Why I use Linux

I've been pondering for a while on my use of a computer; what I use one for, and why. This has led me, seemingly inexorably, to a post on my OS of choice, and my reasons for it.
Allow me to give a brief history of my computing experience: The first computer I used was a BBC B microcomputer. I then used Acorn Archimedes computers at primary and secondary school, progressing to Acorn RiscPCs as my school upgraded.
My first experience of an x86 processor was in the second processor slot of a RiscPC at school. It was just about able to run Windows 95, which seemed woefully inadequate as an operating system. It was clunky, unintuitive, and there seemed to be no way to customise it to make it better.
Computers have moved on since then. I no longer have the luxury of using RISC OS as my main OS - the hardware just doesn't currently exist that can do what I want from a desktop computer - and so every once in a while I take a quick look at what the current selection of OSes available for x86 architecture has to offer. As I try out the latest offerings from Redmond and Cupertino, I am invariably left feeling unsatisfied, as though attempting to shoehorn my work method into an inflexible mould someone else has created.
As Neo so eloquently put it in The Matrix Reloaded, the problem is choice. Or more specifically, a lack of it: I simply cannot get either Windows or OS X to work the way I want them to, because the creators never saw fit to allow the necessary parts of the OS/window manager/file system to be customised to a degree that enables me to use a computer the way I want to. That is why I use Linux.
More specifically: I use Ubuntu because I know how to configure it (via apt) to work how I want it to; I use the Gnome desktop because I know how to configure it to work how I want it to; I use Metacity and Compiz WMs because I know how to configure them to work ... you get the idea.
I am aware that Apple and Microsoft both have many loyal followers who would argue that everything is fine for them, that they have no problems, that I must be doing something 'wrong or 'weird'. Quite simply, I don't care. If it doesn't  work for me, I'm not interested. That may be perceived as selfish, but then again, I don't expect anyone else to instantly love my standard setup, as it's set up for one person only. I have also come to realise that upon a fresh install (something I haven't done in over a year - thankyou dist-upgrade), I will spend around half an hour tweaking settings to get them how I want them. I am perfectly happy to do that. I would also suggest that I am not the only person who does this. In fact, I'd go so far as to state that I believe the majority of people who own a computer have customised it to a greater or lesser degree from its initial factory settings; that most of these people also have a set of 'core applications' that they cannot work well without; and that none of them would think twice about spending time setting up their work area in a manner that they find beneficial to their productivity.
I try not to be over-zealous in suggesting my OS of choice to others. I am merely trying to inform people that, should the giants at Microsoft and Apple fail you, you need not suffer,, and you certainly aren't the only one.

What's in a release date?

Apparently nothing, if you're Amazon.

Looks like the release date of the Psych season 1 UK DVD set has been put back from May to September. How do I know this? I looked at my preorder.

A simple courtesy email informing me that it's going to be four months late would be nice.

Update: I've now received an email about the change (are Amazon
reading my blog?) but it feels a little weak, and as I'd already found
out about the change myself, it's definitely a little late.

Open letter to all enthusiastic marketers and their clients

The future is never now

We have a name for now. We like to call it the present. Please stop referring to the present as the future.
That is all.

Carbon Neutrality

First things first:
I tend to get to work by one of two methods: Bus and bike. It's winter and I've been unwell, so it's the bus at the moment.
If you're driving to work for whatever reason, and are feeling guilty about your carbon footprint, why not relieve some of that guilt by sending some money my way?

For every £1 I receive I'll cycle into work and back instead of taking the bus. I will therefore be using 0 fuel (apart from a hearty breakfast, which I would have had anyway), so you can sit contented in your traffic jam, safe in the knowledge that you're doing good by proxy. I'll even take a snap of myself and send it to you if you like, so you know I'm not cheating you.

OK. Now that my millionaire plan is in motion, a quick word about carbon offsetting.

Carbon offsetting is, for the most part, bad.

The idea behind it was simple enough: pay someone to reduce carbon emissions on your behalf, thereby offsetting the amount of carbon you're creating.

Unfortunately there are several small flaws in the approach:

1. Planting trees does not replenish fossil fuels.
Well, okay, if you left them long enough (a few thousand years should do it) then everything would be great. That is, assuming you started offsetting your carbon a few thousand years ago. You didn't? Oh, that's unfortunate. I know how these things can slip. Still, you're planting trees now and that's got to be good, right? Wrong.

2. Here's the big secret. There are two separate carbon cycles.
I know, I know. It's hard to believe, but all those trees sucking carbon out of the air, they're not part of the carbon store that's being diminished. This is very closely linked with the first issue, but it seems people have difficulty grasping it. Let's call trees a part of the 'living' cycle and oil part of the 'dead' cycle. The 'living' cycle is all about getting CO2 out of the air, and using it to feed plants and trees, which will then grow. Great. You've moved the carbon from the air to the trees. Well done. Does your car run on phosphates? Thought not. What about power plants? Running on tree energy? Sorry. You're not offsetting the right things. Oh, but there's more.

3. Raising trees is not a profitable business.
So, you've googled for a carbon offsetting company, and they promise to plant a tree for every £10 you give them, which will go towards the lifetime upkeep of that tree. Great. Fantastic. Except they're lying. They've found some country where £10 is a lot of money. They've promised some farmers let say: £5 a tree. They've delivered trees, with the promise of fertilisers and money to follow. Unfortunately for the farmers, that's often the end of the story. They don't get their fertilisers. They don't get paid for their (often numerous) trees. In that situation, would you still look after the tree?

Of course, I'm sure there are some companies out there with the best of intentions, but the fact remains that the entire idea of offsetting your carbon is ludicrous. You're paying someone else to make your problem go away. In what other part of society is this acceptable? If you commit a crime is it okay to pay someone else to take the fall? If you overeat can you pay someone else to starve themself? Even after you've done all of this, are you any less of an overweight criminal? No.

Society tried this once before. The reasoning was that certain wealthy people didn't have the time to be good, pious and righteous, so they found some very good, pious and righteous monks, who clearly had some goodness and piety to spare, and they bought it off them.

Apparently offsetting can only be done with things that aren't immediately quantifiable. Funny that.