My zypper dissapeared from the tray this morning. There was an area
wide outage of the connection from my ISP for a couple of hours. When
it came back online,
I noticed that there was no zypper symbol in the tray as it usually
is.
Even re-booting did not bring it back. it still shows in user/bin/
zypper.

How do I restore it to its usual place in the tray?

Thanks,

Mothra2@mailinator.com wrote:

> My zypper dissapeared from the tray this morning. There was an area
> wide outage of the connection from my ISP for a couple of hours. When
> it came back online,
> I noticed that there was no zypper symbol in the tray as it usually
> is.
> Even re-booting did not bring it back. it still shows in user/bin/
> zypper.
>
> How do I restore it to its usual place in the tray?

I doubt that it's zypper, because that is a CLI tool.
Maybe you mean opensuseupdater-kde? Hit ALT-F2 and enter that.

regards,
Andreas

Andreas Stieger wrote:

> opensuseupdater-kde

That gave me a "could not run the specified command"

???

Andreas Stieger wrote:

> Mothra2@mailinator.com wrote:
>
>> My zypper dissapeared from the tray this morning. There was an area
>> wide outage of the connection from my ISP for a couple of hours.
>> When it came back online,
>> I noticed that there was no zypper symbol in the tray as it usually
>> is.
>> Even re-booting did not bring it back. it still shows in user/bin/
>> zypper.
>>
>> How do I restore it to its usual place in the tray?
>
> I doubt that it's zypper, because that is a CLI tool.
> Maybe you mean opensuseupdater-kde? Hit ALT-F2 and enter that.
>
> regards,
> Andreas

Problem solved!

I went into YAST, and the only opensuse-updater-kde listed was for
KDE4, so I "assumed" that it did not apply to KDE 3.5.9, which I am
using. After trying KDE 4.1, I became so frustrated that I deleted
everything that said KDE4 en mass. However, I went back into YAST and
installed it anyway, and after re-booting the updater symbol came up
as before. I even had a few updates waiting for me.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. :-)

Godzilla

Godzilla wrote:
> I went into YAST, and the only opensuse-updater-kde listed was for
> KDE4, so I "assumed" that it did not apply to KDE 3.5.9, which I am
> using. After trying KDE 4.1, I became so frustrated that I deleted
> everything that said KDE4 en mass. However, I went back into YAST and
> installed it anyway, and after re-booting the updater symbol came up
> as before. I even had a few updates waiting for me.

Why do you use that tool for updating, instead of doing it
automagically? I have been doing it via cron for as long as I can
remember and perhaps even longer and I would like to know if I am doing
something wrong.

Once in a blue moon I do a manual update to check if there are any
kernel updates, although I think I am going to include that check in the
shutdown and reboot scripts.

I can asume that somebody who shuts down his PC every day, could do a
bit of the same. During startup (at the end) an update, except for
things that needs extra input, like a kernel update and at shutdown the
update for ecerything, so that you have the new kernel the next day.

houghi
--
The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that
grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak.
-- Robert A. Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon"

On 2008-08-26, houghi wrote:
>
> Why do you use that tool for updating, instead of doing it
> automagically? I have been doing it via cron for as long as I can
> remember and perhaps even longer and I would like to know if I am doing
> something wrong.
>
> Once in a blue moon I do a manual update to check if there are any
> kernel updates, although I think I am going to include that check in the
> shutdown and reboot scripts.

I have this in cron:

zypper up -y -t patch --skip-interactive

That will send mail about its doings. It skips anything interactive, like kernel
update and by reading the mail you'll know when to do the interactive
bits.

If you don't want mail (otoh then you won't know if there are pending kernel
updates):

zypper --quiet up -y -t patch --skip-interactive

Even that cron job is created automagically if you choose to do "Automatic
Updates" in YaST. At least in KDE which otoh is evil

>
> I can asume that somebody who shuts down his PC every day, could do a
> bit of the same. During startup (at the end) an update, except for
> things that needs extra input, like a kernel update and at shutdown the
> update for ecerything, so that you have the new kernel the next day.
>
For this you could also use at instead of cron.

--
Vahis
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Congressman Wilson has an expression:
"You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits."

Vahis wrote:
> I have this in cron:
>

> zypper --quiet up -y -t patch --skip-interactive

This one

> Even that cron job is created automagically if you choose to do "Automatic
> Updates" in YaST. At least in KDE which otoh is evil

Uh, YaST does the same when you do it in CLI.

>> I can asume that somebody who shuts down his PC every day, could do a
>> bit of the same. During startup (at the end) an update, except for
>> things that needs extra input, like a kernel update and at shutdown the
>> update for ecerything, so that you have the new kernel the next day.
>>
> For this you could also use at instead of cron.

No, you can't. Both at and cron are about specific times as far as I can
tell. The reason I propose to do it during startup and shutdown is that
way you are not depending on time.

houghi
--
The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that
grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak.
-- Robert A. Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon"

On 2008-08-26, houghi wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>> I have this in cron:
>>
>
>> zypper --quiet up -y -t patch --skip-interactive
>
> This one
>
>> Even that cron job is created automagically if you choose to do "Automatic
>> Updates" in YaST. At least in KDE which otoh is evil
>
> Uh, YaST does the same when you do it in CLI.



>
>>> I can asume that somebody who shuts down his PC every day, could do a
>>> bit of the same. During startup (at the end) an update, except for
>>> things that needs extra input, like a kernel update and at shutdown the
>>> update for ecerything, so that you have the new kernel the next day.
>>>
>> For this you could also use at instead of cron.
>
> No, you can't. Both at and cron are about specific times as far as I can
> tell. The reason I propose to do it during startup and shutdown is that
> way you are not depending on time.

I think you can define the job to be run after boot at a time when the
machine is idle(r)

From man at:
batch executes commands when system load levels permit; in other
words, when the load average drops below 0.8, or the
value
specified in the invocation of atrun.


--
Vahis
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Congressman Wilson has an expression:
"You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits."

houghi wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>> I have this in cron:
>>
>
>> zypper --quiet up -y -t patch --skip-interactive
>
> This one

Should have been 'This one I also use'


houghi
--
The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that
grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak.
-- Robert A. Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon"

Vahis wrote:
> I think you can define the job to be run after boot at a time when the
> machine is idle(r)
>
> From man at:
> batch executes commands when system load levels permit; in other
> words, when the load average drops below 0.8, or the
> value
> specified in the invocation of atrun.
>

OK, so instead of directly putting `zypper` at boot time, you use `at
zypper` at boot time. OK, cool. Nice to know.
Obviously you should still let the shutdown still do the `zypper`
directly (and let it finish) because otherwise it might never happen.

houghi
--
But I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am
free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free
because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

On 2008-08-26, houghi wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>> I think you can define the job to be run after boot at a time when the
>> machine is idle(r)
>>
>> From man at:
>> batch executes commands when system load levels permit; in other
>> words, when the load average drops below 0.8, or the
>> value
>> specified in the invocation of atrun.
>>
>
> OK, so instead of directly putting `zypper` at boot time, you use `at
> zypper` at boot time. OK, cool. Nice to know.
> Obviously you should still let the shutdown still do the `zypper`
> directly (and let it finish) because otherwise it might never happen.
>
> houghi

Then maybe just:
zypper --quiet up -y -t patch

Otherwise you never get the kernel updates.

OTOH it could be wise to install the new kernel first next to the old
one and test it for a while before making it default and removing the
old one.

I had once (ages ago) a non booting kernel and did that for a while.
I gave it up when there was no trouble ever after.

Maybe I'll do that again next time.

This is because I've just changed to 64 bit (and more ram + a four cores)
and a lot is new to me, I'm suspicious

--
Vahis
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Congressman Wilson has an expression:
"You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits."

Vahis wrote:
>> OK, so instead of directly putting `zypper` at boot time, you use `at
>> zypper` at boot time. OK, cool. Nice to know.
>> Obviously you should still let the shutdown still do the `zypper`
>> directly (and let it finish) because otherwise it might never happen.
>>
>
> Then maybe just:
> zypper --quiet up -y -t patch
>
> Otherwise you never get the kernel updates.

No, because when you get the kernel, you need to reboot. Not something
you want to do.

So again what I propose is:
1) Machines that seldom are durned off
a) just use cron
2) Machines that are often turned off
a) With the boot do the update without the kernel. That way you
always have the latest version. Use the `at` to do it when
the PC is idle
b) With the shutdown do the update with the kernel. That way
if there is something, you need to reboot and that is what
you are doing anyway.

Obviously if you have a LOT of PC's, like in an offic, you will also
have a server, so use that to do get the updates and download from
there. No need to bother the servers on the internet with 15.000
downloads at 09:00 and 17:00

> OTOH it could be wise to install the new kernel first next to the old
> one and test it for a while before making it default and removing the
> old one.
>
> I had once (ages ago) a non booting kernel and did that for a while.
> I gave it up when there was no trouble ever after.

There was an incident once and that lasted for a few hours. So people
doing the updates then AND did not pass the interactive omnes where
affected.

> Maybe I'll do that again next time.

Once for I believe a 3 hour window in 10 years for something you won't
be affected by if you not install the kernels automagically is not a
real issue. I am sure I (and you)) will make more errors by overwriting
the wrong kernel.

> This is because I've just changed to 64 bit (and more ram + a four cores)
> and a lot is new to me, I'm suspicious

Then don't do automagick kernel updates.


houghi
--
But I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am
free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free
because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

On 2008-08-27, houghi wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>>> OK, so instead of directly putting `zypper` at boot time, you use `at
>>> zypper` at boot time. OK, cool. Nice to know.
>>> Obviously you should still let the shutdown still do the `zypper`
>>> directly (and let it finish) because otherwise it might never happen.
>>>
>>
>> Then maybe just:
>> zypper --quiet up -y -t patch
>>
>> Otherwise you never get the kernel updates.
>
> No, because when you get the kernel, you need to reboot. Not something
> you want to do.

But this was done at shutdown, so there's gonna be a boot?
>
> So again what I propose is:
> 1) Machines that seldom are durned off
> a) just use cron

I do. +email tells me when to do interactive things, I will choose time.

> 2) Machines that are often turned off
> a) With the boot do the update without the kernel. That way you
> always have the latest version. Use the `at` to do it when
> the PC is idle
> b) With the shutdown do the update with the kernel. That way
> if there is something, you need to reboot and that is what
> you are doing anyway.

This should be made available in YaST to choose. Just like the current
"Automatic Updates"

Make a request, I'll vote.

>
> Obviously if you have a LOT of PC's, like in an offic, you will also
> have a server, so use that to do get the updates and download from
> there. No need to bother the servers on the internet with 15.000
> downloads at 09:00 and 17:00

The server would do it at night time on an odd minute.

Very good practice. Also the 50 or whatever PC:s should be cloned with
the aid of a disk image to start with. Or at least with AutoYaST which
I've never tried.

>
>> OTOH it could be wise to install the new kernel first next to the old
>> one and test it for a while before making it default and removing the
>> old one.
>>
>> I had once (ages ago) a non booting kernel and did that for a while.
>> I gave it up when there was no trouble ever after.
>
> There was an incident once and that lasted for a few hours. So people
> doing the updates then AND did not pass the interactive omnes where
> affected.

I was even more newbie then than now, I was in ****. I don't remember
how I solved it. Now I would know, of course

>
>> Maybe I'll do that again next time.
>
> Once for I believe a 3 hour window in 10 years for something you won't
> be affected by if you not install the kernels automagically is not a
> real issue. I am sure I (and you)) will make more errors by overwriting
> the wrong kernel.
>
>> This is because I've just changed to 64 bit (and more ram + a four cores)
>> and a lot is new to me, I'm suspicious
>
> Then don't do automagick kernel updates.

We'll see. Right now I'm about to compile and install a module for the
onboard nic. Unless there's a better solution.

I'll start another thread about that.


--
Vahis
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Congressman Wilson has an expression:
"You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits."

Vahis wrote:
>> No, because when you get the kernel, you need to reboot. Not something
>> you want to do.
>
> But this was done at shutdown, so there's gonna be a boot?

OK, I thought you were talking about the bot time, because of the use of
at.

>> So again what I propose is:
>> 1) Machines that seldom are durned off
>> a) just use cron
>
> I do. +email tells me when to do interactive things, I will choose time.
>
>> 2) Machines that are often turned off
>> a) With the boot do the update without the kernel. That way you
>> always have the latest version. Use the `at` to do it when
>> the PC is idle
>> b) With the shutdown do the update with the kernel. That way
>> if there is something, you need to reboot and that is what
>> you are doing anyway.
>
> This should be made available in YaST to choose. Just like the current
> "Automatic Updates"
>
> Make a request, I'll vote.

YOU make the request. I don't need it. ;-)

>> Obviously if you have a LOT of PC's, like in an offic, you will also
>> have a server, so use that to do get the updates and download from
>> there. No need to bother the servers on the internet with 15.000
>> downloads at 09:00 and 17:00
>
> The server would do it at night time on an odd minute.

Now when you do changes with cron, it takes the time from now, instead
of a fixed time in the past. Because that ment that the whole worls
started at the same time, causing problems, at least potentially, with
the servers.

> Very good practice. Also the 50 or whatever PC:s should be cloned with
> the aid of a disk image to start with. Or at least with AutoYaST which
> I've never tried.

NOOOOOOOOOO. Not a disk immage. The power of YaST is that you have
AutoYaST and can have the same even with different hardware.


houghi
--
But I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am
free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free
because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

On 2008-08-27, houghi wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>>> No, because when you get the kernel, you need to reboot. Not something
>>> you want to do.
>>
>> But this was done at shutdown, so there's gonna be a boot?
>
> OK, I thought you were talking about the bot time, because of the use of
> at.

I was, first, when talking about at.
Then I replied to you about the shut down thing.
>
>>> So again what I propose is:
>>> 1) Machines that seldom are durned off
>>> a) just use cron
>>
>> I do. +email tells me when to do interactive things, I will choose time.
>>
>>> 2) Machines that are often turned off
>>> a) With the boot do the update without the kernel. That way you
>>> always have the latest version. Use the `at` to do it when
>>> the PC is idle
>>> b) With the shutdown do the update with the kernel. That way
>>> if there is something, you need to reboot and that is what
>>> you are doing anyway.
>>
>> This should be made available in YaST to choose. Just like the current
>> "Automatic Updates"
>>
>> Make a request, I'll vote.
>
> YOU make the request. I don't need it. ;-)

I don't need it either. Many others might although they don't know it

But it's your (good) concept. I don't want credit for
being the one who got houghi's idea into the distro as his own.

>
>>> Obviously if you have a LOT of PC's, like in an office, you will also
>>> have a server, so use that to do get the updates and download from
>>> there. No need to bother the servers on the internet with 15.000
>>> downloads at 09:00 and 17:00
>>
>> The server would do it at night time on an odd minute.
>
> Now when you do changes with cron, it takes the time from now, instead
> of a fixed time in the past. Because that ment that the whole worls
> started at the same time, causing problems, at least potentially, with
> the servers.
>
>> Very good practice. Also the 50 or whatever PC:s should be cloned with
>> the aid of a disk image to start with. Or at least with AutoYaST which
>> I've never tried.
>
> NOOOOOOOOOO. Not a disk immage. The power of YaST is that you have
> AutoYaST and can have the same even with different hardware.

In case (I've seen this) they purchase 50 PC:s in one go.
An image is great there, install one and clone it.

Or just cp /dev/x /dev/y

Copying takes far less time than installing no matter how automated.

--
Vahis
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Congressman Wilson has an expression:
"You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits."

Vahis wrote:
> I don't need it either. Many others might although they don't know it
>
> But it's your (good) concept. I don't want credit for
> being the one who got houghi's idea into the distro as his own.

I already stole so many good ideas (Seperate /home, the red in CLI now
as root, the whole makeSUSEdvd concept, ...) that it is about time
somebody stole my idea.

> In case (I've seen this) they purchase 50 PC:s in one go.
> An image is great there, install one and clone it.

I have seen it as well and it was not a pretty sight. The most common
error is that they make the immage, burn it on CD and then need to add
stuff later, because they either forgot, or we are now two years down
the line and things have changed.

The advantage of using YaST to do it is that even if you have new
hardware along the line (because you have new staff and Dell changed
something) you still can use it. Portables? No problem, even though they
have a different network card.

Later when new software is required, you just change the AutoYaST stuff
and when then a new user arrives, you are ready to go.

The disatvantage is ineed that indead of doing the copy in 15 minutes,
of which you do 5 minutes actual work and for the rest don't do
anything at that machine. With AutoYast, it will take 1 hour of which
you do 5 minutes actual work.

So instead of 10 minutes not watching the machines, you have 55 minutes
of not watching the machines. ;-)

houghi
--
But I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am
free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free
because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

On 2008-08-27, houghi wrote:
> Vahis wrote:
>> I don't need it either. Many others might although they don't know it
>>
>> But it's your (good) concept. I don't want credit for
>> being the one who got houghi's idea into the distro as his own.
>
> I already stole so many good ideas (Seperate /home, the red in CLI now
> as root, the whole makeSUSEdvd concept, ...) that it is about time
> somebody stole my idea.
>
>> In case (I've seen this) they purchase 50 PC:s in one go.
>> An image is great there, install one and clone it.
>
> I have seen it as well and it was not a pretty sight. The most common
> error is that they make the immage, burn it on CD and then need to add
> stuff later, because they either forgot, or we are now two years down
> the line and things have changed.
>
> The advantage of using YaST to do it is that even if you have new
> hardware along the line (because you have new staff and Dell changed
> something) you still can use it. Portables? No problem, even though they
> have a different network card.
>
> Later when new software is required, you just change the AutoYaST stuff
> and when then a new user arrives, you are ready to go.
>
> The disatvantage is ineed that indead of doing the copy in 15 minutes,
> of which you do 5 minutes actual work and for the rest don't do
> anything at that machine. With AutoYast, it will take 1 hour of which
> you do 5 minutes actual work.
>
> So instead of 10 minutes not watching the machines, you have 55 minutes
> of not watching the machines. ;-)

There are many ways of doing things and the best know when to apply what



--
Vahis
http://waxborg.servepics.com
"Anything can be done. And some things only once."
Charles Darwin