Brad Wardell's Blog


WindowBlinds, DesktopX for MacOS X announced

Published on Thursday, April 1, 2004 By Brad Wardell In WinCustomize News

Stardock has been quietly working on MacOS X versions of WindowBlinds and DesktopX.  Next week, Stardock plans to open a public beta for MacOS X users of these new versions of Stardock's software.

The MacOS X version of WindowBlinds will integrate seamlessly in to Apple's Quartz engine. Existing WindowBlinds visual styles will be able to work on any 10.3 or later version of MacOS X.

With regards to DesktopX, all .dxpacks will be able to run as widgets on MacOS X 10.3 or later. Utilizing Quartz, DesktopX users on MacOS X can expect outstanding performance.  Stardock has developed a VBScript interpreter for MacOS X to handle DesktopX objects that use VBScript. Javascript will be handled natively by MacOS X.

Stardock doesn't plan to have all of Object Desktop for MacOS X. A bundle of DesktopX + WindowBlinds will be available for MacOS X for $34.95 in June.

Stay tuned for more details.

WinCustomize Magazine: March 2004

Published on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 By Brad Wardell In WinCustomize News

The March issue of WinCustomize Magazine is available. Those of you who subscribe to it should have received it via email by now (though possibly those of you with email addresses late in the alphabet may be waiting still).

Click on the link to check it out. Lots of good stuff.

Geoshell beta updated

Published on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 By Brad Wardell In WinCustomize News
The new beta of GeoShell has some fixes and some new features.

Some changes in this release:
- Fixed the desktop window from recieving mouseclicks directly but rather hook the main desktop window. All messages are routed to the geodesktop window.
- Fixed the inset drawing bug
- New GeoTray plugin with icon hiding, balloon tips and hopefully working tray popups.

The new features in this release are mainly in the GeoTray, which will hopefully act more like the Win2000 or WinXP tray in which the icons can be hidden (and shown using a drawer button) and even have balloon tips.

My recommendation to you is if you are using GeoShell for the first time that you install the stable build (which has many plugins that you could use) and write the beta over that. I would also recommend for first-time users that if you are not comfortable with changing values in the registry, that this may not be the best shell for you.

:bulletblue: You can read more on GeoShell here.

:bulletblue: Or get the newest beta.

:bulletblue: Any questions about what GeoShell is? You can also read here.

:bulletblue: And if you are interested as a first-time-user you can read up on how to begin enjoying GeoShell in 10 minutes.
 
source: devianART.com

Posting problems

Published on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 By Brad Wardell In Blogging

Hopefully none of you have had this problem but I wasn't able to post or respond today.

The new (ahem) logon system is buggy and unfinished apparently. I couldn't even log off to fix the problem. I had to delete my cookies and then close my browsers and then reload and then relogon. Now it works.

The Richard Clarke effect

Published on Monday, March 29, 2004 By Brad Wardell In Politics

At the end of the day the American people are going to have to make up their own minds with regards to George W. Bush. They will either conclude that 9/11 was unavoidable and the policy of going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and then taking out Saddam in Iraq was a good thing or it wasn't a good thing.

Richard Clarke, who has been testifying before congress, decided that Bush and his team didn't do enough before 9/11. Whether you find him credible or not probably depends on whether you believe he has an axe to grind or not. I personally believe he does. In 2002 he gave a glowing review of how aggressive the Bush team was pre-9/11 and savaged the Clinton admistration's feckless policy. And yet, after not receiving a promotion into the DoHS, he resigned and has changed his mind that Bush's team did enough. The question is, when did he lie? Is he lying now? Or was he lying in 2002?

One thing is clear: Clarke believes going into Iraq was a distraction. He believes it has taken vital resources and attention from Afghanistan. Before you decide whether you agree with that assessment or not, there is still the simple issue: He has changed his view of how Bush's team was dealing with terrorism before 9/11 based on policy decisions made after 9/11.  That's intellectually dishonest at best.

Now, assuming you agree with him, that dealing with Iraq took vital resources away from exterminating Al Qaeda, doesn't the same charge go for Clinton even more? Could it not be argued that the whole Kosovo war was a distraction from Al Qaeda?  Couldn't Clinton, at the very least, inserted some special forces to take out Bin Laden? Post-9/11 Bin Laden is hiding in caves. During the Clinton years, he was living in public.

I think most Americans could be convinced that the Bush team didn't take Al Qaeda seriously enough prior to 9/11. I think Bush would agree that they weren't treating terrorism as the priority it should probably have been given. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But for anyone to argue that Clinton did a good job with terrorism is just trying to sell you something.

But all that aside, the question Americans will ultimately have to decide on is who do they think would have done a better job? A President Gore? A President Kerry? Or President Bush? Would Gore have responded to 9/11 like Bush did? Would Clinton? Would Kerry? Be honest. Can you really see Clinton having put together a plan to overthrow Afghanistan? One must remember how much of a contribution Rumsfeld and Powell put into the Afghanistan campaign.

Somehow I suspect that had Kerry been President (or Gore or Clinton) that the Taliban would still be in power. Certainly Saddam would have been. And as someone who is glad that both are gone, I think it's pretty obvious which candidate I trust American foreign policy to more -- regardless of which version of Clarke's story I choose to believe.

 

That whole democracy thing

Published on Sunday, March 28, 2004 By Brad Wardell In Politics

People talk about democracy. But do they really understand it? How about representative democracy? Basically it means that citizens (the people) make the rules that we live by. We do so by way of voting for legislatures who will pass laws that represent our will.

This was a major point of the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land would be decided by the voters through laws.  It seems a simple enough concept. And for our nation's history, it has worked pretty well.  When Americans concluded that slavery was an abomination, it voted for laws that outlawed it.  When we decided that women should have the right to vote, we voted for laws that explicitly allowed it. 

In every case, it has been laws, passed by the will of the people. Slavery wasn't abolished by a judge. Women weren't granted the right to vote because some mayor decided they should be allowed to vote. The people enacted laws to do that. That's the way democracy works.

And yet on the subject of gay marriage, some people would throw democracy to the wind. Has any federal or state legislature passed a law enabling gays to be married? Forget what position on the issue you take, you either favor democracy or you don't.

I do not approve of judges or mayors or whatever deciding that they will dictate decide for the rest of us. If gay marriage is to be legal, it needs to become legal as a matter of law. Laws passed by elected officials who were voted in to represent the will of the people.

That's what democracy is all about. If we slide into a system where individuals can declare new laws unilaterally, we slide further away into democracy and back towards what the American revolution was supposed to abolish. 

So to those who support gay marriage, some advice: Make your case to the American people. Build support for your position. Lobby legislatures to pass laws. That's democracy in action and it's served this country well for over 200 years.

The Search Engine Monopoly?

Published on Sunday, March 28, 2004 By Brad Wardell In Internet

If you're a business operating on-line, who has more power over you? Microsoft...or Google?

Increasingly, I think the answer is Google. Google has been a benevolent giant. To my knowledge, they've done nothing menacing or intimidating. But then again, if they had, who would know?

For example, what if your company did something that made it competitive with Google in some way or made Google feel you were a threat. What is to stop them from tweaking their algorithms so that your site suddenly didn't show up as often in search requests? How would you prove it? How would you even know?

As a fan of Google (I've often joked at the office that if my day job doesn't pan out, I'll send my resume to Google), I also recognize their power. In 5 years, it won't be Microsoft that casts a huge shadow over the Internet. It'll be Google. Not necessarily a negative one but a shadow nevertheless. I predict that they will soon dominate the on-line advertising markets. We alerady have Google-served ads here. 

Google has become a giant the old fashioned way - they do a better job. They're innovative and follow through on their ideas. But still, as their influence over the course of the Internet grows, it definitely will start to make people nervous. It's already made me nervous.

For instance, this week a user has been using Google Groups to post warez links to our software along with trying to spam our news groups with defammatory statements about our products, me, and our company. He's not a customer (former or current). He's just..well some nutball. His posts only show up on Google Groups via his Google groups account because our NNTP server is private and you can only post to it directly. So luckily, few people actually see his nonsense.

But still, it's very annoying that someone could potentially find warez links along with libelous nonsense about me because he's on Google Groups. We never asked for Google to archive our internal tech support news server. They just do. I've contacted Google about this issue but haven't heard from them. His posts clearly violate their terms of service. But what if they just blow me off? If it were just some ISP or some other company, you could send the legal guys after them. A written request from lawyers can accomplish wonders. But this is Google. Tick them off and they can potentially erase you from existence as far as the rest of the world knows. 

My point isn't that I thnk Google would do that. The point is that they could do that if they wanted. They wouldn't even have to do anything particularly malicious. Just tweak their search engine so that your results show up on the second page.  This isn't unique to Google, it would be true of any information resource that is emerging as dominant as Google is. I've said it myself - if it ain't on Google it might as well not exist. If Microsoft wants to retaliate against someone, it's hard for them to be subtle. But Google (or any other mega search engine company) could retaliate in ways that even the target wouldn't necessarily realize.

Thankfully, like I said, Google has been benevolent so far.  But I don't know about the rest of you but I'm finding myself in the awkward position of hoping that Microsoft does get into the search engine business with their own search engine technology.  Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are well known. I've seen them first hand during my OS/2 days.  But as long as there is reasonable competition in the search engine business, no one company will dominate what you see and don't see on the net. And that makes me feel a lot more comfortable. 

Widgets on Windows XP

Published on Saturday, March 27, 2004 By Brad Wardell In Objects & Widgets

Widgets on Windows XP exist. They exist via DesktopX, one of the world's most popular desktop enhancements.  DesktopX is a program that once installed adds a host of new abilities to Windows in a very seamless way.  With DesktopX installed you can build entire desktops or just download widgets.

In the case of widgets, DesktopX doesn't even need to be running. It just uses the DesktopX DLLs for their run-time.

You can download DesktopX here (for free): http://www.desktopx.net

Here are a few sample widgets that were recently uploaded to WinCustomize.com.