October 2004 - openSUSE Users - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Re: [SLE] Juvenile antics on the list
by Web Developer 09 Oct '04

09 Oct '04

---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: [SLE] Juvenile antics on the list Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:54:25 -0500 From: Danny Sauer <suse-linux-e.suselists(a)danny.teleologic.net> To: SuSE List <suse-linux-e(a)suse.com> Randall wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] Juvenile antics on the list' on Fri, Oct 08 at 11:40: I guess the solution is to just use a different language that *has* a singular, unisex pronoun. This'll be my last post in English. :) >From my studies in foreign languages (Thai, French, Spanish, Biblical Greek), most use the masculine plural form to refer to mixed groups. Objects are rarely neutral. I don't read enough non-English material to know how the media in other countries address. I understand from some Korean natives that they normally use the masculine term in such cases. I've just always assumed our country was a little to pre-occupied with feminism. I almost always use the masculine - though I have considered the notion of coming up with a 3rd person pronoun that could refer to male or female (shim?) :) Don - still OT -- Web Developer Matheteuo Christian Fellowship webdev(a)matheteuo.org http://matheteuo.org/ Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!

4 3

Help with Printing Graphics?
by Steve Lett 09 Oct '04

09 Oct '04

Hi all, Using a CUPS driver to run a Canon printer on 8.2 version SuSE. It prints text pages from KWrite just fine for example, but when printing anything like a .jpg or .html page, the image is completely printed, but is reduced to fit only in the upper left hand quarter of the page. HTML/Webpages don't print on the full page. Just the upper corner of the page. I have played with settings till I think I've exhausted everything... When I do Print Preview it looks fine. This is really a problem. Any ideas? JeepNut *********************************** In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates? Registered Linux User #287453 *********************************** '87 Street Comanche #24/100 '92 Cherokee Laredo '88 Grand Wagoneer '87 Grand Wagoneer '81 Wagoneer ...and they say there's only one... -- ______________________________________________ Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox. Powered by Outblaze

3 2

Installed new video card but can't configure -- and Sax2 won't run. ;o(
by Gil Weber 09 Oct '04

09 Oct '04

Hi, everyone. I'm running SuSE 9.1 Pro on a e-machine (T2842). Had been using the on-board chip for video. Just purchased a GeForce FX 5500PCI video card and I'm having problems. Hope that you can help. I uninstalled the driver for the onboard chip and then installed the new video card and rebooted. I then went into Yast2 (hardware) to load the driver. The closest one I could find was the GeForce FX 5200. Then I did a Yast2 on-line update to add the Nvidia driver. All of that seemed to go well. But I can't configure the video card. When I go into Yast2 (hardware) to try to set resolution, enable 3-D, etc. I click "change" but nothing happens. So I then went into the SuSE menu and clicked on system/configuration/SAX2, but SAX2 doesn't open. Again, the pooter just sits there and stares at me. So, what to do? What file should I be looking at to edit that will again let me configure the video card (run SAX2)? Also, by loading that FX5200 driver from Yast (since Yast did not present me with a choice of FX5500) have I created a problem? Thanks, gurus. Gil

7 16

Restoring after a clean install
by Jerome Lyles 09 Oct '04

09 Oct '04

If you have a system that you want to save but you must do a clean install what is are the 'must save folders' to restore the old system? Thanks, Jerome

1 0

Re: [SLE] Re: Installed new video card but can't configure -- and Sax2 won't run. ;o(
by Ken Schneider 09 Oct '04

09 Oct '04

On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 14:36, Gil Weber wrote: > ** Reply to message from Ken Schneider <suse-list-e(a)bout-tyme.net> on Fri, 08 > Oct 2004 14:29:13 -0400 > > > > > > About a month ago at work I had problems configuring the graphics card > > -after- a YOU update to SAX2. I re-installed SAX2 from the DVD/CD and > > was then able configure the card again. YMMV. > > > > Ken, thanks for reply. > > Should I insert the DVD and uninstall the 3 SAX files first, and then reinstall > them? Or should I just reinstall the 3 files over what's there? > > I'm worried about totally screwing up everything if I do the wrong thing with > this video problem. > Thx. > Gil Insert the DVD and Yast2 to restore the previous files, just tell it to update the SAX2 files on the DVD. Also PLEASE only reply to the list unless asked otherwise. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989 SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please*

2 1

Nice fonts in FireFox?
by JW 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Ok, here's a good one for you: I have just made a new install of SuSE 9.0 for my manager. I have installed exactly the same version of firefox into /usr/loca/ and copied his old home directory, so most settings should be exactly the same. As best I can tell all packages that have to do with fonts are the same on both the old and new installations. But the fonts on the new install are ugly, whereas the fonts on the old install are cleaner looking. KDE fonts settings are the same. My manager says that when we first installed his _old installation, the fonts were ugly just like the new installation, but that I did something that made them nice. I have no memory of that at all, and I can't find anything in my notes about "ways to make firefox fonts nice". I have to say that I _probably_ got the idea off this list, if I got it from anywhere. Does anyone have tips on making FireFox's fonts look nice? Thanks. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com

2 1

Has The performance been forgotten?
by Bahram Alinezhad 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

-->> Also, please read other posts I send simultaneously. Cure this ill OS! Don't believe me, test by yourself! SuSE accepted to sell its smiling chameleon to me and put a snail in its place. Please look at the attached text file. Bahram Alinezhad (alineziad(a)yahoo.com) 10/08/2004, Tehran, Iran. -->> Also, please read other posts I send simultaneously. _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com KDE: 600 times slower in bzip2! ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | TIMES TO | | | | | | | EXTRACT | Konsole | file- | Konqueror | WinRAR | | | IN | | roller | | | | | SECONDS | | | | | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| ___________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | Mozilla | | | | | | | 1.7.3 | | | | | | | .tar.gz | 2 | 5 | 11 | 3 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| | | | | | | | | GTK+ | | | | | | | 2.4.3 | | | | | | | .tar.bz2 | 35 | 143 | 21333 | 44 | | |_______________|___________|___________|___________|___________|___________| Also note: - I didn't wait for 21333 seconds! %9 of the extraction took 32 minutes and I estimated the total time. - All observations have been made in SuSE 9.1, except the WinRAR that done in Win98-SE. These are my computer specifications: Ultra high speed CPU: AMD K6-2+ at 550 MHz, Extra high end GPU: nVIDIA RivaTNT 16MB PCI, Super high speed SDRAM: 512MB PC133, Seagate 120GB 7200rpm + Western Digital 120GB 8MB buffer Windows98-SE + WindowsXP-SP1a + RedHat-Linux-9.0 + Suse-Linux-9.1 (Already, I am using Mozilla browser 1.7.3 on Linux) Other system properties: Professional sound: Creative SB16 ISA, High bandwidth modem: Rockwell 33.6 ISA, High quality big monitor: 14" color monitor ----------------------------------- Have fun! Bahram Alinezhad (alineziad(a)yahoo.com) 10/08/2004, Tehran, Iran.

2 1

automatic configuration of network interfaces (ifplugd?)
by Osho GG 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Hi, I have a thinkpad T42p notebook on which I run Suse 9.1. It has two network interfaces - eth0 (802.11 wireless) and eth1 (wired ethernet). I roam around a lot with this notebook and I would like a way to auto-configure my network interfaces. Currently, I always have to manually do ifdown eth0 ifdown eth1 ifup eth0 to enable wireless. Or, do ifdown eth0 ifdown eth1 ifup eth1 to enable wired ethernet. I read somewhere than ifplugd can be used to do something like this. What is your suggestion about how to do this? thanks, Osho

2 4

Re: [SLE] Reiserfsck is acting very strange...
by Chris Roubekas 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Sounds like a good idea but the problem is that I only have 2 200GB drives and they are both occupied by a raid-1 personality. If there is a way that you can tell me to read on how to stop the raid personality. Take one of the 2 disks out of the personality, create a new raid with this disk (say /dev/md1) copy all the files from the other disk on the ext3 new one and then create a raid of the new one plus the old one on ext3. Frankly, I cannot think of a way to do this my friend. Your opinion does sound very neat but practicaly I believe that this is impossible.... Can someone else perhaps give me a good idea on how to deal with the problem based on the current raid-personality? Thank you tons Paul!! Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Ketelaar" <paulk(a)ketelaar.com.au> To: "Chris Roubekas" <croubekas(a)panafonet.gr> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [SLE] Reiserfsck is acting very strange... > Chris, > I too have had this problem, simply cured by using the ext3 file > system. > > Regards > Paul K > > PS: 'Linux incompatible hardware is defective!' > > > Chris Roubekas wrote: > > Dear Suser's, > > > > I am faced with a rather weird problem. I have a raid personality > > running as /dev/md0. > > > > When issuing mdadm --detail /dev/md0 I get: > > > > /dev/md0: > > Version : 00.90.00 > > Creation Time : Sat Oct 11 08:19:27 2003 > > Raid Level : raid1 > > Array Size : 199125568 (189.90 GiB 203.95 GB) > > Device Size : 199125568 (189.90 GiB 203.95 GB) > > Raid Devices : 2 > > Total Devices : 2 > > Preferred Minor : 0 > > Persistence : Superblock is persistent > > > > Update Time : Sat Oct 9 04:12:14 2004 > > State : dirty, no-errors > > Active Devices : 2 > > Working Devices : 2 > > Failed Devices : 0 > > Spare Devices : 0 > > > > > > Number Major Minor RaidDevice State > > 0 3 65 0 active sync /dev/hdb1 > > 1 22 1 1 active sync /dev/hdc1 > > UUID : 03f9846c:72f50436:af213782:c8e28b96 > > > > A person from the list mentioned that it would be a good idea > > to run fsck in order to correct the "dirty" mentioned in the state > > section of mdadm. > > > > So I did an fsck on /dev/md0 and I got the following report: > > server:/ # fsck /dev/md0 > > fsck 1.28 (31-Aug-2002) > > reiserfsck 3.6.2 (2002) > > Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md0 > > Will put log info to 'stdout' > > > > Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes):Yes > > ########### > > reiserfsck --check started at Sat Oct 9 01:09:04 2004 > > ########### > > Replaying journal.. > > No transactions found > > Checking S+tree../ 1 (of 2)/ 3 (of 90)/ 31 (of 166)bad_stat_data: block 37758, [2 21119 0x0 SD (0)], SD has bad > > nlink number ok > > Comparing bitmaps..ok > > Checking Semantic tree... > > ok > > There were found 1 corruptions which can be fixed with --fix-fixable > > ########### > > reiserfsck finished at Sat Oct 9 01:09:38 2004 > > ########### > > fsck.reiserfs /dev/md0 failed (status 0x4). Run manually! > > > > Then I followed the reiserfsck --fix-fixable /dev/md0 and I got the following > > message which, by the way, does not mention anything about > > fixing the problem: > > > > server:/ # reiserfsck --fix-fixable /dev/md0 > > reiserfsck 3.6.2 (2002) > > Will check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md0 > > Will fix what can be fixed w/o --rebuild-tree > > Will put log info to 'stdout' > > > > Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes):Yes > > ########### > > reiserfsck --fix-fixable started at Sat Oct 9 01:10:11 2004 > > ########### > > Replaying journal.. > > No transactions found > > Checking S+tree..ok > > Comparing bitmaps..ok > > Checking Semantic tree... > > ok > > No corruptions found > > There are on the filesystem: > > Leaves 31337 > > Internal nodes 220 > > Directories 70 > > Other files 22854 > > Data block pointers 30613642 (2217 of them are zero) > > Safe links 0 > > ########### > > reiserfsck finished at Sat Oct 9 01:11:08 2004 > > ########### > > > > When running again reiserfsck on /dev/md0 I get the above mentioned > > error again as if I never ran the --fix-fixable command. > > > > Can someone give me a good explanation or perhaps some advice > > on how to deal with this problem??? > > > > Thank you TonS!!! > > > > Chris >

1 0

[SLE] Reiserfsck is acting very strange...(more info)
by Chris Roubekas 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

I guess I should mention that I am running SuSE 8.1. Sorry but it is late at night and the brain is sleeping... Chris

1 0