So I bought a netbook a while ago and installed Linux Mint 12. I wrote about that in May, if you recall. Unfortunately once I had installed that version of Linux, it didn't always load properly, and when it did, I had intermittent issues with wireless connectivity. So I defaulted back to Windows; because actually, what is the difference between Linux and Windows for me? Is there a benefit to running one system in preference to the other? Not really.
What do I use my netbook for? Let me list the ways...
So it's all about what sits on top of the OS, rather than the OS itself.
Having said that, there are some customisations which are nice / different in Mint which make it stand out from Windows, which is nice. But I could get similar desktop pictures in Windows. I do like the fact that with Linux you can experiment with the command line, if you choose not to use the GUI. So I did use the terminal facility to delete multiple installations of Linux, when I was messing things up before, which made me feel like a 'real' programmer :)
So when I heard that Linux Mint 13 had been released, I decided to give it a go. Again, I had a few issues for a couple of days, but then I remembered the Mint4Win approach I adopted last time, and used that. Again, it worked like a charm.
And the great news is that every time I've booted into Mint 13 the load has been successful, and wireless works flawlessly! Sometimes I think it knocks our laptop off the network, but we're getting a new router today, so hopefully the signal will be a lot stronger (our existing router is over five years old).
So because it is reliable, I am more likely to use Mint. What I do need to do is sit down and personalise the menu and options, using the new Cinnamon settings. I might get some time tomorrow - let's see...
Having followed the news over the last couple of days, I'm saddened by the fact of Kevin Pietersen's retirement from international limited overs cricket.
Apparently the fella wanted to continue playing T20 for England, but the ECB advised that to be eligible for T20 he had to be available for ODIs (50 over cricket) as well.
ODIs can be a bit tiresome on occasion, but they are still a good way to pass a day. Especially with people of Pietersen's callibre playing, who can sense that the game is dying or becoming dull, and inject a bit of adrenalin into the situation. KP and his ilk can turn a game and make it exciting.
A few days ago, I believe it was Thursday, while we watched the rain at Edgbaston, I listened to Andy Flower talking about the medium- and long-term interests of the team. And I think Flowers and the ECB have got it right.
You can't make an exception for individuals. And I think there is a concern that ODI cricket is the poor relation to Test and T20 cricket. If they (the ECB) allow KP to pick and choose, they will have to let all players pick and choose. And especially with the strains that modern bowling inflicts on the body, I could see the entire first-class England bowling attack retiring with immediate effect from ODI cricket.
T20 is the glamourous form of the game; Test cricket is the strategic mind game. Fifty over cricket is a way to watch a complete game in a day, but it isn't differentiated; it needs to build its own reputation. I don't think that cricketers are crying out to play ODIs, and that needs to change. ODI cricket needs its own image, its own brand and specialists.
Until it does that, ODIs, for England at least, will always be a secondary thought. They might attract large crowds in the sub-continent, but so do T20 matches.
I'll miss KP and the anticipation of his appearance. But his performance was always hit-and-miss. He could be out for a low score or hit a quick 50. The team as a unit needs to be reliable. And with the strength and depth of the English team as it is at the moment, perhaps now is the best time for KP to retire. At the age of 31. Lucky git.
