Re: [arch-general] Thunderbird bugging with Lightning + Enigmail
On 12/18/2009 01:33 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: Go tohttp://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/index.php you'll be able to put in the combination linux (x86_64) and Thunderbird 3.0 (thanks to a fellow Arch user it seems :-) That's the add-on I'm using at home. Do note that the reports of incompatibility between lightning and enigmail are fully true, i.e. have both add-ons enabled and you'll loose some text in your menu, disable either and everything looks good again. Irritating indeed! /M You're Good... Thanks Magnus! -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
Re: [arch-general] Thunderbird bugging with Lightning + Enigmail
Le 19/12/2009 10:00, David C. Rankin a écrit : On 12/18/2009 06:30 AM, Thomas Jost wrote: Hi there, I'm the maintainer of the enigmail package on AUR, and I've contributed x86_64 builds of Enigmail since the 0.95.7 release. The .xpi on the website is built using the AUR package, so both are good ;) Thomas, Thank you for all your effort. While we have you here, How can I get me themes to work in TB 3? I can get all the firefox extensions to work with extensions.checkUpdateSecurity=false, but that doesn't work with TB. Is the change to 3.0 actually a change that makes the themes incompatible rather than a security check issue? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks again. I don't know much about themes (I'm happy with the default one), but it seems they are pretty much like extensions: you can unzip them, edit the install.rdf file and bump the maxVersion to something like 3.0.*, recompress them, and then try to install them. (emacs users, you can of course edit the file in the archive without having to unzip it first :)) Another note: extensions.checkUpdateSecurity is used to check if extensions provide secure updates. To disable compatibility checks, you should use extensions.checkCompatibility. According to [1], this should work in Thunderbird as well as in Firefox. Please keep in mind that I did not test what I'm suggesting here. Making a backup of your TB profile first may be a very good idea :) [1] http://kb.mozillazine.org/Extensions.checkCompatibility#Has_an_effect_in -- Thomas/Schnouki signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Automount
I did this to solve my mount permission problem caused by hal. Solution was to add “session optional pam_ck_connector.so” to “/etc/pam.d/login”. That was the tip found on this threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=84635p=3. But I don't use kde kdm though. Using xfce. No login manager.
Re: [arch-general] Thunderbird bugging with Lightning + Enigmail
On 18/12/09 12:30, Thomas Jost wrote: Le 18/12/2009 08:33, Magnus Therning a écrit : [..] That's the add-on I'm using at home. Do note that the reports of incompatibility between lightning and enigmail are fully true, i.e. have both add-ons enabled and you'll loose some text in your menu, disable either and everything looks good again. Irritating indeed! I have both Lightning and Enigmail too, but I have never encountered any problem. Interesting. May this be related to a GTK theme or something like this? How would I test this? What combination of TB theme and GTK theme are you using? /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Re: [arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David C. Rankin drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com wrote: All depends on what the ultimate goals for the distro are. Me? I wouldn't change a thing. I like Arch the way it is and I hope it stays like this until I'm old and gray (sh... I'm getting there ;-) I don't think Arch should try to keep up with the Jones' or worry about what distro watch says. But, in the alternative, if the goal is to see just how far and how widely accepted Arch can become in hopes of selling out to someone like Novell, Corel, etc.., then it might make sense to look a bit harder at what makes the rating meter tick. Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux community... I agree completely, and that's really what I was trying to get at by posing that question
Re: [arch-general] Automount
Make sure that the permissions are set correctly for console kit via the KDE system settings applet. This was my problem with automount awhile back. On Dec 19, 2009 12:50 PM, Abdullah Zainul Abidin abdullah.zai...@gmail.com wrote: I did this to solve my mount permission problem caused by hal. Solution was to add “session optional pam_ck_connector.so” to “/etc/pam.d/login”. That was the tip found on this threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=84635p=3. But I don't use kde kdm though. Using xfce. No login manager.
Re: [arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 02:26:56PM -0600, Jonathan Temple wrote: On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David C. Rankin drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com wrote: Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux community... I agree completely, and that's really what I was trying to get at by posing that question I add my vote to that. -- FA
Re: [arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com
Le jeudi 17 à 20:35, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit : On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 Denis Kobozev d.v.kobo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck die...@plaetinck.be wrote: did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind? It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch, Gentoo and Slackware users beg to differ, but I guess the most typical Linux user agrees and that's who they are catering to. it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable. I'm pretty sure a scripted automatic installation goes faster then one where you need to point and click to make it do things. You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? (Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine, an Arch user, did, and he has only good things to say about its flexibility and the ease of setup.) I love to hate Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but the installer is not somewhere where Arch has an advantage. If you want an easy to use installer, as David pointed out in further in the thread, you go it; if you want to build an ISO that answers all the installer questions, you got it; if you want a setup where you can plug a machine, tell it to boot over the network, go drink a coffee and go back to a system completly installed, you got it. -- Fred
Re: [arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com
I always liked the Arch installer from the 0.7 days. I used to be able to setup an entire system in less than ten minutes and be ready to do work. The latest Arch installer makes it take more like fifteen minutes instead. Of course, that older Arch didn't have to cope with initcpio or any other early userspace magic. On Dec 19, 2009 4:43 PM, Frédéric Perrin frederic.per...@resel.fr wrote: Le jeudi 17 à 20:35, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit : On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 Denis Kobozev d.v.kobo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 1... You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? (Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine, an Arch user, did, and he has only good things to say about its flexibility and the ease of setup.) I love to hate Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but the installer is not somewhere where Arch has an advantage. If you want an easy to use installer, as David pointed out in further in the thread, you go it; if you want to build an ISO that answers all the installer questions, you got it; if you want a setup where you can plug a machine, tell it to boot over the network, go drink a coffee and go back to a system completly installed, you got it. -- Fred
Re: [arch-general] A universal Operating System API - why don't we have it?
Le vendredi 18 à 10:24, RedShift a écrit : Things like enumerating all hardware devices, configuring a network interface, drawing a window, ejecting the CD-ROM drive, getting notified about new hardware plugged in, etc... It's different on every operating system. Isn't it one of the goals of hal ? It does exist outside of Linux (in FreeBSD for instance: http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/halfaq.html). You cannot write a driver for Linux and expect it to work on FreeBSD. You cannot write an application for windows and expect it to work on Linux. When you buy a piece of hardware you usually hope for the best that it'll work out-of-the-box including all extra features. If OS internals are to be so similar that they expose the same API to hardware drivers, where is there room for differentiation between two OSes? FreeBSD, to continue with the unkwown giant, prides itself with writing a very well designed OS, whereas Linux (kernel userland) does not have the same quality standards. As a result, things evolve less quickly in FreeBSD, but are usually more stable. I'm talking about the architecture of the code; when was the last time a major subsystem of FreeBSD was rewritten? (I mean, except the USB stack in 8). -- Fred
Re: [arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com
Le samedi 19 à 22:59, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit : You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? I have used FAI extensively to mass-install servers. Don't put words in my mouth: my point was that point and click installers are not necessarily faster then what we have. Oh, I understood your original post as with all its shiny dialogs, Ubuntu won't let me install a damn OS with minimal human interaction. Sorry for that. Still, I keep on thinking that debian-install[1] is a nifty piece of software that does everything you can expect from an installer. BTW: debian/ubuntu installers are complex (in lines of code), especially if you add fai on top of that, which re-implements a lot of things. Dieter [1] The last time I installed Ubuntu, but that was long ago, it used a glorified d-i. Make a s/Ubuntu/Debian/ if they no longer use d-i. -- Fred
Re: [arch-general] Automount
On Saturday 19 December 2009 15:29:58 Robert Howard wrote: Make sure that the permissions are set correctly for console kit via the KDE system settings applet. This was my problem with automount awhile back. I don't understand what your saying. I looked at the KDE systems app and I don't see anything where I would change or set perms On Dec 19, 2009 12:50 PM, Abdullah Zainul Abidin abdullah.zai...@gmail.com wrote: I did this to solve my mount permission problem caused by hal. Solution was to add “session optional pam_ck_connector.so” to “/etc/pam.d/login”. That was the tip found on this threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=84635p=3. But I don't use kde kdm though. Using xfce. No login manager.
