Faith, Power and God's Design

Perhaps the most profound difference between the life of the flesh – that life which we knew before the Spirit of God entered into our hearts – and the life which we experience in Christ is the role of Faith in how we see the world around us. Before, everything we did, everything we trusted in, every motivation was centered on ourselves and our belief in our own power to control our destiny. If we wanted to be successful, it had to be by our own strength and intelligence. Everything we learned about the world around us was through our own eyes and ears and powers of observation. We defined "success" on our own terms. As a result, we became slaves to the Powers of this world, namely sin, Satan and finally, to death.

When we become a child of God, everything changes. Rather than trying to occupy the center of our existence with our own feeble will, we give that position to Christ. Though we hardly understand the implications at first, we put our faith in Christ, to do with our lives according to His design. In exchange, He releases His transforming Power in our lives. Through faith, rather than rebelling against His direction as we have done since the time of Adam and Eve, we have the power to work in concert with Christ. By the power of Christ, we overcome sin, the flesh and the power of Satan in our lives.

As we grow in our knowledge of Christ, it is vitally important that we understand how He works to accomplish His design and purpose in our lives. Recently, we have seen an unbalanced focus on the power that God has given to us to miraculously overcome trials and tribulations in our lives, in particular in the visible aspects of physical and emotional healing, relationships with others and finances, without trying to understand the purpose that God may be trying to work in us. The central focus of this teaching is that, if we have problems, then it is always God's will that we have more Faith, that we pray against Satan and that we be miraculously delivered.

The underlying logic in this belief follows along these lines:

1. We are God's children, and He desires to give us good things.
2. Satan is God's enemy and our enemy.
3. Problems are the result of Satan attacking God by attacking us.
4. God wants us to defeat Satan.
5. If we have enough Faith, and demonstrate that faith by praying hard enough and long enough, then God will deliver us from Satan's attacks and our problems will go away.

The belief is that, if we are experiencing hardships, then they must be a sign of Satan's attacks. It is certainly not a failing on the part of God, or His Power to deliver us, so therefore, it must be a failing on our part to either fast and pray long enough or to have enough faith. Alternatively, if we really do have enough faith, and are praying fervently, and we still don't see the manifestation of God's miraculous healing, then we must actually be healed, and we just don't see the manifestation of that healing yet.

One argument given to support this belief is the verse in Matthew 4:24, where word spread through the region of Syria about Jesus healing, “and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them."¹ Another verse is then quoted that Jesus is, "the same yesterday, today and forever." The conclusion then is, since Jesus apparently healed all the people in that one place, and He never changes, then He must necessarily wish to heal all diseases all the time. Unfortunately, the logic here simply doesn't hold, since there many other instances in the Gospels where Jesus heals "many" people, but no mention is made of "all" people. In fact, in the instance of the healing of the invalid at the pool at Bethesda², He would most likely have stepped over many others there laying by the pool – others who had no more or less faith than the man Jesus singled out. The man didn't even know who Jesus was, and his faith was only in the story of the angel who was said to "trouble the waters." Yet, Jesus chose in His sovereignty to heal the man.

We have in our minds an idea of how we define success. The pastor wants a large church with a thriving ministry. The evangelist wants to see many people coming forward in his crusades. The businessman wants to have a growing business so that he can give generously to the church. Parents want to see their children happy and successful. The goals we have may be lofty, but they are all based on externally measured goals that we can see. When God doesn't conform to our definition of success, we fret and run around, trying to figure out what has gone wrong – why God isn't following our plan.

It is clear from Scripture that we cannot approach God without faith. In Matthew 17:20, Jesus instructs us that, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." The difficulty with the belief that it is always God's will for us to be healthy and wealthy, and that any deviation from that will is merely a sign of our own lack of faith, is that it supplants the Sovereignty of God with our own interpretation of the situation we are in, and how we think God should act. In particular, it ignores two other fundamental sources of difficulties and stresses in our lives.

The first source of problems in our lives is our own fleshly nature. In Romans 7:28, Paul bemoans the fact that he struggles with his old nature. "So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me." This is not a question of forgiveness or "punishment" for the things we have done wrong. The Blood of Jesus covers our sin, but that does not mean we no longer suffer some of the short term consequences of our behavior. When there is un-confessed sin in our life, God allows difficulties to lead us back to him.

Sin comes in many shapes and sizes. It may be in remorseless breaking of the Ten Commandments – adultery, stealing, murder – or in an infinite number of more insidious sins. If I am harboring a bad attitude toward my neighbor, then I will have a difficult time sharing the Gospel with him. If I am so caught up in materialism and the things of this world that I am not paying attention to my family, then my children will be wild. If I am cultivating a root of bitterness in my heart over wrongs I have suffered in the past, then my body will likely be racked with a host of physical ailments. If, in response, we focus on the symptom (the sickness) and try to buck up our faith, rebuke Satan and cast out the sickness, Satan will simply laugh in our face. It's as if we lock and bar the front door on our house to keep out burglars, while the back door is swinging in the breeze and all the windows are standing open. James tells the church that, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."

Regardless of whether we consider the sin large or small, it is still disobedience in the face of God's direction. I believe that many financial problems that we see in the Church are caused by Christians skimping on their giving, or in some other way, putting their confidence in their own ability to provide for material needs. Materialism still stands as one of the greatest sins of the entire Church in America. Again, in James, the apostle tells us, "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."³

The danger here is to think that, any time we are suffering, it must be because we have done something wrong, or that God is punishing us. Once again, God does not bring down punishment on our heads because Jesus has already born the effect of this judgment. He is no ogre sitting up in heaven, cackling in glee, waiting for us to slip up so He can throw a lightning bolt at us. There is no sin for which we have not already been forgiven. Rather, God uses the fires of trial to purge us of that which is defiled, incomplete or defective. His goal is the perfection of his bride, the church, and as members of that bride, we are to be perfect. God knows our weakness, and while He has no patience with sin, He has infinite patience with us, and chastens us as a father chastens his children.

This leads to the second clear source of trials and difficulties that we experience in our lives – namely the Hand of God, molding us as one would mold clay, into a vessel for His own purpose and glory. The clearest example of this is the statement of the Apostle Paul where he recounts a time when he prayed that God would deliver him from a "thorn in the flesh"⁴. Paul leaves the reference vague, leading to endless speculation on our part as to that exactly the thorn was. There is certainly the possibility that was a physical (in the "flesh") ailment, such as poor eyesight. Others guess that it was the persecution of the Judaizers that constantly hounded Paul through his ministry, trying to destroy his work and corrupt the churches that he planted. It is likely that he intentionally left the exact character of the thorn vague because wanted to communicate a principle rather than limit us to a specific example. In either case, it was a problem that Paul fervently prayed for deliverance from. It says he prayed "three times", but I'm sure it was more than three short prayers before he tucked in for the night. His belief was that this thorn was impeding his ability to minister, and therefore, God must surely want to deliver him! Why would God intentionally weaken him? These were intense times of prayer, where he exercised his faith in every way he knew how, seeking the face of the Lord. In response, the Lord spoke directly to Paul, telling him that He would not deliver Paul from this thorn. However, the reason was not due to any failing on Paul's part, either in sin in his life or in some lack of faith. Rather the Lord said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." As a result, Paul decided that he could boast in his weakness, that the power of God was more completely shown when he was weak.

God's sovereignty is so infinitely greater than anything we can say or imagine! His plan for us is that we see nothing around us save Him and His Glory. In Matthew 8:28, Jesus rebuked the disciples not because they hadn't calmed the storm on their own, but because they did not have the peace to sleep through it like He had.

There are several reasons why this mistaken belief that it is always God's will that we be perfectly whole has resurfaced time and again throughout the recent history of the Church. One source of this belief is the confusion between God's ability and His desire. The thinking is that, if I am not praying for deliverance from my problems, then it must be because I do not believe that God is able to deliver me. Conversely, if I believe that God is in fact powerful enough to be able to heal me, then I must believe that it is God's Will, and that I will be healed if I have enough faith. Hence, the statement that, if we don't think that God will miraculously heal us, then we don't really believe in God. The logical conclusion of this belief is that Paul, since he stated clearly that he believed that he would not be delivered from his thorn in the flesh, that he must not actually have believed in God.

If we hold to this unbalanced view of the power of our faith to bring about God's healing and deliverance in our lives, we will end up falling into a host of other spiritual tar pits. The first consequence is that it sets our hearts and desires on the Gifts of God, rather than on God Himself. Rather than seeing how He wants to work in our weakness, we set our sights on a vision of perfection that we have created ourselves. The center of our focus moves inward, on seeing God's POWER in our own lives, meeting our needs, rather than on God's ability to show His power in my weakness. Our attitude becomes that God has promised the riches of the kingdom to me, so I will not rest until I experience those riches. Meanwhile, the rest of the world around us withers in sickness and poverty, sin and death, but our eyes are focused on the glitter of reaching what we think is God's abundant life for ourselves.

Another, perhaps surprising consequence of forcing God into the position where He desires to bring physical healing all the time is that, suddenly, our healing depends on us rather than God. If it is God's will that I be healed all the time, as long as I have enough Faith, then if I am not healed, then it must be because I don't have enough faith. Rather than focusing on God and His will, the focus is on my praying enough, or fasting enough, or "marinating in the Spirit" (a fall-back to the meditation rituals of Eastern religions), and bucking up enough Faith to be healed.

Perhaps the most insidious and dangerous consequence is that the unbalanced focus on Miraculous Power given to Christians to overcome physical problems in their lives leads to the false impression that the lack of visible problems must be a clear indication of God's Blessing and Pleasure. If I'm healthy and wealthy, then I must be in God's Will, and everything is great in my life. God's will is that I be healthy, so if I am healthy, I must be in God's will. This is an open invitation to Satan to lead us down the primrose lined path to destruction.

To pray for miracles, we need to understand God's purpose in miracles. It has been observed by some that, the places where we see the greatest miracles taking place are where the Gospel is going out to the unsaved. It is often in foreign missions, where the saints are beating back the wall of spiritual darkness around them, that God shows His greatest power. This follows the pattern of Scripture where, when Jesus sent out the disciples two by two to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, He promised that they would exercise great power over Satan. The purpose of that power is to point to Jesus and His Kingdom.

Clearly, our enemy is Satan, and he is doing all that he can to keep us from experiencing the real power of God in our lives. However, he has an able accomplice in our own carnal nature and its fleshly desires. Our tendency is to love God and follow Him because He gives us good things. God wants us to follow Him even when we don't see the good things. As Oswald Chambers said, "the ordinary view of prayer is not found in the New Testament. We look upon prayer (or for that matter, faith) as a means of getting things for ourselves; the Bible idea of prayer is that we may get to know God Himself."⁵ That knowledge of God is the true source of POWER in our lives, and an open channel for God to work His purpose through us.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.⁶

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

1Quotations taken from the New International Version.

2John 5

3James 5:16

4II Corinthians 12:7-10

5“My Utmost for His Highest” - Aug 28

6Romans 11:33-36

The Inevitability of Change

A couple of months ago, we were nearing the end of a meeting of the church board. We had spent the meeting discussing the impending retirement of our long time pastor (about 30 years), and the issue of finding a replacement. Not surprisingly, there was a lot of uncertainly and doubt about what such a change would bring. Unlike a lot of denominational churches which often change pastors every five years or so, we have never gone through this in our small independent congregation. Since our pastor is retiring, there are many questions about what his continuing involvement should be once a someone new comes in. Many wise friends have told him that, unless he actually leaves the church, the new pastor will have a very difficult time establishing himself, since he will always be under the shadow of the old pastor, and many long time members will find it difficult to transfer their own loyalty from the old pastor to the new one. Clearly, with his personal commitment to the people in the congregation -- all his closest friends -- this would be a heart-rending experience for our pastor. As a board, we were very unified in our commitment to move forward, but it was still a very stressful time.

As we were praying at the end of this meeting, a number of points jumped out at me, and I wrote them down:

1. We tend to get wrapped up in following people and personalities. We need to focus on following CHRIST.
2. We will not be able to make a "perfect" choice.
3. In fact, there is no perfect replacement.
4. It doesn't matter, because the only perfect one is CHRIST.
5. No matter what we do, under a new pastor, the personality of the congregation will change.
6. Change is always unsettling, but it isn't always bad -- in fact, it is necessary for growth.
7. We will be surprised how resilient most people are.
8. Some people will be uncomfortable with any change and will leave.
9. Some aspects of our ministry will remain with other people in the church (e.g., the missions program) and not change much.
10. The new pastor will need room, and freedom to be himself. (This from pastor and the people who remain.)

The tendency in this kind of situation is to try to find a new pastor who duplicates, as closely as possible, the old pastor. There is some value in this -- in trying to preserve the personality and character of our congregation -- but there is also a danger of stagnation if we are simply trying to avoid change. There is also the simple fact that there is no one quite exactly like our old pastor. In fact, this is the way that Christ created each of us to be unique individuals. To deny or try to squash this individuality is to deny the power of God to work in new and different ways.

Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?

© Copyright 2005, Charles Tryon

One of the questions I keep hearing again and again is, “Is Linux ready for the desktop yet?” It's pretty clear at this point that Linux is a top flight server OS. Not only is it less expensive over the long haul than certain other proprietary options, but it has shown itself to be more secure, flexible and robust. The market share of Linux in the server market is still relatively small when compared to both more traditional Unix variants and to Windows, however it is the only OS that has been showing consistent, double-digit growth over the past several years. Long standing problems with enterprise support and scalability, such as support for large numbers of parallel processors and huge memory sizes, have eliminated through deep refactoring of key parts of the kernel. With companies like Red Hat, IBM and Novel throwing their full weight behind Linux support, enterprises now have a level of comfort with the kind of technical support they need. While there is still a great deal of change still under way, the kernel is showing signs of the kind of maturity that enterprises require before they are ready to put full reliance on the OS for their mission critical applications and data.

Linux is now firmly entrenched in the server space, especially in the Web server space, where combined with the Apache Web Server, it is a force to contend with. There is still plenty of competition between Linux, Windows and the various Unix flavors, but you aren't going to hear anyone saying, “Linux? What's that?”

However, most of us don't spend our time building Linux servers. It's on the desktop that most of us touch computers and all of the technologies that have become so pervasive in our day. It is also on the desktop that Microsoft has shown its greatest strength in marketing and market saturation. That is where Microsoft has been able to leverage its monopoly position to gobble up more and more application markets, from office productivity suites to Media and home entertainment. It is even through its hold on the desktop that Microsoft has tried to force its way into the server space, tying its desktop clients tightly to enterprise applications such as Exchange, Directory services and enterprise management tools. At one point, it seemed poised to gobble up the Internet itself, squeezing it between IE on the client and IIS on the server.

It is also on the desktop that much of the most interesting developments in human-computer interactions are taking place. We are re-thinking how we interact not only with the piece of hardware sitting on our desk, but with distributed computing, and even with other people spread across the world. It is on the desktop that much of the newest hardware is being introduced, and it is from desktop like platforms that the game and home entertainment industry is branching out.

So, in order to really impact the greatest number of people, Linux must be strong on the Desktop as well as in the server room. It doesn't necessarily have to conquer Microsoft and drive it into oblivion, but it must present a viable alternative in people's minds, appealing to a significant chunk of the computer using population.

Is Linux Ready for the Desktop?

People have been asking this question for a long time – at least since the late 90's. For a long time, it was clear that Linux was, “By Geeks. For Geeks,” but that is quickly changing. But, the question is still being asked, and it still raises heated arguments as to the correct answer. Whenever I have happened on these arguments (or “flame-fests” as they often degrade into), I have invariably found that the opposite sides are really talking about completely different questions. The questions I see break down into basically three categories: (1) Is Linux ready for the desktop? (2) Is the Desktop ready for Linux? (3) Is Linux ready for MY desktop? I believe that, if we really understood the questions behind The Question, we would not only be able to understand each other better, but we would probably gain a greater understanding of where Linux needs to grow in order to continue to conquer the desktop.

(1) Is Linux ready for the Desktop?

If, by this question, the intent is to determine if it is possible to run Linux as one's primary working environment, then the answer is unmistakably YES. Personally, I have been running Linux as my primary working environment, both at home and at my job, for over seven years. Now, I've always been one to swim against the current, and it certainly hasn't been easy all this time. There have been compatibility glitches (running Ximian Evolution in an Exchange world), and sometimes updates have broken things. Over the years, I've spent lots of time on Google and USENET looking up esoteric configuration setting and boot parameters. I still have problems now and then getting hardware to work, or finding support for sound cards or non-standard video drivers. However, I've always managed to somehow get what I need. With stable releases of Firefox, the Evolution email client, and OpenOffice, there is very little that I still can't do on my Linux desktop. If I really needed to, I could get Wine to run most Windows applications, though I still find it easier to have a spare Windows box near by running VNC for the occasional application where there just is no Linux equivalent.

Measured this way, Linux is ready for my desktop, and for the desktops of a steadily increasing number of people. My wife knows nothing about Linux, but she runs it on her desktop. Since she was already using Firefox on Windows, it took her several days to even realize that I had changed anything when I replaced her Win98 install with Fedora Core. I have another friend who was constantly calling on me to clean out viruses and spyware on his system. With his permission, I replaced XP with FC4, and now all he says is that, “My computer runs ten times faster than it used to!” In many situations, especially where people primarily use Web browsing, word processing, email and perhaps IM, Linux is usually a better, more stable, more reliable solution. The list of completely supported hardware and applications is growing. Standard devices like USB drives work just as you would expect them to on a Windows box. There are still plenty of games and other specialized hardware devices which are not fully supported, or that may take extra “heroic” efforts to get working, but that list keeps shrinking.

So, the answer to the first question is, in many cases, a resounding YES.

(2) Is the Desktop Ready for Linux?

The second question is, unfortunately, more of a political, sociological question. Most people, especially those in decision making positions, are familiar with Windows and Windows based tools such as Outlook and MS Office. They are comfortable with the tools, and in spite of the bugs and crashes and security holes and the general attitude of, “We're Microsoft. We know better than you do,” they have learned to navigate their way through the tools they use. They may only need 10% of the features, but they have grown to rely on them. They are comfortable not only with what the applications do, but how they do it. They know the terminology. They are used to the quirks. They have set up macros to format their files how they want them. They have their Access databases set up and their mail-merge files configured. They have other custom tools which are integrated with the Microsoft way of doing things. They may grumble and complain about the costs of licensing, but they know that their purchasing department is already set up to OK the yearly costs, so they just bite the bullet. They have IT groups who's very organizational structure is built around Microsoft's tool chain and licensing requirements.

When it comes down to it, people don't really care what operating system they run. They don't even think of it as something separate from the computer. For all they know, Windows is just something that comes for free when they buy the hardware. They want to run their applications, or their games, and Windows is the way they run them. They think word processing is “Microsoft”, and they have no concept of the distinction between hardware, OS and application.

When you tell the average user about Linux, they give you this confused look and ask, “What will Linux do for me?” It doesn't matter to them that it's free (as in “free beer”, or “freedom”), since they don't think they paid anything extra for Windows. Chances are, they didn't pay anything for MS Office either, either having it as part of a bundled system, or installed from a friend's copy. (They don't even really think of themselves as pirates. It's there, and so they use it.) They don't “get” the philosophical or moral significance of Free Software, since it doesn't seem to directly impact them, or they way they use the computer.

Put simply, the average user doesn't see any particular benefit to using Linux, or at least not yet. More and more “average” users are beginning to feel the pain of poor security, and they are starting to notice that some other people, such as people using Mac's, don't seem to be getting as many viruses. People are starting to hear about this “Linux thing”. Lord knows that Tux is a recognizable icon. IBM is making really cool advertisements on TV spots. Slowly but surely, the word is getting out.

Still, it will be a while before Linux gains the critical mass in the minds of the majority of computer users in order to really take off. It is very likely that this will happen sooner overseas than it does in the US, since there is an understandable distrust of American technology and monopolistic companies pushing their weight around. Massachusetts and its adoption of the Open Document Format is still a curiosity. The EU pushing for the use of Open Source software is not. The Desktop may not be ready for Linux yet, but it is headed in that direction.

(3) Is Linux Ready For MY Desktop?

In arguments about whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop, those who claim that it is not ready invariably point out that, “I have to use application X, and there simply is no equivalent application on Linux.” There may be applications which are close, such as The Gimp is to Adobe Photoshop, but there is still some kind of gap. It is even possible that the parallel Linux application may be superior overall to the required Windows based application (such as some would argue is the case between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft's Office suite), but there is some significant feature which is still missing. Sometimes it is simply a case of #2 above, where the user is comfortable with their current tools, and reluctant to have to learn everything all over again. In many cases, the required application is some highly specialized piece of software either custom written, or aimed at a very narrow market. It would be possible to port to Linux, but as long as the vendor feels no economic incentive to do so (i.e., no paying customers in the Linux or Mac market), the port will never happen.

However, whatever the underlying cause, there is a significant roadblock to the individual or group's path to adopting Linux on their desktop. It may in fact be that Windows, while it's not be the greatest tool, at the moment, is the only tool available. There are many efforts under way (some coordinated, and some not) to address these shortfalls, but others, mostly because of market size and interest, will never be filled. Hence, no matter how much the user may want to go to running Linux on their desktop, circumstances have painted them into a corner. In these cases, Linux is still a long way from being ready for those particular desktops.

Ready or Not...

So, the answer to the original question depends on which underlying question you are really asking. It also depends on the situation the individual user is in. Plainly, the answer is not the same for all people, or all groups. For some people, Linux has been ready for a long time, and has already been running as their primary desktop for years. For some others, Linux may never be a good fit. For others, it may only be a matter of making the decision to dive in and switch. For many, it is simply a matter of finding someone to help them through the process.

These questions, and their answers, may also give us a hint of the future, and how we can work to drive Linux on to more and more desktops. As noted, often the greatest roadblock to acceptance of Linux on the desktop is the psychological barrier of leaving something familiar for something new and uncertain. The friend I mentioned with the constant spyware problem wouldn't have had a clue how to install and configure a Linux desktop. For me, it was a simple half hour job. Once I did that for him, aside from the fact that some Web page plugins don't work, he hasn't had a single problem.

The problem of applications is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Without market penetration and demand, vendors aren't going to port their applications to Linux. Without applications, market penetration will stall. One answer is for the community to come up with viable alternatives, though this takes time and resources. While the Open Source community isn't directly driven by dollars, it has its own “currency” of recognition, teamwork and feedback. The community will not spend resources on a project unless there is the definite feel that a significant number of people want the product. That “significant number” may actually go to the number one, if the developer and the audience are the same person, but projects of one take a long time to get off the ground.

So Linux is truly ready for the Desktop, but there is still plenty to be done before it can gain the momentum to rise above the noise level and become a viable alternative in the eyes of typical consumers, software vendors and heads of corporate IT departments. In my opinion, the following points are where growth is needed:

• Software corporations (ISV's) taking the gamble that Linux on the desktop is growing, and that they need to consider it in their targeted platform plans. It is still a long shot for them, but the potential payout of grabbing “first mover” status is huge. As an example, there are signs that the Gaming industry is starting to catch on, as game titles are coming out with Linux releases, sometimes before the Windows release.

• In cases where they can't find a viable business plan to create Linux based versions of their products, software corporations need to consider open sourcing their products. Obviously, this is a complicated process, and not a decision to be made lightly, but there are strong examples of others, such as Sun with OpenOffice.org, who have been successful with this approach.

• The larger Open Source community – from developers to corporations that “get” FOSS, to government agencies – needs to keep up the fight against the use of software patents and other IP claims to try to create legal barriers to Linux where simple marketing dollars, threats and strong-arm tacts have failed. There are people in positions of power who are still deathly afraid of losing that power and influence to this “cancer” of open source.

• Individual developers and communities need to keep producing quality open source products. More and more the key needs to be driving consistency and integration. One thing which large corporations such as Microsoft have is the ability to enforce consistent interfaces, where users know what to expect, and to build integration between different products, so they work together. Obviously, they aren't always good at this, but they generally have been better than the community. There are efforts such as the LSB for system level consistency, and desktop environments such as Gnome and KDE, and now Mono which provide frameworks for integration, but developers need to keep their eyes and ears open to what is going on around them, and to consider how they fit into the whole computing “experience”..

• Individual Linux users need to look for more opportunities to help others. The community is known both for its helpfulness, and for its impatience with what it considers to be laziness or incompetence. Be patient with newbies! Don't scare off the non-geeks! Take a little time to help grandma with her computer by installing Linux, and then sticking around long enough to make sure she is not frustrated by some glitch she doesn't know how to fix. Volunteer your time to set up some computers at the local elementary school or community center. Give a seminar on Internet Security at your church. Hand out Ubuntu Live CD's at work. Donate cold hard cash to organizations working to spread inexpensive, Linux based computers in developing nations overseas.

• Use Linux yourself. Show your boss that, yes, you can run a Linux desktop at work, get your job done, and not make his job more difficult. (Chances are, once your IT person gets over the initial shock of seeing Linux on your computer, he or she will be relieved because yours will be one less desktop to worry about during the next virus outbreak.) Sell it to your boss by telling him that you are actually more productive using Linux than you are stuck on Windows, and then make sure it really happens.

Linux is ready for the Desktop, though not all desktops are ready for Linux. It will continue to grow, but our efforts can accelerate that growth. Wherever we are, and whomever we might be, there are things we can do to promote freedom in software. FOSS may not have the same impact as Solving World Hunger, but in its own way, Free Software, in the way it spreads knowledge and the ability to share, communicate, learn and participate in the communities around us, can serve to make the world we live in a little better place.

Frankenstein Rises from the Ashes

OK, so computers still drive me crazy, but sometimes I manage to get the upper hand, for a while at least...

If I may horribly trash my metaphors, the Frankenstein computer has once again risen from the ashes of its previous demise, or perhaps to stick better to the myth, with a couple of replacement parts, you can get almost anything back up and working again...

It took another trip to eBay to get a replacement motherboard (that, and another $43 with shipping), but with that in hand, I was able to fairly quickly move over all the other parts (CPU, SCSI card, NVIDIA video, etc), and get the system up and running again. This time, happily, the board was able to fit in to an old VAIO case someone had given me. I had to use a hack-saw to get the power supply to fit right, but I've done worse. The MB is a Shuttle AV49PN, which has lots of neat features, most of which I'm not using yet (e.g., SATA support), but which may be handy in the future. One quirk is that I can't seem to get it to overclock the 2GHz processor. The old motherboard, before it bit the dust, was running at a cool 2.666GHz, which is a pretty significant boost. However, even at the rated 2GHz, it's pretty snappy (compared to a dual 500MHz PIII), and the CPU should last longer.

So, I now have a system where I can play some games on, and almost keep up with my son Sam playing Enemy Territory.