Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 06:12:03AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: > AFAIR Dennis Ritchie lamented the spread of the capitalized form UNIX, he > insisted it was never meant to be that way and that at AT/Bell Labs they > always wrote Unix. But, alas! all capital lettering was ubiquitous back >

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 at 06:12:03 +0100 Alessandro Selli wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov at 2017 15:35:08 -0800 > Rick Moen wrote: > >> [1] The grammarian in me keeps insisting it shouldn't have been 'UNIX', >> not being an acronym. > > AFAIR Dennis

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov at 2017 15:35:08 -0800 Rick Moen wrote: > [1] The grammarian in me keeps insisting it shouldn't have been 'UNIX', > not being an acronym. AFAIR Dennis Ritchie lamented the spread of the capitalized form UNIX, he insisted it was never meant to be that way

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting Joerg Reisenweber (reisenwe...@web.de): > On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote: > > systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib > > and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr. > > And when did USL (whoever that is) decide that SVR4.2 doesn't

Re: [DNG] Libre computers (as I see you don't like ME/PSP) they exist!

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:03:54 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" wrote: > On 11/14/2017 04:19 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote: > > > To me, these prices look more like a 'polite' extortion for the > > 'obsessed' and gullible. > I can't understand as to why everyone always compares the pricing

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:35 -0500 Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:07:09PM +0100, John Hughes wrote: > > On 14/11/17 12:53, Rowland Penny wrote: > > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 > > >John Hughes wrote: > > > > > >>Why do

Re: [DNG] Libre computers (as I see you don't like ME/PSP) they exist!

On 11/14/2017 04:19 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote: To me, these prices look more like a 'polite' extortion for the 'obsessed' and gullible. I can't understand as to why everyone always compares the pricing to that of a daily browsing computer and not intel/amd's high end server offerings where the

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 13:35:13 +0100 Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > Obviously a systemd | usr_on_/ > system would not fit onto that tiny NAND, while a 'classical orthodox' > system is supposed to work just fine *without* /usr/ at least in a > singleuser mode which may well be

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:07:09PM +0100, John Hughes wrote: > On 14/11/17 12:53, Rowland Penny wrote: > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 > >John Hughes wrote: > > > >>Why do you keep claiming the /usr problem is something to do with > >>systemd? > >Probably because it

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 14/11/17 12:53, Rowland Penny wrote: On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 John Hughes wrote: On 14/11/17 12:32, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly funny you

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: > Of course SVR4.2 could be ported to an ARM SoC -- you'd just put /stand > on the internal NAND. (/stand was the SVR4.2 name for what Linux called > /boot). Let me put it straight for you: /noot doesn't get you anywhere to bring up a

Re: [DNG] epkowa backend for Perfection V100

Hi, leloft writes: > Hello to everyone, > > Please, has anybody out there had any experience with the > Epson-derived epkowa non-free backend for sane. I worked on it for about a decade as an upstream developer, so, yes, sort of ;-) I'm assuming you're trying to use this on Devuan jessie or

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 John Hughes wrote: > On 14/11/17 12:32, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: > >> Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, > >> poorly > > funny you quote that in this

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 14/11/17 12:32, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly funny you quote that in this particular context. Seems to me the whole mess introduced by systemd (incl the /usr/ disaster) is

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: > Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly funny you quote that in this particular context. Seems to me the whole mess introduced by systemd (incl the /usr/ disaster) is exactly that: reinventing unix poorly

Re: [DNG] epkowa backend for Perfection V100

leloft wrote on 14/11/17 21:13: Hello to everyone, Please, has anybody out there had any experience with the Epson-derived epkowa non-free backend for sane. I am trying to set up a scanner (Epson V100) on a remote headless machine in the lab coupled to an rsync script to transfer the scanned

[DNG] epkowa backend for Perfection V100

Hello to everyone, Please, has anybody out there had any experience with the Epson-derived epkowa non-free backend for sane. I am trying to set up a scanner (Epson V100) on a remote headless machine in the lab coupled to an rsync script to transfer the scanned images to another machine with a

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 14/11/17 08:30, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote: systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr. And when did USL (whoever that is) USL = UNIX System Laboratories, the

[DNG] Libre computers (as I see you don't like ME/PSP) they exist!

Quote from Steve Litt: << We all have our priorities, and for each of us, money's one of them. I'm not willing to pay $4800.00 for a computer that eliminates every last attack vector. >> I think, this neatly summarises the sentiments of many users of GNU/Linux. These prices are too hefty for