Why I don't play games.

This is another  work-in-progress note.

Especially, online games. Less especially all and any type of game. I  have never owned a console, unless one can include under that banner the Amiga CD32 in which case that is the only one I have ever owned and that was so long ago too. Never since that time, during the 1980's, have I bothered with any of the consoles since. Why? Simply put. I don't play games and haven't since I sold my last Amiga in 2001.

Some of my friends say that the reason I don't play games is because of my choice of OS but that is easily  disregarded as my chosen platform has enough games for anyone. Others  say it is because I am getting on in years but if that was the case how come some of them who are the same, or similar, age as I am still play games? A few say my arthritic hands are not condusive to playing games but my arthritis crept up on me so why did I abandon games in the intervening years?

The real reason I don't play games is that as far as I can see they are all very similar with very very few new ideas. Almost all games nowadays have very little by way of game play instead they have lots of pretty pictures and rolling landscapes and involve lots of shooting of in-game robots or other players. I used to play lots of games back when I had my Amiga's (1986 - 2001) and since that time while games have got bigger and bigger requiring evermore hard drive space they have not got any better, in fact in my opinion they have got worse, with the game play aspect.

New to games these days is the advertising within games. Online games especially  are inundated with advertising. This to me detracts from the over all gaming experience and does absolutely nothing for the game itself and even less for the player of.

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.

This happens in life.

Bye bye.

I have enjoyed the experience but I can no longer be bothered. Replies are all but none existent and the emails that where coming thick and fast have all but died off.

This says to me that people are not interested in my ranting or observations so it seems the best thing to do is to go away and do something else which I surely will and am doing. I fully understand and have no animosity towards anyone for failing to amuse and/or entertain.

Actually, I feel like Microsoft may be feeling. That is it has been good but losing traction is not an option. Unlike Microsoft however, I an quiting while there is still a little interest. Microsoft on the other hand will flounder and splutter and eventually die away, a sad lonely business that once ruled the world.

Whatever, thanks for all the fish and goodbye.

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 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.

Will they ever learn?

With reports going around that the MOD's navy  ships  computers have been infected with a virus (or two or three) will these people ever learn? Our Royal Navy ships computers run Microsoft Windows. What flavour I do not know but in all probability it is either Windows XP or Windows Vista. Yes, I could research and find out but all we need to know is two words, Microsoft and Windows. Whether XP or Vista really makes no difference. Both are easily infected.

As the latest virus  calamity strolls around the Internet infecting any and all Microsoft Windows machines it finds it should speak loud and clear to anyone using one of those operating systems that the design of Microsoft Windows is flawed at its very core. And yet, we continue to read about some large and small companies being forced offline because their machines have been infected with whatever is the latest in a long and boring line of viri designed to flush out the flaws and very well they do it too as this reports shows.

So, our Navy runs a known broken operating system that has a track record of being blown wide open on so called none critical systems. Tell those poor sailors that their email is not critical! Seriously though, critical or not that fact that it is well documented is all they should need to have known and know they surely did which makes it all the more surprising that they took Microsoft's word (and probably back handers) on security is frightening.

Microsoft and its operating systems are a busted flush. If, and I doubt they ever will mange to do it, they can clean up their broken operating systems they may still be around in years to come. However, if they continue to follow the same path they have always followed and people see more and more of these virus riddled systems of some high profile company or government department stories circulate then I cannot see a world in years to come where Microsoft still dominates.

More and more countries the world over and leaving Microsoft behind it is about time our country does the same.

Linux bashing.

Over the last few days a few people on our closed news server have decided to have a go at Linux bashing. More accurately they have been having a go at me directly. As you know by now I am a staunch Linux advocate and live in a world of mostly illegally obtained MS Windows using people. Every now and again their ignorance of what Linux is shines through and they start taking potshots at me whenever I give an opposite viewpoint to their closed mindsets.

First let me dispel the myth that Linux is, well, Linux. Linux is only the kernel. The rest of the programs and utilities that make up the desktop are correctly termed a Linux Distribution or GNU/Linux  distribution. So, comments such as "Linux  sucks" means nothing when discussing the Linux on the desktop as the kernel is only a very small, but important, part of it. And so, these few antagonist that know i am a staunch advocate of all distributions  always get these descriptions of what is what and what part of the whole experience is what always fail in their attempts to rile me. They fail simply due to their wrong calls of what is correctly called what on the whole distribution.

Is it ignorance that makes them have a go at anyone who does not signup to the closed world that Microsoft has created? Or is it because they are incapable of moving away from the handholding that is a Microsoft Operating System? Or perhaps they have never used a modern  Linux based distribution and have their views on it based off an attampt a few years ago?

A modern Linux Distribution has all the bells and whistles that a Microsoft OS has. We lack some of the more recent games but for someone like myself who has not bothered about games since I sold off all my Amiga gear years ago this is not a problem. But those antagonist cannot understand a mindset like that. In an office or   corperate  environment where games are the last thing employees should be playing there is no problem either. Well, no problem beyond the closed mindsets that prevade amongst the directors who know next to nothing about how ANY operating systems. Those kind of people buy a computer from PCWORLD or DELL or HP  that almost certainly comes with an added tax and a Microsoft Windows install and they  do not know alternatives exist that can do everything their pre-bought OS can do without the hidden costs involved and without the OS calling home every few minutes passing the users personal information to Microsoft.

Those antagonists can say whatever they want to say about me and about my chosen OS platform I have not been bothered about such comments for years so while they may think they are clever all they are doing, to me anyway, is showing a total lack of understanding. That is their problem not mine. I cannot remember the last time I bought some hardware or gadget that was not plug in and use on my Linux based OS so while they want to shill for microsoft I sit comfortably knowing that the chances of my Linux based OS getting riddled with Viri and malware or any of the nasties that crawl around the Internet looking for MS Windows hosts are next to nil, while they use all manner of  Microsoft  written tools or 3rd party tools that slow their machines down in their attempts to stop those same nasties invading their machines.

All I do nowadays is laugh at them. Their closed mindsets are their problem not mine. I may from time to time have a go at defending both myself, because of my use of, and the OS of my choosing. They have no idea how pervasive a Linux based OS of some kind is installed in a lot of hardware  that people have around the house. It is not just computers, it is in  mobile phones, in freezers/refrigerators, DVR'ss, PVR's,  washing machines, motorcars. It is everywhere and once these few  dinosaurs realise  this then they will be enlightened as to the power of my chosen platform. Maybe.

Microsoft on the desktop is not going to disappear overnight but its whole business ethic and business model does not sit well in the modern world of open standards. As a company it is a  dinosaur and just like them it will surely, eventually, disappear. As for my personal antagonists well, they are a lost cause I  think so I will leave them to think they have won.

Microsft versus Linux

Or more correctly, a Linux based distribution.

As Microsoft's stranglehold on both operating system installs and bundled installs falls we always see a rise in anti-Linux propaganda. This manifests itself across the full spectrum of user access which includes, Usenet, Web based forums and other media. It is tempting to think of these anti-Linux  protagonists as simple Microsoft shills who are paid by Microsoft to propagate as much propaganda as they can across the wide Internet, but, I do not think of that as while it is possible I do not think it true.

No. The problem comes when people try a Linux based distribution and automatically think in Microsoft Windows terms without realising the years, in some cased, of Microsoft Windows learning helps nobody when moving to a Linux based distribution. For a start, a Linux based distribution, of which there are many, is a real operating system designed from the ground up to be secure and multi-user. Microsoft Windows on the other hand is a mass of added on later bits and pieces who primery aim is ease of use. This ease of use forgoes the security that a Linux based operating system was designed around. Sure, there are many other differences, as well as many similarities, but to expect to move across platform and carry across all the baggage one learnt is simply madness.

Whenever I have recommended people move away from the  corporate craziness that signifies a closed source operating system, such as one from Microsoft, to the  standards compliant world, and open systems, that signify a Linux based platform one of the first things I install into them is that it is basically nothing at all like Microsoft Windows and to expect something totally new. The second thing i instill into their minds is to think and work in different ways than they may have worked for years. Lastly, I instill into them that what they will experience is a whole new world.

Some make it, some do not. More and more are making the switch and more and more are  enjoying it. And it is that which is now, more than ever before, frightening Microsoft and the Microsoft loving harcore who cannot handle, nor comprehend, why more and more people and businesses are moving away to a better world that makes up the whole open system that is the Linux based platform and it is those who   spread the FUD we see all over the Internet.

1975 to present day.

Is the length of time I have been working with computers. I present to you a potted history of my computer usage for no other reason than I want to.

It all started for me one not so sunny September morning during 1975 when I was asked if I wanted to join the schools RADAR department. At the time I knew nothing whatsoever about computers and about the same for what the school was doing with a RADAR department. But, have one they did. It sat on the very top of the school and while small space wise was crammed full of computer equipment.

Since the rude awakening to all things computer related I have come a long way. My first real self owned  computer was a Commodore PET which my mother paid an arm and a leg for. My first IBM compatible PC was bought for a not inconsiderable sum during 1981. The vast majority of personal computers I owned over time where Commodore based. The PET, C64, C128, CPlus4 and the entire Amiga range. These were interspered  with IBM compatibles. Over those years I have used just about every OS that became available. From AmigaOS 1.0  through to  3.5 (at which point I never bought any more Amiga hard or software) to MSDOS 1.0 to MS Vista. Currently my OS of choice is a flavour of Linux.

Nowdays since giving up on my beloved Amiga's I build all my own PC's and some of friends and family too. I also set up networks for      companies as well as either install a Linux based OS or ensure they have the required licences for a Microsoft OS and associated programs.
 
Out of all the hardware I have bought over the years and all the OS's I have used my favourite remains, and is unlikely to be surpassed, Amiga OS and the Amiga 3000 tower.

During this time I have taught myself almost every programming language known to man. Of course, some were consigned to the dustbin of computer use a long time ago and some are now fragmented in my head. Today I primarily code in C, Python, Ruby and BASIC. Don't laugh at the last one as it was the first programming language I ever used and still have a place in todays programming world.

I have to say that since those humble beginnings things, and myself, have come a long long way and not all of it for the good either.

Ah, there is nothing better than blowing ones own trumpet. After all, who else is going to it for me?

Operating System market share?

Does anyone really care about OS market share? We Linux based OS users are generally the more informed types. We know why we prefer to be rid of a closed source OS and we know why Microsoft are seen as the devils own company due to being more informed about OS's in general. So while the latest bilge from market research company Net Applications says that Microsoft has an install based of some 89.6%, the MAC OS/X has 8.9% while, presumably because it is not directly mentioned, a Linux based OS has the remaining 1.5%. Okay, there are more than 3 OS's in use so that 1.5% is probably lower still but, there are a few problems with how these numbers are collated and counted.

First, how the data that determines the percentages is open to  question and interpretation so they are not in any way shape or form reliable. Second, because the Linux based OS are not, in the main, sold in computer shops like machines with MS Windows and MAC OS/X pre-installed it is notoriously difficult to keep anything approaching a reliable count of installs. The same also applies if they use the web browsers identification string to count install bases  and web browser take up as many web sites have broken HTML code implementations so many Linux based OS users fake that string to fool the broken web site into thinking that the browser is running on a Microsoft platform.

I have no real idea of what the real percentage counts should be but I do know there are many second and third, fourth,, fifth etc install bases that are Linux based with only the primary machine being the Microsoft based one because the owners of like to play games that are not available for the Linux based platform. Further, there are many machines that act as a firewall built on the Linux based platform that will not be included when collating such data. Other Linux based installs act as file and print servers, these would not be counted either.

Without falling into advocacy mode it is not hard to work out that there are many more Linux based OS installs than any such data gathering exercise could ever hope to evaluate in a fair and none bias manner.

All in all. Such data should be taken with a large dose of salt and as long as one is aware of why that should be so then we can be assured such data is largely ignored for the fodder that it really is.

People in high places.

People in high places, in this case Mr Ashley Highfield (okay, maybe not so high as in the publics view), should never offer up their views as there is always someone, somewhere who can spot bullshit when seen. And so it is with his BBC article on their blog, that isn't a blog, here.

In that article he tries to compare Ubuntu and MS Windows XP. I say try because anyone who tries, or has tried, to do exactly the same they always fall into the same traps. The single biggest trap is to directly compare any Linux based distribution with any Microsoft OS because they are not the same for what should be obvious reasons.

Further, they always do the comparison with MS Windows as the benchmark which means that the Linux based  distribution is at an immediate disadvantage. How so? Well,  hardware manufacturers almost always code a driver for their hardware and that driver is almost always MS Windows based. All the various Linux based distributions play catch up in this area so it is never a surprise to those of us who use  a Linux based distribution and have used one since 1992.

So, right there is the first problem.  Other problems are with 3rd party add on software such as Skype. Skype was written first and foremost for the MS  Windows platform and later they cobbled together something for  that ran on Linux. This puts the Linux  flavour of Skype at an immediate disadvantage again.

Here we have someone who by his own words played with ubuntu. He never said he was serious about installing and using it. These two points are not as far apart as they may seem at first glance. He then starts to blame Ubuntu for problems that have nothing to do with the Linux based solution but are in fact down to the web site designers blocking out, or at best a semi-functional web site, the millions of users of the Linux platform.

People such as he should know better but once again we read someone who has not the faintest clue espousing on something he knows nothing about. It is maddening for us advocates to have to read such rubbish.

Stupid, inane and utterly purile.

Is how I see articles such as this from the BBC. No-one can argue with the fact that the Microsoft family of operating systems dominate the desktop but do we really need the near on worshiping proffered in that article? The BBC, in that article, has clearly moved from a review to advertisment in clear breech of their own ethics standards. I make no bones about the fact that I pimp a Linux based operating system at any and all times to anyone willing to listen so when I read that link the red light in my head came on. It is so wrong on so many levels is ceases to be funny how the BBC continually cow-tow to Microsoft at every opertunity as well as spending unknown millions of the U.K. peoples monies ponied up via the license fee on Microsoft operating systems when instead they could save millions by using an alternative like a Linux or UNIX based operating system.

When reading any article on the BBC that has any level of technological bent one can be assured of a giggle or two as the wrter clearly has no real clue about that which he/she is writing about. Many, almost classical, gems have come via the keyboard of the BBC's computer technology writers. The gems may go down well with your average Joe and Jane but for us who are more technologically gifted (having been around computers since 1974 and having had my own at home since 1980 I have picked up a few things like the correct terminology to use. This level of competence utterly fails as far as the vast majority of BBC technology writers go). Without fail, time and time again the authors show their complete lack of technological expertise. How these people get jobs on such a high profile web based news outlet only those who employ them really know. For such as myself I cannot figure it out.

In that article above there is no mention of how Microsoft the company is a tried and convicted criminal. Nor how Microsoft effectively stole their first release of MSDOS all those years ago. Nor how they reneged on deal after deal in their quest for desktop domination. Nor how release after release of each and every one of their operating systems has contained bits and pieces that where assimilated, reworked, then spat out to become part of the Microsoft operating system of the time. Nor how they made deals with hardware manufactures to ensure that Microsoft Windows  demanded ever better  computers on which it ran. Thereby giving both the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft much revenue in clear breech of anti-competitive laws around the world. Microsoft has been proven to have  done much harm during their tenure as the premier operating system creator. Microsoft have  done much wrong and broken many laws around the world over the last 15 or so years and in many parts of the world are now paying the price for those wrongdoings. In some parts of the world Microsoft is losing its formerly powerful grip on the desktop as Goverment after Goverment the world over tells their people to use alternatives such as a Linux based operating system and within the walls of power in those countries there too they are using a Linux based operating system.

None of that was mentioned in that article though. Oh no. Not a word of it as the BBC once again laid its belly bare for all to see as Microsoft tickled its soft underside.

Being as I am a staunch advocate of free standards and the Linux based operating system I see Microsoft as the daemon company that it is. Is it really too much to ask that the BBC editors do the same or at the very least tell it like it is. All the information about Microsoft practases is out there on the Internet so once again the BBC has no excuses. In this, and many other instances, the BBC has shown who is the tail and who is the dog.

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.

Directory versus folder

It is directory. A folder is a directory. Always has been.

While taking in my daily dose of Usenet, I came upon this quote.

"Unfortunately, Linux does have its share of obtuse terms that take ordinary terms and applies them in its own peculiar way to its system."

Now, think about that for a second or two and cast your mind back a few years. Before MS rehashed everything standard names for files and directories was the norm. Along came Microsoft and a whole swathe of familier names for files, directories, text files etc suddenly became files, folders, documents all stored under something called My Documents. Some operating systems however still use the old familiar names. In fact, only Microsoft stands out as being the one who decided renaming was a necessity. Of course it isn't but then we are talking about Microsoft who are renown for making standard terms their own to the detriment of everyone else.

Pre MS = Directory
MS WIndows = Folder
Linux = directorydirectorty

Pre MS = text file or word processor file etc
MS Windows = Documents (catch all)
Linux = Text file, word processor file etc

My pre Linux and BSD days was dominated by the lovely AmigaOS which gave the various files and directories their proper names as Linux and BSD do to this day. Then along came Microsoft with their assimilate method of business during which they started changing all the standard file names, directories and common use words and phrases the computer world has used since computers first came to be. The Linux platform still uses all of these common names, words and phrases but MS systems and Microsoft themselves do not, did not and probably never will.

This has lead to a dearth of users coming into the world of the Linux platform and being mystified by name changes. They see this as fault in the Linux platform when in fact the fault lays with years of brainwashing done by Microsoft with their own changes. Nobody is ever born with the knowledge to use a computer operating system. Each one must be learnt of taught. Only then will full enlghtenment behold the user. But when people come from the Microsoft world into the Linux based one they immediately assume all names should be the same as they are under the Microsoft operating system. This of course leads to the now becoming all to familiar cries of "I can't find this and that". Blame Microsoft, not the Linux platform which still calls a spade a spade, unlike Microsoft who calls a spade a shovel.

Here is what someone said to me on this subject not so long ago.

"I used to know what a file is, until Windows came around and gave directories little "file" icons and changed the name to "folder", which sounds too much like "file" for my taste. Files are now called "documents", even though many files aren't documents at all. So Windows is the obtuse one. I'm glad to be back where things are given their proper names, rather than make-believe names that confuse things by making them seem like things that they really aren't."

And that just about sums it up.