Fun with File Permissions – Part 4

And we’re back for Day 4 of the Fun with File Permissions Nerdathon! On Day 1 we covered our standard DAC permissions. On Day 2 we covered getfacl and setfacl, and on Day 3 we covered lsattr and chattr. Today we’re going to close out our run by taking a quick look at the sticky bit!

I’ll admit right out of the gate that I know the least about the sticky bit than any of the other day’s topics. If you see something I get wrong, don’t hesitate to correct me in the comments. I’ll update the post with the correct information.

So stick bits really started out in Unix in the 70s. You can still find pictures of it with big hair and bell bottoms. The original idea was that it was meant to be used on executable files. When the bit was flipped, the executable file would stay resident in memory so that it could be quickly loaded again. There were issues with it, like when you had to update those executables, you had to remove the bit, upgrade the file, and then replace the bit.

The functionality evolved. Linux has never supported this implementation of sticky bits.

Today, sticky bits are used to protect files from being removed when you give another user full rights to the file. So, how does this thing work?

Setting the sticky bit is easy. You just use the chmod command just like you did back on Day 1:

chmod +t test

This will set the sticky bit on a file, or in my case directory. Doing an ls -al from inside the test directory you’ll see this:

mike@PreciseApex:~/test$ ls -al
total 28
drwxrwxr-t 2 mike mike 4096 Jul 20 20:15 .
drwxr--r-- 56 mike mike 16384 Jul 20 19:20 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 mike mike 0 Jul 20 20:15 file

In that directory, I’ve created a file called (originally), file. You can see that file has full read write execute privileges. You can also see the permissions on the . directory above oddly end with a “t” instead of an x or a – like you’d expect. That tells us that the sticky bit is active. If you were using the sticky bit on a file, a lowercase t would indicate that it’s not executable, and an uppercase T would indicate that it is.

So, let’s try to kill this file.

I login with my wife’s account (shhhhhhhh), and do an ls -al in the same directory:

amy@PreciseApex:/home/mike/test$ ls -al
total 28
drwxrwxr-t 2 mike mike 4096 Jul 20 20:15 .
drwxr--r-- 56 mike mike 16384 Jul 20 19:20 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 mike mike 0 Jul 20 20:15 file

Things look pretty much the same in this account. You can see the lowercase t on the end of the directory permissions, but other than that, it looks like I’ve got full rights to file. I can open that file, modify that file, and save that file. No problems, even from my wifes account. Where the sticky bit comes into play is when I try to delete the file. An rm -f results in:

amy@PreciseApex:/home/mike/test$ rm -f file 
rm: cannot remove `file': Permission denied

Dun dun dun. Permission denied. If I do the same command from my user?

mike@PreciseApex:~/test$ rm -f file 
mike@PreciseApex:~/test$

No errors. The sticky bit will allow the owner of a file, and root (or a user with equivalent rights) to remove the file. If you want to remove the sticky bit from a file, it’s as easy as:

chmod -t file

And so our four days of Fun with File Permissions come to an end. I had a great time writing about this. It seems on the surface like it would be such a dry subject, but there are so many fun intricacies that it’s so exciting to experiment with. Please, if I didn’t cover something that you could have liked to see me cover, please mention it in the comments.

Fun with File Permissions – Part 3

Welcome to back to Mike’s 4 Days of Extreme Geekery (yes, Geekery is a word I just made up)! On Day 1 we talked about traditional Unix file permissions. On Day 2 we talked about setfacl and getfacl. Today, I want to go over chattr and lsattr!

What these two commands do is pretty self explanitory. lsattr shows you the attributes currently on a file or directory, and chattr changes those attributes. You use either + or – to add or subtract attributes.

 mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ lsattr mike
 -------------e- mike
 mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ sudo chattr +i mike
 mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ lsattr mike
 ----i--------e- mike
 mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$

The first time I found about the file attributes in Linux, I thought right away, “Hey, this is kinda like DOS!” I know what you’re thinking, and trust me if I could kick my own ass for saying that, I would. It turns out that the file attributes in DOS/Windows suck compared to the Linux version (like most things in DOS/Windows when compared to their Linux counterparts). Quick comparison will show you that DOS/Windows has 5 attributes. They are:

 R: Read Only
 A: Archive
 S: System
 H: Hidden
 I: Index

What each of these attributes does is, well, who cares. We’re not talking about DOS/Windows. The Linux version of file attributes is significantly more advanced. Available file attributes are:

 A: The date of last access is not updated (only useful for reducing disk access on laptops)
 S: The file is synchronous, the records in the file are made immediately on the disc.
 a: The file can be opened in addition to writing
 c: The file is automatically compressed before writing to disk, and unpacked before playback.
 D: The case is synchronous (see:S)
 d: The file will not be saved by the dump
 I: Can not be fixed by chattr only listed by lsattr
 i: The file / directory can not be amended, deleted, renamed or linked symbolically, not even by root.
 j: Mount file system with "data=ordered" or "data=writeback", and files are written to the log before the file.
 s: When the file is destroyed, all data blocks are being released to zero.
 T: Usable from version 2.5.46 kernel.
 u: If the file is deleted, its content is saved, it allows the user to seek its restoration.
 E: Experimental, can detect an error of compression can not be fixed by chattr, but can be listed by lsattr
 X: Experimental shows that the raw data to a compressed file can be accessed directly.
 Z: Experimental, provides information on the status of a compressed file.

As you can see, there are quite a few more file attributes that do significantly more. Some of these are more interesting than others. I’m only going to touch on a few of them that I find interesting. Of course, consult your man page for more information on the others.

The +A attribute basically locks that last accessed time to what it’s currently set at. Set this attribute, and you’re fill will be frozen in time. No more accesses will be recorded.

A really interesting one is the +c. This is an on the fly compression. If you add the +c attribute to an empty directory, everything you write to that directory will be compressed as if you stuck it in a file using gzip9 compression. One odd thing about it is that ls -l doesn’t show a darn thing. You can’t see the compression. I’ve heard that you can see it with a du, but when I was playing around with it, I didn’t see that.

I have to say that my favorite is the +i. I’m not sure what the i stands for, but I’m going with “Immortal”.

mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ lsattr mike
----i--------e- mike
mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ rm mike
rm: remove write-protected regular empty file `mike'? y
rm: cannot remove `mike': Operation not permitted
mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ sudo rm mike
rm: cannot remove `mike': Operation not permitted
mike@PreciseApex:~/mike/test$ sudo rm -f mike
rm: cannot remove `mike': Operation not permitted

With the +i attribute set, this file can not be deleted. Not by the owner, not by root, not by anybody. You have to be root (or equivalent) to set this attribute, so no messing with your admins on servers you don’t own, but still fun.

The last two kind of have to be taken together. +s and +u. If a file with the s attribute is deleted, the blocks where it lived are zeroed out and written to the disk. Bye bye file. Good luck retrieving that one. In contrast, the +u makes sure that the files information is saved just in case you want to undelete it later. +s and +u are opposites. Oddly, you can set both flags on a single file. Not sure what that would do. If you know, throw it into the comments.

That’s an extremely high level view of the file attributes in Linux. I could probably spend weeks on these two commands going over what they do, but I have the feeling that I’d probably lose most of you in that amount of time. Tomorrow, I’m going to take a look at sticky bits! Bound to be fun!

Fun with File Permissions – Part 2

Now, where were we? Oh yea, so the day before yesterday (I know I said I was going to do this daily, but the series finale of Eureka was on!) we covered what’s commonly thought of as the traditional Unix file permission. Permissions are applied using chmod, and can be seen as a -rwxrwxrwx at the front of the line after doing an ls -l.

OK, that’s all well, and good, but what do you do if you want to grant permissions to just a single person, or add different permissions to multiple groups? That’s where the crazy combo of setfacl and getfacl come in. I have a test file called “test”. If I do an ls -l on the file, I see these permissions:

-rw-r----- 1 mike users 0 Jul 15 22:35 test

So, this tells us that I’m the owner, and users is the group the file is assigned to (my group being the default). So, with these permissions, I can read and write to the file, anybody in the group users can read the file, and no one else can do anything with the file. Standard 640.

At this point, if I use one of our commands, the getfacl, I’ll see a little bit different information, but still basically the same:

# file: test
# owner: mike
# group: users
user::rw-
group::r--
other::---

But what if I want to give my wife permissions to that file, but no one else in the group users. One possibility is that I could create a separate group with just my wife and I in it and assign that group rights, but then the users group loses rights to the file. The simple solution is to just add my wife using this command:

setfacl -m u:amy:rx test

If I do an ls -l after this command, there’s only one slight change to tell us that we’ve done anything.

-rw-r-----+ 1 mike users 0 Jul 15 22:35 test

You can see now that there’s a + after the standard -rwxrwxrwx. This is a good sign. It means that our command was successful. If you were to do the getfacl now, you’d see this:

# file: test
# owner: mike
# group: users
user::rw-
user:amy:r-x
group::r--
mask::r-x
other::---

You can see now that the user “amy” has been added to the permissions of the file. If you were to do an ls -l command, you’d see that the group permissions would be replaced with the value in the “mask” field. This value reflects the last permissions applied to the file. A similar command can be used to add groups:

setfacl -m g:plex:rwx test

This gave full permissions to any users in the “plex” group. Now my getfacl looks like this:

# file: test
# owner: mike
# group: users
user::rw-
user:amy:r-x
group::r--
group:plex:rwx
mask::rwx
other::---

Through all of this, if I were to do an ls -l, the mask on that line would now show the permissions of the “plex” group, not the user “amy”.

-rw-rwx---+ 1 mike users 0 Jul 17 21:23 test

And if in the end, you decide that you would rather return to the standard -rwxrwxrwx Unix type permissions, it’s as easy as this:

setfacl -b file

After that command, the + is gone, and the getfacl returns to it’s defaults.

 -rw-r-----  1 mike users  0 Jul 17 21:23 test
# file: test
# owner: mike
# group: users
user::rw-
group::r--
other::---

Really, this is just scratching the surface. There is so much more that you can do with this, but again, I’ve gone on too long. Tomorrow (probably), I’m going to cover lsattr and chattr, and the day after I want to take a look at sticky bits!

Fun with File Permissions – Part 1

First, a little side story. I like messing around with my Linux computer. I have fun just seeing what the operating system can do. I like to talk about what I find, probably because learning new things excites me. I get giddy when I find out something new about something that’s familiar. Unfortunately, in my house, no one cares but me. I sometimes try telling my wife about it, but to say she doesn’t care is an understatement. She doesn’t even pretend to pay attention when I’m talking any more.

I was playing around with Linux file permissions the other day. I’ve been using Linux on my personal desktop for over a decade, and I use it at work as a developer. I’ve never spent a lot of time where I was the one who administered a multi-user environment, so file permissions were always the basics for me. In my playing the other day, I found a whole bunch of new things that I never even knew existed, and since my wife would rather watch paint dry than hear me talk about file permissions in Linux, I’m turning to you.

I’m sure most people reading this post are familiar (at least superficially) with Linux file permissions. Simply doing an “ls -l” will show you the long listing format of the current directory. The very front of the line will show you the permissions of each file in the list. An example:

-rwx--x--x
drw-------

The top entry is a file, the second is a directory. Whether that file is a directory, link, or regular file is represented by the first character. – means that it’s a file, d that it’s a directory. Extremely simple. The next nine characters are broken down into three characters each representing the file’s permissions.

The first three characters are the owner’s rights, the second group of three is the Group’s rights, and the last group of three is the rights of everybody else.

What the example above shows us is that the owner of the file can read, write, and execute the file, the Group and the average user on the system only show execute rights. For the directory, the owner can read and write, but no one else can do anything at all.

These rights can be changed using the chmod command at the Linux command line. There’s a GUI to do this too, but I’m not going to deal with it right now because I really don’t feel like it. chmod uses a numeric combination to determine what rights to set. An example:

chmod 755 filename

This command give the file these rights:

-rwxr-xr-x

Basically, it gives the owner full rights to read, write, and execute. Everybody else can read and execute, but no writing.

Maybe I should be embarrassed by this, but for years I didn’t understand what the 7s or 5s or whatever represented. It seemed like arbitrarily assigned values. I was wrong about that, and the way that those values are arrived at is really ingenious in it’s simplicity. Let’s count a little bit in Binary:

1 = 001 = --x
2 = 010 = -w-
3 = 011 = -wx
4 = 100 = r--
5 = 101 = r-x
6 = 110 = rw-
7 = 111 = rwx

See what I mean? Brilliant in its simplicity.

There’s so much more to go into, but I’ve already gotten fairly long winded about this tonight. There will be at least two more parts to this little adventure I’m on. Tomorrow I want to cover getfacl and setfacl, and the day after lsattr and chattr.

If there are any more subjects on file permissions that you’d like to see covered, please let me know in comments and we can add more days.

iFanatical Idiocy

A bit of a rant here.

I ran across this graphic on CounterNotions (I only bother to link because this guy has Apple so far up his rectum he’d probably sue me for copyright violation if I didn’t link to him).

This graphic is a perfect example of the thought process of many iFanatics I’ve run across. Ever wonder why so many of them think that Android is a copy of iOS?

For some reason, Windows/Microsoft is now the source of inspiration for anything that has grass. Apple is the source of inspiration for anything that has icons. Google can only be Search.

Does this  make any logical or technological sense? No, not even a little. Don’t even bother trying to tell them that.

#boycottapple

Just wanted to make a quick note about the #boycottapple thing going on on Google+ and on Twitter. I’ve read several people saying that boycotting Apple is dumb, and that the real problem is with the patent system. To the people pointing out that the patent system is broken I have one thing to say.

DUH.

We know this people. We’re not stupid. Here’s the issue though.

The patent system is broken for the entire software industry, so why isn’t anybody boycotting EA? Why isn’t anybody boycotting Adobe? Why isn’t anybody boycotting Attachmate?

The answer is easy. EA, Adobe, and Attachmate aren’t acting like assholes. Apple is. Apple is the one going “thermonuclear” on their competitors, and they’re the one using the broken patent system to do it.

Does the Software Patent system need to be fixed? I’d argue that it doesn’t need to be fixed so much as thrown out altogether, but I think we all agree that it’s broken. That’s not the point of the #boycottapple “movement” (if you will). The point is that Apple is being a bad player, and because of their behavior, they should be boycotted.

Android: Intent on Winning

I doubt many people were not aware of Apple’s latest announcements concerning iOS. Of course Apple again held their little party and pomped and circumstanced all over. This is to be expected. Pretty much any company making an announcement will do virtually the same thing. What concerns me is the reaction to these announcements in the media.

I ran across a comparison over on PCWorld.

First of all, the comparison itself is bogus. The author took only the features that Apple announced that were new about iOS, and compared other platforms to that list. This automatically gives iOS the upper hand. If I were to list the new features of Android or even Win7Phone and compare those to another platform, it’s going to appear as if the OSs being compared are falling short. Unfortunately, this is pretty normal behavior for PCWorld. There are quite a number of Apple fans on staff and they conceal it rather poorly, if they make an effort at all.

Second of all is the small portion of the chart that I pulled out and posted down below (headers left intact for ease of understanding).

See how the Facebook and Twitter integration for Android is listed as “3rd party apps only”? To me, this is implied inferiority from the creator of this chart. It screams “iOS does this better because it’s integrated and in Android it’s not!” This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Let’s get the easy stuff out of the way first. The chart is technically correct. Android doesn’t build Twitter or Facebook support directly into the Operating System. Instead it does something much better. Intents.

An intent in Android is a mechanism allowing for apps to communicate with each other. This includes the OS itself.

Using Intents, Android can create very similar functionality to what iOS users see when Apple integrates a service into the OS. Not being integrated is it’s greatest strength. This allows for Android to give integrated type functionality to any application installed on the device. Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, LinkedIn, you name it.

Because the service isn’t integrated, the OS is a lot more versatile.

Allow me to propose a hypothetical. In the not very distant future, Apple trots out iOS6 on it’s new iPhone, complete with it’s neat and spiffy Facebook integration. Shortly after that, there’s a social revolution. A new player appears on the scene. Let’s call it MyFace. Because of several new and really cool features MyFace offers that Facebook doesn’t, users leave Facebook in droves. Facebook becomes a ghost town. iOS users are now finding this new Facebook integration almost entirely useless. Android users simply delete the Facebook app from their device and install the new and really shiny MyFace app. Intents allow for MyFace to be instantly integrated with the device. A year passes, and Apple finally gets around to updating their OS to implement MyFace, removing the now defunct Facebook, only to find that MyFace is old hat. It’s been replaced with a new service, SpaceBook. Android users simply remove MyFace from their device, install SpaceBook, and go on with their social lives. iOS users are stuck waiting, again.

Now, is this analogy plausible? Well, two new and dominating social networks over the course of a two years is pretty far fetched, but that’s not the point. With Android, it doesn’t matter how fast the industry changes. Android changes just as fast. Intents allow for that to happen. iOS is not nearly as agile. It’s slow and dependent on Apple to move it forward.

To often today I’m seeing journalists holding up one of Apple’s greatest weaknesses as if it were one of it’s greatest strengths. Make no mistake, iOS is a dinosaur. It just doesn’t know that it’s extinct yet.

iPhone and Galaxy S III – Not the Same

Just a quick note to the iFans out there that are claiming that Apple’s iPhone 4s and Samsung’s Galaxy S III look so much alike. Look again!

Keep in mind that the following statements actually came from a real message from an iFan.

Virtually all Android devices have 3 or 4 buttons on the bottom, yet Samsung made a single Home button in the middle and faded the 4 buttons so that the surface of the device closely resembles that of the iPhone.

No it doesn’t.

Almost all Android devices use USB, but Samsung made their connector to look virtually identical to that of Apple’s 30 pin cable.

No they didn’t.

To an extent devices are going to look similar. It’s the nature of the type of devices we have now. Perhaps separately these minor things wouldn’t be noticed. But combined they show a desire to tell potential customers that their devices are just the same.

These devices are not “just the same”. No amount of repeating Apple’s lies will make that true. Next time, try facts.

Looking Back…

My Dad was born in 1923. He was the 3rd child, and the oldest boy. He had one younger brother and two older sisters. He grew up in California and Washington States. He had jobs like being a hired hand in an apple orchard. I think he swept floors at one point. He wasn’t royalty by anyone’s standards. I’d say that his upbringing was pretty normal for the times.

I sometimes ask my Dad to tell me stories about when he was a kid. I get all sorts of crazy tales. Riding his bike down the biggest hill in town. Shocking people by hooking up a coil to the frame of his car and waiting for people to bump into it. Running away from home for a whole summer to work the next town down the road, only to come back home for school. All those stories bring a smile to his face. He rarely tells one without laughing.

The stories suddenly dry up around 1941. He would have been 18 years old at the time, and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. On December 8th, the United States of America officially joined World War 2. It wasn’t long after that my Dad joined the Navy.

He and many of his friends. Not all of them made it back.

There are very few stories from that time of his life. I know he was stationed in the Philippines for at least part of his stint. I know he was on some of the naval aircraft that flew in combat during that time. I know he was on at least two aircraft that were shot down. He also was a aircraft mechanic for at least part of it. If he talks about these years, it’s rarely with a smile on his face. Quite often, he has to pause when he remembers a particular individual. More stories than not have tragic endings.

This year, my Dad will be 89 years old, and to this day those memories bring him sadness the likes of which I have never known, and hope never to understand.

What I do know is this. Tonight, when I tucked my own two sons into bed, warm, safe, and secure, I owe my Dad and thousands more individuals like him a debt of gratitude that can never be paid.

All I can do is say “Thank you” for all that you’ve given. Thank you for keeping my family safe and free. We don’t say it nearly enough.

A Linux User’s Day with a Mac

Oh $#!+.

Several days ago, I was sitting at my desk minding my own business when a received a new email. This is a regular occurrence for me, as I’m sure it is with most people in today’s office workplace. With not even a thought, I open it.

It’s not what you think. I didn’t get a virus or get fired or anything weird. It was a message from our corporate IT department informing me that my computer was due for a “refresh”.

What is a “refresh” you ask? Well, that’s when they take your computer and replace it with a new one. To top it off, I’d been selected to be a part of our Windows 7 pilot program. Our company is finally moving away from Windows XP and upgrading to Windows 7.

My reaction? “Oh $#!+.”

There’s no getting out of this, so I dutifully copy all my files that I hadn’t already stored on the network drive to a location where they will be safe. The IT department wants my computer “First thing in the morning”, so I drop my computer off at 8:00. They inform me that it will be at least 3 hours before my new one is ready.

My choices are now simple. I can either do without a computer for 3+ hours, or I can find a different system to use.

Casting my eye around my department, there is only one computer currently unused. One of our test systems. A Mac.

How bad can it be I ask myself? I used Macs quite a lot back in the 90s, and for a while was the “Mac guy” at the computer shop, fixing people’s broken Macs. Apple has always been renown for it’s ease of use and beauty. It was only for a couple hours. I could handle this!

Linux User

So, I’m sure anybody reading this is more than aware that my system of preference is Linux. I use Windows at work, but my home system is Linux Mint 12. I’ve made some changes to the default interface, and only use the top bar. I have no bottom bar. Most everything else is fairly stock.

My Thoughts on OSX

So, here’s where I tell you all about my experience. To put it as plainly as I can, it sucked.

First, the dock.

OSX, like Windows, has this stupid bar at the bottom. In the bar are your favorite apps, and running applications. Why should this be on your screen all the time? I know that you can have the stupid thing hide, but every time your mouse approaches that part of your screen, it pops up like some hyperactive chiwawa. It’s as bad as Windows. This is not something that needs to be on the screen all the time. The only time you need to see it is when you’re launching something new, or looking for something that’s already running.

Second, Exposé.

Exposé is actually the perfect solution for switching between applications, it’s it’s limitations in OSX make that impractical. Only applications not minimized show up in Exposé? Not smart. This is a much better way to pick between your windows rather than some nondescript icons where you can’t tell the difference between one terminal window or another. It effectively makes half of the dock completely useless. Why have that half of the dock when the functionality is better represented elsewhere?

Third, Spaces.

What kind of a half-assed hack is this? The functionality has been around in various forms of Unix since the 80s. It’s been improved upon and made very useful, but Apple’s version looks like something straight out of 1988.

Fourth, Exposé and Spaces?

Why the heck have both of them? In Linux Mint, hitting the super key on the keyboard brings up Mint’s Exposé type feature, with the virtual desktops along the right hand side of the monitor. They’re not seperate screens, and Windows can literally be moved from the existing Exposé type view to a completely different virtual space without leaving that screen. One screen, two functions. Apple’s method is straight out of the 90s, if that. It’s ancient, limited, and impractical.

Fifth, Macintosh HD.

On the system that I used, the only icon on the desktop was the Macintosh HD icon. This icon opened up to show your standard file browser type appliation, but what is all this junk inside of it? It takes you to a location that looks like / on a Linux box. Why the heck would you want to go there by default? You need access to your files! When I open Nautilus on my Linux box, it goes to my home directory! MINE. /home/mike. Not some random location with crap that I’m rarely if ever going to want to go to. I mean, “lost+found” and “Library”? What the hell?

Sixth, the Clock.

You’re probably wondering, what could possibly be bad about the clock? It’s a clock for pity’s sake. True, and as a time piece, OSX does very well. What I’m missing is functionality that I use every day in Linux but find sorely missing in OSX. Heck, even Windows does this. When you click on the clock on a Windows 7 box, you get a bigger clock and a calendar, as well as the ability to change your preferences. OSX is missing the calendar completely. On my Linux box, not only do I get a calendar, but on the right, I have a list of all my meetings. Below the meetings, I can open up my actual calendar application! Great functionality in the perfect place. Functionality sorely missing from OSX.

That’s what I found most about OSX. Missing functionality. Chances as making a good interface missed. In closing, I want to show you something. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the left, we see OSX, 10.0. Pristine the day it was launched. On the right, we have OSX, 10.7.3. 10.0 from 2001, 10.7.3 from 2011. A full 10 years difference. What’s changed? There’s a new, cool 3d effect on the dock. Color scheme has changed a bit. Yea, that’s pretty much it. This is the “innovative” OS? Are you shitting me?? Seriously?

Don’t even get me started on this iPad type launcher turd.

Conclusion.

So, how does the story end? When all was said and done, I was able to work in OSX. Corporate IT ended up taking 7 hours instead of 3 like I was hoping, so I ended up getting my new Windows 7 computer close to the end of the day. I can say it was with real glee that I ditched OSX to run (RUN I tell you) back to Windows (and that’s saying something). After starting some file transfers to get my personal files back on my hard drive, I gratefully went home, sat down in front of my “ugly”, “hard to use” Linux box and sighed with relief. I hope I don’t have to do that again for many, many years.