Linux to the rescue, again

My work computer refused to boot one day, complaining of a corrupt dll. I replaced the dll from two different sources, but it still wouldn't boot. I had to re-install Windows, which was already a pain, because it meant I'd have to re-install all the programs as well -- that, or figure out a way to save the registry. (This is not normally an issue in Linux, although occasionally problems do get to the point that you need a "clean install.") My boss suggested reformatting the hard drive, so I had to re-install everything.

But that brought up a new issue: what about my files? I had quite a few programs that I had been working on. I hadn't checked in the source code into Subversion, and there were other files besides source code. I actually have two hard drives on my computer, so it would be trivial to copy the files off of the c: drive before I reformatted it. It would be trivial, that is, if only I could boot my computer. The Windows install cd gives an option to boot into DOS, but only a limited version of DOS: there is no xcopy command, and the copy command is not recursive. The only way to copy my files would be to do it one by one, and there were dozens to do. Surely someone had a regular Windows boot disk that I could use? Or someone could create one?

It turns out: no. No one had one, and no one knew how to create one. I tried. I went into all the Windows administrative tools that I knew, and I googled it, and I even went a ways toward creating a boot disk until I realized that it was actually just another install disk. In an office full of software developers and support specialists, no one could produce a cd that would boot into Windows. Fortunately, I had an Ubuntu LiveCD at home. I brought it back after lunch, booted up, copied my files from one hard drive to the other, and then did the Windows install -- all quite trivial, but impossible, in this case, without Linux.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more