February 24, 2007 - Reading time: ~1 minute

Recently I heard about a fairly new distro of Linux dubbed “Linux Mint.” It’s an Ubuntu-based derivative whose claim to fame is the inclusion of many “non-free” codecs and drivers. This adds convenience and reduces the hassle of post-install configuration. In a typical scenario, one installs a flavor of Linux and then spends time configuring package repositories to enable the playback of DVDs, MP3s, Flash plug-ins, and various other multimedia types. This inclusion of non-free software comes with varying degrees of ease (or difficulty!) depending on the disto in question.

To be honest, I have not yet tried this distro, but am downloading it now. I feel that it holds promise – I enjoy Ubuntu for its ease of use, but I always set up the Automatix package to assist in the installation of many non-free software packages. If Linux Mint provides the same ease of installation/use as Ubuntu yet reduces the amount of time spent post-installation, I think we have a winner on our hands provided that software updates are provided in a timely fashion.

Linux Mint is new, so time will tell. Perhaps I’ll post a review after getting acquainted with this “minty-fresh” distro.

January 12, 2007 - Reading time: ~1 minute

Recently I bought a new wireless router – a Linksys WRT54GL. Interestingly, there are numerous open-source, Linux-based firmwares available for this router that unlock new features. Once can commonly hear it described as “turning a $60 router into a $600 router for free” just by upgrading the firmware.

I haven’t attempted this yet, but perhaps I will soon. Presumably, by upgrading the firmware one can boost the wireless signal, turn of SSH access, prioritize bandwidth allotment for certain computers and/or programs, and allow static DHCP, among other options.

My new router is working just fine right now with its stock firmware, but perhaps I’ll be daring and put Linux on it some weekend.

December 26, 2006 - Reading time: 12 minutes

Linux is a terrific, free operating system whose strength as a server has been proven for years. As a desktop system, Linux will easily suit the needs of people who need a general purpose machine for browsing the web, e-mail, playing music, chatting, typing papers, etc. Linux can easily perform these tasks with the ancillary benefit that the user does not have to worry about the virus and spyware issues that plague Microsoft Windows.

However, one major complaint about Linux is the lack of availability of specific major applications, especially those pertaining to professional video and audio production. Examples of such applications include Photoshop, Pro Tools, Final Cut, and Finale. By no means is this the fault of Linux. Unfortunately, it is a Catch-22 with the developers of these products: they don’t port their applications to Linux because the market is relatively small, and the market is relatively small because major applications such as these do not run natively on Linux. Read more

December 2, 2006 - Reading time: 8 minutes

Fedora Core 1 was the first Linux distribution I used extensively. As a result, Fedora has always felt like “home” to me, and I’ve tried every version since. Recently I installed Fedora Core 6 (Zod) from scratch, and decided to put together this little document on addressing some issues that I found.

Since this is not really a review, but rather a quick “how-to” based on what I did, I make a few assumptions:

• You have (or will) install the x86 version of Fedora. Of course, there are similarities for the other architectures, such as x86-64, but some of the issues that I address are specific to x86.

• You have an Nvidia graphics card. I do not use any ATI cards, so I can not help here. If you want to install the ATI driver, I suggest you start by looking here.

• In my case, I’m using GNOME. If you prefer KDE then understand that some of the menu structures will be different.

• You are smart enough to know how to install and use Linux. While none of this should break your system, I am not responsible for any damage that may result. That’s my standard disclaimer. Read more

November 3, 2006 - Reading time: 2 minutes

That is the question. Whether tis nobler a choice in web hosting options than “shared” hosting will be determined, though I have high expectations.

If you are confused and are wondering what on earth a VPS is, I call your attention to my article on “Web Hosting Options.” Essentially, most “shared” web hosting offers are completely unrealistic borderline on being outright scams. If you read the TOS (Terms of Service) for almost any “shared” host, you will find clauses limiting your use of the server CPU. So, what good are those terabytes of bandwidth if you willl NEVER be able to use them. I’ve seen TOS contracts which state that your account will be suspended if you consume more than 1% of the overall CPU. Excuse me? I understand that hosts need to protect themselves from CPU overload, but they should be more forthcoming about it. I’d much rather see a hosting plan that features “CPU minutes” rather than oodles of bandwidth. Will it ever happen? Not with shared hosting.

This is why a VPS is attractive to me. So what if a shared plan supposedly offers ten or twenty times more bandwidth? You’ll never be able to use it before they slam you for CPU consumption. Hosers.

I plan to switch fully to a VPS by the end of the year. Yes, it will cost a little more than my current shared plan, but at least I won’t have to worry about actually having to handle more than a few site visitors at a time. I have a few articles in the works that should generate some traffic this holiday season, and the last thing I want is for my host to lock me out of my own site (again).

October 22, 2006 - Reading time: 8 minutes

Earlier this month, an article I wrote on Ghosting Windows XP for Free found its way to the front page of digg.com nearly a year after I wrote it. The ensuing spike in traffic caused my web host (1and1) to move my site temporarily to a new server. Naturally, I received an e-mail from them stating that my account was “seriously threatening the resources of the shared server” and that I should consider purchasing an expensive dedicated server. Furthermore, they informed me that if I decline the dedicated server offer, the next time a traffic spike occurs I MUST either purchase the dedicated server or find hosting elsewhere. Sheesh.

Now, this is not an attack on 1and1. Until this incident I’ve had nary a problem with them. While I do not like being forced into a decision, I certainly cannot blame them for trying to protect their resources and the other accounts on their server. While I have moved my current domain to another host, I still have other domains hosted with 1and1.

So, what is the big deal here? Supposedly, even my “beginner” package is supposed to handle 250 gigabytes of traffic a month. Surely I was not saturating that much bandwidth, as my site has hardly any media. While the “digg” effect sucked up several gigabytes, 1and1 locked my account long before I reached the allotted 250 gigs. Read more