Re: Fwd: Re: why pdf file at archive.org is so slow to open
Hi, On 2021-07-05 2:34 a.m., to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 06:21:40AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: >> >> Just a polite reminder: however annoyed you feel, insulting each other >> on list really doesn't help get technical or other points across. > I totally agree with you Andrew. Everything that is unrelated to the following can be considered useless: Technical aspects of a software/hardware What practice could be considered optimal for a specific case Arguments to support some technological / methodological choice References to documents / HOWTO / FAQ / etc... and so on... ( I'm pretty sure we get the point here). Yes it does make the reading bloated for other users and may even cause some people to loose interest in the mailing list. There may arise situation where it may be opportunistic to engage into some opinion, if the goal is to make a better community. This is my firm belief and the message I am responding to, can be considered such a situation. There is a point that I never saw being put forward and I think it must be dealt with, that is credibility. Same thing over what was the base of the situation here. If CIA really does infiltrate Adobe Software (or any company) then they have all the power needed to hide their track. It's not any usual layman that will have the power to trace back to them, even with all the willpower he may have. Also, if such a discovery would be made then I'm convinced that anyone who has solid proof would share them with either news agency, investigative journals, etc. Not keep it to oneself, only to be shared as part of a comment regarding the speed of opening a PDF file. So this sound to me as a pure fiction based arguments to support one's conviction against closed source software (Adobe in this case). Again this make the community of open source user look like a bunch of nutcracker thinking there's spy everywhere and going back to the 50's - 60's witch hunt. Or it's a really bad understanding over already published documents about some of the NSA program... This also raised doubt about evertything he could say, if someone doesn't validate info received and make such frivolous claim then how can I have a sense of trust over small suggestions he's making. For example that there's a real speed gain of using USB 3.0 for a webcam. Or that plugging a USB 2.0 device onto a USB 3.0 hub could reduce the speed for all the device on the hub. Even if the last part if true, I'll have a doubt over the whole sentence. (I made this one up) > Thanks, Andrew. > > Folks: if you enjoy slinging mud at each other, fine. But please, do > it off-list :-) > I dislike to see people ask for help, in good faith they will find it here and it turn bad for them. And they don't get back on the list... If having harsh exchange between each other may annoy the continuous user of the mailing list, then don't be fooled, first time user may get driver off the mailing list because they get far-reached unrelated explanation. And those one won't come back telling everyone why they left. If the goal of this mailing list is also to retain user in the use of Debian Linux distribution (and possibly derivative) then this shall also be dealt with. > I'd add "don't hurt each other", but that's me. I prefer consensual food fight over mud slinging, plus I always make sure not to target the eyes. > > Cheers > - t > -- Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside -Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Fwd: Re: why pdf file at archive.org is so slow to open
On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 06:21:40AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > Just a polite reminder: however annoyed you feel, insulting each other > on list really doesn't help get technical or other points across. Thanks, Andrew. Folks: if you enjoy slinging mud at each other, fine. But please, do it off-list :-) I'd add "don't hurt each other", but that's me. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fwd: Re: why pdf file at archive.org is so slow to open
Just a polite reminder: however annoyed you feel, insulting each other on list really doesn't help get technical or other points across. Anybody can phrase things badly: anybody can get things wrong at times: everybody can be wrong at times or just be badly informed. If all else fails: when you read something that punches your buttons, stop, wait 15 minutes, draft a politer reply - or set that thing aside and just ignore it or the person who wrote it wihout escalating it. Sometime, maybe, that person will have something more useful to contribute that you may benefit from. Andy - who doesn't always get things right himself. Andy Cater [For the Community Team]
Fwd: Re: why pdf file at archive.org is so slow to open
Original Message Subject: Re: why pdf file at archive.org is so slow to open Date: 05-07-2021 09:48 From: Weaver To: Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside On 05-07-2021 08:59, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > Hi, > >> Install Okular, with supporting packages. > Good advice. >> Why use Adobe products. > Good question ! >> If you install Lightbeam, you will find they connect directly with the >> CIA. > You just lost all type of credibility right now. > Don't take your dream for reality. If this would be true then they > woudln't be dumb enough to make this traceable to the open. > You just blew up all you said earlier and made a fool of yourself. > Not that spyware don't exist or that the CIA don't spy on people but > that you say things out of context, without any fact to support them and > presented like a undeniable fact. > Yes and election we're stolen too... > > The greatest menace to democracy is human dumbness as those get easy to > drive thru the use of custom chosen publicity driven by artificial > intelligence. > People who have basic knowledge of information and fact validation, plus > the ability to distinguish between rumors and bias don't fall for AI > based manipulation. And you're an idiot. `without any fact to support them'? I clearly stated, `If you install Lightbeam'. Are you capable of reading the English language? If you install Lightbeam, visit the Adobe site, you will see the association clearly. Perhaps you need to wake up to the fact your words apply to yourself. > You had a good message but blew it up by not keeping those two lip together. Yes, exactly! >> Adobe is spyware as far as I'm concerned. > Can be true but not in the sense you wrote earlier. No, as far as I'm concerned, it's spyware. Your approval for my individual thought process has not been sought or required. >> Cheers! >> >> Harry. >> -- `When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty' -- Thomas Jefferson
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 10:16 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Owen Heisler writes: > > What does the installer do now, if tasksel is not used? > > You get everything up through "standard" plus a few "base" packages that > are "optional" priority but are in "base" because some users may need them > to proceed with the installation. Okay, sounds good. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
Owen Heisler writes: > What does the installer do now, if tasksel is not used? You get everything up through "standard" plus a few "base" packages that are "optional" priority but are in "base" because some users may need them to proceed with the installation. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 16:20 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Owen Heisler writes: > > Still, I was thinking more of packages like "login" that could surely be > > considered "essential" for 99% of Debian systems out there, along with > > the common frontends to apt for package management, like aptitude and > > dselect, so other packages can be installed using the preferred program. > > Packages that are considered absolutely essential are tagged 'essential' > and dpkg will refuse to remove them. 'login' is 'essential'. > > Packages in section 'base' form the minimum set required to run the package > management system and install packages. Not all 'base' packages are > 'essential' or 'required' as packages such as ppp which not all users will > need are in 'base'. > > Priorities are: > >required > >Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the >system (usually, this means that dpkg functionality depends on >these packages). Removing an required package may cause your >system to become totally broken and you may not even be able to >use dpkg to put things back, so only do so if you know what you >are doing. Systems with only the required packages are probably >unusable, but they do have enough functionality to allow the >sysadmin to boot and install more software. > >important > >Important programs, including those which one would expect to >find on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an >experienced Unix person who found it missing would say "What on >earth is going on, where is foo?", it must be an important >package.[4] Other packages without which the system will not run >well or be usable must also have priority important. This does >not include Emacs, the X Window System, TeX or any other large >applications. The important packages are just a bare minimum of >commonly-expected and necessary tools. > >standard > >These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited >character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default >if the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include >many large applications. > > >optional > > >(In a sense everything that isn't required is optional, but >that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that >you might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it >was and don't have specialized requirements. This is a much >larger system and includes the X Window System, a full TeX >distribution, and many applications. Note that optional packages >should not conflict with each other. > > extra > > >This contains all packages that conflict with others with >required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are >only likely to be useful if you already know what they are or >have specialized requirements. Interesting; thanks! I would be thinking of, then, all the packages in "required" and "important". Perhaps "standard". What does the installer do now, if tasksel is not used? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
Owen Heisler writes: > Still, I was thinking more of packages like "login" that could surely be > considered "essential" for 99% of Debian systems out there, along with > the common frontends to apt for package management, like aptitude and > dselect, so other packages can be installed using the preferred program. Packages that are considered absolutely essential are tagged 'essential' and dpkg will refuse to remove them. 'login' is 'essential'. Packages in section 'base' form the minimum set required to run the package management system and install packages. Not all 'base' packages are 'essential' or 'required' as packages such as ppp which not all users will need are in 'base'. Priorities are: required Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system (usually, this means that dpkg functionality depends on these packages). Removing an required package may cause your system to become totally broken and you may not even be able to use dpkg to put things back, so only do so if you know what you are doing. Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install more software. important Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix person who found it missing would say "What on earth is going on, where is foo?", it must be an important package.[4] Other packages without which the system will not run well or be usable must also have priority important. This does not include Emacs, the X Window System, TeX or any other large applications. The important packages are just a bare minimum of commonly-expected and necessary tools. standard These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default if the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include many large applications. optional (In a sense everything that isn't required is optional, but that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that you might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was and don't have specialized requirements. This is a much larger system and includes the X Window System, a full TeX distribution, and many applications. Note that optional packages should not conflict with each other. extra This contains all packages that conflict with others with required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have specialized requirements. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 16:33 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > I wrote: > > For many people ppp is necessary for a network install. Debian does not > > install Gnome or KDE unless you tell it to. > > Owen Heisler writes: > > Okay, bad example then. You know what I mean. > > No, I don't. Oh. Well, because I am new to Debian (and somewhat new to Linux) it is difficult for me to argue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 16:36 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Owen Heisler wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 15:58 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > >> Owen Heisler writes: > >>> I mean that the Debian installer, I think, should install only what is > >>> /necessary/ for a complete system. This includes all the "important" and > >>> "essential" packages but excludes stuff like ppp and (especially) gnome > >>> or kde. > >> For many people ppp is necessary for a network install. Debian does not > >> install Gnome or KDE unless you tell it to. > > > > Okay, bad example then. You know what I mean. > > Yes. It means that one person's "essential" is another person's > "useless". Ha, yeah, I guess so! Still, I was thinking more of packages like "login" that could surely be considered "essential" for 99% of Debian systems out there, along with the common frontends to apt for package management, like aptitude and dselect, so other packages can be installed using the preferred program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
I wrote: > For many people ppp is necessary for a network install. Debian does not > install Gnome or KDE unless you tell it to. Owen Heisler writes: > Okay, bad example then. You know what I mean. No, I don't. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Owen Heisler wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 15:58 -0500, John Hasler wrote: >> Owen Heisler writes: >>> I mean that the Debian installer, I think, should install only what is >>> /necessary/ for a complete system. This includes all the "important" and >>> "essential" packages but excludes stuff like ppp and (especially) gnome >>> or kde. >> For many people ppp is necessary for a network install. Debian does not >> install Gnome or KDE unless you tell it to. > > Okay, bad example then. You know what I mean. Yes. It means that one person's "essential" is another person's "useless". - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEuV/4S9HxQb37XmcRAvhrAKDHpHJD8RUEwVCpX3caO4WCH2g8tgCgwRvA kBJtvxR/AxxQya9XY71o+0I= =fJPF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 15:58 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Owen Heisler writes: > > I mean that the Debian installer, I think, should install only what is > > /necessary/ for a complete system. This includes all the "important" and > > "essential" packages but excludes stuff like ppp and (especially) gnome > > or kde. > > For many people ppp is necessary for a network install. Debian does not > install Gnome or KDE unless you tell it to. Okay, bad example then. You know what I mean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
Owen Heisler writes: > I mean that the Debian installer, I think, should install only what is > /necessary/ for a complete system. This includes all the "important" and > "essential" packages but excludes stuff like ppp and (especially) gnome > or kde. For many people ppp is necessary for a network install. Debian does not install Gnome or KDE unless you tell it to. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 04:58 +1000, Arafangion wrote: > Owen Heisler wrote: > > > > This all seems to be about questions in the installer, but all the > > installer really does (at least for me) is set up a minimal Debian > > system. I think the tasksel that the installer uses (that's it, right?) > > is so simple that it is useless, but I don't want to use it anyway. I > > will use my preferred method of package management to install other junk > > later. For the newbie, this would be aptitude ran from base-config. > > > > My opinion is that the installer should be kept simple, excluding > > package selection. The installer sets up a minimal system, and other > > packages are added later using other software. /This/ software can be > > set up to be newbie-friendly. Their are way too many options for > > packages for any of it to be incorporated into the installer. > > What is the "Minimal System"? > When I install Debian, I tend to install just as little as I can, then > back out of hte install as soon as I can - this, to me, is the ideal > inital install of Debian - though I do tend to setup servers. I mean that the Debian installer, I think, should install only what is /necessary/ for a complete system. This includes all the "important" and "essential" packages but excludes stuff like ppp and (especially) gnome or kde. > Other people feel that the _everything_ should be installed (Which, to > their annoyance, just isn't possible on Debian), and between these two > extremes, we have all kinds of middle grounds. > > Some are very happy with the "Minimal" system that Ubuntu setups, others > like tasksel, - the point I'm making is that what is "Minimal" is very > hard to get more than two people to agree on. Yeah, and I guess it doesn't really matter that much. Just give me a running Debian system that uses less space than Windows XP and I'll add and remove as I desire. > Personally, I love the minimal installation of Debian for servers - but > lately I've prefered the "minimal" installation of Ubuntu for my > desktops - the needs are different. (Having said that, I'm returning to > Debian - I'm just too used to it.) I'm not as "used to" Debian as I am Fedora, but I probably don't really need to give you reasons for why I choose Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Why?]
Owen Heisler wrote: > > This all seems to be about questions in the installer, but all the > installer really does (at least for me) is set up a minimal Debian > system. I think the tasksel that the installer uses (that's it, right?) > is so simple that it is useless, but I don't want to use it anyway. I > will use my preferred method of package management to install other junk > later. For the newbie, this would be aptitude ran from base-config. > > My opinion is that the installer should be kept simple, excluding > package selection. The installer sets up a minimal system, and other > packages are added later using other software. /This/ software can be > set up to be newbie-friendly. Their are way too many options for > packages for any of it to be incorporated into the installer. > > $0.02 from Owen What is the "Minimal System"? When I install Debian, I tend to install just as little as I can, then back out of hte install as soon as I can - this, to me, is the ideal inital install of Debian - though I do tend to setup servers. Other people feel that the _everything_ should be installed (Which, to their annoyance, just isn't possible on Debian), and between these two extremes, we have all kinds of middle grounds. Some are very happy with the "Minimal" system that Ubuntu setups, others like tasksel, - the point I'm making is that what is "Minimal" is very hard to get more than two people to agree on. Personally, I love the minimal installation of Debian for servers - but lately I've prefered the "minimal" installation of Ubuntu for my desktops - the needs are different. (Having said that, I'm returning to Debian - I'm just too used to it.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: Why?]
Err. Didn't reply to list. Forwarded Message From: Owen Heisler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:01:55 -0500 On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:31 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:40:07AM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > > Paul E Condon wrote: > > >But some posters to this thread seem to be unaware that selecting > > >"Desk top" during install of Debian causes -both- kde -and- gnome to > > >be installed. So, I believe almost all of those newbies about whom we > > >are genuinely concerned already have both on their computer. And > > >-both- gdm -and- kdm can be told to start up either kdm or gnome. > > >(xdm doesn't seem to have this feature.) > > > > Yes, but still I believe the question should be asked. Newbies don't > > know there is a choice and find themselves in default gnome before they > > have a chance to decide. Experts have to know that they manually have to > > select kde before they log in. > > > > I don't remember how often I sat in front of a newly installed computer, > > thoughtlessly entering username and password, accidentially starting > > gnome, switching to the console, removing all the autogenerated gnome > > config files, selecting kde or xfce and logging in again > > > > It certainly isn't an unnecessary question to be asked on installation! > > Strictly speaking, it is unnecessary. The installation gets done successfully > without it being asked. A more appropriate question might be, it is useful? > For a real newbie, the idea that there different competing user interfaces is > a real mind bender. For a person like you who knows about it and knows what > he wants, the question would be a useful reminder to choose now what you will > otherwise choose later. I also like helpful reminders to do things that I > know I want to have done, but does this outrank making the install interface > OK for real first-time dummies? These dummies often have good communication > skills and write good letters to this list asking really dumb questions, > which sometimes trigger really nasty flames from some of us. Bad! I say > let's keep it simple. But that's just my opinion. This all seems to be about questions in the installer, but all the installer really does (at least for me) is set up a minimal Debian system. I think the tasksel that the installer uses (that's it, right?) is so simple that it is useless, but I don't want to use it anyway. I will use my preferred method of package management to install other junk later. For the newbie, this would be aptitude ran from base-config. My opinion is that the installer should be kept simple, excluding package selection. The installer sets up a minimal system, and other packages are added later using other software. /This/ software can be set up to be newbie-friendly. Their are way too many options for packages for any of it to be incorporated into the installer. $0.02 from Owen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
