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.

Innovation.

Yesterday I got talking to an old old friend via MSN. Needless to say or indeed sad to say, but the guy was really into Microsoft operating Systems. I am sure you all know or realise I am a staunch Linux advocate. This dividing of the ways led to an interesting discussion which lasted just over 4 hours on and off.

He, as do most Microsoft using people, think that Microsoft innovated everything that comprises an Operating System. He even went so far as to say "Microsoft invented everything we use on the desktop and innovated everything we see on it". This rankled somewhat so I set about putting the record straight.

He was utterly disbelieving of the fact that through the years Microsoft has  actually innovated almost nothing, ever and has in fact assimilated companies who posed a threat to their near monopoly on the desktop as well as stolen code and called it their own, rehashed other peoples ideas and called it their own idea. The only things they have innovated on has been out of desperation of what others had done and even then because they innovated something that someone else had already done it is not true innovation.

The conversation was long, I will not be relaying it all here as a lot of it was just 'catch-up' chat. However, here are a few examples of the kind of things he believed that simply where not true or correct.

He was enamored with Internet Explorers tabbed browsing until I told him that we in the Linux community have had tabbed browsing for at least 2 years before Microsoft copied it. He was full of praise for some new Microsft terminal that has "scripting abilities" then I explained about the Bash shell and all the other console and terminals we in the Linux community have had for at least 10 years. Tabbed terminals? Same again, we have had them for years. The list went on and on and on and in every single case where he believed Microsoft has been first to market I corrected him and told him they where simply playing 'catch up' with what we in the Linux community have taken for granted for a long long time.

Microsoft does not innovate, they either buy out ideas and call them thier own or copy ideas already in use on other Operating Systems.

We ended the conversation with him promising to try a Linux distrubution but before he left he asked "Where do I get it from and if there is more then one which one should I use?". I answered with "Why bother? If you are happy with what you are using then stick with it". Then he said something I never expected. "Microsoft Vista is a bear and costs way too much for what it is, anyway, I was going to go back to Microsoft XP but now you have intrigued me with this thing you use called Linux so I want to take a look before reinstalling XP". So, I told him of Distrowatch and that if he is asking me for a recommendation for someone like him then I would have to say Ubuntu.

And that, as they say, was that. Off-line he went. I expect that either later today, it is almost 8:30am here in Blighty, he will come on line and then I can ask him if is using or even tried Ubuntu. I expect the answer to be yes, he had tried it but...And he will be using the same broken Operating System as he had always used.

Whatever will be will be.

Perhaps later or possibly tomorrow, I shall report on what he tells me.

Server v desktop

i have used a Linux distribution since 1993 and it frankly scares me that distributions nowadays are blurring the line between a server and a desktop.

What do I mean by that statement?

Well, one should never, ever, put a GUI (Graphical User Interface) such as KDE or Gnome or even plain old Xorg on a server.

RedHat led the way in this area, now Ubuntu is following. Sure many others have done such a stupid thing along the away but that does not make it right. In fact, I think it is downright dangerous.

I have built and installed at many locations around the world servers and desktops and not once in all the years I have done it have I installed a GUI on a server.

If you or your server administrators have anything about them at all they will not, nah, they should not, need a GUI to get things done. If they do then they are sorely lacking the most basic skills a Linux Administrator should have and those skills are the ability to wake up a seemingly dead server from the commandline.

What if for whatever reason the X server or GUI woke bootup?

I will say it again. Putting Xorg and a GUI on a server it downright stupid at best and downright dangerous at worse.

What a crock.

Over the last weekend, and for 4 months previous for the design phase, I got to use a modern MAC with its modern Operating System (OS). I was offered a job setting up this network of computers and during a discussion with the man he requested Apple hardware and a MAC OS. Hmmm. Still, that is what he wanted and that is what he got. All told there were 23 computers including the server that held the Internet connection. Three other machines did the web serving, mail serving and a few other tasks. One further machine did file file serving that services the remaining machines that had a desktop role. Once in place everything gelled perfectly first time. Now those using those desktop machines will have to learn how to use them as their previous desktops were all a mix of MS Windows 98 and MS Windows XP. I am sure we all know how different from the user perspective these OS's are hence the learning curve their boss(es) have forced them into. The setup itself is not mission critical nor is this learning period going to have an affect on their business but I cannot help thinking they should have been given some time to learn this new OS before being thrust headlong into it. It seems unfair to do it this way but this way they decided to do it. On the Sunday I had a few of the desk workers in to show them the very basics of this new, to them, OS and I have to say they seemed on the face of things to manage very well. There were some who had issues with various parts but all told they seemed comfortable with it, That was the end of my job with this company apart from a contract that runs for 1 year that gives me unfettered access should something go wrong. Plus a login once a week to do some housekeeping. I highly doubt anything will go wrong, save for hardware failing, but as a safety net for the company this contract will suffice. You have to realise I deal almost exclusively in the Linux OS and while I am totally comfortable in dealing with any other OS available, either as a whole netowork or as a mixed enviroment, I much prefer a Linux OS for many reasons I am not going into today in this post. So, what is a crock? The MAC OS is that is what. I saw nothing innovative. I saw nothing special at all. Oh sure, all the machines gelled into one network with consummate ease but the actual OS itself compared to what a well configured Linux distribution offers or a well setup MS Windows box offers was nothing special at all. Sure is has 'ease of use' written all over it. It has some wonderful applications, the hardware is nice and the lack of viri and malware etc on that platform is a positive plus, but then none of those things are any different to a well configured Linux based OS nor in fact a well setup MS Windows OS (not including Vista as that has issues of its own). In fact I told the boss of this company how much he could of saved not only on the hardware but on the OS as well by choosing a Linux distribution instead and yet he still insisted on this well over-hyped setup. It was his call and he made it so I went ahead and designed the network layout on paper, well actually on a computer, then bought the hardware (being given money, a lot of money, prior to any actual work is a major plus to a small time network/system administrator/hardware guy like myself) and finally installed it all into a working environment. Only time will tell how his workers get along with this OS but I guessimate that within a year, during the lifetime of my contract with them, that they will change this crock of an OS to something else. And yes, I will say it again. What a crock MAC OS is for what one pays for it. Totally overhyped and totally expensive.

Whine whine whine.

It seems that there are some folks out on the Internet involved in some peripheral way with Slackware are not happy with Slackwares creator Patrick Volkerding. Apparently the guy is narked because P.V. has little perceived interest in the market value of his beloved project. Has anybody got any right to dictate to the maker of Slackware, or any other distribution, how he/she should run it or have any say in what each release is ready? I say not. This however has not stopped Jim from linuxpackges dissing P.V. I have no idea if P.V. cares for market value or not and frankly I don't care either. He puts time into creating what is in my opinion the best distribution there is to be had for new and experienced users alike. If he does it for his own amusement than distributes it that is his choice and everyone who uses it gets a huge plus. People these days either do not know or simply forget many of the larger distributions were created on the back of Slackware. I also have no idea if Jim from linuxpackages.net has some hidden beef or not but on the face of his post on his own web site it certainly smells of it. I think Jim is pissed because his linuxpackages web site is slowly but surely being seen for what it has always been and that is a poor web site full of dubious Slackware packages with no sources. His web site has been marginalized by many slackbuild sites who provide not only packages for Slackware but the build scripts which enable users to create their own packages. More and more users are seeing the benefits of doing their own packages and are increasingly leaving Jim's web site alone. There have been a few spats over the years between these two and always has Jim been in the wrong. I have dealt with Jim and a few others a few years ago when we all combined to set out some standards for Slackware build scripts. We broke up not long after forming because he wanted to enforce all sorts of none standard things which in our opinion broke away from P.V.'s methods. He was very insistent and some would say arrogant over his dealings during the whole affair. He is now showing the same "me me me" arrogance over this current affair. His attack on P.V. smells of what it is. Soar grapes.

Security hole in the making?

Everyone knows Apple uses BSD as its base and wraps all manner of inhouse (inbred?) applications around it to create the user experience known as OS X. Ubuntu and friends (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu etc) are all based on debian and uses the 'sudo' application with gay abandon.

Many 'LiveCD`s' use a root account and a root account only. By passing the root versus user setup that Linux distributions and BSD distributions have used since forever. Linspire is another distribution, amongst many others, that uses root for everything. There are many examples of this blatant security breach everywhere.

This deliberate breaking of the dual root/user account setup has the ability to become a clear breach of security. Having a user account with limited ability to break things is one of the major reasons why Linux Distributions have a deserved record of lack of rootkits and spyware, malware etc etc. Sure there are rootkits available out there for Linux distributions but properly secured they are all but useless and this fact is where the run as root could open a whole can of worms.

'Sudo' has its place and used properly has all sorts of advantages but by creating a distribution that breaks away from the normal usage of 'sudo' takes away any advantages that it has when used properly.

Ignoring the advantages of the root versus user accounts by removing the need for a user account is in my opinion, one step closer to the abyss of darkness that is the MS Windows way of doing things with all the rootkits, viri, malware etc that brings with it.

Patent pledges.

Is it just me or are Microsoft digging themselves a hole so deep even they will never find a way out? They duped Novell into signing a patent pledge, which is now backfiring against Novell, and a few other lesser distributions have followed suit. Many, however, have not and amongst those who have not sits Red Hat. Red Hat wants dual indemnification but without the patent pledge (This pledge apparently is a dual 'we won't sue you' thing). Whether or not this plan is workable from both sides remains to be seen but so far Microsoft has said a firm 'no' to the idea. As an aside it is worth mentioning that the all new and shiny GPL Version 3 has a covenant within it that will stop these backhanded patent pledges so from Red Hat's point of view it makes perfect sense to seek doing it the way they want. Plus, they have shown Microsoft to be what others suspected them to be. A wolf in sheeps clothing. I will not claim to know the ins and outs of patent law but it does seem to me that Microsoft wants these patent pledges to deflect the view away from themselves. I also do not know how much, if any, GPL code sits within a Microsoft OS, be it NT, XP or Vista. It is almost a given that there is no Microsoft patents in a Linux distribution and that all this mutual indemnification pacts are nothing more than a smokescreen for what is really happening out there in the world of OS's/distributions. I am not the first to comment on this subject and no doubt will not be the last but nobody, that i have read online, is seeing this the way i have written about above. So, from that angle it is worth writing as if nothing else this blog was created to stimulate discussion.