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.

###

Facebook security issues? It's the ducky's fault

Gee everybody's so friendly on Facebook ... probably too much so.

Two Facebook users, Daisy Felettin and Dinette Stonily, sent out friend requests to 100 Facebookers each, chosen at randon though concentrating on their own age groups. Between the two of them, 95 people decided to become their friends.

Except Daisy and Dinette don't exist. They were created by the IT firm Sophos to show how easy it is to convince Facebook users to reveal personal information to total strangers.

Daisy (using a photo of a rubber duck as her avatar), is known to Facebook users as a 21-year-old woman, while Dinette Stonily presented "herself" a, a 56-year-old with a photo of two cats as her avatar.

Daisy concentrated on younger Facebook users, and came away with 46 new friends. Of these 46, she got full birthdates from 89 percent of them, family/friend data from 46 percent, a town or suburb from 50 percent, a full address from four percent, and a phone number from seven percent.

Older Facebook users, when dealing with Dinette, were also quick to become friends. Of the 100 approached, 41 became friends -- but another eight approached Dinette of their own accord and befriended the cat-loving phantom. And of the 49 new friends, Dinette got full birthdates from 57 percent of them, family/friend data from 31 percent, a town or suburb from 43 percent, a full address from six percent, and a phone number from 23 percent.

Check out their names again. They're based on anagrams for "false identity" and "stolen identity."

Ugh. There are a lot of people who shouldn't be running computers.

At Sophos, they call this experiment the “rubber duck attack.” There's a purpose behind the goofy moniker, as it shows how you can gather someone’s personal info without any technical expertise, simply by working within the social network’s rules.

I can't stand Facebook. I'd rather not waste my time with it. I was ready to shut down my account when some friends -- real friends, as in people I know and like -- started contacting me there. For many of these friends, that's the online way to keep up with one another.

OK. It goes like this. Not everyone who says he wants to be your friend is really your friend. Got it? You wouldn't invite some random person into your living room just because he says he wants to "friend" you, as they say in Facebook. But then y'all already knew that.

Here's something revealing: The 46 people befriended by Daisy have an average of 220 Facebook friends, while Dinette's 49 new pals have an average of 932 Facebook friends.

I'm tired of belaboring this point: Nobody has that many friends. 

Sophos (the duck people) offer their own social-networking security tips:

• Don't blindly accept friends. Treat a friend as the dictionary does, namely "someone whom you know, like and trust." A friend is not merely a button you click on. You don't need, and can't realistically claim to have, 932 true friends.
• Learn the privacy system of any social networking site you join. Use restrictive settings by default. You can open up to true friends later. Don't give away too much too soon. 
  
• Assume that everything you reveal on a social networking site will be visible on the internet for ever. Once it has been searched, and indexed, and cached, it may later turn up on-line no matter what steps you take to delete it.
  

And watch out for potential friends bearing rubber ducks.

###

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.

###

Many social-media games turning into scams

I can't get into Facebook. I do have an account, though I use it more to communicate with some of my friends. And I can't see spending a lot of time on it to play the games.

I have some friends who are seriously into the Facebook games and applications. Farmville, Bejeweled, YoVille, and Mafia Wars are real popular among the people I know. I can't be bothered with that stuff myself. I go on Facebook maybe long enough to check my messages, say hello to a few friends, and log off to check my Twitter account.

At first glance the Facebook games seem to be harmless fun. I understand you play many of them in levels; you clear the first level and move up to the bigger and better stuff -- much like the old-school Mario Brothers game or Dungeons & Dragons. So far, so good.

But TechCrunch has been working on a series of articles on the social-media games, and writer Michael Arrington smells a lot more scam than score.

With a lot of these games, there are two ways to hit another level: Earn it by playing well enough to clear the level you're on, or pull a George Steinbrenner and buy a new level. With real money. Your real money.

Already you can see this coming, if you're half perceptive. The game gets you hooked. It's like any other "progressive" type of game, and I can vouch for that. I've spent many hours trying to crack the combination on FreeCiv, an open-source version of Sid Meier's Civilization. Next I know the sun's coming up, my legs are frozen in one position, my left hand is all cramped up from pushing the mouse around, and my butt lost all feeling hours ago. So I can understand that.

But crank in the buy-ins and the special offers, especially if you're frustrated at the %$&#! game and your brain is fuzzed over from a marathon session, then things get real interesting.

On Oct. 31, Arrington wrote this:

... these games try to get people to pay cash for in game currency so they can level up faster and have a better overall experience. Which is fine. But for users who won’t pay cash, a wide variety of "offers" are available where they can get in-game currency in exchange for lead gen-type offers. Most of these offers are bad for consumers because it confusingly gets them to pay far more for in-game currency than if they just paid cash (there are notable exceptions, but the scammy stuff tends to crowd out the legitimate offers). And it’s also bad for legitimate advertisers. The reason why I call this an ecosystem is that it’s a self-reinforcing downward cycle. Users are tricked into these lead gen scams ...

Here's one scam, according to Arrington:

... users are offered in game currency in exchange for filling out an IQ survey. Four simple questions are asked. The answers are irrelevant. When the user gets to the last question they are told their results will be text messaged to them. They are asked to enter in their mobile phone number, and are texted a pin code to enter on the quiz. Once they’ve done that, they’ve just subscribed to a $9.99/month subscription. Tatto Media is the company at the very end of the line on most mobile scams, and they flow it up through Offerpal, SuperRewards and others to the game developers ... nothing in the offer says that the user will be billed $10/month forever for a useless service.

Had enough yet? Here's another:

Video Professor ... users are offered in game currency if they sign up to receive a free learning CD from Video Professor. The user is told they pay nothing except a $10 shipping charge. But the fine print, on a different page from checkout, tells them they are really getting a whole set of CDs and will be billed $189.95 unless they return them. Most users never return them because they don’t know about the extra charge. Woot. Again, sites like Offerpal and SuperRewards flow these offers through to game developers ...

Slashdot, one of my favorite sites for geeky news, says this about the TechCrunch articles:

... the system is rife with scams, and many game developers turn a blind-eye to them, much to the detriment of the players and the legitimate advertisers — not to mention the games that rightly disallow these offers and fall behind in profits. The article asserts that Facebook and MySpace themselves are complicit in this, failing to crack down on the abuses they see because they make so much money from advertising for the most popular games ...

If you play these online games -- or if you're thinking about it -- I highly recommend these three TechCrunch articles, all by Arrington:

Part One - Social Games: How The Big Three Make Millions

Part Two - Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem Of Hell

Part Three - Two Companies That Said No To Social Media Scams

I'm getting awfully tired of doing these pieces on Internet scams. I'd rather do how-tos and reviews any old day. You think these scammers can give me enough of a break to pursue this? C'mon guys ... at least do it for my convenience?

###

Internet reaches middle age

Although few had even heard of this Internet thing (then known as the "information superhighway" until the early or mid-1990s, it got its real start 40 years ago this week.

It was Oct. 29, 1969 when the first two nodes of ARPANET were interconnected between UCLA’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and SRI International (SRI) in Menlo Park, California. And unless you were one of the guys on the inside, you really didn't know or care.

I was a bit of a late adopter. It was 1996 when I used a noisy modem to link into an Internet provider in a nearby city. My computer was an old Leading Edge XP, with an 8088 processor, Hercules graphics card, DOS 5, and 2400-bytes-per-second modem. I used Procomm to link up, and the text-only Lynx browser to surf.

This wasn't the first time I'd used a modem. By then I was an old hand at sending text files point to point over the phone lines. I worked for a newspaper in Kingman, Arizona at the time, and generated a lot of stories from my home office in Bullhead City, 40 miles away. I'd call the publisher, Matt, and tell him to set up the computer for incoming copy, give him five minutes, then send the stuff. Soon Matt would see my text streaming across his screen, a character at a time. One of my other reporters would send me his copy from his home office, I'd edit it from home, then send it to the home office the same way. I was even able to execute commands on my home computer (the Dos-driven PC) from the MacIntosh at work, using an old-school program called Telnet.

Once I got the knack of surfing the Internet, it became a bigger part of my life. And I remember telling my parents about my experiments. Dad was already good with computers -- we'd traded software for several years -- but he wasn't sure about this online thing. A curious toy, he concluded.

At the time, Netscape was the go-to browser before Internet Explorer nuked it in market share. There were rumors that you might be able to surf on the same infrastructure that your cable TV used, and much faster than dialup. Companies began building their own primitive Web sites, and ordinary people were cobbling together their own Web sites on GeoCities (which shut down a few days ago). It was a whole new world out there, the Wild Blue Yonder.

It's been 13 years since I fired up my first Web browser (Lynx, by the way, is still available and still text-only). But a lot has changed since then. Rather than write for print, my work shows up in the ether of the Internet and many of my readers are on the other side of the world.

I've developed friendships with people I'd never met, and who live in places I've never visited. I've discovered musicians I've never heard before and downloaded their music. I've downloaded entire a lot of software and quite a few operating systems -- and asked questions about the software online. I've communicated with a Linux developer in Australia and let him know how I was able to get his system to run on computers that even he wasn't sure could be done. I've debated many a subject online. I've set up the computer to download news from several hundred sources at a time.

I'm an experimenter, and can't leave stuff alone. Besides Netscape, I've used Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Seamonkey (which is what Mozilla has become), Opera, and Google Chrome. Firefox is my most-used browser now, but I notice Seamonkey is now in 2.0 and it deserves a look.

Instead of listening to a whining modem, I go straight wireless. I have about a half-dozen places where I go to do my work -- some indoors, some outside, and I'll unpack my netbook, hit a few buttons, and talk to the world. In fact, once I left dialup I had no earthly reason to even keep a landline -- a cell phone on my hip, wireless Internet close by, a second, Internet-based phone line through Google Voice, all my communications needs are met.

Even then, I'm a bit of a primitive. My cell phone merely makes calls and sends off text messages. It doesn't browse the Web. I can send short text messages to Twitter or this blog, even an email, but my single-function LG doesn't stack up to those iPhones or Crackberries that do everything.

When you consider the all-purpose cell phones, netbooks, laptops -- and I recently read about a pen that's really a computer -- you just may see desktop computers as another dying breed. Even hard drives may become a thing of the past, what with USB thumb drives and online file storage. Some of your netbooks work with just internal flash storage and USB drives, without a hard disk in sight.

The folks at UCLA and Menlo Park had no idea at the time what they'd started.

(Screenshot: The old text-based Lynx web browser, where I made my first forays on the Internet, is still around. It's shown here with Firefox 3.5.3.)

###

You tell me: Remember your first time on line? Care to share? Use the comments section for your input.

Ways to keep phishers out of your email

A few days ago, I wrote about how phishing (Password Fishing) attacks exposed a lot of Hotmail user accounts. It turns out the attacks were much bigger than Hotmail -- Google's Gmail (which is my go-to email system) got compromised, along with Yahoo, Earthlink, Comcast, and AOL.

Shoot, it might be easier to list the major email carriers that didn't get hit.

Meanwhile, the major email carriers are in damage control mode, and many put out statements and how-to's for self protection.

Here are some basics, courtesy of Mashable. Most of these involve passwords, the user's first line of defense:

*****

Use different passwords on different sites — After all, if you use the same login credentials for multiple sites and one gets compromised, they all are. Since many of us use umpteen web services daily, it’s worth checking out a good password manager tool to help you keep the all straight — and safe.

Don’t use common words or sequences — Simple dictionary terms or sequential numerical sequences won’t cut it. You should make sure your passwords are a mix of letters, numbers and symbols.

Don’t base passwords on personal data — Hackers often use “social engineering” techniques to greater effect than running actual lines of code. Since we routinely share various bits of personal data with others, things like pet names, middle names, birthdays and so on don’t make a good basis for passwords.

Don’t leave your password somewhere visible — If you simply must write it down, don’t put it on a post-it attached to your monitor. Relatedly, if you keep a list of passwords on your computer, name the file something more cryptic than "password file."

Make sure your password recovery questions are also secure — Strong passwords that lack semantic meaning are unfortunately also easier to forget. Many sites allow you to reset your password over email or after answering one or more Security Questions you set up when creating the account. Make sure these aren’t based on common-knowledge personal data either — try to make them difficult to guess, and avoid any information you’ve posted publicly online anywhere as well.

*****

Good advice, that. An analysis of the data from Hotmail showed the most common password among the compromised accounts to be '12345.' I mean, duh! You don't need expensive software to crack that password, and it appears there are quite a few folks around that have no business running a computer. But that's fodder for another rant.

Here's more, from gHacks:

*****

The most powerful weapon against phishing is common sense and the following rules that every user should oblige to.

If you are not a customer of the site delete the email immediatly. Don´t click on the link or reply.

If you are a customer and you are not sure if the email is legit do one of the following:

Contact the institute by phone or contact at the official website ( do not use the email link of course) and ask if the mail is official.

Instead of using the link provided open the website by typing in the official link there. The site should have news about the email on their starting page. (most of the time).

*****

There's plenty more on that site. I highly recommend checking it out.

If you're using Firefox (as I am), go into the Tools > Options > Security in the Firefox options to set up your protection levels. I really recommend you do this now, while you're reading this. If you don't find these options, you're probably using an older Firefox. You'll find more Firefox phishing protection and testing tricks here.

Also, I did download LastPass, though I haven't installed it yet. I see where it involves creating an account online, though it's free for private use. According to the manufacturer, the password information is stored on your own computer. Still, I'm a little chary of using any Web-based password keeper. I'll install it and take a look at it, but my instincts tell me it's not a perfect solution.

In the meantime, enjoy your computer. It's a great tool, and the more plugged-in the world is, the more your computer will become a part of your life. But be careful. It's a jungle out there.

Phish tales: My Twitter, 1000s of Hotmail accounts hijacked

I'm fairly new at this Twitter thing, and I'm still prone to rookie mistakes. And for a few days, I was paying for one.

I occasionally get worthless tweets from folks about quick-and-dirty ways to build my traffic. Most of them are pure crap, by the way, but while some are harmless crap, others are more nefarious. I came across one -- GET 1000's OF FOLLOWERS, with a link. OK. I could smell the crap all the way from here, but I thought I'd take a look at it to, well, see what was going on. Research purposes, you understand.

I clicked on the link and immediately got the warning that the site was possibly one for phishing. For those who don't know what that is, phishing is when someone is trying to harvest information from you. Valuable information that you wouldn't give out otherwise. Like a password.

As soon as I saw that warning, I clicked on it to basically abort the mission. Supposedly, that was the end of that.

Not so. Soon after that, I noticed I had been making some real strange tweets, or more correctly, some jerkface was sending them out under my name. Every day. There would be some message credited to me, advertising some "service" that gives you thousands of followers. Or something. In social media, followers and friends are the coin of the realm. The more followers you have, the bigger your network and the more valuable your site. I use Twitterfeed to link my writing directly into Twitter, and all of my followers (right now about 40 of them) gain access to my work.

Soon I noticed these posts linking to the phishing site started going out every day, with the link and my name on them. Some idiot hijacked my Twitter account, and I became a spammer.

I tried a few quick damage-control measures. Blocking the original source of the link. Adding a disclaimer to warn followers away from that link. Part of that was saving face -- letting my followers know it wasn't me sending those things. And the spam messages still showed up, every day.

Final analysis: There seems to be a simple fix, a real no-brainer. Change your Twitter password. I did that, and the messages stopped. D'oh!

Meanwhile, those who use Hotmail for email (I'm not sure why you'd want to) are getting phished big time. According to gHacks Technology News:

Microsoft has recently confirmed that thousands of Windows Live Hotmail customer’s credentials were exposed on a third party website. According to Neowin the account information were posted by an anonymous user at the pastebin website. The list that was posted contained over 10.000 account details of accounts starting with the letters A and B which suggests that additional lists might be in the hands of the attackers. Initial investigations suggest that only accounts used to access Windows Live Hotmail were affected (which includes email accounts ending with hotmail.com, msn.com or live.com ... Microsoft determined that the attack was not a breach of internal Microsoft data and believes that the account data was gained by a phishing attack. Phishing attacks are common ways these days to lure users into entering their account data on websites that look like the real deal but are not ...

Again, the gHacks-prescribed fix is a simple one: Change your password. Now.

There are a few before-the-fact and after-the-fact ways to protect yourself here:

Changing your password is the best back-end fix, though it is a pain in the butt. Even more painful now, when you access your accounts through a third-party application or site. For me, this meant changing the passwords on TweetDeck and Twitterfeed. As I write this, I'm pretty sure I haven't checked if my feed on this blog has been fixed yet; probably not. Note to self: Fix.

I haven't really checked it out yet, but there's a program called lastpass that's supposed to make it easy. It was mentioned in the gHacks piece, so I downloaded it and will give it a go. Might have something to write about there; stay tuned.

Also, the other standard self-protection rules apply. Don't click on Twitter links unless you know the source. Pretty much the same rule as opening email attachments. I know I'm screwing myself here, as I get a fair bit of blog traffic through Twitter. But y'all pay attention to what the link is. If the link is attached to a blog post (in my case it's prefaced with a COLUMN or WORKBENCH) it'll be OK. Those attachments will only mess with your mind, not your computer or Twitter account. If the preface is something like GAIN ZILLIONS OF FOLLOWERS, MAKE MILLIONS WHILE SITTING ON YOUR BUTT, or LOSE 20 POUNDS OF DANGEROUS UGLY FAT WITHOUT CUTTING OFF YOUR HEAD, the link is probably real sketchy and you'd do well to ignore it. But you don't need me to tell you that.

This last is going to require some extra vigilance, as so much Twitter traffic involves passing links back and forth. Especially mine. Looking at the last 40 tweets from my network (representing about two hours), 31 have clickable links. Most will refer me to a blog post or a news story. This is probably disproportionately high, as many Twitter users merely use the account to keep track of some friends. Mine actually doubles as a news feed, so I'm going to have a higher percentage of links.

Sometimes it's tempting to cut all cords and wireless, eschew all technology, and go back to quill pen and foolscap. But that's not an option, not if I wish to function in today's hooked-up dialed-in world.

###

You tell me: What protective measures are you employing here? What works? What doesn't? Do you have any horror stories you wish to share? Use the comments section below.

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.

Torvalds: Creeping feature-itis bloats Linux

Linus Torvalds is getting nervous about the growth of his creation.

At a LinuxCon conference in Portland, Oregon, Torvalds said the Linux operating system is "bloated."

In 1991 Torvalds, then a student in Finland, created the original Linux kernel -- the base of the free operating system -- and is still involved in developing the kernel.

According to Slashdot:

... while the open-source community has long pointed the finger at Microsoft's Windows as bloated, it appears that with success has come added heft, heft that makes Linux "huge and scary now," according to Torvalds ...

My own thoughts here: You mean he finally figured this out?

Before the DVD became popular, the size of a Linux download was measurable in CDs. I always preferred the smaller, lighter versions that would take up, at most, one CD. One version of the Debian GNU/Linux operating system, though, weighed in at 14 CDs.

This bloat factor took off as Linux packagers tried to make a more user-friendly (read: more like Windows) system. And one of the selling points of Linux -- that you can run it on computers long deemed obsolete with each new version of Windows, became more of a stretch.

My own favorite Linux distribution, the Slackware-based Vector Linux, morphed in the past few years from a run-on-anything download of less than 400 megabytes to a bit over 700 megabytes. More features, more eye candy, but ... more bloat. To be sure, you can still get some extremely usable out-of-the-box versions that can run on anything from a Pentium on up, but they're getting a) harder to find and b) less visually appealing than before.

Gmail account note probably work of fools

I've had Gmail accounts for several years now, and just today I received a most disturbing message:

Dear Account User,

This Email is from Gmail customer care and we are sending it to every Gmail accounts owner for safety. We are having congestion due to the anonymous registration of Gmail accounts so we are shutting down some Gmail accounts and your account was among those to be deleted. We are sending this email to you so that you can verify and let us know if you still want to use this account. If you are still interested please confirm your account by filling the space below.Your User name, password, date of birth and your country information would be needed to verify your account.

Due to the congestion in all Gmail users and removal of all unused Gmail Accounts. Gmail would be shutting down all unused Accounts, you will have to confirm your E-mail by filling out your Login Information below after clicking the reply button or your account will be suspended within 24 hours for security reasons.

* User name: ............................

* Password: ................................

* Date of Birth: ............................

* Country Or Territory: ....................

Warning!!! Account owner that refuses to update his or her account within Seven days of receiving this warning will lose his or her account permanently.

Thank you for using Gmail !

The Gmail Team

G MAI L BETA

Anyway, that's the message.

So far as I know, it's all crap.

Just swallow down that bile rising in the throat for a moment, OK?

A couple of things:

Why anyone would want my account name and password is beyond me, unless it's for nefarious purposes.

Check it:

If it was from Gmail, they'd already have all that.

Got it?

I had a partial answer here, which if nothing else confirmed what I'd already figured.

So if you have gmail and received that message, ignore it. Keep in mind, that's what happens when we have idiots on the Internet.

(Posted simultaneously in The Column, Reloaded and The Workbench, Reloaded)

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.)