Has anyone actually upgraded a MT 2.6x installation to the current version?
The instructions suggest you upgrade to MT 3.5 first, and even have a link to the MT archive where it is said to reside. But when I go there it looks awfully blank….
I suppose it ain't seriously broke, so maybe I shouldn't try to fix it. But maybe a test site just to see….
Monday was Labor Day, a federal holiday in these United States, making a three-day weekend.
I spent quite a lot of it looking at a computer that kept saying this:
We're sorry; the installer crashed. Please file a new bug report at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+filebug (do not attach your details to any existing bug) and a developer will attend to the problem as soon as possible. To help the developers understand what went wrong, include the following detail in your bug report, and attach the files /var/log/syslog and /var/log/partman:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File “/usr/lib/ubiquity/bin/ubiquity”, line 210, in
main()
File “/usr/lib/ubiquity/bin/ubiquity”, line 205, in main
install(args[0])
File “/usr/lib/ubiquity/bin/ubiquity”, line 58, in install
ret = wizard.run()
File “/usr/lib/ubiquity/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py”, line 358, in run
File “/usr/lib/ubiquity/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py”, line 989, in process_step
File “/usr/lib/ubiquity/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py”, line 743, in progress_loop
RuntimeError: Install failed with exit code 139; see /var/log/syslog
Mind you, I was doing something that may be fairly silly:
It was the last step that kept croaking. Even thought the CD I burned passed all integrity checks.
So I filed a bug report. Currently, I'm downloading the alternate Ubuntu installer, and doing a full scan of the (brand new) disk's integrity in case it has some physical fault. Takes a long time to scan half a terrabyte.
Earlier, a similar install using the same model card and a similar SATA disk alone on a similar computer (without the attempt to dual boot on two drives) went swimmingly.
But this one would croak even if I unplugged the ISA drive with windows on it. So There's Something Funny Going On….
Update: disk checks out fine.
Meanwhile, thanks to the Super Grub Disk I managed to rescue Windows from a non-functioning entry I'd put into the MBR. Three cheers for the Super Grub Disk! I'm now back to where I was 40 hours ago!
(Lest anyone feel too sorry for me, this isn't my main machine, and I actually like solving problems like this, even (especially?) if I caused them.)
Jim Louderback, outgoing editor of PC Magazine, writes about why he's soured on MS Vista. Money quote: “If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the unthinkable: I might move to Linux.”
I wonder what former PC World editor, and Vista enthusiast, Ed Bott has to say about this.
It's commonly believed that Vista's built-in DRM is a Bad Thing. I think it's bad because any time they put features in my machine that are meant to control me rather than letting me control the machine, I think the natural order of things is being undermined. Plus if the machine can do one thing I can't control, who says it can't be leveraged to do other nasty things to me?
It seems, though, that some people also blame Vista's DRM for other evils, including performance problems (I hadn't heard that). Ed Bott, who although he is a Microsoft fan in the way of a super-power user has in my experience always proved to be fair-minded, says it Ain't So:
Over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, in between two-hour daily workouts with a snow shovel, I read a remarkable paper called A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. And I wasn’t the only one. According to Technorati, the paper has so far been linked by more than 250 blogs, and Google News finds more than 100 citations to the paper in mainstream online publications.
Too bad it’s just so wrong about so many things.
In fact, I read the whole paper – all 10,224 words of it – seven times that week, and lost count of the number of exaggerations, half-truths, unsupported statements, and flat-out errors in it. It’s a big steaming pile of FUD, with just enough truth sprinkled on top to make it seem like there’s some substance underneath it.
I don't profess any expertise here, but it's interesting. There's more where that came from, and at Busting the FUD about Vista’s DRM.
There are a few reasons to use Vista and lots of reasons not to. Here are 20 more candidates for the second group from Softpedia:
Are you using Windows Vista? Then you might as well know that the licensed operating system installed on your machine is harvesting a healthy volume of information for Microsoft. In this context, a program such as the Windows Genuine Advantage is the last of your concerns. In fact, in excess of 20 Windows Vista features and services are hard at work collecting and transmitting your personal data to the Redmond company.
Microsoft makes no secret about the fact that Windows Vista is gathering information. End users have little to say, and no real choice in the matter.
…
The Redmond company emphasized numerous times the fact that all information collected is not used to identify or contact users.
I don't for a second doubt that Microsoft means this. But that's not the right question: the issue isn't how they use it; the issue is how they store it. If the data are collected and stored in a manner that retains a personally-identifiable character, then either Microsoft or someone who handed it a subpoena (or warrant) could use the data to link an IP number to whatever else is collected. And on this question the article is silent — which means that while this may or may not be worth worrying about, we can't actually tell for sure either from this story or from Microsoft's Vista Privacy Statement (indeed, from the sound of the latter, it does sound as if at least some of the data are kept individualized rather than aggregated). And until we know more, chalk up more reasons not to use Vista.
And here's the chaser:
Microsoft has an additional collection of 47 Windows Vista features and services that collect user data. However, not all phone home and report to Microsoft. Although the data collection process is generalized across the list, user information is also processed and kept on the local machine, leaving just approximately 50% of the items to both harvest data and contact Microsoft. Still, Microsoft underlined the fact that the list provided under the Windows Vista Privacy Statement is by no means exhaustive, nor does it apply to all the company's websites, services and products.
Sandboxie describes itself like this:
When you run a program on your computer, data flows from the hard disk to the program via read operations. The data is then processed and displayed, and finally flows back from the progam to the hard disk via write operations.
For example, if you run the Freecell program to play a game, it starts by reading the previously recorded statistics, displaying and altering them as you play the game, and finally writing them back to disk for future reference.
Sandboxie changes the rules such that write operations do not make it back to your hard disk.
The illustration shows the key component of Sandboxie: a transient storage area, or sandbox. Data flows in both directions between programs and the sandbox. During read operations, data may flow from the hard disk into the sandbox. But data never flows back from the sandbox into the hard disk.
If you run Freecell inside the Sandboxie environment, Sandboxie reads the statistics data from the hard disk into the sandbox, to satisfy the read requested by Freecell. When the game later writes the statistics, Sandboxie intercepts this operation and directs the data to the sandbox.
If you then run Freecell without the aid of Sandboxie, the read operation would bypass the sandbox altogether, and the statistics would be retrieved from the hard disk.
The transient nature of the sandbox makes it is easy to get rid of everything in it. If you were to throw away the sandbox, by deleting everything in it, the sandboxed statistics would be gone for good, as if they had never been there in the first place.
Sandboxie and the Web
Protecting your Freecell statistics using Sandboxie may be a good idea when a less qualified player comes along, but you will probably want to play most of your games outside the sandbox. On the other hand, you may want to run your Web browser inside the sandbox most of the time. This way any incoming, unsolicited software (spyware, malware and the like) that you download, is trapped in the sandbox. Changes made to your list of Favorites or Bookmarks, hijacking of your preferred start page, new and unwanted icons on your desktop — all these, and more, are trapped in and bound to the sandbox.
You could also try a new toolbar add-on, browser extension or just about any kind of software. If you don't like it, you throw away the sandbox, and start again with a fresh sandbox. On the other hand, if you do like the new piece of software, you can re-install it outside the sandbox so it becomes a permanent part of your system.
Sandboxie intercepts changes to both your files and registry settings, making it virtually impossible for any software to reach outside the sandbox.
Sandboxie traps cached browser items into the sandbox as a by-product of normal operation, so when you throw away the sandbox, all the history records and other side-effects of your browsing disappear as well.
Which means, if I understand it right, that it would be safe to run IE with ActiveX turned on? It might even be safe to run Exchange???
Jotwell Blenderlaw
