuxOS I found that it wasn't saving my settings, having to re-setup internet connections and re-tweak the desktop with each startup is not good. Needless to say I am not having a good day with PCLinuxOS on my machine. So................
Here I am having downloaded a very attractive looking Red Hat Fedora 7. Now I had at one time used Fedora Core 2 which had I think 3 CDs. This Fedora 7 is now a LiveCD but to get the version that is right for my machine, the 64-bit one, the iso file is TOO BIG to fit on a single CD. It is meant for a DVD weighing in at about 833MB, a CD only holds 700MB. I guess their thought is that everybody has a DVD burner. Well, maybe a DVD player (to watch movies?) but not a burner. No Fedora folks I watch DVDs on my player that's hooked up to my television set. Hummm....... that was very Microsoftish of you to force me to upgrade my equipment or hunt down somebody to burn a DVD for me. This has lead to a the question, is it possible to run an iso file from a hard drive as if it were on a DVD/CD? You'd be surprised at all the methods and techniques posted on the internet. Not one of them is clear enough for the likes of me. The smoothest way seems to be to work from a MS Windows partition and use a boot loader that recognizes iso images. But I think you have to explode the iso image into a directory and tell the boot loader what to boot. I tried several ways from a Linux partition but it is too complex for me. I guess that puts me in the market for a DVD/CD burner.
My thought is to have one Debian based Linux version and one Red Hat type version so I can gain experience with them. Fedora 7 is closer to the commercial Red Hat used in business but is cutting edge. Debian (Kubuntu is Debian) uses .deb files and Fedora uses .rpm files. Both systems have improved over the years. It is said that the .deb system resolves the dependency problem better than the .rpm system. Dependency is when one file or program needs another to operate. This is why when one program is installed, companion files are installed with it. Microsoft does the same with .dlls. You gotta love computers. So far this cyber adventure has taken me far, far past point and click computing. Although you can be quite happy with point and click computing, you also miss out on the power to do things the GUI just can't do. On a Linux system it is very useful to get over command line fears. You will become a powerful Jedi.
Here I am having downloaded a very attractive looking Red Hat Fedora 7. Now I had at one time used Fedora Core 2 which had I think 3 CDs. This Fedora 7 is now a LiveCD but to get the version that is right for my machine, the 64-bit one, the iso file is TOO BIG to fit on a single CD. It is meant for a DVD weighing in at about 833MB, a CD only holds 700MB. I guess their thought is that everybody has a DVD burner. Well, maybe a DVD player (to watch movies?) but not a burner. No Fedora folks I watch DVDs on my player that's hooked up to my television set. Hummm....... that was very Microsoftish of you to force me to upgrade my equipment or hunt down somebody to burn a DVD for me. This has lead to a the question, is it possible to run an iso file from a hard drive as if it were on a DVD/CD? You'd be surprised at all the methods and techniques posted on the internet. Not one of them is clear enough for the likes of me. The smoothest way seems to be to work from a MS Windows partition and use a boot loader that recognizes iso images. But I think you have to explode the iso image into a directory and tell the boot loader what to boot. I tried several ways from a Linux partition but it is too complex for me. I guess that puts me in the market for a DVD/CD burner.
My thought is to have one Debian based Linux version and one Red Hat type version so I can gain experience with them. Fedora 7 is closer to the commercial Red Hat used in business but is cutting edge. Debian (Kubuntu is Debian) uses .deb files and Fedora uses .rpm files. Both systems have improved over the years. It is said that the .deb system resolves the dependency problem better than the .rpm system. Dependency is when one file or program needs another to operate. This is why when one program is installed, companion files are installed with it. Microsoft does the same with .dlls. You gotta love computers. So far this cyber adventure has taken me far, far past point and click computing. Although you can be quite happy with point and click computing, you also miss out on the power to do things the GUI just can't do. On a Linux system it is very useful to get over command line fears. You will become a powerful Jedi.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Further adventures in Arno's Linux world
I really, really hate eating my own words but, maybe I was a bit hasty proclaiming PCLinuxOS as equal to a little better than Kubuntu. At least considering how I multi-boot several operating systems. Something a normal computer user would probably not do. So, PCLinuxOS might still fit the bill for single boot machines, but for multi-boot it sucks because it loads GRUB (Grand Unified Bootloader) in a place that causes problems. It does not give you the option to not install it nor recognize that GRUB might already be on the machine. Needless to say my system was non-functioning for a while, forcing me to look deeper into the mysteries of GRUB and multi-booting. If you are at all familiar with boot loaders, first there was LILO and then there is GRUB. GRUB is more flexible of course than LILO but still a bit of a tweak to manage. There are programs to manage GRUB called Grubed and Start UP Manager (SUM) but you still might have to learn to edit from the GRUB menu screen or the config file. If you want a sweet explanation see the article entitled "Guru Guidance, A better way of booting" in Linux Magazine, April 2002. It gives a quick but through run down of GRUB and how to edit/understand the menus and config files. So, armed with new knowledge I will attempt to tweak GRUB to make it work for me. Yeah, it is probably too much for most computer users but, I'm "learnin linux" folks. I am hoping one day a single boot/multi-boot option would be put right in the system rom on the motherboard and be quite automatic once selected.
Well, does this deter me from using PCLinuxOS? Not yet, but it is quite a let down, the LiveCD was so inviting. But why on earth would anyone want to have more than one operating system on one computer? For me it is looking first-hand at the fresh ideas that drive folks to put together different Linux distributions. Linux is really a "Kit"of lots of pieces that fit in various ways. Some distributions are for different purposes. General use, desktop style Linux has been fully reviewed and experienced by their many users and documented on many web sites. It is all waiting for you to look into it.
It's been at least a half an hour since I typed the above story. I have edited my GRUB config file, deleting a couple of old entries and adding a new one for PCLinuxOS. I am now triple-booting MS Windows XP, Kubuntu, and PCLinuxOS. It is not rocket science to learn about Linux, we'll leave that to the programmers. But users can benefit from learnin a little linux.
Well, does this deter me from using PCLinuxOS? Not yet, but it is quite a let down, the LiveCD was so inviting. But why on earth would anyone want to have more than one operating system on one computer? For me it is looking first-hand at the fresh ideas that drive folks to put together different Linux distributions. Linux is really a "Kit"of lots of pieces that fit in various ways. Some distributions are for different purposes. General use, desktop style Linux has been fully reviewed and experienced by their many users and documented on many web sites. It is all waiting for you to look into it.
It's been at least a half an hour since I typed the above story. I have edited my GRUB config file, deleting a couple of old entries and adding a new one for PCLinuxOS. I am now triple-booting MS Windows XP, Kubuntu, and PCLinuxOS. It is not rocket science to learn about Linux, we'll leave that to the programmers. But users can benefit from learnin a little linux.
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.
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Microsoft VS Linux debate.
I guess the root question has to be can I do all the things in Linux as I can in MS Windows? I don't know. You can not account for all the hardware/software situations that people have in any Operating system. Can I do the basic things that people do on their computers? Yes. Is there a Linux answer for every piece of MS Windows software. No. Why should Linux or Open Source software be saddled with competing in that kind of way? Linux and Open Source has provided free solutions to many computing needs but there doesn't seem to be a push to compete with Microsoft. I think people compare stuff and hope for point for point alternatives. Microsoft has said that Open Source software, Open Office in particular, is not as advanced as their office suite.
Yet how many of those advanced features do you really use? The same with comparing Photoshop to the GIMP that comes with Linux. How much of Photoshop does the average person really use? And what do you want for free? A lot of persons are critical of assumed limitations and "lack of features". They never quite get across to folks that you get a lot of usefulness for free. They only see that it doesn't match up, therefore it is not good stuff. How on earth can you compare a $500 program with a free one and hold them to the same standard.
You get the feeling that people are saying that they would take the free one only if it were like the $500 one. They would even pirate the $500 one rather than use the free one. I really don't understand user logic. I myself would have a computer full of pirated software if it weren't for Open Source. The software I received with my PC was dismal. I got a trial version of MS Office and MS Works. MS Works while useful is not even compatible with MS Office let alone other productivity suites. How could you waste my money, time and disk space with that junk? I don't believe Microsoft or my hardware vendor had me in mind when they packaged that system. They assumed that what ever I buy I will use and not ask for more.
OK, I will admit that there are some things that only run on Windows that are desirable to have. When I was doing drafting AutoCAD was a hot program for instance. And I hear of folks who need Windows for other professional type programs. I am exploring the use of virtual machines where you can run other operating systems inside of the main one. That might be a solution, but will it answer the Microsoft or Linux question? I don't know but, I like Linux. I like the history of it, the progress of it and the look and feel of it on the desktop. I am still comparing the two OS's in my present computer. Linux is winning. Why should I have to pay so much just to do the basic stuff? Then, why should I have to rely on one companies' whims and wiles? I'm talking about the software/hardware upgrade dilemma when new versions come out. Can I really afford to learn the ins and outs of a new operating system? Well , it really hasn't been that painful. And I have been watching Linux for some time now. Linux has grown up. Linux is more ready for the desktop than critics think. I think since the computer has become "popular" with people who are use to turning appliances off and on, the expected results of plug and play, portability and the idea of anyone having access, the reality that a computer is a complex piece of machinery is being lost. The cry for standardization and dumbing things down (user-friendliness) so that even you can use it has been made. Linux has done a lot to accommodate easier use and offers a lot at a price that can not be beat. Why not give it a try? Once the smoke of marketing and user inertia clears, I think Linux will come up in the average users realm of choice.
Yet how many of those advanced features do you really use? The same with comparing Photoshop to the GIMP that comes with Linux. How much of Photoshop does the average person really use? And what do you want for free? A lot of persons are critical of assumed limitations and "lack of features". They never quite get across to folks that you get a lot of usefulness for free. They only see that it doesn't match up, therefore it is not good stuff. How on earth can you compare a $500 program with a free one and hold them to the same standard.
You get the feeling that people are saying that they would take the free one only if it were like the $500 one. They would even pirate the $500 one rather than use the free one. I really don't understand user logic. I myself would have a computer full of pirated software if it weren't for Open Source. The software I received with my PC was dismal. I got a trial version of MS Office and MS Works. MS Works while useful is not even compatible with MS Office let alone other productivity suites. How could you waste my money, time and disk space with that junk? I don't believe Microsoft or my hardware vendor had me in mind when they packaged that system. They assumed that what ever I buy I will use and not ask for more.
OK, I will admit that there are some things that only run on Windows that are desirable to have. When I was doing drafting AutoCAD was a hot program for instance. And I hear of folks who need Windows for other professional type programs. I am exploring the use of virtual machines where you can run other operating systems inside of the main one. That might be a solution, but will it answer the Microsoft or Linux question? I don't know but, I like Linux. I like the history of it, the progress of it and the look and feel of it on the desktop. I am still comparing the two OS's in my present computer. Linux is winning. Why should I have to pay so much just to do the basic stuff? Then, why should I have to rely on one companies' whims and wiles? I'm talking about the software/hardware upgrade dilemma when new versions come out. Can I really afford to learn the ins and outs of a new operating system? Well , it really hasn't been that painful. And I have been watching Linux for some time now. Linux has grown up. Linux is more ready for the desktop than critics think. I think since the computer has become "popular" with people who are use to turning appliances off and on, the expected results of plug and play, portability and the idea of anyone having access, the reality that a computer is a complex piece of machinery is being lost. The cry for standardization and dumbing things down (user-friendliness) so that even you can use it has been made. Linux has done a lot to accommodate easier use and offers a lot at a price that can not be beat. Why not give it a try? Once the smoke of marketing and user inertia clears, I think Linux will come up in the average users realm of choice.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Linux or Microsoft, where do you stand?
Linux or Microsoft, where do you stand? Why, is it that the choice of a computer operating system and its associated products, support services, and even user base becomes a question as to wither or not you are the proper kind of person or country? I have been reading a few blogs lately and it seems that some alarmist are quite convinced that Linux is anti-American, anti-capitalism, the choice of terrorist, a threat to national security and the work of godless people. These types of opinions are leaking into the "FUD" machinery of Microsoft supporters. Some have even claimed that using Microsoft products as opposed to Linux is the god approved way to live.
Well, I don't have the words to defend Linux from all the various attacks. It seems to me that some folks see conspiracy in everything that didn't originate in America. I myself believe that America has not always provided the best ways to deal with things, the history of slavery and immigration comes to mind. You can also see that America has not always produced products suited for use by the whole world. There are in the world, other products and other solutions to problems.
Some have rallied against global competition by this notion of protecting "American technology secrets" and "Intellectual Property". It seems America is always leery of anything dubbed international in scope. We still have a hard time with co-operating with other countries. America, as a government and as a business is always seeking an economic or political advantage.
I can make any number of observations and pronouncements but what has all this to do with Linux? Does using Linux really make you anti-American, or even ungodly? Well just whose side am I on anyway? I myself never thought that using an operating system was a matter of loyalty to my country. I never thought using Linux meant I was participating in undermining the American way or that using Linux was equal to being anti-Christ. I can't see what is so right about using Microsoft products in lieu of some other choice. I don't think that the history of Microsoft's growth and development or its dominance in the marketplace qualifies it a kind of sainthood. There is nothing American about using only Microsoft products. We import products from just about every producing nation on earth. We really need to see that, especially when it comes to electronics, we import just about everything.
The obvious thing is that Linux is not a child of our American economic model and has been a solution produced and provided by the very people of the world who use computers. It is an amazing thing that an idea freely communicated across the internet has grown into a workable operating system. Linux is the work of thousands of programmers and users in a world wide effort to produce a free alternative to what is on the market. Linux has been free from many of the barriers imposed by businesses and governments and language. It is in its own medium of exchange in the world. It has become a "Rosetta Stone" of sorts. I can understand the mistrust of some who must be concerned with property rights and protecting the rights and liberties of their countrymen. Linux does not fit into the vision of controlled access and deployment. Linux does not fit well into the profit motive or the political/legal leverage ideal.
Linux is not owned or developed by one person or company but is a solution produced by world wide collaboration. This is dream stuff. We have always talked about this kind of effort among the nations whose governments can never agree on anything. I think it is a pretty good effort and a pretty good product. I don't think you can compare the Linux world to the Microsoft world point for point and come up level and clean. It is comparing a nonprofit endeavor to a for profit operation. In the whole world of computing, who meets your needs? In a whole world of choices, will you pay, pirate or choose the free one? I don't think you can account for all the reasons and motives behind the things we deal with in life. I don't think everything can stand up to that kind of scrutiny. The best things in computing have been used to harm people whither it is paid for or pirated or freely accessed. Linux is a choice and has been a choice from the beginning. Choosing Linux does not mean you are anti-American, a satanist, a queer, or any such thing. The world is full of choices that are good ones.
Well, I don't have the words to defend Linux from all the various attacks. It seems to me that some folks see conspiracy in everything that didn't originate in America. I myself believe that America has not always provided the best ways to deal with things, the history of slavery and immigration comes to mind. You can also see that America has not always produced products suited for use by the whole world. There are in the world, other products and other solutions to problems.
Some have rallied against global competition by this notion of protecting "American technology secrets" and "Intellectual Property". It seems America is always leery of anything dubbed international in scope. We still have a hard time with co-operating with other countries. America, as a government and as a business is always seeking an economic or political advantage.
I can make any number of observations and pronouncements but what has all this to do with Linux? Does using Linux really make you anti-American, or even ungodly? Well just whose side am I on anyway? I myself never thought that using an operating system was a matter of loyalty to my country. I never thought using Linux meant I was participating in undermining the American way or that using Linux was equal to being anti-Christ. I can't see what is so right about using Microsoft products in lieu of some other choice. I don't think that the history of Microsoft's growth and development or its dominance in the marketplace qualifies it a kind of sainthood. There is nothing American about using only Microsoft products. We import products from just about every producing nation on earth. We really need to see that, especially when it comes to electronics, we import just about everything.
The obvious thing is that Linux is not a child of our American economic model and has been a solution produced and provided by the very people of the world who use computers. It is an amazing thing that an idea freely communicated across the internet has grown into a workable operating system. Linux is the work of thousands of programmers and users in a world wide effort to produce a free alternative to what is on the market. Linux has been free from many of the barriers imposed by businesses and governments and language. It is in its own medium of exchange in the world. It has become a "Rosetta Stone" of sorts. I can understand the mistrust of some who must be concerned with property rights and protecting the rights and liberties of their countrymen. Linux does not fit into the vision of controlled access and deployment. Linux does not fit well into the profit motive or the political/legal leverage ideal.
Linux is not owned or developed by one person or company but is a solution produced by world wide collaboration. This is dream stuff. We have always talked about this kind of effort among the nations whose governments can never agree on anything. I think it is a pretty good effort and a pretty good product. I don't think you can compare the Linux world to the Microsoft world point for point and come up level and clean. It is comparing a nonprofit endeavor to a for profit operation. In the whole world of computing, who meets your needs? In a whole world of choices, will you pay, pirate or choose the free one? I don't think you can account for all the reasons and motives behind the things we deal with in life. I don't think everything can stand up to that kind of scrutiny. The best things in computing have been used to harm people whither it is paid for or pirated or freely accessed. Linux is a choice and has been a choice from the beginning. Choosing Linux does not mean you are anti-American, a satanist, a queer, or any such thing. The world is full of choices that are good ones.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
What do I get for using Linux?
Well I am here to report that there are some things in life that are free and worth being bothered with. Linux is one of them. When you examine the economic hold that Microsoft has on computer hardware and software users, you figure that the choice a user has has been greatly reduced. I faced this when I switched to Windows XP and I am faced with this again with the coming of Vista. So I have to ask if I really can afford to upgrade my entire but modest collection of hardware to accommodate this new operating system with its associated applications and products. Will this new system give me the ability to do more than I am already doing or just cost me more because it is new. Do I now also need to upgrade my applications? Gee I really like new stuff and eventually everybody else will decide to buy the new system and I will be left behind. So what am I to do?
What if somebody offered me a choice where I would not lose anything yet still be up to date. What if I could continue to compute on my present hardware and still have new stuff? What if I could try it out myself even before I installed it, to see if I even like it or could use it?
Linux comes into play to answer the questions. Of course those new to Linux have questions of their own. And those who have had so called bad experiences with Linux will shoot it down.
But Linux offers a choice that Microsoft wants to keep from you. I guess it was bad enough that Apple's Mac is out there. Now there's Linux and it will run on the same hardware as Windows. A couple of things have made Linux attractive to me. First is the fact that it will run on my present hardware, including the older machines. The second fact is that it is free. When you look at Microsoft, it was about making money from the start. Linux started as an idea shared between folks who loved to code and make a free operating system work. Where Microsoft has a history of acquiring and appropriating technology, Linux has emerged from programmers who just wanted to make it work. Microsoft developed into a money making conglomerate. The Linux programmers developed into a community with a shared purpose. So knowing the source from whence they came you have to ask can a community of programmers really offer a product that can rival that of a company dedicated to owning your desktop? Fortunately I can say yes. It was not so clear a few years ago when I first tried Linux, but it is now.
So is Linux really free? There are companies who are trying to make money from Linux. Linux is basically a small program called a kernel, packaged together with other programs to do all the computing functions. When these packages called distributions are offered to the public, a company or person can make money. Usually they have added programs to make installation and management easier. Another money maker is to sell support services to users.
Some Linux distributions can be downloaded for free and the support can be had from the community of programmers and users for free. Also Linux is free from per computer/user licensing meaning you can install it onto as many computers as you have and give it to your friends. Linux is free in the sense that you are free from the domination of the so-called Microsoft standard file types. Linux is free from the restrictions of propriety software as it is not owned by one person or company. Linux is free to be changed by the user who has the ability to change it as long as the changes are put back into the community. Changes are incorporated into the next revisions of Linux programs by the maintainers of those programs, even the kernel is still maintained by inventor of Linux.
Just what do you get with Linux that makes it so attractive? For free or a little money you can get an operating system that is stable, efficient and looks good. It comes with enough applications to meet most computing needs. I am talking about the usual stuff, internet, networking, email and office stuff. It has the ability to read/write most Microsoft file types and with a little help will do multimedia. You can tinker with it to your hearts content as there are a variety of desktop environments and window managers, each with their own look and ability to transform the user experience. But will it satisfy most users right out of the box? I don't think any OS product from any one person or company can ever accommodate all the hardware situations and all the user needs. For instance, gamers and multimedia users have had the world offered to them in Microsoft products and support. They might be disappointed with Linux. The extensive support, products, and applications are not the same as with Microsoft stuff. Linux has stressed the free availability of code and many vendors don't share that view. But I do think that users who don't have extreme computing needs would be pleasantly surprised by Linux. I also think it is a short matter of time before things with Linux improve even more. As there is more user demand, programmers add more functionality to Linux and as more vendors support Linux with drivers and applications the better Linux becomes.
What if somebody offered me a choice where I would not lose anything yet still be up to date. What if I could continue to compute on my present hardware and still have new stuff? What if I could try it out myself even before I installed it, to see if I even like it or could use it?
Linux comes into play to answer the questions. Of course those new to Linux have questions of their own. And those who have had so called bad experiences with Linux will shoot it down.
But Linux offers a choice that Microsoft wants to keep from you. I guess it was bad enough that Apple's Mac is out there. Now there's Linux and it will run on the same hardware as Windows. A couple of things have made Linux attractive to me. First is the fact that it will run on my present hardware, including the older machines. The second fact is that it is free. When you look at Microsoft, it was about making money from the start. Linux started as an idea shared between folks who loved to code and make a free operating system work. Where Microsoft has a history of acquiring and appropriating technology, Linux has emerged from programmers who just wanted to make it work. Microsoft developed into a money making conglomerate. The Linux programmers developed into a community with a shared purpose. So knowing the source from whence they came you have to ask can a community of programmers really offer a product that can rival that of a company dedicated to owning your desktop? Fortunately I can say yes. It was not so clear a few years ago when I first tried Linux, but it is now.
So is Linux really free? There are companies who are trying to make money from Linux. Linux is basically a small program called a kernel, packaged together with other programs to do all the computing functions. When these packages called distributions are offered to the public, a company or person can make money. Usually they have added programs to make installation and management easier. Another money maker is to sell support services to users.
Some Linux distributions can be downloaded for free and the support can be had from the community of programmers and users for free. Also Linux is free from per computer/user licensing meaning you can install it onto as many computers as you have and give it to your friends. Linux is free in the sense that you are free from the domination of the so-called Microsoft standard file types. Linux is free from the restrictions of propriety software as it is not owned by one person or company. Linux is free to be changed by the user who has the ability to change it as long as the changes are put back into the community. Changes are incorporated into the next revisions of Linux programs by the maintainers of those programs, even the kernel is still maintained by inventor of Linux.
Just what do you get with Linux that makes it so attractive? For free or a little money you can get an operating system that is stable, efficient and looks good. It comes with enough applications to meet most computing needs. I am talking about the usual stuff, internet, networking, email and office stuff. It has the ability to read/write most Microsoft file types and with a little help will do multimedia. You can tinker with it to your hearts content as there are a variety of desktop environments and window managers, each with their own look and ability to transform the user experience. But will it satisfy most users right out of the box? I don't think any OS product from any one person or company can ever accommodate all the hardware situations and all the user needs. For instance, gamers and multimedia users have had the world offered to them in Microsoft products and support. They might be disappointed with Linux. The extensive support, products, and applications are not the same as with Microsoft stuff. Linux has stressed the free availability of code and many vendors don't share that view. But I do think that users who don't have extreme computing needs would be pleasantly surprised by Linux. I also think it is a short matter of time before things with Linux improve even more. As there is more user demand, programmers add more functionality to Linux and as more vendors support Linux with drivers and applications the better Linux becomes.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
What to do with Ubuntu
There are far too many questions ask by Linux newbies. Why, because it is new stuff. So here is my take on the situation.
First, get the "live CD" version of Linux if you can. You then can test out Linux without tampering with your Windows install. It will show you if you can run out of the box with your current hardware. Then find a Linux Hardware Compatibility List for the Linux you are attempting to run. There are many dissatisfied folks who run into driver issues because they have exotic video cards or motherboards. Laptops especially need to be looked into because they have their own requirements. There are lots of internet descriptions of installs so I'll skip that part for now.
Second, realize from the beginning that Linux is a different animal, a different realm, a different adventure. You must add stuff to it if you want it to be "like windows" or most of your expectations are bound to be dashed. But if you don't mind learning new ways to do things, you will have fun exploring Linux. Do some homework, read a little. The web has stuff and there are good books out there.
Many, many folks new to Linux have heard that Linux is "Command Line driven", that they must learn "DOS like " commands used in a terminal window. Linux has all the gui you could want. Typing commands into the command line interface is not that scary. But as you get into Linux you will see there are a number of ways to get things done. You once had to learn Windows, so now you have to learn Linux. The help available is very good.
First, get the "live CD" version of Linux if you can. You then can test out Linux without tampering with your Windows install. It will show you if you can run out of the box with your current hardware. Then find a Linux Hardware Compatibility List for the Linux you are attempting to run. There are many dissatisfied folks who run into driver issues because they have exotic video cards or motherboards. Laptops especially need to be looked into because they have their own requirements. There are lots of internet descriptions of installs so I'll skip that part for now.
Second, realize from the beginning that Linux is a different animal, a different realm, a different adventure. You must add stuff to it if you want it to be "like windows" or most of your expectations are bound to be dashed. But if you don't mind learning new ways to do things, you will have fun exploring Linux. Do some homework, read a little. The web has stuff and there are good books out there.
Many, many folks new to Linux have heard that Linux is "Command Line driven", that they must learn "DOS like " commands used in a terminal window. Linux has all the gui you could want. Typing commands into the command line interface is not that scary. But as you get into Linux you will see there are a number of ways to get things done. You once had to learn Windows, so now you have to learn Linux. The help available is very good.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Latest Turn of Events
What's the latest preoccupation in my life. Well I have been messing around with Linux for some time now. I've played with Red Hat 5, Fedora 2, did a stint with Knoppix and a couple of other distributions. This last year I have been into Ubuntu Linux. I am so impressed with this version of Linux. It just worked with the hardware I had. Of course my computers are modest by most standards and I do not have any exotic video cards or a dial-up modem as I had in the past. The experience has been overall a good one and my computing needs have been met.
I dual-boot, which means I can start my computer in Windows XP or Ubuntu Linux. I am always comparing the two operating systems. Choice is sometimes a confusing thing, but it serves to keep the competitors awake to the demands of their market. If they want the bucks, they had better make the customer happy. What is interesting here is that this competition between the makers of MS Windows (Microsoft) and the makers of Linux (a community of programmers) have engaged the users in what amounts to a religious war. This is a war over what the user puts on his/her desktop and the underlying philosophy, support, goods and services behind that desktop. If you don't think there's a war, I'll explain. First on the users side, the attitude is and still is show me the product, if I like it, I will buy it and use it. Many OS's have come and gone. Today MS Windows is expected to be on the computer when you buy it, so it and its associated software are the defacto standard. Many, if not most users today have grown up with Windows products. Mean while, in the background another OS (Linux) is being developed and used. Linux steps into the light of user availability offering the user the chance to make a choice.
Users immediately go about making it work for them and compare it to what they have been used to with MS Windows. Opinions, rants, raves, people sharing their experiences trying to exclaim why their operating system, associated products and support is the best and the other is junk.
Now what about the hardware and software makers in this war. They have to satisfy the demand of a customer who can make a choice. When there was only one OS, the standard one (MS Windows), they could tailor a product to support it. Now that the demand for a choice has been made they must make a product that accommodates that ability to choose. Some have a hard time with this, others press on with new product opportunities.
What do I think? Choice is a good thing. It forces the product producers to keep me, the user, in view when they design this thing I will eventually claim as my own. I think that this war on many fronts is a healthy expression of the struggle to put a good product in the users hands.
So, what is the real deal? I use both MS Windows and Linux right now and I am in the mist of comparing the two. I can point out the problems I have had with either of them over the last few years. While either OS will suffice, that is, meet my computing needs, there remains a philosophy and a mental mindset that I enjoy with the Linux side of things. Others who ask can they do this or that with Linux are really asking can they run the software they are used to using in Windows on a Linux machine. We could go around all day explaining about emulators and virtual machines running Windows applications on a Linux machine. I think the operating system, its applications and associated products become such a part of a users world that to enact a change disrupts a users world view. Computing is so much a part of our lives (of those who depend on them).
So, what's so big about Linux that it warrants a fuss? It is basically free from a lot of things that MS Windows binds you into. I like the idea of a product that can cross boarders and cultures without criminal activity being the instigator. I like the fact that the growth and development of Linux continually allows me choice on a level I can deal with. I am not a programmer/developer, so I can't offer code fixes or new applications, yet as a user I can still find ways to participate in the community to share ideas, etc, to improve on what I have invested in. I think that if I have to steal to own or pirate a copy because the economics are too strong or my conscience is weak, (the opportunity is there) to keep current, I do damage to myself, I can not do things with clarity. Yes, I am a Christian after all.
Now, with all the above being said, I have chosen to keep up with Linux because it is improving. I have chosen Ubuntu Linux in particular because it works on my collection of hardware and introduces me to an expanding user experience. What does that mean? This means that I have not been crippled by cost or knowledge in order to get some usefulness out of this contraption called a computer.
I dual-boot, which means I can start my computer in Windows XP or Ubuntu Linux. I am always comparing the two operating systems. Choice is sometimes a confusing thing, but it serves to keep the competitors awake to the demands of their market. If they want the bucks, they had better make the customer happy. What is interesting here is that this competition between the makers of MS Windows (Microsoft) and the makers of Linux (a community of programmers) have engaged the users in what amounts to a religious war. This is a war over what the user puts on his/her desktop and the underlying philosophy, support, goods and services behind that desktop. If you don't think there's a war, I'll explain. First on the users side, the attitude is and still is show me the product, if I like it, I will buy it and use it. Many OS's have come and gone. Today MS Windows is expected to be on the computer when you buy it, so it and its associated software are the defacto standard. Many, if not most users today have grown up with Windows products. Mean while, in the background another OS (Linux) is being developed and used. Linux steps into the light of user availability offering the user the chance to make a choice.
Users immediately go about making it work for them and compare it to what they have been used to with MS Windows. Opinions, rants, raves, people sharing their experiences trying to exclaim why their operating system, associated products and support is the best and the other is junk.
Now what about the hardware and software makers in this war. They have to satisfy the demand of a customer who can make a choice. When there was only one OS, the standard one (MS Windows), they could tailor a product to support it. Now that the demand for a choice has been made they must make a product that accommodates that ability to choose. Some have a hard time with this, others press on with new product opportunities.
What do I think? Choice is a good thing. It forces the product producers to keep me, the user, in view when they design this thing I will eventually claim as my own. I think that this war on many fronts is a healthy expression of the struggle to put a good product in the users hands.
So, what is the real deal? I use both MS Windows and Linux right now and I am in the mist of comparing the two. I can point out the problems I have had with either of them over the last few years. While either OS will suffice, that is, meet my computing needs, there remains a philosophy and a mental mindset that I enjoy with the Linux side of things. Others who ask can they do this or that with Linux are really asking can they run the software they are used to using in Windows on a Linux machine. We could go around all day explaining about emulators and virtual machines running Windows applications on a Linux machine. I think the operating system, its applications and associated products become such a part of a users world that to enact a change disrupts a users world view. Computing is so much a part of our lives (of those who depend on them).
So, what's so big about Linux that it warrants a fuss? It is basically free from a lot of things that MS Windows binds you into. I like the idea of a product that can cross boarders and cultures without criminal activity being the instigator. I like the fact that the growth and development of Linux continually allows me choice on a level I can deal with. I am not a programmer/developer, so I can't offer code fixes or new applications, yet as a user I can still find ways to participate in the community to share ideas, etc, to improve on what I have invested in. I think that if I have to steal to own or pirate a copy because the economics are too strong or my conscience is weak, (the opportunity is there) to keep current, I do damage to myself, I can not do things with clarity. Yes, I am a Christian after all.
Now, with all the above being said, I have chosen to keep up with Linux because it is improving. I have chosen Ubuntu Linux in particular because it works on my collection of hardware and introduces me to an expanding user experience. What does that mean? This means that I have not been crippled by cost or knowledge in order to get some usefulness out of this contraption called a computer.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
the Black Artist today
What is it that Black Artist are by and large about portraying black people in art. It is as if there is some unwritten law that says a Black Artist must be about black people in painting and sculpture. This is not only what is promoted by those who display and sale black art, this is also what is expected by the people who view and buy black art. This appears to be a response to years of being portrayed by other people in caricature and other undignified ways. But also notice this has gone way beyond accurate portrayals as black faces have appeared in the Euro/American icons, the Madonna and child and also Christ himself as well. I guess if you can paint the world over in your own world view, you can rewrite that part of history that pertains to you. I think the problem in art today is that Black Artist are held hostage by lack of exposure and by what is expected of them. Just like in music the black past is overplayed to the point that the Harlem Renaissance is the peak of black culture and all progress is expected to emerge out from that. Yet jazz itself happened in different places at the same time. So in art we are continually compared to that Harlem Renaissance standard as if nothing has happened since then. But in reality there is a bumper crop of Black Artist who portray black people in various modes of their black lives. I believe that the Black Artist is doing what is popular and also doing what is expected in the realm of art. I also believe that in spite of the progress made Black Artist are held hostage by the thing they are doing and need to be liberated into other design fields until the implements of life bare their mark. Maybe a new arts movement or school of thought will expand the range of the Black Artist in the future.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Make it Jazz
So very much of art that average folk expect is some representstion of real life. It can range from abstraction to photorealism. Once in a while people will even forsake their normally traditional and conservative choices for something different. "My Favorite Things" by Julie Andrews, then by John Coltrane.........By taking a broader look at what black design could be, we force the hand of the established notion and redefine what it is, we "make it jazz" and that my friends is what design is all about, using the sights and sounds and materials around us and transforming them into a world-view, my story becomes history.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
I am not so proud
I am not so proud of my so called culture that I refuse to say that a lot of African things are not pleasant to look at. Perhaps I am too American, but a lot of stuff is just plain ugly. I am not one to gather about myself African things just because there are some history or religious meaning behind them. It's also African to innovate, improve, adorn, etc.....
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Is it black enough?
Why is it that everyone expects black art to be about people? I mean art depicting people. I guess the folk who buy and sell black art can't tell if is really black art unless there are black people in it. So why must there be so much emphsis on the race/culture thing? Is there a black tradition that artist must pay tribute to everytime paint hits the canvas? Yes we have the importance of roots but eventually fruit is important also. I just don't want to be accused of not being black enough or being too black, neither of which expresses who I am.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Influence
Every person is influenced by another person no matter how hard we try not to be. So who influenced me?
Peter Max - cartoons of substance, stars and universes
Roy Lichtenstein - cartoons of cartoons, explosions of print
Frank Stella - vibrant form
Calder - balances that balance the balance
Isamu Noguchi - pureness of form
Nancy Crow - quilts of pattern and color
Lots of potters, textile artist
Jean Dubuffet - wild space filling, primitive, great confusion
the Ndebele wall painters of South Africa
Ernest Trova - sculpture
Syd Mead, Roger Dean, Joe Columbo - art and architecture
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)