do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings all;

I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but all 
the docs are in rtf format.

What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?
 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Kenneth Parker]

On Fri, May 1, 2020, 4:28 AM Gene Heskett  wrote:

> Greetings all;
>
> I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but all
> the docs are in rtf format.
>
> What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?
>

Since rtf is a precursor to Microsoft Word format, I would suggest looking
at Libreoffice.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
> --
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
>  - Louis D. Brandeis
> Genes Web page 
>

Good luck!

>
Kenneth Parker

>

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 01 May 2020 04:36:30 Kenneth Parker wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2020, 4:28 AM Gene Heskett  wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but
> > all the docs are in rtf format.
> >
> > What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?
>
> Since rtf is a precursor to Microsoft Word format, I would suggest
> looking at Libreoffice.
>
Thanks, I'll do that.

> Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> > --
> > "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
> >  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> > -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> > If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law
> > respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
> > Genes Web page 
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Kenneth Parker


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[tomas]

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:27:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
> 
> I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but all 
> the docs are in rtf format.

Oh, /that/ dinosaur. Had Microsoft to pay for the collateral it has
left in its wake, they'd be beggars.

> What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?

Apt-cache search rtf delivers a couple of hits. The two I'd look at
first (unless Kenneth's proposal of using LO just does the trick)
would be

  - unrtf: seems explicitly built to convert RFT to other formats
  - pandoc: converts anything to anything (well, documents, but hey)
   I'd expect it to be a bit more complex

Enjoy
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Eric S Fraga]

On Friday,  1 May 2020 at 04:27, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but all 
> the docs are in rtf format.
>
> What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?

On Debian, maybe check out the unrtf package.  But I have used
libreoffice in the past.

-- 
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50 & org 9.3.6 on Debian bullseye/sid

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 01 May 2020 05:16:19 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:27:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but
> > all the docs are in rtf format.
>
> Oh, /that/ dinosaur. Had Microsoft to pay for the collateral it has
> left in its wake, they'd be beggars.
>
> > What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?
>
> Apt-cache search rtf delivers a couple of hits. The two I'd look at
> first (unless Kenneth's proposal of using LO just does the trick)

i had to install it, but it did the trick nicely.  Thanks Tomas. Stay 
well now.

> would be
>
>   - unrtf: seems explicitly built to convert RFT to other formats
>   - pandoc: converts anything to anything (well, documents, but hey)
>I'd expect it to be a bit more complex
>
> Enjoy
> -- t


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 01 May 2020 05:46:43 Eric S Fraga wrote:

> On Friday,  1 May 2020 at 04:27, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but
> > all the docs are in rtf format.
> >
> > What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?
>
> On Debian, maybe check out the unrtf package.  But I have used
> libreoffice in the past.

I had to re-install it, worked fine. Thanks.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: Backup ideas

[Alessandro Baggi]

3 - Now on to the subject of backing up a system. I am using rsync as
my primary backup tool.  Celejar, thank you for suggesting borg.  I
did install it and look at it briefly.  But for several reasons, I'm
not sure I want to use that right now.

It is of course one more thing to learn, use, and maintain.

I get the sense that it stores data as a mass of chunks, rather than
as individual files, so if something goes wrong it could really go
wrong?  It is newer, and perhaps less proven than some older
alternatives.
Hi, I would spend some words for borgbackup. borgbackup is an amazing 
tool (all of us know that it does).


Don't worry about deduplication. Deduplication is a feature. 
Deduplication currently is taking great place in many envs because it is 
a secure practices if well done and the amount of data is increased in 
last years.
The problem you stated about "if something goes wrong" is a real problem 
today and loosing data is bad. I would say that things could go wrong 
using zfs, vdo, rsync + hardlink, borgbackup, restic and any other 
tool/fs that provides deduplication, all in the same way. Suppose that 
you have a broken deduped chuck, all files pointing to this chunk are 
faulty. This type of problem could happen also with any devices that 
encounter bad blocks, bit rotting and so on. Deduplication is a features 
that permit you to save space. "If something should go bad, It will go 
bad with/without deduplication" (the biggest errors are human errors) 
and you will know that your backup is really working well when you 
try/need restore (this is why a periodical restore test is needed). You 
could not use deduplication but you could lost all data because your 
drive dies. So nothing changed, it is a features. About how borgbackup 
saves data inside the repository I would say that you can encounter this 
problem also using tool like bacula, bareos or with rsync + hardlink. 
Imagine that using bacula you saved 3 backup cycles and having 3 full 
backups of 1TB plus 30 daily incremental for each full backup (monthly 
cycle). If the volume that contains the full backup get faulty, all 
backups based on this full backup are not usefull, so the first backup 
cycle is incosistent and red flagged. To avoid problem with data 
corruption, you should use raid, better hardware, ECC ram to avoid data 
corruption.


Compressed archives have the same problem so you should not compress 
your data.


In the case of borgbackup, you have the ability to perform checks on 
repository and archives inside repository and check if something is broken.
rsync + hardlink is an inefficient way to do deduplication..it works, 
save some space on devices but nothing more.(I'm not saying that rsync 
is not a very good tool).



Also, the borg website seems to suggest that they will be developing
aggressively, and breaking compatibility over time.  Where else have I
heard that lately?  (*cough* SystemD *cough* . . .)
About this. Backup is a practice that permits you to protect your data. 
If you really care your data you should use a stable system and you 
should not use the latest version when released. If your data are 
important and you update too much frequently the software, you will 
encounter at 100% some problems. This is why stable distribution like 
debian, centos, ubuntu and other maintain the same software for many 
years with changing the version and push security or critical fixes. 
Always about borg when a new release is released the maintainer will 
report any incompability with previous version and always if you care 
your data you should read notes before any update. This is a good 
practice and not only for backup.


And, I always worry that today's free/libre can be tomorrow's
proprietary/unfree.


About this it is not really a problem. If borgbackup will not be open 
source/free, someone probably will fork the latest open source version 
and that's all. [I know that this is off-topic for debian but this is 
only an example, sorry] For example when big blue bought redhat, many 
centos users were worried about the future of centos. If big blue (is 
some case) will drop centos, the community will fork it without any 
problem and again if your preferred software, in this case borgbackup, 
will be non-free you could use it until you deploy another solution with 
another free/open source software and replace it (or you could pay it 
considering as a support donation). I don't think that actually, when 
open-source is a business model, that a software, released as 
open-source, will change its license. Generally they release open source 
software and services like support or other. borgbackup is around since 
2010 and many companies are selling storage space service for borgbackup 
like rsync.net and other (please don't consider this as spam is only an 
example).



Andy, you suggested having off-site backups.  You are correct that
local-only backups do not protect against things like fire or theft.

But off-s

[no subject]

[Mick Ab]

Hello.

I am seeking to have a desktop PC built with the standard Buster kernel
(4.19) as the operating system.

The CPU proposed for the build is a third generation AMD Ryzen 5.

However it has come to my attention that there is a problem in running the
standard Buster kernel with third generation AMD Ryzen CPUs. First and
second generation CPUs appear to work okay.

Also there may be a problem in running the standard Buster kernel with 9th
generation Intel CPUs.

Does anyone have any info about the above, please ?

I further understand that Buster can be made to work with these CPUs by
using the backported version of Buster,
but I wish to use the standard Buster kernel.

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Henning Follmann]

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:27:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
> 
> I have downloaded a new version of an os for a 35 yo computer, but all 
> the docs are in rtf format.
> 
> What to we have that will convert those into printable pdf's?
>  

Also: pandoc

It pretty much converts from and to anything.


-H


-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Re: do we have an rtf to pdf convertor?

[Greg Marks]

To convert an RTF file to a printable PDF file, the command

   libreoffice --convert-to pdf file.rtf

should work.

Best regards,
Greg Marks


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Output from date command defaults to 12-hour in Buster.

[James Cloos]

The easiest fix is to:

export LC_TIME=C

just like one must export LC_COLLATE=C to avoid glibc's brkoen collation
for en_US.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos  OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

cryptsetup gui

[grumpy]

i don't know what i have screwed up
i am running buster on three machines
only one behaves this way
i have an encrypted root fs
while the system is still running the initial ramdisk it launches a cryptsetup 
gui
it ask for the password and then presents 3 square dots
this obscures the rest of the boot process
can someone tell me how to disable this

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Dale Harris]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:54 PM Andrei POPESCU 
wrote:

>
> Apparently your system has received the security update for amd64, but
> not for i386.
>
> My guess is this the reason for the divergence between the amd64 and
> i386 on your system and you should look into it.
>

It was pretty much a fresh install from DVD.  I did have some issues
remounting the install DVD from the ILO, but otherwise it pretty normal
install. It's working now.


> Full output would have been better here. Automatically installed
> packages that *may* be removed are not a problem, what apt wants to
> actually remove is.
>

I could send logs, I suppose, if you want?  Otherwise I didn't really keep
track of each problem package.

-- 
Dale Harris
rod...@maybe.org
rod...@gmail.com
/.-)

Re: python virualenv

[Rainer Dorsch]

Am Mittwoch, 29. April 2020, 02:54:04 CEST schrieb Tom Low-Shang:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:20:04PM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > Here is the full sequence I executed:
> > 
> > rd@h370:~/virtualenv$ virtualenv covidify
> > Running virtualenv with interpreter /usr/bin/python2
> 
> Virtualenv uses python2
> 
> > New python executable in /home/rd/virtualenv/covidify/bin/python2 Also
> > Also creating executable in /home/rd/virtualenv/covidify/bin/python
> > Installing setuptools, pkg_resources, pip, wheel...done.
> > rd@h370:~/virtualenv$ source covidify/bin/activate
> > (covidify) rd@h370:~/virtualenv$ pip3 install covidify
> 
> Pip3 uses python3 which is outside the virtualenv.
> 
> Either run pip, or create the virtualenv with python3, which will
> install pip3.

Many thanks, Tom.

virtualenv -p python3 covidify

indeed solved the issue.

Rainer

-- 
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/

su does not work anymore

[Rainer Dorsch]

Hello,

I had an accidential / in a 

# chown -R install-user /xyz/dfak /

command. Changing the ownership / recursively is certainly not a good idea.

I did revert this by 

#chown -R root /etc /bin /usr ...

(all directories why were owned by install-user).

That was certainly overdone, so I used

find . \! -user root -print

on another system with a similar package list to get a list of files which are 
not owned by root.

What still does not work is "su -".

The log in /var/log/auth.log is given by

May  1 22:07:46 h370 unix_chkpwd[12768]: check pass; user unknown
May  1 22:07:46 h370 unix_chkpwd[12768]: password check failed for user (root)
May  1 22:07:46 h370 su: pam_unix(su-l:auth): authentication failure; 
logname=rd uid=2809 euid=2809 tty=pts/0 ruser=rd rhost=  user=root
May  1 22:07:48 h370 su: FAILED SU (to root) rd on pts/0

root login on a console works.

Any suggestion to find out what goes wrong (and avoid reinstallation) is 
welcome :-)

Thanks
Rainer


-- 
Rainer Dorsch
Beatus-Widmann-Str. 5
72138 Kirchentellinsfurt
07157/734133

[solved] su does not work anymore

[Rainer Dorsch]

Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2020, 22:32:58 CEST schrieb Rainer Dorsch:
> Hello,
> 
> I had an accidential / in a
> 
> # chown -R install-user /xyz/dfak /
> 
> command. Changing the ownership / recursively is certainly not a good idea.
> 
> I did revert this by
> 
> #chown -R root /etc /bin /usr ...
> 
> (all directories why were owned by install-user).
> 
> That was certainly overdone, so I used
> 
> find . \! -user root -print
> 
> on another system with a similar package list to get a list of files which
> are not owned by root.
> 
> What still does not work is "su -".
> 
> The log in /var/log/auth.log is given by
> 
> May  1 22:07:46 h370 unix_chkpwd[12768]: check pass; user unknown
> May  1 22:07:46 h370 unix_chkpwd[12768]: password check failed for user
> (root) May  1 22:07:46 h370 su: pam_unix(su-l:auth): authentication
> failure; logname=rd uid=2809 euid=2809 tty=pts/0 ruser=rd rhost=  user=root
> May  1 22:07:48 h370 su: FAILED SU (to root) rd on pts/0
> 
> root login on a console works.
> 
> Any suggestion to find out what goes wrong (and avoid reinstallation) is
> welcome :-)

https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-security-4/unix-chkpwd-problem-with-linux-pam-1-1-1-trying-to-run-su-from-shadow-4-1-4-2-a-826418/

had the answer: su has an s flag for the user.

It seems this got lost by a chown.

# find / -perm /4000 -user root

seems to be my friend now to identify other files which have a similar issue 
:-/

Rainer

-- 
Rainer Dorsch
Beatus-Widmann-Str. 5
72138 Kirchentellinsfurt
07157/734133

DID YOU GET IT?

[Smith and Associates]

Dear Sir,

Did you get my previous email about you deceased relatives estate?

Paul Smith
Smith and Associates
Tampa Florida U.S.A

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 01 mai 20, 14:05:42, Dale Harris wrote:
> 
> It was pretty much a fresh install from DVD.  I did have some issues
> remounting the install DVD from the ILO, but otherwise it pretty normal
> install.

Was the system fully up-to-date before attempting to install wine32?

> It's working now.

That depends on your definition of "working". Mine includes "all 
security updates installed" ;)

> > Full output would have been better here. Automatically installed
> > packages that *may* be removed are not a problem, what apt wants to
> > actually remove is.
> >
> 
> I could send logs, I suppose, if you want?  Otherwise I didn't really keep
> track of each problem package.

Might not be necessary. Does 'apt update' followed by 'apt upgrade' 
complete cleanly, without any packages "held back"?

While unorthodox[1], the downgrading of packages might have fixed the 
version skew. Just make sure your system is not in a situation where 
security updates are not applied.

As a general rule, before doing any package operations make sure your 
system is fully updated.

[1] package downgrades are generally not supported. You probably got 
away with it in this particular case because the difference in versions 
was minor.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: su does not work anymore

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 01 mai 20, 22:32:58, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I had an accidential / in a 
> 
> # chown -R install-user /xyz/dfak /
> 
> command. Changing the ownership / recursively is certainly not a good idea.

Ugh. For such situations one should either have good backups or a 
reasonably fast and automated method of reinstalling the system.

See also http://taobackup.com

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature