On Wednesday 30 October 2002 05:45, Serguei Chabanov wrote:
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 05:06, Donavan Pantke wrote:
You know, has anyone ever actually done a ps -auxf or similar, and see if these other windows are, in fact, child processes from the main one that got started? That could easily explain the problem: copy-paste would only work between members of the process group.
I knew there must be correct terms for this. You fit the explanation in one sentence.
That's how I learn most of what I actually learn with respect to Linux and its bits'n'pieces. I muddle along with things that are broken for months (or years?), and maybe I piece some solution together from a nearly-random collection of FAQs, obsolete HowTos, and Google-pointed e-mail exchanges from 1999 Debian lists (just an example). What I usually end up with is "not-too-broken", but with no real understanding of why something is now (sorta) working. What really turns on the light is when somebody writes one sentence, or one paragraph that lays out the "whys" and the connections. Eleven people say "this requires that"... and they are often talking about different "thises" and "thats", even though it's all about the same problem. Then, ONE person says "this requires that, BECAUSE...." and suddenly a portion of Linux or X (or whatever) makes sense, and I also realize that half of the other responses were not really related to the original question. But, before that flash of comprehension, all responses are equal -- right or wrong, good or bad, relevant or irrelevant, these are not known or recognized until some understanding is applied. Anders, Ben, and a few other people have provided several of these "aha!" moments, for which I thank them very much. Togan's work is a tremendous resource, but even that still leaves me doing a lot of mechanical following-of-directions, until somebody makes a remark that brings understanding. /kevin