If you’re finding yourself migration Subversion repositories to git, I highly recommend this article and accompanying scripts: http://blog.woobling.org/2009/06/git-svn-abandon.html

First off, here’s what worked for me:

Edit the file C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts (that’s the path in XP), and add a line matching the IP address of the server (computer that is hosting the multiuser access and files) with the Windows’ computer name of the server. For example, if the server’s name is my-serv and the IP address is 192.168.1.10, add the line:

192.168.1.10  my-serv

Now, to the background and other (hopefully useful) information.

I’ve been trying to setup Quickbooks for multiuser access, and it’s been a pain, but along the way, I’ve found some useful information and tools available from Intuit. Apparently, setting up multiuser access works fine often enough, but when it doesn’t, it’s a bit of a hunt to find out why.

Read the Guide

The first thing–which I wish I would have known about and done before any installation–is go to the Network/Multi-User Setups page on Intuit’s site, and read the Network Installation Guide for your version of Quickbooks. It gives useful information, such as that client computers should be installed as “One User” (at least in 2009 Premier), because apparently adding the line “Or this will be a client computer on a networked setup” was too much work. The Guide is very helpful.

But what if it doesn’t work? For me, I could open a file in Single User mode from the client, but to open it in multiuser mode from the client, I had to open the file on the server, switch to multiuser mode, and leave it open. Then I could open multiuser on the client (I think, in essence, it was defaulting to the “Alternative Setup”). Not optimal.

Download the Network Diagnostic Tool

Intuit has a Network Diagnostic Tool. It’s actually linked to on the above referenced page, but I missed it there and it’s not highlighted in the various searches I did. Download it and then click (on the download page) the “How to Use the Tool” tab. There’s not much in the way of “how do I fix this” information, or even explanations of what exactly some of the tests are checking for. But it’s a nice starting point.

What Worked for Me

The router at my office, for which I am responsible, is a Cisco DSL router, which apparently does weird things to DNS. I’ll admit that my being responsible for a router that I don’t understand is a WTF and obviously part of the problem, but is one of those unfortunate realities. Anyway, it occurred to me that maybe if I define the host name - IP address matching directly, that could help (some of the information in the console tab of the Network Diagnostic Tool got me thinking along these lines). In XP, that can be done by editing C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts (see the start of this entry). And it worked.

Ever since launching my poorly-planned website business (and perhaps before then), I’ve gone from one idea to another of websites that will make lots of money, and that–here’s the key–are not custom client sites. Because building custom sites is not my thing. I’m even working on one now. Although I have made a commitment to myself to stop (or at least back off) after this one, due out pretty soon. This intent will be helped by the forthcoming first child of my wife and I. The time for my silly business ideas is going to decrease significantly, I imagine.

Anywho, there’s no intended point to this article. Just rambling.

Part of the temptation is that of any “big deal”. If you can just do one, or two, or three, you’ll be set for life. And there are people who do it. Never mind that the odds of me being one of those people is rather low. Besides, being just set for a year or two is nothing to sneeze at, right? Right?

Another appeal for me is that websites are something I can do, on my own, in my spare time. Fortunately, I’ve finally realized that the really big websites rarely work that way, and even if they do, they turn into large, organized companies quickly if they’re really going to survive.

In the end, one of the biggest reasons for pursuing the next big website is that doing so justifies time spent on a hobby.

One of the things I particularly like about Financial Peace is the absence of “big deals” in the plan. You make a reasonable plan with some reasonable restrictions and investments and you just stick to it. But that’s not as fun is it? That doesn’t give the adrenaline rush. For me, being young, it’s easier to see Financial Peace as exciting because I can follow that plan to a very nice retirement.

I’d like to retire early, but, then, I don’t want to miss the years in between trying to get there. Especially when my wife and I have better investments than my crazy ideas and a bit of time.

I’m playing Minesweeper a lot these days. I know, classic Windows game. The one the haven’t yet messed up with an “Internet version”. Anyway, it’s a fun game, doesn’t take too long per game, although in sum, I can wile away many hours.

Complaint: I’m a big fan of resolution increases. I can fit more stuff on the screen, and it’s increasingly clear. The problem is that things keep getting physically smaller, which is particularly noticeable with the little cheesy games which are sensitive to click location. Say, Minesweeper. Also, websites (and no, I don’t particularly care IE7’s weird resizing thing. It ends up looking fuzzy. Of course, I avoid IE anyway).

So, what about per application/window resolution? Is this technically feasible? Obviously, it could be a pain for the user–“Hey, why is the menu bar in Word so much bigger”–but it could be very nice as well. I have my mouse reactions tuned to my normal state of work–bookkeeping and programming. I want quick movement not fine interactions, which doesn’t work so well in super-mini-looking Minesweeper.

General purpose typically means multiple purpose. But resolution settings tend to hope for one-size-fits-all. Of course, there’s probably many other solutions.

(With apologies to Slashdot user PitaBread, regarding the title)

I downgraded to Firefox 2 (download link). So, Guinness, you may want to subtract one from the download day.

Actually, Firefox 3 was pretty nice, mostly in that it did not initially cause me problems. Yes, the address bar’s being so helpful would have taken a bit to get used to, but user-friendliness seems to be inevitable in software. With time, I may have even liked it. But I may not get to find out. Why?

Bilinear filtering of images. Basically, Firefox tries to smooth out images when they’re not displayed at the file’s resolution. On the surface, this seems a good idea. In reality, it’s made my head hurt. Seriously. It’s like trying to watch a just barely out-of-focus movie. I’m not the only one who’s unimpressed. But, my big complaint is that there appears to be no way of turning this off. I’m trying to decide if that makes Firefox 3 more annoying or only just as annoying as Microsoft’s ribbons. I think more: the ribbons just piss me off, they don’t give me a headache. But, just like ribbons, there’s no off button. Then, again, I can downgrade Firefox for free, so maybe it’s a wash.

Anyway, I recommend adding a note at Hendrix, Mozilla’s feedback site, for anyone else who doesn’t care for this “feature”.