TOPIC: COMPUTING PLATFORMS
Security or Control? The debate over Google's Android verification policy
7th March 2026
A policy announced by Google in August 2025 has ignited one of the more substantive disputes in mobile technology in recent years. At its surface, the question is about app security. Beneath that, it touches on platform architecture, competition law, the long history of Android's unusual relationship with openness, and the future of independent software distribution. To understand why the debate is so charged, it helps to understand how Android actually works.
An Open Platform With a Proprietary Layer
Android presents a genuinely unusual situation in the technology industry. The base operating system is the Android Open-Source Project (AOSP), which is publicly available and usable by anyone. Manufacturers can take the codebase and build their own systems without involvement from Google, as Amazon has with Fire OS and as projects such as LineageOS and GrapheneOS have demonstrated.
Most commercial Android devices, however, do not run pure AOSP. They ship with a proprietary bundle called Google Mobile Services (GMS), which includes Google Play Store, Google Play Services, Google Maps, YouTube and a range of other applications and developer frameworks. These components are not open source and require a licence from Google. Because most popular applications depend on Play Services for functions such as push notifications, location services, in-app payments and authentication, shipping without them is commercially very difficult. This layered architecture gives Google considerable influence over Android without owning it in the traditional proprietary sense.
Google has further consolidated this influence through a series of technical initiatives. Project Treble separated Android's framework from hardware-specific components to make operating system updates easier to deploy. Project Mainline went further, turning important parts of the operating system, including components responsible for media processing, network security and cryptography, into modules that Google can update directly via the Play Store, bypassing manufacturers and mobile carriers entirely. The result is a platform that is open source in its code, but practically centralised in how it evolves and is maintained.
The Policy and Its Rationale
Against this backdrop, Google announced in August 2025 that it would extend its developer identity verification requirements beyond the Play Store to cover all Android apps, including those distributed through third-party stores and direct sideloading. From September 2026, any app installed on a certified Android device in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand must originate from a developer who has registered their identity with Google. A global rollout is planned from 2027 onwards.
Google's stated rationale is grounded in security evidence. The company's own analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from apps available through Google Play. In 2025, Google Play Protect blocked 266 million risky installation attempts and helped protect users from 872,000 unique high-risk applications. Google has also documented a specific and recurring attack pattern in Southeast Asia, in which scammers impersonate bank representatives during phone calls, coaching victims into sideloading a fraudulent application that then intercepts two-factor authentication codes to drain bank accounts. The company argues that anonymous developer accounts make this kind of attack far easier to sustain.
The registration process requires developers to create an Android Developer Console account, submit government-issued identification and pay a one-time fee of $25. Organisations must additionally supply a D-U-N-S Number from Dun & Bradstreet. Google has stated explicitly that verified developers will retain full freedom to distribute apps through any channel they choose, and is building an "advanced flow" that would allow experienced users to install unverified apps after working through a series of clear warnings. Developers and power users will also retain the ability to install apps via Android Debug Bridge (ADB). Brazil's banking federation FEBRABAN and Indonesia's Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs have both publicly welcomed the policy as a proportionate response to documented fraud.
What This Means for F-Droid
F-Droid, founded by Ciaran Gultnieks in 2010, operates as a community-run repository of free and open-source software (FOSS) applications for Android. For 15 years, it has demonstrated that app distribution can be transparent, privacy-respecting and accountable, setting a standard that challenges the mobile ecosystem more broadly. Every application listed on the platform undergoes checks for security vulnerabilities, and apps carrying advertising, user tracking or dependence on non-free software are explicitly flagged with an "Anti-Features" label. The platform requires no user accounts and displays no advertising. It still needs some learning, as I found when adding an app through it for a secure email service.
F-Droid operates through an unusual technical model that is worth understanding in its own right. Rather than distributing APKs produced by individual developers, it builds applications itself from publicly available source code. The resulting APKs are signed with F-Droid's own keys and distributed through the F-Droid client. This approach prioritises supply-chain transparency, since users can in theory verify that a distributed binary corresponds to the published source code. However, it also means that updates can be slower than other distribution channels, and that apps distributed via F-Droid cannot be updated over a Play Store version. Some developers have also noted that subtle differences in build configuration can occasionally cause issues.
The new verification requirement creates a structural problem that F-Droid cannot resolve independently. Many of the developers who contribute to its repository are hobbyists, academics or privacy-conscious individuals with no commercial motive and no desire to submit government identification to a third party as a condition of sharing software. F-Droid cannot compel those developers to register, and taking over their application identifiers on their behalf would directly undermine the open-source authorship model it exists to protect.
F-Droid is not alone in this concern. The policy equally affects alternative distribution models that have emerged alongside it. Tools such as Obtainium allow users to track and install updates directly from developers' GitHub or GitLab release pages, bypassing app stores entirely. The IzzyOnDroid repository provides a curated alternative to F-Droid's main catalogue. Aurora Store allows users to access the Play Store's catalogue without Google account credentials. All of these models, to varying degrees, depend on the ability to distribute software independently of Google's centralised infrastructure.
The Organised Opposition
On the 24th of February 2026, more than 37 organisations signed an open letter addressed to Google's leadership and copied to competition regulators worldwide. Signatories included the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Free Software Foundation Europe, the Software Freedom Conservancy, Proton AG, Nextcloud, The Tor Project, FastMail and Vivaldi. Their central argument is that the policy extends Google's gatekeeping authority beyond its own marketplace into distribution channels where it has no legitimate operational role, and that it imposes disproportionate burdens on independent developers, researchers and civil society projects that pose no security risk to users.
The Keep Android Open campaign, initiated by Marc Prud'hommeaux, an F-Droid board member and founder of the alternative app store for iOS, App Fair, has been in contact with regulators in the United States, Brazil and Europe. F-Droid's legal infrastructure has been strengthened in recent years in anticipation of challenges of this kind. The project operates under the legal umbrella of The Commons Conservancy, a nonprofit foundation based in the Netherlands, which provides a clearly defined jurisdiction and a framework for legal compliance.
The Genuine Tension
Both positions have merit, and the debate is not easily resolved. The malware problem Google describes is real. Social engineering attacks of the kind documented in Southeast Asia cause genuine financial harm to ordinary users, and the anonymity afforded by unverified sideloading makes it considerably easier for bad actors to operate at scale and reoffend after being removed. The introduction of similar requirements on the Play Store in 2023 appears to have had some measurable effect on reducing fraudulent developer accounts.
At the same time, critics are right to question whether the policy is proportionate to the problem it is addressing. The people most harmed by anonymous sideloading fraud are not, in the main, the people who use F-Droid. FOSS users tend to be technically experienced, privacy-aware and deliberate in their choices. The open letter from Keep Android Open also notes that Android already provides multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration, including Play Protect scanning, permission systems and the existing installation warning framework. The argument that these existing mechanisms are insufficient to address sophisticated social engineering, where users are coached to bypass warnings, has some force. The argument that they are insufficient to address independent FOSS distribution is harder to sustain.
There is a further tension between Google's security claims and its competitive interests. Requiring all app developers to register with Google strengthens Google's position as the de facto authority over the Android ecosystem, regardless of whether a developer uses the Play Store. That outcome may be an incidental consequence of a genuine security initiative, or it may reflect a deliberate consolidation of control. The open letter's signatories argue the former cannot be assumed, particularly given that Google faces separate antitrust investigations in multiple jurisdictions.
The Antitrust Dimension
The policy sits in a legally sensitive area. Android holds approximately 72.77 per cent of the global mobile operating system market as of late 2025, running on roughly 3.9 billion active devices. Platforms with that scale of market presence attract a different level of regulatory scrutiny than those operating in competitive markets.
In Europe, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) specifically targets large platforms designated as "gatekeepers" and explicitly requires that third-party app stores must be permitted. If Google were to use developer verification requirements in a manner that effectively prevented alternative stores from operating, European regulators would have grounds to intervene. The 2018 European Commission ruling against Google, which resulted in a €4.34 billion fine for abusing Android's market position through pre-installation requirements, established that Android's dominant position carries real obligations. That decision was largely upheld by the European courts in 2022.
In the United States, the Department of Justice has been pursuing separate antitrust cases relating to Google's search and advertising dominance, within which Android's role in channelling users toward Google services has been a recurring theme. The open letter's decision to copy regulators worldwide was not accidental. Its signatories have concluded that public documentation before enforcement begins creates pressure that private correspondence does not.
The key regulatory question is whether the verification requirements are genuinely necessary for security, and whether less restrictive measures could achieve the same goal. If the answer to either part of that question is no, regulators may conclude that the policy disproportionately disadvantages competing distribution channels.
What the Huawei and Amazon Cases Reveal
The importance of Google's service layer, and the difficulty of replicating it, can be understood by examining what happened when two large technology companies attempted to operate outside it. Here, we come to the experiences of Amazon and Huawei.
Amazon launched Fire OS in 2011, based on AOSP but with all Google components replaced by Amazon's own services. The platform succeeded in Fire tablets and streaming devices, where users primarily want access to Amazon's content. It failed entirely in smartphones. The Amazon Fire Phone, launched in 2014 and discontinued within a year, could not attract enough developer support to make it viable as a general-purpose device. The absence of Google Play Services meant that many popular applications were missing or required separate builds. This experience showed that Android's openness, at the operating system level, does not automatically translate into a competitive ecosystem. The real power lies in the service layer and the developer infrastructure built around it.
The Huawei case illustrates the same point more sharply. In May 2019, the United States government placed Huawei on its Entity List, restricting American firms from supplying technology to the company. Huawei had a 20 per cent global smartphone market share in 2019, which dropped to virtually zero after the restrictions took effect. Since Huawei could still use the AOSP codebase, the operating system was not the problem. The problem was Google Mobile Services. Without access to the Play Store, Google Maps, YouTube and the developer APIs that underpin much of the application ecosystem, Huawei phones became commercially unviable in international markets that expected those services.
Huawei's international smartphone market share, which had been among the top three, rapidly fell to outside the top five. The company's consumer business revenue declined by nearly 50 per cent in 2021. Huawei's subsequent efforts to build its own replacement ecosystem, Huawei Mobile Services and AppGallery, achieved limited success outside China, where the domestic mobile ecosystem already operates largely independently of Google. Both the Amazon and Huawei cases confirm that Android's formal openness does not neutralise Google's practical influence over the platform.
The Comparison With Apple
It is worth noting where the comparison with Apple, often invoked in these debates, holds and where it breaks down. Apple designs its hardware, controls its operating system, and has historically permitted application installation only through its App Store. That degree of vertical integration meant that, under the DMA, Apple faced requirements to allow alternative app marketplaces and sideloading mechanisms that represented fundamental changes to how iOS operates. Google already permits these behaviours on Android, which is why the DMA's impact on its platform is more limited.
However, the direction of travel matters. Critics argue that policies like mandatory developer verification, combined with Google's control of the update pipeline and the practical dependency of the ecosystem on Play Services, are gradually moving Android toward a model that is more controlled in practice than its open-source origins would suggest. The formal difference between Android and iOS may be narrowing, even if it has not disappeared.
Where Things Stand
The verification scheme opened to all developers in March 2026, with enforcement beginning in September 2026 in four initial countries. Google has offered assurances that sideloading is not being eliminated and that experienced users will retain a route to install unverified software. Critics point out that this route has not yet been specified clearly enough for independent organisations to assess whether it would serve as a workable mechanism for FOSS distribution. Until it is demonstrated and tested in practice, F-Droid and its allies have concluded that it cannot be relied upon.
F-Droid is not facing immediate closure. It continues to host over 3,800 applications and its governance and infrastructure have been strengthened in recent years. Its continued existence, and the existence of the broader ecosystem of independent Android distribution tools, depends on sideloading remaining practically viable. The outcome will be shaped by how Google implements the advanced flow provision, by the response of competition regulators in Europe and elsewhere, and by whether independent developers in sufficient numbers choose to comply with, work around or resist the new requirements.
Its story is, in this respect, a concrete test case for a broader question: whether the formal openness of a platform is sufficient to guarantee genuine openness in practice, or whether the combination of service dependencies, update mechanisms and registration requirements can produce a functionally closed system without formally becoming one. The answer will have implications well beyond a single FOSS app repository.
Finding a better way to uninstall Mac applications
14th January 2026
If you were to consult an AI about uninstalling software under macOS, you would be given a list of commands to run in the Terminal. That feels far less slick than either Linux or Windows. Thus, I set to looking for a cleaner solution. It came in the form of AppCleaner from FreeMacSoft.
This finds the files to remove once you have supplied the name of the app that you wish to uninstall. Once you have reviewed those, you can set it to remove them to the recycling bin, after which they can be expunged from there. Handily, this automates the manual graft that otherwise would be needed.
It amazes me that such an operation is not handled within macOS itself, instead of leaving it to the software providers themselves, or third-party tools like this one. Otherwise, a Mac could get very messy, though Homebrew offers ways of managing software installations for certain cases. Surprisingly, the situation is more free-form than on iOS, too.
A portable software repository comparison: PortableApps versus Portapps for Windows users
17th September 2025
Moving between computers remains a fact of life for many people, whether working across office desktops and home laptops, studying in shared facilities or visiting clients and public spaces. Installing the same software repeatedly, then recreating familiar settings, can become a routine that wastes time and raises permission hurdles. Portable software aims to sidestep that friction by running without traditional installation, carrying preferences along for the ride, and leaving little behind on host machines.
Two notable projects occupy this space for Windows users: PortableApps.com and Portapps. Each offers a different route to a similar destination, and together they show how far the idea has progressed since the early days of USB sticks and limited storage. Both platforms enable users to create self-contained software environments that can travel between machines whilst maintaining settings and data integrity.
PortableApps.com: The Established Platform
PortableApps.com is often the first name people encounter, and with good reason. It has grown into a platform as much as a collection, providing a launcher that helps manage the entire portable environment. The project began in the early 2000s, created by John T. Haller, and has remained free and open source since then.
Core Architecture
The premise is straightforward. Applications are repackaged so they can live within a self-contained folder structure that can sit on removable storage or inside a cloud-synchronised folder. When launched from that location, they behave as if they were installed locally, only their configuration and data reside in the portable directory rather than the Windows registry or system folders. As a result, moving the folder to another machine brings the software and its settings along, keeping the host computer cleaner and reducing the need for elevated privileges.
The Platform Ecosystem
Much of the appeal lies in the PortableApps.com Platform, a menu and suite that acts as a hub. Rather than scattering shortcuts across the desktop, the platform collects everything in one place with a menu that can sit on a USB drive or a cloud drive. From here, users can run applications, group them in folders, mark favourites and initiate updates, all with a consistent interface.
The catalogue has grown substantially, now featuring over 1,400 portable packages spanning multiple categories: Accessibility, Development, Education, Games, Graphics & Pictures, Internet, Music & Video, Office, Security and Utilities. This includes major applications like LibreOffice, Firefox, GIMP, VLC media player, and hundreds of specialised tools across every computing category. That breadth helps the platform function as a complete environment rather than a one-off fix for a particular program. A person could keep a preferred browser with extensions and bookmarks, a document editor for quick edits, an image viewer for photos and a handful of diagnostic tools, all launched from the same menu.
Because the platform is designed to operate from cloud-synchronised locations as well, some forgo physical drives and keep their PortableApps directory inside providers like Dropbox or Google Drive. That way, the same set of tools appears on every machine where the cloud client is installed, with settings following through the sync client.
Portapps: The Modular Approach
Running alongside PortableApps is Portapps, an independent collection that also repackages Windows software to run portably, albeit with a different structure. Portapps distributes applications either as portable set-up files or as 7-Zip archives. Each title typically includes a small wrapper executable, named with a "-portable.exe" suffix, that orchestrates the portability layer.
Technical Implementation
That wrapper is written in Go and handles redirection of paths, environment configuration and other adjustments required to run the original application without leaving permanent traces on the host. The project is open source under the MIT licence, and many of its components live on GitHub, where users can watch releases and inspect how builds are constructed.
Usage and Transparency
Running a Portapps package is uncomplicated. After downloading the portable version of a supported application from the Portapps site or the relevant GitHub repository, the user extracts the files and launches the wrapper executable. The wrapper ensures that configuration and data reside in the portable directory and that the program operates without installing into Windows.
Portapps emphasises transparency around its build process. Properties and scripts are published, so observers can see how original sources are obtained and how wrappers are applied. Releases are versioned and binaries are provided, with wrappers scanned on VirusTotal to provide added confidence. The maintainers acknowledge that heuristic scanning can sometimes trigger false positives because of how the wrappers work, a reality that users should weigh against their own antivirus alerts and verification habits.
Application Focus and Updates
Portapps maintains a more selective catalogue of 54 applications, focusing primarily on modern software and developer tools. The collection includes popular applications like Discord, Visual Studio Code, Brave browser, VLC media player, Postman, IntelliJ IDEA, and various communication tools. The project targets contemporary software, particularly applications built with frameworks like Electron, and emphasises quality over quantity in its selections.
Recent releases continue actively, with regular updates to maintained applications. However, some applications are discontinued when the original projects become abandoned or when maintenance becomes unfeasible, demonstrating the project's pragmatic approach to software curation.
Comparison: Platform vs Modular
The distinction between the two projects emerges in how they are structured and managed, rather than in their core aim. This creates different advantages for different use cases.
PortableApps.com Advantages
PortableApps offers a full platform anchored by a launcher. It provides centralised update notifications and the ability to upgrade installed portable applications whilst preserving data. It integrates back-up functions and a customisable interface that collects everything into a single, recognisable menu. This arrangement suits anyone who wants a managed, coherent environment that travels intact from one machine to another, whether on a drive or inside a cloud-synchronised folder.
The platform's maturity shows in its comprehensive feature set: automatic updates, integrated back-up systems, theme customisation and extensive language support. The sheer size of its catalogue (over 1,400 applications across 10 categories) means users can often find portable versions of most common applications they need, from basic utilities to professional software suites.
Portapps Advantages
Portapps takes a per-application approach centred on wrappers. It does not bundle a unified menu or a site-wide update mechanism. Instead, it focuses on packaging individual programs so that each can run on its own from a portable directory. For some, that modularity is appealing because it keeps each application independent and allows for granular control over what gets updated and when.
The transparency of Portapps is particularly notable. All source code, build scripts and packaging processes are openly available on GitHub. This makes it easier for technically inclined users to understand exactly how applications are made portable and to contribute improvements or fixes. The project's focused approach means its 54 applications are typically modern, well-maintained packages that target contemporary software needs, particularly in development and communication tools.
Trade-offs and Limitations
Both approaches share similar constraints. Performance can lag when running from slow USB flash drives, especially with applications that read and write frequently. A modern external SSD or high-quality USB 3.x drive mitigates this, but older media can make the difference noticeable.
Compatibility relies in part on the host Windows installation. Some portable programs require certain components to be present or struggle if the operating system is old or tightly locked down by policy. Security considerations apply to both: a portable device can be lost or stolen, so using encryption or secure storage matters if sensitive data are involved.
Another constraint is access to system-level features. Programs that need drivers, system services or administrative rights may not function as expected in portable form. Updates in Portapps require more manual intervention compared to PortableApps' centralised update system.
Which to Choose
The choice often comes down to preferences and requirements. Those who want a curated catalogue with a central launcher, integrated updates and back-up features will likely benefit from the PortableApps.com Platform. It reduces administrative overhead by keeping everything in one place and by handling upgrades whilst leaving settings untouched.
Those who prefer to choose individual portable packages, appreciate the transparency of wrapper-based builds, or focus on a subset of modern applications may lean towards Portapps. Both coexist comfortably because their aims overlap, yet their methods differ, and nothing stops a user from mixing them if that suits a particular workflow, though running two separate structures does introduce more to manage.
Practical Implementation
Setting up a portable environment generally begins with choosing where it will live. A fast USB 3.x flash drive or an external SSD keeps load times brisk and reduces frustration. If removable media is not desirable, a folder inside a cloud synchronisation service provides similar flexibility, just without the need to carry hardware.
PortableApps Setup
In the case of PortableApps, installing the platform to the chosen location yields a menu that can then be populated with software drawn from the catalogue. Updates can be triggered from within the platform and back-ups made as snapshots of the entire environment. The integrated app store makes discovering and installing new portable applications straightforward.
Portapps Setup
For Portapps, the process is more manual. Individual applications are selected from the website or GitHub, downloaded either as portable set-ups or archives, unpacked to a chosen directory, then started using the "-portable.exe" wrapper. Keeping track of updates often means revisiting the releases page for each application or subscribing to notifications.
Security Considerations
Security merits attention at the outset. Losing a drive can mean losing data, so encrypting the portable directory is wise, whether by encrypting the entire device with tools like BitLocker To Go or by placing the portable environment inside a container created with software such as VeraCrypt. Public or shared machines can carry malware risks, so scanning hosts when possible and treating sensitive actions with caution remains sensible.
Verifying downloads by checking hashes or signatures when provided, and scanning portable applications with antivirus software, adds another layer of reassurance. It is also useful to remember that even well-designed portable applications may leave temporary traces because Windows itself writes certain entries as part of normal operation. The objective is to limit permanent change, not to circumvent the operating system's behaviour entirely.
Performance Optimisation
Performance can be improved with a few choices. Using faster storage makes the largest difference, particularly for larger applications that read and write many files. Keeping the portable directory in a location that remains consistently available to a cloud client avoids sync stalls, and selecting a machine's local drive rather than a slow network path reduces latency. Ensuring that the portable environment is not subject to aggressive antivirus scanning on every read can sometimes help, though that has to be balanced against security policies.
Final Remarks
Portable software has matured from a niche convenience into a practical way of working that respects the realities of shared and changing environments. By focusing on containment, reducing dependency on installation and making updates and back-ups straightforward, projects like PortableApps and Portapps make it easier to carry a personal toolkit across diverse Windows machines.
The two platforms serve overlapping but distinct needs. PortableApps.com excels as a comprehensive, managed environment suitable for users who want everything integrated and maintained through a single interface. Its extensive catalogue and automated features make it particularly attractive for those building complete portable computing environments.
Portapps appeals to users who prefer transparency, modularity and direct control over individual applications. Its open development model and focused approach to specific modern applications make it valuable for technically minded users or those with specific software requirements.
Use cases abound for both approaches. Students and professionals who switch between school, work and home can keep a consistent environment without altering each machine. Technicians often carry diagnostic and repair tools that run without installation so they can assist on any PC they encounter. Travellers value having a browser and email client with their own preferences ready to use on shared computers.
With thought given to security, performance and management, both PortableApps and Portapps can add consistency to a computing life that is increasingly spread across locations and devices, all without imposing on the host systems that make it possible. The choice between them depends on whether one prioritises integrated management or modular control, but both represent mature approaches to an enduring challenge in modern computing.
Turn off display of popular highlights in Kindle apps for Windows and Android
19th August 2024
When I read books on a PC, I often make use of the Amazon Kindle web app. However, I do use its Android and iOS apps on mobile devices, and the Windows app remains available. On these, I never have taken to using annotations, though the facility does have its uses for many. Another feature that I rarely relish is the display of popular highlights, since I find this a little intrusive. Usually, I go about turning it off for that very reason.
On the Windows app, this is straightforward enough. Go to Tools > Options through the menu bar. On the dialogue box that produces, pick the Annotations screen and remove the tick mark in the Popular Highlights section. Then, click on the Save button to close the settings box and return to the main application screen.
Doing the same on Android is much less obvious. First, you need to open a book. Then, tap on the text size icon (Aa) followed by doing the same on the More menu item in the pane that appears. Scroll downward until you find Popular Highlights and toggle the setting to its off position. Lastly, swipe down the pane to close it. Though you have done this with one book open, it applies to all.
While some have commented that touchscreen devices can feel more intuitive to use, that has not been born out by what Amazon has done. It fits into the same category as how they responded when Google changed the rules for in-app purchases. Then, Amazon decided to remove this from their app. While that was a financial and business decision, their approach to user experience on their Android app does need another look.
Making the LanguageTool embedded HTTP Server work on Windows 11
11th August 2024
My choice of Markdown editor is VS Code or VSCodium, the latter being a fork of the former with Microsoft telemetry removed. In either case, I use the LanguageTool Linter extension for the required grammar and spelling checks. Pointing that to the remote web service offered by LanguageTool could get punitive, even if I am a subscriber. Thus, I use a locally installed equivalent instead.
In my usual Linux system, that is how I work. However, I have replicated the set-up on a Windows laptop for added flexibility. The needed the JRE, so that was downloaded from the Oracle website and then installed. The next step is to download the LanguageTool embedded HTTP Server zip file and decompress it to a chosen location. To run the server, the command like the following is issued from the Windows Terminal (the single line may break over two here):
java -cp "[Chosen Location]\LanguageTool-stable\LanguageTool-6.4\languagetool-server.jar" org.languagetool.server.HTTPServer --port 8081 --allow-origin
That is enough to get things going because it fulfils the default settings of the LanguageTool Linter extension in VS Code or VSCodium. The fastText application is unavailable for Windows, so I did without it. So far, things are operating acceptably, even if there is a way to address more memory should that be required.
Fixing Windows 11 freezing issues in VirtualBox with KVM paravirtualisation
23rd November 2022
Recently, I have been trying to get Windows 11 to run smoothly within a VirtualBox virtual machine, and there has been a lot of experimentation along the way. This was to eradicate intermittent freezes that escalated CPU usage and necessitated hard restarts. If I were to use Windows 11 as a long-term replacement for Windows 10, these needed to go.
An internet search showed that others faced the same predicament, yet a range of proposed solutions did nothing for me. The suggestion of enabling 3D graphics capability did nothing but produce a black screen at startup time, so that was not a runner. It might have been the combination of underlying graphics hardware and the drivers on my Linux Mint machine that hindered me when it helped others.
In the end, a look at the bug tracker for Windows guest operating systems running on VirtualBox sent me in another direction. The Paravirtualisation interface also may have caused issues with Windows 10 virtual machines, since these were all set to KVM. Doing the same for Windows 11 seems to have stopped the freezing behaviour so far. It meant going to the virtual machine settings, navigating to System > Acceleration and changing the dropdown menu value from Default to KVM before clicking on the OK button.
Before that, I have been blaming the newness of VirtualBox 7 (it is best not to expect too much of a fresh release bringing such major changes) and even the way that I installed Windows 11 using the streamlined installation or licensing issues. Now that things are going better, it may have been a lesson from Windows 10 that I had forgotten. The EFI, Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 requirements of Windows 11 also blind sided me, especially given the long wait for VirtualBox to add such compatibility, but that is behind me at this stage.
Given that Windows 11 is not perfect, Start11 makes it usable and the October 2025 expiry for Windows 10 also focuses my mind. It is time to move over for the sake of future-proofing if nothing else. In time, we may get a better operating system as Windows 11 matures and some minds surely are thinking of a "Windows 12". Depending on how things go, we may get to a point where something vintage in the nature of Windows XP, Windows 7 or Windows 10 appears. Those older versions of Windows became like old gold during their lives.
Trying out a new way to upgrade Linux Mint in situ while going from 17.3 to 18.1
19th March 2017
There was a time when the only recommended way to upgrade Linux Mint from one version to another was to do a fresh installation with back-ups of data and a list of the installed applications created from a special tool.
Even so, it never stopped me doing my own style of in situ upgrade, though some might see that as a risky option. More often than not, that actually worked without causing major problems in a time when Linux Mint releases were more tightly tied to Ubuntu's own six-monthly cycle.
Linux Mint releases now align with Ubuntu's Long Term Support (LTS) editions. This means major changes occur only every two years, with minor releases in between. These minor updates are delivered through Linux Mint's Update Manager, making the process simple. Upgrades are not forced, so you can decide when to upgrade, as all main and interim versions receive the same extended support. The recommendation is to avoid upgrading unless something is broken on your installation.
For a number of reasons, I stuck with that advice by sticking on my main machine with Linux Mint 17.3 instead of upgrading to Linux Mint 18. The fact that I broke things on another machine using an older method of upgrading provided even more encouragement.
However, I subsequently discovered another means of upgrading between major versions of Linux Mint that had some endorsement from the project. There still are warnings about testing a live DVD version of Linux Mint on your PC first and backing up your data beforehand. Another task is ensuring that you are upgraded from a fully up-to-date Linux Mint 17.3 installation.
When you are ready, you can install mintupgrade using the following command:
sudo apt-get install mintupgrade
When that is installed, there is a sequence of tasks that you need to do. The first of these is to simulate an upgrade to test for the appearance of untoward messages and resolve them. Repeating any checking, until all is well, gets a recommendation. The command is as follows:
mintupgrade check
Once you are happy that the system is ready, the next step is to download the updated packages so they are on your machine ahead of their installation. Only then should you begin the upgrade process. The two commands that you need to execute are below:
mintupgrade download
mintupgrade upgrade
After these complete, restart your system. In my case, the process worked well, with only my PHP installation requiring attention. I resolved a clash between different versions of the scripting interpreter by removing the older one, as PHP 7 is best kept for testing. Apart from reinstalling VMware Player and upgrading from version 18 to 18.1, I had almost nothing else to do and experienced minimal disruption. This is fortunate as I rely heavily on my main PC. The alternative of a full installation would have left me sorting things out for several days afterwards because I use a customised selection of software.
Thoughts on eBooks
20th August 2016
Recently, I have been doing a clear out of paper books in case the recent European Union referendum result in the U.K. affects my ability to stay there, since I am an Irish citizen. In my two decades here, I have not felt as much uncertainty and lack of belonging as I do now. It is as if life wants to become difficult for a while.
What made the clearance easier was that there was of making sure that the books were re-used and eBooks replaced anything that I would want to keep. However, what I had not realised is that demand for eBooks has flat lined, something that only became apparent in a recent article in PC Pro article penned by Stuart Turton. He had all sorts of suggestions about how to liven up the medium, but I have some of my own.
Niall Benvie also broached the subject from the point of view of photographic display in an article featured in Outdoor Photography because most are looking at photos on their smartphones and that often reduces the quality of what they see. Having a partiality to photo books, it remains the one class of books that I am more likely to have in paper form, even I have an Apple iPad Pro (the original 12.9 inch version) and I am using it to write these very words. There also is the six-year-old 24-inch Iiyama screen that I use with my home PC.
The two apps with which I have had experience are Google Play Books and Amazon Kindle, both of which I have used on both iOS and Android, while I use the Windows app for the latter too. Both apps are simple and work effectively until you end up with something of a collection. Then, shortcomings become apparent.
Search functionality is something that can be hidden away in menus, and that is why I missed it for so long. For example, Amazon's Kindle supports puts the search box in a prominent place on iOS but hides the same function in menus on its Android or Windows incarnations. Google Play Books consistently does the latter from what I have seen, and it would do no harm to have a search box on the library screen since menus and touchscreen devices do not mix as well. The ability to search within a book is similarly afflicted, so this also needs moving to a more prominent place and is really handy for guidebooks or other more technical textbooks.
The ability to organise a collection appears to be another missed opportunity. The closest that I have seen so far are the Cloud and Device screens on Amazon's Kindle app, but even this is not ideal. Having the ability to select some books as favourites would help, as would hiding others from the library screen would be an improvement. Having the ability to re-sell unwanted eBooks would be another worthwhile addition because you do just that with paper books.
When I started on this piece, I reached the conclusion the eBooks too closely mimicked libraries of paper books. Now, I am not so sure. It appears to me that the format is failing to take full advantage of its digital form, and that might have been what Turton was trying to evoke, but the examples that he used did not appeal to me. Also, we could do with more organisation functionality in apps, and the ability to resell could be another opportunity. Instead, we appear to be getting digital libraries and there are times when a personal collection is best.
All the while, paper books are being packaged in ever more attractive ways and there always will be some that look better in paper form than in digital formats, and that still applies to those with glossy appealing photos. Paper books almost feel like gift items these days, and you cannot fault the ability to browse them by flicking through the pages with your hands.
Killing Windows processes from the command line
26th September 2015
During my days at work, I often hear about the need to restart a server because something has gone awry with it. This makes me wonder if you can kill processes from the command line, like you do in Linux and UNIX. A recent need to reset Windows Update on a Windows 10 machine gave me enough reason to answer the question.
Because I already knew the names of the services, I had no need to look at the Services tab in the Task Manager like you otherwise would. Then, it was a matter of opening up a command line session with Administrator privileges and issuing a command like the following (replacing [service name] with the name of the service):
sc queryex [service name]
From the output of the above command, you can find the process identifier, or PID. With that information, you can execute a command like the following in the same command line session (replacing [PID] with the actual numeric value of the PID):
taskkill /f /pid [PID]
After the above, the process no longer exists and the service can be restarted. With any system, you need to find the service that is stuck to kill it, but that would be the subject of another posting. What I have not got to testing is whether these work in PowerShell, since I used them with the legacy command line instead. Along with processes belonging to software applications (think Word, Excel, Firefox, etc.), that may be something else to try should the occasion arise.
Dropping back to a full screen terminal session from a desktop one in Linux
29th May 2014
There are times when you might need to access a full screen terminal from a Linux graphical desktop. For example, I have needed this when installing Nvidia's graphics drivers on Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Another instance occurred on Arch Linux when a Cinnamon desktop update prevented me from opening a terminal window. The full screen command let me install an alternative terminal emulator, with Tech Drive-in's list proving helpful. Similar issues might need fixing on FreeBSD installations. These latter examples happened within VirtualBox, which has special requirements for accessing full screen command line sessions, which I'll explain later.
When running Linux on a physical PC, press CTRL + ALT + F1 to enter a full screen terminal and CTRL + ALT + F7 to return to the graphical desktop. In a Linux VirtualBox guest with a Linux host, these shortcuts affect the host instead. For the guest OS, use [Host Key] + F1 to enter a full screen terminal and [Host Key] + F7 to return to the graphical desktop. The default Host Key is the right CTRL key, unless you've changed it.
X sessions in GNOME and Cinnamon desktop environments support this functionality, but I can't confirm it works with alternatives like Wayland. Hopefully, this feature extends to other setups, as terminal sessions are occasionally needed for system recovery. Such mishaps are thankfully rare and should be virtually non-existent for most users.