iPad Revalations

February 20, 2010 – 3:19 PM

At the outset I counted myself among the underwhelmed by the iPad. But after letting the idea stew for some time and reading the copious analysis of the upcoming device, I’ve gradually warmed to the idea of it and start to find myself wandering into that camp that believes it may just represent a new future for computing.

Today, for completeness’ sake, I’m publishing my initial reaction (which I sat on for a long time but which I think still has some merit), and the more considered article you’re now reading.

The Computer Haters
I’ll admit that I don’t get the iPad. I don’t yet fully grok it. But I’m getting there.

But then, the iPad isn’t made for someone like me. I love computers, in all their complexity and creative potential. They’re like a never-ending puzzle for me to tinker with. Or a creative impetus. A springboard. I love computing for computing’s sake. I’m a SysAdmin. I’m a geek. I’m a nerd.

But there is an untapped segment of users out there. People for whom the existing computing paradigm is needlessly complex and frustratingly obscure. They don’t know what a browser is; they don’t know the difference between closing a window and quitting an application; they don’t give a rat’s ass about folder hierarchies. They are the computer haters, and finally someone has made a computer for them.

I’ve long felt that computers were too complex for most people. Why, just the other day, in fact, I actually punched my CentOS-running Dell as it finally rankled my last frayed nerve, a crash in a never-ending series of frustrations. If there are parts of computing that even I, as a SysAdmin, find deeply annoying — and believe me, there are plenty — imagine what someone who doesn’t even particularly like computers goes through. It must be awful.

The iPad is an attempt to reverse that experience, to take what was once a source of pain and frustration and make it a joy. It’s pure lemons-from-lemonade stuff. From everything I’ve read, the iPad is simply delightful to use. What other computer can that be said of?

The Future of Computing
Matt Gemell has a wonderful entreaty aimed at computer hardware and software makers:
http://mattgemmell.com/2010/02/05/how-to-compete-with-ipad

In it he implores these companies to realize that in order to compete with the iPad they’ll have to take a similar approach. They’ll have to truly meld both great hardware and great software. The thing is, I’m not sure what company is in a position to do this right now.

Reading his article, I realized something: not only is Apple positioning themselves as leaders of the next computing revolution with the iPad by staking their claim in an as-yet-unclaimed segment of the computing market — i.e., the aforementioned computer users who hate computers — but, more significantly, they’re doing so in a way that Apple itself is uniquely suited to serving.

One of the things that’s defined Apple as a company has been the fact that it produces both hardware and software. In particular, Apple makes its own devices — computers, media players, phones —  and also makes the operating systems that run them. No other computer company currently does this. But, as Gemell argues, to make something like an iPad, to make the next generation of computers for computer haters, requires a perfect synthesis of hardware and software. And right now Apple is the only game in town. The only companies I can think of offhand who do anything similar are not computer companies, they’re phone companies. Palm comes to mind.

I’ve always favored the Apple production model. I think it’s a big part of why they make superior products. And I agree that, if the iPad truly represents the next big thing in computing, this approach will be essential to creating competitive devices. Right now I don’t see a company that’s got the considerable resources needed to take this on. But I think it’s high time someone give it a shot.

It’s Not a Computer… Yet…
My original take on the iPad was that it’s not a creative device. It’s more for consuming media rather than making stuff, and for that reason it more closely resembles an iPod than it does a computer. In fact, I can do more with my iPhone than I can with the iPad. At least in its current incarnation.

I have little doubt, however, that a camera will be added to the iPad in short measure. And I have little doubt that the iPad will grow more capable and more computer-like over time. What will be most interesting to see will be the degree to which the iPad can function as a standalone device. If it requires a computer to sync to — the way iPhones and iPods do, a fact I’ve always found irritating — I fear it will be relegated to some strange media-playing niche. But if the iPad — or some more computer-esque spin-off, perhaps — eventually manages to function unfettered, as a standalone device, I do think that, for the legion of computer haters out there, the iPad really could be the only computer they ever need, that it could in fact be the computer of the future.

All of this, of course, remains to be seen. But it will be interesting to watch it all play out. Whether I buy one or not, I’ll be very interested to try the iPad, and even more interested in what happens next with this curious and potentially revolutionary product.

LINKS
Finally, here are some of my favorite takes on the iPad announcement.

Grandmas:
http://northtemple.com/2010/02/01/on-ipads-grandmas-and-gam

Agrees With Me:
http://earthlingsoft.net/ssp/blog/2010/01/ipad

The Revolution:
http://www.macworld.com/article/146040/2010/02/ipad.html

Ihnatko:
http://www.suntimes.com/technology/ihnatko/2017907,ihnatko-ipad-hands-on-012810.article

On Aspect Ratio:
http://www.macworld.com/article/146035/2010/02/ipad_screen.html

On Empathy:
http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/02/the_failure_of_empathy.php

On Competing:
http://mattgemmell.com/2010/02/05/how-to-compete-with-ipad

Almost Forgot

This is also so brilliant:
http://www.eod.com/blog/2010/02/the-days-of-miracles-and-wonde/

By systemsboy | Posted in Hardware | Comments (0)

It’s Not a Computer

February 20, 2010 – 3:11 PM

Remember the ads for Kindergarten Cop? Kids pointing at Arnold’s oversized biceps and he exclaiming, “It’s not a tumor!” That’s what keeps going through my head, only instead of Arnold’s muscles it’s an iPad. And it’s my face superimposed onto his body saying, over and over, in my best faux Austrian accent, “It’s not a computer!”

Computers Rock!

See that picture? The one just above this paragraph? I made that. I took an image from Kindergarten Cop and composited an image of Apple’s latest device onto it. I did this on my MacBook Pro. I did this on my computer. You can’t do this on an iPad.

When I think of a computer I think of a device used for making stuff. Images, websites, videos and music. These are all things I can create on my computer. A computer is a creative tool. A tool for self-expression.

An iPod, on the other hand, is not. An iPod is a device used for consuming stuff. You watch movies and listen to music on it. Maybe play some games. An iPod is an entertainment device.

Dude, It’s an iPod
If you’re wondering where the iPad fits into this picture, I can tell you, very plainly: it’s an iPod.

Aside from the obvious onstage demos featuring people watching movies and playing games, there are a bunch of subtle cues that reinforce this fact.

For one, the iPad’s default orientation is vertical, unlike a computer, but exactly like an iPod.

The fact that the iPad moniker so closely resembles that of the iPod is another hint that this is just a new kind of iPod. “Slate” or (my favorite) “Canvas” would have implied an inappropriate level of creative capability. iPad, connotations notwithstanding, hits just the right note and tells users exactly what this thing is for. I initially thought MacBook was a silly name, but now it strikes me as just fine. I suspect the same will happen with iPad.

Finally, the iPad has no camera. My computer has a camera on it. So does my phone. But the iPad, like other iPods, has no camera. While it does have a microphone, there seem to be very few ways to use the iPad to make stuff. And I think that’s because it’s made mainly for consuming stuff.

Just like an iPod.

So, Do I Want One?
When the iPhone came out it was clearly a game-changing moment. It was so new and amazing looking, I just had to have it. Of course it didn’t hurt that I hated my current phone and my phone service provider passionately. But now I have a great phone. And a great computer that I love. And I’ve never been much of an iPod user. In fact, I never really used an iPod until it was built into my phone.

I will say, I am intrigued by the iPad interface. And if it were $300 I’d probably get one just for fun. But as it stands, I’m not impressed enough to pay the fairly high premium for what amounts to a fancy portable TV.

On the other hand, I keep thinking of all sorts of people I might like to get one for as a gift. My stepfather, for instance. He loves gadgets, but hates computers. He’d love an iPhone, but can’t use AT&T.  An iPad, though, might just be the thing. In fact, the iPad might just be the first computer for computer haters. (Of course without AT&T his iPad would have no Internet connection as my parents refuse to get broadband, but you get the general idea.)

The other thing the iPad looks to excel at is reading. Apple even claims it’s “The best way to experience the web…” And I don’t doubt it. From its very book-like aspect ratio and size to its resolution and reading capabilities, the iPad looks like it was made for reading stuff on. Someday I may end up chucking my physical book collection for a digital replacement — probably the next time I move — but for now I remain squarely a real book guy. Let’s face it, there’s something to be said for physicality, and books are kinda great just the way they are. Still, if there’s anything that could tempt me to go digital, even if only partly, something like the iPad would be it. And reading is the one thing the iPad probably does better than anything I’ve got now. For me it’s the most compelling reason to consider getting one.

The Kludgy Bits
In addition to not offering much in the way of unique functionality, there are too many areas in which the iPad fails to win me over to really consider getting one. That case, for one, is ridiculous. How is that thing a Jonathan Ive-designed accessory? It looks like the big giant three-ringed binders my mom would bring home from her government job for me to put my reports in. This is what I have to use if I want to watch a movie without holding the thing in my hand for two hours? Uh, we have a term for that in the business: it’s called lame.

A Lame Afterthought

Keyboard accessibility should also prove useful, but the lack of mouse input means you’ll still have to poke at the screen to do any clicking. The keyboard is clearly for text entry only. You won’t be using this like a regular computer, at least not in its current incarnation. But then, as I’ve said already, it’s not a computer.

The port of iWork seems like a bit of a misfire to me as well. It seems like this was more a proof of concept attempt to show how great desktop apps can work in the iPad’s touch environment than anything particularly useful. Much more useful — to me anyway — would have been a port of the iLife suite. That would have been intensely cool, and iLife is something lots of people want to use. iWork is a much more marginal product aimed at the business market, which the iPad is not. An iLife would have been much more ambitious, but also more appropriate. And it would have positioned the iPad as more of a creative device it also might have highlighted the lack of camera, though. I hope that someday, however, iLife does get ported. That would go a long way towards making the iPad an appealing product to someone like me.

Finally, if I were to get an iPad, I’d want one with 3G. This will not only run me an extra $130 clams, I’ll also incur yet another monthly data charge from AT&T. But wait. I already have a data plan with AT&T. Can someone please tell me why I have to buy another? If I add a computer to my home network my ISP doesn’t charge me more. I don’t need a separate new plan for that. Why is this not the case for my iPad. This just seems like a completely unnecessary money grab. And another barrier to entry for me.

It’s Not All Bad
Despite my gripes, the iPad has much to offer conceptually. It’s been said that the iPad itself isn’t terribly revolutionary technologically speaking, but that what it represents is, and that what it represents is nothing less than a paradigm shift in personal computing. People who know a lot more than I do are proclaiming this the future of desktop computing and saying that iPad-style interaction is how many of us will soon work with computers. I don’t dispute this claim. In fact I think it’s pretty likely. While the iPad itself may not be a computer it has the potential to be much more than a large iPod. It has the potential to be a computer. And it could be a very interesting and popular one at that. There is little doubt that the iPad represents what Apple sees as the next logical step for the computing experience an it’s evolution over the next five to ten years. They’re thinking several steps down the line. And while I’m thinking and complaining about what the iPad is or isn’t, they’re thinkng about what it will be. And they’re probably right.

In fact, now that I think of it, I probably should have called this article “It’s not a Computer… Yet.”

But my main hope, as a creative person, is that the focus of computing remains primarily one of creation. Computers are distinct from television in no small part because they are interactive and because you can use them to make stuff. I’d hate to see mainstream computing lose sight of this fact. The last thing people need is more ways to watch TV.

By systemsboy | Posted in Hardware | Comments (0)

Magic Mouse

January 7, 2010 – 10:00 AM

I got a Magic Mouse for Christmas, and I like it a lot better than I thought I would. When first hearing about it, I thought the Magic Mouse sounded amazing, like a combination of the best features of a mouse and a trackpad (yes, I’m addicted to two-finger scrolling) without the mechanical deficiencies of past mice. Then I began reading people’s experiences, in particular, gripes about the lack of configurability of gestures provided by the Mouse preference pane.

Magic Mouse Preferences

But I got one anyway, if for no other reason than I had to see for myself. And I must say, I’m mighty impressed. The mouse works quite well for my purposes. I can use it on our leather couch with minimal tracking glitches. And in most respects it simply behaves like a normal, decent cordless mouse, which is extremely useful now that I’m all portable and junk.

But what really makes the Magic Mouse something special is that you can, in theory, make it behave however you want. And that theory becomes practice with the installation of a single piece of software: MagicPrefs (or the more configurable, but less user-friendly BetterTouchTool, which also allows you to configure your trackpad).

MagicPrefs Preferences

MagicPrefs Preferences

MagicPrefs allows you to configure your Magic Mouse with whatever multi-touch gestures you want. I really like the fact that it allows you to disable single-finger scrolling and replace it with two-finger scrolling on the Magic Mouse. This alone has reduced the huge number of accidental scrolls I’ve made and has allowed me to match the way I use the mouse and the trackpad.

With MagicPrefs I’ve also assigned Exposé to multi-finger clicks on my Magic Mouse, bringing back a missing feature of my old Mighty Mouse.

Out of the box I’m quite satisfied with my Magic Mouse. And multi-touch gestures make it possibly the coolest mouse I’ve ever used.

By systemsboy | Posted in Applications, Hardware | Comments (4)

Google Chrome Beta

January 4, 2010 – 10:00 AM

Google’s finally released a beta version of their browser for the Mac. I’m surprised at how impressive I’m finding it. Here are some initial observations:

  • “Reopen Closed Tab”
    Google Chrome allows you to reopen the last tab you closed, which is an insanely useful feature I don’t seem to be able to live without anymore, and a big reason I keep using Firefox. It’s a deal-breaker.

  • Saves your session
    Chrome allows you to reopen your tabs and windows from the last session, just like in Firefox.

  • Username memory
    Another Firefox fave is that is reliably remembers my form data without having to save my passwords. Safari never does this quite right for me, but Google Chrome nails it.

  • Uses the Mac OS X Keychain to store passwords
    If you did want to use Chrome to store your passwords, it’ll do so using Mac OS X’s native Keychain mechanism, which I greatly prefer to Firefox’s app-based mechanism.
  • Nice looking, native looking appearance
    I like the way Google Chrome looks, and it uses the same rendering engine as Safari, so it tends to render pages better than Firefox.
  • URL completion based on text inside the string (a la Firefox’s “Awesome Bar”)
    Chrome has the ability to suggest a URL even when you type in a part of the URL that occurs in its middle. I use this every day to get to my Wordpress admin page by simply typing “wp” in Firefox.
  • Uses the native Mac OS X spellchecker
    Chrome, like Safari, uses the native spellchecker, making it better integrated with the OS than Firefox.
  • No Snow Leopard Text Substitutions
    Snow Leopard brought with it Text Substitutions — handy for filling in usernames and password, and something I was really looking forward  to using. But non-Cocoa applications must be written to take advantage of them. Safari has them; Firefox does not. Nor does Chrome. Bummer.

    Text Substitutions in Safari

  • Text entry doesn’t take key commands (bold, ital.) like it does in FF
    Firefox still wins at text entry, particularly when composing my blog posts. Firefox allows for Mac OS X key-commands for bolding (command-b) and italicizing (command-i) text. Chrome, like Safari, currently lacks this functionality. A minor nit, sure, but something I always note as an area in which Firefox is more native in behavior than Safari.
  • Nice looking developer tools
    Chrome’s developer tools look to be on par with Safari’s. To get something comparable in Firefox you need to install Firefly. I prefer the native tools if I can get ‘em.

  • When opening a new tab via a link in the current tab, the new tab opens directly to the right of the current tab
    Oddly, this behavior mimics what I’ve seen on the iPhone. I don’t really like it there, and I’m pretty sure I won’t like it in Chrome either.
  • You can hold shift while opening/closing a new tab to watch the animation in slow motion
    On a purely gee-whiz note, Chrome lets you watch tab animations in slow motion by initiating them while holding the shift key, just like the Mac OS X Finder and Dock do.
  • Fast! Wicked fast
    Chrome seems to be about on par with Safari in terms of launch and load speeds. Which is to say, fast. Very fast.
  • Cold, Cruel Irony
    Finally, for some odd reason, the page Chrome consistently has trouble with is my Gmail. I know, I know, it’s beta, but really.

When testing out a new browser there are a handful of features I look for first. In particular, I’m addicted to Firefox’s ability to save window and tab sessions at quit, to undo the closing of an individual tab directly after the fact, and to remember my usernames on login pages without having to save my passwords. It’s also essential for any browser to be able to handle the plethora of web-based forms and apps I use on a regular basis, apps such as the Wordpress backend I’m using to post this article, for instance. Finally, I look for features that I miss in Firefox. These are features that are generally present in Safari, things like native look and feel, speed, and Keychain integration. I suppose my ideal browser is a combination of Firefox and Safari, so that’s generally what I’m looking for when testing them out.

With its unique ability to treat each tab and window as a separate process, Google Chrome takes an innovative approach to a web browser while still employing the best features of both Safari and Firefox. Many of the things that make me staunchly stick to Firefox — saved sessions, the ability to undo a closed tab — are present, as are many of the features that make me wish I could use Safari — native good looks, speed, keychain integration. There’s still a lot missing from this beta. Bookmarks in particular are half-baked, lacking the ability, for instance, to open a group of bookmarks in tabs. And after using Firefox for the past few years, there may be extensions from its vast plugin ecosystem I may find myself unable to live without. Nevertheless, once mature, Google Chrome looks to be a strong contender for my primary browser. There’s a lot here to like, and this is only a beta. The Mac Google Chrome team should be very proud.

By systemsboy | Posted in Applications, Interface | Comments (2)

My Tech of the Decade

December 31, 2009 – 1:31 PM

As is the norm for this time of year, the web’s full of top ten lists. And the portion of the web I read on a regular basis is naming their top ten tech items of the decade. In that spirit I thought I’d post about the most significant piece of technology from my decade, the one thing that, more than any other, shaped my life for the past ten years. Looking back now I realize that there’s only one thing that really qualifies: Mac OS X.

I began seriously using computers late in life. It wasn’t until graduate school that I even owned one. In 1998 I got my first computer, a beige G3. The original G3. It ran Mac OS 9, of course, because that’s all there was, but I loved it, and it’s on this computer that I really cut my systems teeth. It was the beginning of what would later become my career in systems.

A few years later I got my first real systems job at an art school in New York City. In the interview I claimed that there was “no Mac problem I couldn’t fix,” confident in my knowledge of the simple Mac OS. Little did I know there were major changes on the horizon.

At that job there was a QuickTime Streaming Server under my purview. It ran Mac OS X Server 1.0 and provided me my first experience with what would eventually become Mac OS X. It was very strange looking, had UNIX shell access, and was not like any Mac I was used to using. I can’t say I ever quite fully understood that system, but it did give me a good deal of advanced experience, a chance to learn about what was coming. It was like that Terminator arm that Cyberdyne finds that leads to the rise of Skynet and the end of the world. I have to admit, I found it terrifying.

Mac OS X Server 1.0

Mac OS X Server 1.0

When Mac OS X 10.0 finally came out and I began poking around its internals, that fear crystallized. This was an entirely new animal, far more complex and mysterious than my simple, easy-to-manage Mac OS 9. Suddenly I had our UNIX sysadmin knocking on my door, wanting to look at it, trying to show my how to use the command-line. I would have none of it. “Sure, the command-line is useful,” I’d say, “but it’s not the Mac way.”

Mac OS X 10.0

Nonetheless, as the new platform progressed I found myself forced to learn more and more about it. And the more I learned, the more I realized some things. For one, it turned out I really liked Mac OS X. Here was a system that, while infinitely more complex than its predecessor, was infinitely more powerful as well. I also realized that, though it was challenging, I was capable of handling the new OS, and capable of learning far more than I ever realized. But, perhaps most importantly, I discovered that I liked learning about Mac OS X. For the first time I realized that I liked systems work in and of itself. That realization, for me, was life changing.

As time went on, the OS became increasingly sophisticated, and I grew more confident in my abilities along with it (these days I’m even pretty proficient in the command-line). Before long I was doing lectures on the OS and had solidified a career in systems administration.

Mac OS X 10.6

Mac OS X 10.6

It’s now ten years later, and the OS is fully mature, advanced even. And I’m still doing systems administration and finding it fascinating. It’s a trend that doesn’t seem to have an end in sight.

These days I work for a prominent New York museum and my job involves far less Mac administration and far more programming. I’ve built a web app and even learned how to program certain video hardware as well as the mysteries and intricacies of serial data. It’s all been on-the-job training, learning on the fly. But without those formative experiences with Mac OS X I doubt I’d ever have had the confidence to do what I’m doing now. Mac OS X taught me that I was good with technology, that I enjoyed it, and that my capacity for learning was far greater than I ever realized. These were powerful discoveries that have led me to where I am in life. So I just wanted to acknowledge, here, at the end of the decade, my admiration and affection toward this amazing piece of technology.

By systemsboy | Posted in MacOSX | Comments (0)

A Home Page To Nowhere

December 2, 2009 – 10:00 AM

I very much appreciate Firefox’s ability to save and restore my window and tab settings every time I quit and relaunch the app. It’s one of my favorite things about Firefox.

Firefox Startup and Home Page Settings

Firefox Startup and Home Page Settings

But I seem to remember that there was once a way to enable this feature while also having Firefox open new blank windows, that is, empty windows with no web page loaded. I believe this was an independent setting in Firefox 2, but now the only place I see such a setting is in the startup behavior, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to turn off my session restore behavior.

By default, Firefox 3 opens all new windows with your homepage. If you try to leave this setting blank, Firefox 3 will use its own branded Google search page. But there is a way to tell Firefox to make your home page an empty one. Instead of using a URL in the Home Page field of the Main preferences tab, use about:blank. By doing so you’re telling Firefox that a blank page is your home page, and thence onward Firefox will open all new windows empty, blank, bare as white paper. And that is just great.

Much Better!

Much Better!

If you’re like me, you don’t need to see your home page every time you open a new window. In fact, there’s no page I want to see every time I open a new window. It seems like a goofy default. I wish the Firefox devs would either bring back the preference to open new windows sans content or change the default to a blank page the way it is with new tabs. It just makes more sense.

Until they do, though, I’ll be setting my homepage to nowhere.

By systemsboy | Posted in Applications, Interface | Comments (0)

Software Update Downloader

November 20, 2009 – 12:22 PM

There are at least a few folks who are less than happy with Apple’s decision to remove the option to download and keep updates from the Software Update application in Snow Leopard. I count myself among them.

Though the option may be gone from the GUI, however, it still exists in the command line version. Rob Griffiths solution is to use the command:

softwareupdate -d

There are a couple problems with this. The first is that the command, as listed in Mr. Griffiths article, doesn’t do anything, at least not when I run it. From what I can tell the command requires the -a flag. So if you want it to actually work, it should look like:

softwareupdate -d -a

This will download everything you don’t already have to a directory that the Software Update app can see (/Library/Updates). Now we’re off to a more promising start.

The other problem with this method is that it doesn’t offer a great deal of things you normally get with the GUI. In particular, as Pierre Igot points out, you don’t get a progress indicator. Which really blows, I agree.

You also don’t get prompted to install the updates once downloading has finished. To that end, I’ve written a little Automator Service. The service, when launched from any Services menu in any app, will prompt you to continue with this confirmation box:

Once you click OK, the download will begin. When the download is complete, the service will copy the new updates to an Updates folder at the top level your home account (~/Updates) for safe keeping.

Once copying has finished, the Software Update app will launch and ask you if you want to install the updates you just downloaded. Just install as normal. Let Software Update do its business.

In the end everything will get installed and you’ll be left with copies of all the updates in your home account for later use, all with only a single download.

While I can’t really offer a progress bar, I like this better than the alternatives. It more closely approximates the old “Install and Keep” Software Update method than having to go and open the Terminal and do all that stuff as individual steps. And it’s almost as user-friendly, being activated from a drop-down menu, just like Software Update usually is.

So here it is. The Software Update Download service:
Software Update Download Service

Download it, unstuff it and put it in ~/Library/Services. You should be able to launch it from the Services menu in any application.

A minor disclaimer: this service has mostly worked well for me, but there was one instance in which it seems to have had troubles. In particular, it seemed to choke on the latest iWork ‘09 updates. This may have been a fluke, or it may have had something to do with that particular update. I honestly don’t know. But if you have troubles, let me know in the comments of this article. I’ll do my best to figure out what’s wrong as I’m using this in my own workflow. But consider this a beta at best; it’s been through minimal testing.

Also, you should be able to open the workflow up in Automator and make adjustments to the behavior if you so please. Feel free to do so and let me know about it in the comments.

Enjoy!

By systemsboy | Posted in ScriptSharing, SnowLeopard | Comments (15)

Archives: Redux

November 15, 2009 – 1:09 PM

My recent Archives article was met with some controversy and debate, which is great. I love controversy and debate, and a terrific discussion ensued. That discussion has led me to think a bit harder on my archive plan, and I’d like to follow up on the matter with some of the specifics of said plan, and expand on some of the ideas touched on therein.

It’s Personal
In the Archives post I basically said I’d be archiving all my “non-essential data” to hard drives and reserving optical media archives for only the most essential archives. I should first point out that what I am talking about here is my personal data. This is not necessarily a method I’d use at work or for a client. Archive methods should be specific to the needs of the situation.

The Future
One of my rationales for using hard drives was that hard drives are more likely than optical to be accessible in 10 years with the equipment of the day. It’s this particular idea that received a great deal of criticism, and I’m starting to see why.

Just a few weeks ago I had occasion to archive some museum kiosks that ran from some very old PowerMacs. Luckily, these PowerMacs were just barely of the era when ATA drives were starting to be used as internal drives on Macs. Getting the data off these systems was fairly straightforward. I simply hooked PowerMacs’ the ATA drives up to a firewire case and archived the data to DMG. Shortly thereafter, however, I wanted to perform a similar process with a slightly earlier vintage PowerMac. This machine, however, contained a SCSI drive. And finding a way to access and archive this drive proved almost impossible without going to extreme lengths and making obscure hardware purchases. Had there been some kind of optical archive of these systems, I would have almost certainly been able to pull a backup using today’s equipment.

I’m not sure what the future of optical media is. Until recently, I was pretty convinced it was not long for this world and would surely be displaced as a distribution medium by the web. But after thinking on the comments to that article, and talking to people way smarter than me on such matters, I realize I may be wrong. And if that’s the case, optical will be more likely to be readable than hard drives ten years in the future. But whatever the case, this is certainly true for media from ten years ago. You’re more likely to be able to read ten year old optical media than you are hard drives of that era.

Non-Essential Data
That said, I’d like to clarify the “non-essential data” qualifier I tossed in in the article. To be clear, I’m not completely eschewing optical media for my archives. What the article represented was my shift from optical as my only form of backup to hard drives as a significant if not primary form of data backup and archive.

To get even more specific, in the past I archived everything to optical media. But with the huge amounts of data I now collect, that’s not really so practical anymore, nor is it necessary. So these days the bulk of my data — large, non-essential data, things like ripped DVDs, video captures from tape, software installers, and data with a shelf life (i.e. that is only useful for a period of time or that relies on old versions of software or hardware) etc. — will be archived to hard drive. This will allow easy storage and retrieval. And it should last long enough. The idea is that this data isn’t forever data. It’s stuff I want to keep around for a while, but if I haven’t needed it in ten years, I probably won’t ever need it again.

More important data — of which there’s really not that much, but stuff like big video projects (sans captured media), photos, my websites, contacts, stuff that would really kill me to lose — I’ll be burning to optical. That way I have double backups of it (I’ll also keep it in the hard drive archive), and I’ll have it on a more robust medium that may have a better chance of being readable than hard drives in the future.

So what’s really going on here, for me, is a prioritization of my data backups that’s reflected in my archive procedures. With this prioritization, I can now rely much more heavily on hard drives as an archive medium. Using hard drives I can back up and access a lot more stuff with much greater ease and speed. Doing this allows me to use optical media only for the most important data. But make no mistake: optical will still be an important component in my backup strategy.

Live Archive
I wanted to also take a minute to mention one way hard drives are somewhat future-proof and useful as a true archive, and this is the idea of a live, rolling archive.

In the lab where I used to work we kept — or tried  to keep — a long-term archive of all student work that was accessible to incoming students so that they could look at and benefit from the work of their predecessors. Our students made all sorts of work, from web projects to video and animation projects to installations. And their work was initially being archived to all manner of media, from tape media to optical. There was no standard. By the time I got involved there were projects going back ten or fifteen years, and it was becoming clear that, no matter what medium we used today, we’d need to re-archive everything every so often as data access techniques and hardware evolved. I believe that, in a case like this, where the archive is constantly growing and reaches back well over ten years, but to which access is always required, the concept of the hard-drive-as-archive-medium is a sound one. The implementation would be fairly simple in concept: everything — the entire archive — is kept on a hard drive to which the community has access. As the archive grows, say every few years, it is transferred to larger storage. As storage standards change, it is transferred to the latest greatest medium of the day. Of course, redundant backups are also kept of the entire archive. But since this data is constantly being re-archived, hard drives — or whatever replaces them in the future — make for a sensible way to have a rolling, live archive, and reduce the need for more permanent solutions like optical. Perhaps Chucky, in the comments to Archives, put it best:

“In other words, hard drive archival demands cycling your backups over time to new hard drives with fresh magnetic media and evolving HD interfaces.”

I guess the overarching lesson here, if there is one, is that your archive method should reflect the specifics of your situation; there is no one archive method for everyone. The corollary to that, for me, is that hard drives can (and will) now be a significant part of my archive method.

By systemsboy | Posted in Hardware, Systems | Comments (6)

The Real Cloud

November 10, 2009 – 10:00 AM

When I first saw the title of this article over at Ars I rolled my eyes:
Cloud Computing: a short introduction

Then I read it.

It turns out to be an incredibly thorough, yet brief, technical description of the term Cloud Computing. The article does a great job of defining Grid Computing and then uses that definition as point of comparison to arrive at a very real and very useful definition of The Cloud. I’ll be a little less embarrassed to use the term after reading it. Only a little. But still…

Well worth a read for anyone who needs some clarity on the whole Cloud thing.

By systemsboy | Posted in Internet, Systems | Comments (0)

Why We Tell You To Reboot: Redux

November 9, 2009 – 10:00 AM

I recently wrote an article, entitled Why We Tell You To Reboot, that described a Final Cut Pro bug which, after going to great troubleshooting lengths, I was ultimately only able to solve by a simple reboot. Shortly after posting I received a single comment from a fellow admin and blogger:

“You really tell people to reboot for no particular reason?

I don’t believe we should accept that standard from OS X, and what kind of an IT person are you if you’re blindly proposing solutions without any reasoning to back them up?”

What kind, indeed.

I posted a response to the comment that basically explained my position in a nutshell, but I thought it was worth writing a follow-up on the question, both for thoroughness and for those who didn’t happen by the comments section of the previous article, or who may have had a similar reaction.

Reboot!

Reboot!

When a user comes to me with a problem, my primary goal is to fix the problem and get the user working again. Typically what happens is that we have a little discussion about what’s going on. Once I feel I have a good handle on the symptoms, often the next words out of my mouth are, “Did you reboot?” If the answer is no, and the situation permits, I will recommend that they do so. Rebooting is often my first step in troubleshooting.

I believe (though I can’t be completely sure) that my commenter took issue with the approach because blindly telling the user to reboot to solve problems gives the sysadmin no information about what those problems are and what caused them. But in fact, as I’ll demonstrate in a moment, it’s not blind, and it does tell us one important thing: rebooting either solves or doesn’t solve the problem. This in and of itself can be crucial troubleshooting information if there is a deeper problem at work.

But the fact of the matter is that, probably 80% of the time, there is no deeper issue. The fact is that rebooting routinely fixes problems with no other practical solution, such as the one I described in my article. Moreover, it provides the end-user with a method of troubleshooting that is likely to achieve the desired results — allowing them to get the system or an application back to a working condition — without the need for admin intervention. This is win-win: it saves both the user and me time and energy and, by determining whether or not a reboot is helpful, still provides valuable troubleshooting information.

I would even argue that rebooting should almost always be the first step in troubleshooting. When a user comes to me with a problem, I have no idea what they’ve been doing on that system. I have no idea how many nor which applications they have open. I have no idea what sorts of preferences they’ve set. There’s simply no way for me to reliably predict the state the user has put their machine in, and thus whether or not this is a system- or user-level problem. The only way for me to get things back to some semblance of a known, working state is to reboot the system. Rebooting has myriad benefits, not the least of which are: clearing stale caches; recreating network connections; and freeing up RAM and disk space. In fact, it seems almost crazy to proceed with most troubleshooting without first rebooting.

You may have noticed that I keep saying that rebooting should almost always be the first troubleshooting step. That almost is there because, obviously, there are times when rebooting is not a good first step. Primarily, when a user stands to lose work by rebooting. If an application is hung and the user hasn’t saved his document, for instance, I don’t tell them to reboot. Rebooting would be bad in this instance. Also, I usually try other troubleshooting methods first on my own systems, with which I am better acquainted (though this is often to my own detriment and rebooting would have been quicker and easier, as happened with the Final Cut bug).  Another instance in which I avoid a reboot is when there is a persistent problem that is not solved, or is only temporarily solved, by a reboot. Then I do need to get on that system and attempt to understand a problem. And that’s what I do.

But, because Mac OS X is very reliable on the whole, these instances are extremely rare in my experience. The majority of problems are minor and are easily and permanently rectified by a simple reboot. I stand behind that recommendation, and any search of Mac troubleshooting articles will reveal that the advice is almost universal. That’s because it works.

So, hopefully it’s clear by now that I’m not “blindly proposing solutions without any reasoning to back them up.” Hopefully it’s clear now that there are a lot of good reasons to try rebooting as a first troubleshooting step.

And hopefully it’s clear that the kind of sysadmin I am is the kind that likes to get his users back up and running again with a minimum of friction.

By systemsboy | Posted in Systems | Comments (3)