When I was in late high school, which was in the early days of this blog, I had recently switched to Linux and was essentially an evangelist, singing its praises and loudly cursing the misdeeds of Microsoft with respect to the desktop market; many of my blog posts at that time were in that vein. In the nearly 8 years since then, I, my blog, Linux, Microsoft, and the consumer device market have all evolved and matured: I've become less evangelistic and more realistic about many things (or so I'd like to think), my blog has correspondingly shifted focus in various ways, Linux distributions have become less of a "wild west" than they were 8 years ago and have gained more support for popular things like proprietary video drivers and game platforms like Steam, Microsoft has been more open about supporting free and open-source software initiatives, and the consumer device market has shifted much more toward mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets which are very different from the desktops, laptops, and netbooks of 8 years ago (the latter of which doesn't really exist anymore as it once did). That said, I recently read a post on Slashdot (original article by Brian Fagioli of Betanews) about how Microsoft is locking the configuration settings for changing the default browser (Microsoft Edge) and search engine (Bing) choices in Windows 10 S, which is its version of Microsoft Windows 10 designed for lower-end hardware used in schools. For the sake of old times, I thought it might be nice to post about it, but hopefully with a bit more nuance than what I was capable of 8 years ago (and with the benefit of having seen the last 8 years of intervening technological development). Follow the jump to see more.
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
2013-06-18
Review: Zorin OS 7 Core
It has been almost exactly a year since I reviewed Zorin OS 6 Core, which was based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS "Precise Pangolin". The new version is based on Ubuntu 13.04 "Raring Ringtail", so I'm reviewing that now.
What is Zorin OS? It is based on Ubuntu, uses a heavily customized GNOME 3 environment with Compiz as the WM and AWN as a panel. It also aims to look as close to Microsoft Windows as possible; at the moment, the target is specifically Microsoft Windows 8. There haven't been a huge number of changes from version 6 to version 7 of Zorin OS, aside from some theme and branding updates along with the usual package updates.
I tried this as a live USB made with UnetBootin; the Zorin OS website warns that the live system may be less stable than the installed system, so I'll see how that plays out. Follow the jump to see what it's like.
 |
| Main Screen + Zorin OS Menu |
I tried this as a live USB made with UnetBootin; the Zorin OS website warns that the live system may be less stable than the installed system, so I'll see how that plays out. Follow the jump to see what it's like.
2012-01-04
Comparison Test: Pear OS 3.0 "Panther" vs. Zorin OS 5.2 Core
 |
| Pear OS: Main Screen |
Pear OS takes no shame in aping absolutely every part of Apple's Mac OS X. Its slogan is "Think Totally Different", which is an obvious rip off of Apple's slogan, "Think Different". Its logo is a pear into which someone has taken a small bite. It shows box art that clearly apes that of Apple's Mac OS X. Even the version name is "Panther", which is actually a past release of Apple's Mac OS X ( The list goes on, but it's clear what the developers are aiming at.
By contrast, Zorin OS is quite a bit more subtle about its goals. It explicitly states that it aims to bring Linux to Microsoft Windows users, but its website is a bit more generic in that it simply states the advantages and features of Zorin OS without directly referencing Microsoft Windows too many times.
 |
| Zorin OS: Main Screen + GnoMenu (Microsoft Windows 7 look) |
2011-09-07
Third Semester at College
Today was the first day of my third semester at MIT! I was excited to start with the classes that I want to take (and am not just taking to meet some requirements). This semester I'm taking classes in wave mechanics, special relativity, thermodynamics, and microeconomics.
There are a couple new things I noticed. First, there seems to be a lot of restoration work. I wonder why, given that the sesquicentennial celebrations have come and gone. Second, I've noticed that a lot more on-campus Athena computers that previously used Microsoft Windows now use Ubuntu, which is cool. Related to that, the Ubuntu version used has been upgraded to version 11.04 "Natty Narwhal"; Classic GNOME as opposed to Unity is the default, though Unity is an option when logging in, as are TWM/Ratpoison, WindowMaker, and a few others.
I'm really excited for this semester not just because of the classes I'm taking, but also because I'm going to start a new research opportunity regarding solar cells. It's pretty cool stuff, and I'll probably write more about it a few weeks after I actually start.
There are a couple new things I noticed. First, there seems to be a lot of restoration work. I wonder why, given that the sesquicentennial celebrations have come and gone. Second, I've noticed that a lot more on-campus Athena computers that previously used Microsoft Windows now use Ubuntu, which is cool. Related to that, the Ubuntu version used has been upgraded to version 11.04 "Natty Narwhal"; Classic GNOME as opposed to Unity is the default, though Unity is an option when logging in, as are TWM/Ratpoison, WindowMaker, and a few others.
I'm really excited for this semester not just because of the classes I'm taking, but also because I'm going to start a new research opportunity regarding solar cells. It's pretty cool stuff, and I'll probably write more about it a few weeks after I actually start.
2011-06-19
Featured Comments: Week of 2011 June 12
There were a few posts that got a whole bunch of comments, so I'll only be able to repost a few from each.
Another anonymous commenter, in response to a comment asking about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of my decision, countered, "While closing the laptop lid does - usually - result in a sleep, the OS *should* be able to disable this feature when it is performing a critical task." And this has been my point all along.
Yet another anonymous reader added, "What's annoying is a lack of the system asking 'hey do you want me to download 5GB of updates now when you're about to shutdown the laptop trying to make it to your next meeting'? Or force the message that windows likes to use "we're giving you your updates whether you want them or not. Don't shut down until windows updates are complete or bad things will happen"? My Ubuntu systems will prompt a reminder that there are new updates so that I can choose to do it later when I have time to let it work away at the magic."
Still another anonymous commenter said, "I usually put my Windows laptop on the night before I actually might want it so the annoying updates can be done. Yes I find it mad coming from being a long time Linux user and it's the biggest pain whilst trying to work in the day job too the usually fortnightly push of updates grinding the machine close to a halt as they happen silently."
An anonymous commenter added, "Don't switch. After trying a lot of distro's there is no need to leave Linux Mint behind imho. The reason? Other distro's have issues as well because there is no silver bullet. Linux Mint comes closest to perfection, so file bug reports there and ask questions on their forums."
Reader Microlinux had this long suggestion: "I'm an IT consultant working 100% with GNU/Linux since 2001. I install Linux-based networks (servers and clients) for town halls, schools, public libraries and the likes. I also do some Linux training, and I'm quite proficient on most major - and some minor - distributions. I recently came back to Slackware, which was my first Linux distro back in 2001. There are a few reasons for that. 1) Slackware doesn't reinvent the wheel every six months like every other distro currently does. Take a peek at the init system of Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu and the likes. It's an unhealthy mix of SystemV, Upstart and systemd. Now compare that to Slackware's boot scripts: clean and well organized since 1993. 2) Healthy release cycle: Slackware releases roughly one new version in a year, which suits professional users well. Plus, versions back to 8.0 (that's ten years old!) are still supported for bug fixes. 3) Slackware *never* chokes on exotic hardware, because I can always configure it by hand. Now, install Fedora 15 or openSUSE 11.4 on machines with slightly older NVidia cards - which happens all the time in my day to day work - and appreciate the mess. 4) If I need a package not included in the distribution, there's SlackBuilds.org, but more often than not, I just quickly write a compilation script myself. Never seen an application that doesn't build on Slackware. Conclusion: if you're not a lamer for RTFM and got some basic UNIX skills, Slackware is my favourite choice, and the distribution I'd recommend to everyone. Plus, it's a lot of fun."
Another anonymous commenter said, "I am using LinuxMint Debian edition (xfce) and aptosid (also xfce). LMDE installed fine. Don't know what that one poster meant by installer being broken. Aptosid installed fine also. I use it because I like to be on the bleeding edge. With linuxmint, doing a dist-upgrade gets you the latest and greatest without having to do a complete new install. I have never had a problem doing a dist-upgrade. But to each his own. If you have the itch to switch, you have a lot of options."
Commenter larrythefreesoftwareguy supported this: "Sticking with what works is always a good policy."
An anonymous reader said, "The new Unity Desktop is totally unacceptable, and Ubuntu 11.04 running the Gnome classic Desktop is quite a disappointment compared to Ubuntu 10.10 so I'm seriously looking for another distribution as it appears Ubuntu is becoming less reliable with each upgrade. The main attraction to Ubuntu has always been the Gnome Desktop and Synaptic package manager, but the continuing unsolved bugs, and now frequent crashes of applications is giving me cause to look at other distributions."
Commenter Soak had this to say: "My desktop - which functions as a server throughout the house - has been running 10.04 very smoothly since installation and, for the purposes I'm using it, it will continue to do so until 'end of life' (and maybe after). On my laptop I'm running Mint for about a year now. Recently switched to Katya, but downgraded compiz to 0.86 caus'e upstream compiz was a DISASTER. Everyone experiencing troubles with upstream compiz (like disappearing window boarders, compiz crashes, etc) should downgrade. I've tried quite a few distro's before and after Ubuntu, but the only one that I REALLY liked was Mint. Like some say, it really is 'Ubuntu done right'.To be honest, I rarely ever use Linux for work, because the places I work at continue to install M$ (at least on their desktops). At home I rarely ever touch Windows though. To make a long story short. I have no doubt you made the right choice. I'm making the same one..."
Thanks to all those who commented on this past week's posts. I don't have anything in particular planned for this week, but I'm sure that I'll be able to write something. Remember, if you like what I write, please continue subscribing to, commenting on, and sharing this posts!
Microsoft Windows Update Annoyances Strike Again
An anonymous reader said, "I have Windows update disabled totally along with UAC and Windows Firewall. I consider it Microsoft's version of idiot-proofing"Another anonymous commenter, in response to a comment asking about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of my decision, countered, "While closing the laptop lid does - usually - result in a sleep, the OS *should* be able to disable this feature when it is performing a critical task." And this has been my point all along.
Yet another anonymous reader added, "What's annoying is a lack of the system asking 'hey do you want me to download 5GB of updates now when you're about to shutdown the laptop trying to make it to your next meeting'? Or force the message that windows likes to use "we're giving you your updates whether you want them or not. Don't shut down until windows updates are complete or bad things will happen"? My Ubuntu systems will prompt a reminder that there are new updates so that I can choose to do it later when I have time to let it work away at the magic."
Still another anonymous commenter said, "I usually put my Windows laptop on the night before I actually might want it so the annoying updates can be done. Yes I find it mad coming from being a long time Linux user and it's the biggest pain whilst trying to work in the day job too the usually fortnightly push of updates grinding the machine close to a halt as they happen silently."
Poll: Should I Switch away from Linux Mint?
Reader Aks said, "I tested Linux Mint "Katya" Gnome version and it seems to work well. Since you have long been working with Linux Mint, you can switch to the new release. Switching to a new distro might require some time to learn new interface/tools. For me myself, I've been a long user of Fedora and Fedora is treating me quite well."An anonymous commenter added, "Don't switch. After trying a lot of distro's there is no need to leave Linux Mint behind imho. The reason? Other distro's have issues as well because there is no silver bullet. Linux Mint comes closest to perfection, so file bug reports there and ask questions on their forums."
Reader Microlinux had this long suggestion: "I'm an IT consultant working 100% with GNU/Linux since 2001. I install Linux-based networks (servers and clients) for town halls, schools, public libraries and the likes. I also do some Linux training, and I'm quite proficient on most major - and some minor - distributions. I recently came back to Slackware, which was my first Linux distro back in 2001. There are a few reasons for that. 1) Slackware doesn't reinvent the wheel every six months like every other distro currently does. Take a peek at the init system of Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu and the likes. It's an unhealthy mix of SystemV, Upstart and systemd. Now compare that to Slackware's boot scripts: clean and well organized since 1993. 2) Healthy release cycle: Slackware releases roughly one new version in a year, which suits professional users well. Plus, versions back to 8.0 (that's ten years old!) are still supported for bug fixes. 3) Slackware *never* chokes on exotic hardware, because I can always configure it by hand. Now, install Fedora 15 or openSUSE 11.4 on machines with slightly older NVidia cards - which happens all the time in my day to day work - and appreciate the mess. 4) If I need a package not included in the distribution, there's SlackBuilds.org, but more often than not, I just quickly write a compilation script myself. Never seen an application that doesn't build on Slackware. Conclusion: if you're not a lamer for RTFM and got some basic UNIX skills, Slackware is my favourite choice, and the distribution I'd recommend to everyone. Plus, it's a lot of fun."
Another anonymous commenter said, "I am using LinuxMint Debian edition (xfce) and aptosid (also xfce). LMDE installed fine. Don't know what that one poster meant by installer being broken. Aptosid installed fine also. I use it because I like to be on the bleeding edge. With linuxmint, doing a dist-upgrade gets you the latest and greatest without having to do a complete new install. I have never had a problem doing a dist-upgrade. But to each his own. If you have the itch to switch, you have a lot of options."
FOLLOW-UP: Poll: Should I Switch away from Linux Mint?
Reader JJMacey said, "Sticking with what works is the point here. I am sticking with UBUNTU 10.04 (Lucid Lynx). I have given the last 2 UBUNTU newer versions a pass. I know Clem from the very early days of Linux Mint. If I want to change my OS Linux Mint will be the one I'll run. That is if I get that itch for something new."Commenter larrythefreesoftwareguy supported this: "Sticking with what works is always a good policy."
An anonymous reader said, "The new Unity Desktop is totally unacceptable, and Ubuntu 11.04 running the Gnome classic Desktop is quite a disappointment compared to Ubuntu 10.10 so I'm seriously looking for another distribution as it appears Ubuntu is becoming less reliable with each upgrade. The main attraction to Ubuntu has always been the Gnome Desktop and Synaptic package manager, but the continuing unsolved bugs, and now frequent crashes of applications is giving me cause to look at other distributions."
Commenter Soak had this to say: "My desktop - which functions as a server throughout the house - has been running 10.04 very smoothly since installation and, for the purposes I'm using it, it will continue to do so until 'end of life' (and maybe after). On my laptop I'm running Mint for about a year now. Recently switched to Katya, but downgraded compiz to 0.86 caus'e upstream compiz was a DISASTER. Everyone experiencing troubles with upstream compiz (like disappearing window boarders, compiz crashes, etc) should downgrade. I've tried quite a few distro's before and after Ubuntu, but the only one that I REALLY liked was Mint. Like some say, it really is 'Ubuntu done right'.To be honest, I rarely ever use Linux for work, because the places I work at continue to install M$ (at least on their desktops). At home I rarely ever touch Windows though. To make a long story short. I have no doubt you made the right choice. I'm making the same one..."
Thanks to all those who commented on this past week's posts. I don't have anything in particular planned for this week, but I'm sure that I'll be able to write something. Remember, if you like what I write, please continue subscribing to, commenting on, and sharing this posts!
2011-06-13
Microsoft Windows Update Annoyances Strike Again
Although Linux Mint is my primary OS, I still have Microsoft Windows 7 around because I play a couple games from time to time. However, because I don't do that so frequently, whenever I do boot Microsoft Windows 7, I get bombarded with updates, and unfortunately, Microsoft Windows sometimes goes ahead downloading and installing those updates without letting me choose first.
For example, yesterday, after I finished using it, I shut down Microsoft Windows. As usual, it needed to install more updates, so it decided to do so between clicking "Shut Down" and actually shutting down. I figured it shouldn't take that long, so I closed my laptop lid and went to eat dinner. This wouldn't be news, except that when I came back, I found that it had gone to sleep in the middle (i.e. it hadn't actually finished installing updates). That was one annoying thing. Anyway, I woke it up, and it finished installing updates and then properly shut down with no apparent errors.
Today, when I booted back into Microsoft Windows, I got a message saying that Microsoft Windows didn't shut down properly the last time. WHAT? It's telling me that it's my fault that it took so long to install updates that the laptop went to sleep before it could finish, and that what looked to be a fine shutdown process was actually faulty in some magical way, and I'm supposed to blindly believe all that?
Sure, I could use this opportunity to promote how Linux has a much more sensible way of staying updated, but really, any other OS has a better update mechanism than Microsoft Windows. It's really frustrating. Hopefully the Google Chrome OS netbooks (and to a lesser extent the Ubuntu netbooks made by ASUS) will help promote OSs other than Microsoft Windows and Apple's Mac OS X in the public eye, so people realize they don't have to put up with stuff like this or seek needlessly expensive alternatives. (OK, so I did just promote Linux over Apple's Mac OS X, et cetera. So I'm a bad person.)
For example, yesterday, after I finished using it, I shut down Microsoft Windows. As usual, it needed to install more updates, so it decided to do so between clicking "Shut Down" and actually shutting down. I figured it shouldn't take that long, so I closed my laptop lid and went to eat dinner. This wouldn't be news, except that when I came back, I found that it had gone to sleep in the middle (i.e. it hadn't actually finished installing updates). That was one annoying thing. Anyway, I woke it up, and it finished installing updates and then properly shut down with no apparent errors.
Today, when I booted back into Microsoft Windows, I got a message saying that Microsoft Windows didn't shut down properly the last time. WHAT? It's telling me that it's my fault that it took so long to install updates that the laptop went to sleep before it could finish, and that what looked to be a fine shutdown process was actually faulty in some magical way, and I'm supposed to blindly believe all that?
Sure, I could use this opportunity to promote how Linux has a much more sensible way of staying updated, but really, any other OS has a better update mechanism than Microsoft Windows. It's really frustrating. Hopefully the Google Chrome OS netbooks (and to a lesser extent the Ubuntu netbooks made by ASUS) will help promote OSs other than Microsoft Windows and Apple's Mac OS X in the public eye, so people realize they don't have to put up with stuff like this or seek needlessly expensive alternatives. (OK, so I did just promote Linux over Apple's Mac OS X, et cetera. So I'm a bad person.)
2011-02-18
Not All is Fair in Linux
There are a couple experiences I had yesterday computer-wise that I'd like to share.
The first has to do with printing. Yesterday, I needed to print out a paper I had written for my history class; I don't have my own printer in my dormitory room, so I usually print on-campus. I went to one of the quick-workstations with Ubuntu-based MIT Athena computers, and I tried printing my document there. Of course OpenOffice.org recognized the document just fine, as it was an ODT file made in OpenOffice.org on my computer. However, I wasn't able to print, because my account didn't have the printer in that room as a recognized device. I didn't have very much time at all to fiddle with the printer settings, so I headed to a Microsoft Windows-based Athena cluster of computers in the library. Unfortunately, Microsoft Windows XP didn't have the Droid Sans font enabled, and of course I couldn't download it as I don't have administrative rights, so the document got printed in Times New Roman. That's not a big deal, although I would have preferred that it be printed in the font I originally used.
These are not meant to be knocks against either OS; I'm just a little surprised with some of the administrative decisions made here with regard to the network. I thought that to help keep the applications and interfaces uniform, the same fonts would be present in Microsoft Windows as in Ubuntu and the same printers would be enabled by default for all accounts in Ubuntu as in Microsoft Windows.
Last night, however, I experienced some slightly more serious trouble with my Linux Mint installation on my computer. After the boot process, I got the error message of "Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode". I tried reconfiguring X.Org and restarting, but to no avail; the error message came up again. I then entered in low-graphics mode just once, but of course, this meant using the generic graphics driver and having no desktop effects at all. Using the proprietary NVidia drivers didn't help either, so I disabled those as well. I looked in the forums for solutions, and I found one: I logged out, logged into failsafe GNOME, removed the Compiz Fusion extra plugins, logged out again, and logged back in again. Now, [essentially] everything works again.
I read in some forum posts that the issue could be a bad update, but I looked at the Linux Mint Update Manager's update log and found no updates for Compiz in the last few days. It seems like the Compiz issue was just a random breakage; this is the first time I'm seeing something like that happen on Linux Mint, and I had hoped that it was the last, but today when logging in, all my windows' titlebars went missing, so I needed to use the Compiz Fusion icon to reload Compiz. I hope I don't have to do this again.
I feel like this is a symptom of a problem many people online have talked about with regard to Linux distributions becoming more newbie-friendly; as they start to appeal more to migrants from Microsoft Windows, a lot of the same problems start appearing. It doesn't matter that things like package managers require a password to start; hopefully the user knows the password, so once that password is typed, there is nothing to stop the user from totally messing up the system, even unintentionally. Knowing that it wasn't a bad update (though it might have been a bad update of a dependency), I have no idea what I could have done to cause this problem. Unlike in Microsoft Windows, I expect that in Linux problems do not spontaneously appear; they should have some traceable cause.
Well, all I can do is hope that these problems don't recur, and that they'll be fixed in future versions of Linux Mint.
The first has to do with printing. Yesterday, I needed to print out a paper I had written for my history class; I don't have my own printer in my dormitory room, so I usually print on-campus. I went to one of the quick-workstations with Ubuntu-based MIT Athena computers, and I tried printing my document there. Of course OpenOffice.org recognized the document just fine, as it was an ODT file made in OpenOffice.org on my computer. However, I wasn't able to print, because my account didn't have the printer in that room as a recognized device. I didn't have very much time at all to fiddle with the printer settings, so I headed to a Microsoft Windows-based Athena cluster of computers in the library. Unfortunately, Microsoft Windows XP didn't have the Droid Sans font enabled, and of course I couldn't download it as I don't have administrative rights, so the document got printed in Times New Roman. That's not a big deal, although I would have preferred that it be printed in the font I originally used.
These are not meant to be knocks against either OS; I'm just a little surprised with some of the administrative decisions made here with regard to the network. I thought that to help keep the applications and interfaces uniform, the same fonts would be present in Microsoft Windows as in Ubuntu and the same printers would be enabled by default for all accounts in Ubuntu as in Microsoft Windows.
Last night, however, I experienced some slightly more serious trouble with my Linux Mint installation on my computer. After the boot process, I got the error message of "Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode". I tried reconfiguring X.Org and restarting, but to no avail; the error message came up again. I then entered in low-graphics mode just once, but of course, this meant using the generic graphics driver and having no desktop effects at all. Using the proprietary NVidia drivers didn't help either, so I disabled those as well. I looked in the forums for solutions, and I found one: I logged out, logged into failsafe GNOME, removed the Compiz Fusion extra plugins, logged out again, and logged back in again. Now, [essentially] everything works again.
I read in some forum posts that the issue could be a bad update, but I looked at the Linux Mint Update Manager's update log and found no updates for Compiz in the last few days. It seems like the Compiz issue was just a random breakage; this is the first time I'm seeing something like that happen on Linux Mint, and I had hoped that it was the last, but today when logging in, all my windows' titlebars went missing, so I needed to use the Compiz Fusion icon to reload Compiz. I hope I don't have to do this again.
I feel like this is a symptom of a problem many people online have talked about with regard to Linux distributions becoming more newbie-friendly; as they start to appeal more to migrants from Microsoft Windows, a lot of the same problems start appearing. It doesn't matter that things like package managers require a password to start; hopefully the user knows the password, so once that password is typed, there is nothing to stop the user from totally messing up the system, even unintentionally. Knowing that it wasn't a bad update (though it might have been a bad update of a dependency), I have no idea what I could have done to cause this problem. Unlike in Microsoft Windows, I expect that in Linux problems do not spontaneously appear; they should have some traceable cause.
Well, all I can do is hope that these problems don't recur, and that they'll be fixed in future versions of Linux Mint.
2011-02-07
More Microsoft Windows Trouble
Today, when I had a break between classes, I went to the library to print out some homework as those computers were the closest to where I was at that time. All those machines (save one) have Microsoft Windows XP, and they reminded me why I dislike using Microsoft Windows so much.
When I turned one of the computers on, before seeing the login screen, I saw a whole bunch of windows for update scripts, which is fine. Then, after logging in, it took a really long time to reach the desktop.
I then clicked on Mozilla Firefox, and that took a ridiculously long time to load; part of that is the fault of Mozilla Firefox, but part of that is due to Microsoft Windows XP just being slow in general as well as not preloading its libraries to let it start faster (which is why in the past on Microsoft Windows machines Microsoft Internet Explorer would beat Mozilla Firefox in load times). Then, out of nowhere, I saw a dialog box flash just long enough for me to see that the system was being restarted; sure enough, 2 seconds later, the system shut down. I had no choice in the matter; in fact, I had no time to react in any way before the system started shutting down.
Frustrated, I moved to a different (also Microsoft Windows XP) computer, which, thankfully, exhibited no such problems. But, despite that, there was a new problem: it didn't have Mozilla Firefox, which I have installed on my user account! So yes, I was forced to use the slow, "what the heck are web standards?" Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer. That's not supposed to happen; I shouldn't be forced to use one browser on some computers and another on others when I've installed one presumably to use on all.
Well, that was my rant on Microsoft Windows after having thankfully not touched it for a while.
When I turned one of the computers on, before seeing the login screen, I saw a whole bunch of windows for update scripts, which is fine. Then, after logging in, it took a really long time to reach the desktop.
I then clicked on Mozilla Firefox, and that took a ridiculously long time to load; part of that is the fault of Mozilla Firefox, but part of that is due to Microsoft Windows XP just being slow in general as well as not preloading its libraries to let it start faster (which is why in the past on Microsoft Windows machines Microsoft Internet Explorer would beat Mozilla Firefox in load times). Then, out of nowhere, I saw a dialog box flash just long enough for me to see that the system was being restarted; sure enough, 2 seconds later, the system shut down. I had no choice in the matter; in fact, I had no time to react in any way before the system started shutting down.
Frustrated, I moved to a different (also Microsoft Windows XP) computer, which, thankfully, exhibited no such problems. But, despite that, there was a new problem: it didn't have Mozilla Firefox, which I have installed on my user account! So yes, I was forced to use the slow, "what the heck are web standards?" Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer. That's not supposed to happen; I shouldn't be forced to use one browser on some computers and another on others when I've installed one presumably to use on all.
Well, that was my rant on Microsoft Windows after having thankfully not touched it for a while.
2010-11-03
Why Safe Browsing Habits Don't Guarantee Anything
I see on sites like MakeTechEasier, Dedoimedo, and others that promote Linux articles that say that Linux shouldn't necessarily be promoted for any inherent security advantage over Microsoft Windows because browsing safely can prevent any problems from appearing. This also means that there's no need for antivirus software on Microsoft Windows because safe browsing habits alone will prevent viruses and other malware from appearing. I have two issues with this.
For one, on Linux, while it's common sense to exercise safe browsing habits anyway (i.e. not going to sites that scream "I WILL INFECT YOUR SOFTWARE"), it's not necessary to do so, because malware written for Microsoft Windows won't work on Linux, and in any case, the malware won't have administrative privileges to run (unless the user expressly allows such privileges, which can happen especially if it isn't immediately clear that the malware is malware (so the user thinks it's a harmless program)). Of course, there is a new bug out there that can automatically obtain superuser privileges in many Linux distributions, but that's a different story entirely.
The other problem I have with this is that it happened to me yesterday. I was in the library yesterday on a networked Microsoft Windows XP computer checking my email and reading the news when I suddenly saw a program called "ThinkPoint" hijack my desktop session, telling me that my computer has viruses that I need to remove (but to remove them, I supposedly need to pay a monthly fee). Obviously, "ThinkPoint" itself is a piece of malware. These news sites work perfectly fine on Linux and have worked well on Microsoft Windows (until now). I had to call our school's tech support, and (shockingly) they were very helpful, pleasant, and quick to respond to my issue. In fact, I am typing this post from the same computer now. I want to thank IS&T for being so great about this, but I also want to say that practicing safe browsing doesn't guarantee full safety from malware — antimalware software is still necessary on Microsoft Windows. So please, Dedoimedo (and other sites): even if you've never had an issue and you've always practiced safe browsing, that may not work out for everyone else, so stop acting like it will.
For one, on Linux, while it's common sense to exercise safe browsing habits anyway (i.e. not going to sites that scream "I WILL INFECT YOUR SOFTWARE"), it's not necessary to do so, because malware written for Microsoft Windows won't work on Linux, and in any case, the malware won't have administrative privileges to run (unless the user expressly allows such privileges, which can happen especially if it isn't immediately clear that the malware is malware (so the user thinks it's a harmless program)). Of course, there is a new bug out there that can automatically obtain superuser privileges in many Linux distributions, but that's a different story entirely.
The other problem I have with this is that it happened to me yesterday. I was in the library yesterday on a networked Microsoft Windows XP computer checking my email and reading the news when I suddenly saw a program called "ThinkPoint" hijack my desktop session, telling me that my computer has viruses that I need to remove (but to remove them, I supposedly need to pay a monthly fee). Obviously, "ThinkPoint" itself is a piece of malware. These news sites work perfectly fine on Linux and have worked well on Microsoft Windows (until now). I had to call our school's tech support, and (shockingly) they were very helpful, pleasant, and quick to respond to my issue. In fact, I am typing this post from the same computer now. I want to thank IS&T for being so great about this, but I also want to say that practicing safe browsing doesn't guarantee full safety from malware — antimalware software is still necessary on Microsoft Windows. So please, Dedoimedo (and other sites): even if you've never had an issue and you've always practiced safe browsing, that may not work out for everyone else, so stop acting like it will.
2010-09-10
Counter-Debunking the 1% Myth
Caitlyn Martin of O'Reilly Broadcast has another interesting article about why the figure of Linux market share is quite a bit more than the oft-quoted 1%. She starts out by doing a bit of math: (1 Linux netbook)/(3 total netbooks) * (18 total netbooks)/(100 (desktops + laptops + netbooks)) = (6 Linux netbooks)/(100 (desktops + laptops + netbooks)) — Linux netbook sales alone constitute 6% of the total desktop market. I can't argue with that. It's also a really impressive number; the number for total Linux desktop sales (that includes desktops, laptops, and netbooks) will obviously be higher — I don't know by how much, but the total number is certainly at least 6%. I think it's great that Linux desktop sales have come this far.
The bigger question regards the meaning of this number, and I believe the problems with this article occur before and after the calculations. For one, the author starts by saying that Linux market share in servers and embedded systems is significant. I don't think anyone ever doubted this, and several studies have shown that Linux distributions are in fact in the majority on these types of hardware. Therefore, I think it isn't quite right to start the article like this when the title clearly indicates a discussion about Linux desktop market share. That said, this is a fairly minor issue.
The article's argument gets more murky when Steve Ballmer is brought into the discussion. It has been written repeatedly that the presentation referenced clearly shows that the biggest threat to Microsoft Windows is illegally copied versions of Microsoft Windows (not Linux, Mac OS X, or BSD). Why? This is the case in many countries with poorer populations, as people simply can't afford to buy a licensed copy of Microsoft Windows. Furthermore, Linux adoption in these countries is low because the computers sold there often don't have the tools (Internet connection, working USB port, working disk writer drive) to create a live CD/USB, and there's no cost advantage to using Linux as people will just copy Microsoft Windows. A lot of commenters in the linked article also point out that in these countries where unlicensed use of Microsoft Windows is rampant, it is cheaper, in fact, to buy a machine with Linux preinstalled and then wipe the hard drive and install an unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows. I don't doubt the verity of this. That said, the 6% figure is for the US, where unlicensed Microsoft Windows use is likely to be much lower; therein lies another problem, as statistics for US Linux market share is being compared to statistics for worldwide Microsoft Windows market share.
And why should Steve Ballmer know about precise statistics for Linux and Mac OS X usage? It certainly is easy to look at sales statistics and see what percentage of computers are sold with licensed copies of Microsoft Windows; also, as Microsoft "phones home" to see which copies of Windows are licensed and which are not, it should be pretty easy to tell how many unlicensed copies of Windows are being used. While one can safely conclude that the rest of the pie is occupied by Linux, BSD, and Mac OS X, it is not so clear how much each contender has of that slice of the pie. I guess one way of telling how many people use Mac OS X is by tracking sales of Microsoft Office for Mac, but this is problematic as many Mac OS X users stay away from Microsoft Office and instead use iWork, OpenOffice.org/NeoOffice, or a web-based productivity suite.
So why would Steve Ballmer put Linux market share at or above Mac OS X market share? Microsoft knows that it can compete with Apple's Mac OS X in terms of features (in some ways) and price, so Mac OS X isn't really considered a huge threat. On the other hand, Linux can do most of the things a typical computer user wants (e.g. web browsing, productivity, peripheral support) for free, which does technically pose a serious threat to Microsoft Windows. At the same time, Microsoft has repeatedly accused the free software community (and Linux in particular) of infringing upon its patents. Therefore, Microsoft is pegging Linux market share that high in order to justify those accusations — if Linux market share is that high, then of course Linux needs to be stopped before such patent infringement gets out of control! (This is what I would imagine a Microsoft executive saying at such a presentation.)
I won't argue that Linux desktop sales make up at least 6% of total desktop sales. Usage is a different matter entirely and should not be treated the same as sales figures.
The bigger question regards the meaning of this number, and I believe the problems with this article occur before and after the calculations. For one, the author starts by saying that Linux market share in servers and embedded systems is significant. I don't think anyone ever doubted this, and several studies have shown that Linux distributions are in fact in the majority on these types of hardware. Therefore, I think it isn't quite right to start the article like this when the title clearly indicates a discussion about Linux desktop market share. That said, this is a fairly minor issue.
The article's argument gets more murky when Steve Ballmer is brought into the discussion. It has been written repeatedly that the presentation referenced clearly shows that the biggest threat to Microsoft Windows is illegally copied versions of Microsoft Windows (not Linux, Mac OS X, or BSD). Why? This is the case in many countries with poorer populations, as people simply can't afford to buy a licensed copy of Microsoft Windows. Furthermore, Linux adoption in these countries is low because the computers sold there often don't have the tools (Internet connection, working USB port, working disk writer drive) to create a live CD/USB, and there's no cost advantage to using Linux as people will just copy Microsoft Windows. A lot of commenters in the linked article also point out that in these countries where unlicensed use of Microsoft Windows is rampant, it is cheaper, in fact, to buy a machine with Linux preinstalled and then wipe the hard drive and install an unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows. I don't doubt the verity of this. That said, the 6% figure is for the US, where unlicensed Microsoft Windows use is likely to be much lower; therein lies another problem, as statistics for US Linux market share is being compared to statistics for worldwide Microsoft Windows market share.
And why should Steve Ballmer know about precise statistics for Linux and Mac OS X usage? It certainly is easy to look at sales statistics and see what percentage of computers are sold with licensed copies of Microsoft Windows; also, as Microsoft "phones home" to see which copies of Windows are licensed and which are not, it should be pretty easy to tell how many unlicensed copies of Windows are being used. While one can safely conclude that the rest of the pie is occupied by Linux, BSD, and Mac OS X, it is not so clear how much each contender has of that slice of the pie. I guess one way of telling how many people use Mac OS X is by tracking sales of Microsoft Office for Mac, but this is problematic as many Mac OS X users stay away from Microsoft Office and instead use iWork, OpenOffice.org/NeoOffice, or a web-based productivity suite.
So why would Steve Ballmer put Linux market share at or above Mac OS X market share? Microsoft knows that it can compete with Apple's Mac OS X in terms of features (in some ways) and price, so Mac OS X isn't really considered a huge threat. On the other hand, Linux can do most of the things a typical computer user wants (e.g. web browsing, productivity, peripheral support) for free, which does technically pose a serious threat to Microsoft Windows. At the same time, Microsoft has repeatedly accused the free software community (and Linux in particular) of infringing upon its patents. Therefore, Microsoft is pegging Linux market share that high in order to justify those accusations — if Linux market share is that high, then of course Linux needs to be stopped before such patent infringement gets out of control! (This is what I would imagine a Microsoft executive saying at such a presentation.)
I won't argue that Linux desktop sales make up at least 6% of total desktop sales. Usage is a different matter entirely and should not be treated the same as sales figures.
2010-09-01
Microsoft's Ironic Shutdown Patent
I got this article (Wolfgang Gruener, ConceivablyTech) from a Slashdot link.
This patent actually amuses me for several reasons. First, it shows just how (and why) the shutdown process on Microsoft Windows is so long and complicated. As it turns out, if there are graphical programs running, there are 3 different ways for the application to be terminated by force and the shutdown process restarted. That is astounding by itself, but not surprising to many people who use Microsoft Windows regularly. Even afterwards, when a top-level program is hung up, there is a way to abort the shutdown process altogether; that's another factor in the process taking so long.
The author of the article laments the absence of a patent that just shuts the system down (ideally in 5 seconds or so). For one, I would argue against a patent for that, as that would be too simple and wide-ranging to be patentable. Secondly, the diagram in the article leaves out one last reason for shutdown taking so long (which is so well-illustrated in this Linux in Exile blog post): automatic updates which are downloaded and installed after the shutdown button is clicked (but, of course, before the system actually shuts down). So let me add in a corollary to the flowchart provided, a sort of mini-flowchart, if you will.
As the Linux in Exile post said, the Windows Update process holds the computer hostage during shutdown, and given the relatively high frequency of updates that need to be installed at shutdown, this is a major contributor to long shutdown times (especially considering that there are a lot of Microsoft Windows users who do not have access to broadband).
Well, there you have it: Microsoft's long shutdown times demystified. You know what? Let them have the patent. Why would anyone else want to license such a long and complicated shutdown procedure anyway?
This patent actually amuses me for several reasons. First, it shows just how (and why) the shutdown process on Microsoft Windows is so long and complicated. As it turns out, if there are graphical programs running, there are 3 different ways for the application to be terminated by force and the shutdown process restarted. That is astounding by itself, but not surprising to many people who use Microsoft Windows regularly. Even afterwards, when a top-level program is hung up, there is a way to abort the shutdown process altogether; that's another factor in the process taking so long.
The author of the article laments the absence of a patent that just shuts the system down (ideally in 5 seconds or so). For one, I would argue against a patent for that, as that would be too simple and wide-ranging to be patentable. Secondly, the diagram in the article leaves out one last reason for shutdown taking so long (which is so well-illustrated in this Linux in Exile blog post): automatic updates which are downloaded and installed after the shutdown button is clicked (but, of course, before the system actually shuts down). So let me add in a corollary to the flowchart provided, a sort of mini-flowchart, if you will.
Well, there you have it: Microsoft's long shutdown times demystified. You know what? Let them have the patent. Why would anyone else want to license such a long and complicated shutdown procedure anyway?
2010-05-01
Reflection: Linux Mint GNOME
I have been using Linux Mint for exactly one year (as of this day). I thought it would be good to reflect on this year of use.I was preparing for AP exams for the days before. It was a Friday evening, and I was getting a little tired of studying, and the more I thought about it, the more sick I was of Windows. I had been meaning to install Ubuntu for a while but had never gotten the time (or willpower, for that matter) until that day. Also, a few weeks before, one of my friends mentioned Linux Mint as a much cooler alternative to (and based off of) Ubuntu, so I thought of installing Linux Mint instead. That day, I was finally disgusted enough with Windows to dive in and try Linux Mint (at that time version 6 "Felicia" GNOME); also, it was a nice diversion from all of that studying.
Follow the jump to read more about how that has turned out.
2009-10-30
Comparison Test: Linux Mint 7, Windows XP, Fedora 11
Edmunds.com's InsideLine has a very nice method of formatting comparison tests of cars, so I will try to emulate that for this comparison test of OSs.
The contenders are Linux Mint 7 "Gloria", Windows 5.1 "XP SP3" (yes, 5.1 is the technical designation of version XP SP3), and Fedora Linux 11 "Leonidas".
Linux Mint and Windows are booting from my Sony VAIO desktop's HDD, while Fedora is booting as a live USB from my Sandisk Cruzer Micro 8 GB USB stick.
Speed (20%)
Tie - Linux Mint and Fedora
Both seem to boot in under 30 seconds and have everything else running by then. Also, slowdowns in one program do not affect other programs or OS operation. They both simply leave Windows in the dust, even though Fedora was disadvantaged by booting from a Live USB. Furthermore, neither Linux distribution needs to restart after installing new hardware or software, seriously improving productivity versus Windows.
Aesthetics (5%)
Winner - Linux Mint
Loser - Fedora
Linux Mint's interface is extremely polished and easy to use. By contrast, while Fedora's serves the purpose easily, it is not much to look at (in my opinion). Windows falls somewhere in the middle.
Commercial Software Support (10%)
Winner - Windows
As the OS of choice for the vast majority of PC users, Windows support for commercial software simply leaves the other two OSs in the dust. While this is being (slightly) remedied through Wine or virtualization, due to the closed-source nature of this software, support will never be as good in Linux until developers start to take notice of it.
Out-of-the-box Software Support (10%)
Winner - Linux Mint
Loser - Windows
Simply put, both of these OSs have far better out-of-the-box software mixes than Windows. That said, Linux Mint has the fully-featured OpenOffice.Org right out of the box, while Fedora only provides AbiWord (and not the accompanying Gnumeric). Still, Windows' Microsoft Works isn't up to snuff with these pieces of software, and both distributions have more and easier-to-use system utilities than Windows.
Out-of-the-box Hardware Support (20%)
Winner - Fedora
Loser - Windows
Fedora provides out-of-the-box support for my peripherals, even my webcam, without the need to install proprietary drivers. Linux Mint does this too but for some reason cannot seem to register my mic properly. Windows, on the other hand, needs 3rd-party driver support for any peripheral to work.
Stability/Security (25%)
Tie - Linux Mint and Fedora
Put simply, Windows will die without antivirus or antispyware protection. This is partly due to the horribly designed user permissions system. By contrast, both Linux distributions need one to manually activate a virus for it to work; furthermore, more market share for Linux will not lead to increasing incidences of viruses on either system.
Customizability (10%)
Winner - Linux Mint
Loser - Windows
With Linux Mint, custom themes and other software can easily be downloaded from an online source and installed with the click of a button; they can also easily be reverted as well. Fedora isn't as great as some extra work needs to be done to get the customizations to take effect. By contrast, Windows practically can't be customized (meaningfully) at all.
Scores:
1st place - 2 points
2nd place - 1 point
3rd place - 0 point
Tie (1st place) - 2 points each
Tie (2nd place) - 1 point each
Final Scores:
Linux Mint - 1.7
Fedora - 1.6
Windows - 0.7
Though it may seem like Linux Mint mathematically won, in any case, both Linux distributions blew Windows out of the water, but I felt more satisfied using Fedora anyway.
This is not very scientific at all and should not be taken too seriously.
The contenders are Linux Mint 7 "Gloria", Windows 5.1 "XP SP3" (yes, 5.1 is the technical designation of version XP SP3), and Fedora Linux 11 "Leonidas".
Linux Mint and Windows are booting from my Sony VAIO desktop's HDD, while Fedora is booting as a live USB from my Sandisk Cruzer Micro 8 GB USB stick.
Summary:Specifics:
3rd place - Windows 5.1 "XP SP3"
While this is the dominant OS in the marketplace, it just doesn't seem to be up to the snuff of the other OSs. The aesthetics, while subjective, look cartoony, and that's the least of its worries. Though its support for commercial games and other productivity/graphics/other software is very good, it requires too many auxiliary pieces of software (i.e. antivirus, etc.) to run stably, and it is far slower than the other 2 OSs. Any peripherals need extra installation of drivers, and any other codecs need to be installed (separately) afterwards.
2nd place - Fedora Linux 11 "Leonidas"
This is one of the heavyweights of Linux distributions. Based on the commercial (but still free software) Red Hat, hardware support out of the box is excellent without needing to install 3rd-party drivers. Codec support is somewhat spotty but is easily remedied through one or two command. While support for commercial software is somewhat spotty, it is easily remedied through Wine or other similar software or through use of alternatives. The mix of software out of the box is excellent, though aesthetics, while subjective, look too utilitarian and old-school.
1st place - Linux Mint 7 "Gloria"
This is a nice up-and-coming distribution. Based almost completely off of Ubuntu 9.04 "Jaunty Jackalope", hardware support out of the box is decent, but codec support is excellent out of the box. The aesthetics, while subjective, look very polished and professional (while subdued), and the mix of software provided out of the box definitely fills the niche of the average user. That said, commercial software support is spotty at best, though it does not require auxiliary software to run properly. This OS boots and runs extremely quickly and allows for much customization easily.
Speed (20%)
Tie - Linux Mint and Fedora
Both seem to boot in under 30 seconds and have everything else running by then. Also, slowdowns in one program do not affect other programs or OS operation. They both simply leave Windows in the dust, even though Fedora was disadvantaged by booting from a Live USB. Furthermore, neither Linux distribution needs to restart after installing new hardware or software, seriously improving productivity versus Windows.
Aesthetics (5%)
Winner - Linux Mint
Loser - Fedora
Linux Mint's interface is extremely polished and easy to use. By contrast, while Fedora's serves the purpose easily, it is not much to look at (in my opinion). Windows falls somewhere in the middle.
Commercial Software Support (10%)
Winner - Windows
As the OS of choice for the vast majority of PC users, Windows support for commercial software simply leaves the other two OSs in the dust. While this is being (slightly) remedied through Wine or virtualization, due to the closed-source nature of this software, support will never be as good in Linux until developers start to take notice of it.
Out-of-the-box Software Support (10%)
Winner - Linux Mint
Loser - Windows
Simply put, both of these OSs have far better out-of-the-box software mixes than Windows. That said, Linux Mint has the fully-featured OpenOffice.Org right out of the box, while Fedora only provides AbiWord (and not the accompanying Gnumeric). Still, Windows' Microsoft Works isn't up to snuff with these pieces of software, and both distributions have more and easier-to-use system utilities than Windows.
Out-of-the-box Hardware Support (20%)
Winner - Fedora
Loser - Windows
Fedora provides out-of-the-box support for my peripherals, even my webcam, without the need to install proprietary drivers. Linux Mint does this too but for some reason cannot seem to register my mic properly. Windows, on the other hand, needs 3rd-party driver support for any peripheral to work.
Stability/Security (25%)
Tie - Linux Mint and Fedora
Put simply, Windows will die without antivirus or antispyware protection. This is partly due to the horribly designed user permissions system. By contrast, both Linux distributions need one to manually activate a virus for it to work; furthermore, more market share for Linux will not lead to increasing incidences of viruses on either system.
Customizability (10%)
Winner - Linux Mint
Loser - Windows
With Linux Mint, custom themes and other software can easily be downloaded from an online source and installed with the click of a button; they can also easily be reverted as well. Fedora isn't as great as some extra work needs to be done to get the customizations to take effect. By contrast, Windows practically can't be customized (meaningfully) at all.
Scores:
1st place - 2 points
2nd place - 1 point
3rd place - 0 point
Tie (1st place) - 2 points each
Tie (2nd place) - 1 point each
Final Scores:
Linux Mint - 1.7
Fedora - 1.6
Windows - 0.7
Though it may seem like Linux Mint mathematically won, in any case, both Linux distributions blew Windows out of the water, but I felt more satisfied using Fedora anyway.
This is not very scientific at all and should not be taken too seriously.
2009-10-24
Let's Clear a Few Things Up
A comment by one of my friends (if you are reading this, you know who you are) today gave me the idea of this post.
Let's clear a few things up about Linux.
First and foremost, Linux is open-source. (Squabble with me about the terminology if you'd like, but that's for another day.) This means that anyone can view and do anything (modify, distribute, etc.) with the source code and program freely and legally.
Next, most, though not all, Linux distributions are free of charge. This means that they are available online for free download (and legally so).
Finally, Linux is an operating system. It is not a Windows-based program (and yes, I have heard people call it that).
Let's clear a few things up about Linux.
First and foremost, Linux is open-source. (Squabble with me about the terminology if you'd like, but that's for another day.) This means that anyone can view and do anything (modify, distribute, etc.) with the source code and program freely and legally.
Next, most, though not all, Linux distributions are free of charge. This means that they are available online for free download (and legally so).
Finally, Linux is an operating system. It is not a Windows-based program (and yes, I have heard people call it that).
2009-10-19
Another Case of "Microsoft the Valiant Bloody Hero"
Journalists (original article reported by Diane Bartz, Reuters) aren't doing their jobs.
Some are good in areas like politics, the economy, and other stuff, but technology seems to be an area where all outside journalists do a poor job.
Why do I say this?
Just to summarize, a new report from Symantec has shown an increase cybercrime through use of disguised malware (as antimalware programs).
Not once does this report mention that this likely only affects Windows users.
Granted, Linux and BSD users are practically invisible to other computer users, but Mac users are pretty visible (especially through recent ad campaigns from Apple).
Why can't they add this little clarification?
That's because it ties into the next question: isn't anyone suspicious that the report on cybercrime is sponsored by Symantec, a company that deals almost exclusively with antimalware programs for charge?
I think that Symantec is using this as a platform to sell their products; "cybercrime is on the rise, so you should buy Norton security programs from Symantec!"
If they mentioned that Mac and Linux/BSD users are virtually immune to these attacks, people would take a second look at these OSs that don't require extra software just to keep the system secure to usable levels. Guess what that means? Symantec would basically go out of business.
This is far from the first instance of bad journalism in failing to mention that small but still significant portions of the computer-using population are immune to these attacks. That said, it's one of the worse (but not the worst) article of its kind that I've seen; in fact, there is not one mention of even the word "Windows" (in reference to the OS(s) at risk).
Come on, journalists. Can't you actually do some proper investigation again?
Some are good in areas like politics, the economy, and other stuff, but technology seems to be an area where all outside journalists do a poor job.
Why do I say this?
Just to summarize, a new report from Symantec has shown an increase cybercrime through use of disguised malware (as antimalware programs).
Not once does this report mention that this likely only affects Windows users.
Granted, Linux and BSD users are practically invisible to other computer users, but Mac users are pretty visible (especially through recent ad campaigns from Apple).
Why can't they add this little clarification?
That's because it ties into the next question: isn't anyone suspicious that the report on cybercrime is sponsored by Symantec, a company that deals almost exclusively with antimalware programs for charge?
I think that Symantec is using this as a platform to sell their products; "cybercrime is on the rise, so you should buy Norton security programs from Symantec!"
If they mentioned that Mac and Linux/BSD users are virtually immune to these attacks, people would take a second look at these OSs that don't require extra software just to keep the system secure to usable levels. Guess what that means? Symantec would basically go out of business.
This is far from the first instance of bad journalism in failing to mention that small but still significant portions of the computer-using population are immune to these attacks. That said, it's one of the worse (but not the worst) article of its kind that I've seen; in fact, there is not one mention of even the word "Windows" (in reference to the OS(s) at risk).
Come on, journalists. Can't you actually do some proper investigation again?
2009-10-11
128-bit Windows
A few Linux blogs (e.g. Linux in Exile, Linux Today Blog, etc.) are decrying the new proposal for 128-bit Windows.
Why?
Now, I'm no Microsoft fan, but I repeat:
Why?
It seems to me that these Linux bloggers (who I do otherwise respect) are hating on it just because they didn't develop it but Microsoft is.
Now, it may also be because given Microsoft's history of making all of their software as closed/proprietary as possible, this new 128-bit proposal will result in a more proprietary FAT128 format, among other things.
That makes sense.
Otherwise, what's the big deal?
Isn't the point of Linux, free software, and other open things to innovate upon other people's already good work?
This seems to me like not a legitimate case of Microsoft hate but just pure jealousy.
Just this time, please stop.
Why?
Now, I'm no Microsoft fan, but I repeat:
Why?
It seems to me that these Linux bloggers (who I do otherwise respect) are hating on it just because they didn't develop it but Microsoft is.
Now, it may also be because given Microsoft's history of making all of their software as closed/proprietary as possible, this new 128-bit proposal will result in a more proprietary FAT128 format, among other things.
That makes sense.
Otherwise, what's the big deal?
Isn't the point of Linux, free software, and other open things to innovate upon other people's already good work?
This seems to me like not a legitimate case of Microsoft hate but just pure jealousy.
Just this time, please stop.
2009-08-07
Q: What do Bing and George W. Bush have in common?
A: They are both their own self-proclaimed "deciders".
(Ex-)President George W. Bush became infamous for this as he essentially said that he would let his inner circle work out the details and he would simply say "yes" or "no". This is probably the most explicit admission I have heard from him or anyone else in his Administration that he deferred to (now Ex-)Vice President Dick Cheney, rather than the other way around.
Bing, Microsoft's rebranded (it's technically not new except for the name and the idea of a changing background), proclaims itself to be a "decision engine" rather than a search engine. It's implying that it will decide for you what is best for what you want rather than letting you decide. It seems to be taking on the search engine Google and the computational engine Wolfram|Alpha (both of which I happen to like A LOT) at the same time, and failing miserably at both.
My dad and I both complain that Bing is utter crap compared to Google. For most of what we search (in common) every day, Bing returns fewer AND less relevant results than Google consistently. That means it didn't happen after 1-2 searches. That means it happened after more than 20 different searches. This is bad.
What's worse is that Bing's algorithm seems to have been altered by Microsoft to promote itself. For example, any search on Google on "why Microsoft sucks" or "why Windows sucks" will return a litany of correct results going on for many pages. This is understandable because there are a LOT of internet users who are active in communities that oppose Windows and Microsoft's business model as well as many more users who are simply frustrated by crappy Microsoft software.
The same search terms in Bing will return results as if you had typed "why Apple sucks" for the same number of pages; if you're lucky, you'll get the desired results at the very end, and if you're not, there will be no relevant results. This is also understandable as there are many frustrated Mac/other Apple product users (though Apple and its fanbois would like you to not think so!), but that's only if the search terms included "Apple" in terms of "Microsoft". The bias is pretty blatant here.
Similarly, Google searches for "Windows fixes" and such return relevant information generated by regular users on how to fix something on Windows and why it's a problem with Windows. Similar Bing searches will magically replace "Windows" with "Mac" or "Linux", and if you're really lucky, you'll get a few results that are official fixes from Microsoft (which generally don't solve the entire problem anyway).
I had written off Bing earlier, but after a bit of thought and self-reflection I figured that might not be fair. After reading this, I can conclude it is certainly fair. I use Linux Mint almost all the time on my computer (I still have Windows XP for the occasional use) and my aim is to avoid learning about the command line and use the OS like a non-computer-knowing Windows user, only using the terminal by copying and pasting commands from Internet results. Thus, I would need to search for my problem online and use the (absolutely marvelous) forums for help. Google comes in very handy for this; Bing would mysteriously hide these results in favor of "why Windows is better" or something similar. Thus, my dislike has a very practical side to it too, so you can't accuse me of one-sidedly hating on Microsoft.
The most rational reason I have seen for this behavior is that Microsoft (somewhat correctly) assumes that most of Bing's users use Windows, so official Microsoft fixes and the like are all they ever expect to see and all they want; this makes sense but it still doesn't explain the magical replacement of Microsoft-related terms with competitors' names.
I thus mourn the loss of Yahoo! Search (which was really a decent search engine on its own and a great competitor to Google), as it now redirects all searches to Bing search; furthermore, as far as I know, Microsoft has no plan to incorporate the superior Yahoo! search technology into Bing, so all it wants to do is bring in that greater traffic from Yahoo! and keep a crappy search engine.
Of course, it's a "decision engine", so it'll decide for you what's best and what's crap; rather than have that happen, you decide.
For those of you who know me pretty well, you know I hate Microsoft in general. I don't think they have ever come up with an original piece of software; they always derive their work from other sources (which is laudable and promoted among the free software community...) but always take the credit for themselves and charge exorbitant prices for their products. Furthermore, their recent support of free software standards has been nominal at best; the whole OOXML thing was proven to have many proprietary parts and sections that essentially gave Microsoft full control of development in open violation of open standards. Then, Bill Gates decided to purchase and release all of the Feynman lecture videos to the public online; this is great as my passion is physics and I really like (in a totally straight way) Richard Feynman, but Gates decided to do it in Microsoft's proprietary Silverlight format instead of the free Ogg-Theora standard or even the proprietary but much more widely used Shockwave/Flash format. This means that essentially only Windows users can see it, and while Mac and Linux users have Moonlight, an adaptation of Silverlight for non-Windows OSs, Moonlight is crippled because Silverlight makes it so, meaning that Mac and Linux users really can't see these videos anyway. Then, very recently, Microsoft supported a particular software/architecture-thingy (I'm not exactly sure what it was) and GPL'ed it. Releasing code under the GPL means that they have to respect the openness of the code and allow people to modify and rerelease (under the GPL) the code too. This was laudable at first until a third party found out that Microsoft had included their own licenses that allowed the use of proprietary code and almost entirely disallowed modifying or even viewing the underlying code; all of these things constituted huge violations of the GPL. Thus, Microsoft completely undermines its commitment to openness through its continuing backhanded tactics; openness to them means openness only to them.
That said, Microsoft does actually make some decent products. I use OpenOffice.Org because it suits all my needs and is free software, but for more extensive documents and spreadsheets and more content-filled presentations, Microsoft Office 2007 is the way to go. Though I don't like the de facto non-support for ODF (yes, it was originally a separate extension and then was made into a software update, but both forms of support worked horribly if at all), the Ribbon UI is really nice and makes a lot of sense (I didn't like it at first but that was probably just because I was wary of Microsoft, so now I like it a lot), and all the new features are really useful. I hear OO.O is coming out with a Ribbon competitor for the next release, but I've seen a screenshot and it looks terrible compared to Microsoft's version. Also, the XBOX 360 is a great system (though still buggy today compared to the PS3 and the Wii) with amazing graphics, games, and the legendary XBOX Live. Furthermore, Microsoft's hardware, like its mice, keyboards, and webcams, are of very high quality and last for a very long time.
Moral of the story: don't Bing and decide, just decide not to use Bing!
(Ex-)President George W. Bush became infamous for this as he essentially said that he would let his inner circle work out the details and he would simply say "yes" or "no". This is probably the most explicit admission I have heard from him or anyone else in his Administration that he deferred to (now Ex-)Vice President Dick Cheney, rather than the other way around.
Bing, Microsoft's rebranded (it's technically not new except for the name and the idea of a changing background), proclaims itself to be a "decision engine" rather than a search engine. It's implying that it will decide for you what is best for what you want rather than letting you decide. It seems to be taking on the search engine Google and the computational engine Wolfram|Alpha (both of which I happen to like A LOT) at the same time, and failing miserably at both.
My dad and I both complain that Bing is utter crap compared to Google. For most of what we search (in common) every day, Bing returns fewer AND less relevant results than Google consistently. That means it didn't happen after 1-2 searches. That means it happened after more than 20 different searches. This is bad.
What's worse is that Bing's algorithm seems to have been altered by Microsoft to promote itself. For example, any search on Google on "why Microsoft sucks" or "why Windows sucks" will return a litany of correct results going on for many pages. This is understandable because there are a LOT of internet users who are active in communities that oppose Windows and Microsoft's business model as well as many more users who are simply frustrated by crappy Microsoft software.
The same search terms in Bing will return results as if you had typed "why Apple sucks" for the same number of pages; if you're lucky, you'll get the desired results at the very end, and if you're not, there will be no relevant results. This is also understandable as there are many frustrated Mac/other Apple product users (though Apple and its fanbois would like you to not think so!), but that's only if the search terms included "Apple" in terms of "Microsoft". The bias is pretty blatant here.
Similarly, Google searches for "Windows fixes" and such return relevant information generated by regular users on how to fix something on Windows and why it's a problem with Windows. Similar Bing searches will magically replace "Windows" with "Mac" or "Linux", and if you're really lucky, you'll get a few results that are official fixes from Microsoft (which generally don't solve the entire problem anyway).
I had written off Bing earlier, but after a bit of thought and self-reflection I figured that might not be fair. After reading this, I can conclude it is certainly fair. I use Linux Mint almost all the time on my computer (I still have Windows XP for the occasional use) and my aim is to avoid learning about the command line and use the OS like a non-computer-knowing Windows user, only using the terminal by copying and pasting commands from Internet results. Thus, I would need to search for my problem online and use the (absolutely marvelous) forums for help. Google comes in very handy for this; Bing would mysteriously hide these results in favor of "why Windows is better" or something similar. Thus, my dislike has a very practical side to it too, so you can't accuse me of one-sidedly hating on Microsoft.
The most rational reason I have seen for this behavior is that Microsoft (somewhat correctly) assumes that most of Bing's users use Windows, so official Microsoft fixes and the like are all they ever expect to see and all they want; this makes sense but it still doesn't explain the magical replacement of Microsoft-related terms with competitors' names.
I thus mourn the loss of Yahoo! Search (which was really a decent search engine on its own and a great competitor to Google), as it now redirects all searches to Bing search; furthermore, as far as I know, Microsoft has no plan to incorporate the superior Yahoo! search technology into Bing, so all it wants to do is bring in that greater traffic from Yahoo! and keep a crappy search engine.
Of course, it's a "decision engine", so it'll decide for you what's best and what's crap; rather than have that happen, you decide.
For those of you who know me pretty well, you know I hate Microsoft in general. I don't think they have ever come up with an original piece of software; they always derive their work from other sources (which is laudable and promoted among the free software community...) but always take the credit for themselves and charge exorbitant prices for their products. Furthermore, their recent support of free software standards has been nominal at best; the whole OOXML thing was proven to have many proprietary parts and sections that essentially gave Microsoft full control of development in open violation of open standards. Then, Bill Gates decided to purchase and release all of the Feynman lecture videos to the public online; this is great as my passion is physics and I really like (in a totally straight way) Richard Feynman, but Gates decided to do it in Microsoft's proprietary Silverlight format instead of the free Ogg-Theora standard or even the proprietary but much more widely used Shockwave/Flash format. This means that essentially only Windows users can see it, and while Mac and Linux users have Moonlight, an adaptation of Silverlight for non-Windows OSs, Moonlight is crippled because Silverlight makes it so, meaning that Mac and Linux users really can't see these videos anyway. Then, very recently, Microsoft supported a particular software/architecture-thingy (I'm not exactly sure what it was) and GPL'ed it. Releasing code under the GPL means that they have to respect the openness of the code and allow people to modify and rerelease (under the GPL) the code too. This was laudable at first until a third party found out that Microsoft had included their own licenses that allowed the use of proprietary code and almost entirely disallowed modifying or even viewing the underlying code; all of these things constituted huge violations of the GPL. Thus, Microsoft completely undermines its commitment to openness through its continuing backhanded tactics; openness to them means openness only to them.
That said, Microsoft does actually make some decent products. I use OpenOffice.Org because it suits all my needs and is free software, but for more extensive documents and spreadsheets and more content-filled presentations, Microsoft Office 2007 is the way to go. Though I don't like the de facto non-support for ODF (yes, it was originally a separate extension and then was made into a software update, but both forms of support worked horribly if at all), the Ribbon UI is really nice and makes a lot of sense (I didn't like it at first but that was probably just because I was wary of Microsoft, so now I like it a lot), and all the new features are really useful. I hear OO.O is coming out with a Ribbon competitor for the next release, but I've seen a screenshot and it looks terrible compared to Microsoft's version. Also, the XBOX 360 is a great system (though still buggy today compared to the PS3 and the Wii) with amazing graphics, games, and the legendary XBOX Live. Furthermore, Microsoft's hardware, like its mice, keyboards, and webcams, are of very high quality and last for a very long time.
Moral of the story: don't Bing and decide, just decide not to use Bing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)