[gentoo-amd64] Re: USB-Serial Follow Up

["Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

"Peter Davoust" <worldgnat@gmail.com> posted
7c08b4dd0608201511k2c68fb0fqed8044e79234940d@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on  Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:11:30 +0000:

> Yeah, I did a dmesg right after I plugged it in, and there was no
> mention of the device being created, yet it registered a new usb 2.0
> device, so that's why I think it's kernel related.

OK, it's registering the plug event, so at least you got that far and know
the hardware and kernel USB itself is working.

Somewhere along the line, I either missed a post of yours (there's
something going on with Gentoo's mailing list server, many people are
missing posts here and there,
see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141904 ), or otherwise haven't
seen the specific device information.  Could you (again?) post the dmesg
output from when it registers the device, what lsusb says about it, and if
that doesn't make it clear, exactly what the hardware is (brand and model
number, short description).

The reason I'm  asking is that with it being detected, we know it's
actually getting to there.  However, some USB devices (like scanners) have
userspace drivers and thus wouldn't load or have a kernel driver.  I want
to see if I can verify that one way or the other, so we know whether to
even look for a kernel device load event, or whether we should be looking
at user space instead.  I want to see this thru to working, but I'm about
at the end of my ability to help with generic level information, so I need
to know a bit more about what the actual device is, and somehow I haven't
picked that up yet. <g>

> I'm emergeing kontact right now so I can get better control over who gets
> html and who gets plain text. Is quoted text annoying/unsafe too? I
> never liked it but I just ignore it since I got gmail.

Quoted text... shouldn't be unsafe.  It can be annoying if done
incorrectly, but isn't unsafe so at least that's not a problem.  The link
I gave you explained it some, but let me try as well.

The idea with quoting is to quote enough context so people know what point
you are replying to, replying to each point after quoting it, as I'm doing
here quoting you by point, replying to each under it.  Ideally, some of
your reply should always be visible -- if the quote block takes up an
entire page with none of your reply visible, you are quoting too much.  If
the point you are replying to is that large a block, try snipping out
irrelevant parts or summarizing, shrinking the quote or summary until your
reply to it, or your reply to the previous point, is always visible.
(There may be occasional exceptions, say when quoting part of a log or
config file, where the information may not be snippable or summarizable
without losing critical information.)

Some people complain that this is too much effort, that it takes too long.
List/group veterans will say no it doesn't, that the process of editing
the quote to the point one is addressing forces one to think more directly
about that point, thus often making one's own thoughts clearer on it,
making the reply better and easier than it would have been otherwise. 
This is in addition to clarifying to the future reader exactly what points
one was replying to, thus reducing confusion.  Additionally, it is said
too many people speak (or in context post) on impulse.  If one doesn't
have the time to properly quote, it can be asked if they really should be
replying at all.  Sometimes it's better not to.  (It's not unusual for me
to type up a reply, and then decide it's really better if I don't send it,
or decide it's not what I wanted to say after all, and that I have to
rewrite it before I can send it.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list