Got my Chrome on -- finally!

After a whole bunch of testing, tweaking, and head-banging, Google Chrome is now working on my Linux box.

At issue was an nss file; I'm not real sure what it does, but it makes Chrome work. That's all I need to know.

I couldn't find it on any of my Vector Linux repositories, so I had to do some serious Web searching to dig it up. But it's there, on a web site called slackfind.net -- of course, it is now bookmarked in my system.

Here's the file:

Keep in mind, this is for a Slackware version of Linux, specifically Vector Linux, which is the one I use. It's in .tgz format, for me a breeze to install.

And Chrome is as fast as I knew it would be.

Firefox? What's Firefox?

###

Chrome becomes headache on Linux box

I'll admit it. I had my early misgivings about the Google Chrome browser when it was first coming out. Like, what's Google doing in the software business?

But after using Chrome a few times on Windows systems, it sort of grew on me. It's one fast browser, maybe even faster than Opera. It's less likely to blow up in memory like Firefox. I have a Portable Apps version that I use on borrowed Windows machines, though it doesn't seem to save my bookmarks.

On my Linux box, I'm always experimenting with browsers. I have Firefox, Seamonkey (which is built off the old Mozilla code), Dillo, Lynx, and Opera available to browse the Web, and I use them all. For the past few months Opera has been my go-to, and even that feels poky next to Chrome.

So I put myself on the Chrome mailing list, waiting for the Linux version to come out. A few weeks ago, the first version for MacIntosh and Linux was released, with all the warts.

Now, understand, this version is in beta. Which means it may or may not work. That's what happens when you go for such bleeding-edge software. You're volunteering your services as a crash-test dummy.

So far, only binaries of Chrome seem to be available in Linux; I haven't seen any source-code bundles just yet. I use Vector Linux, which runs with .tlz and .tgz binary packages, but I like to compile my programs from source. Best I was able to do was to download the .rpm binary (which Red Hat and Fedora use), and convert it over to .tgz. Here's what I did, from the root shell:

root:# cd /home/eric
root:# rpm2tgz google-chrome-beta_current_i386.rpm

From there, I was able to install it directly into my system. I was ready to go. I had my seatbelt buckled and my Tony Stewart racing gear on, 'cause this was going to be one fast browser.

A problem, though. I could only go so far; the sandbox (a security tool) wasn't configured right. My command shell told me what to do, so after a few days of deliberation I went ahead with the fix. Here's how, again from a root shell:

root:# su /opt/google/chrome
root:# chown root chrome-sandbox
root:# chmod 4755 chrome-sandbox

Then fired Chrome up from the command shell -- success, for a minute.

As it stands now, I can work Chrome all day, as long as I don't use it to go online. That's when it quits.

Seriously. Here's what I get in the command shell:

eric:$ google-chrome
[7241:7253:703254262:ERROR:/usr/local/google/home/chrome-eng/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/nss_init.cc(89)] Error initializing NSS with a persistent database (sql:/home/eric/.pki/nssdb): NSS error code -8174 Assertion failure: lock != NULL, at ../../../../pr/src/pthreads/ptsynch.c:205 Aborted

In non-technical language, that means it crapped out. Back to the drawing board.

Might need to download the next version, maybe attack one of the nightly builds. And if anyone has any ideas of their own, I'm willing to try them. But despite my early misgivings I see Chrome in my future, and I'm not talking about a chrome dome here.

I'm gonna keep trying, because I'm stubborn and enjoy fooling with software when it's in beta. Face it. I make a good crash test dummy.

###

(You tell me: How about the rest of y'all Linux users? Have you had any better luck than me? Use the comments section below.)

Single-tasking rules with new text editors

Maybe it's a longing for a simpler time, or the realization that your computer is loaded with distractions, but lately I've been seeing lot of text-editing programs designed to narrow your focus.

Multitasking is out now. Welcome to the wonderful world of single-tasking.  

I've been reading about the Darkroom program for Windows, and Writeroom for the Mac. Then there's WriteMonkey and PyRoom, two other programs that do absolutely nothing but give you a background to type your words on. Almost nothing to play with on any of these programs.

The big question here is, what fun is that? It's not like you can adjust your margins, change fonts, or add fancy graphics here. Your screen looks absolutely barren; even the desktop icons and Freecell game are blanked out.

I use PyRoom (which is pictured here), a text tool that shows you nothing but a green box on a black screen. My text shows up in green in that box. No formatting, no toolbars, no dancing paper clips -- just the text in a box.

When I wrote for the Fontana Herald-News, we used the old Harris typesetting system, which was ancient even in the late 1980s. PyRoom reminds me of the terminal I typed on back then. The only real difference was that there was a string of commands at the top of the screen, which were for setting the type and meant nothing to me, the writer. I was limited to eight characters for the file name (which we called a "slug" back then.

I was quite productive on these old-school screens because, well, there was nothing else to do but write. I'm easily distracted, so it's probably a good thing I don't have an Internet connection at home or I'd get nothing done.

Much as I've tried to multitask, I always do my better work when I'm going the opposite direction. That means when I write, I write. When I design the page, I design the page. Those two disciplines used to be -- and still should be -- kept separate. That's why I do most of my writing on a plain-vanilla text editor instead of something like OpenOffice or Microsoft Word.

With PyRoom you can set the background to a variety of color schemes, but I stick with the default green-on-black. And I understand with WriteMonkey you can even set the sound to give you the clacking of a typewriter; how cool is that? Other than that, your commands are pretty minimal with these programs. Here's the help file with PyRoom:

---------
Control-H: Show help in a new buffer
Control-I: Show buffer information
Control-P: Shows Preferences dialog
Control-N: Create a new buffer
Control-O: Open a file in a new buffer
Control-Q: Quit
Control-S: Save current buffer
Control-Shift-S: Save current buffer as
Control-W: Close buffer and exit if it was the last buffer
Control-Y: Redo last typing
Control-Z: Undo last typing
Control-Page Up: Switch to previous buffer
Control-Page Down: Switch to next buffer
---------

While Darkroom is a Windows program and Writeroom is ported to the MacIntosh, PyRoom has no real preference. It's written in the Python programming language, so it should work with all operating systems. It's also free. 

I wasn't sure I'd like using such a stark text editor, but the more I use it the more I like it. And I get a lot more done when I'm using it.

###

Can't go outdoors? See weather virtually

You know about those frequent computer users, be they writers, gamers, cubicle residents, and programmers. They spend hours squinting at an LCD screen to the exclusion of everything else. For some, computers have become a handy alternative to real life.

If you have to go to a weather site to find out if it's raining outside, then you're just the person I'm talking to.

I read this piece in FilePlaza about YoWindow, a program that makes it unnecessary to even go outside. Seriously. According to the article, it brings the outdoors inside.

From FilePlaza:

... a beautiful landscape changes over time, reflecting the actual weather. It's like watching the weather out your window. Watch the weather with pleasure!

Ugh, no thanks.

Admittedly, I spend a lot more time at the computer than a grown man should. But my favorite at-home workstation is out on the front stoop, with the laptop and a cup of coffee. If the weather is rough I'll sit in a chair by the propped-open front door. My favorite online place is a college campus nearby, outdoors, where there's plenty of scenery (yeah, that kind, too).

I guess YoWindow would have a special value to the office worker who is chained to his cubicle. I've never had one of those jobs, and I'd rather have a battery acid enema than work under those conditions. Even when I worked in newsrooms, I took every excuse to go outside and hunt up my stories in person.

So, if you're one of those folks who is indoors all the time and has a skin pallor that you can only get when raising mushrooms, you might want to take a look at YoWindow.

Or, better yet, find an excuse to go outside and enjoy the real deal.

###

Chrome OS promising, but it's more for the future

It won't be ready for the general public for another year, but the sneak preview of the Google Chrome OS is generating quite a buzz.

It may be a Windows-killer, some claim. It'll put Linux on the map, say others. It'll be a fiasco, say still more pundits. So far, nobody's neutral.

Google Chrome, built from the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (which I've always liked), is designed for the ultralight, ultracheap netbooks that are not really built for much more than Web browsing and lightweight office work. And the Chrome system is really little more than a front end for "cloud computing" -- the use of online applications and storage.

According to the Google blog:

... it's all about the web. All apps are web apps. The entire experience takes place within the browser and there are no conventional desktop applications. This means users do not have to deal with installing, managing and updating programs ...

That in itself is enough to really stir the pudding in the computer world.

I guess that's the future of computing, and it stands to reason that one may not even need a hard drive in the future. That's the trend I'm seeing carried out to its logical conclusion, though it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I've fooled around some with online applications, such as Google Docs. While they're OK, I have trepidations about using these for everything. I've also played with bubbl.us, an online mind mapping program. While these concepts are great for portability -- you can access your stuff from any computer without even a thumb drive. I'd rather keep my documents on hard drive. I'm even chary about backing them up online, and I like a lot more choice about what applications I do use. But from what I've read, the Google Chrome system throws you right into the future.

Although InfoWorld’s Randall Kennedy says Google’s Chrome OS will be a big failure, Robert Scoble thinks it's just ahead of its time:

... what about my son who is in high school? By the time Chrome OS comes along in big numbers he’ll be in college. Why take a $1,000 computer to class? Couldn’t he do everything he needs to do on a low-cost computer that’s lightweight, replaceable, uses low power, and just uses the web? Absolutely. InfoWorld is making assumptions that the world is going to stay the same. That simply is NOT true ... what will run on these new devices? A heavyweight OS like Windows 7 that takes me 40 seconds to boot up and does a ton of stuff I really don’t need, or a new OS that just has Google Chrome as its centerpiece?"

Even with nothing but a Web browser? Scoble says this:

... hey, I just wrote this post on Google Chrome while sitting listening to Marc Benioff at the TechCrunch Real Time Crunchup. I have not seen a single thing demonstrated on stage yet that won’t run on Google Chrome OS ... this is a winner, but on a new field ...

I may download the Chrome OS and give it a shot, though I'm not all that enthused about it. Since it's a front end with little more than a graphic user interface, a few core programs, and the Chrome browser, why does the download weigh in at around three gigabytes?

Out of the box, the download on my current Linux operating system is a tick over 700 megabytes. And that includes all the programs that make the computer a self-contained one. You can get surprisingly complete Linux distributions on a 100-megabyte download.

Still, I'm intrigued by this system, and hope it is adopted early and often. There's no secret that I'm a big fan of Linux, and the Chrome OS may finally dissolve the perception that Linux is too busy being geeky to be useful.

Now, understand that none of this is carved in granite, or even in bologna. This sneak preview is available in source code format, and it'll be a while before the final, battle-ready version is ready. In the interim, those who grabbed the download are essentially beta testers. Run it, crash it, make note of what you did, and report back to the developers.

The new operating system still begs the question: What will it do with Microsoft's death grip on the PC market?

Taking the pundits' comments and working the middle ground, the answer is not a lot. TechCrunch writer M. G. Siegler suggests Chrome will nibble into the bottom end of the Microsoft market -- the netbooks, the cheap computers. But until Windows 7 was released, Microsoft had conceded that end of the market. Most netbooks came with some form of Linux preloaded, while a few had Windows XP. Part of the game plan behind Windows 7 (which I'm not going to review; I'm more interested in open-source software) was to recapture some of the netbook users, and by most accounts the new Windows is one of the best systems Microsoft has ever produced.

Siegler writes:

... Google’s positioning for Chrome OS reads like a page out of Apple’s playbook, only from the opposite direction ... Apple, of course, takes the opposite approach, targeting the high end of the market with their high-quality and high-margin machines. If Google is successful with its Chrome OS netbooks (let’s call them ChromeBooks), what we could see is the squeezing of Microsoft, an idea I first laid out a month ago. With attacks from the top and bottom, Windows will be relegated to the middle. And ultimately, if Google has its way, marginalized ...

Stay tuned.

###

After rough start, Firefox marks fifth birthday

I never would have expected this. Firefox is five years old.

Despite its promise from the jump, Firefox spent its beta period without any real identity. Literally.

At first no one was really sure what to call it. For a while it was known as Phoenix, then Firebird. I believe the developers had to come up with a fast name change because there's another piece of software called Firebird, and branding is a big thing in the computer world.

With such an inauspicious beginning, it's amazing to see that the product survived, let alone developed a reputation as a stable browser.

To further confuse things, Firefox is open source, meaning you can take the code, tweak it, build something else from it, and rebrand it. This was done with Debian Linux, as the Firefox brand is copyrighted though the source code is not, so that thing that looks and feels like Firefox is called Iceweasel or some such thing. I've also used BonEcho, a rebranded, stripped-down version of Firefox for the ultralight Puppy Linux.

For a while, one of the lesser-known and more tongue-in-cheek Firefox extensions available was called firesomething, which would put a whole different name on the browser every time you run it. The name on it may be SnowSnake this time, and maybe something like BlizzardLizard the next. It was a goofy extension, but brought a chuckle to this user who remembered Firefox's early search for a name.

The browser made it out of beta and released Version 1.0 five years ago this week. Within four days, more than a million people downloaded it. I was one of them.

I was one of the early Firefox adopters. I was running an assembled-from-scratch computer, and already I was sick of Internet Explorer's balkiness and security leaks. I went to the old Mozilla suite, and when that company announced it was throwing its resources into a new, browser-only project, I had to try it out.

The design was a thing of beauty. You were getting a basic browser, and you'd add whatever you feel you needed to it. Now, five years later, the modular design remains. My Firefox has the experimental Google Gears extension, plus the LastPass password keeper. But the biggest extension I have is ScribeFire, which allows me to compose blogs within the browser and post them seamlessly. ScribeFire is big, adds more bloat to the browser, and is sometimes buggy so I'm a bit lukewarm about it. But I use it.

A caveat about Firefox: The more add-ons and extensions you install, the slower it will run. It's like running a car with all the options instead of a model with power nothing and the kind of air conditioner you get when you open all four windows. But even with a lot of chrome on it, Firefox is a good browser, stable, and secure. The developers stay on top of things, and are quicker to solve their bugs than the Microsoft people are at admitting there's a problem with IE. For a while, Firefox had a problem where it would blow up in your memory and consume every CPU cycle you had, but that was solved several updates ago.

Over time, Mozilla dropped its old browser and made Firefox its big Web browsing application. Recently, some fans of the old Mozilla browser took the source code, tweaked a few things, updated the whole thing, and released it as Seamonkey.

Now, Firefox is taking a decent chunk of the browser market. It's the main browser by about 25 percent of Web users, but that's a funny number. Firefox is not routinely installed on computers out of the box, and many users tend to stick with what's already on the box -- like Internet Explorer. Figure it. To use Internet Explorer you unpack the computer, plug it in, and double-click on the big "e" on the screen. You have to go out of your way to get Firefox -- and then install it yourself. But, Firefox now grabs a bigger share than the obsolete IE version 6, which is still a step ahead.

Recently, MozillaZine announced that Firefox was present on a majority -- 50.6 percent -- of computers, based on numbers by the exo.performance.network. So someone, somewhere, is doing an awful lot of downloading.

But while Firefox has seen some real growth lately, the year-old Google Chrome is growing even faster. Roughly four percent of computer users are making Chrome the prime browser, so that one has a way to go, but the growth rate matches the buzz it's generating. I played some with Chrome, but its development has primarily been on the Windows and, more recently, MacIntosh side. Still, I'm pleased by its lightness and speed -- by comparison a fully-loaded Firefox is kludgy -- but Chrome has an unfinished feel to it. I do suspect that, once it is ported to Linux, I may put it on my front line.

Firefox is still my go-to browser, but mostly because it works better with much of the stuff on the Web (particularly the experimental Google Labs widgets). It's probably a little bloated for my taste, though. Much as I tend to shy away from those large, do-everything suites (such as Open Office), I like Seamonkey (the rebuilt and reissued Mozilla browser suite) a bit better. Even with the built-in mail reader and HTML editor, its design is lighter than the browser-only Firefox. I do like Opera for the same reason, though it hasn't caught on in the mainstream computer world at all. Too bad. Opera is the only one that has a chance of outrunning Chrome in a speed test. Both of them are much quicker than Firefox, while IE lags so far behind you'd need searchlights to find it.

But if you want pure speed, Lynx runs circles around all of them, including Google Chrome. But since Lynx is text-only, you might have a problem watching those YouTube videos on it.

Computer issues being resolved

I can say it now: The laptop is back among the living.

Most of my software is back up. I've knocked off most of my to-do list. I'm writing this column on it, and soon I will upload it and download email and news. I'm extremely pleased.

One of the things I noticed is that, with the new configuration, it's handling power better. I haven't checked to see if I'm getting any better battery life, as I tend to forget about things like time when I'm online. Gee, I could fly a passenger jet ...

But I have noticed that it's running much cooler when it's plugged in to the A/C adaptor. Seriously. It's not like I took its temperature (I'm not sure where to stick the thermometer), but I can tell the difference. I take that to mean the CPU isn't working as hard, a good thing.

From my master list, I still need to locate a program that will put the computer into sleep mode when I close the lid. My temporary operating system had that, so this shouldn't be difficult to find or install. From there, most of the work is either convenience or cosmetic -- like rebuilding my menus so they'd be a little more intuituve.

I still want to find an uncorrupted version of the Windows system file I blew out (hal.dll), but there's no rush there.

For the geekus extremis among us, here's a printout of some of the basics. If your eyes glaze over when someone mentions "CPU," feel free to skip over this part:

-Computer- Processor : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz Memory : 1022MB (267MB used) Operating System : Unknown distribution Date/Time : Tue 27 Oct 2009 01:31:22 PM GMT+5 -Display- Resolution : 1024x600 pixels OpenGL Renderer : Unknown X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation -Version- Kernel : Linux 2.6.29.3 (i686) Compiled : #1 Tue May 19 23:43:56 GMT-8 2009 C Library : GNU C Library version 2.9 (stable) -Current Session- Computer Name : epulsifer Desktop Environment : Unknown (Window Manager: Fluxbox) -Misc- Uptime : 17 hours, 5 minutes Load Average : 0.23, 0.15, 0.15

This "uptime" is interesting. Keep in mind, this is a laptop and I don't have that sleep-mode switch fixed, so it's been running, powered and plugged in, with the lid closed.

Just for yuks, I checked to see how long my desktop (which also runs on Linux) unit has been booted up without a restart:

7d 17:46

OK. I rebooted that computer a week ago. I usually only shut the desktop down when I'm experimenting with another computer (not enough power cords to go around), replacing a part, or moving the unit.

Just try doing that with Windows.

###

(Pictured is a screenshot from the laptop. OK, you may not recognize a lot of this stuff if you're a Windows user. The interface -- Fluxbox -- is pretty minimal, but it stays out of my way.)

Resurrecting laptop took plain & fancy fixes

OK. I think I'm back up and running.

Was out of the loop for a few days; my main access to the Internet went south until I was able to fix it.

This laptop is my mobile workhorse. Although I do much of my writing on the home computer, it's strictly a standalone unit that doesn't conect to the web. To upload and download, I use my Acer netbook for all the dirty work.

The Acer was victimized by my tendency to experiment. I'm not even sure what I did. I jiggled when I should have joggled, and corrupted a couple of system files. Now, that computer is driven by Windows XP, which doesn't lend itself well to evil experiments. Anyway, when I boot up into Windows, an error message pops up letting me know just what I'd b0rked, and won't let me go any farther than that. A dead computer.

Thanks to some other experiments I'd run, the netbook wasn't dead in the water for very long. I have a few quick-and-dirty solutions that brought it back to the land of the living, but I'm not done yet. Working on a "final solution," but the duct tape and spit will work for now.

From quick-and-dirty land:

I have a Linux system installed on a 1-gigabyte thumb drive, and I set up the laptop's BIOS to look there first before booting anything else up (instructions are on the screen). I'm using a variant of Puppy Linux, which is great because it runs in memory. Once I'm booted up, I can pull the thumb drive and work without that thing hanging out of the computer. It's probably an OCD thing.

If you're a Linux user, you can set up any version to run with a program called Unetbootin. It's very cool. You grab the .iso image file of whatever Linux version from the Internet, install it to the thumb drive via Unetbootin, fire up the computer with the thumb drive installed, and you're running Linux. You'll be able to access the files on your hard drive as before. The only caveat is that, unless your version of Linux is designed to run completely in memory (such as Puppy Linux), you won't be able to remove the thumb drive without screwing things up.

On that USB drive, I have all the goodies I need -- wireless fixins, a Web browser, text editor and word processor, and a program to play mp3s while I work. I'm all set there, at least for now. And I have the same system installed on a smaller, 256-megabyte USB drive that stays in my cell phone case, so I have a backup.

That was my temporary fix, and it served me well. But it wasn't the final solution. The good news is that over the weekend I got much closer to something more permanent. A newer, more expandable version of Puppy Linux is now installed on my hard drive, and I can boot directly into it without using the thumb drive. Much cleaner, much more permanent.

One of the limitations of Puppy Linux is that its ability to install newer software is a little squirrelly. The developer, a nice Australian guy named Barry Kauler, built the system for speed and a small footprint, and many of the add-in programs had to be adapted for that system. But, through the "woof" project, one is able to import software from Ubuntu repositories or the Slackware-based .tgz format.

I know this means nothing to non-geeky types, but here's the upshot: Newer, better software. With the old Puppy Linux, I'm limited to version 2 of Firefox; now I'm able to grab the newer -- and in this case better -- version 3.5.

OK. Almost there. But something's still missing:

I'm a news junkie, and a big part of my blogging is my ability to capture all the news I need. Plus, I want something that would give me some flexibility. I want to be able to move all this news from my laptop to the desktop at home.

In short, I want a portable RSS reader that I can use online or offline.

For those who don't know about such things, an RSS reader is the world's greatest invention for news junkies such as myself. You subscribe to your feeds, download the news you want, and read it at your leisure. Most news websites and blogs -- including this one and The Column, Reloaded (which I highly recommend) -- allow you to subscribe; but some will just give the partial feed, a paragraph or two, while others give the full text and graphics.

My own feeds include a handful of news outlets -- Yahoo! News, CNN, Newsweek, the BBC, ESPN. Plus many blogs. I have tons of political blogs in my feeds -- Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on the left, The Heritage Foundation on the right, and the libertarian Cato Institute. Although my politics are pretty well defined, I like to see what all sides have to say.

I never bothered counting the number of news feeds I have, but I have more than 1,00 news items to sort through every day. Some, obviously, are good for little more than a glance at the headline. Others I'll read, mark, prioritize, quote from, and link to in my blogs. And still others I'll forward to friends.

If you're a Gmail user, you have access to Google Reader, which fits most of the bill. But I wanted my news to be more portable than that. Google Reader does have offline capabilities, but that's still experimental.

I considered using a second, 8-gigabyte thumb drive that I use as my mobile storage disk. That's where I keep my work files, plus my Portable Apps suite.

I love Portable Apps. That's where I have a handful of to-go programs. There's Firefox, Abiword, Thunderbird, a few games, and Open Office, all on a flash drive that I can plug into anyone's computer, do my work, and leave no trace. I wrote about Portable Apps in my other blog, and it's one handy tool. The developers have some great programs available, but no RSS reader. And I'm ticked. In a pinch Thunderbird will work, but it's a poor option at best. And, these Portable Apps programs are Windows-based, meaning I need to use an emulator -- such as WINE -- to run them. Useful as WINE is, that's one layer of software I don't want to mess with for something as crucial as gathering the news.

While running my temporary system from the thumb drive, I experimented with several Linux-based RSS readers, and none were satisfactory. But with the freshly-installed Puppy Linux I tried the multi-platform, Java-based RSS Owl, and so far the interface works. While uploading this blog, I will test my installation to see if it actually downloads the news. I hope so. RSS Owl was my go-to news reader on Windows, so there won't be any real learning curve.

Fast update: It's working! I'm excited!

OK. What's still unresolved is my ability to share my RSS news with my desktop computer. The only real solution I see -- and this is theoretical -- is to score a router and network the two computers. But that's another project I'll study on later. My plate is already piled so high it's ready to tip over.

Here's my to-do list:

- Laptop lid switch - fix. (One problem with my system right now is that it doesn't go into sleep mode when I shut the lid. This means I either leave it powered up, or shut the whole thing down.
- Firefox 3.5 (Will download this in a few days.)
- Thunderbird, with calendar (My favorite mail reader, and there's a calendar add-on that, well, keeps me organized. Shoot, keeping myself organized is a losing battle most of the time, but let's not go there.)
- A couple of games (I'm not real big on that, but it's not all work and no play, and I do like a lightweight game or two every once in a while.)
- Gantt (This is a program that I use for planning, when time is important and there are definite steps to be taken. The one I use on my desktop is a Java-based program, and it's a simple download and install.)
- RSS reader!! (As I mentioned, this is being addressed.)
- qt3 (This is a series of library files that are needed to run Scribus, an open-source page layout program.)

That's the more important stuff. The rest of the list is something I can attack later:

- GIMP (This is an open-source graphics and photo-manipulation program, on a par with PhotoShop.)
- Audacity (This is a simple sound-editing program. I've used the laptop to record band rehearsals. Also need to come up with something better than the lousy condenser microphone that came with the laptop, but that's not an immediate need.)
- Open Office (I do have that, via Portable Apps, on my thumb drive. In truth, I don't use it all that much.)
- TweetDeck (This helps me organize my Twitter account, and it's quite useful. Twitter, by the way, is great for keeping up with the absolute latest news, but it's also the biggest time-waster since the Internet was invented.)

Enough already!

Scareware a big business, but fake virus 'protection' can be removed

Viruses and spyware are a real concern when you spend any time on the Internet, and some people are feeding on your fears for big bucks.

But while there are quite a few legitimate anti-virus programs out there, there are more that not only do not get rid of your viruses and malware, but install more of the same on your hard drive.

Symantec, which owns Norton, says more than 40 million people have fallen victim to the "scareware" scam in the past 12 months. According to the BBC, "online criminals make millions of pounds by convincing computer users to download fake anti-virus software." Which translates into an awful lot of dollars, not to mentioned the number of computers that are trashed by this cottage industry.

Over my years of surfing on the Internet, I've seen plenty of this. An ad shows up on a Web page I'm browsing, offering to scan my hard drive for free. Or flashing a message that would make even the most savvy Web surfer sweat -- that viruses have been detected.

The idea is that you click on the ad and it will scan your disk, or install a virus-protection device. That's what you think, anyway.

In reality, the scan or program is useless at best. At best.

At worst, the program or scan will install its own spyware, or its own virus, and really make hash of your hard drive -- and maybe even bill your credit card in the bargain.

Welcome to the rogue security software. They either are disguised viruses, trojans or are nothing but a sales pitch, trying to push another product to the user.

Call it scareware, because it's designed to frighten you into buying its product or download its own viruses, Trojan horses, or spyware.

Most of my Internet work is with this netbook, using Windows. But even while using Linux I've even seen these ads come up. I'm talking about the ads saying that viruses have been detected on my computer.

Which told me right away the claim was a bunch of horsesqueeze. For several reasons, Linux is not prone to viruses or spyware. Nor is MacIntosh, really.

OK. Time to check your computer. See what kind of virus protection you have. If it's from this list, you're in a bunch of trouble:

Cyber Security
Alpha Antivirus
Braviax
Windows Police Pro
Antivirus Pro 2010
PC Antispyware 2010
FraudTool.MalwareProtector.d
Winshield2009.com
Green AV
Windows Protection Suite
Total Security 2009
Windows System Suite
Antivirus BEST
System Security
Personal Antivirus
System Security 2009
Malware Doctor
Antivirus System Pro
WinPC Defender
Anti-Virus-1
Spyware Guard 2008
System Guard 2009
Antivirus 2009
Antivirus 2010
Antivirus Pro 2009
Antivirus 360
MS Antispyware 2009

These are rogue programs, according to ghacks. And if you have one of these, you'd better get rid of it awful fast. You probably clicked on something, downloaded what you thought was virus protection, and you may have noticed your computer running like crap.

So what do you do?

There's an article in ghacks which mentions "Remove Fake Antivirus," a portable software program for the Windows operating system that has been designed to uninstall 27 different rogue antivirus software programs from the computer system. You can download Remove Fake Antivirus here, and it's free.

I downloaded and ran it, though for me the on-the-workbench test was inconclusive. This is probably because I know the likelihood of me actually downloading and installing some of this scareware is really slim. The dialogue box showed, though, that it was removing each of these antivirus programs. My assumption was that this is the "default" dialog box. After running the program, you will be asked to reboot.

In truth, I'm a little chary of installing a virus-protection program from a non-company website (this is from a blog, how sketchy is that?) but sites like Download Squad (which gave it really lukewarm reviews), Softpedia, TechForums, and CNet (which rated it two-and-a-half stars out of five; not that great, and none of the readers reviewed it) carry links and product descriptions. Plus, I've never found reason to fault the information I get from ghacks.

A caveat: Here's one of the Download Squad reviews:

Well, I ran it, and it killed my main windows service and forced a restart. When the PC came back up, I had no internet connection. Warnings should be posted.

With that in mind, I checked things out when I rebooted. The Windows security service flashed a warning saying I had no virus protection, but I see ClamWin had loaded itself in the system, per normal. A glitch, perhaps? The good news was that my wireless Internet ran just fine. But be careful!

Menawhile, there are several good virus-removal programs out there. Some -- Norton and McAfee -- are the kind you pay for, while others -- AVG, ClamWin, and Avast! -- are free. The for-pay ones are probably a bit better than the free ones, but any of these are good for the computer and your peace of mind. That is, if you update them every so often -- there's always some idiot thinking that if he builds a better virus, the world will beat a path to his door. These viruses seem to be coming down the pike faster and faster. A virus protection program is only as good as its updates, and it's also useless if you don't run it regularly.

For spyware removal programs, only two are worth downloading -- AdAware by Lavasoft, and Spybot Search And Destroy. And neither one is perfect. But, unlike antivirus programs, you can have both installed and running on your computer. I highly recommend you run both, one after the other, as part of your regular security regimen. What spyware program one doesn't catch, the other one probably will.

Plug-in turns Explorer into nemesis Google browser

Who would've thunk it?

So you don't like Internet Explorer. You'd rather play hand grenade volleyball than use IE to browse the web, but the computer isn't yours. It may be one of those work-issued laptops and you're stuck with what you have.

Google came out with a plug-in that basically turns IE into Google Chrome. I find the whole concept a real hoot, as there is no love lost between Google and Microsoft. According to TechCrunch:

... Google seems to dislike IE so much that it has spent its own time improving it. Google claims its goals are noble. Talking to Group Product Manager Mike Smith and Software Engineer Alex Russell, they tell us that they simply want to make a more seamless web experience for both web users and developers. That said, they are only targeting one browser, IE, right now ... and that seems fair. IE, which is of course made by Google nemesis Microsoft, is both the largest web browser and the one with a poor history when it comes to web standards. Things have gotten better since IE6, but that’s really not saying much ...

The way I understand it, ChromeFrame builds a whole new frame inside of IE that is really the Google browser. You'll lose some resources because you're running two browsers, but Chrome is plenty fast. Even with the extra load on your system, using the "fake" Chrome on top of IE is still a sight faster than running IE straight.

Years ago, before I discovered Mozilla, I came across what was then called Crazy Browser. It also ran on top of IE, but it offered a popup blocker and tabbed browsing. At the time, popup blocking was in its infancy (you needed a third-party application to do it), and tabbed browsing -- the greatest invention for ADHD Web surfers -- was still several years in coming for IE though Mozilla was playing with a kludgy rough draft of it. And even on my dial-up connection, Crazy Browser was blistering fast. I found this especially amazing because IE (I was then using the abortion called IE 6) was, to put it kindly, glacial. Call it fuzzy math -- extra memory used to run Crazy Browser atop the IE framework should not equal faster, but it really did.

Crazy Browser more or less disappeared off the face of the Web, but I see it's back. Just for grins, I downloaded it to check it out.

I've tested out the real Chrome, and I like it so far. It's a little goofy in handling bookmarks, but I think most of that is because I'm not used to it. It's a fast browser -- to my nonscientific touch-annd-feel tests, it's right up there with Opera in the speed department, and of course it handles my Google applications easily. For the most part, though, I use it for posting blogs and little else. I'll admit I haven't really scratched the surface as far as Chrome's capabilities; I don't know if it has all the extensions and plug-ins you'll find in, say, Firefox, but it's a whole lot better than using IE.

In case you're interested, you can get ChromeFrame here.

Firefox now on more than half of computers

I'm glad to see I'm finally in the majority about something here. Firefox is my go-to browser (I'm using version 3.5.3).

This is from MozillaZine. Have to admit, this site is a little biased, as Firefox comes from Mozilla. I feel better, though, that they quote from other sources:

... it finally happened. After years of building momentum -- and more than a few false starts -- Mozilla's Firefox Web browser has finally reached critical mass. There are now more users running some variant of Firefox (50.6 percent) than not running it, according to the latest statistics from the exo.performance.network, which tracks the actual usage and configurations of thousands of PCs globally, providing a real-world snapshot ...

A couple of things come to my attention here. Firefox is not normally bundled on Windows computers. To get it, you have to take the initiative and download it. This suggests users are getting more savvy about their computers, and less likely to use whatever software set they're given.

And it's an indicator of how lacking Internet Explorer really is.

I've fooled around with nearly all the browsers that are used these days -- IE, Firefox, Seamonkey (which is really just the old Mozilla code with a new name on it), Opera (which I really like), Google Chrome (which is promising), and Netscape (which still exists). Plus a handful of browsers you may not have heard of -- Lynx, Konqueror, Skipstone, and eLinks. Not to mention Iceweasel, a rebranded version of Firefox which is more in line with the the GNU (free software) user agreement.

I do have my crochets with Firefox. I've had problems with it blowing up in memory and eating system resources like popcorn, though it seems to be less of an issue with 3.5. And it's real easy to load up extension after extension, making it one real bloated piece of software. But I still recommend Firefox.

Careful of the ad, even if source is copacetic

This is must reading if you spend any time online.

... while reading the New York Times online, I was confronted with an attempted security attack, apparently delivered through an advertisement. A window popped up, mimicking an antivirus scanner. After "scanning" my computer, it reported finding viruses and invited me to download a free antivirus scanner. The displays implied, without quite saying so, that the messages came from my antivirus vendor and that the download would come from there too. Knowing how these things work, I recognized it right away as an attack, probably carried by an ad. So I didn't click on anything, and I'm fairly certain my computer wasn't infected ...

Source: Freedom To Tinker blog.

Like the man so tiresomely said in Hill Street Blues, "Be careful out there."

Google Chrome-based OS a fit for netbooks?

I sure wasn't expecting this, though I probably should have. Google is looking at netbooks (those mini-laptops like the one I'm using) and systems that can run them. This announcement is from Lifehacker:

In a sudden, if not unexpected, announcement this morning, Google said it would release an open-source operating system based on its Chrome browser. The OS will be free, geared (at first) toward netbooks, and focused on "speed, simplicity, and security." Google executives told the New York Times that Google Chrome OS would be available online "later this year" as a free, open-source download, while specially tailored netbooks running the operating system are targeted for the second half of 2010 ...

Word processors? Bah!

(As seen on my home computer: MetPad in the front, Geany in the rear.)

Although a big part of my life is working with words, I don't process them.

In the past I have used most of the major word processors -- Microsoft Word since version 3.0, several Lotus programs, Open Office, and some of the old DOS-driven oldies such as PC-Write and Leading Edge. I've fooled with Google Docs. My computer has AbiWord on it, but I seldom use it.

Sounds almost blasphemous, especially for a writer. Why wouldn't I be interested in a word processor that does everything, checks my spelling and grammar, offers tips with that little animated paper-clip dude, and makes my coffee?

Although I'm cheap, it's not a matter of cost. AbiWord and OpenOffice are free. It's not because I use an old, resource-challenged computer -- my word processor doesn't eat that many CPU cycles. And it's not because I don't know how to run the software -- not with my background.

Part of it is simplicity, but the biggest issue is flexibility. Very little of what I write finds itself on a printed page. If you do much work with a computer, you might find this to be true yourself.

Most of my writing shows up in the blogs I keep. Some will be sent as email. Quite a bit of it stays on the hard drive, as notes to myself. It's a very rare occasion when I'll need to print something. Maybe a business letter to someone who does not have a computer or email (all three of them), occasionally song lyrics or lists for some of my musician friends, and that's about it. I don't even own a printer, and I don't plan to get one any time soon. If it wasn't for all of my on-the-go notes written out on yellow legal pads or index cards, I'd have a paperless office.

There was a time when word processors were the greatest thing since the toilet seat. But those days are gone, and that breed of software is fast becoming passe.

OK, so how do I write?

On the computer I use a text editor. Think of Notepad that comes with your Windows installation -- and that's a poor example of an editor. There are no font settings to mess with. There is no spell check. It's just text. Chances are your files will be saved with the .txt suffix, which is a magical word in these parts.

Try this sometime. Send someone a document as an email attachment, written with your favorite word processor. Is your recipient able to read the thing when he gets it?

If he has the same version of Your Favorite Word Procesor as you do, then there's no problem. But if you wrote it in, say, OpenOffice 2.x and he only has Microsoft Word or OpenOffice 1.x, there may be a problem. He may or may not know what that .ods suffix means when he's used to .doc or .sxw, and there will be translation headaches. Back in my word processing days, I'd let the reader know what word processor I used and maybe include instructions on how to convert the document, but most people won't do that.

With a .txt document, there is no translation issue. Something written in .txt can be read and edited by any word processor without any effort at all. It can be uploaded into a blog, added to a Web site, or filed away. And without all the font parameters and formatting, the document takes up less space on your hard drive and takes less time to upload.

But don't I miss the spell checkers and other fancies?

Not really. Your spell checker merely determines whether a word is in the dictionary. OK. So you meant to type "from" and got "form" instead. Your spell checker is not human, it knows nothing other than whether the word is in the dictionary. It will miss that error, but your reader probably won't.

While spell-checkers are a marvelous convenience, I believe they do not help writers write. The software does all the work; it becomes less necessary to edit the document. Or at least that's the perception. In truth, with all these conveniences, Americans have regressed in their ability to spell, to write, to communicate.

What's worse, a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) word processor forces the writer to pay attention to how the document looks rather than what is being communicated. If anything, the whole process is bass-ackwards. When you write, you think about what you're trying to say first, then worry about how it looks. At least that's the intention.

After I'm done writing the document, I'll decide what I want to do with it. If it's for print, then paste it or open it in a word processor or LaTeX formatter. If it's going into an email or in the blog, I'll just paste it into Gmail or ScribeFire, whatever I want. Old-time computer operators call this the "workbench" approach -- get it written first, save it, then format it. If this sounds like an extra step, that's the idea. You're taking off your writer's hat and putting on your typesetter's hat, and those jobs should be separated.

On my Linux box I'll use one of several word processors. The one which I used for this blog entry is MetPad, a variation of the old "vi" that gives me all the mouse usability and a sackful of keyboard commands (and I find the commands a lot faster than moving my coffee cup out of the way to get to the mouse). But I'll also use Geany, Nedit, or several others.

Windows users may find themselves considerably behind the curve when it comes to text editors. I mentioned Notepad, and it's horrible. The default setting gives you no word wrap (a function I insist on), but if you hunt around in the menus you should be able to find it. Your Windows box may have WordPad, which is a lot more useful. I recommend that one. Or if you can get Scite, that's even better.

Part of why there's so much more choice among text editors with Linux users is because many of us are programmers. I myself am not, but I've written a few small shell scripts to automate a few functions and did a lot of work with home-brewed .bat files back in my DOS days. Text editors are designed more for programming, but don't let that throw you.

You can use those same industrial-strength text editors to write a letter to Grandma. Or dash off a short blog entry. Or maybe your next million-seller novel.

You might not even miss your word processor.

It's like carrying a computer in your pocket

In recent days my wireless Internet connection has been extremely troublesome, more down than up. Borderline worthless, in fact. I guess you sometimes get what you pay for.

So I'm using library computers to post blogs and check my email. A pain, yes, especially in taking the time to get to the library, but other than that it's not that big a problem.

I'm not a fan of the software set you find on most public computers. I seldom use word processors when I write, and I'd rather take a nitric acid enema than surf with Internet Explorer. Plus, I don't necessarily want the next person on the computer to know where I've been.

No worries. I carry my own software in my pocket. Plug in a USB thumb drive, and it's like I'm using my own computer without lugging the hardware around. For sheer portability, this even beats a laptop and it's a lot cheaper.

For the price of a USB stick and a quick download, you can get a suite of software that you can run on just about any Windows-based computer, privately. Browser history, cookies, bookmarks, and preferences stay on the thumb drive. Called Portable Apps, the programs fit nicely on one of the older 256-megabyte drives. Default programs in the smaller version include Firefox, Abiword, ClamWin, and a couple of games.

While I've added a couple of other programs to my Portable Apps suite, just having Firefox makes it a worthy download. I have several must-have extensions to Firefox, including ScribeFire, my blogging workhorse. All of this is set to my specifications, saving me a lot of hassle when I'm working in one-hour sessions with different computers.

So when I'm using a public unit, I plug in two thumb drives: A 256-meg oldie that has my Portable Apps, and a 1-gig drive which carries my files. And even that step is probably unnecessary; I can just as easily use one thumb drive for everything. But no matter; I'm still carrying my own computer in my pocket.

Here's an unexpected bonus when running Portable Apps: Many public computers are set so you can't download. Which makes sense; a real good way to trash a computer system is to allow random people to download whatever they want. What with all the viruses and malware around, that's the quickest way to spread the love.

But using the portable Firefox, I've been able to download all sorts of goodies, up to entire operating systems, on public computers.

I haven't tested this part out, but theoretically you can surf sites that are blocked, such as your myspace page, from a work computer while using an outside browser. My supervisor's work computer allows you to only surf the company web site, and I suggested (we obviously get along very well on the job) that she can surf whatever she wants using the portable browser. However, she's afraid to try, and I'm not going to attempt it on her computer, so this idea remains theoretical in my book. Maybe one of my readers is willing to try it for me, and I'd welcome any input.

If this theory proves correct, Portable Apps may well be a screw-off's best friend on the job.

AbiWord is the word processor that comes with Portable Apps, and on those rare occasions I use such a program (give me a plain-vanilla text editor any time), AbiWord is what I'll run. It's a lot lighter than Microsoft Word, has many of the same functions, plays well with .doc files, and is free and open-source.

ClamWin is a virus protection program, and in truth I've never experimented with that. But I can see the usefulness here. You'll find a couple of other Mozilla-based programs, too: Sunbird, a calendar. Thunderbird, a mail reader. And a Sudoku game, if you have a little time to burn off or are totally addicted to that !!#$&!! game.

The folks at Portable Apps have been developing several other programs that you can plug in to your suite, and I snagged a few of them. There's Audacity, a sound editor that I've used for recording my band's music, and Notepad+, a text editor. And a whole bunch of others, allowing you to carry a whole set of software on your key chain.

Unless you can get a whole operating system on a USB drive (which is doable, and this is something I may write about in a future entry), you can't get much more portable than that.

 

Gettin' Geeky 1: Personal to-do list

Personal to-do list:

Deadline: Whenever.

- Install second hard drive (has Windows XP), put it in lede position. Reconfigure Grub boot loader. Partition; XP may get 10 gigabytes if I'm feeling generous. Use the rest for experiments.

- Install Vector Linux 5.9 on back end of "new" hard drive. Test it; potential blog TK. Want to pay attention to how it handles wireless; was a deal-breaker in v. 5.8. Potential blog entry?

- Check out website on getting Chrome to work through WINE emulator. Maybe give that a shot?

Google Chrome license agreement fixed

Update on Google Chrome: The End User License Agreement has been fixed to remove the most objectionable qualities (the ones I mentioned in previous posts).

This looks a whole lot better. (This is taken from the download page, as you can see from the "accept and install" button.)

Personal footnote: Nealy all of the software I use is under the GNU GPL, what the folks there call a "copyleft." So, to me, the Chrome EULA seems a little heavy, but it wouldn't be if you're used to using proprietary software anyway.

(Still waiting for the Linux version of Chrome; I must test it out.)

Some stats ... 'cause I can

Just for giggles, I was able to compile stats of the last 50 people who browsed on the sister site, The Column Reloaded, to illustrate which operating systems and Web browsers are being used by my readers.

Operating systems:

4 used Windows Vista.
38 used Windows XP.
7 used Apple OSX.
1 used what was called an "unrecognized" operating system.

Web browsers:

22 used Internet Explorer. Of those, 13 used version 7.0, and nine ran 6.0.

22 used Firefox. Of these, 16 used version 3.0, five were on 2.0, and one used version 1.5. Interestingly, that one was running the unrecognized OS.

6 used Safari.

(I used The Column, Reloaded because this tech blog is too new to generate any meaningful statistics.)

My blog is certainly not a real good sample of what people are using in their computers. In fact the numbers are practically useless, though they are interesting.

Interesting that Vista hasn't shown up more in my readership; I'd figured with all that hype somebody would have bought the system. But even brand-new, made-for-Vista-with-the-system-preloaded can be downgraded to XP, and I understand quite a few people have gone that route.

Being a dyed-in-the-wool Linux user, I'm disappointed there are no fellow penguinistas in the mix.

If I was a betting man, I'd say that "unrecognized" operating system is a BSD type. More of an industrial-strength UNIX, largely unknown among the masses but there's a following there. I'd fooled with BSD systems here and there, but really little more than a test drive. (Linux, too, is built from a UNIX base, and OSX -- the MacIntosh system -- has its roots in BSD.)

I'm intrigued by that even split between Firefox and IE. Now that's a real anomaly; in the real world Firefox doesn't have that big a market share. Most computer users, I'm afraid, think that big "e" icon on the desktop means Internet.

I'm also surprised no one was using Opera. I've run that off and on, and always liked it. It's fast, but you can't add all those extensions like you can with Firefox.

As for myself, I'm using a Debian Gnu/Linux derivative, with the Sid (unstable -- bleeding edge) build. To surf the Web I'm using Iceweasel, an unbranded version of Firefox 3.0.

Where did I get my statistics? Through Feedjit, which provided that "Playing In Traffic" box on this site. Another of those cool tools every blogger should have.

Google promises privacy fixes in Chrome

Google is taking steps to mask the identities of those who use the new Chrome browser, the Washington Post reported.

According to Jane Horvath of Google, the company -- which dominates the Internet search world (when people do a Web search they're more likely to say they're "googling" it, making the company name into a verb) -- will anonymize IP addresses and cookies in the interest of privacy.

The privacy issue has been a major one on the Internet, and intensified as Google released the browser last week.

"My main concern is the ability to collect users' Web addresses, and
therefore your complete surfing on the Web could be tracked," Germany's
data protection commissioner, Peter Schaar, said of Chrome. "The Web
is, in fact, a second life. A virtual mirror of one's real life, with
information about one's interests, activities, perhaps sexual
orientation."


All of which is true. If you want to stay totally private, forget the Internet. The question, though, is whether the browser will make that much difference.

=========

Meanwhile, columnist Gary Cutlack of Tech Digest suggested there's little difference between Google Chrome and the Firefox browser -- some of the Chrome features that turned his head were already in Firefox, except he had to hunt for them.

"All Google's effort has done is left me appreciating Firefox even
more, and extra-extra confused about why Google has gone to so much
effort to put out a product so incredibly similar to its rivals," he wrote. "So
thanks very much, Google. You've made me bring my browsing habits bang
up to date. I'll remember to click on a few of your adverts some time
as a thank you."

OK. Bottom line here. Am I going to try Chrome when the Linux version comes out? Of course. If for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity, I must give it a shot.

Am I going to like Chrome? Hard to tell, though probably not. For me, the selling point will be its speed. Firefox occasionally blows up real big in memory, especially when I have a lot of browser tabs open. That, and whether the privacy issues and license agreement are ironed out.

Google goes Chrome

I'm watching as the new kid on the browser front, Google Chrome, makes its first real flight in the wild. I'm reading the reviews, and so far they seem pretty good. A lot faster and less memory-intensive than Firefox, the early reviewers say. As a sample, here's one from Information Week.

As soon as it's ported out to Linux, I'm going to give it a try, and you'll probably find something on it here. Stay tuned ...