Really Persistent Connections
A little background: a month or so ago, I set up a 6to4 IPv6 tunnel at home, and set up IPv6 addressing on my home LAN. All the machines on my home LAN are routable on the IPv6 internet now. I put a corresponding tunnel on the router of my development network at work (yes, I properly firewalled both networks).
So, here's the progression of events today:
My MacBook is on the dev network at work via wired ethernet. I ssh to my laptop at home on my LAN through the IPv6 tunnel.
Later, I need to go to a meeting, so I unplug the ethernet cable and turn wireless on, connecting to our corporate WLAN, which has no IPv6 support at all, and connects to the internet via a completely different pipe than the dev network.
I'm in the conference room downstairs for a half hour during the meeting.
I come back to my desk, switch off wireless, and plug the original ethernet cable back in.
A bit later, I switch back to iTerm, and notice the terminal with the ssh session open, which hasn't timed out on my end yet. Not too surprising, so I go to hit enter a few times to see if it'll die before I take the more drastic action of closing the window and opening a new one.
I press enter, and... the other end responds! The ssh session is still alive, despite the fact that I've been on another network for a good 30 minutes.
Say what?
Reverse Blog
Over the past year-ish I've turned this blog into more of a private journal, sometimes writing a public post here and there (from mostly public, with occasional private entries). I just updated Wordpress to version 2.3.2, which was long overdue, as I'd been running 2.0.9 for a very long time. Not much has changed, it seems, which is good in some ways (I didn't have to touch my theme for the new version), and not so great in others (I was hoping for a couple new features, maybe stuff that I hadn't even thought of but would find cool).
At any rate, I'd like something a bit opposite of what Wordpress currently offers. I want the default action to be post privately, with a separate button or setting I can hit to publish it. Currently it's a little awkward. There's a per-post "Post Status" setting, which can be one of Published, Pending Review (not sure what this does; 2.0.9 didn't have it), Draft, and Private. The default is Draft, but that's a little misleading. There are three buttons: Save and Continue Editing, Save, and Publish. The two Save buttons keep the Draft status. The Publish button acts like the Save button, but "helpfully" also sets Post Status to Published.
This UI is kinda confusing, and a bit prone to error: on more than one occasion I've published something I've wanted to keep private (fortunately no harm was done as I noticed the error quickly). I'm not sure what a better UI might be. One option is to just have two buttons: Save and Continue Editing, and Save. Then the Post Status field would always be maintained when clicking either of those buttons. As a consequence, the default Post Status would probably be Published. As a bonus, it would be great if the default Post Status were configurable. Then I could set it to Private and selectively change things to Published when I want to. Anyone know if there's a way to achieve a similar effect (with Wordpress)?
On Broken ACPI DSDTs
A couple months ago, I replaced the AMD Sempron 3100+ (1.8GHz) in my HTPC with a newer AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.2GHz). It'd been having some trouble multitasking: specifically recording and watching HD content at the same time could often cause stuttering, especially if the commercial flagger was running at the same time. It also had issues with some higher-bitrate 1080p content. So, I got the replacement CPU.
I swapped CPUs (scaring myself to death when I realised I'd almost broken the socket when the CPU got stuck to the heatsink, and I yanked the CPU out of the socket without lifting the ZIF lever), and noticed an odd error on boot:
powernow-k8: Found 1 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ processors (1 cpu cores) (version 2.00.00) ACPI Exception (processor_perflib-0234): AE_NOT_FOUND, Evaluating _PSS [20070126] powernow-k8: BIOS error - no PSB or ACPI _PSS objects ACPI Exception (processor_perflib-0234): AE_NOT_FOUND, Evaluating _PSS [20070126]
Basically, that means the powernow-k8 driver was reporting that it wasn't provided a _PSS or PSB block in the ACPI DSDT, so it didn't know about any CPU P-states, and thus CPU frequency scaling wouldn't work. Since I do sometimes leave the machine on idle, this was a bit annoying, since it'd be burning some power that it wouldn't otherwise need to burn.
So, I googled a bit (oh, sorry, "performed some Google searches"), but didn't find anything particularly promising. I checked the BIOS settings; yes, the "AMD Cool'n'Quiet" feature is enabled. I tried disabling it, rebooting, and then re-enabling, and rebooting, but no luck.
Fast-forward a couple months. A few days ago, I ran across something that reminded me of the problem. Some stuff about many motherboard manufacturers/BIOS writers providing crappy DSDTs in their ACPI implementation (the DSDT is what tells an ACPI-compliant OS what ACPI features are supported, and how to used them). So, I found a nice resource that told me how to fetch the DSDT from my BIOS, and decompile it for inspection.
According to the decompiled source, the DSDT was compiled with Microsoft's compiler, which, I understand, is kinda crappy in that it lets a lot of errors past. When I tried to recompile my DSDT with Intel's compiler, it threw 6 errors and around 20 warnings. I poked around at the errors, and, with some helpful pointers, I managed to fix the errors, or just comment out the portions causing fatal errors that I was pretty sure don't do anything useful anyway.
The errors, however, didn't seem to have anything to do with the missing P-state descriptions, though I did notice that the DSDT source was missing either a _PSS section or PSB section, as the kernel complained about.
So I googled some more, and came across this guy, who seemed to have a similar problem, but with his Athlon64 X2. He basically said he noticed that his processor description sections were empty, and found a DSDT on the Linux ACPI website for a similar motherboard that happened to have the proper _PSS entries, and copied them over, tweaking them a bit. Fortunately he also posted the sections he added.
Now, the X2 isn't really the same chip as mine, but it was a place to start. I googled a bit more, and found another guy with a similar problem, and this guy even has the exact same CPU (down to the generation) as I do! Unfortunately, though his post seems to indicate he resolved the problem, he didn't post a how-to, but did mention he got some information from some documentation from AMD.
So, off to AMD's website. Cool, they provide quite a bit of technical documentation for their CPUs. I grabbed the BIOS and Kernel Developer's guide to my CPU, and started looking for stuff about "_PSS". Fortunately, it wasn't hard to find (the doc is over 450 pages long). The structures and values I found from the X2 guy's website are documented, and it gave some good defaults for some of the timing-related pieces.
Unfortunately, AMD's specs don't cover my particular spin of the CPU, so I couldn't figure out what P-states my CPU supports, or what voltages they should run at, or what the power dissipation is for each state.
So, I had to fudge some values and make some stuff up. Wikipedia says my CPU runs at 59 W. Fair enough. But that's for the default 2.2GHz frequency and 1.4V voltage. But what about lower frequencies? I decided to arbitrarily pick 1.6GHz at 1.3V and 800MHz at 1.2V for my other 2 P-states (presumably I could pick more, at 200MHz increments, but I wanted to keep it simple). Running a CPU at a lower lower voltage when underclocking is generally a reasonable thing to do; though dropping the voltage too low is probably a bad idea. But what about power dissipation? According to the specs, only the max/default P-state has to have its power dissipation value specified exactly. All slower P-states can be estimated. Good news. I just simply took the 59 W value and scaled it down based on both the frequency ratio and voltage ratio. Is that exact? No, certainly not. But it's probably not totally off the mark.
One value eluded me. One of the values is a control register that needs to get set. The control register has 7 different sub-values. AMD's documentation gives good defaults for six of them. The last one, PLL_LOCK_TIME, seems pretty important: it's the time it takes for the processor PLLs to re-lock after a state change. A PLL is essentially a clock generator. You have a phase detector and some kind of oscillator (where you can change the freqency), and then a feedback path that has some kind of divider circuit. Anyhow, I lucked out on this one: the X2 guy provided values for these, and since his values for all the other six seemed to match mine, I crossed my fingers and hoped his PLL_LOCK_TIME is the same as mine.
So, whew. I added the missing PSS section to my DSDT, with the three P-states, and recompiled it, fortunately without errors. (I decided not to bother with the existing warnings because I'm lazy.) Now, how do we use it? According to the original Gentoo forum page I was looking at, you can either patch the kernel to use a file that you have to put in the kernel source tree in a particular location, or you can patch the kernel to read the DSDT out of an initrd. Boo, I don't wanna patch my kernel. So I googled a littler more, and it appears that recent kernels have a better option: you can enable a kernel config parameter, and it'll let you specify a path to a header file (helpfully generated by the DSDT compiler) to use. So, 'make menuconfig', and I dig around for the option. Not there. Oh, I need to disable the "Select only drivers that don't need compile-time external firmware" option. Ok... still not there. I search for config options with "DSDT" in them, and find that the one I want requires that CONFIGX86_VOYAGER isn't set (which it isn't), CONFIG_ACPI is set (which it is), and CONFIG_STANDALONE isn't set (which it isn't, now that I disabled it). But still, no option. So, let's try another tack. I quit menuconfig, and open .config in a text editor. I remove the one DSDT-related line, save it, and run 'make oldconfig'. Now, it prompts me for the DSDT-override option, and, when I select it, I get prompted for a file location. Nice. And lame. But mostly nice. So, I recompile (first intentionally negelcting to copy the header file to the location I specified, just to make sure it would error out, confirming that the option was enabled), install the kernel image, and reboot. The box comes up, I ssh in, and check dmesg:
powernow-k8: Found 1 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ processors (1 cpu cores) (version 2.00.00) powernow-k8: 0 : fid 0xe (2200 MHz), vid 0x6 powernow-k8: 1 : fid 0x8 (1600 MHz), vid 0xa powernow-k8: 2 : fid 0x0 (800 MHz), vid 0xe
Oh, yes. Yes, that's nice. I cat /proc/cpuinfo, and see that my CPU is now running at 800MHz (I have the machine set up to use the 'ondemand' cpufreq governor, which sets the frequency to the lowest needed given the system load). I dig around in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/, setting different governors and speed values, and checking that /proc/cpuinfo reports the new speed. Success!
Presumably, I could add more P-states, but I think 1600MHz and 800MHz will do. For those of you with similar problems, my motherboard is a DFI K8M800-MLVF. Feel free to use my hacked DSDT if you have the same motherboard, or as a reference point if you have another Socket 754 system or similar CPU. Of course, I offer this with no warranty and accept no liability, and if your system explodes, it's your responsibility and all that.
See also: my AMD _PSS notes, and my AMD _PSS value table.
Air
I'm a bit disappointed in the newly-announced MacBook Air. I want one, but... I don't.
The good:
Super-thin form factor: 0.16" to 0.76".
MacBook Pro-style aluminum case.
Small size: 13.3" widescreen display.
802.11n wireless (dual-band 2.4/5 GHz).
Intel GMA graphics (very well supported on Linux, even if it's not as 'powerful' as nvidia/ATI).
Backlit keyboard.
LED-backlit display.
Multi-touch trackpad (though I have no idea how well-supported or useful it'll be on Linux).
Unfortunately, we have quite a bit of the bad:
No built-in ethernet (USB dongle sold separately, but that rules out gigabit).
No built-in optical drive (I expected this; I don't mind).
Only one USB port. So if I get the USB ethernet dongle and/or the external USB optical drive, I have to choose which one I want to use. And if I'm somewhere where there's no wireless, and I have to use a USB flash drive, I have to disconnect the network. Lame.
Non-user-replaceable battery. (I imagine it's possible, though somewhat difficult, like replacing the hard drive in my PowerBook was.) This is somewhat annoying for me since I tend to have the machine on 24/7, and as such I'm a bit harsh on the battery (I leave it plugged in while fully charged for long periods of time).
RAM is not upgradeable (soldered to motherboard). Comes with 2GB standard, so probably not too much of a problem.
Relatively slow CPU given today's state-of-the art. (Granted, 1.8GHz dual-core should be plenty for me.)
The IBM X-series used to use the 1.8" 4600 RPM hard drives, but switched back to 2.5" drives because of large performance problems with the 1.8" drives.
No dedicated graphics memory (144MB shared with system RAM).
Only a single speaker (mono sound). Though, do you really notice stereo separation with a pair of crappy speakers about a foot apart?
A concern: will the laptop hold up? It's very thin. Aluminum is definitely bendable (as my 12" PowerBook which no longer sits flat will confirm).
MacBook-style keyboard. I'm not a huge fan of the keyboard on the MacBook I have at work. I far prefer the keyboard on my PowerBook (and on the MacBook Pro).
I'm not considering buying one now; not only should I not be spending the money now, but I wouldn't dare buy first-gen Apple hardware. So fortunately there will be time to see if my concerns about the laptop's durability are warranted, ditto for my concerns about hard drive performance. And it's possible there might be a refresh in 6-8 months that includes better graphics, more RAM, a faster CPU, or even (however unlikely) an extra USB port or an ethernet jack.
I guess the issue is that I was really hoping for a 12" (or 13.3", though I'd prefer 12") MacBook Pro, essentially an Intel-based replacement for the 12" G4 PowerBook. I knew that wasn't what Apple was going to announce, but I was hoping it wouldn't be too far off the mark.
I'm still undecided, but I'm going to give myself at least 6 months to think about it, and probably more. Likely I wouldn't buy one until the fall. There's also the hope that there will be a major MacBook Pro refresh before then that improves the MBP situation a bit. Given the introduction of the MBA, I seriously doubt they'd start selling a 13.3" MBP, but it's possible they might somehow make the 15" MBP more attractive to me. Unfortunately, I just don't really like the MacBook's aesthetics; I wouldn't really consider buying a 13.3" MacBook for myself. We'll see what happens, I suppose.
Git-svn Xfce Repositories
I recently started messing around with git, partly just to see what all the fuss is about, and partly because I want an easy way to do 'offline commits' when I don't have an internet connection (I spend a decent amount of time on planes and in airports, and sometimes in wifi-less cafes with my laptop). I've looked at SVK, but I'm not a huge fan, and it seems ridiculously complicated for what it does (or rather, what I need it for). It also means learning another tool that's only useful for a very small thing.
So: git. It's been hyped like crazy since its inception, and frankly I've avoided it mainly because of the hype. But I'm surprised at how much I like git. Being able to have lots of little throwaway branches to do various related tasks on is really useful, and merging them back to the main branch is trivially easy. The offline operation is obviously a great bonus.
To make things even better, I was absolutely thrilled when I found out that git comes with a sub-app called 'git-svn'. In a basic sense, it's a 'svn2git' script that lets you import all of your commit history from a svn repository into a git repository. But it's so much more. It's bidirectional, so after you create the git-svn repository (which is really just a git repository with a bunch of extra info to keep things in sync with svn), you can continually update your local repo as changes are made to the master svn repository, and you can push changes in your local repository up to the master svn server. And when pushing changes, it actually does one svn commit for each local git commit, so your local git history gets replicated on the server.
Anyhow, git-svn is a little hard to figure out at first, so I figured I'd 'convert' all the Xfce core core modules into git-svn repos and post them so other people don't have to figure it out. Also, doing the conversion over a network via http or svn+ssh takes quite a long time (and wastes quite a lot of bandwidth), and I can do them locally on the svn server. You can grab them here. Please read the README in its entirety first, as these repos will not work properly with the Xfce svn repo out of the box, and there are a few extra git commands you'll need to know to interact with the svn server.
Good luck and enjoy. If you have issues with them, please don't comment here, and don't email me. Email the Xfce dev list instead.
Git-svn Xfce Repositories
I recently started messing around with git, partly just to see what all the fuss is about, and partly because I want an easy way to do ‘offline commits’ when I don’t have an internet connection (I spend a decent amount of time on planes and in airports, and sometimes in wifi-less cafes with my laptop). I’ve looked at SVK, but I’m not a huge fan, and it seems ridiculously complicated for what it does (or rather, what I need it for). It also means learning another tool that’s only useful for a very small thing.
So: git. It’s been hyped like crazy since its inception, and frankly I’ve avoided it mainly because of the hype. But I’m surprised at how much I like git. Being able to have lots of little throwaway branches to do various related tasks on is really useful, and merging them back to the main branch is trivially easy. The offline operation is obviously a great bonus.
To make things even better, I was absolutely thrilled when I found out that git comes with a sub-app called ‘git-svn’. In a basic sense, it’s a ’svn2git’ script that lets you import all of your commit history from a svn repository into a git repository. But it’s so much more. It’s bidirectional, so after you create the git-svn repository (which is really just a git repository with a bunch of extra info to keep things in sync with svn), you can continually update your local repo as changes are made to the master svn repository, and you can push changes in your local repository up to the master svn server. And when pushing changes, it actually does one svn commit for each local git commit, so your local git history gets replicated on the server.
Anyhow, git-svn is a little hard to figure out at first, so I figured I’d ‘convert’ all the Xfce core core modules into git-svn repos and post them so other people don’t have to figure it out. Also, doing the conversion over a network via http or svn+ssh takes quite a long time (and wastes quite a lot of bandwidth), and I can do them locally on the svn server. You can grab them here. Please read the README in its entirety first, as these repos will not work properly with the Xfce svn repo out of the box, and there are a few extra git commands you’ll need to know to interact with the svn server.
Good luck and enjoy. If you have issues with them, please don’t comment here, and don’t email me. Email the Xfce dev list instead.
More LGPLv2.1/GPLv3 Crap
Someone calling himself "textshell" left a comment on my previous post that made me think about a few things.
If I release something under "GPL version 2 ONLY" (which is what I usually do), I expect it to stay released under that license.
If I release something under "LGPL version 2.1 ONLY," I expect it to either stay as the LGPL or be converted to GPL version 2 -- and ONLY GPL version 2.
I'm not sure I understand textshell's rationale here: "If you used LGPL before you seem to have been ok with the code used in commercial software, so why do you want to make sure it’s not usable in GPLv3 software?" Those are two very different things. LGPL allows proprietary software vendors to link with my code, which -- for any software I release under the LGPL -- I have no problem with. But allowing people to re-release my code under a license I do not fully understand and do not fully agree with (GPLv3) is not ok.
"Compatibility with other licenses" is not the main criterion by which I choose a license for my code. I choose a license that has terms with which I feel comfortable. At this time, I do not feel comfortable with the GPLv3. That may change, but for now, that's just how it is.
The merits of the various additions in the GPLv3 can be (and have been) debated quite a bit, but I think it's safe to say that the GPLv3 as a license is more restrictive than the GPLv2. Say I release something under LGPLv2.1, and in my license header, I say "version 2.1 of the license ONLY." This means that -- weirdly enough -- no one can relicense my code as LGPLv3 (or even use it with LGPLv3 code as-is), BUT, they can "convert" (aka relicense) the code to GPLv3, and, presumably, they're allowed to add the "or, at your option, any later version" clause. Now, the GPL is of course more restrictive than the LGPL. The GPLv3 is more restrictive than the GPLv2. I'm not currently comfortable with the restrictions imposed by the GPLv3, and I have no idea if I'll be comfortable with GPLv4, GPLv5, etc., but the LGPLv2.1 unfortunately appears to have terms that directly contradict my wishes that the code stay as LGPLv2.1/GPLv2.
We don't know what the GPLv4 will look like. Say through some unlikely twist of fate, Microsoft buys the FSF (currently the only organisation "allowed" to release new versions of the LGPL/GPL). Microsoft then goes and releases GPLv4, which adds a clause that basically says "if you receive GPLv4 code, you may relicense it under a proprietary software license." In this instance, anyone who has released code under "GPLv2 or later" or "GPLv3 or later" has granted MS (or any other company) the right to make a proprietary fork of their code. It's this thinking that leads me to release all my code under a license that says "GPL, version 2 ONLY."
Now, do I really expect MS to somehow acquire the FSF and release an "evil" GPLv4? No, I don't. But the fact remains that I have no idea what will happen in the future. Trusting an organisation full of people I don't know to produce future versions of a license that I'm happy with doesn't sound like a good idea. Indeed, they've already released a new version of my license of choice that I don't fully agree with, so why should I trust them to do so in the future?
If and when I feel comfortable with the GPLv3, I'll probably re-release all my software under a "GPLv3 ONLY" license. But that's it for the LGPL -- I have no intention of releasing any new code using the LGPL, with the exception of stuff contributed to LGPL libraries (like libxfce4util and libxfcegui4) that are mainly "LGPLv2.1 or later" and are 'owned' by other people.
If you don’t like GPLv3…
... then it's best not to use LGPLv2.1 either. According to this footnote of the GPLv3 draft FAQ:
Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later version, of the GPL.
This is a bit disturbing to me. According to this, if I release software under a license which states "LGPL version 2.1 ONLY," someone can go and re-release this software as GPLv3. And indeed, section 3 of the LGPLv2.1 states:
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...] (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.)
That's ridiculous. The license explicitly ignores whether you release under "LGPL version 2.1 or any later version" or "LGPL version 2.1 ONLY." Amusingly, it looks like, under these terms, if you release LGPL-2.1-only, someone can't go and re-release as LGPLv3, even though they can re-release as GPLv3. To illustrate the retardedness, here's my interpretation:
| Release under: | Can be converted to: |
|---|---|
| GPLv2 or later | GPLv3 or later; GPLv3 only |
| GPLv2 only | nothing else |
| LGPLv2.1 or later | LGPLv3 or later; LGPLv3 only; GPLv2 or later; GPLv2 only; GPLv3 or later; GPLv3 only |
| LGPLv2.1 only | GPLv2 or later; GPLv2 only; GPLv3 or later; GPLv3 only |
Is this correct? It seems so horribly wrong.
I need to go through my stuff and make sure I'm not using LGPL for anything, though I suppose I'll have to leave libxfce4util and libxfcegui4 alone since most of the parts I don't own are LGPLv2.1-or-later, so it's probably not worth the effort. And, I'd better be more careful about understanding the licenses I use.
HW Project
Sometime, when I have energy and time, I will build one of these for my HTPC.
My Stuff Hates Me
Yeah, it's been a while since I've posted, most of my posts over the past month being private. But, I feel like ranting semi-publicly, so, here goes.
My car is dying. A few months ago when I had some unrelated work done, my mechanic told me the rotors and axles need to be replaced (not dangerously so, but they're not in good shape), at a cost of roughly $1000. I decided to put this off. A few weeks ago, my car wouldn't start. My mechanic found a leak in the head gasket. It's been band-aided, but who knows how long it will last. That's at least another $1000, probably more if the head gasket fails while I'm driving it. The car is old, but not exceptionally so: it's a 1997 Honda Accord which my parents bought used for me in 2000. The mileage was somewhat high when I got it (around 65k miles), and now it's up to around 140k. While that's not particularly impressive, it's not like the car hasn't been used.
So, I'm looking for a new car (well, not new, used, but only a couple years old, hopefully). While I was initially somewhat opposed to the idea of another Accord, I'm starting to change my mind. I'm looking at a 2004 Accord coupe (my current car is a sedan) on Tuesday, and I have a few more in my list that I need to call.
I'm considering a Honda Civic, but I'm not sure I want one (no good reason). Ditto for Nissans in general. Not really interested in an American car. Toyota is a possibility. Open to European makes, but only if the cars generally have histories of not being in the shop too often (so that leaves out Saab and Volkswagen, among others). I'm buying used to avoid the good old new-car premium and immediate depreciation. I can also get a much nicer car for my money if it's a couple years old. I'm not willing to spend more than $20k (even with that amount I'll have to take out a loan), but I'd like to spend less, of course.
I'd like this car to be a bit more "fun" than my previous few cars. Manual transmission, decent engine (V6 preferred, though a high-hp 4 cylinder will do). Gas mileage should be decent, though, to be honest, I don't mind current gas prices too much, and I'd be ok (but annoyed) even if they doubled. (Well, I do mind current gas prices; I much preferred the $1/gal we were charged just 10 years ago, but I'm saying current prices aren't much of a financial burden to me.) I'd consider a diesel-fuel car if it met my other requirements. A better-than-standard audio system, bluetooth, and an in-dash GPS would be nice, but aren't required.
So, that's that.
In other news, tonight my laptop's (the 12" PowerBook G4) hard drive decided it doesn't like data integrity anymore, so I just ordered a new Seagate 80GB hard drive from newegg. Putting $60 into the machine kinda hurts, as I was hoping to be able to live with it as-is for another 8-12 months until hopefully Apple wises up and starts selling a 12" MacBook Pro -- or even a 13.3", but I'd prefer the 12"; I have a 13.3" MacBook from work, and it's just a little less portable than I'd like it to be. Fortunately, it looks like the drive is still mostly alive; even though it won't boot anymore (Linux says the root filesystem is hosed), the /home partition appears to be completely intact (just made 2 images of it).
So, don't expect much work on Xfce (xfconf, mainly) for the rest of the week, as I don't expect the HD to get here before Weds or Thurs, and then I'll likely spend the next couple days rebuilding the system (I might be able to recover the root partition, but I'm not sure I'd trust it). Yeah, still running Gentoo, so I gotta wait for shit to compile (though fortunately I can offload 2/3 of that to my HTPC and server in the closet).
Oh, and speaking of stuff breaking... I bought a Samsung SGH-T619 (that's a cell phone) 4 months ago when I switched carriers from Verizon to T-Mobile. End of August, the external screen breaks. No, not the outer plastic, but the actual LCD screen cracked. I really don't know how: I set it down on my nightstand to charge before I went to bed, like I do every night, and it was fine. I wake up in the morning, pick up the phone, and the screen is cracked. Go figure. I bought the phone from a company called LetsTalk (online, but I don't feel like linking to them); I emailed their returns department, not really expecting much, as they only guarantee the product for 30 days. But I at least expected an email back telling me to get stuffed; no, I didn't even warrant that: I got no response at all. Great customer service, assholes.
I need to give Samsung a call to see if they're replace/repair it under warranty; I read the terms online, and, surprisingly, they don't exclude the screen from warranty protection. Assuming they'll repair it, hopefully I can find an unlocked GSM phone to use while my phone is "in the shop."
I was debating getting an iPhone given my semi-broken phone. My semi-broken phone was better than free: after activation fees, I got $15 back due to rebates and discounts and whatnot. So I wouldn't actually be losing anything by buying a new phone. My old iPod Mini is starting to show its age (it's almost 3 years old): the battery barely lasts 3 hours (even with the backlight disabled), and it's a bit scratched from use. The battery life makes it somewhat useless on planes (where I find myself quite frequently lately), though it's ok for bringing to work and plugging into my laptop to listen to music while I work. So, I figured, I could either get a new iPod Touch for $300, or an iPhone for $400. Of course, the T-Mobile contract makes things difficult, as does Apple's stance toward phone unlockers/modders. This post by Mark Pilgrim kinda did it for me: I'm not going to buy an iPhone. I had a bunch of niggling doubts about my desire to buy one, but it helps to have them in block text right in front of me. I especially like this bit (in this case about the AppleTV):
I don’t understand this continuing obsession with buying things that you need to break before they do what you want... I thought the big draw for Apple hardware was that "It Just Works." By breaking it, you must know you’re giving up the "Just Works" factor, so what’s left? Rounded corners?
Hell, with things like this, I'm feeling less inclined to even buy a new iPod... ever. Why should I buy from a company that appears to be openly hostile toward allowing me to use their hardware with a non-blessed OS?
Though, to be fair, I like Apple products not solely due to logical reasons. (Hell, I still have no 3D video acceleration on my PowerBook while running Linux, and the 2D accel is virtually nonexistant as well, and yet I still love my little PowerBook.) The hardware is pretty. It's a status symbol; as much as I'd like to believe I'm immune to status symbols, I'd hate to deceive myself. And I do like MacOS X. I have a MacBook from work that only has OS X on it; I do some Mac development at work (seriously, working with Cocoa and Interface Builder is an absolute joy, even though Xcode's text editor sucks ass), and I can get by using Citrix to access my mail (sadly we're a MS/Outlook shop, and I hate Outlook webmail) such that I don't need to use my WinXP work laptop all that often. I'm not totally pleased by the aesthetics of the MacBook (vs. the MacBook Pro), but I do like it.
And why shouldn't my laptop look cool by my standards? People buy cars with dual reasons, too: your average car buyer wants something reliable and safe, but also something that conforms to their sense of aesthetics. That's why there are so many different car designs and you can pick from a variety of colors.
Anyway, that's the state of my electronics, and then some. I should get to bed; busy day tomorrow.