18 December 2007
Reading Zeth's blog, I've found this interesting article about encrypting your /home.. And the reasons had convinced me to do the same.
One observation (I see this happen in more than one thinkpad model) :
I don't know why, but Ubuntu linux eat lots of minutes to boot with a black screen, and when you use a encrypted /home, you'll need to imaginate when type the password..
A: Just remove "splash silent" from the line kernel of your grub.
UPDATE: Just edit /etc/usplash.conf
01 December 2007
12 October 2007
04 October 2007
03 September 2007
30 August 2007
<ironic mode>Maybe the SP1 will format your actual vista installation, migrate all data and install a new and clean realease of a linux distribution called "Linux Vista", to obtain better performance. IMHO, is the only way to get more perfomance using this load of crap.</ironic mode>
22 August 2007
07 August 2007
Commodore is actually an active company, building "game pcs", skin change capable (of course, theres an Vintage C64 section on this site).
02 July 2007
11 May 2007
Well.. in the Linux Distribution Sucks-Rules-O-Meter we have some interesting results.
The idea of this site is:
- screen scrape distrowatch
- select "major" distributions using completely arbitrary methods
- query altavista with "sucks" and "rules" or "rocks" and the distribution name
- graph the results
Funny and interesting idea.
23 April 2007
Dell announced that it would be offering XP again on home PCs. The second that Vista came out, Microsoft makes it very hard for you to sell anything other than Me II. It can't do this on the business side because it would be laughed out the door, but for the walking sheep class, well, you take what you are shovelled.
This is classic abusive monopoly behaviour, Microsoft wrote the modern book on it. It pulled all the major OEMs in by twisting their arms with the usual methods, and they again all fell into line. Never before has anyone backpedalled on this, to do so would earn you the wrath of Microsoft.
But Dell just did. This means that Me II sales are at least as bad as we think, the software and driver situation is just as miserable, and Dell had no choice but to buck the trend. If anyone thinks this is an act of atonement for foisting such a steaming pile on us, think again, it doesn't care about the consumer.
What happened is, the OEMs revolted in the background and forced Microsoft's hand. This is a big neon sign above Me II saying 'FAILURE'. Blink blink blink. OK, Me II won't fail, Microsoft has OEMs whipped and threatened into a corner, it will sell, but you can almost hear the defectors marching toward Linux. This is a watershed.
The other equally monumental Me II failure? Gates in China launching a $3 version of bundled XP. Why is this not altruism? Well, it goes back to piracy and how it helped enforce the MS monopoly. If you can easily pirate Windows, Linux has no price advantage, they both cost zero.
With Me II, Microsoft made it very hard to pirate. It is do-able, you can use the BIOS hack and probably a host of others, but the point is, it raised the bar enough so lots of people have to buy it. Want to bet that in a country with $100 average monthly salary, people aren't going to shell out $299 for Me II Broken Edition?
What did MS do? It dropped the price about 100x or so. I can't say this is unprecedented, when it made Office 2003 hard to pirate it had to backpedal with the student edition for about $150. This time though, things are much more desperate.
If you fit Microsoft's somewhat convoluted definition of poor, it still wants to lock you in, you might get rich enough to afford the full-priced stuff someday. It is at a dangerous crossroads, if its software bumps up the price of a computer by 100 per cent, people might look to alternatives.
That means no Me II DRM infection lock in, no mass migration to the newer Office obfuscated and patented file formats, and worse yet, people might utter the W word. Yes, you guessed it, 'why'. People might ask why it is sticking with the MS lock in, and at that point, it is in deep trouble.
So, it did the unthinkable, and dropped the price. I won't bother to hunt down all the exec quotes saying how people can't afford clean water would be overjoyed to sell kidneys to upgrade to the new version of Office, but they are out there. This was a sacred cow, and it is now hamburger backed up against the wall.
These two actions by Microsoft are proof of what I suggested three years ago. Microsoft has lost its ability to twist arms, and now it is going to die. It can't compete on level ground, so is left with backpedalling and discounts of almost 100 times.
What we are seeing is an unprecedented shift of power. It is also an unprecedented admission of failure. And the funniest part about the moves made? They are the wrong things to do. Microsoft is in deep trouble.
Source: The Inquirer
You can also read how Microsoft sells only 244 copies of Vista in China.
20 March 2007
Funny... After look at the Microsoft's Site, I see something like a "desperate cry" of some big company...
15 March 2007
The press release, issued late on Wednesday, announced that UK-based bank HSBC has agreed to adopt technology from Novell and Microsoft's recently announced partnership.
In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations, states that the bank's existing Linux environment is more expensive to maintain than its Windows environment. "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment."
HSBC claims it will achieve cost savings by reducing the number of Linux distributions it uses and by improving the interoperability of its open-source operating system deployments with Windows. "Our decision to simplify our mixed-source environment with Microsoft and Novell will allow us to reduce the cost and complexity," said O'Neill.
Although it is unclear at this time which Linux distributions the bank is using, the fact Novell is associated with a statement that claims Linux has a higher total cost of ownership than Windows will surprise and anger many in the open-source community.
Previously, Novell has been a vociferous proponent of the cost savings offered by open-source software. Speaking at BrainShare, the company's annual user conference in Barcelona in 2004, Novell chief Jack Messman claimed that Microsoft's exhaustive licence fees for Windows have prevented end-user organisations and independent software developers from directing cash into more "innovative" software.
"I am of the opinion that innovation has been slowed because of Microsoft. It has sucked $60bn out of our industry that could have been used for innovation," Messman said. "My vision is that companies won't have to spend so much on operating systems which have been commoditised and spend more on innovation."
But after a long and bloody tussle with Microsoft over patents that both parties held on each other's software, Novell announced in November last year that it was laying aside its past differences with the Redmond company and launching a partnership.
The companies said that they will collaborate on development of specific technologies, for example to help Windows work with Novell's Suse Linux. The companies will create a joint research facility at which they will build and test new products, and work with customers and the open-source community.
The research will include Novell offering a version of Suse Linux Enterprise Server with optimised virtualisation features for Windows Server Longhorn, expected to launch later this year.
Novell's Microsoft-friendly makeover was marked by the dismissal of its chief executive Jack Messman, who was let go in June last year. However, his replacement, Ron Hovsepian, has not completely resisted the odd dig at Microsoft.
Speaking at a press conference in Sydney recently, Hovsepian said he was pleased by the slow uptake of Microsoft's desktop operating system Vista."We're excited by the muted reaction to Vista," he said. "We're going to attack [Microsoft] vigorously and go after their footprint as much as we can," Hovsepian said.
Vista was five years in the making, so the code behind it is very complex according to Hovsepian, whereas open source is more nimble and flexible. "And we have got to take advantage of that."
The HSBC announcement will see the bank, which has 9,500 offices and 284,000 employees in 76 countries, sign up to a three-year support subscription to Suse Linux Enterprise Server from Novell.
Despite the marked differences in approach between open-source supporters and proprietary companies such as Microsoft, HSBC's blended approach to using the software is not uncommon. Speaking at a conference last year, Phil Dawson, Gartner research vice president, said that the analyst group was increasingly receiving feedback from its clients showing that there is a real growth in companies that want to run open-source software stacks on top of Windows, or proprietary software on top of Linux.
"The traditional approach has been an all-commercial Windows stack or a full open-source, Linux-based stack, but these are two extremes of the pendulum. The real growth is in the middle ground," Dawson said.
Source: ZDNet and Slashdot
Ok, wait a sec. Novell is too stupid to claim that a software (not from novell) are better than your own product?! Second, this affirmation is the most stupid point in history, saying that Windows is cheaper than linux. Stupid... Very Stupid... And Humor flagged in my wordpress. A little example.. "I prefer buy Vista by $300 than using linux for free... yeah... its more cheaper.. Maybe we can talk about companies, and talk about the horrible Linux Enterprise OS from Novell and Red-Crap".
Source: Slashdot and Core Security
"Only two remote holes in 10 years" becomes a parody.. Everyone knows that the default install have another bugs that OpenBSD people doesn't want assume, but whatever. I don't care about it, since I prefer a professional solution than a joke called *bsd.
27 February 2007
On Friday, Matthew McMahon, a spokesman for IBM, stated they are not ready to guarantee their software to be compatible with Oracle’s version of Linux. If any compatibility issue is raised between the two, it will be strictly up to Oracle to provide a fix.
Oracle not only claims their version to be identical to Red Hat Linux, but says software that was written for Red Had will run consistently on their version as well; this is still not enough for IBM to support their software on the new Linux distribution.
Instead, IBM is taking the safe approach by waiting to see if any software compatibility issues arise.
“We are going to wait and see if there is traction in the marketplace,” McMahon said. “If clients want it (Oracle), then we will support it.”
However, analysts are claiming that consumers want to be assured of compatibility before switching to Oracle, and this remains one of Red Hat’s strongest selling points. Red Hat provides an assurance of compatibility among over 2,700 business software packages; in which, their products are 100% compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
“What Red Hat is selling to the customer is peace of mind. Oracle cannot do that because it is unable to certify comparability,” said Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research.
IBM’s denial of support, for Oracle, is causing uncertainty with companies in adopting the OS. IBM sells widely used software (DB2 database, Tivoli software) that corporations use to run sizable computer networks. Without a compatibility guarantee, businesses simply can’t afford to take chances with Oracle.
Oracle spokeswoman, Deborah Hellinger, declined to say how the company would respond if it’s Linux customers were to have issues with 3rd party software; although, Oracle may be taking the safe approach along with IBM.
21 February 2007
After thirteen years as a loyal Red Hat and Fedora user, I reached my limit today, when an attempt to upgrade one (1) package pitched me into a four-hour marathon of dependency chasing, at the end of which an attempt to get around a trivial file conflict rendered my system unusable.
The proximate causes of this failure were (1) incompetent repository maintenance, making any nontrivial upgrade certain to founder on a failed dependency, and (2) the fact that rpm is not statically linked -- so it's possible to inadvertently remove a shared library it depends on and be unrecoverably screwed. But the underlying problems run much deeper.
Over the last five years, I've watched Red Hat/Fedora throw away what was at one time a near-unassailable lead in technical prowess, market share and community prestige. The blunders have been legion on both technical and political levels. They have included, but were not limited to:
- Chronic governance problems.
- Persistent failure to maintain key repositories in a sane, consistent state from which upgrades might actually be possible.
- A murky, poorly-documented, over-complex submission process.
- Allowing RPM development to drift and stagnate -- then adding another layer of complexity, bugs, and wretched performance with yum.
- Effectively abandoning the struggle for desktop market share.
- Failure to address the problem of proprietary multimedia formats with any attitude other than blank denial.
In retrospect, I should probably have cut my losses years ago. But I had so much history with Red-Hat/Fedora, and had invested so much effort in trying to fix the problems, that it was hard to even imagine breaking away.
If I thought the state of Fedora were actually improving, I might hang in there. But it isn't. I've been on the fedora-devel list for years, and the trend is clear. The culture of the project's core group has become steadily more unhealthy, more inward-looking, more insistent on narrow "free software" ideological purity, and more disconnected from the technical and evangelical challenges that must be met to make Linux a world-changing success that liberates a majority of computer users.
I have watched Ubuntu rise to these challenges as Fedora fell away from them. Canonical's recent deal with Linspire, which will give Linux users legal access to WMF and other key proprietary codecs, is precisely the sort of thing Red-Hat/Fedora could and should have taken the lead in. Not having done so bespeaks a failure of vision which I now believe will condemn Fedora to a shrinking niche in the future.
This afternoon, I installed Edgy Eft on my main development machine -- from one CD, not five. In less than three hours' work I was able to recreate the key features of my day-to-day toolkit. The after-installation mass upgrade to current packages, always a frightening prospect under Fedora, went off without a hitch.
I'm not expecting Ubuntu to be perfect, but I am now certain it will be enough better to compensate me for the fact that I need to learn a new set of administration tools.
Fedora, you had every advantage, and you had my loyalty, and you blew it. And that is a damn, dirty shame.
02 February 2007
Ballmer is too much stupid.. It's great to se him as CEO of Microsoft: A Monkey at front of a very Funny Enterprise, that *ASSUMES* your laughs at users. C'mon Mr-Developers, give me a phone of $99 that can be equipared to iPhone, you fucking moron.
Maybe he can see this video 6 months later.
24 January 2007
According to the international media, Brazil is a leader in free and open source software (FOSS) adoption. The New York Times describes the country as "a tropical outpost of the free software movement," while BBC News claims that "Increasingly, Brazil's government ministries and state-run enterprises are abandoning Windows in favour of 'open-source' or 'free' software." However, FOSS advocates familiar with Brazil describe a less hopeful situation.
They talk about unsystematic support by the government, and a business atmosphere in which mention of FOSS is more about hype than understanding the underlying philosophy. They say violations of the GNU General Public License are commonplace. Some genuine FOSS adoption does happen, they say, but, too often, it is marred by inefficiency, and possibly widespread corruption.
During the first term of the government of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, which began in 2003, FOSS adoption was announced as a major policy. In addition to encouraging federal and state governments to switch to FOSS, Silva's government also used FOSS in PC Conectado, a program to make inexpensive computers available to the Brazilian public. The announcements of these initiatives created the impression internationally that Brazil would soon become an example of FOSS adoption to the rest of the world.
However, not only is the potential of this promising start yet to be realized, but there are signs that pro-FOSS policies are stalling. When Silva was re-elected in late 2006, his party's platform contained only one brief reference to free software -- a general promise to "improve direct and remote service-rendering to citizens, simplifying procedures, training civil servants and broadening the technological base, including the utilization of free software." Nothing of the earlier widespread plans for FOSS was in evidence. Possibly, this de-emphasis of FOSS is due to increased opposition by proprietary software interests, such as those trying to mount a constitutional challenge in the state of Rio do Sol against a law giving preference to FOSS solutions in the government.
Whatever the case, Brazilian advocates have learned to be skeptical about claims for FOSS. For example, although Conectiva (now part of Mandriva) widely publicized a deal with systems integrator Positivo that resulted in more than 90,000 computers shipped with Conectiva installed, Debian developer Gustavo Franco suggests that "almost all the users installed Microsoft Windows copies over that." Franco does not substantiate the claim, but his point is that lower-income Brazilians do not want free software as much as what they see on TV or in ads. Even if his suggestion is not completely true, it reflects the wariness that advocates have learned through bitter experience.
Interest in FOSS still exists throughout Brazil, but signs of progress are hard to see in 2007. "There're a lot of people doing almost nothing but talking a lot," says Debian developer Otavio Salvador.
Hype over quality
Some signs of FOSS adoption are still visible through Brazil, but FOSS observers are concerned about the quality of the code being released and where the efforts are being applied.
Gustavo Noronha Silva, another Debian developer, notes that the federal planning ministry is developing an inventory system called CACIC under the GNU General Public License in partnership with a public company called Dataprev. "The code is not that great," he says, "but they're bringing the free software concepts into the government, and are releasing real code and maintaining it."
Similarly, the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia da Informaçã a government software company, and SERPRO, Brazil's official federal data processing service, have developed some free software courses and assisted in the migration of some government departments to FOSS. "I took part in some of this process when I was managing the IT of one of the ministries," says Silva, "and I could see that their job was very poor quality-wise, and with no planning at all."
Silva cites one case in which source packages were built on top of installed Debian packages and mixed Debian workstations with Windows-based rdesktop connections, and another in which email services were migrated without concern for the existing infrastructure. "They have done lots of damage," Silva says.
In another case, CAIXA, one of Brazil's largest public banks, implemented its own Debian-based operating system. Silva says that the system "basically breaks if you try to upgrade it, so it's impossible to use sanely on servers" -- although that is where CAIXA is using it. He notes, however, that the release of the software was announced "in a big conference with lots of IT heads of the government." Silva's concern is that such efforts will discredit the whole concept of FOSS because of their poor performance, and represent a triumph of marketing over technical considerations.
Similarly, Franco is concerned about government plans to buy laptops from the One Laptop Per Child project. "I think the project is a good idea," Franco says, "but the government's goal is to put the laptops in the teachers' hands" rather than distributing them to lower-income citizens as the project intends.
Franco also mentions rumors that some of the other attempts to deliver cheaper computers in Brazil "bundle dubious quality hardware with a random Linux distribution that doesn't fully support the hardware."
Silva's and Franco's concerns are that such efforts will discredit the whole concept of FOSS through missteps and poor performance. The fact that some government initiatives are being funded by multinational companies such as IBM and Cisco could only add to the disaster for FOSS. "The FLOSS hype in Brazil is a marketing thing," Franco writes in his blog, and, privately, Silva echoed the sentiment to NewsForge.
The software but not the spirit
Advocates are even more concerned about the priorities behind FOSS adoption. The concept of free software has so many positive connotations that both governments and private companies wish to be associated with it. Yet, in practice, many seem more concerned with the free cost than the philosophy of freedom. In many Brazilian FOSS projects, Franco blogs, "Nobody out of the project office (when there's a real one) ever see the source code," even though sharing code is at the heart of the FOSS communities.
In fact, many companies developing and selling free software in Brazil appear to be in violation of section 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which requires them to either make their source code available, or to offer publicly to provide it. Such companies include Kurumin, a distribution widely installed by new users, as well as Poseidon and Kalango, two Kurumin derivatives, Blane, and Dual O/S (formerly Freedows). None of these distributions appears to offer source code anywhere on its site.
According to Franco, the reason that Kurumin does not provide source code is that its developers claim that the distribution uses only original Debian sources. "This isn't true," Franco insists. However, even if it were, the distributions would still be obliged to provide their own source code. Many other distributions in the same position have been found in non-compliance by the Free Software Foundation, and there is no reason to think that Kurumin or any of these other Brazilian distributions would be exceptions.
Moreover, Franco notes that Kurumin's end-user agreement contains a provision stating that users who sue the distribution's developers "lose the right to use 'their software.'" Similarly, Dual O/S includes an evaluation copy that expires after 240 hours of use. Both these restrictions seem to violate additional aspects of the GPL, including Section 4's against sublicensing and Section's 6 requirement that distributors pass on the GPL's rights to subsequent users.
Franco also mentions Plurall, a thin client project, as being in violation of the GPL for not releasing source code. However, Ricardo Prado Schneider of emrede, the non-government organization developing Plurall, tells NewsForge that a repository containing the source code will be available shortly.
FOSS advocates are concerned that, rather than addressing such issues, Brazilian companies and projects are attempting to redefine free software for their own purposes. Silva points to the license developed by the state of Paraná, which is incompatible with the Free Software definition. The FSFLA, the South American sister organization of the FSF, is trying to get the license altered, but comments like those of Omar Kaminski, one of the drafters of the license, that the "GPL is incompatible with Brazilian legislation," and that "perhaps free software in Brazil is moving in a different direction than in the USA" do little to reduce the concerns of FOSS advocates.
Franco worries that, should present trends continue, the FOSS movement in Brazil "won't be a community-oriented one, but something being managed by a well-paid company. Details and source code won't be available. In a way it's already happening, but on a smaller scale."
Corrupt or unaware?
Some FOSS efforts in Brazil do appear to be genuine. Silva cites Mandriva as an example. The Insigne distribution also seems to be in compliance with the GPL, and, although earlier releases were of poor quality, the latest one is said to be significantly improved. Silva also suggests that many individual Brazilians are making contributions to free software, although they are mostly ones "who were doing their work before the hype came up."
"A lot of government institutions, NGOs, and companies are using the FOSS appeal and its arguments with the masses to do what a Brazilian does best (after playing soccer)," Franco says bluntly: "Corruption."
By contrast, Silva feels that the problem "is mostly related to free riders and people who are good at communicating stuff that they don't actually do. I wouldn't go so far as implying corruption. I have seen no evidence of such a thing related to free software. I'd mention incompetence, free riding, and unawareness, though."
Still, one thing is certain: the image of Brazilian FOSS in the rest of the world is out sync with what is happening. "What's being told to the world isn't exactly the real truth," Franco says.
I'm brazilian, and here in Brazil some facts are true.. but some are in a distant reality. People outside don't realize the size of media involved on this. That's not so big. There's a lot of investments in open-source but... not so much.
20 January 2007
Even with a dead OS, there's a lot of people crying with this arguments, but... like 70% of freebsd users, all people defending unfundable stuff use windows as your primary OS. All arguments are based in hipocrisy.
But lets talk about OS/2:
- Single input queue (SIQ): if a GUI application was not servicing its window messages, the entire GUI system could get stuck and a reboot was required.
- No unified command line: OS/2 divided programs into strict categories and communication between programs of different categories was problematic: It was not possible to enter fullscreen mode from a "windowed OS/2 session"; a separate "fullscreen OS/2 session" was required, which could not be made windowed. It was not possible to run DOS or Windows programs from an OS/2 session: a specific "DOS session" was required. From this DOS session (which could be toggled fullscreen) it was not possible to start OS/2 programs.Therefore transparent piping of data was not possible. Worse, in the absence of 8.3 aliases for filenames and directories and DOS API extensions supporting long filenames, it was also problematic to give DOS programs access to files managed from OS/2 programs. Even native OS/2 programs had problems communicating: a command-line program could not fully access the system clipboard, which was reserved for "GUI" programs.
- Workarounds consisted in creating special helper programs (for example an invisible GUI program just for accessing the clipboard) or in using client-server setups, where the client and the server were different types of programs, but communicated using some available way. Just as OS/2 1.x, the 32-bit system was apparently designed with the idea that users would rapidly make a switch to all-native programs.
- No unified object handles. The availability of threads probably lead system designers to overlook mechanisms which allow a single thread to wait for different types of asynchronous events at the same time, for example the keyboard and the mouse in a "console" program. Even though select was added later, it only worked on network sockets. In case of a console program, dedicating a separate thread for waiting on each source of events made it difficult to properly release all the input devices before starting other programs in the same "session". As a result, console programs usually polled the keyboard and the mouse alternatively, which resulted in wasted CPU and a characteristic "jerky" reactivity to user input. In OS/2 3.0 IBM introduced a new call for this specific problem.
- No unified virtual memory and disk cache. Modern operating systems can use the entire available RAM for disk caching and can map files into the address space of processes. OS/2 had a dedicated memory pool for disk caching and could not map files. This could result in decreased performance and RAM waste.