A single mouse click is interpreted as two clicks
Dear All, My XFCE installation of Fedora 24 was working properly, but now a single mouse click is often interpreted as two clicks. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Paul ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: A single mouse click is interpreted as two clicks
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:53:34 +0100 Paul Smith wrote: > My XFCE installation of Fedora 24 was working properly, but now a > single mouse click is often interpreted as two clicks. Any ideas? Mouse has developed a bouncy button? Try a different mouse for a while if you can. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
dev ops --thoughts??
Hi guys. Thanks for your inputs on the fetching/getting of a file from a dir! As Rick pointed out, the ultimate soln will be the use of gearman/rabbitMQ, or some other queueing process, with the clients popping the data off the queue.. I've got a different question/thought as well. Assume I have a VM and i login, and start a process... I can watch (takes a long time).. and see if/when the process dies.. Fix it, restart, etc.. This is doable.. for one VM.. not an issue.. But, if I have 50-100!! My thought is I can create a process/script (whatever) and do a rexec to each of the child clients, fire up the process and they should start to run. However, I'd have no way of logging in to see what the process is actually doing. (I know. There should have been logging to appropriately capture all of this!!) So, I thought, hey, use screen. Screen would allow the ability to rexec into screen, and via Screen, run the targetProcess.. Should work, yes/no? -Although, I can't seem to find pointers on how to chain the rexec/Screen to work. What I'd really like, would be a devOps soln (simple/quick/dirty) to allow me to be able to fire up a bunch of apps across a bunch of VMs, and to periodically have a way to generate a remote "screenshot" of the running process. Thoughts/Comments?? Thanks for any pointers. If I have a vm and I want to "check" on the ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: dev ops --thoughts??
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:37:16 -0400 bruce wrote: > Hi guys. ...snip... > What I'd really like, would be a devOps soln (simple/quick/dirty) to > allow me to be able to fire up a bunch of apps across a bunch of VMs, > and to periodically have a way to generate a remote "screenshot" of > the running process. > > Thoughts/Comments?? > > Thanks for any pointers. Ansible and async mode, provided you can generate the screenshot from the command line. Or just two ansible playbooks, one to start everything and another to 'screenshot' whenever you want to run it. https://ansible.sivel.net/docs/devel/playbooks_async.html kevin pgpDyxlujLpWQ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24 and general problems (fonts, GNOME extensions...)
On 25/10/16 16:27, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 10/24/2016 06:12 PM, Alex wrote: Another issue relates to gnome-tweak-tool and GNOME extensions. When the system is idle for a few minutes, the screensaver is enabled and a password is required to unlock it. I used gnome-tweak-tool in the past to disable this, but it's been enabled again. Gnome settings -> Privacy Many of the extensions are disabled, and visiting extensions.gnome.org with Chrome says "We cannot detect a running copy of GNOME on this system, so some parts of the interface may be disabled," preventing me from installing any extensions or enabling the ones that are currently disabled. Were you ever able to use Chrome for this? There is a Firefox extension included with Gnome Shell that enables this. And you can use gnome-tweak-tool to enable the extensions that are already installed. I get the same issue as this when using Firefox to access the site, but I can't determine whether or not the extension fixes the issue because even though I have the extension in /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins and a link to that extension in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (which is where the upstream 64 bit Firefox requires it) Firefox is refusing to use the plugin at the moment, as it is with a number of other plugins (the only ones its using at the moment is the Adobe Flash plugin, which is linked to from both directories, and a plugin that is in my home location and is linked to from both directories. Sam, when Gnome-tweak-tool refuses to enable an extension (only offers a remove button) and displays a grey triangle with an exclamation point in it, with a mouse over that says 'Extension Load Error', how does one determine why the extension won't load. The extension is Coverflow Alt-Tab, and implements an Alt-tab methodology that I would like to use (The methodology that I think this extension implements looks to be similar to the Alt-tab methodology offered by Compiz). regards, Steve When viewing the Appearance section, "Shell theme" is disabled with an exclamation point next to it. In gnome-tweak-tool, enable (install first if necessary) the User Themes extension. You may need to restart the tweak tool after enabling the extension. What can I do to enable extensions in Chrome again? This isn't really Fedora related, unless you actually mean something other than Google Chrome. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24 and general problems (fonts, GNOME extensions...)
Hi, On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Stephen Morris wrote: > On 25/10/16 16:27, Samuel Sieb wrote: >> >> On 10/24/2016 06:12 PM, Alex wrote: >>> >>> Another issue relates to gnome-tweak-tool and GNOME extensions. >>> >>> When the system is idle for a few minutes, the screensaver is enabled >>> and a password is required to unlock it. I used gnome-tweak-tool in >>> the past to disable this, but it's been enabled again. >>> >> Gnome settings -> Privacy >> >>> Many of the extensions are disabled, and visiting extensions.gnome.org >>> with Chrome says "We cannot detect a running copy of GNOME on this >>> system, so some parts of the interface may be disabled," preventing me >>> from installing any extensions or enabling the ones that are currently >>> disabled. >>> >> Were you ever able to use Chrome for this? There is a Firefox extension >> included with Gnome Shell that enables this. And you can use >> gnome-tweak-tool to enable the extensions that are already installed. > > I get the same issue as this when using Firefox to access the site, but I > can't determine whether or not the extension fixes the issue because even > though I have the extension in /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins and a link to that > extension in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (which is where the upstream 64 bit > Firefox requires it) Firefox is refusing to use the plugin at the moment, as > it is with a number of other plugins (the only ones its using at the moment > is the Adobe Flash plugin, which is linked to from both directories, and a > plugin that is in my home location and is linked to from both directories. > > Sam, when Gnome-tweak-tool refuses to enable an extension (only offers a > remove button) and displays a grey triangle with an exclamation point in it, > with a mouse over that says 'Extension Load Error', how does one determine > why the extension won't load. The extension is Coverflow Alt-Tab, and > implements an Alt-tab methodology that I would like to use (The methodology > that I think this extension implements looks to be similar to the Alt-tab > methodology offered by Compiz). Thanks very much for the suggestions. I went through the options in Chrome and still didn't see anything directly related. Pop-ups were already enabled. I didn't even think to use Firefox for some reason. Turns out it worked just fine, however. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Apache and umask for document root
Hi, On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Rick Stevens wrote: > On 09/06/2016 01:25 PM, Mike Wright wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 01:11 PM, Alex wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've set up a virtual host for a joomla website and having some >>> permissions problems. I've seen numerous configurations online about >>> how to set umask for the apache user, but none have worked, including >>> creating a systemd file >>> (/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/httpd.service) with the >>> following: >> >>> Umask=0006 ? >> >> That comes out to 771 : rwxrwx--x. Maybe 0002 ? > > Apache normally runs as apache:apache. Joomla is just a PHP application > running under Apache, so if you're using mod_php, Apache is what will > actually be doing the reading and writing of the files and the > apache:apache user should have rwx access to the entire tree. > > If you're running PHP-FPM, then the user that PHP is running as should > have own the tree and have rwx access to it, while Apache should have > at least r-x access to the tree. You could do that by putting the PHP > user in the apache group, giving ownership of the tree to the PHP user > and giving group r-x privileges: > > useradd -d /path/to/website -g apache phpuser > cd /path/to/website > chown -R phpuser:apache * > chmod -R 750 * > > or something like that. Also watch out for selinux denials. "Here be > dragons!" Some time ago, I had posted a message to this list regarding apache permissions in a DocumentRoot with joomla. The problem I was having was with the user doing local modifications (joomadmin) not being able to modify files uploaded or changed by the joomla apache user (apache). Numerous suggestions were made, including changing all the files to be sgid write, adding the users to a common group, and other, more complicated recommendations. I'm really surprised at the state of security by many of these suggestions. In an ideal world, the apache user should have no write ability, except perhaps to some temp directory. Instead, people are recommending providing long-standing write permissions to the entire DocumentRoot where the apache user can read and write virtually every file, potentially taking down the entire website if there's ever an apache vulnerability. Even with that aside, the sgid option didn't work for me because the umask is still 0022, which creates new directories without write permission for the group. I've searched and searched, and there does not appear to be a working solution to changing the umask for the apache user in fedora24. Other suggestions involve basically an suid script (suPHP), but it seems complicated and security-prone. Another called PHP-FPM looks very involved and also isn't included with the default apache install due to security implications. The suPHP option seems quite old, with no updates since 2013 that I can find. I'm open to the PHP-FPM option, but I wanted to first ask the list how they're handing the situation? Are you making the remote user (sFTP, etc) the same as apache? Are you using PHP-FPM? If so, is there a Fedora guide you recommend? Are you changing the umask to be able to put the two users in the same group? If so, how? I tried editing the unit service but that didn't have any effect. Any ideas greatly appreciated. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
