"sealed box"??? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on "sealed box"??? - Ubuntu ; Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good idea.....). Anyway..... A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use one for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be /very/ tight, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: "sealed box"???

  1. "sealed box"???

    Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good
    idea.....). Anyway.....

    A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use one
    for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be /very/
    tight, and anyway I hardly dare think what might happen if they end up
    in windows wonderland; so I'm wondering about setting up a "sealed box"
    ubuntu system. The idea being that they're given the computer already
    set up to perform a fixed, small set of functions - and they're denied
    root access, which means the box must be essentially self-maintaining,
    even under fault conditions.

    Obviously there'd need to be some provision for configuring things like
    smtp/pop servers, also for some sort of dump; nothing that couldn't be
    handled by sudo. The main issue might well be file-system integrity
    after a crash. I can't see anything offhand that would definitely kill
    the idea stone dead.

    But to save me inventing yet another shape of wheel, has anyone
    knowledge of prior art in this area please?


    --
    Mike Scott (unet scottsonline.org.uk)
    Harlow Essex England

  2. Re: "sealed box"???

    Mike Scott wrote:
    > Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good
    > idea.....). Anyway.....
    >
    > A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use one
    > for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be /very/
    > tight, and anyway I hardly dare think what might happen if they end up
    > in windows wonderland; so I'm wondering about setting up a "sealed box"
    > ubuntu system. The idea being that they're given the computer already
    > set up to perform a fixed, small set of functions - and they're denied
    > root access, which means the box must be essentially self-maintaining,
    > even under fault conditions.
    >
    > Obviously there'd need to be some provision for configuring things like
    > smtp/pop servers, also for some sort of dump; nothing that couldn't be
    > handled by sudo. The main issue might well be file-system integrity
    > after a crash. I can't see anything offhand that would definitely kill
    > the idea stone dead.
    >
    > But to save me inventing yet another shape of wheel, has anyone
    > knowledge of prior art in this area please?
    >
    >



    Sounds like a job for Ubuntu in the "Kiosk Mode";

    When you install you will be able to configure the system in the "Kiosk
    Mode" which essentially locks the system down to what ever actions you
    want it to perform.

    HTH, YMMV, LSMFT

    Dave

  3. Re: "sealed box"???

    Mike Scott writes:

    > Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good
    > idea.....). Anyway.....
    >
    > A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use
    > one for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be
    > /very/ tight, and anyway I hardly dare think what might happen if they
    > end up in windows wonderland; so I'm wondering about setting up a
    > "sealed box" ubuntu system. The idea being that they're given the
    > computer already set up to perform a fixed, small set of functions -
    > and they're denied root access, which means the box must be
    > essentially self-maintaining, even under fault conditions.


    What does "self maintaining under fault conditions" mean? If there
    really are serious faults in the setup then the system wont fix
    itself. The key here is to configure it properly the first time.

    >
    > Obviously there'd need to be some provision for configuring things
    > like smtp/pop servers, also for some sort of dump; nothing that
    > couldn't be handled by sudo. The main issue might well be file-system
    > integrity after a crash. I can't see anything offhand that would
    > definitely kill the idea stone dead.


    What idea? You can already configure smtp/pop servers and there is built
    in file checks on boot and almost certainly a way to check periodically
    using cron or somesuch.

    > But to save me inventing yet another shape of wheel, has anyone
    > knowledge of prior art in this area please?


    Yes. Anyone who uses Linux computers and understands the concept of
    permissions and sudo. There is nothing to invent.

    You configure it using sudo (servers etc), install the applications
    he needs using sudo and then remove him from the sudoers so he can't
    mess it all up. Maybe even remove the terminal and file browsers. But
    that is not recommended.

    Of course you would also have your all powerful root/admin login
    available for yourself - he wont have access to that.

    But remember : hiding too much is not a good idea. Have faith in the
    users and it will repay you in spades. If you treat a user like a monkey
    he will behave like one.

  4. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:10:23 GMT, Mike Scott
    wrote:

    >Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good
    >idea.....). Anyway.....
    >
    >A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use one
    >for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be /very/
    >tight, and anyway I hardly dare think what might happen if they end up
    >in windows wonderland; so I'm wondering about setting up a "sealed box"
    >ubuntu system. The idea being that they're given the computer already
    >set up to perform a fixed, small set of functions - and they're denied
    >root access, which means the box must be essentially self-maintaining,
    >even under fault conditions.
    >
    >Obviously there'd need to be some provision for configuring things like
    >smtp/pop servers, also for some sort of dump; nothing that couldn't be
    >handled by sudo. The main issue might well be file-system integrity
    >after a crash. I can't see anything offhand that would definitely kill
    >the idea stone dead.
    >
    >But to save me inventing yet another shape of wheel, has anyone
    >knowledge of prior art in this area please?




    Mike,

    I did this in two high school classrooms when Gutsy was first
    released. Also setup similar systems for a couple of pre-teens.

    With users other than myself as 'desktop' users--not sudoers--the
    'stock' installation model seems fairly impervious to even intentional
    corruption.

    I did add the additional repositories, installed flash and java,
    printers, plus a few aps from synaptic. Also set the system to
    auto-update security.

    Nice, easy to maintain. Hasn't fouled up once. OK, once. Seems
    Ubuntu doesn't take kindly to being regularly shutdown by hitting the
    power button on the CPU.

    Cheers,


  5. Re: "sealed box"???

    Mike Scott wrote:
    > Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good
    > idea.....). Anyway.....
    >
    > A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use one
    > for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be /very/
    > tight, and anyway I hardly dare think what might happen if they end up
    > in windows wonderland; so I'm wondering about setting up a "sealed box"
    > ubuntu system. The idea being that they're given the computer already
    > set up to perform a fixed, small set of functions - and they're denied
    > root access, which means the box must be essentially self-maintaining,
    > even under fault conditions.
    >
    > Obviously there'd need to be some provision for configuring things like
    > smtp/pop servers, also for some sort of dump; nothing that couldn't be
    > handled by sudo. The main issue might well be file-system integrity
    > after a crash. I can't see anything offhand that would definitely kill
    > the idea stone dead.
    >
    > But to save me inventing yet another shape of wheel, has anyone
    > knowledge of prior art in this area please?
    >
    >

    Why not have a look into the Asus eeepc only a couple of hundred quid.
    Nice and small. Seems to be aimed at kids but for email, web surfing,
    and general PC stuff looks fine. Only has a 7" screen but i believe a
    10" is on the way and there is a monitor output.

  6. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:36:10 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Mike Scott writes:
    >
    >> Looking for pointers please (or if anyone knows it's not a good
    >> idea.....). Anyway.....
    >>
    >> A friend still living in blissful computer ignorance may need to use
    >> one for email, web access and word processing. The budget would be
    >> /very/ tight, and anyway I hardly dare think what might happen if they
    >> end up in windows wonderland; so I'm wondering about setting up a
    >> "sealed box" ubuntu system. The idea being that they're given the
    >> computer already set up to perform a fixed, small set of functions -
    >> and they're denied root access, which means the box must be essentially
    >> self-maintaining, even under fault conditions.

    >
    > What does "self maintaining under fault conditions" mean? If there
    > really are serious faults in the setup then the system wont fix itself.
    > The key here is to configure it properly the first time.
    >
    >
    >> Obviously there'd need to be some provision for configuring things like
    >> smtp/pop servers, also for some sort of dump; nothing that couldn't be
    >> handled by sudo. The main issue might well be file-system integrity
    >> after a crash. I can't see anything offhand that would definitely kill
    >> the idea stone dead.

    >
    > What idea? You can already configure smtp/pop servers and there is built
    > in file checks on boot and almost certainly a way to check periodically
    > using cron or somesuch.
    >
    >> But to save me inventing yet another shape of wheel, has anyone
    >> knowledge of prior art in this area please?

    >
    > Yes. Anyone who uses Linux computers and understands the concept of
    > permissions and sudo. There is nothing to invent.
    >
    > You configure it using sudo (servers etc), install the applications he
    > needs using sudo and then remove him from the sudoers so he can't mess
    > it all up. Maybe even remove the terminal and file browsers. But that is
    > not recommended.
    >
    > Of course you would also have your all powerful root/admin login
    > available for yourself - he wont have access to that.
    >
    > But remember : hiding too much is not a good idea. Have faith in the
    > users and it will repay you in spades. If you treat a user like a monkey
    > he will behave like one.


    That would be the Monkeysoft way for sure.

  7. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:25:40 -0700, Coffeeman wrote:

    > Seems Ubuntu
    > doesn't take kindly to being regularly shutdown by hitting the power
    > button on the CPU.


    There is no power button on the CPU, and if it did, you shouldn't be
    allowing them to open the case of the PC and put their hands on the CPU
    anyhow...



    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  8. Re: "sealed box"???


    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:07:58 -0600, Joe
    wrote:

    >There is no power button on the CPU, and if it did, you shouldn't be
    >allowing them to open the case of the PC and put their hands on the CPU
    >anyhow...


    Absolutely! And then, the computer case assembly is still referred to
    correctly as the CPU, as is the actual CPU on the motherboard.

    No arguments here.

    Cheers,

  9. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:21:34 -0700, coffeeman wrote:

    > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:07:58 -0600, Joe
    > wrote:
    >
    >>There is no power button on the CPU, and if it did, you shouldn't be
    >>allowing them to open the case of the PC and put their hands on the CPU
    >>anyhow...

    >
    > Absolutely! And then, the computer case assembly is still referred to
    > correctly as the CPU, as is the actual CPU on the motherboard.
    >
    > No arguments here.


    While I was generally being facetious, no the computer case assembly is
    not properly referred to as a CPU. A CPU is a microchip. A Central
    Processing Unit. The Case, including all of the parts, is called a
    Personal Computer.

    Kids today... ;-)




    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  10. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:57:34 -0600, Joe wrote:


    >
    > While I was generally being facetious, no the computer case assembly is
    > not properly referred to as a CPU. A CPU is a microchip. A Central
    > Processing Unit. The Case, including all of the parts, is called a
    > Personal Computer.



    Well, sure it is the chip. You're right. I know it's a little old
    fashioned to call the putty box the cpu; it's a serious generalization.
    Sort of like calling all rocks stones or all yams potatoes.

    I make the point tedious:

    Free On-line Dictionary of Computing

    CPU architecture
    1. central processing unit.
    2. Occasionally used (although less and less) to refer to the system unit.
    (2000-08-10)

    If you went to Wal-Mart or Best Buy to take home a Personal Computer,
    you'd get mouse, monitor, keyboard, speakers, et al. So then the
    semantics may just depend on the connotation and the audience. I'd
    better watch it.

    Cheers,




  11. Re: "sealed box"???

    Coffeeman writes:

    > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:57:34 -0600, Joe wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> While I was generally being facetious, no the computer case assembly is
    >> not properly referred to as a CPU. A CPU is a microchip. A Central
    >> Processing Unit. The Case, including all of the parts, is called a
    >> Personal Computer.

    >
    >
    > Well, sure it is the chip. You're right. I know it's a little old
    > fashioned to call the putty box the cpu; it's a serious generalization.
    > Sort of like calling all rocks stones or all yams potatoes.
    >
    > I make the point tedious:
    >
    > Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
    >
    > CPU architecture
    > 1. central processing unit.
    > 2. Occasionally used (although less and less) to refer to the system unit.
    > (2000-08-10)
    >
    > If you went to Wal-Mart or Best Buy to take home a Personal Computer,
    > you'd get mouse, monitor, keyboard, speakers, et al. So then the
    > semantics may just depend on the connotation and the audience. I'd
    > better watch it.


    That is a long way to admit you are totally wrong. Nowhere in the real
    world is the CPU anything other than, well, the CPU. The "central"
    processing unit. If you want help then you are better off using the
    mainstream meaning of words and not trying to be too clever.

    From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

    CPU \CPU\, cpu \c.p.u.\n. abbr.
    1. (Computers) The central processing unit, that part of
    the electronic circuitry of a computer in which the
    arithmetic and logical operations are performed on input
    data, which are thereby converted to output data; it is
    usually located on the mainboard, or motherboard, of a
    computer. The CPU and the memory form the central part of
    a computer to which the peripherals are attached. Most
    personal computers as of 1998 had only one CPU, but some
    computers may have more than one CPU. [acronym]

    Syn: central processing unit, CPU, C.P.U., central processor,
    processor.
    [WordNet 1.5 +PJC]

    From V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (June 2006) [vera]:

    CPU
    Central Processing Unit





  12. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:43:00 +0100, Hadron
    wrote:


    >That is a long way to admit you are totally wrong. Nowhere in the real
    >world is the CPU anything other than, well, the CPU. The "central"
    >processing unit. If you want help then you are better off using the
    >mainstream meaning of words and not trying to be too clever.
    >
    >From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
    >
    > CPU \CPU\, cpu \c.p.u.\n. abbr.
    > 1. (Computers) The central processing unit, that part of
    > the electronic circuitry of a computer in which the
    > arithmetic and logical operations are performed on input
    > data, which are thereby converted to output data; it is
    > usually located on the mainboard, or motherboard, of a
    > computer. The CPU and the memory form the central part of
    > a computer to which the peripherals are attached. Most
    > personal computers as of 1998 had only one CPU, but some
    > computers may have more than one CPU. [acronym]
    >
    > Syn: central processing unit, CPU, C.P.U., central processor,
    > processor.
    > [WordNet 1.5 +PJC]
    >
    >From V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (June 2006) [vera]:
    >
    > CPU
    > Central Processing Unit
    >
    >
    >

    You're right.

    But please note that I also gave a reference from an online
    dictionary. So, I'm right, too.

    The etymology for my reference said my connotation is little used. I
    won't use it that way here anymore.

    Thanks!

  13. Re: "sealed box"???

    Coffeeman writes:

    > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:43:00 +0100, Hadron
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>That is a long way to admit you are totally wrong. Nowhere in the real
    >>world is the CPU anything other than, well, the CPU. The "central"
    >>processing unit. If you want help then you are better off using the
    >>mainstream meaning of words and not trying to be too clever.
    >>
    >>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
    >>
    >> CPU \CPU\, cpu \c.p.u.\n. abbr.
    >> 1. (Computers) The central processing unit, that part of
    >> the electronic circuitry of a computer in which the
    >> arithmetic and logical operations are performed on input
    >> data, which are thereby converted to output data; it is
    >> usually located on the mainboard, or motherboard, of a
    >> computer. The CPU and the memory form the central part of
    >> a computer to which the peripherals are attached. Most
    >> personal computers as of 1998 had only one CPU, but some
    >> computers may have more than one CPU. [acronym]
    >>
    >> Syn: central processing unit, CPU, C.P.U., central processor,
    >> processor.
    >> [WordNet 1.5 +PJC]
    >>
    >>From V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (June 2006) [vera]:
    >>
    >> CPU
    >> Central Processing Unit
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > You're right.
    >
    > But please note that I also gave a reference from an online
    > dictionary. So, I'm right, too.


    No. You're not right. Sorry. if you were right then I and Joe would not
    be right. You were wrong. In the context in question and the group in
    question, CPU has one meaning and one meaning only. Regardless of what
    that online dictionary said. To use CPU to mean anything other than the
    core processor in this context is simply ludicrous and must be
    considered to be an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or possibly merely
    troll.

  14. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:35:49 +0100
    Hadron wrote:

    > No. You're not right. Sorry. if you were right then I and Joe would not
    > be right. You were wrong. In the context in question and the group in
    > question, CPU has one meaning and one meaning only. Regardless of what
    > that online dictionary said. To use CPU to mean anything other than the
    > core processor in this context is simply ludicrous and must be
    > considered to be an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or possibly merely
    > troll.


    It's probably more down to it being a common misconception, or as I
    like to call them "myth-conceptions" :-)

    --
    Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

  15. Re: "sealed box"???

    Trevor Best wrote:

    > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:35:49 +0100
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> No. You're not right. Sorry. if you were right then I and Joe would not
    >> be right. You were wrong. In the context in question and the group in
    >> question, CPU has one meaning and one meaning only. Regardless of what
    >> that online dictionary said. To use CPU to mean anything other than the
    >> core processor in this context is simply ludicrous and must be
    >> considered to be an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or possibly merely
    >> troll.

    >
    > It's probably more down to it being a common misconception, or as I
    > like to call them "myth-conceptions" :-)
    >

    You guys are all wrong. According to my wife, the big metal box with a
    monitor, keyboard and mouse attached to it, is called a "hard drive".

    Cheers.

    --
    Boot It Up!
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-kql8cWqiv8


  16. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:35:49 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Coffeeman writes:
    >
    >> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:43:00 +0100, Hadron
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>That is a long way to admit you are totally wrong. Nowhere in the real
    >>>world is the CPU anything other than, well, the CPU. The "central"
    >>>processing unit. If you want help then you are better off using the
    >>>mainstream meaning of words and not trying to be too clever.
    >>>
    >>>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
    >>>[gcide]:
    >>>
    >>> CPU \CPU\, cpu \c.p.u.\n. abbr.
    >>> 1. (Computers) The central processing unit, that part of
    >>> the electronic circuitry of a computer in which the arithmetic
    >>> and logical operations are performed on input data, which are
    >>> thereby converted to output data; it is usually located on the
    >>> mainboard, or motherboard, of a computer. The CPU and the
    >>> memory form the central part of a computer to which the
    >>> peripherals are attached. Most personal computers as of 1998
    >>> had only one CPU, but some computers may have more than one
    >>> CPU. [acronym]
    >>>
    >>> Syn: central processing unit, CPU, C.P.U., central processor,
    >>> processor.
    >>> [WordNet 1.5 +PJC]
    >>>
    >>>From V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (June 2006)
    >>>[vera]:
    >>>
    >>> CPU
    >>> Central Processing Unit
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> You're right.
    >>
    >> But please note that I also gave a reference from an online dictionary.
    >> So, I'm right, too.

    >
    > No. You're not right. Sorry. if you were right then I and Joe would not
    > be right. You were wrong. In the context in question and the group in
    > question, CPU has one meaning and one meaning only. Regardless of what
    > that online dictionary said. To use CPU to mean anything other than the
    > core processor in this context is simply ludicrous and must be
    > considered to be an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or possibly merely
    > troll.


    Nope.

    Since you're posting dictionary definitions, you noticed there are
    several meanings for the same entry for nearly ever word in the
    dictionary.

    I used one, albeit lower down on the totem pole than the definition you
    choose, which I admit is less commonly used--obviously not in the group
    here. And I said I will refrain from utilizing it in that way in future.

    However, since it is my comment to to the OP which is in question, my
    context decides the definition used.

    And I didn't call names. I didn't obfuscate. I merely pointed out
    another meaning for a commonly used term, and I quoted a verifiable
    source for my usage.

    Must disagreement with you quantify another computer user as a troll?

    Cheers,


  17. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:12:30 GMT, NoStop wrote:

    >Trevor Best wrote:


    >>

    >You guys are all wrong. According to my wife, the big metal box with a
    >monitor, keyboard and mouse attached to it, is called a "hard drive".
    >
    >Cheers.



    I like that. And what memories it must have

    I'm going to do my own informal poll next week on "Name That Box,"
    sort of like David Letterman and Sean Hannity do for political
    figures.

    So far I've asked five people other than this forum and gotten four
    different terms and a discussion on what it isn't.

    Best so far: main connector

    Cheers,



  18. Re: "sealed box"???

    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:12:30 GMT
    NoStop wrote:

    > Trevor Best wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:35:49 +0100
    > > Hadron wrote:
    > >
    > >> No. You're not right. Sorry. if you were right then I and Joe would not
    > >> be right. You were wrong. In the context in question and the group in
    > >> question, CPU has one meaning and one meaning only. Regardless of what
    > >> that online dictionary said. To use CPU to mean anything other than the
    > >> core processor in this context is simply ludicrous and must be
    > >> considered to be an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or possibly merely
    > >> troll.

    > >
    > > It's probably more down to it being a common misconception, or as I
    > > like to call them "myth-conceptions" :-)
    > >

    > You guys are all wrong. According to my wife, the big metal box with a
    > monitor, keyboard and mouse attached to it, is called a "hard drive".


    Got you beat, according to my wife, it's a "server".

    --
    Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

  19. Re: "sealed box"???



    On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:33:41 +0000, Trevor Best
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:12:30 GMT
    >NoStop wrote:
    >
    >> Trevor Best wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:35:49 +0100
    >> > Hadron wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> No. You're not right. Sorry. if you were right then I and Joe would not
    >> >> be right. You were wrong. In the context in question and the group in
    >> >> question, CPU has one meaning and one meaning only. Regardless of what
    >> >> that online dictionary said. To use CPU to mean anything other than the
    >> >> core processor in this context is simply ludicrous and must be
    >> >> considered to be an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or possibly merely
    >> >> troll.
    >> >
    >> > It's probably more down to it being a common misconception, or as I
    >> > like to call them "myth-conceptions" :-)
    >> >

    >> You guys are all wrong. According to my wife, the big metal box with a
    >> monitor, keyboard and mouse attached to it, is called a "hard drive".

    >
    >Got you beat, according to my wife, it's a "server".


    What a way to spend my Winter Vacation.

    OK. This is getting more interesting. "Server", "hard drive" , "main
    connector", "that which must not be mentioned".

    Check out Wikkipedia. "It" is called a wide variety of things.

    I really am going to do a surey next week. Aiming for 100 plus
    entries. Wonder if recording education level would be an applicable
    field?

    Cheers,

  20. Re: "sealed box"???

    Coffeeman wrote:
    > So far I've asked five people other than this forum and gotten four
    > different terms and a discussion on what it isn't.


    When it works, use the acronym: PC.
    When it acts up, use full name: Piece of Crap

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast