Re: [arch-general] systemd new dependencies impede using OpenRC
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:51:21 +0200 Bardur Arantsson s...@scientician.net wrote: snip STOP! Although I find the discussion interesting, I have watched with growing amazement. As I recall, this list became moderated due to the furore when systemd was introduced, and I doubt that Lennart himself could have got a post on the subject through in the aftermath. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Audacity Library Mismatch (Wxgtk2.8)
I don't make much use of audacity, and have not tested extensively. Starting from an xterm on my i686, fully patched, system, I see the error, but the program runs and appears to function normally. I see a lot of other errors in the xterm - but they don't appear to be wxgtk related, and they may well have been there and unnoticed before.
Re: [arch-general] Problems using AUR since upgrade of pacman db version
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 16:58:01 +0100 Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pretty sure both of the named helpers were written in scripted languages. Not intending to contradict, but rebuilding cower worked for me. I used a clean tarball and did makepackage --skipinteg (see the discussion under cower in the AUR) Geoff
Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:06:12 +0100 Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: In fact in most cases that was exactly what happened with some scientists and teachers saying the Big Bang was all but proven until fairly recently the number questioning and the evidence built up against it. To me it has been obvious that the Big Bang was bullshit for over a decade because, where did the dust come from and what came to make the dust and what made that. Kevin, I have read all your contributions here with interest. Along with those of Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia, I have found them genuinely helpful in gaining perspective on the systemd issue. But please, I beg you, don't take us into quantum mechanics, the Standard Model and all its ramifications. My nerves won't stand contemplating how systemd interacts with the Everett Interpretation :) Geoff
Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:11:58 +1000 John Briggs johne...@optusnet.com.au wrote: snipped wisdom As I have said in a previous post, I arrived in linux a little later than you, but for much the same reasons. On KISS / The Arch Way / Unix philosophy etc, it seems to me that here as in my own field (law), maxims make good servants but poor masters. Ultimately, every decision has to be evaluated as good or bad in its own right. In most cases the answer will be in terms of the quality of the software engineering and I am more than happy to accept the judgment of people much better qualified than I am to make it. On the other hand, at the highest level, engineering decisions in all fields, sadly and inevitably, have a political dimension. Is the supplier of this solution trustworthy over the long term? Where does this leave us if x happens? What are the implications of this choice for future choices? Engineers are not necessarily any better qualified than the rest of us to get those calls right. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500 Myra Nelson myra.nel...@hughes.net wrote: snip I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck me with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an advantage of systemd is ... less fragmentation between Linux distribution. I have been full time on linux for nearly 13 years now, with the most recent five of those on Arch, and for me one of the principal attractions of the OS has always been fragmentation between distributions. The recent changes to Arch (and I dare say other distros which I do not monitor), all seem to me to point in the direction of drab ecumenism - eventually One distro to rule them all Sooner or later Arch will be distinguished only by its excellent rolling release model and the wonderful pacman. Perhaps all this was inevitable. I do not intend anything I say as a criticism of the devs - it is their distro and they are entitled to do what they choose with it. But it does make me sad. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:57:51 + Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote: snip +1 to every word. I ran LFS for three years, partly because I wanted to learn and partly to avoid the issues you mention. I left only because at that point in my life it was too time-consuming and Arch offered an ideal alternative. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:08:32 -0500 C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me wrote: snip the boot process isn't really that interesting (once you know/understand it anyway ... if not i encourage you to explor ;-) -- every distro pretty much does it the same way, but pointlessly independent, thus resulting in annoying differences that are completely irrelevant to begin with. Thank you for a measured reply Anthony. I take your points. I have also watched LP's FOSDEM systemd presentation on Youtube (understanding about 80% of it), and read most of the links provided by other posters (especially the internal debate between Red Hat devs). I understand that there are advantages, but I am left with the lingering impression that systemd is part of a larger project, - as discussed by Fons Adriaensen in this thread. It bothers me. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:03:17 +0200 Rodrigo Rivas rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com wrote: snip Some people fear that if you use it you will be giving something to that unknown project behind systemd. But if it takes you where you don't want to go, it can be forked. It has happened before with bigger projects. snip Yes, but I have the feeling (just my feeling, I can be wrong), that the epoch when the best and brightest people did fork projects of this kind may be past, or at least passing. I am not blaming anyone, - the constraints of time / career are perhaps more difficult to contend with than they were 20 years ago. Further, the success of linux in fields far removed from my irrelevant little desktop brings opportunities and problems which may interest those people more. Times change, but one is allowed to regret some of the consequences. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:09:29 -0500 C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me wrote: snip it's interesting to me how so many can believe that OSS/distros/etc/etc are really driven and decided by the whimsical desires of the complete, mob-like user base. snip All points taken, and, for my own part, I do not complain about the free product of other people's efforts. On the other hand, I suppose that many devs take at least some pride in the number of users who gratefully take advantage of their work. If that is right. then they might not object to someone explaining (politely, briefly, once), why the direction they are taking might lead the person concerned reluctantly to use something else instead. How they respond to such opinions is, of course, entirely a matter for them. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:23:28 +0200 Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote: snip ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64AndDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead OT, but if the above is true, was that Oxford Pascal, and did you then switch to the MIKRO Assembler cartridge (as I did) ? Well to be accurate I switched to it after first using an assembler program written in BASIC, typed in from a book. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:49 -0300 Denis A. Altoé Falqueto denisfalqu...@gmail.com wrote: You should check arch-dev-public :) It's a funny thread https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.html Mostly I just read arch-general and try to understand arguments. I do, however, find this contribution the thread to which you refer very saddening. It is not the way I interpret the vast majority of contributions here. Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls. -- Gaetan Perhaps we should all just shut up and do as we are told. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] wodim unuseable
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Jude DaShiell jdash...@shellworld.net wrote: What's happening over here is I type cdrecord, but wodim gets run. If I were to nuke wodim would that clear this problem? It won't clear the problem because cdrecord is a symlink to wodim created by the cdrkit package which Arch uses in preference to cdrtools. You would just end up with no burning software at all. You would need to uninstall cdrkit and replace it with cdrtools from AUR. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] No consoles with NVIDIA
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:45:41 +0100 Karol Babioch ka...@babioch.de wrote: So I've installed the nvidia package according to the wiki. But now I've got the problem that as soon as I start the X server, I've got a blank screen whenever switching back to the consoles (tty1-tty6). This consoles stay blank even when killing the X server, which basically means that I can't use any consoles anymore. I have a Gforce 8400 GS and I have used the nvidia driver for several years without problems. The recent upgrade to 290.10.1 has given me the same problem that you have - plus several others. I have intermittent freezes, WAIT errors in my Xorg log, and nvidia Xid errors in my error logs. See also this thread in the forums : https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=130803 I am afraid that I have no solution to offer except maybe to try downgrading as recommended in that thread. I have not done that yet myself, because I hate to downgrade, but I may soon have to try it.
[arch-general] kernel26-2.6.38.2-1 and lilo
I hope this does not count as noise on this list, but can anybody confirm / deny that the lilo issue which I read about here has been resolved in the kernel version now available for download?
Re: [arch-general] kernel26-2.6.38.2-1 and lilo
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:36:19 +0200 Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 11.04.2011 11:32, schrieb Geoff: I hope this does not count as noise on this list, but can anybody confirm / deny that the lilo issue which I read about here has been resolved in the kernel version now available for download? No, you must update lilo to the latest version. Reference: https://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=lilo/lilo.git;a=commitdiff;h=5600dbd0049699c3847bfa15eb0bfc745f76d407 Many thanks for the prompt reply Thomas. I picked up version 23.2-1 in an Syu yesterday, and have re-run lilo as instructed. I should be good to go with the new kernel.
Re: [arch-general] CUPS working fine through 3/15 now won't print?
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:15:57 -0500 David C. Rankin drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com wrote: snip I have debugging enabled and cups seems to be choking on ssl cert generation. That's strange, I just thought I was using basic authentication: snip Do you have the directory /etc/cups/ssl? http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=93100 Geoff
Re: [arch-general] conclusion: Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:53:21 +0100 Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote: can you help me find another term i should use to denote the desktop idea, that is not offensive? integrationist ?
[arch-general] Test - Sorry but good reason for it. Please ignore
Sorry to post a test message, but I am an infrequent poster whose e-mails have not been getting through. I wrote to the list admins about it a while ago but got no response, so I have unsubscribed / resubscribed.
Re: [arch-general] Test - Sorry but good reason for it. Please ignore
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:59:33 -0600 Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: Seems to work now :) Actually the last thread I posted to was one where you gave me a ticking-off for prolonging it past your expression of displeasure at its continuance. I wondered if maybe I had been banned. Maybe I was. Maybe I should not have mentioned it umm
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:22:26 +0200 Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the reasons I stay subscribed to this list is so that I can learn more about my system. In that light, would you mind sharing with us why exactly you did drop the idea? I would really like to know. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-April/005643.html If you are interested about your system, please read arch-dev-public, don't write to arch-general. Thanks. But why? A public dev list is a valuable opportunity for us all to see how the devs are thinking, but I would never dream of posting to it. The devs would probably disregard anything I had to say as noise, - and quite right too. Why should not people like me be able to discuss system issues here? Geoff
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:36:29 -0400 Loui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Who wants to see Arch Linux become LFS+pacman? Nobody I think. Not to start an argument with you Loui (because I *do* see what you mean), but in all honesty the answer to your question is me. I went from LFS to Slackware and eventually arrived here. LFS+pacman is a good rough summary of what I was looking for. It takes all sorts of people to make a world - and to make a distro user-base. ;-) Geoff
Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:04:45 -0400 I, personally, find this divisive rhetoric of good (old) users vs. bad (new) users, as well as good developers (who do what we want them to do) vs. bad developers (who should be kicked out) rather disturbing :/ I am sure that nobody wants to demonise *any* of the hard-working devs. On the other hand, there is no point in people hiding the strength of their opinions on such an important point of principle. We should hate the sin, not the sinner. Geoff
Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:10:11 +0200 Hussam Al-Tayeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys, childish comments only interrupt developers from getting work done. I believe Roman already told people not to panic. So please just drop it. This is the general discussion list after all - the devs don't have to read a line of it if they don't want. I have not seen any childish comments here, on either side of a civilised debate. Geoff
