Window Maker Menus

I have noticed that contemporary Linux desktops have logical well structured application menus that are auto updated every time applications are installed or un-installed. As a devoted user of Window Maker it was a feature I have been missing. My main application menu which requires manual updating had evolved into a complete mess after 8 years of manual editing by me.

To generate the menu in a form Window Maker can display I found that the guys at Arch Linux have a perl script which does exactly that.

To get the script I downloaded the archlinux-xdg-menu package from https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/archlinux-xdg-menu/download/ from Arch Linux. All I needed from the package was xdg_menu perl script. To extract the package and the file use:

tar Jxvf archlinux-xdg-menu-0.7.5.5-1-any.pkg.tar.xz

I copied xdg_menu to the bin directroy in my $HOME directoy. Then using Window Maker's WPrefs config tool I dragged the "Generated Submenu +" menu to my main menu and re-named it "Applications". In the Command field I used the following command:

/home/$USER/bin/xdg_menu --format WindowMaker --fullmenu --root-menu /etc/xdg/menus/applications.menu

Save and close WPrefs, then test the menu.

I thought I might have to modify the script to work in my Debian system but it worked with out modification, same for my Fedora desktop at work.

Note: I have only been able to get this to work in Window Maker version 0.95.4. My home desktop was 0.95.3 and I had to upgrade to the more recent version to get the generated menu to work. If you can't, or don't want to, upgrade you can use the xdg_menu script to create a menu file formatted for Window Maker which can be added using the "External Submenu +" option in WPrefs.

Thanks Apple, what a waste

Found this great piece by Simon Phipps on Twitter.

It's a comment on the new iPhone 5 with it's new connector. Instead of joining every other manufacturer of mobile phones and using the micro USB standard they've gone with their own new propriety connector.

What advantage do they gain by having their own connector? Considering Android devices considerably out number iPhones these days perhaps having a different connector to everyone else is a disincentive to moving from Android to an iPhone.

A couple of years a ago I was looking for a replacement for my much loved iRiver mp3 player and was all set to purchase a Cowon but was discouraged by it's propriety USB connector. I know it probably won't happen but it would be nice if having to deal with yet another flipping USB cable discourages Android, Blackberry and Windows users from migrating to the iPhone.

The Australian Flag

It's the day after Australian day and I have had an overdose of the British blue ensign which in more recent times is also known as the Australian national flag. I say the British Ensign because it is a British Ensign, a flag which is flown to designate something as British.

There was a time when Australia was British. Between the arrival of the first fleet and federation in 1901 Australia was indisputably a British colony. But surely, more that 100 years after federation, and several waves of non British immigration later, that time has past. Our economic and political ties dissolved during the century just past. Britain forgo economic interest in her colonies when she rejected the Commonwealth in favour of the European Union. Politically the last link was broken 30 years ago when the High Court of Australia became the final court of appeal over the Privy Council. So why the Australian national flag still needs to be a British Flag escapes me. We should have long ago followed the lead of Canada and updated our flag to represent an Australian nation rather than a British possession.

So what should the current flag be replaced with? Personally, I think a green and gold colour scheme is a no brainer. As a nation Australia seems to have decided that the only achievements worth achieving are those on the sporting field. Be it cricket, rugby, soccer. or anything else; green and gold has become synonymous with Australian sporting successes. So it seems natural that our flag should also feature the green and gold. My preference is for something simple and elegant, perhaps a dark green flag with gold stars.



Now I know the conservatives are going to jump up down sprouting their usual nonsense, but no, it won't offend the Queen. And no, it won't lead to teenagers taking more drugs and having more sex than they already do. Yes I do know people fought and died under the current flag, but plenty fought and died under the red ensign, and no one batted an eyelid when that was banished by Menzies in 1953.

It's time to change.

Does Secularism Provoke Religious Extremism?

The title of this post is not my own but that of a Lecture* given by Tom Frame in 2007. In that lecture Tom said many things I agree with but I think Tom's religious partisanship has caused the underlying assumption of his Question, and lecture, to be wrong. But since the question has been asked, let's explore it, who is the provocateur? I don't think Tom makes much of a case for his contention. He speaks at length of the tensions between secular atheists and theists as if that proves that Religious extremism is a result of secular or atheistic provocation.

In the lecture Tom says: "Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray, Sam Harris, and Anthony Grayling, just to mention a few, whose active promotion of atheism has included vigorous denunciation of all religion. Sam Harris perhaps the most strident saying for too long have we allowed people these beliefs to have some legitimacy in the public square, they deserve none, they ought to be deprived of what ever remains of what they have. "

This does indeed sound provocative but are not these sorts of comments the result of provocation? I would argue that they are; that religion resents secular society, and yearns for a return to more theocratic times where law and society was subject to theocracy rather than the other way around.

Now to be clear, I don't believe Tom is arguing for, nor want's, theocratic governments. In fact if Tom and I were to sit down and have a beer, or a Twinings, I suspect we'd more or less agree on what a secular society should and shouldn't be. Where I do, disagree with Tom is that the current tensions between the secular and the religious is a result of secular provocation.

I'd like to use Richard Dawkins as and example of why Tom's underlying assumption is incorrect.

Anybody familiar with Dawkins I don't think would dispute that he is on something of a crusade against religion. His TV documentary, The Root Of All Evil and, book The God Delusion are both uncompromising critiques of religion. But this doesn't necessarily make Dawkins the provocateur. I instead I think his critique of religion is a reaction to religious provocation.

Dawkins is an academic specializing in evolutionary biology. This has made him a target of Christian Fundamentalists who have very little time for anyone that contradicts their literal (and often not so literal) interpretation of the Bible. Dawkins work has undoubtedly had a reaction from fundamentalist Christians but it isn't a reaction which is warranted or justified. Furthermore, any provocation by Dawkins through his work on evolutionary biology was completely unintentional. He wasn't trying to tear up Genesis, he was researching the science of evolutionary biology.

The Christian response has however been provocative and is what has provoked Dawkins, admittedly, none to subtle critiques of religion. I don't think Dawkins can be criticized for this, what was he to do when told his work is wrong based on unsubstantiated writings in a 1000 year old book of unknown authorship.

I think the real problem with religion, the theistic religions at least, is their inability to self regulate and to be critical from within. How's this for a provocative statement. "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”. That statement was made by the Christian evangelist Jerry Falwell. And, "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." That was a statement by the so called leader of the free world, born again Christian, George Bush. These are highly provocative and completely outrages statements but it's rare to hear a Christian voice rebuke such comments. Is it any wonder that those of us outside of religion have a decreasing tolerance of religon.

Tom needs to be fair. The so called radical secularists of today are not motivated by an irrational distaste for religion. They are instead responding to an ugly side of religion that has become far too prominent in contemporary western society.

* The quotes in this post are from a podcast downloaded from abc.net.au which unfortunately appears to be no longer available for download. The transcript I have linked to is of the same Lecture but obviously given at a different time. While the content is more or less the same Tom's phrasings do differ.

An Open Letter to John Howard

Dear John

At the present you seem to be running around the U.S. telling anyone who'll listen that Australia is a very silly country for throwing you out of office. One of the reasons you seem to think we Australian's are so silly is that we voted for a new government who promised to pull our troops out of Iraq.

Well Mr Howard, why shouldn't we pull them out? On the 14th of May, 2003 you said in parliament:

"Not only was the military operation completed quickly and successfully but it is also worth recording that all of the doomsday predictions, particularly the many that came from those who sit opposite, were not realised. The oilwells were not set on fire; there were not millions of refugees; the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were not breached to bring on catastrophic flooding; and there was no long, drawn out, bloody, Stalingrad style street-to-street fighting in Baghdad. For all of this we must be immensely grateful, but it is a reminder of the hysteria and the doomsday predictions that often accompany operations of this kind. And, just as many of the predictions about a Western Front style holocaust that were made in 1991 when the land war commenced were proved wrong, so the predictions on this occasion have been proved wrong."

So if, "the military operation completed quickly and successfully", why are our troops still there, and why can't we pull them out? But that isn't all you said. You went on to say:

"The decisive victory of the American led coalition reflects enormous credit on the strength and the determination of the leadership of President Bush. Again I remind the House of the way in which his role was vilified and traduced by many of those who sit opposite and of the way in which speaker after speaker from the Australian Labor Party impugned his integrity, assaulted his judgment and called into question his ability to lead the United States in this very difficult conflict. History has proved them wrong."

History proved who wrong Mr Howard? There was no victory was there? If there was I doubt we would have needed a surge. Looking the situation as it exists now in March 2008 no one who has "impugned" the "integrity", "assaulted" the "judgment", or has "called into question" the "ability" of President Bush been proved wrong. No Mr Howard, it is you who has been proved wrong. By both the electorate and history.

But, speaking of wars, lets look at another of your favorite wars, the Culture Wars.

I know this might be a silly question, considering your predilection for claiming victory in un-won wars, but are you still claiming victory in the "Culture Wars"? If you are still claiming victory, what was the Sorry Day about? Looked a lot like a repudiation of your version of Australian culture and history to me!

So before you do another of your US speaking gigs a bit of introspection might be in order. I'd hate for you get anything else wrong.

Best Regards Zeff

Why Does Everyone Want to Sleep With Microsoft?

I just don't get it, why does everyone want to get into bed with Microsoft? It always ends in tears with the unlucky bedfellow usually catching something which causes their health to deteriorate rapidly thereafter. In the full knowledge of Microsoft's long list of jilted lovers there is active lobbying to have a Microsoft open source license approved by the OSI.

My first question is why do they need their own? If Microsoft really wants to participate in the open source world what better way to demonstrate that commitment than by using an existing OSI approved license. There are 59 listed on the OSI website, surely one of those will suit Microsoft's purposes.

But no, Microsoft want their own and considering all the intimidatory things Microsoft has said about Linux and Open Source is it any wonder many in the open source world are skeptical.

Matt Asay in support of approving the license wrote:

It would be morally wrong, in my worldview, to discriminate against Microsoft in this endeavor.

No Matt it is not "morally wrong" to discriminate against those that seek to harm you! Isn't this the same company that says Linux, Samba, and OpenOffice.org infringe it's patents illegally using Microsoft's intellectual property? Isn't this the company that called Open Source a cancer and equated it to communism. Isn't this the same company that is threatening to sue Open Source end users?

I think Glyn Moody has it right about Microsoft's courting of OSI. He connects it with Microsoft's attempts to have OOXML approved as an ISO standard.

Microsoft is aiming to blunt the undeniable power of openness by hollowing it out. If OOXML is an open standard, and some of its own software licences become OSI-approved, Microsoft will be able to claim that it, too, is an open standard, open source company.

This smells an awful lot like Embrace, Extend, Extinguish so lets avoid the embrace.

"the be very afraid tour"

Eben Moglen

I love this video. To me it marks a turning point, a turning point in the fortunes of Microsoft.

About half way through the video while describing Microsoft's clumsy attempts to intimidate the Free Software Community the audience starts the laugh. Eben tries to continue but also starts to laugh and says "I know, it sounds absurd, I know".

What does this mean? Well it means Microsoft have shown us part of it's hand, part of what it hopes is a winning hand. And what happens? We're laughing.

Not the response the strategists at Microsoft were expecting!

The Microsoft strategists would do well to read Mark Shuttleworth's blog, he has a really good handle on it.

"The real threat to Linux is the same as the real threat to Microsoft, and that is a patent suit from a person or company that is NOT actually building software, but has filed patents on ideas that the GNU project and Microsoft are equally likely to be implementing."

But as clumsy as Microsoft's behaviour is, and as counter productive as it is too their own image lets not forget it is very very poor behaviour! I think Leo LaPorte and Steve Gibson summed it up best on the Security Now podcast.

"So here's what's so frustrating, too, is that the fact that Microsoft won't name the patents prevents anyone from curing the problem that Microsoft is complaining about. So they really don't want the problem cured."

When gangsters do this it is call extortion or a protection racket, why should it be any different when Microsoft does it?