?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Eric

The Shape of Things to Come

Posted on 2005.10.09 at 17:01
Current Mood: stiff
Current Music: Free mp3 downloads from Amazon.com
Tags: ,
Let's talk about quark.

Since I built this box starting with a base OS install, he didn't have much going for him. I added individual packages and dependencies via blastwave, so never really ran into a problem until today. I was trying to compile several things, and they just wouldn't. I was lacking the C/C++ header files. Fortunately for me, I keep a repository of SUNOS packages online for just this occasion. Apparently I also never installed the 64-bit make assembler and link-editor. Shame on me!

As it turns out, I used GNU ld - which I also failed to install on this system, so now I should be in good shape for compiles.

What a pain in the ass. I had to symlink gld to ld in the same directory to get it to work. As Tony would say, "x86 & linux...it just works." Yeah, yeah.

Well, the blastwave package binutils contained everything I needed, however, it put it in a different directory entirely. Rather than just append my PATH I consolidated them all. Complile complete!

Most of what I do really is a frivolous waste of time. For example, the mac mini doesn't reboot very often, and the onboard voice isn't even close to Majel Barrett (yes, I've looked for plugins). But when she does reboot, I've created an Apple Workflow, which is kinda like unix init scripts, with a flair for the flamboyant. She tells me, "System has rebooted, Borg Queen now online." She then runs a unix script which starts SHOUTcast. When that step is complete, she notifies me, "Shoutcast transcoder now transmitting to server." She starts Big Brother and announces, "Big Brother network monitor has been started." No, I'm not on the bridge of Voyager, but it's a nice touch.

I'm still ill, and coughing until I'm lightheaded. I hope to be at least well enough to go into work tomorrow.

Comments:


drax0r
drax0r at 2005-10-10 15:27 (UTC) (Link)

Slack x86 - it just works.

Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2005-10-12 00:49 (UTC) (Link)
The suspense is killing us. Did you or did you not go into work "tomorrow"?
ehowton
ehowton at 2005-10-12 01:16 (UTC) (Link)
Indeed.
danzigfried at 2005-10-12 02:45 (UTC) (Link)
I see...now your using Danzigisms, huh? 'indeed'...
What does that mean exactly? Did you or did you not go into work? Inquiring minds with too much time on their hands want to know.

You ability to half-answer a question sickens me to my very core, and compells me to vomit a disgusting opinion. The strong, acrid stench of this grammatical string burning my nostrils makes me ponder whether or not I can quell such proliferation and outpouring of vulgar indecencies upon the ears of my fellow blogger. One has to wonder...why is he expelling such time and energies to merely propose a requirement of a fellow blogger to simply and reverently respond to the very simple question of: 'Did you go to work today?'

...and im spent.
ehowton
ehowton at 2005-10-12 03:06 (UTC) (Link)
Now that you mention it, I was replying to the absurdity of anyone wanting to know, caring even, whether or not I was successful in making it into work the next morning, but as I answered that one, I realized that it also answered in the affirmative, the other question. I was able to answer both questions, unambiguously, with one word. Perhaps you should strive for the same?

One entry found for indeed.
Main Entry: in·deed
Pronunciation: in-'dEd
Function: adverb
1 : without any question : TRULY, UNDENIABLY -- often used interjectionally to express irony or disbelief or surprise
2 : in reality
3 : all things considered : as a matter of fact


As much as I appreciate you proclivity towards the English language, might I remind you that you have no patent on it.
Previous Entry  Next Entry