Re: Help with dumb question

On 12/15/21 7:50 AM, George N. White III wrote: There are no "dumb" questions.  If you are using gnome, there is a "Date & Time" entry in the Settings App  (on my system it is at the very bottom of the list, maybe because it is rarely needed) Thanx, but I use Xfce, not Gnome and prefer to do th

Re: Help with dumb question

On 12/15/21 7:45 AM, Fred Erickson wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:29:15 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote: I'm at a convention in DC now, and I don't remember how to set my laptop's timezone. ___ Excellent! I knew it was easy, but it's been long enough that I d

Re: Help with dumb question

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 10:31, Joe Zeff wrote: > I'm at a convention in DC now, and I don't remember how to set my > laptop's timezone. > There are no "dumb" questions. If you are using gnome, there is a "Date & Time" entry in the Settings App (on my system it is at the very bottom of the list,

Re: Help with dumb question

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:29:15 -0700 Joe Zeff wrote: > I'm at a convention in DC now, and I don't remember how to set my > laptop's timezone. > ___ man timedatectl ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedora

Help with dumb question

I'm at a convention in DC now, and I don't remember how to set my laptop's timezone. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedora

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On 1/5/2012 4:44 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: You might be surprised. For some of us, the first question is "how can I do this with the Shell?" Only if the answer is "you can't", or "it would be too slow", do we resort to programming. The whole Unix toolkit philosophy is based on this, or at l

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 16:59 -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Somehow I just never hit the need for using the shell above and beyond > a > quick whack to get me through something that couldn't be done with a > programming language. Its one of those things that I would regret not > having picked

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 19:06 -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote: > An interesting little ditty, if you don't know it. Steve Bourne > really > loved ALGOL. So much so that he wrote the original shell *in* > ALGOL...kind > of. It was ostensibly 'C'...but he created an entire set of #defines > to > allow him t

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On 1/5/2012 12:02 AM, Joel Rees wrote: [...] and typing in a FORTH interpreter in hex, by hand, and ... Oh, never mind. -- Joel Rees FORTH ... I hoped I would never hear that language name again. I spent a very long night in a dive bar with a fellow programmer arguing whether FORTH had the

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > [inline] > > > On 1/4/2012 10:08 PM, g wrote: >> >> 'wiz kids' of today have no concept of what 'the good old days' where >> like. > > > That may be a blessing as quite a few of the good old day were really bad > old days. > > >> you had t

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On 1/4/2012 11:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: But not as clever, I'll bet, as Mel, the Real Programmer: http://foldoc.org/The+story+of+Mel,+a+Real+Programmer Joe: Read the link and throughly enjoyed it. And you are quite correct, I was "not as clever" But, to be fair, I didn't pull any comparsions

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On 01/04/2012 11:27 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: My machine code was when there was nothing else and my assembler was in the early video games days where all you got was a 4K cartridge and most of the time was spent trying to pack a much larger program into that bloody cartridge. But assembler wa

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

[inline] On 1/4/2012 10:08 PM, g wrote: 'wiz kids' of today have no concept of what 'the good old days' where like. That may be a blessing as quite a few of the good old day were really bad old days. you had things easier than i because you worked 'mainframe' where you at least had someone

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On 01/05/2012 12:38 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: <> > I was there in ancient times and I'd rather have the current flood of > information that requires much winnowing and sifting to find what is > needed than the days of minimal info ... and the only way you stood a > chance of getting an answ

[ALREADY SOLVED BUT THANKS FOR REPLY:] Re: dumb question

[inline:] On 1/4/2012 6:00 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote: Hey Paul, If you want a file to be executable it must be +x. If the file is read as input to another program it needs not be +x. I've always known that to execute a file, it must be "+x". If I am not directly executing it, who needs the

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 02:19 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: To the list: I am dealing with a primary Fedora machine and a alternate WinXP under cygwin. Cygwin always screw up the permissions when I drag stuff over to it and then bring it back to the Fedora box. I've got scripts to handle making things righ

Re: dumb question

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 16:19 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 01/04/2012 04:17 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > Though I can't stand the MS world of extensions meaning something, I > > can't imagine not using extensions to help understand what is there. > > The system shouldn't give a damn, but the use

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 5:06 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote: On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:59:29PM -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote: I've always tried to make sure everything is lowest common denominator between Microsoft and Linux unless there is a good reason. I learned the hard way the first time I had to port from Lin

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:59:29PM -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > I've always tried to make sure everything is lowest common > denominator between Microsoft and Linux unless there is a good > reason. I learned the hard way the first time I had to port from > Linux to Microsoft. I really dislike

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

inion finally changed once I saw how Python turned out ... but that only covers the scripting aspect, not the shell. I was brought up with programming languages and assembler/machine, they defined my taste in tailors ... Of course, it means the occasional "dumb question" (and maybe, in some

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On 1/4/2012 4:21 PM, g wrote: i can understand. it takes time. just consider what it was like in 70's when i started learning micro cpu's and unix, as well as others, when there was no internet as it is today. I was there in ancient times and I'd rather have the current flood of information th

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 11:58 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: <> > I never knew there was a man page for '.' -=- to be 'politically' correct, there is not. > am starting to read it now, thanks -=- actually, if you read top most line at start, you will see that you are reading 'BASH_BUILTINS'. -- peace

Re: dumb question [on scripting]

On 01/04/2012 11:28 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: <> On 1/4/2012 1:36 PM, g wrote: >> On 01/04/2012 08:22 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: >> <> >> >> -=- >> >> in addition to; >> >>[man|info] . >> >> have a look at; >> >>[man|info] make >> >>[man|info] bash >> >>[man|info] tcsh >> >>

Re: [LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 03:51:01PM -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Your suggestion regarding xargs helped. This is the second time its > been suggested to me and I am going to go off and read about it as I > get a sense it will make my life alot easier. Just be aware if you've any directory path

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 1:22 PM, g wrote: On 01/04/2012 08:06 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: <> If you want them to be directly executable, yes. But if you call them as input to a shell they need not be. -=- in addition, run this; man . that will give you some more insight to executing files. I never kn

[LOCATE ISSUE SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 1:38 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: They're quite different but overlap to some extent. 'find' is the reliable way of searching the current system according to a whole bunch of criteria (man find). 'locate' just does a quick search on a database which is updated regularly (usually ni

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 1:36 PM, g wrote: On 01/04/2012 08:22 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: <> -=- in addition to; [man|info] . have a look at; [man|info] make [man|info] bash [man|info] tcsh *note* .sh = bash .csh = tcsh to save your self time, try running '[man|info] word/comma

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 1:40 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: Read "man locate" again then and more carefully? Pay extra attention to the first sentence? ;-) I did, but the light didn't go off in head until I read poc's follow-up email, which I will respond to shortly. Thanks, Paul -- users mailing list us

Re: dumb question -- dumber subject line

On 1/4/2012 1:49 PM, g wrote: On 01/04/2012 09:36 PM, g wrote: <> what is _dumb_ is using just 'dumb question' as the only wording in "Subject:" line. if you ran a google search with "Subject: dumb question" as search parameter, you would get hits in

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 09:36 PM, g wrote: <> an addition to give you something to consider... there is no such thing as a 'dumb question'. when unsure about something, one should always ask questions to prevent making 'dumb errors' and 'dumb mistakes'. what is _du

Re: dumb question

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:19:51 -0800, PAN (Paul) wrote: > On 1/4/2012 4:38 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > I know you and Ed (and Marvin) have been round the block on this, but if > > you'll allow an oldie to sum up: > > > > Makefiles are not normally executables, in fact they aren't normally

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 08:22 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: <> > And that's the confusion on my end. You are stating that Marvin says > "make it +x" and you are saying it doesn't need to be. I asked this dumb > question to find out how I should treat this situation

Re: dumb question

On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 13:19 -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 1/4/2012 4:38 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > I know you and Ed (and Marvin) have been round the block on this, but if > > you'll allow an oldie to sum up: > > > > Makefiles are not normally executables, in fact they aren't nor

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 08:06 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: <> > If you want them to be directly executable, yes. But if you call them > as input to a shell they need not be. -=- in addition, run this; man . that will give you some more insight to executing files. -- peace out. tc.hago, g . *please r

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 4:38 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: I know you and Ed (and Marvin) have been round the block on this, but if you'll allow an oldie to sum up: Makefiles are not normally executables, in fact they aren't normally Shell scripts. Therefore they don't need to have the +x attribute. It's

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 4:04 AM, JB wrote: Paul Allen Newell cs.cmu.edu> writes: Sleep well, the polarity is still intact :-) Would the following be helpful ? # ls -l /etc/init.d/network -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 7448 Feb 25 2011 /etc/init.d/network # file /etc/init.d/network /etc/init.d/network: Bourne

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 3:40 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 1/4/2012 12:30 AM, Steve Searle wrote: >> >> The case against extensions in this context is that the user shouldn't >> have to change if the shell script is rewritten in a different language. >> Having to change from foobar.sh to foobar.pl just bec

Re: dumb question

On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 23:19 -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > To the list: > > I am dealing with a primary Fedora machine and a alternate WinXP under > cygwin. Cygwin always screw up the permissions when I drag stuff over to > it and then bring it back to the Fedora box. I've got scripts to hand

Re: dumb question

Paul Allen Newell cs.cmu.edu> writes: > ... > For questions on my syntax of "*.sh", I have believed since my earliest > days that a shell file (be it ".sh", ".csh", ".tcsh", or ".bash") that > it has to be "+x" as it is an executable. If I am incorrect, I would > love to know, though it may t

[SOLVED:] Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 12:46 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: Well, we always will put the files/command (end product of compilation) in directories that tend to clue one in on the purpose. /bin /sbin /usr/bin, etc. And, we only put +x on the files that really need them. Hardly ever needing to use the "file" comman

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:38 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > [inline] > > On 1/4/2012 12:32 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: >> >> Well, I'm sorry you'd panic > > I wish I had qualified that statement with a "smile" ... please allow > me to edit prior comment. OK :-) > > >> We'd just use the "file" command t

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 12:30 AM, Steve Searle wrote: The case against extensions in this context is that the user shouldn't have to change if the shell script is rewritten in a different language. Having to change from foobar.sh to foobar.pl just because of this change isn't user friendly. And what if you

Re: dumb question

[inline] On 1/4/2012 12:32 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: Well, I'm sorry you'd panic I wish I had qualified that statement with a "smile" ... please allow me to edit prior comment. We'd just use the "file" command to find out what the intended use is and adhere to a standard of putting #!/bi

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 12:28 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 01/04/2012 04:22 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: And that's the confusion on my end. You are stating that Marvin says "make it +x" and you are saying it doesn't need to be. I asked this dumb question to find out how I should

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:26 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > air enough ... I understand. If I worked at your place, I would panic > at not having the extensions as a "text-based" clue. I spent too many > years at too many places to understand that seeing an extension on a > file gave me a sense of what the

Re: dumb question

Around 08:17am on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 (UK time), Paul Allen Newell scrawled: > On 1/4/2012 12:11 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > >FWIW, I never use extensions. > Ed: > > Though I can't stand the MS world of extensions meaning something, I > can't imagine not using extensions to help understand

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:22 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > And that's the confusion on my end. You are stating that Marvin says > "make it +x" and you are saying it doesn't need to be. I asked this > dumb question to find out how I should treat this situation regardless

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 12:19 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 01/04/2012 04:17 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: Though I can't stand the MS world of extensions meaning something, I can't imagine not using extensions to help understand what is there. The system shouldn't give a damn, but the user needs all the help he/

Re: dumb question

ing that Marvin says "make it +x" and you are saying it doesn't need to be. I asked this dumb question to find out how I should treat this situation regardless of "what works". Its about understanding whether a makefile is an executable or if make is just treating it as

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:17 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Though I can't stand the MS world of extensions meaning something, I > can't imagine not using extensions to help understand what is there. > The system shouldn't give a damn, but the user needs all the help > he/she can get (smile) Sure, and if

Re: dumb question

On 1/4/2012 12:11 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: FWIW, I never use extensions. Ed: Though I can't stand the MS world of extensions meaning something, I can't imagine not using extensions to help understand what is there. The system shouldn't give a damn, but the user needs all the help he/she can get

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:14 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > [inline] > > On 1/4/2012 12:06 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: >> On 01/04/2012 03:59 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: >>> Though I really appreciate both of your replies, I am looking at them >>> and seeing that Marvin is saying it needs to be "+x" and Ed is sa

Re: dumb question

[inline] On 1/4/2012 12:06 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 01/04/2012 03:59 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: Though I really appreciate both of your replies, I am looking at them and seeing that Marvin is saying it needs to be "+x" and Ed is saying it doesn't. I ran a test and "-x" seems to work. FYI, Ma

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:07 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: > And I agree with you.. When I write shell scripts I use a .sh > extension. Just to make it easy on myself.. It help me identify .sh > from .txt files.. My point is simply that .sh or any other extension is meaningless to the OS. It may be helpful to

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 04:01 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Ed Greshko > wrote: > > On 01/04/2012 03:51 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: > > What is in killfox?? > > A shell script to kill firefox when it used to give me problems a > w

Re: dumb question

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > On 1/3/2012 11:42 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> HI >> >> Sorry.. >> >> My bad... >> >> The make is +x.. >> >> Marivn >> >> > Marvin and Ed: > > Though I really appreciate both of your replies, I am looking at them and > seeing

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 03:59 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Though I really appreciate both of your replies, I am looking at them > and seeing that Marvin is saying it needs to be "+x" and Ed is saying > it doesn't. I ran a test and "-x" seems to work. FYI, Marvin corrected himself saying Sorry.. My

Re: dumb question

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 01/04/2012 03:51 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: > > What is in killfox?? > > A shell script to kill firefox when it used to give me problems a while > back. All it contains is > > killall -6 firefox-bin > killall -6 plugin-container > > but i

Re: dumb question

On 1/3/2012 11:42 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: HI Sorry.. My bad... The make is +x.. Marivn Marvin and Ed: Though I really appreciate both of your replies, I am looking at them and seeing that Marvin is saying it needs to be "+x" and Ed is saying it doesn't. I ran a test and "-x" seems

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 03:51 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: > What is in killfox?? A shell script to kill firefox when it used to give me problems a while back. All it contains is killall -6 firefox-bin killall -6 plugin-container but it saved me typing. -- A common mistake that people make when trying

Re: dumb question

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 01/04/2012 03:36 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > Thanks for prompt reply. By this I am assuming that a > > Makefile/makefile and its contents are not deemed a mandatory > > executable as opposed to a *.sh? I am unclear as to what is happeni

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 03:36 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > Thanks for prompt reply. By this I am assuming that a > Makefile/makefile and its contents are not deemed a mandatory > executable as opposed to a *.sh? I am unclear as to what is happening > under the hood as I thought anything that "executes" nee

Re: dumb question

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 01/04/2012 03:19 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > > To the list: > > > > I am dealing with a primary Fedora machine and a alternate WinXP under > > cygwin. Cygwin always screw up the permissions when I drag stuff over > > to it and then bring

Re: dumb question

On 1/3/2012 11:28 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: Makefile need not be executableas they are just input to make Ed: Thanks for prompt reply. By this I am assuming that a Makefile/makefile and its contents are not deemed a mandatory executable as opposed to a *.sh? I am unclear as to what is h

Re: dumb question

On 01/04/2012 03:19 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > To the list: > > I am dealing with a primary Fedora machine and a alternate WinXP under > cygwin. Cygwin always screw up the permissions when I drag stuff over > to it and then bring it back to the Fedora box. I've got scripts to > handle making th

Re: dumb question

On 1/3/2012 11:22 PM, Marvin Kosmal wrote: Paul To execute/run a file it must be set to x as in rwxr--r-- or rwxrwxr-- HTH Marvin Marvin: Thanks for the prompt reply. If I read this correctly, any and all of my {M,m}akefile must be executable (as in "+x")? Paul -- users mailing

Re: dumb question

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote: > To the list: > > I am dealing with a primary Fedora machine and a alternate WinXP under > cygwin. Cygwin always screw up the permissions when I drag stuff over to it > and then bring it back to the Fedora box. I've got scripts to handle m

dumb question

To the list: I am dealing with a primary Fedora machine and a alternate WinXP under cygwin. Cygwin always screw up the permissions when I drag stuff over to it and then bring it back to the Fedora box. I've got scripts to handle making things right again. But I did have a question which I di