Re: Fedora 25 - Terminal - Utilities - Why is it hidden away?

On 12/07/2016 06:00 PM, Dan Irwin wrote: Playing with Fedora 25. I'm shocked to see the terminal is still hidden away in the utilities group. I'm guessing you must be using the Gnome classic layout if you have a utilities group somewhere. But in that case, it's still easily available. I do

Re: Fedora 25 - Terminal - Utilities - Why is it hidden away?

On 12/07/2016 09:49 PM, Dan Irwin wrote: That's the problem - just who do these developers cater for? Answer: The mythical beast of the newbie converting from Windows or OS X. They aren't coming in droves, especially not to Fedora. No love for the actual user base - skilled/technical users

Re: Fedora 25 - Terminal - Utilities - Why is it hidden away?

That's the problem - just who do these developers cater for? Answer: The mythical beast of the newbie converting from Windows or OS X. They aren't coming in droves, especially not to Fedora. No love for the actual user base - skilled/technical users doing development or administration tasks. I

Re: Fedora 25 - Terminal - Utilities - Why is it hidden away?

On 12/07/2016 07:00 PM, Dan Irwin wrote: Hi all, Playing with Fedora 25. I'm shocked to see the terminal is still hidden away in the utilities group. I'm pretty sure near 100% of users add Terminal to the favorites immediately after install. Surely the #1 use case of Fedora on the

Re: Fedora 25 - Terminal - Utilities - Why is it hidden away?

On 12/07/2016 06:00 PM, Dan Irwin wrote: Playing with Fedora 25. I'm shocked to see the terminal is still hidden away in the utilities group. I presume that you're using Gnome. Remember, Fedora != Gnome, just as Linux != Ubuntu. In Xfce, not only does it have a launcher on my panel, it's

Fedora 25 - Terminal - Utilities - Why is it hidden away?

Hi all, Playing with Fedora 25. I'm shocked to see the terminal is still hidden away in the utilities group. I'm pretty sure near 100% of users add Terminal to the favorites immediately after install. Surely the #1 use case of Fedora on the desktop IS the terminal? Cheers, D

Re: Today's F23 Qt5 update

On 12/07/16 19:13, Ed Greshko wrote: > > > On 12/08/16 06:08, Kevin Cummings wrote: >> What is wrong with the dependencies? What can I do to fix it? > > Not really running F23 since it will go EOL soon. But I had a VM and tested > and verified > the issue you're seeing. > > You can do "dnf

Re: Today's F23 Qt5 update

On 12/08/16 06:08, Kevin Cummings wrote: > What is wrong with the dependencies? What can I do to fix it? Not really running F23 since it will go EOL soon. But I had a VM and tested and verified the issue you're seeing. You can do "dnf --best update" to determine what the broken dependency

[389-users] Re: 389-console blank UI

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 23:57 +, Josh England wrote: > I've got several 389 servers (1 primary and 3 replication) all running 389 > server version 1.2.9.16 > ___ First up, I think that version of DS is not supported any more. At the least you should

[389-users] Re: 389-console blank UI

Sorry William, this got posted on accident. I created another post with more details and the actual problem. -JE ___ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] 389-console blank UI

Hi, I've got several instances of 389 server (1 primary and 3 replicas) running version 1.2.9.16 on RHEL 6.2. I've got a new server running version 1.2.11.15 on RHEL 6.7. When I start up 389-console to connect to a server, I can connect to the older servers just fine, navigate and configure

[389-users] 389-console blank UI

I've got several 389 servers (1 primary and 3 replication) all running 389 server version 1.2.9.16 ___ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Umatrix Firefox Addon -

On 12/07/2016 01:18 PM, Stephen Morris wrote: Sorry, I forgot to mention in my previous mail that for the time being Mozilla are still supporting the NPAPI Flash plugin, but given that Flash seems to be dying in favour of HTML 5, its probably debatable how long that support will last.

Today's F23 Qt5 update

Am I the only person seeing the following: > v = 18.487/19.290/20.489/0.863 ms > [root@kjclap4 ~]# dnf update > Last metadata expiration check: 1:27:15 ago on Wed Dec 7 15:39:19 2016. > Dependencies resolved. >

Re: Umatrix Firefox Addon -

On 25/11/16 22:42, Bob Goodwin wrote: On 11/25/16 03:49, Samuel Sieb wrote: That looks like a nice addon, I'll probably add it shortly. :-) If you got it from there, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work. I don't have FF50 yet so I can't test it myself. There are no open issues about

Re: Umatrix Firefox Addon -

On 25/11/16 22:42, Bob Goodwin wrote: On 11/25/16 03:49, Samuel Sieb wrote: That looks like a nice addon, I'll probably add it shortly. :-) If you got it from there, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work. I don't have FF50 yet so I can't test it myself. There are no open issues about

Re: Epson XP_332

On 25/11/16 07:44, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: From: Greg Woods Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 22:12:53 -0700 To: freddog...@yahoo.co.uk, Community support for Fedora users On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM, DB

Re: TERM variable and change since fedora25

On 07Dec2016 10:34, Alex wrote: How do I either add the new terminal type to the remote system, or change my terminal type locally so it corresponds with one that's available on the remote system? # echo $TERM screen.xterm-256color I should have added that I'm aware

Re: The Only Real Solution to the Missing Folder Pane Problem in Thunderbird for Linux

On 12/07/2016 02:38 AM, turritopsis.dohrnii@gmail.com wrote: > Dear Thunderbird for Linux Users, > > Please apply the following recommended solution. This is the only real > solution to the missing folder pane in Thunderbird for Linux. All the > other solutions do not work. > > In /home/,

Re: The Only Real Solution to the Missing Folder Pane Problem in Thunderbird for Linux

On 12/07/2016 12:38 AM, turritopsis.dohrnii@gmail.com wrote: > Dear Thunderbird for Linux Users, > > Please apply the following recommended solution. This is the only real > solution to the missing folder pane in Thunderbird for Linux. All the > other solutions do not work. > > In /home/, >

Re: The Only Real Solution to the Missing Folder Pane Problem in Thunderbird for Linux

On 12/07/2016 03:38 AM, turritopsis.dohrnii@gmail.com wrote: Dear Thunderbird for Linux Users, Please apply the following recommended solution. This is the only real solution to the missing folder pane in Thunderbird for Linux. All the other solutions do not work. In /home/, $ nano

Re: TERM variable and change since fedora25

Hi, On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Alex wrote: > Hi, > > Since upgrading my desktop to fedora25, my terminal type while using > GNU screen has changed to screen.xterm-256color. This is apparently > unknown to previous versions of fedora. When connecting to a >

TERM variable and change since fedora25

Hi, Since upgrading my desktop to fedora25, my terminal type while using GNU screen has changed to screen.xterm-256color. This is apparently unknown to previous versions of fedora. When connecting to a fedora22/23/24 system remotely using ssh, it reports the following when trying to use less, or

Re: F25 Wayland & environment variables

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:12:57PM -0700, stan wrote: > Well, architecture in the abstract is one thing — it's gotta hit the > real world for feedback at some point. The bug we're discussing now - not reading ~/.profile - has been known for 2 years. Nobody had to wait for "real world feedback"

Re: F25 Wayland & environment variables

> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 15:48:06 +0200 > Ahmad Samir wrote: > > Which sounds to me like their highest priority is > inventing an excuse to do it anyway, but they > are desperately searching for an excuse that > isn't lame :-). Exactly. Reading the upstream bug report, I get exactly this impression:

Re: dnf going crazy?

2016-12-07 13:48 GMT+01:00, Tom Horsley : > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:39:13 +0100 > Andras Simon wrote: > >> Are you sure about this? It seems to work here with >> bash-completion-2.1-8.20150513git1950590.fc23.noarch > > I suppose they could have fixed it at some point, but >

Re: dnf going crazy?

Meanwhile, the important bit is that I found the "install_weak_deps" dnf.conf config option in the man page, so I can make it ignore merely recommended packages in the future. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: dnf going crazy?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:39:13 +0100 Andras Simon wrote: > Are you sure about this? It seems to work here with > bash-completion-2.1-8.20150513git1950590.fc23.noarch I suppose they could have fixed it at some point, but dnf (or maybe it was still yum at the time) was actually the final straw that

Re: dnf going crazy?

On 7 December 2016 at 11:39, Andras Simon wrote: > Are you sure about this? It seems to work here with > bash-completion-2.1-8.20150513git1950590.fc23.noarch Working here with bash-completion-2.4-1.fc24.noarch too, with and without paths before the package. -- Andy The only

Re: dnf going crazy?

2016-12-07 12:27 GMT+01:00, Tom Horsley : > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:34:19 + > Andy Blanchard wrote: > >> It doesn't *need* it, but apparently the packager thinks dnf is easier >> to use with it installed which seems a bit arbitary. > > Actually, dnf is one of the commands

Re: dnf going crazy?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:34:19 + Andy Blanchard wrote: > It doesn't *need* it, but apparently the packager thinks dnf is easier > to use with it installed which seems a bit arbitary. Actually, dnf is one of the commands that is most screwed up by bash-completion. The completion algorithm for

Re: dnf going crazy?

On 7 December 2016 at 10:18, Tom Horsley wrote: > When I remove it, dnf doesn't try to remove > any other packages, so apparently nothing > depends on it. > > Why on earth does it want to install it then? My guess is that dnf itself is wanting to install it: $ rpm -q

dnf going crazy?

Dnf wants to install bash-completion on my system. (A package I remove before I even boot because it is the world's most useless pile of trash). I let it install it to make it happy, then go ahead and remove it to see what dependency dragged it in. When I remove it, dnf doesn't try to remove any

Re: The Only Real Solution to the Missing Folder Pane Problem in Thunderbird for Linux

On 12/07/2016 12:38 AM, turritopsis.dohrnii@gmail.com wrote: $ su - # chmod +x delete-all-msf.sh # exit There's no reason in the world for you to need root access for that one command, and using su - will log you in completely as root, making the working directory /root. And, as the

The Only Real Solution to the Missing Folder Pane Problem in Thunderbird for Linux

Dear Thunderbird for Linux Users, Please apply the following recommended solution. This is the only real solution to the missing folder pane in Thunderbird for Linux. All the other solutions do not work. In /home/, $ nano delete-all-msf.sh Type in the following 2 lines: #!/bin/sh find . -type