Re: gufw problem
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:43:00 -0500 Francis Gerund wrote: >[re: "Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will >receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to >the list and to them, they get two copies of each message."] > > > >Just a note on email addressing: > >I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface. Although the default >reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically >adds the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in >addition to ALSO replying to the whole list. > >If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, >someone gets an extra treat in their inbox. > >If anyones does get this sent to their own address in addition to the >one sent to the list, please say so on the list, so that I will know >and try to find some way to fix it "automatically". > This has been discussed with google, but they don't seem very eager to fix the problem at all. Some fruitless discussions can be found here: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/gmail/-Lc4hn9DuJg/1G3eqiEYJ6AJ /Andreas gusnan.mailingli...@openmailbox.org
Re: gufw problem
On Saturday 12 December 2015 08:49:51 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:49:19PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 11 December 2015 23:33:52 Chris Bannister wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote: > > [...] > > > > > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that > > > > way?", maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things > > > > don't work CORRECTLY. > > > > > > Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things > > > have changed since then.) > > > > Why is using the menu the correct way? > > To clarify, my post. I wasn't explicitly referring to the > 'use of a menu' but the phrase 'It just bothers me when things don't > work CORRECTLY.', and by correctly, I mean 'the way I expect, seems > logical to me, ...' Ah!! So the *launcher* is the correct way, ;-) After all, I never use the menu. So gfw works "correctly". Glad we have sorted that out. ;-) I must remember that "correctly" is a subjective word. I suppose it is bound to be. ;-) Lisi
Re: gufw problem
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:49:19PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 11 December 2015 23:33:52 Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote: [...] > > > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that > > > way?", maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things don't > > > work CORRECTLY. > > > > Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things have > > changed since then.) > > Why is using the menu the correct way? To clarify, my post. I wasn't explicitly referring to the 'use of a menu' but the phrase 'It just bothers me when things don't work CORRECTLY.', and by correctly, I mean 'the way I expect, seems logical to me, ...' -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: gufw problem
On 12/08/2015 02:00 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: Hello! I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the netinst.iso. Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency). Ufw works fine. But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu of Gnome. The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal (non-login):     gksudo /usr/bin/gufw I use 'gksu gufw' it works for me as user in the run command, console and menu. regards, Jimmy -- Debian Jessie - KDE 4.14.2 - EXT4 - AMD64 at sda10 Registered Linux User #380263 -- Debian Jessie - KDE 4.14.2 - EXT4 - AMD64 at sda10 Registered Linux User #380263
Re: gufw problem
Chris Bannister writes: > I reckon bottom posting is worse than top posting if the poster doesn't > trim anything. I agree. When I open a message and see only quoted material I just delete it and go on. I don't understand what's so damn difficult about deleting a few lines. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: gufw problem
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:53:09PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > > "Bottom posting" posting after the message to which the reply is made, > so that people who are reading the reply, if they are worth anything, > will read the message to which the reply is made, before reading the > reply that is made, so that the reply is read in the context of the > message to which the reply is made. This message is best, when the > reply is made to the whole of the message, rather than individual > replies to individual points within the message to which the reply is > made. I reckon bottom posting is worse than top posting if the poster doesn't trim anything. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: gufw problem
On Friday 11 December 2015 23:33:52 Chris Bannister wrote: > [PLease don't top post.] > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote: > > I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop. > > > > When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left > > corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying > > glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ". If I type in "gufw", > > it just bluntly says "No results.". > > > > But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command". If I type > > in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work. > > > > So, yes - it does start that way. > > > > Now, as to: > > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that > > way?", maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things don't > > work CORRECTLY. > > Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things have > changed since then.) Why is using the menu the correct way? Lisi
Re: gufw problem
[PLease don't top post.] On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:20:38PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote: > I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop. > > When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left > corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying > glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ". If I type in "gufw", it > just bluntly says "No results.". > > But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command". If I type > in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work. > > So, yes - it does start that way. > > Now, as to: > "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?", > maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things don't work > CORRECTLY. Me too, that's why I stopped using Gnome. (Disclaimer: Maybe things have changed since then.) -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: gufw problem
On Thursday 10 December 2015 19:43:00 Francis Gerund wrote: > I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface. Although the default > reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically adds > the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in addition to > ALSO replying to the whole list. > > If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, someone > gets an extra treat in their inbox. One of the many "joys" - and irritants - of the Gmail interface. You are using the only way I have come across of replying to list only from Gmail. I solve it by using an email client. And still manage to make mistakes!! Lisi
Re: gufw problem
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:43:00 -0500 Francis Gerund wrote: Hello Francis, >reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically >adds the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in >addition to ALSO replying to the whole list. That's what "Reply All" means - send the reply to all valid addresses. What you need, and gmail doesn't have IIRC, is a "Reply to List" option. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" He looked the wrong way at a policeman I Predict A Riot - Kaiser Chiefs pgpY1fhnwWhPK.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: gufw problem
On 12/10/2015 02:43 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: [re: "Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to the list and to them, they get two copies of each message."] Just a note on email addressing: I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface. Although the default reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically adds the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in addition to ALSO replying to the whole list. If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, someone gets an extra treat in their inbox. If anyones does get this sent to their own address in addition to the one sent to the list, please say so on the list, so that I will know and try to find some way to fix it "automatically". Sorry. No apology needed. As I said before, it happens all the time. I mentioned it because I wasn't sure whether or not you knew that you had CC'd me. Best regards, JP
Re: gufw problem
[re: "Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to the list and to them, they get two copies of each message."] Just a note on email addressing: I was using gmail, with it's built-in interface. Although the default reply setting was set to "reply all", for some reason it automatically adds the email address of the last person to reply to a thread, in addition to ALSO replying to the whole list. If I don't remember to manually edit the "send to" address line, someone gets an extra treat in their inbox. If anyones does get this sent to their own address in addition to the one sent to the list, please say so on the list, so that I will know and try to find some way to fix it "automatically". Sorry.
Re: gufw problem
On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 23:27 -0500, Jape Person wrote: > > BTW, I really think that "blocking" line in the desktop.gufw was > > deliberate. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. > > > > Yes, of course. That line didn't write itself. I think it's really > odd, > too, but I'm sure that whoever is responsible for it thought that > there > was a good reason. > > The package was actually developed under Ubuntu, if I remember > correctly. Maybe there was a difference in the way menus are handled > under the various desktop environments in Debian and Ubuntu. I > wouldn't > know. The last time I touched Ubuntu was a long time before Unity > came > along. That line is not really so mysterious. It's quite common for an application made for, say GNOME, to have OnlyShowIn=GNOME if there is a similar application in other desktop environments. In this case it's probably just a leftover from the defaults in Ubuntu, in a package that seems to be badly in need of some love from the maintainer. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: gufw problem
On 09/12/2015, Jape Person wrote: > > Just as a matter of etiquette for this mailing list, I thought I'd > mention a couple of things. > > 1. It's best not to reply directly to another user's e-mail address -- > unless that user has specifically requested to be CC'd. Most people who > post here subscribe to the list, so they will receive any response you > make to the debian-user list. If you send to the list and to them, they > get two copies of each message. > > Many mail clients and browser-based mail systems (like gmail) make it > too easy to respond accidentally to a personal e-mail address instead of > to the list address. It happens by accident all the time. But it's > something you might want to avoid, if you can. > Simplest way to deal with this, when replying to a mailing list message, is selecting the "Reply To All" option (in both gmail, and in PINE/ALPINE), cutting the list email address from the CC field, and, pasting it over (so as to replace) the email address of the poster of the message to which the reply is being made. It is always better, when a mailing list is configured, so that replies default to the list, but, when that is not configured, I have found the above method, to be the way to deal with it. > 2. When replying, it's also usually considered best on this list (and on > many other technical lists) to user interleaved reply format -- like the > way I've been replying to you. > Also, I believe, named "Inline Posting". "Top posting" - posting before the message to which a reply is made, so as to cause absolute confusion as to what exactly, a person is replying, and, so that people reading the message are not inclined to read to what the reply is being made, so that the reply is read out of context, so as to cause maximum confusion. "Bottom posting" posting after the message to which the reply is made, so that people who are reading the reply, if they are worth anything, will read the message to which the reply is made, before reading the reply that is made, so that the reply is read in the context of the message to which the reply is made. This message is best, when the reply is made to the whole of the message, rather than individual replies to individual points within the message to which the reply is made. "Inline posting" - where replies to individual points within a message, are inserted immediately after the points to which the individual replies are made. Very useful for that purpose. "tolerance" - where people who use a different posting method , to another person, and, tolerate the other person's method, even though the person believes the person's method to be better and more appropriate. "bigotry" = intolerance of something that is different to the bigot - where some bright spark decides to start a stupid argument about which posting method should be applied, to the exclusion of all else (this DOES NOT apply to the poster of the message above, who, to me, is merely suggesting the contextual benefit of inline posting, rather than dogmatically insisting that a particular method should be used exclusively, simply because it is the way of a bigot) These are simply my opinions and experience, and, others may have different opinions, and, we should be tolerant of those who are different to us, while, as above, suggesting (and, not insisting) what may be a better implementation (although, some may say that what I posted above, is, maybe, not so tolerant, but, I will not argue the point, beyond what I have said here). -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992
Re: gufw problem
On 12/08/2015 10:55 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: Yes! Thank you, Jape. This was the answer: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315. I guess I'm going to have to learn to hunt down (and to read) bug reports. Ugh! Reading Is Fundamental (blast from the past). When you don't know how things work, it's the man pages. When things don't work the way they should, it's the bug reports. If you're new to this, sit back and relax and enjoy it. It's actually a lot easier to solve problems like this in a GNU/Linux distribution than it is in something like MS Windows. I mean, for any package you find in Debian there are going to be man pages and bug reports, and probably tons of other data, too. I look at it kind of like an adventure game with puzzles, like Myst or Riven (more blasts from the past). Just editing the desktop.gufw file to comment out the offending (and offensive!) line fixed it. It now shows up (and works) in the "Favorites" bar and the application menu, and I was even able to add it to the "classic" applications menu in the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop view. So it works in Gnome 3. Perhaps in XFCE there is a similar configuration file that could be edited the same way (I don't use XFCE, so I don't know). Yes, I tested the solution in Xfce before I posted it. But I thought you'd have to test it in Gnome before we could be absolutely certain it would work there. BTW, I really think that "blocking" line in the desktop.gufw was deliberate. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Yes, of course. That line didn't write itself. I think it's really odd, too, but I'm sure that whoever is responsible for it thought that there was a good reason. The package was actually developed under Ubuntu, if I remember correctly. Maybe there was a difference in the way menus are handled under the various desktop environments in Debian and Ubuntu. I wouldn't know. The last time I touched Ubuntu was a long time before Unity came along. Thanks again to all for the help. Just as a matter of etiquette for this mailing list, I thought I'd mention a couple of things. 1. It's best not to reply directly to another user's e-mail address -- unless that user has specifically requested to be CC'd. Most people who post here subscribe to the list, so they will receive any response you make to the debian-user list. If you send to the list and to them, they get two copies of each message. Many mail clients and browser-based mail systems (like gmail) make it too easy to respond accidentally to a personal e-mail address instead of to the list address. It happens by accident all the time. But it's something you might want to avoid, if you can. 2. When replying, it's also usually considered best on this list (and on many other technical lists) to user interleaved reply format -- like the way I've been replying to you. It may take a bit of practice to get the quoting down right when replying in this manner. Editing and interleaving can mess up attribution of what was said and who said it, so you do have to be careful. But it's considered to be the best way to communicate on this list. That's because you can respond to each specific point made by another person with your own point in close proximity. That makes it easy for other readers to get the context of your points. If you examine your reply carefully before sending you should be able to see whether or not your editing and interleaving have messed up any of the context. I'm glad you got this sorted out. I was pleased to be able to help a little. Best regards, JP
Re: gufw problem
Yes! Thank you, Jape. This was the answer: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315. I guess I'm going to have to learn to hunt down (and to read) bug reports. Ugh! Just editing the desktop.gufw file to comment out the offending (and offensive!) line fixed it. It now shows up (and works) in the "Favorites" bar and the application menu, and I was even able to add it to the "classic" applications menu in the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop view. So it works in Gnome 3. Perhaps in XFCE there is a similar configuration file that could be edited the same way (I don't use XFCE, so I don't know). BTW, I really think that "blocking" line in the desktop.gufw was deliberate. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Thanks again to all for the help. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Jape Person wrote: > On 12/08/2015 09:20 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: > >> I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop. >> >> When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left >> corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying >> glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ". If I type in "gufw", >> it just bluntly says "No results.". >> >> But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command". If I >> type in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work. >> >> So, yes - it does start that way. >> >> > Glad to hear it. > > Now, as to: >> "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that >> way?", >> maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things don't work >> CORRECTLY. >> >> I guess it just goes to show that for a lot of developers, it is more >> fun to devise new "features" that "sort of" work than to fix errors and >> deficiencies. >> >> Sigh. >> >> > Check out this bug report: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315 > > There's a possible solution. Apparently the application's .desktop file > has an entry in it that prevents it from showing in any desktop environment > except Unity. > > It's actually a "feature"??? How odd. > > >
Re: gufw problem
On 12/08/2015 09:20 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop. When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ". If I type in "gufw", it just bluntly says "No results.". But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command". If I type in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work. So, yes - it does start that way. Glad to hear it. Now, as to: "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?", maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things don't work CORRECTLY. I guess it just goes to show that for a lot of developers, it is more fun to devise new "features" that "sort of" work than to fix errors and deficiencies. Sigh. Check out this bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681315 There's a possible solution. Apparently the application's .desktop file has an entry in it that prevents it from showing in any desktop environment except Unity. It's actually a "feature"??? How odd.
Re: gufw problem
I am using the Gnome 3 "classic" desktop. When I push the mouser pointer up into the hot-spot in the upper left corner of the screen, a (sort of) oval pops up containing a magnifying glass icon and the words "Type to search . . . ". If I type in "gufw", it just bluntly says "No results.". But if I do ALT-F2, a window pops up saying "Enter a command". If I type in "gufw" there, Gufw starts up, and seems to work. So, yes - it does start that way. Now, as to: "What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way?", maybe I am just autistic. It just bothers me when things don't work CORRECTLY. I guess it just goes to show that for a lot of developers, it is more fun to devise new "features" that "sort of" work than to fix errors and deficiencies. Sigh. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 09 December 2015 01:32:39 Jape Person wrote: > > On 12/08/2015 04:57 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the > > > netinst.iso. Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency). > > > Ufw works fine. > > > > > > But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu > > > of Gnome. The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal > > > (non-login): > > > > > > gksudo /usr/bin/gufw > > > > I can confirm that gufw doesn't show in the menu on Xfce, also. So at > > least one other desktop environment is affected. > > > > I hadn't noticed. Installed it on a friend's system so she'd have a > > reasonably easy-to-use control for ufw. I only ever start gui apps with > > a launcher, so I didn't notice gufw's absence from the menu until I read > > your message and checked it out on her system. This is on a testing > > system, so problem hasn't been fixed yet. > > > > > But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the > > > terminal is showing this: > > > > > > Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module" > > > > > > But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra > > > components installed. So, rather than messing up my system completely, > > > has anyone else had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve > > > it? > > > > > > (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?") > > > > What happens if you just use a launcher to launch gufw and then click on > > the Unlock button on the application -- assuming that it comes up? > > What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way? > > Lisi > >
Re: gufw problem
On Wednesday 09 December 2015 01:32:39 Jape Person wrote: > On 12/08/2015 04:57 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the > > netinst.iso. Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency). > > Ufw works fine. > > > > But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu > > of Gnome. The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal > > (non-login): > > > > gksudo /usr/bin/gufw > > I can confirm that gufw doesn't show in the menu on Xfce, also. So at > least one other desktop environment is affected. > > I hadn't noticed. Installed it on a friend's system so she'd have a > reasonably easy-to-use control for ufw. I only ever start gui apps with > a launcher, so I didn't notice gufw's absence from the menu until I read > your message and checked it out on her system. This is on a testing > system, so problem hasn't been fixed yet. > > > But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the > > terminal is showing this: > > > > Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module" > > > > But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra > > components installed. So, rather than messing up my system completely, > > has anyone else had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve > > it? > > > > (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?") > > What happens if you just use a launcher to launch gufw and then click on > the Unlock button on the application -- assuming that it comes up? What's wrong with just using a launcher anyway, if it comes up that way? Lisi
Re: gufw problem
On 12/08/2015 04:57 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: Hello! I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the netinst.iso. Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency). Ufw works fine. But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu of Gnome. The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal (non-login): gksudo /usr/bin/gufw I can confirm that gufw doesn't show in the menu on Xfce, also. So at least one other desktop environment is affected. I hadn't noticed. Installed it on a friend's system so she'd have a reasonably easy-to-use control for ufw. I only ever start gui apps with a launcher, so I didn't notice gufw's absence from the menu until I read your message and checked it out on her system. This is on a testing system, so problem hasn't been fixed yet. But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the terminal is showing this: Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module" But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra components installed. So, rather than messing up my system completely, has anyone else had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve it? (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?") What happens if you just use a launcher to launch gufw and then click on the Unlock button on the application -- assuming that it comes up?
gufw problem
Hello! I just installed Debian 8.2, 64-bit, Gnome desktop, using the netinst.iso. Used Synaptic to install Gufw (and ufw as dependency). Ufw works fine. But gufw does not show in the application menu or in the favories menu of Gnome. The only way to run it seems to be in Gnome terminal (non-login): gksudo /usr/bin/gufw But even then, as soon as the password dialog window pops up, the terminal is showing this: Failed to load module "canberra-gtk-module" But I do have libcanberra-gtk3-module, and several other libcanberra components installed. So, rather than messing up my system completely, has anyone else had this problem, and what is the correct way to solve it? (Please don't say, "ufw is working, so what's the problem?")
