On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 05:22:27PM +0200, Maxim Vexler wrote:
> On 12/12/05, Andrew Cady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > You could try putting a sulogin immediately before the mythbackend
> > script in your runlevel then running mythbackend manually. If it
> > works you've ruled out orde
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 03:32:57PM -0700, Mike wrote:
>
> normally you just have a set of source functions library like
> /etc/init.d/functions or some other path that you use for your init
> scripts. Debian has decided to daomonize it with this start-stop-daemon
> thing they made up. I guess I co
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:11:44AM -0700, Mike wrote:
>> I'm baffled I can start this by running
>> "/etc/init.d/mythbackend start" after the computer starts but when
>> its starting up it just says its starting but never does.
>>
>> How on earth would I trouble shoot something like this if i
On 12/12/05, Andrew Cady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> You could try putting a sulogin immediately before the mythbackend
> script in your runlevel then running mythbackend manually. If it works
> you've ruled out ordering and should check for environment problems by
> stopping mythbackend
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:11:44AM -0700, Mike wrote:
> I'm baffled I can start this by running
> "/etc/init.d/mythbackend start" after the computer starts but when
> its starting up it just says its starting but never does.
>
> How on earth would I trouble shoot something like this if it is
On 12/12/05, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm baffled I can start this by running "/etc/init.d/mythbackend
> start" after the computer starts but when its starting up it just says
> its starting but never does.
>
> How on earth would I trouble shoot something like this if it isn't going
>
I'm baffled I can start this by running "/etc/init.d/mythbackend
start" after the computer starts but when its starting up it just says
its starting but never does.
How on earth would I trouble shoot something like this if it isn't going
to tell me why it isn't starting it? And can somebod
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:55:43PM +0200, Dirk wrote:
Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
files in the output?
*You* are. Export LC_COLLATE=C if you want something different. --And
while you're at it, grow up. Ranting profanely in a public forum is just
ch
be the only person on the planet trying to use a SATA optical drive with
linux. Reminds me of ieee1394 and how long it took linux to gain actual
working support for that.
-Mike
I´m trying to mike with litte succes.
2 days after I bought the sata optical drive I read it´s not working on
Michael Marsh wrote:
> What's wrong with
> $ ls -d .*
> ?
That does have the effect of listing . and .. in the listing.
An old idiom was using ? which does not match a . in the list.
ls -d .??*
Of course that does skip all files that match .? only. So it is not
perfect but quite close.
Bob
John Hasler wrote:
> Bob writes:
> > Select None and no locale setting will be placed /etc/environment and
> > that will make C/POSIX the default for your system.
>
> Note that the POSIX locale uses dictionary order.
What makes you say that? I believe you are mistaken. Can you provide
an exampl
John Hasler wrote:
> Andrew Nelson writes:
>
>>Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remove
>>all non "." file from the output of ls. Does any one know of a better
>>way?
>
>
> ls -lad .*
I knew I was making things way to tricky. Thanks much.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 7/22/05, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 14:42 -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
> > What's wrong with
> > $ ls -d .*
> > ?
>
> If, for some weird reason, there are a huge number of dot files,
> it could overflow the "glob expansion buffer"
>
> $ dir /data/temp/*
>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:42:50PM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
> On 7/22/05, Bruno Cesar Ribas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:01:45PM -0500, Andrew Nelson wrote:
> > > Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remove
> > > all non
> > > "." file f
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 14:42 -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
> On 7/22/05, Bruno Cesar Ribas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:01:45PM -0500, Andrew Nelson wrote:
> > > Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remove
> > > all non
> > > "." file from the
Andrew Nelson writes:
> Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remove
> all non "." file from the output of ls. Does any one know of a better
> way?
ls -lad .*
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On 7/22/05, Bruno Cesar Ribas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:01:45PM -0500, Andrew Nelson wrote:
> > Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remove
> > all non
> > "." file from the output of ls. Does any one know of a better way?
> If you want t
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:01:45PM -0500, Andrew Nelson wrote:
>
> I thought the question was to get rid of non "." files all together not simply
> to put "." files and the top and non "." files at the bottom. My mistake.
>
> Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remo
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:01:45PM -0500, Andrew Nelson wrote:
> Although it seems this is far more difficult that it should be to remove all
> non
> "." file from the output of ls. Does any one know of a better way?
Sure. Don't include the -a switch when you run ls.
From man ls:
-a, --all
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Andrew Nelson wrote:
>
>>Andrew Nelson wrote
>>
>>>I have no idea what the cause might be but I guess you could do something
>>>like
>>>
>>>ls -la | awk '$9 ~ /^\./ {print}'
>>>
>>>Although you would then loose colors.
>>
>>You could also do something along these lines.
>>
>>l
Bob writes:
> Can you double check that? Because they shouldn't be doing that and they
> don't for me.
I tried 'export LC_COLLATE="POSIX" && ls -la' a little while ago and got
dictionary
order. However, I just tried it again and got ASCII order. I screwed it
up somehow, but I don't know how.
-
Bob writes:
> Select None and no locale setting will be placed /etc/environment and
> that will make C/POSIX the default for your system.
Note that the POSIX locale uses dictionary order.
> ...set LC_COLLATE=C...
Yes.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 03:27 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > POSIX also mixes dot files.
>
> Can you double check that? Because they shouldn't be doing that and
> they don't for me.
>
> > And, somehow, sometime in the past couple of months, I think Sid
> > changed my locale from
Andrew Nelson wrote:
> Andrew Nelson wrote
> > I have no idea what the cause might be but I guess you could do something
> > like
> >
> > ls -la | awk '$9 ~ /^\./ {print}'
> >
> > Although you would then loose colors.
>
> You could also do something along these lines.
>
> ls -lda `ls -a1 | awk
Ron Johnson wrote:
> POSIX also mixes dot files.
Can you double check that? Because they shouldn't be doing that and
they don't for me.
> And, somehow, sometime in the past couple of months, I think Sid
> changed my locale from C to POSIX.
POSIX is an synonym for C. Both are the same.
Probabl
Dirk wrote:
> Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> files in the output?
Ultimately it was you who was responsible because you apparently set
your locale setting to a dictionary sort order collating sequence such
as en_US. This does not happen unless you choose
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 00:10 +0800, Robert Vangel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Vangel wrote:
> > Dirk wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Perhaps because it's listing in alphabetical order?
>
> More answers..
>
> googling for `ls -a mixing dot files' first result shows i
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 18:40 +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
> Glenn English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How about adding " | sort"? That should put all the . files together.
> > Or, of course, you could change the source code to suit your own
> > preferences and recompile.
>
> No, it won't, s
Andrew Nelson wrote
>
> I have no idea what the cause might be but I guess you could do something like
>
> ls -la | awk '$9 ~ /^\./ {print}'
>
> Although you would then loose colors.
>
You could also do something along these lines.
ls -lda `ls -a1 | awk '/^\./ {print}'`
//andy
--
To UNS
Glenn English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about adding " | sort"? That should put all the . files together.
> Or, of course, you could change the source code to suit your own
> preferences and recompile.
No, it won't, since sort also adheres to the locale settings.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Dirk wrote:
> Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> files in the output?
>
> I wan't to salute that decision.
>
> I use unstable.
>
> I grepped a lot but was unable to find the cause.
>
I have no idea what the cause might be but I guess you could do somethin
Dirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> files in the output?
>
> I wan't to drink coffee and smoke and then rip his fucked up head off
> and shit a hugh load of crap into his throat!
>
> Don't give me "that's because you use unst
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 17:55 +0200, Dirk wrote:
> Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> files in the output?
The extremely stable mortal who added 'a' to the "ls -l" command.
> So. After I said this and I stared (grepped) my ass off I want to know
> now where I
Robert Vangel wrote:
> Robert Vangel wrote:
>
> >Dirk wrote:
>
> >>>Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> >>>files in the output?
> >>>
> >>>I wan't to salute that decision.
> >>>
> >>>I use unstable.
> >>>
> >>>I grepped a lot but was unable to find the cause.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Vangel wrote:
> Dirk wrote:
>
>>>Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
>>>files in the output?
>>>
>>>I wan't to salute that decision.
>>>
>>>I use unstable.
>>>
>>>I grepped a lot but was unable to find the ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dirk wrote:
> Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> files in the output?
>
> I wan't to drink coffee and smoke and then rip his fucked up head off
> and shit a hugh load of crap into his throat!
>
> Don't give me "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dirk wrote:
> Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
> files in the output?
>
> I wan't to salute that decision.
>
> I use unstable.
>
> I grepped a lot but was unable to find the cause.
>
> Thank you,
> Dirk
>
>
Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
files in the output?
I wan't to salute that decision.
I use unstable.
I grepped a lot but was unable to find the cause.
Thank you,
Dirk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Who is responsible for "ls -la" _mixing_ hidden "dot"-files with normal
files in the output?
I wan't to drink coffee and smoke and then rip his fucked up head off
and shit a hugh load of crap into his throat!
Don't give me "that's because you use unstable" or the same will happen
to you too.
So.
>
> I'm not much help here any more, but here's my suggestions for what
> they're
> worth:
>
> 1. Plextor hardware lists:
> http://www.plextor.com/english/support/support_compatability.html
> http://www.plextor.com/english/support/media_712SA.htm
> http://www.plextor.com/english/support/PX-716SA mo
On Monday 18 July 2005 10:30, Mike wrote:
<...>
> I read things that imply that Fedora supports SATA ATAPI. Whats wrong
> with it that prevents Debian from doing it but allows Fedora to do it
> with it's stock kernel? I don't know, maybe I'm just confusing myself
> even more.
<...>
I'm not much he
Mike wrote:
Brian Pack wrote:
According to the July Maximum PC (page 62), There are issues with 3rd
party SATA chips on motherboards when it comes to optical drives. The
Silicon Image chip would be one of those. They did not have very good
results with the Silicon Image 3112 or 3114 contro
Brian Pack wrote:
According to the July Maximum PC (page 62), There are issues with 3rd party
SATA chips on motherboards when it comes to optical drives. The Silicon Image
chip would be one of those. They did not have very good results with the
Silicon Image 3112 or 3114 controllers.
I ass
On Sunday 17 July 2005 09:54 pm, Mike wrote:
> roach wrote:
> >SUPRISE!
> >
> >See somebody did answer. Now peel yourself off the floor and lets
> > continue...
> >
> >I doubt very much that this is a problem with linux and relates more to
> > your SATA controller chipset. Most chipsets assume that
roach wrote:
SUPRISE!
See somebody did answer. Now peel yourself off the floor and lets continue...
I doubt very much that this is a problem with linux and relates more to your
SATA controller chipset. Most chipsets assume that you'd only connect a
harddrive and therefore only support harddr
On Sunday 17 July 2005 23:40, Mike wrote:
> Does anybody know why debian doesn't detect SATA optical drives?
<...>
> (I didn't post my system logs, lspci etc because it doesn't matter
> i'd be suprised if anybody responds to this one either)
SUPRISE!
See somebody did answer. Now peel yourself
Does anybody know why debian doesn't detect SATA optical drives?
I'm using sid, it detects my SATA controller and loads everything up.
But completely ingores my plextor 716SA DVD Burner. I havn't gotten a
single response to this question the last 8 times i've asked it.
-Mike
(I didn't post m
47 matches
Mail list logo
