You know what one of the biggest pains in the arse is for a new open source user? Open source code.
Yeah, who'da thunk it?
Y'see with windows flavour operating system you download a program. You usually get an install file which you double click, progress through some questions about where you want to install the software, delete the name of the software writer in the install path so you can actually find the fucker in "Program Files" in the future, and click on install.
You then just run the software from a shortcut on the desktop or the Start Menu. Usually either the desktop or the start menu gets bloated with entries to the point where you have to buy a new computer.
Alternatively, you can download a zip file, which you just uncompress to a folder and then make your own shortcuts, and just run the program from that folder.
When you 'run' a program, what I mean is that you execute a file. This is usually a file with the extension .exe, or sometimes .com. Occasionally you run a batch file (extension .bat) which then handles the execution of the .exe file in due course.
With an advanced distribution of Linux, such as Ubuntu, you install new programs using a package management facility. What this means is that Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, maintain a collection of software that is 'approved' to work with Ubuntu. The installation of the software is completely automated, once you have chosen it in the software store.
Ubuntu, in effect, handles the downloading, and installing of the software. You are left with a menu entry to run the software.
This is, actually, really easy. Like many things that are really easy it is also inflexible. Go on, try and reorganise your menu entries. I dare you.
So what if you want to install software that is not on Ubuntu's approved list? Well then we go from 'really easy' to mind disturbingly fucking hard.
Occasionally, just occasionally, software is provided for download in the same sense as windows install files. You get an archive containing the program files, and any support files. You install the software by double clicking the file (or by typing some ludicrously long command at the command line). The archive itself has a set of instructions built in that tells it where to install the files to, and where (or if) to make the menu entry. So far so good.
However, different distributions of Linux organise their file structures in different ways. So software may be installed in the Linux equivalent of: C:\Program Files\[location] or C:\Application Files\[location] or C:\Some Other Weird Place\[location], depending on your particular distribution. This means that one archive will not work on all distributions of Linux. Ubuntu and other Debian based distributions install archives are called .deb files. Fedora, and other Redhat based distributions use .rpm files.
You cannot use .rpm files on a system expecting .deb files and vice versa (well, OK, if you use a package converter you might be able to. Best of luck with that, let me know how the reinstall goes).
OK, so we have the Distribution approved files in their collections (known as repositories), we have a small fraction of software developers who go to the trouble of making a .deb AND a .rpm AND a .whatever file for their software. What about the other software that you may find in random places in the internet? What about the software that you download in a .tar.gz or a .tar.bz2 file? What the fuck do you do with these? And why would you want to have anything to do with them anyway?
You will eventually encounter and download these files because, while the repository system is useful, it does not have all the software that you may want, or if it does it may not be the version you want. See for instance my vocal complaint about the version of ALSA that came with Ubuntu Karmic. It needed to be upgraded to a newer version, but that version was not supported by Karmic (it is by Intrepid).
Also, some software may be so new it is simply not included in the formal repository system. Lastly, the software may be deliberately excluded from the repositories for intellectual property reasons (if all the source is not free for instance).
See next time for more exciting revelations about source code! Gasp in awe as I try in vain to run a program by making HandBrake-0.9.4.tar.bz2 an executable file and typing its name! Groan in agony as you realise that after downloading the 32k file you have also to download 100Mb of other software just to get it to work - its .net all over a-fucking-gain!
Friday, 4 June 2010
Friday, 28 May 2010
Linux Basics - Finding Stuff
Something has happened with the latest versions of operating systems. The 'find' option has become ridiculously stupid. It seems that there is a move away from actually searching on the disk for the stuff you want, and towards the machine managing a database of all it's files and searching that when you want to look for something.
Inevitably what you want has either recently been written to the disk or is not in a folder which has been indexed by the search routine. This means you can't find fucking anything. Another brave step into the future, backwards.
Linux, at least, has a useful brute force command line command to find stuff. It is called, sensibly:
To use it to find a file in your current folder and all its subfolders, with the letters 'abc' somewhere in the file name, you type:
If you want to find all OpenOffice spreadsheets in your home folder, you would instead type:
The squiggle "~" is just a linux way of say "My Home Folder, whatever it is actually called."
I have to use this sometimes when I have built a bit of software from source code, installed it and it has fucking vanished. Some applications hide away their executable files somewhere monumentally stupid. If it isn't in the path, you have no chance of running it. So, you can run:
and it should track it down for you. Helpfully this should also locate the documentation for the software if you drop the /bin bit of the path. If this doesn't work, you may want to try /opt/ instead, or even the surprisingly common /up/the/programmers/arse/.
This command does not rely on bloody stupid index databases and therefore actually stands a decent chance of locating the thing that you want.
The fact that Windows 7 is revered like the coming of the chosen one tells you how fucking frustrating the previous versions were; users go mad for this one just because it bloody works. Well its search function certainly doesn't bloody work. I can't go near it. The result is that I now have to load Ubuntu from a live distribution, mount the Windows disk and then run the find utility just to get my stuff. This does not make me happy.
Inevitably what you want has either recently been written to the disk or is not in a folder which has been indexed by the search routine. This means you can't find fucking anything. Another brave step into the future, backwards.
Linux, at least, has a useful brute force command line command to find stuff. It is called, sensibly:
find
To use it to find a file in your current folder and all its subfolders, with the letters 'abc' somewhere in the file name, you type:
find . -name "*abc*" -print
If you want to find all OpenOffice spreadsheets in your home folder, you would instead type:
find ~/ -name "*.ods" -print
The squiggle "~" is just a linux way of say "My Home Folder, whatever it is actually called."
I have to use this sometimes when I have built a bit of software from source code, installed it and it has fucking vanished. Some applications hide away their executable files somewhere monumentally stupid. If it isn't in the path, you have no chance of running it. So, you can run:
find /usr/bin/ -name "[name of program]" -print
and it should track it down for you. Helpfully this should also locate the documentation for the software if you drop the /bin bit of the path. If this doesn't work, you may want to try /opt/ instead, or even the surprisingly common /up/the/programmers/arse/.
This command does not rely on bloody stupid index databases and therefore actually stands a decent chance of locating the thing that you want.
The fact that Windows 7 is revered like the coming of the chosen one tells you how fucking frustrating the previous versions were; users go mad for this one just because it bloody works. Well its search function certainly doesn't bloody work. I can't go near it. The result is that I now have to load Ubuntu from a live distribution, mount the Windows disk and then run the find utility just to get my stuff. This does not make me happy.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Further Adventures in the land of Leave My Fucking Screen Alone
Right. Apparently, the problem is that all the lovely gui interfaces that come with ubuntu do not know how to talk to the xserver properly when it comes to things like bloody screen savers.
This means command line people.
If you type in:
the system should show you some settings relating to the xserver. These are the settings that should be, but actually are not, changed in the Screensaver and Power Management programs that you launch from System -> Preferences.
What you are looking for is the section:
If you do not want a blanking screen they should look like the above. If they actually show "timeout: [some number of seconds probably 600]" then you will be enjoying screen blanking hell.
So, you type in:
to disable the screensaver timeout.
Now, you should be able to leave the machine for more than 10 minutes without frantically wiggling the mouse or hitting random keys to keep it alive. Why in the name of sanity the Preferences settings DO NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE this setting is a complete fucking mystery to me. I mean really, what is the fucking point of having a Preferences dialogue for this setting anyway? It doesn't actually change anything, other than my blood pressure. Here is a bug report on what appears to be this issue going back to 2006.
Apparently, if you want this change to be permanent you need to stick the following lines into your /etc/X11/xorg.conf file. Oh yes, that should be fun. Editing xorg.conf is a shortcut to corrupting your display and having to sacrifice your first born to get a graphical user interface back. Use at your discretion, and for fuck's sake keep a backup and have a LiveCD on standby.
Now, back to using F1 Live Timing without the screen going dark in the dying moments of Q3 a-fucking-gain.
This means command line people.
If you type in:
xset q
the system should show you some settings relating to the xserver. These are the settings that should be, but actually are not, changed in the Screensaver and Power Management programs that you launch from System -> Preferences.
What you are looking for is the section:
Screen Saver:
prefer blanking: yes allow exposures: yes
timeout: 0 cycle: 0
If you do not want a blanking screen they should look like the above. If they actually show "timeout: [some number of seconds probably 600]" then you will be enjoying screen blanking hell.
So, you type in:
xset s 0
to disable the screensaver timeout.
Now, you should be able to leave the machine for more than 10 minutes without frantically wiggling the mouse or hitting random keys to keep it alive. Why in the name of sanity the Preferences settings DO NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE this setting is a complete fucking mystery to me. I mean really, what is the fucking point of having a Preferences dialogue for this setting anyway? It doesn't actually change anything, other than my blood pressure. Here is a bug report on what appears to be this issue going back to 2006.
Apparently, if you want this change to be permanent you need to stick the following lines into your /etc/X11/xorg.conf file. Oh yes, that should be fun. Editing xorg.conf is a shortcut to corrupting your display and having to sacrifice your first born to get a graphical user interface back. Use at your discretion, and for fuck's sake keep a backup and have a LiveCD on standby.
Section “ServerFlags”
Option "BlankTime" "0"
Option "StandbyTime" "0"
Option "SuspendTime" "0"
Option "OffTime" "0"
EndSection
Now, back to using F1 Live Timing without the screen going dark in the dying moments of Q3 a-fucking-gain.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Another thing that works
In my current mellow mood, I thought I would also draw attention to Microsoft's bitlocker software. I have been using the open source Truecrypt if I need security on my USB sticks. It is useful, but it has a crappy open source licence which is non-GPL. This means that it does not automatically integrate with Ubuntu or other fully open source software. Also, you need to wipe a drive clean to encrypt it, which takes some time to get started.
Windows Vista and 7 come with bitlocker software which is Microsoft's version of drive or partition encryption. It is available in the premium versions of Windows, so you do have to pay extra to get it. It does, however, just bloody work.
If you have an external drive which you use to back up all your personal data, including password safes, personal correspondence, personal photographs of your family and so forth, then the last thing you want is some sticky oik in PC World sifting through all of that if the external drive fails. In particular if you happen to buy a Seagate Clicky Clicky Special, which then starts clicking, you may feel that a PC World trip is in the near future to arrange a repair or a replacement. Now, if you also use this external drive to transfer large video files between your HTPC and your desktop PC, you do not want to have to type in a passphrase every time you want to move the disk between the two machines. That would be a pain in the neck.
Having used Truecrypt for some time I was anticipating having to wipe the disk before creating a full encrypted partition. This was going to be a pain because there was about 650GB of material already on that disk. Not only was it going to be a pain to copy over the files again, but I was going to be without a backup while that procedure completed.
I decided to carry out a test run on a 4GB usb stick. Amazingly Windows gave me the option to simply start encrypting the disk without wiping it and starting again. This was unexpected. I agreed to the option, set up the passphrase and stored the encryption key, and left it running for a few minutes. It just bloody worked. I was stunned. The other great thing about the system was that it would let me pause the encryption procedure while it was ongoing.
With some small trepidation remaining I connected up the 1TB external drive and went through the same procedure. It worked. After about 30 hours of encryption. For obvious reasons I did not hold the cat's arse to the fire by trying to pause and unpause the encryption procedure.
As far as performance is concerned this is a fairly big hit. The sustained data rate on the drive unencrypted was about 50Mb/s. During and following encryption that rate has dropped to about 30Mb/s. A 40% hit is, as I say, significant, but when the drive is used solely to backup operating files data rate is not a mission critical feature.
Lastly, and perhaps most pleasantly, I noticed that windows has an option to dispense with the need for a passphrase on the removable drive on a per PC basis. Fan-fucking-tastic. This means that once the drive is connected once on a machine you can avoid having to re-enter the passphrase every fecking time.
All of this means that I can now use the disk in exactly the way I used to, between the two PC's, with the only negative effect of the encryption being a 40% hit on the data rate.
Having done all this, of course, the fucking click went away and there is no imminent visit to PC World on the cards.
Windows Vista and 7 come with bitlocker software which is Microsoft's version of drive or partition encryption. It is available in the premium versions of Windows, so you do have to pay extra to get it. It does, however, just bloody work.
If you have an external drive which you use to back up all your personal data, including password safes, personal correspondence, personal photographs of your family and so forth, then the last thing you want is some sticky oik in PC World sifting through all of that if the external drive fails. In particular if you happen to buy a Seagate Clicky Clicky Special, which then starts clicking, you may feel that a PC World trip is in the near future to arrange a repair or a replacement. Now, if you also use this external drive to transfer large video files between your HTPC and your desktop PC, you do not want to have to type in a passphrase every time you want to move the disk between the two machines. That would be a pain in the neck.
Having used Truecrypt for some time I was anticipating having to wipe the disk before creating a full encrypted partition. This was going to be a pain because there was about 650GB of material already on that disk. Not only was it going to be a pain to copy over the files again, but I was going to be without a backup while that procedure completed.
I decided to carry out a test run on a 4GB usb stick. Amazingly Windows gave me the option to simply start encrypting the disk without wiping it and starting again. This was unexpected. I agreed to the option, set up the passphrase and stored the encryption key, and left it running for a few minutes. It just bloody worked. I was stunned. The other great thing about the system was that it would let me pause the encryption procedure while it was ongoing.
With some small trepidation remaining I connected up the 1TB external drive and went through the same procedure. It worked. After about 30 hours of encryption. For obvious reasons I did not hold the cat's arse to the fire by trying to pause and unpause the encryption procedure.
As far as performance is concerned this is a fairly big hit. The sustained data rate on the drive unencrypted was about 50Mb/s. During and following encryption that rate has dropped to about 30Mb/s. A 40% hit is, as I say, significant, but when the drive is used solely to backup operating files data rate is not a mission critical feature.
Lastly, and perhaps most pleasantly, I noticed that windows has an option to dispense with the need for a passphrase on the removable drive on a per PC basis. Fan-fucking-tastic. This means that once the drive is connected once on a machine you can avoid having to re-enter the passphrase every fecking time.
All of this means that I can now use the disk in exactly the way I used to, between the two PC's, with the only negative effect of the encryption being a 40% hit on the data rate.
Having done all this, of course, the fucking click went away and there is no imminent visit to PC World on the cards.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Ubuntu Screen Saver Redux
IMPORTANT UPDATE: There is a solution here. Well, it worked for me anyway.
There is quite clearly some sort of bizarre fetishist working at Canonical. This individual gets their rocks off by entering into a cat and mouse game with Ubuntu users who do not want their fucking screens to go blank every 10 minutes.
The user starts by thinking that the screen is being turned off to save it from burning in. Realising that CRT's went out with Prince's last chance of decent royalties from "Let's party like it is 1999", the user will turn this option off. Especially if the user has a laptop which very rarely have a CRT displays - even in the second millennium.
(Although I did once encounter one. Some stupid bugger had bought a "Laptop" off some bloke down the pub for his child for Christmas. Turned up at my house at about 8pm on Christmas eve with something that looked like a double sized oscilloscope. You could only accurately describe this as a Laptop if you were a T100. He wanted some games for the vessel of his genes to play on their new computer of Christmas morning. I found some mouldy 5 1/4 inch disks (!) with some shareware on them and sent the man home, with a tear in my eye at the thought of the agonised disappointment that was going to be etched into the face of the little cherub that has been expecting a Sega Mega Drive from Santa and instead got a shitbox that could barely play monochrome pong. Oh, and I missed most of Hunt for Red October which was on TV trying to get the fucking thing to work).
So you turn off the screen saver and wait the requisite 10 minutes. Blank screen. Oh for fucks sake. You then think "A Ha!", maybe this is a POWER saving not a SCREEN saving option. After all I am running a Netbook where battery life is at a premium. The OS may be cutting the power to the screen not just saving it! So - into Power Management and select 'never' for "put display to sleep when inactive for" when running on AC power. Wait 10 minutes, blank screen. Oh for fuck's sake.
If you used previous versions of Ubuntu, then you have fought this battle before. You will recall that what you need to do, after HOURS of googling, is use your friendly neighbourhood gconf-editor to change the /apps/gnome-screensaver/idle_activation_enabled setting to false by unchecking it. So, using Karmic you uncheck this.
At this point the aforementioned fetishist giggles with glee and starts to touch themselves inappropriately.
You wait 10 minutes, and ......
Blank screen!
Fucking bastards. This worked in the previous version of Ubuntu and now you have fucked it up you bastards. Where, WHERE FOR FUCK'S SAKE, is the god damned setting which stops the fucking display going blank after 10 minutes. And why if you uncheck Activate Screensaver AND set turn off display to never does the fucking display keep going blank?
If this is not fixed in Lucid, I am going to hunt down the little pervert who is toying with me, and I am going to perform activities on them that would sicken Dr Mengele EVERY 10 MINUTES until they fix this.
There is quite clearly some sort of bizarre fetishist working at Canonical. This individual gets their rocks off by entering into a cat and mouse game with Ubuntu users who do not want their fucking screens to go blank every 10 minutes.
The user starts by thinking that the screen is being turned off to save it from burning in. Realising that CRT's went out with Prince's last chance of decent royalties from "Let's party like it is 1999", the user will turn this option off. Especially if the user has a laptop which very rarely have a CRT displays - even in the second millennium.
(Although I did once encounter one. Some stupid bugger had bought a "Laptop" off some bloke down the pub for his child for Christmas. Turned up at my house at about 8pm on Christmas eve with something that looked like a double sized oscilloscope. You could only accurately describe this as a Laptop if you were a T100. He wanted some games for the vessel of his genes to play on their new computer of Christmas morning. I found some mouldy 5 1/4 inch disks (!) with some shareware on them and sent the man home, with a tear in my eye at the thought of the agonised disappointment that was going to be etched into the face of the little cherub that has been expecting a Sega Mega Drive from Santa and instead got a shitbox that could barely play monochrome pong. Oh, and I missed most of Hunt for Red October which was on TV trying to get the fucking thing to work).
So you turn off the screen saver and wait the requisite 10 minutes. Blank screen. Oh for fucks sake. You then think "A Ha!", maybe this is a POWER saving not a SCREEN saving option. After all I am running a Netbook where battery life is at a premium. The OS may be cutting the power to the screen not just saving it! So - into Power Management and select 'never' for "put display to sleep when inactive for" when running on AC power. Wait 10 minutes, blank screen. Oh for fuck's sake.
If you used previous versions of Ubuntu, then you have fought this battle before. You will recall that what you need to do, after HOURS of googling, is use your friendly neighbourhood gconf-editor to change the /apps/gnome-screensaver/idle_activation_enabled setting to false by unchecking it. So, using Karmic you uncheck this.
At this point the aforementioned fetishist giggles with glee and starts to touch themselves inappropriately.
You wait 10 minutes, and ......
Blank screen!
Fucking bastards. This worked in the previous version of Ubuntu and now you have fucked it up you bastards. Where, WHERE FOR FUCK'S SAKE, is the god damned setting which stops the fucking display going blank after 10 minutes. And why if you uncheck Activate Screensaver AND set turn off display to never does the fucking display keep going blank?
If this is not fixed in Lucid, I am going to hunt down the little pervert who is toying with me, and I am going to perform activities on them that would sicken Dr Mengele EVERY 10 MINUTES until they fix this.
Intermittent Problems
You know what I really fucking hate? If you read the post title you do. Intermittent problems. I have a logical rational and determinative approach to problem solving PC's.
Step One. Discover Something is not working.
Step Two. Make an educated guess as to the cause.
Step Three. Come up with a way to find out if that cause is actually the cause.
Step Four. Use that way to test.
Step Five. Check if the problem remains.
Step Six. If the problem remains go back to Step Two. If the problem is gone, Congratulations you have solved the problem.
Say the display shows a blank screen only. Guess it is the video card. Reason that if the video card is swapped and another one works it is the video card. Swap the video card. Display active? Yes? Then it is the video card.
This is brilliant. However, I really fucking hate it when you cannot rely on Step Five. This is the crappy situation where, for example, the VGA connector on the motherboard or the cable to the monitor has a wire or pin on the verge of breaking. Hence the simple act of jiggling all the connectors by removing one card and replacing it with another can, temporarily, solve the problem of a blank display despite the fact that the problem really was not caused by the card.
You think you have solved the problem, but give it a few hours, days or weeks, and it will reoccur. You are now back to Step One, but you now cannot rely on Step Five. Or in other words, you are fucked.
This is extremely annoying, and it turns problem diagnosis into an exercise in statistics. I feel a bit like Einstein, complaining loudly and longly about the unfairness of a universe in which matters cannot be predicted by a study of cause and effect. Instead you are left floundering in a sea of random chances and statistics.
I have an intermittent problem at the moment - a 750GB SATA HDD keeps disappearing. Not literally, obviously, but Windows from time to time just forgets it is there. I lose all my desktop shortcuts to that disk and it does not show up in My Computer. A swift restart fixes this, and the disk comes back. I have no idea why this is happening. It could be the disk on the way out. It could be a dodgy SATA cable. It could be the SATA controller on the motherboard. It could be the drivers for the SATA controller on the motherboard.
The Step 3 plan is to swap the cable, and use a different SATA port on the motherboard. I will be unable to rely on Step Five though, because the fucking thing may keep working for a week or two before the problem re-occurs.
Pain in the arse.
Step One. Discover Something is not working.
Step Two. Make an educated guess as to the cause.
Step Three. Come up with a way to find out if that cause is actually the cause.
Step Four. Use that way to test.
Step Five. Check if the problem remains.
Step Six. If the problem remains go back to Step Two. If the problem is gone, Congratulations you have solved the problem.
Say the display shows a blank screen only. Guess it is the video card. Reason that if the video card is swapped and another one works it is the video card. Swap the video card. Display active? Yes? Then it is the video card.
This is brilliant. However, I really fucking hate it when you cannot rely on Step Five. This is the crappy situation where, for example, the VGA connector on the motherboard or the cable to the monitor has a wire or pin on the verge of breaking. Hence the simple act of jiggling all the connectors by removing one card and replacing it with another can, temporarily, solve the problem of a blank display despite the fact that the problem really was not caused by the card.
You think you have solved the problem, but give it a few hours, days or weeks, and it will reoccur. You are now back to Step One, but you now cannot rely on Step Five. Or in other words, you are fucked.
This is extremely annoying, and it turns problem diagnosis into an exercise in statistics. I feel a bit like Einstein, complaining loudly and longly about the unfairness of a universe in which matters cannot be predicted by a study of cause and effect. Instead you are left floundering in a sea of random chances and statistics.
I have an intermittent problem at the moment - a 750GB SATA HDD keeps disappearing. Not literally, obviously, but Windows from time to time just forgets it is there. I lose all my desktop shortcuts to that disk and it does not show up in My Computer. A swift restart fixes this, and the disk comes back. I have no idea why this is happening. It could be the disk on the way out. It could be a dodgy SATA cable. It could be the SATA controller on the motherboard. It could be the drivers for the SATA controller on the motherboard.
The Step 3 plan is to swap the cable, and use a different SATA port on the motherboard. I will be unable to rely on Step Five though, because the fucking thing may keep working for a week or two before the problem re-occurs.
Pain in the arse.
Something that Works
While most of what passes for intelligent comment on this blog is in the nature of complaints about the stupid way that some things seem to be designed not to work, it seems only fair that I record a recent positive experience.
I have commented on the spectacular hardware failure saga below. What I was left with during the repair period was a hard disk with the OS installed, and a video card.
Ordinarily with microsoft operating systems if you swap a hard disk from one machine to another, windows, to put it politely, shits itself. If it boots at all you get regular blue screens and no peripherals will work.
However, this hard disk had windows 7 installed on it. I thought to myself, what the hell I'll try and plug it into another motherboard. I already had a spare machine so I dragged the new machine's case over to the old machine. I ran the power cables from the new machine to the motherboard on the old machine. The SATA data cables were run between the motherboard in the old case to the disks bolted into the new case.
On firing the machine up I was stunned, nay astonished, to discover that against all previous experience windows did not shit itself.
Instead the OS loaded up drivers for the changed wireless card, and sound card and started working perfectly well.
The only problem was with fucking stupid DRM in iTunes. Despite purchasing upgrades to DRM free mp3 files as and when they become available I still have several protected files in my iTunes database. Of course iTunes thinks I have copied the files to a shiny new machine. This is despite the actual physical files on the disk being identical. iTunes says new motherboard and CPU = new machine so you have to re-authorise the files. Of course because of the catastrophic failure of the new board, that means I have to use up one of my 5 authorised machines.
All my other software, including Steam games, worked fine.
So, thumbs up to windows 7. It doesn't shit itself if you swap motherboards. They can put that on the box.
Of course, linux is perfectly happy to run on whatever machines you throw it at (even from a USB key) as long as you enable the appropriate kernel parameters. Which stuff like Ubuntu does by default.
I have commented on the spectacular hardware failure saga below. What I was left with during the repair period was a hard disk with the OS installed, and a video card.
Ordinarily with microsoft operating systems if you swap a hard disk from one machine to another, windows, to put it politely, shits itself. If it boots at all you get regular blue screens and no peripherals will work.
However, this hard disk had windows 7 installed on it. I thought to myself, what the hell I'll try and plug it into another motherboard. I already had a spare machine so I dragged the new machine's case over to the old machine. I ran the power cables from the new machine to the motherboard on the old machine. The SATA data cables were run between the motherboard in the old case to the disks bolted into the new case.
On firing the machine up I was stunned, nay astonished, to discover that against all previous experience windows did not shit itself.
Instead the OS loaded up drivers for the changed wireless card, and sound card and started working perfectly well.
The only problem was with fucking stupid DRM in iTunes. Despite purchasing upgrades to DRM free mp3 files as and when they become available I still have several protected files in my iTunes database. Of course iTunes thinks I have copied the files to a shiny new machine. This is despite the actual physical files on the disk being identical. iTunes says new motherboard and CPU = new machine so you have to re-authorise the files. Of course because of the catastrophic failure of the new board, that means I have to use up one of my 5 authorised machines.
All my other software, including Steam games, worked fine.
So, thumbs up to windows 7. It doesn't shit itself if you swap motherboards. They can put that on the box.
Of course, linux is perfectly happy to run on whatever machines you throw it at (even from a USB key) as long as you enable the appropriate kernel parameters. Which stuff like Ubuntu does by default.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)