But on the devices that mean something to me, I'm
not willing to risk ending
up with a dead box just so I can 'learn something' by potentially farking it
And that, I think, is where we differ. I _always_ want to understand what
goes on inside the device. If that means risking said device, well, I'll
do that. Of course I don't do things I do will do permanent damage, like
cutting the tops off working ICs or hybrid modules, but I can and will
take things apart.
up. I'd rather have someone who knows something
about the device help with/do
those kinds of repairs, especially if they're easily available. That's not
laziness or ennui, that's pragmatism. I can learn on lesser devices.
YEs, you learn on lesser devices in order to fix the rare one.
Please correct me, but what I perceived you to say loudly and clearly was that
the original poster should go ahead and 'learn something' by disassembling
the lock on a machine that means something to him, something that could
potentially render the machine inoperable if he extracts the lock wrong, or
messes up with pins, or goodness knows. He can learn to re-pin a lock with
I will admit I've never seen the machine in question, but surely this
lock (a) locks the cabinent and (b) operates various contacts
(microswitches?). And nothing more
Function (a) is not too important in a hacker's machine room. And if all
else fails, function (b) could be replaced by other switches wired
correctly (and it really shouldn't be beyond anybody to work out how to
do this!).
Unless this lock is seriously weird, if you remove all the pins and
springs, it will turn with anything that will engage with the keyway --
like a screwdriver. You could refit the lock without pins and use it like
that I think.
-tony