Openness.

This is another work-in-progress note.

The various governments of the so called Western world waffle on about  openness.

Some more than others but the general diatribe goes something like "One of the government's objectives is openness so that the people know what is going on and how we arrive at any given subject.". This means that what a given country's government do that directly or indirectly impact on the people they are supposedly representing will be done is a way that the people can see and what is happening regarding whatever it is that the governemt is concerned with or about. Now, I am very big on openness and open standards so I tend to try and keep up with such matters within my own  government and I urge you to do the same within your own as the definition of the word 'openness' is not what you think is it. This is especially true when defined by our governments.

A perfect example of this is with Internet blocklists. Blocklists are URL's that the are blocked by ISP's. In England this list is edited and held by a none government organisation called the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Anyone can send these none official people a URL that they find objectionable. This  request is then scrutinised and if found to hit some hidden definition it is then added to the blocklist which is then picked up by the various ISP's operating within the U.K. Not such a bad thing you may think and it would not be except for two things.

One) The IWF is not a government department. It consists of ordinary people who supposedly make decisions on what is and what is not a naughty URL based on both  what they have on their web site and also the personal tastes of the individual which cannot be avoided.

Two)  The blocklist created, edited and  held by the IWF cannot be seen by anyone outside of the ISP's administrators and those within the IWF itself. It is a hidden list of URL's that holds who knows what.

The first thing mentioned is not so bad until one thinks about it.

Program comparisons.

This is another of my work-in-progress notes.

Being an old Amiga head who now uses a Linux based operating system I can directly compare programs that where available for that most excellent operating system Amiga OS/Workbench and what comparatively is available for a Linux based operating system.

Sure, the Amiga OS programs would in most cases lack the sophistication of there Linux based alternatives but there are some  significant comparisons to be made and in some cases the AmigaOS programs come out on top as being the better program.

One area the Amiga OS programs come out on top is to do with sound. The Amiga had its own internal DSP, primitive as it was, it was, and still is, a powerful chip. This is one area that lets a Linux based OS down even though such powerful add-in cards as a Creative XFI can be added to the mix it is software, both drivers and audio programs where it is let down. On a Linux based OS there is a plethora of sound daemons. ALSA, OSS, Pulse Audio are the main ones then there is KDE's own ArtS and GNOME's own ESD. For my XFI sound card, at this time, OSS (via 4Front) is the only one that works with it. There  were no such issues on the Amiga as the OS itself took care of the details while programs such as the excellent OctoMED  took care of production.

Back when the Amiga was top dog of the computing world, certainly true for those of us who where more technology minded than the rest, we had powerful programs such as OctoMED to drive our audio bent. A comparison can be made between it and  such as Audacity and Ardour for a Linux based OS but they pale into insignificance to the power and ease of use OctoMED gave the user. Of course there where many other audio programs available for Amiga OS but OctoMED was the defacto standard on Amiga and rightly so.

The Amiga OS's Workbench, its GUI (Graphical User Interface), was another area where the Amiga shone. No other GUI for any platform has come close to the blazing speed it had nor its intuitive ease of use. Well, perhaps the ease of use cannot be used as something the Amiga excelled at as most GUI's created since those days follow on, or are catching up to, the Workbench in the ease of use area. But, the one thing that really made the Amiga shine was its pull down screens. One has to see it in operation to fully appreciate what pull down screens means as no GUI since the Amiga has done it as far as I am aware. We Linux based OS users have a desktop shell called by many names, KDE, GNOME, XFCE4,LXDE are just a few. We also have Desktop Managers that aid in the look and feel of the desktop. These types do not have the plethora of programs the full DTE's (DeskTop Environment) have.

At the end of the day I was and still am an Amiga Head so my view of that operating system may be slightly slewed but if it is then so be it. I will say it again. No operating system from the Microsoft world, the Linux based world or the Unix based world or even lesser know ones like the QNX desktop or BeOS. Of all those QNX comes the closest but even that one fails in some areas when ut up against the AmigaOS.

Windows V Linux

As I am stopping doing this I have decided to publish some work-in-progress notes. This being one of them.

I have seen Microsoft Windows 7, as it is currently dubbed, the other day as I installed in in a VM. What I saw did nothing for me that my operating system choice already does in a better way with less resources and has done for at least 2 years or more.

The Linux based platform has come a long long way since it first appeared. The kernel is now more robust than it ever was and the desktop much more user-freindly. The whole experience is quite simply much better than it was only a year or two ago.

I install many operating systems for people I know and for people of people I know who I don't know but now do and many friends and friends of friends etc. Then there are the installs for family added to the mix. Some have a preference for Microsoft  while some prefer a Linux distribution, others ask for a dual boot setup so they "can test the waters". What they mostly all want is something  "that just works for what I need to do" on the system they have and a Linux distribution fits that bill perfectly in 99% of cases.

In years gone by getting a Linux based operating system to play nice with some of the more estoic hardware available could be a challenge but as more and more hardware companies move away from proprietory software standards to a more open standards world this challenge has been almost eradicated. There still remains a stubborn pocket of hardware makers that are going against the flow but as more and more machines are installed with a Linux based operating system they will eventually wither and die away or join the growing band of hardware makers previous mentioned. Installing a Linux based operating system now is as easy, if not easier, than installing a Microsoft created operating system.

Microsoft still hold the top spot in users of their creations but not because of any other reason than they buy their way onto machines sold, thereby creating a false sense of people bying their flagship software operating system. Some call this the "Microsoft Tax". Myself just finds in an annoyance that is swiftly eradicated and replaced by something I call much better but that fact, of course, does not suit everybody and I now appreciate that fact. Another fact I now appreciate is that not everyone wants to rely on someone else to keep their machines running. Microsoft Windows, of any flavour, and a Linux distribution both need someone that knows what they are doing to help them get to grips with the operating system installed be it a Linux based one or a Microsoft based one. What I find now is more people want to become more self reliant in this area. Of course, there are, and probably always will be, some who cannot survive their operating system usage without someone  else who knows what is what and why something happens when it should not.

A Linux based operating system now can be set up in such a way as to keep both sides happy and in some cases can be setup so that it can automatically do everything itself, save for those who are most likely and determined to kill whatever is in front of them on their monitors

If you run a Microsoft based operating system or a Linux based operating system both have the option of running another operting system within their chosen one. These are called Virtual Managers. So. There is a way to run the opposite without the need of a dual boot setup or removing the installed operating system.

So, go on. If you run a Microsoft operating system or a Linux based operating system give the opposite one a go. There is now nothing stopping you installing one of the mainstream Linux based distributions, but remember it is not anything like MS Windows so all the brain washing that that has given you is useless. It is a new and slightly different way to get the same things done. As long as you remember that basic thing then you will enjoy the freedom it offers you.

The major difference between the two option is that of cost. Most Linux based distributions are free while all of Microsoft flavours cost anywhere between 80UKP and 400UKP. If cost bothers you then there can only be one choice. Go for it.

It is getting worse.

It is getting worse and with more and more MS Windows users taking up some flavour of a Linux distribution, usually one of the Ubuntu flavour, we are seeing more and more top posting in the Linux Usenet groups. If you are nterested in checking my statement then just take a look at the last few days in alt.os.linux.ubuntu (Google groups didn't used to take this particular group but I think recently they started taking it).

Things are made worse by google groups as those using it see that the text they are replying to is below where the cursor starts. They  see this and immediately start writing which is exactly how MS Outlook (and MS derivative of) does it without the quotefix patch that forces MS Outlook to do things properly by putting the cursor after the replied to text.

For us old time stalwarts of Usenet there is nothing worse than top posting. Nowadays, those using google groups to post to Usenet suffer the same fate as those top posters.

Google does not care one bit about such things. Many, including myself, have complained time and time again about how they are doing it but thus far we have all been ignored and it is not google themselves who suffer is it those using their services. Many thousands of long time Usenet users, like myself, simply block (commonly known as plonking) ALL google groups using post irregardless of what that post is about and irregarless of who posted it. Of course, there are some using google groups who post properly but because of the blanket googlegroups plonk many are doing those who try to do things correctly are caught in the dragnet.

Those using MS Outlook, and derivatives of it, and not using the quotefix patch mentioned above are also automatically put in the SHUT YA FACE bin.

Myself and many other long time Usenet using people use proper news readers that do things correctly and have thousands of options to cover every possible need when using Usenet so setting up blanket plonk rules is simple. Remember this, in abstract terms if you top post you score 9999 on the scale (0 - 10000). If you are using google groups you score 9999. If you use google groups and top post you score the full 10000. Both those scores of 9999 and 10000 mean PLONK. I and many others will never see what you post to Usenet.

Now you are aware consider what you are doing and correct your actions. Who knows, if you do that you may just find your way out of many peoples bozo bins. Maybe. Then again, maybe it is too late and no matter whether you correct your actions or not you will forever remain in that bozo bin.

For many of us Usenet died a long time ago when MS operating systems (OS) became the dominant desktop OS and those using it started their top posting habits. We still use it but the shine has rubbed of it. Now google with their google groups have infiltrated Usenet and brought along with it more top posing fools this made Usenet a dull place to visit. The blame lays firmly with possibly the two biggest companies on this earth.

The decline of "News" sites.

Back when the Internet was but a fledgling mini beast waiting to explode on everyone the so called News web sites that have no dead tree parent soon became apparent in the eyes and minds of those with a technological bent.

Some have long since disappeared but some of those that where at the begining or came along just after are still around. Some of those still around are the worse for wear while the rest plod along as happy and snappy as ever. Those that are the worse for wear are surely to go the way of the Dodo like many before them.

For me it is sad to see formerly glorious News web sites, of the more technical flavour, fail to attract what once was a loyal readership. It is easy from a reader point of view to see those that are failing. The web site displays less advertisements. The user comment sections lay relatively empty. The  forum, should they have one, sees less and less by way of posts.  Their News  stories get evermore boring and shorter and often offer less by way of journalism and more by way of sarcastic commentary. Their head honcho moves onto  something else, usually a competing offering. Those five things are the main things that signify when a News web site is dying. Another thing is they get less and less by way of worthy submissions. But then again many of these News  web sites carry articles by the same person using a multitude of monikers so this one is harder to spot.

A new breed of, usually, Web 2.0 enabled News web sites make some of the longer standing News web sites look by comparison old and jaded as if those in charge are fast running out of ideas. While I am not an overly impressed with this whole Web 2.0 thing one has to agree, even if you hate it as much as i do, that it does make for some better looking web sites.

So, it is with a heavy heart that, while not mentioning any names, I wave a fond farewell to the, apparently (based on the totally none scietific method mention above), soon to disappear Technology News web site i have  read for years.

And so it goes.

The Intenets hidden joke.

If there is one single web site that causes none Microsoft laden administrators, and some hardened Microsoft  administrators, to laugh out loud is is "Shields Up!" from grc.com.

The sheer scale of hyperbole on there aimed not at seasoned professionals but at the all American everyday common and garden Microsoft Windows users is simply stunning. Every facet of that web site is designed and created to scare the Hell out of  Microsoft Windows users. Take a look at  a snippet of text taken from within the "Shields Up!" process and you will see exactly what I see and that is pure unadulterated hyperbole.

"Solicited TCP Packets: RECEIVED (FAILED) — As detailed in the port report below, one or more of your system's ports actively responded to our deliberate attempts to establish a
connection. It is generally possible to increase your system's security by hiding it from the probes of potentially hostile hackers. Please see the details presented by the specific port links below, as well as the various resources on this site, and in our extremely helpful and active user  community." (any and all links removed to protect the innocent).

Now, I run a Usenet news service so of course 1 port is open otherwise noone would be able to connect to it and what is the use of a server if that be the case? So, that said I fail, with huge red banners proclaiming my failure. This is ridiculous but surely scares the uninitiated. If the average person sees something on a web site self proclaimed as the leader in all things security related says you failed the most basic of ping tests what are they going to do? Panic. That is what and that is what Mr Gibson wants them to do.

Some will say that the web site is not aimed at battle hardened administrators but that itself belies what the web site is all about and that after all is securing a connection. All over the site, which is designed in such a way as to scare people, he makes claims  and points out what people should do and some of that advice is plain wrong or if not wrong then ill-advised. As an example he states that to achieve true stealth mode one should disable pings. This is bad practice for anyone connected to the Internet be it via a router or a modem within a computer. A ping test ensures that the Internet runs  smoothly, by turning off pings it creates the illusion that there are huge black holes all over the place when in fact  the computer or router is sitting there connected to the Internet.

Hyperbole is what it is all about. The information a tools available should be taken and used with a large  dollop of salt. We seasoned and in some cases, mine included,  professionals know to ignore  the advice given. It would be better for the whole Internet is the web site did not exist but it does and while it does we will continue to laugh.

I suppose it serves a purpose for the paranoid but other than that I see no reason for its existence unless of course it is meant to be a joke in which case the joke is on us.

Be careful out there.

Yet another Windows worm.

As news spreads of yet another massively spreading Microsoft Windows worm infects every machine it comes into contact with via several different methods such as USB sticks is it not time that Microsoft realises it has lost this game of cat and mouse?

As I am sure some of the more technological mined people know not all the blame can be laid at Microsoft's door but just as certainly some of it can. Microsoft's unending quest for an operating system, rotten at its core, to be an ease of use operating system the  doors that remain in the kernel core and DLL files are just as culpable as the user-base of it.

The new worm wreaking havoc on Microsoft Windows machines is called Cornficker (also known as Downadup and possibly other names as well) is a case of same old same old as far as the worm code is concerned as apparently it is a rework on some much older worm code base. So, why are we subjected yet again to an estimated 3.5 million Microsoft Windows machines being infected with a variation on a theme worm such as this Cornficker is?

There is one main reason why the infection is so quick and prolific and that reason is the general population not installing critical updates that became available as lng ago as last November. So, the blame game surely points at users. Yes? Well, yes and no. Yes because when Microsoft declares something as critical it is worse than that. They have regularly claimed some patch or other as being severe when the world plus dog knows it to be a very very critical hole indeed so when Microsoft say some patch or other it is  critical then it is indeed very very deeply critical. No because if Microsoft did it right they would force ALL critical patches onto user machines and not even give the user a sniff about doing it either. There are those who claim such a  strategy as that is open to abuse and that anyway Microsoft can't do this without the express consent of the machines owner as it could fall foul of various Laws governing remote access, and more importantly changing files on a remote machine which could be classed as hacking,

But those who create such a fuss about a forced installed patch are surely missing the point. For every one of those who complain about such a thing tens of thousands of machine get infected to create yet another botnet on the back of Microsoft's operating system. I have long held that the vast majority of compromised machines are compromised because of user incompetence. When I have build a machine for someone and at their behest installed a Microsoft operating system one of the first things I do is turn on auto updates. If, as is invariably the case, the machine comes back "because it is running slower now" the very first thing I do is check that auto updates are still set to on. Then I check the the virus and malware programs are still being run and still set to auto update their definitions files. Invariably it is these three things that have been turned off due to them "being an annoyance". So, that is a clear case of user stupidity and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Microsoft may or may not have done.

So, in the end who should get the blame? Microsoft for not forcing such critical updates and patches onto people who know no better and also users for being stupd enough to turn off the very applications designed and installed to protect them from such things as this latest worm. Now, I have been building and using machines since before the very first IBM machines rolled into the general public view and, of course, I am acutely aware of user borne stupidity. For me though the blame lays half way between Microsoft and their users of.

One thing that is for sure over this latest mess is that once again Microsoft Windows, for all its stupid users, it shown to be the broken by design mess it really is.

The Internet experience.

Or  the Internet WEB experience as it stands today.

Being a staunch advocate of free software  tools (also known as FOSS) as I am I find it increasingly furstrating to see web pages the exclaim only Mircosoft 5.5 and above browsers can use this page and other such messages designed/created to help the user. Of course, that kind of help is no help and is simply caused because whoever created the web site was too lazy to design it properly using well established standards so that the web site works across all known browsers.

Then, of course, there are those designers that use closed source tools to design the web site with the associated lock-in those closed source tools have.

Too many companies hire Web developers who have never used any non-MS tools.  These people view W3C-compliant code as "nonstandard", and adamantly insist that Microsoft Malware Magnet is the One True Browser. That's the charitable interpretation.  I'm sure Microsoft never slips companies money or heavily-discounted software under the table in exchange for Web pages designed to look like crap on any browser that doesn't emulate MSIE's bugs, right?

Of course, what "Best viewed with MSIE 5.5 or higher" really means in
most cases is "I'm too lazy to test with any other browser."

Plus there are those designers that still use ActiveX controls within their web designs. ActiveX has been proven time and time again to be the single biggest hole in any browser ever but designers don't care about your security as long as they get paid for their creations.

I don't know how many web sites are left using such lock-in designs as it is would be almost impossible for me to seek each and every one out but I see enough of them during my daily web travels to know that some are old enough to have been created before Firefox and friends in the open source world came to be but there are some still being designed and it is those new ones that really have no excuse.

I lay the blame for all of these poorly designed web sites squarely on Microsoft.

Designing web site like this is a sure fire way to lose custom.

The Cloud

The Cloud is on-line software, otherwise known as SaaS (Software as a Service). Whatever your thoughts are on this subject mine are that it is the biggest pile of insecure twaddle ever to be invented.

I personally would never trust any company with what could conceivably be personal and sensitive documents. On-line storage for data is all well and good but a quick looked at the news web sites will reveal many of these places have been hacked at one point in time or another. Until such a time as they are impenetrably secure there is no way on this rotting Earth I would trust anyone with my personal documents. Even if they ever get the holy grail of being impenetrably secure I would still never use them.

Yahoo!, Amazon, Google are all involved in this. Thay all have their fingers, or should that be heads?, in the cloud. I cannot bring myself to trust any one of them. Google, Do no evil, are the worse offenders for collecting and storing all the personally identifiable information they can glean whenever you use their search service. Of course Google have much much more than search these days and whenever you use one of those Google services you give them more and more data about yourself. It is scary.

Microsoft, that peddler of the most insecure software, has recently started investing in suh services. This is the last company on Earth I would use. Their track record on security in their software operating system is abysmal at best and utterly shocking at worst. Why would any one think their track record in the could would be anything better? It will not be.

All these, and more, companies want you to use these services so that they can focre you to do away with computers that have storage. They are slowly moving towards that goal where you will no longer store files on a local machine but will instead have total reliance on the company in the cloud.

Let us not forget server outages. Once you are reliant on a given company and their servers disappear for hours, days on end (as recently happened at Amazon) then you are doomed as your company could lose millions because you cannot access the cloud.

Be you a company of a private citizen, trust this cloud at your peril. It will all end in acrimonious tears. Especially since Microsoft are now involved. Be afraid, be very afraid. You are dripping information about yourself all over the Internet. Until our collective governments grow a spine and stop this data mining then expect massive company or personal losses as one after another get breached and all data stolen. Before you realise it your clone somewhere in the world will have stolen everything you have.

Be scared. Be very very scared.

Distribution surfers.

A distribution surfer is a person who flits from whatever he/she was using to the perceived latest and greatest distribution, usually a different one It has nothing to do with the merit of. It has nothing to do with anything really except the fact that the new is distribution is...well...new.

We see it all to often in newsgroups and forums where a user has a problem with something not because that something created the problem but because the underlaying cause is the differences in approach to how their previous distribution did things. In the minds of these distribution surfers all distributions should be the same. But, the simple fact is there are almost as many differences in the underlay structures as there are distributions. Trying to get that simple thing across to them is difficult at best and damn near impossible at worse.

Taking as many newsgroups as I do and reading the many forums I do it soon becomes clear the names and on-line nicks that belong to a given distribution surfer. Take as an example Slackware, that venerable distribution that has for years defied the impending doom calls and Ubuntu. Slackware 12.1 came out just before Ubuntu 8.04 (which has recently morphed into 8.04.1). Looking around at the newsgroups when Slackware was released we saw a sudden increase in users, some of which held new names/tags/handles. Then Ubuntu came out and most of those new names disappeared and popped into view on the Ubuntu newsgroup as well as on Ubuntu's main forum. That defines perfectly what a distribution surfer is and what one does as each distribution releases a new version.

Slackware, Debian, Redhat (now Fedora for none business users) and to some extent SuSe and Mandriva (formerly Mandrake) have been around for years and years and are still as relevant in todays Linux distributions world as they where 10 or so years ago. Even though during all those years many other distributions have popped up and in some cases those newer ones have surpassed those older ones where take up by users is concerned. It is not that that is annoying though. It is those damned distribution surfers that annoy the jiggery out of us old timers. Why in the name of $DEITY will they not settle on one distribution and learn it properly?

It boggles the mind it does.

Slackware has rudimentary package management and does not do dependacy tracking, long may it stay that way. Debian does both but because of that has other problems, such as application or library conflicts. Redhat (Fedora), SuSe and Mandriva all do both but uses RPM, which, in Microsoft parlence, if you have ever suffered from a registry botch that stops your system from booting then you will know what RPM Hell means. Because Slackware is much more basic, adhering to the age old KISS principle it is less, much much less likely to be rendered unbootable unless the $USER of that box does something utterly stupid. Because of this simple fact Slackware will probably still be with us in 20 years from now.

If there is a good thing about all this it is that the surfer will invariably return to a good solid distribution eventually as their heads get mauled by the differences between them. But then, this brings its own annoyances such as when they come back they start shouting about how this distribution or that one has so and so so why doesn't this one?

Bloody distribution surfers should be banned from ever running a distribution if they move base more than 4 times in one year or if they are seen or heard to write or utter the words 'Distribution X has so and so, why doesn't distribution Y' once.

Microsoft

Am I the only person in the world that sees Bill Gates leaving Microsoft as a good thing?

To read the Internet news sites one would think all he did was good. It wasn't. He stole to get his first leg up which got him on the road to making his fortune. He never innovated. Ever. Instead he bought everything then put it into his operating system called Windows.

Every single part of Microsoft Windows, from DOS to Vista was bought, rebranded then incorporated into Windows. His latest Windows, Vista, brought nothing new to the operating system world either. The Areo interface that sucks the life out of the average machine is a copy of the Linux Compiz stack. The compiz stack was available for Linux users 2 years before Vista hit the shelves. Areo is a poorly done copy of it.

The UAC in Vista that irritates all but the simplist of users is a poor attempt at creating a 'sudo' like setup for Windows. i say poor because it is so badly done it is a joke. I will say it again. There is nothing new in Vista that Linux and MAC users haven't had available to them for years. In some cases 10 years.

Hopefully, when Windows 7 comes out that will be the final nail in the coffin. Vista is the start of the death knell. The rot has already started and Bll Gates leaving before the death bells toll should not surprise any one.

Bill Gates leaving Microsoft should be seen as a good thing. Not least because his stewardship of Microsoft was what made the company pervaisive in almost every market they bought into. Now he has gone there is no-one to take his place and no-one capable of holding the company together.

Do you?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Microsoft and security.

Don't laugh please at the back. I know that those are two words that do not go together in any meaningful way.

Still, for we Linux users it is amusing watching Microsoft (MS) continue to plug security holes in their
Operating Systems (OS) commonly known as Windows. As well as these security hole plugs they are doing other things in an effort to secure their OS's in other way, such as separating the administrator user from a normal user (something we Linux platform users have been doing for years) and trying desperately to ensure every system user abides by this rule. Sure WindowsXP had this option 7 or 8 years ago but with that particular OS it was easier for the user to by pass this and make their everyday user an administrator too. The users did this because they found entering their administrator password was a chore they were best without. Plus it stopped various programs, and the OS itself, from putting up nagging requesters which said things like "you do not have the privileges to do this operation" and other such.

According to this msn blog post IE8 will finally attempt to address the gaping security weakness called ActiveX. Not before time either. ActiveX is a known exploitable hole in MS's flagship browser that has seen many Windows users systems compromised many times. They apparently are going to do with ActiveX controls what Firefox has been doing for years. Firefox needs to do it because the userlaying OS it was created for, Linux, demands it works that way. MS browsers on the other hand are created for an OS platform that was built upon a single user system. Bolt on after bolt on after bolt on until the system is a mishmash of separate entities glued together, and only slightly held together at that, by the kernel.

MS have not been innovative in the OS arena ever. They have copied other OS's best features, rehashed it, so it sits within the OS, and inexplicably created security holes whilst doing so. Windows 95 was the "most secure Windows ever". Windows 2000 was the "most secure Windows ever", Windows Vista is the "most secure Windows ever" and so it goes, but in fact each incarnation of Windows while being more secure than the previous version were in fact as weak on security in reality than just about every alternative OS platform available.

MS tells its users, those unaware that alternatives exist or if they know alternatives exist then MS creates Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about that OS so that in the minds of those users MS Windows is secure, that Windows innovates in this area and that area when in reality they have never innovated on anything. Multiple users was not MS's idea. Fancy graphical displays, Aero, was not MS's idea. Securely encryped file systems was not MS's idea and so on.

99% of all viri are spread via MS's OS's. 94% of all spam emails originate via MS's OS's and so on. These are not my figures but figures provided by people who depend on this continuing so they can sell their product "to protect the customer" and other such rubbish. The real truth is that if MS's made their OS's secure in the first place, which they will never do because other software houses depend on Windows being insecure, there would be no need for these software houses product at all. MS had the chance to create from scratch a new OS with security as the foremost requirement after WindowsXP came out. It took them 7 years to create a new OS that was really just WindowsXP with a shiny new interface (Aero) and within those 7 years they paid mere lip service to security. Sure Vista is ever so slightly more secure than previous MS OS's but it did not go nearly far enough. It had the chance and it blew it. Now, with users more aware of the security threats out there that target MS systems MS are falling from grace. Sure they still dominate the OS market but that dominance is being attacked on all sides from alternative OS's that are secure at their very core. Another thing is that in their efforts to make the user aware of things happening on their systems they throw up requester warnings time and time and time again to the point of annoyance. This 'feature' can be turned off and most all savvy users do so but that in itself creates yet another security hole in the making.

MS flagship OS may not go away tomorrow but it is on the decline and it will stay on the decline until such a time as MS get rid of the current code base and start from scratch with a totally new OS that starts with security and builds on that. Even then I am not convinced MS will totally halt, let alone reverse, the current decline. Time will tell on that.

For what it is worth in this blog post I have been a Linux user since 1991 and in that time I have seen it grow and grow with real innovation after innovation but, and it hurts me to say this, I do not honestly think the Linux OS's are ready for prime time, even with the likes of Ubuntu suite of OS's and (open)SuSe creating a GUI that everyones grandmother could use. Well, the Linux OS's may be ready for prime time but I am not sure the (ex-)Windows users are ready for the Linux OS's simply because of how Linux works. In this i am thinking of the need to have a root user and a totally seperate user for everyday tasks. MS are trying to get Windows users to work in this manner without much success from what I have seen so I cannot see them liking how the Linux OS's do things even if, like Ubuntu and friends, they start abusing the sudo command. Sure, a relatively new thing called PolicyKit is gaining traction that alleviates things in this area so again, time will tell.

MS SP3 cockup.

Though they, MS and their army of blinkered followers, would like you to believe they issues where not caused by MS but by AMD CPU's (anyone remember WinTel?), an ASUS motherboard and a driver file that should not be there that is automatically run at boot-up. There are, apparently, some further combinations of setups out there that also trigger the bugs. More information of what causes the problems and how to fix those problems can be found here.

We have 2, out of 12, MS XP machines left dangling on our network. Our two elder boys need the MS platform for school work, but that may, nay should, change in the not too distant future as our council looks into cost savings in the council ancillary staff and educational budgets. Our two elder boys need vendor lock-in because of the limited foresight of previous councilors here. That and the fact the local council probably got a back hander or cheaper than normal goods from MS. However we arrive at the state of local schools IT the simple fact is that pupils and students need to purchase an expensive OS for home use so they can complete whatever work is set for their homework, but I digress.

So, imagine the dismay of several parents when their systems when into 'Reboot Hell'. People like me who fix such issues for people have been very busy these last days as the queue to have their machines fixed took me most of 1 14 hour day to fix and the fix itself takes roughly 2 minutes to do.

These sort of incidents highlights why vendor lock-in is bad. Bad for customers that is and yet they keep on using it. I have converted a few away from MS and a few came to me to have MS Vista removed for them and in most cases replaced with an OS that does not suffer from vendor lock-in.

No matter how MS spin this they are in the wrong for not having their setup program check for the CPU type and the driver file causing most of the SP3 issues. But, no. They are trying desparately to deflect the blame on others as usual.

Calling all Microsoft users.

And all Microsoft based businesses (Especially those in the U.K.).

Why not? There is a golden opportunity available today for those tied to, or those coming to the end of, contractual obligations. Even those willing to throw money away, money tied into long standing contracts, knowing their future operating system usage will come with no strings attached for years onwards, will come with no forced upgrade migration path mandated in contracts, towards the operating systems in use. To get ahead of the curve. Perhaps to even get ahead of your competitors and certainly to pass cost savings onto their customers. It is not just businesses that can get ahead either. There is much the home user can gain too.

What am I talking about? First, an explanation of why this is possible. I live in a world of Microsoft using friends. My work life is not much different except there I get to put out the word about the Linux platform (LP) and now and again, more often than you may think, get a job transferring systems from a Microsoft platform (MSP) one to a LP one. Here I am going to try and explain how I go about saving single user and multiuser setups a not inconsiderable mount of money.

The LP is not all shiny lights nor the Holy Grail some LP fans would like you to believe. Is it ready for the everyday desktop? Yes, but with some caveats. Is the LP a drop in replacement for an MS one? Yes, with some caveats. Can a MSP fan with 10 or more years make the switch to an LP one and find it easy to use? Yes, but with some caveats. Etc, etc, etc. And so it goes on. One thing that is certain is this: You will save money. There is not the learning curve some would like you to believe.

As someone who installs LP systems as part of my working life I can say with all honesty that the users best suited to it are first time users of a computer. With an LP installation they will fair much better than someone with 6 months or more, of MSP usage under their belt. I say this because while the MSP and LP operating systems offer much the same by way of applications that that is just about as far as it goes. The application names are different, the look and feel of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) is different, though not wildly. Scratch away the surface (GUI) and the two platforms start to differ dramatically. Unless configured otherwise a standard installation of an MSP allows the user to arbitrarily see almost all of the underlaying system and to delete, rename and replace some system files vital to the running of the system. MS Vista goes someway to limiting this sort of thing with it UAC sub-system. The LP allows users to see system files but the user cannot delete, rename or replace any of them without elevated privileges. In fact, one could say in this regard the two platforms are opposites of each other. However, it should not be difficult to see, even with that short and curt description, which of the two methods is the more secure.

Yes, I am aware the Vista MSP negates that scenerio as does a properly locked down XP MSP. But here the differences become more apparent because while using a default Vista MSP or a locked down XP MSP increases the inconvenience to the user, via the MS Vista UAC sub-system, under a LP there is no inconvenience. On an LP system the all powerful 'root' user can do anything it wants to, any file, though even this user can be limited and on a properly configured LP it should be. A user on the otherhand while limited in what he or she can delete, edit or rename will never feels inconvenienced as programs simply run and any work saved lives in the users home directory. A home directory over which the user has complete control.

In the cold light of day the two plaforms are like chalk and cheese, but are similar at the same time. While some users find using the LP after several years of MSP usage quite easy, your average everyday user with the same or similar usage time under his/her belt does not. Office type workers who do little more than email handling or document reading, editing and writing would not notice any difference between the two platforms as they never have the need to go deeper than surface level to do their work. They may notice the GUI looks different and the application used looks different, but with the menu system setup so the names of applications are more intuative, by that I mean more MSP-like, it would be work as normal.

So, that said. What about license costs? There is no comparable license type. One never buys an MSP, one buys a license to use it then if you need support they charge you more for it. An LP system can cost as much as nothing. Yes, really. One can download an LP, install it, use it forever and never pay anybody a single penny for using it. Where they often make money is in support of their operating system but even this can be negligible when compared to an MSP license. LP's like Redhat or SuSE make their monies in this fashion. But, by using someone like me these support costs can be minimal.

When asked to do so, and the number of those asking is growing all the time, I find out what the customer expects from an LP system, then what they want to do, then what programs they currently use to determine if a like for like, insomuch as they provide the same functions, alternative exists and if not a similar one exists, if neither are available then a suitable alternative that while not being an exact match the functions offered are the similar. This many involve several smaller programs that are bound together via scripts to function as one, is found. Once these areas are defined then I explain what I think is the best course of action for a given customer is. These processes can take several meetings, sit down and face to face or via telephone or even email, to be decided but the last one is when I offer my choice of solutions and if possible a live demonstration is performed during which a hands-on experience is offered. This, however, is not always possible. If it is not possible to offer this hands-on demonstration then I talk them through it. Sometimes with slides sometimes not. Each and every discussion is different and each tailored to that user or business.

The basic way I install an LP system is as follows.

I use a couple of setup CD's that I use for installation. Why CD's? Well, there are many systems out there that do not have a DVD drive. By using CD's I can install to systems with either a DVD or CD. But, if I had setup DVD's then I would be limiting myself to those systems with a DVD drive only. One auto installs the base system to the first hard drive it finds. Be it an IDE one or a SATA one with the IDE one having presedence. Once that is installed and working, and the customer has indicated exactly what he or she wants to allow his or her system to function within their environment then the other CD's are brought into play. Once this process is complete a period of familiarisations follows.

And in this short space that is about as much as can be said. A mere scratching of the surface. I will be filing this under several labels but if your interest has been peeked then the one to watch out for is Linux. Any further posts with the same intent will also be filed under Linux. My aim is to provide a series of loosely knitted posts with the same underlaying theme. I.E. Getting you to see an LP for what it is and how by replacing the current MSP you can save lots of money without removing your productiveness.

Oh and these posts will be trumpeting my own business :-) Why not eh?

OS security.

Here we have yet another meaningless report on operating system security.

Mac OSX was first to fall, then MS Vista leaving Ubuntu as last man standing. The whole thing was so ludicrous as to be utterly meaningless. From my own point of view it was good to see Ubuntu come out on top as the one the hackers, in the new meaning of the word, found uncrackable. But, in the real world on real installations I wonder just how much worth should be given to the whole shebang.

According to the report, Mac OSX web browser Safari was the first to fall then MS Vista fell via a third party program namely Adobe Flash. But as Adobe Flash is ubiquitous across all platforms surely it follows that Ubuntu would suffer the same exploit whicc in turn means Ubuntu fell at the same hurdle MS Vista fell. Perhaps not though <shrug>.

I take issue with the fact they always use Ubuntu and then claim Linux. Ubuntu is not Linux, it is but another distribution in a large pool of distributions. Some more secure than others at the core. Forget the fact for now that Linux is the kernel, nothing more, nothing less and it is what is added around the kernel, programs etc, that makes up the distribution which in this case is called Ubuntu. Ubuntu is one of those horrible distributions that adds all sorts of extra layers of code in the name of making things easier for the user. These extras make it more insecure.

MS Vista, in a default install, is secure. Yes, you heard that correctly. As much as I despise that operating system the truth is it is secure in its defualt state. It is when adding third party applications things start falling apart. One cannot blame Microsoft for what others do to their operating system. Indeed, in the report indicated above it was a third party application, Adobe Flash, that lead to MS Vista being declared second best secure operating system.

Mac OSX is an odd beast. It is a closed operating system which is based on a freely available operating system but is itself proprietary. However, applications created by others and compiled source code can be added to the mix. The fact it was Safari, a closed source application written and created by Apple employees is cause for alarm for users of this operating system.

Overall though, the article above was poorly done in my honest opinion. Not least because of how it was done but also the fact that by declaring one more secure than another in the way they did and how they arrived as that declaration leaves a lot to be desired.

So as someone who installs these operating systems for users and companies will I personally give much credence to this article? In short. No.

Open soucery.

Open source has become synonymous with free software which itself has become synonymous with the Linux operating system or more correctly, an operating system distribution based around the Linux kernel and GNU software. Phew, quite a mouthful eh? That mouthful can be said thusly GNU/Linux operating system. However, the whole modern idea behind open source software goes much deeper than this. In fact, it is my opinion that this commercialised way of looking at it is damaging to the whole ethos behind it. Let me try to explain my reasonings.

Many Microsoft Windows home based users do not even know there are free software alternatives for 99.9% of the programs they use. I mean freely available alternatives on their current Microsoft based platform not an alternative operating system though alternative operating systems do exist and do have software within them to match the proprietary ones they currently use. Just like the home market do not know likewise it is for businesses. Many home based computer users and businesses know they exist but are tied into expensive contractual agreements forbidding them to seek out and implement alternative solutions and many simply use the operating system that comes pre-bundled with the machine for no other reason than it gets the job done. There is nothing wrong with that. Many of the pre-built computers bought in to the home come pre-installed with a none free operating system and often come with many none free software choices. The none technical home user is none the wiser about free software alternatives being available such as those collections from theOpenDisc and others.

And so it goes. Upon this bundling of software on pre-built machines a foundation was built around vendor lock-in.

Then there those, like me, who with 30+ years in the computer industry under his belt has only ever paid and used on a personal level only 2 propriety operating systems in that time and has, and still does, pay for a GNU/Linux operating system that is otherwise freely available. Why do I pay for something I can get for free? Well, it comes down to ethics and my ethics dictate that as someone created the operating system I use he/she deserves some recompense for his time and expertise. Of those 2 proprietery ones, 1 was a UNIX operating system bought in the days before freely available clones came to market and the other was AmigaOS that came bundled with the Amiga range of computers.

Nowadays I use a Linux based distribution and many freely available open source softwares, some of which accept donations which if they do and the program is used often enough, I duly pay into.

So, what is the difference between freely available software an open source software and why is it so important that the distinction is made and kept alive?

A guy called Richard Stallman, he of GNU software fame, says it better than I can here. Even though I advise you to read it all the first paragraph says it all. He says "When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

For me, the GNU term is the correct ethically pleasing term. How you view open source software versus free software could be important to the future definition and acceptance of the term so it is vitally important to GNU softwares authors that you understand the differences being banded about by marketting teams. I hope in this short piece to have helped you in that goal.

I can't help laughing.

There is nothing, nothing at all, including the 'Aero Glass' UI that MS Vista includes that we users of the Linux platform haven't enjoyed for at least 2 years before MS Vista was released. Something else to laugh about is that for us users of the Linux platform our requirements to run the UI in all its flashy glory are much much lower than the flashy UI MS Vista has.

That 'Aero Glass' UI for MS Vista sure does suck up the power of a powerful graphics card or cards. Even a system using SLI struggles but for us users of the Linux Platform we get the same experience with an ancient Nvidia Geforce2. How can this be so? They, that is Microsoft, had 6 years to write MS Vista, okay they slung the whole lot in the bin and started over about 3 years ago but still the sheer amount of system resources it needs is disgusting.

Having been unfortunate enough to have used MS Vista I saw nothing within it that I couldn't have on my Linux platform workstation. To make any use of MS Vista one has to install 3rd party applications and 3rd party drivers, whereas almost everything comes with a basic install of a Linux distribution.

The more I hear about MS Vista the more content I become with my Linux platform workstation. Further, the more I hear about MS Vista Aero UI the more I laugh.

Comparisons?

I make no bones about the fact that I still consider the Amiga the best operating system ever devised. Even though I run a Linux based operating system on my main workstation I am forced by market economies to run that Linux based operating system. Even as Amiga OS 4, and the Ami-One, are available, sadly, they simply do not cut it for the day to day work I do now. So, I take, what in my opinion, is second best and use a Linux based platform, which does do everything and more I, and everyone else if they tried it, need to get done. Plus, I have my Amiga emulator to remind me of those glory days when technology truly was innovative.

Back in 1985-1995 the Amiga family of computers was at that time deemed by many to be the platform to have, use, play on and generally a must have machine.

Part of its magic and charm was the custom chips it had which came in 3 distinct combinations known as OCS (Original Chip Set), ECS (Enhanced Chip Set) and AGA (Advanced Chip Set). The chip sets where known affectionally as Agnus, Denise and Paula. Agnus was central to the whole thing. It controlled chip RAM (also known as graphics RAM) and two further graphic related components called the blitter and copper. Denise was the main graphics chip and also handled joystick and input devices. Paula was the audio chip but also controlled the floppy disk drive, the serial ports and analog joysticks. In a nutshell, those 3 surface mounted chips including the CPU itself, which was also surface mounted, those 3 chips combined to make what gave the Amiga its 'feel'.

In comparison, the IBM specification, universally known as IBM compatible PC (this term was later dropped and became known simply as the PC) for PC's used by many at that time was a mixture of largely incompatible cards that fitted together to form a computer. These cards covered graphics, audio, serial and parallel I/O, each a separate cards glued together with the CPU where at the time a pale comparison to the Amiga. Even the operating systems that ran on such hardware were utterly dire and outputted not much more than white text on a black background and even when colour graphics came to that platform it paled in comparison to what the Amiga could offer.

Back then of course IBM was a big player in computers. Much bigger than Commodore, which produced the Amiga. That, combined with lackluster management at Commodore saw the IBM compatible PC come to dominate the computer hardware market. Even when MS Windows 3.1 came to the market the Amiga operating system simply ran rings around it for sheer elegance. Some say even though the Amiga operating system is approximately 20 years old now it is still the best. The Amiga was derided because of its integrated surface mounted technology.

It is with great amusement that those of us privileged to have grownup, in computer terms, with such technology that today we are seeing a return to that combined surface mounted technology from the likes of AMD/ATI. While AMD/ATI are not yet in the process of combining graphics, audio and CPU on the same silicon slice, they are producing a graphics and CPU hybrid late 2008 or early 2009. It is surely only a matter of time before they add audio to the mix.

Then, once that happens, almost 20 years after the Amiga 1200 was released the computer hardware world will have come full circle.

And they call that progress?