> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:25:33 +0000, Bit Twister wrote:
>> Hi. Glad you have fixed the nasty word wrap problem. :-D Hope you are
>> enjoying your Usenet client application. :)
> I am indeed, thanks to you :) I am using Pan, as suggested
>> PS: I can recommend that you create $HOME/.signature with your basic
>> setup in four lines or less, not counting the "dash dash space" first
>> line. Example: if I were a newbie, it could look like:
>> --
>> Mageia release 2 (Official) for x86_64 KDE 4.8.5
>> Linux 3.3.8-desktop-2.mga2
> ................. >> NOTE: The first line is a dash dash space
>> Once you have the file created, tell your Usenet client (Pan) about the
>> $HOME/.signature file and subscribe/post a message to a test group like
>> eternal-september.test or local.test
>> Then do a reply and see what your editor shows before posting a reply to
>> your test. :)
> Why do I need a signature? Isn't the subject of my post obvious enough?
The subject is a subject; helpful for an overview of the threads.
The contents of a posting should be complete, not relying on the
knowledge of the 'Subject:' header. The signature is not intended
for the subject but for your, well, signature. Indeed you don't
need a signature. If you have one, it should not contain more
than four lines of text, and it should be initiated with a line
containing just "-- " (dash, dash, blank); this convention makes
it possible for newsreaders to skip it when replying. (The rest
of the previous poster's notes are suggestions to test your
settings while not using this (or any other) topical newsgroup
as your test environment.)
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Rajib Kumar Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Why do I need a signature?
You don't need it, but creating one with your distribution,
release/version, which desktop manager and what kernel is running may help subject matter experts give you better answers on other problems.
With that type of signature file, it means less work for you and other
people's time wanting to help or recreate the problem without you having to
provide or them ask for the information.
> Isn't the subject of my post obvious enough?
It was a fine start for the thread, but the post did not have enough
information for me to get you any exact instructions or possibly
giving you exact data/instructions to solve the problem. :(
Different versions of distribution/desktop manager can have different
instructions/answers/commands for same problem. :(
PS:
If my distribution would not run as a VirtualBox guest I would change
distributions. :(
It is pretty nice to launch a guest and 12 seconds later be able to
mess around/experiment without screwing up the actual running
installation running on your machine.
That assumes your hardware has two gig or better ram and a reasonably
fast cpu and a bit of extra diskspace.
Speaking of which, maybe a .signature line like
AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3800+. 2 gig ram, 80 gig drive.
might help depending on the problem.
> You don't need it, but creating one with your distribution,
> release/version, which desktop manager and what kernel is running may > help subject matter experts give you better answers on other problems.
I suggest to put all relevant information in the body of the posting,
not in a signature.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:54:07 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> I suggest to put all relevant information in the body of the posting,
I agree that Gnome should have been in the body of the post.
> not in a signature.
I kinda know where you are coming from but putting my suggestions in a
sig file prevents the poster from omitting something "relevant" to the
problem which the poster may not know was relevant.
An example could be the problem only exists in a 64 bit install, but
does not happen on a 32 bit install.
Subject matter experts on 32 installs would be unable to work the
problem or worst, waste time troubleshooting the problem.
Then there is the case of a application problem only occuring on an
particular kernel. :(
I happen to run with 8 desktops in kde. A new release of kde broke
several of my scripts which had a command to switch to a desired
desktop before launching an application.
In that case it helps to know which version of the kde desktop manager is
running.
>> I suggest to put all relevant information in the body of the posting,
> I agree that Gnome should have been in the body of the post.
>> not in a signature.
> I kinda know where you are coming from but putting my suggestions in a
> sig file prevents the poster from omitting something "relevant" to the
> problem which the poster may not know was relevant.
> An example could be the problem only exists in a 64 bit install, but
> does not happen on a 32 bit install.
> Subject matter experts on 32 installs would be unable to work the
> problem or worst, waste time troubleshooting the problem.
> Then there is the case of a application problem only occuring on an
> particular kernel. :(
> I happen to run with 8 desktops in kde. A new release of kde broke
> several of my scripts which had a command to switch to a desired
> desktop before launching an application.
> In that case it helps to know which version of the kde desktop manager is
> running.
So what? - Put all relevant information into the body.
Or are you seriously suggesting to maintain different signature files,
one for each newsgroup you are posting to?
Guys, cool down. It is only a matter of signature. If you all wish I can
open a new topic on signature, like, should a post be accompanied with a signature.
> You can edit your program and signature file to have the relevant
> information, the signature separator and your signature.
> You could even make it so that the information is only included in new
> messages or make an easy keystroke in your program/editor that will
> expand the information to whatever you desire e.g. when you type IMHWI
> your editor could extend it to whatever you desire. Depending on the
> editor, you can even point it to a file that has all the information.
> Extra points if it points to a piped file that gets the info from a
> shell script. That way you can include whatever you desire.
> Or you can just point to the script, file, piped file and include it.
> houghi
Can these indeed be done? How?
-- Linux 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem (i686); Compiled : #1 SMP Mon Oct 3 05:03:32 UTC 2011; C Library : GNU C Library version 2.11.3 (stable); Default C Compiler : GNU C Compiler version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5-8); Distribution : Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.3; Squeeze; GNOME 2.30.2
On 29.09.2012 12:59, Rajib Kumar Bandopadhyay wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:41:13 +0200, houghi wrote:
>> Extra points if it points to a piped file that gets the info from a
>> shell script. That way you can include whatever you desire.
>> Or you can just point to the script, file, piped file and include it.
> Can these indeed be done? How?
There are several methods. You can have a 1-minute cron job which writes a new signature to your signature file.
Or you can use a FIFO special file, aka "named pipe". Try this (requires fortune to be installed):
Open two terminal windows. In the first run:
mkfifo SIG_FIFO
while true; do fortune -a > SIG_FIFO ; done
Then, in the second terminal window, run:
cat SIG_FIFO
run it again, and again, ... Every time cat (or other programs) read from the FIFO it gets a new fortune cookie.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:16:40 +0200, Mirko K. wrote:
> There are several methods. You can have a 1-minute cron job which writes
> a new signature to your signature file.
> Or you can use a FIFO special file, aka "named pipe". Try this (requires
> fortune to be installed):
> Open two terminal windows. In the first run:
> mkfifo SIG_FIFO
> while true; do fortune -a > SIG_FIFO ; done
> Then, in the second terminal window, run:
> cat SIG_FIFO
> run it again, and again, ... Every time cat (or other programs) read
> from the FIFO it gets a new fortune cookie.
My! My! Just for a signature? What is the practical utility of such a process?
-- Linux 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem (i686); Compiled : #1 SMP Mon Oct 3 05:03:32 UTC 2011; C Library : GNU C Library version 2.11.3 (stable); Default C Compiler : GNU C Compiler version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5-8); Debian GNU/
Linux 6.0.3; Squeeze; GNOME 2.30.2
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:16:40 +0200, Mirko K. wrote:
>> There are several methods. You can have a 1-minute cron job which writes
>> a new signature to your signature file.
>> Or you can use a FIFO special file, aka "named pipe". Try this (requires
>> fortune to be installed):
>> Open two terminal windows. In the first run:
>> mkfifo SIG_FIFO
>> while true; do fortune -a > SIG_FIFO ; done
>> Then, in the second terminal window, run:
>> cat SIG_FIFO
>> run it again, and again, ... Every time cat (or other programs) read
>> from the FIFO it gets a new fortune cookie.
> My! My! Just for a signature? What is the practical utility of such a
> process?
I was just showing you how this could be done. I don't advice for or against this, or having a signature at all (I also don't have one, as you can see.) :-)
FIFOs are pretty cool stuff. You can imagine them as permanent pipes with possibly multiple writer and reader processes. They allow pretty complex inter-process communication.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:39:48 +0200, Mirko K. wrote:
> I was just showing you how this could be done. I don't advice for or
> against this, or having a signature at all (I also don't have one, as
> you can see.) :-)
I understand.
> FIFOs are pretty cool stuff. You can imagine them as permanent pipes
> with possibly multiple writer and reader processes. They allow pretty
> complex inter-process communication.
At present over my head. But I will keep tab to come back to this topic in future when I am ready.
Let us end this thread then.
> Guys, cool down. It is only a matter of signature. If you all wish I can
> open a new topic on signature, like, should a post be accompanied with a > signature.
If you do, do not post in this Usenet group unless you are having a problem with
generating it. 8-)
FYI: the two middle lines are a bit much; contents from uname -sr could
replace the first three lines of text.
