If you do a search for Wing Chun on YouTube, you will see countless videos of Wing Chun "experts" pitted against other combat arts in a full contact environment. Often, you will see the Wing Chun practitioner easily defeated by someone who practises another fighting system. It would seem to indicate that Wing Chun is useless as a fighting art, but let's consider what you are actually watching on YouTube.
Like many martial arts, Wing Chun has its fair share of charlatans. I'm not going to tell you which branches of Wing Chun belong under that description, but you will have to trust me that some Wing Chun is more genuine than others. The unfortunate thing is that those who feel they have something to prove are the ones who choose to do it on YouTube.
Let's also consider the relative experience of each fighter. I was angered by a series of videos I found on YouTube, where "Moy Yat Wing Chun" was pitted against other fighting arts in the environment of a boxing ring. Genuine Moy Yat Wing Chun is, I can inform you, one of the better examples of the art. Even with the disadvantages brought by fighting in a sporting environment (which I will come to later), I would expect the Moy Yat fighters to have won a fair proportion of the fights featured. What I saw, however, was Moy Yat fighters totally outclassed by various other martial arts.
The fighters who were said to represent Moy Yat Wing Chun seemed woefully uncoordinated, their Wing Chun was sloppy. Actually, their Wing Chun looked suspiciously like that of someone who had only learnt it by watching DVDs, not actually attended formal training in the style. I draw the conclusion that someone just has some problem with Moy Yat, or Wing Chun. It was rather telling that the ability to post comments on the videos had been blocked.
As I'm on the subject of comments, we have to consider these too. Obviously, videos showing Wing Chun being defeated cause quite a stir, and provoke a lot of negative comments about the style. More disturbingly, some of the great masters of Wing Chun have posted videos demonstrating how to perform the training correctly, and these have also attracted negative comments. There is no doubt that a lot of these comments come from spotty teenagers, who have only seen martial arts on Hollywood films or video games, who are fed on a diet of junk food and fizzy drinks. To them, the UFC is where it all begins and ends. Anything outside of their experience is to be regarded as a target for ridicule. They are unlikely to ever attend a martial arts class.
I laugh when I see comparisons between Wing Chun and the mixed martial arts in the UFC. Are they even comparable? No. I learn martial arts because I don't like the thought of ending a night in an ambulance because of some idiot taking a dislike to me; I have no interest in fighting to win trophies or other prizes. For those reasons, I chose Wing Chun. As soon as I step into a ring or an octagon, or put on a pair of gloves, I am at a disadvantage. A large percentage of what I have trained is no longer allowable, and it is understandable. Cage fighting is a sport, and the object is not to permanently damage an opponent. Certainly, the crowd want to get value for money, so a quick incapacitation is also not ideal. Wing Chun is a style which came from the field of battle, so to speak, and imposing rules upon it takes away a lot of its effectiveness. It is not safe and predictable; it is not a sport; it is, put simply, a deadly weapon. With the rules of competition in place, it is no longer Wing Chun; it is a diluted version of Wing Chun.
The YouTube videos of Wing Chun, if not in a ring or octagon, are of friendly sparring matches. Even if the Wing Chun guy is experienced enough to give a good account of his style, the environment limits him to what is safe.
What about bringing the mixed martial arts of the octagon to the street? To be fair, it might work, certainly against untrained fighters. A seasoned street fighter? Hmm. A practitioner of a traditional art or something like Jeet Kune Do or Krav Maga? Hmm. Someone with a knife? Hmm. I have obviously never witnessed a cage fighter dealing with those issues but, from my own perspective, I would trust an art geared towards self defence over one geared towards gaining a submission to win a prize.
A final thought on this: Wing Chun has proved effective for a period of more than five hundred years. If it was not effective, it would not have survived. Will YouTube survive for that amount of time? Will the UFC survive for that amount of time? I'm happy that the brainless morons on YouTube and the wholly biased MMA forums think it is useless, because the last thing we need is them taking an interest in Wing Chun - that would be bad for Wing Chun, and bad for the world in general.
Friday, 23 March 2012
Friday, 16 March 2012
The Philippines
I recently saw a video on YouTube. I'm not going to post a link or tell you the title of the offending video, because I don't want to give it a wider audience. What I want to do, however, is comment on what I saw and how it compares to my own experience. It was a video posted by an American who has spent some time living in the Philippines, and his message was that many things about the country irritate him. Actually, his language was pretty graphic, which always makes me question the intelligence of the speaker, but let's move on from that.
I can't remember every point he raised. To be honest, I've tried not to waste too much time thinking about it, but he said something that I found really offensive. He was in a bar, being served drinks by transvestites/transsexuals, and he questioned why all the attractive women in the Philippines are actually men. Any way you look at that comment, it is offensive. He sidesteps the obvious charge of racism by finding the men (posing as women) attractive, but says that a whole country of women does nothing for him. I can just imagine the Filipinas of the Philippines and elsewhere collectively thinking that this is a good thing, because he's not the kind of man whose attention they would seek. Maybe that's his real problem with the women of the Philippines.
Let's get to the real issue here. Filipino women are not unattractive. Saying that a race of women are inherently unattractive, or that one race is more beautiful than another, is a waste of time. The woman in my life happens to be Filipino, and to me she is the most beautiful woman in the world, but I am also aware that not everyone has the same idea of beauty as I do. The man in the YouTube video uses the example of transgender/transvestite prostitutes to extol the virtues of Filipino males, as opposed to their female counterparts. First of all, it would be interesting to know if he is just comparing prostitutes. After all, that would tie in with my feeling that he feels bad towards the Philippines because he can't get a woman there. If that's his problem, a personality transplant might help.
Secondly, he should have thought it through before he expressed a preference for men to so many viewers. I won't condemn anyone for homosexual tendencies, I am not homophobic, but perhaps the internet is not the best forum for expressing it. I shouldn't really need to spell this out. If, as a man, he knowingly finds men more attractive than women, he is either homosexual or bisexual. Saying that they look like women does not change it. I don't know why he chose to live in the Philippines, but I am aware of a history of Western men flying to Asia to explore their sexuality, because it is a safe distance from their everyday life, meaning they potentially feel less shame about their feelings - certainly, he wouldn't be the first. It would be better, of course, if no one was compelled to feel ashamed of their homosexual feelings, but Western civilisation has not yet reached that point. He said that he is more attracted to men than women, so that is why the women of the Philippines do nothing for him.
A more serious issue is how he blatantly insults people within their range of hearing. Maybe he doesn't know that the vast majority of Filipino people speak very good English and, unlike him, they don't usually feel the need to fill every sentence with obscenities. Actually, it speaks well of the people that they didn't react, and gives a very poor impression of him, as a man who lacks the basic social skills and is thoroughly unpleasant. At one point, he criticised security guards for smiling. He would prefer them to be sullen and ill-tempered? They carry guns. For me, that smile tells me that there is a reduced risk of me getting shot and, as such, is very reassuring. He also questions why they are needed, showing his ignorance of the problems in Southern Mindanao and the threat of terrorism (which is, thankfully, relatively minor).
Oh, but wait. Western governments were very eager to overstate the threat of terrorism in the Philippines, so it is likely, especially as a resident, that he knows too well why those security guards are present. Did Western governments overstate the threat because they are concerned by the rise in Asian economies and seek to slow the progress of growth of investment in Asia? Maybe we're getting close to the reason why the video was posted in the first place. Just a thought.
If the people of the Philippines were unfriendly, I am sure he would have been the first to complain.
All of his other criticisms were frankly ridiculous. The Philippines is a third world country. I haven't been to the place he featured in his video, but I would bet that he deliberately looked for the worst aspects of that place, and that is all that he presented to the viewing public. He's American, apparently. Imagine if I went to the US and posted a video solely about the negative aspects of his home country. Would the list of complaints be any lesser than that he presented? If he were to examine the US in such minute detail, I am sure that the Philippines would not look so bad to him. Maybe he is lamenting the fact that it is not like the US. Well, I for one am eternally grateful for that. The Philippines has its own distinct character, and that should be what makes travel to foreign countries so exciting.
Only a fool would say the Philippines, or any other country on the planet, was perfect. Certainly, the recent advertising campaign suggesting that everything is more fun in the Philippines has provoked parodies and criticism, but it has also created interest in the country. My worry is not that the Philippines will suffer as a result of this video being posted, or any of the other critical essays posted on the internet. I live in the UK and, though the Philippines is still not seen by many as a choice for a holiday destination, I am aware that the number of UK citizens visiting the country is still on the rise. My worry is that one man has given a very bad impression of Westerners in general. The vast majority of Filipinos will have the intelligence to know that he is not representative of the Western world, but I fear that a small minority will see his behaviour as a reason to feel animosity towards visitors to their land.
For what it's worth, I love my fiancee, and I love the Philippines.
I can't remember every point he raised. To be honest, I've tried not to waste too much time thinking about it, but he said something that I found really offensive. He was in a bar, being served drinks by transvestites/transsexuals, and he questioned why all the attractive women in the Philippines are actually men. Any way you look at that comment, it is offensive. He sidesteps the obvious charge of racism by finding the men (posing as women) attractive, but says that a whole country of women does nothing for him. I can just imagine the Filipinas of the Philippines and elsewhere collectively thinking that this is a good thing, because he's not the kind of man whose attention they would seek. Maybe that's his real problem with the women of the Philippines.
Let's get to the real issue here. Filipino women are not unattractive. Saying that a race of women are inherently unattractive, or that one race is more beautiful than another, is a waste of time. The woman in my life happens to be Filipino, and to me she is the most beautiful woman in the world, but I am also aware that not everyone has the same idea of beauty as I do. The man in the YouTube video uses the example of transgender/transvestite prostitutes to extol the virtues of Filipino males, as opposed to their female counterparts. First of all, it would be interesting to know if he is just comparing prostitutes. After all, that would tie in with my feeling that he feels bad towards the Philippines because he can't get a woman there. If that's his problem, a personality transplant might help.
Secondly, he should have thought it through before he expressed a preference for men to so many viewers. I won't condemn anyone for homosexual tendencies, I am not homophobic, but perhaps the internet is not the best forum for expressing it. I shouldn't really need to spell this out. If, as a man, he knowingly finds men more attractive than women, he is either homosexual or bisexual. Saying that they look like women does not change it. I don't know why he chose to live in the Philippines, but I am aware of a history of Western men flying to Asia to explore their sexuality, because it is a safe distance from their everyday life, meaning they potentially feel less shame about their feelings - certainly, he wouldn't be the first. It would be better, of course, if no one was compelled to feel ashamed of their homosexual feelings, but Western civilisation has not yet reached that point. He said that he is more attracted to men than women, so that is why the women of the Philippines do nothing for him.
A more serious issue is how he blatantly insults people within their range of hearing. Maybe he doesn't know that the vast majority of Filipino people speak very good English and, unlike him, they don't usually feel the need to fill every sentence with obscenities. Actually, it speaks well of the people that they didn't react, and gives a very poor impression of him, as a man who lacks the basic social skills and is thoroughly unpleasant. At one point, he criticised security guards for smiling. He would prefer them to be sullen and ill-tempered? They carry guns. For me, that smile tells me that there is a reduced risk of me getting shot and, as such, is very reassuring. He also questions why they are needed, showing his ignorance of the problems in Southern Mindanao and the threat of terrorism (which is, thankfully, relatively minor).
Oh, but wait. Western governments were very eager to overstate the threat of terrorism in the Philippines, so it is likely, especially as a resident, that he knows too well why those security guards are present. Did Western governments overstate the threat because they are concerned by the rise in Asian economies and seek to slow the progress of growth of investment in Asia? Maybe we're getting close to the reason why the video was posted in the first place. Just a thought.
If the people of the Philippines were unfriendly, I am sure he would have been the first to complain.
All of his other criticisms were frankly ridiculous. The Philippines is a third world country. I haven't been to the place he featured in his video, but I would bet that he deliberately looked for the worst aspects of that place, and that is all that he presented to the viewing public. He's American, apparently. Imagine if I went to the US and posted a video solely about the negative aspects of his home country. Would the list of complaints be any lesser than that he presented? If he were to examine the US in such minute detail, I am sure that the Philippines would not look so bad to him. Maybe he is lamenting the fact that it is not like the US. Well, I for one am eternally grateful for that. The Philippines has its own distinct character, and that should be what makes travel to foreign countries so exciting.
Only a fool would say the Philippines, or any other country on the planet, was perfect. Certainly, the recent advertising campaign suggesting that everything is more fun in the Philippines has provoked parodies and criticism, but it has also created interest in the country. My worry is not that the Philippines will suffer as a result of this video being posted, or any of the other critical essays posted on the internet. I live in the UK and, though the Philippines is still not seen by many as a choice for a holiday destination, I am aware that the number of UK citizens visiting the country is still on the rise. My worry is that one man has given a very bad impression of Westerners in general. The vast majority of Filipinos will have the intelligence to know that he is not representative of the Western world, but I fear that a small minority will see his behaviour as a reason to feel animosity towards visitors to their land.
For what it's worth, I love my fiancee, and I love the Philippines.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Good defence
For the longest time, I have regarded the study of martial arts as the equivalent of wearing a seatbelt when I drive. I hope that it will never be needed, but I want it to be there if the worst happens. After years of examining various styles and weighing up their effectiveness, I chose Wing Chun, but I believe the principles, or mindset, behind an art are arguably more important than the choice of art.
Over the years, I have seen many masters of various fighting styles perform, and I have a good idea of which are the most effective styles for self protection. I have noticed a common thread, and it ties in with my own experience of using traditional martial arts in violent confrontations. In most martial arts classes, the first thing they will teach you is how to hit. The skill of the masters, and a quality present in all the most effective arts for self protection, is the ability to avoid being hit.
There's something known as the "sledgehammer" theory of martial arts. This translates to hitting an attacker as hard as possible, and not worrying about being too accurate. My own approach would be to hit hard enough to stun, so that the heavy artillery can follow. An overly hard first strike will compromise my balance, and it is the strike which is most likely to be intercepted by a block or nullified by a slip or duck. If my first punch hits, then that is fine - I can follow it with more. If it misses or is blocked, however, and all my effort has gone into that first strike, I am compromised.
I also believe that movements should be trained with as little muscular tension as possible. I deliberately slow down and soften my movements during training. To some this would seem like madness, but I would remind you of a factor which arises during a fight - adrenaline. The natural tendency during a fight is to stiffen, use our strength and move more quickly than we thought possible. This is made possible by our heart pumping blood around our bodies more quickly, our lungs drawing more air into them and other physiological differences brought on by the stress of the situation. Unfortunately, our fine motor skills can suffer too. So, we may stiffen and our fine motor skills may suffer. I have found that the best way to counter this is to train in a relaxed manner, so that a response of relative calm and fluidity of movement is programmed into us.
There is also much argument about whether grappling styles are effective for self protection. It is widely accepted that fighting on the ground is something that should be avoided, if possible, as it entails creating a vulnerability to other attackers. The attacker who works alone is a rare beast, unfortunately. My own position on this is that grappling has its place, but my preference is for those movements to be fleeting, transitional movements to another strike. If I ever get brought to the ground, my life will probably depend on me getting up off the floor as quickly as possible.
My main point, however, is the importance of defence. The vast majority of attacks will be ambushes - totally unexpected by the intended victim. The likelihood is that stopping that attack reaching its target will be the first priority, and this requires training of blocks, parries, deflections and evasive manoeuvres. This is what I have seen from the true masters. Their defences are impenetrable. A punch is a punch, a kick is just a kick and a head butt, elbow or knee strike are the same, regardless of the level of mastery. The master can, however, fire these attacks at will, because he has trained his defensive skills to the point where they require no thought. All of his conscious effort is directed to firing an attack through a gap in his opponent's defences, because his own defences are like a solid wall.
I will not tell you that one style is better than another. Let's leave that to the kids who fill the internet with that kind of nonsense and have probably not had exposure to any art, or too few to make an informed decision. How you train your style, and the quality of your tuition, is much more important. Saying that one is better than another is foolish at best, and irresponsible at worst. If, however, you find that your instructor places too much emphasis on attack, take the time to concentrate on defensive movements in your time away from the class.
Over the years, I have seen many masters of various fighting styles perform, and I have a good idea of which are the most effective styles for self protection. I have noticed a common thread, and it ties in with my own experience of using traditional martial arts in violent confrontations. In most martial arts classes, the first thing they will teach you is how to hit. The skill of the masters, and a quality present in all the most effective arts for self protection, is the ability to avoid being hit.
There's something known as the "sledgehammer" theory of martial arts. This translates to hitting an attacker as hard as possible, and not worrying about being too accurate. My own approach would be to hit hard enough to stun, so that the heavy artillery can follow. An overly hard first strike will compromise my balance, and it is the strike which is most likely to be intercepted by a block or nullified by a slip or duck. If my first punch hits, then that is fine - I can follow it with more. If it misses or is blocked, however, and all my effort has gone into that first strike, I am compromised.
I also believe that movements should be trained with as little muscular tension as possible. I deliberately slow down and soften my movements during training. To some this would seem like madness, but I would remind you of a factor which arises during a fight - adrenaline. The natural tendency during a fight is to stiffen, use our strength and move more quickly than we thought possible. This is made possible by our heart pumping blood around our bodies more quickly, our lungs drawing more air into them and other physiological differences brought on by the stress of the situation. Unfortunately, our fine motor skills can suffer too. So, we may stiffen and our fine motor skills may suffer. I have found that the best way to counter this is to train in a relaxed manner, so that a response of relative calm and fluidity of movement is programmed into us.
There is also much argument about whether grappling styles are effective for self protection. It is widely accepted that fighting on the ground is something that should be avoided, if possible, as it entails creating a vulnerability to other attackers. The attacker who works alone is a rare beast, unfortunately. My own position on this is that grappling has its place, but my preference is for those movements to be fleeting, transitional movements to another strike. If I ever get brought to the ground, my life will probably depend on me getting up off the floor as quickly as possible.
My main point, however, is the importance of defence. The vast majority of attacks will be ambushes - totally unexpected by the intended victim. The likelihood is that stopping that attack reaching its target will be the first priority, and this requires training of blocks, parries, deflections and evasive manoeuvres. This is what I have seen from the true masters. Their defences are impenetrable. A punch is a punch, a kick is just a kick and a head butt, elbow or knee strike are the same, regardless of the level of mastery. The master can, however, fire these attacks at will, because he has trained his defensive skills to the point where they require no thought. All of his conscious effort is directed to firing an attack through a gap in his opponent's defences, because his own defences are like a solid wall.
I will not tell you that one style is better than another. Let's leave that to the kids who fill the internet with that kind of nonsense and have probably not had exposure to any art, or too few to make an informed decision. How you train your style, and the quality of your tuition, is much more important. Saying that one is better than another is foolish at best, and irresponsible at worst. If, however, you find that your instructor places too much emphasis on attack, take the time to concentrate on defensive movements in your time away from the class.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
LXDE
One of the things I love about Linux, and the reason I spend more time using Linux than Windows, is that it just allows me to get the job done. There are times when I actually need to boot into Windows, and I find it infuriating. First of all, it takes an age to start, and then all the applications and things I want to do take place at a glacial speed. Much to my horror, I saw Linux going the same way.
For as long as I can remember, there have been people who love GNOME and people who love KDE. I have no problem with this, because Linux is all about choice. Personally, when Ubuntu switched their main desktop environment to Unity, it was just a step too far for me - it clearly wasn't ready, and the interface actually got in the way of me getting things done. Maybe that's personal preference, but I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken, and Unity was more like a smartphone interface than the traditional WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointer) environment of GNOME. I had easily made the switch to Ubuntu-based GNOME from KDE-based SuSE and Mandriva systems I used earlier. Yes, there were differences, but it was still a traditional WIMP environment. We should start using that acronym again - I prefer it to it's modern equivalent, GUI.
I switched to the Debian edition of Linux Mint, which had kept with the GNOME environment. Once again, I was happy with the interface between myself and the things I wanted to get done. However, a stream of updates to the system conspired to slow things down; not to the snail's pace of Windows, but certainly to an extent where I noticed. GNOME was becoming bloated. I wondered if switching back to KDE would make a difference but, looking at reports on the internet, and trying it out for myself, I came to the conclusion that it would not.
I have used XFCE in the past, and I'm a big fan of that desktop environment. It is a traditional desktop environment. I have some brief experience of GNOME 3 and, until Windows 8 comes along, I find it even more infuriating than Windows. XFCE was originally modelled on a standard UNIX desktop called CDE, and it is all the better for that. It is not difficult to use, it works in the manner I expect, and it simply gets out of the way and allows me to get things done. For now, this is the interface I have with my computer in Linux.
I'm becoming increasingly interested in LXDE, though. Compared to GNOME, KDE and XFCE, this desktop gets little attention from the big Linux distributors. Lubuntu - a LXDE version of the insanely popular Ubuntu - is an exception, and bundles LXDE as the desktop environment, but I found it to be incredibly unstable. It is, after all, based on the unstable branch of Debian, I guess.
My interest in this comes from a desire to run Linux on older computers. Imagine how many perfectly usable computers go to landfill each year, just because they can't run the latest version of Windows. Think also of poorer countries, where they would be happy to have ANY computer, as long as it is functioning. I ran some tests, on various distributions, and found that LXDE uses an average of 40MB less memory than XFCE. It also quickly became apparent that everything in LXDE happens at lightning speed. Yes, I could use even less resources by opting for a straight window manager, but I prefer the comfort of a desktop environment. I want the operating system to get out of the way and allow me to get things done, remember? A desktop environment is just more friendly than a simple window manager.
I'm seriously considering switching to LXDE as my main desktop. For me, it does not lack anything and it is simply a joy to see how responsive my computer is under that desktop. It just allows me to get things done quickly, without getting in the way. I'm currently running it on Debian Wheezy, though my default desktop is still set to XFCE. If there is a downside, it's that Windows feels even more lethargic by comparison now.
I hope they iron out the bugs in Lubuntu. In the meantime, I would like to see more Linux distributors get behind this UI. My fear is that Unity and GNOME, much like the upcoming Windows 8, are aimed at touchscreen computing. I suspect that touchscreens cost more to produce, so we are heading down a road which makes computers more expensive, thereby excluding those lower down the social order and reinforcing disadvantage. In the developing world, the majority of people can not afford a computer as things are, and that is a serious hindrance in these times. My interest in desktop environments that use few resources comes from a desire to get things done, without the interface getting in the way. However, if it also allows older computers to become usable again, that has environmental benefits (less waste) and may, for a few people who are less well off than the rest of us, serve as something of an equaliser.
For as long as I can remember, there have been people who love GNOME and people who love KDE. I have no problem with this, because Linux is all about choice. Personally, when Ubuntu switched their main desktop environment to Unity, it was just a step too far for me - it clearly wasn't ready, and the interface actually got in the way of me getting things done. Maybe that's personal preference, but I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken, and Unity was more like a smartphone interface than the traditional WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointer) environment of GNOME. I had easily made the switch to Ubuntu-based GNOME from KDE-based SuSE and Mandriva systems I used earlier. Yes, there were differences, but it was still a traditional WIMP environment. We should start using that acronym again - I prefer it to it's modern equivalent, GUI.
I switched to the Debian edition of Linux Mint, which had kept with the GNOME environment. Once again, I was happy with the interface between myself and the things I wanted to get done. However, a stream of updates to the system conspired to slow things down; not to the snail's pace of Windows, but certainly to an extent where I noticed. GNOME was becoming bloated. I wondered if switching back to KDE would make a difference but, looking at reports on the internet, and trying it out for myself, I came to the conclusion that it would not.
I have used XFCE in the past, and I'm a big fan of that desktop environment. It is a traditional desktop environment. I have some brief experience of GNOME 3 and, until Windows 8 comes along, I find it even more infuriating than Windows. XFCE was originally modelled on a standard UNIX desktop called CDE, and it is all the better for that. It is not difficult to use, it works in the manner I expect, and it simply gets out of the way and allows me to get things done. For now, this is the interface I have with my computer in Linux.
I'm becoming increasingly interested in LXDE, though. Compared to GNOME, KDE and XFCE, this desktop gets little attention from the big Linux distributors. Lubuntu - a LXDE version of the insanely popular Ubuntu - is an exception, and bundles LXDE as the desktop environment, but I found it to be incredibly unstable. It is, after all, based on the unstable branch of Debian, I guess.
My interest in this comes from a desire to run Linux on older computers. Imagine how many perfectly usable computers go to landfill each year, just because they can't run the latest version of Windows. Think also of poorer countries, where they would be happy to have ANY computer, as long as it is functioning. I ran some tests, on various distributions, and found that LXDE uses an average of 40MB less memory than XFCE. It also quickly became apparent that everything in LXDE happens at lightning speed. Yes, I could use even less resources by opting for a straight window manager, but I prefer the comfort of a desktop environment. I want the operating system to get out of the way and allow me to get things done, remember? A desktop environment is just more friendly than a simple window manager.
I'm seriously considering switching to LXDE as my main desktop. For me, it does not lack anything and it is simply a joy to see how responsive my computer is under that desktop. It just allows me to get things done quickly, without getting in the way. I'm currently running it on Debian Wheezy, though my default desktop is still set to XFCE. If there is a downside, it's that Windows feels even more lethargic by comparison now.
I hope they iron out the bugs in Lubuntu. In the meantime, I would like to see more Linux distributors get behind this UI. My fear is that Unity and GNOME, much like the upcoming Windows 8, are aimed at touchscreen computing. I suspect that touchscreens cost more to produce, so we are heading down a road which makes computers more expensive, thereby excluding those lower down the social order and reinforcing disadvantage. In the developing world, the majority of people can not afford a computer as things are, and that is a serious hindrance in these times. My interest in desktop environments that use few resources comes from a desire to get things done, without the interface getting in the way. However, if it also allows older computers to become usable again, that has environmental benefits (less waste) and may, for a few people who are less well off than the rest of us, serve as something of an equaliser.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
The trailing edge
I'm proud to be on the trailing edge of technology. No, you didn't read that wrong. I have no interest in owning the latest and greatest electronic gadgets.
Friends point out that my mobile phone is behind the times, because it is just a phone. Practically speaking, it allows me to call people and send text messages. They try to convice me that I need their chosen smart phone, be it a Blackberry, iPhone or an Android device. Actually, no, I don't need it. They point out that I could access my Facebook account from anywhere. Why? How much is it going to cost me?
There's the whole point. Cost. Yes, they can access various online services from anywhere, but they pay heavily for the privilege. I ask them if they have a computer at home. If so, why are they paying for mobile data access every month, when they have a broadband connection at home lying idle? It makes no sense to me. If my car breaks down, I am glad to be able to make phone calls from anywhere. I can't imagine needing to urgently update my Facebook status, from wherever I am. The upside of a mobile phone is that I can contact people from wherever I am. The downside is that THEY can contact ME. Do I want to be bothered by emails and friend requests as well? No, no, no.
How much did the device cost in the first place? Nothing? Think again about that. Yes, you got it free with your phone contract, but this means you are paying monthly for your phone. Don't believe me? Check out your provider's SIM-only deals.
Here in the UK, the TV companies are in the process of switching off the old analogue TV signal. For the most part, we have gone digital. As if that were not enough, we are now also in the process of turning to high definition TV. Again, why? HDTV is meant to give a sharper picture, right? I accept that, because it is undeniably true. However, if I notice that my HDTV allows me to see every strand of someone's hair blowing in the breeze (as an example), doesn't that mean I have lost interest in the story of what I am watching?
HDTV is higher resolution than standard digital TV, and uses a much more sophisticated compression method. This means higher power consumption, at a time when we are supposedly worried about energy efficiency. For what purpose? To get a sharper picture, that I may notice if I am bored with what I am watching or sat too close to the TV. So, my energy consumption has risen and the new technology has made the TV more expensive because, let's face it, the electronics companies and broadcasting unions must recoup their research and development costs. They are really trying to push HD now, so all new TVs are "HD Ready". Right now, I still have the choice over whether I watch HD content or not. I choose not to.
Needless to say, the same criticisms I apply to HDTV also apply to Blu-ray. Given the choice of buying a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, I will go for the DVD, saving myself money in the process.
A victory for my point of view is the state of digital radio in the UK. The BBC poured a huge amount of money into DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) radio, and it has failed to meet expectations on a massive scale. In theory, DAB allows more radio stations within the same frequency spectrum. In practice, the broadcasting license for DAB is so expensive that few have applied. The BBC dominates the DAB airways. Most people report sound quality that falls short of their old FM radio, and an odd "bubbling" effect when the reception is poor. Again, in terms of energy efficiency, early DAB radios used about twenty times the energy of an equivalent FM radio.
A "feature" of DAB is the display of the name of the station you are currently listening to, along with other text information. It also automatically sets the time on the integrated clock, if your radio has that feature. If you spend somewhat less money on an FM radio with a feature called RDS (Radio Data System), it also has those features. To make matters worse, the next version of DAB, which is called DAB+, has better sound quality and extra features. It is also incompatible with the current version of DAB. Unless the manual for your radio specifically states that it can be upgraded to DAB+, you will at some point be the owner of a very expensive lump of metal and plastic.
Uptake of DAB was encouraging at first, but has since failed to meet the BBC's expectations. It's future, even in DAB+ form, is questionable. The government, recognising the prohibitive costs of digital broadcasting, recently announced that FM radio transmitters will no longer be switched off, but will be kept for the broadcast of local radio stations. With internet radio now gaining market share, and even the BBC jumping onto the internet radio bandwagon, DAB is being squeezed from all sides. Also, another digital radio technology - DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) - has emerged. DRM was originally envisaged as a replacement for AM radio, but an extension of the standard - DRM+ - is increasingly being seen as a replacement for FM radio, and therefore a direct competitor to DAB.
New technologies are expensive. Often, the standards surrounding them are yet to be finalised. Sometimes, they give maximum benefit to content providers and little to consumers (the digital copy protection on most HD content is a case in point). Without fail, today's cutting edge technology will be commonplace six months down the line, and much less expensive. As time goes by, hopefully they will overcome the issues that inevitably plague new technology.
Like I said, I'm proud to be on the trailing edge of technology. My gadgets contain technology that has been tried and tested, so they do all that I ask of them. If they no longer work, either through wear or their respective technologies becoming obsolete, my initial financial outlay has been minimal. I will replace my gadgets with corresponding trailing edge items, which will contain more modern technologies than my old gadgets at a lower price than was paid by the early adopters of those technologies. To those of you who must always have the latest and greatest, and mock my old technology, I say check your bank balance.
Friends point out that my mobile phone is behind the times, because it is just a phone. Practically speaking, it allows me to call people and send text messages. They try to convice me that I need their chosen smart phone, be it a Blackberry, iPhone or an Android device. Actually, no, I don't need it. They point out that I could access my Facebook account from anywhere. Why? How much is it going to cost me?
There's the whole point. Cost. Yes, they can access various online services from anywhere, but they pay heavily for the privilege. I ask them if they have a computer at home. If so, why are they paying for mobile data access every month, when they have a broadband connection at home lying idle? It makes no sense to me. If my car breaks down, I am glad to be able to make phone calls from anywhere. I can't imagine needing to urgently update my Facebook status, from wherever I am. The upside of a mobile phone is that I can contact people from wherever I am. The downside is that THEY can contact ME. Do I want to be bothered by emails and friend requests as well? No, no, no.
How much did the device cost in the first place? Nothing? Think again about that. Yes, you got it free with your phone contract, but this means you are paying monthly for your phone. Don't believe me? Check out your provider's SIM-only deals.
Here in the UK, the TV companies are in the process of switching off the old analogue TV signal. For the most part, we have gone digital. As if that were not enough, we are now also in the process of turning to high definition TV. Again, why? HDTV is meant to give a sharper picture, right? I accept that, because it is undeniably true. However, if I notice that my HDTV allows me to see every strand of someone's hair blowing in the breeze (as an example), doesn't that mean I have lost interest in the story of what I am watching?
HDTV is higher resolution than standard digital TV, and uses a much more sophisticated compression method. This means higher power consumption, at a time when we are supposedly worried about energy efficiency. For what purpose? To get a sharper picture, that I may notice if I am bored with what I am watching or sat too close to the TV. So, my energy consumption has risen and the new technology has made the TV more expensive because, let's face it, the electronics companies and broadcasting unions must recoup their research and development costs. They are really trying to push HD now, so all new TVs are "HD Ready". Right now, I still have the choice over whether I watch HD content or not. I choose not to.
Needless to say, the same criticisms I apply to HDTV also apply to Blu-ray. Given the choice of buying a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, I will go for the DVD, saving myself money in the process.
A victory for my point of view is the state of digital radio in the UK. The BBC poured a huge amount of money into DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) radio, and it has failed to meet expectations on a massive scale. In theory, DAB allows more radio stations within the same frequency spectrum. In practice, the broadcasting license for DAB is so expensive that few have applied. The BBC dominates the DAB airways. Most people report sound quality that falls short of their old FM radio, and an odd "bubbling" effect when the reception is poor. Again, in terms of energy efficiency, early DAB radios used about twenty times the energy of an equivalent FM radio.
A "feature" of DAB is the display of the name of the station you are currently listening to, along with other text information. It also automatically sets the time on the integrated clock, if your radio has that feature. If you spend somewhat less money on an FM radio with a feature called RDS (Radio Data System), it also has those features. To make matters worse, the next version of DAB, which is called DAB+, has better sound quality and extra features. It is also incompatible with the current version of DAB. Unless the manual for your radio specifically states that it can be upgraded to DAB+, you will at some point be the owner of a very expensive lump of metal and plastic.
Uptake of DAB was encouraging at first, but has since failed to meet the BBC's expectations. It's future, even in DAB+ form, is questionable. The government, recognising the prohibitive costs of digital broadcasting, recently announced that FM radio transmitters will no longer be switched off, but will be kept for the broadcast of local radio stations. With internet radio now gaining market share, and even the BBC jumping onto the internet radio bandwagon, DAB is being squeezed from all sides. Also, another digital radio technology - DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) - has emerged. DRM was originally envisaged as a replacement for AM radio, but an extension of the standard - DRM+ - is increasingly being seen as a replacement for FM radio, and therefore a direct competitor to DAB.
New technologies are expensive. Often, the standards surrounding them are yet to be finalised. Sometimes, they give maximum benefit to content providers and little to consumers (the digital copy protection on most HD content is a case in point). Without fail, today's cutting edge technology will be commonplace six months down the line, and much less expensive. As time goes by, hopefully they will overcome the issues that inevitably plague new technology.
Like I said, I'm proud to be on the trailing edge of technology. My gadgets contain technology that has been tried and tested, so they do all that I ask of them. If they no longer work, either through wear or their respective technologies becoming obsolete, my initial financial outlay has been minimal. I will replace my gadgets with corresponding trailing edge items, which will contain more modern technologies than my old gadgets at a lower price than was paid by the early adopters of those technologies. To those of you who must always have the latest and greatest, and mock my old technology, I say check your bank balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)