Jun 302012
 

Warning: This page details a shell script that I’ve produced for my own amusement; it isn’t a product. It hasn’t been tested in lots of environments, and it will take some hacking to get it to work for you. If you’re looking for something to use, move along; if you’re looking for ideas to improve a real wallpaper setting program, you might want to read on.

So elsewhere I’ve admitted to driving a stake through the heart of GNOME’s wallpaper plugin to allow my own wallpaper script to work. Well, I could hardly do that and not announce it could I? So here goes :-

  1. It doesn’t actually set the wallpaper; it lets hsetroot do that.
  2. It requires a parameter to determine which directory to choose – i.e. ~/lib/backgrounds/one~/lib/backgrounds/two, etc.
  3. It uses xrandr to pick out the “regions” of the default screen.
  4. It puts portrait images on my portrait monitor, and landscape images on my landscape monitor by overlaying them onto an overall image the size of both monitors added together.
  5. It waits a set duration, and then repeats.

If you’re still interested in getting a copy it’s available at http://zonky.org/src/set-random-background.

Jun 282012
 

This week has been a fun one for those of us who like kicking bankers when they’re down with two stories about banks tripping over their own shoelaces. Firstly there has been the ongoing saga of the IT woes within RBS which caused last week’s inability to process payments, and secondly the story of Barclays helping to “fix” the interbank interest rates – which made all of our loans more expensive.

We are used to these kinds of stories about the banking sector, and many of believe that there is something fundamentally broken about the banking sector. Banking is important to the world economy – our current recessions are due in part to banking incompetence and greed (which definitely triggered it but is perhaps not completely to blame).

If you look deeply at the IT woes of RBS, you begin to see that underneath the story of complicated IT “stuff” falling over there is a hidden story of banking greed. Whilst IT is never infallible, the problems at the RBS data centres may well have been caused, or at least made worse by their recent practices. RBS have been engaged in a programme of making experienced (and expensive) UK-based workers redundant, and replacing them with cheaper (and inexperienced) foreign workers by outsourcing or offshoring (the difference is not relevant here).

It is worth noting that if RBS had made expensive UK-based workers redundant and replaced them with inexperienced (and cheaper) UK-based workers, they would be breaking the law. You do have to wonder why using foreign workers makes it legal!

The article I linked to above does say that in some ways the Indian workers have been doing good work, but they lack experience when working with mainframe-based systems. This is hardly surprising when mainframe-based systems are seen as so old-fashioned, with more weight given to Windows and UNIX-based systems, but experience matters.

Most people with more than half a clue in the IT world know that experienced staff can be particularly valuable – they can oversee the work of others and point out potential issues. And when issues do arise (and they always do), they are more likely to be able to be confident about remedial actions. Perhaps best summarised as they know when to take their hands off the keyboard!

That is not to say that inexperienced staff cannot be made use of – there is no other way of someone becoming experienced after all. But you need a sensible ratio.

If RBS had taken the sensible action of using India-based staff to supplement the existing UK-based staff so that experienced staff were retained until they chose to leave, then we may have seen a different result last week. But of course that would have cost more money.

Now onto the “Barclays” situation. Staff at Barclays (in collusion with staff at other as yet unnamed banks) attempted to influence the interest rates that banks charge each other. These funds available to banks are the source of the loans that most of us make use of – including mortgages, so any effect on the interest rates would have caused the interest rates we pay to go up (or down). It is as yet uncertain whether Barclays staff were successful in influencing the rates or how much the rates were influenced.

But given the size of this market (one figure is quoted as being £225 trillion), even the tiniest influence on the interest rate could make enormous sums of money. If they had artificially inflated the interest rate by just 0.1%, they would have taken their share of in the region of £225 million. And who is to say it was as small an influence as that?

With both stories together, we can see that at least two major banks had management teams in place that encouraged profits over other priorities to an unsafe degree. Whilst the management at Barclays may not have been directly involved in the scams to defraud the public, they were responsible for the culture that allowed staff to pursue profits at the expense of banking ethics, morality, or the law. And RBS management are responsible in a similar way – by extreme cost cutting they put the day to day operations of their bank at risk.

It is perhaps unreasonable to expect bank staff to act ethically. Whilst there are hopefully people who could resist the temptation to help themselves to their share of ill gotten gains, such people are probably pretty unlikely to choose banking as a career. Especially given what we now know about how bankers behave.

There is not an easy answer to this; not even nationalisation would change the embedded culture (after all, RBS is mostly owned by the UK taxpayers), but it would be a good start. And we need to do something about how profits are shared – to make it less likely to tempt someone to make excessive profits at the expense of perfectly reasonable restraints. How about paying bankers bonuses on an equitable share? So that nobody within a bank gets a bonus bigger than his or her colleague?

Jun 282012
 

If for some peculiar reason (I’ll come to those later) you want to prevent GNOME from setting the desktop wallpaper, you used to have a relatively easy option. If you search for how to disable the wallpaper setting in GNOME, you will find frequent mentions of the method. Unfortunately it no longer seems to work.

It seems that the GNOME developers in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to ignore any previous setting that allowed you to override GNOME and say “I’ll set the background myself”, and quite possibly no longer have that option available. Well, where there’s a will there’s a way :-

$ sudo zsh
# cd /usr/lib/gnome-settings-daemon-3.0
mv background.gnome-settings-plugin _background.gnome-settings-plugin
mv libbackground.so _libbackground.so
pkill gnome-settings-daemon
gnome-settings-daemon

At this point your terminal will be taken over by the gnome-settings-daemon and it will scroll tons of messages past your nose. If you scroll up, you will see close to the top a mention of being unable to load the background setting plugin. At which point you can use your favourite background setting tool (a word on that later) to set the background.

This is a rather brutal method of disabling this, and is prone to failure when the relevant software packages are upgraded – your favourite package manager is likely to replace the “missing” files for you. So if you’re listening, GNOME developers, please resurrect a sensible method for turning this plugin off!

BTW: You may want to check your favourite background setting tool actually works properly in your environment; I’ve found that in my environment both Imagemagick and xloadimage silently failed, but feh and hsetroot worked fine. This had me puzzled for a moment when I tried the first two!

As to why I want to disable the GNOME wallpaper plugin, there are several reasons :-

  1. I’m difficult and want to do it my own way.
  2. The GNOME background setting plugin has some limitations that are irritating to me.
  3. And I have some rather specialist requirements … stay tuned for more information.
Jun 202012
 

Today the Prime Minister made the “mistake” of naming one particularly famous tax cheat – Jimmy Carr. Of course it is not just him who is a slimy tax cheat – there are also people like Gary Barlow, Howard Donald and Mark Owen. And probably very many others. The rich have always had ways of avoiding paying their fair share of tax, and it is time we started pointing fingers at them and sneering.

There are those who claim it is unfair that these people are being singled out for naming. Actually it is very fair indeed; what might be unfair is that there is not a long list of everyone who is using some dodgy scheme to reduce their tax bill published on the front page of every newspaper.

Apparently Jimmy Carr’s lawyers have released a statement to say that he has done nothing wrong on avoiding tax. That is completely wrong – he has done something wrong. It may be legal but that does not make it moral.

What he has done is only marginally better than hanging around outside a hospital on pay day and mug the next nurse coming out.

Jun 172012
 

If you hang out at the more high falutin’ photographic forums on the Internet, you will sooner or later (and usually sooner) encounter a variation on the theme that somehow film endows a piece of work some extra artistic value, and (the quite possibly true) sentiment that in the art-market that high value photographic art is usually analogue in nature (such as the work of Sally Mann) because somehow the process of working the analogue process adds some sort of artistic value to the final work.

Which is just so much horseshit of course – with the greatest respect to those who prefer to work in analogue methods.

There is a very fuzzy boundary between what is art and what is artisanship; whether or not an object has any artistic value, it can still have added value because of the work the craftsperson has put into a work – a hand knitted cardigan is worth more than a machine knitted one. Although I suppose I should note that if the person doing the knitting is your own granny, it’s a whole different ball-game (and it gets even weirder when your granny was also a professional hand knitter!).

There is no great harm in adding the value of the artisanship to the value of a piece of art; what is harmful is assuming that the artisanship contributes to the quality of the art. It isn’t so.

To use the photograph as an example, an image is sensational by provoking thought and emotion not because it is an 8×10 contact print, but because of the image. You could be looking at the original 8×10 contact print by the photographer, or looking at one of a thousand inkjet prints of a scan of the original film; the artistic value is the same (but not the financial value).

Similarly with any art work that can be reproduced – a painting that can be scanned and printed, a sculpture that can be scanned and manufactured using a CNC machine. Although the original may have the addition of an emotional attachment to the artist, any competent reproduction should still encapsulate the artistic vision that was crafted into the original.

Although far smaller than the original, doesn’t this reproduction of “The Scream” (borrowed from the Wikipedia article) still tell the same story as the original ?

As an another example, good literature is just as much art as the finest painting. Yet we do not question the value of reading from a reproduction – who insists on reading the original of The Ballad Of Reading Gaol and insists that reproductions (i.e. any book) has no value ?

If a reproduction can reproduce the artistic vision of the original, it implies that the true original art work is actually the artist’s vision and what we call the original, is just the first reproduction of the artist’s vision. The artist needs to be a competent craftsperson to reproduce that vision in the medium of their choice and may influence the original vision, but it is still a reproduction.

There is a belief that analogue techniques for reproducing artistic visions have a greater value than digital techniques. Why should this be?

In either case, the original vision is still the same; the artist has merely chosen to choose different crafts to reproduce that vision. And despite the critics beliefs, digital techniques still need a good craftsperson to execute those techniques. It may be that digital techniques are easier (although I believe it is more that they are more available) than analogue techniques.