3:13 a.m.
Hi!
Has anyone updated *system-config-users-1.2.39-0.fc4.1* recently and found
that adding new groups do not work anymore? The add new users work just
fine... but I can't seem to create AND edit groups. It just showed a grey
out box with a busy cursor all the time.
Or am I the only one with this problem? ... sigh ...
I would appreciate any response. Thanks.
8:18 a.m.
Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about switching to
another distribution.
Yeaw Chu Lee wrote:
Hi!
Has anyone updated *system-config-users-1.2.39-0.fc4.1* recently and
found that adding new groups do not work anymore? The add new users
work just fine... but I can't seem to create AND edit groups. It just
showed a grey out box with a busy cursor all the time.
Or am I the only one with this problem? ... sigh ...
I would appreciate any response. Thanks.
8:19 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:18:45PM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)"
wrote:
Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about
switching to
another distribution.
Yeaw Chu Lee wrote:
That seems rather extreme reaction since:
1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
> Hi!
>
> Has anyone updated *system-config-users-1.2.39-0.fc4.1* recently and
> found that adding new groups do not work anymore? The add new users
> work just fine... but I can't seem to create AND edit groups. It just
> showed a grey out box with a busy cursor all the time.
>
> Or am I the only one with this problem? ... sigh ...
>
> I would appreciate any response. Thanks.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
=======================================================================
Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of
interest is easy.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
8:35 a.m.
Perhaps so, but not if U consider the frequency of packages breaking
people's systems appears to be on the rise. I know that they can
usually fix the bug within a week or less, but it's the practice of
releasing buggy updates that annoys me.
akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:18:45PM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made
in Chinar)" wrote:
>Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about switching to
>another distribution.
>
>Yeaw Chu Lee wrote:
>
>
That seems rather extreme reaction since:
1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
8:44 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 08:19 -0500, akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:18:45PM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made
in Chinar)" wrote:
> Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about switching to
> another distribution.
>
> Yeaw Chu Lee wrote:
That seems rather extreme reaction since:
1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
I agree with all of
these, but #3 is hard to do for those who are
intimidated or otherwise petrified by the thought of using a command
line interface. This may be because they don't like to, have never
needed to, or refuse to, but it still applies.
So many users are limited to using gui tools and the often restricted
functionality of them that it scares me.
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Has anyone updated *system-config-users-1.2.39-0.fc4.1* recently and
> > found that adding new groups do not work anymore? The add new users
> > work just fine... but I can't seem to create AND edit groups. It just
> > showed a grey out box with a busy cursor all the time.
> >
> > Or am I the only one with this problem? ... sigh ...
> >
> > I would appreciate any response. Thanks.
>
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list(a)redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
=======================================================================
Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of
interest is easy.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
2:58 a.m.
One of the reasons why Windoze users are so hesitant about switching to
Linux is that they fear having to use the command line. If Linux is to
win users over, it'd have to go the GUI way. Let me tell U a story.
More than ten years ago, I was using WordPerfect 5.0 and a uni mate was
using MS Word. I thought that I was smarter as WordPerfect was much
harder use, whereas MS Word was merely a matter of point-and-click. The
fact is, my uni mate could churn out a piece of work in a fraction of
the time that I could, even though she was what we called, a "computer
illiterate".
Personally, I think that doing things the GUI way is more efficient.
There's this package that I use everyday that requires me to compile a
source rpm everytime I upgrade the kernel, and anytime I need to use it,
I have to key in a very long command. Now, wouldn't a GUI version be
simpler and more efficient for the user?
Jeff Vian wrote:
>That seems rather extreme reaction since:
>1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
>2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
>3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
>
>
I agree with all of these, but #3 is hard to do for those who are
intimidated or otherwise petrified by the thought of using a command
line interface. This may be because they don't like to, have never
needed to, or refuse to, but it still applies.
So many users are limited to using gui tools and the often restricted
functionality of them that it scares me.
3:27 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 15:58 +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)"
wrote:
One of the reasons why Windoze users are so hesitant about switching
to
Linux is that they fear having to use the command line. If Linux is to
win users over, it'd have to go the GUI way. Let me tell U a story.
More than ten years ago, I was using WordPerfect 5.0 and a uni mate was
using MS Word. I thought that I was smarter as WordPerfect was much
harder use, whereas MS Word was merely a matter of point-and-click. The
fact is, my uni mate could churn out a piece of work in a fraction of
the time that I could, even though she was what we called, a "computer
illiterate".
Personally, I think that doing things the GUI way is more efficient.
There's this package that I use everyday that requires me to compile a
source rpm everytime I upgrade the kernel, and anytime I need to use it,
I have to key in a very long command. Now, wouldn't a GUI version be
simpler and more efficient for the user?
Point taken
However I feel like I have to point out that there are drawbacks to a
GUI interface, sometimes it can be ~~too~~ easy to do something
unintended. I'll give you an example:
Contrast MySQL, command line, with MSSQL, GUI
I had a friend who decided to rename a table in MSSQL. So he right
clicked on the table name, and went down to rename on the context menu.
His fingers glitched, and he clicked on the item above rename which
happened to be delete, table was gone. Had he not had a backup, it
would have been ugly.
Had he been working in MySQL from the command like, I do not think he
would have made the same mistake. Its hard to type DROP TABLE, when you
mean RENAME TABLE.
Food for thought
Micheal
4:06 a.m.
Very true. For instance, I frequently have Windoze users
unintentionally move their mice and then files would go missing. The
GUI can be a double-edge sword, but I suppose the benefits it brings
more than outweigh the costs.
micheal wrote:
Point taken
However I feel like I have to point out that there are drawbacks to a
GUI interface, sometimes it can be ~~too~~ easy to do something
unintended. I'll give you an example:
Contrast MySQL, command line, with MSSQL, GUI
I had a friend who decided to rename a table in MSSQL. So he right
clicked on the table name, and went down to rename on the context menu.
His fingers glitched, and he clicked on the item above rename which
happened to be delete, table was gone. Had he not had a backup, it
would have been ugly.
Had he been working in MySQL from the command like, I do not think he
would have made the same mistake. Its hard to type DROP TABLE, when you
mean RENAME TABLE.
Food for thought
Micheal
7:52 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 02:58, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" wrote:
Personally, I think that doing things the GUI way is more efficient.
There's this package that I use everyday that requires me to compile a
source rpm everytime I upgrade the kernel, and anytime I need to use it,
I have to key in a very long command. Now, wouldn't a GUI version be
simpler and more efficient for the user?
Actually, executing complicated commands repeatedly is where the
command line wins, especially complicated sequences that no GUI
programmer anticipated. All you have to do is type the command
sequence into a file, give it a short name and type the short
name every time you want to run the script. That is, at the
shell level, every command you can run from the keyboard is
automatically the same thing you would execute from a file
in a script. If there are a few variables between runs, the
shell provides adequate methods to accept and substitute them
into the script. GUI's on the other hand often have no scripting
mechanism at all, so you have to sit and wait and watch for the
right time to punch the mouse. And when they do offer scripting
each re-invents it with some new bizarre syntax that doesn't
interoperate with anything else, while the unix shell has worked
the same way for 30 years or so. If you are drawing pictures,
a GUI makes sense. To give commands to a program, it doesn't.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
2:16 p.m.
Thanks for the encouragement. Perhaps I just couldn't get over the
incident that happened to me ten years ago. Your right, the command
line is king. I've saved many users with that, even Windoze ones. ;-)
Les Mikesell wrote:
Actually, executing complicated commands repeatedly is where the
command line wins, especially complicated sequences that no GUI
programmer anticipated. All you have to do is type the command
sequence into a file, give it a short name and type the short
name every time you want to run the script. That is, at the
shell level, every command you can run from the keyboard is
automatically the same thing you would execute from a file
in a script. If there are a few variables between runs, the
shell provides adequate methods to accept and substitute them
into the script. GUI's on the other hand often have no scripting
mechanism at all, so you have to sit and wait and watch for the
right time to punch the mouse. And when they do offer scripting
each re-invents it with some new bizarre syntax that doesn't
interoperate with anything else, while the unix shell has worked
the same way for 30 years or so. If you are drawing pictures,
a GUI makes sense. To give commands to a program, it doesn't.
8:37 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 15:58 +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)"
wrote:
One of the reasons why Windoze users are so hesitant about switching
to
Linux is that they fear having to use the command line. If Linux is to
win users over, it'd have to go the GUI way. Let me tell U a story.
More than ten years ago, I was using WordPerfect 5.0 and a uni mate was
using MS Word. I thought that I was smarter as WordPerfect was much
harder use, whereas MS Word was merely a matter of point-and-click. The
fact is, my uni mate could churn out a piece of work in a fraction of
the time that I could, even though she was what we called, a "computer
illiterate".
Personally, I think that doing things the GUI way is more efficient.
There's this package that I use everyday that requires me to compile a
source rpm everytime I upgrade the kernel, and anytime I need to use it,
I have to key in a very long command. Now, wouldn't a GUI version be
simpler and more efficient for the user?
----
The problems with your assumptions are:
Linux isn't interested in obtaining wholesale switchovers from Windows
to Linux OS's. That's a common misconception that many Windows users
make. Linux is it's own operating system without a commercial bent and
thus no need to keep selling the same thing over and over again to the
same people.
There are some distributions that are interested in selling their
packaging against the Windows packaging and this list doesn't have
anything to do with that - fedora is a free distribution.
For some things, GUI is a more efficient way of doing them. For other
things, you can't beat the power of the command line. The problem of
course is the knowledge of when and how and between Macintosh and
Windows, there's a lot of computer users that have little interest,
little reason to garner up the knowledge of things to get up and running
and thus rely on setup wizards. Most of the Linux distributions aren't
quite up to the level of Windows wizards. For other users, i.e. the ones
that aren't afraid to learn some of the inner workings of a computer,
once they get over their fear of something different, like Linux, a
majority of them will appreciate the education they get, finally
figuring out how things are supposed to work and the ability to fix
things without 'reboot' or 'dump and reload' philosophy which is so
prevalent with Windows usage because of the various inaccessible
internals.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
2:16 p.m.
I don't mean to be rude, but if your speaking in your personal capacity,
then all is fine, but if your speaking on behalf of the Linux community,
then I'd have to refute your claims.
Having numbers on our side helps plenty, really. Microsoft is one good
example.
Craig White wrote:
----
The problems with your assumptions are:
Linux isn't interested in obtaining wholesale switchovers from Windows
to Linux OS's. That's a common misconception that many Windows users
make. Linux is it's own operating system without a commercial bent and
thus no need to keep selling the same thing over and over again to the
same people.
There are some distributions that are interested in selling their
packaging against the Windows packaging and this list doesn't have
anything to do with that - fedora is a free distribution.
For some things, GUI is a more efficient way of doing them. For other
things, you can't beat the power of the command line. The problem of
course is the knowledge of when and how and between Macintosh and
Windows, there's a lot of computer users that have little interest,
little reason to garner up the knowledge of things to get up and running
and thus rely on setup wizards. Most of the Linux distributions aren't
quite up to the level of Windows wizards. For other users, i.e. the ones
that aren't afraid to learn some of the inner workings of a computer,
once they get over their fear of something different, like Linux, a
majority of them will appreciate the education they get, finally
figuring out how things are supposed to work and the ability to fix
things without 'reboot' or 'dump and reload' philosophy which is so
prevalent with Windows usage because of the various inaccessible
internals.
Craig
5:44 p.m.
At 3:58 PM +0800 10/3/05,
=?UTF-8?B?IuWci+eUoiBXZWktWWVlIENoYW4gKE1hZGUgaW4gQ2hpbmFyKSI= wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
>>That seems rather extreme reaction since:
>>1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
>>2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
>>3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
>>
>>
>I agree with all of these, but #3 is hard to do for those who are
>intimidated or otherwise petrified by the thought of using a command
>line interface. This may be because they don't like to, have never
>needed to, or refuse to, but it still applies.
>
>So many users are limited to using gui tools and the often restricted
>functionality of them that it scares me.
One of the reasons why Windoze users are so hesitant about switching
to
Linux is that they fear having to use the command line. If Linux is to
win users over, it'd have to go the GUI way. Let me tell U a story.
More than ten years ago, I was using WordPerfect 5.0 and a uni mate was
using MS Word. I thought that I was smarter as WordPerfect was much
harder use, whereas MS Word was merely a matter of point-and-click. The
fact is, my uni mate could churn out a piece of work in a fraction of
the time that I could, even though she was what we called, a "computer
illiterate".
Personally, I think that doing things the GUI way is more efficient.
There's this package that I use everyday that requires me to compile a
source rpm everytime I upgrade the kernel, and anytime I need to use it,
I have to key in a very long command. Now, wouldn't a GUI version be
simpler and more efficient for the user?
For most users the GUI would be the only way at all, but as for you, why
not put that very long command into a small script and save it for next
time?
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
2:23 a.m.
Well, actually what I do is copy the command from a text file containing
all my frequently used commands, and then paste it onto the terminal.
This may seem simple enough to people like U but it might not be so for
the majority of the people out there.
Many of U may not agree with me on this, but the reason why Mac OSX and
Windoze are popular is that they have a good GUI, and there're many good
reasons why people prefer the GUI to the command line.
Tony Nelson wrote:
For most users the GUI would be the only way at all, but as for you, why
not put that very long command into a small script and save it for next
time?
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
1:07 p.m.
akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:18:45PM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made
in Chinar)" wrote:
>Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about switching to
>another distribution.
>
>Yeaw Chu Lee wrote:
That seems rather extreme reaction since:
1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
>>Hi!
>>
>>Has anyone updated *system-config-users-1.2.39-0.fc4.1* recently and
>>found that adding new groups do not work anymore? The add new users
>>work just fine... but I can't seem to create AND edit groups. It just
>>showed a grey out box with a busy cursor all the time.
>>
>>Or am I the only one with this problem? ... sigh ...
>>
>>I would appreciate any response. Thanks.
>
>
>--
>fedora-list mailing list
>fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I have found this problem on two new installs and I added the groups via
the command line. They show up but I think they didn't get transfered
to shadow groups properly.
There is a bug report submitted.
As for those that support Windows in bug problems. There is a bug that
I read about this morning that has been public knowledge since April and
still isn't fixed. Now a new virus. Here a bug is on a new upgraded
package and it will probably be fixed by the end of the week if not
sooner. Heck it is a python coding issue.
Also, FC4 is as close to bleeding edge that is safe but I rely on it to
work. So one little thing doesn't work as expected.
--
Robin Laing
2:16 p.m.
Right, I could either use the command line or wait for the fix, which I
anticipate, isn't gonna be a long wait. But what about the recent X-org
fiasco? I wouldn't consider that a small issue. Well, I don't
know.....Perhaps Fedora isn't the right distribution for people like me.
Robin Laing wrote:
I have found this problem on two new installs and I added the groups
via the command line. They show up but I think they didn't get
transfered to shadow groups properly.
There is a bug report submitted.
As for those that support Windows in bug problems. There is a bug
that I read about this morning that has been public knowledge since
April and still isn't fixed. Now a new virus. Here a bug is on a new
upgraded package and it will probably be fixed by the end of the week
if not sooner. Heck it is a python coding issue.
Also, FC4 is as close to bleeding edge that is safe but I rely on it
to work. So one little thing doesn't work as expected.
3:35 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 03:16:21AM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)"
wrote:
Right, I could either use the command line or wait for the fix, which
I
anticipate, isn't gonna be a long wait. But what about the recent X-org
fiasco? I wouldn't consider that a small issue. Well, I don't
know.....Perhaps Fedora isn't the right distribution for people like me.
Maybe you are right,. but the xorg bug was fixed in less than a week.
How do you get Microsoft to fix a bug in a week. I could make a long
list of things you can't so in windows that are useful to do. Have
one terminal window in China, one in Japan, one in Texas and one in
France. And in each window be able to do processing on different
systems at the same time. If you just want to edit documents maybe
Windows is better.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
2:24 a.m.
I'm doing what U have mentioned, on Windoze. In fact, I'm doing it
everyday. ;-)
See http://www.famatech.com/
Don't get me wrong - I'm not promoting M$. The fact is, the X-org bug
wasn't exactly a minor issue. If I were to make a comparison, bringing
Windoze into the picture might not be appropriate. As I've mentioned in
my earlier post, I was considering a more stable Linux distribution.
akonstam(a)trinity.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 03:16:21AM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made
in Chinar)" wrote:
>Right, I could either use the command line or wait for the fix, which I
>anticipate, isn't gonna be a long wait. But what about the recent X-org
>fiasco? I wouldn't consider that a small issue. Well, I don't
>know.....Perhaps Fedora isn't the right distribution for people like me.
>
>
>
Maybe you are right,. but the xorg bug was fixed in less than a week.
How do you get Microsoft to fix a bug in a week. I could make a long
list of things you can't so in windows that are useful to do. Have
one terminal window in China, one in Japan, one in Texas and one in
France. And in each window be able to do processing on different
systems at the same time. If you just want to edit documents maybe
Windows is better.
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
7:26 a.m.
"國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" wrote:
> Right, I could either use the command line or wait for the fix,
which
> I anticipate, isn't gonna be a long wait. But what about the recent
> X-org fiasco? I wouldn't consider that a small issue. Well, I don't
> know.....Perhaps Fedora isn't the right distribution for people like
> me.
Aaron Konstam:
Maybe you are right,. but the xorg bug was fixed in less than a week.
What? The i810 (and related families) one goes back a few months.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:57 p.m.
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:19:48AM -0500, akonstam wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:18:45PM +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made
in Chinar)" wrote:
> Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about switching to
> another distribution.
>
> Yeaw Chu Lee wrote:
That seems rather extreme reaction since:
1, If it is reported to bugzilla it can be fixed.
2, The 1.2.38-0 version works ,
3. Adding a group is so easy to do by command line processing.
>
I hate to indicate my prophetic talents but the new:
system-config-users.noarch 0:1.2.41-0
allows you to add groups. Didn't take to long to get fix, at least
this time
-------------------------------------------
Aaron Konstam
Computer Science
Trinity University
telephone: (210)-999-7484
9:26 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 08:18, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" wrote:
Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about
switching to
another distribution.
If you don't like running the very latest code with all the
tradeoffs that implies, you might like the free Centos4
distribution which is rebuilt from the RHEL sources. It
is similar in program versions to what was in fedora FC3
so it's not a big change for fedora users.
But, you don't get the latest desktop apps either.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
3 a.m.
Actually, I'm thinking along the line of stability. Debian is on my mind.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 08:18, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in
Chinar)" wrote:
>Yes, it's happening to me too and I'm having thoughts about switching to
>another distribution.
>
>
If you don't like running the very latest code with all the
tradeoffs that implies, you might like the free Centos4
distribution which is rebuilt from the RHEL sources. It
is similar in program versions to what was in fedora FC3
so it's not a big change for fedora users.
But, you don't get the latest desktop apps either.
7:37 a.m.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 03:00, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" wrote:
Actually, I'm thinking along the line of stability. Debian is on
my mind.
I'd recommend Centos for that as well. It is built from the
same source RPMs used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is
almost the same as has gone through extensive real-world
use in fedora. I've never quite been able to figure out
the release schedule for Debian if there is one an it seemed
like you had to run a mix of stuff from their unstable
repository to stay current. Maybe Ubuntu will change that,
although they are too new to have much of a track record
on updates.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
2:26 p.m.
In fact, I was considering Ubuntu, but I might wanna give Centos a go
instead.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 03:00, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in
Chinar)" wrote:
>Actually, I'm thinking along the line of stability. Debian is on my mind.
>
>
I'd recommend Centos for that as well. It is built from the
same source RPMs used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is
almost the same as has gone through extensive real-world
use in fedora. I've never quite been able to figure out
the release schedule for Debian if there is one an it seemed
like you had to run a mix of stuff from their unstable
repository to stay current. Maybe Ubuntu will change that,
although they are too new to have much of a track record
on updates.
3:31 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 07:37 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I'd recommend Centos for that as well...
Maybe Ubuntu will change that, although they are too new to have
much
of a track record on updates.
What would You say on Slackware regarding all this
staff?
--
Best regards,
Strong.
6719
days inactive
6778
days old
26 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
"國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" -
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
Craig White -
Jeff Vian -
Les Mikesell -
micheal -
Robin Laing -
Strong -
Tim -
Tony Nelson -
Yeaw Chu Lee