Upgrade ideas out of the wood work

Solid State Drives Guided Search at TigerDirect.ca

I've been having many minor computer wows lately. -- a lot of them -- All starting with Windows7 and iTunes... but I'm not going to get onto that topic. So my primary linux machine tends to have two factors slowing me down. Hard-drive speed, and lack of memory. The memory problem is mostly because I have a need to run 2-3 virtual machines of Windows XP, Win7 and other OSs. My system is maxed at 8G of ram, max for the motherboard. The hard drive speed problem, is the virtual machines of XP and Win7 killing one of my hard drives. Other problem is the postgresql db but that can be solved with larger cache, which takes memory way from the virtual machines adding to the problem.

I started pricing out to replace the motherboard, but then you get into replacing the CPU, memory, and by the time I'm done... I'm up to $1,000. Then I started to think, I wish there was a way to add 100 small drives for raid, and a card for adding 24G of ram. Then it hit me. SSD! Not that I can afford that either, but what would happen if you added a 60G and mounted the entire swap onto it? Would that give the illusion of adding 64G of ram? What about mounting the /dev/shm to a SSD? It's not as elegent as adding a motherboard which can support +24G of ram, but might be the next best thing. -- and if I had the money... slave several SSD into a raid configuration... but now I'm dreaming --

Any ways just an idea I wanted to commit to paper some where.

Other Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths

Speed of my computers ram:

Liandra:

PC2-5300 DDR2-SDRAM (dual channel 128-bit)

84.8 Gbit/s

10.6 GB/s

Firefly:

PC2-6400 DDR2-SDRAM (dual channel 128-bit)

102.4 Gbit/s

12.8 GB/s

Solid State Drives:

Speed ranges between 200-300 MB/s No where near the 10-12GB/s but better than the 2MB/s of random seeks on my current HD's

Ref: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2010/Fresh-state-Throughput-Read-Maximum,2310.html

Why I prefer Linux - Reasons #6 - Easy to install software

Ok ya so the title is a little miss-leading.   But for only one reason, I often here the, "ya but to install software on Linux everything must be compiled".  Well I got news for all those windows users... so do windows programs!   In windows, typically, someone else complies them for you.  (and the same can be true with Ubuntu and Fedora)

Recently I had to install some software on my windows virtual machine and I was reminded of a recent discussion with my wife.  She had said if I wasn't around she'd probably run Linux over Windows -- she uses Windows XP at work, Fedora Linux 12/13 at home, and Windows 7 for her ... cough ... game.  So she has experience backing that statement. --   One of her reasons was it's easier to find and install software.

Why does she have this perception that Linux is easier to install software over Windows (non-MS software)?  The reason, in my opinion, there is over 25 different installers for Windows programs, and many more places you need to go to find them.   Not to mention each program has their own way of handling software updates.   We've been off the Win7 computer for two weeks and we had a mess with everything wanting to do updates... java, virus scanners, adobe, etc....   I had to sit there for 20 minutes applying updates -- to get rid of the annoying pop-ups -- with my wife tapping her fingers so she could play her "game".

In Fedora we have the yum/rpm repositories.   These have all the compilation and installation steps done for you.  All you have to do is select the software you want and click the apply button.   Then continue working while the software is installed for you.   With the package kit it's even smart enough to find and install missing software for you.  All updates are handled via the same system and it has one pop-up for all updates which you can set a threshold when to alert you, or even apply the updates automatically.  (yes!  Microsoft has a similar system, however it's only for Microsoft software.  Most other vendors are not on that system)   So for the general user they would get the perception installing and finding software online is much easier in Linux.

What about commercial software you ask?   Well glad you asked that.   Most commercial software for Linux will have an rpm version or their own yum repository.  Just click the rpm off the web and it will insert it into the mix and be managed the same way as the rest.   Programs which have custom installers, like loki games, are back to the windows concept but their not as frequent.

From the system administrator/support perspective, there is ease as well.   Any commercial programs it's easy to setup a local repository.  Just put the RPM's into a folder or share or website and you can easily push updates by just updating the software in that area. (if you want steps let me know I'll post them somewhere).   The other ease is the time required to be sitting in front of your computer.   Windows installers, if your lucky ask all questions at the beginning.   But if your installing 20 pieces of software that's at least 20 breaks where you need to be sitting in front of the computer to answer "questions".   It's real annoying when it starts installing so you get up to watch a show (as it says it will take 1 hour to install)  after the show you find out it stopped 4 minutes in to ask a question.   With Fedora select the 20 programs, click apply and it's very very very rare you'll get any questions after that.

These are some of the reasons I like Fedora Linux.  Centralized repository for the available software.   No need to visit multiple computer stores for software, no dealing with 101 ways of installing software.  Also since they all use the same specs, all programs are installed in consistent directories. -- well all except Google and Adobe, they compile their own binaries, and they prefer the UNIX standards of the /opt directory --   In general everything in Linux is nice and simple.   But, if there's a way of easily eliminating all the questions of a windows installer for Games like Klingon Academy, Starfleet Command, You Don't Know Jack, and many other games... I'm all ears.

It will never happen to them...

There are a few people who think I'm paranoid about things.  Well a little paranoia can be healthy.  Trust me it saves headaches later down the road.

So with the latest article from Torrent Freak it looks like the US Government is trying the "let's stop shoplifting by arresting bus drivers and shutting down the transit system, so shoplifters can't get to the store" trick.  They don't seem to care that it will leave millions of legal citizens stranded.   To me this seems like the US Government is trying to play both ends against the middle.  By pissing off enough law biding citizens they will get them into the fight to save the archaic and draconian type business models of the entertainment industry.

How does this apply to the average user.  Think about it.  They just targeted a BLOG site which has a DMCA take-down strategy, and was co-operating with the law.  This shutdown has left about 73,000 legal blogs homeless with NO hope of every seeing their blog entries again.   So google has a DMCA take-down strategy and co-operates with the law.  How are they any different?  What about facebook.com, livejournal.com, openstreetmap.org, or other sites?    Any of us who use a cloud base system could be indirectly targeted by the US Government!   I've already had my "legal" linux LiveDVD targeted and taken off-line by anti-piracy groups.   As a result I've switch to Canadian server as the US government and anti-piracy are, in my opinion, implementing cyber terrorist tactics.

Another thing... ask yourself this.  They are targeting news groups, torrent sites, search engine, blogs sites, cyber lockers (aka http://docs.google.com).  They take the entire site down because of a few users, regardless if the owner is co-operating with the law.   How far is the US government willing to go?   What's next?   If a blog site is being taken down, which only links to, and talks about content.   Is hotmail.com, or gmail.com next on the target list?  How long before they are?   Most would say... they'd never do that... but then those same people said they'd never go after news groups or search engines, and they have.  Their targeting not only technology that shares the content, but also the technology that talks about it too!  That's what e-mail is!   That's what e-mail distribution lists are!   A method to share the idea.  So if I post to a list where you can get a free copy of "Garmin MapSource" on talk-list@hotmail.com.    Will they take hotmail.com off-line?   The did with a BLOG site.  

So my ULTIMATE suggestion for everyone.   KEEP YOUR OWN LOCAL BACKUPS!  The US government is trying to force everyone into this war, to find the weapons of mass destruction.  --still no proof that any of these sites actually cause harm I might add!  Just like did they ever find the weapons of mass destruction?--   ACTA, pressure behind creating Bill-C32, and the reason take downs are all examples of the storm that is coming.

Peplink Balance - Compare Specs

Wow the product to fix all my network wows. Wonder if I could convince Kimmy on the $2,000 model?

Music Biz Wants Google To Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay | TorrentFreak

Seems rather underhanded to me. Their trying to control the flow of information, not really the flow of the content. I even saw situations where it's become, in essence "illegal" to even talk about copying content (even the legal copying).

Well I've thought up a solution. If google, bing, yahoo, and others band together in an effort to stop copyright infringement. But instead of blocking all of piratebay.org, or other file-sharing sites (which would block the legal downloads) Take the copyright take down notices like this part:

Sound recording "Your Love Is My Drug" by Ke$ha. The owner of this

copyright work is Sony Music, a BPI member.

Now remove/block all searches related to Ke$ha. Problem solved.

I say if these companies want to stay in the dark ages then let them. Take them off the grid completely. It will strengthen sites like ccmixter.org, jamendo.com, magnatunes.com and youtube.com, and allow for a better community.

Is Open Street Maps Accurate?

Lately I've been suggesting OpenStreetMap as an alternative to Google, NavTech or Garmins maps, on GPS' and GeoCaching.com. My logic is, OpenStreetMaps are community based so they can instantly have whatever you need, especially since anyone can add objects and make corrections.

For Geocaching the map can have trails, lakes, marshes, you name it. Many times I've been looking at a GPS and the geocache is just 200m ahead. I look up and there's a big swamp with no end in sight. With the CanVec, GeoBase, and various Trail Source data I've entered for my area I can now tell where the swamp is, where the trail is and how to get over there without being neck high in a bog.

As of Jan 06, 2010

As of Nov 28, 2010

Sample: Before/After I started editing

Sounds great doesn't it. However, every time I post a suggestion I get these responses that, "OpenStreetMaps isn't accurate enough, or doesn't have enough data to use as an alternative!" Ok this really puzzles, and annoys me.

The people with potential:

All the people making these comments have a GPS! If a road isn't accurate, drive, bike or walk down it once or twice. Upload the automatic GPX log from your GPS into OpenStreetMaps. -- most have this feature on by default -- Then use either their nice flash application -- find the area on OSM, zoom in and click the edit tab -- or you can use the Java application JOSM. Personally I use the Java version so I can do off-line editing. Within 5 minutes your changes will be active on any device using the OSM feed directly and all downstream systems will have it within 2 weeks. -- this depends on the refresh rate of the system, example: Cloud Make downloads seems to be twice a month. --

"But Google has more accurate data."

Well see point on accuracy above, also there something I've noticed in my area. The satelite view of Orangeville is off by about 15-50 metres to the southwest. Google recently has been adding things like buildings and such. But as you can see by the two pictures it looks like their tracing objects from the satelite images. Which is both good and bad. Good if your just looking at it for an overview, but if your standing at the location with a GPS, OpenStreetMaps will most likely be more useful in this situation. To play with the comparison tool yourself click here.

The Professional:

"Ya but NavTech, Microsoft and Google have a team of high paid professionals working on their maps. So they will be more accurate because their professionals." This statement makes me laugh. Who's more devoted the otaku fan who's passion could move the stars or some professional only doing it because he's getting paid? The response I get to this is around the lines of "but if that person is so good then it's pure stupidity that their not one of the high paid employees." This maybe true, but the only thing that makes a professional is training and experience.

Let's consider me. I'm a IT Senior Consultant for the 2-3 largest software company in the world. But one of my passionate hobbies are making the OpenStreetMaps maps as accurate as possible for all of Ontario. In the three months I've been doing this I've learned lots. Give me a few more months of trying different methods and how different would I be from that professional?

Just because your good at something doesn't mean it's the only thing your good at. I picked up making maps as a way to get outside and get exercise. There are, in my estimate, many more "professional" type people who can make maps who are not doing it as their profession.

Speed!

The one thing you don't get from NavTech, Microsoft and Google is speedy updates. Rightly so, since they usually want to bundle the updates as a package they can sell. About two years ago I tried submitting changes for the highway 9 by-pass in Orangeville. Navtech wouldn't accept my GPS logs of driving up and down the road repeatedly. It was because I wasn't an official government source. It took approximately two years to get the by-pass into the downstream systems that used NavTech data.

Being two years ago I figured things could have changed. Today, May 17th I submitted a problem with Google maps for the pond which no longer exists near credit meadows school. Let's see how long it takes to make the change: Google, OpenStreetMaps

Update:  As of Nov 28, 2010 all google's done is remove the lake and the surrounding creek.  So in over six months still not correct.

OpenStreetMaps can't be trusted:

I agree that vandalism can happen, like that person wanting to prove that opensource can't be as good as a commercial product. But once a case of vandalism happens it can be dealt with quickly. Everything submitted to OpenStreetMaps is done as a change set. These change-sets can be backed out, and have in the past. Then the users can be blocked from the OpenStreetMaps. Sure not a perfect solution but there are ways to deal with it if necessary.

For the person who made a mistake, see accuracy comment above, and fix it. NavTech/Garmin has had this road going through a field in Orangeville for over the last 10 years, which has only recently has been corrected. Mistakes happen in commercial products too! My entire point here is that we, as GPS and map users, can fix the problems instantly.

It's too hard to use:

The person who typically makes this statement has never seen or opened the OpenStreetMap editor. It's real simple, the hard part is getting the data. For a 2 hour hike it only takes five minutes or less to enter the trail.

Keeping people on Windows...

I've always said, converting a user to Linux is easy. Keeping them on Linux is the hard part. The reason, users expect 100% perfection from Linux, where they wouldn't expect it from Windows. An example, a new Linux user tries to get program X working, if it doesn't work by a single click I hear grumbling "Windows wasn't this hard". Eventually they do go back to Windows, and spend hours trying to get program X working on Windows, due to incompatibilities.

I always shake my head as they don't realize that it's not that Linux wasn't easy it's they prefer Windows and Windows problems over Linux. Which a preference is much different that a systems capabilities.

Recently I was reminded of this while trying to get games working on Windows 7. Out of all the games I want to play on Windows, I've got a total of 1 working out of ~30. I spent 2 hours yesterday trying to get even one of them working. Problem is the Direct3d is not functioning for anything other than 64-bit programs. Eventually I gave up and went back to Linux.

I guess the same is true for me. Getting me to use windows is easy, but keeping me on windows is impossible because I prefer Linux.

War on Piracy

Personally I have mixed feeling about piracy. On one hand I'm cheering for the big businesses, ya kill piracy, because I know it will only serve to allow the businesses to shoot themselves in the foot.

A lot of copyright holders are under the false impression that if people couldn't pirate they would have no choice but to purchase their products. What they fail to realize is there's a world ready to share for free, and the more they make piracy unappealing the more Fedora Linux, Ubuntu Linux, OpenOffice, CCMixter.org, Jamendo, Vodo, and many other places willing to share free culture and innovation, will grow in strength.

However with that said, I'm a little disturbed at the attempts to deceive the public for the purpose of gaining support to their cause. Not to mention the attempts to stop people from talking about subjects on-line --which I see is an attack on freedom of speech -- and the attempts to make it illegal to share ideas and content for free. Even if it's the content owner doing the sharing.

Out of curiosity, I causally asked around to find out why people pirate. I wanted to determine some of the reasons for the 29% piracy rate in Canada. Here are some of the reasons I heard:

Can't afford it:

Let's consider something. I haven't had a raise in at least 5 years. But in that time the price of gas, groceries, water, hydro, heat, taxes, have all increased. I hear them. Piracy is that gleam of hope at the end of a dark tunnel. Let's face it, a student who can barely afford their next meal isn't going to be able to afford a $300-$1,000 software product. Or to be able to purchase $100s in movies or music. From what I hear the highest piracy rate is those who don't have jobs yet, teenagers!

Although I really can't understand the big businesses in this area, they are saving potential millions in advertising, and killing piracy isn't going to suddenly give these teens jobs, or the money to purchase.

Not Available in Canada:

This one falls under the big grey area. There are many shows, or products which aren't sold in Canada. So pirating them is an interesting scene. There's no one in Canada to sue them!

The other category is the person who watches their TV Shows via pirating until they become available to purchase. I know of one case where the entire collection and movies were all watch via pirating, and the pirate also owns the entire set and movies when the became available. -- which begs the question, in those piracy numbers on the web, how many of the pirates are on both sides? --

Again killing piracy isn't going to do much for their profit margins. The pirates who purchase it anyways, are doing so despite piracy, and the unavailable content, pirates can't purchase it anyways!

Not worth it!

This one I hear and see a lot. Let's look at two examples.

1. The user who receives the floor plans for his house in AutoCad 2011, and needs to make a small change and export it into something more usable. This user doesn't feel the $3,995 MSP price tag is worth it for one day of use. Sure there are other ways to convert this data, but pirating a copy would be the simplest solutions, especially to one who's not that technical.

2. The user who is told the must have Microsoft Office. Most users only use about 2% -- in my estimate -- of the features of MS Office. Most users can get way with the basic features of GoogleDocs If that's the case than the $50-$300 for Microsoft Office is mostly overkill. Most home users I know open Microsoft Office once or twice every few month (if that). Last time I opened Microsoft Office was almost a year ago when I was doing a comparison wiki page.

DRM locks prevent me from using the software:

This one's actually a big one for me, which started with iTunes. To legalize iTunes it cost me ~$400. This is because of the DRM locks placed on Apple content do not allow me to run apple content on my legally purchased Windows 2003 or my Linux infrastructure. I'm half a heartbeat away from pirating my legal purchases, just so I can actually watch them, in more convenient locations.

DRM locks are extremely easy to break. So really their purpose is lost on me. My only conclusion is businesses use them to fool the weak hearted into giving up their freedom.

Easier:

In many cases I can see this. Going to pirate bay and browsing their one stop shop is much easier than searching through google, and companies websites. In most cases you'd have to wait weeks for it to be shipped to you or have to travel to the store. -- or in my case drive for 2 hours to get to the stores that carry the products. --

So the question here is, if piracy is killed, would people go to the store? Would they wait for the shipment? or would they turn to more convenient free software? If seen some companies saying the wont offer more convenient solutions until piracy is under control. Which is interesting, how many of those pirates will turn to the growing free software? The companies could end up loosing half their potential customers by waiting.

The Effects?

There was a question, out on the web, about how to combat piracy and help the economy. Well again people fail to realize that piracy is a symptom of a bigger problem. This, in my opinion, is why it will never die completely, until the real problem is addressed.

So let's look at economy. Which hurts the economy more? Pirates who would not have purchases if piracy wasn't available, or the current copyright and patent laws which slow down new products and innovation.

The way I see it having a 120 year lock on an idea does nothing but hurt the economy. In the free software community we get forks of an original idea, and then we get more choices and better products then possible from the original idea. So imagine this:

Currently we have Microsoft Windows 7. -- and I only pick on Microsoft because I know Ross is going to climb all over this one -- Imagine if other people could build off the Windows 7 source and build their own operating system. Now you'd have new directions new ideas based on the original Windows 7 design. Multiple companies would spawn and you'd have price wars, competitions in innovation, and a faster pace of newer and better products. Granted this would hurt the originating company (aka Microsoft) but if the copyright patient was shortened to 2-5 years they could make the initial money and move on, rather than the current system of beating a dead horse for every penny. For the economy it would be a good thing, more choices, cheaper choices means more money changing hands.

Bad for big business, but good for the economy. So really is it piracy or our current Intellectual Property Laws hurting the economy? I'm all for protecting intellectual property, but not at the expense of progress. DRM locks and lengthy terms really need to GO!

Is Windows Easier - Part 2

Just like my last post I want to bring to light that Windows can be just as complicated as Linux, under the same conditions, by sharing some of my experiences.

In Fedora if you want to install firefox, you select add/remove software from the menu. (and if your using KDE desktop it has a search the same as Vista/Windows 7). Find firefox, by search or click on the internet group, select it and click apply. It will install firefox and will show up in your menu system.

In Windows if you want to install firefox. You go to the firefox website, click the download link. Open it and go through the series of steps to install it. (I won't list them here as most have installed software on windows)

This is the ideal environment and both Fedora and Windows are just as easy to use, install, and generally live with.

Now when problems hit:

Last night we all sat down to play some games on Windows 7. The first game we plugged in was Hunter Hunted. We hit "The version of this file is not compatible with the version of Windows your're running. Check your computer's system information to see whether you need a x86 (32-bit) or x64 (64-bit) version of the program, and then contact the software publisher." We tried troubleshooting with the windows compatibility modes, ultimately gave up after 15 minutes of messing with it.

Then we tried You Don't Know Jack. This wasn't looking too promising. We tried other games and got a combination of this message, the game installer crashing, and hardware wasn't fast enough. (might be able to play that game after the 3d nVidia card replacement shows up)

After 1-2 hours of messing around, two of our potential gamers quietly left and went to bed. Well Lillian passed out on the couch waiting, Kimmy went to bed.

So I convinced Henry to play Starfleet Command with me. Our first attempt at installing the game ended with the installer crashing. But we by-passed the auto run and started installing the game directly. Clicked on the game and it crashed. So we poked around in the game settings and found a configuration program. This configuration program fixed our problem and we got the game started. While Henry was practising on the game I started to load the game on my work computer, which was running XP. It ran on XP with no problems.

But do you think we could get the two copies to talk to each other. We first tried the TCP/IP direct connection. It wouldn't even register. So we started disabling firewalls, as I figured they were the problem. We got the game to go further but still not far enough to play. So then I remembered I used to play this game using IPX. So we installed IPX on the XP machine, but Windows 7... ummm where'd it go. Seems there's no native IPX support, and we couldn't find it fast enough from Novell. So we went back to messing with the TCP/IP. In the end after 1-2 hour of messing with it, Henry logged out of Windows 7 and went to bed.

So I thought I'd go play the game a bit before bed. I logged into my profile on Windows 7, and game crashed. I could not get it started. Frustrated and fed-up I went back to my Linux machine and played there.

So my point... again!

Windows may or may not be easier to use than Linux. -- I personally think they are equivalent -- But when things fail, you can have just as much a mess in Windows as you can in Linux. I'm sure there's a way to get these games working by installing wrappers, copying files manually, or some other hacker trick. Point is Windows just got much more complicated that the general point and click.

Is Windows Easier?

Is Windows easier over Linux. Maybe. But I want to bring some perspective. It really depends what your doing and how you use your system. One Windows user I know, boasts that windows never crashing, and says that Linux is so much harder to use because if you want to use anything you need to compile drivers, software, and it's a long an complicated process.

As I said I want to bring some perspective here. I have a Windows 7 computer all setup for the purpose of watching iTunes videos, and playing the older windows games which I have kicking around. The graphics card in the computer is a 2d card --with a windows index of 1.0-- and can mostly handle the iTunes standard videos. But games it won't play. So just like any "average user", I ordered a nVidia 8400 GS (PCI) graphics card which was compatible with my system.

It arrived Wednesday. Around 4:46 pm - 1:00 am I tried to get this setup and working in Windows. I plugged it in and booted and everything was working smoothly, or so I thought. But when I tried to install the drivers for the nVidia card, so I could get all the advanced features, it died with "no compatible hardware found". So I contacted nVidia Support:

Chat Transcript 05/05/2010 05:16 PM
[04:46:14 PM] Hi, my name is Pavan. How may I help you?
[04:47:12 PM] Michael Carter: I just installed a new Geforece 8400 gs and when I try to install the drivers for 64 bit Windows 7 it tells me it couldn't locate drivers for my hardware
[04:48:18 PM] Pavan: I understand from your message that, when you try to install the drivers for the driver for the Graphics card you receive a message saying could not locate drivers for hardware. Am I correct?
[04:49:00 PM] Michael Carter: The exact error message is "The NVIDIA Setup program could not locate any drivers that are compatible with your current hardware. Setup will now exit."
[04:49:39 PM] Pavan: May I know the driver version that you are trying to install for the Graphics card?
[04:49:58 PM] Michael Carter: 197.45
[04:51:53 PM] Pavan: To confirm , are you using a Desktop or Laptop?
[04:52:11 PM] Michael Carter: desktop
[04:52:51 PM] Pavan: May I know if you had installed any previous driver version for the graphics card , you had uninstalled the driver and then trying to install the 197.45 driver?
[04:53:58 PM] Michael Carter: no. this is the first time installing nvidia drivers. Previous card was an onboard ATI. which is now disabled in favour of the nvidia card
[04:54:17 PM] Pavan: May I know if the Graphics card is detected in Device manager?
[04:55:11 PM] Michael Carter: no don't see it in there any where. But it's working as it's what I'm using to type to you right now.
[04:57:04 PM] Pavan: May I know if you have installed the Graphics card and connected the monitor to the Graphics card now?
[04:57:17 PM] Michael Carter: yes
[04:57:37 PM] Pavan: Thank you for providing the requested information,.
[04:57:56 PM] Pavan: May I confirm that Windows 7 is 64 bit Operating System?
[04:58:05 PM] Michael Carter: yes
[04:58:52 PM] Pavan: Thank you for providing the requested information.
[04:59:17 PM] Pavan: In this case, please boot the computer in Sage mode and then install the driver version from the link provided below .
[04:59:21 PM] Pavan: http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_winvista_64bit_190.62_whql.html
[05:00:51 PM] Michael Carter: Sage mode? You mean safe mode? Will it not work from normal mode?
[05:01:12 PM] Pavan: I am sorry for the typo error, it is Safe mode.
[05:01:33 PM] Michael Carter: ok I'll do that once it finishes downloading.
[05:01:49 PM] Pavan: As the Graphics card is not getting detected while trying to install in Normal mode, for troubleshooting purpose, we are installing the drivers in Safe mode.
[05:06:05 PM] Michael Carter: ok rebooting now

After the rebooting and trying everything to get the drivers to install, it still wasn't working. Since nVidia support was closed I messed around for a bit longer, and noticed something. The Windows Device Manager wasn't even registering the card. Which means the problem wasn't with the nVidia drivers, it was with windows detecting the card, or the card itself.

Contacting Windows Tech Support:

So I explained the situation and the Windows support person had me try a few things. After that the Microsoft support person had me install and setup http://support.microsoft.com/ea so they could take control of my computer. The support person poked around in pretty much all the areas I did, with long pauses between each screen. I'm assuming to consult with other techs and documents. After all the poking was done, and still no graphics card in the device manager, the support person had me reboot. Still no go. So they had me power down and remove the card. (a 10-15 min process start to finish, and get logged back into EA).

The support person poked around some more and determined that the on-board card was working correctly. It showed up in the device manager and in the advanced properties the card was showing no problem. So the support person had me power off again and put the new card back in. Rebooted again the person poked around and the problem still remained.

By 11:30ish the support person determined that the card was defective and I should return it. I asked if there were any tools to verify this, the support person said I'd need professional support level for that sort of thing.

So after this I wanted to verify if the card was defective, so I didn't waist another 8 hours. In my main Linux machine I had a GeForce 6 series card. So I swapped cards. Sure enough the Windows 7 computer (after some tinkering) showed up. Wasn't a straight plug in the card and go. --Windows was also extremely sluggish with the new card, so I'm assuming I still needed a few hours of tinkering--

The GeForce 8 series card I put in the Linux box and on booting it detected the hardware problem. Sure enough this card appears defective. So I've sent it back and will be getting a new one.

So my point!

Both Windows and Linux are simple to use and install, if everything works! When it doesn't both Windows and Linux can get really complicated. (especially if your trying to fix the problem yourself.) In my case Linux found the problem within 15 minutes. Where with Windows, it took 2 techs (4 if you include Henry and I) and 8 hours.

So if your listening to that Windows user saying how hard Linux is to install and use, I suggest you check it out for yourself. I've got lots of horror stories on both sides. Especially if your trying to get it working on unsupported hardware. Examples: I tried a nVidia 4 MX series in Windows 7 and got all sorts of problems, since the card has no Windows 7 drivers. Or in Linux trying to get Dual Monitor support with a nVidia 2? and a Cirrus card which I know is over 14 years old.


Note: for those say ya but there are more problems on Linux, I'll respond to that one now. Every problem I've had to support, with Linux 9/10 I can work out some solution. With my Windows problems 3/10 the problem is un-resolvable.

I have a better success rate of resolving problems quickly on Linux over Windows. So if you've had more problems with Linux, so be it. It doesn't mean it's true for the rest of us. Not to mention after initial install Henry's had two support question in +5 months from his "client". One on firefox usage, the other on how to hook up a lexmark printer. No problems with the computer and the Ubuntu core.

Elusive Crashing Problem Solved

Four times in the last month Kimmy or I have woken up to a dead Linux computer. At first I thought it was a kernel panic (Linux BSOD), that took out my screen. It was always happening during the job runs in the middle of the night, backups, virus scans, etc. So my first step was to turn on all debugging and wait for the problem to happen again.

Well it did but there was still nothing written to any of the log areas. Then I decided to reload Fedora on a new machine, and moved all the hard drives and eSATA cages over to the new machine. Well the problem happened there as well.

So I got this crazy idea. If the drives had a problem and went in read-only mode it would explain the absense of logs. So I put the /var /tmp and main root drive on different disks.

Then the problem happened again, this time at 3:00. I had started a F13 respin build just before I left to pick up my daughter from school. Although this time the problem was a little different. Instead of a black screen with nothing on it, I had a screen saver that wouldn't wake up. Turns out the /tmp drive had gone read only. The reason nothing would wake up is programs were all waiting for the /tmp to go back into read/write. It was like a train where the engine suddenly stopped dead, and all the other cars came piling into it.

Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0xd SErr 0x100 action 0x6
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: irq_stat 0x02060002, device error via SDB FIS
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: SError: { UnrecovData }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: cmd 60/80:00:bf:a8:b9/00:00:23:00:00/40 tag 0 ncq 65536 in
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel:         res 60/80:00:bf:a8:b9/00:00:23:00:00/40 Emask 0x10 (ATA bus error)
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: status: { DRDY DF }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: error: { ICRC }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: cmd 60/80:10:3f:a8:b9/00:00:23:00:00/40 tag 2 ncq 65536 in
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel:         res 41/84:2f:90:a8:b9/04:00:23:00:00/40 Emask 0x410 (ATA bus error) 
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: status: { DRDY ERR }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: error: { ICRC ABRT }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: cmd 60/80:18:3f:a9:b9/00:00:23:00:00/40 tag 3 ncq 65536 in
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel:         res 60/80:18:3f:a9:b9/00:00:23:00:00/40 Emask 0x10 (ATA bus error)
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: status: { DRDY DF }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: error: { ICRC }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.02: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.02: failed command: FLUSH CACHE EXT
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.02: cmd ea/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 1
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel:         res 0e/12:02:02:00:00/00:00:00:10:0e/00 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation)
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.02: status: { DRQ }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.02: error: { IDNF }
Apr 29 14:38:00 liandra kernel: ata8.00: hard resetting link
Apr 29 14:38:01 liandra kernel: ata8.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 320)
Apr 29 14:38:01 liandra kernel: ata8.02: hard resetting link
Apr 29 14:38:01 liandra kernel: ata8.02: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 320)
Apr 29 14:38:01 liandra kernel: ata8.00: configured for UDMA/100
Apr 29 14:38:01 liandra kernel: ata8.02: configured for UDMA/100
Apr 29 14:38:01 liandra kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev sdg, sector 0

My best guess, under heavy load the controller card on my eSATA drive cage heats up and pause for a minute or two. That's what causes the glitch. It also explains why the problem followed me when I re-installed Fedora and put it on a new machine. It also explains why I could never re-produce the problem. By the time I got back to it the unit had cooled down.

Guess I'm looking for a new external drive cage. I'm starting to think I should just build my own.

More doesn't mean all, and less doesn't mean none.

I've said quite a few times that I like Linux because it's less restrictive. I'm not saying there are no restrictions.

Examples:

• Windows 7 is restricted to 2 processors (EULA Limit)
• Linux (Desktop) is limited to 32 cores for 32 bit system and 255 cores for 64 bit system.

• Windows 7 limits one user on each machine concurrently (EULA Limit)
• Windows Home Server is limited to 3 users. 1 - console and 2 rdp (EULA Limit) However;

  "Terminal Services – You may only use Terminal Services functionality to the extent required to manage the
  server software in Remote Administration Mode. You may not use Terminal Services for any other purpose."

• Linux (Desktop) I couldn't find a limit. But as a test I tried making 10 connections to my X11vnc server and it went no problem.

• Windows Home Server: it's not allowed to be connected to a free Primary Domain Controller.
• Linux (Desktop) you can connect it to whatever you want.

• Windows 7 I can install iTunes
• Windows Home Server I can't install iTunes (Repeated problems with iPod/iPhone service when tried to force it)
  
• Windows 2008 Server I can't install iTunes (BSOD when I tried to force it)
  
• Linux I can't install iTunes (will mostly, wine can emulate part of it)
  

There are clearly restrictions in Linux. However, the restrictions in Linux don't seem to cause me as many issues. Most of the time I never hit them. Where with windows I'm hitting the restrictions all the time. Not to mention cost involved. To legally get the Terminal Server option I use all the time on Linux, it would cost $1029 for Win2008 and $749 for a 5 pack RDS. Ref (again I'm sure you can get it cheaper somewhere, but it's still going to be more than my family's monthly budget.)

Support for Linux?

Whenever I mention, that Linux is a viable alternative to Windows in the desktop market, the comment of "but there's no support for Linux" always comes up. There is actually lots of support for Linux. In fact, for my problems, better support because the guys answering the questions/tickets in Linux are usually the experts. Where big companies, and their product support have a tier system and the first level support usually has no clue what I'm talking about.

Calling Microsoft Support:

First, I'll pick on Microsoft, only because it was the most recently mention. -- I have similar stories with Rogers, Bell, Futureshop, Staples, etc.. -- Recently I learned with the $200-350 purchase of the Windows 7 Retail you get free support from Microsoft. (well not really free your paying for it from the purchase price.) This explains the big price difference between the OEM and Retail versions.

I have two stories:

First is from several years ago. We (Lenbrook Industries) had a problem with excel, it couldn't handle a spreadsheet one of the accountants designed. When we did the calculation run, it would GPF (General Protection Fault). When I called Microsoft Support, it took me a few weeks just to convince the guy we had a problem. After that he said the only solution was to add more memory to the system. The system was a 386/486 (can't remember which) with 16M of memory, which was the max for any system at the time. The average for a windows system was 1-2M, not to mention the 640k barrier at the time. The support ticket was closed as that was the only solution Microsoft was going to offer. Needless to say we started looking at other companies products.

Note: even thought the story is old, the trend of my support experience as a customer has not changed. I only bring this up to illustrate my point below.

The second story is more recent. About a week ago I logged a ticket on Windows 7. The question is rather complex, but after 1 phone call and 6 emails and +1 week later, they still don't get the question, they keep sending me irrelevant solutions. I even sent them the blog post Ross sent me on how to accomplish the task. The question to support/customer service is how to make it legal without breaking the EULA. Again, how helpful is support?

This is a common experience for me. Any time I call support it takes weeks to three months (rogers support) just to explain the problem to them, or even convince them I have a problem. After that it's still 50/50 if they can even help me. Granted my problems are usually much more complex that the average user. However, my mom and dad call me first for any support because the feel they get no help from these companies. My dad mostly thinks the support guys are idiots. (and since I'm a support person for a large company I'm not sure if I should take offence to that)

Update: make that 2 calls. Microsoft just called while I was typing this. Their going to arrange an escalation technician call on Tuesday.

So my POINT just because their is a support network it doesn't automatically guarantee it's going to be any help to you. Most big company support networks (example: rogers and bell) are setup to handle only common questions. -- My computer won't turn on, is it plugged in, oh thanks for the help. -- Anyone who's called support and had their problem solved on the first try, good for you! Not all of us have been so lucky.

Side Note: Microsoft support desk is one of the better ones. Even thought it's taken a week just to have the techs understand, at least their chasing/calling me. I don't have to chase them. (which is really nice for a change.)

Linux Support:

With that out of the way let's talk about where you can get Linux support. First off, there is many more support people for Windows, and many more companies supporting windows. That's a given because of the +80% desktop market share. But as stated above, quantity doesn't guarantee quality. (Increases your chances.. but it's still hit and miss)

For the rest, I'm going to talk Fedora Linux here because it's what I have the entire family running. For Ubuntu support, maybe Henry can start a blog.

The first place I go to for support is the forums. http://www.linuxquestions.org is the main site I go to. I can usually get an answer to my question with in 2-24 hours. There is a really strong community there for helping out Linux users. -- now if I can only get the family to start posting questions rather than bugging me all the time --

The second place is the bugzilla. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/ Bugzilla is your direct line to the developers, contributors and administrators in charge of the Fedora project. Level of support here varies depending on the problem and area. There's also a automatic bug logging tool in Fedora 12 so if your program crashes, it packages up all the debug logs and can fire it off to your bugzilla account. These are the two places I goto for help.

For the new user there is still other places you can go for support. There's the online help pages (which I find just a useless as Microsoft's help pages, but that's just my experience) Then there is all the options listed on http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-help The online classrooms is an interesting thought.

Then for the person who wants some accountability there's the "paid" support. Companies like Redhat, Oracle, and others, you can pay a yearly subscription fee and get the same level of support that you would with any other provider.

Finally there's the "ask a friend". Most of the computer geek friends you have can support any computer. It might take them a bit longer to support you on Linux, if they've never seen it, but a computer is a computer. Both have a file system, linux is / for path names like /home/me where windows is c:\Users\me. Both have some type of menu system with programs. Both have GUI tools for managing the system. Most computer geeks can easily work through these differences to help the general users. -- Especially if the question is, how do I get on the web --

So there is plenty of support options for Linux. Makes you wonder where they get this "no support" logic? Recently I've been told that "the vast majority of "conspiracy theories" from the open source community are complete bunk" but by the same token the "no support" or "Linux isn't a viable alternative" are created from the Microsoft community and are also complete bunk.

Why do I rant?

Simple, I get tired of people telling me windows is the best operating system because they say it is. Or Windows is the best operating system because somehow Microsoft managed to make it a mandatory course requirement in all schools in Ontario. Or that Windows is the best operating system because you have to buy it when you purchase a new computer. I'm tired of people spreading rumours like Linux is not a viable alternative to Windows. Or that Linux can't do simple things like browse the internet. Then there's the entire TOS type studies where Microsoft had to ask a company to "adjust" the numbers to make Microsoft products look better.

So I rant. I use Linux as my primary desktop platform, and so does many of my extended family, so anyone who says it can't be done we're living proof. Also for those who say that the "average user" can't use Linux because it's too complicated, has never used a LiveCD/DVD before. Pop it in, click on the red fox, and surf the net. Besides my Mom uses Linux and she barely knows where the on switch is.

As for "but you support those people", ya but I had to support those people using windows too, and I'm supporting the same issues, so I'd prefer to support them on Linux. Not to mention what about the "average user" who buy's Windows. Don't they get support from Futureshop, plus Microsoft? Fedora users can easily get support from the multiple forms, live chat feeds, online classrooms, help pages, and on and on and on. The only different between Windows and Linux support networks is ... well none. You can even get paid support for Linux just like Microsoft.

So why do I rant... to correct some of the people out there who want to show Windows as a better product by spreading, what I consider to be lies about Linux.

Linux can run your desktop...

Why I prefer Linux - Reasons #5 - Features

Both Linux and Windows are rich with features. But when you get used to one over the other it's amazing how the little things start to annoy you.

Yesterday the motherboard on one of my servers decided to go belly up. As a quick fix I dismantled both and swapped them. As a result I had no computer to work on as my work virtual machine was sitting in the server. But, I still needed to get some work done. I ended up using Window XP on a laptop as it was the only computer setup for work.

The first thing I missed was the Virtual Desktop. In Linux we can have multiple virtual desktops. I used them to group tasks. One is for mail, one for web, one for virtual machines, one for terminal windows.... etc. Any program not in that virtual window doesn't show on the window list bar. It can really reduce clutter, especially with the group like windows feature. Also if your missing a program you can just middle-click on the desktop to bring up a window of what's running.

Now I'm sure there is a way to hack or add software to get this effect in Windows. But, I'm almost never using my own windows computer. It's always a borrowed, or temporary machine. So customizing it with all these hacks is not always the best option. I prefer Linux as this is all out of the box.

The next feature I miss is the gnome-terminal (bash). Yes Windows has powershell, but powershell doesn't have all the features I used every day in Linux. I'm an old hat when it comes to Linux/Unix systems. I prefer the text windows over a gui screen for most tasks. So I prefer Linux for is powerfull out of the box command line. Not to mention everything in Linux can be done from the command line, and with out the GUI.

Now there's cygwin which basically installs Linux bash on top of Windows. (but I always ask myself, if I have to install Linux/Unix on top of Windows for my regular tasks... why not just use Linux) Same can be said the other way except I find myself always gravitating to using Linux for all those tasks. Not to mention cygwin has a lot of quarks on windows that slow me down. No tabbed windows for starters.

The third annoyance is the text editor. Out of the box we have gedit. It's a powerful text editor with spell checking, colour syntax highlighting, regexpr find and replace, and many more. With Windows we have notepad. Since I write a lot of scripts, SQL for starters, I jump into the text editor regularly. When on windows for a day I was disparately looking for my old copy of UltraEdit for Windows. The notepad was slowing me down considerably. Again I'm talking out of the box here. I'm sure there's new, maybe even better software out there. But if I'm on a foreign computer installing all this software for temporary use is a pain, if they will even let me.

These are just 3 of the frustrations I find when going back to windows. Most is all preference and a lot of windows users would probably not even see my problem. But this is my ranting... and why I prefer Linux. If you prefer Windows, write your own blog.

Why I prefer Linux - Reasons #4 - Easy to Use

Ease of use is a raging debate, but it really boils down to one thing. Software! So which do you find easier to use of these two screen shots? Linux or Windows? For those who have found my point too obscure (yes I know I'm in my own little world most of the time) both Windows and Linux can run Firefox. Both Linux and Windows can run flash and youtube. Both Linux and Windows can run many pieces of software, you can even get Microsoft Office and Photoshop running under a product called wine. Companies like CodeWeavers and Cedega even create nice gui screens making the installing of Windows programs on Linux simple.

Personally I think the easy of use for distributions of Fedora and Ubuntu released in 2010/09 are just as easy to use as Windows 7. I have my Parents using Linux and I've had far less support calls from them with Linux than I ever had on Windows. (Granted I moved them off Windows from 2000/XP)

Most of the arguments presented to me against Linux is a comparison of Windows 7 pre-installed on a computer by 7 computer techs, to a download-able CD/DVD off the web. Sure for the most part new Linux users are on there own. But Linux has come along way from needing to download those 17 floppies and trying to figure out how to create images. These days we have LiveDVD/USB. You just burn it to a disk, put it in a computer and turn it on. Now your in Linux using firefox in all it's glory. Most people don't even use the OS these days. Which probably explains where Gnome Shell came from. Video: #1, #2, #3, #4. So for all those people saying Windows is easier to use than Linux I have to ask, did you install it yourself? Have you used a new version of Linux like Fedora or Ubuntu? What have you tried to do with your computer?

Now this is just the using part... we haven't even got to the installing of software or installing a new PC...

Why I prefer Linux - Reasons #3 - No Restrictions

I'm an uncommon user. I have a Windows Machine connected to my TV running iTunes. (only for running iTunes I might add) If I need to use the machine I access it remotely via RDP from my Linux Desktop. However, when I do, my wife and daughter are locked out of the Windows Desktop until I log out. Windows Desktop Licenses only allows one user to be logged into a given machine at one time. (and it's software enforced) If you want more Microsoft wants you to purchase Windows Server with CALs and Terminal Server CALs. Which would be no big deal, as Windows Home Server can do the trick at $400 for a OEM licensed copy, except many providers (like iTunes) don't allow their products to be run on Windows Servers.

With Linux, my main machine, has both Kimberly and I connected at the same time using the same programs. I can have an unlimited number of people connected via the X11 protocol. Well, unlimited as far as licenses. The reality is I couldn't handle much more that 10 active users. System just doesn't have enough RAM for that.

Not saying Linux is better here, just less restrictive. With Windows you do have options, purchase Windows Server, illegally hack Windows Desktop... or you could just use Linux as your primary platform and consolidate your computers. Dumb Terminals are not hard to setup, and Fedora has everything you need included in the box.


To setup for X11 vnc: (there are gui ways but cutting and pasting is faster)

Install:

yum install tigervnc-server

add to /etc/gdm/custom.conf: (gives access to connect to the X11 server)

[xdmcp]
Enable=true
HonorIndirect=true
MaxSessions=32
DisplaysPerHost=2

Create /etc/xinetd.d/VirtualMachines: (sets vnc connections to X11)

service vnc-mini
{
disable = no
socket_type = stream
port = 5901
protocol = tcp
group = tty
wait = no
user = nobody
server = /usr/bin/Xvnc
server_args = -inetd -query localhost -geometry 1024x600 -depth 16 -once -fp /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc -securitytypes=none -desktop=MyMachine
}

Add /etc/services: (I'm using named services in xinetd)

vnc-mini 5901/tcp # VNC to GDM


To Connect:

to use just open vncviewer and log into machinename:1 and you will be presented with your login screen. If you want to get fancy you can use persistent connections and allow your computer to stay on even when you disconnect.

Why I prefer Linux - Reasons #2 - Toy?

Every time I look at XP or Windows 7 I think ahhh shiny. But I just can't help but think of Windows as anything more than a kids toy. It does have power, and can do many tasks but I still can't get past the toy part.

To give an example. When doing the intro video for Derek's Wedding and later the into video for a Michelle's DVD I needed to setup a rendering farm. Rendering a 20 minute video can take days depending on the complexity. Setting it up with a gui in windows just seemed like a waist. How much memory does windows take up? 100M? 512M? Isn't that memory I could use to dedicate to the rendering farm? With Linux I can shut down pretty much everything, the graphics, the printing interface, everything. I managed to get a foot print down to under 50M for the rendering farm, and even better could load the thing off a CD as not to interfer with what was on the system already. That way I could slave several computers together to dedicate the entire system to the rendering process.

So I'm not saying Linux is better here. In fact, I'm a true believer that they both have their strengths and weaknesses that make them equal. But, the more shinny added to Windows the more I'm still going to see it as a toy. But that's me, I'm all about function rather than form.

Why I prefer Linux - Reasons #1 Cost

Recently I've been back and forth on trying to setup a iTunes computer. I'm quickly reminded why I prefer Linux over Windows. What can you do with $340? I could buy two RC Helicopters. I could buy a two new monitors for my desk. I could buy a new bare-bones PC kit with one of the latest CPUs in it. I could take the family on a weekend vacation. So what could you buy?

Windows Professional is listed in our local computer store for $340. Where Fedora 12 is free, and only costs the blank DVD (if your not using PXE booting like I am) Sure I can get that discounted, or steal it, or get a copy from e-bay... but the point is Linux is free. No hassle working about legal copies.

All arguing about which is better aside you can't beat the initial price.