Printing Bug
Hi,
I have a bug report against UMLet [1] which states that printing to a
shared SMB printer using CUPS with authentication-requirement does not
work. I had the reporter test printing with freemind too, where he has
the same problem.
A superficial web search does not reveal a solution for this problem and
I am not so much into the Java-Printing stuff that I can do a lot here.
Since UMLet uses standard java mechanism for printing I suspect it is
not really an UMLet bug, but one within Java (he uses OpenJDK 6):
import java.awt.print.PrinterJob;
[...]
PrinterJob printJob = PrinterJob.getPrinterJob();
printJob.setPrintable(this.getDrawPanel());
if (printJob.printDialog()) try {
printJob.print();
} catch (PrinterException pe) {
Main.displayError(Constants.ERROR_PRINTING);
}
Any help would be appreciated.
Best regards
Ben
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=651533
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1324409375.2196.15.ca...@athlon-x2.fritz.box
Re: Concerns with Open/OS Corporate Linux ads?
Hello, It calls our distro reliable and secure and states that they add maturity and corporate readiness. Then they go on to state that Debian is - reliable - secure - upgradeable - integrateable - preconfigured - remotely administratable and that they add support and maintenance, which adds the features - reliable release cycle - newest packages - security team - preselected packages - security administration - certification - software tests [..] - we have our own security team That isn't negated by their add, in fact they state that Debian is secure. And Debian has lacked security support for new software for a long time (I believe testing is supported now). - we have preselected packages (tasks) Well, but they probably have others, focused on the business domain. - we are definitely ready for the business world (I know what they mean, I guess) I would debate that. Sometimes companies simply need to pay money for a product to have someone to blame. Debian is volunteer driven, and thus noone can be put under any real pressure. For companies it is sometimes better to pay for the service and thus have someone who is responsible for that. In fact I would see the security team statement in that light, they provide security support for money and thus probably guarantee that updates are prepared in a certain time frame. and since their ad is entitled Debian of full age, it kind of suggests that Debian per se is immature, a child, an assertion I'd strongly oppose. Well, I would be to hard on that. Being young does also have its benefits :-) Should we do anything about this? If so, what? I do not think that Debian as a whole should take action, but you could sent an email to them and tell them that they've hurt your feelings (and you, as opposed to me, form a part of Debian). Perhaps they'll act on your criticism. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Concerns with Open/OS Corporate Linux ads?
Hello, And Debian has lacked security support for new software for a long time (I believe testing is supported now). What I meant to say here is, that testing with the latest relatively stable software in it, had no security support in the past. and since their ad is entitled Debian of full age, it kind of suggests that Debian per se is immature, a child, an assertion I'd strongly oppose. Well, I would be to hard on that. Being young does also have its benefits :-) Of course that should read would _not_. -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No more bugreports from me.
Hello The report you can see was a ordinary e-mail sent to the maintainer of Aptitude. He saw it as a Dpkg thing and asked me if he could send it to the public dpkg list. I said O.K. Now you can think I have to blame myself but I could never thought about that he would include my personal information, including my main e-mail address, then he send it further to the public dpkg list. But he did. It sounds to me that there was a misunderstanding and this is most unfortunate. However, misunderstanding happens, especially in written language. Please do not blame the Aptitude maintainer for this, since he probably thought, that your consent to forward your mail, covered the full email. However, in such a case it would be in my opinion most desirable, if the BTS administrator could act quickly to remedy the situation (even though the BTS is probably mirrored at various locations..). Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU / Linux 3.1 r0a für AMD 64
[Robert Werner is complaining about Debian being unusable and old-fashioned. I point him to the debian-user-german list.] Dies is eine englischsprachige Liste. Bitte senden Sie deutsche Beiträge an [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mit freundlichen Grüßen Benjamin Mesing On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 13:06 +0200, Robert Werner wrote: Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, anch jahrelanger Nutzung von Suse-Linux und seit kurzer Zeit auch von KANOTIX beschaffte ich mir mit großen Erwartungen Debian GNU / Linux 3.1 r0a. Leider schaffte dieses System mehr Probleme als es löste, angefangen von der völlig unkomfortablen Installationssoftware bis hin zur nicht mehr zeitgemäßen Konfiguration der Grafik- und Bildschirmeinstellungen im Kontrollzentrum. Der Monitor sollte auf eine höhere Auflösung eingestellt werden, eine Tortur für den normalen Anwender. Dieses System ist vielleicht für Programmierer gut, der PC-Anwender, der alltägliche Arbeiten am Rechner erledigt, kann damit wenig anfangen. Auch in bezug auf den Bedienkomfort gehört dieses System eher in die 90iger Jahre des vergangenen Jahrtausends. Dies mit Bedauern feststellen zu müssen verbleibe ich mit freundlichen Grüßen Robert Werner D-04683 Naunhof. -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello like your studies (beeing in a computer science PhD/MSC helps), Well this might be interesting for the Debian project, but applicants might not want this to become public knowledge. Please do not assume, that this is for any particular reason, but merely for keeping ones privacy. Debian is about diversity, and I think you have to understand, that there are people who are trying to dispose as little information about themselves as possible. You may call it paranoia, but others might say that this is merely protecting their privacy. And please don't argue that you are making some things already public by entering NM/Debian. This is right, but this is information commonly accepted to be necessary for keeping Debian transparent. So it is necessary if you want to participate. I don't see why oh why the position of an applicant that want to become a DD would be protected in any mean. Again, you make your general point of view available by being an DD, but there is no need to do so for your specific comments. Best regards Benjamin -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 02:09 +0200, Michael Banck wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited enough. Probably it's a good idea to maintain wiki.debian.org/YourName anyway, whether you're a DD, a DM, an NM or a prospective NM. But I guess it makes most sense for prospective NMs - document your contributions to Debian there (maybe with some small paragraph about your motivation) and Front Desk (and later your AM) will have it much easier to match an AM and/or check your contributions. I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having personal information (like your specific view on free software) world-accessable. Debian developers need to know, since you are about to become part of their community, but no one else needs to know more than is exposed by your membership in the Debian community anyways. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having personal information (like your specific view on free software) world-accessable. Debian developers need to know, since you are about to become part of their community, but no one else needs to know more than is exposed by your membership in the Debian community anyways. then you shouldn't apply for becoming a DD because your so called personnal views on free software are a requirement for beeing a DD. Oh and btw, the application is public anyway. So to my eyes, the so called problem you raise is irrelevant. Not to mention that I would feel concerned and surprised (in a bad sense) if an applicant would have such issues. e.g.: if you have an issue with your company knowing that you want to become a DD, then, *don't ask for beeing one*, because that's a public matter. Debian is about transparency. I disagree with you. All that people need to know outside Debian, is that you conceed with the Debian guidelines on freedom, nothing more. I have strong feeling about preserving privacy as far as possible, but this is OT here. But after rereading Marc's and Michael's post, I noticed, that they were not advocating putting your _specific_ views on such a page (Michael merely mentioned a small paragraph on your motivation). So my concerns are in fact irrelevant, as long as this page is not extended. Best regards Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello, my comments as someone planning to enter NM during the next couple of month follow. Overall I find your analysis enlightening. I agree with those points I do not discuss here. 1.2.1 Add more people [Marc argues that this is not a long solution] I disagree here up to a certain point. I think having more people doing the job does help the problem even in the long term. The work is distributed on more shoulders, and people get less frustrated. Let me put it this way: I can imagine working at a conveyer belt for 1 hour a day, but I can't doing it a whole day. However, this assumes that more people are willing to do the job. 2.1 Multiple advocates 2.2 Requiring (more) work before applying I totally agree. 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights Unless you are not planning to have long term second class developers (i.e. developers with restricted rights), I don't think it is a good idea. The additional overhead IMO is not worth the effort for a few month. After all the goal of the proposal is that applicatants are not stuck in NM for so long any more. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Unless you are not planning to have long term second class developers Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term second class developers -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 15:07 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: On 4/11/06, Benjamin Mesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you are not planning to have long term second class developers Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term second class developers No, no, no. Give someone the rights to vote or upload something for Debian isn't consider him second class developer, This was not intended as a rant. It might be useful to have different types of participants with different access rights. I was merely arguing, that I think it is not worth the effort to do this for people in NM, which they should leave sooner or later (rather sooner than later). If it is implemented as a long term membership (like, e.g. a doc-member who has no packaging rights) that's a different issue. Sorry that I was unclear about this. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
