Anybody who uses a PC frequently will eventually come across a problem task they would rather automate or just don't have the software tools to do. Ubuntu has a number of programming languages and tools already pre-installed or ready to install for free from the Software Centre.
For languages like Python which is pre-installed, all you need to get started is a text editor like gedit. Which is also pre-installed. And there are loads of free tutorials and advice on-line to help total beginners and experts alike.
Bad Python Programmer: Functions: #!/usr/bin/env python # Functions allow us to include code in our programs that will only run when # explicitly called and can be reused....
Showing posts with label Ubuntu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ubuntu. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Monday, 9 February 2015
Ubuntu Tip: GoPro and exFAT
Previously I have described how Ubuntu users can connect to their GoPro cameras over a WiFi network. I also noted that Ubuntu didn't seem to like the 64GB SD cards. Well it seems they are formatted to the exFAT file system. Which means we can fix this problem with one simple command.
All we need to do is open a terminal with Ctrl+Alt+t and install a few packages with the following command. Enter your password when prompted.
You're Ubuntu PC should now be able to read exFAT formatted SD cards. If it can't read them right away. Try rebooting.
All we need to do is open a terminal with Ctrl+Alt+t and install a few packages with the following command. Enter your password when prompted.
sudo apt-get -y install exfat-utils exfat-fuse
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Users Don't Know What They Want
I was reading this article which quoted a comment by Richard Hughes. "User don't know what they want". Well excuse me for being to retarded to write an advanced GUI desktop on my own. But I can choose what to eat for breakfast in the morning. I manage to dress myself. Go out to work. Make it through the day and get home safely. All on my own.
When I bought my current PC. A Dell Dimension XPS 700. I did that on my own as well. I even paid for it. With a credit card. When I decided to make the move to GNU/Linux full time. I decided on my own to do it in stages. The first thing was selecting a GNU/Linux distribution. I experimented with Fedora and openSuSE. Then discovered Ubuntu. Now since I was using the hybrid hardware/software RAID array built into the 700 series system board the installation of a Linux based OS back then wasn't straightforward. Dmraid wasn't installed or configured by default on any of the distros I tried. And that's actually part of what drove my decision to go with Ubuntu.
Being stupid, I couldn't get dmraid working in either Fedora or openSuSE. Both distros use RPMs. Back then RPM hell was a term many people came to know. Basically there were dependency issues. Ubuntu with it's debs was better organised. No dependency issues. Although configuration was still a problem. But with a little research into the Ubuntu documentation I found what I needed to get it all up and running. Which meant I could now dual boot. Until that point I had been boot Linux from a USB drive.
So I'm not smart enough to write my own version of Gnome. I am smart enough though to know how to problem solve. How to make decisions. I know what works for me and what doesn't. Windows XP with all it's issues and problems wasn't working for me any more. So I made the sensible decision to find an alternative. What do you think I'll do now that Gnome doesn't do the things I want it to do? Maybe I'll find an alternative. It would seem to be the sensible thing to do.
When ever a software developer, a programmer makes a comment like "users don't know what they want". It's a clear sign something is going very wrong in that software project. Which reminds me of another comment I read once in a article. Linus Torvalds once said something like "he who writes the code gets to decide". Meaning ultimately programmers participating in free open source software projects are the ones who decide which features to include and which features to drop. Which is fine. Until that is the software you are writing targets a user group beyond other programmers. And that's what desktop environments do.
Kernel developers like Linus Torvalds have a certain luxury of rarely having to interact with desktop users. The concerns of the desktop user are rarely the concerns of the kernel developers. In a sense what kernel developers do is invisible to desktop users. So we desktop users don't complain very often when they drop or replace features. Desktop developers however don't have that luxury. As Canonical/Ubuntu and KDE found out. Gnome should be learning lessons from these two groups.
When KDE 4.x series was released there was uproar. The majority of users hated it. Some of there anger was squarely targeted at being hit with the unfamiliar. The very same issue we have to overcome to get people to use a GNU/Linux based OS in the first place. Anybody would think we'd know better. Right? A lot of the anger however was squarely down to the fact KDE had changed things too much. Now so far as I know, KDE developers aren't known for being polite about people who criticise their work. But after all the bitching was done they knuckled down and started fixing the things people were complaining about. As a result KDE is now a more pleasant desktop environment to use with some pretty cool features. Everybody's a winner!
Canonical has experienced similar anger spat in their direction for daring to force Unity on it's user base. Unity started life as the interface to Ubuntu Netbook Remix. And it's not hard to see why Canonical would think Unity would work well on a netbook. Small displays means you have to be economical with the display. Low powered CPUs meant not much was being done by way of multitasking. But on a desktop? These just aren't considerations that are any where near the top of the list of all the things to be considered. However Canonical would not be deterred. It rolled out Unity.
Most people say Unity was rolled out too soon. It wasn't finished. And indeed they say the same of Gnome Shell. Rather than bitching or insulting it's user base though, Canonical it seems would rather just make Unity better. 11.04 delivered a stale turd of a GUI. With 11.10 Unity was now running atop the new and improved Gnome 3.x. They fixed some of the annoyances. Made the dash useful. 12.04 will focus more on stability and polish. Basically KDE and Canonical listened to their user base. And because they listened they could fix the problems that were pissing people off.
Listening and understanding users is the most important thing a developer working in the user space can do. If your not writing software people want to use then your playing to an empty house. I'd hate to see the Gnome Foundation playing to an empty house. Gnome has been good to me over the years. It's been relatively hassle free. Simple and easy to use and configure. It's developers need to respect the users and listen to what they are telling them.
It would be a shame to see Gnome implode and be crushed by the weight of it's own foot print. There are plenty of alternatives. LXDE, XFCE, KDE and Unity to name but a few.
When I bought my current PC. A Dell Dimension XPS 700. I did that on my own as well. I even paid for it. With a credit card. When I decided to make the move to GNU/Linux full time. I decided on my own to do it in stages. The first thing was selecting a GNU/Linux distribution. I experimented with Fedora and openSuSE. Then discovered Ubuntu. Now since I was using the hybrid hardware/software RAID array built into the 700 series system board the installation of a Linux based OS back then wasn't straightforward. Dmraid wasn't installed or configured by default on any of the distros I tried. And that's actually part of what drove my decision to go with Ubuntu.
Being stupid, I couldn't get dmraid working in either Fedora or openSuSE. Both distros use RPMs. Back then RPM hell was a term many people came to know. Basically there were dependency issues. Ubuntu with it's debs was better organised. No dependency issues. Although configuration was still a problem. But with a little research into the Ubuntu documentation I found what I needed to get it all up and running. Which meant I could now dual boot. Until that point I had been boot Linux from a USB drive.
So I'm not smart enough to write my own version of Gnome. I am smart enough though to know how to problem solve. How to make decisions. I know what works for me and what doesn't. Windows XP with all it's issues and problems wasn't working for me any more. So I made the sensible decision to find an alternative. What do you think I'll do now that Gnome doesn't do the things I want it to do? Maybe I'll find an alternative. It would seem to be the sensible thing to do.
When ever a software developer, a programmer makes a comment like "users don't know what they want". It's a clear sign something is going very wrong in that software project. Which reminds me of another comment I read once in a article. Linus Torvalds once said something like "he who writes the code gets to decide". Meaning ultimately programmers participating in free open source software projects are the ones who decide which features to include and which features to drop. Which is fine. Until that is the software you are writing targets a user group beyond other programmers. And that's what desktop environments do.
Kernel developers like Linus Torvalds have a certain luxury of rarely having to interact with desktop users. The concerns of the desktop user are rarely the concerns of the kernel developers. In a sense what kernel developers do is invisible to desktop users. So we desktop users don't complain very often when they drop or replace features. Desktop developers however don't have that luxury. As Canonical/Ubuntu and KDE found out. Gnome should be learning lessons from these two groups.
When KDE 4.x series was released there was uproar. The majority of users hated it. Some of there anger was squarely targeted at being hit with the unfamiliar. The very same issue we have to overcome to get people to use a GNU/Linux based OS in the first place. Anybody would think we'd know better. Right? A lot of the anger however was squarely down to the fact KDE had changed things too much. Now so far as I know, KDE developers aren't known for being polite about people who criticise their work. But after all the bitching was done they knuckled down and started fixing the things people were complaining about. As a result KDE is now a more pleasant desktop environment to use with some pretty cool features. Everybody's a winner!
Canonical has experienced similar anger spat in their direction for daring to force Unity on it's user base. Unity started life as the interface to Ubuntu Netbook Remix. And it's not hard to see why Canonical would think Unity would work well on a netbook. Small displays means you have to be economical with the display. Low powered CPUs meant not much was being done by way of multitasking. But on a desktop? These just aren't considerations that are any where near the top of the list of all the things to be considered. However Canonical would not be deterred. It rolled out Unity.
Most people say Unity was rolled out too soon. It wasn't finished. And indeed they say the same of Gnome Shell. Rather than bitching or insulting it's user base though, Canonical it seems would rather just make Unity better. 11.04 delivered a stale turd of a GUI. With 11.10 Unity was now running atop the new and improved Gnome 3.x. They fixed some of the annoyances. Made the dash useful. 12.04 will focus more on stability and polish. Basically KDE and Canonical listened to their user base. And because they listened they could fix the problems that were pissing people off.
Listening and understanding users is the most important thing a developer working in the user space can do. If your not writing software people want to use then your playing to an empty house. I'd hate to see the Gnome Foundation playing to an empty house. Gnome has been good to me over the years. It's been relatively hassle free. Simple and easy to use and configure. It's developers need to respect the users and listen to what they are telling them.
It would be a shame to see Gnome implode and be crushed by the weight of it's own foot print. There are plenty of alternatives. LXDE, XFCE, KDE and Unity to name but a few.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
File Sharing Options In Ubuntu
Since October was my last post on this blog I thought it was about time I posted something at least somewhat useful. As someone who owns several PCs something that interests me is networking those PCs together so that they may share files and common resources. This is actually something many people struggle with all the time. For those who can't solve the problem they may resort to cumbersome methods like using USB sticks. So what are the file sharing options available to Ubuntu users?
Well as I've just mentioned, you can use USB sticks. It's a reliable method guaranteed to work. It is not however terribly efficient. The next option involves networking and there are 3 main ways to share files over a network in Ubuntu. We have Samba, which is an implementation of Microsoft's networking protocols for Windows. Next we have NFS which is commonly used in most POSIX compliant OS's. The third and final option in the "cloud".
Samba
Samba is great. When it works. Not only does it allow other Linux machines to share files and other resources like printers. It also allows both Linux and Windows machines to share the same resources on the same network. Which is great. When it works.
And that is the biggest con for me when it comes to Samba. Not only did the Samba developers succeed in developing software that could network both Linux and Windows PCs together on the same network using Microsoft's SMB protocols. They also succeeded in reproducing the reliability of Microsoft's networking protocols. It could just be my incompetence. But frankly I've never been able to get a home network to actually work reliably with Windows and Samba has never work consistently and reliably for me in Ubuntu either.
I will however concede that there are many people who do appear to have Samba working just fine. Another advantage is that shares are dynamic and browse-able. By that I mean a new share will appear on the network as they are made available.
So Samba is flexible but not reliable.
NFS
NFS or Network File System on the surface looks a bit scary. Setting it up requires using something called the "terminal" and editing "configuration files" with "root privileges"! For the purposes of a home network based on Ubuntu machines it's actually very simple. Install 3 packages and reboot the PC. Then you can start sharing stuff. Which is where you need to start editing files. Well actually you don't.
Ubuntu has a GUI that lets you select shares for either NFS or Samba. It can be found in System>Administration>Shared Folders. In the case of NFS this will create all the entries in the /etc/exports file for you. All you need do is supply the basic information. The folder to be shared and the clients (other PC's) who have access to it. Editing the /etc/exports file directly does however give more flexibility and certainly isn't something any home user should shy away from. Simply make a copy of the original file. That way if you screw things up, it's easy to fix.
One of the biggest draw backs for me using NFS is that it's static or not browse-able. At least as of yet I haven't found a way to browse through a PC's NFS shares. Each and every share on the network needs to be "mounted" manually or via the fstab file for automatic mounting at boot time. Which can be inconvenient if you can't remember the exact name of the share. I also haven't yet figured out how to share a printer with NFS. If it's even possible.
NFS server and client software is available for Windows. However I've never used it and therefore can't vouch for it.
So NFS is reliable but inflexible.
The Cloud Services
There are at least two "cloud" based file sharing services that spring to mind when it comes to Ubuntu. The first is Canonical's own service. Ubuntu One. This is installed by default in Ubuntu 10.10 as part of Canonical's "social from the start" initiative. You do however still need to create a user account.
The other service and probably more popular service is DropBox. DropBox is the more mature and better established of the two services. Which means more of the bugs have been ironed out. I've used both services and DropBox is definitely my choice for the moment.
The thing that interests me most about these services is the ability to share files securely wherever there is an Internet connection. Not only do they share files but they synchronise them as well. Which means the latest version of a document should always be available. There is a significant limitation however. Cost!
Unlike using Samba or NFS to share resources on a home network using a cloud service limits the amount of data you can share at any given time. That's because the cloud services operate by copying the files to an on-line storage space and then to each client. This on-line storage needs to be paid for by someone.
Users do however get some free storage space. With DropBox it's 2GB and with Ubuntu One it was 1GB when I tried it. Which in today's world of massive MP3 libraries, digital photos and perfectly legally ripped DVDs isn't much. Once you've reached your reached the limits of your on-line storage capacity you must move files out of the shared space or pay up actual real money for more space. On a monthly or annual basis. Which means you're actually paying good money to access your own files.
On the plus side however these services do tend to "just work". Which is why they are popular and why people are actually prepared to shell out money to get that extra storage capacity. Cloud services are also said to have another important function. Off site back up. In reality this only works if you go to the trouble of setting it up that way. Remember these services automatically synchronise their shares. So if you delete a file in the shared space on your laptop. It will be deleted in the shared space on your desktop as well. However as a cheap off site back up option it's not a bad idea.
So cloud based file sharing services are reliable, flexible, browse-able but potentially expensive.
The Conclusion
Each file sharing option here has it's pros and cons. The important thing for people to realise is there are options out there. You don't have to stick with a one size fits all and doesn't actually work properly for anybody solution. My solution is to use a combination of services. I use DropBox for files I need access to when I'm not at home and can't connect via my own home network. And I use NFS for my home network.
I have chosen these options for their reliability and simplicity. They both "just work" and very rarely throw up any problems. Not having figured out how to share a printer with NFS at the moment if it's even possible isn't a huge issue. In the modern age why are we still printing stuff anyway? There's no real "need".
Well as I've just mentioned, you can use USB sticks. It's a reliable method guaranteed to work. It is not however terribly efficient. The next option involves networking and there are 3 main ways to share files over a network in Ubuntu. We have Samba, which is an implementation of Microsoft's networking protocols for Windows. Next we have NFS which is commonly used in most POSIX compliant OS's. The third and final option in the "cloud".
Samba
Samba is great. When it works. Not only does it allow other Linux machines to share files and other resources like printers. It also allows both Linux and Windows machines to share the same resources on the same network. Which is great. When it works.
And that is the biggest con for me when it comes to Samba. Not only did the Samba developers succeed in developing software that could network both Linux and Windows PCs together on the same network using Microsoft's SMB protocols. They also succeeded in reproducing the reliability of Microsoft's networking protocols. It could just be my incompetence. But frankly I've never been able to get a home network to actually work reliably with Windows and Samba has never work consistently and reliably for me in Ubuntu either.
I will however concede that there are many people who do appear to have Samba working just fine. Another advantage is that shares are dynamic and browse-able. By that I mean a new share will appear on the network as they are made available.
So Samba is flexible but not reliable.
NFS
NFS or Network File System on the surface looks a bit scary. Setting it up requires using something called the "terminal" and editing "configuration files" with "root privileges"! For the purposes of a home network based on Ubuntu machines it's actually very simple. Install 3 packages and reboot the PC. Then you can start sharing stuff. Which is where you need to start editing files. Well actually you don't.
Ubuntu has a GUI that lets you select shares for either NFS or Samba. It can be found in System>Administration>Shared Folders. In the case of NFS this will create all the entries in the /etc/exports file for you. All you need do is supply the basic information. The folder to be shared and the clients (other PC's) who have access to it. Editing the /etc/exports file directly does however give more flexibility and certainly isn't something any home user should shy away from. Simply make a copy of the original file. That way if you screw things up, it's easy to fix.
One of the biggest draw backs for me using NFS is that it's static or not browse-able. At least as of yet I haven't found a way to browse through a PC's NFS shares. Each and every share on the network needs to be "mounted" manually or via the fstab file for automatic mounting at boot time. Which can be inconvenient if you can't remember the exact name of the share. I also haven't yet figured out how to share a printer with NFS. If it's even possible.
NFS server and client software is available for Windows. However I've never used it and therefore can't vouch for it.
So NFS is reliable but inflexible.
The Cloud Services
There are at least two "cloud" based file sharing services that spring to mind when it comes to Ubuntu. The first is Canonical's own service. Ubuntu One. This is installed by default in Ubuntu 10.10 as part of Canonical's "social from the start" initiative. You do however still need to create a user account.
The other service and probably more popular service is DropBox. DropBox is the more mature and better established of the two services. Which means more of the bugs have been ironed out. I've used both services and DropBox is definitely my choice for the moment.
The thing that interests me most about these services is the ability to share files securely wherever there is an Internet connection. Not only do they share files but they synchronise them as well. Which means the latest version of a document should always be available. There is a significant limitation however. Cost!
Unlike using Samba or NFS to share resources on a home network using a cloud service limits the amount of data you can share at any given time. That's because the cloud services operate by copying the files to an on-line storage space and then to each client. This on-line storage needs to be paid for by someone.
Users do however get some free storage space. With DropBox it's 2GB and with Ubuntu One it was 1GB when I tried it. Which in today's world of massive MP3 libraries, digital photos and perfectly legally ripped DVDs isn't much. Once you've reached your reached the limits of your on-line storage capacity you must move files out of the shared space or pay up actual real money for more space. On a monthly or annual basis. Which means you're actually paying good money to access your own files.
On the plus side however these services do tend to "just work". Which is why they are popular and why people are actually prepared to shell out money to get that extra storage capacity. Cloud services are also said to have another important function. Off site back up. In reality this only works if you go to the trouble of setting it up that way. Remember these services automatically synchronise their shares. So if you delete a file in the shared space on your laptop. It will be deleted in the shared space on your desktop as well. However as a cheap off site back up option it's not a bad idea.
So cloud based file sharing services are reliable, flexible, browse-able but potentially expensive.
The Conclusion
Each file sharing option here has it's pros and cons. The important thing for people to realise is there are options out there. You don't have to stick with a one size fits all and doesn't actually work properly for anybody solution. My solution is to use a combination of services. I use DropBox for files I need access to when I'm not at home and can't connect via my own home network. And I use NFS for my home network.
I have chosen these options for their reliability and simplicity. They both "just work" and very rarely throw up any problems. Not having figured out how to share a printer with NFS at the moment if it's even possible isn't a huge issue. In the modern age why are we still printing stuff anyway? There's no real "need".
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Ubuntu Tip: How To Synchronise Gnote Between PCs
In the great Tomboy vs Gnote debate one of the trump cards Tomboy has is it's ability to synchronise it's database of notes with other PCs. Not that it was ever a feature that worked brilliantly. However none the less it was a feature I used and the only reason I continued using Tomboy over Gnote.
How stupid I was?
Ubuntu as many Ubuntu users will know comes with a "cloud" service called Ubuntu One. Which while isn't that great provides us with the basic inspiration for what we're about to do. You see Canonical in their great wisdom decided it would be a great idea to integrate Tomboy with Ubuntu One. Fine. Excellent. If it works. It did for a time for me. Then sort of went a bit crappy. However there are more mature "cloud services" available for synchronising files between two PCs. And that incidentally is all Tomboy's synchronisation feature does so far as I can see. It simply copies files that have been created or changed recently to the PC that doesn't have the new version.
You see all of the notes you create in Tomboy or Gnote are stored in individual XML formatted files. And the Linux file system has a crafty little feature called symbolic links. Combine this with a service like Ubuntu One or Dropbox and all our notes are synchronised automagically so long as we have an active web connection.
Prerequisites:
How stupid I was?
Ubuntu as many Ubuntu users will know comes with a "cloud" service called Ubuntu One. Which while isn't that great provides us with the basic inspiration for what we're about to do. You see Canonical in their great wisdom decided it would be a great idea to integrate Tomboy with Ubuntu One. Fine. Excellent. If it works. It did for a time for me. Then sort of went a bit crappy. However there are more mature "cloud services" available for synchronising files between two PCs. And that incidentally is all Tomboy's synchronisation feature does so far as I can see. It simply copies files that have been created or changed recently to the PC that doesn't have the new version.
You see all of the notes you create in Tomboy or Gnote are stored in individual XML formatted files. And the Linux file system has a crafty little feature called symbolic links. Combine this with a service like Ubuntu One or Dropbox and all our notes are synchronised automagically so long as we have an active web connection.
Prerequisites:
- Tomboy or Gnote. I recommend Gnote. It's lighter and faster than Tomboy.
- Ubuntu One, Dropbox or similar service. I would recommend Dropbox.
- Creat a new folder for yout notes in your Ubuntu One or Dropbox folder.
- Copy your existing notes to the folder you just created in your Ubuntu One or Dropbox folder. Tomboy notes can be found in /home/your-user-name/.local/share/tomboy. Gnote notes can be found in /home/your-user-name/.gnote.
- Replace the Tomboy or Gnote folder with a symbolic link. Open a terminal window and enter the following command adjust for your own PC;
ln -vsf Dropbox/gnote /home/your-user-name/.gnote
Repeat steps 1 and 3 on the second, third, fourth, etc PC.
- It's best to have Tomboy or Gnote already setup and working before you attempt this.
- It's also better to avoid using hidden directories with Dropbox. They don't work very well in my experience.
- If you're using Tomboy but would like to switch to Gnote that's not a problem. Gnote is a native Linux implementation of Tomboy that is free of all Mono dependencies. Both applications use exactly the same data file formats and both offer almost exactly the same feature set. So all you need to do is copy the Tomboy files to your Gnote folder.
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Ditching Ubuntu 64-bit
Since upgrading to Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit my PC became unstable. Most of the time it was just innconveinent minor things. The clock on the top panel wouldn't display properly. However occasionally the whole PC would freeze. Especially when under a heavy work load. Couple this with the fact that Adobe Flash and Adobe Air have never worked to satisfactory degree. I decided it was time to go back to a 32-bit world.
What I had to consider was what I was losing and what I was gaining. My PC has 8GB of RAM. Normally on a 32-bit system 3.75GB is as much as you get. So I'd potentially be losing half of my RAM. But that was it. None of the software I use is exclusively 64-bit. Some of it is however exclusively 32-bit and there are ways around the 4GB memory cap in 32-bit operating systems.
What I stood to gain was a simpler installation procedure for my 32-bit only software and a more stable operating system. I use the 32-bit version of Ubuntu 10.04 on my laptop with no problems. So I already knew it was more stable.
To get past the 4GB memory cap, I intended to install the server kernel which has PAE technology enabled by default. However I found this was totally unnecessary. The desktop kernel in Ubuntu 10.04 comes with PAE support.
In the end up I now have a more stable PC. A simpler installation procedure for my 32-bit software. I still get to use 7.9GB of the total 8GB of RAM in my PC. Which is actually an improvement over the 64-bit version of Ubuntu. The PC does however feel a little sluggish at times. Particularly when launching applications. But that's a small price to pay for simplicity and stability.
What I had to consider was what I was losing and what I was gaining. My PC has 8GB of RAM. Normally on a 32-bit system 3.75GB is as much as you get. So I'd potentially be losing half of my RAM. But that was it. None of the software I use is exclusively 64-bit. Some of it is however exclusively 32-bit and there are ways around the 4GB memory cap in 32-bit operating systems.
What I stood to gain was a simpler installation procedure for my 32-bit only software and a more stable operating system. I use the 32-bit version of Ubuntu 10.04 on my laptop with no problems. So I already knew it was more stable.
To get past the 4GB memory cap, I intended to install the server kernel which has PAE technology enabled by default. However I found this was totally unnecessary. The desktop kernel in Ubuntu 10.04 comes with PAE support.
In the end up I now have a more stable PC. A simpler installation procedure for my 32-bit software. I still get to use 7.9GB of the total 8GB of RAM in my PC. Which is actually an improvement over the 64-bit version of Ubuntu. The PC does however feel a little sluggish at times. Particularly when launching applications. But that's a small price to pay for simplicity and stability.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Why Fire Fox is not Doomed?
Okay I was going to comment on the article it's self. However InfoWorld appear to be afraid of feedback and require some sort of lengthy vetting process after registering. Like seriously!?! What is that all a bout!?!
So Firefox is doomed. I would disagree. Google might cut funding to better support it's own browser. But then again the whole point of Google funding Firefox is to get the default search position in the search bar. So far as I know Google don't intend to exit the search business just yet. So while Chrome is something of a threat or competition at least to Firefox. It's not the end game until Chrome gets significantly more market share.
IE is an immovable object? Clearly Randell is deliberately ignoring the fact that IE is well into decline. It's only actual strong hold now where Microsoft can still feel safe is on the corporate desktop. Everywhere else is up for grabs. Which is why every other major web browser on the market namely Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome are all gaining market share while IE is losing market share. What's more these browsers are gaining as much market share between them as IE is losing. Which means they're taking it from IE.
If that wasn't enough at least 3 or 4 countries have advised their citizens to ditch IE and use something else instead. Then of course there are countries like Brazil where significant numbers of people don't even use Windows let alone IE. They're all on Linux. So IE an immovable object? I hardly think so.
As for the critique of Mozillas intention to opt for smaller updates? This is what the Ubuntu developers do. They focus on one major thing they want to make better and by and large deliver on their goals. That doesn't mean other things don't get fixed or don't change. Clearly they do. But the developers do well out of that intense focus. Which is perhaps something Firefox actually needs.
I also don't think it's fair to compare Mozilla to Microsoft or to compare incremental updates to hot-fixes. First of all Microsoft and Mozilla are two entirely different companies with different motivations and goals. They have totally different business models that dictate how much funding they can dedicate to a single project and how the end product is marketed.
Hot-fixes are also intended to be temporary fixes to tide Windows over until the service pack arrives. Again that's a different coding style from an incremental update. A hot-fix is a quick and dirty patch to fix a problem in the short term. An incremental update is something that is integrated properly to the existing code base. That is what Mozilla does at the moment. The fact that it might want to do less but do it better doesn't mean the product will suffer.
So Firefox is doomed. I would disagree. Google might cut funding to better support it's own browser. But then again the whole point of Google funding Firefox is to get the default search position in the search bar. So far as I know Google don't intend to exit the search business just yet. So while Chrome is something of a threat or competition at least to Firefox. It's not the end game until Chrome gets significantly more market share.
IE is an immovable object? Clearly Randell is deliberately ignoring the fact that IE is well into decline. It's only actual strong hold now where Microsoft can still feel safe is on the corporate desktop. Everywhere else is up for grabs. Which is why every other major web browser on the market namely Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome are all gaining market share while IE is losing market share. What's more these browsers are gaining as much market share between them as IE is losing. Which means they're taking it from IE.
If that wasn't enough at least 3 or 4 countries have advised their citizens to ditch IE and use something else instead. Then of course there are countries like Brazil where significant numbers of people don't even use Windows let alone IE. They're all on Linux. So IE an immovable object? I hardly think so.
As for the critique of Mozillas intention to opt for smaller updates? This is what the Ubuntu developers do. They focus on one major thing they want to make better and by and large deliver on their goals. That doesn't mean other things don't get fixed or don't change. Clearly they do. But the developers do well out of that intense focus. Which is perhaps something Firefox actually needs.
I also don't think it's fair to compare Mozilla to Microsoft or to compare incremental updates to hot-fixes. First of all Microsoft and Mozilla are two entirely different companies with different motivations and goals. They have totally different business models that dictate how much funding they can dedicate to a single project and how the end product is marketed.
Hot-fixes are also intended to be temporary fixes to tide Windows over until the service pack arrives. Again that's a different coding style from an incremental update. A hot-fix is a quick and dirty patch to fix a problem in the short term. An incremental update is something that is integrated properly to the existing code base. That is what Mozilla does at the moment. The fact that it might want to do less but do it better doesn't mean the product will suffer.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Ubuntu Targeted By Malware!
Apparently some malware has been found in both a .deb file claiming to install a screen saver and a theme pack over on Gnome-Look. Which is a shame since I use that site regularly to find new wallpapers and themes.
So Ubuntu is now the target of criminals? All the tech press places all of desktop Linux at 1% of the market and claim in the same breath that figure is a generous estimate. Why then are criminals targeting something that has only 1% of the desktop PC market. It makes no sense unless Linux is much bigger than 1%. It would be interesting to find out what has changed the criminals minds. Are Linux users simply too naive? Too cocky? Too arrogant? Too stupid? Clearly criminals now see Linux desktops as vulnerable targets ripe for the picking.
This is both an interesting and frighting development. However we have at least exposed a vector of infection for Linux systems. Anybody could build a .deb or .rpm package file or even a normal tarball. Clearly without the protection of the community maintained repositories these methods of installation are just as vulnerable to misuse as Windows .exe files. Which is something many people in the Linux community including myself hadn't considered. Normally we tell people an installation script requires permission to run. So we're protected. The trouble is I don't think many people give entering their password a second thought when installing from a .deb package. Most of us simply trust them.
So this is a wakeup call to Linux users and in particular to Gnome and Ubuntu users. Be vigilant. Be careful about your chosen software sources. If you're installing something from a web site be sure to scan it first! Linux has a very good anti-virus application available in the repositories of most decent distributions. It's called ClamAV. While this is a command line application there are several front ends available. The most popular at the moment is ClamTK. Use the following commands to install them to your system. Remember you'll need to enter your password when installing software.
So Ubuntu is now the target of criminals? All the tech press places all of desktop Linux at 1% of the market and claim in the same breath that figure is a generous estimate. Why then are criminals targeting something that has only 1% of the desktop PC market. It makes no sense unless Linux is much bigger than 1%. It would be interesting to find out what has changed the criminals minds. Are Linux users simply too naive? Too cocky? Too arrogant? Too stupid? Clearly criminals now see Linux desktops as vulnerable targets ripe for the picking.
This is both an interesting and frighting development. However we have at least exposed a vector of infection for Linux systems. Anybody could build a .deb or .rpm package file or even a normal tarball. Clearly without the protection of the community maintained repositories these methods of installation are just as vulnerable to misuse as Windows .exe files. Which is something many people in the Linux community including myself hadn't considered. Normally we tell people an installation script requires permission to run. So we're protected. The trouble is I don't think many people give entering their password a second thought when installing from a .deb package. Most of us simply trust them.
So this is a wakeup call to Linux users and in particular to Gnome and Ubuntu users. Be vigilant. Be careful about your chosen software sources. If you're installing something from a web site be sure to scan it first! Linux has a very good anti-virus application available in the repositories of most decent distributions. It's called ClamAV. While this is a command line application there are several front ends available. The most popular at the moment is ClamTK. Use the following commands to install them to your system. Remember you'll need to enter your password when installing software.
- Open a terminal window.
- Type sudo apt-get -y install clamav clamtk then press enter.
- Remember to scan your system regularly.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Ubuntu One: First Impressions
First off, what exactly is Ubuntu One? Well basically it's a file sharing and synchronisation service from Canonical. The basic package is free and provides a reasonable 2GB of storage. Canonical claims it's your personal cloud.
So my first impressions? It sucks. Canonical produces client software for both Ubuntu 9.04 and Ubuntu 9.10. However support for 9.04 seems pretty feeble. There's no Tomboy notes synchronisation for 9.04 as there is in 9.10. Which makes that feature useless if your not the type to dive in and upgrade all your PCs all at once.
Even worse however is the file synchronisation feature. It just doesn't seem to work. This being the basic concept of the whole package anybody would have thought Canonical would have gone out of their way to make this work. But it seems not.
So far I've been able to get files and indeed whole folders to upload my Ubuntu One storage space. But they don't ever seem to download to the other PC. It doesn't matter which PC does the uploading. The other PC just doesn't "synchronise" with my on-line Ubuntu One storage space.
Now the client software isn't the only way to interact with Ubuntu One. There is a web interface. But then again there are loads of places on-line for me to upload my stuff to that I can later download from using a web browser. The point and attraction of Ubuntu One is the desktop integration. Which just doesn't seem to be working properly.
Frankly I get a better service using the 50MB of free web space my ISP provides me with. It's simpler to set up as well. All I need to do is FTP into my web space from Places > Connect To Server. No software to install. No PPA to setup. Just a user name, password and FTP address. It's also 100% compatible with both versions of Ubuntu I'm using at the moment.
Perhaps Ubuntu One will work better when I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 on both PCs.
So my first impressions? It sucks. Canonical produces client software for both Ubuntu 9.04 and Ubuntu 9.10. However support for 9.04 seems pretty feeble. There's no Tomboy notes synchronisation for 9.04 as there is in 9.10. Which makes that feature useless if your not the type to dive in and upgrade all your PCs all at once.
Even worse however is the file synchronisation feature. It just doesn't seem to work. This being the basic concept of the whole package anybody would have thought Canonical would have gone out of their way to make this work. But it seems not.
So far I've been able to get files and indeed whole folders to upload my Ubuntu One storage space. But they don't ever seem to download to the other PC. It doesn't matter which PC does the uploading. The other PC just doesn't "synchronise" with my on-line Ubuntu One storage space.
Now the client software isn't the only way to interact with Ubuntu One. There is a web interface. But then again there are loads of places on-line for me to upload my stuff to that I can later download from using a web browser. The point and attraction of Ubuntu One is the desktop integration. Which just doesn't seem to be working properly.
Frankly I get a better service using the 50MB of free web space my ISP provides me with. It's simpler to set up as well. All I need to do is FTP into my web space from Places > Connect To Server. No software to install. No PPA to setup. Just a user name, password and FTP address. It's also 100% compatible with both versions of Ubuntu I'm using at the moment.
Perhaps Ubuntu One will work better when I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 on both PCs.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
PC Gamers Need To Vote!
I've just been to Dells IdeaStorm web site and submitted an idea asking Dell to help the PC gaming industry establish a long term base level of hardware to help bolster the PC gaming industry and pull it out of decline. I'll post the text of the idea below. But first let me say PC gamers need to do something to push the hardware and software industry together to establish a base level of hardware that will support all games at decent settings.
When developers develop for the Wii or Playstation they know it's a long term commitment. The hardware will be supported for at least the next 5 to 10 years. It takes on average 3 to 5 years to develop, test and polish a major gaming title. If not, then longer. Microsoft want to refresh Windows every 2 to 3 years. As we've seen with Vista there is no guarantee of backwards compatibility.
So a game which started development with one Windows platform in mind might suddenly become usless unless the developers alter the game to support the new platform. This is very costly and time consuming. We need a better solution for PC gaming than Windows!
The Dell IdeaStorm post: Establish A Base Level For PC Gaming Hardware.
When developers develop for the Wii or Playstation they know it's a long term commitment. The hardware will be supported for at least the next 5 to 10 years. It takes on average 3 to 5 years to develop, test and polish a major gaming title. If not, then longer. Microsoft want to refresh Windows every 2 to 3 years. As we've seen with Vista there is no guarantee of backwards compatibility.
So a game which started development with one Windows platform in mind might suddenly become usless unless the developers alter the game to support the new platform. This is very costly and time consuming. We need a better solution for PC gaming than Windows!
The Dell IdeaStorm post: Establish A Base Level For PC Gaming Hardware.
Ever since games consoles could hold their own against the processing muscle of the PC, the PC gaming industry has been in decline. There are a number of reasons for this. Which I will detail below.
1) The PC as a gaming platform shifts far too rapidly for games developers to keep up with. There is no base level of hardware to target. This makes it very difficult and costly for games developers to develop for the PC.
When a games developer target the Playstation, they know the hardware spec will be good for at least 5 to 10 years. Typically it can take 3 to 5 years just to develop, test and polish a game for distribution. So an unchanging stable platform is absolutely essential!
2) Security is an issue!!! Increasingly modern games are becoming on-line affairs. We no longer pit our wits against AI. We join virtual battle with each other. However PC gamers are at a disadvantage. Windows.
Making Windows secure for on-line activities can be a costly business. PC gamers take a hit in the wallet and performance of their gaming rigs. As though Windows it's self wasn't enough of a resource hog. PC gamers need to shell out for anti-virus software, anti-malware software, spam filters and firewalls.
Now it's true all this software can be had for free. But the free versions are always crippled in some way. They're never as fully functional as their paid for equivalents. Even worse! Some malware has now started pretending to me anti-malware! Gamers who get duped risk losing their passwords and privet details. Including payment details. Credit card numbers, bank account numbers and the like. The potential for fraud here is massive!
The solution is quite simple and one the likes of Sony has been using for years now. Don't use Windows for gaming. The Sony Playstation doesn't use Windows as it's OS. But the games run just fine all the same. The graphics are excellent and the games have on-line connectivity. Nobody seems to be worried about viruses or malware.
Dell already supports Ubuntu. The World of Goo and the Penumbra Trilogy both run flawlessly on Linux and sold well. It might be an old game now but Doom 3 runs perfect with no loss of detail or functionality. Clearly Linux can handle complex and demanding on-line multi-player games.
A secure PC platform for gamers is essential! That security shouldn't bring with it a performance cost. Gamers should not be installing additional software just to make their gaming rigs secure. Linux is the answer.
3) Performance and Stability. Anybody who has played a game on Windows knows the frustration of BSODs at just the wrong moment. It's unacceptable. All gamers also know the reason they need PCs with fans so loud they are in danger of suffering industrial deafness is because Windows needs a reasonably beefy system just for its' self if its' to be responsive and sprightly.
Adding a demanding game with high resolution graphics and a web connection adds a load Windows often just can't handle. So Windows throws it's hands in the air and hides behind a BSOD. The problem is resource management. Windows just can't do it well enough.
Linux on the other hand does a much better job out of the box. No tweaking. No over clocking to squeeze some sort of performance out of the processors. No industrial refrigeration required. That doesn't mean Linux can run Halo on the BBC Micro. But it does mean more of the systems resources are freed to help the game run smoother with greater stability.
But even Linux software crashes sometimes. So what then? Well Linux crashes in a graceful manner. Normally the app will simply shut down and the user will return to the desktop. In very bad crashes the user will be kicked out to the log-in screen. However the system will almost never lock up completely in a BSOD like scenario no matter how badly the game is written.
A robust OS like Linux is essential for high-end demanding games. Linux is that OS.
Dell needs to serve its' gamers better. Help the PC industry establish a base level of hardware by producing a gaming rig and commiting to that hardware spec for 5 to 10 years. Preferably 10 years.
Choose hardware that is Linux compatible. The XPS 700 series is already Linux compatible. This will allow the industry and gamers to choose their OS. Gamers who want more security and performance can choose Linux. Gamers who want to be compatible with yesterday can choose Windows. Or we can dual boot and be compatible with everything.
Don't be Gartner Sheep!
Okay I'm confused. But since when was it written in law that people or businesses absolutely had to refresh their hardware? Surely it's good business sense to only buy what you need? Right?
Apparently not. Gartner has decided it's time we all bought new PCs. Why exactly? Well obviously because Microsoft are bring out Windows 7. Since nobody bought Windows Vista it's time we upgraded right?
Wrong! The time to upgrade or refresh is when you can predict your current IT investment is no longer going to meet your needs. How close you can wait until that time comes depends on how large your organisation is and how efficently it can move through the refresh cycle. A single person working self employed can make the transition in as little as a few hours. Larger business will take days to weeks. While other will take months or even as much as a year or more for full deployment of a new operating system.
So given that this guilt trip induced refresh can be so costly in terms of money, lost man hours and man hours expended on the refresh, what is the single most crucial question to ask? What's in it for me? What will Windows 7 deliver that other operating systems can't? Is it security? Better resource management? Cloud connectivity and integration?
Do you really want to trust a Microsoft cloud solution after the Sidekick debacle?
One of the most recently touted selling points for Windows 7 has been it's ability to run Windows XP software. This might come as a shock to some. Windows XP runs Windows XP software! But if you're running a business and you're gullable enough to follow the fasion trends the like of Gartner demand then at least look around before commiting all your money to Microsoft.
There are alternative options out there. Some other operating systems also run Windows XP software. Intall WINE on an Ubuntu desktop or laptop and it'll run most XP software just fine. It might struggle with MS Office. However OpenOffice.org comes pre-bundled with Ubuntu. For free!
So please do consider refreshing your hardware and software. But when you do. Ask yourself what your business really needs. Do you need Windows 7? Would a cloud solution be better? Could you ditch the Microsoft lock-in cycle all together and use something completly different? What software do you use? What do you use it for? Is it unique? Could you migrate? Would migration save you money? How much money? Will Windows 7 be good value for money? Windows needs licences, Ubuntu doesn't. Can you reuse your old hardware?
Can you save money on an IT refresh during a recession?
Consider your options people! Don't be sheep!
Apparently not. Gartner has decided it's time we all bought new PCs. Why exactly? Well obviously because Microsoft are bring out Windows 7. Since nobody bought Windows Vista it's time we upgraded right?
Wrong! The time to upgrade or refresh is when you can predict your current IT investment is no longer going to meet your needs. How close you can wait until that time comes depends on how large your organisation is and how efficently it can move through the refresh cycle. A single person working self employed can make the transition in as little as a few hours. Larger business will take days to weeks. While other will take months or even as much as a year or more for full deployment of a new operating system.
So given that this guilt trip induced refresh can be so costly in terms of money, lost man hours and man hours expended on the refresh, what is the single most crucial question to ask? What's in it for me? What will Windows 7 deliver that other operating systems can't? Is it security? Better resource management? Cloud connectivity and integration?
Do you really want to trust a Microsoft cloud solution after the Sidekick debacle?
One of the most recently touted selling points for Windows 7 has been it's ability to run Windows XP software. This might come as a shock to some. Windows XP runs Windows XP software! But if you're running a business and you're gullable enough to follow the fasion trends the like of Gartner demand then at least look around before commiting all your money to Microsoft.
There are alternative options out there. Some other operating systems also run Windows XP software. Intall WINE on an Ubuntu desktop or laptop and it'll run most XP software just fine. It might struggle with MS Office. However OpenOffice.org comes pre-bundled with Ubuntu. For free!
So please do consider refreshing your hardware and software. But when you do. Ask yourself what your business really needs. Do you need Windows 7? Would a cloud solution be better? Could you ditch the Microsoft lock-in cycle all together and use something completly different? What software do you use? What do you use it for? Is it unique? Could you migrate? Would migration save you money? How much money? Will Windows 7 be good value for money? Windows needs licences, Ubuntu doesn't. Can you reuse your old hardware?
Can you save money on an IT refresh during a recession?
Consider your options people! Don't be sheep!
Sunday, 11 October 2009
How Bad Is The Malware Issue?
Okay this is just a quick post to pose the question. Just how bad is the malware problem really? It's a fair question to ask. Indeed a very important question to ask since some pundits claim 9 in every 10 PCs sold in the world has Microsoft Windows pre-installed.
That's a lot of PCs running an OS that is not only the prime target for criminals, but has also been criticised time and again for being too lax with security. As people depend on their PCs more and more for essential basic services in modern life like banking, security becomes a major issue. One that flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
Traditionally home users have taken second place in the security stakes. Especially on the Microsoft Windows platform. Without third-party products, which cost extra to the consumer, Windows is wide open. Windows 7 clearly doesn't address this security issue. If it did Microsoft would be pushing their "Security Essentials" free product. Well at least it's free.
But back to my question. How bad is the malware issue? Well since subscribing to the Avira Anti-Virus update notifications about a year ago I've had 1573 update notifications. The vast majority of which are simply virus definition updates. None of these notifications are duplicates. 1573 from 1st October 2008 until 9th October 2009.
My advice to anybody using the web to do essential things like banking is to use a secure platform. Windows is not that platform. It's just to big a target with too many holes.
That's a lot of PCs running an OS that is not only the prime target for criminals, but has also been criticised time and again for being too lax with security. As people depend on their PCs more and more for essential basic services in modern life like banking, security becomes a major issue. One that flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
Traditionally home users have taken second place in the security stakes. Especially on the Microsoft Windows platform. Without third-party products, which cost extra to the consumer, Windows is wide open. Windows 7 clearly doesn't address this security issue. If it did Microsoft would be pushing their "Security Essentials" free product. Well at least it's free.
But back to my question. How bad is the malware issue? Well since subscribing to the Avira Anti-Virus update notifications about a year ago I've had 1573 update notifications. The vast majority of which are simply virus definition updates. None of these notifications are duplicates. 1573 from 1st October 2008 until 9th October 2009.
My advice to anybody using the web to do essential things like banking is to use a secure platform. Windows is not that platform. It's just to big a target with too many holes.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Desktop Linux Is Ready!
For a long time Linux was criticised as being too complicated and difficult for non-technical people to use. Personally I don't think that was ever really the case. I mean if Linux came pre-installed like Windows then the OEM would tweak it and install it to suit their hardware.
However Canonical has gone out of it's way now to prove to bury this myth once and for all. Take a look at the installation slide show for Ubuntu 9.10. Linux is ready for the desktop. It's ready for the mass market. It's ready for anybody that wants to use it. It doesn't matter if it's pre-installed or installed after market.
With respect to the basic installation, Ubuntu is now on par with Windows XP, Vista and even Windows 7. After the compiz effects have been enabled Ubuntu goes well beyond what Windows 7 is offering in terms of entertaining and useful desktop effects. And lets not forget the host of free software applications available directly from Canonicals Ubuntu repositories. Which contain everything from games to office productivity suits to web browsers to e-mail clients to extremely powerful tools for ICT professionals.
Ubuntu is also an OS well suited to "power users" with it's extremely high degree of customisability. There's nothing that can't be changed or tweaked. You can even change the entire desktop environment!
Now since Windows 7 has been available for testing many different sources have been quoting "boot times" of 20 to 30 seconds for Windows 7. It's become something of a selling point due to the fact Vista was so slow and a 6 month old installation of XP crawled along at a snails pace.
Well a default installation of Ubuntu 9.04 boots in around 15 to 20 seconds. From a cold start. Potentially 5 to 10 seconds faster than Microsofts latest and greatest Windows 7. The "boot times" for which by the way are actually restore from hibernation times!
At the time of writing, 10th October 2009, we're about 19 days from the final release of Ubuntu 9.10. Windows 7 will be out on October 22nd 2009. Ubuntu 9.10 has already been quoted as being able to boot from a cold start in 5 seconds when installed to an SSD.
So desktop Linux can now claim feature parity with desktop Windows. And as an added bonus it can also claim faster boot times as well as many other advantages. Linux is ready! Ubuntu is ready!
Microsoft and Apple are not the only game in town any longer!
http://www.workswithu.com/2009/10/09/installer-slideshow-in-ubuntu-910-helps-new-users/
However Canonical has gone out of it's way now to prove to bury this myth once and for all. Take a look at the installation slide show for Ubuntu 9.10. Linux is ready for the desktop. It's ready for the mass market. It's ready for anybody that wants to use it. It doesn't matter if it's pre-installed or installed after market.
With respect to the basic installation, Ubuntu is now on par with Windows XP, Vista and even Windows 7. After the compiz effects have been enabled Ubuntu goes well beyond what Windows 7 is offering in terms of entertaining and useful desktop effects. And lets not forget the host of free software applications available directly from Canonicals Ubuntu repositories. Which contain everything from games to office productivity suits to web browsers to e-mail clients to extremely powerful tools for ICT professionals.
Ubuntu is also an OS well suited to "power users" with it's extremely high degree of customisability. There's nothing that can't be changed or tweaked. You can even change the entire desktop environment!
Now since Windows 7 has been available for testing many different sources have been quoting "boot times" of 20 to 30 seconds for Windows 7. It's become something of a selling point due to the fact Vista was so slow and a 6 month old installation of XP crawled along at a snails pace.
Well a default installation of Ubuntu 9.04 boots in around 15 to 20 seconds. From a cold start. Potentially 5 to 10 seconds faster than Microsofts latest and greatest Windows 7. The "boot times" for which by the way are actually restore from hibernation times!
At the time of writing, 10th October 2009, we're about 19 days from the final release of Ubuntu 9.10. Windows 7 will be out on October 22nd 2009. Ubuntu 9.10 has already been quoted as being able to boot from a cold start in 5 seconds when installed to an SSD.
So desktop Linux can now claim feature parity with desktop Windows. And as an added bonus it can also claim faster boot times as well as many other advantages. Linux is ready! Ubuntu is ready!
Microsoft and Apple are not the only game in town any longer!
http://www.workswithu.com/2009/10/09/installer-slideshow-in-ubuntu-910-helps-new-users/
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Ubuntu Tip: Simple Backup Command Using CP
Backing up your computers hard drive is extremely important. Should the worst happen and you lose all of your important data, you need a way back. While there are many excellent utilities in the Ubuntu repositories that handle partial and full system backups. Sometimes a simpler solution is all that is needed.
Fortunately Ubuntu and Linux in general in fact comes with everything you need in the for of the very simple but also extremely powerful cp command. In case you haven't figured it out yet, cp is Linux command line speak for copy. The examples below will show you how to use cp to back up your entire system.
sudo cp -r -u -x -v [source directory] [destination directory]
Example 1:
sudo cp -r -u -x -v /home/ /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
sudo: Gives temporary root privileges.
cp: Linux command line copy command.
-r: Used with cp this switch causes cp to copy directory content recursively. Meaning it will copy all files and subdirectories in the directory being copied.
-u: Used with cp this switch causes cp to only copy files that have changed or don't already exist at the destination.
-x: Used with cp this switch stops cp jumping to other file systems which it will do if it encounters hard links or symbolic links.
This switch also stops cp eating it's tail if you choose to back up your entire system. See examples 2 and 3 below.
-v: Used with cp this switch cause cp to give feed back on what's happening.
Full System Backup With CP
If we wish to perform a full system backup then we might feel inclined to use a command similar to that in Example 2 below. The trouble is without the -x switch cp will also attempt to backup the backup to the backup. Basically eating it's own tail in a never ending loop until all disk space is used up.
This happens because all other file systems are mounted to a location branching from the root file system. So if root is / then home is mounted to /home. Within Ubuntu all USB drives tend to be mounted to /media/a_USB_drive, etc.
However with the -x switch the command in example 2 will not be enough to back up the entire system if there are several storage devices or file systems mounted to different mount points. To get around this problem we must write a small script that will backup each file system separately. Example 3 shows a small example where the root files system / and /home are backed up separately.
Example 2:
sudo cp -r -u -v / /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
Example 3:
#!/bin/sh
#
# cp based backup script.
#
sudo cp -r -u -x -v / /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
sudo cp -r -u -x -v /home/ /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
This script can be created in any text editor like gedit or nano. After the script has been saved it must be given permission to be run as a program. Example 4 shows the command needed to change to the directory/folder where the script is stored. How to apply execute permissions and how to run the script.
Example 4:
First open a terminal window if you haven't already done so and enter the following commands. The actual location of your script is where you chose to save it.
cd /home/aikiwolfie/scripts/ (press enter)
chmod a+x my_backup_script (press enter)
./my_backup_script (press enter)
And that's it. Sit back and watch the backup script do it's job.
Fortunately Ubuntu and Linux in general in fact comes with everything you need in the for of the very simple but also extremely powerful cp command. In case you haven't figured it out yet, cp is Linux command line speak for copy. The examples below will show you how to use cp to back up your entire system.
sudo cp -r -u -x -v [source directory] [destination directory]
Example 1:
sudo cp -r -u -x -v /home/ /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
sudo: Gives temporary root privileges.
cp: Linux command line copy command.
-r: Used with cp this switch causes cp to copy directory content recursively. Meaning it will copy all files and subdirectories in the directory being copied.
-u: Used with cp this switch causes cp to only copy files that have changed or don't already exist at the destination.
-x: Used with cp this switch stops cp jumping to other file systems which it will do if it encounters hard links or symbolic links.
This switch also stops cp eating it's tail if you choose to back up your entire system. See examples 2 and 3 below.
-v: Used with cp this switch cause cp to give feed back on what's happening.
Full System Backup With CP
If we wish to perform a full system backup then we might feel inclined to use a command similar to that in Example 2 below. The trouble is without the -x switch cp will also attempt to backup the backup to the backup. Basically eating it's own tail in a never ending loop until all disk space is used up.
This happens because all other file systems are mounted to a location branching from the root file system. So if root is / then home is mounted to /home. Within Ubuntu all USB drives tend to be mounted to /media/a_USB_drive, etc.
However with the -x switch the command in example 2 will not be enough to back up the entire system if there are several storage devices or file systems mounted to different mount points. To get around this problem we must write a small script that will backup each file system separately. Example 3 shows a small example where the root files system / and /home are backed up separately.
Example 2:
sudo cp -r -u -v / /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
Example 3:
#!/bin/sh
#
# cp based backup script.
#
sudo cp -r -u -x -v / /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
sudo cp -r -u -x -v /home/ /media/MY_USB_DRIVE
This script can be created in any text editor like gedit or nano. After the script has been saved it must be given permission to be run as a program. Example 4 shows the command needed to change to the directory/folder where the script is stored. How to apply execute permissions and how to run the script.
Example 4:
First open a terminal window if you haven't already done so and enter the following commands. The actual location of your script is where you chose to save it.
cd /home/aikiwolfie/scripts/ (press enter)
chmod a+x my_backup_script (press enter)
./my_backup_script (press enter)
And that's it. Sit back and watch the backup script do it's job.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
OpenOffice: Why Do OEMs Ignore it?
I was just wondering exactly how much adoption OpenOffice had achieved.
13% of the market sounds good. But what does it mean? And how just what
exactly will the threshold be before the likes of HP, Asus, Acer and Dell decide they can't ignore
OpenOffice any longer?
"The total TCO for implementing OpenOffice.org LandsNet (the entire
public sector) ... OpenOffice.org results in a cost reduction of 91%".
The numbers speak for themselves!
13% of the market sounds good. But what does it mean? And how just what
exactly will the threshold be before the likes of HP, Asus, Acer and Dell decide they can't ignore
OpenOffice any longer?
- http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=138
- http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/more_momentum_behind_openoffice
- http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
- http://knowledge.oscc.org.my/solution-areas/desktop/OpenOffice.org/openoffice-adoption
- http://moodle.centerville.k12.oh.us/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=32064
- http://ooomarketing.blogspot.com/2009/05/openofficeorg-in-education-adoption-is.html
- http://www.gabrielgurley.com/files/817a9ebbe54677f3e629f23b9698361e-10.html
- http://linuxbsdos.com/2008/11/17/norwegian-ministry-to-sponsor-adoption-of-openofficeorg/
- http://www.chrisbray.co.uk/danish-openoffice-adoption-case-study-reports-91-lower-tco
"The total TCO for implementing OpenOffice.org LandsNet (the entire
public sector) ... OpenOffice.org results in a cost reduction of 91%".
The numbers speak for themselves!
Friday, 18 September 2009
Redmond Running Scared!
Microsoft are seriously pushing the boat out here. But still manage to put the boot into their UK customers. Why is Windows 7 cheaper in the US for students than it is in the UK? If memory serves me correctly Microsoft pulled a similar pricing stunt with Windows Vista. How much longer are people going to tolerate such shoddy treatment?
The price gap can't be explained purely by exchange rates alone. So what gives? Does Microsoft think students in UK colleges and universities are stupid? Are they just sheep to be pumped dry and ripped off? Why is it Microsoft has decided to climb aboard the "rip-off Britain" band wagon? Any company treating you like this does not deserve your money. Vote with your feet and your wallets and buy something else.
You could also head on over to Dell IdeaStorm and show one of Microsofts largest OEM partners exactly how you feel about Microsoft ripping you off. Register an account and vote to Boycott Windows 7. Better yet, if you're looking for a new netbook to take to college. Order one of Dells Ubuntu Linux based models. Which contrary to Microsofts BestBuy indoctrination FUD are fully supported by Dell.
Of course it's only fair we ask the question. Why are Microsoft being so agressive with their pricing of Windows 7? It can't be because of Linux. Linux is free to download, install and use. You can even get your hands on the raw source code if that's what floats your boat. Linux in short is a fully functional and fully customisable all purpose OS. Ubuntu, which is pre-installed on some Dell netbooks is a fully featured OS with no artificial limts imposed on it. In contrast netbooks with Windows 7 will be running the "Starter Edition".
What is the "Starter Edition"? Basically it's cripple ware. Microsoft in one way or another artificially limit the capabilities of Windows to force you the consumer who has already "paid money" for a legal copy of pre-installed Windows to cough up more cash. Hardly seems fair. But Microsoft have been getting away with it for years.
Note: Windows 7 Starter Edition no longer has the infamouse "3 applications" artificial limitation. Microsoft buckled under preasure of scathing critisim by almost the entire technology press and on-line publications, blogs, twitters and whatever else. If it was talking about Windows 7 Starter Edition (other than the Microsoft Windows 7 blog), the artificial 3 applications limitation was torn apart.
The price gap can't be explained purely by exchange rates alone. So what gives? Does Microsoft think students in UK colleges and universities are stupid? Are they just sheep to be pumped dry and ripped off? Why is it Microsoft has decided to climb aboard the "rip-off Britain" band wagon? Any company treating you like this does not deserve your money. Vote with your feet and your wallets and buy something else.
You could also head on over to Dell IdeaStorm and show one of Microsofts largest OEM partners exactly how you feel about Microsoft ripping you off. Register an account and vote to Boycott Windows 7. Better yet, if you're looking for a new netbook to take to college. Order one of Dells Ubuntu Linux based models. Which contrary to Microsofts BestBuy indoctrination FUD are fully supported by Dell.
Of course it's only fair we ask the question. Why are Microsoft being so agressive with their pricing of Windows 7? It can't be because of Linux. Linux is free to download, install and use. You can even get your hands on the raw source code if that's what floats your boat. Linux in short is a fully functional and fully customisable all purpose OS. Ubuntu, which is pre-installed on some Dell netbooks is a fully featured OS with no artificial limts imposed on it. In contrast netbooks with Windows 7 will be running the "Starter Edition".
What is the "Starter Edition"? Basically it's cripple ware. Microsoft in one way or another artificially limit the capabilities of Windows to force you the consumer who has already "paid money" for a legal copy of pre-installed Windows to cough up more cash. Hardly seems fair. But Microsoft have been getting away with it for years.
Note: Windows 7 Starter Edition no longer has the infamouse "3 applications" artificial limitation. Microsoft buckled under preasure of scathing critisim by almost the entire technology press and on-line publications, blogs, twitters and whatever else. If it was talking about Windows 7 Starter Edition (other than the Microsoft Windows 7 blog), the artificial 3 applications limitation was torn apart.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Ubuntu Tip: How To Mount ISO Disk Images
If you use .iso CD/DVD images here's how to mount them from the command line or in a terminal window.
Open a terminal window and type the following commands;
Open a terminal window and type the following commands;
- sudo mkdir /media/iso
- sudo modprobe loop
- sudo mount filename.iso /media/iso -t iso9660 -o loop
- mkdir creates a new directory. This directory will be used as a "mount point" by Ubuntu to allow you access to the .iso file. In reality any directory can be used. It's good practice however to use a clearly defined location. You avoid problems and keep your file system clean and tidy.
- filename.iso is the name of the iso file you wish to mount. Substitute "filename.iso" for the name of your .iso file.
- To unmount the file use the following command: sudo umount /media/iso or whatever you called your new mount point.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Five Best Disk Defragmenters
This article Five Best Disk Defragmenters from Lifehacker which I came across while browsing through digg.com took me back some. All the while Randall C. Kennedy is bitching about GUIs that don't meet his high journalistic standards and Linux design concepts "contaminating" Windows, Windows users are still defragmenting their hard drives? I mean seriously!
I can remember having to defrag my hard drive when I was using MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows XP Professional. I can remember setting the PC upat night to run it's course and it still wouldn't be done by morning. In the days of MS-DOS to Windows 3.11 I only had a tiny hard drive. A few hundred megabytes of capacity. When I got Windows 95 I moved up to a Quantum Bigfoot 1 GB drive. Which back then was huge! With Windows 98 and 98 SE I leapt up to 8GB and 10GB drives.
Defragging my PCs hard drives back then seemed to take forever. It was something you planned in advance. You'd have to clear your schedule for the week and mark it in the diary before hand. And after all the effort to get your files sorted out into easily accessible contiguous blocks of data, they were all messed up again as soon as you used your PC. Defragging was and still is a truly pointless endeavour. And Windows users are still doing this?
I was of the impression Windows Vista was supposed to have ushered in a new era? Windows 7 was to build on that and make it better? Why then are Windows users still behaving as though they're using MS-DOS? With my current Dell XPS 720 I have 1.5TB of internal storage on the hard drives and an addition 1TB extrenal drive. That's 2.5 terrabytes in total I'd have to defragment if I were still using Windows. The very thought alone gives me hives.
In my opinion defragmenting a hard drive on a PC is not only pointless. It's archaic. It's pre-stone age technology. Nobody should have to do this any longer. There are file systems out there in the real world being used everyday that essentially avoid this problem altogether. I've never defragmented a Linux hard drive. Not when I was using Red Hat Linux years ago. Not While using openSuSE and never while using Ubuntu. It's something I have simply never needed to do. It didn't even enter my mind until i read the Lifehacker article.
Microsofties really need to wake up and demand better from their masters.
I can remember having to defrag my hard drive when I was using MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows XP Professional. I can remember setting the PC upat night to run it's course and it still wouldn't be done by morning. In the days of MS-DOS to Windows 3.11 I only had a tiny hard drive. A few hundred megabytes of capacity. When I got Windows 95 I moved up to a Quantum Bigfoot 1 GB drive. Which back then was huge! With Windows 98 and 98 SE I leapt up to 8GB and 10GB drives.
Defragging my PCs hard drives back then seemed to take forever. It was something you planned in advance. You'd have to clear your schedule for the week and mark it in the diary before hand. And after all the effort to get your files sorted out into easily accessible contiguous blocks of data, they were all messed up again as soon as you used your PC. Defragging was and still is a truly pointless endeavour. And Windows users are still doing this?
I was of the impression Windows Vista was supposed to have ushered in a new era? Windows 7 was to build on that and make it better? Why then are Windows users still behaving as though they're using MS-DOS? With my current Dell XPS 720 I have 1.5TB of internal storage on the hard drives and an addition 1TB extrenal drive. That's 2.5 terrabytes in total I'd have to defragment if I were still using Windows. The very thought alone gives me hives.
In my opinion defragmenting a hard drive on a PC is not only pointless. It's archaic. It's pre-stone age technology. Nobody should have to do this any longer. There are file systems out there in the real world being used everyday that essentially avoid this problem altogether. I've never defragmented a Linux hard drive. Not when I was using Red Hat Linux years ago. Not While using openSuSE and never while using Ubuntu. It's something I have simply never needed to do. It didn't even enter my mind until i read the Lifehacker article.
Microsofties really need to wake up and demand better from their masters.
Friday, 24 July 2009
Dell Ubuntu ... What's Going On?
Dells stance on Ubuntu is supremely confusing. Ubuntu is clearly doing relatively well in the desktop market. There are several smaller vendors building and selling PCs pre-loaded with Ubuntu and doing it well. None of them seem to be going to the wall so they must be doing something right. Something Dell aren’t doing perhaps?
So Ubuntu it’s self simply can’t be the root of the problem.
Which means we need to look at other factors. It was only with the introduction of the Mini 9 Dell started offering Ubuntu as an option side-by-side with Windows. But even then they didn’t really tell people what it was they were offering.
If all you had ever known was chocolate ice cream. Would you try strawberry ice cream if you didn’t know what it was?
Are people overly critical of Dell for hiding their Ubuntu options? I don’t think so. If you were selling ice cream, would you only target people who had already tried it? The fact you’re already selling chocolate ice cream shouldn’t stop you from selling strawberry ice cream.
Almost any other company in the world selling any other product in the world would sell similar products from different vendors side-by-side. They wouldn’t shunt one into the basement.
Now finding Ubuntu based Dells is easy enough if you know where to look and if you know Ubuntu actually exists. But what if you don’t? If all the strawberry ice cream is in the basement and you’ve never even heard of it. How do you try it out? How do you get that first taste?
Lets say you’re out shopping. There’s a nice brightly lit store selling chocolate ice cream galore with all sorts of deals going on. Next to the store are some steps going to a dark dingy basement level with a tiny sign half obscured. It reads “Strawberry Ice Cream here”.
Are you tempted to try the strawberry ice cream?
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Windows 7 Vs. Linux: OS Face-Off: The Muppets Return!
Why does the Microsoft press insist on perpetuating this phoney war? Are they that desperate to stave off the mass exodus of Windows users to Linux? Is there a mass exodus? You'd be forgiven for thinking there was given the way some "journalists" are writing these days trying to trumpet the merits of Windows Vista 7.
Speaking of which. An article from Information Week, the type of article that likes to pretend to be balanced and unbiased, caught my eye. Particularly this little snippet.
What complete and total bollocks! Fair enough. We can't really preserve Windows applications settings yet. But why would we want to?
I'm not sure what the author is expecting Ubuntu to do here. Migrate Windows OS and application settings to Ubuntu? Windows doesn't migrate anything from Linux. It can't even read Linux partitions as standard. And guess what? Windows doesn't even preserve the GRUB boot-loader. Even on Multi-boot systems!
If a user wishes to preserve application settings from Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04 for example they can. First of all many applications use user specific settings stored in the "/home" directory. The easiest way to preserve these settings is to simply split "/home" off into it's own partition or even it's own hard drive. So when you do a simple upgrade. Everything in your own user account should still be as it was.
Even better though! With "/home" hived off in it's own little world we can do a complete re-installation of the OS and applications and still preserve out local application settings. So what about global settings?
It's quite simple really. Back-up before before you upgrade. That way you can restore your settings after the upgrade is done. This I think is a safer way to do things. Firstly it encourages you to make back-ups which can't possibly be bad. Secondly old global settings for old versions of applications aren't always appropriate for the newer versions.
In fact considering the pace that open source software development moves at. It's probably better to go with the new defaults than try to shoehorn old square preferences into a newer rounder hole. After all bad application configurations cause things to break.
Speaking of which. An article from Information Week, the type of article that likes to pretend to be balanced and unbiased, caught my eye. Particularly this little snippet.
... Another issue may be the fact that while it's possible to install 7 on top of Vista and preserve one's applications and settings, it isn't yet possible to do this in Linux.It is possible to automatically migrate documents and some fairly generic system settings -- Ubuntu does this, for instance -- but not the apps themselves. (For those planning on performing an entirely clean installation of either OS, though, it's a moot point.) ...
What complete and total bollocks! Fair enough. We can't really preserve Windows applications settings yet. But why would we want to?
I'm not sure what the author is expecting Ubuntu to do here. Migrate Windows OS and application settings to Ubuntu? Windows doesn't migrate anything from Linux. It can't even read Linux partitions as standard. And guess what? Windows doesn't even preserve the GRUB boot-loader. Even on Multi-boot systems!
If a user wishes to preserve application settings from Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04 for example they can. First of all many applications use user specific settings stored in the "/home" directory. The easiest way to preserve these settings is to simply split "/home" off into it's own partition or even it's own hard drive. So when you do a simple upgrade. Everything in your own user account should still be as it was.
Even better though! With "/home" hived off in it's own little world we can do a complete re-installation of the OS and applications and still preserve out local application settings. So what about global settings?
It's quite simple really. Back-up before before you upgrade. That way you can restore your settings after the upgrade is done. This I think is a safer way to do things. Firstly it encourages you to make back-ups which can't possibly be bad. Secondly old global settings for old versions of applications aren't always appropriate for the newer versions.
In fact considering the pace that open source software development moves at. It's probably better to go with the new defaults than try to shoehorn old square preferences into a newer rounder hole. After all bad application configurations cause things to break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)