Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Video Game Discussions and general topics.

Moderators: Ice Cream Jonsey, AArdvark

User avatar
pinback
Posts: 15902
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by pinback »

IMPORTANT: never edit /etc/sudoers and only use visudo. if you don't know vi, you probably don't want to be poking that in the same way you don't want your neighbor to jet the carburetor on your lawn mower.
Clarification here: If you manually edit the file and screw up any of the syntax, it will be broken, and nobody can sudo. Which you need to do to edit that file. So unless you have the root password, you will NEVER SUDO AGAIN EVER.
In the yard, not too far from the car.

User avatar
The Happiness Engine
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by The Happiness Engine »

This is correct and I probably should have spelled that out. I have fucked that up TWICE this month and was saved each time by just happening to have a root shell in a different window to the thing I fucked. Don't be me, kids.

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 11293
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by AArdvark »

Got it, with great power comes great responsibility. Trust me, I don't hardly know what I'm doing when I start entering commands into the terminal window. I just copy and paste and hope it does what they say it does

User avatar
The Happiness Engine
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by The Happiness Engine »

That's... not STATISTICALLY the best choice. On the other hand none of these fucks can make a USB stick Just Work like Windows 98 so fuck it.

Don't believe in Desktop Linux, don't use Desktop Linux, I type letters into a tiny window in exchange for whisky and I kinda feel like I'm the one getting ripped off.

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 7676
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by Tdarcos »

The Happiness Engine wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:50 pm This is correct and I probably should have spelled that out. I have fucked that up TWICE this month and was saved each time by just happening to have a root shell in a different window to the thing I fucked. Don't be me, kids.
This reminds me exactly of my situation when I was writing new code for XDPascal. Sometimes I'd have made a mistake so bad that not only would it not work, the compiler actually wouldn't even start. I had to save the entire source base to a backup directory, copy back the entire source code tree from the last commit, then use WinMerge to tell me what changes I made over the old code, which can be hundreds (or even thousands) of lines, then put them back one "block" at a time[1], then recompile and test. Sometimes that didn't work and I had to try a different tack, and move the current backup to backup2, moving the existing base to a new, empty, backup directory, and try again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

When I eventually ended up at Backup7, I said, "there's gotta be a better way," and I found it. I now understand why people do lots of commits to a source code tree. Each time you make a change, if it compiles clean, and the program still operates, you have Git commit that change, because if it doesn't work, a rollback is cheap and easy to do. And, you can remember why you changed 5 lines over 1/2 an hour a lot easier than why you changed 500 lines over three days.

---
[1] In this case, a "block" is: (a) comments; these are always harmless; (b) addition of new variables or new fields to a record; these (usually) don't cause a problem because old code doesn't know they're there; correctly designed code that is dependent on the size of a structure such as a record is "supposed to" use the SizeOf() built-in function to get the size of a structure, not hard-code the size; (c) deletion of old code; and (d) addition of new code.


The last two are the most dangerous because often the work being done is "atomic," either you put in all the changes or you can't put in any. And that sounds exactly like your situation. The only problem is, in your case, if you make a mistake, you don't get a mere compiler error or your compiler simply quits without doing anything, you get locked out of your system!
"You're motorin', what's your price for flight, when finding Mr. Right?"
- Night Ranger, Sister Christian

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 11293
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by AArdvark »

Finally cracked the code on my mom's Windows 10 machine!

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 11293
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by AArdvark »

Ok, so I bought my #3 nephew's monster PC. I saw he was offering it for $125. Since I am moderately unhappy with the slowness of my peanut butter sandwich sized machine I bought his. Needed a new power supply. I already had one, didn't have the heart to toss it like I did with all the other mobos and shit. And I see that this machine will do BIOS and UEFI systems. My mini box wouldn't do BIOS so I could never put Win7 on it. Win 10 was the only Microsoft system available and screw THAT NOISE! Dug up a compatible 7 iso from (somewhere) with all the updates and already activated. Now I'm stuffing all my stuff in it. I feel better already.

THE
BACK TO NORMAL
AARDVARK

User avatar
Ice Cream Jonsey
Posts: 25303
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by Ice Cream Jonsey »

Is the Linux experiment over?
the dark and gritty...Ice Cream Jonsey!

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 11293
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Stupid Linux! Be more funny

Post by AArdvark »

As long as all my operating systems stay activated the way they are now. I won't go down the Linux path any more. I'll keep it on my little sandwich pc for now but that's going into storage until I can think of a good use for it.

Post Reply