I want to run a big feature on Moblin and on netbook software; something that will complement all the hardware hard work that MikeS put in for our cover feature a couple of months ago. But I'm a bit worried: I'm not sure how many of you are interested in such a beast. Are you closet netbook fanboys? Do you want to be closet netbook fanboys? Do you see netbook distros as a great way to breathe new life into ageing computers?
I'm also thinking of running a coding series on Clutter, because it's a lot of fun. The question is, would you prefer we write that tutorial using Clutter's native C, or using Python and the PyClutter binding? Or are we just crazy and should leave Clutter well alone?
In Linux Format issue 124, page 77, I wrote about the Free Software Foundation's Windows 7 Sins page. Specifically, I gave my opinion that the page is too zealous and hyperbolic; that it makes the free software community look like irrational mouth-foaming Microsoft haters. I said that we should focus more on publicising GNU/Linux rather than bashing Microsoft.
A reader emailed me asking for more elaboration on what I dislike about the page - so here are some of the quotes on the page and why I think they don't work.
Fresh from recording another TuxRadar podcast ready for tomorrow (yes, it really does go through extensive sound editing before being released to the world), we had a discussion here at LXF Towers about whether we use up too much space with our dazzling wit.
Whether it's SPython, chimps delivering subscriptions, flippant welcome page answers, SI Gonzales ratings or LeeNukes and his legion of page-checking ninjas (he probably hasn't spotted that one yet), we rarely shy away from filling in captions or other little spaces with seemingly random comments that frequently only long-term subscribers will get.
Does this irritate you? Would you rather we cut the fluff and focused on more, more, more Linux goodness? Answers on a postcard, or alternatively leave a comment below.
...and, like usual, rather than do Real Work I'm trying to distract myself with BBC News articles. But this time my plan has backfired, as in one of them I just discovered that I'm the same age as Macaulay Culkin, which is, frankly, terrifying.
After posting that I have no intention of making a special magazine on assembly, someone posted a comment containing some assembly source code, followed by the message "You should see Hello world! printed to the screen. Congratulations! You have just written your first assembly program in Linux and irritated the great Hudzilla at the same time!"
Clearly I had vastly under-estimated the interest in such a magazine; Mike seems certain that it'd sell well enough for Future to be interested in doing it. So, I think it's only right of me to gracefully U Turn and give it a try.
Six weeks ago I asked for ideas for things you'd like to see in LXF, and you guys submitted a huge number of suggestions - thanks!
I've spent the last few weeks tracking down writers for all your ideas, and the end result is that around 40 of your suggestions have been matched to writers, given deadlines for future issues of LXF, and are hopefully already under production. At just 116 pages we're far from a big magazine, but I'll try to squeeze in as many of your requests as possible - be patient!
Linux has a reputation as a stable operating system that doesn't often need rebooting. So we were wondering, how often do you boot your systems, and why?
We're mainly interested in figures for server systems, not desktops, and we realise that some intelligent guesswork may be needed to fill in the answers. Just give a reasonable estimate. If we get a decent response we'll publish the results in Linux Format.
As regular readers know, we run 32-bit incarnations of distros on the LXF DVD, including 64-bit versions (where available) as extras in ISO image format. Given that most machines made in the last few years are 64-bit, we're thinking of switching over.
For instance, when Ubuntu 9.10 arrives, we can make the DVD boot into the 64-bit version and have the 32-bit edition as an ISO image. In other words, the reverse of before. What do you think?
I discovered something new last night. Something that sounds like torture. Something so terrible that I'm not even going to look it up on Wikipedia just in case it has pictures. Something that, if you're a husband and as blissfully ignorant as me, you may well find yourself asking your wife about then laughing in disbelief.
And it is this: eyebrow threading. OH MY GOD YOUTUBE HAS VIDEOS AND THEY ARE FULL OF EYEBROWS!
I'm never going near a girl again.