Linux support.

I am thinking about hardware, be it and internal card or external thing. It is becoming rarer and rarer for anything to be plugged inside a tower box not to be working. Sometimes one has to hunt down a driver but that is a rare event too these days. External hardware, especially in the printing area is as bad now as it ever was for us Linux based operating system using folk.

My wife went out and bought a Lexmark 6550 all-in-one printer thinking that Lexmark were like Epson or Brother who either do have a Linux driver for their printers or the PPD file is included with Cups or the foomatic collection. Lexmark however do neither.

On some of their printers Lexmark use some proprietory thing that they have never released the specifications for so that some bright spark in the Linux collective can write a driver. When emailing Lexmark customer service, if it can be called that, and complain about owning what openprinting call a brick then you get a boiler plate replying that basically says we know but we don't care. Lovely.

Avoid Lexmark stuff that is not known to the openprinting database of working printers. Oh and do not bother Lexmark customer service with Linux queries of any kind as they simply do not care and a growing band of users.

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.

Usenet trolls

They have always been around. Since the dawn of Usenet itself. Well before the term Internet became common usage. They are so easy to spot. Here is a good example of what a troll will say.

"I'm looking for the best Linux distro in terms of user interface that requires none or a minimal amount of command line work. One that has a lot of working applications including a good web browser, office suite, email, games, programs that will playback music (mp3, lossless, ogg, MIDi, etc.,) no hassle drivers for all-in-one printers, will accept external usb hard drives and DVD drives, external usb modem - basically as complete an OS as possible without having to hunt down a lot of drivers and hack the system to work. I had enough of that with the Amiga. I will most likely be running this on a PC laptop without any other OS installed. I don't like crowds on a single computer when it comes to op systems."

Now, all of those things he/she demands have been standard on Linux distributions for the last 3 or 4 years. The fact that he/she covers such a wide range of hardware and software requirements spells out he/she is trolling the newsgroup. If he/she had done even the slightest bit of googling he/she would get the answers he/she seeks. Instead he/she has trolled a Linux newsgroup.

Why is this particular bit of text labled trolling? After all, isn't he/she is merely asking which of the numerous distributions has everything he/she demands? Well, no. For one, he/she asked in a Linux newsgroup. For two, he she covers a wide range of requirements. For three it simply smells foul. For four it has troll written all over it.

From time to time we Usenet stalwarts see posts with content like this and simply ignore the poster. Unfortunately, we have some amongst our number that cannot resist such posts. That particular post will see one of two things happen. One, a distribution war will start. Where a number of people will be sucked in and start saying "this or that distribution is best" without even considering the original posters intents or wants/needs. Two, the poster will never post again as everyone else smells troll too and ignores the original poster.

I hope, in this case that the latter prevails.

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.

Slackware 12.1 released

Slackware 12.1 has been released to the faithful. I count myself amongst that number. Even though I no longer use Slackware itself, I do use Bluewhite64, which also released 12.1 on the same day, which is the best 64bit port of Slackware.

This is the first release with only a 2.6.x kernel. Finally. This release also missed a few good updates such as perl 5.10 (Slackware has 5.8.8) and PHP, both of which have been around quite some time now. But in the time honoured fashion that is how Slackware is created the creator has stuck with older, possibly more reliable, versions of those two applications.

This URL shows how staid Slackware can be in its choice of applications over the years since its first release. The remit of Slackware is to release a distribution that is good for servers and desktops alike but as I said here I think apart from the faithful few like myself who simply love the stability Slackware and the ports of it, offer on both desktops and servers, Slackware's relevance in todays wealth of desktop orientated distributions is nothing like it was say 6 or 7 years ago.

I am sure Slackware's creator still makes a living from his creation but making a living from something and that somethings relevance in the market place are two entirely different things. It will survive for years to come but its relevance in the market place will slowly but surely diminish further than it is today which is lower than it was a few years ago.

I will use Bluewhite64 for as long as I use computers on both the desktop and on servers but this stark reality is something that is constantly at the back of my mind. Added to this is the fact his "Crew" are not popular at all with the vast majority of administrators and desktop users it all adds up to a bleak future, but a future where Slackware will just about survive for quite sometime. Possibly forever, though I have my doubts on that one.

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.

Emulation.

Or as the wine blarb goes "Wine Is Not (an) Emulator". Which is certainly true of both the Wine project and the Qemu project. Both can use full blown MS Windows installs and that is where the problem lays. As GNU/Linux adoption via a collection of a kernel and several applications commonly known as distributions continues almost unabated we have wine and Qemu which in my honest opinion are fighting the good fight and slowing down Linux adoption in several areas. How and why are wine and Qemu slowing down Linux adoption? Well, the answer to both questions are basically the same. Because people who install a distribution then go on to install wine and/or qemu and then go on to install MS Windows within one or both of those and then go on to install whatever MS Windows application they see as being unavailable under their choice of Linux based distribution are simply stopping the improvement of applications in the same field from growing as the good folks who create these programs don't see the need to create further as people who use wine and qemu are settled on whatever application they used under the MS Windows operating system. And that is the why and how answered. If only these people who dogmatically insist on using applications designed for another operating system on their distribution of choice used whatever search engine they prefer, or look at web sites like this one which shows The table of equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software in Linux they would see that in almost every single case there is an equivalent application that runs natively under a Linux based operating system. They could then remove the baggage known as wine and qemu and quite possibly at the same time have a more stable system.

Decisions.

For only the second time in some 12 years I am considering changing distributions. Over those 12 or so years I have enjoyed using first Slackware, then Slamd64 and latterly Bluewhite64. Those latter two are 64 bit ports of Slackware. Bluewhite64 is the more vanilla port as slamd64 has some additiions not found in Slackware itself.

In all that time my allegence has been with Slackware, or a port thereof and distributions have come and gone and some have been around forever but none have strung my head hard enough to make me change for more than a week.

The last time I considered changing distributions was about 6 years ago. I joined Arch Linux and did some 300+ packages for them but the administration team went off the rails around version 0.3. I argued with them. Left then rejoined only to leave again. That distribution is still going and my heart says give it another go but my head always brings back the thoughts of those arguments. The crux of those arguments concerned direction and if I am honest with myself I would end up back arguing again. To show how the current administrators act consider the fact I did over 340 packages for Arch Linux but you would not know it as my attributions have been removed from most of the PKGBUILD scripts and my name nor nick is mentioned anywhere on their web site. You would think with such a large contribution at a time when Arch was growing, and I believe I helped it grow with my huge contribution, would at least have got my name or nick mentioned somewhere but, and I strongly believe it is because of the current administration, I get no such mention.

Anyway, that gripe off my chest I looked around at the current state of the Linux distribution market both big players and little players. None took my attention. Not one. Well, that is not completely true. ROCK got my attention as did one of its spin offs but something stopped me from trying them. Was it my previous go, though I cannot remember trying them. Whatever it was it was something. The Ubuntu family simply turn me off so much I find them abhorant. My wife uses Ubuntu and administrating it for her, both hands on and remotely is a breeze but it is exactly that ease, and their overreliance on the sudo command, that turns me off.

Some of the middle field players i dug into insomuch as I viewed their web sites but there was always something that held me back from actually using them as my main stay everyday distribution choice.

So, for me at least, the newer Bluewhite64 which is based on the venerable Slackware will for the forseeable future remain as the distribution of choice on my desk top rig.

Now, if I had to change which one of the 300+ disributions would I choose? If I had bags of time to install it then ROCK or EDS would be my choice. If I did not have bags of time then it would be Arch or Crux Linux. Hmm, Crux I tried before and really liked what I saw but at the time I tried it its application database(s) where very small if they existed at that time at all. These days however, Crux has come along way and now has many databases spread around the Internet some of which have lots of content.

Anyway, after a 4 weeks search and read exercise I still cannot find anything to replace my Slackware based Bluewhite64 Operating System with.

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.

Creative XFI Fata1ity.

Is this card a dead duck under a Linux Operating System? As of this time I have to say a resounding yes. However, read on. You may be surprised.

I will hold my hand up and say up front I am no audiophile. My partner in crime on this blog seVen however is. He has often winced at sounds I have found reasonable to my ears. Anyway, what is said here in this blog post is not about sound itself but about the state of Creative's drivers for the Linux Operating System.

The last time I had a Creative sound card in my main system they had just released what turned out to be probably one of their longest life card range. The Sound Blaster Live! I had two variants of these excellent cards within a 6 month time frame. My first one was a 4.1 one. My second one about 6 months later was a SB Platinum which of course was a 5.1 card.

So called on-board audio is audio that sits on your motherboard rather than being an external PCI/ISA/PCIe etc card. Not all motherboards have on-board sound but more and more do these days and the quality, for a desktop system with an OpSys that has everyday ears for sound receptacle's, the sound is really rather good. Of course there are some on-board audio chips that suck more than a suckything at a suck fest but by and large on-board audio has come on leaps and bounds in the desktop space.

As on-board audio became more ubiquitous and became better and better with 5.1 and 7.1 being the norm the good old SB Live! was consigned to the desk drawer where all good cards go and which I call my "Use again Someday" drawer and while the sound emanating through my 5.1 speakers via the SB Live! Platinum still punched out some excellent bass from the sub woofer I had no choice but to free up a PCI slot and reluctantly move to onboard audio.

My first on-board experience came via a VIA AC`97 chip which frankly was utter rubbish. I went through motherboard after motherboard all of which had some form of on-board audio chip. I will say that the best of these is probably my current one which is a VIA High Definition Audio used via the intel driver under Linux.

This brings me to something else. Driver support. It is a rare sound chip that has no support at all, though there are some. Under a Linux Operating System many chipsets are collected into one driver. So, if you check your kernel sources you may not see your audio chip, on-board or not but via the ALSA sound sub system more often than not there is support for most sound chips. In some cases you may need third party drivers. Nvidia's nForce series is one such example as is Creative's latest and greatest the XFI range.

Not being totally enamored with my current on-board audio I decided to purchase a PCI external sound card. Plenty of choices out there but I wanted something good. My attention immediately switched to Creative's range. In particular the XFI range. I settled in the end for a Creative XFI Fata1ity. Now, usually I check Linux compatibility before purchasing any hardware but this time around I simply bought the card and thought I'll worry about support later.

Oh dear. What a mistake that was! First time in years I have not checked compatibility first and sure enough that decision came back to bite me in the arse. There was no support for the Creative XFI range whatsoever when I bought it. None. I had a card sat in my machine that registered itself but the kernel said "Unknown device". For approximately 6 months this card was useless under a Linux Operating System. I was absolutely gutted.

Then just last September Creative released some closed source driver for the XFI range. And they released it for 64bit Operating Systems only. The rights and wrongs of that decision will play out in time but for what it is worth I think it was the wrong decision. There are plenty of x86_64 or AMD64/EMT64 systems out there but by and large the majority are x86 or 32bit. I will not get into the closed versus open source argument as honestly I couldn't care less either way. As long as the driver gets my hardware working then the fact the driver is open or closed makes no odds to me at all.

Having downloaded the driver I proceeded to use their 'installer' script. This failed miserably. After some editing of the 'installer' script to fix obvious mistakes I tried again. This time it failed on some kernel header file. By now I was slightly pissed off but decided my best course of action would be to Google it. I did exactly that and found many other people around the globe had hit the same issues as I had hit. As is usual for closed source drivers, Linux users set about fixing all the issues. Notably, Gentoo users fixed the issues. Some Gentoo users are a world apart from other Gentoo and other Distribution users. I tip my hat to these people. This web site documents everything so I won't go through it here. If you have a Creative XFI range audio card then go take a look. It will save you some hair loss.

So, finally, what is the actual sound like? Hmm, it is listenable but certainly no great shakes. There are serious issues with this driver like 'scratching' as the file or video plays, the driver sometimes locking up the system on boot etc etc. I am sure that given time Creative will sort all these issues. Let us be fair here this Creative released closed source driver is ALPHA status so given that status there is plenty of room for improvement. I think Creative's best bet would be to release the driver as true Open Source with a relevant, possibly restrictive, license. By doing this they are guaranteed to have hundreds, possibly thousands, of eyes on the code which with Creative's help with 'hidden' details should yield a driver that matches or possibly beats its MS Windows driver.

As of the time of writing I am not overly happy with this card. I will sit quietly, patiently and wait for the next few releases of the driver which should see both stability and usability improve. I hope so. The card itself can and does produce excellent sound under MS Windows and apart from Creative blocking coders by withholding vital information regarding this card there is no reason why this Linux based driver cannot improve.

If you, the reader, are a Bluewhite64 or Slamd64 or any other copycat 64bit Slackware based Operating system would like a fully patched Slackpak of the Creative XFI driver then tell me and I will see what I can do about creating one for you. Do not ask me for a 32bit Slackpak of this driver as as of the time of writing the closed source portion of this driver has no 32bit support.

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.

Optimise.

Having used SLS (Soft Landing Systems an ancient now defunked distribution. IIRC SLS was the first 'packaged' distribution), Slackware then when moved to an x86_64 system, Slamd64 before finally settling on Bluewhite64. I currently have over 500 packages of my own creation. That is, I download the sources and configure, compile and install a lot of stuff myself, usually with a Bluewhite64 package of the result. It never ceases to amaze me how people claim optimisations over and above the stock -march=i486 -mcpu=i686, or in some cases -march=i386, Slackware uses or the stock i386 debian is built with, results in faster load and execution times.

Gentoo users are the biggest culprits for doing this. They claim, and worse some even think and believe, that because their systems are built from the ground up (this is no longer completely true as even stage1 comes with a pre-built base install last time I checked) with some semi insane GCC settings that their OS somehow, magically, is faster than all the other Linux distributions that come pre built via packages.

As an aside, the myth that says Gentoo gives you more knowledge than other distribution is just that. A myth. Portage does all work with the user giving some, often ignored, flags to it. Portage then goes and downloads the sources, builds then installs it. No black magic there at all.

Gentoo users through this mistaken belief can be seen on various mailing lists, web forums, blogs and Usenet arguing over little known, little useful, hidden GCC flags again in the mistaken belief that these flags offer them optimisations over and above what every other OS uses.

Gentoo users are not alone in this belief but their userbase is way over and above the most vocal about it. There are other distributions that make the same claims. Sourcemage, Rock Linux are two others that come immediately to mind at the time of writing.

I cannot find the link now but a while ago there was a binary speed comparison of Gentoo, Mandrake (now Mandriva) and Debian. Debian was compiled for i386, mandrake for i586 and Gentoo for i686. I don't recall what GCC flags where used but I do seem to recall that the flags used where pretty ordinary. It turned out that Debian's i386 compiled binaries were faster in every way. The report was vilified by Gentoo fanboys at the time but what the report did show was that setting insane GCC flags does not always mean one will get a faster system load time and execution time.

The truth is that most optimisations for GCC have nothing whatsoever to do with speed but do have something to do with the resultant binary size(s). This binary size can and does give the illusion that the binary can and does load and run faster.

Ho hum....

I hate misinformation with a passion and beleive me there is a lot of misinformation about a GNU/Linux on the Internet. I was browsing around the Internet looking for nothing in particular when I happened upon the following link: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233123/migrating_to_ubuntu_linux_from_microsoft.html Now, having been a Linux user since around the very early 1990's I take issue with some of the bogus things mentioned in the above article. Let us look at this persons "Requirements" one by one. Here is his list of "Requirements": 1. It must have a GUI interface for installing and configuring the system. 2. Existing hardware must remain usable and the new operating system must make it "just work" without my having to edit text-based configuration files. 3. Existing software must remain usable unless the new operating system has equivalent features to the ones I use, and I can switch without losing data or doing much work. 4. Because I need to use software that has no Linux substitute, the Linux distribution must make it easy to create a dual-boot system. It has to recognize and preserve the existing operating system and its data during installation, and give me access to the data on the Windows drives after installation. Further this person says his "Requirements" are "non-negotiable". Obviously a very arrogant person who writes fluff at best and utter junk, like the article above, at worse. Option 1 in this persons list of "non-negotiable requirements" is the funniest of all of them. The question is, what constitutes a GUI? Most people consider a GUI to mean real drivers for the graphics card and real and proper windows, buttons, icons etc. The MS Window installer does not use a GUI, it uses bit mapped graphics which imitates what we all know as being a GUI. On Linux this is called the framebuffer or sometimes the VESA buffer is used. Given that this person claims to know his stuff does not bode well for whatever else he waffles on about. Throughout the article there are errors and misleading information that is so blatant is stops being funny after page 1. Anyway. Item 2 on his "non-negotiable requirements" list is almost as funny of item 1. The vast majority of hardware under MS Windows immediately after the installation phase is used in the most basic of basic states until one installs the proper driver. Under Linux the vast majority of hardware is in the most usable state from the minute the kernel loads the driver during the install phase. There is a huge difference between these two methods and those differences are at best glossed over in this article and at worst totally disregarded. Further in this persons Item 2 it is stated that the hardware must just work without the need to edit text based files. Now, given that MS Windows has all manner of "Wizards", some of which just work whilst others simply do not and almost every change requires a reboot, I think editing the odd text based file is a much prefer method as they are almost always guaranteed to "just work". Redhat, Mandriva and SuSe to name but a few all have similar wizards. Still, it has to be said that the vast majority of hardware "just works" under Linux and of those obscure bits that rely on deeply embedded MS Windows files often installed by MS Windows only drivers are not worth bothering with anyway, because those types of hardware use way too much CPU time to do their thing. Item 3 in this persons "non-negotiable requirements" list is an obscure one. The person states that "Existing software must remain usable". I do not fully understand the meaning here as it should be obvious that MS Windows software will not work on a Linux distribution as the under laying file system formats are not compatible, unless one uses cedega or qemu both of which run MS Windows within Linux. Some software packages, like the Picasso one this person mentioned run under a Linux OS but is wrapped up in Wine, another MS Windows emulator. If however, this person meant that under Linux his DATA files should be usable from the MS Windows world then that is a different thing altogether. Apart from some deeply proprietary formats the vast majority are usable under a Linux distribution. OpenOffice, which can be directly compared to MS Office, can open, edit and save in all manner of formats, some MS, some Linux but the majority of major MS formats can be opened, edited and saved back to the MS format. The programs under a Linux based OS may not be the same (how could they be when the program creators do not produce a Linux version?) but the fact is that the vast majority of file formats, be they text based ones, movie and sound based ones or even the ubiquitous MS Office formats are usable under a Linux OS but using a different program. OpenOffice in place of MS Office or Mplayer plus codecs in place of MS Media Player plus codecs etc etc. Finally, this persons Item 4. This person states that he uses some applications that have no Linux equivalents. While I agree that this situation does happen, the situation is getting less and less but there are still some areas Linux has not gone to that the MS world has. The person also mentions a dual boot situation. Now, given that both Lilo or grub (two boot loaders under a Linux OS) have been able to do this since, well, since they more or less first came onto the market and if given the choice between a Linux based boot loader and an MS boot loader I personally would go with the Linux based one every time. Why? Well, the MS operating System does not like sharing with anything and is often times the culprit when in a dual boot situation the Linux OS side suddenly either stops working or simply gets deleted. Also, when you install MS Windows it will automatically over write whatever is in the MBR irregardless of whether you wanted it to. The Linux based counterparts however will allow not only a dual boot situation but a triple or quad etc boot option. And just so this person knows it is not a Linux OS that stuffs up the MBR (Master Boot record which holds all the partitions and OS information) but the MS Windows one. The MS boot loader, or rather the MS installer does no sniffing of the MBR at all, while its Linux based counterparts do, and simply overwrites whatever was in the MBR. So, there we have it. Someone who has not the first clue about Operating Systems writing blatant rubbish about operating Systems. If these people are to gain any credibility whatsoever they should at least learn that about which they speak. Installing a Linux based OS nowadays is easier than installing its MS Windows counterpart. It will not over write whatever is in the MBR. It will open, edit and save almost all formats be they text based one, XML based ones, film based ones and music based ones. Apart from games, and even that area is getting less and less, there is very little MS Windows can do that a Linux OS cannot. This person used Ubuntu as his marker for his or her "non-negotiable requirements" which is a good choice as Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu or any other flavour of Ubuntu does all the things one would expect from a Linux OS trying to immitate MS Windows in every area. There are other Linux Distributions out there that operate in a similar fashion but there is only one MS Windows (Windows95, Windows98, WindowsXP, and MS Windows Vista are not differing OS's in the same way that the many and varied Linux distributions are). For anyone thinking of installing a Linux OS either as the only OS on the hard drive or as a dual boot you would do well to ignore this blatantly bias rubbish as portrayed in the article above and go and find someone, somewhere that knows what they are talking about. This person in the above mentioned article clearly and unequivocally does not.

My foray into the murky world of Operating Systems.

Or, A potted history of my computer usage.

This blog post can also be found elsewhere. They where both written by myself.

While this blog host is worldwide the stuff at the end is for local to me people and companies. That said, if you are located somewhere far away from my locality, which is Hull, UK, then we can still talk via email, ICQ and even MSN and who knows, perhaps I can offer you or your company some remote services, which are incidentally something I excel at. Read on then decide for yourself which way you want to go.

I have used the Linux kernel and the same GNU based distribution since 1991. Yes, I was one of the masochists back in those days who saw Linus Torvalds work and the associated GNU tools as something radically different from what was quickly emerging as the default operating system ("OS").

I had previously used the Amiga OS, which was so far ahead in what it offered that even in todays OS world it would not be out of place. I started by foray into the murky waters of computers with a Commodore-PET, carried on through the C64/128 phase then the Plus4. Then along came the Amiga 1000. I immediately saw this machine for what it was and jumped on it. Over the following few years I went through the entire Amiga range ending up with what was their finest hour, the Amiga 3000 Tower.

By now it was 1991 at which time it had become painfully obvious the Amiga was going nowhere fast. Over the next few years I started looking at what else was available. IBM, and compatibles, where everywhere but lacked something I had grown used to having with the Amiga. Apple had machines out but they too lacked that something. Eventually, around 1996 and knowing nothing about them at that time, I bought my first and only pre-build IBM compatible machine which came with the awful MS Windows OS of that time. The OS itself stayed on that machine just long enough to download a Linux distribution, Slackware as it turned out, and install it. I have never used another OS on my main workstation since that time.

I had used NetBSD on my Amiga 3000 Tower setup since around 1990. Running it alongside the Amiga OS. It wasn't until around 1996 that I sold all my Amiga equipment and went full time into the Linux world which I have remained with ever since.

And that is my potted history of computer OS's I have used over the years.

I have said I started using Linux around 1991 and that is correct. Someone had given me an IBM clone on which had, if I remember correctly, MS Windows 1.0 or maybe 2.0, I forget. I ran this box alongside my Amigas for about 5 years, never upgrading it, save for an extra floppy drive and generally not doing much at all with it as it paled in comparison to my Amiga. Anyway, that OS, on the IBM clone. was quickly replaced with what was at that time the all new Linux kernel add in some GNU tools and a new OS was born.

What did the GNU/Linux combination have that the Amiga had that MS Windows, then and now, had that made me decide to use it? Freedom. Freedom to tinker with the underlaying OS and bend it whichever way I wanted to bend it. No MS OS has ever allowed for this and that alone made using the, any, MS OS a huge no-go for me.

Fast forward to today.

Through all of those machines and OS's I have been on a learning curve. Sometimes that curve has been steep, very very steep, and other times it has been easy. I am now the proud owner of several certificates which proclaim to the world I am fit and able to do all manner of IT related work.

I build all my own machines now as they work out cheaper that way plus one gets the ability to add-in whatever hardware one wants and often needs. Plus, I can tailor the hardware to ensure it works 100% with my choice of OS, which is GNU/Linux. Of course, today that tailoring of hardware is not really required anymore as GNU/Linux works with just about everything available, save for a few hardware pieces that tie themselves so close to the MS OS the coders and hackers cannot be bothered to create code that would make them work. If a hardware vendor is so short sighted they only make hardware that works on one OS then that hardware is not worth the time of day in my humble opinion anyway.

As a final note. If you enjoyed reading this and if you are located in Kingston upon Hull or at least somewhere close to it, and you are thinking of using a Linux OS within your company or as an individual at home, but the very thought of it is giving you nightmares, then feel free to contact me and if you want I will help you install a Linux based OS of your choosing. Perhaps you need someone to explain the finer points of the GNU/Linux OS versus MS OS, and there are many plus points for GNU/Linux over an MS OS, GNU/Linux is in 99.9% of cases cheaper to run and has no license fee mess to worry about, plus there is help everywhere on the Internet plus a few good GNU/Linux users locally who can offer guidance if you so need it. But the plus and minus things are best left for another blog post or possibly put somewhere on the Internet for all to see, read, inwardly digest and finally a decision made.

To my credit I have built from scratch upwards of 50 seat networks for various companies, that have at their heart a GNU/Linux based server. So, if you are such a person of company but are afraid of what GNU/Linux offers or perhaps the installation phase bothers you for some reason then feel free to contact me and we can perhaps have a chat about it. One thing you will find, be you an individual at home or the owner or manager of a small to medium company, GNU/Linux is not hard to install and with someone like myself at your elbow it will all become easy.

The savings that your company, be it a 2,4,16,32 or 64 seat one are not something your company can ignore or at least should not ignore.

As a side note and something that is, I am sure, always in your mind. I do not charge much, in point of fact I am confident you will find my services cheaper than most, if not all, of those who offer the same services, which is surely a plus for you. I charge nothing at all for email contact so what have you got to lose? Nothing, so go on. Contact me and let me show you the cost savings you can surely make.

How Far Has Wine Come ?

Sorry Jeep, your title was just waiting for another drop in *phrase* =) Warning: Wine in and of itself causes much debate, public drunkenness & heated discussions on the Internet and around newsgroups in general but it doesn't always have to be the case. There are emulators for many OS's OS's OS's ... I can understand both sides of the Wine Pros and Cons Long Living Debate and the affect ( negative or positive ) on the Linux World. That is not the point here. This is simply a POST concerning success running some apps on an emulator. period. It ( Wine ) has it's times of need and just plain ol fun when the most original looking and feeling software remake of your favorite game ( mine is good ol "Galaga" and "Asteroids" =) is windows only. Let's face it, Linux does not have three rows of software available at your local Computer Store. Check Jeeps post here which explains many angles on the Linux Desktop vs Windows that would also have an extreme affect as to why so much software is still only available for the Windows & Apple/Mac Platforms. I have been intending on posting this since the success I had running wine in the recent days. I am very impressed with the latest "wine" and would like to say a few words about it and keep in mind we can also post as comments to this post of course any apps we find that are running on wine IF and when we need to. Possibly to submit them to the wine database which is very handy for a quick look/see if a particular application you want to run is in the list or not and if so, possibly save you the heartache of a pointless effort OR a give you the information you need for a successful fast solution. I will start by saying in all honesty, I have tried wine in the past, lost faith and frankly, did not have the need to run any windows applications. Years ago, and when the project first started up I was always disappointed. Although many apps were and may have been supported at the time it always seemed that the one I wanted to run was either not supported at all or very limited. I gave them a thumbs up for trying so hard nonetheless. It has been probably 3 years since I have had a need or reason to run a windows application. Moving forward... I decided to give it another go earlier this year and was very pleased and surprised. I am happy to report that the all three different times I have had the need or want to run a windows application this year it has been a success. The original application can sometimes make life much easier. NEWS FLASH - All three apps I tried so far worked prefectly! *nod* to wine developers for "keeping on keeping on" as we say. 1) Wine & Wine-Tools installed perfectly on Slackware-11.0 ( plus updates ) 2) Each and every application worked almost perfectly. The only thing that did not work in two out of the three apps I have run succesfully on/under wine was window resizing. 3) Even this, amazingly, one the applications even went through it's "auto-upgrade!" This touches on another comment I need to post here The Windows Software I am running using Wine:

• PokerStars Free (Play) Money Tables for me! - for this site

NOTES: This one was an executable installation and went through the familar windows "setup" installtion windows perfectly and set it up in my ~/.wine/ directory as needed by wine. No root was needed at all. Although I did install wine as root system wide. PokerStars even went through a normal "auto-update version upgrade" with no problem at all right before I made this post tonight. hmm .. Interesting =) I think I should post a comment here to this affect as it could be possibly an answer to one of many issues concerning the Linux Desktop for the average Home user which is simply installing commonly used apps in in your ~ ( home ) directory ( FOLDER for windows users ) like OpenOffice.org for one of may examples and auto-update is np. Windows re-sizing does not work.

• Picasa for Windows

NOTES: Yes I also have Picasa for Linux which, by the way, is distributed with it's own wine server and depends on wine , not system wide but included, to run. I wanted to try both ways so I did and both work fine.

• Roland's BR Wave Converter 2.0

NOTES: Window resizing does not work. It sees the Roland BR-600 through which Linux sees as a standard usb-storage device with no problem and no special hand config was needed for it to read and write to the device. Thanks to Roland for making the device spec to UMS also. Wine has come a long way. Whether you agree or disagree with wine's "affect" or what it may do to the Linux community is not the issue. That is a long and heavily debated topic. The point I want to make is that it is working for more and more applications and it works well. I may have the need for a few more apps running under wine who knows? =) Anyone know of a original "look & feel" Galaga for Linux or Windows to download? =) Later people.

Powered by ScribeFire.