accessing harddrive or flash drive - Slackware

This is a discussion on accessing harddrive or flash drive - Slackware ; Tom N wrote: > So what is HAL? I can't find any reference to it with type or apropos or > locate or info nor in manifest.bz2, using HAL, hal, and Hal search > strings. (12.0) HAL is a part ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107

Thread: accessing harddrive or flash drive

  1. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    Tom N wrote:

    > So what is HAL? I can't find any reference to it with type or apropos or
    > locate or info nor in manifest.bz2, using HAL, hal, and Hal search
    > strings. (12.0)


    HAL is a part of the freedesktop.org
    see the FAQ for more info
    http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HalFAQ

    I always saw HAL as a layer on top of UDEV making the system look something
    like this:

    +------------------------+
    | |
    | Applications |
    | |
    +------------------------+
    | |
    | HAL |
    | |
    +------------------------+
    | |
    | UDEV |
    | |
    +------------------------+
    | |
    | Kernel |
    | |
    +------------------------+
    | |
    | Hardware |
    | |
    +------------------------+

    Also HAL as Hardware Abstraction Layer is the bottom level component of
    Windows NT. The HAL in Linux does a similar thing but they are different.
    Because NT's HAL sits below the Kernel.

    Richard James


  2. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    On 2008-01-22, Richard James wrote:
    > Tom N wrote:
    >
    >> So what is HAL? I can't find any reference to it with type or apropos or
    >> locate or info nor in manifest.bz2, using HAL, hal, and Hal search
    >> strings. (12.0)

    >
    > HAL is a part of the freedesktop.org
    > see the FAQ for more info
    > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HalFAQ
    >
    > I always saw HAL as a layer on top of UDEV making the system look something
    > like this:
    >
    > +------------------------+
    >| |
    >| Applications |
    >| |
    > +------------------------+
    >| |
    >| HAL |
    >| |
    > +------------------------+
    >| |
    >| UDEV |
    >| |
    > +------------------------+
    >| |
    >| Kernel |
    >| |
    > +------------------------+
    >| |
    >| Hardware |
    >| |
    > +------------------------+
    >
    > Also HAL as Hardware Abstraction Layer is the bottom level component of
    > Windows NT. The HAL in Linux does a similar thing but they are different.
    > Because NT's HAL sits below the Kernel.


    Damn that's an excellent response! You are good with those ascii graphics
    and they really help.

    I'll check out the link. But honestly, I'm thinking about ditching udev here.
    Seem to be doing fine without HAL.

    And "free" desktop reminds me of the old saying "Beware of strangers bearing
    gifts". :-)

    I've got a good, free desktop. It's called bash and a minimal X install.

    (Am working on a version that others could just install, but my bash
    scripting is coming along pretty slowly.)

    Thanks, Richard,

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  3. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    Oops:

    http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HalFAQ

    "This page does not exist yet. You can create a new empty page, or use one of the page templates."

    But that's okay. I know enough about HAL thanks to Richard James, for the moment.

    And I now know where one of the main bases of the enemy is: http://www.freedesktop.org/

    :-)

    But it will be a valuable resource, too: A bash desktop needs to be able to do everything
    KDE and such does. One way or another.

    Tom

    On 2008-01-22, Tom N wrote:
    > On 2008-01-22, Richard James wrote:
    >> Tom N wrote:
    >>
    >>> So what is HAL? I can't find any reference to it with type or apropos or
    >>> locate or info nor in manifest.bz2, using HAL, hal, and Hal search
    >>> strings. (12.0)

    >>
    >> HAL is a part of the freedesktop.org
    >> see the FAQ for more info
    >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HalFAQ
    >>
    >> I always saw HAL as a layer on top of UDEV making the system look something
    >> like this:
    >>
    >> +------------------------+
    >>| |
    >>| Applications |
    >>| |
    >> +------------------------+
    >>| |
    >>| HAL |
    >>| |
    >> +------------------------+
    >>| |
    >>| UDEV |
    >>| |
    >> +------------------------+
    >>| |
    >>| Kernel |
    >>| |
    >> +------------------------+
    >>| |
    >>| Hardware |
    >>| |
    >> +------------------------+
    >>
    >> Also HAL as Hardware Abstraction Layer is the bottom level component of
    >> Windows NT. The HAL in Linux does a similar thing but they are different.
    >> Because NT's HAL sits below the Kernel.

    >
    > Damn that's an excellent response! You are good with those ascii graphics
    > and they really help.
    >
    > I'll check out the link. But honestly, I'm thinking about ditching udev here.
    > Seem to be doing fine without HAL.
    >
    > And "free" desktop reminds me of the old saying "Beware of strangers bearing
    > gifts". :-)
    >
    > I've got a good, free desktop. It's called bash and a minimal X install.
    >
    > (Am working on a version that others could just install, but my bash
    > scripting is coming along pretty slowly.)
    >
    > Thanks, Richard,
    >
    > Tom
    >



    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  4. Re: Apologies to Mark South (was: Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive))

    Tom N wrote:
    > [snip 30 quoted lines]
    >
    >Well, I'm running Slack 12.0 without it, and it is working just fine.


    Too much quoting! Try to quote only the relevant parts while preserving
    attribution. (In this case, one sentence that said "HAL" would have
    been sufficient.)

    Cheers,
    -Beej


  5. Re: Apologies to Mark South (was: Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive))

    On 2008-01-22, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
    > Tom N wrote:
    >> [snip 30 quoted lines]
    >>
    >>Well, I'm running Slack 12.0 without it, and it is working just fine.

    >
    > Too much quoting! Try to quote only the relevant parts while preserving
    > attribution. (In this case, one sentence that said "HAL" would have
    > been sufficient.)
    >
    > Cheers,
    > -Beej
    >


    You can ASK me to do something, Beej. You can't tell me.

    I don't take orders from you.

    So ask. Or **** yourself.

    One of these days you and the few other would-be authoritarians here are going
    to learn that. You can't bully me. Not if your life depended on it.

    So accept reality or keep your head firmly rammed up your ass.

    Either way, I will do what I want and you'll live with it.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  6. Re: Apologies to Mark South (was: Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive))

    Tom N wrote:
    >Either way, I will do what I want and you'll live with it.


    It's really no skin off my back if you look like a newbie, Tom. It just
    makes me look that much better. Now, you can either keep quoting like a
    newbie, or you can clean it up.

    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1
    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.3

    -Beej


  7. Re: Apologies to Mark South (was: Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive))

    On 2008-01-22, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
    > Tom N wrote:
    >>Either way, I will do what I want and you'll live with it.

    >
    > It's really no skin off my back if you look like a newbie, Tom. It just
    > makes me look that much better. Now, you can either keep quoting like a
    > newbie, or you can clean it up.
    >
    > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
    > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1
    > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.3
    >
    > -Beej
    >


    You can either learn some manners and ask or suggest, rather than
    dictating, or you can get kicked in the head repeatedly and will
    naturally inspire people to behave in the opposite manner that
    you want them to.

    Grownups are offended by being ordered around by someone has no
    right to do so. We don't like being treated like children. Duh.

    I may or may not check out those links.

    Who is this "netmeister" to tell me what do do? He isn't the
    master of the usenet, I can tell you that. Nor of this newsgroup.

    Duh.

    Certainly, no one is harmed by what I am doing, and I am hardly
    alone in the practice.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  8. Re: Apologies to Mark South

    Hallo, Beej,

    Du meintest am 22.01.08:

    > Tom N wrote:
    >> Either way, I will do what I want and you'll live with it.


    > It's really no skin off my back if you look like a newbie, Tom.


    "Tom N" ist a troll. Why do you feed it?

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  9. Re: Apologies to Mark South

    On 2008-01-22, Helmut Hullen wrote:
    > Hallo, Beej,
    >
    > Du meintest am 22.01.08:
    >
    >> Tom N wrote:
    >>> Either way, I will do what I want and you'll live with it.

    >
    >> It's really no skin off my back if you look like a newbie, Tom.

    >
    > "Tom N" ist a troll. Why do you feed it?


    Poor baby Helmut. He tried to push me around and got his butt kicked.
    Now he wants to take his ball and go home.

    Problem is, of course, that it isn't his ball, so he can't take it home.

    Oops!

    >
    > Viele Gruesse
    > Helmut
    >
    > "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


    Would someone tell this fool the obvious: People who use Slackware
    are called Slackers because Slackware is easier to run than the
    other major distros. It is a simpler and cleaner OS. Always has
    been. Ubuntu is _harder_ to run than Slackware.

    Tom


    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  10. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    Tom N wrote:

    please don't top-post, and please trim your replies.

    > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HalFAQ
    >
    > "This page does not exist yet. You can create a new empty page, or use one of the page templates."
    >
    > But that's okay. I know enough about HAL thanks to Richard James, for the moment.
    >
    > And I now know where one of the main bases of the enemy is: http://www.freedesktop.org/


    why call them the enemy? (i saw the smiley, but even as a joke i find it
    misplaced.) these are people working on creating a desktop spec that any
    graphical desktop environment can adhere to, in order to create
    interoperability between different desktops. you're not bound by them,
    they're not forcing you to use them, so if you don't like them, just ignore
    them.

    > But it will be a valuable resource, too: A bash desktop needs to be able
    > to do everything KDE and such does. One way or another.


    you know, bash is not a desktop. it's a user interface, just like a desktop
    environment. a DE has a number of properties that bash just doesn't have.

    and tom, one friendly word of advice: if you don't like how some people
    post in this NG, just ignore them. your responses don't really do very much
    in the way of establishing your reputation as the adult one in these
    threads. in fact, i find the constant bickering in your replies to be about
    just as childish as you claim some of the posts you're responding to are.


    --
    Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
    Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
    EN:SiS(9)

  11. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:17:20 +0000, Michael Black wrote:

    > It was a joke, based on this classic movie called "2001: A Space
    > Odyssey". IN said movie, the talking computer is called HAL, and at one
    > point the computer says "I'm sorry, Tom, I'm afraid I can't tell that",
    > though it wasn't "Tom" but someone else.


    "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."

    "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/quotes

  12. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    On 2008-01-22, Joost Kremers wrote:
    > Tom N wrote:
    >
    > please don't top-post, and please trim your replies.


    Will try to remember.

    >
    >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/HalFAQ
    >>
    >> "This page does not exist yet. You can create a new empty page, or use one of the page templates."
    >>
    >> But that's okay. I know enough about HAL thanks to Richard James, for the moment.
    >>
    >> And I now know where one of the main bases of the enemy is: http://www.freedesktop.org/

    >
    > why call them the enemy? (i saw the smiley, but even as a joke i find it
    > misplaced.) these are people working on creating a desktop spec that any
    > graphical desktop environment can adhere to, in order to create
    > interoperability between different desktops. you're not bound by them,
    > they're not forcing you to use them, so if you don't like them, just ignore
    > them.


    What they are doing, Joost, perhaps without deliberately
    intending to, is trying to make Linux a clone of Windows, with a
    common user interface that keeps users ignorant of how their OS
    works, restricts their choices to those considered proper by the
    desktop environment's developers (and whoever influences them),
    and makes them dependent on technical support.

    In-other-words, Making Linux a commercial OS rather than an
    amateur one, suitable for ignorant appliance operators.

    >> But it will be a valuable resource, too: A bash desktop needs to be able
    >> to do everything KDE and such does. One way or another.

    >
    > you know, bash is not a desktop. it's a user interface, just like a desktop
    > environment. a DE has a number of properties that bash just doesn't have.


    Not true at all. A bash desktop can do anything that KDE and like can do.
    Bash scripts were the original 'wizards' after all. Scripts like /sbin/netconfig,
    which still exists on Slackware.

    Bash can provide menus that are no different in functionality thann the drop-down menus
    or rows of icons used by KDE. And when X is up those menus can appear in
    small and carefully positioned 'xterms' at the touch of a key.

    Remember, I'm not talking about a desktop environment that's devoid of X. Just
    one that can work with or without it. Used by people who don't even need it
    because they know the basics of the shell.

    Just what it is it that you think KDE, etc., can do that a bash user interface
    can't?

    Need I point out that an awful lot of Linux runners don't use KDE or the like?

    How is it that we get by if our user interfaces don't work? I'm
    just talking about using menus and 'wizard' scripts and aliases
    and various apps/utilities that will work in the console and X
    environment for basic operations.

    In the X environment the call for a browser brings up an X browser. In
    the console environment a console browser....

    >
    > and tom, one friendly word of advice: if you don't like how some people
    > post in this NG, just ignore them. your responses don't really do very much
    > in the way of establishing your reputation as the adult one in these
    > threads. in fact, i find the constant bickering in your replies to be about
    > just as childish as you claim some of the posts you're responding to are.
    >
    >


    That's good advice, Joost. I've always had a bad reaction to bullies. But
    this isn't the real world and a different strategy for dealing with them
    is called for.


    Tom

    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  13. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    Tom N wrote:
    > What they are doing, Joost, perhaps without deliberately
    > intending to, is trying to make Linux a clone of Windows, with a
    > common user interface that keeps users ignorant of how their OS
    > works,


    yes, because most people aren't interested in knowing how the OS works. if
    they'd have to know that they wouldn't be using computers.

    > restricts their choices to those considered proper by the
    > desktop environment's developers (and whoever influences them),
    > and makes them dependent on technical support.


    just like i'm dependent on technical support if my car breaks down. (well,
    i don't actually have a car, but if i did, i certainly didn't want to know
    anything more about its inner workings than how to change the oil and put
    new tyres on.)

    > In-other-words, Making Linux a commercial OS rather than an
    > amateur one, suitable for ignorant appliance operators.


    and the beauty of open source is that they can. and even if they do, *you*
    can still use the OS the way *you* want to.

    >> you know, bash is not a desktop. it's a user interface, just like a desktop
    >> environment. a DE has a number of properties that bash just doesn't have.

    >
    > Not true at all.


    very true.

    > A bash desktop


    there is no such thing.

    > can do anything that KDE and like can do.
    > Bash scripts were the original 'wizards' after all. Scripts like /sbin/netconfig,
    > which still exists on Slackware.


    they're scripts, they have nothing to do with the desktop metaphor.

    > Just what it is it that you think KDE, etc., can do that a bash user interface
    > can't?


    it can show icons representing documents, applications or directories
    ("folders"), which you can click on to activate them. it can show a bunch
    of icons in something that we might call a system tray, showing the status
    of various applications and drivers running on the system. it can pop up a
    window when you get a new IM message, that sort of thing.

    that's the whole desktop metaphor: you have a desk with a bunch of
    documents on them, a clock on the left side and a phone on the right (or
    the other way around) which give off a signal when time has come to go
    home, or when someone wants to call you. and perhaps you have a file
    cabinet standing next to your desk, where you keep all the documents that
    you need to use from time to time.

    bash doesn't provide that. bash is just a shell. you type commands and it
    executes them. even if you program a bunch of menus and scripts, it's still
    not a desktop environment.

    > Need I point out that an awful lot of Linux runners don't use KDE or the like?


    i've used linux without X for a year or two, until the "been there, done
    that" factor kicked in, so no, you don't need to point that out. ;-)

    > In the X environment the call for a browser brings up an X browser. In
    > the console environment a console browser....


    yeah, that's why i said bash is a user interface. that's what it is. you
    seem to be using the term "desktop" to mean "user interface", but the
    desktop interface is just one form of user interface.


    --
    Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
    Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
    EN:SiS(9)

  14. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    On 2008-01-22, Joost Kremers wrote:
    > Tom N wrote:
    >> What they are doing, Joost, perhaps without deliberately
    >> intending to, is trying to make Linux a clone of Windows, with a
    >> common user interface that keeps users ignorant of how their OS
    >> works,

    >
    > yes, because most people aren't interested in knowing how the OS works. if
    > they'd have to know that they wouldn't be using computers.


    Then they can use Windows.

    >
    >> restricts their choices to those considered proper by the
    >> desktop environment's developers (and whoever influences them),
    >> and makes them dependent on technical support.

    >
    > just like i'm dependent on technical support if my car breaks down. (well,
    > i don't actually have a car, but if i did, i certainly didn't want to know
    > anything more about its inner workings than how to change the oil and put
    > new tyres on.)


    We aren't talking about cars. You need a shop and thousands of dollars
    worth of tools to work on cars.

    >> In-other-words, Making Linux a commercial OS rather than an
    >> amateur one, suitable for ignorant appliance operators.

    >
    > and the beauty of open source is that they can. and even if they do, *you*
    > can still use the OS the way *you* want to.


    Maybe. The problem with commercial OSes is that they don't like competition
    and corporations don't have any morals and they are likely to do all sorts
    of underhanded things to eliminate any competition.

    They don't like open source, for obvious reasons, or free software, and
    they are likely to start suing people for using 'their' software.

    This has alreacy been tried, remember? Made the mainstream media.
    >
    >>> you know, bash is not a desktop. it's a user interface, just like a desktop
    >>> environment. a DE has a number of properties that bash just doesn't have.

    >>
    >> Not true at all.

    >
    > very true.
    >
    >> A bash desktop

    >
    > there is no such thing.


    Well, I'm using it, so it must exist.

    Wishing upon a star won't make it go away.

    >
    >> can do anything that KDE and like can do.
    >> Bash scripts were the original 'wizards' after all. Scripts like /sbin/netconfig,
    >> which still exists on Slackware.

    >
    > they're scripts, they have nothing to do with the desktop metaphor.


    They do the same thing that a 'wizard' does.

    One is compiled and one isn't. Otherwise there's no difference.

    Except the 'wizard' can't be understood and modified by the ordinary
    user.

    >
    >> Just what it is it that you think KDE, etc., can do that a bash user interface
    >> can't?

    >
    > it can show icons representing documents, applications or directories
    > ("folders"), which you can click on to activate them.


    And with bash you can have a menu with the names of documents, applications
    or directories from which you can enter the appropriate number from to active
    them.

    Any novice can write such menus with the select command in minutes.

    > it can show a bunch
    > of icons in something that we might call a system tray, showing the status
    > of various applications and drivers running on the system.


    I have that on my box using simple bash scripts. That information is
    displayed by a number of non-X utilities.

    > it can pop up a
    > window when you get a new IM message, that sort of thing.


    Same here. That's what happens in the X environment when you get
    a new IM message regardless of whether you have KDE or the like.
    If you are using a console IM client it does basically the same
    thing in that environment.

    >
    > that's the whole desktop metaphor: you have a desk with a bunch of
    > documents on them, a clock on the left side and a phone on the right (or
    > the other way around) which give off a signal when time has come to go
    > home, or when someone wants to call you. and perhaps you have a file
    > cabinet standing next to your desk, where you keep all the documents that
    > you need to use from time to time.
    >


    All that can be done without KDE or the like, using bash, with or without
    X.

    > bash doesn't provide that. bash is just a shell. you type commands and it
    > executes them. even if you program a bunch of menus and scripts, it's still
    > not a desktop environment.


    Bash does provide that.

    No one uses just bash, even with all of its builtins. It's a command interpreter
    and scripting language that calls on other utilities and apps.

    >
    >> Need I point out that an awful lot of Linux runners don't use KDE or the like?

    >
    > i've used linux without X for a year or two, until the "been there, done
    > that" factor kicked in, so no, you don't need to point that out. ;-)


    I am not talking about using Linux without X. I am talking about using Linux
    without KDE or the like.

    There is a HUGE difference.

    I am running X and a window manager right now. Just no KDE or Gnome or the
    like.

    >
    >> In the X environment the call for a browser brings up an X browser. In
    >> the console environment a console browser....

    >
    > yeah, that's why i said bash is a user interface. that's what it is. you
    > seem to be using the term "desktop" to mean "user interface", but the
    > desktop interface is just one form of user interface.


    I have a desktop environment using X and bash that does every single thing
    that KDE does.

    You may not like it, but it's a fact.

    It may not have a main screen cluttered with stuff (though it
    could) like you are talking about, but that's because I like an
    uncluttered workspace.

    All the information that you refer to, all the capabilities, are
    a keystroke or two away. System info? My cpu is 87.7% idle. RAM?
    I'm using 47M out of 128M. Running applications of interest?
    vsftpd and slrn and firefox and vi and mutt.. My IP? [deleted]
    Open ports? 1957 tcp for my ftp server and 68 udp for dhcpc.

    Etc. Not one command entered at the prompt to learn the above. It is displayed
    on a seperate screen using the 'watch' command and common utilities.

    The time and date? C-t a and it pops up down at the corner then
    gets out of my face. I could just as well have it permanently
    displayed, but I like an uncluttered workspace.


    Tom


    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  15. Re: Apologies to Mark South

    Tom N wrote:


    yawnnnnn

    so much noise and so little signal

    plonk

    _please_ add me to your little list

  16. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    On 2008-01-22, Tom N wrote:
    > On 2008-01-22, Joost Kremers wrote:
    >> Tom N wrote:
    >>
    >> yes, because most people aren't interested in knowing how the OS works. if
    >> they'd have to know that they wouldn't be using computers.

    >
    > Then they can use Windows.


    This is such an incredibly short-sighted and stupid perspective that
    only you could have presented it. Open source is about free choice.
    Windows is not. I would certainly prefer somebody use KDE to Windows;
    at least I could help admin their box over ssh.

    >> just like i'm dependent on technical support if my car breaks down. (well,
    >> i don't actually have a car, but if i did, i certainly didn't want to know
    >> anything more about its inner workings than how to change the oil and put
    >> new tyres on.)

    >
    > We aren't talking about cars. You need a shop and thousands of dollars
    > worth of tools to work on cars.


    It's an analogy, and therefore not perfect but close enough. People
    should be free to choose their maintenance mechanism.

    >> and the beauty of open source is that they can. and even if they do, *you*
    >> can still use the OS the way *you* want to.

    >
    > Maybe. The problem with commercial OSes is that they don't like competition
    > and corporations don't have any morals and they are likely to do all sorts
    > of underhanded things to eliminate any competition.


    By that token, wouldn't you prefer to see people using a free OS like
    RedHat, supported by a commercial entity, but able to be made available
    for free like CentOS? That sure seems preferable to me over people
    using a nonfree OS like Windows (or even, to some extent, MacOS).

    > They don't like open source, for obvious reasons, or free software, and
    > they are likely to start suing people for using 'their' software.
    >
    > This has alreacy been tried, remember? Made the mainstream media.


    So, you'd rather have your butt kicked than fight for the right to use
    free software?

    > Well, I'm using it [bash desktop], so it must exist.
    >
    > Wishing upon a star won't make it go away.


    You're not using a bash desktop. You're using X11 with a bunch of bash
    shells open. That's not the same thing. A true ''bash desktop'' would
    be one shell open spawning jobs (even other shells) without X11.

    Of course, you're intentionally conflating your definition to feel more
    important, so no amount of facts is likely to convince you. However, I
    hope it will convince naive searchers of the newsgroup archives that
    there is no such thing as the ''bash desktop''.

    > Except the 'wizard' can't be understood and modified by the ordinary
    > user.


    Have you looked at the Slackware config scripts? They call a bunch of
    ncurses routines. Do you really think an ordinary user can modify a
    fairly complex bash script that depends on ncurses?

    > Any novice can write such menus with the select command in minutes.


    Do you really think a true novice user can write bash scripts?

    > It may not have a main screen cluttered with stuff (though it
    > could) like you are talking about, but that's because I like an
    > uncluttered workspace.


    Do you keep your mind elsewhere when you work?

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  17. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    On 2008-01-23, Keith Keller wrote:
    > On 2008-01-22, Tom N wrote:
    >> On 2008-01-22, Joost Kremers wrote:
    >>> Tom N wrote:
    >>>
    >>> yes, because most people aren't interested in knowing how the OS works. if
    >>> they'd have to know that they wouldn't be using computers.

    >>
    >> Then they can use Windows.


    Or Mac.

    The Linux I support is an operating system for hackers, not ignorant appliance operators.

    What others do is their business, but I won't support them and I'll
    critcize them.

    If you don't like it, take a pill.

    >
    > This is such an incredibly short-sighted and stupid perspective that
    > only you could have presented it.


    I thought I'd better read some of this post, just to see if I was right about
    including this name of yours on my troll list.

    Sure enough, you begin with a gratuitous, ad hominem attack. Which is the
    trademark of ignorant punks who are just running their mouths in order
    to start fights because they are losers without lives.

    So I'm not reading the rest of this post, nor any replies to it
    and the same goes for anything else you post while you are hiding
    behind this or any other name.

    And many of those names will remain on my troll list. More as time
    goes on, I'm sure. There is no end to your cowardice, I am sure.

    Just like their is no size limit on your punk mouth.

    But I don't have to listen to you. And I can warn others.

    Have a day. Somewhere else.

    Tom


  18. Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive

    On 2008-01-21, loki harfagr wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:44:47 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    >
    >> gamalt2@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>
    >>> A security policy in place prevents this sender from sending this
    >>> message to this recipient, see message bus configuration file ...

    >>
    >> See http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt and look for the section
    >> titled, "Removable devices aren't auto-mounting on Slackware-12.0 with
    >> HAL".
    >>
    >> I hope that helps ...

    >
    > And, in case someone'd prefer to click on a link instead of
    > using the slash-key (I heard there are some) it'll be
    > http://l0k1.free.fr/aolsfaq.html#XX104
    > in the unashamed HTML rendering of the original txt. ;D)
    >
    > OMG, I just can't believe, years and years of war in the
    > dark (obviously) against spammers and here I am, in the
    > open, struttin' as a pusher ;D)


    I like the HTML version. Easier to access.

    (It's not like it is full of gratuitous images, blinkers,
    and pleas to download flash plugins and sound files to
    play elevator music in the background.)

    So I guess we are both off to the slammmer together.

    I'll flip you for the top bunk!

    :-)

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit
    at gee mail dot com


  19. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    why dont you just **** off lamer, nobody actually gives a flying rats arse
    about you or your list, and there is only one troll in this newsgropup
    ****head and thats YOU!

    Who is your usenet providor, oh I C, a freebie anonymous service hey,
    well maybe not for much longer ****head.

    now **** off and stop polluting our air



    On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Tom N wrote:


    >
    > On 2008-01-23, Keith Keller wrote:


    >
    > I thought I'd better read some of this post, just to see if I was right about
    > including this name of yours on my troll list.
    >
    > Sure enough, you begin with a gratuitous, ad hominem attack. Which is the
    > trademark of ignorant punks who are just running their mouths in order
    > to start fights because they are losers without lives.


  20. Re: HAL (was: Re: accessing harddrive or flash drive)

    Tom N wrote:

    > The Linux I support is an operating system for hackers, not ignorant
    > appliance operators.


    a) Linux is a kernel, Linux plus GNU and several other bits and pieces
    of software is an operating system, (an awful lot of them offer KDE to
    their potential users).

    b) Presumably as you're posting to alt.os.linux.slackware, the 'Linux'
    you support as "an operating system for hackers", is one or other of
    the versions of SlackwareŽ. You will have to bear in mind that other
    users of that GNU/Linux operating system are just as likely to
    be "ignorant appliance operators", including myself, which is why I
    read this newsgroup, as they are "hackers", some of those who freely
    offer advice, via this newsgroup, to those who happen to use the
    SlackwareŽ GNU/Linux operating system, may indeed be regarded by others
    as 'hackers'. Using SlackwareŽ however, does not confer on one some
    mystical 'hacker' status, it merely identifies one as someone who has
    made the choice to use SlackwareŽ. Can those reading this newsgroup
    presume that you regard yourself as a 'hacker'?

    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast