February 2005


After my remarks on Microsoft recently, where I mentioned Open Office, I decided to try it once more. And I must say that I’m impressed by the progress in this project since my last try two years ago. Then it was barely usable, now it is only a bit uncomfortable.

But it is catching up with MS’s suite pretty fast, right now MS’s advantages are:

  • much better dictionaries and generally language support (Word is capable of suggesting style corrections or detect grammatical errors, Writer for now can do only spelling and has a thesaurus, also handling multiple languages in Writer is horrible, if you write in many languages and want to use spellchecks etc. then Writer will be a source of constant frustration. For example: right now I couldn’t get it to check this text for me using English dictionary, it keeps on switching to Spanish and I really tried everything. I ended by copying this text to MS Word, changing the language there and copying it back to Writer.),
  • more streamlined and comfortable user interface (some things are very badly designed indeed in Writer, for example tables borders/shading is available only in edit table menu and not available also easily per cell via right-click as in Word, or there is no easy way of selecting zoom level without having to go through another pop-up window with choices),
  • more control over some aspects of the layout.

But there are some very good features, one of the best is simple generation of PDF files with a single click and no additional external components unnecessary. And the PDFs generated are of good quality and very compact, usually remarkable smaller than generated with Word+Acrobat combination from the same document. Also, Writer can now open quite complex MS Office documents and even MS PowerPoint presentations, which have been particularly hard to handle in the past versions I knew.

In summary Open Office suite is now a very useful set of tools and one should really consider if the differences with MS Office are really worth its ripoff price.

That can’t be said on Linux on the desktop. I’ve tired Ubuntu, a distribution that was supposed to be desktop-oriented and easy, aimed at normal end-users. I’m sorry to say that, but previous Unix admin experience is a must if you are going to try this one. Installer works ok (although it had some problems with my graphic card and I had to finish the installation intuitively since the screen was garbled just when the installer was about to mess with the master boot record to install a boot loader there) but later on if you want anything out of standard you are back to command line, vi, scripts and man pages. Packages available from net (using nice graphic tool called Synaptic) are old, unless you switch to “unstable” version of the distribution but then other problems appear. For example, I tried to get a nice multimedia player called amaroK to run on my system. It took me 5 hours of hard work including recompiling packages and in the end upgrading my whole system to “hoary” (the unstable one) to achieve it. Any normal, non-geek user would give up way before I did.

So, as much as I was impressed with the Open Office progress I’m surprised by the total lack of progress in Linux on the desktop. It seems that geeks without a pointy-haired boss standing above them can’t produce a desktop system that would be usable to the rest of us. Pity. Luckily, there is the Max OS X – a stable Unix with a legendary, easy to use and complete Apple’s GUI. Now, if only their hardware could be cheaper (or my income greater)…

Yesterday’s entry leads nicely to the whole problem of randomness. I would like to challenge everyone to carefully consider what it is that we call “random”.

I think that “random” is just a mental box, where we put everything that we cannot explain because the chain of causes and effects is either too complex or to remote in terms of time. This box is sometimes also labeled “god’s will” or “gods’ will”. However, this label is less popular now in our secular, modern and presumably rational society. We prefer “science” as our universal source of answers and thus “random”. This has this advantage over “god’s will” that it can be measured and analyzed. Hence the probability theory and statistics which are great at describing and analyzing the events, but which don’t explain anything by themselves. So, for example we can say that a given percentage of smokers would die of cancer. Or that a given percentage of buildings in a given area collapses each year. This doesn’t explain at all why this particular given building collapsed or this particular person developed a tumor. So, we say it was… well… just random.

This is totally contrary to the whole basis of scientific discovery and in fact our approach to almost everything in life. In this we rely on cause and effect. In other words, we assume that if we discover what causes a given effect we can repeat that cause to get it or avoid creating causes of effects we don’t want. So for example we assume that if we plant corn seeds we will get corn, not, say, prunes. And we assume that if we give up smoking we increase our life expectancy. We also assume that if we mix some wheat, water and other stuff and bake it in the oven for an hour we will get bread – each and every time we do so. And there is no chance that, say, a personal computer would come out of the oven.

But if everything would be just random then we couldn’t do nothing about it. If, for example, buildings would collapse at random (as they seemed to before structural engineering was invented) we could do nothing to prevent it. And we couldn’t be sure at all what would come out of the oven. We could just hope it is not a swarm of killer bees this time. We would be effectively paralyzed because no action could be expected to yield a predictable result.

It is amazing how we can continue with our lives and everything our civilization created and still mumble about things being random. It is amazing how bright and educated people can ferociously renounce the idea of all things having causes and gleefully continue to arbitrarily put events they can’t explain in the “random” box.

Now, as I wrote above this box has sometimes a different label on it. The “god’s will” has the advantage that it explains why given event took place… sort of. And you can do something about it – you can pray to god (or gods) to change his mind. Or to turn his mind in favor of your wishes. Or against your foes.

But this concept leads to other problems. But that’s a different story.

This story came to me from a discussion group, but it turned out it also originated on Slashdot.

It all begins with some scientists who have been experimenting with the so called random number generators. Such generator is simply a box which displays random numbers. Generating randomness is a broader theme, there are so-called pseudo-random number generators which are basically complex mathematical functions which yield results which seem random, but aren’t. However, in this case the source is electronic noise – presumably an effect of totally random interactions of particles at quantum (sub-atomic) level.

What is interesting is that it turned out that these boxes, which in theory should produce totally random numbers could be influenced by human consciousness. A team of scientists at Princeton University headed by Robert G. Jahn run a series of experiments back in the seventies, that suggested that conscious concentration could affect the output of a random number generator. This research, collectively known as PEAR was taken to a new level by the Global Consciousness Project which maintains a network of such boxes thought the world . These boxes, called EGGS transmit their output to a central server, where it is analyzed.

Researchers of the project claim that they can see disturbances (or deviation from randomness) in the output of their generators when large events occur like earthquakes, tsunamis or large terrorist attacks. The catch is that the deviations occur a few hours before the events take place. So, in case of the 9/11 attacks the disturbance happened four hours before the first plane hit the WTC – that is even before the terrorist entered their planes. Same happened before the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean.

As one might expect such claims seem totally ridiculous in our presumably rational society. However, being a Buddhist I’m not surprised at all. Buddha taught that not only there is no division between me and other sentient beings, but also that on absolute level even the chair I’m sitting on is just another aspect of the same unlimited, clear space of mind.

Buddhists use the word “mind” in a very particular way. It is not used to refer to a single consciousness (presumably somehow connected to or anchored in a given brain) but to… well, everything. This unlimited space of mind is at the same time a container we are all in and the fabric everything is woven of. A fabric that weaves itself. An frequently used by Buddhist writers to explain the relationship of our consciousness with the rest of this space is that of currents in an ocean. A current in an ocean is hardly separate from it, yet it undeniably exists. Buddha said we are such currents that are so concentrated on themselves and all the other forms around them, that we believe that we and those other phenomena actually have an independent existence. Which is, of course, not true.

These concepts are rather hard to understand. They are in many cases hidden behind a mystical language which people with right intuition and trust (some say gained in previous lives) immediately accept but others have trouble with. In traditional Buddhists schools people were gradually introduced to those concepts, since most people are so attached to the idea that reality is, well, real that even a mere suggestion it is not causes them to stop listening – and thinking. Also, traditionally Buddhism practice leads to actually experiencing the clear unlimited space of mind as opposed to just intellectually understanding it. The method which leads to that experience is meditation and experience itself is widely known as enlightenment. There are many forms and flavors of meditation within the Buddhist world ranging from rich forms of Vajrayana (or Tibetan Buddhism) to simple yet hard path of direct insight meditation as practiced in Zen. But they all lead to same goal.

But intellectual understanding of these concepts is possible although not as powerful. Especially in our times it is easier than it was before. Buddha lived and taught 2500 years ago and so both the language he used and the way he taught were adapted to that period. However, in our century parts of the Buddhists outlook on reality don’t sound as revolutionary and odd. For example we already know that on a basic level we are indeed built from the same basic components of matter as everything else around us. We also know that on the subatomic level particles are composed mostly of… nothing, as elementary particles (quarks) are much, much smaller than distances between them.

So – the only thing that really surprised me about the this Global Consciousness Project is that people running it were able to actually observe what could be a side effect of the free play of mind as it forms and reforms bubbling with unimaginably huge number of streams running through it.

Of course, this research is still preliminary. The first event I thought of and checked were the terrorists attacks on 11th of March, 2004 in Spain. These were as terrible and traumatic to the Spaniards as 9/11 was to Americans. However, there are no significant deviations visible on the graph from that day (nor the previous day). The experiments with people consciously concentrating on changing the output of a box seem more convincing because it is easier to set up such an experiment in a proper, scientific way.

Nevertheless, I think people should look more closely at the ancient wisdom that seems to describe our reality so well.

As an avid Slashdot reader, I came today across a story there pointing to an article by a Michael S. Malone about Microsoft beginning to rot. While there are some valid and interesting points in this article (like the significance of gut vs. balance sheets or the true fact that I didn’t hear anyone praising their user experience with MS’s stuff recently) I’m not convinced.

Main reason why I’m a bit cautious with predictions of Microsoft’s failure, collapse or whatever in the near future is because I’ve been burned in the past. Back in ’96-’97 when Linux was developing at blazing speeds and what Microsoft had was crappy Windows ’95 it also looked like they run out of steam. We laughed at Win95 as being a 16-bit overlay for DOS 7.0 (which it basically was) and NT 3.51, well, wasn’t exciting at all (though it worked). They almost missed the whole Internet thing, Internet explorer was pathetic in comparison to Netscape. Everyone I knew was sure open source would wipe out likes of Microsoft within a few years.

But none of this happened. Netscape was wiped out, IE dominance is settled even despite IE again looking pathetic in comparison to Mozilla‘s newest breed. Office still rules and there is nothing to beat it. Open Office? Well, for simple documents and spreadsheets maybe yes. And yes, it has improved a lot over last few years. But still for serious word processing, I’m sorry, but no.

Also Linux is still a great server OS but still can’t be considered seriously for the desktop for non-geeks. I’ve installed Ubuntu three days ago. I was really amazed how little has changed since three years ago when I, sadly, abandoned Linux as my desktop. Again, a few things that can’t be done in any other way but by editing config files with, say, vi. I enjoy vi and I still remember what to edit, but does a simple user? And no access to most of applications without reading manuals and adding additional repositories of .deb packages (mostly for ideological reasons). It is not “install and work”, it’s still “install and then tweak the things around to get anywhere”. This is the part of the mix that makes OS X a success – some OS X users I know were not even aware there was a command line on their system until I showed them. Now, that’s how a modern GUI OS should be designed. If there is a Linux distro to match this please let me know, but I think I’ll end up buying a PB when I’ll save enough money to do it.

And in the meantime Microsoft has improved a lot. XP is stable, easy to use and I’m yet to have a virus infection or anything after three years of having it on my PC (which is connected to the net 24/7 on a public address, BTW). Also Office has improved a lot in terms of stability and reliability. I remember using Office 97 which without SR-1 crashed a lot and we had lots of problems with it. Office 2003 I use now is rock stable. This is not exciting, this is nothing new but maybe in these days of computing becoming commonplace (and programming & sysadmining becoming a blue-collar commodity job) what is needed is not excitement but solid, predictable functioning? Can you think of a killer feature now missing from, say, Word that would excite the masses?

So, maybe Microsoft is just maturing with the market. They were a geeky sweatshop when computing was the new, exciting field. They are a solid, respectable, middle-aged corporation now. So, I don’t think we will see them sinking anytime soon.