Move from KDE4.2 to xfce or fluxbox - why not?
Occam
So I tried a bit of xfce, fluxbox and some other desktops, and found that I
could even use Kontact in eg xfce. Now my questions is: why bother with KDE4.2?
Just what _does_ one miss out on (more than eye candy) by using one of the other
desktops?
I should add that I do not dislike KDE4 - KDE4.3 runs quite well, thank you very
much; but that is not part of Slackware yet.
====================================================
<remove my attribute to get my proper email address>
Aaron W. Hsu
wrote:
> Just like many others, I have problems with KDE4.2 - it crashes far too
> often.
> So I tried a bit of xfce, fluxbox and some other desktops, and found
> that I
> could even use Kontact in eg xfce. Now my questions is: why bother with
> KDE4.2?
KDE is a suite of programs just like most Desktop Environments. You don't
have to run all the programs to use just one of them. KDE does have some
nice features. I haven't tried XFCE or any of the others recently (I used
CWM on OpenBSD), so I wouldn't know how they compare. Some things I use in
KDE on a regular basis:
1) Auto recognition of mountable devices
2) Time keeper for tracking hours worked.
3) GPG Gui tools.
4) File Manager
5) Okular
6) The Organizer
7) Amarok
8) And the System settings.
9) Terminal
Of course, I use the KDE shell to good effect. I have the file indexing
disabled, as it consumes too much memory for me. I use Opera as my
Internet Suite and Acme as my Text Editor, so KDE doesn't come into play
there. I use SCIM and Wicd. The power management seems to work well, and
the GUI management tools are nice. I haven't had an use for the Desktop
Widgets yet, but I have used such things in the past, so who knows?
> Just what _does_ one miss out on (more than eye candy) by using one of
> the other
> desktops?
Don't underrate eye candy. Sometimes I really do want eye candy.
> I should add that I do not dislike KDE4 - KDE4.3 runs quite well, thank
> you very
> much; but that is not part of Slackware yet.
If you like KDE, you might want to actually figure out what is causing the
crashes. If you can isolate and eliminate the single cause of these
frequent crashes, there is no reason to move to a whole different
environment which you may not like. For me, the source of trouble was the
file indexing. Maybe that's your problem too, but maybe not.
All in all, most of the complaints I see against KDE are unjustified rants
or simply demonstrate a strong level of ignorance about how a Desktop
system is composed on Linux. I must admit to some shock in this regard,
because this is Slackware, people are supposed to at least gain a somewhat
intuitive sense of what is happening with the computer, even if they don't
have to bother with the underpinnings all the time.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
wexfordpress
I found KDE 4 slow to load and clumsy to use. I much prefer the KDE 3
interface. The "classic" option still does not solve the functional
problems.
However I found that most meaningful KDE apps run on XFCE, no
problem. And it is easier to put non-standard apps on the kicker bar
across the bottom. Now it can be argued that the new interface is just
dandy and my objections are those of an old fogey.
Granted. But if someone sold me a car with the accelerator on the left
and the brake on the right I would be equally as upset.
Nor would I want a keyboard with the Dvorak layout even though it is
theoretically more efficient.
I have not found any functionality on KDE 4 that I do not have on
xfce. The menu automatically picked up all the usual suspects.
So I see no reason for using the KDE4 layout. Not every change is an
improvement, e.g., Vista.
Qt 4 is another matter. Things that would not compile on Slack 12.2
are a breeze on Slack 13.
Interesting sidelight: on my Xubuntu partition, which also uses xfce,
the kicker bar is across the top instead of the bottom. I use Xubuntu
only for Inkscape 47. Inkscape 47 cannot be installed on Slack 13
with any reasonable amount of effort. If I move the missing libraries
over then some native Slack apps (e.g. Oklular) stop working. Yes I
know all about the slackbuild. Some marriages are just not made in
heaven.
I passed on ext4 also, mainly because my older slack partitions could
not use it. That seems to have been the right move.
John Culleton
John C.
notbob
> All in all, most of the complaints I see against KDE are unjustified rants
> or simply demonstrate a strong level of ignorance about how a Desktop
> system is composed on Linux. I must admit to some shock in this regard,
> because this is Slackware, people are supposed to at least gain a somewhat
> intuitive sense of what is happening with the computer, even if they don't
> have to bother with the underpinnings all the time.
Unjustified, my ass! KDE 4.2 is a disgrace.
To what purpose has KDE changed almost everything? What are the
benefits gained? I see not a single one. I've spent more time
googling for solutions for correcting the ludicrous changes now in KDE
reconfiguring it than I spend customizing Slackware. It's beyond
absurd.
I used to right click on the task bar to "add application". Now it's
such a bizarre and convoluted process, I don't even recall how I did
it. I'd have to google it again. They left out Quanta and added
stuff most users are clueless about, some possible security problems.
Default color schemes make one wonder just who is minding the store
over at KDE. Are they're inentionally configuring konsole to
discourage the use of the CLI?
I'd appreciate your explaining how file indexing slows down KDE and
how you disabled it. I certainly don't know and am a bit pissed I
even need to. One of my main reasons for my abandoning KDE is the
blatant speed hit from using it. I can plainly see how much slower
the cursor moves across the screen when using apps like slrn or emacs
in konsole. It is not insignificant.
There can be no doubt KDE has some very good programs. I live in
konsole and consider k3b brilliant. The desktop, OTOH, is quite
another thing. I'll definitely be looking for app replacements if I
have to suffer that trainwreck.
nb
Bit Twister
>
> Unjustified, my ass! KDE 4.2 is a disgrace.
KDE 4.3.1 is much better. Almost as good as kde 3.5.
That assumes you have a 2GHz cpu. :(
> I'd appreciate your explaining how file indexing slows down KDE and
> how you disabled it.
I get into the kde control center under Advanced User Settings ->
Service Manager and proceed to disable just about everything.
Under kde 4.3.1, we now have 2 "search Features/services" I disabled
both Desktop Search and Akonadi.
Aaron W. Hsu
> To what purpose has KDE changed almost everything? What are the
> benefits gained? I see not a single one. I've spent more time
> googling for solutions for correcting the ludicrous changes now in KDE
> reconfiguring it than I spend customizing Slackware. It's beyond
> absurd.
Perhaps, but how is this a complaint that KDE is in some important
technical sense, flawed? You could argue that the new system is
fundamentally less efficient, but I don't think you can, since the new
system is more efficient in cases, and also tracks better with current
Desktop practices on other systems. Whether you consider this a good thing
or something that you like is up to you, but it doesn't mean that KDE is
somehow bad.
Backwards compatibility is nice, but jumping from verison 3.5 to 4.2
shouldn't result in surprise when you discover that things are different.
Again, it also doesn't really affect what I consider to be viable and
addressable merits in Desktop environments. I don't think people want a
Desktop that never changes. If that's what you want, you can always use
TWM. 3.5 is still there, too, if you really can't learn a new workflow.
> I'd appreciate your explaining how file indexing slows down KDE and
> how you disabled it. I certainly don't know and am a bit pissed I
> even need to. One of my main reasons for my abandoning KDE is the
> blatant speed hit from using it. I can plainly see how much slower
> the cursor moves across the screen when using apps like slrn or emacs
> in konsole. It is not insignificant.
If you haven't dealt with the file indexing issue, then you're really
cutting KDE a little short. I think you could fault KDE for enabling the
Desktop indexing by default, but if the reason you didn't like KDE was the
speed, you really should give it another chance after disabling the
indexing. Basically, there are two desktop features provided in this. One
is a semantic componenet, which, in my experience, uses a bit more ram,
but doesn't really cut in on the speed of the system provided that you
have the ram to spare. The Desktop File Indexing (a.k.a. -- Akonadi or
whatever) on the other hand, is horribly broken in KDE 4.2, which is to
say that it is built on top of Java, consumes constant CPU cycles, uses at
least 400MB of ram on my system, and does not stop running, even when the
indexing is complete. In other words, the only thing that seems slow to me
in KDE is that thing. They know about the problem, and want to fix it, but
I don't know if they have finally done so or not.
So, try KDE again, but this time go into the Advanced Tab and select the
Desktop search icon. From there, uncheck the Desktop indexer, and you
should be alright. You may have to do a little restarting of components
and such to clean out any remnants.
> There can be no doubt KDE has some very good programs. I live in
> konsole and consider k3b brilliant. The desktop, OTOH, is quite
> another thing. I'll definitely be looking for app replacements if I
> have to suffer that trainwreck.
If speed was your only concern, then the indexer could very well have been
the problem. I have someone running KDE on a fairly middle range machine
(certainly not Dual Core top of the line), and it runs quite well. I can't
help you if you insist on sticking with the old KDE GUI paradigm, though,
which, for the record, was one of the reasons I didn't use it. I like the
new layout much better.
notbob
> technical sense, flawed? You could argue that the new system is
> fundamentally less efficient, but I don't think you can....
I not only can, I did. Didn't you read my post?
> since the new system is more efficient in cases, and also tracks
> better with current Desktop practices on other systems.
What the hell does that mean, "tracks better"? We're not talking
about motorcycles. And what other desktop practices? Do you mean M$
Windows? Like I give damn how Vista is tracking.
> addressable merits in Desktop environments. I don't think people want a
> Desktop that never changes. If that's what you want, you can always use
> TWM. 3.5 is still there, too, if you really can't learn a new workflow.
There's a considerable difference between change and improvement. I
see lots of change, but no improvement, whatsoever. Don't give me
that crap about it being my failure. What workflow? I gave concrete
examples, you talk in vague euphemisms.
> If you haven't dealt with the file indexing issue, then you're really
> cutting KDE a little short. I think you could fault KDE for enabling the
> Desktop indexing by default, but if the reason you didn't like KDE was the
> speed, you really should give it another chance after disabling the
> indexing. Basically, there are two desktop features provided in this. One
> is a semantic componenet, which, in my experience, uses a bit more ram,
> but doesn't really cut in on the speed of the system provided that you
> have the ram to spare. The Desktop File Indexing (a.k.a. -- Akonadi or
> whatever) on the other hand, is horribly broken in KDE 4.2, which is to
> say that it is built on top of Java, consumes constant CPU cycles, uses at
> least 400MB of ram on my system, and does not stop running, even when the
> indexing is complete. In other words, the only thing that seems slow to me
> in KDE is that thing. They know about the problem, and want to fix it, but
> I don't know if they have finally done so or not.
You challenge my assertions of KDE slowness and then turn around and
support them. Get a grip, Hsu.
> If speed was your only concern....
You contend my problems are all due to lack of hardware resources.
Sorry, I'm not in a hardware race with KDE. I'm perfectly happy with
my current computer. It's KDE I'm not happy with and I will not go
out and spend money on hardware I don't need because KDE chooses this
course of pointless development. I dumped M$ Window for this sort of
lunacy and I'll dunp KDE just as fast. If you want to play that game,
knock yourself out.
nb
Occam
I _could_ look into the KDE4.2 problems - but NOT for my main 'working' system.
I use that as the 'has-to-work' distribution, and limit my experimentation to
other distros.
On the other hand, the problems with KDE4.2 seem to be solved in KDE4.3.1 - so
why bother? I will wait for Slackware 13.1 and keep using 12.2 until that time.
For relaxation, I will continue trying out xfce. Maybe that is a better way
forward.
Mike Jones
Wouldn't it have just been easier to use Xfce to start with? ;)
My favorite is IceWM, and I consider Xfce to be a heavyweight tool, but
have it installed alongside IceWM it as it comes with Slack, has some
neat stuff, and "da wifey" likes it.
Tried KDE for giggles, had some, got bored with all the bling.
Tried Gnome. Lets not talk about that, ok? Best forgotten about.
Looking with interest at JWM. Any fans here?
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
notbob
> Wouldn't it have just been easier to use Xfce to start with? ;)
I don't recall the exact slack/xfce rev, but I do remember it was a
major rev jump for xfce (4.2->4.4?). I had actually been using xfce
on the previous slack incarnation and liked it, but the the new uprev
of xfce was just like this current uprev of kde from 3.5->4.2. Too
many changes for nothing more than change's sake, the same game
Winblows and now kde have been playing. I couldn't find anything,
most of the menus having changed look and feel, but not really
function, forcing me to relearn what I'd already known. I hate that!
I don't say a wm should remain exactly the same forever, becoming
stagnant and even dowdy, but when it forces me to start upgrading
hardware for no particular gain or relearn what I already knew, I dig
in my heels. I'm not one to buy new hardware cuz it's bright, new,
and shiny. I don't buy a car to define my person. To me it's just a
tool and an old screwdriver works just as well as a new screwdriver,
provided I haven't screwed it up. I was happy with kde's past
improvements, but this time they've gone too far. To paraphrase an
old Tom Petty song, stop dragging my computer down. ;)
nb
Mike Jones
I take your point, but I'm not sure I understand what your problem was
with Xfce? I've found it to be a steady and rational improvement through
its development. No dramatic changes, a few tweaks here and there, as
you'd expect when a better way of doing something is sorted out, but no
real upheavals.
Also, I've found Xfce to be seductively easy to flick around and get how
I want it on a fresh install. To me it just keeps getting better.
Mind you, there is no substitute for just dropping your backed up configs
into IceWM and it all just working (maybe with a quick live restart).
(Queue fans of other "sports model" WMs in 3... 2... 1... ;)
notbob
> I take your point, but I'm not sure I understand what your problem was
> with Xfce? I've found it to be a steady and rational improvement through
> its development. No dramatic changes, a few tweaks here and there, as
> you'd expect when a better way of doing something is sorted out, but no
> real upheavals.
Like I stated, I don't recall exactly which uprev it was, only that it
changed icons, menus, and function locations within menus. IOW, just
a cosmetic thing. This is the same crap M$ has been pulling for years
and I'm sick of it. It didn't slow xfce down at all, but I still had
to relearn what I'd already known previously. I'm not the fastest dog
on the track, so knowledge I acquire is hard won both in time and
effort. I have no tolerance for programs that force me to cover old
ground just to prove what clever programmers they have. Easier to jes
toss 'em out the door and look for a more practical approach to
change.
> Also, I've found Xfce to be seductively easy to flick around and get how
> I want it on a fresh install. To me it just keeps getting better.
I've never stuck with fluxbox long enough to see its evolution across
slack uprevs. It still looks pretty much like it did the last time I
tried it, but seems to have matured in config flexibility, somewhat.
We'll see. Right now, it appeals to me in sheer speed. Nothing even
comes close.
> Mind you, there is no substitute for just dropping your backed up configs
> into IceWM and it all just working (maybe with a quick live restart).
I'm hoping it will be equally easy to do the same in fluxbox.
My only reservation about FB is it lacks many wm level abilities. I
got a bit spoiled with kde3's auto detection and mounting of usb and
CDs and such. I've been doing manual mounting for years, so it's no
big deal, and preferring slack, I'm not afraid to dig in and get my
hands dirty. I don't mind learning what I NEVER knew, before. ;)
nb
Loki Harfagr
> Responding to notbob:
>
>> On 2009-10-01, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it have just been easier to use Xfce to start with? ;)
>>
>> I don't recall the exact slack/xfce rev, but I do remember it was a
>> major rev jump for xfce (4.2->4.4?). I had actually been using xfce on
...
>> improvements, but this time they've gone too far. To paraphrase an old
>> Tom Petty song, stop dragging my computer down. ;)
arrr, feelin' Petty?-)
Well, notbob, that's "The Same Old You" in the same
"One Story Town", sure "You Got Lucky" but please
"Deliver Me" of a doubt:
so, you had a "Change of Heart"?
Anyway, "Finding Out" the best WM "We Stand A Chance"
as we choose "Between Two Worlds" to have a blink of a better
life, coming out "Straight Into Darkness"
the poor sheep will as ever run "A Wasted Life".
(Tom may forgive me ,-)
>> nb
>
>
> I take your point, but I'm not sure I understand what your problem was
> with Xfce? I've found it to be a steady and rational improvement through
> its development. No dramatic changes, a few tweaks here and there, as
> you'd expect when a better way of doing something is sorted out, but no
> real upheavals.
>
> Also, I've found Xfce to be seductively easy to flick around and get how
> I want it on a fresh install.
That's right and one reason why I recommend it to folks that want to
get the stuff done and not play around or strut and elbow ,-)
To the other ones, including myself and me, I use and recommend
fluXbox it is as funny to configure as Evolution and much easier
to get working as well as faster and slicker ;-> (trollmeter just
bumped from .3 to .90276)
> To me it just keeps getting better.
>
> Mind you, there is no substitute for just dropping your backed up
> configs into IceWM
that's because of that green kryptonite in your pocket
or did you forgot to use ice-9 ?
> and it all just working (maybe with a quick live
> restart).
that's one of the best ways to act for a WM, "just work", any
other facot would imply chairs, keyboards and their soft skinned
interface.
>
> (Queue fans of other "sports model" WMs in 3... 2... 1... ;)
mmmh... "gimme an F, gimme an L gimme a U and an X"-etc.-)
(though I reckon I also use ratpoison when my carpal
syndrome gets too hard for surmise)
notbob
> Well, notbob, that's "The Same Old You" in the same
> "One Story Town", sure "You Got Lucky" but please
> "Deliver Me" of a doubt:
> so, you had a "Change of Heart"?
> Anyway, "Finding Out" the best WM "We Stand A Chance"
> as we choose "Between Two Worlds" to have a blink of a better
> life, coming out "Straight Into Darkness"
> the poor sheep will as ever run "A Wasted Life".
>
> (Tom may forgive me ,-)
I've said it once and I'll say it again:
Loki ....yer weird! ;)
barnabyh
Any thoughts on Afterstep? I know it's (very) old and probably has not
been updated for a while but I quite like it, actually more than
windowmaker.
Any major drawbacks to this, known security holes or similar? I used it
with some wm applets and some gnome stuff for mounting volumes a while
ago and it worked pretty well. Basically, a pop up app-menu is all you
need in my opinion.
Thanks,
barnabyh
Aaron W. Hsu
> it
> changed icons, menus, and function locations within menus. IOW, just
> a cosmetic thing
But this *is* the main reason that an environment shell like KDE or XFCE
exists. Relocating and changing the menus and functionality of the various
widgets in the system to optimize or improve the workflow is a good move.
For example, (since you seem to want one), comparing the classic menu to
the Kickoff menu on KDE, the Kickoff menu has the nice search bar at the
top, which I like, it also has easier navigation, and my favorite programs
are easily accessible without going down a menu (it's also easier to add
them specially). This is an improvement over wasted quicklaunch icon space.
The automount widget for mounting hard drives and the like is very nice in
KDE 4, and not at all useful in the old KDE that I remember (it was a long
time ago, though, so maybe KDE 3.5 has something equally useful).
Changing such things to improve the workflow is an important contribution
to Desktop world. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right.
Dan C
I bet he's fun to party with, though. ;)
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
notbob
> the Kickoff menu on KDE, the Kickoff menu has the nice search bar at the
> top, which I like
I'm so glad someone likes it. I think it's utter crap. Whyingodsname
should I even need a search function to find applications I've been
using for several years, other than the fact they moved everything
from where I knew it to be, before? After that, why would I need it
more than once, having then learned an app's new location? Crap for
crap's sake.
> This is an improvement over wasted quicklaunch icon space.
Yer daft, Hsu! The icon was in plain site, requiring only to move the
cursor to it once and left clicking once. Moving through multiple
menus via multiple clicks and multiple cursor movements or entering
text then clicking is NOT an improvement by any metric you can name.
As for the "favorites" thing, Windows did that 10 yrs ago.
I will admit, they were smart enough to keep the same keyboard
mappings, so I could do all this crap without having to even use the
much despised mouse.
> The automount widget for mounting hard drives and the like is very nice in
> KDE 4, and not at all useful in the old KDE that I remember (it was a long
> time ago, though, so maybe KDE 3.5 has something equally useful).
There's another example. What's a "widget"? Is it the same as an
"app"? As I didn't get the kde memo, I gotta waste time researching
something I ....AGAIN!.... once knew but has, for no apparent reason,
been changed.
As for the automount thing, kde doesn't automount hdd's, linux does.
KDE has nothing to do with it. For automounting usb and CD/DVD media,
kde 3.5 just did it, quite well, in fact. Plug in a flash drive and
it popped it up in konqueror's file mgr. Plug in a CD and up popped
K3b. I see no improvement whatsoever and fortunately, they appear to
not have screwed it up too badly. OTOH, WTF is dolpin? What?
Konqueror and thunar weren't enough?
> Changing such things to improve the workflow is an important
> contribution.
I'm sure it is. Tell me, Hsu, how is my workflow improved if I don't
know where anything is or how it works?
> Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right.
Judging by the uproar over 4.2, I think I'm safe in saying it's
definitely the former.
This whole thing reminds me of when I went to work for a big chip
company in Silicon Valley. When I first started, we had HP dumb
terminals hooked up to big reel-to-reel unix mainframes and a curses
based interface to our database. Years later, my division, always on
point, decided to go with an all M$ network with oracle db. We spent
$4M to customize oracle to our needs. The end results was a piece of
crap, requiring end users to go through twice as many screens and
dozens of mouse clicks to do what was once a fairly simple keyboard
exercise. Mgt loved it! Bright and colorful with cute pop-up windows
and little cursor buttons everywhere. To the end user, used to the
old HP database w/ dedicated HP keyboards, it was a freakin nightmare,
providing half the efficiency at twice the effort.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm one lazy sumbitch! and ...so
far!... kde4 isn't making one damn thing one damn bit easier for me.
nb
notbob
> I bet he's fun to party with, though. ;)
True dat!
Think of they booze you'd save, too. ;)
nb
Aaron W. Hsu
> On 2009-10-01, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>
>> the Kickoff menu on KDE, the Kickoff menu has the nice search bar at the
>> top, which I like
>
> I'm so glad someone likes it. I think it's utter crap. Whyingodsname
> should I even need a search function to find applications I've been
> using for several years, other than the fact they moved everything
> from where I knew it to be, before? After that, why would I need it
> more than once, having then learned an app's new location? Crap for
> crap's sake.
Because I don't use it for my applications that I use all the time. Those
applications are in my Favorites panel. I use it for applications that I
am pretty sure exist, but either don't want to hunt out or don't know the
exact name of it. For example, I can type "bro" and get a list of three
browsers installed on my menu. Usually I use the search button to hunt for
applications that I use very rarely, that I don't want sitting around in
easy to find places, but that I do use occassionally, and that I want to
be available. Firefox is one of those. If I need it, I could go to the
menu and find it, but that would require me to hunt through a menu, which
isn't faster, unless I made those menus easily accessible, which makes my
more commonly used applications harder to reach, which I also don't want.
Instead, I just have a search, so I can get to Firefox with "Click + type
fir". That's an improvement for me. I use the same functionality on Mac OS
X all the time.
>> This is an improvement over wasted quicklaunch icon space.
>
> Yer daft, Hsu! The icon was in plain site, requiring only to move the
> cursor to it once and left clicking once. Moving through multiple
> menus via multiple clicks and multiple cursor movements or entering
> text then clicking is NOT an improvement by any metric you can name.
> As for the "favorites" thing, Windows did that 10 yrs ago.
For me, it's all about making sure that the stuff I do most often is the
easiest to do, and the things I do least often don't get in the way. So, I
open applications, yes, but not nearly as often as I switch between them
while I am working with them, or as often as I may want to check my
battery levels, or control my music box, or such. Switching between
Desktops, switching between applications, and handling little utility
changes are what I do most often, thus, I want those things visible all
the time where I can use them.
I do not start new applications nearly so often, and I don't mount and
unmount devices nearly as often, but I do those things often enough that I
want them to be readily available regardless of the application I am using
at the moment. Thus, the Kickoff Menu and the Removable Device widgets
both serve those purposes quite nicely. The Kickoff Menu gives me access
to my favorite applications in a single click, doesn't use up much real
estate on my screen, and therefore strikes the right balance, for me, of
access time to screen use. Likewise, I like my devices to pop up and be
useful, but I don't always want them to auto-mount. The Removable Device
widget solves this problem easily and doesn't use up too much space. It
also has the advantage of being visible in any application. I don't
usually start in the file manager when I want to mount something new.
However, KDE has a Quicklaunch widget for those who do want that feature.
That's fine, and they should offer both. I like the defaults they have
set, though, and I imagine that more than a few people might as well.
>> The automount widget for mounting hard drives and the like is very nice
>> in
>> KDE 4, and not at all useful in the old KDE that I remember (it was a
>> long
>> time ago, though, so maybe KDE 3.5 has something equally useful).
>
> There's another example. What's a "widget"? Is it the same as an
> "app"? As I didn't get the kde memo, I gotta waste time researching
> something I ....AGAIN!.... once knew but has, for no apparent reason,
> been changed.
Widgets are what allow you to customize your bars to do what you want in a
way that makes sense to you.
> As for the automount thing, kde doesn't automount hdd's, linux does.
> KDE has nothing to do with it. For automounting usb and CD/DVD media,
> kde 3.5 just did it, quite well, in fact. Plug in a flash drive and
> it popped it up in konqueror's file mgr. Plug in a CD and up popped
> K3b. I see no improvement whatsoever and fortunately, they appear to
> not have screwed it up too badly. OTOH, WTF is dolpin? What?
> Konqueror and thunar weren't enough?
KDE has everything to do with how I mount my devices. I don't want my new
flash drive that I just plugged in to get in the way until I want it. It's
nice to see a little notification that its ready for mounting, and to
easily click and have it mounted, which is what KDE 4.2 does, but it
wasn't so easy in the previous versions, IIRC. I don't want K3b popping up
when I insert a CD, BTW. I don't want new applications or windows starting
when I plug something in. A little notification is fine.
>> Changing such things to improve the workflow is an important
>> contribution.
>
> I'm sure it is. Tell me, Hsu, how is my workflow improved if I don't
> know where anything is or how it works?
How can you improve if you don't allow for learning new things?
notbob
> How can you improve if you don't allow for learning new things?
I enjoy learning new things. If I didn't, I'd still be using Windows
98. Unfortunately, all kde is doing is saying, "Now that you've
learned to spell C-A-T, we're changing it to K-A-T". That's not
learning. It's just wasting my valuble time.
nb
Aaron W. Hsu
> It's just wasting my valuble time.
I think Pat and many others have agreed with you. It is a drastic change.
However, even Pat said that he liked it once he got used to it. Of course,
it's perfectly valid to say that the potential benefits of learning and
getting used to it don't way the cost of learning. And that *is* a very
reasonable position.
Mike Jones
> On 2009-10-01, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>
>> I take your point, but I'm not sure I understand what your problem was
>> with Xfce? I've found it to be a steady and rational improvement
>> through its development. No dramatic changes, a few tweaks here and
>> there, as you'd expect when a better way of doing something is sorted
>> out, but no real upheavals.
>
> Like I stated, I don't recall exactly which uprev it was, only that it
> changed icons, menus, and function locations within menus. IOW, just a
> cosmetic thing. This is the same crap M$ has been pulling for years and
> I'm sick of it. It didn't slow xfce down at all, but I still had to
> relearn what I'd already known previously. I'm not the fastest dog on
> the track, so knowledge I acquire is hard won both in time and effort.
> I have no tolerance for programs that force me to cover old ground just
> to prove what clever programmers they have. Easier to jes toss 'em out
> the door and look for a more practical approach to change.
I heard ya, but sometimes there is something that ripples through
everything and we just have to update ourselves accordingly. For example,
I am no great fan of the udev\HAL thingie, and much prefer the "good old
days" when I got a well populated /dev/* dir etc. Because this is not the
way things are done, and because those who do the developing cannot see a
better way of doing things, this is now the default situation, and as I
see things, its up to me to roll with it, or dig in and create an
alternative option that will be just as functional for those who don't
like udev. I can't see that happening, so my best efforts are therefore
required to pull myself out of my 'druthers mode and get with how things
work these days.
Yup. Bah, humbug, grumble grumble, but there ya go. Thats how Linux rolls.
>> Also, I've found Xfce to be seductively easy to flick around and get
>> how I want it on a fresh install. To me it just keeps getting better.
>
> I've never stuck with fluxbox long enough to see its evolution across
> slack uprevs. It still looks pretty much like it did the last time I
> tried it, but seems to have matured in config flexibility, somewhat.
> We'll see. Right now, it appeals to me in sheer speed. Nothing even
> comes close.
Looks like you've found your favorite WM. If this is indeed so, then its
likely going to be easier for you to become your own expert in it and
it's development, rather than skipping from one thing to another each
time an upgrade doesn't fit with how you'd have liked things to go.
>> Mind you, there is no substitute for just dropping your backed up
>> configs into IceWM and it all just working (maybe with a quick live
>> restart).
>
> I'm hoping it will be equally easy to do the same in fluxbox.
Go find out, and feedback for those who are watching with interest. :)
> My only reservation about FB is it lacks many wm level abilities. I got
> a bit spoiled with kde3's auto detection and mounting of usb and CDs and
> such. I've been doing manual mounting for years, so it's no big deal,
> and preferring slack, I'm not afraid to dig in and get my hands dirty.
> I don't mind learning what I NEVER knew, before. ;)
Thats a problem with mega-auto "I can't believe its not WinDOHz" clicky
interfaces like KDE, Gnome, etc., that WE get used to all that auto-ness
and don't learn what we need to to manage our own systems. Thats always
going to be a hard habit to break, which is why I stick with my IceWM
\Xfce options. In the same way, I refuse to learn how to operate all the
quikmenu stuff on the various mobbile phones that appear on an almost
daily basis, and stick with memorising phone numbers as we used to before
all this "do it for me" stuff got in the way and actually made things
more complicated due to lack of user-level standardisation.
Looks like you're in a learning curve lately. I hope you find what works
for you and have some fun using it.
Mike Jones
>> Mind you, there is no substitute for just dropping your backed up
>> configs into IceWM
>
> that's because of that green kryptonite in your pocket or did you forgot
> to use ice-9 ?
Is that some kind of drop-in config checkbox thingie?
If so, I've not even bothered to find out whats available. I like the
"nail it in the config 'n forget it" facility in IceWM.
notbob
> I heard ya, but sometimes there is something that ripples through
> everything and we just have to update ourselves accordingly.
I very much agree. In fact, I hadda update my box cuz it jes WOULDN'T
roll no mo. It was so old and slow, I couldn't even watch youtube or
news vids, online. So, I went out and bought a perfectly good used
sony vaio. Smokin'! ...at least until I loaded kde4.
> it's development, rather than skipping from one thing to another each
> time an upgrade doesn't fit with how you'd have liked things to go.
Precisely what I plan. At this point, I'm pretty contented using fb
while having kde loaded. I have nothing against most of kde's apps,
just their resource killing desktop. So, I have fb's speed and kde's
apps. Brilliant!
> Go find out, and feedback for those who are watching with interest. :)
Yeah. I try and get my discoveries back to aols, no matter how
amateurish. Some other newb may find them handy.
Right now I'm trying to learn more about automounting usb stuff, as
that's one of the things I lost with fb. No problem. I can still
manually mount till I figure it out and it's a good brain exercise. I
started trying to figure out hal/udev, before, but kde 3.5 came along
with automount and I said, why bother. Sometimes, someone else's
progress can kill your own progress. ;)
nb
Peter Chant
> On 2009-10-01, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>
>> the Kickoff menu on KDE, the Kickoff menu has the nice search bar at the
>> top, which I like
>
> I'm so glad someone likes it. I think it's utter crap. Whyingodsname
> should I even need a search function to find applications I've been
> using for several years, other than the fact they moved everything
> from where I knew it to be, before? After that, why would I need it
> more than once, having then learned an app's new location? Crap for
> crap's sake.
But, if like most people you have a gazillion aps installed, in case one
might be useful, it is excellent. It even picks up apps that arn't on the
menu system.
Pete
Mike Jones
Hmmm. Xfce has a similar function. I can see how it might be useful,
though I've not found a use for it yet.
Mike Jones
[...]
>> Go find out, and feedback for those who are watching with interest. :)
>
> Yeah. I try and get my discoveries back to aols, no matter how
> amateurish. Some other newb may find them handy.
Newbies ask questions many can benefit from the answers to.
Those more than familiar with X, Y, and Z may never think to mention them.
> Right now I'm trying to learn more about automounting usb stuff, as
> that's one of the things I lost with fb. No problem. I can still
> manually mount till I figure it out and it's a good brain exercise. I
> started trying to figure out hal/udev, before, but kde 3.5 came along
> with automount and I said, why bother. Sometimes, someone else's
> progress can kill your own progress. ;)
The luxury of "Do it for me" stuff is a trap where the mind stagnates.
Not a habit I'd recommend.
Nothing wrong with optimised automation, until\unless it turns it's users
into button pecking automated robot chickens.
Loki Harfagr
> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2009-10-01, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>>
>>> the Kickoff menu on KDE, the Kickoff menu has the nice search bar at
>>> the top, which I like
>>
>> I'm so glad someone likes it. I think it's utter crap. Whyingodsname
>> should I even need a search function to find applications I've been
>> using for several years, other than the fact they moved everything from
>> where I knew it to be, before? After that, why would I need it more
>> than once, having then learned an app's new location? Crap for crap's
>> sake.
>
> But, if like most people you have a gazillion aps installed,
quite a curious idea indeed! This is not the redmond league users
group you know? most people here does have a shortillion apps
installed, usually a dozenium usuals apps, the one they really use.
> in case one
> might be useful,
Ah, yes, "in case one might (may) be useful", but wouldn't a
better place for those be on sourceforge (or even /.)?
> it is excellent. It even picks up apps that arn't on
> the menu system.
If some apps aren't on my 'menu system' why would I need them to
take some resources and/or places in a select plate while I'm
just trying and use what I needed/liked/wanted to?
It is a depressing idea to my mind, when I read your post
the visions come up, and too close, of giant blue swinging
staples and trombones mating and barfing on brown fluffy spaniels.
Really depressing, where did I put my BFG9K again?->
Dan C
Jeezuz, I'm starting to agree more and more with Loki. Am I losing my
mind?
I always preferred the Railgun, though.
notbob
> Jeezuz, I'm starting to agree more and more with Loki. Am I losing my
> mind?
I guess it jes depends on how you feel about trombones and fluffy
spaniels. Makes sense to me.
nb
Dan C
Yeah. Never had any thoughts, really, about trombones. I don't really
care much for fluffy spaniels, though. Just that word "fluffy" reminds
me of the ANC troll who used to offer up his spewage in here, but seems
to have dried up and blown away in the wind.
Loki Harfagr
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:30:38 +0000, Loki Harfagr wrote:
>
>> Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:51:53 +0100, Peter Chant did cat :
>>
...
>> It is a depressing idea to my mind, when I read your post the visions
>> come up, and too close, of giant blue swinging staples and trombones
>> mating and barfing on brown fluffy spaniels. Really depressing, where
>> did I put my BFG9K again?->
>
> Jeezuz, I'm starting to agree more and more with Loki. Am I losing my
> mind?
more probable is that you stopped sniffing cyanolite and
brain cells are slowly reconnecting ;-)
Besides, I reckon that from time to time I try to
raise the lyrics up to a two digits Flesh RES ;->
>
> I always preferred the Railgun, though.
Oh yes, a funnier one indeed, but to zap a "gazillion" trombones
the BFG9K is certainly safer ;D)
Ron Gibson
<arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>All in all, most of the complaints I see against KDE are unjustified rants
>or simply demonstrate a strong level of ignorance about how a Desktop
>system is composed on Linux. I must admit to some shock in this regard,
>because this is Slackware, people are supposed to at least gain a somewhat
>intuitive sense of what is happening with the computer, even if they don't
>have to bother with the underpinnings all the time.
It's completely a legit gripe when you don't like a precompiled binary
package.
When all else fails you compile your own and disable the crap. However
that is a draconian measure with KDE as that takes some serious time.
It's much more sensible to simply share a tip if you have it rather
than to suggest reinventing the wheel. And BTW, I was using Slackware
before there even was a KDE desktop.
--
Email - rsgi...@tampabay.rr.borg
Replace borg with com
"Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
r...@realto.margarino.ca
> <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>
>>All in all, most of the complaints I see against KDE are unjustified rants
>>or simply demonstrate a strong level of ignorance about how a Desktop
>>system is composed on Linux. I must admit to some shock in this regard,
>>because this is Slackware, people are supposed to at least gain a somewhat
>>intuitive sense of what is happening with the computer, even if they don't
>>have to bother with the underpinnings all the time.
The only difference between slackware and all the other distros is
that slackware relies more heavily on the antiquated command line
interface.
Knowing how to use the command line shell does not mean that you
know anything more about linux. All it means is that you know more
about the antiquated command line shell. And this implies that you
know less about modern shells, such as KDE. And if you know less
about KDE, then you are a slow, inefficient user. Or luser, for
that matter.
The admin who uses the most efficient shell is the most efficient
admin, by definition. Those who swear by bash are losers, afraid of
change, who have their heads jammed way up their asses.
And then we have arrogant trash like Mr. Gibson, whose worthless
contribution was deleted from this posting.
We shit hard and directly in the face of the Gibsons who stand in
the way of progress. They are linux nation's very worst enemies.
We shit hard in their faces and we grind that shit in with our
boots.
cordially, as always,
rm
Dan C
Dammit. He isn't dead, after all.
Bugger off, doofus.
notbob
> Knowing how to use the command line shell does not mean that you
> know anything more about linux. All it means is that you know more
> about the antiquated command line shell.
rm, meet Sidney. Sidney, meet rm. No matter meets anti matter and
and between them, they create it-doesn't-matter.
nb
Ron Gibson
>I'd appreciate your explaining how file indexing slows down KDE and
>how you disabled it. I certainly don't know and am a bit pissed I
>even need to. One of my main reasons for my abandoning KDE is the
>blatant speed hit from using it. I can plainly see how much slower
>the cursor moves across the screen when using apps like slrn or emacs
>in konsole. It is not insignificant.
I agree nb - it's a pig. It seems Vista inspired, which is a mistake
as even Intel said no to Vista (They will be using Win 7 however, for
those that care - I played with the Win 7 betas and it's not too bad,
certainly better than Vista).
I don't want a freakin PC that looks "purtty". I want a machine that
will process my different work tasks *quickly* and I don't feel like
waiting extra time for a window to "fade out".
If I want pretty I'll get an aquarium and set it on my desk.
>There can be no doubt KDE has some very good programs. I live in
>konsole and consider k3b brilliant. The desktop, OTOH, is quite
>another thing. I'll definitely be looking for app replacements if I
>have to suffer that trainwreck.
I've got to figure out how to run both XFCE and KDE I reckon.
--
Email - rsgi...@tampabay.rr.borg
Replace borg with com
"Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Loki Harfagr
don't be so negative ~bob ;-)
after all when a turd slides into a pit it may help the soil sometime.
notbob
> waiting extra time for a window to "fade out".
No doubt spiraling/checkerboard disolves and transitions are right around the
corner. KDE has created a new "track". Krap.
nb
Ron Gibson
>cordially, as always,
>rm
Cordial on up to this eunuch...
8====================================>
So hello, gobbler, to Mr. Blinky
Dan C
<modquote>
> rm, meet Sidney. Sidney, meet rm. No matter meets anti matter and and
> between them, they create it-doesn't-matter.
</modquote>
Dan C
>>There can be no doubt KDE has some very good programs. I live in
>>konsole and consider k3b brilliant. The desktop, OTOH, is quite another
>>thing. I'll definitely be looking for app replacements if I have to
>>suffer that trainwreck.
>
> I've got to figure out how to run both XFCE and KDE I reckon.
Just run Xfce, and all (most, anyway) of the KDE apps should be in the
menus.
man xwmconfig
Michael Black
Sidney will do his work on RM. It will be the Battle of the Network
Trolls.
Michael
Ron Gibson
wrote:
>> I've got to figure out how to run both XFCE and KDE I reckon.
>Just run Xfce, and all (most, anyway) of the KDE apps should be in the
>menus.
>man xwmconfig
Yeah, I know how to set it up. What I should have said is try to
remember what I did in the past to be able to select which desktop
from the CLI. I don't like using gdm or kdm or whatever those things
are.
I'm also going to try my best to change this KDE from an ugly clumsy
beast into a more nimble desktop GUI.
--
Email - rsgi...@tampabay.rr.borg
Replace borg with com
"Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Ron Gibson
<arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>technical sense, flawed? You could argue that the new system is
>fundamentally less efficient, but I don't think you can, since the new
>system is more efficient in cases, and also tracks better with current
>Desktop practices on other systems. Whether you consider this a good thing
>or something that you like is up to you, but it doesn't mean that KDE is
>somehow bad.
Emulation is not innovation.
>addressable merits in Desktop environments. I don't think people want a
>Desktop that never changes. If that's what you want, you can always use
>TWM. 3.5 is still there, too, if you really can't learn a new workflow.
Sensible people don't install a new desktop in order to have some new
really kewl screensavers.
>So, try KDE again, but this time go into the Advanced Tab and select the
>Desktop search icon. From there, uncheck the Desktop indexer, and you
>should be alright.
Immediately will be done. As far as searching mc works just fine for
me and is one hell of a lot faster.
notbob
> Yeah, I know how to set it up. What I should have said is try to
> remember what I did in the past to be able to select which desktop
> from the CLI. I don't like using gdm or kdm or whatever those things
> are.
After login:
$ startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.fluxbox
....or whatever desktops you have in installed in the above dir.
> I'm also going to try my best to change this KDE from an ugly clumsy
> beast into a more nimble desktop GUI.
Try fluxbox. Surprisingly fast.
nb
notbob
> On 2009-10-08, Ron Gibson <rsgi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I know how to set it up. What I should have said is try to
>> remember what I did in the past to be able to select which desktop
>> from the CLI. I don't like using gdm or kdm or whatever those things
>> are.
>
> After login:
>
> $ startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.fluxbox
>
> ....or whatever desktops you have in installed in the above dir.
Hah!! I've wanted to do this forever.
Now that I've been studying some basic scripting, I've learned enough
to be dangerous. Steal a little here, copy a little there, snip, add,
subtract, bwahahahah....
Here is my bash menu script to choose a wm/desktop from the login
prompt for the default choices in a full slack install. Naturally, I
make no guarantees and am not responsible if your dell laptop melts
down to a puddle of day-glo pink. I will say it works fine on my
slack 13 desktop and only if you don't have an x session already
running. It could no doubt use some refinement and added
functionality (like a 2nd x session), but I'll do that when I get
there. Enjoy:
----------------------
#!/bin/bash
while :
do
clear
echo " -== CHOOSE A DESKTOP ==- "
echo "1. blackbox"
echo "2. fluxbox"
echo "3. fvwm2"
echo "4. xfce"
echo "5. twm"
echo "6. wmaker"
echo "7. kde"
echo -n "Enter number of desktop:"
read opt
case $opt in
1) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.blackbox;;
2) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.fluxbox;;
3) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.fvwm2;;
4) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.xfce;;
5) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.twm;;
6) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.wmaker;;
7) startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.kde;;
*) echo "$opt is an invaild option. Please select option between 1-7
only, or press C-c to exit.";
echo "Press [enter] key to continue. . .";
read enterKey;;
esac
done
------------------
Feel free to dogpile. I need all the help I can get. ;)
nb
Ron Gibson
>> After login:
>>
>> $ startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.fluxbox
>>
>> ....or whatever desktops you have in installed in the above dir.
>Hah!! I've wanted to do this forever.
Darnit. I missed the OP's response somehow. Lots of traffic. Thanx for
the time saver. The ol' noggin is getting a bit rusty on memory.
Nice little script <SNATCH!> :=)
Dan C
Looks good, I guess. Only thing I would ask is this: Is this any easier
than using 'xwmconfig' and pressing Enter a couple of times?
Loki Harfagr
> On 2009-10-08, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-08, Ron Gibson <rsgi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I know how to set it up. What I should have said is try to
>>> remember what I did in the past to be able to select which desktop
>>> from the CLI. I don't like using gdm or kdm or whatever those things
>>> are.
>>
>> After login:
>>
>> $ startx /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.fluxbox
>>
>> ....or whatever desktops you have in installed in the above dir.
>
> Hah!! I've wanted to do this forever.
>
> Now that I've been studying some basic scripting, I've learned enough to
> be dangerous. Steal a little here, copy a little there, snip, add,
> subtract, bwahahahah....
>
...
> Feel free to dogpile. I need all the help I can get. ;)
>
> nb
Sidney! Get out immediatly off this body!
notbob
> Looks good, I guess. Only thing I would ask is this: Is this any easier
> than using 'xwmconfig' and pressing Enter a couple of times?
No, but it was a hoot creating it and I learned a couple things.
I didn't realize xwmconfig was user executable for local boot
default. Plus, my script leaves you in the the script till you C-c out,
which means you can go back and forth between diff wm's from my script.
That wasn't intentional, but it just worked out that way.
Another thing I learned is I started getting thrown back into wmaker
when resorting back to plain ol' startx, despite never having chosen
wmaker either globally as root or locally as user via xwmconfig.
Somewhere along the line my ~/.xinitrc file got changed. Go figure.
I fixed it.
My problem now is, k3b is whacked. Stalls on startup, regardless
of the wm I'm in, even kde, and I gotta manually kill it. If ain't
one thing.... ;)
nb
Dan C
> On 2009-10-08, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Looks good, I guess. Only thing I would ask is this: Is this any
>> easier than using 'xwmconfig' and pressing Enter a couple of times?
>
> No, but it was a hoot creating it and I learned a couple things.
Cool.
> I didn't realize xwmconfig was user executable for local boot default.
> Plus, my script leaves you in the the script till you C-c out, which
> means you can go back and forth between diff wm's from my script. That
> wasn't intentional, but it just worked out that way.
>
> Another thing I learned is I started getting thrown back into wmaker
> when resorting back to plain ol' startx, despite never having chosen
> wmaker either globally as root or locally as user via xwmconfig.
> Somewhere along the line my ~/.xinitrc file got changed. Go figure. I
> fixed it.
>
> My problem now is, k3b is whacked. Stalls on startup, regardless of the
> wm I'm in, even kde, and I gotta manually kill it. If ain't one
> thing.... ;)
Weird. K3b is the one KDE app that I use, and it's OK for me here, under
Xfce. Maybe you could 'removepkg' on it and reinstall it.
notbob
> Weird. K3b is the one KDE app that I use, and it's OK for me here, under
> Xfce. Maybe you could 'removepkg' on it and reinstall it.
It seems to be working ok, now. I can think of a couple issues that
might have caused a conflict, like inserting a CD in fluxbox with its
lack of automount features. Seems I gotta manually mount the cdrom
before firing up k3b. Not sure why it didn't work from kde. Sony
Vaios are kinda squirrely with their DRM hardware, despite good Asus
mobos.
nb
Bud
>
> My problem now is, k3b is whacked. Stalls on startup, regardless
> of the wm I'm in, even kde, and I gotta manually kill it. If ain't
> one thing.... ;)
>
> nb
Hmm, I thought 13 came with brasero instead of k3b. I could'a
missed something.
--
Bud
notbob
> Hmm, I thought 13 came with brasero instead of k3b. I could'a
> missed something.
Like the fact Slackware doesn't even have Gnome? ;)
nb
Dan C
Huh?
What are you smoking?
Aaron W. Hsu
wrote:
> It's much more sensible to simply share a tip if you have it rather
> than to suggest reinventing the wheel. And BTW, I was using Slackware
> before there even was a KDE desktop.
Here's a tip to improve Slackware's KDE 4.2 speed. Disable the File
Indexer in the Desktop Search Preferences in the System Settings. Doing so
will probably get you back another 500MB in usable RAM and actually give
your CPU the time to do real work. My KDE Desktop is very fast with that
one simple thing disabled, even given the Compiz and other graphics and
effects I have enabled. With File Indexing enabled, I could not get decent
performance from KDE: the indexer would constantly try to thrash the hard
drive and use lots of CPU cycles, while consuming way more RAM than it
needed.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
Grant
...
>done
Perhaps:
#!/bin/bash
wmpath="/etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc"
default="blackbox"
while :
do
clear
echo " -== CHOOSE A DESKTOP ==-
1. blackbox
2. fluxbox
3. fvwm2
4. xfce
5. twm
6. wmaker
7. kde
"
printf " %s" "Enter number of desktop [1-7]: "
read opt
case $opt in
1) startx $wmpath.blackbox;;
2) startx $wmpath.fluxbox;;
3) startx $wmpath.fvwm2;;
4) startx $wmpath.xfce;;
5) startx $wmpath.twm;;
6) startx $wmpath.wmaker;;
7) startx $wmpath.kde;;
*) startx $wmpath.$default;;
esac
done
If you must use a menu, try to keep one set of options, a single
array for the desktop type would be better -- I'll let you discover
how ;) 'echo -n' is frowned upon, use printf instead (much more
versatile for print formatting).
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Grant
...
>> Feel free to dogpile. I need all the help I can get. ;)
>>
>> nb
>
>Sidney! Get out immediatly off this body!
My first thought too, but then I hadda play a little golf :)
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> Just like many others, I have problems with KDE4.2 - it
> crashes far too often.
I don't use a GDE and I never have crashes. Never.
> So I tried a bit of xfce, fluxbox and some other desktops, and
>found that I could even use Kontact in eg xfce.
GDEs are just suites of graphical apps running in the GUI
like any other graphical apps.
Why wouldn't you be able to run any of them from any interface,
including the shell prompt, which is the real Linux interface.
> Now my questions is: why bother with KDE4.2? Just what _does_
>one miss out on (more than eye candy) by using one of the other
>desktops?
They are all basically the same: shoddy crutches wearing
cheap makeup.
>I should add
>that I do not dislike KDE4 - KDE4.3 runs quite well, thank
>you very much; but that is not part of Slackware yet.
And being a GDE addict, you clearly don't understand much
about Linux, which is what those things do to you.
If you did know the basics of Linux you'd know that you
could run KDE4.3 on your Slackware OS if you wanted to, and
you'd know how to do it.
And you wouldn't dream of running any Windows-clone GDE
monstrosity on your Linux boxes.
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://linuxreviews.org/beginner/abs-guide/en/
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
http://linux.about.com/cs/glossaries/a/aglossary.htm
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~okeefe/p2b
for:
From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO
Building a Minimal Linux System from Source Code
Sid
Michael Black
> On alt.os.linux.slackware, Occam <oc...@internode.razoron.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Just like many others, I have problems with KDE4.2 - it
>> crashes far too often.
>
> I don't use a GDE and I never have crashes. Never.
>
Then why just within the past few months did you have some outrageous
scheme for "isolating" your graphic browser because it crashed?
Michael
Sylvain Robitaille
> case $opt in
> 1) startx $wmpath.blackbox;;
> 2) startx $wmpath.fluxbox;;
> 3) startx $wmpath.fvwm2;;
> 4) startx $wmpath.xfce;;
> 5) startx $wmpath.twm;;
> 6) startx $wmpath.wmaker;;
> 7) startx $wmpath.kde;;
> *) startx $wmpath.$default;;
> esac
I reached for "7" and fat-fingered "8" instead. I prefer the original
version that would then re-prompt for a proper selection.
> ... 'echo -n' is frowned upon, ...
What??? Since when?
> use printf instead (much more versatile for print formatting).
Perhaps, but not exactly portable to a "proper" Bourne shell. What
should be frowned upon is the practice of writing shell scripts assuming
Bash as the shell (ok, I did spot that at least in this case the #! line
does explicitly call for bash ...) The original script, however, would
have worked in any Bourne (or compatible) shell.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@encs.concordia.ca
Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant
>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:52:24 +1100, Grant wrote:
>
>> case $opt in
>> 1) startx $wmpath.blackbox;;
>> 2) startx $wmpath.fluxbox;;
>> 3) startx $wmpath.fvwm2;;
>> 4) startx $wmpath.xfce;;
>> 5) startx $wmpath.twm;;
>> 6) startx $wmpath.wmaker;;
>> 7) startx $wmpath.kde;;
>> *) startx $wmpath.$default;;
>> esac
>
>I reached for "7" and fat-fingered "8" instead. I prefer the original
>version that would then re-prompt for a proper selection.
...
*) show_usage;;
esac
Not hard to add ;)
>
>> ... 'echo -n' is frowned upon, ...
>
>What??? Since when?
Since I learned printf!
>
>> use printf instead (much more versatile for print formatting).
>
>Perhaps, but not exactly portable to a "proper" Bourne shell. What
>should be frowned upon is the practice of writing shell scripts assuming
>Bash as the shell (ok, I did spot that at least in this case the #! line
>does explicitly call for bash ...) The original script, however, would
>have worked in any Bourne (or compatible) shell.
But here we're about Slackware and slack's default shell is bash. Isn't
this stuff ever going to be standardised over the various shell?
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Bud
> Like the fact Slackware doesn't even have Gnome? ;)
>
> nb
Well, like that too.
--
Bud
Sylvain Robitaille
>>> ... 'echo -n' is frowned upon, ...
>>
>>What??? Since when?
>
> Since I learned printf!
I see ...
> But here we're about Slackware and slack's default shell is bash.
Um .... yeah, ok, your point ...
> Isn't this stuff ever going to be standardised over the various shell?
Sure, as soon as no one decides they can build a better wheel ...
(something about playing hockey in Hell also comes to mind, I must admit
...)
Keith Keller
>
> (something about playing hockey in Hell also comes to mind, I must admit
> ...)
http://www.nhl.com/ice/recap.htm?id=2009020059
--keith :)
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Loki Harfagr
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:53:56 +1100, Grant wrote:
>
>>>> ... 'echo -n' is frowned upon, ...
>>>
>>>What??? Since when?
>>
>> Since I learned printf!
>
> I see ...
and AAMOF using printf is usually quite clearer than to use echo
for people already exposed to [v[s]]printf in some other lingos
>> But here we're about Slackware and slack's default shell is bash.
>
> Um .... yeah, ok, your point ...
>
>> Isn't this stuff ever going to be standardised over the various shell?
>
> Sure, as soon as no one decides they can build a better wheel ...
> (something about playing hockey in Hell also comes to mind, I must admit
> ...)
well yes, I don't play hockey and Hel was one of my wives but I
guess that Dijkstra had a real idea about why not to multiply wheels ;-)
"
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a
blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead.
"
Now, I almost started IT on APL and hence according to what Dijkstra
said on APL my programming mood were at least garbled from the start :D)
notbob
> About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a
> blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead.
Now there's logic that's hard to argue. In fact, it's hard to do
anything with it. Makes you glad he's on our side. (he is, isn't
he?) 8|
nb
Loki Harfagr
> On 2009-10-13, Loki Harfagr <l0...@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a
>> blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes
>> instead.
>
> Now there's logic that's hard to argue.
arguing with Dijkstra was not exactly a short trip, especially on logic !-)
> In fact, it's hard to do
> anything with it. Makes you glad he's on our side. (he is, isn't he?)
well, yes, 'sort' of ;-) [medal of the worst pun of the week?]
It is quite clear that you never met a lot of programmers, you would
be surprised to see how many of them do a lot of stuff with blunt axes :-)
To their credit it has to be clear that most of them just use the axes
that their PHBs provided or decided to be the new trend.
notbob
> It is quite clear that you never met a lot of programmers, you would
> be surprised to see how many of them do a lot of stuff with blunt axes :-)
True.
"I don't C++ and I don't CLU and I don't hang with the guys that
do". --notbob
I took a programming course about 30 yrs ago. Not for me. Probably
why I've been trying to learn bash scripting for 10 yrs. ;)
nb
Mike Jones
By the time you "get" bash, you've figured out why perl was created.
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
Loki Harfagr
> Responding to notbob:
>
>> On 2009-10-13, Loki Harfagr <l0...@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It is quite clear that you never met a lot of programmers, you would
>>> be surprised to see how many of them do a lot of stuff with blunt axes
>>> :-)
>>
>> True.
>>
>> "I don't C++ and I don't CLU and I don't hang with the guys that do".
>> --notbob
>>
>> I took a programming course about 30 yrs ago. Not for me. Probably
>> why I've been trying to learn bash scripting for 10 yrs. ;)
>>
>> nb
>
>
> By the time you "get" bash, you've figured out why perl was created.
interesting, I can feel the lingo flamewaaaaar a comin' ,-)
notbob, when you'll have spent a few weeks/years/eons on Perl
you'll then know why you're back to the toolbox ;-)
notbob
> interesting, I can feel the lingo flamewaaaaar a comin' ,-)
Hardly. As I've said often enough, I'm no code kid. Bash is coming
along, albeit a slog. I can basic html at gunpoint. Lisp is somewhat
comprehensible, in a bizarre twisted sorta way. Even python and php
are not too scary at a distance. But, perl? The guy who created that
mess isn't even human.
You make more sense, Loki! ;)
nb
Aaron W. Hsu
> Lisp is somewhat
> comprehensible, in a bizarre twisted sorta way.
When you're ready for the light: Scheme.
Mike Jones
Mmmmmmm, ok?
Seeing as I'm still in the early stages of playing around with Perl,
precisely because Bash seems to work like a collection of incantational
kludges, why should I avoid Perl, and what would be a good general
purpose scripting language to learn thats likely to be around for some
time, like Perl has been?
I'm thinking Perl is the one partly because of PCRE in various apps, so
why learn two different things when one covers-all-bases thing will do?
Grant
bash + (g)awk is good, as awk can be used instead of that weird mix of
sed and cut 'helpers'.
Awk is a language from the '70s, awk programs are compiled at runtime,
like perl.
Perl has the advantage of being able to do everything (anything?), but
the disadvantage of being a write-only language :)
Since I learned awk I don't use sed, cut and friends -- awk can do
that and more. Awk is good for one-liners as well as the odd thousand
liner, as well as shell script glue logic.
But I don't think this is flamewar territory, the various languages
available for use have their strong and weak points. Play with what
feels good, productive.
I don't go near new languages often 'cos I'm an old fart, poor memory.
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Sylvain Robitaille
> Perl has the advantage of being able to do everything (anything?), but
> the disadvantage of being a write-only language :)
Perl has earned that (undeserved) reputation thanks to shoddy work by
lazy programmers. It need not be a write-only language. My own Perl
programs are quite readable, even if they're not masterpieced of
programming ingenuity.
Just because one *can* write obfuscated code in Perl does not suppose
that one should.
Grant
>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:14:50 +1100, Grant wrote:
>
>> Perl has the advantage of being able to do everything (anything?), but
>> the disadvantage of being a write-only language :)
>
>Perl has earned that (undeserved) reputation thanks to shoddy work by
>lazy programmers. It need not be a write-only language. My own Perl
>programs are quite readable, even if they're not masterpieced of
>programming ingenuity.
>
>Just because one *can* write obfuscated code in Perl does not suppose
>that one should.
Hmm:
#### query handler
sub do_query($) {
my $q = shift;
my ($a, $cc, $cn, @d, $da, $hi, $lo, $m, $na, $nz, $r, $rf, %rt);
($q, $rf) = split /\s+/, $q, 2; $da = 0;
if ($q !~ /^[0-9\.]+$/) {
++$da;
}
elsif ($q =~ /\./) {
@d = split /\./, $q, 4; $a = 0;
for ($m = 0; $m < 4; $m++) {
if ($d[$m] > 255) { ++$da }
$a *= 256; $a += $d[$m];
}
}
else {
++$da if ($q > 0xffffffff); $a = $q;
}
if ($da) {
$da = $q = $na = $lo = $hi = $cc = '?'; $cn = 'bad query';
}
else {
$lo = 1; $hi = $ip2c_cn; $da = $a;
while ($hi - $lo > 1) {
$m = ($lo + $hi) >> 1;
if ($ip2c_lo[$m] < $a) {
$lo = $m
} else {
$hi = $m
}
}
if ($ip2c_lo[$hi] > $a) { --$hi }
if ($ip2c_hi[$hi] < $a) {
$na = $lo = $hi = '-';
$cc = '--'; $cn = 'unassigned';
}
else {
$cc = $ip2c_cc[$hi]; $cn = $cc_name{$cc};
...
vs
split(addr, a, "."); i = ((a[1]*256+a[2])*256+a[3])*256+a[4]
l = 1; h = ipdatsize
while (h - l > 1) {
m = int((l + h) / 2)
if (ipdata_str[m] < i) { l = m } else { h = m }
}
if (i < ipdata_str[h]) --h
if (i > ipdata_end[h]) return "--:unassigned"
# return country code and country name
return sprintf("%s:%s", ipdata_cc[h], ipname[ipdata_cc[h]])
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Keith Keller
>
> Hmm:
>
> #### query handler
> sub do_query($) {
>
> my $q = shift;
> my ($a, $cc, $cn, @d, $da, $hi, $lo, $m, $na, $nz, $r, $rf, %rt);
>
> ($q, $rf) = split /\s+/, $q, 2; $da = 0;
>
> if ($q !~ /^[0-9\.]+$/) {
> ++$da;
> }
[snip]
If this subroutine is doing what I think (trying to map an IP address to
a country code?), you'd probably be better off using a module. Thus
Sylvain's point is still valid--just because you can write unreadable
Perl doesn't mean you have to. :)
Anyway, religious wars are offtopic. ;-)
--keith
Grant
...
>If this subroutine is doing what I think (trying to map an IP address to
>a country code?), you'd probably be better off using a module. Thus
>Sylvain's point is still valid--just because you can write unreadable
>Perl doesn't mean you have to. :)
What? 'cos I didn't write a module? A module doesn't make the
code more readable.
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Mike Jones
I'm slowly approaching the same state, and need to settle for one
portable scripting language I can stick to across various bases. I won't
always have bash available, and to be direct about it, I still find bash
to be semi-incantational and have wasted more than enough time trying to
figure out why something that worked fine in one script suddenly needs to
be different in another. IOW, there isn't a cohesive logic to it that I
can see.
Perl seemed to be the solution, but having read a few of today's comments
I'm not so sure Perl is going to be any better for what I need here.
No flame wars required here, just a few recommendations for "old farts"
who need something they can stick with as the brain slowly solidifies. ;\
It may be that accumulated bad working practices (user end) are part of
the "bash-is-carp" experience here, so even recommendations for "Bash for
old farts who thought they knew what they were doing" resources would be
viable suggestions IMO.
Fire extinguishers at the ready. ;)
Kevin Monceaux
> Perl seemed to be the solution, but having read a few of today's
> comments I'm not so sure Perl is going to be any better for what I
> need here.
I keep going back and forth trying to decide whether I love or hate
Perl. Recently I converted my personal website to Catalyst, a Perl
based web framework. Ever since I've been debating whether to stick
with it or switch to something other than Perl. Between my personal
web site and another I act as webmaster for I've tried numerous
things including PHP, ASP.NET(via mono on a FreeBSD box), PSP(Pascal
Server Pages), Django, and now Catalyst.
> No flame wars required here, just a few recommendations for "old
> farts" who need something they can stick with as the brain slowly
> solidifies. ;\
One of these decades I'm going to pick a language I can stick with.
In the "old fart" category I am fairly familiar with COBOL, and know
some of the basics of IBM mainframe assembler. I work as an IBM
mainframe operator. In the non-mainframe "old fart" category I'm also
quite fond of Clipper, and remember a bit of Pascal from college. I'm
still a little weary of these "new fangled" scripting languages.
--
Kevin
http://www.RawFedDogs.net
http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org
Bruceville, TX
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!!
Sylvain Robitaille
> What? 'cos I didn't write a module? A module doesn't make the
> code more readable.
No, but proper variable names might have gone a long way towards making
the example you posted more readable.
Just because Perl allows you to be lazy doesn't mean you should be, and
just because you can post a barely readable Perl snippet doesn't mean
that Perl forces that style on the programmer.
Loki Harfagr
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:40:50 +1100, Grant wrote:
>
>> What? 'cos I didn't write a module? A module doesn't make the code
>> more readable.
>
> No, but proper variable names might have gone a long way towards making
> the example you posted more readable.
>
> Just because Perl allows you to be lazy doesn't mean you should be, and
> just because you can post a barely readable Perl snippet doesn't mean
> that Perl forces that style on the programmer.
well, that's right, a counterproof has never made a proof, but
really the Perl code posted by Grant is a part of the 5p100
best, in readability and reuseability, Perl code I've ever seen.
I reckon that these 5p100 are far below the 1p100 best read*
Perl code I've met (and I use a lot of them) but in contrast
most bash and awk code (besides golf/obfuscation games ;-) have
a better overall readability and consistence.
Now, there are also some factors positive for the use of
Perl, like presence of a huge base of network modules,
or like the fact that a product you use (e.g. Mimedefang)
uses a good set of good libs and modules and UI properly
written in Perl.
Still, I'm waiting with a smile and impatient fear the day when
Perl6 will out and spread a new veil of language looting over the
naive world of dirty code writers ,D)
Keith Keller
>
> ...
>>If this subroutine is doing what I think (trying to map an IP address to
>>a country code?), you'd probably be better off using a module. Thus
>>Sylvain's point is still valid--just because you can write unreadable
>>Perl doesn't mean you have to. :)
>
> What? 'cos I didn't write a module?
No, because you didn't use an existing module. There is (for example)
http://search.cpan.org/~nwetters/IP-Country-2.27/lib/IP/Country.pm
which claims to do "fast lookup of country codes from IP addresses".
(There may be other modules that do the same thing; I didn't look.)
> A module doesn't make the code more readable.
Using a module makes *your* code more readable, even if the module
itself is not. :)
Loki Harfagr
Yup, but bash is not a "language" but a full shell (as can
Perl *partly* be seen/used (or java but pls see Solaris groups
for this kind of disease ;->))
> and have wasted more than enough time trying to
> figure out why something that worked fine in one script suddenly needs
> to be different in another.
Scripts problems are not so far from usual problems, the rough
standard repartition of wurknutbutdiduntuchunuthing tickets prevails
9/10 pebcak, 99/1000 change of version, remaining slags are for
real system/operator/prog/doc errors.
> IOW, there isn't a cohesive logic to it that
> I can see.
>
> Perl seemed to be the solution, but having read a few of today's
> comments I'm not so sure Perl is going to be any better for what I need
> here.
>
> No flame wars required here, just a few recommendations for "old farts"
> who need something they can stick with as the brain slowly solidifies.
> ;\
In the idea that you want to write and read *your* code you really can
use and stick with Perl, trouble comes when you want to read/use/rewrite
somebody code ;-) (and yes, most every language can be badly used, it is
only that Perl seems to have collected most of the syntax-grammar lazziez)
Depending on what you'll want to try and do you may have some choice,
for a shell just use any bourne daughter that includes posix (as they should)
and gives you the extended syntax/tools/gadgets/habits you prefer, zsh is
very good for its loads of extents but I still prefer and use bash.
(ksh was excellent but overly versatile in its inner variants between
decennial versions ;-)
Remember that a shell is not a language, it bears some language abilties
but it really goes a little deeper than that ;-)
>
> It may be that accumulated bad working practices (user end) are part of
> the "bash-is-carp" experience here,
Probably, and if you're vulnerable to this factor you'll find that
in Perl it goes exponentialized ^7up...
> so even recommendations for "Bash
> for old farts who thought they knew what they were doing" resources
> would be viable suggestions IMO.
>
>
> Fire extinguishers at the ready. ;)
and asbestos diapers?-)
Grant
>Responding to Grant:
>
...
>> I don't go near new languages often 'cos I'm an old fart, poor memory.
>>
>> Grant.
>
>
>I'm slowly approaching the same state, and need to settle for one
>portable scripting language I can stick to across various bases. I won't
>always have bash available, and to be direct about it, I still find bash
>to be semi-incantational and have wasted more than enough time trying to
>figure out why something that worked fine in one script suddenly needs to
>be different in another. IOW, there isn't a cohesive logic to it that I
>can see.
Well, using whatever shell you have is the easy bit, it's knowing
when to use some other language to better (or more easily) perform
the task at hand. Not trying to do everything in shell, relying on
special (or particular) shell behaviour.
I think at uni we had tcsh (IRIX on Indy and O2), but there was no
particular use for shells beyond backgrounding a job (something &)
or taking a session copy (script?) for assignments.
>
>Perl seemed to be the solution, but having read a few of today's comments
>I'm not so sure Perl is going to be any better for what I need here.
My exposure to perl was 'this is server side language for web server'
in web engineering -- I did write an info-sys in '01 that's still up on
the web -- perl server side and javascript client side -- old fashioned
stuff that doesn't get hacked ;)
Perl has few contraints on the way you can express decisions -- this
is good if you know what's required, but might be confusing.
Awk offers a different way to structure a task with its pattern action
style. As well, one can write 'normal' prodedural code. It's easy
to port from awk to perl, for example.
The shell is just that, good for automating some aspects, bad for
trying to do everything in -- writing shell scripts requires knowledge
of the 'helper' stuff -- lots of good old-fashioned shell scripting
is in the Slackware installer and startup stuff.
>
>No flame wars required here, just a few recommendations for "old farts"
>who need something they can stick with as the brain slowly solidifies. ;\
>
>
>It may be that accumulated bad working practices (user end) are part of
>the "bash-is-carp" experience here, so even recommendations for "Bash for
>old farts who thought they knew what they were doing" resources would be
>viable suggestions IMO.
Advanced bash guide (I keep a local copy, rarely look at it these days),
the gawk manual: http://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/ -- also I have
a local copy of the single page version for searching -- this is used
more often.
comp.unix.shell and comp.lang.awk have some great people can be
helpful, particularly if you made an attempt and can show precisely
where stuck, or what you'd like to improve. There's a lot of
crossover between shell and awk 'cos they complement each other.
Perl has the cpan library. If you like graphics there's the perl
GD.pm interface that became the standard way before the insecure
web languages (eg. php) became popular.
>
>Fire extinguishers at the ready. ;)
Nah...
Depends how you work, try perl, you might find it suits you, I
suggest you get the camel book (programming perl) and the cookbook
as references, I bought 'programming the perl dbi' too, but don't
use that (it's on a bookshelf in another room, whereas the first
two perl books are within arm's length ;)
For my camera I have the choice of scipting in a tiny-basic (now
that's a blast from the past) or Lua, this is via the CHDK project
for Canon compacts.
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Grant
>On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:55:04AM +0000, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>> Perl seemed to be the solution, but having read a few of today's
>> comments I'm not so sure Perl is going to be any better for what I
>> need here.
>
>I keep going back and forth trying to decide whether I love or hate
>Perl. Recently I converted my personal website to Catalyst, a Perl
>based web framework. Ever since I've been debating whether to stick
>with it or switch to something other than Perl. Between my personal
>web site and another I act as webmaster for I've tried numerous
>things including PHP, ASP.NET(via mono on a FreeBSD box), PSP(Pascal
>Server Pages), Django, and now Catalyst.
My little website is hand-crafted using SSI with some scripts for
code size management (deliver sompressed web p[ages to save bandwidth)
and some cgi stuff written in gawk. I've done perl server-side and
javascript client side stuff.
>
>> No flame wars required here, just a few recommendations for "old
>> farts" who need something they can stick with as the brain slowly
>> solidifies. ;\
>
>One of these decades I'm going to pick a language I can stick with.
>In the "old fart" category I am fairly familiar with COBOL, and know
>some of the basics of IBM mainframe assembler. I work as an IBM
>mainframe operator. In the non-mainframe "old fart" category I'm also
>quite fond of Clipper, and remember a bit of Pascal from college. I'm
>still a little weary of these "new fangled" scripting languages.
***************************************************************************
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
*
100-MAIN.
PERFORM 200-START-SYSTEM.
DISPLAY ' ' LINE 1 COLUMN 1 ERASE SCREEN
PERFORM 300-DISPLAY-WORLD.
PERFORM UNTIL ALL-DONE
MOVE 'X' TO KEY-PRESS
ACCEPT KEY-PRESS
BOLD PROTECTED AUTOTERMINATE DEFAULT IS CURRENT VALUE
IF FUNCTION UPPER-CASE ( KEY-PRESS ) = 'Q'
SET ALL-DONE TO TRUE
ELSE
PERFORM 400-KICK-WORLD
PERFORM 300-DISPLAY-WORLD
END-IF
END-PERFORM
STOP RUN.
*
Screaming shouting horrid stuff ;) I attempted some dBase stuff way
back (what turned into clipper) -- but on a '286 box it was slow going.
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Lew Pitcher
(g_r_a...@bugsplatter.id.au) wrote:
[snip]
***************************************************************************
> PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> *
> 100-MAIN.
> PERFORM 200-START-SYSTEM.
> DISPLAY ' ' LINE 1 COLUMN 1 ERASE SCREEN
> PERFORM 300-DISPLAY-WORLD.
> PERFORM UNTIL ALL-DONE
> MOVE 'X' TO KEY-PRESS
> ACCEPT KEY-PRESS
> BOLD PROTECTED AUTOTERMINATE DEFAULT IS CURRENT VALUE
> IF FUNCTION UPPER-CASE ( KEY-PRESS ) = 'Q'
> SET ALL-DONE TO TRUE
> ELSE
> PERFORM 400-KICK-WORLD
> PERFORM 300-DISPLAY-WORLD
> END-IF
> END-PERFORM
> STOP RUN.
> *
My eyes!! The goggles do nothing!!!
[snip]
--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Ex COBOL and MVS Assembly Programmer
http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------
Mike Jones
[...]
>>
>> Perl seemed to be the solution, but having read a few of today's
>> comments I'm not so sure Perl is going to be any better for what I need
>> here.
>>
>> No flame wars required here, just a few recommendations for "old farts"
>> who need something they can stick with as the brain slowly solidifies.
>> ;\
>
> In the idea that you want to write and read *your* code you really can
> use and stick with Perl, trouble comes when you want to read/use/rewrite
> somebody code ;-) (and yes, most every language can be badly used, it is
> only that Perl seems to have collected most of the syntax-grammar
> lazziez)
Carp="$(thing+bad)"
Not much point in just jumping into a deeper pool then, really.
[...]
> Remember that a shell is not a language, it bears some language abilties
> but it really goes a little deeper than that ;-)
I'm looking at the end result\user facing tasks here. Bash, Perl, etc.
are all the same front end to a tired brain with other things to do.
ie: Writing things that confuse mortals and making poota-magic happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4SU0c1eUk
>
>> It may be that accumulated bad working practices (user end) are part of
>> the "bash-is-carp" experience here,
>
> Probably, and if you're vulnerable to this factor you'll find that in
> Perl it goes exponentialized ^7up...
Therefore,
if [ $(crap > bash) ]
then
if [ ! "PCRE stuff" ]
then
rm -f perl
fi
fi
Cheers. Thats the kind of hint I was looking for.
Now I need that "Bash for cantankerous old farts" URL.
Mike Jones
More and more I'm getting the idea that I need to re-train my brain
instead of leaping about trying all kinds of things and making life more
complex for no good reason. Chances are, I'll end up back at bash
scripting for the level of stuff I typically do.
I think its probably time to swot up on GAWK to by the looks of things.
Cheers!
Eef Hartman
> One of these decades I'm going to pick a language I can stick with.
> In the "old fart" category I am fairly familiar with COBOL, and know
> some of the basics of IBM mainframe assembler. I work as an IBM
> mainframe operator. In the non-mainframe "old fart" category I'm also
> quite fond of Clipper, and remember a bit of Pascal from college. I'm
> still a little weary of these "new fangled" scripting languages.
The first version of Perl was introduced in 1987, 4 years before Linux
itself came around. Perl 5 (the current version) has been around since
1994, so isn't all that "new fangled" either.
Larry Wall is still working on Perl 6.
OK, the Bourne shell is older, but bash is about the same age (it
was developed to eliminate some of the defects of the Bourne shell
that's why the name "Bourne-Again SHell", which is a bit of a pun).
--
*******************************************************************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT **
** e-mail: E.J.M....@tudelft.nl - phone: +31-15-278 82525 **
*******************************************************************
Jerry Peters
>
>
> More and more I'm getting the idea that I need to re-train my brain
> instead of leaping about trying all kinds of things and making life more
> complex for no good reason. Chances are, I'll end up back at bash
> scripting for the level of stuff I typically do.
>
> I think its probably time to swot up on GAWK to by the looks of things.
>
> Cheers!
One of the advantages of using bash is that if you also use it as your
shell, you can easily try out commands at the prompt. This makes
testing unfamiliar constructs nice and easy.
Gawk is fairly easy to learn if you already know C.
Jerry
Mike Jones
True enough. I'd not thought about the "its commandline\shell stuff"
factor. Looks like I need a brain overhaul. ;)
Grant
Yes, but is that not true for any shell? Not as if one would try to
run a bash script under zsh? 'spose you could, seems weird to me :)
>Gawk is fairly easy to learn if you already know C.
Sometimes, sure awk's procedural constructs (normal if-then-else
programming with looping) are like C, but then there's the automatic
variables and pattern - action constructs that are not like C.
So there's a certain amount of unlearning too. I found it difficult
to switch to the awk pattern-action way of thinking for a complex
program. In a large awk program I wrote some years ago:
function chart_hits_per_port( hits, i, j, k, kk, max, o, pf, xp)
{
if (!total) return
# find top n hits for barchart, change back to port order
for (i = sort_hits_port_len; i > sort_hits_port_len - chartlen; i--) {
if (!i) break
split(sort_hits_port[i], k, ":")
# promote ICMPs to list top by giving tcp/udp lead-zeroes
if (k[2] !~ /ICMP/) {
split(k[2], kk, "/")
k[2] = sprintf("%07d/%s", kk[1], kk[2])
}
xp[i] = sprintf("%11s:%6d", k[2], k[1])
}
delete sort_hits_port # chart_hits_per_port
...
Yes, sorta looks like C. But programs like this become more like a
prototype to get the logic going?
Back to simple stuff, example of mixing gawk and shell to produce a
result:
grant@deltree:~$ ccfind 1234567890
73.150.2.210 US:United States
grant@deltree:~$ cat $(which ccfind)
#!/bin/bash
#
# ccfind 2006-03-05, last edit 2008-08-15
#
# returns '<query> cc:country name' for IP address input queries,
# using the ip2cn-server daemon.
#
# Copyright (C) 2006-2008 Grant Coady <http://bugsplatter.id.au> GPLv2
#
# 2008-08-13
# convert to ip2cn-server operation, no more access locking!
#
# check got query
[ -z "$1" ] && echo "
ccfind -- lookup country code and name for IP address
usage $0 aa.bb.cc.dd
" && exit
# get server listen port
port=$(gawk '/^inetport/ {print $2}' /etc/ip2cn-server.conf)
# make query, may be dotquad or numeric (decimal) IP address
echo "$@" | gawk -v port=$port '
BEGIN { service = "/inet/tcp/0/localhost/" port }
$1 == "0" { $1 = "0." }
{ print |& service; service |& getline; print }' 2>/dev/null
# end
When using awk's pattern action constructs, it doesn't much look
like C. Also, that one liner above retrieving port number from
a .conf file is example of awk winning hands down over sed + cut
for clarity of purpose.
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au
Jack Myers
> One of these decades I'm going to pick a language I can stick with.
> In the "old fart" category I am fairly familiar with COBOL, and know
> some of the basics of IBM mainframe assembler. I work as an IBM
> mainframe operator.
Given your background you may already know REXX. There are several
cross-platform versions of REXX. "Regina" comes to mind. You will
find plenty of helpful (and bored) REXX supporters in the
comp.lang.rexx newsgroup; but please, please, please do not
link the fanatical REXX-ers with the fanatical Slack-ers.
Jerry Peters
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:10:31 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Mike Jones <N...@arizona.bay> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> More and more I'm getting the idea that I need to re-train my brain
>>> instead of leaping about trying all kinds of things and making life more
>>> complex for no good reason. Chances are, I'll end up back at bash
>>> scripting for the level of stuff I typically do.
>>>
>>> I think its probably time to swot up on GAWK to by the looks of things.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>
>>One of the advantages of using bash is that if you also use it as your
>>shell, you can easily try out commands at the prompt. This makes
>>testing unfamiliar constructs nice and easy.
>
> Yes, but is that not true for any shell? Not as if one would try to
> run a bash script under zsh? 'spose you could, seems weird to me :)
Perl as a shell? Or REXX or maybe BASIC? I used to work on IBM
mainframes and one of the *very* annoying things using TSO was that
both CLIST and REXX were not available at the command prompt. You had
to put the CLIST or REXX exec into a file before you could run it.
This made testing a new construct much more tedious than it is using
Bash; e set up a few variables with appropriate values and try the
code right at the prompt. If (when) it doesn't quite work, experiment
until it does.
>>Gawk is fairly easy to learn if you already know C.
>
> Sometimes, sure awk's procedural constructs (normal if-then-else
> programming with looping) are like C, but then there's the automatic
> variables and pattern - action constructs that are not like C.
Of course, but the syntax looks like C as opposed to say Perl or PL/1.
>
> So there's a certain amount of unlearning too. I found it difficult
> to switch to the awk pattern-action way of thinking for a complex
> program. In a large awk program I wrote some years ago:
Yeah, the paradigm takes getting used to, but a lot of the report
writer languages I've used are similiar so the concept wasn't entirely
foreign.
>
> function chart_hits_per_port( hits, i, j, k, kk, max, o, pf, xp)
> {
> if (!total) return
>
> # find top n hits for barchart, change back to port order
> for (i = sort_hits_port_len; i > sort_hits_port_len - chartlen; i--) {
> if (!i) break
> split(sort_hits_port[i], k, ":")
>
> # promote ICMPs to list top by giving tcp/udp lead-zeroes
> if (k[2] !~ /ICMP/) {
> split(k[2], kk, "/")
> k[2] = sprintf("%07d/%s", kk[1], kk[2])
> }
> xp[i] = sprintf("%11s:%6d", k[2], k[1])
> }
> delete sort_hits_port # chart_hits_per_port
> ...
>
> Yes, sorta looks like C. But programs like this become more like a
> prototype to get the logic going?
You mean like prototype it in GAWK, then actually write it in
something else? Why?
Just about *anything* wins over sed IMO.
I wasn't thinking of AWK 1 liners used in shell scripts, more like
actual programs coded in AWK instead of another language.
Jerry
Chick Tower
> Now I need that "Bash for cantankerous old farts" URL.
I just happened to notice last night that the Linux Documentation Project
(www.tldp.org) has a guide called "The Beginner's Guide to Bash", as well
as one called "Advanced Bash Scripting."
--
Chick Tower
For e-mail: aols2 DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net
Mike Spencer
Chick Tower <c.t...@deadspam.com> wrote
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:35:29 +0000, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>> Now I need that "Bash for cantankerous old farts" URL.
>
> I just happened to notice last night that the Linux Documentation Project
> (www.tldp.org) has a guide called "The Beginner's Guide to Bash", as well
> as one called "Advanced Bash Scripting."
Splendid! Thanks for th epointer.
I actually bought the O'Reilly fish book and quickly found instances
of "you don't really need to know this other, hard stuff." In Mendel
Cooper's "Advanced Bash Scripting 6.1" I immediately found the answer
to my question and example code. ()()()()
I used awk (along with Jove and the gnuish suite, inter alia)
extensively when I was still locked into DOS but in Linux (for a
decade now) I've switched to Perl because it has:
+ extensive regular expressions and
+ access to inet sockets without learning how to do them in C.
So Perl is great but I find it hard to believe that anyone can love
it. :-)
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada