Top 10 Linux FOSS Keys

Linux and FOSS "top whatever" lists are all the rage these days on the blogoweb, so I figured I might as well cash in.

I've been using Linux and Free Open Source Software for many years now, and have developed my own set of preferences and tastes in this regard that work well for me. I thought I'd share some of them in hopes of helping out newbies or perhaps even inspiring some of the old-timers.

Specifically, I'd like to talk about some of the keys available on Linux. I realize that many of these keys might also be available on other operating systems, and I should also note that I haven't used every single key -- so if I miss an important one, let me know.

1. The A key.
   
   Not the most important key, surely, but a big dog no less. The king of the alphabet. The first letter of "Alphanumeric" and "A-Team". When used in conjunction with the CTRL key it will Select All in most of your favorite FOSS programs. Without the A key, there's no way you could view processes belonging to All users using `ps aux`, or see All sockets using `netstat -a` -- hell, you couldn't even spell netstat.
   
   The A key. With it we can achieve the center, the essence, the heart of `man`.
   
   
2. The Semicolon (;) key.
   
   Ah the semicolon, a personal favorite of mine. With the semicolon key I can look grammatically smart to people more stupider than I; of whom are many. Without the semicolon key getting a C or Java program to compile would be a miserable experience, and you can forget about your cute little PHP app with the Javascript front-end.
   
   The semicolon key -- keeping FOSS lovers' right pinkies in shape for over 30 years. Or more, or less. I dunno, how old are keys?
   
   
3. The Backtick key.
   
   Oh! the anguished, misunderstood, misrepresented backtick key. Ask a typical Windows user to press the backtick key and you'll have a good reason to chuckle arrogantly to yourself, just loudly enough so that they'll see it. "Why would I ever use that", they'll ask, full of stupid.
   
   Often overshadowed by the tilde who found fame in mathematics, the backtick waits patiently on your FOSS keyboard, just above the Tab and just to the left of 1 -- waiting for you to need to exec something in your scripting language. Or waiting, perhaps, to be used covertly in a parameter sent to your poorly-written PHP script... but let's not generalize, not all backticks are bad just because most of them are.
   
   Oh backtick, you kick so much ass!
   
   
4. The Backspace key.
   
   The cleaner. The remover of bad. Where would be without the backspace key? We'd be arrowing around and using the delete key, that's where we'd be. What a nightmare! The delete key is one of the most overrated, poorly conceived keys on your FOSS keyboard, yet somehow it has historically taken precedence over backspace, who in some circumstances is reduced to coughing out a bunch of useless ^H^H^H characters.
   
   Without the backspace key I wouldn't be able to remove the mistake I'm about to make.
   
   
5. The Spacebar.
   
   Perhaps the spacebar should have been at the #1 spot on my list. After all, it's freakin GIGANTIC! It's so god damned enormous that it's not even called a key -- it's called a BAR. And it's a bar because it's so dang useful. Here's how your code might look without the spacebar:
   
   intmain(){return1;}
   
   Compile THAT! Ha!
   
   And what a perfect name, rich with double meaning. When future earthly entrepreneurs start opening merry little establishments on space stations around the universe, you can bet there will be more than a small shake of cool joints called "The Space Bar."
   
   
6. The ellameno keys.
   
   Reduced to a single letter in the minds of many by an unfortunate, cruel children's song, the l, m, n, and o keys deserve a mention. Thanks for the ls, the more, the nslookup, and the almost-middle letter of the acronym FOSS.
   
   
7. The Print Screen key.
   
   A dumping ground for homeless functions, the Print Screen key has remained a part of FOSS-compatible keyboards since its early beginnings when it would actually "print the screen." Now nobody really knows what to make of it. It might take a screenshot, sure, that's cool. On some non-FOSS keyboards it might INSERT, causing your cursor to type over everything in front of it, and I guess that's manageable. But what if it SysRqs???? What the hell is that? What if it SysRqs whiles taking a screenshot of your cursor changing behavior!?
   
   Typically located near the Scroll Lock and Pause / Break keys, the Print Screen key is made even more ominous by the unsavory company it keeps. They're there, they're proud, and it's best if you just leave them the hell alone. But if you get yourself in with this selective crowd, they might just open up a whole new level of functionality that you never knew existed. But I dunno, I don't push on them.
   
   
8. The Esc key.
   
   Let's face it, the escape key is losing relevance. Rarely does the esc key actually perform any useful function -- just what does it mean to "escape" in a modern operating system anyhow? Richard Stallman completely redefined the key when he wrote Emacs, turning into some kind of freakishly meta bastard, and nobody even noticed! Nobody stopped to think, "hey, if I press M-c, an awesome feature to capitalize the first letter of a word, won't it cause me to 'escape' from Emacs?" No, no it won't.
   
   Look, the esc key might not have any functional relevance when it comes to your FOSS software, but it does have one very important function in the physical world. It gives you something to beat on when your FOSS programs that aren't supposed to crash suddenly stop responding. As if it were the controls to a time machine, we beat the hell out of the escape key every time something goes wrong. It is the avenue through which we allow our abusive tendencies to escape.
   
   Escape key, I salute thee.
   
   
9. The Arrow keys.
   
   "Hey, we're hear to stay, so just use us already!!"
   
   Poor arrow keys. Everyone always hijacking other letters or even the number pad to perform the function that the arrow keys were specifically designed for. Twenty years ago it wasn't a given that a keyboard would have arrow keys, but now-a-days I challenge you to find one without. So knock it off with this Num Lock crap and forget about your WASD and HJKL. We're never going to convince our proprietary brothers and sisters to make the switch to FOSS if we can't even reduce ourselves to using keys with arrows on them to move things in directions.
   
   Arrow keys. Easy is good.
   
   
10. The Windows key SUCKS.
    
    In blog-style top-ten FOSS fashion, I completely bail when I run out of ideas and add something completely irrelevant. Open-Apple and Closed-Apple are stupid too.
    

Linux Action Show's Host to Produce Non-free Software

So I'm a regular listener of the Linux Action Show, a podcast devoted to news and commentary about -- you guessed it -- Linux.  The "action" part of the show is that they talk loudly.  For the most part I've always found the show to be interesting and insightful without being overly preachy, as Linux advocasy often is.  Essentially: Linux is good but needs work and we can put up with a few proprietary drivers even though we hate them.  Knowing of the show's pragmatic stance on free software, it still came as quite a shock when co-host Bryan Landuke recently announced that he is going to be producing commercial, closed-source applications exclusively for Linux.

By no means do I subscribe to the FOSS evangelist "philosophy" perpetrated by Richard Stallman.  In fact, I rather enjoy poking fun at it.  But there is one area where I do believe that FOSS values are not only appropriate, but necessary: free operating systems.  Linux, of course, being one of them.

The hosts of the Linux Action Show have long held the belief that in order for Linux to become "mainstream", it has to look right.  I agree with this wholeheartedly.  If a Linux distribution doesn't look as professional and asthetically pleasing as its commercial competition then the mainstream consumer is not going choose it over a proprietary system.  Another idea often emphisised by the Linux Action Show is that Linux is lacking high quality consumer / end user applications.  This I also tend to agree with.  Aside from a few shining examples like OpenOffice.org, many Linux applications are very lacking in ease of use, documentation, and overall visual appeal.   Great, so these guys are on the same page as me and they're all ramped up to actually do something about it!

The solution?  Make more proprietary, non-free, closed-source applications for Linux that look really nice.

ZZZZzzzttt!  Hold it right there.  This makes no sense.  I actually had to rewind the podcast a little bit to make sure I was hearing things right.  I was.  Unfortunately.  

After hearing Bryan's entire spiel about the two applications he'll be launching (some kind of e-readers...I don't really do much e-reading) I quit listening and almost decided to go unsubscribe from the podcast.  Then I realized that unsubscribing would involve work, and that unsubscribing from a podcast to convey my righteous dismay was about as lame as starting an internet petition to save the world from global warming, so I decided to remain a listener.  (not to mention it's like the only quality Linux show left now that LUG Radio called it quits)

The problems with Bryan's assertion that Linux needs more commercial applications are many.  Let's think about this.

It is true that the state of desktop computing today has a lot to do with commercial vendors licensing closed applications as a business model.  A paid software engineer will produce more code than a non-paid one, and the money has to be made somehow, right?

Well, yeah, but that's besides the point.  Windows did not become the market force it is today because a whole bunch of developers decided that they would make money by licensing software on Windows.  This egg comes before the chicken.  Developers chose Windows because Microsoft made it into the gorilla it has always been by sheer business force.  Windows is where the customers are, and that's why it's where the developers are.

Producing closed-source commercial programs on Linux to demonstrate that it can be done successfully in the hopes that others will follow suit is fatally flawed.  As we just implied, Linux doesn't have the market share to support a large number of niche closed-source developers, so all that will be proven is that it can't be done.  But just for fun, let's assume that Bryan does pull it off, and he sells enough copies of ones and zeros to pull in the necessary income to replace a regular W2 job in the industry (assuming this number is in the range of $60-100K for a man in his 30s, plus enough to cover the self-employment tax burden... that's a lot of shareware to sell).  What will this do for Linux?

It will do absolutely nothing for Linux except, perhaps, gain it a few properietary niche applications.  Will anyone switch to Linux because they can buy a comic book reader for it?  I think not.  Even if Adobe released its entire Creative Suite on Linux it still wouldn't make people switch.

OOOh, I can almost hear your grunts and groans!  But I'm right.  The person who would switch from Windows to Linux because Creative Suite ran on Linux is somebody who is ALREADY RUNNING LINUX.  That person just also happens to be running Windows or OSX too.

To be frank, Linux is not as polished or easy to use as Windows or Mac OSX.  The devil is in the details, and while some Linux distributions like Ubuntu work great overall, it's the little things that hurt.  Why don't those extra buttons on my laptop do anything?  Why isn't my wireless card working?  Why is it so hard to use a projector?  Why the hell are all the fonts so damn big?  Which of my smart-ass younger relatives can I call when I suddenly can't change my desktop resolution?

No, Linux's value is not in its polish, that's Mac OSX.  Linux's value is not in its giant install base, that's Windows.  Linux's value is that it's free.  Free as in beer and free as in libre.  I can install Linux almost anywhere, for any reason, without having to worry about licenses or activation schemes.  I can use my Linux applications freely knowing that in general they support open standards, have long lifespans, aren't tied to a specific machine, and don't force me to upgrade every six months.  That is the value of Linux, which is the value of FOSS itself.

Nobody is going to make the switch to Linux because they can buy more commercial software for it.  They're already getting their properietary operating systems for "free" with the machines they buy anyhow, and they have no trouble buying commercial software for them.  Adding commercial software to Linux won't fulfill any real need. 

And what happens if Bryan's plan does work, and work better than he ever dreamed?  What if we had scores of closed-source applications on Linux making Linux more comparable to Windows or OSX?  What would we have gained?  Better DRM support?  Less control over our data?  Applications that phone home to activate?  Fun and exciting commercial EULAs?  Wait, why were we using Linux in the first place?

Here's a suggestion, Bryan:  create awesome looking, feature-rich applications for Linux and give them away, source and all.  Pick a modern business model that doesn't involve artificial restrictions and show us how you can make money at it.  Show us that open-source software doesn't have to suck because we aren't paying for a license.  This would impress me.  This would be good for Linux.  

Until then, I'll be self-righteously thinking about unsubscribing from your show every time you mention your plan, but then not actually unsubscribing.  (It's my protest and I can conduct it on any scale I choose, thank you very much.)

Top 10 Reasons to Use Linux FUD / Bull

This is a response to "Top 10 Reasons to Why Should I Use Linux? - A Linux Evangelists' Reference."

Think of ten reasons off of the top of your head why Linux is better than other operating systems. Go.

"Umm... 1) It helps you get rid of viruses 'n' stuff."

True, sorta. It doesn't help you get rid of viruses and malware exactly, though it could be used for that purpose. Linux is certainly more resistant to infection for a variety of compelling though questionable reasons. Its "server-client relationship" is one of those questionable reasons, and a good one if you're worried more about damage to the operating system than to all of your data. Linux is a more secure multi-user environment out of the box, and is a more secure single user environment partly because of obscurity and partly because users by default don't run as root. There are plenty of security flaws in "Linux" -- assuming we're not just talking about the Linux kernel -- many of which are never taken advantage of.

Back when I was running RedHat 7 I was a little bit lax on keeping it up to date, and my machine was rooted and subsequently used to attack at least one organization. I'm to blame, sure, but let's not get carried away with this "Linux is uber-secure because of its amazing design and opensourceness" business.

Linux is uber-secure when compared to Windows. Compared to Mac OS (even pre-OSX BSD goodness), it doesn't exactly stand out.

"2) Linux is really fast 'n' stuff."

Yeah yeah. This is a seriously out of date point. You certainly cannot run a major distro on 256MB of RAM with "all the bling." In fact, you'll have a hard time even installing some major distros with only 256MB. And as soon as you bring up an application like Firefox, it's gonna grind.

In my experience XP will run "better" than the latest Ubuntu on 256MB. Not so much "better", but "useable" or "slightly less sucky." I do realize of course that XP is seven years old, and 256MB was adequate when it was released.

What really impresses me the most is how OSX runs on my old G3 with 512MB. Now *that's* impressive. This is something that neither Windows nor any full-fledged Linux distribution could pull off.

Oh, and "Linux" will bloat and slow down if you willy nilly start installing applications and the requisite eight bajillion dependencies required by each. Run your Linux installation like the average user person runs his Windows installation and you'll be in a similar boat right quick. You'll just have spent a hell of a lot more time getting the boat into the water.

My most used XP installation is at least 5 years old (yeesh my machine is getting old!) and isn't slow.

"3) Linux is easier to use than Windoze"

This is absolute bull. What could be easier than opening up a package manager and installing the software you want? Downloading a single file and clicking on it, that's what could be easier.

Despite the impressive completeness of most package managers these days, they're still at the mercy of poor descriptions and extremely bad program naming. Many times I've jumped through more hoops than necessary to install "ksmk2ii1kk-0.0.22.2.33-alpha-rc1", not realizing that it was in the damn repository already...or if I did see it, it's six months out of date and the features I need are in version 0.0.22.2.33-alpha-rc1.01.

Now I'm not saying that I don't like systems like Synaptic, because I do very much. But this is not necessarily a reason that Linux is "easier." There are some things about it that are better, sure. Easier? For me. Sometimes. Sure.

Hardware compatibility? Ok, just freakin stop it. To say that Linux has better hardware support than Windows (as a whole) is just a lie. And using ndiswrapper to help prove your point just negates your point. Using an OPTIONALLY INSTALLED program like ndiswrapper to wrap WINDOWS drivers does not make Linux easier to use than Windows. And if you care so much about so-called freedom (see point 4) then using Windows drivers is not an option.

Frankly, the Linux desktop is still harder to use than Windows or Mac. It's gotten worlds better, but unless you have a system that's setup to do X, Y, and Z, and only X, Y, and Z, the average person is going to get frustrated very quickly. And the shell will come out. I have never been able to get a Linux distro to the same relative state of usefulness as a generic Windows install without using the shell. Ever. The last time I installed a major distro was last month.

"4) Linux is free because information wants to be free man"

Ok, I'll concede this one, although I'm still on the fence as to whether a software application can be considered "information" and thus should be free, unless I intentionally stick my head back into the box and disregard the energy required to generate said "information," not to mention that some of this information is the ends itself, not just a means. But I digress. I'm certainly no fan of modern commercial licensing.

"5) The FBI can't spy on you with Linux!"

Please. This is genuine FUD. Just because you can't read the high level source code for Windows does not mean that you can't verify that it's not spying on you and sending the information to the FBI. Please. And when was the last time your grandma popped open the source to kPrescriptionLoc to verify that it wasn't leaking her Medicare information?

"6) Windows programs like Photoshop CS3 work awesome on Linux thanks to Wine!"

No they don't. They just don't. Stop lying. Photoshop CS3, and all of the CS3 Suite programs have major problems even installing in Wine. Even the Wine lead Alexandre Juillard in a recent interview with LUG Radio admitted to being far from able to keep up with new software developments. (not that he ever tried to deny it)

And what happened to "Linux is easier to use than Windows" and that business about freedom? Wine? Please.

"7) Linux looks better than other operating systems."

Cork it. Linux finally has some eye candy, that mostly works, and is mostly not too clunky. Better looking? I enter into the record the Gnome Panel. Case closed. The best looking Linux was had ten years ago with Enlightenment, the Duke Nukem Forever of desktop managers.

Awesome 3D Penguin backgrounds and wiggly windows get old pretty damn fast. Linux has a long way to go to catch up with OSX in terms of look and feel. I'd even say that it has some catching up to do with Vista, one of the worst, most annoying operating systems that I've ever used.

"8) Linux is fun!"

Well no shit. I've always said that Linux is the best tool available for configuring Linux. It in and of itself is a challenge. Unfortunately "fun" and "easy to use" are mutually exclusive here.

"9) You can help improve Linux!"

Pahleese. This has nothing to do with Linux specifically. Go ahead and send your whiny complaints to Linus and see what kind of reaction you get.

Yes, we can all help to improve open source software. I *love* open source software. I will not spend my free time improving it, however, unless it's something I really need to have working. That's not to say that I won't complain about, however.

Anyhow, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they should write the documentation for some software that they can't figure out how to use because the documentation sucks.

"10) adf adsfadsf adadsf adf"

Ok, an "evangelist" couldn't come up with ten valid points about why Linux is a superior operating system in a TOP TEN list? Too busy looking over source code for security flaws? Too busy writing better documentation for Sendmail? Or are you just stuck trying to work out some dependency conflicts?
Here is my list of why Linux is the best operating system. Note that many items are repeats of the FUD article, but without the poor explanations:

1) It costs nothing. Self explanatory.

2) In terms of free operating systems, it has the best hardware support.

3) Business case: licensing ensures that your vendor can never pull the rug out from under you and force you to start paying. The software, and the source, is yours to keep, use, and modify forever. (although I haven't gotten over feeling burned by RedHat when it dropped RH Linux after version 9 and left us with a pay-only upgrade to RHEL or the baby new Fedora project) More importantly, your data is yours.

4) No activation schemes, period. No situations where you're restricted from using your software because you've changed your own hardware. Need to reinstall? Then do it. Hundreds of times. Thousands of times. Never call a support center in India to verify the genuine awesomeness of your operating system again.

5) There is a lot of software available. Most of it is very poor quality, but you can still be very productive.

6) Business case: Linux makes for a fantastic server. You've got the same clunky problems maintaining a Linux server that you do maintaining a Linux desktop, but once you get that server running the comparative uptime is phenomenal.

7) Once you've got your distro configured just right, Linux is easy to use and productive as a desktop operating system. Unfortunately, there is a chance that you will never get it configured just right.

8) You're already using Linux whether you know it or not. It might be on your phone, your router, or your MP3 player. Chances are, it served you this web page. Linux is not just a hobby operating system for enthusiasts anymore.

9) Your chance of becoming infected with a virus or malware is reduced nearly to zero if you keep your system up to date. This doesn't mean that you're not susceptible to a wide range of online trickery, and it doesn't mean that Linux doesn't have security flaws.

10) Using Linux prevents you from getting involved with most DRM systems and somewhat prevents you from becoming a part of the software patents problem.