The Force Awakens: Second Viewing

I saw The Force Awakens for the second time yesterday, and I think it's fair to say that I enjoyed it a lot more on my second viewing. If you can look past the short comings of the plot, and the fuzzy science at play, there is a lot to like about this movie.

Excellent Characters

For starters the new characters are very well done. They all have personalities, depth, well defined and simple goals, and most importantly are relatable. There is more characterisation and complexity to these characters in this one film than there is for Obi Wan, Anakin and Padme in the entire prequel trilogy.

Image: www.starwars.com

Kylo Ren in particular is very well done. There is true depth to this character. You can see and feel the anguish he is in being torn between his desire for power and greatness through the dark side, and the love for his family that keeps him anchored to the light. And while he portrays a strong exterior clad in black, behind a sold heavy mask that distorts and deepens his voice, he is actually very vulnerable and fragile. Like a child he is prone to bursts of emotion, tantrums, and a fear that he will never be good enough. And while strong with the force you can see that he is undisciplined and under trained. Even his lightsaber is unrefined and jagged. While his basic understanding of the force is better than Rey, training wise he is only a step or two above her - a raw unrefined talent.

And the characters play off each other extremely well. Poe's headstrong daredevil nature is countered by Finn's pragmatism. Kylo Ren is the embodiment of the dark side - chaotic, emotional and reliant on brute force, while Rey represents the light - strength through discipline, focus and attention to detail.

And Harrison Ford's performance is great. Han Solo is perhaps the most enjoyable part of this film. Although I would have liked to have spent more time on his relationship to Ben, when is it brought up you can feel the emotion he has for the loss of his son. It's really good work.

Cinematography

While I do feel that the film has pacing problems towards the end, individual scenes are shot extremely well. All the battle scenes are great, fast paced but not too fast and without the CGI clutter. The reactions Finn has to shooting down Tie Fighters, his reunion with Poe, Han's reaction to the Millennium Falcon, Rey's plight finding enough scrap for food - these all feel real, as if actual human beings are involved.

The portrayal of Kylo Ren in Han Solo's death scene is brilliant. The tension of Kylo with his internal conflict, standing eye to eye with the one person who is keeping him attached to the light. You can see just how much he is tearing himself apart. He could almost come back to the light side. And then you see the moment the dark sides wins - Kylo's face changes to be stern. This is paralleled by the extinguishing of the light from the nearby sun by the starkiller. And Kylo Ren removes that relationship that has held him back. Amazing.

And the light sabers! Ok, so while I would argue that the light saber fights in Empire and Jedi actually have more going for them from a character development and feel of tension, the light saber combat in The Force Awakens is easily the best in the series so far. It feels real. It feel less like a  choreographed dance, and more like two people who are actually intent on killing each other.

The last light saber fight is great. Especially with the surround sound giving you the sensation of being inside the snow storm - you feel like you're inside the action. Then we have a wounded Kylo first facing off against Finn - who has overcome his desire to run - and then Rey. During this fight you can see the moment that Rey figures out the force and uses it to her advantage. It's really good stuff with heaps of immersion.

 

Story

As I predicted in my previous post, on my second viewing I was able to pick up on a lot more of the finer details of what is going on. For example, in her flashback we see that Rey was left with the shopkeeper when she is orphaned on Jakku. Presumably it was in his service that she learned her mechanical skills and how to fly - moving the junkers that the shopkeeper had been collecting. She also helped with the modifications made by the shopkeeper to the Millenium Falcon, hence why she was so familiar with the ships systems and how to fly it.

That Leia sent Ben to Luke because he was undisciplined. That the First Order officers were wearing the Imperial officer uniforms. The additional exposition that the resistance is a private army supported by the republic. That Han blames himself for loosing Ben. And that the First Order only became powerful after Luke Skywalker vanished (and that Leia feels at least a little responsible for it).

I feel that this movie will continue to get better with additional viewings.

Stuff I Still Don't Like

I still feel that the film has pacing issues towards the end. The starkillers destruction is abrupt and feels like it doesn't fit. To be honest, I kind of feel that they crammed too much stuff into the end of the movie. In the final act we have the starkiller destroyed, Rey's awakening into the force, the death of Han Solo and the discovery of Luke Skywalker. It comes off as a little bit rushed. Some of these plot threads could have been resolved in the next film.
 

I still find the use of deus ex machina distracting.

I still really wish that there was a little bit more exposition as to what is going on with the New Republic and the resistance. Where are the other star fighters from Return of the Jedi? Let alone the Mon Calamari cruisers and Nebulon B frigates...

And yea, The Force Awakens is derivative as it can get. It even takes from The Phantom Menace. Rey / Anakin grew up working for a scrap merchant who treated them as little more than slaves, and is a natural pilot and mechanic whose abilities are amplified by an innate sensitivity to the force. And we now have four Star Wars films that end with a star fighter attack on a space station.

Han Solo's Death

The death of Han Solo is perhaps the thing I'm least happy with. While the scene itself was very well done from Kylo Ren's perspective, I feel the same couldn't be said from Han Solo's perspective.

I still feel the decision to kill off Han was predictable and lacked overall tension. Kylo wasn't going to be redeemed, and it is obvious that Han is going to die.

I watched an interview with Abrams the other night where he states that he killed off Han because he needed to do something bold to make Kylo Ren a threat equal to Darth Vader. But, really, your bold move was to kill off a character that Harrison Ford and Lawrence Kasdan were begging to kill off back in Return of the Jedi?

And again, this scene would have had more tension and emotion from Han Solo's point of view had the relationship between the two been further explored. Really, this story could have been the major plot line of a movie itself - and in fact was in Return of the Jedi. Because the first half of the The Force Awakens concentrates on Rey and Finn (as it should) the story of Han and Ben is pushed right back to a second and third act secondary story.

The death scene depicts Kylo's final transition to the dark side extremely well. But the emotional impact of Han Solo's death is just lacking. If there was a history between these characters, if it appeared that Kylo's interaction with Han could actually be enough to turn him back, then the scene would have had far more tension, and Han's failure would have had far more impact. Perhaps if there had been interactions between the two characters earlier in the film. If Han had made previous attempts to rescue Ben, or if Kylo had in the past had let Han go, or saved him from a peril. If a relationship had actually been built up in the story.

Because as it stands Han has essentially been an uncommitted parent to Ben right up until this point.

• For starters, once Ben became difficult as a child his parents sent him away to train under Luke rather than parent him themselves. Leia even says that she regrets this. And we know that Kylo has self esteem issues, that his greatest fear is underachieving. Being sent off to Luke for being difficult would likely have been seen by Ben as an abandonment by his parents because of his shortcomings. 

• Secondly, when Ben turned to the dark side Han abandoned any effort to try and rescue him - instead, as he states, in grief he left Leia to go back to being a smuggler. So the movie states that there has been no real interaction between these two characters since Ben's perceived abandonment by his parents as a child.

So then we come to Han's death scene and we are presented with Kylo Ren having to choose between his father, a man who wasn't there for him as a child and who he hasn't even seen since his conversion to the dark side, and Snoke, a man who promises power, relief from his insecurities through training in the dark side, and a strong father figure. Of course Kylo sides with Snoke - it's an obvious and forgone conclusion.

Instead Han Solo's death relies on the fact that the audience already has a connection to this character through the original trilogy, and requires this connection to generate an emotional response. It's weak.

I think this plot line would have been better to resolve in the next film. Laying the foundations of Han and Kylo's relationship in this film, then exploring that relationship in the next so that Han's death has a real impact on the viewer.

Or just not have included it at all.

And Some Nitpicks

I have some minor nitpicks. These don't kill the movie for me, but are a distraction.

Starkiller base. Star Wars is all about being fuzzy with science - but I find the starkiller really immersion breaking. This space station is just so totally impractical that my brain collapses just thinking about it.

• For starters, this thing sucks in stars, and prior to firing has the mass of an entire yellow star inside of itself. This would mean that it also has the gravity of that star. The energy required to create a dampening field necessary to stop the crew being crushed to a wet pulp on the floor must be beyond impractical.


• Next, they are cramming a star roughly the size of our sun into a starkiller about the size of Mars. When the starkiller is destroyed we see the star is left behind - so they aren't breaking it up as they suck it in or anything, they are literally cramming a star into the starkiller. Would cramming the star into such a small space not make it incredibly unstable? Would it not accelerate the nuclear fusion making it a gigantic hydrogen bomb? Maybe this is what powers the weapon - but this thing could go boom at any moment, any malfunction in the priming or firing of the weapon, no matter how minor, would be catastrophic.


• Likewise, containing the star inside the starkiller would require energy shields of some description. But the power requirement necessary to power shields capable of not only holding a star, but also compressing it into a space the size of a small planet would be ridiculous. It would take as much power to operate these shields as it does to power the weapon! Not to mention that if these shields were to fail in any part of the starkiller then the star wold expand out of that failed section of shielding destroying the base!


• The starkiller is effectively a Dyson sphere and relies on its spherical shape to provide structural integrity. So don't even worry about finding the thermal oscillator, any damage to the superstructure of the base would be catastrophic. Pick any part of the starkiller that is exposed (i.e. not covered by the planets crust) and launch everything you have at it. Even if you didn't damage the superstructure to the point of collapse, any power failure in this area would also destroy the base. Honestly, this is where Y-Wings and B-Wings would have been invaluable.


• Operating the starkiller requires destroying your own systems! For every New Republic system you destroy, you have to destroy one of your own systems to power the weapon... The ratio of destruction is close to 1 to 1. Ok, you could use stars in uninhabited systems to power the weapon - but any class M (to borrow from Trek) planets that are in the system are now completely uninhabitable. Any star bases or mining facilities in orbit are now flying off into space, as too are any asteroids or plants that could have been used for resources - including gas giants similar to Bespin. These planets are now flung off into space, their positions are not on your star charts, and are just cruising through space waiting to collide with your own ships traveling through hyperspace. Using the weapon weakens your own future strategic and economic positions.


• You could move the starkiller into enemy space, using their stars to power the weapon - a double hit. But now you are putting a very vulnerable weapon directly into spitting distance of the enemy, defeating the purpose of building a weapon capable of attacking from behind your own lines in the first place! They may as well just built conventional death stars.

So the starkiller requires an enormous amount of energy just to prime the weapon, is so fragile that any minor malfunction to a major system will destroy the base, and when is does work it destroys your own systems... Good job First Order engineers.

Ok, moving on though - the Luke Skywalker star map is kind of a weak plot device. I can accept that the New Republic doesn't have access to the Jedi star map seen in Attack of the Clones - perhaps the Empire moved all that information to a secure location once the Rebellion kicked up and now the First Order only has access. 

But Kylo Ren tells Rey that they were able to put together the rest of the map from the Imperial archives. The missing part is only about 5  - 10 % of the total map, and contains a handful of star systems. You know from the Imperial archive the general location in the galaxy where Luke Skywalker is - why not send out a bunch of probe droids to search the hand full of planets in that unknown area?

And R2D2 put himself into low power mode after Luke left. But he has a nearly complete map to Luke minus that small missing piece. So how did the map get out? Was it put together from word of mouth - people that had spotted Luke on his travels? Then how did R2D2 get it? Did Luke make the map sans that small piece and left it with R2D2? Then how did the First Order get it? Why did R2D2 not pass on the map to the resistance? Perhaps Luke told him not to. But then why would Luke make a map in the first place? Why would R2 change his mind at the end of the film? So many questions....

Instead recovering the map form the First Order should have been one of the goals of the resistance.

Second Viewing Thoughts

So, yea, I like this movie. Even given its short comings. 

I would say story wise it's not as good as a New Hope or Empire Strikes Back. It is better than the prequels mostly because the prequels have a habit of not explaining key characters, contradict the original trilogy, have very poorly written characters and script. But I would put it slightly behind Return of the Jedi simply because of the derivative nature of the work.

Action wise it is really good. That last lightsaber duel was at least as good as the fights between Luke and Vader in Empire and Jedi. The X-wing battles are also really good. But I do feel that the space battle to defeat the second death star was superior to that to destroy the star killer. And the battle at the end of A New Hope had more tension.

If I was to rank the films I would put them: Empire Strikes Back, A New Hope, Return of the Jedi / The Force Awakens (maybe equal), Revenge of the Sith, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones.

The Force Awakens: Thoughts On What’s Going On

(I made some slight corrections to this post after my second viewing of the film).

Alrighty, in my previous post I commented that I found the story the The Force Awakens lacking. In this post I give my ideas for what might be going on in the galaxy far far away.

The biggest problem with The Force Awakens is that it left so many questions open. Would the New Republic not be the dominant force in the galaxy now? Why do they rely on a small resistance force to fight the First Order? Why doesn't the New Republic have a large navy at least the size of the previous Rebel Alliance fleet, if not the size of the Imperial fleet? Why only X-Wings - what happened to the other star fighters? What is the First Order, why did the New Republic allow it to form? How has the galaxy been shaped by events that followed The Return of the Jedi?


Again, these ramblings are based on my first (and currently only) viewing of the film.

The New Republic and the Larger Galaxy

First things first, I doubt very much the New Republic is anywhere near the size of the old Republic.

For starters, after the Empire collapsed there would have been a power grab as interested parties tried to carve out their own little Empires. I could see the Hutts or other crime syndicates expanding their holdings. There would also be world's loyal to the Empire that would not have reverted to Republic control. And the imperial military would have fractured into smaller fleets under the control of their individual moff’s and admirals. These independent fleets would likely have carved out their own territories.

Also, it was shown in the prequel trilogy that the old Republic existed as a collection of individual states held together by a federal government based at Coruscant. The system was similar to the USA or Australia where the federal government maintained a common currency and a set of laws voted on by the member states, which included the banning of slavery and the defence of the member states, and each member state was represented in a senate.

But clearly the member states didn’t always get along, and were at times downright aggressive to one another. Not only do we see disagreements between the representatives within the senate, but the Republic federal government also maintained a set of laws outlining how military engagements between Republic member states were to be conducted. I think it’s telling that military action between member states was not only an option for resolving major conflicts within the old Republic, but was common enough that laws were needed to keep the engagements fair.

Image: Wookieepedia

The establishment of the New Republic would almost certainly have required a new constitution or similar founding document, new trade pacts, defense pacts, etcetera. It is very unlikely that every system in the old Republic was 100% satisfied with the agreements that had been made under that government, and clearly there was animosity between some cultures. Many states would have argued for better or more favourable positions within the New Republic. Reforms to previous federal laws, better trade deals, better defence, more access to power, more access to resources and so on. These sort of agreements take years to establish on Earth, and we’re all human. How long would these negotiations take on a galactic scale, between alien species and cultures? Decades? Centuries?

No doubt some former old Republic worlds would have broken away from the New Republic until these negotiations were complete. Perhaps going as far as to form their own independent states if diplomatic negotiations fell apart.

So my basic premise is that after the Empire fell the former Imperial territory (and the outer rim) fractured into several smaller independent sovereign states, which include the New Republic and the First Order. The New Republic is much smaller than the old Republic and may only comprise what were the core worlds of the old Republic. The New Republic is surrounded by these new states. Some of these states would be New Republic friendly, but many wouldn’t many wouldn’t.

The galaxy is in a certain amount of turmoil as the new states each jostle for power. The loss of the Imperial navy as an overwhelming police force has also meant an escalation of piracy, crime  and dissident groups throughout the region.

The First Order

The first order is likely an independent state that formed from worlds loyal to the Empire. Only a state with a centralised government would have the resources and infrastructure to build the starkiller. So it is unlikely that the first order is a rogue former imperial fleet. The First Order could be very powerful if it inherited a large portion of the defeated Imperial fleet.

The First Order does not appear to be expansionist or aggressive towards the New Republic. If there was a threat that the First Order was going to invade New Republic space then the border would have been strengthened with an actual Republic fleet rather than relying on a rag tag resistance for defence.

Had tensions between the two nations been heated, and an attack expected, then the attack by the starkiller would have been countered by an attack from a larger Republic fleet patrolling the border. This fleet would have had large capital ships and B-Wings to counter the First Orders star destroyers. That the only Republic friendly force in the region was a single fleet of resistance X-wings suggests that prior to the attack relations between the New Republic and the First Order were amicable, and the Republic did not expect an attack.

The New Republic wasn't even spying on the First Order. The Republic wasn't aware that the First Order was constructing the starkiller -  information about the starkiller was collected by the resistance prior to the attack. Given that even allied nations on Earth spy on each other is very telling about how much of a threat the New Republic felt the First Order was.

The starkillers attack was a show of force and not part of an invasion. It is stated in the film that the First Order had built the starkiller in response to suspicions that the New Republic was funding the resistance.** And the attack by the starkiller was not followed by an invasion to grab territory. Had the First Order been expansionist then they would have almost certainly have used the starkiller to create confusion inside the New Republic while at the same time taking territory with an invasion force. All they did was destroy some planets and left it at that.

The attack by the starkiller was a response to the Republic supporting the resistance, and the perceived threat that the Republic was going to invade First Order space. They wanted to strike first as a deterrent.

A preemptive show of force of this manner is the same tactic Grand Moff Tarkin used against the Rebel Alliance when the first death star destroyed Alderaan. It was felt that showing the destructive power of the death star would stop further attacks from the Rebellion.

** EDIT 06.01.16. They don't actually say that they suspect the New Republic is financing the resistance. I remembered this wrong. What they do state is that they are attacking the New Republic as it is the government that is supporting the resistance.

It appears that the First Order is primarily concerned with finding Luke Skywalker. Attacks on the New Republic are at this stage a  secondary concern. They are only attacking the New Republic because this government is supporting the resistance, an the resistance has been launching attacks against the First Order.

The Resistance

A couple of facts about the resistance can be gleaned from the film;

It’s possible that the resistance aren’t part of the New Republic military, or part of the New Republic government. As above, it’s stated that the First Order suspects that the New Republic is funding the resistance.** The resistance may therefore not be part of the New Republic itself, but an independent group funded, at least in part, by the Republic government.*** That, or maybe the First Order simply failed to find the evidence connecting the resistance to the New Republic government, perhaps their spies only discovered the movement of funds.

*** EDIT 06.01.2016. It is stated several times through the film that the resistance it a private military that is only supported by the New Republic government (including in the opening crawl). The First Order are attacking the New Republic in retaliation to the support they give the resistance.

The First Order is at least partially correct about the New Republic’s involvement in the resistance. The resistance is staffed by several high ranking Republic commanders, is clearly very sympathetic towards the Republic, and is likely based within New Republic space.

Image: www.independent.co.uk

While not part of the New Republic military, the resistance is based within New Republic space. When the starkiller destroys the New Republic planets the explosions of those planets are visible from the resistance base. This must mean that the resistance base and those planets are located within the same star system, otherwise the explosions would not have been visible. They must therefore be crossing into First Order territory to conduct their attacks.

The resistance is primarily concerned with finding Luke Skywalker. Unlike the First Order they want to enlist his help. This is because they believe that the galaxy cannot have stability and order without the Jedi order being present. If Luke Skywalker is lost then the galaxy would plummet into a period of anarchy. This has brought them into conflict with the First Order.

The resistance is very small, much smaller than the rebellion. Not only does the resistance lack the capital ships that were available to the rebellion (Nebulon B frigates, Mon Calamari cruisers, Corellian corvettes), but also all the starfighters with the exception of the X-Wing. If the rebellion was a fleet representing the combined arms of several allied rebel worlds, then the resistance is perhaps just a single cell more akin to a guerilla group or, ahem, terrorist cell.

Princess Leia is fighting with the resistance to help cope with the loss of Ben. The resistance gives her a familiar setting, something to concentrate on and is perhaps the only way she can rescue her son. This is likely one of her primary motivations for wanting to find Luke Skywalker.

My Thoughts on the background to The Force Awakens

It appears to me that at some level the New Republic is the aggressor in the story.

At the very least they are financing a group that is crossing the border to conduct guerrilla attacks against another sovereign nation (the First Order). The statement made that the First Order built the starkiller as a retaliation to the New Republic funding the resistance is very telling.** It is likely that the First Order saw the Republic as a threat, and that the use of the starkiller was a preemptive strike to that perceived threat.

The First Order are not expansionist, and prior to the The Force Awakens had not invaded New Republic space. At the moment they are only really concerned with finding Luke Skywalker, and this has brought them into conflict with the resistance, a group that has been conducting very effective guerrilla raids against them. Initially the First Order was unaware of the connection between the resistance and the New Republic and felt that the resistance was an independent terrorist or dissident group.

At some point prior to The Force Awakens the First Order discovers that the New Republic is at least supporting the resistance. They interpret this as a direct threat from the New Republic. That the resistance is striking First Order targets and gathering intelligence prior to a larger New Republic invasion, or that the Republic is actively trying to disrupt the First Order and create a state of panic. As a result they begin construction of the starkiller as a means for conducting a massive first strike against the New Republic - the thought being that such a show of force would cause the Republic to rethink it's plans to invade. Attack them before they attack us.

Now, this is not to say that the First Order aren’t the bad guys. Ideologically the First Order may still be evil, they do employ dark Jedi and impress children into service after all. And it doesn't mean that the First Order will not become the major aggressor going forward. It just means that it was the Republic that, at least in part, provoked an attack in The Force Awakens.

Ok, so that's my broad thoughts on whats happening within the galaxy. What about the finer details?

The New Republic is the Aggressor

Theory 1: The New Republic is economically and diplomatically very strong. While peaceful, New Republic is expansionist and wishes to bring surrounding territories under their control. They are not using their military to do this. Instead they are doing this using a combination of diplomatic and more subversive methods.

Diplomatic methods include spreading propaganda, economic sanctions, diplomatic pressures, tariffs, preferential treatment of states that share New Republic ideologies, etcetera. More subversive methods may include spying, assassinations, and financing dissident groups that promote instability within neighbouring states. Worlds in a state of anarchy will be more susceptible to Republic propaganda, while financing dissident groups will weaken neighbouring militaries so that the New Republic remains the dominant military force in the region.

In this scenario there has been no direct conflict between the New Republic and the First Order. The resistance already existed and was conducting guerrilla attacks against the First Order as part of their goal of safeguarding Luke Skywalker. The New Republic secretly began supporting the resistance as a means to further their own goals of disrupting and conquering the First Order.

A good analogy would be the current situation of Russia supporting rebel forces inside of the Ukraine.

The connection between the resistance and the New Republic was not meant to be discovered, and so the New Republic did not expect an attack from the First Order. Because of this the New Republic fleet was not ready to retaliate to the starkiller's attack.

But we can take this further. Perhaps the Republic is so worried about another Empire rising that they became incredibly authoritarian - passing draconian laws against free speech and cracking down hard on anything that could be considered as being detrimental to the state. Maybe there is mass surveillance of the population, curfews and restrictions on travel. Maybe these restrictions are imposed with force.

Perhaps in trying to stop the Empire they themselves became just as tyrannical.

The First Order may not actually be evil, but desperate. In order to retain their freedom they are having to resort to dark Jedi and impressment of children just so they have enough of a military presence to resist the Republic. The starkiller being a last resort. Kylo Ren is still evil and on his way to becoming a sith, but he is a means to an end. Perhaps the First Order fear that the Jedi would force their incorporation into the New Republic, and Kylo Ren is viewed as a necessary evil.

There are hints in the film that the Republic has become a second Empire. For example the uniforms worn by the high ranking resistance / Republic officers are very similar to the Imperial officer uniforms including solid colour earth-tone jacket that skirts towards the bottom, broad belt over the waist, Chinese collars, and rectangular badges on the left breast (on the Imperial uniforms these were rank insignia, on the Republic they appear to be some sort of icon). Telling…. or overthinking it?

LEFT: Admiral Statura - The Force Awakens, seen working with Leia in the resistance. Image: www.starwarsnewsnet.com. RIGHT: Moff Jerjerrod - Return of the Jedi. Image: www.starwars.com.

This could be part of the reason why Luke has gone into hiding. He can’t side with Kylo Ren and aid the dark Jedi take over, however he doesn’t want to help a distorted New Republic control the galaxy. Instead taking a completely neutral position.

A Crippled New Republic

Theory 2: Either it took so long to establish a new federal government, cleaning up the remaining Imperial forces took a vast amount of resources, or the high cost of protecting its borders from attacks from neighbouring sovereign states has meant that the New Republic is financially crippled. The main Republic fleet is small and is also spread very thin protecting the territorial borders from the surrounding independent states.

As a result the Republic has seeded militia groups along its borders to act as first line defenders as these are all it can afford. These militia groups are not traditional standing armies, instead many people serve voluntarily because they believe in the Republic, similar to the Rebel Alliance.

The paper trail connecting these militia groups to the New Republic government is kept to a minimum. This has a couple of advantages;

1. The Republic can order military operations in foreign territories or against foreign ships while at the same time appearing neutral. These attacks might appear as being pirate raids, rogue fleets or dissident groups for example - this would be particularly true if the galaxy is still in a state of turmoil after the fall of the Empire as it is likely that pirate raids would now be fairly common. This would allow the Republic to protect their borders from minor incursions or raids without necessarily escalating diplomatic tensions. 


2. Without a paper trail it would be easier for these small militias to remain hidden. This gives them the element of surprise, making their small numbers more effective. A strategy used by the Rebel Alliance. 


3. These militias are supplied mostly with X-Wings as these are the most versatile craft available, being a very competent joint strike fighter bomber. Capital ships and specialised starfighters such as Y-Wings, B-Wings and A-Wings are reserved for the main Republic fleet.

The resistance would be one of these militias. After it was discovered that the First Order was trying to locate Luke Skywalker they were given orders to stop them. This escalated attacks from the resistance into First Order space. The First Order initially thought that the resistance was an independent terrorist group, acting by itself, and therefore only attacked resistance targets rather than engaging the New Republic directly. However, at some point it was discovered that the resistance was at the very least being funded by the New Republic. This increased tensions between the New Republic and the First Order resulting in the preemptive strike using the starkiller.

Because the New Republic was unprepared for the attack the main republic fleet was not available to retaliate against the First Order, meaning the defense relied only on the local militia (i.e. the resistance). 

A Fractured Republic

Theory 3: The Republic never reestablished a federal government on Coruscant. Instead the New Republic exists as a collection of loosely allied independent states. Each state maintains it own military. This would mean that capital ships would be largely localised to the systems that produce them. For example, Mon Cala would be well protected fleets of Mon Calamari cruisers. Other systems would have to use whatever ships they could produce or purchase.

The resistance is the military of one of these independent New Republic States. This is a smaller state that only has a fleet of X-Wings protecting its borders. This is why other starfighters and capital ships were not available to engage the starkiller.

The resistance is used in the same way as in theory 2, as a semi-hidden militia with a loose paper trail to the government that operates it.

The Resistance is an Independent Terrorist Cell

Theory 4: The resistance is an independant terrorist cell that is on it’s own mission to find Luke Skywalker, and stop the First Order. The resistance is not operating under the orders of the Republic, and is instead a collection of Republic military commanders and pilots that broke away from the Republic military and came together because they believe in Luke Skywalkers ability to bring stability to the galaxy. They are launching terrorist attacks against the First Order from Republic space simply because the First Order have the goal of killing Skywalker.

But they are getting some funding from the New Republic. Not enough to build a force of ships beyond a single fleet of X-Wings, but enough to maintain their force. This may be because the New Republic doesn’t believe Luke Skywalker can actually be found, or that they feel that the resistance’s belief in Luke Skywalker as a saviour of the galaxy is unfounded and the resources would be better spent elsewhere. But they do want to fund the resistance to a certain extent for a couple of reasons;

1. The resistance has been very effective in harassing the First Order, and this is in line goals of the New Republic.


2. The Republic is willing to spend some funds on the small chance that the resistance can find Luke Skywalker.

The New Republic felt that the First Order would not be able to detect its involvement with the resistance, and felt that the resistance would have been treated as an independent terrorist or dissident group.  The sudden preemptive attack by the starkiller was not foreseen, and therefore a larger fleet was not on standby to retaliate to the attack.

JJ Abrams is a Hack

Theory 5: The most likely scenario. Disney actually wanted to reboot the franchise, but worried about the backlash from fans. And JJ Abrams is a director that doesn't like to push boundaries, likes to work within established boxes, and really just likes 'splosions...

So they hit the reset button and remade A New Hope without any concern for how The Force Awakens fits into the cannon. Everyone was reset to their original starting positions, and this required a rebellion for Han Solo and Princess Leia to participate in. It's never going to be explained why the New Republic doesn't have a military, why the resistance only uses X-Wings, and the First Order is just going to be a second Empire hell bent on galactic domination. Cos why not do something new when remaking the old is so easy?

Episode VIII

I think each of my scenarios (except theory 5) would result in an escalated response form the New Republic. Hopefully we will see more ships coming into play. Fleet on fleet battles with capital ships, A-Wings, Y-Wings and B-wings making an appearance.

And hopefully Episode VIII actually gives some better background as to what is happening in the Galaxy!

Oh - and the Knights of Ren are clones of Kylo. And Rey is Luke Skywalkers daughter.

The Force Awakens: First Reactions!

Star Wars man! I freaking love Star Wars! As a die hard Star Wars fan prior to the prequels, I've previously written about how much I really didn't want The Force Awakens to suck. Finally saw the movie on Christmas Eve. Did it suck? No. Well kinda. A little. Sort of.

Stay tuned for my - ‘haven’t yet looked at anyone elses reactions’ - first impressions. (And, yea, this is 100% spoilers).

First off, The Force Awakens is hands down a better film than The Phantom Menace. I didn't come out of the theater with that feeling of disappointment. It was an enjoyable film. No part was boring. The effects were very enjoyable and didn’t have the now trademark Lucas style of cluttering the screen with as much shit as it can handle. The combat scenes were great, action packed and occurred at good intervals. And the use of CGI was, for the most part, unobtrusive. And seeing the original cast back in action was great. Harrison Ford in particular is excellent in this film.

And most importantly the characters were all likable and (mostly) fleshed out. There is no Jar Jar, no lifeless Qui Gon Jinn. Finn, Rey, Kylo Ren and Poe Dameron are cool as. The movie does a really good job of introducing them and giving them life. Enough that I went out today and got myself a Finn action figure.

I would perhaps go as far to say that this was the best of the post original trilogy films thus far. I had a very good time watching it.

If this was a stand alone action sci-fi film then I would have walked away happy. And for the most part I did. But the only thing is for a Star Wars film I kind of expected more… I have this little bit of regret. That they could have taken it further. It was good. I enjoyed it, and would go see it again. But it wasn’t quite as good as I was expecting. This seems to be the reaction I get from just about everyone I talk to.

But… It was was derivative

While fun, the film was incredibly derivative. I think this is to be expected with Abrams films, it’s kind of his thing. There is a trend here. 2009 Trek had no real story or character development to speak of. It completely dropped the nuance of Kirk in the original films, and completely missed the point of the Kobayashi Maru and facing the no win scenario - which in the original films was an allegory for the inevitability of death. Instead, the depth of the original films was cast aside to make way for explosions and lens flares. And Into Darkness was a straight up remake of Wrath of Kahn. In that film Abrams simply reinterpreted the major themes and events of Star Trek II to make it more action, didn’t really add anything new, certainly didn’t take Trek in any fresh new directions, and worse still removed the nuance and character development that made Star Trek II so great. Not to mention a huge reliance on deus ex machina.

While Abrams creates great action set pieces, he isn't one for pushing new boundaries in storytelling. He would rather play it safe and direct films that reinterpret an existing story rather than taking a risk by adding something new. Pushing a story in a new direction isn’t his thing. He likes to work inside an established box with established themes. And complexity, subtlety and nuance take a back seat to action and explosions.

And this film had Abrams style all over it. The Force Awakens is so similar to A New Hope it could be considered a straight up remake;

• In both films princess Leia is trying to contact an elderly jedi who had gone into hiding after the jedi order they were part of was wiped out by an apprentice that turned evil. This jedi is their only hope.

• For both films the first act takes place almost entirely in a desert. The final act is an attack on a death star.

• Both films begin with a star destroyer flying overhead.

• Stormtroopers attack with the intention of intercepting technical data necessary for their victory.

• The attack catches a high ranking rebel / resistance official off guard who was in possession of the data.

• In a moment of desperation the official intrusts the data to a droid.

• After the combat is complete a dark jedi enters and begins interrogating the survivors and the high ranking official.

• The official goes on to be tortured, but gives no information.

• The droid entrusted with the data then travels the desert until it is captured by local scavengers, and then comes into the possession of a young person who was orphaned on the planet as a child. That person is dressed entirely in white.

• The orphan is a natural pilot and a skilled mechanic, is force sensitive, and inherits the lightsaber of Anakin Skywalker.

• Han Solo is attacked by bounty hunter(s) to recover a large sum of money he borrowed from a gangster or crime syndicate.

• The orphan is tasked with delivering the data to the rebel alliance / resistance. They are reluctant to do so at first, but are convinced to help though the guidance and offers of an elderly hero who fought in a previous war.

• Both movies have a cantina scene. In both cases an agent friendly to the enemy is present at the cantina, recognises the protagonists, and alerts the enemy as to what is going on.

• It is discovered that the Empire / First Order have constructed a death star. The power of this weapon is demonstrated by destroying a planet / planets. These planets were unprepared for the attack and the attack was unprovoked.

• The male protagonists must infiltrate the death star in order to rescue to female protagonist.

• The elderly hero confronts the dark jedi. The elderly hero and the dark jedi share a father / son or master / apprentice style relationship. The elderly hero is killed by the dark jedi while the orphan protagonist watches. This has a profound impact on their character development.

• The rebel alliance / resistance are a rag-tag bunch of pilots and ships. They are undermanned, outgunned and in a hard up situation.

• The death star must be attacked by a wave of single man fighters. Capital ships are not used. Reinforcements are not available.

• The death star can only be destroyed by hitting a very specific well guarded target. Heavy losses are taken. The shot that finally destroys the death star is fired by a single x-wing pilot during a daring maneuver.

• Both movies have a death star trench run.

• The death star must be destroyed within a very short time frame before it is able to fire upon the the rebel / resistance base. This will destroy the rebels / resistance. The death star is destroyed with only moments to spare.

• The final shot of the death star battle is the Millennium Falcon and the surviving star fighters running from the explosion.

The Force Awakens felt like it was treading old ground. Like you had seen it before. I'm sure Abrams wanted to get away from all the aspects that made the prequels suck, and wanted to get back to the roots of the franchise. But in doing so produced a film that takes so little risk and deviates so little from the franchise roots that it is essentially the same film. A New Hope remade with a massive budget. It’s felt about as paint-by-numbers as you could get for a Star Wars film.

To a certain extent Return of the Jedi was similar. Second death star anyone?  But not to this extent. Did Star Wars actually need a reboot? Did we actually need another Star Wars story set on a desert world? Another death star? Personally I would have liked a new story investigating the struggles of the New Republic. Something fresh… Something different...

What the hell is this movie about?

But really that on it's own that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But in typical Abrams style all the nuance and background storytelling is also stripped from the film.

The story telling in A New Hope is fairly thin, but the script, the sets, the pacing, and little added details all come together so by the end of the film you have a very good understanding of the universe in which the film takes place. You understand that the galaxy has come out of a period of war, that the empire came to power and now rules through terror, that the previous government was a golden age that had lasted for a thousand generations, that several worlds had rebelled against the empire and had formed an alliance to fight against them, that the empire had developed a super weapon capable of destroying or subduing the rebel worlds, and that prior to being wiped out the Jedi had been the protectors of peace in the galaxy and their return would secure victory for the rebellion.

In A New Hope you understand exactly the motivations of everyone involved, why they are fighting and what is at stake. The universe is fleshed out.

The Force Awakens is a fun spectacle, sure. Everything is larger. Instead of being attacked by one bounty hunter, Han is attacked by a dozen. The original death star was the size of a small moon, this one is the size of a planet. Everything is bigger, shinier, louder, faster. But the story is isn’t there. It’s just never expanded upon. The motivations of the two factions are not made clear. Nothing is explained. What the hell is going on?

Some questions I ask of the film are this;

What is the First Order? Is it a remnant army from the empire that is kicking around the border of the New Republic stirring up trouble? But then how would they get the resources to build a death star? Is it an independant state that formed from worlds loyal to the empire that exists alongside New Republic space? Are they just evil for the sake of it? Is Snoke the rightful heir to the imperial throne? Is their only concern killing Luke Skywalker? What is their motivation?

What is it that the resistance is... resisting? After the defeat of the empire would the New Republic not now have it’s own military? Why are they relying on a rag-tag bunch of rebels to fight the First Order? What are they fighting for?

To be honest the resistance felt underdeveloped, and kind of contrived just just fit The Force Awakens into the same plot as A New Hope.

What’s the New Republic’s role in this? Why do they not face the New Order head on? Did the New Republic fail to reunite the worlds, and is actually a very small player in a galaxy filled with new independant states?

In short, what the hell has happened since Return of the Jedi? What is the state of the galaxy? What are everyone's motivations? What are they fighting for? Where are the capital ships? Why were Y-Wings not sent to fight the starkiller when bomber craft would have been ideal? What the hell is going on?

Personally I like a good story. It would have been better if the universe could have been fleshed out more. There is a reason why Empire Strikes Back is considered one of the best films of all time.

While this is Abrams style, I can't help but feel that merchandising also had a hand in this. Star Wars is all about merchandise, and The Force Awakens is easily the worst film yet for whoring out the franchise. Take C3P0’s red arm for example. It's never discussed, brought up again, or important to the story. ‘I thought you may not recognise me with my red arm’, and that's it. So why does his red arm exist?

1. To sell toys - everyone now has to go buy the red arm C3P0. 
2. Because then they can sell you the comic book or video game that explains it. 

I think to a certain extent this happened to the story too. ‘Want to know what the resistance is about? Buy this comic book!’.

Poor writing…

The writing and editing was kind of poor. Not Anakin Padme romance poor, but still kind of poor. The pacing seems a little bit off. Because the first part of the movie focused almost entirely on Finn and Rey the last part of the movie felt really rushed.

For example, because the starkiller is introduced about halfway through the movie I found that it’s destruction at the end of the film felt really abrupt. It wasn't something that was built up to as the menace that has to be destroyed. Instead it's like ‘oh no they have a starkiller!’, ‘nah it's ok, we got it’. The destruction of the starkiller lacked tension.

The same was true of the Han Solo Kylo Ran reveal. About 2 thirds of the way though the movie it is revealed that Kylo Ran must kill his father (Han Solo) as part of his movement over to the dark side. Then he does. That's it. The fact that Kylo Ran is Ben Solo is very seldom mentioned after the reveal. A sad glance, Leia asks Han to try and redeem him, and Solo is dead.

If Solo trying to redeem Kylo had been a plot point from the being of the film, if we could have followed his torment and desperation, and if it had appeared as if Kylo was redeemable then Han Solo’s death would have had a much more emotional impact. As it was it felt rushed and and lacked impact. It happened and I was like, ‘oh yep’.

And, too be really honest, Han Solo’s death was very predictable. As soon as Leia told Han it was up to him to redeem Kylo you knew he wasn't coming back. For starters Harrison Ford has been wanting to kill the character off since the beginning. Of all the original cast to kill off Harrison Ford's character is the obvious one. Secondly, this is the first of a trilogy. Kylo is in it for the long haul. Thirdly, we were bloody told he had to die so that Kylo could sever his tires to the light side! The death scene itself was well done, but man it lacked tension!

And this is yet another movie in which Abrams relies on deus ex machina to save the day. R2D2 out of the blue wakes up and provides the remaining 95% of the map to find Luke Skywalker. Finn, having worked in sanitation aboard the starkiller has detailed knowledge of the engineering of the station - just in time to save the day too! No Bothans were going to die this day. And captain Phasma happens to be in the right place at the right time to be captured, and is willing to just shut down the shield with little coercion. You know, like every high ranking marine with anti torture training would do…. There are no plans. No clever ways to get out of the situations. In typical Abrams style things just appear when they are needed.

Finally, callbacks… so many call backs. I get making references to the previous films for nostalgia, but these end up feeling corny, and I think we'll be a detriment during future viewings.

Final Thoughts

So there we go. I think at this stage I'm going to need to see the film again to try and tease out the story, and really decide how much I like it. Chances are there is story info that I missed on my first viewing. It really does need multiple viewings before I’m ready to make a judgement.

At the moment I'm thinking it's better than the prequels, worse than the original trilogy. Enjoyable but not a classic. But no one was laughing at the end, there were no midichlorians, no extended periods of sitting with shot-reverse shot conversations about nothing, no awkward love scenes, and no prolonged senate debates. And I’m not avoiding the toys and action figures like I did the prequels.

So all in all it’s a net positive for the franchise. At the very least it’s an enjoyable sci-fi action adventure. And it’s nice to actually be discussing a Star Wars film with my friends and family again, rather than just bashing it for being stupid.

But I really do hope they do something more ambitious with the next film...

First Impressions of Linux: Preliminary Comments

(This is part 4 of a multi part thread. For part one click here).

I’m going to freely admit that with my attempt to install Ubuntu to my media PC I gave the OS next to no time, and I’m not in any position to make any statements about how good or bad Linux is compared to Windows. I’m also aware that many of the problems I have discussed in this post are due, at least in part, to the nature of community driven open source development rather than problems with Linux itself. And that I could have solved all these issues had I given the OS more time. I’m also going to admit that a media PC / DVR was perhaps not the ideal learning environment.

That said I've got a couple of observations that I think are relevant to any newbies going into Linux from Windows;

Going into Linux as a Newbie

- Do your research first. Knowing the benefits and limitations of the system before going in will save a lot of troubles.

- Look into the distros. Linux comes in a variety of flavours, each with different setups. If you need a system with proprietary drivers, WINE or a DVR it may be easier to install a distro that has those things pre-installed and configured. Finding the distro that best suits your needs first may mean you spend less time and frustration trying to setup the system in the long run.

- Understand hardware limitations. If all you want is a basic word processing and internet machine then any hardware will probably be fine. But if you want something a bit more specialised, perhaps a gaming rig or DVR, repurposing an old Windows PC may not be the best idea. Make sure your hardware is fully supported before you start. In some cases it may be better to build a new system that is better supported by Linux to get the best performance.

- Understand that Linux is largely developed and supported by hobbyists and enthusiasts. Things are not always as streamlined or polished as they are on Windows, and oftentimes instructions are written with the assumption that the reader already has a level of Linux experience. There is not always a ‘correct way’ of doing things, and advice can often be fragmentary. Be prepared to get your hands dirty to solve problems.

Going Forward

So, have I finished with Linux now? No, not at all. I’m still very interested in trying out Linux properly. I’ve got a couple of options. Installing onto my laptop might be the best for an actual sit-down-and-use-it setup. Otherwise I could install Linux onto my gaming PC. This would probably be best for trying out Linux as a gaming OS. The question then is do I split my current SSD into a Windows partition and a Linux partition and run games from a conventional HDD - or do I pick up a second SSD to run Linux?

I also still have my Raspberry Pi B+ that I’m pretty keen to set up as a basic media PC / Kodi machine for the bedroom.

Linux First Impressions - 3 Weeks In: Back to Windows 7

 (This post is part 3 of an ongoing series of posts on Linux. For my first post click here)

So after three weeks of using Ubuntu on my media PC I’ve scrapped it and gone back to Windows 7. The reason? Simply put, it got too difficult. Compared to Windows a Linux media PC setup is a bit of a headache.

At least for New Zealand it is...

Some extra background is probably necessary. Back in December we bought our first home (the reason why this blog has been so slow this year). In New Zealand the analogue TV broadcast was switched off on 1st December 2013, making live TV available only through digital DVB-T and DVB-S sources. The house we purchased didn’t have a satellite dish or DVB-T aerial, meaning we effectively didn’t have access to the live TV broadcast. Which was absolutely fine. Like everywhere, live TV in New Zealand sucks - and we were happy with streaming everything we want to watch. When I initially installed Ubuntu I was happy to make the TV capture card and live TV recording secondary priorities.

But it has been our intention of installing a DVB-T aerial eventually. There are some shows that are just easier to watch live, the News for example (New Zealand’s local streaming services really suck). And with Abby growing up it would be good to have an easier way for her to access cartoons and kids shows than searching for them through Kodi.

So last week a contractor put up an advertisement on a local social media page with cheap DVB-T aerial installations. We jumped on the chance, and once again we had access to live TV. Being able to record television suddenly became available.

And Ubuntu became a problem…

Weird Installation Foibles of Linux

I’ve found that in some situations it can be very difficult to install software within Linux if you aren’t totally competent with what you are doing.

Linux is developed and maintained by the community, which gives the OS many benefits over Windows. But one of the big downsides is that there are many situations that simply don't have straightforward solutions. Everyone has their own opinions of how things should be done. Their own 'correct way'. As a result I've found that Linux tends to been very fractured when it comes to advice on how to install software packages. Advice tends to be anecdotal, and often times instructions from different sources can be contradictory or outdated.

Installing MythTV

For example, I chose MythTV as my DVR software, mostly because it seemed to be most popular solution. But I never actually got to the point of installing MythTV because figuring it all out proved to be a real headache.

With MythTV some bloggers and forum commenters recommended simply installing it onto an Ubuntu system from the repositories with sudo apt-get update, sudo apt-get install MythTV. But then the MythTV official wiki lists a page of dependencies that must be installed to the OS for MythTV to work. Are these installed by default with sudo apt-get install MythTV? How do I know if I have them, that they are functioning, and if they need to be configured? Still others warned that by installing MythTV with sudo apt-get install MythTV you can mess up the configuration and flummox up the installation, and instead recommended downloading a purpose built distro like Mythbuntu that already has everything set up and ready to go. Still others argued that they had never had a stable installation using Mythbuntu. The official Ubuntu documentation wiki has its own instructions for installing MythTV. But these instructions were posted in 2008. Are they still relevant?

None of this is actually Ubuntu's problem. Canonical is not responsible for the work of other dev teams or forum users. Well, with the exception of outdated entries on the official Ubuntu wiki that is. But it is a dauntingly steep learning curve for someone coming in as a complete newbie. I found myself knee deep in research, trying to cobble together answers from blog and forum posts and trawling through the wiki's and forums.

Sapphire Radeon HD5750. 
Image: www.sapphiretech.com

Choosing a Graphics Driver

And even if I did get the MythTV installation figured out, in the end the MythTV front end may not even play nice with my AMD card. Many forum comments noted choppy playback and poor performance with AMD hardware that required a fairly large amount of troubleshooting to fix. Partly because the AMD Linux driver support isn't great, and partly because MythTV development seems to favour Nvidia hardware (perhaps because of the relatively poor AMD support). There were also debates about what graphics drivers were best (open source or proprietary), and the best configuration for MythTV to get it running stable with AMD hardware.

Again I would have to crawl through the internet for answers.

Installation: Windows vs Linux

I understand that Windows has great driver and software support because of it’s gigantic market share rather than being a superior OS. But I think credit where credit is due - Windows typically does a very good job of configuring itself during software installs. Typically dependencies are checked for and installed automatically, and once software is installed it usually requires little or no extra effort to get it working. For example, if I install a game that requires Direct 3D then the installer will automatically check that Directx is on my system - and prompt with an installer if I need it. No further configuration is necessary. When I installed Media Centre on my parents Windows 8 Pro machine it downloaded, installed and configured everything it needed automatically and the DVR ran straight away with no problems. Drivers are always available, and more often than not Windows can simply grab what it needs automatically from Windows update rather than needing them to be manually installed.

I feel that with Windows I can be very confident that everything will work with no fuss, while Ubuntu can require a bit more work under-the-hood to achieve the same results.

That's not to say Ubunutu is a really bad system for installing software. Quite the opposite actually. Most of the time software installs are quick and easy. In fact many times they are easier than Windows installs. Two terminal commands and you're away. No CD's, no installers to hunt out on the net, no product keys and no DRM waiting to mess it all up for you the moment you step out of line.

But on Linux when you hit a snag during a software install then it suddenly becomes extremely difficult, requiring days of research or a high level of Linux experience to complete. The learning curve is very steep.

MythTV versus New Zealand EPG Data

The electronic program guide is ultimately what killed my enthusiasm for Linux on my media PC. In New Zealand EPG data is broadcast in two formats, EIT and MHEG-5. EIT only contains EPG data for programs currently playing, while the MHEG-5 broadcast contains the EPG data for an entire week. MythTV, like Windows Media Centre, can only natively use EIT data meaning the week long EPG is out of reach.

Typically MythTV uses an XMLTV grabber to populate the EPG. Grabbers work by downloading the EPG data from a variety of online sources and converting that data to a XML file that can be used by MythTV to populate the EPG. Unfortunately according to the MythTV official wiki the grabber for New Zealand was taken down after SkyTV (the local pay TV service) threatened legal action. SkyTV also went around shutting down all but one of the websites that provided New Zealand EPG XML files directly. (SkyTV are, in fact, a bunch of dicks).

EPG Collector

On Windows I use an excellent open source program called EPG Collector to grab the MHEG-5 data and import it directly into Windows Media Centre. The MythTV wiki actually recommends EPG Collector as well, stating that you can use it to receive the transmitted MHEG-5 data. Unfortunately looking online this isn’t actually the case. While EPG Collector's core files were written with Mono, it appears that the program doesn’t actually work for collecting MHEG-5 data under Linux. Or at least this was the case in 2011 according to the SourceForge forum. I couldn’t work out if Linux compatibility had been updated since then - there was talk on the GeekZone forums of a Linux version in development a few years ago, but the software description on SouceForge still labels it as a Windows application, while the readme states that it needs .net framework 4 or later.

There are other solutions for getting the New Zealand EPG working on MythTV. But most forum posts concerning the Linux EPG solutions date to c.2011. I’m not sure what solution people in NZ use, or if any of them work particularly well, and to be really honest at this stage I was completely tired of doing research into getting a Linux DVR setup.

Back to Windows 7

All things considered, the problems with setting up Ubuntu as a DVR were mounting. As well as setting up MythTV, the graphics driver, the TV capture card and finding an EPG solution I still had all the other Linux problems I outlined previously. Ultimately all I wanted to do was watch the news and some kids cartoons. And with a wife and daughter eager to watch some TV I had a very real deadline :-P.

I was faced with a question; do I continue with Ubuntu and maybe have the DVR working within a week or two given my limited spare time, or do I just go back to windows - a system that I know will work perfectly right now with no fuss, and will having me watching live TV within a couple of hours?

I went back to Windows 7.

Linux First Impressions - 2 Weeks In

(This post originally part of my initial Linux post and subsequently moved into its own post - hence the mismatched publication dates).

Two weeks into using Ubuntu I'm finding it a bit of a mixed bag. It's not necessarily any worse of an operating system than Windows - but coming from a strict Windows background the learning curve is high. Very high. read on!

The Positives

Unity Desktop: First up, I like the Unity desktop. The way I use the Windows desktop is to place my most used apps on the taskbar and then access other software by tapping the windows key and typing in what I want; earth, note, cmd etc… GNOME with the Unity shell has that same functionality making it at least as useful as the Windows desktop.

Windows 7 (image: www.wikipedia.org).

That said, one of the things that I appreciate about the Windows 7 start menu is that it is discrete. Let’s say I’m working in Illustrator and need to open the calculator. I hit the Windows Key, the start menu pops up occupying a small corner of the screen. I quickly type ‘calc’ and I’m away. It’s not overly distracting, I can keep focused on my work while doing it, most of the time I keep working without even noticing it. That was the main problem I had with Windows 8 - hitting the Windows key changed the entire desktop to the Metro start screen. The transition is jarring, distracting, and ultimately destroys my train of thought. When a UI is well designed you shouldn't notice it at all.

Unity's dash is no where near as distracting as the Windows 8 start screen, but I feel it is perhaps a little large for my liking - occupying between one quarter to one third of the screen space whenever the windows key is tapped. That said, where Metro succeeded, particularly with Window's 8.1, was tidying up the start menu - getting away from the mess of nested folders that the traditional start menu often devolves into, and making it easy to find what you were looking for quickly. The dash also does a great job of presenting a tidy interface, presenting the icons you need while filtering out the crap. The dash may be the best compromise between the discrete but cluttered traditional start menu and the jarring but well organised Metro start screen. I would need to spend more time with the dash to really get a feel for it.

Ultimately criticisms of this nature against Linux are a moot point as both the graphical shell and desktop environment can be swapped for other alternatives. Don't like the UI? Just try another one. And really this level of customisation is a massive advantage of Linux over Windows. How much better would Window's 8 have done had users had the ability to simply swap out Metro for something else? And for a media PC it's a non issue anyway.

Windows 8.1 start screen

Start-up and Shutdown: Something else really like about Ubuntu is the blazingly fast start-up and shutdown speeds. Shutdown in particular in simply astounding, especially against Windows 7 which feels very sluggish by comparison. I will totally acknowledge though that Microsoft has made huge advances in this area with Windows 8 and Windows 10, but still nowhere near as fast a Ubuntu.

The Big Negative - Initial Setup

So far for me the big area where Ubuntu completely falls over compared to Windows is the initial setup. The installation itself is very straight forward. The installer offers a fair amount of customisation, and does a fair job of explaining what each option means. But after the OS is installed the learning curve to actually set it up skyrockets.

The beautiful thing about Windows in 2015 is that it just works. After the initial installation the OS needs the minimum of fuss to get it on it's feet. Back in October I installed the Windows 10 preview on my old 2012 Samsung NP350V5C Laptop. Windows automatically recognised and installed all the hardware with the exception of the SD card reader and the graphics card (hybrid Intel 4000 / AMD HD 7670M). After installing those two driver packages and the settings app (needed for the volume and screen brightness keys to work) the computer was ready to go. Everything works.

Ubuntu is in no way that simple.

Windows 7 device manager

No Device Manager? For example, simply checking that all connected devices are working. Typically Windows does not recognise the media PCs TV capture card automatically and I have to manually install the driver. I wanted to make sure that the TV capture card was functioning under Ubuntu. So I went into System Settings expecting to see something like Windows device manager. No dice - nothing like that is installed in Ubuntu by default...

So I headed online where people were suggesting the terminal command sudo lshw - which has the effect of vomiting several pages of data about all connected devices onto the terminal, making finding information about a single, perhaps non functional, component very cumbersome... People have also suggested searching through the repository and downloading a device manager app, which I am yet to look into. Who knew something so simple would be so hard to accomplish.

At first I thought that the lack of a device manager app was due to Ubuntu wanting to be as lightweight as possible - perhaps to avoid the software bloat that affects Windows, or to give users full options for customisation (an 'install what you want to use rather than what we tell you to use' mentality). But then Ubuntu ships with a full installation of Libre Office, Firefox, a screenshot app and other software so obviously software bloat isn't a major concern to Ubuntu. A simple device manager would have a far lesser footprint in terms of software bloat than a full office suite. Why Ubuntu doesn't ship with a basic graphical tool to easily identify and diagnose hardware faults is beyond me.

Playing Video: Next thing. It appears that by default Ubuntu treats video playback as the system being left idle. As a result Ubuntu would turn the screen off and then go to the lock screen every 10 minutes when watching video. It didn't matter what I was using to watch video (Chrome, Kodi, VLC) - a seriously annoying fault for a media PC. To be honest I find this absolutely baffling - in a world where streaming is overtaking live TV why would an operating system's default setting be to turn the screen off during video playback?

Again I hit the net. Suggested solutions included going into every individual app to check if they can be set to disable screen locking, using a combination of System Settings and the terminal to disable the system lock and screensaver entirely (not ideal), and using a script to simulate mouse movements to trick the system into thinking you have interacted with it.

I ended up installing an app called Caffeine which disables Ubuntu's lock when an app is in full screen mode. Something of a headache in itself. Caffeine isn't available through the repositories, so installing it required a crash course in using the terminal and installing PPA packages.

A huge amount of effort for something so simple, and that Windows does by default.

Still More Problems: Those are the more annoying examples, but the system has a variety of other bugs that I still need to tackle;

1)  - Ubuntu doesn't appear to have an equivalent app to AMD Catalyst for easily adjusting colour. I'm using the default community developed open source Radeon driver. Under Colour in System Settings it tells me that my TV doesn't have a profile suitable for whole-screen colour correction. Hit the net. People are saying you need other (expensive) hardware and correct profiles to calibrate monitors. Others are saying you can input colour adjustments through the terminal assuming you know the colour you want, which seems like a lot of trial and error to me... I just want to knock the saturation form a little...

2) - The computer won't go to sleep / hibernation. This was a problem before I installed Caffeine.

3) - The mouse responsiveness is kind of sketchy. On the desktop the mouse behaves a little twitchy, but in Kodi it barely functions at all with the cursor either moving very slowly or not responding to clicks (sometimes both).


So that's my first impression. I certainly like Ubuntu, and I can see that it's a very capable operating system. I also understand that I've only scratched the surface. Still, anyone going into Linux as an absolute newbie best be prepared for an uphill start.

First Impressions of Linux from a Windows User

 

Image: www.wikipedia.org

I recently decided to try out Linux for the first time as a primary operating system for my media PC. And I'm finding it a bit of a mixed bag... Not bad. But somewhat frustrating. Certainly not the Linux computing utopia that some claim.

I have been a Windows user most of my life - starting when my parents picked up a second hand PC with Windows 95 way back when I was 12. I’m very comfortable and competent working with Windows, and I genuinely like Windows as an OS.

But recently I’ve been thinking about moving some of my PC’s onto other systems. I’ve always had a bit of an interest in Linux (dabbling here and there with live CD's), and certainly feel that Microsoft could use a bit more competition in the marketplace. I also haven’t been very impressed with Microsoft’s moves to make Windows a closed ecosystem. Finally, I had been using Windows 7 on the Media PC, but as Windows Media Centre no longer comes free with Windows if I want to be able to record live TV on future media PC builds (or upgrade to a more recent Windows version) then I’m going to have to find another solution anyway. Or pay Microsoft’s MCE tax on top of the price of Windows. So why not try Linux?

So two weeks ago I installed the latest Ubuntu (15.04) on my media PC. As a long time Windows user, and complete Linux newbie, I wanted to post my first impressions of using Linux as a everyday OS.

Linux Media PC Specs

My media PC is a repurposed desktop PC connected by HDMI to a 1080p Samsung smart TV. The PC has the following specs (with everything running at stock);

CPU:	Core i5 2400
MOTHERBOARD:	Asus P8Z68-V/GEN3
RAM:	8GB G.Skill Hyper X DDR3 1600mhz
GRAPHICS:	Saphire Radeon HD 5750
STORAGE:	OCZ Agility 2 Series SSD (SATA-300)
TV CAPTURE:	Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200
INPUT:	Logitech G700 wireless gaming mouse, generic Microsoft wireless keyboard

I chose vanilla Ubuntu using the stock Unity shell over a straight up media centre distro like Mythbuntu or Kodi because I ultimately still want the option to use the media PC as a full desktop PC with little fuss. The computer will also still be used for occasional gaming (thank you Steam in-home streaming). As a complete Linux newbie I don’t understand the limitations of the purpose built distros, and people often cite Ubuntu as the best distro for starting out, offering the minimum of complications and the best environment for learning.

Background

As is very apparent at this point, I am coming into Ubuntu as a complete novice. With the exception of some very shallow use of a Raspberry Pi, I know nothing about it.

That said, I’m certainly not a computer newbie. I’ve been repairing and maintaining systems since that first Windows 95 desktop back in 96, and upgrading/building my own systems 2004. As a gamer I’m very familiar with tweaking systems (both hardware and software) to get the best performance. I always sort my own computer problems and never take my systems to a shop. But I’m not a power user or coder, and certainly don’t know what actually goes into building an OS.

I also feel that I need to say that I’m not necessarily worried about open source versus closed source. If the software works then I’m happy. I’m also not worried about paying for software - if people want to make money from their efforts then who am I to complain?

First Impressions of Linux

(Here I’m going to outline my first impressions of Ubuntu after using the OS for two weeks. I will update this post with future impressions as I get more acquainted with Linux).

- First Two Weeks (21.05.2015): Headaches with first time setup, and an appreciation for the GNOME desktop.

- First Three Weeks  (03.06.2015): Attempts are made to setup a MythTV DVR, which ends in frustration. Ubuntu is abandoned on the media PC in favour of Windows 7.