Be wary of file integrity checkers

So, the other day, we were having some network trouble and our servers were unreachable off-site for about 5 or 6 hours, so I decided this might be a good opportunity to run a file integrity check on the hard disk drives in one of the linux servers that had a lot of data on it.

In windows systems, you can run "scan disk" and it will defragment your hard drive and there are also built in tools that will help repair file systems so that damaged files can be pieced back together and hopefully be usable. The experience that I've had with windows disk management/integrity assurance has been non-eventful...they just have done their job and if they couldn't make things better, they would just give up and not do anything.
However, that is not the experience that I had when I ran ICE ECC a few days back on the linux server. I'll talk about three areas of critique: speed, functionality, and end results.

O.k., first speed. The check only took around 2 hours to cull through about 40 GB of data, which seemed really fast to me. In windows, I can remember it taking 10 hours or more to go through much less data and hard disk space. So, in the speed category, I'm impressed.

However, the next two categories: functionality and end result, I'm not very pleased with. With functionality, the first thing that it did was it made a backup copy of all of the data on the disk by creating a small partition and calling it: /old-root, then, it went through and ran the file integrity check on the hard disk drive and files it considered were o.k., it copied to the main partition for future use. After all this was said and done, the files got renamed this wierd user...USERID 499, which had a common name of "pulse" and group name "pulse-rt". When I rebooted, everything came up fine, except there were some odd things that I'm still trying to fix...such as since the file permissions got changed to this new user, some services didn't start right or if they did, certain pieces didn't work. Also, it just makes me paranoid about what else might have been messed up, because...there were certain files that didn't make it over during the integrity check. A colleague found some important ones that didn't get copied over, but how many more could there be? So, for the end result category, we do have a faster system (disk I/O before and and now shows a 3% increase in speed), but this came at the expense of not everything running right after the check.

ICE is open source freeware, and maybe it did exactly what it is supposed to do, but at least some kind of warning about what it did would have been nice in this instance. Am I going to run file integrity checks in the future? Yeah, but I'm going to stick with the the tried and true e2fsck instead of any fancy-smanshy tools that claim they are better and more advanced. Sometimes, simple is better!

my two cents

Not Quite Crappy, But Still Confusing

I just bought an Apple Time Capsule this week (and, boy, did Apple ship it fast! Received it three days after I ordered it!). I bought it mostly for its ability to automate back-ups to its own hard drive, but also thought it was cool that it is a router containing the next gen of wifi ("N").

I ran into a confusing bit as I tried to set up its DHCP, however, and thought I'd include the solution here in case there are others in a similar situation. My problem is that my two printers, which happily hung on my previous network (a combination of wifi and wired connection), were nowhere to be found on the new, Time Capsule-based network.

The solution lay in the DHCP range, or, as it puts it in Airport Utility:

DHCP Beginning Address
DHCP Ending Address

For some reason I haven't been able to figure out, Apple has the beginning address default to 10.0.1.2 and the ending address defaults to 10.0.1.200. What this means is that all IP addresses on this internal network fall in that range: 10.0.1.2 to 10.0.1.200.

My printers, however, are at static IP addresses of 192.168.0.201 and 192.168.0.202. Hence, they fall outside the range. But the thing is, I've installed probably three or four routers at my house and the range of each of those routers was always 192.168.*.*. So why the heck has Apple chosen such a low range? Any answers? I'd truly like to know, but Googling the issue hasn't revealed the answer.

Once I tumbled to that off-beat DHCP range, I was able to use Airport Utility to change the beginning/ending addresses to 192.168.0.2/192.168.0.200. Now, the printers work just fine because they're on the same subnet as the DHCP addresses. And, since they're above *.*.*.200, there are no DHCP conflicts.

I wish Apple had been clearer about this!

Non-Crappy Browser

Every once in awhile, we here at the Institute for the Elimination of Crappy Software (IftEoCS) come across non-crappy software upon which we feel the need to remark. The Mozilla Firefox browser is one such piece of non-crappy software.

The staff of the IftEoCS has been using browsers since NCSA Mosaic came out in 1993. Hell, we've been using them since they were all text. We've been using them since they were competing with U of Minnesota's Gopher. And if you have to ask what Gopher was, then you must be a n00b or a whippersnapper or an upstart or something.

The point is, the IftEoCS knows from browsers and our browser of choice is Firefox. Mozilla is just about to release a new, improved version of Firefox and they've decided to mark the occasion by going for the record of the most downloads of a piece of software in a 24 hour period. Plus, they've got a cute little fire fox (I guess) logo promoting the record-breaking attempt:

I've already gone to their Website and "pledged" to help break this record. What's stopping you?

The actual date of the release has not been announced yet, but it must be close because Mozilla is already providing "release candidates" on their Website. If you pledge to download it, then you'll be notified via email when it's available.

Yahoo Domain Service Turns to Crap

Don't you hate it when a company you like, whose services you've recommended to friends, suddenly turns on you? And don't you hate it when they do it with a smile on their lips as if they're doing you a favor?
I had been a fan of Yahoo (sorry, I refuse to add an exclamation point to it) Small Business' domain service for years. In fact, I have eight domains listed there and I've recommended it to friends as an inexpensive way to obtain domain-name service.

Well sir, today I received an email that began:

"Get ready for another year of Yahoo! [sic] Domains."

This is the smile on their face part, the part that comes just before they turn to crap before your eyes.

In addition to notifying me that my domains were about to be automatically renewed, they also, you know, just, by the way, wanted to tell me that they would be tripling the cost of their service. Oh yes, another "great year," but at three times what they were charging last year.

Specifically, Yahoo charged me under $10 when I started renewing domain names with them. Come to think of it, it was even cheaper than that because the first couple of names I did were under a special offer. I think they were as low as $6 per name.

And the new rate is $34.95.

So, my eight domains will cost me $279.60 instead of $79.6!

Or they would if I were to stay with Yahoo. But you'd better believe I will be dumping them as soon as I find a more reasonably-priced registrar.

Update 5/29/2008:

Unbelievable! Yahoo is still advertising "$9.95 /year for Yahoo! Domains" on

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/

Have they no shame?

Update 6/3/2008:

It occurred to me that the email I got might've been spoofed -- just a competitor trying to get folks made at Yahoo. So, I've tried to call their customer service to check. They have no email address for queries so I fired up the speaker phone and got ready to wait.

Yesterday, I sat on hold for 50 minutes and then gave up. Today, 61 minutes and then they cut me off.

Man, a customer service melt down suggests something weird is happening.

Crappy, Sneaky Apple: Safari "Update"

When is an "update" not an update?

When Apple tries to install its crappy Safari browser under the guise of it just being an update of previously installed software.

First of all, I do not have Safari installed on my Windows machines. And, on my Mac machines, I use it as little as possible. Lately, however, Apple Software Update keeps firing off on my Windows machines with an annoying window:

If you read the fine print, you might realize that this is a new installation, but if you just look at the dialog box's label (Apple Software Update) you would think that it's merely an update. And the truly skeezy thing about this is that when Apple Software Update runs in order to actually update my QuickTime software it defaults to installing Safari.

Really, Apple, are you that desperate for Safari users? So desperate that you have to trick them into installing it?

It reminds me of the underhanded things Real used to do to fool users into installing all manner of crap with their media player. It backfired on Real, resulting in a backlash against them that's lasted to the present day. The same could happen to Apple.

Crappy Window Management on a Mac

I'm getting used to the Mac OS X interface on my new computer. I swear I am. But there is one thing that Windows handles much better than Mac and that is window (small "w") management -- that is, how windows are displayed on screen.

My main beef is with the Mac method of "maximizing" the window in which you're currently working. On Windows XP, if you click the maximize button, the window fills the entire screen and you can easily focus on your current project. In Mac OS X, however, the maximize button is, by design, a "zoom to a bigger window but don't fill the entire screen" button.

Let's say I want to do some Web design work in Dreamweaver. In OS X, my screen looks like this (click to enlarge):


Huh? Where's the Web page I want to work on. I guess it's the upper-most window, but with all that clutter, who can be sure? Oh wait, I just accidentally clicked somewhere outside one of the Dreamweaver windows. Now I'm in a different application! How do I get back to Dreamweaver?

In contrast, in Windows XP I can simply click one button and have Dreamweaver fill the entire screen -- allowing me to focus my attention where it should be.

I am not alone in the recognition that Mac OS X's "maximize" is crap. See also:

http://shiflett.org/blog/2006/feb/mac-os-x-annoyances-and-resolutions
http://forevergeek.com/apple/mac_vs_windows_its_all_about_the_maximize_button.php
http://acurrie.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/windows-osx-shortcomings/

DirecTV's Customer Service: Just as Crappy as Comcast's

In the past, I've had good luck with DirecTV's customer service, but a bizarre series of billing errors has made me change my mind and I must now characterize its customer service as crap.

Due to these billing errors, almost $800 of incorrect fees were added to my account. Yes, you read correctly: $800!

The short version of this story:

1. My HD DVR unit was defective. Let me rephrase that: My second HD DVR unit was defective (as was the first one, which DirecTV replaced).
2. A tech dude came out, saw it was defective and replaced it with a new unit -- telling me that DirecTV would send me a "recovery kit" with which to return the defective unit.
3. The recovery kit never shows up.
4. DirecTV bills me $300 for a "lost or damaged" unit. (My unit is neither lost nor damaged; it's defective.)
   
5. I begin a long series of phone calls to DirecTV. Sometimes I'm cut off in the middle of a call and have to call back, retelling my long story all over again.
6. DirecTV promises to send me a recovery kit and remove the $300 charge. It takes them over three weeks to remove this incorrect fee.
7. The recovery kit arrives; I immediately send my unit back.
8. Two weeks later, DirecTV charges me over $400 for not returning the unit.
9. Phone calls resume. It takes two weeks to remove this charge. Consequently, for several weeks there is almost $800 of incorrect charges on my account.

Now that is crappy customer service.

More Crappy Customer "Service"

More crappy customer "service", this time from Comcast.

This time it was my fault, to start with. I accidentally missed a payment one month. And I've been trying to make up for it, but Comcast is not making it easy. There's been some confusion because their "final notice" crossed my check in the mail.

I called during the weekend, but couldn't get through to human. So I called first thing Monday morning. Here's what happened:

• I work through their voice mail system to a human.
• The Human tells me he can't answer my questions and will refer me to a supervisor.
• The Supervisor's phone rings.
• I wait.
• They tell me how important my cal is to them.
• I wait.
• They tell me again how important my call is.
• I wait.
• They tell me, We cannot take your call at this time.
  

No explanation why, at 9:00 on a Monday morning they are not answering their phone. Now, there's a great system.

Not.

Circuit City's Crappy Customer...

...Service.

(I could have included "Service" in the title, but I couldn't resist all the "C's" in "Circuit City's Crappy Customer.")

Circuit City frequently annoys me. Usually, it's just some little crappy thing that builds on another little crappy thing that builds on another... You get the idea. Before you know it, you're drowning in Circuit City's crap.

One frequent problem I've had there is having to wait for service. This week, I thought I'd circumvent my wait time by buying an item (an external hard drive) online and picking it up at a local store in Tuscaloosa -- taking advantage of their "24-minute in-store pickup" guarantee. They proclaim on their Website, "If we don't have your order ready for you within 24 minutes of your confirmation email, a $24 gift card's yours."

Of course, the guarantee's disclaimer is that it "excludes customer wait time in store lines."

See, you can't just walk up to a cashier, show him/her your receipt and an ID and be gone. Nope. You've got to wait in the customer "service" line before you can get your merchandise.

The first time I tired to pick up my drive, there was a single customer "service" representative. The line wasn't too long, but in 10 minutes it did not move at all; and I had a limited amount of time as I needed to pick up my son from day care. So, I had to go.

Came back a few days later, determined to wait it out. This time, there were two reps and only four people ahead of me and still it took 15 minutes to make it to a rep. Now, I know 15 minutes is not that long a wait time in the grand scheme of things, if we were living in Soviet Russia, for instance. But had I bought a drive at, say, Office Depot, I could have parked, walked to the shelf, picked up a drive, gone immediately to a cashier, and gotten out of the store in maybe 10 minutes tops.

So, the "convenience" of Circuit City's in-store pickup is a complete fraud, because one must suffer through a customer "service" experience. Heck, if I had just had it shipped to me I wouldn't have had to spend any time waiting in line.

When I finally did get through to a CC rep, I politely asked her to tell her manager that I was frustrated by the wait time and that I would never use their in-store pickup service again. The clerk was unrepentant. All she said in reply was a snippy and condescending remark: "I'm sorry there were people ahead of you in line." Obviously, she didn't intend to pass my comment along to her manager.

Consequently, I send this complaint out into the ether. Who knows? Maybe a CC customer "service" manager will read it one day and, for a brief instant, feel sorry that they've lost (another) customer.

Uh Oh. Premiere Elements May Have Turned to Crap

For quite some time, I've been a fan of Adobe Premiere Elements (APE). It's the best low-cost solution for editing video on Windows and it's just as good as iMovie. Even does some stuff that iMovie cannot do.

Since APE is relatively inexpensive -- compared to the full, professional version of Premiere -- I've happily upgraded it each time a new version came out. So, when version 4 appeared recently, I was one of the first in line to buy it.

Now I'm wondering if that was a good idea.

First, its interface is slightly different than version 3 and I find it a bit dark and it puts functions where I don't expect them. I guess that's gonna happen with a new UI and maybe I'll get used to it. But it also does not maximize properly. I have a two-monitor system and I put my quick launch bar vertically along the left side. When you maximize APE, part of it slides under the quick launch bar and it does not fill the left monitor completely.

More significantly, APE does not do YouTube like it claims to do. In a review on Amazon.com that was posted just two days ago (10 October 2007), carlamari explains the YouTube-APE situation well:

I purchased this product because I wanted to upload better quality videos to YouTube. The item description for this product states - "Broadcast far and wide by uploading your movies directly to YouTube or your personal sharing page. Adobe Premiere Elements 4 takes care of optimizing and formatting for the specific destination so your movies always look great." Unfortunately, that is completely untrue. The product's presets for YouTube result in a final video stream that is inferior in quality to most of the videos that are currently on YouTube. It is definitely inferior in quality to the MP4 files that I had been previously using. Therefore, it does not optimize for the specific destination. In addition, it does not allow you to adjust the YouTube presets so if you want to upload your file directly from Premiere Elements 4, there is no way to make any adjustments to improve the overall quality.

On top of this, I am completely unable to directly upload any videos to YouTube, bad quality or not, since the program keeps giving me an error message that says "Online service encountered an error. The service will now be terminated. 10: unable to send HTTP request with GetLastError of 12002".

Over the past two days I have spent hours on the phone with their technical support staff trying to troubleshoot this connection error. After trying many many different configurations, the problem has not been solved and I can escalate the case to a higher level of tech. support. But of course, why should I bother wasting my time on all of this tech. support if even after the connection issue is fixed, it uploads such poor quality videos? The tech. support staff even agreed with me that the YouTube preset is not of the highest quality or what it should be. Since they are unable to answer alot of my questions, they have referred me to filing a "feature request" on the adobe website and/or emailing their corporate office. So I can waste more of my time being a beta tester on this new product. They really should have worked out all of these bugs BEFORE they released the product.

The first time I uploaded a vid to YouTube, it worked okay -- although, like carlamari its quality was inferior to other uploads I've tried -- but the second time I tried it pooped out on me and I got the "GetLastError of 12002" message. It must be a new issue as carlamari's post is the only thing that turns up on a Google search and there's nothing on Adobe's support site about it.

More to come on this...

Updated, 10/30/2007:

Still no luck uploading to YouTube, but now the error message has changed. Instead of the cryptic, "GetLastError of 12002" now it just says, "Sorry, unable to connect to YouTube. Please try again later." Not quite as cryptic, but no more explanatory.

Clearly, this aspect of PE4 is not ready for prime time. Anyone who upgrades thinking PE4 will facilitate their YouTube uploads is going to be disappointed.