For crying out loud

When I read rubbish like this http://www.zenofnptech.org/2008/06/linux-desktops.html I have to question that users ability. From reading his less that truthful rantings one must question which distribution he used. If it was one of the Ubuntu family then I can understand why he writes what he does. My wife and eldest lad both use Ubuntu so I can testify to how unstable they can be, unless, one has a sysadmin around that has years and years of experience, such as myself, who can tame the beast so that EVERYTHING works as it should. Wireless, video, software integration all work just fine as long as one has the ability to tame it, which I do. The same applies to just about every distribution out there.

One has to realise the machines that come pre-installed with MS Windows are setup by professionals so that every piece of hardware that comes with the machine works perfectly. A linux based install however rarely has that luxury. Instead people who try a Linux based distribution usually install it themselves on hardware that was designed for the Microsoft operating system and they wonder why something do not work? Well, do not work out of the box but can be made to work with a little ability in hand. Perhaps, that is the authors reason for writing his FUD? He has a machine designed for the Microsoft operating system and then goes on to complian things do not work out of the box with a Linux based operating system.

For what it is worth i have never, ever, bought a pre built machine. I have always cobbled my own together from hardware bought on a whim and I have yet to find any hardware, wirrten to specifications, that has failed to work. My current machine is an AMD x4 Quad Core Phenon with an nVidia 8600 GT and 4 GIG odf RAM. Sound is via a Creative Audigy LS. My mobile telephone connects via USB and is instantly recognised by the running kernel and udev automatically sets up the devices (yesm two of them, one for the MicroSD card and the other for the internal operating system layout. With a 2.6.x.x kernel and the relevant backend tools installed it all happens automagically. I honestly have never hit the problems that author claims to have hit, no matter what I have plugged into the machine. I do not go out of my way to find only Linux compatible hardware either. I buy hardware I want to use and 100% of the time within a matter of seconds I am using said hardware. So,  what he claims is pure FUD aimed squarely at the Microsoft fanboys and girls.

So, I read that rant above, and his others on the same topic, and come to the conclusion it is yet more FUD spread about by paid Microsoft shills. I do sometimes wonder what Mcrosoft are scared of. It cannot be the fact that Linux on the desktop is almost there for normal users could it? It couldn't be that people like the guy above takes backhanders to spread Microsoft FUD, could it? It couldn't be that the Linux Desktop is now so usable that even Granny Smith could use it, could it?

Sure there are things that could be better but that does mean they are broken.

I have to question the authors ulterior motives in writing what he wrote. All I see on page after page is FUD. Pure, unadulterated FUD.

Microsoft are running scared that is for sure and as long as people like that author are willing to help Microsoft spread their FUD then Linux on the desktop will struggle to gain wider acceptance. With more and more box shifters selling machines with a Linux distribution pre-installed   Linux on the desktop will make more and more inroads into former Microsoft territory.

The feature creep continues

Once upon a time Slackware users could rely on the maintainer to keep a nice, lean distribution, Amongst these aims was the removal of Gnome2 from the main distribution. There was always room for improvement in this area but that ideal seems well and truly dead with the latest release of Slackware-Current. Feature bloat has crept in. I don't know why this is happening but it is. Since the maintainer gathered a few 'helpers' this feature creep has gathered apace.

In -current there is the latest abomination from the KDE guys, KDE4. Along with the packages for KDE4 they have added all manner of bells and whistles. No doubt KDE4 will properly replace KDE3 in the main body of the distribution at some point in time which is leading me more and more to leave Slackware behind.

I am a Gnome2 guy and watching this KDE4 rubbish force its way into Slackware via the 'helpers' is a cause for crying. My once much preferred distribution is going ghe same way as many others as the feature creep creeps ever forward.

To get a fully working Gnome2 desktop is no harder than getting a KDE one. I prefer GTK2 over the much disliked QT. Yes, this comes down to personal preference but at the end of the day is my distribution of choice cannot or will not offer me what I want to use then the time has come, after some 12+ years of usage, to say goodbye to it.

There are many like myself who do not like some of these 'helper' and are considering moving distributions. Some moved as soon as Gnome2 was dropped, others moved when they learnt who the 'helper' are. More will move as time goes on.

It is a shame but the reality of my work situation dictates how I am viewing the latest developments in Slackware and my situation is to view these developments with the distaste they leave in my mouth.

Bye bye Slackware. You where once, rightly, the best distribution around. You maintained this level of best of breed for many years, but now the time has come to do what many before me have done and say bye bye.

The Ubuntu family.

As i read many news groups, all almost exclusively related to a Linux distribution, as peruse around the Internet it has not escaped my, nor many others, attention that some are starting to refer to Linux as Ubuntu, or one of the Ubuntu family). This is a scary trait that used to belong to Redhat. One would often hear talk of Linux 6 meaning Redhat 6 etc etc.

It is scary because of the sheer number of idiots who use Ubuntu. Most are refugees from MS Windows. Some are refugees from other distributions. The latter should know better but the former is overwhelming them with their talk of Ubuntu being 'Just like Windows'.

I am sure this is the Ubuntu creators aim. To get people to think of Ubuntu are a complete MS Windows replacement. But the reality is that no Linux based distribution currently comes close to MS Windows not least because of the fact that hardware manufacturers do not write drivers for any Linux based distribution. Sure, some of them do but the little guys who churn out thousands of new products every months it is just not a viable option for them. Then we have the bigger guys who try to stick as close as possible to a given standard which may work once plugged into a Linux based system and others that are lucky because a coder on the Linux based platform bought one and decided to write a driver from him or herself which was good enough for others to use. Finally, there are the big guns. Here too, some write drivers, some good, some bad, some simply unusable. Others do not and probably never will. It is this reality, this state of affairs that will ensure adoption of a Linux based solution will not be for everyone. Therefore, the belief of the Ubuntu creator is unlikely ever to fully take hold and yet we still see people who have the mistaken belief that Ubuntu equals an MS Windows alternative. As I said. Scary.

Instead of bleating on about how 'Ubuntu ate my drive. How do I get rid of it and get my MS Windows back?' Or. 'How do I use <insert random hardware> with Ubuntu?' etc etc people should be complaining to the various and many hardware manufacturers that the 'standards compliant' device is nothing like compliant. But they will not. They will instead complain that 'Ubuntu sucks'. Yes, I know it does but in this instance I am not talking in literal terms.

Those of us who have been around the Linux scene for a long long time have seen this phenomenon happen before with Redhat. Then with Mandrake (now Mandriva). Then with <insert a distribution name>. On a slightly different level we saw it with Gentoo. Now it is the Ubuntu family of distributions turn for a year or two in the spotlight while us lot with the nous to use it use what we have always used. We see the same issues hardware wise as every other distribution user does except that when we have some hardware that has no support whatsoever instead of bleating about it or blaming the underlaying distribution for the lack of support we sit and patiently wait for that support to turn up. It may never do so of course. If that worse case situation ever happens then we shuffle said hardware to one of our MS Windows using friends or family member.

Ubuntu is not the only distribution in town and it certainly is not the best. Get over yourself.

Once again into the breach.

And so it goes. Once again the Usenet alt.os.linux.slackware ("aols") faithful were drawn, or rather sucked, into an argument based on Slackware Linux relevance in todays world of ever growing Linux distributions. Some of which are aimed squarely at new users to the Linux distribution experience and have all manner of tools to aid those new users. Is this a bad thing? Well, yes and no. Yes because with every new 'helper' tool created it fragments the market further. No because the more users we get the more prolific our favourite operating system becomes. So, it is a double edged sword.

But, back to the issue raised. Those aols faithful cannot see passed the fact that, to them, Slackware is the only distribution that does the right thing. That, of course, is obvious because aols is, after all, a newsgroup for Slackware users. However, seeing a distributions faults is something we should all readily admit to so we can all aid its creator in making it a better product and if that creator is not open to that help then some 3rd parties can do it themselves, then if people want it they can have it, those that don't want it can leave it alone. The aols faithful however can not, will not or simply do not see any faults in Slackware nor do they think its creator can do anything wrong, bad or poor. Wrong as in the init sequence. Bad as in package choices. Poor as in who he decides should be among his secondhand men or women.

I have said before some of those he deigns suitable to help him are very unpopular people within the Slackware user-base. One or two of them have managed to make former Slackware stalwarts move to other distributions. Of course, not all of them are bad people with zero management skills, just a couple of them are.

The choice of init sequence, while out of step with just about every other major, and minor, distribution not based on Slackware, is something to be proud of. It is simple, easily understood by new users (if they ever look at it that is). While the old timers are comfortable with it. The rest of the Linux distribution vendors moved on to either their own creation or SYSV style inits while slackware stuck to its guns.

The creator of Slackware removed the ever popular Gnome2 from the distribution citing difficulty and lack of time building it. Building it while not the monstrosity it once was is time consuming if one wants a complete working Gnome2 desktop but to cite difficulty as an excuse gave the impression he lacked the skills to do it which of course he does not, but that was and still is the impression people got and are still getting. I have built Gnome2 since Slackware dropped it many times and can testify to the fact that to do it properly one must have lots of time. Time to suss out and build all the prerequisites, which is the bulk of the time used, then the time to build the actual Gnome2 desktop that gels the whole thing together. It certainly is not difficult. Time consuming yes. That abomination (because it relies on QT which is an even bigger abomination) called KDE by contrast is very easy to build, especially the minimal KDE offering Slackware utilises is. Even KDE has external to the project 3rd party programs and library requirements if one wants to leverage the full in all its glory KDE experience. Plus there are many extra programs and libraries that can be added to the base KDE set which enhance the user experience but there Slackware ships only the very basic KDE upon which one can build a more rounded experience.

Apart from having QT/KDE as the main desktop, with many smaller insignificant peripheral window managers available, when each new shiny version ships there are no further issues that I find significant show stoppers. Those, like myself, who like, nay prefer, a Gnome2 desktop , like myself, can do one of 3 things. 1) create ones own scripts, or script, to build it oneself. 2) use one of many 3rd party build scripts to build it oneself and 3) use one of the 3rd party binary sets that are available. So, all is not lost in the continuing QT/KDE GTK2/GNome2 saga for Slackware users.

Personally, I would not care one iota if KDE and QT disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow. It would not impact on my computer usage in any way whatsoever as I am steadfast in the care I take to make sure I use nothing I use uses QT and KDE. I said at the time when Gnome2 was removed from Slackware that it would result in smaller user base and from what I have seen that is exactly what has happened. Slackware on the desktop is a rare beast to find. Slackware on a server while not the numbers it once was is still there in some areas. In the server market stability is the keyword and once the QT/KDE pairing are removed Slackware remains, as it has almost since its first appearance many moons ago, stable. On the desktop however the number of Slackware installs is ever dwindling.

So, while those in aols 'tilt' every time Slackware's relevance in today's overcrowded Linux distribution market place comes up I have to say my findings is that it is becoming less and less relevant in that market place. The decision to drop Gnome2 was a poor one. The choice of some of the 2nd lieutenants is unwise at best and is having an adverse affect on the distributions current market penetration. Slackware is however an excellent base from which to create something else. Zenwalk is one such example of making Slackware better. If only Slackware's creator would stop listening to his underlings/helpers and his own reluctance to touch his own creation and incorporate some of of the good things Zenwalk has to offer then Slackware's relevance in todays market would show signs of improvement but that is an unlikely scenario to happen as is the chance of the creator writing his own similar improvements.

Is Slackware still relevant in todays market? No. For reasons outlined above, I honestly do not think it is.

(I personally use Bluewhite64 which is a one for one rebuild of Slackware for the 64 bit CPU and after trying all the 64 bit Slackware distributions I have to say BLuewhite64 is by far the best of that limited bunch. I highly doubt I will ever move away from it. Mainly because I am so comfortable with it and at my age learning something different becomes harder with each passing day. I have no QT/KDE stuff installed prefering instead my own Gnome2 builds. I have used Slackware since its first public release. Once I moved into the 64bit CPU world and after rebuilding everything for my own use I tried all of the available 64bit compiled Slackware derived distributions, settling in the end on BLuewhite64.)

New age Slackware.

It used to be said that Slackware was the best all round fit for both server installations an desktop systems. It was also said to be the best fit for both old, older and new systems. In the days of yore many, if not most, of its users were command line junkies. Nowadays though, almost none of that holds true.

Sure, the venerable Slackware distribution can be, and is, used on a few servers here and there with the desktop components not being installed but my own findings are that Slackware is nowadays mostly found on desktop installations. That assumes one can find anyone outside of the clique that makes up its current user base who is actively using it. This change of direction came around the time Gnome2 was dropped from the distribution and the horrible KDE became the main desktop GUI. This was a major choice by the creator of Slackware and not one that was popular. My dislike of KDE is because of its QT dependency. I dislike QT with a passion which means I dislike KDE too and anything else that depends on it.

Slackware, rightly, has a reputation for being staid in its choice of software. Some of the software that makes up the distribution is not bleeding edge. This gave Slackware a reputation for being solid in use. Slackware has always shipped with a choice of desktop Gui's but the dropping of Gnome was a minor disaster for Slackware which ultimately lost it a few users to other distributions that did include Gnome. There are also a few people that built Gnome for Slackware almost making a mockery of the Slackware authors claim that Gnome2 was hard to build and maintain.

In the latest release, due real soon now, the use of a default 2.6.x kernel, and the tools that go with it, also shows a leaning by its creator towards desktop installations. Many users, or potential users, of Slackware are now told to use an older version if the system it is being installed on is an old one. How old is old? Well, my reckoning is any CPU from the pre 2004 days. That move to a 2.6.x kernel combined with the dropping of Gnome2 excludes a lot of users.

So, with the combined dropping of Gnome2 and now the move to a 2.6.x kernel, Slackware stands to lose a few more users. I have no idea just how many installations, server and desktop, comprise of Slackware installations but my findings indicate the number has dropped dramatically in recent times, which is a shame because it is a fantastically stable distribution.

Added to this the Slackware creator has gathered together a bunch of people who he is hoping will take up the slack (no pun intended) should the creator decide for whatever reason, he has had enough and quits. Not all of these people are popular amongst its current user base and will I reckon lead to even less usage of Slackware in the next few years. Some of these people are arrogant, something the creator of Slackware has never been seen to be. They stomp all over other peoples work by stealing it. They never give attributes where due. Work that they gave away for free on various web sites dotted here and there. Web sites that in some cases have been around longer than some of these people. They jump on anyone who might have something bad to say about Slackware itself or the creator of, even if that something has merit.

I have used Slackware since around 1993 when it was born from the soon to be ashes of the SLS (Soft Landing Systems) distribution and have followed it not only by usage of it, but also with a general interest when compared to other distributions. Nowadays I have a 64 bit CPU which Slackware itself does not support but other distributions based on Slackware do. Of these ports I find Bluewhite64 to be the best fit as it directly mirrors, save for the 32 bit compatibility layer, Slackware itself. So, the transition from 32 bit Slackware to 64 bit Bluewhite64 via Slamd64 seemed to me to be an obvious one. I took it and find that Bluewhite64 with Gnome2 is the best of breed. I just find it a shame that the Slackware creator dropped Gnome2 from the distribution. Through my own scripting of the Gnome2 build process, and all its various dependencies, and the usage of other peoples scripts to build it, that the claim it is hard to build and maintain is laughable. However, it is, and was, his choice as it is after all his distribution that one assumes mirrors his own usage on the desktop at least and that is something I respect.

It has hurt to write this post because I honestly think that Slackware and the none sanctioned 64 bit ports of it are the best distributions by far, but that said, what I have said here is based around my observations of how the distribution has developed in recent times. It does not make good reading if you are, like me, a stout and devoted Slackware user but it is my view of the current state of play.

I still don't get it.

Having recently used a Mac, with the latest Mac OSX installed, on and off over a working week (that be Mon through Fri) and finding that it and myself did not get on well at all, the same old thought came back to haunt me as it has for quite sometime now. That is, why do software people/companies bring stuff out for MS Windows and Mac but never for the Linux platform?

The differences between an MS based client machine and a Mac based client is machine are massive in not only the GUI on offer but also in how the underlaying OS works. A Linux based OS and an MS based OS also differs in the same areas. However, a Mac based OS and a Linux based OS, especially one based on SYSV, do not. Sure the GUI differs but the underlaying OS does not. Well, not in any significant way that stops software people/companies from creating whatever software they create anyway.

I reckon it all comes down to 2 things. One being the openness of the GPL, v2 and 3, and similar licenses or licenses based upon the GPL and the other things being profits or more accurately what a person or company can get a way with charging for their software.

Licenses on the Linux platform almost universally say that the source code should be made available to the softwares users even if no-one ever requests it. On the MS platform one rarely sees source code unless that source code comes from a person or company who adheres by the licensing of the GPL, v2 or 3. Source code is a rare sight on the Mac platform but it does exist, again from those people/companies that license their software offering by the GPL. MS Windows is closed source. Mac OSX is closed source. An OS based on the Linux kernel is not closed source, though some closed source programs exist.

Money. This is where I think the reason lays. While it is not impossible to make money off the back of a freely given away program, most people/companies on the Linux platform simple give their programs away with no strings attached other than those governed by the license used. People/companies that create programs for the MS platform rarely give their programs away for free, sure there is growing market of free MS programs but that market is very small in the world of MS program availability. Mac OSX people/companies that keep the source code away from their users are aplenty.

Having built software on all 3 platforms I can say that of those 3 only one was problematic and that was the MS platform. Money. The root of all evil.

New age Slackware.

It used to be said that Slackware was the best all round fit for both server installations an desktop systems. It was also said to be the best fit for both old, older and new systems. In the days of yore many, if not most, of its users were command line junkies. Nowadays though, almost none of that holds true.

Sure, the venerable Slackware distribution can be, and is, used on a few servers here and there with the desktop components not being installed but my own findings are that Slackware is nowadays mostly found on desktop installations. That assumes one can find anyone outside of the clique that makes up its current user base who is actively using it. This change of direction came around the time Gnome2 was dropped from the distribution and the horrible KDE became the main desktop GUI. This was a major choice by the creator of Slackware and not one that was popular. My dislike of KDE is because of its QT dependency. I dislike QT with a passion which means I dislike KDE too and anything else that depends on it.

Slackware, rightly, has a reputation for being staid in its choice of software. Some of the software that makes up the distribution is not bleeding edge. This gave Slackware a reputation for being solid in use. Slackware has always shipped with a choice of desktop Gui's but the dropping of Gnome was a minor disaster for Slackware which ultimately lost it a few users to other distributions that did include Gnome. There are also a few people that built Gnome for Slackware almost making a mockery of the Slackware authors claim that Gnome2 was hard to build and maintain.

In the latest release, due real soon now, the use of a default 2.6.x kernel, and the tools that go with it, also shows a leaning by its creator towards desktop installations. Many users, or potential users, of Slackware are now told to use an older version if the system it is being installed on is an old one. How old is old? Well, my reckoning is any CPU from the pre 2004 days. That move to a 2.6.x kernel combined with the dropping of Gnome2 excludes a lot of users.

So, with the combined dropping of Gnome2 and now the move to a 2.6.x kernel, Slackware stands to lose a few more users. I have no idea just how many installations, server and desktop, comprise of Slackware installations but my findings indicate the number has dropped dramatically in recent times, which is a shame because it is a fantastically stable distribution.

Added to this the Slackware creator has gathered together a bunch of people who he is hoping will take up the slack (no pun intended) should the creator decide for whatever reason, he has had enough and quits. Not all of these people are popular amongst its current user base and will I reckon lead to even less usage of Slackware in the next few years. Some of these people are arrogant, something the creator of Slackware has never been seen to be. They stomp all over other peoples work by stealing it. They never give attributes where due. Work that they gave away for free on various web sites dotted here and there. Web sites that in some cases have been around longer than some of these people. They jump on anyone who might have something bad to say about Slackware itself or the creator of, even if that something has merit.

I have used Slackware since around 1993 when it was born from the soon to be ashes of the SLS (Soft Landing Systems) distribution and have followed it not only by usage of it, but also with a general interest when compared to other distributions. Nowadays I have a 64 bit CPU which Slackware itself does not support but other distributions based on Slackware do. Of these ports I find Bluewhite64 to be the best fit as it directly mirrors, save for the 32 bit compatibility layer, Slackware itself. So, the transition from 32 bit Slackware to 64 bit Bluewhite64 via Slamd64 seemed to me to be an obvious one. I took it and find that Bluewhite64 with Gnome2 is the best of breed. I just find it a shame that the Slackware creator dropped Gnome2 from the distribution. Through my own scripting of the Gnome2 build process, and all its various dependencies, and the usage of other peoples scripts to build it, that the claim it is hard to build and maintain is laughable. However, it is, and was, his choice as it is after all his distribution that one assumes mirrors his own usage on the desktop at least and that is something I respect.

It has hurt to write this post because I honestly think that Slackware and the none sanctioned 64 bit ports of it are the best distributions by far, but that said, what I have said here is based around my observations of how the distribution has developed in recent times. It does not make good reading if you are, like me, a stout and devoted Slackware user but it is my view of the current state of play.

Gnome2 >2.20.0

I am unsure when Gnome2 started using PolicyKit which itself relies on SELinux and/or PAM but in my honest opinion this is a bad bad move.

I don't know how people who are building third party Gnome2 packages for Slackware are going to build it without PolicyKit. Every man and his dog knows that Slackware's author, Mr Volkerding, regards PAM as a huge security hole so does not and has said he will not include PAM in his distribution.

I have liked Gnome since its first incarnation many years ago. While I currently use the always improving without adding bloat Xfce4 I often revisit Gnome2 to see what is going on there. KDE simply does not get a look in because I have never liked QT.

But, this new reliance on PolicyKit which in turn relies on PAM and/or SELinux to be able to do its work is going to prove to be a massive turn off for me and no doubt a lot of Slackware users and for that reason alone unless I, and others, can find a way to build the latest version of Gnome2 without PolicyKit then Gnome2 will simply fall by the wayside as so many other DTE's and WM's have done over the years. Xfce4 will be the only DTE (DeskTop Environment) left on my system for those times I load up X.

Time and time again I have dabbled with PAM. Built it, installed it, configured it for my needs but always I have felt that PAM is simply a security bolt on that is not needed on a properly configured system. Because it is a bolt on this alone makes it a security hole. Look at PAM's record on vulnerabilities and you will see just how poor a record PAM has in this area. After a week or two usage with PAM running on my systems and adding a patch or 3 to cover some hole within it or updating it yet again because of a vulnerability I get fed up with it and remove it. Look around the Internet and you will see problem after problem regarding PAM and now we have parts of Gnome2 relying on it. If I feel this way how many others out there feel the same?

I downloaded the latest, at time of writing 2.21.2, Garnome (that is how I have tested various versions of Gnome2 for quite some time. Garnome itself is a wonderful tool as it allows you to test Gnome2 without actually installing it system wide) and because I have no PAM or SELinux installed it will not build. I have edited various files within the Garnome environment to try and eliminate the need for PolicyKit, PAM and SELinux but every effort resulted the same. It simply will not build.

This reliance on PolicyKit, PAM and SELinux is a shame as I said earlier on, Gnome2 has been one of my favourite DTE's and because of these reliances I will soon be consigning it to the bin.

X is NOT KDE!

Or put in pure Linux/Unix terms: X != KDE. Or Gnome, XFce4, Fluxbox etc etc.

As Linux (Linux defined here constitutes an entire distribution. In real terms, linux of course is the kernel only and a distribution, like Slackware, RedHat, Ubuntu etc are collections of programs which include the kernel.) grows exponentially in popularity there are many misnomers cropping up regarding what is what. While these misnomers are mostly harmless they do make diagnosing problems that may crop up harder for us more knowledgeable long time users.

For example. I saw a discussion recently on a forum where the user with a screen blanking problem kept referring to "The screen blanker in KDE." After much discussion going back and forth it eventually transpired that he/she was using Ubuntu. Ubuntu hides the underlaying console that all distributions have and boots straight into Gnome, by default, or KDE. This user had changed the default so instead of logging directly into GDM (the gnome login manger) from where he/she could log into Gnome or KDE he/she automatically booted directly into KDE.

Nothing wrong with this method and can in fact save a little bit of time logging in. This method also facilitates booting ones machine then walking away to do something else. On return the machine will be sat on the Gnome, KDE etc desktop so one can start work immediately upon returning to the station.

Where this sort of auto login does become an issue is when, for whatever reason, ones X or Gnome/KDE has been irreparably broken so that instead of being sat on the desktop one is sat at a scary black screen with nothing more than a bit of text at the bottom.

And so this discussion went. He/she was not having a problem with KDE but did have a problem with X blanking the screen. however, his/her constant use of "The screen blanker in KDE" kept throwing us old timers off the scent of where the problem really laid.

In very simple terms the boot process boots in 3 separate stages. First, the console, second, X and third ones chosen GUI which can be any one of many but most new users tend to use Gnome, KDE or XFce4. To blank or stop blanking the monitor each one of these stages should be addressed separately. Of course if one never uses the console directly that stage can be missed out. None of the GUI's have screen blanking themselves. Instead they offer, via their setup or configuration applets, options to setup the default GUI screen blanker which is a program called xscreensaver.

So, for console blanking we use 'setterm -blank &lt;time in seconds&gt;. If the value of (time in seconds&gt; is set to 0 then blanking is disabled. Any other none negative value will blank the console after those minutes of inactivity.

For X this is a little more tricky insofar as how one goes about setting this up, but works fine once set up. If one does not add these options to /etc/X11/xorg.conf the default options, which are for X to blank the screen after 5 or so minutes of inactivity, kick in. To set X to blank the screen after so many minutes of inactivity, open /etc/X11/xorg.conf in your editor of choice. We need root access for this so use 'su' to gain root privilidges or 'sudo'. Add the following lines to 'Section "ServerLayout"' in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.

Option "BlankTime" "0"
Option "standby time" "0"
Option "suspend time" "0"
Option "off time" "0"

These options totally stop X from blanking the screen.

The third part is simple and for a new user probably the easiest way to blank or stop blanking the screen. Gnome, KDE, XFce4 or any desktop environment or any window manger for that matter do not contain any screen blanking code beyond offering configuration options for the xscreensaver program. By setting these options up one can disable screen blanking in your chosen GUI environment.

I hope you found the information given here useful and please, new users to Linux, try not mixing up the various parts that make the whole and we old timers will be better able to help you with whatever problems you may be experiencing.