Re: [gentoo-user] Deficient Gnome Window Frames
2013/9/6 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com On 06/09/2013 20:55, gevisz wrote: 2013/9/6 gevisz gev...@gmail.com mailto:gev...@gmail.com 2013/9/5 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com On 05/09/2013 14:51, gevisz wrote: Usually, when I open a new window frame in Gnome 2, I have a Close, Maximize/Restore and Minimize buttons on its upper-right corner. Sometimes, however, especially when I open a supplementary window frame from a running program, its upper (text) bar contains only the Close button with no possibility to maximize the window frame to the whole screen, and it is extremely inconvenient. I do remember that I had a similar problem in Gnome 2 under Ubuntu but somehow managed to get to the configuration where almost all my windows had Maximize/Restore and Minimize buttons. The only exception was the Firefox sub-window to save a bookmark. :^( Just now, I have tries FXCE and found out that it opens all the sub-windows with the Maximize/Restore, Close and Minimize buttons out of the box and without recompilation of all the programs that do not do the same in Gnome (except for the Firefox bookmark sub-window, of course). However, I am reluctant to migrate to FXCE right now because at the moment I cannot achieve the same look-and-feel as in my Gnome (especially, I miss the the all-in-one clock-calendar-weather applet with the world map showing the daytime at different locations). Could anybody advise me how to get the Close, Maximize/Restore and Minimize buttons in all window frames in Gnome 2. I think the true answer is You can't. The Gnome devs know better than you what you want I'm happy to be proved wrong though. If it bothers you, just migrate to XFCE and deal with the pain. It will last only a short time. Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com Currently, Gnome works better than Xfce for me, because so far 1) I found no way to switch keyboard layout from English to any other language (while Gnome and DWM do this after tackling with evdev configs), 2) Gnome allows more combinations for hot key bindings, for example, I can not assign Win+Shift+any letter to any program launcher in Fxce, while it does work in Gnome, 3) installing Orange in FXCE involves unmasking some dependent packages, but I like to stick to the stable thread. All in all, I do understand why Linus said that Xfce is a step back compared to Gnome 2 (but I still have not got why Xfce is a big step forward compared with Gnome 3 :^), as have not tried it so far). P.S. I will probably post a separate question, but if somebody can explain how to setup language keyboad layout switch in Fxce, you are welcome. :^) I set up toggling the keyboard layout to rWin key in /usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-evdev.conf as follows: Option XkbOptions grp:rwin_toggle,grp_led:scroll,compose:menu,terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp It works for Gnome and DWM but not for Xfce. :^( Moreover, I need the keyboard layout indicator somewhere on the Xfce panel, but could not find any. A short update: after installing xfce4-xkb-plugin, which was not included in the xfce4-meta package (and I did not noticed it earlier), I finally got a keyboard layout indicator. At first, it did not work, that is, I could not switch a keyboard layout in no way. However, later, after changing some of the plugin's settings, it suddenly started to switch the keyboard layout. Interestingly, the applet continued to switch the keyboard layout even after I have changed all its settings to the original ones. Magically, the rWin key also started to switch the keyboard layout. So, my first and most important objection against Xfce4 is no more valid. The third one is not so important. Only the second is a bit annoying but one can live with it. :^) Now, my Xfce4 looks almost like my Gnome2. Its weather applet is even more informative. :^) However, my original question about Deficient Gnome Window Frames is still valid. But not so important any more. :^) Window decorations are usually done by the window manager, I assume Gnome2 is no different? Have you tried running a different window manager that supports what you want?
Re: [gentoo-user] Deficient Gnome Window Frames
2013/9/7 Marc Stürmer m...@marc-stuermer.de Am 06.09.2013 21:47, schrieb Paul Hartman: On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM, gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote: But I have not found MATE in portage... I see there is a mate overlay available in layman layman -a mate Thank you for the hint. I still have to learn how to use overlays... ... because I still need an omegaT (that is absent from portage) and Skype (that is masked). Is it safe to use packages from overlays? Is there any ways to cleanly uninstall packages installed from overlays? GNOME 2.X is been dead since a few years. They went to develop that ugly beast they call GNOME 3. MATE is the proven and working fork of GNOME 2.X. If you want GNOME 2.X, then you should take a look at it indeed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Deficient Gnome Window Frames
On Sunday 08 Sep 2013 11:09:23 gevisz wrote: I still have to learn how to use overlays... ... because I still need an omegaT (that is absent from portage) and Skype (that is masked). Since Skype is in portage you can unmask it in /etc/portage/package.keywords/skype.keywords, with something like: net-im/skype ~amd64 Is it safe to use packages from overlays? Safe in what sense? Is there any ways to cleanly uninstall packages installed from overlays? emerge -Ca package_atom -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Deficient Gnome Window Frames
On 08/09/2013 12:09, gevisz wrote: 2013/9/7 Marc Stürmer m...@marc-stuermer.de mailto:m...@marc-stuermer.de Am 06.09.2013 21:47, schrieb Paul Hartman: On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM, gevisz gev...@gmail.com mailto:gev...@gmail.com wrote: But I have not found MATE in portage... I see there is a mate overlay available in layman layman -a mate Thank you for the hint. I still have to learn how to use overlays... emerge layman [follow elog instructions on what to do with make.conf layman -L [pick the overlay you want layman -a overlay_you_want ... because I still need an omegaT (that is absent from portage) and Skype (that is masked). Put ebuilds for them in your local overlay. It's not the same thing as layman - local overlay is just a directory with ebuilds you maintain yourself, tell portage where it is and it treats those ebuilds like they are in the main tree. it's fully documented in the portage docs Is it safe to use packages from overlays? Depends. Is it safe to install software? An overlay is just ebuilds that fetches and builds software. may it's useful, maybe it's malware, maybe it's buggy, maybe it's not. If you real question is Is there some official QA applied to overlays? the answer is no. You either need to trust the overlay maintainer, or do the QA yourself. Is there any ways to cleanly uninstall packages installed from overlays? Same as any other package: emerge -C To remove an installed overlay: layman -d overlay_name That just removes a tree of ebuilds. Portage tells you what is now out of sync with the next emerge -uND world -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Deficient Gnome Window Frames
On 08/09/2013 12:02, gevisz wrote: 2013/9/6 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com On 06/09/2013 20:55, gevisz wrote: 2013/9/6 gevisz gev...@gmail.com mailto:gev...@gmail.com mailto:gev...@gmail.com mailto:gev...@gmail.com 2013/9/5 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com On 05/09/2013 14:51, gevisz wrote: Usually, when I open a new window frame in Gnome 2, I have a Close, Maximize/Restore and Minimize buttons on its upper-right corner. Sometimes, however, especially when I open a supplementary window frame from a running program, its upper (text) bar contains only the Close button with no possibility to maximize the window frame to the whole screen, and it is extremely inconvenient. I do remember that I had a similar problem in Gnome 2 under Ubuntu but somehow managed to get to the configuration where almost all my windows had Maximize/Restore and Minimize buttons. The only exception was the Firefox sub-window to save a bookmark. :^( Just now, I have tries FXCE and found out that it opens all the sub-windows with the Maximize/Restore, Close and Minimize buttons out of the box and without recompilation of all the programs that do not do the same in Gnome (except for the Firefox bookmark sub-window, of course). However, I am reluctant to migrate to FXCE right now because at the moment I cannot achieve the same look-and-feel as in my Gnome (especially, I miss the the all-in-one clock-calendar-weather applet with the world map showing the daytime at different locations). Could anybody advise me how to get the Close, Maximize/Restore and Minimize buttons in all window frames in Gnome 2. I think the true answer is You can't. The Gnome devs know better than you what you want I'm happy to be proved wrong though. If it bothers you, just migrate to XFCE and deal with the pain. It will last only a short time. Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com Currently, Gnome works better than Xfce for me, because so far 1) I found no way to switch keyboard layout from English to any other language (while Gnome and DWM do this after tackling with evdev configs), 2) Gnome allows more combinations for hot key bindings, for example, I can not assign Win+Shift+any letter to any program launcher in Fxce, while it does work in Gnome, 3) installing Orange in FXCE involves unmasking some dependent packages, but I like to stick to the stable thread. All in all, I do understand why Linus said that Xfce is a step back compared to Gnome 2 (but I still have not got why Xfce is a big step forward compared with Gnome 3 :^), as have not tried it so far). P.S. I will probably post a separate question, but if somebody can explain how to setup language keyboad layout switch in Fxce, you are welcome. :^) I set up toggling the keyboard layout to rWin key in /usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-evdev.conf as follows: Option XkbOptions grp:rwin_toggle,grp_led:scroll,compose:menu,terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp It works for Gnome and DWM but not for Xfce. :^( Moreover, I need the keyboard layout indicator somewhere on the Xfce panel, but could not find any. A short update: after installing xfce4-xkb-plugin, which was not included in the xfce4-meta package (and I did not noticed it earlier), I finally got a keyboard layout indicator. At first, it did not work, that is, I could not switch a keyboard layout in no way. However, later, after changing some of the plugin's settings, it suddenly started to switch the keyboard layout. Interestingly, the
Re: [gentoo-user] re: can't find /boot/grub/grub.conf after kernel upgrade [3.10.7]
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:31:47PM +0200, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: the problem is in your fstab: You try first to mount /boot before mounting root / Cant work... Try this one: /dev/sda3/ext4noatime0 1 /dev/sda1/bootext2default,noatime0 2 /dev/sda2noneswapsw0 0 /dev/sda5/homeext4noatime0 2 /dev/cdrom/mnt/cdromautonoauto,ro0 0 best regards, mcc That advice is wrong. See fstab example here: /dev/sda1 /boot ext2noatime 1 2 /dev/sda2 / xfs noatime 0 1 /dev/sda3 noneswapsw 0 0 /dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom autonoauto,ro 0 0 To the OP. Never snip part of a file asked for help. There might be something in the file unknown to you that is pertinent to the problem. You have default in your /etc/fstab line for /boot, when the option is actually defaults. I haven't tested to see what difference that makes, but you should add the s to default anyway. See man mount. Cheers, Bruce -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] re: can't find /boot/grub/grub.conf after kernel upgrade [3.10.7] [SOLVED]
On 09/08/2013 06:20 PM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:31:47PM +0200, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: the problem is in your fstab: You try first to mount /boot before mounting root / Cant work... Try this one: /dev/sda3/ext4noatime0 1 /dev/sda1/bootext2default,noatime0 2 /dev/sda2noneswapsw0 0 /dev/sda5/homeext4noatime0 2 /dev/cdrom/mnt/cdromautonoauto,ro0 0 best regards, mcc That advice is wrong. See fstab example here: /dev/sda1 /boot ext2noatime 1 2 /dev/sda2 / xfs noatime 0 1 /dev/sda3 noneswapsw 0 0 /dev/cdrom/mnt/cdrom autonoauto,ro 0 0 To the OP. Never snip part of a file asked for help. There might be something in the file unknown to you that is pertinent to the problem. You have default in your /etc/fstab line for /boot, when the option is actually defaults. I haven't tested to see what difference that makes, but you should add the s to default anyway. See man mount. Cheers, Bruce Thanks for your input. Turns out /boot wouldn't mount at system start-up because I had 'default' instead of 'defaults' specified for /boot in /etc/fstab. Now /boot gets mounted automatically without any further ado. box0=; mount|grep ^/dev /dev/sda3 on / type ext4 (rw,noatime,data=ordered) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw,noatime) /dev/sda5 on /home type ext4 (rw,noatime) Thanks.
[gentoo-user] creating an image of the system
Hej folks, I wonder what is a good way to create an image of a gentoo-system, so that one can apply it later to the same or other computers. In my case it is a rather simple setup: one partition, no encryption or lvm. Its a debug-setup, so its only used for certain programming-tasks and not for daily work, so no need for something fancy. The time I setup that system I also used only conservative compilation-flags and optimisation, so that it can be used on other CPUs (well, they have to be x86_64 and have to have mmx/sse[23] - but I think every setup that I intend to use this on will have these properties). So I reckon that one could just use tar with permission-preservation and some excludes like dev/sys/proc/tmp. But is this a good idea or is there a better way to do this? I never cloned a gentoo-system, so thats why I would like to be at least somewhat sure about it, so that I don't have to reconfigure it later again, because I messed it up :D best regards, - Ben
Re: [gentoo-user] creating an image of the system
On Sunday 08 Sep 2013 19:51:25 Benjamin Block wrote: Hej folks, I wonder what is a good way to create an image of a gentoo-system, so that one can apply it later to the same or other computers. In my case it is a rather simple setup: one partition, no encryption or lvm. Its a debug-setup, so its only used for certain programming-tasks and not for daily work, so no need for something fancy. The time I setup that system I also used only conservative compilation-flags and optimisation, so that it can be used on other CPUs (well, they have to be x86_64 and have to have mmx/sse[23] - but I think every setup that I intend to use this on will have these properties). So I reckon that one could just use tar with permission-preservation and some excludes like dev/sys/proc/tmp. But is this a good idea or is there a better way to do this? I never cloned a gentoo-system, so thats why I would like to be at least somewhat sure about it, so that I don't have to reconfigure it later again, because I messed it up :D best regards, - Ben You're referring to a 'stage 4' iso. Have a look at this M/L perhaps 5 years back when I recall someone posting a thread about it. There may also be a thread in the forums and potentially the (old) wiki. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] creating an image of the system
Mick wrote: On Sunday 08 Sep 2013 19:51:25 Benjamin Block wrote: Hej folks, I wonder what is a good way to create an image of a gentoo-system, so that one can apply it later to the same or other computers. In my case it is a rather simple setup: one partition, no encryption or lvm. Its a debug-setup, so its only used for certain programming-tasks and not for daily work, so no need for something fancy. The time I setup that system I also used only conservative compilation-flags and optimisation, so that it can be used on other CPUs (well, they have to be x86_64 and have to have mmx/sse[23] - but I think every setup that I intend to use this on will have these properties). So I reckon that one could just use tar with permission-preservation and some excludes like dev/sys/proc/tmp. But is this a good idea or is there a better way to do this? I never cloned a gentoo-system, so thats why I would like to be at least somewhat sure about it, so that I don't have to reconfigure it later again, because I messed it up :D best regards, - Ben You're referring to a 'stage 4' iso. Have a look at this M/L perhaps 5 years back when I recall someone posting a thread about it. There may also be a thread in the forums and potentially the (old) wiki. http://www.gentoo-wiki.info/HOWTO_Custom_Stage4 http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Backup One of those should help. If not, Google for Gentoo starge4 without the quotes of course. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
[gentoo-user] Internet security.
Someone found this and sent it to me. http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations-020838711--sector.html I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to wonder what this means when we use sites that are supposed to be secure and use HTTPS. From reading that, it seems that even URLs with HTTPS are not secure. Is it reasonable to expect that even connections between say me and my bank are not really secure? Also, it seems there are people that want to work on fixing this and leave out any Government workers. Given my understanding of this, that could be a very wise move. From that article, I gather that the tools used were compromised before it was even finished. Is there enough support, enough geeks and nerds basically, to do this sort of work independently? I suspect there are enough Linux geeks out there to handle this and then figure out how to make it work on other OSs. I use the words geek and nerd in a complimentary way. I consider myself a bit of a geek as well. :-D One of many reasons I use Linux is security. I always felt pretty secure but if that article is accurate, then the OS really doesn't matter much when just reaching out and grabbing data between two puters over the internet. I may be secure at my keyboard but once it hits the modem and leaves, it can be grabbed and read if they want to even when using HTTPS. Right? This is not Gentoo specific but as most know, Gentoo is all I use anyway. I don't know of any other place to ask that I subscribe too. I figure I would get a no comment out of the Government types. ROFL Plus, there are some folks on here that know a LOT about this sort of stuff too. Again, I don't want a lot of political stuff on this but more of the technical side of, is that article accurate, can it be fixed and can we be secure regardless of OS. It seems to me that when you break HTTPS, you got it beat already. Am I right on this, wrong or somewhere in the middle? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Internet security.
On 09/08/2013 09:33 PM, Dale wrote: Someone found this and sent it to me. http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations-020838711--sector.html I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to wonder what this means when we use sites that are supposed to be secure and use HTTPS. From reading that, it seems that even URLs with HTTPS are not secure. Is it reasonable to expect that even connections between say me and my bank are not really secure? The CA infrastructure was never secure. It exists to transfer money away from website owners and into the bank accounts of the CAs and browser makers. Security may be one of their goals, but it's certainly not the motivating one. To avoid a tirade here, I've already written about this: [1] http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/in_defense_of_self-signed_certificates.php [2] http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/why_im_against_ca-signed_certificates.php Warning: they're highly ranty, and mostly preach to the choir in that I don't give a ton of background. The tl;dr is, use a 4096-bit self signed certificate combined with pinning. It's not perfect, but it's as good as it gets unless you plan to make a trip to each website's datacenter in person.
Re: [gentoo-user] Internet security.
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 03:05:57 Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 09/08/2013 09:33 PM, Dale wrote: Someone found this and sent it to me. http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelatio ns-020838711--sector.html I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to wonder what this means when we use sites that are supposed to be secure and use HTTPS. From reading that, it seems that even URLs with HTTPS are not secure. Is it reasonable to expect that even connections between say me and my bank are not really secure? The CA infrastructure was never secure. It exists to transfer money away from website owners and into the bank accounts of the CAs and browser makers. Security may be one of their goals, but it's certainly not the motivating one. To avoid a tirade here, I've already written about this: [1] http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/in_defense_of_self-signed_certificates .php [2] http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/why_im_against_ca-signed_certificates. php Warning: they're highly ranty, and mostly preach to the choir in that I don't give a ton of background. The tl;dr is, use a 4096-bit self signed certificate combined with pinning. It's not perfect, but it's as good as it gets unless you plan to make a trip to each website's datacenter in person. Are you saying that 2048 RSA keys are no good anymore? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Internet security.
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 02:33:48 Dale wrote: Someone found this and sent it to me. http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations -020838711--sector.html I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to wonder what this means when we use sites that are supposed to be secure and use HTTPS. From reading that, it seems that even URLs with HTTPS are not secure. Is it reasonable to expect that even connections between say me and my bank are not really secure? Also, it seems there are people that want to work on fixing this and leave out any Government workers. Given my understanding of this, that could be a very wise move. From that article, I gather that the tools used were compromised before it was even finished. Is there enough support, enough geeks and nerds basically, to do this sort of work independently? I suspect there are enough Linux geeks out there to handle this and then figure out how to make it work on other OSs. I use the words geek and nerd in a complimentary way. I consider myself a bit of a geek as well. :-D One of many reasons I use Linux is security. I always felt pretty secure but if that article is accurate, then the OS really doesn't matter much when just reaching out and grabbing data between two puters over the internet. I may be secure at my keyboard but once it hits the modem and leaves, it can be grabbed and read if they want to even when using HTTPS. Right? This is not Gentoo specific but as most know, Gentoo is all I use anyway. I don't know of any other place to ask that I subscribe too. I figure I would get a no comment out of the Government types. ROFL Plus, there are some folks on here that know a LOT about this sort of stuff too. Again, I don't want a lot of political stuff on this but more of the technical side of, is that article accurate, can it be fixed and can we be secure regardless of OS. It seems to me that when you break HTTPS, you got it beat already. Am I right on this, wrong or somewhere in the middle? Dale :-) :-) As far as I know the NSA has cracked elliptic curve algorithms and earlier SSL versions. Not that you would suspect this from their peddling of it here :-p http://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/elliptic_curve.shtml Latest TLS v1.2 *should* be OK, but with the advent of quantum computing who can tell if science fiction decryption capabilities have become reality for state actors. Looking at this, you can see that loads of websites out there are not using strong enough encryption, so even if it worked quantum computing may be an overkill for many https implementations today: https://www.trustworthyinternet.org/ssl-pulse/ -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
