Podcast Hell

I downloaded a ton of tech-related podcasts over the weekend. Some of them were older but still informative, others were more recent and not exactly worth the time or bandwidth it took to listen to them. I’m still going through them. Some merit more ear-time than others.

One of them seemed promising by its name: Productive Linux. I think I downloaded two or three episodes. I stopped the first one I listened to and forwarded to the next when the host started spelling out commands and options for editing Firefox chrome. The last thing I want to hear when I’m running at 4:30 in the morning is a spelling lesson. No thanks, next.

Then I got his review of Absolute Linux, one of the smaller and easier to set up (Slackware is NOT hard to set up — read the documentation and it’s quite easy) Slackware-based sub-distros suitable for older computers. Once I got past the host’s prattle about how “clean” and “vanilla” and “stable” it felt (compared, pray tell, to what?), I got the substance of his review and impressions.

First, the host very obviously didn’t bother to read the Absolute site because — RIGHT THERE ON THE FRONT PAGE — it very clearly mentions that it uses Slackware binary packaging:

Accepts packages made for same Slackware Version, so you can use Slackware software repositories.

Duh. Nobody reads anything anymore. Oh, and the bold and underlined emphasis is mine. I’d make it blink but wordpress doesn’t support it. TG.

So I then got to listen to him go off on a tangent about compiling. Yes, you can do that with Slackware because its base is very complete with the most oft-used libraries. But it’s untrue that Slackware requires compiling your own apps because Slackware does have binary packaging.

Then we got into his likes and dislikes. He was disappointed that it didn’t come with audacity. So? How does that relate to productivity? That’s available from the official and many of the unofficial Slack-package sites and repositories. He also didn’t care for the wallpaper or default GTK theme. What was the first application he compiled? A switcher for GTK themes. So productive. I then endured more talk about themes. Productive? Not IMO. He berated the sparse choice of included productivity software. Never mind anyone can get the most current version (that would be the one with the most recent bug fixes and security patches) of Open Office from the Open Office website or from (duh) Slackware’s repositories.

I was about to end this attack on my ears and my intelligence when the host said that the version of Absolute he was using was a release candidate. Oh, nice.

It would’ve been nicer to know that before listening to what an ‘unfinished’ product he thought it was. I wouldn’t have wasted my time. I would’ve been more productive.

EDIT: I realize what I wrote probably seems harsh, but I thought the review was overly critical especially considering it wasn’t RELEASE and because he started with a presumption that isn’t even true (binary packaging).

I take exception, too, to the prevailing standard too many reviews have for distros: that their initial mixes of application are how they should be judged. I think that’s bullshit because anyone can take distro X, change a few apps around, and call it distro Y. Look instead at their paradigms — what do they do differently than the others? In the case of Slackware, it’s about keeping things as simple and straightforward (in the Unix sense) as possible. In other distros, it’s about package management (after all, Debian is aiming for neutrality and has compatibility with other operating systems like FreeBSD and GNU Hurd). It’s not what it comes with but how you use it and what you can add and why. Tell me that, don’t tell me it still uses version A.B.C instead of A.B.D of some application. Tell me why it exists, why its developers do things in certain ways.

I also admit I don’t get the relationship between things like themes and productivity. I’ve edited many themes for jwm for DSL — not because that matters so much to me but to help reduce the noise from people who thought DSL wasn’t aesthetically attractive. As we’ve seen with DSL, it doesn’t matter how many themes you offer or how much you dress it up, people are going to grumble anyway. THAT’S WHY THEMES AND WALLPAPERS CAN BE CHANGED. IT’S SUBJECTIVE. IF YOU DON’T LIKE DEFAULT SETTINGS AND THAT’S GOING TO CAUSE YOU TO WHINE, CHANGE IT. BUT IS THAT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT JUDGING HOW DISTROS ARE DIFFERENT?

That’s why I wrote fairly harshly about that particular podcast. Maybe the rest of his stuff is worth listening to, maybe it’s more of what I heard. When I think of “productive,” I think of substance. What little substance he had was misleading (Slackware does have binary packaging and Absolute Linux uses it) and the rest was about stuff that really doesn’t matter.

Tilting at Windows: Don’t Fight for Desktop Linux Adoption

I picked up this article by Caitlyn Martin from Steven Rosenberg’s Click blog. She takes a different tack on some of the issues I’ve addressed when I’ve commented on some of the more exhuberent (and less honest) Linux activism. Her article references one such article, a list of ten points about how Linux has outgrown its geeky past and is appropriate for desktop use.

She writes, “All 10 points in the article are valid. None of them, nor any other efforts at Linux evangelism over the last decade, have worked when it comes to moving the masses towards Linux in the home and office on the desktop. Look, I’m not critical of the article. It may even convince a handful or people to give Linux a look. It, and articles like it, won’t have a major impact.”

This is true and so is her suggestion that it’s preaching to the choir. There have been many activists who’ve attempted to make inroads and get Linux adopted on the desktop. She’s correct that it’s not about cost, it’s not about ease as Linux desktop environments and driver support have improved. Resistance is hard to overcome no matter what price tag you put on or take off.

I think she too easily dismisses a couple things, such as the ease with which devices still work with Windows because their vendors are Windows-centric. If I buy any webcam, I know it will probably work very easily with Windows — plug it in, voila. If I do the same for use on a Linux desktop, I need to first check to see if it’s natively supported in Linux. Failing that, I have to see if anyone else has a driver for it. Then, if there is one, I have to check and see if that driver has enough functionality to be worthwhile. And if I already have the camera and it already works in Windows, why would I want to switch to a “free” operating system that will require me to compile a separate module for my device, run depmod, etc., just to use it? We can argue all we want about closed hardware and software, but these things are reality. We don’t have a magic wand to make it go away.

Substitute scanner, printer, or any other device for webcam. The more stuff a user already has, the more resistance he or she will probably have in switching.

Martin suggests two ways that users may be lured to desktop Linux. One is via well-conceived and well-configured devices like the Asus Eee UMPC that come with Linux. These have been met with more enthusiasm by existing Linux users, though. With these UMPCs increasingly shipping with XP, I don’t see how this bodes well for Linux. (I’m neutral on superiority of Windows or Linux because often it boils down to the same thing: how well things are pre-configured for the less savvy user. The less savvy the user, the worse the perception is if it’s inadequately set up even if the “problems” are very benign.)

The second thing Martin says may help Linux adoption is via concerted effort between Linux developers and hardware vendors — more of a Microsoft approach. There’s a big problem with this: there aren’t many manufacturers of hardware ready to embrace open source, at least not with the kinds of strings that GPLv3 would attach with respect to firmware. While some companies are becoming more lenient when it comes to distributing their firmware (since I just compiled two 2.6.25 kernels, I noticed there’s a lot more of that than in the 2.4 line), they really don’t benefit by pushing Linux on desktops — even a 100% increase in Linux desktop adoption wouldn’t reach the 5% share, so spectacular growth rate keeps you in a marginal market. Hooray, BeOS!

I think where all of this is moot is, we’re moving away from traditional desktop computing. Whether you want to look at mobile computing vis-a-vis laptops, notebooks, and UMPCs or in the direction things appear to be headed with cell/smart phones and PDAs, the real growth is away from desktops. Dittos for other devices popping up in homes all over the world: TiVOs and other DVRs, game consoles, etc. Many of these devices are the real initial contact points people have with Linux.

That’s where hardware vendors are already onboard with Linux. And vice versa. Except for FSF and fringe types who object to the way the real world operates.

My beloved told me she would never use Linux on her laptop. She’s dead serious. She hates my computers. She stopped telling me she’d never use Linux when I pointed out where she was already using it: her cell phone, the router, the server, the DVR, the TV. Things she takes for granted because she turns them on and they work without “eye candy” or code she can audit herself (which would be quite interesting to see!) or lack of command lines. Just like Windows. She’s not in the open source choir and not interested in how many different window managers she can try. She’s just pragmatic.

What Martin argues for is already reality, just not on desktops.

Linux is widely used on mobile hardware like cell phones and it stands a much better chance of widespread adoption there barring more goofy GPL turf wars by zealots who make up words like “tivoization” for problems that don’t even exist (TiVo plays by the rules; so FSF changes the rules and moves the goalposts). Licensing really matters as much as whether the source is open or not. I’ll even argue that adoption of Linux and its funding from vendors would already be more widespread if its license were less restrictive — much the same way TCP/IP became an adopted standard in both open source and proprietary worlds because there weren’t petty restrictions preventing others from integrating it as they saw fit (it’s important to understand that Microsoft and Apple had every bit as much freedom to use TCP/IP as BSD; otherwise, we’d have closed networking stacks that don’t communicate very effectively with each other).

The real battle in this decade is away from the desktop. Those who want to win market share on the desktop are tilting at Windows.

Laptop Kernel 2.6.25

I compiled kernel 2.6.25 for my laptop last night. For once I went through the full menus rather than making a big, bloated kernel via make oldconfig. I did this while watching the NBA playoffs. I took the smart way out by compiling it on my desktop (via screen and ssh) and copying it over to the laptop by sshfs when it was finished. Then installing it was a snap (and the laptop’s fan didn’t even have to kick on for a second!).

I built in much of the support I need (e.g., PCMCIA) and left out everything — in the kernel or as modules — I know I’ll never need. The result is a much smaller footprint (/lib/modules/2.6.25 is under 20MB and would’ve been smaller except I set nearly every possible USB device as a module even though I know I’ll probably never use half of it; who knows, maybe I’ll get some new toys) and much faster boot over the stock Vector kernel.

I still need to upgrade ndiswrapper but their download page had an error message last night and this morning, so I have to boot my old kernel to get online. I also need to update wireless tools. If I can’t get ndiswrapper 1.5.2, I’ll recompile what I have against the new headers. I think I still have source for it here on a thumbdrive.

While I was at it, I commented out the bitmap line in lilo.conf. Now my lilo is a normal text box, as Slackware has always had it. Unfortunately, Slackware 12.1 will have a bitmap background by default so my new look will soon be “old school.” I don’t know why users are so enamored with images that only load for a few seconds like that. Come on, people. If you’re going to use “splash” or whatever you want to call it, at least be sensible about it. Some people are getting way too carried away. Look at the size of the images Vector includes in /boot/bitmap:

-rw-r–r– 1 root root 308322 2007-10-30 03:14 VLwave.bmp
-rw-r–r– 1 root root 309421 2007-02-13 07:51 boot-grub.xpm

A third of a MB just for a bootloader image! That heinous VLwave thing is symlinked to boot.bmp which is the bitmap used in lilo.conf. Or at least it was before I put a nice pound sign in its way. See, that’s one of the things that keeps me from singing praises to Vector. Faster, lighter? YMMV. I really beg to differ.

Two observations:

• Linux 2.6.25 is freaking massive.
• Default/stock kernels are bloated. That includes “faster, lighter” Vector’s.

Everything is being thrown into the kernel source. Every imaginable device, every imaginable driver, everything. “Kitchen sink” comes to mind. And default kernels — since they must of necessity be one-size-fits-as-many-as-possible — take too much advantage of this. The problem with this approach is that users end up with lots of stuff built into the kernel they’ll never use. In my case, it was (net — I built in things that were modules in Vector) over 5MB of crud. Maybe it’s time for distros to decide if they’re desktop-oriented or server-oriented and compile two distinct kernels. At least two. I think the differences between desktops and laptops are significant enough that a separate laptop kernel is also warranted. That would streamline things for users. Not to mention make it safer for everyone because there’s a relationship between security and the number of parts contained in the kernel or in the parts that can be loaded to kernelspace. Servers generally don’t need PCMCIA or all kinds of video drivers; laptops generally don’t need RAID support; etc.

Now it’s time to do the same for the desktop on which the laptop’s kernel was compiled. I’ll probably have that running during the NFL Draft and/or NBA playoffs this afternoon or tomorrow. Or else I’ll download Gentoo or a BSD and go back to using a ports system on it so I only have myself to blame if I compile with every bloated possible option.

As I’ve written lately, I find I’m recompiling more and more stuff because Vector’s packagers appear to be as enthusiastic about features as Ubuntu’s packagers. If it can be enabled, by golly they’re enabling it. I don’t mind recompiling new kernels to suit my own tastes and hardware. But having to recompile so many things just so I won’t need to install A — which I don’t want for a variety of reasons: size, security, stability, etc. — to use B is a real pain in the neck.

An OS Comparison Article

I hate this kind of article…

OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Windows Vista vs. Windows XP:

Since the dawn of time — or, at least, the dawn of personal computers — the holy wars over desktop operating systems have raged, with each faction proclaiming the unrivaled superiority of its chosen OS and the vile loathsomeness of all others.

Let’s look at some of the un-truths told by the advocates.

First, the Linux fanboi writes:

Unlike Mac OS and Windows, Linux is free as air and open to development by folks who are motivated by the desire to make the technology better, rather than by corporate tech farms whose real interest is the bottom line.

Free as in air isn’t really free as in air. It may not cost you much to install Linux on your home computer, but installing it on 25 desktops in your business wouldn’t be free as in air. You’d have plenty of costs associated with the installation and with re-training users. Depending on the time frame you’d allow for reduced productivity, it could be cheaper to upgrade to Vista licenses and new hardware. I think this is one of the dumbest arguments for Linux because too many advocates don’t understand that learning curves cost companies time and money. And the last time I checked, the costs of hiring someone with a RHCE were comparable to bringing in a MCSE.

Let’s also forget that the chief submitters to the Linux kernel and to many of the libraries, utilities, and appications are employed by IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, and many other companies whose interests are the bottom line. So I beg to differ, too, that profit is a bad thing.

If the world doesn’t want to use Microsoft software, Microsoft won’t stay in business. That makes them accountable to consumers and users, and I don’t think accountability is such a bad thing. If I have a problem with Windows, I go to my vendor and/or Microsoft. If I have a problem with Vector Linux and getting X set up or problems with python, who’s accountable? Linus won’t take my calls, but neither will Bill. Microsoft has websites and toll free help lines (depending on your level of support). Vector has a website and a forum. Maybe someone in an IRC channel can help me sort it out?

He continues,

Which is all very nice, but is it any good as a desktop operating system? You bet.

“Bet” is a gamble; most enterprise users won’t gamble — and neither will casual users who are more interested in doing things as quickly as possible. I’m not a casual user. I use Linux almost exclusively on desktop. Is it as good as Windows for that? No, I don’t think so. I have few problems using Linux/BSD but I can’t recommend it for most users. It’s not on the same level as Windows yet. And that’s not just my take, that includes many in the Linux/BSD/open source communities and companies like Novell and Red Hat (not to mention computer sellers, some of whom have found out firsthand that users won’t rush in to buy machines with Linux even if they save a few bucks from not needing a Windows license — what does that tell you?).

Let’s start with the hardware footprint: With the possible exception of BSD, Linux’s ’sister,’ Linux is the lightest thing you’ll ever install on your computer. While the minimum required hardware for Windows has been bloating, and Macs need more and more horsepower to run OS X, you can still dig out your old 486 and fire up Linux without problems.

That isn’t entirely true. Nor is it entirely desirable since most users expect more than what you can squeeze out of Linux on a 486. Most modern/updated Linux distros will no longer run on 486s. Indeed, the most popular distros targeted at newer users — who are NOT those who will start with Slackware or LFS — have requirements in line with other modern operating systems like Vista and OSX. Linux distros are prone to the same bloat-mentality prevailing anywhere else. That’s because developers and packagers target modern hardware, not the lowest possible denominator. So initial footprint is beside the point except for experienced users.

While there are some exceptions, the rule in the Linux world has matched that of Vista: the goal is to match system requirements to prevailing technology and expect that users will upgrade systems periodically. That’s why Ubuntu, PCLOS, and SuSe will not run on a 486 (not without lots of stripping and recompiling apps with minimal possible libraries for running in leaner systems). DSL with it’s 2.4 kernel and nearly Y2K-level software will run on console on a 486 so long as it has 16 MB of RAM. But so will a nearly Y2K-era version of Windows — same era software, same era hardware (apples to apples). So what’s the point…

Then the fanboi writes:

Linux is not only small, but it’s also stable. I have several Windows boxes at home, and it seems like whenever I blink, something has gotten screwed up in the registry or I have a Dynamic Link Library conflict.

This is ridiculous hyperbole and ironic. I have one hard drive with Windows NT workstation, circa 1996, that has run admirably with no DLL problems or registry conflicts. Then again, I kept it up to date with the service packs and ran it as it was designed to run: separate administrator account, anti-virus software, etc. I was also an early adopter of XP because it was based on the very stable NT. Again, no problems. Ever. The only virus I’ve ever had on any Microsoft computer was ’stoned’ in about 1990. I started using DOS in 1985. I’d used Apples (got my Apple II in 1979), a series of Commodores and Timex-Sinclairs, and one Mac before switching to PCs for the most part (since 1985, I’ve had a few Macs, one BeBox, and a couple SPARCs). I had more trouble with Apples and Macs than real PCs. I have one Mac remaining but I don’t use it; I also have several boxes of Mac parts.

I’ve also encountered plenty of issues with Linux. That includes buggy drivers and poorly coded scripts that have done things like load modules for filesystems I wasn’t using, cause kernel panics, etc. How the hell is a kernel panic any different from BSOD — a Windows fate I never experienced myself because I’ve kept my systems patched? And what about all the dependency hassles experienced even when running one of the more bloated distros like Ubuntu or PCLOS? How is that any different from the complaint about DLL conflicts?

Same answer to all questions: It isn’t any different. Linux users should stop relying on such stupid arguments because those aren’t significant differences. And with all due respect, average users will find tweaking registry entries in friendly GUIs — or restore points in XP — much easier solutions to sorting out Windows issues than going through series of Linux init scripts and various config files even if they are text files. Much less issues with peculiar libraries used by odd applications; at least Windows users have fairly standard DLLs upon which all developers build apps.

Every operating system and distributed computing environment (since Linux itself is merely a kernel — Linux isn’t Ubuntu, but Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel) is prone to some kind of breakage. The more complex something is, the more likely there are going to be some kinds of issues affecting users. Windows is complex. So are Linux distributions, especially ones focusing on desktop use. Linux distros may even be considered more complex from the standpoint that Windows is more standardized as noted above. This is certainly true when looking at how many different libraries binary packagers build their packages against and how many problems that can cause if the end user doesn’t want all kinds of stuff just to use one app from the package management system.

Linux doesn’t get points over Windows for this. They’re evenly matched. Or Windows gets an edge.

Unfortunately, the penguin-loving fanboi continued with something I’ve blogged about:

In the recent “Pwn 2 Own” hacker challenge, computers running Mac OS X and Windows Vista were cracked, but the Linux machine wasn’t. I won’t claim that Linux has no security or virus problems, but they tend to be right out in the open where you can see them if you look. At the moment, there are far fewer Linux viruses out in the wild than Windows viruses, and there are fairly bullet-proof ways to detect viruses under Linux using checksums on files.

Let’s get something straight. The Mac was pwned due to an exploit in Safari, which is Apple’s own code that comes with the computer; in fairness, the Mac was pwned after the rules were relaxed a little. The laptop with Vista wasn’t pwned until the last day when the rules were relaxed even further. The pwner took advantage of a Flash/Java/DEP vulnerability — using third party software — and not something inherently vulnerable due to Windows code. My understanding of that exploit, which has yet to be published, is that it’s cross-platform — and that it could affect a Linux system with Flash and Java. It wasn’t tried on either other platform in pwn2own because of the rules. Whether or not that specific exploit really works on Linux computers running Flash is beside the point anyway: Linux versions of Flash are every bit as dangerous in the wild.

At least Flash works as it’s supposed to in Windows. What was the point again? Oh yeah, Linux is supposedly better than Windows. Not.

One more thing about this as it relates to Vista. Vista’s security is heads and shoulders above XP’s and earlier versions’. Those who insist that Vista is on par with XP and earlier security simply haven’t investigated it for themselves and are engaging in sheer FUD. Among those giving Microsoft props for their commitment to making Vista more secure are those who’ve won pwn2own before. I’ll go even further and say that I think Vista is inherently safer than Linux; anyone running the same kernel version I am — or within several iterations either way — should have updated with a novmsplice patch or upgraded kernel, which is one of the things I would cite in my reasons why I would say Vista is safer. That’s Linux-specific, not related to PHP or samba or some other code thrown into distros. But when you get into all the other stuff thrown into a standard distro mix of utilities and libraries and applications, that’s where Vista shines. Go ahead and run apt-get –dist-upgrade every day and pray your system doesn’t break; I’ll stick with Microsoft’s automatic updates because their turn-around time on patching is faster and because they’re a centralized and accountable source of the updates, not relying on hundreds or thousands of package submitters whose intentions or abilities you may question.

Now let’s look at the Mac Kool-Aid drinker’s take on OSX:

Did I mention that Leopard is a certified Unix product, too? Mac OS X is the only operating systems that can run all mainstream Windows and “*nix”-based operating systems — and host “*nix” software natively — with few of the usual security risks.

Along with its famed user interface, one of the keys to the success of Mac OS X is the lack of malware, spyware and self-propagating viruses. We can debate the reasons — whether it’s the security inherent to the modern BSD underpinnings of Apple’s code or the “security by obscurity” theory — but Macs are not susceptible to the problems that have always plagued Windows PCs.

Security by obscurity isn’t a theory. Nor is it security. It’s obscurity. Mac’s security is third-rate. Not second-rate, third. Its Unix family lineage isn’t why it’s secure — that’s a non sequitur. Many of the most open vulnerabilities have occurred in or were developed for and on Unix-like operating systems. How many people still use telnet?

Many Mac users insist on running in single user mode. That’s no different from Windows 95 and earlier and the lack of permission levels that led to the prevailing attitude that there’s something inherently inferior about Windows. There isn’t. It doesn’t matter whether you run OSX, Linux, or Windows as root/administrator — it’s a bad, unsafe practice that can lead to serious trouble. I don’t even set computers up to use sudo except with password because I don’t care to allow anyone taking over my account to have full system privileges. Yet that’s how many operating systems are designed. Puppy Linux runs as root only. So does Dynebolic. Knoppix and DSL and other live CDs set up users with full system privileges via sudo. For live CDs, that’s fine. For anything else, I don’t care for it.

Apple does nothing to dissuade users from it. Single user with full system privileges. Coffee shop hot spot. Easy target.

OSX had more severe advisories than Vista and XP combined last year. Local and remote. Third party and first party.

Stop drinking the damn Kool-Aid.

Now let’s look at the one almost everyone else loves to hate. I’m skipping the XP guy because I don’t care for the Luddite-like hysteria by those who insist Microsoft extend XP’s life. I wasn’t happy when the NT 4.x support stopped, but that’s the way business and life goes. I’m no happier that Linux 2.4 development is waning because users are expected to migrate to newer hardware. I’m in the same boat that way, but I’m not crying. I’m using Linux 2.6 and reducing its resource demands to fit my hardware. XP users can do the same thing with Vista, which is not a one-size-fits-all OS as some portray it. It’s very scalable, just like other modern operating systems, and can be tweaked to perform well on older computers within reason. You just won’t enjoy all the graphical BS that has greater demands.

The Vista fanboi candidly writes,

Now, it’s true that for the moment, Windows XP is superior to Vista when it comes to software compatibility. But that won’t last long. The best and newest software will be built for Vista, not XP. So if you want to look to the future, not the past, Vista is the way to go.

This is true. Again let me reminisce about my NT days. I was running an OS that couldn’t run a lot of the stuff my friends using 16-bit Windows (3.1, 95/98 ) were running. I didn’t have the same level of plug and play support. Drivers were written for the other versions, not NT. The only USB drivers for NT I’m aware of were from third-party software companies and Dell (which was developed in-house for NT and worked surprisingly well). In short, most consumer software wasn’t being written for NT and most devices weren’t including driver support for NT. Everything was for 95/98. Then came WinME, a half-hearted attempt to move to NT. Then came XP. There was no turning back. Some of my enterprise software would run on XP, but many companies made upgrades available for those migrating to XP — good business decision because the world was going to turn to XP and away from NT and 95/98.

The same thing is going to happen for Vista. No matter how much FUD is spread about it, it’s not the future. It’s the present. The footdraggers aren’t leading the way. They’re fighting a losing battle.

The Vista guy continues,

As for Linux, if you’re a fan, feel free to fly your uber-geek badge every time you boot up — but don’t expect to run your company’s enterprise software, much less mainstream software and games. And do expect to become very familiar with the confusing vagaries of the specific version of Linux you’ve installed.

This is one of the things about Linux I think gets lost among its most ardent advocates. The world isn’t looking for myriad choices, it’s looking to get stuff done. The distros that target enterprise users understand this very well. You can prattle for days about window managers and eye candy, but that doesn’t lead to adoption in the enterprise. Enterprise is won over by commonalities. Enterprise is lost when the applications it needs are either unavailable or — the irony here is overwhelming — has peculiar library demands. Yes, that nasty issue about libraries/DLLs applies to Linux here.

Microsoft is where they are because they played their cards right when it came to matching their software to the most widely available hardware. Apple was too busy playing with goofy interfaces and buses to be a serious player in the enterprise when it mattered most. While Apple was busy creating its own alternate universe, Microsoft was trying to cater to the real, existing one. That’s why Microsoft runs over 90% of the world’s desktops and has serious marketshare in servers as well.

I’m not anti-any of these platforms. Each can do what some users need. None is perfect for every possible task. Each can be as safe as the other if the user is attentive to keeping his system secure. The user, as I’ve written so many times, is the weakest link in security.

The Mac user noted how easy it is for him to make movies. The Windows user noted how everything, especially enterprise-grade software, is written for Windows. The Linux user made some valid points about the cost of his software (though, to be fair, it’s not exactly free to retrain employees to make equivalent use of open source software if they’re already productive on closed source software). All three also engage in some level of blindness about the others, but two of them stand out: the Mac user has a gullible feeling of invincibility and the Linux user’s smugness about, well, everything and ignorance when it comes to comparing and contrasting Windows and Linux.

Maybe the one lesson from this kind of comparison-article is that we don’t need more of them from advocates. Maybe we need more honesty and fair comparisons from people without axes to grind.

CanSecWest 2008 pwn2own: Triple Play!

CanSecWest Applied Security Conference: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:

Three targets, all patched. All in typical client configurations with typical user configurations.You hack it, you get to keep it.

Each has a file on them and it contains the instructions and how to claim the prize. Targets (typical road-warrior clients):

• VAIO VGN-TZ37CN running Ubuntu 7.10
• Fujitsu U810 running Vista Ultimate SP1
• MacBook Air running OSX 10.5.2

My bet is that the MacBook Err is first to go. Not just because it’s a nifty, thin lightweight machine many people crave but because Apple’s security blows. I won’t be surprised if the Fujitsu is last to go unless someone uses an identical expolit in the Apple, much like last year’s vulnerability was cross-platform. Since the Fujitsu will include iTunes, Safari, and QuickTime, I expect whomever pwns the Mac will immediately share the same exploit on the Fujitsu (or vice versa if it’s related to Apple’s insecure software). The rules stipulate one laptop per contestant.

FWIW, my heart would be set on the Fujitsu (on which I’d probably install FreeBSD) even though I’m a diehard ThinkPad fan. I’d take an x300 with its twice-better battery life (not to mention easy battery accessibility) and more USB ports and better connectivity and everything else over the single-battery (you have to disassemble the thing to replace it, which will reportedly take 48 hours at an Apple Store — no carrying spares) MacBook Err and the Vaio and the Fujitsu. Oh yeah, and then there’s the best part of all — the x300 doesn’t come loaded with Mac OSX.

If anyone at Lenovo wants me to review the x300 in a Linux/BSD environment, please contact me. I’d love to see what it can do.

Debian Out, Vector In

Ran into some issues with my tiny Debian hybrid install yesterday. One of the things I wrote about preferring Debian’s packaging to Slackware’s has its dark side: just because you can remove smaller parts to fine tune things, sometimes things are packaged together such that it’s not a good idea. Also, many apps are compiled for use on bleeding edge hardware with compile-time options that require downloading dependent libs and packages all users shouldn’t need. An example of that was the xbindkeys thing I wrote about the other day — massive download for a relatively small utility — especially since it can be compiled without guile; if emacs and vim can have no-X versions, other apps can be added to give users more choices suitable for their own hardware.

I was running into various problems when trying to pare the system down. If I want to remove A, then dpkg insists I have to remove B through K — but that I also have to install L through P, which aren’t currently installed, and then upgrade Q through V. In the process of it all, I was getting the messages that I had all these packages that were no longer needed. That’s when the real fun started.

In the process of all this, I decided it would be easier to start from the ground up and compile things as I see fit. That’s why I’ve favored ports over packages anyway, whether BSD or Linux. And why I’ve favored Slackware because it’s not inextricably tied to its binary packaging. You want source and ports, Slackware is good. You want packaging, Slackware is good.

Since I’m already running Vector, a Slackware desktop-oriented derivative, on my laptop and am very happy with it, I decided that would be good on my new hard drive, too. I’m now running Vector 5.9 both on laptop and desktop. I compiled kernel 2.6.24.3 for the desktop last night (2.6.24.3-r0313 #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Mar 13 17:38:20 CDT 2008 i686 to be exact). I have one hardware problem to sort out, and that’s editing my xorg.config so the scroll on my new mouse works — minor issue, which I would ignore if not for having a new mouse.

Vector has slapt-get and gslapt, the Slackware packaging versions akin to apt-get from Debian. It also comes with cruxports4slack, which I’m not sure I want to mess with. If I do use a ports system, I’ll stick with pkgsrc (which I’ve used with great results in both Linux and BSD). If that’s what I wanted, though, I’d start with a base install of Slack or just use BSD.

I started removing packages last night before I started on the kernel — no need for Abiword, Gnumeric, or Gnome Office, didn’t need any of the wifi stuff on this because I’m wired, etc. Have a bit more to do yet. I won’t hang on to XFce even though it’s nice and my RAM use hasn’t been too bad, and the kdm and qt3 stuff will be gone tonight. I’ll stick with jwm and ratpoison.

My only regret is that I didn’t use the same config so I could use the kernel on the laptop, too. On the other hand, it’s been working so flawlessly that I’m not sure I want to change it except to test OpenBSD 4.3 and DragonFlyBSD for the new bwi (Broadcom 43xx) wrapper/cutter. If I ever get time to mess with either of those.

Sidux Update: 2008-01 Preview 1 (pending KDE 3.5.9)

In relation to my upgrades I wrote about this morning, it appears I’m just about up to date with what the sidux gang are doing.

sidux 2008-01 preview 1:

Please note this is not the final release, the full featured final release of “Νυξ” will be ready in about 2-3 weeks (depending on the availability of KDE 3.5.9 in Debian sid), intermediate xdeltas will be provided as needed until then.

At least I have a time line for when I can expect KDE 3.5.9 to show up in the repositories. Other updates in sidux include latest kernel (2.6.24.3), improved wifi support, and support for more webcams.

Current Laptop Info

I’ve been using VectorLinux 5.9 on my old laptop for a few weeks now. Over all, I’ve been impressed. I set it up to install with as few options as possible. I installed X, which is bundled with Xfce and other stuff I normally wouldn’t install. While Xfce has lower resource requirements than KDE, it’s still more than I care to use. The only other window manager I installed was jwm, which I’m rather partial.

The only glitch I had was in configuring X, which I got sorted out fairly quickly.

My previous entry explained the other “problem” I’ve had, which was getting backspace to work as backspace in GNU screen.

VectorLinux comes with a configuration manager called VASM. I’ve found this a very helpful resource. I used its wifi tools to set up my wireless card and WPA. I was unable to connect after initial set up, but it connected on my next reboot (as it was set to do). That’s connecting to a hidden ESSID, which I’ve been unable to do with kernel 2.4-based distros because of limitations in Wireless-Extensions and ndiswrapper.

One complaint I have is how thunar opened to /usr/bin by default when setting up ndiswrapper. That took way too much time to load and was the only delay in setting up my card. I think it’s stupid to open to that directory to look for a driver (Windows inf file) that should be installed locally anyway. But there’s no choice — if you use VASM, that’s the process. Once zenity settled down enough so I could navigate, I went to my home directory and selected the directory I set up for my driver.

I have a few more things I want to remove from this, as well as a few things to add. Most of the X apps can go. The only reason I continue to use Firefox is because some sites will not work with console browsers like lynx and elinks. This is unfortunate because, increasingly, sites are presuming their visitors are using computers with gobs of RAM. Sites I hit that require Flash get removed from my bookmarks.

So Firefox stays. I haven’t decided about Xfce yet. It probably goes and I’ll use jwm or oroborus (and maybe keep Xfce panel?). The KDM thing has to go, too — I don’t need the weight of that on this laptop just to have a fancy login. That’s a serious nit to pick, but in fairness VectorLinux will install K3B unless you un-select it (I did).

I initially installed screen via gslapt, but removed and then recompiled it myself. I’ve also compiled emelfm2, elinks (with guile scripting), naim, and sylpheed. I’ll likely uninstall emelfm2. I’ll probably keep sylpheed because its requirements aren’t drastic.

So far, though, it’s been smooth sailing. If I had to rate it on a scale of 1-10, I’d give it a 7. If you want a Slackware-oriented base for desktop use without much configuring of it yourself, I can definitely recommend VectorLinux.

But this is a temporary stop for me. DSL should soon get a 2.6 kernel with better wifi support and an update of the base. I also have my own plan if that takes a while.

Wallpaper in above screenshot is copyright by John Schwegel.

Linux Won’t Win the Desktop

I like Steven Rosenberg’s CLICK blog and have replied to him in the past. He likes to make use of “low-end” hardware (including his famous $15 laptop). That makes him a good guy in my book.

I was just catching up on what he’s been writing about lately and saw him address the Linux desktop issue and why people haven’t migrated to the Linux desktop the way companies have embraced LAMP.

He writes:

With free, open-source applications like Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, the GIMP and others being ported to Windows and Mac architectures, users who have never worked on anything but a closed, proprietary operating system will be using FOSS for the first time, and that’s a small step over to making the rest of their system FOSS as well.

I think the fact so many open source applications are available for Windows and Mac only insures people will continue using those OSes instead of trying to learn Linux (or BSD). Why should they go through hassles of ditching other software they’ve already bought, storing and/or converting data, installing something new with a very different directory structure and system of permissions, when they can have what’s already familiar to them? No matter how much people grumble about Microsoft Windows and no matter how many Mac-PC ads Apple runs, it’s still the first choice for most computer users when they buy or assemble a system for their own use.

As free as Linux is, it lacks the same appeal Firefox, WinAmp, and other software have. Windows users aren’t averse to free software (never have been: my old modem used to run all night downloading freeware and shareware off BBSes). Most of them don’t give a flip if they can access the source. They’re as happy with Opera as they are with Firefox because it doesn’t cost anything to try. And even after trying, most users are content or so familiar with IE and Outlook that they go back. Why? Because of comfort zones, because of familiarity, because they have investments in time and resources.

Familiarity can’t be underestimated. People take a look at KDE- and Gnome-based systems and are familiar enough with the common aspects of the interfaces. They really couldn’t care less that it’s Linux, BSD, or Cygwin underneath the hood. They can see the familiarity in the interfaces, so they feel comfortable. Improvements in those two (KDE, Gnome) projects have made Linux more accessible to desktop users than earlier attempts that weren’t as familiar or integrated.

Using free software like Firefox doesn’t require repartitioning or learning a new OS. Or wondering if some device — or special software they insist on using or are required to use — will work in Linux. If they can use Firefox and Abiword and GIMP in Windows, they don’t need to mess with Linux. They will continue to use Windows. Best of both worlds.

So, yes, free software is a small step towards OS migration. It’s not clearing the hurdles, though — not even close. I think it will take a lot more to win over the masses, and the platform most likely won’t be desktop. I think it’s much more likely to be a phone, PDA, or similar mobile device. And that’s the future.

Interview with gOS Founder: “Linux For Human Beings (Who Shop At WAL*MART)”:

At first look, the systems specifications seem pretty meager, until you have a gander at the list of applications. Instead of utilizing applications on the computer locally, the gPC leverages online applications that are delivered via web browser, such as Google Docs and Spreadsheets. This is an absolutely brilliant idea. All you need is a fast internet connection (and a monitor) to use the computer.

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged, but this is too smart to pass up. You get a Mini-ITX computer running a derivative of Ubuntu that uses enlightenment window manager and is web-based (mostly Google). It also comes with Open Office, and the whole thing can use Ubuntu’s repositories. I’m going to be interested in finding out how well it sells at WalMart. I have a hunch gOS will outlast this Everex computer, even though it should be ideal for people looking for an entry-level box for their web lives they don’t intend to expand.