Re: [PLUG] Commands that highlight the filename but not the extension
On 6/26/23 21:37, King Beowulf wrote: On 6/26/23 16:13, Dick Steffens wrote: Here's another one that I don't know what to call it. In Xubuntu 20.04, when I create a file with Right-click - file type, I would get a text box where, for example, a new text file would show up with something like "Plain Text" highlighted and .txt not highlighted. I could then just type the name I want the file to have without having to type .txt. That is not what I'm getting with Xubuntu 22.04. The text box has everything highlighted, so I have to remember to add the .txt. Is this a feature, or the loss of a feature? And if it's a feature, how to I set it to act like it did in 20.04? Dick, Linux does not rely or use extensions as heavily as Windows - a legacy of various DOS, whether IBM, MS, CP/M etc. They are not necessary and usage will vary between DEs and DE versios (KDE, Xfce, etc), what program or file manager generates the file, and not the particular Linux distro installed. Syslogs for example historically end in .log for convenience instead of .txt or nothing. Interesting article to learn about Linux file types: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/file-extensions-meaning Yes. Confirms stuff I've known for some years. Being an old fossil myself from the CP/M and [MS,IBM]DOS days, I tend to explicitly give my files the old timey extensions, disregarding whatever the default (unless mandated by the program), so I can easily tell who is what in a file listing. Me, too. In my distro, I've used Xfce for many an age, and it is the unmodified upstream source. Right-click on desktop or in Thunar just presents Create Document -> Empty File -> file name dialog. The created file is always text regardless of extension provided. I'm using Xfce, too, and yes, it does that. TL;DR: Xubuntu may have added or modified the right-click with Thunar custom actions and/or file templates. Look for a $HOME/Templates or /etc/Templates, for example. If you create an empty "new file.txt" in $HOME/Templates, it will show up as a choice in Thunar and Xfce desktop right-click->create document. $HOME/Templates has seven template files in it: OpenDocumentSpreadsheet.ods OpenDocumentText.odt Plain Text.txt Word.doc Word-x.docx xls spreadsheet.xls slx-x spareadsheet.xlsx Right clicking on the desktop gives me the option to create any of those files. What's different is that in 20.04 the extension is not highlighted when I create a new document, but in 22.04 it is. What I want to learn how to do is make 22.04 act the same way as 20.04. Is there an option somewhere to set that feature? Thanks for all your responses. -- Regards, Dick Steffens
Re: [PLUG] Commands that highlight the filename but not the extension
On 6/26/23 16:13, Dick Steffens wrote: > Here's another one that I don't know what to call it. In Xubuntu 20.04, > when I create a file with Right-click - file type, I would get a text > box where, for example, a new text file would show up with something > like "Plain Text" highlighted and .txt not highlighted. I could then > just type the name I want the file to have without having to type .txt. > That is not what I'm getting with Xubuntu 22.04. The text box has > everything highlighted, so I have to remember to add the .txt. > > Is this a feature, or the loss of a feature? And if it's a feature, how > to I set it to act like it did in 20.04? > Dick, Linux does not rely or use extensions as heavily as Windows - a legacy of various DOS, whether IBM, MS, CP/M etc. They are not necessary and usage will vary between DEs and DE versios (KDE, Xfce, etc), what program or file manager generates the file, and not the particular Linux distro installed. Syslogs for example historically end in .log for convenience instead of .txt or nothing. Interesting article to learn about Linux file types: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/file-extensions-meaning Being an old fossil myself from the CP/M and [MS,IBM]DOS days, I tend to explicitly give my files the old timey extensions, disregarding whatever the default (unless mandated by the program), so I can easily tell who is what in a file listing. In my distro, I've used Xfce for many an age, and it is the unmodified upstream source. Right-click on desktop or in Thunar just presents Create Document -> Empty File -> file name dialog. The created file is always text regardless of extension provided. TL;DR: Xubuntu may have added or modified the right-click with Thunar custom actions and/or file templates. Look for a $HOME/Templates or /etc/Templates, for example. If you create an empty "new file.txt" in $HOME/Templates, it will show up as a choice in Thunar and Xfce desktop right-click->create document. -Ed
[PLUG] Commands that highlight the filename but not the extension
Here's another one that I don't know what to call it. In Xubuntu 20.04, when I create a file with Right-click - file type, I would get a text box where, for example, a new text file would show up with something like "Plain Text" highlighted and .txt not highlighted. I could then just type the name I want the file to have without having to type .txt. That is not what I'm getting with Xubuntu 22.04. The text box has everything highlighted, so I have to remember to add the .txt. Is this a feature, or the loss of a feature? And if it's a feature, how to I set it to act like it did in 20.04? -- Regards, Dick Steffens
Re: [PLUG] Ubuntu messed up LO!
Synaptic, Apt, or whatever all use dpkg under the covers. Do 'dpkg --list' to see what is installed. Make a list of things you want to remove, i.e. 'dpkg --list | grep 'somepattern' > files.txt Then use 'dpkg deinstall' or 'dpkg -r' for each package you want to remove, you can gang them up on the command line if there are just a few. There are various --force-[something] options if you run into trouble with dependencies or broken packages. On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:07 PM John Jason Jordan wrote: > I had LO downloaded from LO (not the Ubuntu repositories) and installed > on my Xubuntu 22.04 laptop. Today I decided to do a system update, using > the Update Manager utility. When the Update Manager finished sniffing > the internet and my computer it came up with over 250 packages that > needed to be updated. I scanned through the list and saw a lot of LO > packages, so I painstakingly went through the entire list and > deselected all the LO packages. If I had not done so, I reasoned, the > updates would overwrite my installed non-Ubuntu version. When I > finished I clicked the button to start the update. > > As I watched the progress, imagine my horror as LO packages displayed as > being installed. WTH? I don't know how this happened, but I figured the > thing to do was let the update finish, reboot, and then open Synaptic > package manager, select all the LO packages and mark them to be > deleted, then click on Synaptic's Apply button to finish the task. My > plan was to get rid of god only knows what mess was installed after the > update, then download the current latest from LO and install it. > > Sadly, this failed. Synaptic said it couldn't delete the packages > because I had 'broken' packages that needed to be fixed. Guess which > packages were broken? Yup, you guessed it - every one of the LO > packages that I was trying to uninstall. > > Just for kicks and giggles, before further attempts to resolve the > problems, I decided to see what would happen if I tried to launch > Writer, the only package I really use. Amazingly a Writer window > opened, ready to start writing. The only problem was that my floating > toolbar for formatting was missing, but that is easily fixed. > > Questions: > > 1) I had 7.3.7.2 (that's what it says in Writer's Help - About). If I > download and install 7.4.7 or 7.5.4 (the latest from LO), will it > overwrite all the messed up packages? Or will it fail to complete the > installation and leave me with an even bigger mess? > > 2) What would be a command line tool to fix the broken pages? I'd > settle for just uninstalling them. After all, they're going to be > replaced anyway. > > Observations and suggestions welcome! >
[PLUG] Ubuntu messed up LO!
I had LO downloaded from LO (not the Ubuntu repositories) and installed on my Xubuntu 22.04 laptop. Today I decided to do a system update, using the Update Manager utility. When the Update Manager finished sniffing the internet and my computer it came up with over 250 packages that needed to be updated. I scanned through the list and saw a lot of LO packages, so I painstakingly went through the entire list and deselected all the LO packages. If I had not done so, I reasoned, the updates would overwrite my installed non-Ubuntu version. When I finished I clicked the button to start the update. As I watched the progress, imagine my horror as LO packages displayed as being installed. WTH? I don't know how this happened, but I figured the thing to do was let the update finish, reboot, and then open Synaptic package manager, select all the LO packages and mark them to be deleted, then click on Synaptic's Apply button to finish the task. My plan was to get rid of god only knows what mess was installed after the update, then download the current latest from LO and install it. Sadly, this failed. Synaptic said it couldn't delete the packages because I had 'broken' packages that needed to be fixed. Guess which packages were broken? Yup, you guessed it - every one of the LO packages that I was trying to uninstall. Just for kicks and giggles, before further attempts to resolve the problems, I decided to see what would happen if I tried to launch Writer, the only package I really use. Amazingly a Writer window opened, ready to start writing. The only problem was that my floating toolbar for formatting was missing, but that is easily fixed. Questions: 1) I had 7.3.7.2 (that's what it says in Writer's Help - About). If I download and install 7.4.7 or 7.5.4 (the latest from LO), will it overwrite all the messed up packages? Or will it fail to complete the installation and leave me with an even bigger mess? 2) What would be a command line tool to fix the broken pages? I'd settle for just uninstalling them. After all, they're going to be replaced anyway. Observations and suggestions welcome!
Re: [PLUG] Off Topic: I'd like to volunteer for ARRL Field Day
I would have suggested Clark County, but I thought you were looking for a SW Portland area group. Clark County is a great bunch of folks. I used to attend their meetings when I lived in Scappoose. Now they're just too far away. I did hear them a couple times during Field Day, but was never able to work them. Glad you got to participate. Michael WA7SKG On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 00:28 elcaset wrote: > Thank you both for your suggestions. I ended up going to the Clark County > Amateur Radio Club in Vancouver, & had a great time with them. It was the > only local Field Day that was accessible via public transit. > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 12:25 PM Johnathan Mantey > wrote: > > > Try contacting Ev Curry (W6ABM.arrl.net). He can probably guide you. > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 11:01 AM elcaset wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Michael, I'll check it out. 73 > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 4:49 AM Michael Barnes > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The Oregon Tualatin Valley ARC (OTVARC) usually does Field Day out at > > > Stub > > > > Stewart State Park. Great bunch of folks and they put on a great FD > > > > operation. I'm on the road, so I have to do FD on my own this year. > > Good > > > > luck. > > > > 73, > > > > Michael WA7SKG > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 19:06 elcaset wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, my callsign is KE7VXT. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 3:23 PM elcaset > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I live in shelton, WA near Olympia. For the next few weeks, I'm > > > > staying > > > > > > in SW Portland. Does anybody know if there's a Field Day here > > that I > > > > can > > > > > > volunteer with? I've got my Extra licence, & have volunteered at > > > other > > > > > > Field Day events in Washington, but it's been a few years. It > > > doesn't > > > > > have > > > > > > to be a large group. I've found three Field Day events in the > > > greater > > > > > > Portland area, but don't know any of those folks. At least not > > yet. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
