I've tried other Linux distros: Open Suse 12.2, Xubuntu, and Kubuntu. Linux Mint Mate is just twenty-four flavors of awesome and that's all there is to it. I like the Linux Mint Menu and don't want to give it up, not for Xubuntu and certainly not for Kubuntu. I like the simplicity and easiness of Mate, where things tend to just work, although there are a few quirks, such as the buggy and limited screensaver. But I plan to stick with Mate until such time that I start hearing about the maturity and stability of Linux Mint Cinnamon. Based on the comments I've read in forums, I'm not sure Cinnamon is ready yet to be my desktop. Mate is ready. But I'm going to wait a year or two, maybe for the next LTS release, for Cinnamon.
Xubuntu annoyed me greatly because the file manager, Thunar, does not allow me to open config files with Admin privileges, unlike Linux Mint Mate's Nautilus. It is also slow, especially moving files to different directories on a single partition, which should be fast, as it is in Windows XP. Thunar has some odd default behavior which was anti-intuitive, such as not opening a directory when I clicked on it. Xubuntu did not auto-detect my display resolution either, but put me at 1680 x 1024 on a monitor with a maximum 800x600 display, which meant I was having to guess what the text messages read until I finally figured out how to correct the resolution. I spent hours trying to configure Xubuntu before I gave up. The look of Xubuntu is simply inferior to Mate, and there's no easy way around that. I felt that Xfce overall was sacrificing a lot of conveniences and elegance to preserve a negligible amount of memory. At no time did Xubuntu seem faster. In fact, after creating Samba shares on my Xubuntu drive, Xubuntu booted about 5-10 seconds slower than Linux Mint Mate. In addition, everytime I clicked on Firefox or VLC the response seemed to be much slower than Linux Mint Mate, about three to five seconds of waiting before the application opened. Often I clicked on Firefox two or three times before two or three instances opened. Thus, there was no advantage to Xubuntu, but it was more difficult to use, while being considerably slower. I was also missing my wonderful Linux Mint menu, which I never want to be without, ever again. The menu alone is worth installing Linux Mint. Other distros simply do not understand how human beings work. Linux Mint really gets it.
The thing about an OS is I do not want to learn how to use one. I want the OS to know how to handle me, not the other way around.
I do wish I could find a Linux distro that displayed a modicum of intelligence during the installation process. For instance, if a computer has > 2 gigs of RAM, then swappiness should be dialed down at the get-go. I should not have to go in and modify vm.swappiness to equal 5 or 10. The temp directories in fstab should all be tmpfs. "Noatime" should be the default for all partitions. Why do I have to modify ten freaking configuration files every time I install a new Linux distro? But then again Windows is not much different. Every Windows install I ever made, I had to tweak about ten settings after install.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Disable the Google Dropdown List
Who on this good green Earth wants to hide the first three results in a
search? Google does. Their dropdown list obscures the search results, making it so I have to search for a term two or three times instead of just once. A dropdown list only slows me down because I can type faster than Google can populate a dropdown list with its guesses. This link shows how to install Greasemonkey in Firefox. Greasemonkey can install a third-party script that will eliminate Google's dropdown list.
The Time Has Come
The time has come to reread Patrick O'Brian's wonderful saga about Captain Aubrey.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Characters
Writing can or could be an end unto itself, if one has what it takes to create an imaginary character. I've often been tempted, but the task is difficult, probably beyond me. It is easier to imagine a character than to translate the imaginings into the written word. Only a good sort of writer, like Tolkien, can bring characters to life in such a way that readers will be happy to spend their evenings with those characters. Other writers are good enough to bring characters to life, but one doesn't wish to spend time with their characters. Doris Lessing comes to mind here. I can't think of a single character from her books that I miss. On the other hand, I do miss some of the characters in books by Tolkien, Jane Austen, Robert Heinlein, Mary Renault, Anne Rice, and Gore Vidal.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Belief
The way that ghosts are treated by movies and books seems mistaken. I would think that if ghosts were possible, then they would be as moderate and mild as we are, since they were once like us. If anything, one would expect amelioration from a ghost, an improvement over what they once were. Did death teach them nothing? Surely it is an effective teacher.
I've never felt contacted by any ghost, I think. Or if so, the entity was mild and gentle, not scary or annoying. I've never had what might be called a supernatural or religious experience that I can recall. I think that is a good thing, because I probably wouldn't understand a universe where the rules could be waved aside, as it were.
Sometimes I do wonder about certain odd coincidences, but then I feel like I'm being silly and unscientific, a superstitious ape that is startled by thunder because he does not know what makes it.
I prayed as a child, but was never in touch and did not understand the first thing. Few of my prayers were answered. My success rate in prayer was below one percent. Maybe I had a few successful prayers concerning something small, such as getting an "A" on a test that I would have gotten an "A" on anyway. Maybe someone recovered from a cold virus quickly and I attributed their recovery to my prayer the night before. The successes were always probable events, and I realized there was a problem giving credit to prayer for them. Prayer didn't have anything to do with anything. Bunch of mumbo-jumbo, it was. Overall, the God described by my Church seemed pretty useless to me. He was a nag at best, or at worst a wimp that never helped out. I felt like I could do better in my choice of friends, so I ditched God for good. Yet even at the most unexpected times, I still do pray on rare occasion by way of deal-making with the abstract Cosmos, thinking only to myself without uttering a word. "If such-and-such may be allowed to happen (such as getting a new job), then I will be able to do good work over in this area as well, you see... So, isn't it better if fortune shines my way? Of course, it is only logical..." I'm pragmatic. If there's a Deity, then let's see what he can do for me.
I think that my belief is primitive and elemental, maybe primordial. I do not think of the Deity because that is something I cannot know, something beyond human capacity, like staring into the Sun. I don't believe any of the religions have got things exactly right, but I don't know either. So, atheist, yes, if the word is to mean a belief in a deity as described by a book. Not an atheist, if the word is to mean something greater than or equal to ourselves that one does not know yet, perhaps not a thing at all but instead a force or even a bit of revelatory knowledge, such as the reason for existence. One finds it enticing to hope that there is a Direction, and one finds it dismal to believe only in Chaos and randomness, a brief life and then darkness. I do prefer to believe in Direction, in order, finding it more appealing. I do not know much more than that. I like to conceptualize God as the Ideal, or what happens according to Absolute Good for the benefit of all. That seems about right to me.
Perhaps it is so that a brief life and then darkness is the human fate. But that is made more bearable if one supposes that there is a continuity of goodness, of the creative genius, that transcends the cycle of life and death. Perhaps death is the annihilation of the individual, as I still believe. I find it very unlikely that individual identity can or should survive death. For one thing, humans are very much alike, so another person often may serve as an adequate replacement, equal if not superior. Our redundancy means there's no real necessity for the soul to be immortal. Why would the souls of Man persist after death, when Man's distant relatives were mere beasts, or going further back, single-celled organisms? At what point in our evolution spanning millions of years would God grant upon this species of ape the precious gift of immortal life? No, I think it is wishful thinking and egotism that makes people cling to the thought of immortality, a clinging to this world and the things and people of this world, which is only natural.
Certainly immortality would be preferable. Perhaps one day scientific advances will create a race that is immortal or at least very long-lived. I'd gladly accept a thousand years, a solid improvement over eighty.
I've never felt contacted by any ghost, I think. Or if so, the entity was mild and gentle, not scary or annoying. I've never had what might be called a supernatural or religious experience that I can recall. I think that is a good thing, because I probably wouldn't understand a universe where the rules could be waved aside, as it were.
Sometimes I do wonder about certain odd coincidences, but then I feel like I'm being silly and unscientific, a superstitious ape that is startled by thunder because he does not know what makes it.
I prayed as a child, but was never in touch and did not understand the first thing. Few of my prayers were answered. My success rate in prayer was below one percent. Maybe I had a few successful prayers concerning something small, such as getting an "A" on a test that I would have gotten an "A" on anyway. Maybe someone recovered from a cold virus quickly and I attributed their recovery to my prayer the night before. The successes were always probable events, and I realized there was a problem giving credit to prayer for them. Prayer didn't have anything to do with anything. Bunch of mumbo-jumbo, it was. Overall, the God described by my Church seemed pretty useless to me. He was a nag at best, or at worst a wimp that never helped out. I felt like I could do better in my choice of friends, so I ditched God for good. Yet even at the most unexpected times, I still do pray on rare occasion by way of deal-making with the abstract Cosmos, thinking only to myself without uttering a word. "If such-and-such may be allowed to happen (such as getting a new job), then I will be able to do good work over in this area as well, you see... So, isn't it better if fortune shines my way? Of course, it is only logical..." I'm pragmatic. If there's a Deity, then let's see what he can do for me.
I think that my belief is primitive and elemental, maybe primordial. I do not think of the Deity because that is something I cannot know, something beyond human capacity, like staring into the Sun. I don't believe any of the religions have got things exactly right, but I don't know either. So, atheist, yes, if the word is to mean a belief in a deity as described by a book. Not an atheist, if the word is to mean something greater than or equal to ourselves that one does not know yet, perhaps not a thing at all but instead a force or even a bit of revelatory knowledge, such as the reason for existence. One finds it enticing to hope that there is a Direction, and one finds it dismal to believe only in Chaos and randomness, a brief life and then darkness. I do prefer to believe in Direction, in order, finding it more appealing. I do not know much more than that. I like to conceptualize God as the Ideal, or what happens according to Absolute Good for the benefit of all. That seems about right to me.
Perhaps it is so that a brief life and then darkness is the human fate. But that is made more bearable if one supposes that there is a continuity of goodness, of the creative genius, that transcends the cycle of life and death. Perhaps death is the annihilation of the individual, as I still believe. I find it very unlikely that individual identity can or should survive death. For one thing, humans are very much alike, so another person often may serve as an adequate replacement, equal if not superior. Our redundancy means there's no real necessity for the soul to be immortal. Why would the souls of Man persist after death, when Man's distant relatives were mere beasts, or going further back, single-celled organisms? At what point in our evolution spanning millions of years would God grant upon this species of ape the precious gift of immortal life? No, I think it is wishful thinking and egotism that makes people cling to the thought of immortality, a clinging to this world and the things and people of this world, which is only natural.
Certainly immortality would be preferable. Perhaps one day scientific advances will create a race that is immortal or at least very long-lived. I'd gladly accept a thousand years, a solid improvement over eighty.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Hot Cocoa
I believe chocolate is the most divine of foods. It is a superb antidepressant. One should be poor without a cup of hot cocoa in the evening. The best sort of chocolate is the kind scorned by TIME Magazine, which according to this month's issue finds greater value in a Hershey bar than an Organic Free Trade Dark Chocolate bar. TIME magazine compares on the basis of price and nutritional value, important considerations no doubt, but please, give me the Free Trade bar. I will pay a dollar more. Maybe all the razzmatazz about Free Trade is true, maybe embellished, but at any rate what a pleasant thought to sell, that the cocoa farmers are getting paid a fair price for their beans, and thus this cocoa is imbued with good will and good luck, and that means good things will happen to me from eating this cocoa. And I do appreciate the flavor that I find in Free Trade chocolate, and I am certain it is superior to any brand of Hershey's, even their Dove brand. I find Hershey's too sweet and not chocolatey enough by a long shot. The chocolate I prefer is bittersweet and strong-flavored. Lindt 90% is grand, but there are some other good brands that cost more, and Free Trade is one.
Friday, November 23, 2012
A Boring Life
Drama is popular because people don't have it. They don't have it because they don't want it. We really don't want drama in our lives. A boring life is a happy one. Drama does have a place on the screen and in books however. The best life is a boring one, which experiences vicarious drama, adventure, and risk-taking.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
The Economy
I remember back in the 1990's--the boom years--everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, were rapping about how free trade was so great. America wouldn't be manufacturing, but that was all right, because we were going to be leaders in information technology, doing high-level innovating with our super-creative brains, because we were so much more awesome than all those foreigners. Turns out that those imaginary new jobs got exported, downsized, rightsized and outsourced, and when one opens the newspaper nowadays, there just aren't any jobs to be had except in the medical field caring for the comfortably retired with their Medicare and pension plans. That will last for a decade or two and then guess what, no more pension plans and who knows what will happen to Medicare.
I do wish the Republicans would try for once to do something about job creation instead of giving more welfare to the rich, who already receive the lion's share of welfare benefits.
I do wish the Republicans would try for once to do something about job creation instead of giving more welfare to the rich, who already receive the lion's share of welfare benefits.
Monogamy
A thinker such as Thomas Jefferson could not survive as a public and historical icon and revered figure in this modern age. He would be hounded from one end of the earth to the other over the affair with his slave, Sally. Many of the philosophes and illuminati of earlier eras, I'm afraid--they were--regrettably?--horny. The mind, it seems, is difficult to sever from the lower part of the body, which has ideas of its own. I think that, in general, women have greater difficulty understanding this than men, and women tend to look upon the issue in strictly moralistic terms of black and white, whereas men understand the issue in biological terms. Men understand desire and the way that it can burn, burn through restraint and ties and sometimes even oaths. There is also such a thing as mid-life crisis, when a man may long to return to the days of youth, to recapture old feelings, old sensations that may have been lost.
A reasonable accommodation could be found for public figures that find themselves ill-suited to strict life-long monogamy. I think that altogether too many people are getting married that shouldn't, because the institution of marriage isn't well-suited to them. Perhaps a contract may be a better framework, as Heinlein postulated in his wonderful science fiction novels. I am thinking about Petraeus and Clinton.
Yet if a liberal allowance is to be made for those at the top, then a similar accommodation must be made for those in the middle and at the bottom. The Code of Military Conduct must be revisited along with civilian, corporate practices.
A reasonable accommodation could be found for public figures that find themselves ill-suited to strict life-long monogamy. I think that altogether too many people are getting married that shouldn't, because the institution of marriage isn't well-suited to them. Perhaps a contract may be a better framework, as Heinlein postulated in his wonderful science fiction novels. I am thinking about Petraeus and Clinton.
Yet if a liberal allowance is to be made for those at the top, then a similar accommodation must be made for those in the middle and at the bottom. The Code of Military Conduct must be revisited along with civilian, corporate practices.
Xubuntu
I continue to find KDE confusing. I look for settings and they seem to be in multiple locations. I also don't yet understand the concept of Widgets or Panels. After fiddling around with Linux Mint KDE for a while, I don't understand why KDE is any better than Linux Mint Mate. I think I prefer Mate for its helpful and expansive menu. The main problem with Mate is that it doesn't offer enough options on the screensaver. In Mate however, items seem organized in a more logical fashion. In KDE, once I installed a package, it would not show up in the Linux Mint KDE menu. Instead, I had to go hunting for it on the file system. That seemed strange to me.
I've hopped over to Xubuntu. Xubuntu knows how to install a package on the menu for me. Another thing I've noticed about Xubuntu is that it boots faster. I like Xubuntu's story, avoiding the fads and nonsense and concentrating on being a small, lightweight, invisible operating system that is easy to use. As long as I can do almost everything in the GUI I'm happy.
I like Xfce and Xubuntu because they seem conservative. I really don't see an improvement to be made upon the way that the desktop works, or at least Windows 8 and Unity do not represent improvements--they represent regressions. The desktop is not a cell phone. It will never be like a cell phone. To make a desktop like a cell phone is to eliminate all the advantages of the desktop. Really this should be obvious.
I've hopped over to Xubuntu. Xubuntu knows how to install a package on the menu for me. Another thing I've noticed about Xubuntu is that it boots faster. I like Xubuntu's story, avoiding the fads and nonsense and concentrating on being a small, lightweight, invisible operating system that is easy to use. As long as I can do almost everything in the GUI I'm happy.
I like Xfce and Xubuntu because they seem conservative. I really don't see an improvement to be made upon the way that the desktop works, or at least Windows 8 and Unity do not represent improvements--they represent regressions. The desktop is not a cell phone. It will never be like a cell phone. To make a desktop like a cell phone is to eliminate all the advantages of the desktop. Really this should be obvious.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.
I read an article in the New York Times today about Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., who has been diagnosed with Bipolar disorder, the same illness that my father suffers from. Three things about mental illness I can tell you:
Mental illness raises fascinating ethical questions. Perhaps one should forgive everybody, because all evil under the sun may be the result of mental illness, undiagnosed and untreated. Can free will exist in a mind impaired? Today we know only a few mental illnesses, but how many conditions exist without labels? Of course universal forgiveness was the position Jesus adopted. Perhaps we are too limited in both resources and wisdom to adopt this position on a societal scale or even an individual one.
- People do not understand it and are afraid of it.
- Mental illness is subtle sometimes and can be treated. I would expect that many of J.J.'s peers suffer from similar disorders with varying severity.
- It is common to blame the sufferer, whereas with a physical ailment the cause, such as cancer, is blamed rather than the victim.
Mental illness raises fascinating ethical questions. Perhaps one should forgive everybody, because all evil under the sun may be the result of mental illness, undiagnosed and untreated. Can free will exist in a mind impaired? Today we know only a few mental illnesses, but how many conditions exist without labels? Of course universal forgiveness was the position Jesus adopted. Perhaps we are too limited in both resources and wisdom to adopt this position on a societal scale or even an individual one.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Ecstasy Therapy
There appears to be a clinical research study going on in South Carolina that administers the drug MDMA to subjects. Perhaps Ecstasy may prove to have certain medicinal benefits.
I've never done Ecstasy. I don't understand how it works. Ten years ago, I read an alarming article in TIME magazine purporting to show all of the harmful long-term effects. Yes, I'm a bit suspicious because the mainstream media is often nonsense on drugs, marijuana being a case in point. I was alarmed nonetheless. I guess I'm too old to feel any desire to try some new drug. Also, I feel that people should regard any drug as merely experimental until it has been around for at least three thousand years, treating people with medical conditions.
I've never done Ecstasy. I don't understand how it works. Ten years ago, I read an alarming article in TIME magazine purporting to show all of the harmful long-term effects. Yes, I'm a bit suspicious because the mainstream media is often nonsense on drugs, marijuana being a case in point. I was alarmed nonetheless. I guess I'm too old to feel any desire to try some new drug. Also, I feel that people should regard any drug as merely experimental until it has been around for at least three thousand years, treating people with medical conditions.
Kubuntu
Blew my mind recently to learn that Kubuntu is being sponsored by a German philanthropist (here's the English translation) for no reason other than Just Because. Just because, I assume, he's a nice guy. I could see myself doing something similar if I inherited a bundle from my old man.
I think I'm going to give Kubuntu a spin and see whether it flies.
I think I'm going to give Kubuntu a spin and see whether it flies.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Open Suse
I deleted Open Suse after I ran into trouble trying to install a simple video driver, ATI's fglrx. I don't have time enough in the day to deal with a distro that plays games with PackageKit and tells me I can't update my video driver due to metadata. Whatever. I don't want a distro that is harder to use than Ubuntu or Linux Mint. I think I will stay with ubuntu derivatives for the time being, based on this experience with a non-ubuntu distro.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Maroney and Obama / Not Impressed
The Chicago Sun-Times offers a high-resolution version of the famous photo of Gymnast Maroney and President Obama posing together with Maroney's trademark "Not Impressed" look. I got a big laugh out of the picture. I don't see how anyone could not like Obama as a person. He's very likeable. The man's political instincts are awesome as well. I think he is very happy that he won reelection and that his happiness has made him stronger and more alive. I know his job is very difficult, but he has reached a point in his career when he feels like he can be himself. No more elections for him. He's done with that. And I know he's happy about that at least. He deserved reelection. He has done a better job than his opponent would have. I am beginning to understand Obama's admiration for Abraham Lincoln.
As for Maroney, what a great bonus for her that she became part of an iconic photo that will find its way into histories of the United States. I imagine such a photo can only help her career in whatever she decides to do.
As for Maroney, what a great bonus for her that she became part of an iconic photo that will find its way into histories of the United States. I imagine such a photo can only help her career in whatever she decides to do.
Israel
I wrote a post on my blog the other day supporting Israel in its recent battle against Hamas, but then deleted it, because I feared being in error. There are times when I write things on the computer, then walk away, and feel a shadow upon my heart. I then may delete what I have written and I wonder, was it really me that wrote those things, or was it the work of others working through me? Isn't it true that the masses are programmed to believe certain things by the media? FOX News would be an extreme example of such programming, but I am sure that even the other networks and newspapers have certain agendas that may be more subtle than that of FOX.
I like Israel because of its free press and elections and gay rights. In general I am well-disposed toward the Jews and ill-disposed toward conservative or radical Muslims, who I equate with Orthodox Jews.
If I had to choose between Israel and another country in the Middle East, there's no question I would prefer to live in Israel. Wouldn't you?
I hate terrorism and hate the soldiers of Hamas that fire rockets blindly into Israel not knowing where they will explode. Complete idiocy that sets back their own cause, makes it dirty. I hate the idiots that blow up school buses, fire into crowds, boast about suicide bombings. Those individuals do not understand that they justify Israeli attacks, they provide a moral and ethical ground for Israel to operate. An eye for an eye. Who can criticize Israel, when Hamas has slain children?
Yet Israel is far away, and I am not familiar with all that goes on over there, and I'm not sure that I trust all that I read. The basis of Israel's founding seems flawed. I think that the Jews should have settled in Mexico, close to the United States and well-protected in moderate and mild North America. Mexico would have benefited from such an influx of highly intelligent Jews. It is most unfortunate for our country that we must spend billions of dollars every year to keep Israel afloat in hostile waters. How much better for us if Israel did not exist. Then the Arab nations could evaluate the United States in much friendlier terms, more as a trading partner than abettor of their enemy. How much better for us if the fanatics among the Jewish population were left to their own devices. Billions of dollars would be better spent upon medicine and scientific research than on fomenting animosity in the Middle East.
The Muslims for their part are angry and restless for many reasons, and the presence of Israel and the history of Israel supplies an obvious focus for their anger, a provocation, as though Israel is the source of all evil, when it is far from that. Israel is more of a symbol than anything else, but to the Muslims it is a symbol of humiliation.
I am afraid the U.S. seems like an old bear that fails to learn from experience and continues in making the same mistakes over and over again. The Republican Party certainly has learned nothing from history and nothing from the recent election. The Republicans persist in the mindset of the 1950s with exactitude. I do not think I will ever vote Republican in my entire life, because they have decided to be the party of backwardness.
I like Israel because of its free press and elections and gay rights. In general I am well-disposed toward the Jews and ill-disposed toward conservative or radical Muslims, who I equate with Orthodox Jews.
If I had to choose between Israel and another country in the Middle East, there's no question I would prefer to live in Israel. Wouldn't you?
I hate terrorism and hate the soldiers of Hamas that fire rockets blindly into Israel not knowing where they will explode. Complete idiocy that sets back their own cause, makes it dirty. I hate the idiots that blow up school buses, fire into crowds, boast about suicide bombings. Those individuals do not understand that they justify Israeli attacks, they provide a moral and ethical ground for Israel to operate. An eye for an eye. Who can criticize Israel, when Hamas has slain children?
Yet Israel is far away, and I am not familiar with all that goes on over there, and I'm not sure that I trust all that I read. The basis of Israel's founding seems flawed. I think that the Jews should have settled in Mexico, close to the United States and well-protected in moderate and mild North America. Mexico would have benefited from such an influx of highly intelligent Jews. It is most unfortunate for our country that we must spend billions of dollars every year to keep Israel afloat in hostile waters. How much better for us if Israel did not exist. Then the Arab nations could evaluate the United States in much friendlier terms, more as a trading partner than abettor of their enemy. How much better for us if the fanatics among the Jewish population were left to their own devices. Billions of dollars would be better spent upon medicine and scientific research than on fomenting animosity in the Middle East.
The Muslims for their part are angry and restless for many reasons, and the presence of Israel and the history of Israel supplies an obvious focus for their anger, a provocation, as though Israel is the source of all evil, when it is far from that. Israel is more of a symbol than anything else, but to the Muslims it is a symbol of humiliation.
I am afraid the U.S. seems like an old bear that fails to learn from experience and continues in making the same mistakes over and over again. The Republican Party certainly has learned nothing from history and nothing from the recent election. The Republicans persist in the mindset of the 1950s with exactitude. I do not think I will ever vote Republican in my entire life, because they have decided to be the party of backwardness.
Windows XP Feels Dated
Now that I've had a good long taste of Linux Mint Maya, I'm disappointed in my Windows XP desktop. It takes forever to boot. Also, there are little problems associated with having an antiquated operating system. Windows XP never allowed me to customize the desktop the way I like it. The customization process seemed flawed in many ways, I don't remember all the reasons why, but in the end I always gave up and just accepted the Windows default because all the alternatives were worse. Linux Mint Mate on the other hand was quite simple to customize, and I was able to create a black desktop in accord with my tastes in less than an hour. I did browse some of the black desktops on the Gnome web site, but none of them suited me. Another thing I've always missed in Windows is a simple shutdown utility that would shut the system down with a single click. Linux has a shutdown utility built-in.
The reason I stay with Windows XP is that I have so much legacy software, yet is it not true that Linux can run Windows software using Wine? I have even heard that Linux is faster at running Windows software than Windows is. If so, that is astounding and points the finger at poor old Microsoft. I'm sure there must be more to it than that. One of the advantages Linux has is lack of overhead. Microsoft tries to do everything within the OS, including copy protection and virus protection, whereas Linux does without copy protection and without virus protection. Linux does not fret over whether one's key is genuine or not, as it is free, whereas Microsoft builds in all kinds of checks for the legitimacy of the operating system itself. All of this overhead adds up and slows down a machine.
I'm leaning toward OpenSuse at present, 12.3 when it comes out, because I have read that KDE is fast on that distro, faster than Kubuntu even, and I've often been curious about OpenSuse. I am not so foolish as to prefer OpenSuse for its German connection, or at least I hope I'm not, though my father often told me Germans made great engineers, and a friend's father was a fanatic fan of the Volkswagen Bug, the brainchild, he said seriously, of Hitler. That would be unpleasant news to all the hippies that drove Bugs in the Seventies. On a more rational level, the connection with Novell can't hurt. The name Novell is familiar to me to be sure, going back even to the late 1990's, and I've owned a Novell switchbox in the past. Also, I really liked the fact that OpenSuse 12.2 booted in UEFI mode and partitioned a GPT drive without a sweat. Smoothest install I've ever had, including Windows. I do think that OpenSuse is more advanced technologically than either Ubuntu or Linux Mint, and I think the distro leans more towards cutting edge and performance. For stability one would prefer Linux Mint, because its developers take a more conservative approach at least in distros such as Mate, although Cinnamon is certainly not conservative. Linux Mint accepts Ubuntu releases only several months after they have been released, which allows the developers time to review, analyze, and refine Ubuntu before building their Ubuntu derivative, resulting, in theory, in a more stable and usable product, though not more advanced. In fact, Linux Mint should be technologically backward compared to the latest Ubuntu, but only by a small degree, a matter of six months or so.
The reason I stay with Windows XP is that I have so much legacy software, yet is it not true that Linux can run Windows software using Wine? I have even heard that Linux is faster at running Windows software than Windows is. If so, that is astounding and points the finger at poor old Microsoft. I'm sure there must be more to it than that. One of the advantages Linux has is lack of overhead. Microsoft tries to do everything within the OS, including copy protection and virus protection, whereas Linux does without copy protection and without virus protection. Linux does not fret over whether one's key is genuine or not, as it is free, whereas Microsoft builds in all kinds of checks for the legitimacy of the operating system itself. All of this overhead adds up and slows down a machine.
I'm leaning toward OpenSuse at present, 12.3 when it comes out, because I have read that KDE is fast on that distro, faster than Kubuntu even, and I've often been curious about OpenSuse. I am not so foolish as to prefer OpenSuse for its German connection, or at least I hope I'm not, though my father often told me Germans made great engineers, and a friend's father was a fanatic fan of the Volkswagen Bug, the brainchild, he said seriously, of Hitler. That would be unpleasant news to all the hippies that drove Bugs in the Seventies. On a more rational level, the connection with Novell can't hurt. The name Novell is familiar to me to be sure, going back even to the late 1990's, and I've owned a Novell switchbox in the past. Also, I really liked the fact that OpenSuse 12.2 booted in UEFI mode and partitioned a GPT drive without a sweat. Smoothest install I've ever had, including Windows. I do think that OpenSuse is more advanced technologically than either Ubuntu or Linux Mint, and I think the distro leans more towards cutting edge and performance. For stability one would prefer Linux Mint, because its developers take a more conservative approach at least in distros such as Mate, although Cinnamon is certainly not conservative. Linux Mint accepts Ubuntu releases only several months after they have been released, which allows the developers time to review, analyze, and refine Ubuntu before building their Ubuntu derivative, resulting, in theory, in a more stable and usable product, though not more advanced. In fact, Linux Mint should be technologically backward compared to the latest Ubuntu, but only by a small degree, a matter of six months or so.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Qualms about OpenSuse
I'm tempted to install OpenSuse 12.2 on one of my desktops, because it looks awesome and installs like a champ, but I'm concerned about the fact that Ubuntu is the 900-pound gorilla in the Linux world. (If you're wondering where Dungeon Crawl ties into this post, keep reading, I'm getting there.) A glance at distrowatch is enough to confirm that Ubuntu lays claim to a plurality if not a majority of Linux users today, whether through Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, whateverthehelltheycallitBuntu, Linux Mint, or one of the fifty-odd other remixes. I like the idea of staying with the crowd because there is safety in numbers, and OS problems can get mighty tricky. For my next Linux desktop, I want a KDE distro, but right now I'm leaning toward either Kubuntu or Linux Mint, because I'm worried about OpenSuse going the way of the spotted leopard. I don't understand the logic of having fifty-odd distros that do the same things and fifty-odd developer teams reinventing the wheel over and over. Say what you like about Windows, but it gained huge and obvious advantages by having a deep user base and completely focused dev team. If I go with OpenSuse it seems like I'm cutting myself off from Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, because the only linux package available for it is Debian-based, and OpenSuse is an independent distro (i.e. not Debian-based). That's a harbinger. If the OpenSuse user is missing out on DCSS, the question is how many hundreds of other programs is he missing out on? That's problem #1 when you go with an OS or distro that is #5 or worse in popularity.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
A Model Politician
I read an article today about a model politician in Uruguay who defies the stereotype of politicians. He's called the world's poorest President. It would be a good thing if American politicians followed his example.
Ron Paul's Farewell Address
I read or skimmed Ron Paul's Farewell Address to Congress.
Ron Paul is impressive for a Republican, with surprising ideas on many issues. He is representative of what is called Libertarian ideology, which is liberal on social issues, or some social issues, but right-wing on fiscal issues, with a bias for cutting government spending. I trust that he means what he says, that he would cut military spending just as much as domestic spending. But why cut domestic spending at all? Isn't there a benefit to it? I always find the Libertarian argument a bit too simple and find it preposterous for them to claim the middle ground between liberals and conservatives, as though they represent that dish that's neither too hot nor too cold but just right. Ron Paul thinks he occupies some sane middle ground between two opposing, equally crazy, freedom-destroyers, Democrats and Republicans, who chew on Liberty instead of chewing gum. But what he calls welfare spending on grandmother or newborns is not the same as spending billions of dollars on invading a foreign country. I don't think the two parties are equal. There's the Democrats, and what's worse than them are the Republicans. I never saw a good reason for Ron Paul to ally with the Republicans.
He wrote many appealing and true statements, but sometimes drew simple conclusions that were astonishing. I don't know if he always explained the line he drew from true statement "A" to Ron Paul Conclusion "B". I did not always appreciate the reasoning.
There's an odd dimension in his thesis that wants to turn back the clock on a lot of social programs and social progress to make the country resemble some kind of 1800s Industrial Age all over again, workers working six days a week and twelve hours a day, no benefits and no right to strike.
This "Absolute Liberty" permits no check upon the individual, most of all the wealthy individual, because only the wealthy own factories, run financial empires, influence politicians. The wealthy thus access liberties that the rest of us cannot afford. Thus under the ecosystem of absolute "Liberty," a few rich tycoons would accrue all power, because there would be no curb upon their power from the government. The rich would have the liberty to do as they please to you and your kind. That is how things were in the 1800s.
The 1800s was Ron Paul's magical era, a time when the federal government was behaving in general accordance with Ron Paul beliefs. I don't see that Ron Paul would have favored Lincoln's Civil War. I hesitate to predict how he would have stood on slavery. I do believe him, however, when he promises he would let the tokers, like Abraham Lincoln, have their weed. Right on for that, man. I just don't know whether you're also with us on other stuff.
He wrote many appealing and true statements, but sometimes drew simple conclusions that were astonishing. I don't know if he always explained the line he drew from true statement "A" to Ron Paul Conclusion "B". I did not always appreciate the reasoning.
There's an odd dimension in his thesis that wants to turn back the clock on a lot of social programs and social progress to make the country resemble some kind of 1800s Industrial Age all over again, workers working six days a week and twelve hours a day, no benefits and no right to strike.
This "Absolute Liberty" permits no check upon the individual, most of all the wealthy individual, because only the wealthy own factories, run financial empires, influence politicians. The wealthy thus access liberties that the rest of us cannot afford. Thus under the ecosystem of absolute "Liberty," a few rich tycoons would accrue all power, because there would be no curb upon their power from the government. The rich would have the liberty to do as they please to you and your kind. That is how things were in the 1800s.
The 1800s was Ron Paul's magical era, a time when the federal government was behaving in general accordance with Ron Paul beliefs. I don't see that Ron Paul would have favored Lincoln's Civil War. I hesitate to predict how he would have stood on slavery. I do believe him, however, when he promises he would let the tokers, like Abraham Lincoln, have their weed. Right on for that, man. I just don't know whether you're also with us on other stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)