Friday, May 16, 2008

Debian 4.0 + framebuffer = ...

Well, I managed to install the framebuffer on Debian, and now the console looks much much more sweeter.
In case you're trying to do the same thing as me, I'll give you some instructions on how to accomplish this:
Basicaly, you have to compile your kernel to support framebuffering, I compiled my driver within the kernel, however, I want to make it run as a module as soon as posibile. The options that you have to include are:

FB: Device Drivers -> Graphics Support ==> Support for framebuffer devices
VESAFB: Device Drivers -> Graphics Support -> Support for framebuffer devices ==> VESA VGA Graphics support
FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE: Device Drivers -> Graphics Support ==> Console display driver support (also select the VGA 8x8 and 8x16 fonts)

I would also like to mention that I spent a couple of days working out the fb so I don't know exactly what need no be done. I will post the complete instructions after I reinstall the sistem from scratch (I do this for the purpose of seeing exactly what needs to be done). The `userspace vesa vga support' was quite troublesome, so I left it out of the final make (I think that was the cause of the framebuffer failing).

LE (20th May) Well, even though there are 3 weeks until the summer vacation, it seems like ages away. Unfortunately, I had to revert to Hardy and postpone my Debian CLI adventure.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

Hello everybody, I've installed Ubuntu 8.04 last night and now I'm writing this post from w3m (just in case you haven't heard of it, it is a fully functional, text-based browser). You're probably thinking "wow, he installed hardy heron and now he's got video-driver issues", or "I knew 8.04 wasn't stable, guess this guy didn't".
The truth is, I have my GnomeDE running the gnome-terminal from which I'm writing, so.. no, I didn't crashed my system, or at least not my nvidia driver, the graphics work fine. But then, why am I using w3m and not Firefox? Again, you may thing "FF3.05b is rubbish, 2.0.0.11 was better" and again I say, no, that is not correct. FF3.05b works fine, almost. It has a small glitch regarding sound in flash and some nspluginwrapper crashes (although, I've gotten used to those by now).
So.. why am I using w3m anyway? It is because I want to install Debian, not only that, I want to go minimal, that means no windows (as in little boxes that appear on your screen, which can be moved, resized and most importantly are made of jelly (thanks to compizfusion of course)), no buggy Y! protocols that fail when trying to send a 1KB file, or that have problems even when trying to send an avatar to Y!'s servers, no icon lying on the desktop that is entitled "Dofus" (Dofus is a MMORPG, and I started playing it about 2-3 weeks ago, but because I'm f2p (free to play), I can't advance in level, so, until I buy a premium account, I'll have to stick with a lower level (which of course, sucks)) and 100% pure Linux thrills.

OK, enough introduction.
My first impression on Hardy was "hmm they did a nice job on this one", and I was actually surprised when Flash and more importantly Java worked on Firefox 3, right -out-of-the-box-. I think I got java to work on 7.10 but only once. I never succeeded in doing that again, guess I'm not out of the noob status yet. Next, some of the stand-out features were:
- the tracker (even though I stopped it back in 7.10)
- new burning software: Brasero. It's quite simple and clean, plus it supports multi-sessioning. I haven't tried to see if I can burn files larger that 4GB
- Firefox of course, with all nspluginwrapper and java working right out of the box. My only problem is sound in flash (although I think this problem has deeper roots). In terms of memory... so, so. With no tabs open it consumes about 23MB, the problem is, that as soon as I play 2 videos on youtube (5 minutes in total), the memory usage cilmbs to 58MB.
- 3d windows in compizfusion
- and a new little program called Hardware test (hwtest-gtk)

The only issue I have so far is the sound not working properly, Rhythmbox works, while Skype doesn't...
Oh, I didn't mention but I have upgraded to Ubuntu Hardy Heron from my previous Fiesty Fawn. This wasn't a clean install, that would have hopefully gone without problems.

In any case, I'm now backing up my system and tomorrow, as I've said, I will install Debian Etch with no X and enjoy the pure Linux experience.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Bux.to is fake

Just as the title suggests, the PTC (paid to click) site, bux.to is a SCAM. I just hope this post is listed by google, so that people will know not to fall for this 'get ritch slow' fraud. I came to this conclusion after wating for 2 months for my money in vain. You can read in my previous post about bux.to so I'm not going to repeat myself. It is true that they managed to trick me, but that was also due to the way the actualy work:

Let's say you're a guy who has a site and wants to promote it because you don't have too much money, you choose bux.to as your advertiser insead of someone serious like google with adsense. In any case, you choose to give bux.to 19.10$ per 1000 member visits. If you do the math, you will start to get suspicious... That is because, 1910cents / 1000 members equals 1.91 cents per member, at a first glance it might seem ok, considering bux.to pays 1 cent per click for nonpremium members and 1.25 for premium ones. However, what happens when a reffered person clicks? let's say they are all non-premium (this is because bux.to pays them less). If a person who is reffered to another one clicks and ad, then it will recieve 1 cent and the refferer an aditional cent. That means that for each reffered click bux.to actualy pays 2 cents. Well how on earth can you pay 2 cents if you only have 1.91. That means that either alot of people are unreffered, however this doesn't result from the forum posting in which people talk about buying 100 refferal packs.
Now you may say that even though there are people who buy 100/500 refferal packs, there a few, and that there are a lot more persons who find out about this site on the net, and are unreffered. Ok, you're wright, that isn't a strong argument against bux.to, but consider this: why is bux.to encourageing *so much* reffering when it reality it actualy causes losses, what's does bux.to gain if it's users have many refferals? And it pays 2 cents to nonpremium members, but for premium ones it pays 2.5, sure the increase doesn't seem too big, but in reality is 25% more and consider that you have 100 premium members, reffered to another premium one, that's 59$ (2.5 cents payied per click - 1.91 budget per click) that bux.to has to pay from... from where actualy?
The answer is not from the money that is being paid for refferals, because the usualy turn out profits after a couple of weeks (ok, let's not be greedy and say months). Still, after a month those refferals will start generating losses so more money will have to be fed to bux.to. You might think that many people after a number of click stop. Trust me, that is only temporary. Suppose you get your money, are you going to keep it a secret? No, of course not! You're probably going to tell every body that bux.to is real and that it pays, and they will start clicking again.

Speaking of getting your money, the thing that led me to believe that bux.to was real was the clams of various people that said that it actualy paied (don't think I haven't searched for 'bux.to scam' or 'bux.to fake', but in spite of some claims of people not getting their money, there were others that said "it was the real deal"). I found out later that this is a tipical strategy: pay some, and those people will advertise you. Then, when someone sees their claim, they will tend to ignore all of the other evidence (this is a psihological thing, because actualy, you WANT for bux.to to be real, and you will look for any evidence supporting that claim, and ignore the rest).

I hope I haven't bored you, because as I'm writing this, I'm really starting to fall asleep so I hope you find this more interesting that me at this time.
Continuing with more suspitious things about bux.to, consider the lack of ads, around 15 per day and most of which are ACTUALY FROM THE SITE ITSELF. This is very peculiar, because even though bux.to has some losses as seen in my previous paragraphs, it pays you to view ads, but doesn't recieve any money for them, unless people who post on the forums saing "wow, I just got my 5123$ thank you so much bux.to", which I doubt. Speaking of forums, I don't know if you surfed them... there is a dedicated section for success stories, now I don't see that in serious buisnesses, like rentacoder or adsense. It's like a cheap comercial (you see some guy saying that he uses the shampoo for 10 years and has never got a speck of dandroff, when actualy he was taken of the streets (to keep the average-citizen look) and paied 5 bucks to say that). Also regarding the forums, if you haven't been cursed on a forum, try to post something like
title: I haven't got paied
contents: I have been waiting for 2 months for my money and I haven't recieved them yet
a moderator will suggest you get a ticket and send your complaint to the contact department.
after some time, post will apear with people saying that you are a !@#$ and a !@#$%^ because you haven't done that already, and that "bux.to is the best ^-^"
you might think that the complainer is me, no, I haven't posted on the forums, but I've seen how other people are humiliated if they do that.

Woha.. I wrote alot tonight, and I'm getting tired so I guess I'll end this article.
There are other things that should make you suspicious about bux.to, but in any case, if you decide you might get somehow lucky (although unlikeable), all I can say is DON'T give them your money, because you will regret it.

That was all folks, hope you enjoyed the article (or at least is wansn't too boring).