On 1/23/15, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 1/22/15, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:41:10AM -0500, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, sooo... I went ahead and tried asciinema. FAIR WARNING: When it
>>> asks you if you want to upload your session, it *uploads* your session
>>>
On 1/22/15, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:41:10AM -0500, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>>
>> Ok, sooo... I went ahead and tried asciinema. FAIR WARNING: When it
>> asks you if you want to upload your session, it *uploads* your session
>> *onto the Net*:
>>
>> https://asciinema.org/
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:41:10AM -0500, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 1/19/15, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> >
> > I just tried a long shot with "apt-cache search record terminal"
> >
> > Got back couple interesting looking things. That one on top is right
> > where it showed up, top of the search. H
On Tuesday 20 January 2015 08:57:14 Richard Owlett did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 19 January 2015 10:13:20 Richard Owlett did opine
> >
> > And Gene did reply:
> >> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> >>> [SNI
On Tuesday 20 January 2015 09:12:49 Curt did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On 2015-01-20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > 2 of my 4 1Tb disks are reporting 512/4096for sector sizes.
> >
> > GParted, even with round to cylinders checked, seems helpless at
> > fixing this.
>
> Really? This seems to imply t
On 2015-01-20, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> 2 of my 4 1Tb disks are reporting 512/4096for sector sizes.
>
> GParted, even with round to cylinders checked, seems helpless at fixing
> this.
>
Really? This seems to imply the contrary:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-linux-on-4kb-sector-dis
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 19 January 2015 10:13:20 Richard Owlett did opine
And Gene did reply:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
[SNIP]
apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
Mart
I have attempted that, several ti
On Tuesday 20 January 2015 01:40:23 Joel Roth did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Alberto Luaces wrote:
> > Richard Owlett writes:
> > > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >> On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> > >> [SNIP]
> > >>
> > >>> apt-get remove network-manager seems to work j
Am editing an important *oops* where a command is misspelled. Not sure
the proper protocol for doing this so will addend it up here.
"asciiname auth" should read "asciinema auth"..:
On 1/20/15, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 1/19/15, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>>
>> I just tried a long shot with "a
On 1/19/15, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>
> I just tried a long shot with "apt-cache search record terminal"
>
> Got back couple interesting looking things. That one on top is right
> where it showed up, top of the search. Haven't downloaded and tested
> but description sure fits. :)
>
> asciinema - R
Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Richard Owlett writes:
>
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> >> [SNIP]
> >>>
> >>> apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
> >>>
> >>> Mart
> >>
> >> I have attempted that, several times in the
On 1/19/15, Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Richard Owlett writes:
>
>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
>>>
>>> I have attempted that, several times in the past 5 or 6 years. The list
>>> of stuff it will also remove is usually several printed pages,
On Monday 19 January 2015 14:42:01 Joe did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:54:57 -0500
>
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > But that leads to the next logical question: What's the difference
> > between using apt-get to do that, and synaptic?
> >
> > Synaptic would have literally torn
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:54:57 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> But that leads to the next logical question: What's the difference
> between using apt-get to do that, and synaptic?
>
> Synaptic would have literally torn down the system, removing libc6,
> most of build-essentials among many many o
On Monday 19 January 2015 05:37:47 Lisi Reisz did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Monday 19 January 2015 09:54:57 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > But that leads to the next logical question: What's the difference
> > between using apt-get to do that, and synaptic?
> >
> > Synaptic would have literally tor
On Monday 19 January 2015 10:13:20 Richard Owlett did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >> apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
> >>
> >> Mart
> >
> > I have attempted that,
Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:13:20AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
[snip]
I had a similar problem some time back.
Someone pointed me to a utility that saved everything sent to a
console window.
It was not "redirection" nor a "pipe" as the console retained all
its functi
Richard Owlett writes:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
>> [SNIP]
>>>
>>> apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>> I have attempted that, several times in the past 5 or 6 years. The list
>> of stuff it
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:13:20AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
Someone pointed me to a utility that saved everything sent to a console
window.
Was it script?
script — make typescript of terminal session
Shade and sweet water!
Stephan
--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.ro
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:13:20AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> >[SNIP]
> >>
> >>apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
> >>
> >>Mart
> >
> >I have attempted that, several times in the p
Hi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:13:20AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> >[SNIP]
> >>
> >>apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
> >>
> >>Mart
> >
> >I have attempted that, several times in t
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
[SNIP]
apt-get remove network-manager seems to work just fine for me.
Mart
I have attempted that, several times in the past 5 or 6 years. The list
of stuff it will also remove is usually several printed pages,
On Monday 19 January 2015 09:54:57 Gene Heskett wrote:
> But that leads to the next logical question: What's the difference
> between using apt-get to do that, and synaptic?
>
> Synaptic would have literally torn down the system, removing libc6, most
> of build-essentials among many many others.
On 2015-01-19, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Thanks Mart. Now I know how to cure that headache. And will do exactly
> that on my next install.
>
BTW, I don't know whether anyone has mentioned this yet, but you can "force
static network configuration by providing boot parameter
netcfg/disable_dhcp=tru
On Monday 19 January 2015 01:24:35 Mart van de Wege did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Gene Heskett writes:
> > On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> >
> > And Gene did reply:
> >> Gene Heskett writes:
> >> > On Sunday 18 January 2015 14:12:03 Joe did opine
> >> >
> >> >>
Gene Heskett writes:
> On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
> And Gene did reply:
>> Gene Heskett writes:
>> > On Sunday 18 January 2015 14:12:03 Joe did opine
>> >
>> >> I don't have Gnome on the workstation either, but
>> >> I do have various Gnome bits such as Nautil
On Sunday 18 January 2015 17:11:55 Andrew M.A. Cater did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 06:29:46AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 January 2015 05:40:43 Andrew M.A. Cater did opine
> > [Gene]
> > Oh it usually does, until the initial reboot, at which time network
>
On Sunday 18 January 2015 18:21:02 Mart van de Wege did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Gene Heskett writes:
> > On Sunday 18 January 2015 14:12:03 Joe did opine
> >
> >> I don't have Gnome on the workstation either, but
> >> I do have various Gnome bits such as Nautilus. It really should be
> >> pos
Gene Heskett writes:
> On Sunday 18 January 2015 14:12:03 Joe did opine
>
>> I don't have Gnome on the workstation either, but
>> I do have various Gnome bits such as Nautilus. It really should be
>> possible to avoid NM, but probably not without some effort.
>
> Using information that it seems t
Joe writes:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:52:29 -0500
> Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So how did you kill NM on your workstation?
>
> It was never there. It's a dependency of quite a lot of stuff, notably
> evolution
Here on my laptop (running Sid) it's not. I can remove it, and the only
thing that
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 06:29:46AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 18 January 2015 05:40:43 Andrew M.A. Cater did opine
> [Gene]
> Oh it usually does, until the initial reboot, at which time network
> mangler steps in and destroys your work.
... stuff snipped by Andy ...
>
> But no, that
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:52:29 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> So how did you kill NM on your workstation?
It was never there. It's a dependency of quite a lot of stuff, notably
evolution and ppp, but since I use neither I don't need it. But the
Gnome metapackage includes evolution, so if you just
On Sunday 18 January 2015 14:12:03 Joe did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:38:25 -0500
>
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the last 9 debian/ubuntu flavored installs, on 4
> > machines here, have all ran up against Network-Mangler, which
> > promptly tore down any attemp
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:38:25 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the last 9 debian/ubuntu flavored installs, on 4
> machines here, have all ran up against Network-Mangler, which
> promptly tore down any attempts I successfully made to get it online.
.
.
.
.
>
> Sorry, but network ma
On Sunday 18 January 2015 05:40:43 Andrew M.A. Cater did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 03:38:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 January 2015 13:04:09 Clive Standbridge did opine
> >
> > And Gene did reply:
> > > > I assume it has a name, is this 7.8=Jessie?
>
On Sunday 18 January 2015 06:00:55 Lisi Reisz did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Saturday 17 January 2015 20:38:25 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 January 2015 13:04:09 Clive Standbridge did opine
> >
> > > It's a bit late now, but you might have had much lighter download
> > > using the ne
On Saturday 17 January 2015 20:38:25 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 17 January 2015 13:04:09 Clive Standbridge did opine
> > It's a bit late now, but you might have had much lighter download
> > using the network installation CD. Three DVDs is about 13GB; I doubt
> > that most installations woul
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 03:38:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 17 January 2015 13:04:09 Clive Standbridge did opine
> And Gene did reply:
> > > I assume it has a name, is this 7.8=Jessie?
> >
> > Its name is wheezy. It's an update, not a new release. See:
> > https://www.debian.org/re
38 matches
Mail list logo
