Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines
Christian don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled...
Christian however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ;
Christian lpr somefile.ps on occassion,
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I
think.
Christian If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a
Christian lock-file in the user's
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same
Christian document... but's that's a different topic.
We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs.
Yes, I know. I was
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same
Christian document... but's that's a different
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document
Christian at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer
Christian games where you have several people
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines
Christian don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled...
Christian however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ;
Christian lpr somefile.ps on occassion,
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I
think.
Christian If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a
Christian lock-file in the user's
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same
Christian document... but's that's a different topic.
We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs.
Yes, I know. I was
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same
Christian document... but's that's a different
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Christian == Christian Ridderström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document
Christian at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer
Christian games where you have several people
> "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> You might not believe this... but our Solaris machines
Christian> don't have SSH running and xhost has been disabled...
Christian> however, I've still used: lyx --export ps somefile.lyx ;
Christian> lpr somefile.ps
> "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I
>> think.
Christian> If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a
Christian>
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christian> I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same
> Christian> document... but's that's a different topic.
>
> We have change tracking in 1.4.0cvs.
Yes,
> "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> > "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Christian> I think it'd be great if two persons could work on the same
Christian> document...
On 17 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Christian" == Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christian> Yes, I know. I was dreaming of working on the same document
> Christian> at the same time interactively... sort of like multiplayer
> Christian> games where you
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Is that a awfully difficult thing to do, or it has some disadvantages?
Thanks.
Max
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple
shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence wrote:
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence
Dekel wrote:
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was
a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
Max
--- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better.
Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script he
suggested to use.
Even better, it should be lyx --remote command.
I don't understand this suggestion.
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better.
Andre Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script
Andre he suggested to use.
Even better, it
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a
Andre separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where
Andre the LyX process I am talking to runs?
I mean that, instead of having a script, one
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does
not lose anything.
Since sockets are simple to program, it is not difficult to come up
with a simple helper program in C, or perl.
Max
--- Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. User on machine A without LyX
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:14:50AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does
not lose anything.
I can run single commands with e.g. rsh on other machines.
If this would be possible with sockets, I have no complaint.
I just have never used
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with
some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you,
but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will
you?''.
Andre Ok. User on machine A without
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of
this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the
same machines.
Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does not
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre wrote:
It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use
of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications
on the same machines.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop
Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes...
If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can
also open an xterm on the
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I
think.
If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a lock-file in
the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this:
lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock - 130.237.57.34:592
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to
Andre collect applications from different servers just because
Andre there is not a single one containing the proper version of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic,
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic,
which uses
the pipe to work.
It will
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Is that a awfully difficult thing to do, or it has some disadvantages?
Thanks.
Max
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple
shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to sockets
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence wrote:
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence
Dekel wrote:
Max Bian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was
a discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
Max
--- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dekel == Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dekel On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better.
Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script he
suggested to use.
Even better, it should be lyx --remote command.
I don't understand this suggestion.
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better.
Andre Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script
Andre he suggested to use.
Even better, it
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a
Andre separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where
Andre the LyX process I am talking to runs?
I mean that, instead of having a script, one
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does
not lose anything.
Since sockets are simple to program, it is not difficult to come up
with a simple helper program in C, or perl.
Max
--- Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. User on machine A without LyX
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:14:50AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does
not lose anything.
I can run single commands with e.g. rsh on other machines.
If this would be possible with sockets, I have no complaint.
I just have never used
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with
some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you,
but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will
you?''.
Andre Ok. User on machine A without
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of
this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the
same machines.
Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does not
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre wrote:
It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use
of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications
on the same machines.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop
Andre machine and free to install whatever version he likes...
If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can
also open an xterm on the
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I
think.
If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a lock-file in
the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this:
lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock - 130.237.57.34:592
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to
Andre collect applications from different servers just because
Andre there is not a single one containing the proper version of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic,
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote:
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic,
which uses
the pipe to work.
It will
By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Is that a awfully difficult thing to do, or it has some disadvantages?
Thanks.
Max
Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
> discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
Pipes might be more portable than sockets. Some of us use very simple
shell scripts with the lyxpipe. A switch to
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence wrote:
> Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was a
> > discussion about switching it to sockets so it is more portable.
>
> Pipes might be more portable than sockets.
> "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dekel> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500, Ronald Florence
Dekel> wrote:
>> Max Bian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > By the way, why are we still using pipes? It seems that there was
>> a > discussion about switching it to sockets
So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
Max
--- Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Dekel" == Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dekel> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:50:19AM -0500,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
> So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better.
Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script he
suggested to use.
> > Even better, it should be "lyx --remote ".
I don't understand this suggestion.
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
>> So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better.
Andre> Pipes are more convenient until Dekel comes up with that script
Andre> he suggested to use.
>> >
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> I don't understand this suggestion. Should that invoke a
> Andre> separate LyX instance? Running where? On the same machine where
> Andre> the LyX process I am talking to runs?
>
> I mean that, instead of having a
Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does
not lose anything.
Since sockets are simple to program, it is not difficult to come up
with a simple helper program in C, or perl.
Max
--- Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok. User on machine A without LyX
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:14:50AM -0800, Max Bian wrote:
> Can you get this to work with pipes?? If no, switching to sockets does
> not lose anything.
I can run single commands with e.g. rsh on other machines.
If this would be possible with sockets, I have no complaint.
I just have never used
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I mean that, instead of having a script, one could launch LyX with
>> some special --remote flag saying ``hey, I do not want to run you,
>> but just send this command to another running lyx for me, will
>> you?''.
Andre> Ok. User on
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use of
> this feature. In general, people are interested by applications on the
> same machines.
Peoples are certainly intrested in such things but this does not
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Andre> wrote:
>> It wouldn't, indeed. But this is probably not the most probable use
>> of this feature. In general, people are interested by applications
>> on the
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> And not everybody is lucky enough to be root on his desktop
> Andre> machine and free to install whatever version he likes...
>
> If one is able to run LyX remotely on another machine, then one can
> also open an xterm
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> display. The mozilla solution requires mozilla on both machines, I
> think.
If I remember correctly, Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) creates a "lock"-file in
the user's ~/.netscape/ directory like this:
lrwxr-xr-x 17 Feb 13 18:45 lock ->
On 13 Feb 2003, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andre> not necessarily mean they get it... Here it is not uncommon to
> Andre> "collect" applications from different servers just because
> Andre> there is not a single one containing the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote:
> So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
> pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use
> On Thursday 13 February 2003 10:45 am, Max Bian wrote:
> > So sockets are just the same as pipes if they are not better. Since
> > pipes do not work on Windows, maybe it is time to switch?
>
> I would hope that there is no sudden switch. I use pybliographic,
> which uses
> the pipe to work.
Hi all,
I'm experiencing a problem I hadn't seen with the 1.1.x series, now that I
moved to the 1.3 version. I'm using the lyx.org supplied RedHat 8.0 binaries
with the QT front end.
The problem is that the lyxpipe.in/out files in ~/.lyx/ appear not to be
destroyed when lyx exits:
[~] \rm
Hi all,
I'm experiencing a problem I hadn't seen with the 1.1.x series, now that I
moved to the 1.3 version. I'm using the lyx.org supplied RedHat 8.0 binaries
with the QT front end.
The problem is that the lyxpipe.in/out files in ~/.lyx/ appear not to be
destroyed when lyx exits:
[~] \rm
Hi all,
I'm experiencing a problem I hadn't seen with the 1.1.x series, now that I
moved to the 1.3 version. I'm using the lyx.org supplied RedHat 8.0 binaries
with the QT front end.
The problem is that the lyxpipe.in/out files in ~/.lyx/ appear not to be
destroyed when lyx exits:
[~]> \rm
72 matches
Mail list logo
