Note to readers from the Ubuntu Planet - this is written for people whom don't have a clue what Ubuntu is. Hence why I describe it.

With the global economy in a depression, most people cannot currently afford to buy a new computer. But, you don't have to.

If your computer can run Windows XP (or possibly ME) or above slightly fast, it can run Linux, specifically the Ubuntu distribution (distro) (if you know the specifications of your machine, compare them to mine, which runs Ubuntu perfectly fine, with just a little lag during CPU intensive applications: Pentium 4 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM and a nVidia GeForce 6200 graphics card).

Ubuntu is a free and open source operating system based off the Linux kernel. It is a complete and fully functional operating system that you can use to browse the web, read email, compose documents and spreadsheets, and so much more. Almost any day-to-day activity that you can do with Windows you can do with Ubuntu.

And it's completely free, or, for a better term, software libre. You will always be able to freely download, edit, use, and redistribute Ubuntu.

If you are getting tired of being bothered by viruses, spyware, and the crashes that are well known to Windows users, you should try Ubuntu. Ubuntu rarely crashes and is almost completely immune to viruses and spyware. Ubuntu is far more secure than Windows at the most basic level, providing you piece of mind that your data is safe.

Ubuntu takes a minimal amount of technological knowledge and time to install, and you will be up and running in a few minutes.

If something goes wrong or if you have a question, Ubuntu has a massive, extremely friendly, and knowledgeable community of people whom are always willing to help with any question or problem you may encounter.

For more information on Ubuntu, see the project web site at http://ubuntu.com/.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

March oath confirmed! 5 Ork Kommandos! # @meewunk phooooonnnnnneee in reply to meewunk # It seems like pipelines aren't the best solution for increasing speed... I wonder if there's a different paradigm to implement this better # Wow. I actually needed to log out and log back in, so that my computer would pick up that I was [...]

So for the past couple of weeks I have been doing work at a client’s place of business. This client—like many other small and medium-sized businesses—uses Windows on all of their desktop systems. They have a couple of server boxes that are running GNU/Linux servers, but they are not running GNU/Linux on the desktop at this point in time.

So, this is a pretty simple-sounding network, yes? It should be—it is just a handful of computer systems. However, there is a problem—a pretty large one, I think. There is very little in the way of either policy or convention on the network. Some users use their documents directory for storing their documents, others store their documents on their desktop, others somewhere differently altogether on the C drive, others on a network share in a public storage space. There are different versions of software on the various machines, more-or-less updated when someone thinks about it, I think.

This is a perfect scenario which shows why a business network should be centrally managed in some form. Note that I am not saying that each machine should be a bit-for-bit mirror image of the one next to it, though that is certainly a possibility. I think that people should be able to use their own choice of things like email client or Web browser software, because everyone is different. But when you have different client applications fulfilling a role on the individual workstations, you have to take a centralized approach to ensuring that things like the email is all backed up.

Furthermore, if you don’t take a centralized approach to backing up such data, it is very difficult to centralize the network storage. Think about adding a domain controller (that is Windows speak for a central server which handles authentication and authorization, as well as file and printer sharing and things like roaming profiles) to such a network. I expect that with multi-gigabyte mail files, things will be very slow at first—and that likely the only fix for them that is going to be viable in the long term is to centralize more infrastructure.

I am too tired to expand more on my thoughts on what I have learned and where it is heading, but the Reader’s Digest version of the point reads something like this: If you are a small to medium sized business, make sure that you have someone who is competent in both system and network administration, and make sure that they are a part of your business from day one. Like writing software, building up a technical infrastructure without careful thought and design is hazardous and comes with many hidden and unpredictable costs. It is best to head those things off right from the start; to delay only amplifies the cost of fixing the underlying problems and puts oneself in the position where fixing one issue can have a domino-like effect and create more new problems.

For my current situation, I think I am going to have to seriously re-think how this whole setup is done. What I do not yet know is how to quickly and efficiently bring things into shape. A bit of training and education may be required, and certainly the removal of a lot of unnecessarily-granted privileges on the workstations. That, too, should be something caught early-on: do not let every person in a business run with administrator privilege, unless they are an administrator (and even they should only run with administrator privilege when they are actually doing something that requires that privilege). If everyone is an administrator, there is little to no control on how things are done in a network, and it can get messy.

I have a lot more reading to do, as well.

Well, anyway, it is way past my bedtime.  Time for sleep.

As many people whom frequent the Ubuntu community now know, Ubuntu and it's community is undergoing a re-branding project, focusing upon a "light" theme.

 

I personally feel that this is a change for the better, but it's occurring rather late in the development cycle of our upcoming LTS release, Lucid Lynx. This could complicate matters in getting the release out on time or with all of the new logos in place, or if they are going to attempt it at all until the next release development cycle (I'm uncertain on the subject - if someone could notify me of the correct information in the comments, I'll edit it in).

More information on the re-branding project can be found on the Ubuntu wiki page and on the Ubuntu Forums post.

Loving these new logos,
Collin Pruitt

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Every now and again, I come back to looking at device drivers and driver-writing, and I wonder why there is not some common interface for device drivers. What would the world be like if we could write a device driver for Linux, and be able to use it on FreeBSD without modification? There was a project called the Uniform Driver Interface, which aimed to create a common specification (both API and ABI) for drivers such that they could be used portably between operating systems. In other words, a device manufacturer could create a device (say, a SATA chipset) once, and it could then be used by Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Haiku, Windows, OS X, or any other operating system that chose to implement the UDI specification (or, honestly, any generic, OS-independent driver specification).

The Free Software Foundation objected to UDI for various reasons. Mostly, I think, it was because they were afraid that people who are not them would choose to use drivers that were non-free. As I’ve written about before here, there are people who think that forcing people to use free software is somehow freedom—and I will not go into it in any great depth here, because I have done that in the past. Suffice it to say that forcing anything is not freedom; it cannot be freedom. So, the Free Software Foundation, I think, was really afraid that they would have to do more work to be able to stick to their own requirement of using 100% free software on their own computer systems. (And hey, Roy, if you’re reading—I’m not saying that the FSF is wrong, and I’m not putting myself in a position opposite of that of the FSF. I suspect you think so anyway, but hey, I just figured I would point that out.)

Even if the free software operating systems did not adopt the UDI specification, why didn’t proprietary operating systems? This is perhaps the most puzzling thing to me. It seems that in this event, none of the operating systems—free or proprietary—did what would have made sense. After all, even if only Apple and Microsoft adopted a common device driver specification, that would save a lot of time, effort, and improve user experience all the way around. Apple users would be able to use all the hardware that Microsoft users could use—and the inverse would also be true. The amount of time that device driver authors would have to spend writing and debugging driver code would go way down—free software driver authors would be able to write a driver once, for example, and all systems (including free software systems that chose to support the specification) would benefit.

I could see an objection of a driver specification that was binary-only. However, UDI was not—it mandated an ABI so that drivers that are built for a particular platform were binary-compatible with operating systems on the same platform, but it also mandated an API, so that drivers would be source compatible to any operating system that implemented the specification, on any platform. That by itself would seem to me to be positive motivation to hardware manufacturers to release the source code to drivers so that they can support operating systems that are on platforms that do not exist yet, or have not been considered (or have been considered to be nonviable or unsupported platforms).

So, I have to wonder why a common device driver specification was never implemented in various operating systems. It would seem to be a common sense thing, especially given that there are so many operating systems. It would make the coexistence of operating systems a lot easier, and it would promote choice. It might encourage bits of proprietary code on free software operating systems, but it would also enable people to drop the excuse that “free operating system x does not support device y”, and would as a result potentially increase the number of free software programs and operating systems in use, even if there is a minor cost in terms of certain drivers. And those drivers could always be replaced—a common driver specification would make it easier to understand the structure of drivers generally, and make it easier for lawful, clean-room reverse engineering to be done on those drivers.

Imagine, for example, if drivers for graphics cards, TV tuner cards, video and audio encoding/decoding cards, modems, storage chipsets, motherboard chipsets, USB chipsets, IEEE-1394 chipsets, graphics tablet devices, touch screens, debugging interfaces, network devices, and so forth were all written to a common specification, it would reduce the amount of code which needed testing. It would increase user choice in both hardware and operating systems—something which I still hold is quite likely the most valuable freedom we have. It would increase reliability, since the users of Windows, OS X, Linux, the various BSD systems, and other, not-so-mainstream operating systems would be able to run the same driver code and collectively supply debugging information and perform testing in a multitude of environments. It would increase security, because then common code that is well-known could be used on all platforms and not just the one it was written for. It would do for device drivers what POSIX has done for user-mode application software. I do not believe that I could be convinced that this would be anything other than a good thing.

Also, it could bring back old operating systems.  Imagine what life could be like, for example, if OS/2 had a “UDI driver” written for it, and it could then take advantage of newer drivers never intended for it. Or any other very old operating system which is no longer supported and could still be useful, for any of a number of reasons…

The Ubuntu Global Jam is an incredible opportunity for the Ubuntu community to unite together around the weekend of 26th - 28th March 2010 to work together to improve Ubuntu. Everyone is able to contribute to the Jam, and everyone is welcome and encouraged to get involved. Curious about how to make a real difference to Ubuntu? This is a great chance to make that difference.

Source: Global Jam Wiki Page

Ubuntu Global Jam is held by Ubuntu LoCos, and any other form of teams of people. Anyone whom has a decent internet connection, a few computers, and a few friends can run a global jam.

See more on the wiki page linked to above.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

@chriperr Maybe it is me >.> I do own a clarinet in reply to chriperr # I subscribed to ProtonJonSA's channel on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/ProtonJonSA?feature=autoshare_twitter # Powered by Twitter Tools

I use multiple operating systems day in and day out, not only for work, but at home as well.  In the past, I used to be a big, big Linux fan, to the point of zealotry.  These days, however, I’m finding that I’ve taken on more of a ‘use whatever works’ attitude.  That being said, I wanted to run down the operating systems I encounter on an average day.

My Macbook: Mac OS X
OSX is installed on my Macbook, which has become what I call my ‘life’ machine.  I store my photos, my music and my important documents on that machine, hence the ‘life’ tag.  I use the machine on the couch or bed, depending where I am, to check my email, chat, and if I’m on call I log into my work desktop from it.  It’s my go-to machine if I need to do something quickly.

My Work Machine: Arch Linux
I use Arch on my work desktop.  I do software / server support, and all of the servers I support are Unix variants.  Linux is the perfect fit for everything I need to do at work.  Added bonus is that I’m not tied to the Windows domain and I have complete control over my box.  I also have an install of Arch on my desktop at home for other purposes, which I’ll get into shortly.

My Home Desktop: Windows 7 / Virtualbox
Over the past few years, I’ve usually used Linux 90% of the time on my desktop, with 10% going to Windows for my gaming needs.  I tested Windows 7 when it was in Beta/RC status and was pretty impressed with it.  So much so, that I actually bought a retail upgrade copy for the desktop, and now I use it about 95% of the time.  I have Virtualbox installed with a number of Linux distributions installed, which I use for development and work purposes.   Do I lose geek cred for this move?  I don’t think I do, as it’s all about using what works for you.  I’d say that 90% of my time is spent in a Unix environment on any given day anyway.

I finally decided that I’m going to go ahead and use Wordpress.  I was looking at other options, but I didn’t feel like throwing out everything I learned about WP just to change things up.  With that being said, I’m starting fresh with the website.  I haven’t decided if I’m going to import all of the old posts again or not, so for now you can find the old posts over at endperform.wordpress.com.

I still plan to post about tech things, but I’m also launching a photo section, once I figure out just how I want to incorporate it.  Stay tuned, cool things are coming.

The more I read about networks, the deeper this rabbit hole goes. I hope I do well on this test! Datalink + MAC + OSI + connection = test # @meewunk what did I ask this time? in reply to meewunk # @iamtooamazing No, way too sick in reply to iamtooamazing # Powered by Twitter Tools

At work, we’ve been developing a custom camera recording solution for the past 4 months. Essentially, it’s a system to provide a web-based interface to record a number of IP cameras, transcode the videos, and output the videos to a variety of the web applications we use (Moodle, Drupal, etc.) The cameras in question are Axis Q1755 cameras, which are really intended for use as HD security cameras and not in the studio-type environment we have here. (Neither I nor my department was involved in camera selection, and those who were have serious second thoughts.) In any case, these cameras are a continuous source of frustration for us.

H.264 Support

The h.264/RTP support in these camera doesn’t seem to fit to any real standard.  Multiple clients have complained about the malformed h.264 stream coming from these cameras.  (The I-frame numbering seems inconsistent, among other things.)

Hardware Capabilities

The manual claims the camera supports a maximum of 10 clients.  In our testing on a GigE network, video quality began to degrade at 3 Unicast clients (720p capture mode, h.264 streaming, GOV length of 32).  Looking at the CPU load on the cameras, load averages exceeded 5.0 with 3 clients.  This is completely unacceptable for our needs.  So we thought we would turn to multicasting.  We even called networking, confirmed that the network was setup for multicasting, and got a multicast IP allocation.  Seems that would fix things up, right?

Multicasting

Multicast support is an adventure.  Several readings of the manual found the only documented multicast capability was on Windows with IE and an Axis ActiveX control called Axis Media Control (AMC).  AMC, of course, requires administrator privileges to install.  Even that would leave Linux, Mac, and Firefox users in the cold.  I figured we were just missing something and we should contact AXIS Support.  Big mistake.  Big waste of time.  The response to the initial inquiry was, essentially, a nice RTFM:

Thank you for contacting Axis Communications. My name is <cut> and I will be happy to assist you today. The Axis Q1755 has multicast enabled by default, where as some of our older units required you to enable multicasting.

The manual is a good place to start
http://www.axis.com/files/manuals/um_q1755_35572_0905.pdf

On page 11 and 12 explains ways to pull the multicast stream from the camera.

Best regards,
Axis Customer Services

Ok, I figured that maybe they get a lot of people who haven’t read the manual.  Or maybe I missed something.  I reread the relevant section of the manual, but found nothing regarding standard RTP/multicasting support.  I typed up a longer description of the steps we had taken and asked about the location of a multicast-ready SDP file from the camera.  Their response, in its entirety, reads:

The Axis Q1755 has a configuration page for Multicasting.
http://<IP>/admin/config.shtml?group=Network
Under the section Network RTP R0:

Best regards,
Axis Customer Services

Clearly, this was what I asked, since I had included the current value of our multicast settings in a previous message.  Once more, I attempt to elicit useful information from Axis support.  Imagine my surprise when I received an informative, if disappointing response:

I have found another case which has this to say about multicasting.

Unfortunately RTP multicast using VLC doesn’t work on the new generation of products running firmware version 5.xx (like the Axis Q1755). Although multicast is only supported using AMC and Windows Media Player.
AMC is only available with Internet Explorer.

Best regards,
Axis Customer Services

In other words: we took out an industry standard and substituted our own homebrew multicast “solution” that only works with IE.  Thanks, Axis.  Removing functionality is always a market winner.

Conclusion: Don’t use Axis products unless you’re happy doing things the “Axis way.”  Forget industry standards.  With a little luck, this will be the last time I work on a project involving Axis cameras.  Fortunately, I think those who are making the buying decisions have seen the problems and will start looking at alternative suppliers.

Axis, and others: vendor lock-in = bad.  You might think it helps.  Think again.