'One' is the loveliest pronoun

It's no secret that from the women's lib movement of the 1970s to today's age of gender fluidity, personal pronouns have taken a beating. The problem is our language doesn't include a good gender inclusive singular personal pronoun. I distinctly remember being told by my eighth grade English teacher that the masculine (he, him, his) should be used when gender is not being specified. This didn't sit well with me in the late '70s, and it still doesn't.

When I was in graduate school in the early '90s, I noticed a bit of a backlash against the generic masculine, in which many scholarly authors had taken to using the feminine generically instead of the masculine. While that pointed out the problem, it didn't really offer a viable solution, and since then has faded from use.

My solution for many years was to use both the masculine and feminine together (him or her, his or hers, he or she), and while this could be viable in many situations, it could be awkward as well, especially when the pronouns need to be repeated in the same sentence. 

Interestingly, we have solved this problem in conversational language by using plural pronouns (they, them, their) in the singular, and it is gaining acceptance in written language as well. Most scholars and language experts still maintain that parallel construction should be maintained whenever possible (e.g., Children should do their homework before watching television, instead of A child should do their homework before watching television). In other words, when you use plural pronouns, it is still better to make the entire sentence plural; however, that view has become noticeably relaxed in recent years as our society attempts to accommodate gender fluidity, especially as people who consider themselves to be gender nonbinary embrace plural pronouns as an alternative to their gender-tagged counterparts.

But there is another alternative that, in my opinion, is too often overlooked. The use of 'one' as a singular, gender inclusive pronoun may sound a little formal and old fashioned to those who aren't accustomed to hearing or reading it, but it also conveys a certain simple elegance, as in 'Whether one chooses the steak or the lobster, the meal will be delicious'. 

The simplicity and inherent inclusiveness of 'one' make it an excellent tool for making written language both correct and comprehensible at a time when so much else, linguistically speaking, remains in flux.

To be sure, it can lend itself to awkwardness, especially with overuse or repetition in a sentence, but it's a good substitute for some of the even more awkward and convoluted constructions. but used judiciously, it can add variety and a more comfortable flow to our syntax. In short 'one' is ripe for a comeback. 

Setting Computers Free

Lately, I have been very focused on free and open source software, but the obsession is not new. It goes back almost to the beginning of my use of computers. Long before I even had a dial-up modem for my Mac Classic, I was enjoying freeware and shareware. The idea that someone would create a piece of software, and then distribute it for free, or maybe ask for a few dollars to unlock additional features, was fairly interesting. Yes, a lot of that software was garbage, but every now and then, a title would come my way that had a fair amount of polish and usability. 

By the late '90s, I was reading more and more about desktop Linux operating systems, and had begun experimenting with free and open source (FOSS) titles on Mac and Windows computers. The first open source title I installed with Mozilla Communicator, an open source version of Netscape Communicator, and forerunner of the Firefox Web browser and Thunderbird email client. I felt absolutely devious installing this software on my work computer, and actually questioned whether I was doing something wrong. 

Soon enough, I was branching out and trying more FOSS titles, most notably OpenOffice. The idea that a complete office suite, rivaling MS Office, which at the time cost hundreds of dollars, would be distributed for free was simply mind blowing. Granted, OpenOffice back then was not exactly ready for prime time, but it has matured over the years, to the point that its de facto successor, LibreOffice, is a worthy competitor in that market segment. 

It would not be until early 2009 when I encountered desktop Linux for the first time. I was immediately impressed that an entire operating system could be had for free, and that it came bundled with just about all the free software one might need for most day-to-day computing tasks. Even better, it was less hungry for system resources, and thus ran better and faster than the commercial operating system it was replacing, especially on older hardware. I quickly resolved to find a cheap, used laptop and begin some extended experimentation with Linux. 

I made that laptop pay for itself with interest by using it to write several articles on the Linux experience for the now-defunct PC Solutions magazine. All in all, it was a fun way to score a laptop.

Over the years, my understanding of the concept of 'free' has changed. I initially thought of it as software I didn't have to shell out cash for, which is admittedly appealing, but also misses the larger point. 'Free' in this case is more about freedom—the freedom to configure and modify software as one chooses. I'm still an end user with no real programming skills, but it's nice to know that if I had the technical skills, I would have license to truly make the software my own. It's also freedom, as in freedom from constant surveillance and data collection by Big Tech. Yeah, it's hard to get away from it entirely, but these days, my data is more or less my own, far less commoditized in the Linux world.

While I have never completely divorced myself from the world of commercial software and operating systems, I am increasingly finding that I can largely do without them. 

Case in point: A couple of months ago, I bought a Dell Latitude 7490 laptop, loaded with the latest Linux Mint, mainly as an excuse to dip my toes back into the Linux world after a few years away, where I had strayed to a Chromebook as a secondary computer. After trying in vain for two years to make that browser-in-a-box computer work like a regular PC, I discovered in coming home to Linux that, not surprisingly, it was easier to make a Linux computer behave like a Linux computer than it was to make a Chromebook do that. 

I have really come to enjoy the Linux experience on this relatively high-spec business laptop, and I find that it can cover my daily computing needs the way I want them covered, to the point that I seldom feel the need to go back to my aged MacBook pro, and I've all but completely abandoned Windows. 

There's just something about going non-commercial for my computing needs that strongly appeals to me in a very satisfying way. The bottom line is desktop Linux has really grown up in the past decade, to where it is as robust, user friendly and generally useful as any commercial operating system. I count myself as a Linux user in a way that I never have before. 

UPDATE (one year later)--What a difference a year makes. Linux Mint has now become my default operating system on several laptops at home, and although I still use Windows at work, because that's what I'm expected to use, not because it's what I want to use, my Windows laptop at home has been completely retired. Also, I almost never use my 12-year-old MacBookPro, except to retrieve files from it. The fact that I am using Linux Mint more or less full time doesn't really register with me anymore. I'm just getting things done efficiently and without surrendering as much of my data to Big Tech.

Tuned In on Linux

When I was using Linux regularly a few years ago, I found a nice little Internet radio app called Radio Tray. As the name suggests, it sat on the system tray at the bottom of the screen and allowed one to tune in Internet feeds from broadcast radio stations worldwide, as well as Internet only stations. Earlier today, I went in search of Radio Tray to install it on my recently-acquired Linux laptop, and to my dismay, I found it was no more, at least as far as Linux Mint is concerned. Undeterred, I decided to see what equivalents were available. 

After downloading and trying several apps, I found and settled upon one called Tuner, which offers many of the same features that I had enjoyed in Radio Tray. It includes a collection of genres, such as rock, jazz, folk, and classical, and gives users the ability to 'star' favorite stations for quick access.

One genre missing from the list is 'Talk', which in Radio Tray included several sub-categories, including old time radio, which is what I used it for most, to listen to shows from radio's golden age. At first, I was a bit disappointed at this glaring omission, until I began playing with the Search function and found I could create my own collection of stations, even if the software did not allow me to create and populate my own genres.

Upon entering the phrase "old time", I was presented about a dozen stations that offer this type of programming. I was able to save the ones I liked in my library by starring them. I was also able to go off-list and add a few stations that I wanted, and that Tuner was able to find. 

While it is not a perfect substitute for Radio Tray, it will get the job done and make my computing time a little more tuneful.

Tom Swift Invents the Twentieth Century

I have been an avid reader my whole life, and I attribute that in part to the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift books I read when I was growing up, from about age six or seven until about 12 or 13. Often, my grandmother and I would read them together, trading off chapters. I am very thankful for the love of books and reading she helped instill in me.

As with many things in life, I eventually outgrew those juvenile series books; in fact, I remember a major turning point at the age of twelve, when I discovered Ian Fleming's James Bond novels. Meanwhile, the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew mysteries enjoyed a resurgence in popularity on television during my early teenage years, and some of my peers began reading the books at a later age than I had. My mom began loaning my copies out during this time, and I didn't always get them back. 

While I never completely forgot about the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift, they became less and less important to me and I completely lost track of my copies, until a few years ago when my dad handed me a box of my old Hardy Boys books, with one Tom Swift title among them, and tried to explain to me what they were, even though I knew them well. It is interesting to me that as a child, I found the Hardy Boys more approachable, but as an adult, I'm more interested in Tom Swift, especially the original titles, published beginning in 1910.

Tom Swift was one among several juvenile fiction series created by the Stratemeyer Syndicate and published by Grosset and Dunlap. The books were written by contract writers from outlines supplied by the syndicate. This was a novel (pardon the pun), and somewhat controversial business model for the time, as children's books intended solely for entertainment were largely unheard of. Up until this time, most children's books were intended to be instructional in nature, for the purpose of instilling proper values in the children who read them. Many adults at the time decried books published by the Stratemeyer Syndicate and other similar organizations as potentially undermining the moral fiber of young people, much the way rock-n-roll music would be condemned a few decades later, ironically by generations who had grown up reading Tom Swift, The Hardy Boys, and Nancy Drew.

Unlike the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, which seem to exist in a chronological continuum where time progresses but the characters don't age, instead remaining perpetually in their late teens, Tom Swift has actually gone through several generations:

The first series of books, published between 1910 and roughly 1940, are now retroactively referred to as "Tom Swift, Sr." In this iteration, Tom was an 18-year-old self-taught inventor, who lived with his widowed father, Barton Swift,an inventor in his own right. Modeled on the likes of Thomas Edison, Tom, along with his best friend, Ned Newton and his sweetheart, Mary Nestor, are often challenged to create new inventions to meet technological challenges, or assist the U.S. government. Tom, for instance, is granted a draft deferment in World War I, or the European War, as it is referred to in the books, to enable him to continue developing military technologies for the U.S. and its allies.

 Other characters in the series include an eccentric neighbor named Wakefield Damon, who accompanies Tom and Ned on many of their adventures, an aged African American handyman, named Eradicate "Rad" Sampson, and an Amazonian giant named Koku. These three are a source of comic relief, often seen as decidedly un-PC to modern sensibilities. While some would see that as grounds for these books to be banned, burned, and buried for all eternity, I believe a modern reader must look upon them as historical artifacts of their time, not so much to excuse the attitudes expressed in them, but to learn from them.

As the first Tom Swift series was drawing to a close, the Stratemeyer Syndicate granted a reprint license to Whitman, a publishing company best known for its Big Little Books series of picture books. Although Whitman held a license for the entire series, they reprinted only the final ten titles, under the Whitman imprint, and then added two of their own under their heavily illustrated Better Little Books line. Printed on cheap paper and without illustrations, these copies are less desirable to collectors today, but have allowed many to complete their collections affordably by upending the common phenomenon by which the last titles of a series are exceedingly rare and priced accordingly.

The Tom Swift franchise lay fallow for more than a decade, with no new titles emerging until the mid-1950s, when the Stratemeyer Syndicate determined the series was ripe for a reboot, perhaps in response to another series, Rick Brant, that was published by Grosset & Dunlap, independently of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, and drew heavily on the premise of the earlier Tom Swift books.

At the same time the syndicate was revising (some would argue dumbing down) the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books, shortening them from 25 chapters to 20, and toning down things like violence and racial stereotypes, and in some cases doing complete rewrites, it took a different approach with Tom Swift, by releasing a new series, with direct chronological continuity from the earlier series. Centering on the exploits of Tom Swift, Jr., son of Tom Swift, Sr. and Mary Nestor, Tom's friend Bud Barclay, and Charles "Chow" Winkler, a former chuck wagon cook and comic relief character that draws a bit of inspiration from earlier characters like Damon Wakefield and Eradicate Sampson.

Published between 1954 and 1971, the Tom Swift Jr. stories are more firmly in the realm of science fiction than its parent series, drawing on the Atomic age for inspiration, with many stories set in outer space and in other ways far beyond the realm of contemporary technology. 

The franchise again lay fallow during 1970s and early '80s, during which a handful of Tom Swift, Jr. titles were re-published in paperback editions, but no new titles would emerge until the mid '80s, when a new series, Tom Swift III was released. Also during this period came a parting of ways between the Stratemeyer Syndicate and Grosset & Dunlap, as the two organizations were acquired by rival companies. The Stratemeyer Syndicate went to Simon and Schuster, while Grosset & Dunlap became part of Random House. 

In the process, Grosset & Dunlap sued Stratemeyer, claiming ownership of the book series it had published under contract. The courts ultimately made a ruling worthy of King Solomon, stating that the syndicate, and thus Simon & Schuster, owned the intellectual property of the various series, including Tom Swift, which gave them the right to produce new titles in the series, while Grosset & Dunlap owned the publishing rights to the back catalog titles it had previously published under contract. Under those terms, Simon & Schuster has continued, under its various imprints, to bring out additional Tom Swift adventures for successive generations.

Today, the earliest Tom Swift titles have fallen into the public domain. Most titles of the original book series, along with a couple of Tom Swift, Jr. titles that fell into public domain due to clerical errors, are readily available online as ebooks and audiobooks, transcribed by volunteers and offered via Websites like the Guthenberg Project. Enterprising entrepreneurs are even offering print-on-demand paperback copies and omnibus collections, as well as digital text and audio editions on CD-ROM. 

Over the years, Tom Swift has inspired a number of authors and inventors, including science fiction authors Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein, Gone with the Wind author Margaret Mitchell, inventor, author and futurist Ray Kurzweil, and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. 

The TASER, used by law enforcement as a non-lethal means of subduing suspects, even takes its name from the title of a Tom Swift book. TASER is an acronym for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle", drawn directly from the title "Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle". Interestingly, Tom Swift is never given a middle name or initial in the books. It was added by the TASER's inventor to avoid calling it the "Teaser".

Without a doubt, Tom Swift had a significant impact on the twentieth century, and that for a fictional character, that is his greatest legacy.

Nine Linux Myths Busted

If you've read any of my recent posts, you will have noticed a little bit of a trend. I'm once again excited about Linux, after recently acquiring a refurbished laptop with Linux Mint loaded onto it in place of Windows, and subsequently setting up my old Windows laptop as a dual-boot system with Linux Mint alongside Windows. It's quite a surreal experience, though, to be met with blank looks when I try to share my newfound enthusiasm with others. If I'm lucky, I get a question or statement expressing reluctance to consider the subject. In the process, I've found myself attempting to bust certain myths about Linux in an attempt to assuage some of people's fears and misconceptions. Below are nine of those myths (in no particular order) and my, hopefully helpful responses:

Myth #1: I'll have to learn how to use my computer all over again. Not necessarily. Several Linux distributions have interfaces that look very similar to Windows. The best way to begin is to do things in Linux the same way you would in Windows or Mac OS. Chances are that will work.

Myth #2: You have to be a programmer to use Linux. While it is true that many Linux users are programmers, it is not exclusively for programmers. Most popular Linux distributions use a graphical interface by default and user's can point and click, just like in other popular operating systems.

Myth #3: I can't use Linux because I don't know how to use the Terminal. While it can be useful to know a few basic Terminal commands, it definitely isn't a make-or-break proposition. Windows and Mac OS also have command line terminals, into which you can type commands instead of pointing and clicking, and it is equally possible to get a long day-to-day without using them.

Myth #4: If I put Linux on my computer, I'll lose all of my data. This depends on how you install Linux. While installing Linux in place of Windows will erase all existing data, you can easily create a dual-boot system, installing Linux alongside Windows, and leaving 100 percent of what's already on your computer intact. 

Myth #5: I might get the 'wrong' Linux. Linux does come in a wide variety of distributions, or distros, with features to appeal to different users' needs. That said, most distros allow one to boot the operating system from a CD or USB drive and effectively take it for a 'test drive' before installing it. Bearing in mind that things will run slower this way, you can still get a good feel for whether you'll like it before you install it. Once you find the one you want, you can install it in place of, or alongside, your existing operating system and enjoy it running to its full potential.

Myth #6: It's too hard to get everything working on Linux. This may well have been the case years ago, when Linux was in its relative infancy and many things like print and WiFi drivers had to be configured manually through the terminal. Today, setup is much more automated and transparent to the end user.

Myth #7: I can't run my favorite apps in Linux. While it may well be true that you can't run the desktop Windows version of your favorite app, there are often viable substitutes and workarounds available; for instance, LibreOffice largely duplicates the functions of Microsoft Office, and GIMP is a useful replacement for Photoshop. Some applications, such as Firefox, Thunderbird, and Zoom, do have Linux versions. Many Windows applications can be run via an emulator called WINE, and Web versions of popular apps abound. The bottom line is, where there's a will, there's likely a way. 

Myth #8: I've never used Linux before: Actually, chances are you have. Linux is everywhere, but largely behind the scenes. Most major Websites run on Linux servers, and devices we use every day run on Linux, whether we realize it or not. Two major examples are the Android operating system for smart phones and tablets, and Chrome OS, on which Chromebooks run. Both of these are built on versions of Linux.

Myth #9: Linux is unstable, and therefore dangerous to use. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. A variant of Unix, Linux is very stable, more stable, in fact, than Windows. Users also tend to find Linux runs faster and more efficiently on their computers than the Windows OS that came on them.

Linux Secure

 Now that I've been back in the Linux fold for a few weeks, I'm coming to recognize a sense of comfort—comfort that the operating system is fast, stable, and surprisingly user friendly, but also that it is very secure. In fact, desktop Linux distributions are among the most secure operating systems out there, and many users don't feel the need for antivirus or anti-malware software, and with several good reasons:

Small market share—The largest target for malware is, not surprisingly, the  largest desktop operating system by market share. Windows attracts the lion's share of  malware attacks, but what's engineered to infect Windows machines will not necessarily have any effect on an identical piece of hardware running Linux. Thinking like a malware writer for a moment, it's easy to see that if one wishes to do the most damage, Windows would be the target of choice. And not only is the desktop Linux market share infinitesimally smaller than that of Windows, it is also far more fragmented. Not every desktop Linux user runs the same distribution, and what might potentially affect one distribution might not affect another, so many malware authors will simply not see it as worthwhile. But small market share does not necessarily make an operating system inherently more secure.

Safer protocols—Desktop Linux distributions are also safer because of their operating protocols. First and foremost is that most desktop Linux users do not routinely stay signed into a root (administrator) account by default. If they need to perform an operation that requires root access, they sign in and then sign back out. Windows and Mac OS, by comparison leave users permanently signed into administrator accounts by default. Although they can—and should—create an additional non-administrator account for daily use, most Windows and Mac OS users do not bother to do this because it is less convenient. What users do not realize is that by doing this, they leave their computers more open malware attacks, designed to exploit administrator/root privileges.

Another de facto safety measure is how desktop Linux users acquire their software. Because most Linux software is free, most end users never look beyond the software repositories provided by their Linux distribution. Since all the software there has been vetted by those who maintain it, one can generally rely on it to be safe. By comparison, many Windows and Mac OS users will download software from less legitimate sources in search of a deal. This increases the chance of ending up with an infected copy. 

Linux is bigger than you think—While the desktop Linux market share is very tiny, and divided up between a number of different distributions, Linux itself is surprisingly pervasive. From large server farms to smart phones and appliances we may not even consider to be computers, Linux is everywhere in various forms. As a result, malware actors may be more likely to target large Web servers running on Linux than they would individual users. It also means operators of large server complexes, whether they are fueling eCommerce, hosting Websites or email, or supplying desktop Linux users with software, are going to necessarily exercise greater caution. 

Where individual users are more likely to run into malware attacks is on devices they don't even know are running Linux, including Android phones and tablets, smart TVs and set-top boxes. Unfortunately, there is little that end users can do to protect against such attacks, other than to make sure such devices are kept updated.

Also potentially a growing target is Chromebooks, which run a highly customized version of Debian Linux, and can run both Android and Linux apps, in addition to its own native version of the Chrome browser. This may become an increasingly attractive target for malware actors, given that the Chrome OS market share surpassed Mac OS during the COVID pandemic.  

Is antivirus/anti-malware software necessary on Linux?—This is a simple question with a complex 'yes and no' answer. If you're running a Linux-based server farm, then the answer would be a definitive yes. Those servers need to be protected. Meanwhile, individual users are reasonably safe—not completely immune, but reasonably safe—from malware attacks. That said, a little caution never hurts to exercise a little caution. There are free antivirus packages, like ClamAV, that can help with this effort, but just as importantly, users should keep their software updated to minimize vulnerabilities, and make sure only install software from trusted sources.

It's a dangerous world out there for Internet-connected computers, but as operating systems go, most desktop Linux distributions—I'm using Linux Mint on two laptops—are about as safe as it gets, which is yet another reason to consider upgrading from Windows.

A Unifying Experience

I am a pretty easy going individual, and there are few things I am truly picky about, but one of these things is computer input devices. For a long time, I mainly used whatever came with the computer, but that has changed over time. The first revelation came almost 25 years ago, when I purchased a PowerMac G4, and instantly came to hate the truly awful hockey puck-shaped mouse. The day the computer arrived, I ran to Office Depot and picked up a Logitech Marble Mouse trackball. It was an ergonomic wonder and worked nicely with my small desk space, since I didn't have to physically shift it around to move the pointer on the screen. I still have that mouse and all these years later, it still works flawlessly. I will say that I did eventually make peace with that hockey puck mouse by attaching a snap-on cover that gave it a more conventional, albeit chunky shape, but by that time, I had fallen in love with the trackball.

Since that time, I've become increasingly loyal to Logitech input devices, because keyboards and mice form the connection between the computer and my brain, so it is vital that they are comfortable and robust. It may sound like circular logic, but I have come to rely on them precisely because they are highly reliable—well built and thoughtfully designed. Another feature that makes them my go-to brand is the Unifying Receiver, identified with an asterisk logo, which allows multiple Logitech devices, similarly marked with an asterisk, to connect to a single receiver, leaving other USB ports open. This ecosystem is also useful because in the event that a keyboard or mouse fails, the receiver is most often still good. This makes it feasible to pick up compatible second-hand input devices on the cheap at thrift stores, etc. Sometimes they come with a receiver and sometimes they don't, but the Unifying Receiver makes that almost irrelevant—and equally easy to forget about.

My most recent Logitech acquisition is an MK270 keyboard and mouse combo, which I picked up at a thrift shop in its original box for about the price of a fast food meal. A check on Logitech's Web site shows this to be a price leader package, retailing for about $28, so I found this one for a little less than half price. The package included a K270 full size wireless keyboard, an M135 compact wireless mouse, and a USB receiver, paired with both devices. The keyboard is nicely designed, very quiet and comfortable to use, with a pleasant, soft touch on the keys and minimal clacking. Some people love noisy mechanical keyboards, but honestly, I don't need my computer to sound like a manual typewriter. The only feature I see that it lacks is a PC lock key. Other than that, it has everything I could want in a keyboard. The mouse is a compact, 'portable' model, not quite as comfortable to use a full size mouse like the M310 or M510, but it's all that not bad, either. I've definitely used much worse. 

The biggest disappointment of this package is the USB receiver, which is not marked with an asterisk and is thus not of the Unifying variety.  That said, both the keyboard and mouse are paired with it, and thus, it satisfies my needs for my work laptop. In the office, the computer is connected via a USB-C cable to a full size monitor with a built-in docking station, which also acts as a charger for the laptop and provides wired Ethernet and video connections. Also connected to the laptop is a wired Logitech Trackman Wheel trackball device. I have the keyboard and mouse connected directly to the laptop via their shared USB receiver, but I seldom use both devices simultaneously. I use the keyboard when I'm at my desk and I use the mouse with the laptop when I have it away from my desk. This will continue to be a useful combination, despite the lack of a Unifying Receiver system. The only thing that could undermine that functionality is if one of the paired devices were to become lost or damaged.

While this is not the dream combo I might have hoped for, it gets the job done despite its shortcomings.