You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2009.
As a Linux advocate, I’m often asked which Linux distribution is my favorite. This isn’t really fair; I find that many of the different distributions have positives and negatives. So let’s cover it in one post. (I may do some of my own screenshots but for now, links to each distribution’s page at The Coding Studio)
What if you’re a Linux newbie? I recommend Linux Mint.
Linux Mint is an Ubuntu derivative that is developed so closely with Ubuntu that you can follow all of the great tutorials in the Ubuntu forums, but already has things like Flash and Java installed so you don’t have to go mucking around in the terminal on first boot. Also, the IRC channel is very active and full of helpful folks waiting to help newbies, and the IRC client in the OS will connect you if you simply open it. Screenshots at The Coding Studio.
What if you want to distribute Linux on the PCs you sell? In this case I recommend Ubuntu.
Ubuntu has exploded with popularity in the last few years, and since it doesn’t package some of the sticky legal situation stuff like Linux Mint does, the vendor can add the cost of mp3 codecs and whatnot on top of their PC, preinstall them everything before they ship, and the customer will be happy regardless of whether he is an experienced Linux user or a newbie. Screenshots at The Coding Studio.
What if you have an old computer or you just want a lightweight system to get the most out of your computer? I have a personal soft spot for Crunchbang Linux, a new Ubuntu derivative using the superfast Openbox Desktop Environment. Crunchbang is slick and eye-pleasing and does its job very well. If you are a Linux newbie with an old computer, however, Xubuntu might be a better choice. Xubuntu is officially supported by Canonical (Ubuntu’s sponsor) and will feel less alien to Windows users. Screenshots for Crunchbang and Xubuntu.
If you’re a big Free and Open Source Software advocate, Fedora may be for you. Fedora is also a great option if you’re more comfortable with Red Hat for one reason or another. In my opinion, PackageKit is much more userfriendly than the update manager in Ubuntu and its derivatives, but installing non-free plugins can be rough. More screenshots via The Coding Studio. If you check out Fedora and you don’t mind installing non-free software, be sure to check out rpmfusion.
And finally, if you want to run a home server, CentOS is the most obvious choice. CentOS combines the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux with the low pricetag of free software. Of course, if you end up doing more than hobbyist stuff, the support provided by Red Hat might be worth RHEL’s hefty price tag. Again, CentOS screenshots on The Coding Studio.
But this is just very interesting. They deserve a “link to them” as Google sees it.
Normally I find the freakonomics people are a little off (including the book..) but what I read of this (most of it) I found was very interesting, and the comparison of our heavy traffic to bread lines in Soviet Russia was… well very good.
This is really easy.
First you have to install openssh-server on one of your machines. You only have to do this once. If you already have openssh, skip this step.
Either run:
sudo apt-get install openssh-server
in your terminal. Or, if you’re a terminal-phobe:
- Open Synaptic, (System->Administration->Synaptic Package Manager)
- Click Search, type in “openssh-server”
- Click the check and choose “Mark for Installation”
- Click Apply
- Wait until it finishes and exit Synaptic
Open Nautilus on the other computer. (for the uninformed, that’s your file browser. Click Places->Home Folder in Ubuntu on your panel; in Mint it’s MintMenu->Home Folder)
Hit Ctrl+L when the window opens. A location bar will appear. In it, type
ssh://yourusername@the.ip.address.of.the.remote.machine
Obviously, replace yourusername with your username, and the ip address can be the domain name if the computer has one. Your screen should look similar to this:
Press enter. Insert your password when prompted. You are now connected to the remote machine and may drag-and-drop as usual.
Thought this was interesting. I’ll repost it so you can (as always) spare yourself the YouTube comments after the clip.
With all of the talk of Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” bill, which I’ve heard called many things from Rush Limbaugh’s “Porkulus” bill to Hannity’s “End of Capitalism As We Know It” and at least on the right, there seems to be a pretty general consensus that the thing is a bad plan.
Besides tax cuts, however, I haven’t heard much of an alternate idea from Republicans, and one of the problems with the laissez faire approach is that the American public has demonstrated through previous depressions and recessions that they want the government to do “something” to alleviate the problem. Unfortunately, “something” is often worse than nothing, but I have an idea that no one is talking about.
I’m talking about drug legalization. Let’s start with marijuana, which is less addictive than tobacco and has caused zero deaths due to overdose (unlike alcohol) and has no long-term mental health effects, so the issue becomes more black-and-white. The debate over whether marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco has been fought, and the consensus is in: it is. If it was legal, along with hemp which is also illegal, there would suddenly be an income outlet for the thousands of unemployed, a cash crop which can be grown small scale on bad land and even in cheap PVC hydroponics in the cities. The demand for the non-addictive drug has already been demonstrated, and hemp has many industrial uses which I won’t enumerate here but are easy to find on the Internet.
Now, because marijuana is easily grown there aren’t really drug wars fought over it. The drug wars now ravaging Mexico between the drug cartels and the Mexican government are caused by “hard drugs” like cocaine and methamphetamine.
Coke, meth, and opium derivatives are harmful and addictive. Heroin addicts often lose their teeth, and meth has been known to destroy lives. So why would anyone try either of these horrible drugs? The answer: marketing. Meth costs a fortune on the street, and so does heroin, because they are illegal and addictive. This combination causes an extremely high demand as junkies try to get their fix and a very high scarcity so the cost skyrockets. With high prices and high profits, the drug lords have the money to fund pushers to find more vulnerable users and fight the police and militaries that dare stop their trade.
These laws are put in affect to “protect us,” but they end up costing the government billions of dollars, cause gang wars in the inner cities (gangs, like the cartels in Mexico, are funded by drug money), and even the sovereign state of Mexico is under threat of toppling due to the unstoppable flow of drug money. Are we safer now?
The only way to end these wars, this senseless violence, is to legalize drugs. All of them. But marijuana is the first step. If marijuana becomes legal, we will be well on our way to the legalization of all drugs and the end of drug wars, and will benefit from an economic stimulus as an added bonus. This legalization will birth a trillion-dollar industry, clean the slate of over a million Americans who were found guilty of possession, and save the government several billion dollars yearly.
Obama should listen to this advice. I’m not the only one giving it; recent surveys show that marijuana legalization is the #1 most wanted gift from the president his voters are hoping for. So let’s get a bullet list. Legalize marijuana and what does the American public (and Obama) get:
- Happy constituents
- Lower cost of prisons (fewer inmates)
- Economic stimulus
- A step toward the end of gang violence
- Plummeting usage of very hard drugs such as meth as pushers vanish
- Help for addicts will become more available (like AA for alcoholics)
Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Then why, I wonder, doesn’t anyone ever bring it up?
