Saturday, November 6, 2010

Hard Drivin'

Not quite the video game of the same name. Sometimes it *feels* like a video game, but it's not. That would be too easy, and what fun would that be? No, this is referring to the adventure surrounding my hard drives, fstab and many hours of copying sizable amounts of data back and forth.

I set out with the single, laughable, purpose of getting my drives to mount consistently at chosen mount points. Certain programs -- Rhythmbox, Amarok, VirtualBox, and so on... -- get crabby about drives showing up at different mount points each time. More precisely, I get crabby about drives showing up at different mount points, especially when they're the ultra helpful variety: both 250G drives mounted with the label "250GB External Filesystem." "Duh." Since they were NTFS, it was more than a simple pain to change the label on them even with ntfsutils.

Because I've worked with linux in one form or another since 1995 (dual-booting between WFW3.11 and Slackware 2.3...on 850,000 3.5" floppies...), I thought I'd be OK editing my fstab in Webmin -- with which I've worked since 1998 or so, with little to no problems -- and, for whatever reason, boy was I wrong. Going in through the Filesystems module, I happily added mount points to each of the filesystem entries, as I'd done before, granted a bit of time before...I remember, fondly, finally moving to a 1.x version... At any rate, I think something got buggered up along the way because when I hopped into a shell and mounted -a, everything went to hell. Nothing mounted, properly, and the root was in read-only which caused the fascinating problem of exactly NO application or system function having privs to run...not even sudo. I could not even shut down. How sad is that?!

For starters, I simply wanted the two 250GB external drives to show up at consistent mount points. At the time, they were SDE1 and SDF1 (insert Robotech joke here...), so I thought I was safe in creating two happy directories in the /media directory -- Dagon and Azathoth, respectively -- and then having them mount there via the fstab. I was wrong. They merely mounted under their respective hardware IDs to the directories disk and disk_1. At this point, I figured, eh...fine. So, I went into the programs that needed to know where data was and felt safe, then, in pointing them to the drives. Apparently, that was a bad idea. The next time I needed to reboot, they mounted precisely opposite...not bloody useful.

It was at this point, I was sick of dealing with Kate or GEdit, so decided to go in through Webmin, and select precisely the mount points I wanted. This would be where the trouble hit. Something went bing, as detailed above.

Paring down fstab to its single / /dev/sda1 line, I set about to remedy this thing once and for all. However, I didn't know how complicated it would be. No...it's not that hard and the actually "taking care of it" was done in short order. It was the decision making process up to that point that was more than a little drawn out. The biggest question facing me was which filesystem to use. I was sick of the NTFS-to-linux latency and wanting everything happily native. That said, when it comes to native filesystems, there isn't a shortage. I could have chosen EXT2, EXT3, EXT4, ReiserFS, Reiser4, JFS, XFS and if I had put more effort into it, ZFS-Fuse.

I, intially, decided to format one drive to EXT4 and go from there. First, it should be noted that the throughput on the two external drives via USB2.0 when both were NTFS was at a paltry 3.5MB/s. Let's just say it took a while to copy all 117GB from on to the other. Once everything was copied over, GParted was kind enough to get the drive where I wanted in a matter of a few minutes, including setting the label to 'Azathoth' so as to give Gnome, at least, a reference for consistent mount locales. This will become important in a minute...

One thing that struck me, though, was how much ruddy space EXT4 thinks it needs to chew up just by virtue of formatting. A completely blank drive, it formatted under NTFS to 232GB. In EXT4, I ended up with ~220GB free. In looking in GParted's display, it shows that it's formatted to 232.88GB. Cool, right? It also shows that 161.94GB are unused with 70.94GB occupied. For those of us who have to use a calculator, that brings us to 232.88GB. Again, cool, right?

Well, one would think...look at a little discrepancy below... Yeah...Free space: 150.3GB as opposed to 161.94GB unused space. I guess my question is where did the other 11.64GB go?



So, then, it was necessary to think long and hard about the filesystem choice. I figured for Azathoth, we were going to be happy with EXT4 long enough to copy over all the data from Dagon in order to format Dagon to a native format...but which one?! I looked at the veritable merits, numerous blogs, several technical articles, a bunch of forum posts and the obligatory flame-war or two to see which one seemed to have fewer flaws. I finally settled on XFS for Dagon's new format, and thus set about getting it ready to be formatted and be happy. The throughput from NTFS to EXT4 was consistently around 11.0MB/s, which was a dramatic improvement over the NTFS-to-NTFS transfer rate (3.5MB/s, if you recall). So, once everything was copied over, I hopped into GParted and converted the ol' fish god to a faster, native filesystem.


In a stunning display of "what it says you're going to get is what you actually get," the XFS format seems to be consistent with the data... It formatted to 232.88GB, as it should, and when you do that maths, end up with 232.89GB, reflecting 84.69GB unused. When loaded in Nautilus, it shows that Dagon has, indeed, 84.7GB free. That's more like what I expected to see. There was only mild disappointment in the throughput speeds when I copied the files back to Dagon from Azathoth, averaging right around 9.5MB/s. It could have been a lot worse -- it could have been the NTFS transfer speed. Of course, it didn't help that I was copying over close to 950K files, a large contingent of which were smaller files which isn't XFS's strong suit. Of course, this can be tweaked through mount options and, really, it's not that big of a speed hit and I get the full reported size of the disk. That's all I could ask for.

So, the upshot is, to me, we'll see how the performance is, overall between the two drives, as that may determine who becomes what, should I feel the need to wipe drives, again. While I am currently enjoying the idea of having access to all the precious GB that XFS seems to offer that EXT4 seems to cordon off for who knows what, I am also all about discerning, really, which of the two is better for what I need. Virtual machines and so on will help me along with that decision...I'll keep you posted.

Why Linux -- Part II

Maybe not as comprehensive as the previous entry, this entry focuses on the "Why Linux" portion while the previous was more "Why Not Windows."  For what it's worth, this feels a little more like an afterthought since I tended to argue both sides in the previous entry in an attempt to cover those arguments. So, these are more things that weren't covered in the other while still attempting to be pithy and relevant.

Why?

1. Trial Runs at Little Cost

I would be lying if I didn't say that the idea of not having a huge cost of ownership for the basest level of your system, the OS, wasn't really, really, appealing. I don't like the idea of shelling out close to $400 on an OS and hoping that everything goes well because of point #2 -- support -- and how much pain will be involved in getting it up and running. I like the idea of downloading an ISO image, burning it and -- *gasp* -- trying it out, first. Being very careful not to utterly blitz important data, it's very nice to just blow away a drive and run a clean installation to see if it is what you need and, if not, be able to put either another "flavor" on the system, or going back to whatever the OS of origin was. Now, I know, with the new trend...well, not so new, but bear with me... of having the LiveCD/DVD ISOs with which to run the OS from the CD/DVD and be able to test drive from there is very nice. I still, however, seem to be one of the luddites inasmuch as I like to see how it will work with my actual system and not just the live environment that has been tailored to see how it runs. That said, such experimentation is either FREE or very low cost.

Can you imagine doing the above scenario with Windows? If you wanted to run tests of XP, Vista (ack) or Win7, that would require all three, and none of them are free...well, unless you're doing something you shouldn't really do, but how are you supposed to test something to see if you like it if you have no access to it and no money? Good question, MS...

2. Support

OK, so Windows users love the fact that they have a giant corporation behind them. I get that and, even up to a certain point, sympathize with it. However, I've lived in the real world where support calls can be a pain in the rump even with expedited "preferred" status due to company subscriptions. You'd think that when you sign up for a $20K support contract with MS, you'd do better than 5 or 6 45-minute phone calls to fix something that, after having gone home and been able to look up on the internet, should have been fixable in about 20 minutes with both eyes closed. I can't tell you what it is for a couple of reasons -- the company in question probably wouldn't appreciate it and really, it's been long enough that the details are fuzzy...I just remember getting off with MS the last time and not quite screaming about why things had to be so difficult. So, this was the first shattering disillusionment I had with MS.

Enter linux, where the opinion at large seems to be a complete lack of support system for users when, in fact, the exact opposite is true -- it's ALL user support. If you type your question into Google, odds are very good there will be around 1.0503 million pages returned where someone has run into the problem, or something similar. What's better is that most of these links are to forums that are bursting at the seams with knowledgeable and helpful users who've been there and done that and are more than willing to share the experiences and advice. What this means that, unless you are having one of the most obscure problems in the history of linux, someone will have run into it and, more importantly, will have an answer or at least a suggestion to try within a few hours.

I have, in my experience, only run into two problems that weren't able to fixed by searching the net and finding a previously answered question. The two that remained I posted, one solved within 15 minutes of posting. The other, for whatever reason, is in the realm of the unknowable, and so I've moved on because it wasn't something that was a make-or-break error.

So, the bottom line for me, here, is that while there also seems to be a solid Windows user-based-support system, now, that wasn't always the case and the assistance I've received from the linux community over the years has really endeared them to me. Not once have I been told I was an idiot or newbie when asking a question -- something that DID happen a few years ago in a Windows forum, which, after having a been in a system administrator position in a couple of places, irked me, a bit.

3. Update Love

I love MintUpdate and it's varying relatives in the linux world. It tells me, in an unobtrusive manner, that there are updates available for varying items in my system. It then gives me the option to go in and either update everything or select certain updates to apply while ignoring others. It then downloads and installs everything in a slick, unobtrusive, manner. Have I mentioned 'unobtrusive?' That's important to me...

I know, I know -- WindowsUpdate exists for this purpose but brings with it a number of *obtrusive* "features" that drive me absolutely nuts. The main thing is that, by default, it downloads everything before telling you that it's available. This can be changed, but why have it that way by default? Still, it's just annoying to me -- and that may just be personal perception and/or preference at work, but the bottom line is that the person having to use this system is...me.

The other thing that linux has over Windows in the form of updates and/or additional software is the collection of repositories from which to download new and/or improved software. I love jumping into a terminal and, when I know exactly what I want or need, simply type sudo apt-get install <thing I want> and away it goes, doing what it needs to satisfy dependencies and install the software.  If I'm feeling cheeky, I can use Synaptic and it will do the same thing but with a nice happy list with categories and life is good, as you can mark for installation, update and removal all from one interface. Windows doesn't have a good equivalent that I have found and installing new software always seems to
run a risk to breaking something else. It's nice to have something go through and check dependencies to make sure I'm not going to do something stupid...

I don't know. This may be a push, in some peoples' eyes, but I'm not so sure. I've never had my system rendered useless after a batch of updates from mintUpdate. I have, however, witnessed a laptop no longer able to boot into anything but safe mode once ServicePack3 was installed for WindowsXP. Not cool...

Conclusion

There are more reasons, and I may touch on those in later missives. For now, I'm tired and not feeling very inspired. That's a bad combination. Of course, it doesn't help with the frustration level stemming from one of linux's shortcomings -- no REALLY solid blog client. Ah, well. I'll take stable and able to do just about everything else without aggravation over a blogging client.

Why Linux -- Part I

Why, indeed... Why not?! Isn't that the most frustrating response to a question, ever, especially if you're looking for some actual, factual reasoning behind something? For me, though, the choice to switch over, most likey forever, from Microsoft Windows to, in this case, LinuxMint, an Ubuntu-based distribution, is based on as many "why nots" as "whys." The "why nots" are in the form of "Why not Windows?" while the "whys" are "Why linux?" It may be easier to start with a quick clarification of an all too common misconception regarding why one would make the switch to linux, willingly.

Clarification

Misconception: "Linux users switch to linux because they're cheap and don't want to pay for the software they use."
Correlary: "...and are willing to accept an inferior product just because they're cheapskates."
Clarification: Over the years, I have paid for 8 distros, the most recent (and expensive) having been OpenSuse 8.2 at $64.95 when it was actually sold at BestBuy. I purchased Slackware 1.1 (came with a $50 book on Linux system management, which is good since it was a 50-disk download...), RedHat 4.3 ($5 from CheapBytes.com) and 7.1 ($2.99/CheapBytes.com), Debian 1.3 ($5/CheapBytes.com), StormLinux2000 ($2.99/CheapBytes.com), Mandrake4.5 and then 5.2 (both $5/CheapBytes.com), Caldera 1.3 ($10/CheapBytes.com) and the aforementioned OpenSuse 8.2. So, while some of those CD purchases through CheapBytes.com -- which still operates today with great prices for CD/DVD-based installations of various distributions for, basically, the cost of materials and shipping -- seem a little paltry compared to the $132 price attached to the Windows7 Pro retail package, some weren't and, most importantly, it wasn't about shelling out for the OS that was important, really.

Here's where we get to the "Why?" and "Why Not." sections of this entry. Please remember that, for the most part, these are purely subjective reasons and what's good for me might not be good for you or anyone else. Disclaimer issued...now what?

Why Not.

1. Driver this, driver that.

I think my biggest pet peeve with the entire Windows, hell, Microsoft period, experience has been the drivers. Yes, you may snicker at a linux user griping about drivers. Trust me, I've modprobed my little heart out, too...that said...
Since the days of having to squeeze xyz drivers for certain peripherals into highmem and praying you still had enough free RAM to load whatever it was you needed in good ol' DOS, be it 3.2 on up into Windows95 (DOS with a WM...). With Win95 and moving forward, we had what was/is affectionately known as "plug-and-pray" technology which, when paired with manufacturer supplied drivers, was supposed to make any peripheral you plug into your system automagically function properly. Usually, this was the case -- after seven reboots and a few calls to the manufacturer to figure out why your faxmodem just blitzed the MBR on your hard drive. By the way -- that's a true story. What's worse is that when I called Gateway to figure it out, I got, "Oh, yeah...that." meaning that the problem had occurred before. Nice.

At any rate, enter WinNT4. I LOVE NT4. Given a choice between NT4 and Win7, if it weren't for PNP and hardware drivers never working quite right, I'd choose NT4, every time. Why? Well, now, mainly because it would ROCKET on the current hardware specs. At any rate, NT4 was a nightmare (but solid). My second choice for Windows OSs to use would be Win2000. I love (not LOVE, but love...) Windows2000. It was rock-solid stable and did what it needed to do with minimal fuss. When I installed it on a laptop this past summer, it flew. I had no sound and limited touchpad support, so I ditched the idea, but it was a very nice system. Drivers, however, were still a problem. I remember when XP came out, there were still huge problems with drivers for the hardware we were using and the drivers released from the manufacturer would say lovely things like, "[product x] for Windows95, Windows98, WindowsNT4.0 and WindowsXP. No Windows2000 support." Ugh.

That brings us to the current "engine" of Windows -- XP/Vista/7. You'll notice I carefully sidestepped ME and Bob. This was on purpose. XP was my OS of choice, even though it still had issues with older hardware, up until this spring. I was an early adopter of Windows7 after being one of the most vehement detractors of Windows Vista. To me, Vista was a beta test shipped out as a commercially viable product with a $259 price tag. With that kind of price tag, I expect anything -- software, hardware, car... -- to work as advertised. Vista hated me, and I hated it right back, going through tumultuous fits of driver hell with older printers, scanners, digital cameras, and video cards...not to mention sound drivers. Ugh. So, I went back to XP with which I had suffered fewer indignities. I figured Win7 might make up for this, since during my beta testing I had encountered very few problems with drivers not working or working ... differently ... than they should have. I was right, for the most part, but -- enter point #2.

2. Neverending Malware.

To be clear, I am a firm believer in antivirus software. While I believe Norton to be a virus in its own right, AVG and AntiVir have been staples on my Windows machines since they were viable alternatives to the McAffee and Norton products. Still, the rule always was if you had a Windows PC, you had to have an antivirus package running at all times. This would be fine if a) the antivirus software didn't routinely suck up 50%+ of the CPU time and 60%+ of available RAM or b) it caught everything. Now, I know there's no catching everything. I've studied virus design. It's freaking fascinating if you've never taken the time to look at polymorphic code in old 8086 assembler that crammed the ability to display a message, attach itself to executable code, shift its signature and blow stuff up all in 4K. If I sound a little starstruck, as a programmer by trade, that kind of efficiency is something that we all could aspire to achieve. See point #3.
Still, my decision to shift over to linux from Windows7, which I was *really* enjoying at the time, for the record, revolved almost solely over a virus. It was probably, ultimately, my fault. That said, I had AntiVir running active realtime scanning and AVG running every hour or so scanning core files and had them both, at different times during the week, running full scans. I had a good system going and nothing had gotten through that system since I put it into place back on my old XP machines. I also had SpyBot Search and Destroy running with all its TeaTiming real-time protecting glory. Additionally, I had Microsoft's own Malware Destructor running its little scan once a week in case there was something SpyBot missed. It was with utter dismay that I got hit with something that rendered the OS unusable. Not command.com, regedit.exe, explorer.exe nor anything else system related would function. This, to me, was unacceptable. Even with a firewall, 2 each of the antivirus and spyware removal packages, something got through. Something BAD got through. I refuse to think that it was some new morph of something that made it past the heuristics, so I had to make a choice: reinstall an OS with enough security problems for this to happen, or go back to what I knew I could lock down with no worries -- linux.

3. Software obesity.

In a startling statistic, one in six Americans is obese. Not to be outdone, every release of every WinXX-based software package, be it operating system or new whiz-bang app, gains on the order of 1/4 of it's original size with every release. The system requirements for Windows 1.0 were an 8088 with 640K and roughly 5MB of space on a "fixed disk." Not horrible. My AmigaDOS 2.04 installation was ~800K and occupied ~55K of FastRAM, but who's quibbling? When Windows 2.0 shipped, it needed 512K RAM (which makes me wonder if the original specs for 1.0 were "mis-remembered" by someone along the lines...), DOS 3.0 and a graphics adapter card. When Windows3.0 came along, it added the requirement of DOS 3.1, 640K conventional and 256K extended memory to the game. Not too bad, right? Windows3.1 required DOS 3.1 running on an 80286 processor, 640K conventional RAM, 256K extended, with recommendations of 1MB extended for 286 and 2MB extended for 80386. A fixed disk with 6MB free was now required, with 10MB free being the recommended allotment. The obligatory video card requirements and, of course, a mouse. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 required at least a 386SX (no math coprocessor), DOS 5.0 or later, EGA graphics (sorry HGA users...) and around 15MB hard space.

So far, we have a 20% space requirment increase from Windows 1.0 to 2.0. From Windows 2.0 to Win3.1, we see a 66% increase in hard drive real estate required. From Windows 3.1 to WFW3.11, the footprint increases another 50%. So, in the span of 3.11 releases (major), we've actually increased the OS footprint by 200%. Yikes. It gets better.

Windows95 arrived and required a 386DX or 486 processor, 4MB memory, between 40 - 55MB depending if it's an upgrade or a clean installation (the clean installation takes more...), VGA graphics capable of 256 colors and one 3.5" HD floppy drive, though I would recommend installing from CD. Really?  Really really. So, now we're looking at a footprint increase of between 167% and 233%, depending on the installation. You also need double your RAM *if* you were already running 2MB RAM on your system previously. Windows98 required a minimum of a 80486DX/66 processor with 16MB RAM and depending on your installation (upgrade versus clean) and filesystem (FAT16 versus FAT32), it required between 120MB and 355MB and, finally, VGA graphics. Personally, I long for the days when any OS took "only" 355MB. Still, that is between a 200% and 545% increase in space consumption by just the OS. From the original 1.0 version, that's a 6,100% increase overall OS HD footprint. Ouch.

I refuse to acknowledge WindowsME as an operating system -- we called it "Mangled Edition" for a reason, so I'll just move on to WindowsNT4.0, since it's more the precursor to our current incarnations of Windows than the previous releases. It required a Pentium with at least 16MB RAM and roughly 110MB of hard disk space. That's not so bad, really, compared to Win98, clocking in from an upgrade on Win95, for example, of only a 100% size increase, which, to be fair -- NT4.0 was so much more solid than Win95, that's kind of to be expected. From here, we upgraded to Windows2000. Win2K required a 133MHz Pentium with at least 32MB RAM -- up 100% from NT4 -- and a 2GB hard drive with 650MB free. For those counting, that's almost 491% more footprint than NT4.

From Windows2000 we moved to WindowsXP, which needed, for the Professional Edition, a 233MHz Pentium running at least 64MB RAM, though it would prefer 128MB. Along with sundries of CD/DVD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, etc., it required *at least* 1.5GB of hard drive space. That's a 131% increase over Win2K. It doesn't stop, here, however. There are the *service packs* that clock in at 1.8GB for SP2 and 800MB for SP3. So, yeah, it required 2.6GB of *fixes* after its release, bringing the total footprint to 4.4GB. That takes the almost reasonable 131% and turns it into 777% more than Win2K. At this point, HDs were cheaper than they were, but still...if you look at those requirements versus what it needed back in 1985, it's a little staggering, and we haven't even hit either Vista or Win7.
Vista's introduction gave us a look into indulgent, almost decadent programming with no real restraint involved as it seemed to be almost entirely bells and whistles with very little "operating system" improvements over, well...AmigaDOS 1.0.... (That would be hyperbole...but when the disk subsystem takes 25 minutes to copy a 25MB file across two USB drives, it felt a lot like dealing with floppies all over again. While it says the minimum requirements were an 800MHz processor with 512MB and 32MB graphics memory, you'd be silly to install it on such a beast. It would be painful. However, the HD free space required by Vista clocks in at 15GB. Yes, that's GB...compared to WFW3.11 at 15MB... So, to upgrade from XP to Vista presents an increase of 241%, if we go from SP3. If you go from base installations, alone, it's a 1100% increase. I think a "holy moly!" would be appropriate, here.

Windows 7 is a vastly superior product in so many ways and actually comes with a lighter hardware requirements footprint than it's unwieldy predecessor. While I won't touch on the 64-bit version, as I haven't used 64-B anything, OS-wise, it should be noted that requirements are roughly double that of the 32-B version. The processor and RAM requirements are more than Vista -- 1GHz 32Bit proc running 1GB RAM (though I have a cobbled version running on 512MB, it's not pretty...) -- the HD requirements are what make me happy about this. It requires, according to spec, literally 1GB more space than Vista. That's right -- 16GB versus 15GB, meaning an increase of roughly 6.7%. That's more like it. Now, just fix all the blasted security holes and I might consider a return. Might not, too, but without it, the deal's off.

So, what we've seen, kiddies, is that in 25 years, HD space requirements have increased 319,900%. Yes, you read that correctly -- three hundred-nineteen thousand nine-hundred percent. Follow the math: 16GB = 16,000MB - 5MB = 15,995MB / 5MB = 3199 * 100 = 319900. That's a freakishly large increase in anything. It makes you wonder what the lines of code increase is, doesn't it?
Now, I know - there's the whole equal time thing and the whole issue that linux's footprint size has also increased. I can't argue that. My first linux partition lived, comfortably, in a 20MB partition leaving me with roughly 15MB free after installation. So, we start, in 1995/6 with a 5MB installation. Factor in that the most recent installation (the one I'm using, now) after OS installation and application installation (a LOT of stuff - OpenOffice; MySQL and Apache servers with data associated; several browsers; 2 ERP packages; Mono, C++; Gnome2 Xfce, WMii and all associated icon packs; Evolution, and so on...) and it weighs in at just over 11.7GB. The base installation, itself, was somewhere around 8GB. That's still not *terrific* from someone who views anything over 1GB excessive (I sometimes live in the past...), but it's a far sight better than twice that with 1/2 the performance. Did I mention the system I have has 2GB RAM a 3GHz proc and a built-in video card that doesn't support OpenGL or Direct3D? Win7 had to be scaled back considerably to get it to run smoothly. My current linux installation runs almost perfectly and I still have breathing room on my system to install a considerable chunk of anything I want, even on a "tiny" 40GB drive.

4. Memory shrinkage.

This may fall under "bang for your buck," but when I think of it that way, I feel bad for Windows, really, I do. What I really mean by "memory shrinkage" requires an example. Take Frankenstein, hereafter known as "Frankie." Frankie's a cobbled together system I built over the course of 3 or so years between 2003 and 2006, comprised of parts from here and there, hence the Frankenstein's monster reference. It's running an Athlon2800 which means somewhere in the 2.2GHz range and, at one point had 3GB RAM, but through a series of catastrophic RAM failures (the "newest" RAM being circa 2005, I believe...), it has been reduced to 512MB, which is roughly where it started back in 2003. This being the case, it started with Windows2000Pro. It ran very well with 512MB and life was generally good. Then came WindowsXP and after a a year of seeing how it played in the real world, I upgraded the system to XP from W2K and the first thing I noticed was that there was considerably less headroom and apps just weren't quite as happy, running slowly or, occasionally, trying to address memory that wouldn't be there, demonstrating the BSOD-ability of the newest OS.

This would be why I ran out and upgraded the memory. Here's the thing, upon installing Windows7, we were generally happy. When the RAM died and I had to do some creative replacement (try explaining ECC polarity issues to an 11-year-old...and not sounding like a loon...) and ended up the Win7 with 512MB RAM, once again. Unlike W2K or XP, Windows7 is by and large useless with that amount of RAM. Loading programs is like the old C64 days where you'd enter LOAD "*",8,1 and then go get some coffee -- although, I was 11, so coffee wasn't really my bag...maybe...just sit and be grumpy for 5 minutes...

What's any of this have to do with "memory shrinkage?" Well, we know the size isn't really shrinking -- 512MB is still really 512MB. That said, it's what you can do with it, which is decreasing by the iteration of operating systems, regardless of origin, be it MS Windows, linux, bsd, OSX, what-have-you. I'm picking on Windows because it seems to have the worst time of it. For reference, I loaded the LinuxMint live CD onto Frankie for giggles and, well, it flew. Yeah, that's right -- flew. The only lag in loading anything was reading from the CD, which is to be expected since it's a live CD. So, my determination, in that regard, was that the $0.19 CDR with the name "minty" scrawled across it gave me much better bang for my buck than did the $219 priced Windows7 upgrade. For more expounding on "bang for buckness," see the next point...

5. Quality, not price.

Windows 1.0 sold for $100. Windows 2.0, when it was released, was priced at $100, as well. Windows 3.0, upon release, sold for $149.95 with an upgrade price of $79.85. Windows 3.1 sold for $149.95 for the full installation while it sold for $79.95 for an upgrade. Thankfully, it looks like a price-point has been set, at least, for now. WFW3.11 seems to clock in at ~$139 according to PC Magazine circa 1994, which means, it probably started higher and that's just what it was retailing for at that point. Likewise, it had Windows NT listed at $309. That was the "nice" pricing. When WindowsNT4 was released, it listed at $1,129. That's a load of bread. Windows95, on the other hand, for it's release, was $109. There were many specials at CompUSA and the like, retailing for $89, if I remember correctly, but I think my first experience with it was actually from a promotional copy sent to our office. I liked it enough to buy my own. Funny -- 3 months later, I was dual-booting with Slackware... At any rate, Next came Windows98 which initially retailed for $209 but allowed for more inexpensive upgrades -- $109 from Win3.1/WFW3.11/Win95 and $19.95 from Win98 first edition.

These were, really, the last of the DOS-based Windows OSs, so let's move to the next generation. When Windows2000 arrived in Feb 2000, it retailed, for the professional edition, for $309 with the upgrade price being $219 from Win95/98 and $149 (after rebate) from WinNT3.51/NT4. To me, that's pricey for an operating system. From Windows2000, we get some intermediate server editions that don't apply to the average user, so let's move to WindowsXP. The Professional Edition retailed for $299 with an upgrade price of $199. If you wanted the Home Edition, subtract $100 from each price.

From WindowsXP, we were saddled with Windows Vista. I have very little good to say about Vista, so I'll stick to the facts -- for the Home Basic version, it retailed for $199 with a $100 upgrade price. For the Home Premium, it ran $239 with an upgrade cost of $159. The Professional Version was renamed to "Vista Business" and retailed for $299 with an upgrade of, you guessed it, $199. The version that every seemed to want was the Ultimate release, and it retailed for $399, $259 for the upgrade. Once the first Service Pack was released, those prices dropped to $319 and $219, respectively. Yeah...

Finally, Windows7 was released to the world in the Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate editions, costing $199 ($119 upgrade), $299 ($199) and $319 ($219), respectively.

Now, what does the above have to do with anything? Well -- from where I'm sitting, if you're going to pay for software of the size and complexity of an operating system, especially the prices we're talking, they should work well right out of the box. They should also be relatively easy to "fix" with updates and such, but, really...for $319, shouldn't I be paying for some *extensive* beta testing in there? I know that for Win7, there was a LOT of beta testing...I was a beta tester, myself. That said, I also know that there are some things (issue #2) that aren't covered, really, in beta testing and fall squarely in the lap of the manufacturer's either inability or unwillingness to plug the security holes that allow bad things such as virii to infiltrate and render the entire OS useless. Remember, that's $319. It's not $109, nor is it $59, nor is it $2.99 to cover shipping. It's with that in mind, that I choose quality over price. It's not that "it's free and that's cheap and that's why I'm going to use it!" It's "my system ate itself and I paid *how much?*" and that's where Linux comes in. Not only is the price right, but it doesn't routinely go down in a situation as best described by Roy (IT Crowd, Series 4, Episode 5), "if it were a person, I'd shoot it in the face."

Finally, in the "quality over price" debate is this -- when I installed Windows7, what did I get? A fairly polished operating system that came with with MediaPlayer so I could listen to my MP3s and Internet Explorer so I could search the web for things I needed to raise my productivity levels above simply listening to my MP3s.

When I installed LinuxMint, what did I get? I got an OS that was lighter weight and faster. I also got OpenOffice (no need to shell out for Office) , GiMP (not quite PhotoShop, yet, but more than adequate), RhythmBox (no need to download iTunes with the dreaded Bonjour service/virus), VCD (so I wouldn't miss MediaPlayer and all the licensing weirdness), FireFox (for web traversal), Gwibber (should I feel like tweeting) and a slew of other utilities -- right "out of the box" that precluded the need to scour the web for things to get me going.

So, the quality argument is, as follows, "why should I pay $319 and not get what I need when I can download, legally, an OS that includes what I need?" You know the answer.

In Conclusion

This ran a little longer than I intended. I guess I start to obsess over stuff. This is why my hockey articles would take longer and longer to write, as well... At any rate, this is the "why not Windows" aspect of why I've turned back to a friend who treats me well, most of the time, and laughs at my jokes: linux. I can't say that these reasons are your reasons and I can't say that anyone else has taken the same path to get here that I have, nor can I say that linux is for everybody just as I can't say Windows is for everyone. Although, really, I guess I could say why not? For me, linux's pretty GUI (either Gnome2 or KDE4.5 are flashy enough to compete with the "gee whiz" factor of Aero) belies the stability and power under the hood. That's my decision and I'm sticking with it.

My New Favorite Spam Body

[originally posted 12/1/2009]
I get a lot of spam, apparently.  Not as much as some people I know, but I must have gone somewhere I shouldn’t have to get the amount and type of spam I get.  Well, unless you read the content and don’t just assume based off of the title that it’s lewd, unsavory content.  This next message is an example of why that’s the case…it’s not good or bad; it just is.  It certainly has nothing to do with porn, viagra or get rich quick schemes, AND it’s entertaining, in a warped sort of way…  I wonder if the purveyors of this spam intend for the messages to be this humorous…
“’You’re my alarm clock,’ the boy said. It will uncramp though, he thought. Surely it will uncramp to help my right hand. There are three things that are brothers: the fish and my two hands. It must uncramp. It is unworthy of it to be cramped. The fish had slowed again and was going at his usual pace. I can do nothing with him and he can do nothing with me, he thought. Not as long as he keeps this up. ‘No. I will eat at home. Do you want me to make the fire?’
‘But you went turtle-ing for years off the Mosquito Coast and your eyes are good.’”

Once a Year?!

So...um...yeah...embarrassingly enough, it's been close to a year since I've posted anything, here.  I know, *bad Phil!*  I could go into all sorts of reasons or excuses, but, really, I think I just forgot about this one...  I tend to write on the kon16ov.wordpress.com blog or the one that is one blog.pmwdesigns.net, but that's no excuse.  With the advent of "cut and paste," I could at least attempt to cross-pollinate, as it were.  Oh, well.  I'll do better.  Maybe.

So, I will work on updating this one from the others and maybe get some *new* material out here.  Won't that be fun?