When 8.10 Intrepid came out, I began the six month wait for 9.04 Jaunty. Of all of the new features, the best...by far...is the new notification system. Sure, it looks cool, but I had an actual use case the it would solve for me. When I download a file in Firefox, I have it automatically saved to the desktop and often switch workspaces (instead of minimizing my current collection of windows) to access the new file. However, when the file finishes downloading, Firefox uses its own notification system to alert me of that fact, and this notification system appears over top of the workspace switcher and is not click-through. One could argue the I should be using some key combination to swtich workspaces. This may be true, but it does not change the fact that the notification system in Firefox is wrong because it is not click-through and Ubuntu's notification system should be used instead anyway. Also, other users less technical than me might face the same use case as me but are not the type to memorize and use key combinations to accomplish their tasks.
Well, since Firefox is so amazing (because of its plugin framework), someone wrote this plugin to trigger the Ubuntu notification system whenever Firefox uses its own notification system. I learned about this plugin about a month ago, but (at the time) the compleation of a download also triggered Firefox's own notification. Then I read this blog post (that I found from Digg) that said that it was possible to turn off Firefox's notification system. I had previous assumed that this was possible, but I also thought that doing this would not allow the plugin to work either. Well, I was wrong, and it makes sense why I was wrong.
So, I was going to share the same informaiton that I read in that blog post about how to turn off Firefox's notification system, but while writting this blog post, I have discovered that the creators of that plugin must have also read it...because the plugin now shuts off Firefox's notifcation for you! So, in conclusion, just install the above plugin and you will have Ubuntu notifications (and only Ubuntu notifications) when Firefox finishes downloading a file.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Money and Open Source Software
There many benefits to open source software (OSS), but for most people, the main benefit is that fact that the software is free.
In this video entitled "Linux Sucks! (And what can be done to fix it)", Bryan Lunduke discusses areas in which OSS fails to deliver and also provides some possible ways to fix these problems. One of the problems identifed by Bryan was the lack of OSS applications of significant complexity. I agree with that assessment, but his soltion was to fund the development of these complicated applications. Initially, I was put off by this idea. I thought that it would be a bad idea to introduce money into the open source process.
However, I later realized that it is not required that OSS be free of cost in every way. In fact, there are existing examples for which the expenditure of money is required. The examples that I thought of are the first class distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu as well as the Linux Kernel itself. These distributions have developers that are fully supported by Red Hat and Canonical respectively and several companies support Linux Kernel developers. Everyone would agree that these example of OSS have positively benefited from the involvement of money.
The reason that OSS is such a good idea is that the marginal cost of giving an OSS program to another user is practically nothing and the benefits of more people using the same program are positive. Goods with these characteris are called anti-rivalrous. However, the development cost of OSS still exists. The vast majority of OSS is developed without finacinal compensation, but it does not have to be that way. The video above caused me to think about the possibility of compensating OSS developers for their work.
I now believe that sufficently complicated OSS applications will not be created without paying the developers for their work. Traditionally, various companies have stepped up to supported the work of these developers, but anyone who will benefit from the work of an OSS developer should support them in their work.
In this video entitled "Linux Sucks! (And what can be done to fix it)", Bryan Lunduke discusses areas in which OSS fails to deliver and also provides some possible ways to fix these problems. One of the problems identifed by Bryan was the lack of OSS applications of significant complexity. I agree with that assessment, but his soltion was to fund the development of these complicated applications. Initially, I was put off by this idea. I thought that it would be a bad idea to introduce money into the open source process.
However, I later realized that it is not required that OSS be free of cost in every way. In fact, there are existing examples for which the expenditure of money is required. The examples that I thought of are the first class distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu as well as the Linux Kernel itself. These distributions have developers that are fully supported by Red Hat and Canonical respectively and several companies support Linux Kernel developers. Everyone would agree that these example of OSS have positively benefited from the involvement of money.
The reason that OSS is such a good idea is that the marginal cost of giving an OSS program to another user is practically nothing and the benefits of more people using the same program are positive. Goods with these characteris are called anti-rivalrous. However, the development cost of OSS still exists. The vast majority of OSS is developed without finacinal compensation, but it does not have to be that way. The video above caused me to think about the possibility of compensating OSS developers for their work.
I now believe that sufficently complicated OSS applications will not be created without paying the developers for their work. Traditionally, various companies have stepped up to supported the work of these developers, but anyone who will benefit from the work of an OSS developer should support them in their work.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Way We use the Internet is Changing: The Internet is Personal
The other day, I stepped back and looked at my Internet activity. As you may have noticed, the Internet is becoming personal.
Google became famous and powerful by indexing the (most of the) Internet so that you and I can effectively search it. However, more and more content is being created behind closed doors that require logins to access. I am not sure if this is good or bad. Of sites that I have bookmarked, the following require me to login (to do what I want):
Since I have posted almost all of my bookmarks anyway, here are the rest of my bookmarks:
Searching is far more important that it used to be. I will often give up trying to use a sites navigation or their own search capabilities and instead use Google's "site:" feature to search the site. However, since I frequent so many gated Internet communities, the content is already tailored to my preferences. That makes using the Internet easier for me but harder for the next person that wants to join the community. Why? Because the ability to search that gated community is restricted. It is more difficult for a newcomer to decide if this community is worth joining.
In conclusion, a personalized Internet is more difficult to search.
Google became famous and powerful by indexing the (most of the) Internet so that you and I can effectively search it. However, more and more content is being created behind closed doors that require logins to access. I am not sure if this is good or bad. Of sites that I have bookmarked, the following require me to login (to do what I want):
- Gmail
- Google Reader
- Blogger
- Dropbox
- Pandora
- Launchpad
- Ubuntu Forums
- Ubuntu Brainstorm
- Wellsfargo
- Project Euler
- KGS Go Server
- ISU MSDNAA
- Several things at ISU
- Several things at UWM
- Weather (enter my zip code)
- Digg
- Newegg
- Youtube
- Sensei's Library
Since I have posted almost all of my bookmarks anyway, here are the rest of my bookmarks:
Searching is far more important that it used to be. I will often give up trying to use a sites navigation or their own search capabilities and instead use Google's "site:" feature to search the site. However, since I frequent so many gated Internet communities, the content is already tailored to my preferences. That makes using the Internet easier for me but harder for the next person that wants to join the community. Why? Because the ability to search that gated community is restricted. It is more difficult for a newcomer to decide if this community is worth joining.
In conclusion, a personalized Internet is more difficult to search.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Large Asteroid May Hit Earth
In December 2004, a large asteroid was discovered that will come dangerously close to Earth. In April 13, 2029 (a Friday), this asteroid will be closer to Earth than our geosynchronous satellites. It will not hit Earth this time around, but there is enough uncertainty in our projections about the asteroid's orbit that there is a 1 in 45,000 chance that it will hit Earth during its next passing six years later on April 13, 2036 (a Sunday). Because of this asteroid's orbit, it was named Apophis, which is the Greek name for the evil Egyption god of darkness. Even if Apophis does not hit Earth in 2036, we still have to worry about it possibly hitting Earth every six or seven years when it again passes close to Earth.
If Apophis hits Earth, millions of people could be injured in its impact size of thousands of square kilometers. However, an impact would be unlikely to have a long-lasting global effect.
As usual, Wikipedia has extensive information about Apophis in general and its chances of hitting Earth.
I learned about this after watching this FORA.tv video with Neil Tyson. You can skip to chapter 3, where he begins talking about Apophis, and he finishes talking about Apophis when he moves onto another subject starting in chapter 8.
If Apophis hits Earth, millions of people could be injured in its impact size of thousands of square kilometers. However, an impact would be unlikely to have a long-lasting global effect.
As usual, Wikipedia has extensive information about Apophis in general and its chances of hitting Earth.
I learned about this after watching this FORA.tv video with Neil Tyson. You can skip to chapter 3, where he begins talking about Apophis, and he finishes talking about Apophis when he moves onto another subject starting in chapter 8.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Inside the Cash Cab
In the US version of Cash Cab (Wikipedia page), a trivia game show on the Discovery Channel, I was wondering how real it is. I thought that because the host, Ben Bailey, has to read the questions that he was not really driving through New York City. However, when I searched the Internet for more information, I have become convinced that he really is driving through the city, but there are several other things about the show that seem to be fake.
Based on discussion with my cousin Matt and these few pages...
...I believe that they really are driving through the city, especially because there is a gray van that follows them the whole time. Then, when I saw that Ben Bailey has an ear bud in his left ear, I decided that his eyes really are paying close attention to the road and the guys in the trailing gray van are telling him what to say.
Something else that I wondered about was how they "screened contestants" before appearing on the show (as is claimed in the text shown for a brief moment at the end of the show) if they are surprising random taxi-goers. One of the above sites provided an answer. They find people for the show by farming them from local trivia events. They tell them that they are going to be on a reality show about where people want to go in New York. So, no random person that actually has somewhere to go ever has a chance to get on the Cash Cab. This makes sense because it will allow them to have contestants that do fairly well.
Finally, and this was especially saddening to me, the cash is not real. Instead, they mail you a check. This sounds really believable. They would need a paper trail.
Some of you may be saying, "Tyson, why can't you just enjoy the show?" Well...no...I cannot not.
Based on discussion with my cousin Matt and these few pages...
...I believe that they really are driving through the city, especially because there is a gray van that follows them the whole time. Then, when I saw that Ben Bailey has an ear bud in his left ear, I decided that his eyes really are paying close attention to the road and the guys in the trailing gray van are telling him what to say.
Something else that I wondered about was how they "screened contestants" before appearing on the show (as is claimed in the text shown for a brief moment at the end of the show) if they are surprising random taxi-goers. One of the above sites provided an answer. They find people for the show by farming them from local trivia events. They tell them that they are going to be on a reality show about where people want to go in New York. So, no random person that actually has somewhere to go ever has a chance to get on the Cash Cab. This makes sense because it will allow them to have contestants that do fairly well.
Finally, and this was especially saddening to me, the cash is not real. Instead, they mail you a check. This sounds really believable. They would need a paper trail.
Some of you may be saying, "Tyson, why can't you just enjoy the show?" Well...no...I cannot not.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
France, the second China (on the Internet)
It is nothing new that people in China are restricted on the Internet by the Great Firewall of China and other forms of Internet censorship, but surely this kind of thing would not happen in a democratic country. Not if some French citizens can have their way.
As I read in this article, France is poised to pass the toughest anti-P2P laws in the free world. Let me summarize them for you:
If it is any consolation, there is technically a positive side to this law. As a compromise to the outrageous laws listed above, French DVDs will appear a couple months closer to their theatrical release date and movie and music groups have to drop much of their DRM. Fair trade?...I think not.
Let me comment on each of the listed laws.
1) Requiring state approved software in order to access the Internet is this most unbelievable of these laws. This law indirectly forces a state approved operating system as well. If your operating system does not have compatible, approved state security software, then you cannot go on the Internet. This law will stifle innovation in operating systems by not users of new operating system onto the Internet.
2) Requiring people to secure their wireless networks is like requiring people to buy and use a lock on their front door. Now I would hope that most people lock their doors at night, but beware, if you do not lock your door then...the police will come and arrest you for breaking the law?...
3) This law sounds exactly like the Great Firewall of China, except it is being erected by a democratic government. Let me quote the previous article: "Consumer group UFC Que Choisir compared the entire project to France's ill-fated Maginot Line [in French], [English by Google Translator], examples of World War I thinking that were famously bypassed early in World War II by blitzkrieging German panzer units." The French are repeating their past mistakes by trying to shield themselves from "the evils" on the Internet in a similar way as the communist government of China. France should get a better role model.
4) There are many countries that have considered or are already using a graduated response program. In principle, I do not have a problem with a graduated response program, but it absolutely has to be based on guilty verdicts from a court of law and not on the accusations of...anyone! My American ideals scream at me every time I read about laws like this. In America, we have two sayings: (1) we would rather let 10 guilty men go free then convict 1 innocent man and (2) you are innocent until proven guilty. Apparently in France (and too many other countries) the saying are (1) we do everything we can to punish the few at the expense of the many and (2) you are innocent until accused at which point you cannot ever be innocent again.
...And the previous author says that this law has a fair chance of passing. I used to think that the Internet would eventually be free (as in free culture), but if laws like this get passed, then anything could happen.
As I read in this article, France is poised to pass the toughest anti-P2P laws in the free world. Let me summarize them for you:
- If you want to use the Internet at home, you have to have state approved security software installed on your computer.
- If you want to have a wireless network in your home, it must be secured.
- If businesses (like a coffee shop) want to provide wireless Internet access to their customers, then they can only allow the customers to access state approved sites (called a whitelist).
- Graduated response/3-strikes program for alleged illegal file sharing:
- Accused once: email warning
- Accused twice: registered letter
- Accused three times: lose Internet access for 3 months to a year and put on a blacklist which prevents you from getting Internet access from any ISP in France
If it is any consolation, there is technically a positive side to this law. As a compromise to the outrageous laws listed above, French DVDs will appear a couple months closer to their theatrical release date and movie and music groups have to drop much of their DRM. Fair trade?...I think not.
Let me comment on each of the listed laws.
1) Requiring state approved software in order to access the Internet is this most unbelievable of these laws. This law indirectly forces a state approved operating system as well. If your operating system does not have compatible, approved state security software, then you cannot go on the Internet. This law will stifle innovation in operating systems by not users of new operating system onto the Internet.
2) Requiring people to secure their wireless networks is like requiring people to buy and use a lock on their front door. Now I would hope that most people lock their doors at night, but beware, if you do not lock your door then...the police will come and arrest you for breaking the law?...
3) This law sounds exactly like the Great Firewall of China, except it is being erected by a democratic government. Let me quote the previous article: "Consumer group UFC Que Choisir compared the entire project to France's ill-fated Maginot Line [in French], [English by Google Translator], examples of World War I thinking that were famously bypassed early in World War II by blitzkrieging German panzer units." The French are repeating their past mistakes by trying to shield themselves from "the evils" on the Internet in a similar way as the communist government of China. France should get a better role model.
4) There are many countries that have considered or are already using a graduated response program. In principle, I do not have a problem with a graduated response program, but it absolutely has to be based on guilty verdicts from a court of law and not on the accusations of...anyone! My American ideals scream at me every time I read about laws like this. In America, we have two sayings: (1) we would rather let 10 guilty men go free then convict 1 innocent man and (2) you are innocent until proven guilty. Apparently in France (and too many other countries) the saying are (1) we do everything we can to punish the few at the expense of the many and (2) you are innocent until accused at which point you cannot ever be innocent again.
...And the previous author says that this law has a fair chance of passing. I used to think that the Internet would eventually be free (as in free culture), but if laws like this get passed, then anything could happen.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I want a Firefox Plugin that does...
As one way to protect my privacy, I have Firefox set to delete "everything" automatically when it closes. In Ubuntu (and probably most Linux setups), "Edit->Preferences" and in Windows, "Tools->Options". Then click the "Privacy" tab. Below are some settings under "Private Data". I have Firefox "[a]lways clear my private data when I close Firefox" and not "ask me before clearing private data". Furthermore, within the "Settings..." of what data should be cleared, I have everything checked. In contrast though, I also "[a]ccept cookie from all sites" and from "...third-part[ies]" so that I am never limited in functionality.
This high degree of privacy has a setback. Since I clear my cookies, some website preferences are lost. Specifically, in Google I like to see 100 search results per page and in Newegg, I like to sort by lowest price and also see 100 search results per page, but when cookies are cleared, these preferences are lost. I wish there was a Firefox plugin that would reset a specific state of my cookies each time Firefox starts.
I have not tried that hard to see if one already exists, but I have never heard of a plugin that has this functionality either.
This high degree of privacy has a setback. Since I clear my cookies, some website preferences are lost. Specifically, in Google I like to see 100 search results per page and in Newegg, I like to sort by lowest price and also see 100 search results per page, but when cookies are cleared, these preferences are lost. I wish there was a Firefox plugin that would reset a specific state of my cookies each time Firefox starts.
I have not tried that hard to see if one already exists, but I have never heard of a plugin that has this functionality either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
