Linux Grub bootloader harddisk UUID inanity

I spent the last couple of hours figuring out why my Ubuntu machine was not booting. Everything was fine...and then I removed a backup IDE hard-disk to place in my safe deposit box. Rebooted to remove it and then uhg....hang...then an initramfs. My Linux skills are rusty. WTF is initramfs? Oh yeah, low-level initialization and startup stuff that I don't want to know about. Super. So....UUID are supposed to make life easier by using a unique identifier for each device. However, it doesn't work like it should and the unique identifier is unique alright...unique to the machine and apparently impermanent as well, making the whole concept.....worthless. I personally can't tell one long sequence of hexadecimal from another. Meaningless noise. The old system of using simple cryptic names like /dev/sda1 etc. worked just fine and if there was a boot problem I could diagnose it by determining if my partitions had changed names (which they shouldn't, ever, but do and is thus a reason for UUID). Ending up at the initramfs prompt can be caused by lots of things that I don't really care to concern myself with. One of them is having incorrect boot parameters as specified in the /boot/grub/menu.lst.

So the fix was easy...just not documented in the startup or identified by the non-error-like weirdness of ending up with a non-bootable system only because a stupid machine-unique-id was rendered incorrect due to some inanity in IDE versus SCSI devices. Basically, at the Grub menu, hit ESC and edit the boot command for the kernel that you'd like to use. Where it reads root=UUID=somelongsequenceofhex just remove the UUID=somemachinereadablebullshit and replace it with the partition that you know contains the boot partition. In my case this was /dev/sda2 so it reads something like root=/dev/sda2. If you don't know your boot partition, boot off of a Linux distro CD, get a command shell, look at your /proc/partitions file and figure it out. Knoppix is good for that, or use your distro CD. I've got 2 raid arrays with 5 disks each and 2 IDE disks. I can spot my root disk solely based on partition size.

Once you've got the right boot command your system will then boot normally, like it should have done to begin with. Run the blkid command on your boot partition to retrieve its machine-unique-id and replace the invalid UUIDs in your /boot/grub/menu.lst file. You also need to change /etc/fstab to reflect the apparently random UUID changes. That was a complete waste of time, but now your Linux system will boot without being poked and prodded.

I really, really love Linux. I love the philosophy of open-source and I love the feeling of personal power that I have knowing that I can (and do) modify my system to my liking from the ground up. But I don't like arbitrary bullshit. Proprietary or open-source, it doesn't matter. These things should work...flawlessly...autonomously... My boot partition didn't fucking move, change, or disappear. The magic fucking 8-ball that Grub is using just gave the wrong answer even though the game itself is rigged.  Damn it.  Don't play games with my time.

• http://www.webdav.org/specs/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt


• http://wolfger.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/ubuntu-and-uuid/


• http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/short-tip-get-uuid-of-hard-disks/

The problem with representation in technical language

I was having an enjoyable and extended leave-of-absence from academics for about 5 years. My day job didn't interfere much with my nights and weekends and I really felt that nearly everything that I did had a purpose. Whether this be software development, project management, basic research for my employer, or weekends spent bent on bringing about my own ingenious schemes.

Now that I have returned to academics, I realize that not much has changed in the last few years. It is great to have guides to navigate the enormous amount of material latent within any discipline. I generally enjoy lectures and enjoy the material presented (depending upon the format).

However, there are several things that I don't enjoy.

Particularly, I despise convoluted explanations for simple phenomena. Regardless of the field, the intent of specialized, specific language is make concepts more precise. Gaining this precision compromises generality and has a negative impact on nascent minds. But much of the use of specialized language is conjured out of no more than habit or expectations of academic precedence. Precision is fine, jargon for the sake of jargon is not.  This is done in corporate and government environments ad nauseam.  I shouldn't have to put up with it when doing science.

All precise terms should be succinctly and generically defined wherever they are used. A fundamental problem with the definitions provided for many terms is that they self-referentially depend on other precise terms. For the nascent learner, this is unacceptable. One cannot learn these terms without building conceptual context into which they fit and this won't happen if terms are defined outside of the context of shared human experience. For example: Eigenfunction is a complex sounding German derived word that simply means 'characteristic function'. These characteristic functions along with 'characteristic values' uniquely define a space, allowing all points within the space to be referenced using combinations of the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.  The reason for the complex-sounding German word is that it is precise.  Mathematics is rife with specialized language.  So are many fields, but some are more sensible than others. Some leverage metaphor, common English, and broad cultural knowledge.  Whereas others seem to be completely unaware of the value of sensible representation.  My criticisms are straightforward:

1. a specialized language is a barrier to learning, understanding, and retention
2. little account of human cognition is considered in the design of technical language

3. technical languages are generally ill-conceived through a process of ad-hoc conglomeration

4. we have adequate knowledge of human cognition to design superior specialized languages

5. I am expected to 'deal with it' as part of the cost of acquiring new technical knowledge

This is unacceptable.  Quite simply, we need to rethink our approach and revise our technical language representations using a consistent approach having a scientific basis.  We must consider aspects of human cognition and human vision.  We must designing our technical languages (just as programming languages are designed) to take advantage of the human mind (just as programming languages take advantage of computing hardware).  

We must do this soon.  If not, the expanse of time (think 10's of thousands of years) will relegate all but the most obvious technical wizardry of today to the domain of the anthropologist.