Still As Life

Today, along with plotting to take over the world with Rhi, I rearranged me desk setup, and for that matter, most of that side of the room.

I've chucked one of my bookcases up on the back of one of my desks. I've run out of room on the ground level, so logically, start building up. Tetris style.

It turned out that the bottom shelf of the bookcase is the perfect size to fit my pair of 19" widescreens with about 3mm to spare above them and about 2cm in total to spare horizontally. Sweet.

I've migrated the main work stream applications over to Quadzilla. As a result of this, I've noticed about a 50% performance decrease in the performance of Adobe Photoshop CS3 when working with large files compared to the old XP box that is around a quarter of the power of Quadzilla. That doesn't make any sense to me and I sure hope it's just a temporary problem.

I have left the old box up and running next to the new one. I need it for access to the RAID 0 array in it. At the moment, I have it plugged in to the second input in my secondary monitor, however I am accessing it predominately via the Windows Remote Desktop Connection software as this saves the trouble of switching the inputs and the keyboard and mouse.

Since moving the bookcase, I all of a sudden seem to have so much extra space. I need it since I'm planning on getting a filing cabinet soon, all the same though, it's remarkable the amounf ot space it seems to have made. I'm also thinking about getting a fourth desk from somewhere to get myself some more desk space since I seem to keep running out.

Labels: other, software

Earlier this month I posted some information about downloading video's from YouTube and other video sharing websites that use Flash Video's.

Now I have just come across tooble which is a program for Mac's that will download YouTube and other Flash Video's to your computer and converts them mp4 format for use with an iPod. Of course it will also play on an iPhone, Apple TV, or your computer.

There is a Windows version in the works, but at the moment it is Mac only.

Enjoy.

Labels: software, video clips

Recently, Sun Microsystems purchased MySQL for $1 billion. A little late I know, but I only just read about it.

There are articles about it on both the Sun and MySQL websites.

With a gigantic customer base, MySQL is a very successful open source endeavour, so purchasing something like this, potentially brings millions of customers, including clients like Facebook and even Google.

Along with such a large client base, comes the potential to really screw up. There are plenty of other database systems out there, both open and closed source with similar features and performance to MySQL, in particular, PostgreSQL. This means that if Sun were to mess it up, there are systems waiting with arms open. For example, on the TerraMedia server, we have both MySQL and PostgreSQL running. Of course, for many larger clients, transferring to a different system would be a lot of work and for many, it probably would not be worth it. However, for smaller clients, or transitioning systems, there is a much bigger possibility.

Added to that, at the Queensland University of Technology students are introduced to databases and taught using PostgreSQL in the introductory database subjects, no doubt this occurs at other universities as well. This means other systems are in a prime position to take a piece of the market from MySQL if things go sour.

Having used both systems though, I can see there are many similarities, so even someone who has only used MySQL could pick up PostgreSQL with very few problems.

However, I can't point out the possible pitfalls without mentioning the benefits.

Sun is a giant in the I.T. industry with a large amount of finances available to back MySQL. Not to mention, Sun has been extremely successful in releasing the Solaris source code in 2005, and the Java programming language in 2006. Thinking along similar lines, you can hardly talk about Sun's support of open source software without mentioning projects like NetBeans and OpenOffice.org. Both of these have thrived under Sun as well.

Additionally, work conditions are not expected to change, including being able to work from home, and Sun have invited the current staff to continue work on the system, including the current leadership and executives.

It is clear to me that Sun understands the value of open source technology and the communities surrounding it and I don't doubt at all, that in adding MySQL to their arsenal, Sun won't screw things up and MySQL will continue to thrive from the added support.

For anyone reading that has heard my theories on the future of the I.T. industry, involving companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Google and so on, this move by Sun supports my expectations completely.

I will write up my theories one of these days, or copy a chat log about them, or something.

Labels: code, internet, software, technology

As you may recall from the 18th, I made a post about a Microsoft Excel security issue that had been brought up in the Sydney Morning Herald. At the time I could not seem to find anything on the Microsoft website about it. Evidently I was looking in the wrong place or searching for the wrong thing, as Tim over at Spy Journal has found the official Microsoft Security Advisory information under Microsoft Security Advisory (947563).

According to the official Microsoft release:

"Microsoft is investigating new public reports of a vulnerability in Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Service Pack 2, Microsoft Office Excel Viewer 2003, Microsoft Office Excel 2002, Microsoft Office Excel 2000, and Microsoft Excel 2004 for Mac. At this time, our initial investigation indicates that customers who are using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 or Microsoft Excel 2008 for Mac, or who have installed Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Service Pack 3 are not affected by this vulnerability."

So basically, the latest version's, Excel 2003 SP3, 2007, and 2008 are all in the clear. Everything else is potentially vulnerable.

Common sense should apply, as with anything received over the internet, if it looks suspicious, it probably is, unless it's me.

Labels: internet, software

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, "Microsoft says hackers have found a way to use some older versions of its Excel spreadsheet program to take over control of people's computers."

They then later go on to say:

"Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Service Pack 2, Excel Viewer 2003, Excel 2002, Excel 2000 and Excel 2004 for Mac all contain the security hole."

And finally end with:

"The most recent versions of the spreadsheet program, Excel 2007, Excel 2007 SP 1 and Excel 2008 for Mac, were not thought to be affected, Microsoft said."

Now, I have had a look on the Microsoft Excel Developers Blog, and there is no indication of this on there.

Nor is there anything on the Microsoft Press website, in general, or in the Security section.

This leaves me thinking two things.

1. This is either shocking reporting, or they somehow have inside news that Microsoft hasn't released on their website yet.
2. This is a marketing ploy in the wake of the amount of people that find the so called "innovative" ribbon system in Office 2007 painful and confusing to use and find Office 2003 much better in general.

If it is option 2, it would make sense. Office 2007 is quite pitiful really, yes, it does have useful things over 2003, but in general, 2003 is much simpler to use, and I know a great many of your "everyday users" that 2007 is meant to benefit, who spend hours trying to figure out how to do things they could do in 2003 in seconds.

This is a large part of their market that is choosing to either not upgrade at all, or revert back to 2003. So there needs to be some reason for them to spend money to upgrade to 2007. A security flaw that has all of a sudden been discovered in previous versions and not making any comment as to whether it will be fixed or not, that sounds like a pretty good way to motivate your everyday user.

Note that this is purely speculation on my part.

However, I do not think that option 2 is all that likely, if it were, there should be something obvious on the Microsoft website about it.

If anyone knows of anywhere on the Microsoft website about this, that would be great.

In the meantime, I will just assume that this is some very bad reporting on the part of the un-named journalist on the Sydney Morning Herald.

Labels: rants, software

Here is another Unreal Tournament 3 trailer, because I can.



Also because I noticed a couple of comments on this particular trailer which is an old one from back when it was called Unreal Tournament 2007. The comments though are only recent.

A user called thekillersfan01 makes the comment:

"this looks good but a rip off from gears of war"

Following in his idiotic footsteps very soon after, glenny112 makes the comment:

"rofl u nubs this is a re run of halo 2 and 1 and also a re write of gears of war!"

I propose three things, one being the following:

Thekillersfan01, you should read the below.

Two being:

Glenny112, you are the "nub." If you knew anything about gaming history, you would be well aware that Halo 2 was released on November 9, 2004. Now, following your illogical structure of referencing Halo 2 first, I will now point out that logically, Halo 1 was released prior to Halo 2. Halo 1 was released on November 15, 2001. Next, is Gears of War. Gears of War was released most recently on, you guessed it, November 7, 2006. Now, taking this into account, let us consider the following. The first Unreal was released when exactly? Let me see. Oh yes, May 22, 1998. The next in the series, Unreal Tournament was released when now? November 26, 1999. That is two games released prior to the first Halo which is the earliest released game of your claims. As for Gears of War, well, not only are there those two games, but Unreal Tournament 2003 released near the end of 2002, Unreal 2, released in February 2003, and then of course, Unreal Tournament 2004, released in March of 2004.

Now, you tell me which one is a "re write" of which.

Sure, I looked up the dates to get the exact day and month, and also to back up what I am saying, but I could have told you the year's those games were released off the top of my head give or take a year.

The final thing I propose is:

Glenny112, didn't you ever go to school? Do you know what spelling and grammar are? It's hard enough to take you seriously when you don't have any idea what you are talking about, let alone when you cannot even manage to type properly.

Now, after seeing the video here, I can understand thekillersfan01 making a simple mistake like that since his YouTube profile indicates he is from the USA. Glenny112 though, according to his profile is an Australian. Now that's just embarrassing.

Labels: games, rants, software, video clips

Well, I just had my first go of Unreal Tournament 3. Let's just say, I am quite the disappointed, in my computer. You may recognize the screen shot to the left as being from Duke Nukem 3D from over a decade ago.

Well, this is better quality than what my computer will run Unreal Tournament 3 at. I tried to get a screen shot of it, but my computer is in one of those "I don't feel like taking a screen shot" kind of mood's at the moment, so I guess I will get one later, if I can be bothered trying to play it again. I suppose I should, even if it is just to get a screen shot of the amazing failure of my system.

For anyone that doesn't know, my computer is as follows:

• AMD Athlon 64 3500+
• 1gb of 400mhz DDR RAM
• ATI Radeon x800 GTO 256mb/256bit (PCI-E)
  
• And the rest is mostly irrelevant.

Now the minimum requirements to run it on Windows are:

• Windows XP/Vista
• 2.0+ GHz Single Core Processor
• 512 MB of System RAM
• NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ Video Card
• 8 GB of Free Hard Drive Space

So logically, I should be fine. Logically, my old computer should also have been fine.

However, when I open it up, it tells me that my computer doesn't even meet the minimum requirements.

Odd.

A friend of mine has an almost identical setup to mine and he could play it at higher quality settings than I can.

I think I shall have to have a bit more of a tweak and play around with my background processes and game settings.

Alternatively, I could just upgrade sooner.

For anyone interested, the recommended system requirements for Unreal Tournament 3 are:

• 2.4GHz Dual-Core Processor
• 1GB of RAM
• NVIDIA 7800GTX OR ATI x1300 GFX-card
• 8 GB of free HDD space

Yeah, my rig completely fails there.

Unreal Tournament 3 is going to be available for OS X (Yay), however, to my knowledge, it isn't out yet, please correct me if I'm wrong as I would love to get my hands on it and try it out on my Macbook Pro as I expect it will have a much better chance at doing it justice than my current desktop.

Previously, with most game sequels, take for example Unreal Tournament's 2003 and 2004, you could play 2003 at say medium quality on a computer and then the same computer would only run 2004 at low quality, this is logical right, but low quality on 2004 would be similar to medium quality on 2003. I don't remember exactly how close they are as I haven't played 2003 in some time now, this is just an example. Yet with Unreal Tournament 3, the settings I'm running it on, which I might add, are not the lowest, it is still poorer quality than a game that is over a decade old, and much poorer than it's predecessors.

This really amazes me, and yet, it doesn't surprise me all that much. In the 3-4 years since Unreal Tournament 2004, there have been some major increases in performance in virtually everything.

• Increased processing power as well as dual and quad core CPU's
• Faster and increased quantities of RAM
• Higher powered graphics processors
• Lets not forget, dedicated physics processors.

Unreal Tournament 3 does not require a dedicated physics processor, but similarly to many of the latest games, it incorporates a great deal of physics calculations that its predecessor did not.

I'm looking forward to playing this game on a new computer so I can see first hand the difference that these jumps forward have made in the Unreal Engine 3, rather than just watching video clips and trailers and drooling.

And here is a trailer, just in case you haven't already seen it:

Labels: games, software, video clips

I've been asked on a few occasions if it is possible to save YouTube video's to a local computer in a usable format.

Usable really depends on the definition of the person. There are a lot of free services out there such as www.downloadyoutubevideos.com or at Tech Crunch, where you paste the link to the YouTube video into the page, and it provides you with a link to download it. Then you have to rename it to a .flv file and play it in a player such as VLC that supports Flash Video files.

This method is all well and good except, a lot of people don't want to download a video player just to watch .flv files, and it really is a fair bit of work to get them this way. There are programs floating around to convert .flv files to .avi or other formats, but I haven't come across any that I particularly like, and again this is a lot of work for a single video file.

There is an alternative though. There is a website called vixy.net that that works similarly to the others in that you paste in a link to the YouTube video and it then provides a download link. This is the only similarity though.

When you put in the link you want, it gives you an option to choose what format you would like from a list:

• AVI for Windows (DivX + MP3)
• MOV for Mac (MPEG4 + MP3)
• MP4 for iPOD/PSP (MPEG4 + AAC)
• 3GP for mobile (MPEG4 + AAC)
• MP3 (audio only)

So you can pick what format you want based on what you plan on using it on. Then hit start and off you go. It is downloaded to their server and converted from a .flv to whatever format you chose and a download link is provided. This cuts out all of the other troublesome steps of the other websites that provide YouTube download links. In particular, it saves you the trouble of converting a .flv to an .avi or .mov or any of the other formats.

Of course because the DivX codec is used for the Windows option, you will need to have DivX installed on your computer, but then, you can play the video in Windows Media Player or whatever other player you prefer instead of being restricted just to VLC. Besides that, many people already have DivX installed so it's not a very big deal. DivX have both paid and free versions. The free version can be downloaded and provides everything you need to run the files from vixy.net.

There is also a free (with ads) download available from vixy.net of a PC based .flv converter if you already have the .flv files you want. I haven't tried this as of yet, but I gather it is based on the same software the website uses. It is currently only available for Windows but there is a Mac version on the way. Keep in mind that it is still only in beta so it isn't going to be perfect yet.

Alternatively, if you have access to a server you can upload the .flv files to, or if you have seen some on a website where the video url is easy to find, vixy.net will accept these links as well as YouTube ones, so it has a solution for a lot of .flv conversion possibilities.

I hope this helps someone with converting .flv files and downloading YouTube video's.

Labels: internet, software, technology, video clips

This is pretty cool, it's been up for a while now, but GM are using Wordpress for their GMNext website. I've seen some criticism of how it has been implemented, but I think it has been done really nicely.

For more information on Wordpress and Wordpress websites, have a look at the news post on TerraMedia or visit the Wordpress website.

Wordpress is a great alternative to Blogger if you wish to host it yourself as it gives you much more control and functionality. If you don't, Wordpress have a free service similar to Blogger's Blogspot which is also quite a nice alternative to Blogger.

Labels: design, software

I'm a little bit late with this as it was announced over a week ago now, that Netscape Navigator support will end from February 1st and there will be no future development on Netscape Navigator by AOL.

It is interesting to read some of the things in the blog and in the comments about this. For one, I was totally unaware there was still much of a following of the Netscape browser. If you are like me and remember the days where Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were the two most common browsers, then you have seen things change, many of you probably remember further back than that as well. Since the beginning of the Mozilla Foundation and the open sourcing of the Netscape core, Netscape has gradually fallen further and further behind in its user base.

Given that Netscape came to be based on Mozilla and later, Firefox, it seemed to me that the continued development work on Netscape was somewhat pointless as it, in my eyes duplicated the browser for no apparent reason.

Something I found interesting were, in the blog, and also reflected in many of the comments, was this:

"While internal groups within AOL have invested a great deal of time and energy in attempting to revive Netscape Navigator, these efforts have not been successful in gaining market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer."

Why is it that Internet Explorer is the only browser recognized as controlling market share? Once upon a time this was true, but a lot has changed. There are other browsers such as Opera and Firefox that claim their own portions of the market, as well as Safari, Seamonkey, Konqueror and so on. Why is Internet Explorer the only target? If anything, Firefox and Seamonkey should have been the primary competitors as they are based on the same core as Netscape.

In my opinion, Netscape shouldn't have been competing with Internet Explorer so much, but focusing on Firefox and determining what Firefox didn't offer, and building on that. Netscape was once a very useful program, but it has been years since I have even considered it. I haven't used it to test websites in a long time as if it runs in Firefox, it should also be fine in Netscape. Perhaps this has been a bit lax on my part, but if I'm not mistaken, they use the same core code, so they should render the same.

In one comment the following question is raised:

"Netscape's rise and fall symbolizes why it is important for all companies to constantly innovate and litigate when others use unethical tactics to hasten their demise.

Both Internet Explorer and Firefox can after Netscape. Why are they still around?

How did they manage to get popular debuting after one of the most important additions to the beginnings of the World Wide Web? We all know about Microsoft's controversial tactics - but how does one explain FireFox?!

Why did Netscape not compete successfully? Was there internal politics?

We should all learn from this!"

I don't know what the level of knowledge this person has is like, or what experience they have had with web browsers. To me though, why Netscape did not compete successfully comes down to the fact that it was no longer needed. It was no longer a mainstream web browser and competitor to Internet Explorer. Opera and Firefox had filled that place. They both came after Netscape yes, but Netscape didn't compete successfully, because it was competing with itself under a different name, Firefox. I expect that if Netscape had not been open sourced when it was, it would have continued to lose market share to Internet Explorer, and when Opera came around it would have added to the mix, just as it did anyway, and take away more of Netscape's user base.

The open sourcing of Netscape gave it an avenue to thrive and evolve into Firefox through the effort and contributions of the global community.

There is no doubt in my mind that Netscape played a significant role in the evolution of the Internet and web browsing, but in the end it's time was up as an entity. AOL made the right choice to "hand the reins fully to Mozilla", after all, they are essentially the same browser.

If you are one of the Netscape fans, AOL have, as their final development salute, created a Netscape Firefox theme with Netscape extensions to go with. So you can have Firefox appear as close to Netscape as it will get.

It is sad to see Netscape drop out of the game, but since Opera joined the game and the Mozilla Foundation produced Firefox, it's days have been numbered.

A salute to those who kept it going for so long is well deserved, and everyone that has worked on it over the years should be proud to know they helped forge the internet as we see it today, by navigating rather than exploring.

Labels: internet, software, technology

If you remember my blog from when I was looking for MSN for Mac, then you will recall that I mentioned Adium as a solution, however it did not have webcam support, so I kept looking for a different solution.

Adium 1.2 was released yesterday, and while it does not yet have webcam support, it sounds like it is well under way. The update has a lot of bug fixes, and adds a lot more usability to the system including adding more usability to the menu items and account management features.

There is much more than that and for full information have a look at the blog and the 1.2 release post.

It sounds like it will only be a matter of months before webcam support is available for Adium. In the meantime though, I discovered a temporary solution, if you want to use Adium. It's called MeBeam and uses Flash to integrate audio and video support. It does however do this through a web browser rather than directly through the Adium application which may not be suitable for a lot of people.

The audio and video quality is quite good, though there do seem to be a few other minor issues at this stage.

So if you like Adium, perhaps this is a solution for you. I will still be sticking with Mercury Messenger though as the webcam support is more to my preference than what MeBeam offers. Adium does sound like it will be very promising though in the near future with the release of Adium 2 which will include audio and video support.

I also came across a plugin for Adium called XBlaze that adds Xfire support to Adium, and as far as I know is the only Xfire client available on Mac. It still has a few minor bugs, but it appears to be updated relatively frequently. This is as good a reason as any for me to keep Adium on my Mac and up to date, so hopefully we'll see Adium 2 soon with full support for audio and video so I don't need another client.

Labels: software, technology