Prob w/ virtual terminals - Setup

This is a discussion on Prob w/ virtual terminals - Setup ; I am running Ubuntu 7.10 on an IBM ThinkCentre and am unable to invoke a virtual terminal from the GUI; all I get is a blank screen, although I can return to the GUI with ctrl-alt-f7. I think it may ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: Prob w/ virtual terminals

  1. Prob w/ virtual terminals

    I am running Ubuntu 7.10 on an IBM ThinkCentre and am unable to invoke
    a virtual terminal from the GUI; all I get is a blank screen, although
    I can return to the GUI with ctrl-alt-f7. I think it may be a Ubuntu
    bug having to do with framebuffers but am unable to get any good info
    from the Ubu people. Can anyone provide info or some fix?
    TIA

    Geoffrey

  2. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:
    > I am running Ubuntu 7.10 on an IBM ThinkCentre and am unable to invoke
    > a virtual terminal from the GUI; all I get is a blank screen, although
    > I can return to the GUI with ctrl-alt-f7. I think it may be a Ubuntu
    > bug having to do with framebuffers but am unable to get any good info
    > from the Ubu people. Can anyone provide info or some fix?
    > TIA
    >
    > Geoffrey



    Do you mean getting a console, a tty, by doing, for example:

    ctrl-alt-f2?

    You expect a bash login prompt like this:

    Welcome to Linux 2.6....

    login: _

    ??

    If so, that would be configured in /etc/inittab with a
    line like this:

    c2:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty2 linux

    I don't see what framebuffers would have to do with it,
    though I suppose you could be right.

    But I suspect that the screen isn't entirely blank, that
    there is a flashing cursor in the upper left hand corner,
    and that the problem is that you just aren't running agetty
    there.

    Hopefully, editing /etc/inittab and rebooting will solve your
    problem.

    Here's the complete section of that file from my box:

    # These are the standard console login getties in multiuser mode:
    c1:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty1 linux
    c2:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty2 linux
    #c3:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty3 linux
    #c4:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty4 linux
    #c5:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty5 linux
    #c6:12345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty6 linux

    I startx from tty1, and it runs on tty3, and I only run one
    VT besides those.

    Slackware here, but that's pretty universal. Not sure about
    the "c1" etc., but the "12345" refer to runlevels.


    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  3. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Tom Newton wrote:
    | On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:
    |> I am running Ubuntu 7.10 on an IBM ThinkCentre and am unable to invoke
    |> a virtual terminal from the GUI; all I get is a blank screen, although
    |> I can return to the GUI with ctrl-alt-f7. I think it may be a Ubuntu
    |> bug having to do with framebuffers but am unable to get any good info
    |> from the Ubu people. Can anyone provide info or some fix?
    |> TIA
    |>
    |> Geoffrey
    |
    |
    | Do you mean getting a console, a tty, by doing, for example:
    |
    | ctrl-alt-f2?
    |
    | You expect a bash login prompt like this:
    |
    | Welcome to Linux 2.6....
    |
    | login: _
    |
    | ??
    |
    | If so, that would be configured in /etc/inittab with a
    | line like this:
    |
    | c2:1235:respawn:/sbin/agetty 38400 tty2 linux
    |
    | I don't see what framebuffers would have to do with it,
    | though I suppose you could be right.
    |
    | But I suspect that the screen isn't entirely blank, that
    | there is a flashing cursor in the upper left hand corner,
    | and that the problem is that you just aren't running agetty
    | there.
    |
    | Hopefully, editing /etc/inittab and rebooting will solve your
    | problem.

    I thought the same thing, until I fired up my Ubuntu-powered laptop to take a
    look. /did/ take me to a prompt, though, so something isn't
    entirely right in the OP's setup.

    While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it appears that Ubuntu
    doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all. Instead, it uses scripts in the
    /etc/event.d directory to manage the process. The OP should check that the
    scripts /etc/event.d/tty[1-6] exist, and contain the requisite
    ~ exec /sbin/getty 38400 tty?
    line, along with the rest of the wrapper script.

    FWIW, Canonical replaced the usual init(8) with one of their own; telinit
    (which is a hardlink to init) returns
    ~ telininit (upstart 0.3.8)
    ~ Copyright (C) 2007 Canonical Ltd.
    when I execute "telinit --version" on my Ubuntu system.


    [snip]

    - --
    Lew Pitcher

    Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
    http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
    - ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Armoured with GnuPG

    iD8DBQFHyJdgagVFX4UWr64RAo0sAKCrvpdMGUJh/ByWPWDe+fuyixCHOACgzwCB
    6/qzyK/eqqElX6SsULe5R/4=
    =kdk6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  4. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-02-29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >
    > Tom Newton wrote:
    >| On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:




    >| Hopefully, editing /etc/inittab and rebooting will solve your
    >| problem.
    >
    > I thought the same thing, until I fired up my Ubuntu-powered
    > laptop to take a look. /did/ take me to a
    > prompt, though, so something isn't entirely right in the OP's
    > setup.
    >
    > While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it
    > appears that Ubuntu doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all.
    > Instead, it uses scripts in the /etc/event.d directory to
    > manage the process. The OP should check that the scripts
    > /etc/event.d/tty[1-6] exist, and contain the requisite ~ exec
    > /sbin/getty 38400 tty? line, along with the rest of the wrapper
    > script.


    Thanks for that, Lew.

    The above changes that Ubuntu has made bother me. It's like a
    car manufacturer altering a standard part with a tried and true
    design just to force its customers to buy only its parts.

    In this case, to phone only its technical support people...

    I will not be recommending Ubuntu to anyone in the future.

    >
    > FWIW, Canonical replaced the usual init(8) with one of their
    > own; telinit (which is a hardlink to init) returns ~ telininit
    > (upstart 0.3.8) ~ Copyright (C) 2007 Canonical Ltd. when I
    > execute "telinit --version" on my Ubuntu system.


    Arrrggggghh! Effing Business is turning Linux into a tower
    of babel. At this rate it won't be long before all the
    standard docs are useless and tldp will just have to close
    its doors!

    I was at the xine site the other day. They no longer offer
    technical support but refer users to their distros.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com

  5. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-02-29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >> Tom Newton wrote:
    >> | On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >> | Hopefully, editing /etc/inittab and rebooting will solve your
    >> | problem.
    >>
    >> I thought the same thing, until I fired up my Ubuntu-powered
    >> laptop to take a look. /did/ take me to a
    >> prompt, though, so something isn't entirely right in the OP's
    >> setup.
    >>
    >> While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it
    >> appears that Ubuntu doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all.
    >> Instead, it uses scripts in the /etc/event.d directory to
    >> manage the process. The OP should check that the scripts
    >> /etc/event.d/tty[1-6] exist, and contain the requisite ~ exec
    >> /sbin/getty 38400 tty? line, along with the rest of the wrapper
    >> script.

    >
    > Thanks for that, Lew.
    >
    > The above changes that Ubuntu has made bother me. It's like a
    > car manufacturer altering a standard part with a tried and true
    > design just to force its customers to buy only its parts.


    Well, that standard part has some serious flaws. If Dan Bernstein's layout and
    licensing hadn't been insane, for years, I'd suggest most systems use his
    daemontools, because they solve the inittab configuration problem in similar
    ways. This kind of switchover occurred years ago with changing /etc/inetd.conf
    to /etc/xinetd.d/, and some folks didn't like it, but the new layout was
    seriously superior.

    > In this case, to phone only its technical support people...
    >
    > I will not be recommending Ubuntu to anyone in the future.
    >
    >> FWIW, Canonical replaced the usual init(8) with one of their
    >> own; telinit (which is a hardlink to init) returns ~ telininit
    >> (upstart 0.3.8) ~ Copyright (C) 2007 Canonical Ltd. when I
    >> execute "telinit --version" on my Ubuntu system.

    >
    > Arrrggggghh! Effing Business is turning Linux into a tower
    > of babel. At this rate it won't be long before all the
    > standard docs are useless and tldp will just have to close
    > its doors!


    Oh, I wouldn't worry about that one. It's certainly not unusual to tweak the
    copyright notices for stuff you modify and rebundle. As long as they publish
    it under GPL or similar licensing, I see no issue there.

    > I was at the xine site the other day. They no longer offer
    > technical support but refer users to their distros.
    >
    > Tom
    >


    Now that's interesting.

  6. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Tom Newton wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >>> Tom Newton wrote:
    >>> | On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> | Hopefully, editing /etc/inittab and rebooting will solve your
    >>> | problem.
    >>>
    >>> I thought the same thing, until I fired up my Ubuntu-powered
    >>> laptop to take a look. /did/ take me to a
    >>> prompt, though, so something isn't entirely right in the OP's
    >>> setup.
    >>>
    >>> While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it
    >>> appears that Ubuntu doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all.
    >>> Instead, it uses scripts in the /etc/event.d directory to
    >>> manage the process. The OP should check that the scripts
    >>> /etc/event.d/tty[1-6] exist, and contain the requisite ~ exec
    >>> /sbin/getty 38400 tty? line, along with the rest of the wrapper
    >>> script.

    >>
    >> Thanks for that, Lew.
    >>
    >> The above changes that Ubuntu has made bother me. It's like a
    >> car manufacturer altering a standard part with a tried and true
    >> design just to force its customers to buy only its parts.

    >
    > Well, that standard part has some serious flaws. If Dan Bernstein's layout and
    > licensing hadn't been insane, for years, I'd suggest most systems use his
    > daemontools, because they solve the inittab configuration problem in similar
    > ways. This kind of switchover occurred years ago with changing /etc/inetd.conf
    > to /etc/xinetd.d/, and some folks didn't like it, but the new layout was
    > seriously superior.
    >
    >> In this case, to phone only its technical support people...
    >>
    >> I will not be recommending Ubuntu to anyone in the future.
    >>
    >>> FWIW, Canonical replaced the usual init(8) with one of their
    >>> own; telinit (which is a hardlink to init) returns ~ telininit
    >>> (upstart 0.3.8) ~ Copyright (C) 2007 Canonical Ltd. when I
    >>> execute "telinit --version" on my Ubuntu system.

    >>
    >> Arrrggggghh! Effing Business is turning Linux into a tower
    >> of babel. At this rate it won't be long before all the
    >> standard docs are useless and tldp will just have to close
    >> its doors!

    >
    > Oh, I wouldn't worry about that one. It's certainly not unusual to tweak the
    > copyright notices for stuff you modify and rebundle. As long as they publish
    > it under GPL or similar licensing, I see no issue there.
    >
    >> I was at the xine site the other day. They no longer offer
    >> technical support but refer users to their distros.
    >>
    >> Tom
    >>

    >
    > Now that's interesting.


    And so is your article here. But I am still worried. Between
    KDE/Gnome, etc., becoming the standard user interface, patched
    kernels, and the above issues I referred to, as well as the
    unnecessary proliferation of redundant scripting languages, Linux
    _is_ becoming a "tower of babel".

    I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring up a
    full editor on the current commandline in bash's vi editing
    mode...? I've gone through the readline manual with a fine tooth
    comb. ^X-^E is supposed to work, but doesn't.

    And while I'm off the wall, here's a very useful thing I picked
    up a while back. Making your prompt bold so that it's easy to
    pick it out of other text on the screen. For your /etc/profile or
    ~/.profile or ~/.bashrc.

    (I run slack so I don't know what the system configuration file
    for bash is in the other distros.)

    export PS1='ESC[1m\u@\h:\w\$ESC[0m'

    The "ESC" is made with vi-type editors with:

    Ctrl-v-[

    Don't know how it's done with other editors.

    You can put whatever standard prompt elements between the ANSI
    escape sequences (ESC[1m and ESC[0m (begin bold and end bold))
    you want. See man bash.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  7. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> Tom Newton wrote:
    >>> On 2008-02-29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >>>> Tom Newton wrote:
    >>>> | On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> | Hopefully, editing /etc/inittab and rebooting will solve your
    >>>> | problem.
    >>>>
    >>>> I thought the same thing, until I fired up my Ubuntu-powered
    >>>> laptop to take a look. /did/ take me to a
    >>>> prompt, though, so something isn't entirely right in the OP's
    >>>> setup.
    >>>>
    >>>> While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it
    >>>> appears that Ubuntu doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all.
    >>>> Instead, it uses scripts in the /etc/event.d directory to
    >>>> manage the process. The OP should check that the scripts
    >>>> /etc/event.d/tty[1-6] exist, and contain the requisite ~ exec
    >>>> /sbin/getty 38400 tty? line, along with the rest of the wrapper
    >>>> script.
    >>> Thanks for that, Lew.
    >>>
    >>> The above changes that Ubuntu has made bother me. It's like a
    >>> car manufacturer altering a standard part with a tried and true
    >>> design just to force its customers to buy only its parts.

    >> Well, that standard part has some serious flaws. If Dan Bernstein's layout and
    >> licensing hadn't been insane, for years, I'd suggest most systems use his
    >> daemontools, because they solve the inittab configuration problem in similar
    >> ways. This kind of switchover occurred years ago with changing /etc/inetd.conf
    >> to /etc/xinetd.d/, and some folks didn't like it, but the new layout was
    >> seriously superior.
    >>
    >>> In this case, to phone only its technical support people...
    >>>
    >>> I will not be recommending Ubuntu to anyone in the future.
    >>>
    >>>> FWIW, Canonical replaced the usual init(8) with one of their
    >>>> own; telinit (which is a hardlink to init) returns ~ telininit
    >>>> (upstart 0.3.8) ~ Copyright (C) 2007 Canonical Ltd. when I
    >>>> execute "telinit --version" on my Ubuntu system.
    >>> Arrrggggghh! Effing Business is turning Linux into a tower
    >>> of babel. At this rate it won't be long before all the
    >>> standard docs are useless and tldp will just have to close
    >>> its doors!

    >> Oh, I wouldn't worry about that one. It's certainly not unusual to tweak the
    >> copyright notices for stuff you modify and rebundle. As long as they publish
    >> it under GPL or similar licensing, I see no issue there.
    >>
    >>> I was at the xine site the other day. They no longer offer
    >>> technical support but refer users to their distros.
    >>>
    >>> Tom
    >>>

    >> Now that's interesting.

    >
    > And so is your article here. But I am still worried. Between
    > KDE/Gnome, etc., becoming the standard user interface, patched
    > kernels, and the above issues I referred to, as well as the
    > unnecessary proliferation of redundant scripting languages, Linux
    > _is_ becoming a "tower of babel".


    Well, yes. Welcome to Linux: check your expectation of overall consistency at
    the door.

    > I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring up a
    > full editor on the current commandline in bash's vi editing
    > mode...? I've gone through the readline manual with a fine tooth
    > comb. ^X-^E is supposed to work, but doesn't.


    Heh. No idea, I'm an Emacs user from way, way, way back before it was popular.

    > And while I'm off the wall, here's a very useful thing I picked
    > up a while back. Making your prompt bold so that it's easy to
    > pick it out of other text on the screen. For your /etc/profile or
    > ~/.profile or ~/.bashrc.
    >
    > (I run slack so I don't know what the system configuration file
    > for bash is in the other distros.)
    >
    > export PS1='ESC[1m\u@\h:\w\$ESC[0m'


    Where such settings go is a religious argument, and a long-term nasty. I like
    setting them up for all users by dropping files in /etc/profile.d/.

  8. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Tom Newton wrote:
    >> On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>> Tom Newton wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-02-29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >>>>> Tom Newton wrote:
    >>>>> | On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:
    >>>>


    >>> Now that's interesting.

    >>
    >> And so is your article here. But I am still worried. Between
    >> KDE/Gnome, etc., becoming the standard user interface, patched
    >> kernels, and the above issues I referred to, as well as the
    >> unnecessary proliferation of redundant scripting languages, Linux
    >> _is_ becoming a "tower of babel".

    >
    > Well, yes. Welcome to Linux: check your expectation of overall consistency at
    > the door.


    It would be best, in my not-so-humble opinion, if there was standardization
    in the base systems. Let the variations exist in the superficials.

    I guess the FSHS is obsolete now, or will be soon :-(

    >
    >> I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring up a
    >> full editor on the current commandline in bash's vi editing
    >> mode...? I've gone through the readline manual with a fine tooth
    >> comb. ^X-^E is supposed to work, but doesn't.

    >
    > Heh. No idea, I'm an Emacs user from way, way, way back before it was popular.


    The dread Emacs!

    The editor (there really is still one in there somewhere, I am told) from
    the satanic forges of the evil dwarves of Mordor.

    :-)

    This is about ed, but ed is a precursor of vi, and it's very funny. I'm
    sure you've seen it:

    http://dreamcode.org/

    The references to emacs are right on....

    ;-)

    To the newbies: If you have never tried to use ed before, before
    checking out that site above, go to an xterm or the like and
    bring up a file in ed:

    ed

    Then you'll understand the webpage.

    ROTFLMAO!


    >
    >> And while I'm off the wall, here's a very useful thing I picked
    >> up a while back. Making your prompt bold so that it's easy to
    >> pick it out of other text on the screen. For your /etc/profile or
    >> ~/.profile or ~/.bashrc.
    >>
    >> (I run slack so I don't know what the system configuration file
    >> for bash is in the other distros.)
    >>
    >> export PS1='ESC[1m\u@\h:\w\$ESC[0m'

    >
    > Where such settings go is a religious argument, and a long-term nasty.


    Like the eternal war between vi and emacs?

    ROTFL

    > I like setting them up for all users by dropping files in
    > /etc/profile.d/.


    Is that universal (or something like it)? Got it here in slack.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  9. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On Mar 1, 7:33 am, Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Tom Newton wrote:
    > >> On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > >>> Tom Newton wrote:
    > >>>> On 2008-02-29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
    > >>>>> Tom Newton wrote:
    > >>>>> | On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:

    >
    >
    > >>> Now that's interesting.

    >
    > >> And so is your article here. But I am still worried. Between
    > >> KDE/Gnome, etc., becoming the standard user interface, patched
    > >> kernels, and the above issues I referred to, as well as the
    > >> unnecessary proliferation of redundant scripting languages, Linux
    > >> _is_ becoming a "tower of babel".

    >
    > > Well, yes. Welcome to Linux: check your expectation of overall consistency at
    > > the door.

    >
    > It would be best, in my not-so-humble opinion, if there was standardization
    > in the base systems. Let the variations exist in the superficials.
    >
    > I guess the FSHS is obsolete now, or will be soon :-(
    >
    >
    >
    > >> I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring up a
    > >> full editor on the current commandline in bash's vi editing
    > >> mode...? I've gone through the readline manual with a fine tooth
    > >> comb. ^X-^E is supposed to work, but doesn't.

    >
    > > Heh. No idea, I'm an Emacs user from way, way, way back before it was popular.

    >
    > The dread Emacs!
    >
    > The editor (there really is still one in there somewhere, I am told) from
    > the satanic forges of the evil dwarves of Mordor.
    >
    > :-)
    >
    > This is about ed, but ed is a precursor of vi, and it's very funny. I'm
    > sure you've seen it:
    >
    > http://dreamcode.org/
    >
    > The references to emacs are right on....
    >
    > ;-)
    >
    > To the newbies: If you have never tried to use ed before, before
    > checking out that site above, go to an xterm or the like and
    > bring up a file in ed:
    >
    > ed
    >
    > Then you'll understand the webpage.
    >
    > ROTFLMAO!
    >
    >
    >
    > >> And while I'm off the wall, here's a very useful thing I picked
    > >> up a while back. Making your prompt bold so that it's easy to
    > >> pick it out of other text on the screen. For your /etc/profile or
    > >> ~/.profile or ~/.bashrc.

    >
    > >> (I run slack so I don't know what the system configuration file
    > >> for bash is in the other distros.)

    >
    > >> export PS1='ESC[1m\u@\h:\w\$ESC[0m'

    >
    > > Where such settings go is a religious argument, and a long-term nasty.

    >
    > Like the eternal war between vi and emacs?
    >
    > ROTFL
    >
    > > I like setting them up for all users by dropping files in
    > > /etc/profile.d/.

    >
    > Is that universal (or something like it)? Got it here in slack.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    > --
    > calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    > gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


    Gee Whillikers! If there were any doubt about Babel being spawned by
    misguided geeks, the flurry of responses to my query does give it
    substance. I will look through some of the files mentioned to see
    what I can find and report back. Since few of us Linux users are
    'Experts', I believe it's important to be very careful and considerate
    and detailed when making suggestions. I'm using Ubuntu because it's
    fairly simple and even has some resemblance to Winduhs which I dislike
    because its deliberately deceptive and confusing for obvious reasons:
    keeping their secrets. Previously I used CLI with RedHat and it
    seemed pretty straightforward. It is necessary for me to have a
    graphic capability though since I am a visual artist and the Gnome
    desktop (including GIMP) is a blessing. What consensus is there about
    using Debian instead of Ubuntu? Or what about Slackware, given my
    needs? Any simple statements (for my simple mind) would be
    appreciated.
    And thanks to everyone who contributed their comments, complex or
    simple.

    Geoffrey

  10. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    Geoffrey writes:
    > What consensus is there about using Debian instead of Ubuntu?


    Stick with Ubuntu.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  11. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-03-01, zeno wrote:
    > On Mar 1, 7:33 am, Tom Newton wrote:
    >> On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    >




    > Gee Whillikers! If there were any doubt about Babel being
    > spawned by misguided geeks, the flurry of responses to my query
    > does give it substance.


    Speaking of babble...

    > I will look through some of the files mentioned to see what
    > I can find and report back. Since few of us Linux users are
    > 'Experts', I believe it's important to be very careful and
    > considerate and detailed when making suggestions.


    Isn't that nice.

    > I'm using Ubuntu because it's fairly simple and even has some
    > resemblance to Winduhs which I dislike because its deliberately
    > deceptive and confusing for obvious reasons: keeping their
    > secrets.


    And a lot of Linux distros are going down that same path.
    KDE/Gnome, both windows-clone artificial user interfaces, are a
    major aspect of this downward trend.

    > Previously I used CLI with RedHat and it seemed pretty
    > straightforward. It is necessary for me to have a graphic
    > capability though since I am a visual artist and the Gnome
    > desktop (including GIMP) is a blessing.


    That paragraph doesn't make sense. _I_ run Linux from the CLI
    (command line) and have a fully graphical box. I have a GUI,
    which includes a basic X install and a good window manager, but
    nothing resembling KDE or Gnome.

    I could easily run the GIMP if I wanted to, and any of the
    applications that come with KDE (only the kdelibs are necessary
    for that, not KDE itself), or any X application.

    I use firefox regularly...But I run my box from 'xterms'.

    Calling KDE/Gnome a "GUI" is like calling a motorhome a
    motorcycle. They are artificial user interfaces, nothing but
    large collections of applications with a common graphical theme,
    built on top of a GUI. Those collections include a window
    manager, of course.

    And thinking that the CLI is limited to the non-graphical
    console environment is simply erroneous.

    > What consensus is there about
    > using Debian instead of Ubuntu?


    Myself (and a lot of other Linux runners) can run any Linux/Unix
    box, with or without X. If they have monstrosities like Gnome or
    KDE installed, I just ignore them.

    They are all basically the same under all the eye-candy,
    the supposedly 'user-friendly' interfaces.

    No reason you can't do the same thing. Just the most basic
    knowledge of bash is required.

    > Or what about Slackware, given my
    > needs?


    I'm running Slackware 12.0 right now. Its package management
    system is much more 'manual' than the others, and thus not
    prone to arcane glitches that drive people insane and take
    endless hours of web-searching to fix, which the complex package
    management systems of the other distros are famous for.

    It's the most clean and stable distro.

    The stock install includes the Korporate Desktop Environment
    (KDE).

    You can run the GIMP on it, of course, with or without
    KDE.

    What more do you want?

    > Any simple statements (for my simple mind) would be
    > appreciated.


    Okay:

    Try Slack. You wouldn't regret it.

    You can get the ISOs to burn on the main site and a couple of
    mirrors, or use bittorrent:

    http://www.slackware.com

    :-)

    > And thanks to everyone who contributed their comments, complex or
    > simple.


    No problem.

    If you don't understand something, google it and/or ask.

    Don't whine. :-)

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  12. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    Tom Newton wrote:

    > No problem.
    >
    > If you don't understand something, google it and/or ask.
    >
    > Don't whine. :-)
    >
    > Tom


    Bear in mind that the author of this article has just posted this little
    gem to alt.os.linux.slackware:

    > I run as root. A lot of people do. Why shouldn't I? I AM root here.


    > And despite all the paranoid blather such as you have parroted
    > here, we never have any problems because of it.


    Running your installation of GNU/linux, whatever it is as root is to
    court disaster, indeed some distributions such as Ubuntu protect users
    from the disasters that follow the erroneous practice of running your
    GNU/Linux distribution as root.

    Tom Newton is a deluded 'netkook' giving dangerous advice, if you are
    tempted to take it, before doing so, try seeking a second opinion.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "Tom Newton, surely the William Topaz McGonagall of
    alt.os.linux.slackware, and now, seemingly, comp.os.linux.setup and
    comp.os.linux.misc.as well!"

  13. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    Tom Newton wrote:

    > On 2008-03-01, zeno wrote:
    >> On Mar 1, 7:33 am, Tom Newton wrote:
    >> I'm using Ubuntu because it's fairly simple and even has some
    >> resemblance to Winduhs which I dislike because its deliberately
    >> deceptive and confusing for obvious reasons: keeping their
    >> secrets.

    >
    > And a lot of Linux distros are going down that same path.
    > KDE/Gnome, both windows-clone artificial user interfaces, are a
    > major aspect of this downward trend.


    please note the difference that the underlying system configuration is still
    accessible, even if you're using a GUI.
    this makes the things simple for who wants them that way, but do not prevent
    in any way the "expert" user to do things without.
    so I don't see where the distros are going to be "deceptive and confusing to
    keep their secrets"...

    >> Previously I used CLI with RedHat and it seemed pretty
    >> straightforward. It is necessary for me to have a graphic
    >> capability though since I am a visual artist and the Gnome
    >> desktop (including GIMP) is a blessing.

    >
    > That paragraph doesn't make sense. _I_ run Linux from the CLI
    > (command line) and have a fully graphical box. I have a GUI,
    > which includes a basic X install and a good window manager, but
    > nothing resembling KDE or Gnome.


    and so what? he needs a GUI, and finds gnome a blessing.
    and he said he finds "the gnome desktop" a blessing, not only gimp.
    maybe he found useful that his addressbook is shared between his mail
    client, his IM and newsreader...

    > I could easily run the GIMP if I wanted to, and any of the
    > applications that come with KDE (only the kdelibs are necessary
    > for that, not KDE itself), or any X application.


    after you start a KDE app, try to do a ps and look at what you get.
    you don't know of what you're talking about.

    > I use firefox regularly...But I run my box from 'xterms'.


    because running it from WindowMaker's menu is too difficult?

    > Calling KDE/Gnome a "GUI" is like calling a motorhome a
    > motorcycle. They are artificial user interfaces, nothing but
    > large collections of applications with a common graphical theme,
    > built on top of a GUI. Those collections include a window
    > manager, of course.


    obviously you don't have the slight idea of what the difference between a WM
    and a DE, if you state that a DM is just a bunch of apps with the same
    graphical theme.
    and you don't even know what a GUI is.

    ilSimo
    --
    now playing: 01 - War Ensemble

    Who has dared to desecrate his crypt
    Shall soon be hanging lifeless in his grip
    Who has dared to stalk him in the gloom
    For he has freshly risen from the tomb

    Cirith Ungol - King Of The Dead


  14. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    Two Ravens wrote:

    For those that wish to check on the quality of posts made by Tom Newton
    try reading this page, http://tinyurl.com/3y5vhe

    --
    Two Ravens
    "Tom Newton, surely the William Topaz McGonagall of
    alt.os.linux.slackware, and now, seemingly, comp.os.linux.setup and
    comp.os.linux.misc.as well!"

  15. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-03-01, ilSimo wrote:
    > Tom Newton wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-03-01, zeno wrote:
    >>> On Mar 1, 7:33 am, Tom Newton wrote:
    >>> I'm using Ubuntu because it's fairly simple and even has some
    >>> resemblance to Winduhs which I dislike because its deliberately
    >>> deceptive and confusing for obvious reasons: keeping their
    >>> secrets.

    >>
    >> And a lot of Linux distros are going down that same path.
    >> KDE/Gnome, both windows-clone artificial user interfaces, are a
    >> major aspect of this downward trend.

    >
    > please note the difference that the underlying system configuration is still
    > accessible, even if you're using a GUI.
    > this makes the things simple for who wants them that way, but do not prevent
    > in any way the "expert" user to do things without.
    > so I don't see where the distros are going to be "deceptive and confusing to
    > keep their secrets"...
    >
    >>> Previously I used CLI with RedHat and it seemed pretty
    >>> straightforward. It is necessary for me to have a graphic
    >>> capability though since I am a visual artist and the Gnome
    >>> desktop (including GIMP) is a blessing.

    >>
    >> That paragraph doesn't make sense. _I_ run Linux from the CLI
    >> (command line) and have a fully graphical box. I have a GUI,
    >> which includes a basic X install and a good window manager, but
    >> nothing resembling KDE or Gnome.

    >
    > and so what? he needs a GUI, and finds gnome a blessing.
    > and he said he finds "the gnome desktop" a blessing, not only gimp.
    > maybe he found useful that his addressbook is shared between his mail
    > client, his IM and newsreader...


    For God's sake....please take care, otherwise, he'll bore you to death
    about his ODE concept.

    It hurts the brain and can cause unexpected, serious nose bleeds.

    ken


  16. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    I demand that Tom Newton may or may not have written...

    > On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > > Tom Newton wrote:

    [snip]
    >>> I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring up a full
    >>> editor on the current commandline in bash's vi editing mode...? I've
    >>> gone through the readline manual with a fine tooth comb. ^X-^E is
    >>> supposed to work, but doesn't.


    Works for me, even if $VISUAL and $EDITOR are both unset (but I suspect that
    in that case, bash is invoking sensible-editor).

    [snip]
    > This is about ed, but ed is a precursor of vi, and it's very funny. I'm
    > sure you've seen it:


    > http://dreamcode.org/


    404.

    [snip]
    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | + Output less CO2 => avoid boiling weather. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.

    Everyone ought to have a brain.

  17. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-02-29, zeno wrote:




    As you can see, one of the patients at the state mental hospital
    has slipped away from his minders again and gained access to a
    computer. This happens now and then.

    I quite reading his gibberish ages ago. Regardless of which
    of his 1000 names he is posting under at the moment.

    Note that he is actually talking to himself. All of those names
    are his.

    No need to worry. His medication will kick in soon, and they'll
    find him drooling and playing happily with his little weewee in
    the corner of the office.

    Obviously, one of the secretaries takes pity on him and helps him
    oerate the computer.

    He's quite harmless. Except in what remains of his own mind.

    He'd call himself "Three Ravens", but he can't count that high.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  18. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-03-02, Darren Salt wrote:
    > I demand that Tom Newton may or may not have written...
    >
    >> On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> > Tom Newton wrote:

    > [snip]
    >>>> I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring up a full
    >>>> editor on the current commandline in bash's vi editing mode...? I've
    >>>> gone through the readline manual with a fine tooth comb. ^X-^E is
    >>>> supposed to work, but doesn't.

    >
    > Works for me, even if $VISUAL and $EDITOR are both unset (but I suspect that
    > in that case, bash is invoking sensible-editor).


    I have $EDITOR set (vi), but not $VISUAL. Are you sure you aren't talking
    about emacs-mode? You have set -o vi in your bash rc file?

    I either get a ^E or beeps, depending on whether I'm in insert or command
    mode.

    Wait! You just inadvertantly provided the answer!

    VISUAL

    I just typed

    ls -l

    at the prompt, hit Esc to enter command mode, then hit v and there it was:
    'ls -l' at the top of an otherwise empty file open in vi!

    I am in your debt.

    >
    > [snip]
    >> This is about ed, but ed is a precursor of vi, and it's very funny. I'm
    >> sure you've seen it:

    >
    >> http://dreamcode.org/

    >
    > 404.


    Bizarre. I checked the link and it was there when I posted that.

    Sorry.

    >
    > [snip]



    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  19. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    On 2008-03-02, Tom Newton wrote:

    > On 2008-03-02, Darren Salt
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I demand that Tom Newton may or may not have written...
    >>
    >>> On 2008-03-01, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Tom Newton wrote:

    >>
    >> [snip]
    >>
    >>>>> I don't suppose there's any chance you know how to bring
    >>>>> up a full editor on the current commandline in bash's vi
    >>>>> editing mode...? I've gone through the readline manual with
    >>>>> a fine tooth comb. ^X-^E is supposed to work, but doesn't.

    >>
    >> Works for me, even if $VISUAL and $EDITOR are both unset
    >> (but I suspect that in that case, bash is invoking
    >> sensible-editor).

    >
    > I have $EDITOR set (vi), but not $VISUAL. Are you sure you
    > aren't talking about emacs-mode? You have set -o vi in your
    > bash rc file?
    >
    > I either get a ^E or beeps, depending on whether I'm in insert
    > or command mode.
    >
    > Wait! You just inadvertantly provided the answer!
    >
    > VISUAL
    >
    > I just typed
    >
    > ls -l
    >
    > at the prompt, hit Esc to enter command mode, then hit v and
    > there it was: 'ls -l' at the top of an otherwise empty file
    > open in vi!
    >
    > I am in your debt.


    I just went through info readline, man (3) readline, man bash,
    and usr/doc/readline-5.2/* and that command is not listed
    anywhere. Man readline has a section on vi-mode insert and
    command mode commands, with:

    ....

    "a" vi-append-mode
    "b" vi-prev-word
    "c" vi-change-to
    "d" vi-delete-to
    "e" vi-end-word
    "f" vi-char-search
    "h" backward-char
    "i" vi-insertion-mode
    "j" next-history
    "k" prev-history
    "l" forward-char
    "m" vi-set-mark
    "n" vi-search-again
    "p" vi-put
    "r" vi-change-char
    "s" vi-subst
    "t" vi-char-search
    "u" vi-undo
    "w" vi-next-word
    "x" vi-delete
    "y" vi-yank-to
    "|" vi-column
    "~" vi-change-case

    Notice the absence of "v".

    Oops.




    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
    gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com


  20. Re: Prob w/ virtual terminals

    zeno wrote:

    > Gee Whillikers! If there were any doubt about Babel being spawned by
    > misguided geeks, the flurry of responses to my query does give it
    > substance. I will look through some of the files mentioned to see
    > what I can find and report back. Since few of us Linux users are
    > 'Experts', I believe it's important to be very careful and considerate
    > and detailed when making suggestions. I'm using Ubuntu because it's
    > fairly simple and even has some resemblance to Winduhs which I dislike
    > because its deliberately deceptive and confusing for obvious reasons:
    > keeping their secrets. Previously I used CLI with RedHat and it
    > seemed pretty straightforward. It is necessary for me to have a
    > graphic capability though since I am a visual artist and the Gnome
    > desktop (including GIMP) is a blessing. What consensus is there about
    > using Debian instead of Ubuntu? Or what about Slackware, given my
    > needs? Any simple statements (for my simple mind) would be
    > appreciated.


    Tom Newton. First he gives you an answer to your question that is totally
    incorrect because he knows nothing about the distro you use. This is
    typical of Tom. For him, knowing nothing is no impediment to providing an
    answer. Having given you bad advice, he then proceeds to hijack your
    thread with nonsensical rantings about variations in distros destroying
    linux. Finally, when you attempt to rejoin your own thread, he insults
    you. This is all typical of Tom. He is an idiot. He has nothing
    reliable or positive to contribute. He is a miserable dolt who whimpers in
    his sleep.

    --
    Old Man

    Playing with the ODE will make you go blind.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast