Home → Humour → Computing → Operating Systems

More OS Humour

Quick Reference

OS Beers

 If Operating Systems Were Beers...

DOS Beer:

Requires you to use your own can opener, and requires you to read the directions carefully before opening the can. Originally only came in an 8-oz. can, but now comes in a 16-oz. can. However, the can is divided into 8 compartments of 2 oz. each, which have to be accessed separately. Soon to be discontinued, although a lot of people are going to keep drinking it after it's no longer available.

Mac Beer:

At first, came only a 16-oz. can, but now comes in a 32-oz. can. Considered by many to be a "light" beer. All the cans look identical. When you take one from the fridge, it opens itself. The ingredients list is not on the can. If you call to ask about the ingredients, you are told that "you don't need to know." A notice on the side reminds you to drag your empties to the trashcan.

Windows 3.1 Beer:

The world's most popular. Comes in a 16-oz. can that looks a lot like Mac Beer's. Requires that you already own a DOS Beer. Claims that it allows you to drink several DOS Beers simultaneously, but in reality you can only drink a few of them, very slowly, especially slowly if you are drinking the Windows Beer at the same time. Sometimes, for apparently no reason, a can of Windows Beer will explode when you open it.

OS/2 Beer:

Comes in a 32-oz can. Does allow you to drink several DOS Beers simultaneously. Allows you to drink Windows 3.1 Beer simultaneously too, but somewhat slower. Advertises that its cans won't explode when you open them, even if you shake them up. You never really see anyone drinking OS/2 Beer, but the manufacturer (International Beer Manufacturing) claims that 9 million six-packs have been sold.

Windows 95 Beer:

You can't buy it yet, but a lot of people have taste-tested it and claim it's wonderful. The can looks a lot like Mac Beer's can, but tastes more like Windows 3.1 Beer. It comes in 32-oz. cans, but when you look inside, the cans only have 16 oz. of beer in them. Most people will probably keep drinking Windows 3.1 Beer until their friends try Windows 95 Beer and say they like it. The ingredients list, when you look at the small print, has some of the same ingredients that come in DOS beer, even though the manufacturer claims that this is an entirely new brew.

Windows NT Beer:

Comes in 32-oz. cans, but you can only buy it by the truckload. This causes most people to have to go out and buy bigger refrigerators. The can looks just like Windows 3.1 Beer's, but the company promises to change the can to look just like Windows 95 Beer's - after Windows 95 beer starts shipping. Touted as an "industrial strength" beer, and suggested only for use in bars.

Unix Beer:

Comes in several different brands, in cans ranging from 8 oz. to 64 oz. Drinkers of Unix Beer display fierce brand loyalty, even though they claim that all the different brands taste almost identical. Sometimes the pop-tops break off when you try to open them, so you have to have your own can opener around for those occasions, in which case you either need a complete set of instructions, or a friend who has been drinking Unix Beer for several years.

AmigaDOS Beer:

The company has gone out of business, but their recipe has been picked up by some weird German company, so now this beer will be an import. This beer never really sold very well because the original manufacturer didn't understand marketing. Like Unix Beer, AmigaDOS Beer fans are an extremely loyal and loud group. It originally came in a 16-oz. can, but now comes in 32-oz. cans too. When this can was originally introduced, it appeared flashy and colorful, but the design hasn't changed much over the years, so it appears dated now. Critics of this beer claim that it is only meant for watching TV anyway.

VMS Beer:

Requires minimal user interaction, except for popping the top and sipping. However cans have been known on occasion to explode, or contain extremely un-beer-like contents. Best drunk in high pressure development environments. When you call the manufacturer for the list of ingredients, you're told that is proprietary and referred to an unknown listing in the manuals published by the FDA. Rumors are that this was once listed in the Physicians' Desk Reference as a tranquilizer, but no one can claim to have actually seen it.

From: Mark Stoll

SAP Beer:

Its directions give 10 different ways to open it but you can never find anyone who has done it before. You have to drink it with 6 or 7 friends to make it taste good. There is always a better, newer kind coming out every 6 months. It is impossible to get drunk, because it takes months to finish only a small part.

From: Peter Gaunt (pete@beard.demon.co.uk)

RISC OS beer

Has always come in a 32oz can though some see it as a 26oz can with a 23% extra special offer. All the ingredients are printed on the side of the can but only a few drinkers ever bother to read them. Those that do spend most of their time changing the recipe instead of drinking the beer. Those who drink the beer claim it is a better beer than all other beers. Drinkers of other beers, if they ever encounter drinkers of RISC OS beer, say it is very nice but they can't find anywhere to buy it or the accessories needed for drinking it. The company which make the beer recently formed a partnership with a large American company (the Deadly Entrails Corporation) in order to develop a new extra specially strong ingredient. They claim that the extra strength version of the beer, when available, will get you drunk faster than any other beer in the universe without changing the flavour at all.

From: RMurray@arcade.demon.co.uk (Richard Murray)

Acorn Beer

Comes in a 50cl can which manages to fit 100cl inside it. Lets you drink several 50cl or 100cl cans simultaneously, with no apparent reduction in speed. There is also a virtual 250ml can, though this has a habit of periodically exploding. Tastes different to all the other beer, although the taste is described as a cross between Mac beer and Unix beer. Ingredients are printed on the side of the can, so anybody can make ther own, and indeed the manufacturer encourages you to do so, although they won't actually help you. Rarely advertised, and whenever a new flavour is launced, the manufacturer seems to forget to tell anybody. Drinkers giggle at other brand drinkers, claiming that Acorn beer does the job faster, better and on less cans - however as the cans are measured differently if proves a little harder to convince others of this fact. Cans require less refrigerator space. Quite easy for non-beer drinkers to acquire the taste of; though not being very affordable on the outset, it can bring savings, simplicity and of course it is easy to drink. Acquiring the finer taste can take a few years though. Comes with a can-opener as standard, although a ring pull is available as an optional extra at time of purchase or as a later addition. New flavours in a new larger and more colourful released in 1994. These flavours can be drunk at the same time as DOS beer or Windows3.1 beer. The adventurous can even drink their new Acorn beer at the same time as Windows95 beer or UNIX beer, but the manufacturers won't admit this is actually possible. Even bigger and brighter cans are on the way, with massive 200cl cans and portable 100cl cans and even cans disguised as other types of can (like the Internet 'solution' and 'Online Media').

DOS Beer

Requires that you use your own can opener, and to read the instructions carefully before opening the can. Originally only came in an 8oz can, but now comes in a 16oz can. However, the can is divided into 8 compartments of 2oz each, which have to be accessed seperately. Soon to be discontinused, although a lot of people are going to keep drinking it after it is no longer available. Some types of this beer have an interesting ability to be able to compress the amount of beer in the can down to roughly half the original size, but there are no guarantees that it will decompress correctly upon opening the can. DOS Beer has a habit of exploding for no good reason.

From: Adrian Hilton

RiscBSD Beer

A brand of Unix beer on special trial offer. Comes as a home brew kit with a selection of differently-shaped 32oz cans. Drinkers need a degree in mechanical engineering to open the top, and a doctorate in biochemistry to actually brew the beer, but once open it is easy to drink and tastes quite nice. Can't be drunk quite as quickly as many similar home brew beers due to being based on a cheaper yeast. Needs a certain brand of fridge which can't be found in America, and which must be fitted with bigger compartments and a more efficient refrigeration system to cool RiscBSD beer properly. Can be drunk at the same time as Acorn beer, but swapping between the cans slows the process down quite a bit. An experimental version of this beer comes in six cans welded together, with each can having a drinking port seven times the size of a normal beer can. Drinking normal RiscBSD beer can sometimes result in you spilling it all over your clothes. Spilling the new version will flood fairly large parts of Bangladesh, and you will need a wide gullet to make the most of it.

BBC Micro OS 1.2 Beer

Comes in an 8oz can with a very small hole. Used to be one of the best cheap beers around, but now superceded by most other beers. Afficionados form Antique Beer drinking clubs. Keeps well. You can weld BBC beer cans onto the side of Acorn beer cans and it tastes almost exactly the same as normal BBC Beer. You can even widen the hole in the top, though most people think that this spoils the flavour. To drink it you must stand on your head and close your eyes before supping.

The biggest problem is before you can drink any one of them you have to buy a really expensive bag of chips to go with it.

Telecommunications Philosophy 101

From: agray@ipro.com (Andrew Gray)
(special thanks to the guys on alt.atheism)

Given that there is a lot of discussion about whether or not our LAN really does have a System Administrator, and given that no empirical evidence of the existence or non-existence of the System Administrator is extant, I thought it would be helpful to have a frank and open discussion about the issues surrounding the concept.

Here are some popular arguments:

Argument from Design:

  1. One looks at a simple computer, and sees evidence of intelligent design
  2. One looks at a Sun Sparc 20 and... um... well... Okay, One looks at a DEC Alpha and sees evidence of intelligent design.
  3. It is therefore likely that something created them.
  4. One looks at the network and sees evidence of intelligent design.
  5. It is therefore likely that something created it. That something is the System Administrator.

Counter-argument:

  1. If you think the network implies intelligent design, you haven't seen our network.
  2. Even assuming this proves the existence of a System Administrator, there's no evidence the System Administrator is intelligent.

First Causes argument.

  1. When my computer comes on, it is because I turned it on. My computer cannot turn itself on.
  2. When I turn my computer on and connect to the network, the network is already there waiting for me.
  3. I know I did not activate the network.
  4. Therefore, something must have caused the network to exist.
  5. That something could be the Router, but then what installed the Router?
  6. That something must be the System Administrator.

Counter-argument:

  1. So what caused the System Administrator?
  2. Still doesn't prove the System Administrator is intelligent.

The Argument from Popularity:

  1. Almost everyone believes that the System Administrator exists. Those who don't believe He exists are in the minority.
  2. Many respected people claim to have received email from Him.
  3. In almost any company since the dawn of the Computer Age, there has been some form of System Administrator myth.
  4. Given the universality of the myths, it is unlikely that such myths are not based on truth.

Counter-argument:

  1. Most users are clueless morons who need to believe in the Great Benevolent Super-User, and that He protects and watches over their data.
  2. So who's to say it's the System Admin that HR claims to have hired? Why not Brian Kernighan or Cliff Stoll, or Zeus, or Thor or any other such mythical creature?

The argument from Authority:

  1. Management insists that the System Administrator exists. Specifically:
    1. HR insists that they hired Him
    2. Accounting claims to have PO's signed by Him
    3. MIS has the The Big Book of Documentation, written by Him or His disciples.

Counter-argument:

  1. Since when has Management known what they were doing?
  2. Using the Big Book of Documentation as proof that the BBoD was written by the System Administrator is circular. It could be a fabrication.

The Cartesian Argument:

  1. No user can create a more Super account than he himself possesses.
  2. No user can grant greater system privileges than he himself possesses.
  3. All users have heard of the root account, and that the root account is omnipotent and possesses all privileges.
  4. Since the concept of the root account is greater than the accounts possessed by the users, the users cannot have created the concept of the root account. Therefore the concept of the root account must come from something that possesses those privileges.
  5. There is an entry for 'root' in /etc/passwd.
  6. The root account can only have been created by the Super User, the System Administrator.

Counter-argument:

  1. Statement 1 is a dubious premise.
  2. The existence of the root account is not proof that anyone ever logs into that account.
  3. Still doesn't prove that the System Admin is intelligent.

The ontological proof:

  1. Given: The property of existence is more Super than the property of non-existence.
  2. The SysAdmin is defined as "a user, than which no more Super user can be conceived"
  3. No matter how great a Super User you can conceive which possesses the property of non-existence, you can then add the property of existence and make the Super User even more Super.
  4. Therefore, the System Administrator exists.

Counter-argument:

  1. Rests on a dubious definition of what is and is not Super.
  2. The concept of a Super User is nowhere near analogous to the Super User itself. I can conceive of something, but that's only the concept of it, not the thing itself.

The Spinozist Argument:

  1. The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user possible.
  2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which possesses it must necessarily exist.
  3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological proof), then necessary existence is better still.
  4. Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence.
  5. Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist.

    However:

  6. Being perfect, the System Administrator cannot make mistakes, delete the wrong account, trash the root directory, mess up a tape load, etc.
  7. Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the network is somehow less than perfect in its current state.
  8. Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of nature within the system.
  9. Arguably, then the System Administrator is the system itself.

Counter-argument:

  1. None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing.

At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument proves that if the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be intelligent.

If God were a computer programmer...

From: gm@loc100.tandem.com (harding_gm)

No, no, no. John Morrissey's post, "If God were a computer programmer" was all right as far as it went, but it didn't really capture the theological essence of the matter.

There is one, and only one, fundamental proof of the proposition that computers belong to the temporal rather than the spiritual realm. If God were a computer programmer, the following scripture would be displayed on the wall of every cubicle in Silicon Valley:

I am /unix, thine operating system, which have brought thee forth out of thy bondage to machine code, out of the days of the front panel; thou shalt run no other operating system above me, beneath me, or beside me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven core image in binary, nor in octal, nor in hexadecimal; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor program in them, for my kernel is a jealous kernel, visiting the core dumps of the parent process upon the third and fourth generations of them that defile my system calls, but showing mercy unto thousands of them who love lint and read my man pages.

Thou shalt not take the name of superuser in vain: for /unix will not hold him guiltless that invoketh super-user's name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep me wholly archived. Six days shalt thou edit, and do all thy compiles; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the system administrator, who shall earn time and a half therefor: In it, thou shalt suspend all user processes, and create my weekly tar dumps.

Honour thy parent process and thy process group, that thy connect time may be prolonged, and that thine exit status may be zero.

Thou shalt not kill init.

Thou shalt not adulterate my system files.

Thou shalt not steal any material proprietary to, or under license or sublicense by, or protected by copyright or trademark of, Unix System Laboratories or the vendor of thine implementation.

Thou shalt not bear false witness on thy local host by running setuid programs across the network.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's workstation, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's doc set, nor his uid, nor his gid, nor any hardware nor software that is thy neighbour's.

Picking Logos

How to describe a penguin

[From torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi, reproduced with his permission]

The Linux community have been trying to get the 'perfect' penguin logo for a week or so now. Various things have been battered around and Linus finally came up with this spec for the penguin he wanted:

Now, when you think about penguins, first take a deep calming breath, and then think "cuddly". Take another breath, and think "cute". Go back to "cuddly" for a while (and go on breathing), then think "contented".

With me so far? Good..

Now, with penguins, (cuddly such), "contented" means it has either just gotten laid, or it's stuffed on herring. Take it from me, I'm an expert on penguins, those are really the only two options.

Now, working on that angle, we don't really want to be associated with a randy penguin (well, we do, but it's not politic, so we won't), so we should be looking at the "stuffed to its brim with herring" angle here.

So when you think "penguin", you should be imagining a slighly overweight penguin (*), sitting down after having gorged itself, and having just burped. It's sitting there with a beatific smile - the world is a good place to be when you have just eaten a few gallons of raw fish and you can feel another "burp" coming.

(*) Not FAT, but you should be able to see that it's sitting down because it's really too stuffed to stand up. Think "bean bag" here.

Now, if you have problems associating yourself with something that gets off by eating raw fish, think "chocolate" or something, but you get the idea.

Ok, so we should be thinking of a lovable, cuddly, stuffed penguin sitting down after having gorged itself on herring. Still with me?

NOW comes the hard part. With this image firmly etched on your eyeballs, you then scetch a stylizied version of it. Not a lot of detail - just a black brush-type outline (you know the effect you get with a brush where the thickness of the line varies). THAT requires talent. Give people the outline, and they should say [sickly sweet voice, babytalk almost] "Ooh, what a cuddly penguin, I bet he is just stuffed with herring", and small children will jump up and down and scream "mommy mommy, can I have one too?".

(of course I'm not sure why small children want herring)

If Operating Systems were Cars

MS-DOS
You get in the car and try to remember where you put the keys.
WINDOWS
You get in the car and drive to the store very slowly, because attached to the back of the car is a freight train.
MAC SYSTEM 7
You get in the car to go to the store and the car drives you to church.
UNIX
You get in the car and type GREP STORE. After reaching 2000 mph en route, you arrive at the barber's shop.
WINDOWS NT
You get in the car and write a letter that says 'go to the store'. Then you get out of the car and nail the letter to the dashboard.
TALIGENT/PINK
You walk to the store with Ricardo Montalban who tells you how wonderful it will be when he can fly you to the store in his Learjet.
OS/2
After fuelling up with 6000 gallons of gas you get in the car and drive to the store with a motorcycle escort and a marching band in procession. Halfway there, the car blows up, killing everyone in town.
S/36 SSP
You get in the car and drive to the store. Halfway there you run out of gas. While walking the rest of the way you are run over by kids on mopeds.
AS/400
An attendant kicks you into the car and then drives you to the store where you watch everyone else buy filets mignon.
From: Jim@oaknet.demon.co.uk (Jim)
RiscOS
You realise that what you needed was in the fridge anyway so settle down to a nice cool refreshing lunch watching Wimbledon instead of worrying about your car.
Home → Humour → Computing → Operating Systems
Web pages maintained by Adrian Hilton