Copy and pasting between Windows programs can cause unwanted formatting to be carried over. Copying text from Internet Explorer into Outlook is one example of this that I see a lot and Word to Word does it too. A trick that I picked up for avoiding this copying of formatting comes from a while back: copying into Notepad and pasting from there. Doing the copy/paste shuffle in that way strips off the formatting baggage and alllows the default formatting for the particular destination to be applied. There may be other and slicker ways to do this but what I have described works for me.

In Windows, it’s a matter of right-clicking on the folder and looking in its properties. I am sure that there is a better way of doing it in that ever pervasive operating system but, in the worlds of Linux and UNIX, the command line comes to the rescue as it is wont to do. What follows is the command that I use:

du -sh foldername

The s option makes it present the total space taken up and leaving it out gets you a breakdown of how much space the subfolders are taking up as well. The h makes the sizes output more friendly to human eyes with things like 10K, 79M and 51G littering what you get. The command itself is a much shorter way of saying “print disk usage”. It’s all quick and easy when you know it and very useful in this age of ever increasing data volumes.

It’s the sort of sight that causes you to fear the worst, an unchanging black screen with a flashing cursor. That was what started greet me in recent days when I tried to fire up a Windows XP guest in VMware Workstation. The cause was the corruption of a virtual disk, an ominous thing that affected a supplemental virtual hard drive that I had added to the virtual machine rather than its main one. There might have been some data on there but it was nothing that I didn’t have elsewhere anyway. Removing the broken disk from the XP VM returned the situation to fuller health and I simply tried creating a new one again. So far, this seems to be working fine but I’ll be keeping a watchful eye on things.

I have no idea why the corruption happened but the broken disk files were created without a VMDK extension so that might indicate that something was amiss with the process that created them. It would be better if VMware highlighted the state of its virtual disks but it was when I tried opening the trashed disk with VirtualBox that a warning was given and VMware did the same when I tried I tried it with that afterwards (opening VMware virtual disks with VirtualBox is possible but you need to ensure that no attempt at importation is made or you could end up with a breakage). I may have discovered the fault in a roundabout manner but it’s better to know what’s gone wrong than not to know at all.

The Toshiba laptop that I acquired at the start of the year is a Windows Vista box and it isn’t something with which I want to play too roughly because the OS came pre-installed on it. I still want to continue to see how Vista goes at close quarters so removing it to put Ubuntu or some other Linux distribution on there wasn’t ever going to be an option that I was willing to take either. Neither was the option of setting up a dual booting arrangement using disk partitioning; I have plenty of experience of doing that to set up dual booting machines over the years and I don’t needed any more than what I already have. So, I was happy to leave it as a Windows box and only as a Windows box.

That situation has changed and the cause was Canonical’s decision to go for something novel when it brought out Ubuntu 8.04. The premise is as follows: a Windows style installation that popped an entry in the Windows boot menu that allowed you to fire up Ubuntu without ever having to do disk partitioning or other similar rough play. For those who are less than enamoured with the Linux option, it’s even easy to remove too, as easy any other Windows program in fact. Removal of Linux is very definitely not what I’d do and that’s even without the pain and upheaval of more more customary means for setting dual booting machines. In these days of virtualisation and hypervisor technology, I have my ideas as to what has been used to give us that easy way in.

Being an Ubuntu user anyway, the possibility of having Ubuntu on the laptop and the interesting opportunity that Wubi offered for getting it on there was too tempting for me to give it a miss. A small download from the Wubi website is all that is needed to set things off. You get a number of options up front like where to put the (large) file to be used to house the Ubuntu world and how large you might want it. Setting a user name and password for the thing gets included among other items. The next stage is to download the files to be used to perform the installation. Once that is completed and it took me a few goes to get the whole lot (thankfully, it stores things up to the point where the downloading operation cuts out so you didn’t start from scratch each time; even so, it’s still annoying and could put some off), it is time to restart the computer and boot into Ubuntu to complete the set up of the operating system itself; it is at this point that the familiar very much returns. A reboot later and you are into a world that does its level best to fool you into thinking that Windows is another universe and never existed on that machine at all.

So, a machine that seemed destined only ever run Windows can run Linux now as well. Wubi comes across as a neat and clever way to get a dual booting computer and I hope to leave mine as I now have it. No feathers were ruffled on the Windows side and I saw no sign of any destruction. That makes Ubuntu’s way of doing things a much better option than other distributions that make you go down more invasive routes when creating a dual booting PC. A question remains in my mind. Could this approach take off?

My experience is with Ubuntu on this one but I have found that you need to be careful as regards the file system used by the drive where you keep your virtual machines. If it is NTFS, VMware can fail to start a VM because it cannot create a virtual memory file while it presents as physical memory to a guest operating system. Use ext2 or ext3 and there should be no problem, even if that means formatting a drive to fulfill the need. That’s what I did and all was well thereafter.

In a world where write access to a folder or directory is controlled by permission settings at the operating system level, a ready answer for when you get the above message in your log when creating a SAS data set would be to check your access. However, if you are working in Windows and your access seems fine, then SAS’ generation of an access error message seems all the more perplexing. However, unlike the more black and white world of UNIX and Linux, Windows has other ways to change access that could throw things off from the straight and narrow. One of them, it would appear, is to right click on the file listing pane in Windows Explorer and select "Customize this folder…" to change how it appears. The strange upshot of this that a perpetual read-only flag is set for the folder in question and that flag triggers SAS authorisation errors; it’s all very strange and unexpected when you find it and deleting the folder and creating a new one, of course saving anything that you want to retain, is the quickest and easiest solution. In fact, it begs the question as why Microsoft are re-appropriating a flag used for access purposes to be used to determine whether the HTML components of a folder display have been changed or not. This is very strange stuff and does not look like good software design at all. With all the other problems the Microsoft create for themselves, I am not holding my breath until it’s fixed either. There seem to other things like this waiting to catch you out when using Windows SAS and good place to start is with SAS’ own description of the problem that I have just shared.

Maximising and minimising windows is all part and parcel of using window-based user interfaces so it’s nice to know that there are keyboard shortcuts that reduce the need to use your mouse all of the time. Here are a few that work in Windows:

Alt+Space+N   Minimise

Alt+Space+X   Maximise

Alt+Space+R   Restore (set to default)

Windows system error codes can be indecipherable so it’s useful to have a list. Microsoft has one on its MSDN website that may help. However, the decodes may not as explicit as I would like but they’re better than nothing when you don’t get anything other than the number.

Having thought about automating command line FTP on UNIX/Linux, the same idea came to me for Windows too and you can achieve much the same results, even if the way of getting there is slightly different. The first route to consider is running a script file with the ftp command at the command prompt (you may need %windir%\system32\ftp.exe to call the right FTP program in some cases):

ftp -s:script.txt

The contents of script are something like the following:

open ftp.server.host
user
password
lcd destination_directory
cd source_directory
prompt
get filename
bye

It doesn’t take much to turn your script into a batch file that takes the user name as its first input and your password as its second for sake of enhanced security and deletes any record thereof for the same reason:

echo open ftp.server.host >  script.txt
echo %1 >> script.txt
echo %2 >> script.txt
echo cd htdocs >> script.txt
echo prompt >> script.txt
echo mget * >> script.txt
echo bye >> script.txt
%windir%\system32\ftp.exe -s:script.txt
del script.txt

The feel of the Windows command line (in Windows 2000, it feels very primitive but Windows XP is better and there’s PowerShell now too) can leave a lot to be desired by someone accustomed to its UNIX/Linux counterpart but there’s still a lot of tweaking that you can do to the above, given a bit of knowledge of the Windows batch scripting language. Any escape from a total dependence on pointing and clicking can only be an advance.

Keeping an eye on future browser releases helps to avoid any shocks when maintaining publicly available websites. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that I have been giving Firefox 3 a whirl. As it happens, I have had it going on both Windows and Ubuntu. With the former, I have not encountered any obvious problems but am wondering if the new bookmarking system will mean anything to me. For installation on Ubuntu, I used the following command (I think that I culled it from Tombuntu but can’t remember off hand…):

wget -P ~ ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/3.0b3/linux-i686/en-US/firefox-3.0b3.tar.bz2 && tar xjf ~/firefox-3.0b3.tar.bz2 -C ~

The nice thing about the above is that it places the test installation in your home directory and away from Firefox 2. It also works regardless of what Linux distribution you have. The profiles get shared between versions so a backup would be a good idea before you start to tinker. As with the Windows version, page loading and rendering is faster in the new version but I found a problem with printing that I hope will get sorted before the final release. Another area for attention is font rendering: it could sharper for sans serif fonts on Ubuntu and serif fonts on Windows. Otherwise, it works well on both platforms and I like the way that open windows are saved on exit, a very good idea carried over from Opera.