main

main@lists.alug.org.uk

10364 discussions

Administrivia: Digest bug
by Mark J Ray 16 Jul '99

16 Jul '99

Another digest bug has been laid to rest. Messages should now appear in the digest in the same order as they appeared on the main list. (Slight logic error in the sort function used.) Another bug is laid to rest. MJR "My other incarnation has a mohican" [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECTs of "unsubscribe alug" and "subscribe alug-announce" ] [ to listserver(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

1 0

Re: [alug] Test
by John Woodard 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

It's your aftershave! :-)) ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark J Ray <h089(a)mth.uea.ac.uk> To: <alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 3:08 PM Subject: [alug] Test > Sorry, I think the list may be ignoring me and I'm trying to > find out why. > -- > MJR > Stats Postgrad mailto:h089@mth.uea.ac.uk http://stats.mth.uea.ac.uk/ > UEA Norwich UK mailto:markj@stu.uea.ac.uk http://www.stu.uea.ac.uk/ > > [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] > [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] > [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] > [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ] > > > [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

1 0

I have sound!
by John Woodard 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

* List: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk At ALUG2 I was moaning about my difficulties with the Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live beta drivers in RH6. I'm really please to say that I have managed to get the damn thing to work. In the beta driver rename sblive.o-2.2.5 to sblive.o-2.2.5-15(or currently installed kernel version RH6 comes with 2.2.5-15) it's read only so you need to change the permissions (don't forget to change them back). In the install_sblive script change the line that reads `V2=2.2.5' to 'V2=2.2.5-15' (or what ever kernel version you are using). Run the amended install_sblive script with ./install_sblive. Modify the /etc/conf.modules file so it reads alias sound sblive pre-install sblive insmod soundcore post-remove sblive rmmod soundcore install sblive insmod -f sblive some of this will already be present from the install script. The line 'install sblive insmod -f sblive' forces the module to load even though its not the correct kernel version. I'm really pleased with myself, my first battle with Linux and I've come out on top. :-) Regards, BJ [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

3 3

Re: [alug] Test
by Laurie Brown 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

Mark J Ray wrote: > > Sorry, I think the list may be ignoring me and I'm trying to > find out why. We're ALL ignoring you! Cheers, Laurie. [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

2 1

Re: [ALUG] Obvious plug <g> (fwd)
by Andrew Savory 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

(resent due to problems with the list....) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:17:54 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Savory <s010(a)uea.ac.uk> Reply-To: Andrew Savory <A.Savory(a)uea.ac.uk> To: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Obvious plug <g> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Mark J Ray wrote: > On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 03:54:05PM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote: > > > To place a GUI abstraction on this and expect it > > > to cope with everything is a wrong turn. > > No, it's not. > > Yes it is. Why? I personally think if we can't have a single configuration point that is GUI-based, we are doomed (from the point of view of getting less able users to shift to nux). > > If the underlying config files are ordered and structured sensibly, it > > should not be a problem. And quite frankly, a GUI interface is often far, > > far easier for novice users than hacking a text file. > > No, you're talking about a GUI interface (== A Good Thing), > while I was talking about a Control-Panel like GUI obstruction. Something of a pointless distinction. Obviously, a GUI interface that is obstructive is going to be worse than useless (aka Windows). But if it's done properly, I see no valid arguments against it. > Not in general use, perhaps, but if you want to do something > more complicated than an iMac can do, prepare to learn. Okay, at this point it would be useful to define the user. I'm thinking of the clueless newbie who quite frankly won't want to do more complicated tasks, and certainly won't want to type obscure commands into an even more obscure command line interface. > You, madam, are talking nonsense. Complexity *is* what the > user wants, although only the brave admit it. That is possibly the daftest thing I've ever heard. The last thing the average clueless newbie wants is rafts of complexity. To be honest, I think even advanced users would be happy with simplicity - who really relishes the prospect of delving through layers of text files etc to set things up? > Flexibility breeds complexity. Accessibility > provides a natural brake on it. Flexibility may indeed breed complexity, but the truly smart system should hide this from the user. Saying accessibility provides a brake is to unfairly segregate the IT-rich from the IT-poor : why should those with less IT knowledge than us not use the same systems as us? > No-one can really say that using one of the current generation of > distribution-supplied configuration tools really helps you to make a > start on manual configuration. Sorry, I disagree. I've used RedHat's GUI config tools before to provide me with a working skeleton that I can then modify to suit myself. Often quicker than ploughing through man pages to find the information I need. > Is this, a family of completely dissimilar distribution-, release- and > even system-specific fundamental tools where you want to go? Of course not. What I'd like to see is a common format for all config files, and then a set of configuration tools to sit on top of that - written to be as cross-distribution and cross-platform as possible. > is a tool that uses this structure and puts nicer interfaces on > the parts it knows about, while still allowing you to hack it > directly if needed. It could even adapt to config file formats > it doesn't understand, as far as possible. Sounds like WebMin to me (http://www.webmin.com/webmin/). > Now please make some attempt at thinking my points through > before responding, instead of just flaming at random prejudices > and misunderstandings, else the list's Signal-Noise ratio is > doomed. Random hyperbole won't help your case, Mr Ray. Although I agree that your original email was full of random prejudices and misunderstandings ;-) Andrew. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.Savory at uea.ac.uk All views are my own - who else would want them? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

2 1

Re: Obvious plug <g>
by James Green 06 Jul '99

06 Jul '99

Resent per error on list: On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Mark J Ray wrote: > * List: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk > > On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 03:54:05PM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote: > > > To place a GUI abstraction on this and expect it > > > to cope with everything is a wrong turn. > > No, it's not. > > Yes it is. No it's not ;-) > > If the underlying config files are ordered and structured sensibly, it > > should not be a problem. And quite frankly, a GUI interface is often far, > > far easier for novice users than hacking a text file. > > No, you're talking about a GUI interface (== A Good Thing), > while I was talking about a Control-Panel like GUI obstruction. Either way, GUIs, when implemented properly, work to effectively limit the damage a user can do be presenting him/her with a set of possible options, rather then risk them typing things in where they should not, or even walking around in the dark not knowing where to start. > > I don't see why you should have to understand the structure of the system. > > Not in general use, perhaps, but if you want to do something > more complicated than an iMac can do, prepare to learn. In a proper GUI, you should only need to enter the relevant section for what you want, or be asked. > > > for concealment of the complexity (in the quoted paragraph) is to argue > > > against Linux. > > You, sir, are talking nonsense. If to argue for concealment of complexity > > is to argue against Linux, why then are almost all the major distributions > > trying to do just that? Take RedHat, with their extensive GUI config tools > > (for better or for worse). Take Debian, with their extensive package > > management system. All attempts to make things less complex for the end > > user. Why? Because at the end of the day, complexity is not what the end > > user wants. Accessibility, flexibility and stability is what it's all > > about. > > You, madam, are talking nonsense. Complexity *is* what the > user wants, although only the brave admit it. What's the first > thing a sane user does when contemplating the install? Looks > to make sure that most (all?) of their hardware is supported. 1. Define "sane" in terms of a computer user. 2. I don't remember the last time someone asked me if their hardware was compatible with Windows or any other OS for that matter, they assume so. > If it doesn't support their super-widget-drive 2935, they don't > install. Flexibility breeds complexity. Accessibility > provides a natural brake on it. Correct. > What is done by most distributions is not concealment of the > underlying system, for it is still accessible when you need to > do something not forseen by the config tool admins. No-one can > really say that using one of the current generation of > distribution-supplied configuration tools really helps you to > make a start on manual configuration. Is this, a family of > completely dissimilar distribution-, release- and even > system-specific fundamental tools where you want to go? Well, > that's your choice. As soon as it moves to try concealment (as > RedHat's *cfg tools look as if they will soon try), you make a > lot of enemies, including me. > > What is needed, now that we're starting to get the FHS kicking > in and a regular structure for configuration files under /etc, > is a tool that uses this structure and puts nicer interfaces on > the parts it knows about, while still allowing you to hack it > directly if needed. It could even adapt to config file formats > it doesn't understand, as far as possible. Quite. It needs to have properties of AI in that sense. > Now please make some attempt at thinking my points through > before responding, instead of just flaming at random prejudices > and misunderstandings, else the list's Signal-Noise ratio is > doomed. Point is, the average user, ime, doesn't want to know about hardware or configuation tools. They just want it at the level of abstration they can understand, and for it to work. When this isn't available, they call in the spotty kid next door. Windows, imo, has done a good attempt at producing configuration tools for particular jobs. Unfortunately, when it doesn't work, it general has dire consequences, and since the registry isn't a dream to administer, the average user is doomed to reinstallion and that, in the words of Microsoft themselves, increases the "TCO". James. [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

2 1

Obvious plug <g>
by James Green 04 Jul '99

04 Jul '99

* List: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk Hey all, I forgot I even did this: "Looking forward to the New Dawn" http://linuxtoday.com/stories/7362.html Heh, it actually got published :0) Whaddaya think? James Green. [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

4 5

Re: [ALUG] I have sound!
by John Woodard 02 Jul '99

02 Jul '99

* List: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: Martyn B. Drake <martyn.drake(a)anglian.lug.org.uk> To: <alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [ALUG] I have sound! /snip > Going to get my new SoundBlaster PCI128 to work tonight. It's interesting > to note that these things are not Creative cards, but rather Ensoniq. All > in all, I'm a little disapointed with it in a Windows environment. Is the > Live card any good? /snip All I can say is that it is the nearest thing to hifi I have ever come across in a computer. The 4 speaker 'Environmental Audio' is fun (not really bothered if they ever get that bit working in Linux) but just the front signals injected into a half decent hifi system is nothing short of stunning! Regards, BJ [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

1 0

Kernel install?
by John Woodard 02 Jul '99

02 Jul '99

* List: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk Sorry about all these newbie questions, I really ought to post them on uk.comp.os.linux, but it seems a little more personal asking you good people. After a few re-installs of RH6 after installing a new kernel I thought I'd ask where I was going wrong. This is what I've done so far: cd /usr/src<ENTER> "obvious what this does" mv linux linux.old<ENTER> "rename my old linux directory which is actually a symbolic link to a directory named linux-2.2.5-15?" tar xzf *path*/linux-2.2.10.tar.gz<ENTER> "recursively untar and ungzip a directory named linux under the current directory" cd linux<ENTER> "obvious" make config *or menuconfig/xconfig*<ENTER> "using the howto for guidance - sensible" make dep<ENTER> "dependancies?? - don't really understand this" make clean<ENTER> "cleans up the config file? - not sure" make bzImage<ENTER> "compiles a compressed binary image - I think?" make modules<ENTER> "not sure got this of a newsgroup" make modules_install<ENTER> "as above could be dangerous?" "this is where I start to get confused!" cp /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/vmlinuz<ENTER> "copy my new compressed binary image to the path in my lilo.conf which is another symbolic link to an image file named vmlinuz-2.2.5-15 don't know if this is significant?" lilo -v<ENTER> "run lilo in verbose mode to load it?" reboot *or shutdown -r now*<ENTER> "obvious" I now get errors on boot up telling me that bootmap?? or something similar points to the wrong kernal version and some other errors which I can't remember (not a great deal of help that I know :-} ) lots of red text though! My screen scrolls too quickly to pick up what these errors are is there a log file somewhere? Can any of you good folks confirm that my understanding of what is going on is either correct (unlikely), total crap (more likely) or go post this to alt.linux.newbies-come-here-to-be-ridiculed (highly likely). :-) Regards, BJ [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

3 3

Scanners in Linux
by John Woodard 01 Jul '99

01 Jul '99

* List: alug(a)stu.uea.ac.uk Has anybody had any experience with flatbed scanners in Linux My cheapo parallel port jobbie won't work in a real OS so I'm going to replace it with a nice shiny new one. I'm thinking about a scsi model, because I think I read somewhere that they are more likely to work in Linux. Any ideas on which scanners work in Linux or which to avoid and is there a Linux equivalent to TWAIN? I'm only looking for a low end A4 device for general photos and OCR stuff, not too expensive around 150.00 is my limit. Regards, BJ [ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce(a)stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]

3 3

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

main