Re: Re: loss of I/O on some websites
On Wednesday, 14 May, 2014 10:36 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 14/05/14 04:22, Testosticore wrote: On Tuesday, 13 May, 2014 12:04 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 13/05/14 08:07, A Debian User wrote: On Sunday, 11 May, 2014 10:08 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 11/05/14 22:59, Whit Hansell wrote: Am getting frustrated. On the internet today there are so many sites that have taken on so much advertising that it is killing my desire to go to various sites. I mean specifically news sites. snipped As a side note, doesn't NoScript and FlashBlock have redundant features, in that they both block the loading of Flash content? snipped Therefore, in a browser with both Flashblock and NoScript installed, unless you have some special convoluted use case, Flashblock would be redundant. No. It is also technically incorrect that NoScript doesn't block Flash by default. It does. It just whitelists YouTube by default a long with a few other sites. (Flashblock doesn't whitelist anything by default.) In plain English (not weasel-speak) by default NoScript does *not* block *all* Flash. By default FlashBlock *does* block *all* Flash. Doesn't matter. We're not talking about default settings. Besides, you can easily make it do that by changing a single setting (i.e. allow restrictions on whitelisted sites). And it's totally worth it because you won't need to install another extension for this, which should save you some more memory. Q. When NoScript blocks Flash can it unblock it on a case-by-case basic with a single click? B. No. Actually, it can. The same setting above has this same effect. Disclosure: I'm not involved with either NoScript or Flashblock. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537514c7.7060...@openmailbox.org
Re: Re: loss of I/O on some websites
On Tuesday, 13 May, 2014 12:04 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 13/05/14 08:07, A Debian User wrote: On Sunday, 11 May, 2014 10:08 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 11/05/14 22:59, Whit Hansell wrote: Am getting frustrated. On the internet today there are so many sites that have taken on so much advertising that it is killing my desire to go to various sites. I mean specifically news sites. snipped As a side note, doesn't NoScript and FlashBlock have redundant features, in that they both block the loading of Flash content? No. NoScript does not block Flash by default - you could make it, and likewise with AdBlock Plus, and /etc/hosts. Perhaps it's your use of the term redundant that's problematic? So, shouldn't you just use NoScript, since it has more features and additionally does what FlashBlock does, anyway? No. Apples and Oranges. It doesn't. (so, no, again). For empirical evidence go visit Youtube with *just* NoScript enabled and compare the page load speed and totals with NoScript *and* FlashBlock both installed. Kind regards So, I installed xul-ext-flashblock (Flashblock 1.5.17 Wheezy) and reset the settings of xul-ext-noscript (NoScript 2.6.8.19) to find out. Comparing the Preferences/Options dialogs of both add-ons, it appears that everything Flashblock can do, NoScript already does* (in addition to all the other things it can do). These things are: - block Flash content - block HTML5 video - block Silverlight content - whitelist sites *There is a minor exception that NoScript allows for the manual import and export of whitelists, while Flashblock allows you to sync them via Weave/Iceweasel Sync. But this is a minor difference and not the point of these programs. Therefore, in a browser with both Flashblock and NoScript installed, unless you have some special convoluted use case, Flashblock would be redundant. It is also technically incorrect that NoScript doesn't block Flash by default. It does. It just whitelists YouTube by default a long with a few other sites. (Flashblock doesn't whitelist anything by default.) But, so, what's the problem? Each add-on installed contributes a little bit to the browser's startup time, which may all add up to a considerable amount if you have several add-ons installed (like me). It would be a good idea, then, to limit the number of these add-ons and to forgo installing those add-ons whose functionality can be provided by those already installed. Also, installing add-ons with similar (or redundant) functionality might potentially cause these add-ons to mess with each others' functioning, much like what happens when you install two different real-time virus scanners on a certain popular operating system. In closing, I suggest that the correct way of using your apples and oranges analogy would be that Adblock Plus is the apple, NoScript is the orange, and the hosts file is a katana. Cheers! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537262f3.30...@openmailbox.org
Re: Re: Debian Linux 7 and Realtek soundcards
If this doesn't work: $ lspci | grep audio Use instead: $ lspci | grep -i audio On Sunday, 11 May, 2014 03:06 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 11/05/14 16:53, Bret Busby wrote: Hello. I have this weekend, managed to install Debian 7.5 amd64 xfce version onto a laptop computer. However, the sound does not work. Ouch. But easily fixed. In searching, I have found that the laptop apparently has a Realtek soundcard (and, an inbuilt Intel something soundcard thing). That covers a wide range of devices. Could you be more specific please? e.g. the output of:- $ lspci | grep audio With Debian having eliminated non-free stuff from the official release packages, I realize that, somewhere (it is not easy to find http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/ , from the Debian web site), firmware ISO's are available, that can install non-free hardware drivers. I am therefore wondering whether, somewhere, packages exist (.deb packages, that make installation relatively easy for those of us not skilled in the black arts), for the hardware drivers that may be on the firmware ISO's. By installation do you mean drivers available *during* installation?? For the purposes of making available during installation? https://wiki.debian.org/Firmware (I have some small scripts I use to customise netinstall images if you want, they extract the installer image, allow you to add a preseed.cfg and firmware, then rebuild the iso for you). If you mean *after* installing Debian, then yes. firmware-linux-nonfree and firmware-linux-free are the main packages. $ apt-cache search firmware # for lots more I do not know whether the firmware ISO's allow a user to choose which desktop environment is installed, Yes. They are identical to the normal install CDs, they just include firmware. and the procedure that I found, for dealing with the .tar.bz files from the Realtek web site, seem too complicated. Do you have a link for that? Thank you in anticipation, for constructive assistance. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. snipped Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53714532.7070...@openmailbox.org
Re: Problems getting Debian DVD to work (Re: Confusion)
On Saturday, 10 May, 2014 12:13 AM, Steve Litt wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2014 09:54:04 -0500 John W. Foster jfoster81...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 16:31 +0930, josh wrote: Hi, When one has a problem with any GNU/Linux distribution and goes to [clip] Am I missing something obvious here? Regards, Josh. Well I'm gonna ask the obvious: Did you burn it as a .iso file or did you burn it as an image, which is what should have been done. Hope this helps, as Ive made than error before my self. john Hi John, Apparently, so have I, because I've thought that in the case of iso9660 (as opposed to UDF) formatted discs, image and .iso were the same thing. The way I've always burned discs is either: wodim dev=/dev/sg2 padsize=63s -dao -pad -v -eject myfile.iso or growisofs -Z=/dev/sr0=myfile.udf These *appear* to have given me readable CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays. What's the difference between an image and an .iso? Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance I think John is asking whether Josh burned the ISO file onto the DVD rather than (correctly) the DVD image contained in the ISO file. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536d4c2b.2080...@openmailbox.org
Re: Re: Confusion
Hey, Josh. As a side note, you might be getting flooded by email from debian-user@lists.debian.org. A solution is to subscribe to debian-user-dig...@lists.debian.org, which sends you messages from the debian-user list in bulk, instead of sending you a message every time someone emails debian-user (which will destroy your inbox if you leave it for a couple of days :P). I hope you get to solve that CD problem soon. As said earlier, it may be that the CD ISOs you downloaded were corrupted in the process of downloading. https://www.debian.org/CD/verify explains how to verify the authenticity/integrity of downloaded CD images. In the case that the data on the CD/DVD may have been corrupted in the process of burning, https://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#verify explains how to verify data that has already been burned on optical media. Cheers! On 08/05/14 08:01, josh wrote: Hi, When one has a problem with any GNU/Linux distribution and goes to the Internet for help, one is always a. assured that there is loads of help available and b. directed to a maze of mailing lists where any search immediately returns at least a million hits. This is certainly the case with Debian. Worse, almost every entry in those lists refers to attempting to perform some complex technical activity, usually with a root terminal, and is studded with abstruse technical terms. Trying to read through even a subset of those entries, obtained by severely narrowing the search terms, takes hours. And narrowing the terms may just have excluded the only relevant entry. Look at my latest frustration: I have downloaded 'wheezy' and created a CD from the Iso image. When I attempt to boot from the CD the screen image comes up, I respond to a few options, then the system reports unable to read from the CD - which it has, of course, been doing. I have created a second CD - same problem. Downloaded the file again and used that to create a third CD - same problem. I have tried these CD's on two different machines, one of which faultlessly runs the current version of gnewsense and the other puppy linux. Same result. This is such an elementary failure that it must be happening to lots of people. The CDs are all OK - I can open them, see their contents, unzip packages, read any readable files. My CD readers are obviously working just fine. I have so far spent two days trying to find some reference to this problem in your lists. Thank you for patiently reading this. My point is that I have a very basic problem that must be happening to dozens of other people, yet I am finding it impossible to discover the answer. And so must they be. Is there any way to find the answers to simple, basic problems without becoming immersed in millions of abstruse technical queries by people who are doing something other than following the very basic installation installation steps given on your own website? Am I missing something obvious here? Regards, Josh. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536bbe34.9060...@openmailbox.org
Debian laptop recommendations? Non-proprietary software only.
Hello, all! I'm currently in the market for a laptop/notebook computer on which to have a fully free installation of Debian GNU/Linux. That's is, I plan to have no proprietary programs whatsoever installed on it. This doesn't mean that I won't install some programs which Debian, as per the Debian Free Software Guidelines, may consider to be non-free, since I believe there is quite a number of programs which Debian places in this category but which still actually meet the Free Software Definintion and are therefore considered non-proprietary/free software. Wi-Fi should work out of the box. The graphics should be free software-friendly. I'm currently eying the Lenovo Thinkpad Edge E130 and the Thinkpad Edge E420. Have any of you had experience with any of these machines or similar ones? Thanks :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533472a3.8060...@openmailbox.org
Re: Acer C720p
On Friday, 28 March, 2014 06:27 AM, Brian wrote: On Thu 27 Mar 2014 at 20:20:34 +0100, Jean-Marc wrote: I have an eye on a Chromebook Acer C720p. And I want to install a Debian on it. Crunchbang (based on Debian) runs on it, so it looks a reasonable bet you could get your wish. Be warned though, CrunchBang installs with proprietary/non-free drivers by default. (It's a pretty good looking distro, though) xD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5334a6b0.7050...@openmailbox.org
