To start with, I'm still fighting against my motherboard's UDMA-66 IDE controller.
I have an ABIT motherboard and it has 4 IDE controlers (two standard IDE and two UDMA-66 IDE controllers).
As space on my previous box was a little tidy, I replaced the computer box for one bigger and, since I couldn't get to work both the SCSI controller and the UDMA-66 controllers, I let the first one fall down and did't putted it into the new computer box. So, instead of having a SCSI CD-R and a SCSI CD-ROM I went to a IDE CD-RW and a IDE CD-ROM.
"That should do the trick" -- I thought....
Only that the computer had other things on his mind -- do they really have a mind? Some time I think that they might have one and a very, very devious one indeed! -- and altyhoug I can listen to music on the CD-ROM I can't read any data CDROM. Period!
Beeing working with WIndows 2000 Professional right now, at least, I have a decent event logger and its repective log (NT - 1; Win9x - 0....).
And really I can see that the UDMA-66 IDE controller is generating errors and in the log I can read that there are interrupts from the controller that never get serviced.
Ok, that goes for round two... I'll back up the Linux partition (I have now enought disk space to afford that!) and will re-install it latter with a RedHat 6.1 based version that has the driver for the HPT366 UDMA-66 IDE controller.
That what I'm doing right now, making the backup (I think I haven't there anything important but I know better than that.... Do backup first, see it latter!).
I'll post here the results after the changes.
Another battle was about E.V.
There are still things to be decided which are important to the life of the enterprise. Not everyone has the same oppinions and that is good.
What makes me become a little aprehensive is that the proposal now presented presents what I think that is a high risk and a blank check, signed in advance.
That has to do with absolute majorities.
I'm a firm believer that any one that has brought good deals to the enterprise, should have his/hers merit recognized and should receive the right payback.
But the question is this: How sould this payback be? With a good salary? With a monetary prise? With an absolute majoritary share in the enterprise?
I think that both a good salary and/or a monetary prise are just and don't put the enterprise in risk in any near or far future...
The last one is, in my opinion, a risk, mainly in an indeterminate term....
Of course that can be set some limitations but I still believe that absolute power is dangerous.
There are to many imponderate factors to a young enterprise that can trigger positions where one can and will opose to all the others...
And I personally feel that is a subversion of one of our principles: One of us with any other partner would have majority. That has been the idea from the begining and I have yet to be proved why it should be chnged right now, specially when it is previsible that in the future, to be able to grow, we will probabilly have to open our enterprise to outside capital....
Of course I think that a strong leadership is needed. Of course strategic vision is necessary and should be always extremelly welcome (it is on my part, though...).
Options were taken (even against what we all had previouslly decided that should be the way to follow) and they paid off, at least so far. But who can assure that was the only reason? I don't think (on my own part) that might have been others but there is still more than one possible interpretation to all the events that have happened since the beginning of this year. And I don't see any effort to make it clear and I don't know if that is because no one has precepted them or because they are considered to be irrelevant.
Ok, parhaps I'm seeing things.
I steped aside from development from the moment that I couldn't deliver what I had to do in the time I had to do it, because of a number of reasons which are, I think, irrelevant now. Not that they souldn't be considered... Only it doesn't change a thing right now.
I still have my doubts that the present options won't carry in themselves some new problems that we will have to deal with in the future. But if they continue to make it possible to go forward and deliver the work on time, I will be the last one to opose myself and will be the first one to study them and use them whenever they are applyiable.
But, again, should that justify an absolute majority?
Of course this all needs lots of reflections upon. I think that can't be decided lightlly as it might decide success or insuccess of the whole project.
As it is the way I always acted in the past, I'm not leaving the boat. Either it sails or sunk (of course I believe that unless all time and energy are spent in internal affairs, it will sail), I'll be in it until the end and working for the sail, not the sunk.
I never acted other way in the past nor will in the future, in any future.
The computer questions do make me fight and spent lots of time, some times time I don't have but that I must borrow from some other things to be done as I can't just leave it in the middle, unfinished!
These other questions do put some questions to me to which I don't have yet all the necessary answers.
The only thing I know is that I'm not a fundamentalist in anything (never was and never will be, as far as I can tell) and although I don't know the end of it, I think that as long is possible to negotiate solutions, a solution will be found.
Might be or not the right one. And about that only time will tell.
But battles are not only to be won; battles are to be won wiselly and to be used as the best moments to improve ourselves and to become able to do things we wouldn't or didn't knew how to do before!