[TAG] I love Linux
ben at linuxgazette.net
Wed Sep 29 20:19:03 MSD 2004
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:54:22PM -0600, Jason Creighton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:54:44 -0400,
> Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 12:18:17PM -0600, Jason Creighton wrote:
> > > I wanted a photo off my parent's digital camera. They have Windows ME.
> > Jason, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. How could you do that to
> > your poor parents? There I was, thinking of you as a _responsible_ sort
> > of geek, and you let those poor innocents be *abused* by that horrible
> > creature from Redmond!
> *sob* I'm sorry! I didn't know better at the time!
There, there. At least now you know how to make the boo-boo awwww
> Seriously, at the time they purchased the computer, ME had just come
> out, so I thought "hey, why not". I now know why not, and wish I had
> just told them to go with 98SE, which is not supposed to be as bad.
Say, didja hear about the latest version of Wind0ws? It combines the
three most popular versions and is named after them: CE/ME/NT. Once it's
in your computer, it sets solid and can never be removed...
> (And before you suggest the obvious, the Linux would be a whole lot
> better, they need to run Quickbooks.
Well, no, Linux isn't the answer to every computer question. (BTW, have
you heard of GNUCash? It can import Quickbooks files, which are written
in the IIF format. :)
> And plus people around the house
> like to play games, so I don't really think the whole "Linux" idea would
> fly with them.
Heh. There's a couple here in the anchorage who are running Linux (vice
yours truly.) They're hooked - the entire family, Mom, Pop, and both
kids - on FrozenBubble...
> Right tool for the right job. But in this case, the right
> tool does not exist, and, sadly, the closest thing is Windows.)
Hey, whatever is most appropriate. I still make nice chunks of money
(re)installing Wind0ws for my clients, so I'd be the last guy to
complain. When they learn better, I'll be here to offer them the option,
but - it's their money, and I won't argue.
> > (Say, perhaps we should make a horror movie.)
> No, I'm thinking more along the lines of a reality TV show: "Big
> Brother XP"
> Watch as millions of people from across the country volunteer to live
> with the Windows operating system in a desprate attempt to get work
> done. See the anger: "What...illegal operation!? I NEED THIS REPORT
> NOW!". See the deception: "Okay, the box says it works with my version
> of Windows, and I installed the drivers right, so why doesn't it..."
> Watch as secret alliances are formed: "I want to uninstall IE...what do
> you mean, it's part of the OS?". Feel the betrayal: "What, 50 uses and
> then I need to 'register'? But...my computer crashed, and when I tried
> to register after I reinstalled, it didn't work! I *PAID* for this
> You can watch "Big Brother XP" 24/7 anywhere Windows runs. (Or rather,
> anywhere Windows doesn't run in a very specific way.)
The subtle, unobvious effects are the worst ones... but I suppose we
could provide an MP3 of some creepy music to at least hint at it.
> > > Windows was hanging on me
> > Yes, it'll do that. I've found that a good prybar is usually sufficient
> > to break the grip, after which that same implement can be used to
> > threaten the monster until it realizes the futility of its endeavor and
> > shambles off in search of other, more innocent victims.
> Wait...a greater quanity of innocent victims, or victims not as guilty
> as me? :)
Were you looking for any answer other than "yes"? :)
> > If, for example, you were to enable the entire Ethernet category (which
> > had been disabled in the last compile), build some driver modules, and
> > attempt to laod them, I can just about guarantee failure; the running
> > kernel would be missing the "hooks" for the whole Ethernet category.
> > However, if the category had been enabled previously and you just added
> > a specific card driver to the ones that you'd compiled previously,
> > chances are high that you wouldn't need to reboot. Either way, there's
> > no harm in trying; in the worst case, you'll get a whole bunch of
> > "Undefined symbol" messages when you try to load the module.
> Okay, so basically whenever it depends on something that cannot be built
> as a module. And it's good to hear that attempt to load a module when I
> need more stuff built in the kernel will fail in an obvious way. I'd
> really hate to load a module, have it crash randomly, and only figure
> out weeks down the road that what I *really* needed to do was recompile
> the kernel.
Again, I can't guarantee that - but that's been my experience, over
quite a period of time.
* Ben Okopnik * okopnik.freeshell.org * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette *
-*- See the Linux Gazette in its new home: <http://linuxgazette.net> -*-
More information about the TAG