On 25 September 2011 03:15, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> It's stunning to know that something that's shipped by default with
> Ubuntu sucks so much? Canonical surely must have gone haywire.
It wouldn't be the first time that they've effectively tested software
by pushing it out to their user-base
I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this:
# fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5
* Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths...
cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
* [1/5] Scanning /lib ...
* [2/5] Scanning /usr/lib ...
* [3/5] Sca
Am 25.09.2011 12:53, schrieb Mick:
> I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this:
>
> # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5
> * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths...
> cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
> * [1/5] Scanning /lib ...
On 09/25/2011 03:53 AM, Mick wrote:
> I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this:
>
> # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5
> * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths...
> cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory
> * [1/5] Scanning /lib ...
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 5:56 AM, James Broadhead
wrote:
> On 25 September 2011 03:15, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>> It's stunning to know that something that's shipped by default with
>> Ubuntu sucks so much? Canonical surely must have gone haywire.
>
> It wouldn't be the first time that they've
On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 16:37:48 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 25.09.2011 12:53, schrieb Mick:
> > I updated gcc and when I ran fix_libtool_files.sh I get this:
> >
> > # fix_libtool_files.sh i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.4.5
> >
> > * Scanning libtool files for hardcoded gcc library paths...
> >
> > cat: ld
On 25 September 2011, at 17:05, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> …
> But with Unity the problem is much more than being pushed before time:
> Unity is a project sponsored by Canonical, and if you want to
> contribute code to it, you need to sign a "Contributor License
> Agreement" (CLA), …
>
> … I
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stroller
wrote:
>
> On 25 September 2011, at 17:05, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> …
>> But with Unity the problem is much more than being pushed before time:
>> Unity is a project sponsored by Canonical, and if you want to
>> contribute code to it, you need to sign
Hi,
Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
to connect to a WEP2 home network?
If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it the
password correctly. I've been trying to follow thi
Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
> Hi,
>Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
> to connect to a WEP2 home network?
>
>If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
> all sorts of ESSIDs but so far I cannot figure out how to give it
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 20:54 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just
> want to use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java
> binaries, Unreal Tournament and stuff under all sorts of licenses. If
> people want to use it, and it's in
On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 21:59:05 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
> > Hi,
> >
> >Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
> >
> > to connect to a WEP2 home network?
> >
> >If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stroller
> wrote:
>> The end users do not give a monkey's uncle about the CLA. They just want to
>> use the software, and our distro already provides Sun Java binaries, Unreal
>> Tournament and stuff
On 25 September 2011, at 23:17, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
> …
> I think the important thing, for me anyway, is not the general user
> community, but the "open source" development community. Most of those
> people reluctant to sign their code over to another organization.
None of this has got any
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Hi,
> Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
> to connect to a WEP2 home network?
Do you mean WPA2 or WEP? AFAIK there's no such thing as WEP2.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
>> Hi,
>> Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
>> to connect to a WEP2 home network?
>>
>> If got the modules installed and the hardware telling me it sees
>> al
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Adam Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
>> to connect to a WEP2 home network?
>
> Do you mean WPA2 or WEP? AFAIK there's no such thing as WEP2.
>
>
Ye
On 25 September 2011, at 21:21, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> …
>> At the moment there are very mixed feelings about Unity. There are a good
>> number of people who hate it, but there are some others who say "I love it,
>> except that I hate that it doesn't let me move the menu bar". Because Un
On Sep 26, 2011 6:37 AM, "Mark Knecht" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Florian Philipp
wrote:
> > Am 25.09.2011 22:38, schrieb Mark Knecht:
> >> Hi,
> >>Can anyone supply an example of correctly setting up wpa_supplicant
> >> to connect to a WEP2 home network?
> >>
> >>If got
> ifplugd or netplug.
This is the better option IMO.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Adam Carter wrote:
>> ifplugd or netplug.
>
> This is the better option IMO.
Or skip the net config/init scripts stuff and just use something like wicd.
I'd like to whitelist sites to allow their cookies to stay
permanently, then have all other sites cookies deleted upon browser
close. Can anyone recommend a cookie manager?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Adam Carter wrote:
> I'd like to whitelist sites to allow their cookies to stay
> permanently, then have all other sites cookies deleted upon browser
> close. Can anyone recommend a cookie manager?
"Cookie Monster" is great, it's what I use. If you're familiar wi
> "Cookie Monster" is great, it's what I use. If you're familiar with
> the NoScript or RequestPolicy add-ons, it operates very much the same
> way. It lets you have fine-grained control over which cookies you
> allow or block, and you can allow cookies from a site for this
> browsing session only.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Adam Carter wrote:
>> "Cookie Monster" is great, it's what I use. If you're familiar with
>> the NoScript or RequestPolicy add-ons, it operates very much the same
>> way. It lets you have fine-grained control over which cookies you
>> allow or block, and you can a
> I believe it uses the browser's setting as default.
Yeah that appears to be it, but you have a restart FF for CM to pick
up the new setting.
26 matches
Mail list logo
