[gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Hi folks,

I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that 
have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there 
issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I 
have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  
List issues if you had any.

Thanks for the feedback.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Todd Goodman]

* Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> [110510 17:29]:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that 
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there 
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I 
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  
> List issues if you had any.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Hi Dale,

I did it previously on a couple ~x86 machines and now on a couple x86
machines haven't had any problems at all.

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 23:55 on Tuesday 10 May 2011, Dale did opine 
thusly:

> Hi folks,
> 
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.
> List issues if you had any.


Been using it for, oh I dunno - ages?, on a variety of x86 and amd64 machines. 
All bar one were clean installs, the one - this very notebook - was a 
migration.

Does it work? Well, you've been reading my posts all this time so the 
migration couldn't have been catastrophic :-)

It was a PITA at the time, having to go through conf.d and fiddle each one to 
be conformant. But once complete, it was a reboot and JustWorks(tm)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.

I'm using ~amd64 and upgraded long, long, long ago. No problems at all
during or after the upgrade. I would expect it to be even smoother
process now than it was then.

IIRC the biggest deal with the baselayout/openrc upgrade was that you
must update a bunch of config files, which are not necessarily all
blind/trivial updates. Failing to update them could make rebooting a
sad experience.

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[covici]

Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> > done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> > mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> > works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
> 
> I'm using ~amd64 and upgraded long, long, long ago. No problems at all
> during or after the upgrade. I would expect it to be even smoother
> process now than it was then.
> 
> IIRC the biggest deal with the baselayout/openrc upgrade was that you
> must update a bunch of config files, which are not necessarily all
> blind/trivial updates. Failing to update them could make rebooting a
> sad experience.
> 

I can say the same -- I am using ~x64 and was using ~x86 at the time,
and had no problems switching over.

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alex Schuster]

Dale writes:

> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that 
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there 
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I 
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  
> List issues if you had any.

I switched my main system about at least a year ago (and later on some
mor emachines), and it was without trouble. Be sure to update your
config files. The howto even had some points in it that it told had to
be done (I think adding init services to runlevels), but they were
somehow performed automagically.

Only slight problem I noticed: my file systems are being checked for the
need to be fscked for two times when booting. If a fsck is started, the
first one can be aborted with Ctrl-C as it used to be, the 2nd one
cannnot, which can be annoying if the partition is very large and I want
to use the PC _now_. I did not investigate this further, whether
/etc/init.d/fsck is called for two times or what. I thought it had to do
with all my partitions being on LUKS, but I don't even remember why I
thought this.

Anyway, I think the update is quite safe when you follow the instructions.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Alex Schuster wrote:
>
> Anyway, I think the update is quite safe when you follow the instructions.
>
> 	Wonko
>
>    

After the mess I had with hal and xorg, I hope it is safe.  ;-)

Thanks to all for the replies.  I'm going to back up my /etc directory 
and give it a whirl.  If it gives me problems, I'll be back looking like 
this:  :-@

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:10:40 -0500, Dale wrote:

> After the mess I had with hal and xorg, I hope it is safe.  ;-)

Of course it is, but so was hal and xorg for the rest of us :-/


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:10:40 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> After the mess I had with hal and xorg, I hope it is safe.  ;-)
>>      
> Of course it is, but so was hal and xorg for the rest of us :-/
>
>
>    

Well some seemed to have no issues with it and just changing the USE 
flags was it.  Not for me tho.  Got locked out of my own system with no 
mouse or keyboard.  I never did get that thing to work either.

This however seems to have worked.  I emerged them, ran etc-update which 
had a LOT of updates, went through the guide and edited a few things and 
rebooted.  I can't say it was any faster tho.  It stopped at one point, 
which worried me at first, then carried on.  I'm not sure what it 
stopped on tho.  Maybe it was a one time thing.

What do you know, I upgraded and it worked.  Now if I can just get rid 
of this Nepomuk thingy that pops up a bit after I login to KDE.  Makes 
me want to get a fly flap and beat on the message.  lol  It bugs me.  
Get it?

Thanks for the replies.  Sort of helped me decide when to do this.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
>
> Well some seemed to have no issues with it and just changing the USE 
> flags was it.  Not for me tho.  Got locked out of my own system with 
> no mouse or keyboard.  I never did get that thing to work either.
>
> This however seems to have worked.  I emerged them, ran etc-update 
> which had a LOT of updates, went through the guide and edited a few 
> things and rebooted.  I can't say it was any faster tho.  It stopped 
> at one point, which worried me at first, then carried on.  I'm not 
> sure what it stopped on tho.  Maybe it was a one time thing.
>
> What do you know, I upgraded and it worked.  Now if I can just get rid 
> of this Nepomuk thingy that pops up a bit after I login to KDE.  Makes 
> me want to get a fly flap and beat on the message.  lol  It bugs me.  
> Get it?
>
> Thanks for the replies.  Sort of helped me decide when to do this.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

I noticed something . . . odd.  Sometimes when I do upgrades to some 
packages, I go to single user, check what processes are still running 
and kill strays, then go back to the default run level and login.  I 
just updated a lot of KDE related stuff and went to single user.  When 
it says single user, it ain't kidding.  It even unmounts file systems.  
Oook.  That's weird.  It didn't do that before.  :/  Then when I wanted 
to go back to the default run level and typed in rc default & exit, it 
logged me out which is normal but nothing scrolled up like it did in the 
old baselayout.  The screen went blank and a bit later the KDM screen 
came up.  It used to be that it logged me out and then I saw all the 
services scrolling up until kdm started.

Is this the new normal?  Should I not do the exit thing now?

One good thing I noticed, KDE used to have a LOT of dead processes 
running after logging out, even after going to single user.  Lots of 
kdeinit and knotify stuff.  It seems to close out a LOT cleaner.  On my 
first time going single user, it was clean as a whistle.  I didn't see a 
single stray process in the bunch.  Neato !!

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/11/2011 02:50 AM, Dale wrote:
>[...]
> What do you know, I upgraded and it worked. Now if I can just get rid of
> this Nepomuk thingy that pops up a bit after I login to KDE.

You disable that in System Settings.  There's an icon for it there.  Or, 
you build KDE with "-semantic-desktop" in your make.conf, which builds 
KDE without it.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Marius Vaitiekunas]

Hi,

Maybe, a little OT.
Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
Thank You!

-- 
mv

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/11/2011 03:16 PM, Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe, a little OT.
> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
> completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
> Thank You!

/etc/env.d/02locale.  Here, it looks like this:

   LC_ALL="en_US.UTF-8"
   LANG="en_US.UTF-8"

Replace "en_US" with your own country code, but leave the ".UTF-8" as it 
is.  You will need to run "env-update" (as root) after you modify the file.

The second file is /etc/locale.gen.  On my system:

   en_US ISO-8859-1
   en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8

I don't know why I have the first line there.  I guess it's a fallback. 
  The second line must be the same as what you used in env.d/02locale, 
with " UTF-8" appended to it.  After you change that file, you must 
rebuild sys-libs/glibc.

There's also /etc/conf.d/consolefont, but you shouldn't need to change 
anything in that one.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 615 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:33:02 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

> The second file is /etc/locale.gen.  On my system:
> 
>    en_US ISO-8859-1
>    en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8
> 
> I don't know why I have the first line there.  I guess it's a fallback. 
>   The second line must be the same as what you used in env.d/02locale, 
> with " UTF-8" appended to it.  After you change that file, you must 
> rebuild sys-libs/glibc.

You don't need to rebuild glibc, just run locale-gen.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

When you finally buy enough memory, you will not have enough disk space.
 -- Murphy's Computer Laws n\xB03

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 389 bytes --]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:33:02PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 03:16 PM, Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
> /etc/env.d/02locale.  Here, it looks like this:
> 
>    LC_ALL="en_US.UTF-8"
>    LANG="en_US.UTF-8"

It is not recommended that you set LC_ALL in startup files at all, just
lang.

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe, a little OT.
> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
> completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
> Thank You!
>
>    

This is how I did mine.

root@fireball / # cat /etc/make.conf | grep utf
LC_ALL="en_US.utf8"
root@fireball / #

I think that is all I did.  Then again, it seems I had to run some 
command but can't recall it.

That help?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Marius Vaitiekunas]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe, a little OT.
>> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
>> completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
>> Thank You!
>>
>>
>
> This is how I did mine.
>
> root@fireball / # cat /etc/make.conf | grep utf
> LC_ALL="en_US.utf8"
> root@fireball / #
>
> I think that is all I did.  Then again, it seems I had to run some command
> but can't recall it.
>
> That help?
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

Thank you both for answers. I have some problems with GD library and
unicode. As I can see from your posts nothing changed in baselayout-2.
There is some more info, if it is not outdated:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/utf-8.xml

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/11/2011 03:33 PM, Dale wrote:
> Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe, a little OT.
>> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
>> completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
>> Thank You!
>>
>
> This is how I did mine.
>
> root@fireball / # cat /etc/make.conf | grep utf
> LC_ALL="en_US.utf8"
> root@fireball / #
>
> I think that is all I did.

Two issues.  First, LC_ALL does not belong in make.conf.  It belongs in 
/etc/env.d/02locale.  Second, "en_US.utf8" is not correct.  It's 
"en_US.UTF-8".  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 03:33 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Maybe, a little OT.
>>> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
>>> completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
>>> Thank You!
>>>
>>
>> This is how I did mine.
>>
>> root@fireball / # cat /etc/make.conf | grep utf
>> LC_ALL="en_US.utf8"
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> I think that is all I did.
>
> Two issues.  First, LC_ALL does not belong in make.conf.  It belongs 
> in /etc/env.d/02locale.  Second, "en_US.utf8" is not correct.  It's 
> "en_US.UTF-8".  :-)
>
>
>

Funny that it seems to work.  I don't have that file:

root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
cat: /etc/env.d/02locale: No such file or directory
root@fireball / #

But I do have this one:

root@fireball / # cat /etc/locale.gen
# /etc/locale.gen: list all of the locales you want to have on your system
#
# The format of each line:
# <locale> <charmap>
#
# Where <locale> is a locale located in /usr/share/i18n/locales/ and
# where <charmap> is a charmap located in /usr/share/i18n/charmaps/.
#
# All blank lines and lines starting with # are ignored.
#
# For the default list of supported combinations, see the file:
# /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED
#
# Whenever glibc is emerged, the locales listed here will be automatically
# rebuilt for you.  After updating this file, you can simply run 
`locale-gen`
# yourself instead of re-emerging glibc.

en_US ISO-8859-1
en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8
#ja_JP.EUC-JP EUC-JP
#ja_JP.UTF-8 UTF-8
#ja_JP EUC-JP
#en_HK ISO-8859-1
#en_PH ISO-8859-1
#de_DE ISO-8859-1
#de_DE@euro ISO-8859-15
#es_MX ISO-8859-1
#fa_IR UTF-8
#fr_FR ISO-8859-1
#fr_FR@euro ISO-8859-15
#it_IT ISO-8859-1
root@fireball / #


I followed a guide when I did mine which is why I don't recall most of 
it.  On this rig, it wasn't to long ago.  My old rig has even older 
config files.  That install is about 6 pr 7 years old if I recall 
correctly.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/11/2011 04:40 PM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 05/11/2011 03:33 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
>>>> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system to be
>>>> completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?
>>>> Thank You!
>>>
>>> This is how I did mine.
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # cat /etc/make.conf | grep utf
>>> LC_ALL="en_US.utf8"
>>> root@fireball / #
>>>
>>> I think that is all I did.
>>
>> Two issues. First, LC_ALL does not belong in make.conf. It belongs in
>> /etc/env.d/02locale. Second, "en_US.utf8" is not correct. It's
>> "en_US.UTF-8". :-)
>
> Funny that it seems to work. I don't have that file:
>
> root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
> cat: /etc/env.d/02locale: No such file or directory
> root@fireball / #

Maybe the "02" prefix is random.  Try:

   grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*

But fact it, whatever you put in /etc/make.conf is for portage, and 
portage only.  If you define LC_ALL in make.conf, then the only software 
that will use that definition is portage itself (like the "emerge" tool.)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 04:40 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>> Funny that it seems to work. I don't have that file:
>>
>> root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
>> cat: /etc/env.d/02locale: No such file or directory
>> root@fireball / #
>
> Maybe the "02" prefix is random.  Try:
>
>   grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
>
> But fact it, whatever you put in /etc/make.conf is for portage, and 
> portage only.  If you define LC_ALL in make.conf, then the only 
> software that will use that definition is portage itself (like the 
> "emerge" tool.)
>
>

That was quick:

root@fireball / # grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
root@fireball / #

Guess that is not in env.d anywhere.  :/

I know that is what make.conf is for but when I did it, I followed a 
guide, that was one of the places it said to put it.  It may have 
changed but I didn't put it there just because I was froggy.  Something 
told me to put it there.  Now to figure out the new way.  I think Mike 
posted a link to a guide that I need to check out.  :-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/11/2011 06:42 PM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 05/11/2011 04:40 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny that it seems to work. I don't have that file:
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
>>> cat: /etc/env.d/02locale: No such file or directory
>>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Maybe the "02" prefix is random. Try:
>>
>> grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
>>
>> But fact it, whatever you put in /etc/make.conf is for portage, and
>> portage only. If you define LC_ALL in make.conf, then the only
>> software that will use that definition is portage itself (like the
>> "emerge" tool.)
>>
>>
>
> That was quick:
>
> root@fireball / # grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
> root@fireball / #
>
> Guess that is not in env.d anywhere. :/

Then I guess you can create it on your own.  See:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml#doc_chap3

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/11/2011 06:53 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 06:42 PM, Dale wrote:
>> That was quick:
>>
>> root@fireball / # grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Guess that is not in env.d anywhere. :/
>
> Then I guess you can create it on your own. See:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml#doc_chap3

Heh, according to the guide I linked to, setting LC_ALL is a bad idea 
:-D  So I guess the grep should have been:

   grep LANG /etc/env.d/*

And the contents of 02locale (or something else in case the grep above 
finds some other *locale file) should be:

   LANG="en_US.UTF-8"
   LC_COLLATE="C"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 06:53 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 05/11/2011 06:42 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> That was quick:
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
>>> root@fireball / #
>>>
>>> Guess that is not in env.d anywhere. :/
>>
>> Then I guess you can create it on your own. See:
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml#doc_chap3
>
> Heh, according to the guide I linked to, setting LC_ALL is a bad idea 
> :-D  So I guess the grep should have been:
>
>   grep LANG /etc/env.d/*
>
> And the contents of 02locale (or something else in case the grep above 
> finds some other *locale file) should be:
>
>   LANG="en_US.UTF-8"
>   LC_COLLATE="C"
>
>
>

I think something has changed.  This is Gentoo after all.  Things are 
always being changed, usually for the better.  This is funny tho:

root@fireball / # grep LANG /etc/env.d/*
root@fireball / #

Then I get this:

root@fireball / # locale -a
C
POSIX
en_US
en_US.iso88591
en_US.utf8
root@fireball / # locale
LANG=
LC_CTYPE="POSIX"
LC_NUMERIC="POSIX"
LC_TIME="POSIX"
LC_COLLATE="POSIX"
LC_MONETARY="POSIX"
LC_MESSAGES="POSIX"
LC_PAPER="POSIX"
LC_NAME="POSIX"
LC_ADDRESS="POSIX"
LC_TELEPHONE="POSIX"
LC_MEASUREMENT="POSIX"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="POSIX"
LC_ALL=
root@fireball / #


I'm trying to work through the guides but it's difficult to undo 
something then redo it.

< me thinking >  Be careful I may sling a rod or something.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/11/2011 12:54 PM, Dale wrote:

> root@fireball / # locale -a
> C
> POSIX
> en_US
> en_US.iso88591
> en_US.utf8

So you have three locales installed (C and POSIX are internal and always
present) that are the same language and region with different character
sets. You probably don't need to do this anymore, since most every
modern application can handle UTF-8 character data and, even if it
can't, UTF-8 data looks identical to US-ASCII data for most English
language text.

> root@fireball / # locale
> LANG=
> LC_CTYPE="POSIX"
> LC_NUMERIC="POSIX"
> LC_TIME="POSIX"
> LC_COLLATE="POSIX"
> LC_MONETARY="POSIX"
> LC_MESSAGES="POSIX"
> LC_PAPER="POSIX"
> LC_NAME="POSIX"
> LC_ADDRESS="POSIX"
> LC_TELEPHONE="POSIX"
> LC_MEASUREMENT="POSIX"
> LC_IDENTIFICATION="POSIX"
> LC_ALL=
> root@fireball / #

This means that your UTF-8 setup is clearly *not* working :) Your locale
is not being set anywhere, it's using the glibc default of POSIX. POSIX
is approximately equal to en_US as far as date/time, sorting, etc. but
lacks most of the numeric formatting (no currency symbol, no thousands
separator, etc). It's also using the default US-ASCII character set.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
> This means that your UTF-8 setup is clearly *not* working :) Your locale
> is not being set anywhere, it's using the glibc default of POSIX. POSIX
> is approximately equal to en_US as far as date/time, sorting, etc. but
> lacks most of the numeric formatting (no currency symbol, no thousands
> separator, etc). It's also using the default US-ASCII character set.
>
> --Mike
>
>
>    

Does this look more better?

root@fireball / # locale
LANG=en_US.UTF8
LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF8"
LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF8"
LC_TIME="en_US.UTF8"
LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF8"
LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF8"
LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF8"
LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"
LC_ALL=
root@fireball / # locale -a
C
en_US
en_US.iso88591
en_US.utf8
POSIX
root@fireball / #

LC_PAPER, is that like paper in my printer?  What the heck does it want 
my phone number, address and other stuff for?  Some of that I get but 
some is just plain nosy.  O_O

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/11/2011 6:51 PM, Dale wrote:

> Does this look more better?
>
> root@fireball / # locale
> LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"

> LC_PAPER, is that like paper in my printer? What the heck
> does it want my phone number, address and other stuff for?
> Some of that I get but some is just plain nosy. O_O

These are all proposed, but ultimately rejected, POSIX 
extensions to hold other standard, region-specific settings. 
glibc grabbed onto them when the latest POSIX was still in 
draft status and implemented them.

LC_PAPER is one of a few places that holds the default paper 
sizes (I think Debian has an /etc/papersize or some such). 
It's kinda silly, since "en_US" isn't a paper size, but 
roughly speaking, en_US = "8.5x11 letter" and everything 
else = "A4".

The others are for tracking: proper name format (e.g. family 
name first or last); postal address format; telephone number 
format (local, international, etc); units of measurement 
(imperial vs. metric); and the standards that govern the 
rest of the formats.  Support for them is pretty sketchy and 
you can probably safely ignore them :)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 6:51 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>> Does this look more better?
>>
>> root@fireball / # locale
>> LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"
>
>> LC_PAPER, is that like paper in my printer? What the heck
>> does it want my phone number, address and other stuff for?
>> Some of that I get but some is just plain nosy. O_O
>
> These are all proposed, but ultimately rejected, POSIX extensions to 
> hold other standard, region-specific settings. glibc grabbed onto them 
> when the latest POSIX was still in draft status and implemented them.
>
> LC_PAPER is one of a few places that holds the default paper sizes (I 
> think Debian has an /etc/papersize or some such). It's kinda silly, 
> since "en_US" isn't a paper size, but roughly speaking, en_US = 
> "8.5x11 letter" and everything else = "A4".
>
> The others are for tracking: proper name format (e.g. family name 
> first or last); postal address format; telephone number format (local, 
> international, etc); units of measurement (imperial vs. metric); and 
> the standards that govern the rest of the formats.  Support for them 
> is pretty sketchy and you can probably safely ignore them :)
>
> --Mike
>
>

I wouldn't mind setting them myself.  It may not matter much right now 
but we all know how things change.  Going to see what Google can find.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/12/2011 5:21 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> On 5/11/2011 6:51 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> Does this look more better?
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # locale
>>> LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
>>> LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
>>> LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
>>> LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
>>> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
>>> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"

>> The others are for tracking: proper name format (e.g.
>> family name first or last); postal address format;
>> telephone number format (local, international, etc); units
>> of measurement (imperial vs. metric); and the standards
>> that govern the rest of the formats. Support for them is
>> pretty sketchy and you can probably safely ignore them :)

> I wouldn't mind setting them myself. It may not matter much
> right now but we all know how things change. Going to see
> what Google can find.

They're already set, as your locale output showed :) The 
definitions of those various formats are built into the 
locale definitions, so they should have the same value as 
all your other LC_* variables.

You can see your locale's idea of what those things mean in 
the localedef file (bring alone a Unicode character chart):

    /usr/share/i18n/locale/en_US

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
> They're already set, as your locale output showed :) The definitions 
> of those various formats are built into the locale definitions, so 
> they should have the same value as all your other LC_* variables.
>
> You can see your locale's idea of what those things mean in the 
> localedef file (bring alone a Unicode character chart):
>
>    /usr/share/i18n/locale/en_US
>
> --Mike
>
>

Ahhhh, I see.  It sort of does like portage's profile.  It points to a 
file where everything is config'd at.  Kewl !!

Now I wonder why PAPER is config'd as mm instead of inches.  lol

Thanks.  Looks like I got everything set correctly, until it changes 
again.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/11/2011 12:02 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 06:53 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 05/11/2011 06:42 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> That was quick:
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # grep LC_ALL /etc/env.d/*
>>> root@fireball / #
>>>
>>> Guess that is not in env.d anywhere. :/
>>
>> Then I guess you can create it on your own. See:
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/guide-localization.xml#doc_chap3
> 
> Heh, according to the guide I linked to, setting LC_ALL is a bad idea
> :-D  So I guess the grep should have been:

The only problem with LC_ALL is that it overrides all of the other LC_*
variables. When looking for locale information for a given category, the
order is:

LC_ALL -> LC_{COLLATE|CTYPE|MESSAGES|TIME|NUMERIC|MONETARY} -> LANG

(glibc adds a bunch of other LC_* variables from a POSIX draft that
never got formalized.)

Setting just LANG= and setting just LC_ALL= have the same ultimate
result: every localization category uses the same locale. The difference
is that setting LC_ALL means you can't turn around and redefine, say,
just LC_TIME to use some other locale's format.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 22:14:55 Mike Edenfield wrote:

> The only problem with LC_ALL is that it overrides all of the other LC_*
> variables.

- which is precisely what most ordinary desktop users want. In such a case it's 
a useful shorthand. Personally, I have no intention of ever allowing US 
"English" to pollute any of my boxes (no offence meant to anyone here), so 
LC_ALL="en_GB.UTF-8" suits me (so far - until I trip over something!).

> Setting just LANG= and setting just LC_ALL= have the same ultimate result:
> every localization category uses the same locale.

I knew a manager some years ago* who tried hard to persuade his bosses that he 
could be in two places at once - he even had two fish-huts! He was usually to be 
found in the same time-zone though, for all that.

> The difference is that setting LC_ALL means you can't turn around and redefine,
> say, just LC_TIME to use some other locale's format.

This isn't going to be the majority case though, is it? I'm not talking about 
globe-trotting laptops here; just your ordinary desktop box.

You can tell from my tone, I hope, that I'm only half-serious, but still I can't 
see why the simple approach should be frowned on so severely. What practical 
benefit do I lose by setting LC_ALL once and for all? This machine has been in 
the same place all its life, and I'm confident that won't change. The same 
applies to my other machines. I say it's time for document writers to recognise 
two cases explicitly: static machines and mobile ones.

* He worked 24 hours/day for a mainframe system integrator near Minneapolis. 
That didn't stop it going down the pan when its marketing department failed to 
see the direction of the prevailing wind in its most important contract ever.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/11/2011 7:31 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2011 22:14:55 Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
>> The only problem with LC_ALL is that it overrides all of the other LC_*
>> variables.
>
> - which is precisely what most ordinary desktop users want. In such a case it's
> a useful shorthand. Personally, I have no intention of ever allowing US
> "English" to pollute any of my boxes (no offence meant to anyone here), so
> LC_ALL="en_GB.UTF-8" suits me (so far - until I trip over something!).

That was actually my point. I set LC_ALL in 02locale on my 
workstations/laptops, and so far I haven't had any need to 
change it. IMO, LC_ALL makes much more sense than LANG for 
the "catch-all LC_* variable name" so that's what I use.

On a multi-user box, I would probably make a different choice.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Stroller]

On 12/5/2011, at 12:31am, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> On Wednesday 11 May 2011 22:14:55 Mike Edenfield wrote:
> 
>> The only problem with LC_ALL is that it overrides all of the other LC_*
>> variables.
> 
> - which is precisely what most ordinary desktop users want.

No, I think they want all locale variables to be right. That may be achieved by setting LC_ALL, but you are advised, I believe, to set only LANG. You haven't justified why LC_ALL is better.

> ... Personally, I have no intention of ever allowing US 
> "English" to pollute any of my boxes (no offence meant to anyone here), so 
> LC_ALL="en_GB.UTF-8" suits me (so far - until I trip over something!).

Could you possibly post the output of `date +"%l:%M%P"`?

In doing so you'd be doing me a favour.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Stroller wrote:
> `date +"%l:%M%P"`

Here's mine:

root@fireball / # date +"%l:%M%P"
12:19pm
root@fireball / #

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 May 2011 18:20:15 Dale wrote:
> Stroller wrote:
> > `date +"%l:%M%P"`
> 
> Here's mine:
> 
> root@fireball / # date +"%l:%M%P"
> 12:19pm
> root@fireball / #
> 
> Dale


$ date +"%l:%M%P"
 9:23

$ locale
LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
LC_CTYPE="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_NUMERIC="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_TIME="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_COLLATE="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_MONETARY="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_MESSAGES="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_PAPER="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_NAME="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_ADDRESS="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_TELEPHONE="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_ALL=en_GB.UTF-8

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Stroller]

On 12/5/2011, at 6:20pm, Dale wrote:

> Stroller wrote:
>> `date +"%l:%M%P"`
> 
> Here's mine:
> 
> root@fireball / # date +"%l:%M%P"
> 12:19pm
> root@fireball / #

And what are your locale settings?

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Stroller wrote:
> On 12/5/2011, at 6:20pm, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> Stroller wrote:
>>      
>>> `date +"%l:%M%P"`
>>>        
>> Here's mine:
>>
>> root@fireball / # date +"%l:%M%P"
>> 12:19pm
>> root@fireball / #
>>      
> And what are your locale settings?
>
> Stroller.
>
>
>
>    
root@fireball / # locale
LANG=en_US.UTF8
LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF8"
LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF8"
LC_TIME="en_US.UTF8"
LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF8"
LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF8"
LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF8"
LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"
LC_ALL=en_US.UTF8
root@fireball / # locale -a
C
en_US
en_US.iso88591
en_US.utf8
POSIX
root@fireball / #

That what you was needing?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Stroller]

On 12/5/2011, at 11:57pm, Dale wrote:

> Stroller wrote:
>> On 12/5/2011, at 6:20pm, Dale wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Stroller wrote:
>>>     
>>>> `date +"%l:%M%P"`
>>>>       
>>> Here's mine:
>>> 
>>> root@fireball / # date +"%l:%M%P"
>>> 12:19pm
>>> root@fireball / #
>>>     
>> And what are your locale settings?
>> 
>> Stroller.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
> root@fireball / # locale
> LANG=en_US.UTF8
> LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_TIME="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_ALL=en_US.UTF8
> root@fireball / # locale -a
> C
> en_US
> en_US.iso88591
> en_US.utf8
> POSIX
> root@fireball / #
> 
> That what you was needing?


I'm more interested in what you put into /etc/env.d/02locale (or the equivalent for baselayout2).

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Stroller wrote:
> On 12/5/2011, at 11:57pm, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> root@fireball / # locale
>> LANG=en_US.UTF8
>> LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_TIME="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"
>> LC_ALL=en_US.UTF8
>> root@fireball / # locale -a
>> C
>> en_US
>> en_US.iso88591
>> en_US.utf8
>> POSIX
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> That what you was needing?
>>      
>
> I'm more interested in what you put into /etc/env.d/02locale (or the equivalent for baselayout2).
>
> Stroller.
>
>    

Here you go:

root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
LANG="en_US.UTF8"
LC_ALL="en_US.UTF8"
root@fireball / #

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1461 bytes --]

On Friday 13 May 2011 14:26:27 Dale wrote:
> Stroller wrote:
> > On 12/5/2011, at 11:57pm, Dale wrote:
> >> root@fireball / # locale
> >> LANG=en_US.UTF8
> >> LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_TIME="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_NAME="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF8"
> >> LC_ALL=en_US.UTF8
> >> root@fireball / # locale -a
> >> C
> >> en_US
> >> en_US.iso88591
> >> en_US.utf8
> >> POSIX
> >> root@fireball / #
> >> 
> >> That what you was needing?
> > 
> > I'm more interested in what you put into /etc/env.d/02locale (or the
> > equivalent for baselayout2).
> > 
> > Stroller.
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
> LANG="en_US.UTF8"
> LC_ALL="en_US.UTF8"
> root@fireball / #
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Here's mine if you want to compare with my previously sent output:

$ cat /etc/env.d/02locale 
LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_CTYPE="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_NUMERIC="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_TIME="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_COLLATE="C"
LC_MONETARY="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_MESSAGES="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_PAPER="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_NAME="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_ADDRESS="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_TELEPHONE="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_GB.UTF-8"
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 462 bytes --]

Hi Mick,

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 08:27:16PM +0100, Mick wrote:
> Here's mine if you want to compare with my previously sent output:
> 
> $ cat /etc/env.d/02locale 
> LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"

*snip*

This is all you need.

> LC_CTYPE="en_GB.UTF-8"

Or, If you are running a multi user system and do not want to force your
other users into your language, you can use this line. It forces UTF-8
characters but does not force the language.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Stroller]

On 13/5/2011, at 8:27pm, Mick wrote:
> ...
> Here's mine if you want to compare with my previously sent output:
> 
> $ cat /etc/env.d/02locale 
> LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_CTYPE="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_NUMERIC="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_TIME="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_COLLATE="C"
> LC_MONETARY="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_MESSAGES="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_PAPER="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_NAME="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_ADDRESS="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_TELEPHONE="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_MEASUREMENT="en_GB.UTF-8"
> LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_GB.UTF-8"

If you have LANG set, then there's no need to set any of the others to the same locale.

If you set LC_TIME="POSIX" then am / pm will display correctly. 

I.E.:

$ cat /etc/env.d/02locale 
LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"
LC_TIME="POSIX"
$  

The necessity for this is a glibc bug:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3768
This does, however, show the value of setting LANG over LC_ALL (it being impossible, as discussed, to override the latter).

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 12 May 2011 18:06:27 Stroller wrote:

> Could you possibly post the output of `date +"%l:%M%P"`?
> 
> In doing so you'd be doing me a favour.

$ date +"%l:%M%P"
 8:39

That's the wall-clock time (p.m.) in my local time-zone. What Americans call 
daylight savings time, though how they imagine any time is saved I don't know.

Again:  :)

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Stroller]

On 12/5/2011, at 8:41pm, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> On Thursday 12 May 2011 18:06:27 Stroller wrote:
> 
>> Could you possibly post the output of `date +"%l:%M%P"`?
>> 
>> In doing so you'd be doing me a favour.
> 
> $ date +"%l:%M%P"
> 8:39
> 
> That's the wall-clock time (p.m.) in my local time-zone. What Americans call 
> daylight savings time, though how they imagine any time is saved I don't know.

From `man date`:

       %l     hour ( 1..12)

...
       %M     minute (00..59)
...

       %p     locale's equivalent of either AM or PM; blank if not known

       %P     like %p, but lower case

I'd be curious to compare with the output of `date +"%r"` on your system, but you probably actually want to set:

  LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"
  LC_TIME="POSIX"

in order to get the correct results.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 May 2011 22:48:04 Stroller wrote:
> On 12/5/2011, at 8:41pm, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 May 2011 18:06:27 Stroller wrote:
> >> Could you possibly post the output of `date +"%l:%M%P"`?
> >> 
> >> In doing so you'd be doing me a favour.
> > 
> > $ date +"%l:%M%P"
> > 8:39
> > 
> > That's the wall-clock time (p.m.) in my local time-zone. What Americans
> > call daylight savings time, though how they imagine any time is saved I
> > don't know.
> 
> From `man date`:
> 
>        %l     hour ( 1..12)
> 
> ...
>        %M     minute (00..59)
> ...
> 
>        %p     locale's equivalent of either AM or PM; blank if not known
> 
>        %P     like %p, but lower case
> 
> I'd be curious to compare with the output of `date +"%r"` on your system,
> but you probably actually want to set:
> 
>   LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"
>   LC_TIME="POSIX"
> 
> in order to get the correct results.

Hmm ... I've just set my locale as you suggest and get:

$ date +"%l:%M%P"
 8:29

(it's 20:29 right now)

and 

$ date +"%r"
08:31:28

Shouldn't the former say pm at the end?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Stroller]

On 13/5/2011, at 8:32pm, Mick wrote:
>>> ...
>>> $ date +"%l:%M%P"
>>> 8:39
>>> 
>>> That's the wall-clock time (p.m.) in my local time-zone. What Americans
>>> call daylight savings time, though how they imagine any time is saved I
>>> don't know.
>> 
>> From `man date`:
>> 
>>       %l     hour ( 1..12)
>> 
>> ...
>>       %M     minute (00..59)
>> ...
>> 
>>       %p     locale's equivalent of either AM or PM; blank if not known
>> 
>>       %P     like %p, but lower case
>> 
>> I'd be curious to compare with the output of `date +"%r"` on your system,
>> but you probably actually want to set:
>> 
>>  LANG="en_GB.UTF-8"
>>  LC_TIME="POSIX"
>> 
>> in order to get the correct results.
> 
> Hmm ... I've just set my locale as you suggest and get:
> 
> $ date +"%l:%M%P"
> 8:29
> 
> (it's 20:29 right now)
> 
> and 
> 
> $ date +"%r"
> 08:31:28

Sorry, didn't see this message before sending my reply to your previous one. 

Yes, it should say "pm" at the end, but did you reboot before checking?

I believe these are sourced at startup in a way that renders this necessary.

You *may* be able to `export LC_TIME="POSIX"` in a shell, but I won't swear to it.

Stroller.

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[che]

Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> writes:

> On Wednesday 11 May 2011 22:14:55 Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
>> The only problem with LC_ALL is that it overrides all of the other LC_*
>> variables.
>
> - which is precisely what most ordinary desktop users want.

Most perhaps, but certainly not all. For me it's important that swedish
charaters is usable, that åäö is sorted correctly, and that uppercase å
is Å, so that case-insensitiv searches works.  But it's equally
important for me to have messages in english, so I have LANG=sv_SE.utf8,
but LC_MESSAGES=C

--
 Christer

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/11/2011 9:40 AM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 05/11/2011 03:33 PM, Dale wrote:

>>> root@fireball / # cat /etc/make.conf | grep utf
>>> LC_ALL="en_US.utf8"
>>> root@fireball / #

Putting your LC_* values in make.conf means they're only going to apply
when you are building things, and not in everyday use.  If it's working,
you either haven't had to do anything where UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1 would
produce different results, or you have LC_* or LANG defined somewhere
else :)

>> Two issues.  First, LC_ALL does not belong in make.conf.  It belongs
>> in /etc/env.d/02locale.  Second, "en_US.utf8" is not correct.  It's
>> "en_US.UTF-8".  :-)

For whatever reason, the generated locale names (as visible by locale(1)
for example) get this wrong, which is why either variation selects the
correct locale definition:

kutulu@basement ~ $ locale -a
C
en_US.utf8
POSIX

It's particularly odd, since the charmap file is correctly named UTF-8
and you need to pass "-f UTF-8" to localedef to generate them. :\

> Funny that it seems to work.  I don't have that file:
> 
> root@fireball / # cat /etc/env.d/02locale
> cat: /etc/env.d/02locale: No such file or directory
> root@fireball / #

You need to create the /etc/env.d/02locale file yourself; the name is
just the "generally accepted" one most systems use.

> But I do have this one:
> 
> root@fireball / # cat /etc/locale.gen
[...]
> en_US ISO-8859-1
> en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8

This file is only used when you run locale-gen and/or rebuild glibc
(which, in turn, runs locale-gen). It dictates whichs locales get built
and installed, but not which one of those is used by default.

> I followed a guide when I did mine which is why I don't recall most of
> it.  On this rig, it wasn't to long ago.  My old rig has even older
> config files.  That install is about 6 pr 7 years old if I recall
> correctly.

The guide you probably should be following is:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/utf-8.xml

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Philip Webb]

110511 Marius Vaitiekunas wrote:
> Could anybody tell me, how to make gentoo baselayout-2 system
> to be completely unicode utf-8? Which config files I should modify?

In  ~/.bashrc  &  /root/.bashrc  I have

  LANG=en_US.UTF-8

Amend for your local language, if you wish.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 02:50 AM, Dale wrote:
>> [...]
>> What do you know, I upgraded and it worked. Now if I can just get rid of
>> this Nepomuk thingy that pops up a bit after I login to KDE.
>
> You disable that in System Settings.  There's an icon for it there.  
> Or, you build KDE with "-semantic-desktop" in your make.conf, which 
> builds KDE without it.
>
>

This is odd.  I thought I turned that off before but figured maybe a 
config update turned it back on.  I just checked, it is turned off.  
That thing just won't die.  lol

I do have the USE flag enabled.  I read somewhere that turning the flag 
off gets rid of a lot of stuff, some that I use on occasion.  Has that 
changed?   We all know the USE flag descriptions don't always shed much 
light on the real use of it.  ;-)

Maybe it will give up one day and just go away.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 15:45 on Wednesday 11 May 2011, Dale did opine 
thusly:

> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 05/11/2011 02:50 AM, Dale wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What do you know, I upgraded and it worked. Now if I can just get rid of
> >> this Nepomuk thingy that pops up a bit after I login to KDE.
> > 
> > You disable that in System Settings.  There's an icon for it there.
> > Or, you build KDE with "-semantic-desktop" in your make.conf, which
> > builds KDE without it.
> 
> This is odd.  I thought I turned that off before but figured maybe a
> config update turned it back on.  I just checked, it is turned off.
> That thing just won't die.  lol
> 
> I do have the USE flag enabled.  I read somewhere that turning the flag
> off gets rid of a lot of stuff, some that I use on occasion.  Has that
> changed?   We all know the USE flag descriptions don't always shed much
> light on the real use of it.  ;-)
> 
> Maybe it will give up one day and just go away.

You can't disable USE="semantic-desktop"

Parts of KDE don't (or soon won't) build at all without the configure options 
it provides. In other words, it's a gentoo thing and completely unsupported by 
KDE. Get used to having it enabled.

It uses hardly any cpu at all, regardless of what the naysayers say. But that 
popup should not be happening, mine disappeared two revisions ago. The 
solution is in kde's bugzilla somewhere, you will have to search for it.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mick]

On 11 May 2011 15:43, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 15:45 on Wednesday 11 May 2011, Dale did opine
> thusly:
>
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> > On 05/11/2011 02:50 AM, Dale wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> What do you know, I upgraded and it worked. Now if I can just get rid of
>> >> this Nepomuk thingy that pops up a bit after I login to KDE.
>> >
>> > You disable that in System Settings.  There's an icon for it there.
>> > Or, you build KDE with "-semantic-desktop" in your make.conf, which
>> > builds KDE without it.
>>
>> This is odd.  I thought I turned that off before but figured maybe a
>> config update turned it back on.  I just checked, it is turned off.
>> That thing just won't die.  lol
>>
>> I do have the USE flag enabled.  I read somewhere that turning the flag
>> off gets rid of a lot of stuff, some that I use on occasion.  Has that
>> changed?   We all know the USE flag descriptions don't always shed much
>> light on the real use of it.  ;-)
>>
>> Maybe it will give up one day and just go away.
>
> You can't disable USE="semantic-desktop"
>
> Parts of KDE don't (or soon won't) build at all without the configure options
> it provides. In other words, it's a gentoo thing and completely unsupported by
> KDE. Get used to having it enabled.

Tis true, if you try to build kdepim-meta it'll go into a fit, because
some package therein won't build without semantic-desktop.  I had to
put mine back.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --]

Am 10.05.2011 23:55, schrieb Dale:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice. 
> List issues if you had any.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

I've followed the official documentation and had no problems. Well ... I
sometimes had a problem with a parts of /etc/rc.conf being ignored but
that is specific to my fiddling with it and I've never tracked it down
far enough to open a bug for it.

All at all, I don't think you have to expect trouble as long as you rtfm.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>

IMO if you read the guide through before starting, and follow it during
implementation, you will be fine.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml

That is, it works if you do it properly :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 781 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Manuel McLure]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.

On my dedicated MythTV box, the major problem I had was that neither
net.eth0 nor net.eth1 started up once I deleted /etc/conf.d/rc and
went to /etc/rc.conf. This is possibly due to the hotplug settings
which IMHO weren't clear in /etc/rc.conf. Fixed by simply adding
net.eth0 and net.eth1 to the default runlevel and everything is fine
now.

I think that a guide specifying exactly how to migrate from
/etc/conf.d/rc to rc.conf, setting by setting, would be good. "Please
read through /etc/rc.conf and /etc/conf.d/rc and migrate the settings"
doesn't cut it when the syntax and semantics of some settings are so
different. Also, I'm accustomed to having configuration files show the
default value commented out, but for example in this case the
commented out value was

#rc_hotplug="*"

which was the exact opposite of the default which is "!*".
-- 
Manuel A. McLure WW1FA <manuel@mclure.org> <http://www.mclure.org>
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
no man may kill a cat.                       -- H.P. Lovecraft

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Leonardo Guilherme]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1579 bytes --]

Works without a flaw. x86 here.

Leonardo


2011/5/10 Manuel McLure <manuel@mclure.org>

> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> have
> > done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?
>  I'm
> > mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a
> simple
> > works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had
> any.
>
> On my dedicated MythTV box, the major problem I had was that neither
> net.eth0 nor net.eth1 started up once I deleted /etc/conf.d/rc and
> went to /etc/rc.conf. This is possibly due to the hotplug settings
> which IMHO weren't clear in /etc/rc.conf. Fixed by simply adding
> net.eth0 and net.eth1 to the default runlevel and everything is fine
> now.
>
> I think that a guide specifying exactly how to migrate from
> /etc/conf.d/rc to rc.conf, setting by setting, would be good. "Please
> read through /etc/rc.conf and /etc/conf.d/rc and migrate the settings"
> doesn't cut it when the syntax and semantics of some settings are so
> different. Also, I'm accustomed to having configuration files show the
> default value commented out, but for example in this case the
> commented out value was
>
> #rc_hotplug="*"
>
> which was the exact opposite of the default which is "!*".
> --
> Manuel A. McLure WW1FA <manuel@mclure.org> <http://www.mclure.org>
> ...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
> no man may kill a cat.                       -- H.P. Lovecraft
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2228 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:55:01PM -0500, Dale wrote
> Hi folks,
> 
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that 
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there 
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I 
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  
> List issues if you had any.

  I had one syntax error that totally broke networking on my amd64
stable..  Fortunately, I hadn't upgrade my hot backup machine <G>.  I
had simply removed the bash parentheses in /etc/conf.d/net and got...

config_eth0=
"192.168.123.249/29 broadcast 192.168.123.255 mtu 1454
169.254.1.3/16 broadcast 169.254.255.255"
routes_eth0=
"default via 192.168.123.254 metric 2
192.168.123.248/29 via 192.168.123.254 metric 0
169.254.0.0/16 via 169.254.1.3 metric 0"

  The result was "no network for you".  Moving the opening quote to
immediately after the equals sign (for both config_eth0 and routes_eth0)
fixed that, like so...

config_eth0="
192.168.123.249/29 broadcast 192.168.123.255 mtu 1454
169.254.1.3/16 broadcast 169.254.255.255"
routes_eth0="
default via 192.168.123.254 metric 2
192.168.123.248/29 via 192.168.123.254 metric 0
169.254.0.0/16 via 169.254.1.3 metric 0"

  A big thank you to William Hubbs for spotting that error.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Walter Dnes]

  Possibly one more problem, rdate seems to have stopped working for me.
I've opened a separate thread on that.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:56:05PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote
> Possibly one more problem, rdate seems to have stopped working for me.
> I've opened a separate thread on that.

  Not really.  It seems that rdate is being dprecated in favour of NTP.
I found an rdate server, but will eventually switch to ntpd I suppose.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:56:05PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote
>    
>> Possibly one more problem, rdate seems to have stopped working for me.
>> I've opened a separate thread on that.
>>      
>    Not really.  It seems that rdate is being dprecated in favour of NTP.
> I found an rdate server, but will eventually switch to ntpd I suppose.
>
>    

If ntp gives you grief, try chrony.  I use ntp on one machine where ntp 
works well and chrony on my main rig since ntp sucks on it.  Weird but 
it works.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 12 May 2011 10:23:42 Dale wrote:

> If ntp gives you grief, try chrony.  I use ntp on one machine where ntp
> works well and chrony on my main rig since ntp sucks on it.  Weird but
> it works.

I've been using chrony for years. It's a nice piece of code: it keeps the clock 
in sync, regardless of what other OSes you may run on the same box, and it makes 
gradual adjustments so as not to upset, e.g., postfix.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Philip Webb]

110510 Dale wrote:
> what's the results of the openrc update for people that have done theirs?

On amd64 here no problem, despite being half-asleep at the time.
It worried at the 2nd line of Init msgs that I hadn't set  rc_sys ,
but that was fixed when I uncommented the default  ""  in  /etc/rc.conf .
It's still worrying at shut-down that  /tmp  is in use when unmounting,
but re-assures itself that Fuser can't find any offending file.

Boot time -- 'Enter' in Lilo to login prompt in raw terminal --
has dropped  c 25 -> 15 s , a very noticeable improvement;
part of that is no delay now starting Eth0 (presumably C has replaced Bash).

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Philip Webb wrote:
> 110510 Dale wrote:
>    
>> what's the results of the openrc update for people that have done theirs?
>>      
> On amd64 here no problem, despite being half-asleep at the time.
> It worried at the 2nd line of Init msgs that I hadn't set  rc_sys ,
> but that was fixed when I uncommented the default  ""  in  /etc/rc.conf .
> It's still worrying at shut-down that  /tmp  is in use when unmounting,
> but re-assures itself that Fuser can't find any offending file.
>
> Boot time -- 'Enter' in Lilo to login prompt in raw terminal --
> has dropped  c 25 ->  15 s , a very noticeable improvement;
> part of that is no delay now starting Eth0 (presumably C has replaced Bash).
>
>    

I had noticed that my eth0 was slow to start but not always.  I'm not 
sure why it took so long but it did eventually come up.  It's connected 
by wire to a LinkSys router and most of the time, it comes up quickly 
but on occasion, it decides to take a while.

That is a good speed improvement.  I didn't notice much difference here 
tho.  Do you, or anyone else, have the parallel startup enabled?  I 
started to but noticed the warning in the config file.  Goes like this:

"# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply
# patches that fix it without breaking other things!
#rc_parallel="NO""

Sort of curious if anyone uses it and have had theirs to lock up during 
the boot up.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Philip Webb]

110511 Dale wrote:
> Do you, or anyone else, have the parallel startup enabled?
> I started to but noticed the warning in the config file.

No & for the same reason as yourself.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 May 2011 01:55:05 -0500, Dale wrote:

>  Do you, or anyone else, have the parallel startup enabled?  I 
> started to but noticed the warning in the config file.

I've tried it in the past. I didn't notice any massive speedup, but no
problems either, except that that the init messages aren't as nice,
especially when it stops to ask for my LUKS password.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

It's not who you know; it's whom you know.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 01:55:05 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>>   Do you, or anyone else, have the parallel startup enabled?  I
>> started to but noticed the warning in the config file.
>>      
> I've tried it in the past. I didn't notice any massive speedup, but no
> problems either, except that that the init messages aren't as nice,
> especially when it stops to ask for my LUKS password.
>
>    

I used it a long time ago on my old x86 machine.  I couldn't tell much 
difference either.  I didn't time it or anything but still.

I'll leave it like it is I guess.  I like all the little green OK's that 
scroll up anyway.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 272 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 May 2011 04:55:46 -0500, Dale wrote:

> I'll leave it like it is I guess.  I like all the little green OK's
> that scroll up anyway.

Reassuring, aren't they?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Meow" <SPLAT!>  "Woof" <SPLAT!>    Jeez, it's really raining today.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 04:55:46 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> I'll leave it like it is I guess.  I like all the little green OK's
>> that scroll up anyway.
>>      
> Reassuring, aren't they?
>
>
>    

What's bad is when something doesn't start for some reason and you don't 
know it didn't start.  Then things start acting weird and you get a head 
scratcher.  It's one reason I don't like the picture stuff that some 
people use that covers all that up.  Even when I boot off a USB stick or 
CD, I hit F2 or whatever to see if everything I need is seen and ready.

I wish they had a guide that points out the differences between the old 
way and the new ways.  I'm sort of poking around to see what all has 
changed.  The rc stuff changed for sure.  Some for the better tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[walt]

On 05/11/2011 03:10 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 04:55:46 -0500, Dale wrote:
> 
>> I'll leave it like it is I guess.  I like all the little green OK's
>> that scroll up anyway.
> 
> Reassuring, aren't they?

I'd like a similar system for checking my marriage.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[James Wall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On May 11, 2011 4:38 PM, "walt" <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/11/2011 03:10 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 04:55:46 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >
> >> I'll leave it like it is I guess.  I like all the little green OK's
> >> that scroll up anyway.
> >
> > Reassuring, aren't they?
>
> I'd like a similar system for checking my marriage.
>
>
+1 for the marriage checker. That would save me some headaches big time.

James Wall

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

James Wall wrote:
>
>
> On May 11, 2011 4:38 PM, "walt" <w41ter@gmail.com 
> <mailto:w41ter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/11/2011 03:10 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 May 2011 04:55:46 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'll leave it like it is I guess.  I like all the little green OK's
> > >> that scroll up anyway.
> > >
> > > Reassuring, aren't they?
> >
> > I'd like a similar system for checking my marriage.
> >
> >
> +1 for the marriage checker. That would save me some headaches big time.
>
> James Wall
>


I wish I had one before I got married.  I'm just not into druggies.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1127 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Jacques Montier]

Le 10/05/2011 23:55, Dale a écrit :
> Hi folks,
>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice. 
> List issues if you had any.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

Hi all,

After openrc and baselayout update, then RTFM, everything works fine
with amd64.

Cheers,

--
Jacques

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Fernando Antunes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>
>   It worket fine. I only lost my /etc/hosts file configuration on the
process. Probably my fault when a ran etc-update.

 I noticed a " rc_sys not configured in rc.conf message during the boot,
using automatic ... "  . Is commented rc_sys in rc.conf the default
configuration expected ?

Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1234 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Dale.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:55:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Hi folks,

> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.
> List issues if you had any.

For me, it just worked.  But it took me well over two hours, and that was
after spending several hours studying the FM (practically memorising it,
actually).  Things which threaten to make my PC unbootable have that
effect on me.

I was surprised by the number of config files which had changed (though
I was surprised not to see inittab amongst them).  I had a few problems
with consolefont and keymaps, but that probably had to do with my
converting from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8 the day before.

I take my hat off to Christian Faulhammer and William Hubbs, true
gentlemen, who took so much trouble to make a difficult transition so
smooth and easy.

> Thanks for the feedback.

> Dale

> :-)  :-)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Dale.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:55:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>    
>> Hi folks,
>>      
>    
>> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
>> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
>> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
>> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.
>> List issues if you had any.
>>      
> For me, it just worked.  But it took me well over two hours, and that was
> after spending several hours studying the FM (practically memorising it,
> actually).  Things which threaten to make my PC unbootable have that
> effect on me.
>
> I was surprised by the number of config files which had changed (though
> I was surprised not to see inittab amongst them).  I had a few problems
> with consolefont and keymaps, but that probably had to do with my
> converting from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8 the day before.
>
> I take my hat off to Christian Faulhammer and William Hubbs, true
> gentlemen, who took so much trouble to make a difficult transition so
> smooth and easy.
>
>    
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>      
>    
>> Dale
>>      
>    
>> :-)  :-)
>>      

After reading some replies here, I did mine.  It went well.  I agree, 
hats off to the folks who worked on this.  Seems like their work paid 
off very well.  I just hope everyone else's is as easy as mine.

There was a LOT of config files to update.  It appears that a LOT of it 
was done during the update tho.

I'm just glad this is done.  Sort of been dreading this.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 07:27:32 Dale wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Hi, Dale.
> > 
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:55:01PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> >> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
> >> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
> >> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.
> >> List issues if you had any.
> > 
> > For me, it just worked.  But it took me well over two hours, and that
> > was
> > after spending several hours studying the FM (practically memorising it,
> > actually).  Things which threaten to make my PC unbootable have that
> > effect on me.
> > 
> > I was surprised by the number of config files which had changed (though
> > I was surprised not to see inittab amongst them).  I had a few problems
> > with consolefont and keymaps, but that probably had to do with my
> > converting from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8 the day before.
> > 
> > I take my hat off to Christian Faulhammer and William Hubbs, true
> > gentlemen, who took so much trouble to make a difficult transition so
> > smooth and easy.
> > 
> >> Thanks for the feedback.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Dale
> >> 
> >> :-)  :-)
> 
> After reading some replies here, I did mine.  It went well.  I agree,
> hats off to the folks who worked on this.  Seems like their work paid
> off very well.  I just hope everyone else's is as easy as mine.
> 
> There was a LOT of config files to update.  It appears that a LOT of it
> was done during the update tho.
> 
> I'm just glad this is done.  Sort of been dreading this.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

I actually did mine before noticing this thread and didn't actually pay much 
attention to it all.

Not had any issues and didn't need to spend much time in fixing anything. The 
only problem I had was that "/etc/init.d/eth0" had dissapeared.
That was easily fixed.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I actually did mine before noticing this thread and didn't actually pay much
> attention to it all.
>
> Not had any issues and didn't need to spend much time in fixing anything. The
> only problem I had was that "/etc/init.d/eth0" had dissapeared.
> That was easily fixed.
>
> --
> Joost
>
>    

Same here.  I had to recreate my link as well.  Glad it was in the guide 
tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Thursday 12 May 2011 04:25:58 Dale wrote:
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I actually did mine before noticing this thread and didn't actually pay
> > much attention to it all.
> > 
> > Not had any issues and didn't need to spend much time in fixing
> > anything. The only problem I had was that "/etc/init.d/eth0" had
> > dissapeared.
> > That was easily fixed.
> > 
> > --
> > Joost
> 
> Same here.  I had to recreate my link as well.  Glad it was in the guide
> tho.

Yep, as I noticed after reading the guide, which was after I did the update 
without actually checking first :)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday 12 May 2011 04:25:58 Dale wrote:
>    
>> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>>      
>>> I actually did mine before noticing this thread and didn't actually pay
>>> much attention to it all.
>>>
>>> Not had any issues and didn't need to spend much time in fixing
>>> anything. The only problem I had was that "/etc/init.d/eth0" had
>>> dissapeared.
>>> That was easily fixed.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joost
>>>        
>> Same here.  I had to recreate my link as well.  Glad it was in the guide
>> tho.
>>      
> Yep, as I noticed after reading the guide, which was after I did the update
> without actually checking first :)
>
> --
> Joost
>
>
>    

Hindsight.  20/20 as always.  LOL  I just wish my eyes was.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 12 May 2011 14:00:16 Dale wrote:

> Hindsight.  20/20 as always.  LOL  I just wish my eyes was.

What? In the back of your head?  :)

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday 12 May 2011 14:00:16 Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> Hindsight.  20/20 as always.  LOL  I just wish my eyes was.
>>      
> What? In the back of your head?  :)
>
>    

You know, you do something then look back and wish you had done it 
differently.  Then again, I have arthritis in my neck and can't turn my 
head much.  That kind of hind sight might be good to.  That would come 
in handy when I am on the tractor.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Manuel McLure]

Just ran into a gotcha with my main server upgrade to
openrc/baselayout2 - it appears that the old ifconfig network syntax
no longer works. I kept getting the message:

Error: either "local" is duplicate, or "netmask" is garbage

until I changed the syntax from

config_eth0="XX.YY.ZZ.WW broadcast XX.YY.ZZ.255 netmask 255.255.255.0"

to

config_eth0="XX.YY.ZZ.WW/24"

The other syntax worked in baselayout1.
-- 
Manuel A. McLure WW1FA <manuel@mclure.org> <http://www.mclure.org>
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
no man may kill a cat.                       -- H.P. Lovecraft

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 13 May 2011 03:30:27 Manuel McLure wrote:
> Just ran into a gotcha with my main server upgrade to
> openrc/baselayout2 - it appears that the old ifconfig network syntax
> no longer works. I kept getting the message:
> 
> Error: either "local" is duplicate, or "netmask" is garbage
> 
> until I changed the syntax from
> 
> config_eth0="XX.YY.ZZ.WW broadcast XX.YY.ZZ.255 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> 
> to
> 
> config_eth0="XX.YY.ZZ.WW/24"
> 
> The other syntax worked in baselayout1.

It still works here with baselayout 2.0.2:

config_eth0="192.168.2.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 brd 192.168.2.255"
routes_eth0="default via 192.168.2.1"
dns_servers_eth0="192.168.2.2"

No network error messages. Sounds like your error is elsewhere.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 04:21:41PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday 13 May 2011 03:30:27 Manuel McLure wrote:
> > Just ran into a gotcha with my main server upgrade to
> > openrc/baselayout2 - it appears that the old ifconfig network syntax
> > no longer works. I kept getting the message:
> > 
> > Error: either "local" is duplicate, or "netmask" is garbage
> > 
> > until I changed the syntax from
> > 
> > config_eth0="XX.YY.ZZ.WW broadcast XX.YY.ZZ.255 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > config_eth0="XX.YY.ZZ.WW/24"
> > 
> > The other syntax worked in baselayout1.

That error message comes from iproute2, so it looks like you hit this
bug:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366905

In a nutshell we are trying to convert ifconfig syntax to iproute2
syntax, but we do not do it correctly in this case.

The consensus on the dev list seems to be that it is fine to stop doing
that, so at some point in the future, probably a release coming up soon,
the syntax of config_* lines will have to match the tool you are using
to configure the interfaces.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Manuel McLure]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:31 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> That error message comes from iproute2, so it looks like you hit this
> bug:
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366905
>
> In a nutshell we are trying to convert ifconfig syntax to iproute2
> syntax, but we do not do it correctly in this case.
>
> The consensus on the dev list seems to be that it is fine to stop doing
> that, so at some point in the future, probably a release coming up soon,
> the syntax of config_* lines will have to match the tool you are using
> to configure the interfaces.

That looks like it. I fixed it by going to /NN notation, but it should
probably be documented in the conversion guide. I was lucky that I
didn't decide to do the upgrade remotely and had a console to work
with because neither network interface came up due to that error.
-- 
Manuel A. McLure WW1FA <manuel@mclure.org> <http://www.mclure.org>
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
no man may kill a cat.                       -- H.P. Lovecraft

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Felix Leif Keppmann]

No issues, followed the guide, everything working.

Felix Leif


On Tuesday 10 May 2011 16:55:01 Dale wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
> have done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there
> issues?  I'm mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I
> have.  Just a simple works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.
> List issues if you had any.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Kfir Lavi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 545 bytes --]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>
I had a problem with bonding.sh script.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366653

Kfir

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 990 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

Hi Dale,
   I've now done 5 stable machines - 4 hardware and 1 VM. I haven't
had any significant problems on any of them. The update takes well
less that 30 minutes and, for me anyway, has been relatively pain free
compared to other historic Gentoo upgrades.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
>> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
>> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
>> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>      
> Hi Dale,
>     I've now done 5 stable machines - 4 hardware and 1 VM. I haven't
> had any significant problems on any of them. The update takes well
> less that 30 minutes and, for me anyway, has been relatively pain free
> compared to other historic Gentoo upgrades.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>    

Yep.  I agree.  Of all the things that have caused problems in the past, 
this was a doozy.  It had the potential to really bork a system.  It 
appears to have been a very easy one.  I don't think anyone had a REALLY 
big problem with this upgrade.  The devs made sure all the ducks was in 
line on this one.  Yeppie for that.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[James Wall]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that
>>> have
>>> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?
>>>  I'm
>>> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a
>>> simple
>>> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had
>>> any.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-)
>>>
>>
>> Hi Dale,
>>    I've now done 5 stable machines - 4 hardware and 1 VM. I haven't
>> had any significant problems on any of them. The update takes well
>> less that 30 minutes and, for me anyway, has been relatively pain free
>> compared to other historic Gentoo upgrades.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>
> Yep.  I agree.  Of all the things that have caused problems in the past,
> this was a doozy.  It had the potential to really bork a system.  It appears
> to have been a very easy one.  I don't think anyone had a REALLY big problem
> with this upgrade.  The devs made sure all the ducks was in line on this
> one.  Yeppie for that.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

I remember expat and e2fsprogs breaking spectacularly with no warning
whatsoever back when....
That was fun. This update is a complete opposite from those nightmares.

James Wall

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

James Wall wrote:
>
> I remember expat and e2fsprogs breaking spectacularly with no warning
> whatsoever back when....
> That was fun. This update is a complete opposite from those nightmares.
>
> James Wall
>
>
>    

That was one of the ones I was thinking about.  I have to say, things in 
the dev world have improved a LOT.  The devs seem to get along better 
plus there is some really good stuff going on with portage itself.  I 
suspect one leads to the other but that's just my opinion.

I subscribe to -dev and they seem to really try to keep the users in 
mind.  I was in on the discussion about alerting users to this upgrade.  
I have to say, they did all they could to let people know this was 
coming.  It looks like it worked out well.

Let's hope all the things in the future are like this.  :-D

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Daniel da Veiga]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:55, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have
> done theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm
> mostly interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple
> works here and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>

For me it was a breeze.

I have two machines running testing for some time and a server that was an
year behind in updates. I decided to update it now. The easy part was the
OpenRC migration. The hard was mysql (was still 4.1), php, apache (gave up
and installed lighttpd instead) and (oh yeah) kernel.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1005 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[BRM]

>
>From: Daniel da Veiga <danieldaveiga@gmail.com>
>On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:55, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I was curious, what's the results of the openrc update for people that have done 
>>
>>theirs?  Is it pretty simple and "just works" or are there issues?  I'm mostly 

>>interested in x86 and amd64 since that is what I have.  Just a simple works here 
>>
>>and I'm X86 or amd64 would be nice.  List issues if you had any.
>For me it was a breeze.
>I have two machines running testing for some time and a server that was an year 

>behind in updates. I decided to update it now. The easy part was the OpenRC 
>migration. The hard was mysql (was still 4.1), php, apache (gave up and 
>installed lighttpd instead) and (oh yeah) kernel.
>

I just finished update my server. OpenRC updated without any problems.
My laptop had to have its compiler updated before I could could do the sync and 
update - guess I didn't finish the previous update and KDE wanted GCC 4.4 
instead of 4.3.
I should be able to get it going tonight hopefully...

My desktop is a few months behind - still gotta get it fixed from a previous 
failed update.
But won't have the time for at least another month. I may end up just rebuilding 
it if the updates are too troublesome - it may prove faster.

Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

BRM wrote:
>
> My desktop is a few months behind - still gotta get it fixed from a previous
> failed update.
> But won't have the time for at least another month. I may end up just rebuilding
> it if the updates are too troublesome - it may prove faster.
>
> Ben
>
>    

I just went through the same thing with my old x86 rig.  I would 
recommend syncing then doing a emerge -e world and being done with it.  
Actually, I would use the nifty gcc upgrade script.  It's on the forums 
or I can send it to you.  It's old but it still works and is faster than 
emerge -e system a couple times then a emerge -e world.

I had python plus a few other issues.  It was a mess until I did the 
whole thing.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
> It uses hardly any cpu at all, regardless of what the naysayers say. 
> 

Well, add me to the "naysayers" list then, because my experience directly
contradicts that statement. Much happier with fluxbox, completely finished 
fooling with the kde.

I still don't understand why the kde folks went from something that
worked extremely well to their current state. Baffling.

-- 
caveat utilitor

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 17:06 on Wednesday 11 May 2011, Indi did opine 
thusly:

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > It uses hardly any cpu at all, regardless of what the naysayers say.
> 
> Well, add me to the "naysayers" list then, because my experience directly
> contradicts that statement. Much happier with fluxbox, completely finished
> fooling with the kde.

semantic desktop equates to nepomuk

If you do something really thick with the backend (virtuoso currently) it will 
go beserk. Full strigi indexing will keep your disk busy all day - what else 
could it do if you want a full text indexed search of 300GB of file in ~ like 
many users have these days?

> I still don't understand why the kde folks went from something that
> worked extremely well to their current state. Baffling.

KDE3 and KDE4 are not the same thing. 
KDE4 is not the next version of KDE3.

You must consider KDE4 to be a completely new product, unrelated to KDE3 in 
any meaningful way except that many KDE4 devs used to work on a different 
project called KDE3.

Like all software, KDE4 is not for everyone - like you for example. But 
there's nothing stopping you from maintaining KDE3 yourself.

Why did the devs switch? Market pressures really. If you don't spot emerging 
trends and follow them early, you run the risk of becoming redundant very 
quickly. Ask Microsoft, they know all about this.

They went from the undisputed behemoth market leader to staring the very real 
threat of total obsolescence in three very short years.

KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the curve.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[BRM]

----- Original Message ----

> From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
> > I still don't understand why the kde folks went from something  that
> > worked extremely well to their current state. Baffling.
> 
> KDE3  and KDE4 are not the same thing. 
> KDE4 is not the next version of  KDE3.
> 
> You must consider KDE4 to be a completely new product, unrelated to  KDE3 in 
> any meaningful way except that many KDE4 devs used to work on a  different 
> project called KDE3.
> 
> Like all software, KDE4 is not for  everyone - like you for example. But 
> there's nothing stopping you from  maintaining KDE3 yourself.
> 
> Why did the devs switch? Market pressures  really. If you don't spot emerging 
> trends and follow them early, you run the  risk of becoming redundant very 
> quickly. Ask Microsoft, they know all about  this.
> 
> They went from the undisputed behemoth market leader to staring the  very real 

> threat of total obsolescence in three very short years.
> 
> KDE  devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the curve.
> 

Very much agreed. Ever wonder why what Apple and Microsoft are doing seems to 
simply be copying what KDE did with KDE4?
Yeah - KDE is on the forefront of the desktop right now, paving the path for how 
its going to be used by essentially everyone as a result.

Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the curve.

  Coca Cola went from Coke Classic to New Coke; at least they had the
guts to admit that it was a bad idea, and reverse it.

  IBM walked away from their market leading AT.  Rather than put a 386
cpu on the motherboard, they went with the PS/2 design, which bombed.

  Micropro *OWNED* word-processing with a DOS-port of their cpm-based
Wordstar product.  People were begging and pleading with them to patch
it to recognize subdirectories.  Instead, Micropro dropped Wordstar, and
came up with a "user friendly" menu-driven abortion called Wordstar
2000.  That was the end.

  Do you see a pattern here?

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 02:40 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Walter Dnes did 
opine thusly:

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> 
> > KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the curve.
> 
>   Coca Cola went from Coke Classic to New Coke; at least they had the
> guts to admit that it was a bad idea, and reverse it.
> 
>   IBM walked away from their market leading AT.  Rather than put a 386
> cpu on the motherboard, they went with the PS/2 design, which bombed.
> 
>   Micropro *OWNED* word-processing with a DOS-port of their cpm-based
> Wordstar product.  People were begging and pleading with them to patch
> it to recognize subdirectories.  Instead, Micropro dropped Wordstar, and
> came up with a "user friendly" menu-driven abortion called Wordstar
> 2000.  That was the end.
> 
>   Do you see a pattern here?


Yes. It's the pattern where you selectively cherry pick stuff that supports 
your point.

Do you *really* want to go down this road? Because that argument can't end 
well for you.



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1549 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:40:02 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> > KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the
> > curve.  
> 
>   Coca Cola went from Coke Classic to New Coke; at least they had the
> guts to admit that it was a bad idea, and reverse it.
> 
>   IBM walked away from their market leading AT.  Rather than put a 386
> cpu on the motherboard, they went with the PS/2 design, which bombed.
> 
>   Micropro *OWNED* word-processing with a DOS-port of their cpm-based
> Wordstar product.  People were begging and pleading with them to patch
> it to recognize subdirectories.  Instead, Micropro dropped Wordstar, and
> came up with a "user friendly" menu-driven abortion called Wordstar
> 2000.  That was the end.
> 
>   Do you see a pattern here?

The pattern I see is that of selecting only changes that failed and
implying they are the norm.

Why not add other improvements that were so bad, like the switch from
floppy disks to hard disks, or CDs to DVDs? Companies try to predict
where the market should go so they can lead. No one gets it right all
the time, the ones that survive are those that get it right often enough.
The ones that are most likely to fail are those that never try to
innovate in case someone doesn't like it.

The important point is that KDE wanted something better, it's unfortunate
that it took so much longer than planned, but it would have taken even
longer if they had not tried.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> The pattern I see is that of selecting only changes that failed and
> implying they are the norm.
>
> Why not add other improvements that were so bad, like the switch from
> floppy disks to hard disks, or CDs to DVDs? Companies try to predict
> where the market should go so they can lead. No one gets it right all
> the time, the ones that survive are those that get it right often enough.
> The ones that are most likely to fail are those that never try to
> innovate in case someone doesn't like it.
>
> The important point is that KDE wanted something better, it's unfortunate
> that it took so much longer than planned, but it would have taken even
> longer if they had not tried.
>
>    

I just hope they also learned from their mistakes.  Dropping KDE3 
support long before KDE4 was ready was a big one.  That shouldn't be 
repeated.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 14:54 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Dale did opine 
thusly:

> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > The pattern I see is that of selecting only changes that failed and
> > implying they are the norm.
> > 
> > Why not add other improvements that were so bad, like the switch from
> > floppy disks to hard disks, or CDs to DVDs? Companies try to predict
> > where the market should go so they can lead. No one gets it right all
> > the time, the ones that survive are those that get it right often enough.
> > The ones that are most likely to fail are those that never try to
> > innovate in case someone doesn't like it.
> > 
> > The important point is that KDE wanted something better, it's unfortunate
> > that it took so much longer than planned, but it would have taken even
> > longer if they had not tried.
> 
> I just hope they also learned from their mistakes.  Dropping KDE3
> support long before KDE4 was ready was a big one.  That shouldn't be
> repeated.

They can do any damn thing they want to with their code. They also you owe 
support for it in exactly the same amount you paid for it. Which is to say 
"nothing".

It's not a question of "should", it's only a question of "Dale would prefer it 
if"

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> They can do any damn thing they want to with their code. They also you owe
> support for it in exactly the same amount you paid for it. Which is to say
> "nothing".
>
> It's not a question of "should", it's only a question of "Dale would prefer it
> if"
>
>    

So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3 
being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?  
For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye 
candy but not functional even for the little I do.

Yea, it is what I want but it is also what MANY others wanted.  Some of 
those people switched to something else or still use KDE3.  It's their 
code, but if people stop using it, what is it really worth?  I'm sure 
KDE wants to gain users not piss them off and make them go away.

For me, if KDE does such a lousy switch over again, I'll be using 
something else.  Given the posts I read where others have already done 
so, I doubt I would be alone.  I'm all for second chances.  We all learn 
the hard way sometimes.  I'm just hoping KDE did.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[JDM]

Up until a few weeks ago I have never used kde opting for xfce and openbox and cannot make any comments about kde3 and upgrade. I always preferred the lighter desktops. I really like 4.x, it has lots of features and seems to me at least, very easy to use (intuitive). So perhaps the kde team will over new fans. Its oodles better than any of its contemicropories.
JDM

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:46:32 
To: <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> They can do any damn thing they want to with their code. They also you owe
> support for it in exactly the same amount you paid for it. Which is to say
> "nothing".
>
> It's not a question of "should", it's only a question of "Dale would prefer it
> if"
>
>    

So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3 
being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?  
For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye 
candy but not functional even for the little I do.

Yea, it is what I want but it is also what MANY others wanted.  Some of 
those people switched to something else or still use KDE3.  It's their 
code, but if people stop using it, what is it really worth?  I'm sure 
KDE wants to gain users not piss them off and make them go away.

For me, if KDE does such a lousy switch over again, I'll be using 
something else.  Given the posts I read where others have already done 
so, I doubt I would be alone.  I'm all for second chances.  We all learn 
the hard way sometimes.  I'm just hoping KDE did.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:46:32 -0500, Dale wrote:

> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3 
> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?  
> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye 
> candy but not functional even for the little I do.

I didn't switch until 4.3 or 4.4, KDE 3.5 worked fine for me up until
then. It probably still works just as well now as part of the Trinity
project.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

It's not a bug, it's tradition!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:46:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3
>> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?
>> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye
>> candy but not functional even for the little I do.
>>      
> I didn't switch until 4.3 or 4.4, KDE 3.5 worked fine for me up until
> then. It probably still works just as well now as part of the Trinity
> project.
>
>    

Which supports my point.  Maintain KDE3 until KDE4 is stable and 
usable.  If it is still working, which I think it is tho some fixes have 
had to be made, then why couldn't KDE support KDE3 just a little while 
longer.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Dale did opine 
thusly:

> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:46:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3
> >> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?
> >> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye
> >> candy but not functional even for the little I do.
> > 
> > I didn't switch until 4.3 or 4.4, KDE 3.5 worked fine for me up until
> > then. It probably still works just as well now as part of the Trinity
> > project.
> 
> Which supports my point.  Maintain KDE3 until KDE4 is stable and
> usable.  If it is still working, which I think it is tho some fixes have
> had to be made, then why couldn't KDE support KDE3 just a little while
> longer.


So here's two killer questions for you:

1. How much money did you pay towards KDE dev salaries overall?
2. How many times does your name appear in KDE Changelogs?

While the answer to both is "zero" you do not get to complain.

Here's another killer:

Q. What's the difference between KDE devs and Dale?
A: KDE devs launched an editor and typed code.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Dale did opine
> thusly:
>
>    
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>      
>>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:46:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>        
>>>> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3
>>>> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?
>>>> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye
>>>> candy but not functional even for the little I do.
>>>>          
>>> I didn't switch until 4.3 or 4.4, KDE 3.5 worked fine for me up until
>>> then. It probably still works just as well now as part of the Trinity
>>> project.
>>>        
>> Which supports my point.  Maintain KDE3 until KDE4 is stable and
>> usable.  If it is still working, which I think it is tho some fixes have
>> had to be made, then why couldn't KDE support KDE3 just a little while
>> longer.
>>      
>
> So here's two killer questions for you:
>
> 1. How much money did you pay towards KDE dev salaries overall?
> 2. How many times does your name appear in KDE Changelogs?
>
> While the answer to both is "zero" you do not get to complain.
>
> Here's another killer:
>
> Q. What's the difference between KDE devs and Dale?
> A: KDE devs launched an editor and typed code.
>
>    

Your questions don't disprove what me and others have posted.  As I have 
said on the KDE mailing list, KDE made a serious mistake dropping KDE3 
before KDE4 was ready.  I didn't make that decision so it is not my 
mistake regardless of what is paid or not paid or what effort I have or 
have not put into it.  There is a LOT of things that are beyond my 
control but it doesn't mean I don't have the right to point out a 
mistake.  I point it out so that hopefully it won't be made again.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[pk]

On 2011-05-12 23:44, Dale wrote:

> Your questions don't disprove what me and others have posted.  As I have

I think Alans point is that while the KDE developers (volunteers, or
paid for) have certain goals which may or may not be tangential to yours
(clearly, in the case of KDE3 vs KDE4 they are not). So unless you pay
someone to have your specific requirements satisfied you don't get to
complain.
 The volunteers have an "itch to scratch", i.e. they want some certain
functionality which they care about and are, probably, not interested in
anything else. Paid for developers are (probably/most likely) being told
what to work on. And developer resources are, probably, scarce so... If
you (and others) wish KDE3 to be supported then you either need to: 1.
Support/maintain KDE3 yourselves. 2. Pay someone to support/maintain
KDE3. That's the way it works, which is also somewhat valid for
commercial software, but you usually don't get the option of paying the
producer to maintain your specific version unless you are a _big_
customer (with lots of money), but with open source you at least have
the option of "scratching an itch" yourself or paying someone to do the
work for you (and even pool resources with people who share the same
interests).

> mistake.  I point it out so that hopefully it won't be made again.

Of course, anyone can have an opinion! :-D

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:44:21 -0500, Dale wrote:

> Your questions don't disprove what me and others have posted.  As I
> have said on the KDE mailing list, KDE made a serious mistake dropping
> KDE3 before KDE4 was ready.

How exactly did they "drop" it? It's still available from
ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.5.10 even now and some distros still
have packages for it. It never went away, you can still use it if you
wish.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Wow! That lightning sounds clo..zzzzit!" NO CARRIER

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[BRM]

----- Original Message ----

> From: Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:44:21 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Your questions don't  disprove what me and others have posted.  As I
> > have said on the KDE  mailing list, KDE made a serious mistake dropping
> > KDE3 before KDE4 was  ready.
> How exactly did they "drop" it? It's still available from
> ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/3.5.10 even now and some  distros still
> have packages for it. It never went away, you can still use it  if you
> wish.
> 

Ok, so personally I very much like KDE4 - been using it since 4.3 was stabilized 
on Gentoo and love it.
That said...

KDE did seem to drop the ball a bit with their management of the transition from 
KDE3 to KDE4.

To start with, look at the reason why Gentoo dropped KDE3 from Portage - KDE 
stopped maintaining it and the builds started breaking as underlying library 
dependencies changed.
So, sure you may be able to pull a binary build from KDE and use it; or (more 
likely) you'll spend hours and hours getting everything setup right - with all 
the correct versions of the dependencies, etc - to get it up and running.

In other words, when KDE decided to move on to KDE4 full time they left the 
release as it was and it has since gotten harder to use by those that want to 
use it.
Okay - that's not entirely KDE's problem; though it would have helped a long way 
with the KDE4 transition if they kept a few people working on those issues.

The big issue is that in moving to sole development of KDE4, distros started to 
drop KDE3 and replace it with KDE4. For example, Kubuntu 8.04 TLS dropped KDE3 
and used KDE4 long before KDE4 was really user worthy - long before KDE was 
calling it user worthy. But KDEs actions of moving sole development to KDE4 
prompted most distributions to do likewise. As a result, KDE got a lot of flack 
for KDE4 not being ready for users b/c it wasn't - which KDE readily recognized 
and admitted.

Had they kept a small team working on at least the build issues until KDE4 
reached 4.3 then the transition would have likely gone a lot smoother. The 
userbase for KDE4 would have been smaller, so it may have taken a little longer 
to get some of the user feedback; but it would have greatly helped with aiding 
distributions and users making the transition instead of feeling like they were 
dumped from KDE 3.5.10 into KDE 4.0.1.

> 
> So install a distro that still supports KDE3 if that's what you  want or
> need. KDE 3.5.10 is still there, it hasn't been withdrawn from  the
> shelves. You're hardly likely to use Gentoo for such users, so lack  of
> core support for 3.5 in Gentoo is not an issue either.
> 

While I am not personally interested in it, please name one.

Gentoo doesn't support KDE3 any more. You have to go to Trinity to get the 
newer, forked KDE3 series. Last I heard they were equivalent to a 3.5.12 or so; 
but I haven't seen anything on the Desktop list for a while about Trinity.

Needless to say, you may be very hard pressed to find a modern, up-to-date 
distribution that offers KDE3 support.

Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2625 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 May 2011 07:19:35 -0700 (PDT), BRM wrote:

> KDE did seem to drop the ball a bit with their management of the
> transition from KDE3 to KDE4.

There's no doubt it could have been a lot better. The problem was that it
was based on their prediction that 4.0 would be a dev release while 4.1
would be usable, it wasn't.

> Okay - that's not entirely KDE's problem; though it would have helped a
> long way with the KDE4 transition if they kept a few people working on
> those issues.

How would you feel if you were a KDE dev told "we're all going to play
with the cool new toys now, but we want you to stay here and look
after the boring musty old stuff."? It would be bad enough if you were
being paid for it.

> The big issue is that in moving to sole development of KDE4, distros
> started to drop KDE3 and replace it with KDE4. For example, Kubuntu
> 8.04 TLS dropped KDE3 and used KDE4 long before KDE4 was really user
> worthy - long before KDE was calling it user worthy.

I think that says more about Ubuntu than KDE, after all ,they'd done a
similar thing with GNOME/Unity now.

> But KDEs actions
> of moving sole development to KDE4 prompted most distributions to do
> likewise.

Many distros, especially the enterprise focussed ones like SUSE, kept 3.5
around for quite a while.

> Had they kept a small team working on at least the build issues until
> KDE4 reached 4.3 then the transition would have likely gone a lot
> smoother.

True, but no one expected it to take that long to get ready, and
diverting resources to look after 3.5 would have meant it taking even
longer.

> > So install a distro that still supports KDE3 if that's what you  want
> > or need. KDE 3.5.10 is still there, it hasn't been withdrawn from  the
> > shelves. You're hardly likely to use Gentoo for such users, so lack
> > of core support for 3.5 in Gentoo is not an issue either.
> > 
> 
> While I am not personally interested in it, please name one.
> 
> Gentoo doesn't support KDE3 any more. You have to go to Trinity to get
> the newer, forked KDE3 series. Last I heard they were equivalent to a
> 3.5.12 or so; but I haven't seen anything on the Desktop list for a
> while about Trinity.
> 
> Needless to say, you may be very hard pressed to find a modern,
> up-to-date distribution that offers KDE3 support.

If it defaulted to KDE 3.5, it would be neither modern nor up to date.
But at the time of the transition, when KDE4 was still too flakey for
many, there were several - openSUSE for one.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[BRM]

----- Original Message ----

> From: Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>
> > Okay - that's not entirely KDE's  problem; though it would have helped a
> > long way with the KDE4 transition  if they kept a few people working on
> > those issues.
> 
> How would you  feel if you were a KDE dev told "we're all going to play
> with the cool new  toys now, but we want you to stay here and look
> after the boring musty old  stuff."? It would be bad enough if you were
> being paid for it.

Many software developers are exactly in that position. So what? it's what you do 
when you want to maintain something.
That's the also very much the case with numerous kernel developers - they work 
to keep older versions going as Linus and team move to the next version.
So yes, there are even volunteers that will do it.
 
> >  The big issue is that in moving to sole development of KDE4, distros
> >  started to drop KDE3 and replace it with KDE4. For example, Kubuntu
> > 8.04  TLS dropped KDE3 and used KDE4 long before KDE4 was really user
> > worthy -  long before KDE was calling it user worthy.
> 
> I think that says more about  Ubuntu than KDE, after all ,they'd done a
> similar thing with GNOME/Unity  now.

There were other distros too. Gentoo dropped KDE3 around 4.3.
 
> > But KDEs actions
> > of moving sole development to KDE4  prompted most distributions to do
> > likewise.
> 
> Many distros,  especially the enterprise focussed ones like SUSE, kept 3.5
> around for quite  a while.
> 
> > Had they kept a small team working on at least the build  issues until
> > KDE4 reached 4.3 then the transition would have likely gone  a lot
> > smoother.
> 
> True, but no one expected it to take that long to  get ready, and
> diverting resources to look after 3.5 would have meant it  taking even
> longer.
> 
> > > So install a distro that still supports  KDE3 if that's what you  want
> > > or need. KDE 3.5.10 is still  there, it hasn't been withdrawn from  the
> > > shelves. You're  hardly likely to use Gentoo for such users, so lack
> > > of core support  for 3.5 in Gentoo is not an issue either.
> > > 
> > 
> > While I  am not personally interested in it, please name one.
> > 
> > Gentoo  doesn't support KDE3 any more. You have to go to Trinity to get
> > the  newer, forked KDE3 series. Last I heard they were equivalent to a
> > 3.5.12  or so; but I haven't seen anything on the Desktop list for a
> > while about  Trinity.
> > 
> > Needless to say, you may be very hard pressed to find  a modern,
> > up-to-date distribution that offers KDE3 support.
> 
> If it  defaulted to KDE 3.5, it would be neither modern nor up to date.
> But at the  time of the transition, when KDE4 was still too flakey for
> many, there were  several - openSUSE for one.

Difference between "modern, up-to-date and functional" versus "modern, 
up-to-date, and bleeding-edge".
If you are aiming for bleeding-edge, then yes, moving to KDE4 at 4.0 would have 
been fine.
But most don't use or want to use bleeding edge - they want functional. In both 
cases they still want modern and up-to-date.

Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:38:15 -0500, Dale wrote:

> Which supports my point.  Maintain KDE3 until KDE4 is stable and 
> usable.  If it is still working, which I think it is tho some fixes
> have had to be made, then why couldn't KDE support KDE3 just a little
> while longer.

Because it would be more than a little while longer. Every day spent
maintaining KDE3 is a day lost to KDE4, the priority was to get KDE4
stable and usable, KDE3 was fine as it was.

The other answers is "they didn't want to". KDE developers are either
volunteers, doing what they want because they can, and what they want is
working on neat stuff for the next release, not old code that is close to
EOL. Or they are employed by the likes of distro makers, who also want
the latest stuff for their products.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 003: Dynamic linking error - Your mistake is now in every file

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2011-05-13 4:16 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> KDE3 was fine as it was.

I think that pretty much sums it up...

No one forced anyone to upgrade to 4.0 when it was released. Anyone
(you) could have continued using 3.x until *you* were satisfied with 4.x...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 5/12/2011 9:25 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 14:54 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Dale did opine 
> thusly:
> 
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> The pattern I see is that of selecting only changes that failed and
>>> implying they are the norm.
>>>
>>> Why not add other improvements that were so bad, like the switch from
>>> floppy disks to hard disks, or CDs to DVDs? Companies try to predict
>>> where the market should go so they can lead. No one gets it right all
>>> the time, the ones that survive are those that get it right often enough.
>>> The ones that are most likely to fail are those that never try to
>>> innovate in case someone doesn't like it.
>>>
>>> The important point is that KDE wanted something better, it's unfortunate
>>> that it took so much longer than planned, but it would have taken even
>>> longer if they had not tried.
>>
>> I just hope they also learned from their mistakes.  Dropping KDE3
>> support long before KDE4 was ready was a big one.  That shouldn't be
>> repeated.
> 
> They can do any damn thing they want to with their code. They also you owe 
> support for it in exactly the same amount you paid for it. Which is to say 
> "nothing".
> 
> It's not a question of "should", it's only a question of "Dale would prefer it 
> if"

<parent>
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
</parent>

Of course the KDE3 team had every right to drop KDE3 support whenever
they pleased. And we as free consumers had no real recourse other than
to stop using KDE and/or deal with it.

But it was still a bad decision from a software development standpoint,
and one that ideally should not be made again.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "If the KDE4 team expects users
to continue to use the software they spend so much of their time making,
they shouldn't make that kind of decision again."

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:54:13 -0500, Dale wrote:

> I just hope they also learned from their mistakes.  Dropping KDE3 
> support long before KDE4 was ready was a big one.  That shouldn't be 
> repeated.

If it's as good as everyone says, what more support did it need? Did the
KDE guys come knocking on your door to remove it, or do it remotely
(Android anyone?), or did it just keep working?

I'd say that you got excellent value for money, and a lot more support
for an EOL product than you paid for. Yes, it would have been nice if they
had waited until KDE4 was a little more polished before EOLing KDE3, but
who would have paid for two dev teams?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel...
but it was just some sod with a torch bringing me more work!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:56:27PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:40:02 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> 
> > > KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the
> > > curve.  
> > 
> >   Coca Cola went from Coke Classic to New Coke; at least they had the
> > guts to admit that it was a bad idea, and reverse it.
> > 
> >   IBM walked away from their market leading AT.  Rather than put a 386
> > cpu on the motherboard, they went with the PS/2 design, which bombed.
> > 
> >   Micropro *OWNED* word-processing with a DOS-port of their cpm-based
> > Wordstar product.  People were begging and pleading with them to patch
> > it to recognize subdirectories.  Instead, Micropro dropped Wordstar, and
> > came up with a "user friendly" menu-driven abortion called Wordstar
> > 2000.  That was the end.
> > 
> >   Do you see a pattern here?

> The pattern I see is that of selecting only changes that failed and
> implying they are the norm.
> 
> Why not add other improvements that were so bad, like the switch from
> floppy disks to hard disks, or CDs to DVDs? Companies try to predict
> where the market should go so they can lead. No one gets it right all
> the time, the ones that survive are those that get it right often enough.
> The ones that are most likely to fail are those that never try to
> innovate in case someone doesn't like it.

  Floppy disks were being sold long after hard disks were invented.
Ditto for CDs after DVDs came out.  If Coca Cola had brought out "New
Coke" *IN ADDITION TO" "Coke Classic", it wouldn't have been a problem.
"New Coke" would've died more quickly, and Coca Cola wouldn't have seen
so much backlash.  Corporations (IBM's biggest customers) were begging
and pleading for ATs with a 386 CPU, not proprietary PS/2s.  IBM ceased
to manufacture ATs, and said PS/2s or nothing.  IBM is no longer a force
in the corporate desktop market.  If Micropro had added directory
support to Wordstar 3.3, it would've been around a lot longer, and
Wordstar 2000 wouldn't have been the death blow it was.

  Hard drives and DVDs competed against their predecessors and won.
They were obviously superior.  But if your new and allegedly "improved"
product can't stand on its own 2 feet and compete against older
generation products, and you have to shut down or drop support for the
older products for the new one to survive, then it's obvious that the
"new and improved" product is a piece of crap.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3558 bytes --]

On Friday 13 May 2011 18:57:47 Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:56:27PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> 
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:40:02 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > > KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the
> > > > curve.
> > > > 
> > >   Coca Cola went from Coke Classic to New Coke; at least they had the
> > > 
> > > guts to admit that it was a bad idea, and reverse it.
> > > 
> > >   IBM walked away from their market leading AT.  Rather than put a 386
> > > 
> > > cpu on the motherboard, they went with the PS/2 design, which bombed.
> > > 
> > >   Micropro *OWNED* word-processing with a DOS-port of their cpm-based
> > > 
> > > Wordstar product.  People were begging and pleading with them to patch
> > > it to recognize subdirectories.  Instead, Micropro dropped Wordstar,
> > > and came up with a "user friendly" menu-driven abortion called
> > > Wordstar 2000.  That was the end.
> > > 
> > >   Do you see a pattern here?
> > 
> > The pattern I see is that of selecting only changes that failed and
> > implying they are the norm.
> > 
> > Why not add other improvements that were so bad, like the switch from
> > floppy disks to hard disks, or CDs to DVDs? Companies try to predict
> > where the market should go so they can lead. No one gets it right all
> > the time, the ones that survive are those that get it right often enough.
> > The ones that are most likely to fail are those that never try to
> > innovate in case someone doesn't like it.
> 
>   Floppy disks were being sold long after hard disks were invented.
> Ditto for CDs after DVDs came out.  If Coca Cola had brought out "New
> Coke" *IN ADDITION TO" "Coke Classic", it wouldn't have been a problem.
> "New Coke" would've died more quickly, and Coca Cola wouldn't have seen
> so much backlash.  Corporations (IBM's biggest customers) were begging
> and pleading for ATs with a 386 CPU, not proprietary PS/2s.  IBM ceased
> to manufacture ATs, and said PS/2s or nothing.  IBM is no longer a force
> in the corporate desktop market.  If Micropro had added directory
> support to Wordstar 3.3, it would've been around a lot longer, and
> Wordstar 2000 wouldn't have been the death blow it was.
> 
>   Hard drives and DVDs competed against their predecessors and won.
> They were obviously superior.  But if your new and allegedly "improved"
> product can't stand on its own 2 feet and compete against older
> generation products, and you have to shut down or drop support for the
> older products for the new one to survive, then it's obvious that the
> "new and improved" product is a piece of crap.

You are confusing matters.

The launch of "new & improved" product is often a matter of designed 
obsolescence of the old product for the purpose of generating additional 
sales.  In a (pseudo)competitive capitalistic model this is what most consumer 
goods have been doing, canibalising their own previous generation of products.

In a FOSS model this argument does not stand or make much sense.  I think that 
the KDE devs made a strategic design decision and took KDE4 in a different 
direction than KDE3.  Some of us we happier with the KDE3 ... a selection of 
apps, rather that a heavy duty integrated DE with semantic searches and what 
not.

What is common between your examples and KDE is (perhaps?) the lack of 
adequate market research and testing.

What-ever, life moves on of course and the wrinkles on KDE4 are being ironed 
out.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 401 bytes --]

Am 13.05.2011 21:50, schrieb Mick:
> a selection of 
> apps, rather that a heavy duty integrated DE with semantic searches and what 
> not.

I have written my thesis about semantic searches but I am absolut unable
to use that feature in KDE.

But that and the graphic distortions I have aside is KDE4 now useable.
It is time for KDE5 to annoy the users again :-P

Greetings

Sebastian


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 616 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 May 2011 13:57:47 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> But if your new and allegedly "improved"
> product can't stand on its own 2 feet and compete against older
> generation products, and you have to shut down or drop support for the
> older products for the new one to survive, then it's obvious that the
> "new and improved" product is a piece of crap.

Can you provide documentation showing this was the reason work on KDE3
stopped? Or is this more FUD?

Hint: You cannot "shut down" an open source project.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:10:03PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:06 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:40:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:00 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did
> > > opine
> > > 
> > > thusly:
> > > > I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
> > > > Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching
> > > > everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally
> > > > putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes
> > > > my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox
> > > > configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call
> > > > it a day.
> > > 
> > > So why didn't you just leave the users on KDE3?
> > 
> > For the same reason I didn't leave them on windows 98 se.
> > Yes, it technically "still works" but is far less useful
> > than it was when it was enthusiastically supported by its
> > creators and still considered one of two default choices
> > for DE duty.
> > 
> > I'm sorry if this discussion has offended you, Alan.
> > That was certainly not my intent.
> 
> No, you didn't offend me. I usually talk and type like that.
> 
> > However, admins with stories like mine are not at all uncommon,
> > and the bottom line is that kde4 lost a lot of users to other
> > DEs. The kde devs clearly bit off more than could chew, but
> > obviously that's water under the bridge now. But to deny it or
> > make excuses now does no service to anyone. "Oops, better not do
> > that again", is what we all hope they learned. We all make mistakes,
> > just don't make the same ones repeatedly! :)
> 
> Your first three sentences above contain huge sweeping generalities disguised 
> as facts, but all they really are is "what Indi thinks". If you are going to 
> make comments like that, you have to back them up with some kind of 
> independant unbiased metrics, otherwise you are talking through a hole in your 
> ass.
> 
> I have what I think might be an interesting exercise. One of the machines I 
> admin is an enormous ftp server that serves an entire continent. It hosts 
> every major (and many minor) distros, including gentoo and it's distfiles. One 
> day when I'm motivated enough to do it, I might just draw download stats per 
> distro for packages with kde in the name and plot this going back to before 
> KDE-4.0.0 was released. I feel the numbers might prove very interesting.
> 
> I won't be doing it today though, the motivation is not there (in the same way 
> that the authors of KDE didn't have the motivation to maintain kde3 anymore).
> 

You might be correct, but I very much doubt it.
I will say though that it's almost a certainty 
the *type* of user who uses kde4 is probably 
different from those who used kde3. 
As I mentioned before, IMO the forte of kde3 was 
making migration to linux easy for windows users.
I don't think anyone can say that about kde4 with a 
straight face. On this list we constantly see pretty 
advanced users having trouble keeping kde4 running.
My own experiments with it were extremely frustrating.

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 23:19 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine 
thusly:

> You might be correct, but I very much doubt it.
> I will say though that it's almost a certainty 
> the type of user who uses kde4 is probably 
> different from those who used kde3. 


There you go again, offering opinion disguised as fact.

Other than your own (necessarily biased) experience, what do you base this 
statement on?


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 06:00:05PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:06 on Wednesday 11 May 2011, Indi did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > I still don't understand why the kde folks went from something that
> > worked extremely well to their current state. Baffling.
> 
> Why did the devs switch? Market pressures really. If you don't spot emerging 
> trends and follow them early, you run the risk of becoming redundant very 
> quickly. Ask Microsoft, they know all about this.
> 
> They went from the undisputed behemoth market leader to staring the very real 
> threat of total obsolescence in three very short years.
> 
> KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the curve.
> 

So the answer is "prophylactic self-destruction"? 
***ducks***

I kid, forgive me... :)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:00:01PM +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:40:02 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> 
> > > KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the
> > > curve.  
> > 
> >   Coca Cola went from Coke Classic to New Coke; at least they had the
> > guts to admit that it was a bad idea, and reverse it.
> >
8<----8<----some snippage---->8---->8
> 
> The important point is that KDE wanted something better, it's unfortunate
> that it took so much longer than planned, but it would have taken even
> longer if they had not tried.
> 

Just to clarify:

I applaud the attempt, even if I find the current results questionable.
The thing about KDE is it used to be instrumental for me in converting 
non-geek windows users to Linux. It was excellent for that.
The new one really requires users who not only know what they're doing, 
but also have the inclination to fiddle and and tune all the time.
Hopefully, this phase of it's development will soon draw to a conclusion 
and we'll once more be able to put non-tech users on kde without drama.

But I apologise for opening that can of worms in the first place, it was 
probably not apropriate here.

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:50:02PM +0200, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > They can do any damn thing they want to with their code. They also you owe
> > support for it in exactly the same amount you paid for it. Which is to say
> > "nothing".
> >
> > It's not a question of "should", it's only a question of "Dale would prefer it
> > if"
> >
> >    
> 
> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3 
> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?  
> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye 
> candy but not functional even for the little I do.
> 
> Yea, it is what I want but it is also what MANY others wanted.  Some of 
> those people switched to something else or still use KDE3.  It's their 
> code, but if people stop using it, what is it really worth?  I'm sure 
> KDE wants to gain users not piss them off and make them go away.
> 
> For me, if KDE does such a lousy switch over again, I'll be using 
> something else.  Given the posts I read where others have already done 
> so, I doubt I would be alone.  I'm all for second chances.  We all learn 
> the hard way sometimes.  I'm just hoping KDE did.
> 

I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching 
everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally 
putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes 
my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox 
configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call 
it a day.

No-one disputes the freedom of the devs to do anything 
they wish with their code. 
It's just like anything else in life: you're free to do 
anything you want. Just know the consequences before 
you act or you may get burned.

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:00 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine 
thusly:

> I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
> Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching 
> everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally 
> putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes 
> my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox 
> configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call 
> it a day.

So why didn't you just leave the users on KDE3?


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Indi wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:50:02PM +0200, Dale wrote:
>    
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>      
>>> They can do any damn thing they want to with their code. They also you owe
>>> support for it in exactly the same amount you paid for it. Which is to say
>>> "nothing".
>>>
>>> It's not a question of "should", it's only a question of "Dale would prefer it
>>> if"
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3
>> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?
>> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye
>> candy but not functional even for the little I do.
>>
>> Yea, it is what I want but it is also what MANY others wanted.  Some of
>> those people switched to something else or still use KDE3.  It's their
>> code, but if people stop using it, what is it really worth?  I'm sure
>> KDE wants to gain users not piss them off and make them go away.
>>
>> For me, if KDE does such a lousy switch over again, I'll be using
>> something else.  Given the posts I read where others have already done
>> so, I doubt I would be alone.  I'm all for second chances.  We all learn
>> the hard way sometimes.  I'm just hoping KDE did.
>>
>>      
> I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
> Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching
> everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally
> putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes
> my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox
> configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call
> it a day.
>
> No-one disputes the freedom of the devs to do anything
> they wish with their code.
> It's just like anything else in life: you're free to do
> anything you want. Just know the consequences before
> you act or you may get burned.
>
>    

Yep.  A lot of KDE users was upset.  The thing is, if they had got out 
just a few more releases, it would have been much better.  They were 
improving KDE4 pretty fast but not fast enough.  Since KDE3 was fairly 
complete, all it needed was a little love here and there.  They didn't 
have to reinvent the wheel every month to keep KDE3 running.  It can't 
be to bad since some users got together and are still maintaining KDE3 
tho I don't know how good that is working out since I don't have it 
installed here anymore.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[walt]

On 05/12/2011 07:00 AM, Indi wrote:
> ...It was a harrowing time, switching 
> everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot...

Just curious: what sort of complaints did you get about gnome?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:54:13 -0500, Dale wrote:
> 
> > I just hope they also learned from their mistakes.  Dropping KDE3 
> > support long before KDE4 was ready was a big one.  That shouldn't be 
> > repeated.
> 
> If it's as good as everyone says, what more support did it need? Did the
> KDE guys come knocking on your door to remove it, or do it remotely
> (Android anyone?), or did it just keep working?
>

That argument is probably valid when limiting the scope of the
discussion to gentoo, but the only use I ever had for kde3 was 
for non-techie users who wouldn't know whether to poop or go 
blind if they click on something and nothing happens (or the worng 
thing happens). I had all but two on openSuse and the rest on Kubuntu 
in the kde3 days, but kde3 is nowhere near as idiot-proof now on 
either of those distros. I do not want to support non-techie users using 
obscure, deprecated, unmaintained code for something as critical as
their DE! It's hard enough when everything works as advertised... 

To be honest, I haven't quite worked up the courage to 
put any users on gentoo, though it's become the only distro I feel 
really good about using. If we had more uniform hardware it would 
be a lot less daunting and I'd have probably done it already, but 
the idea of having to manage so many individual builds is just 
highly suboptimal.

> I'd say that you got excellent value for money, and a lot more support
> for an EOL product than you paid for. Yes, it would have been nice if they
> had waited until KDE4 was a little more polished before EOLing KDE3, but
> who would have paid for two dev teams?
> 

Yes, but you should have heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the
non-tech users, it was like being surrounded by 8000 drunken harpies and
it lasted almost three months til they finally resigned themselves to
xfce. I will not go through that again.

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 10:51:32 -0400, Indi wrote:

> > If it's as good as everyone says, what more support did it need? Did
> > the KDE guys come knocking on your door to remove it, or do it
> > remotely (Android anyone?), or did it just keep working?

> That argument is probably valid when limiting the scope of the
> discussion to gentoo, but the only use I ever had for kde3 was 
> for non-techie users who wouldn't know whether to poop or go 
> blind if they click on something and nothing happens

So install a distro that still supports KDE3 if that's what you want or
need. KDE 3.5.10 is still there, it hasn't been withdrawn from the
shelves. You're hardly likely to use Gentoo for such users, so lack of
core support for 3.5 in Gentoo is not an issue either.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Suborbital Ballistic-Propulsion Engineer
Not Exactly A Rocket Scientist

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:30:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Dale did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 May 2011 08:46:32 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > >> So, you think most of the KDE users were happy to see support for KDE3
> > >> being dropped, especially considering KDE4 was much less than stable?
> > >> For me and a lot of others, it was worthless at first.  It was good eye
> > >> candy but not functional even for the little I do.
> > > 
> > > I didn't switch until 4.3 or 4.4, KDE 3.5 worked fine for me up until
> > > then. It probably still works just as well now as part of the Trinity
> > > project.
> > 
> > Which supports my point.  Maintain KDE3 until KDE4 is stable and
> > usable.  If it is still working, which I think it is tho some fixes have
> > had to be made, then why couldn't KDE support KDE3 just a little while
> > longer.
> 
> 
> So here's two killer questions for you:
> 
> 1. How much money did you pay towards KDE dev salaries overall?
> 2. How many times does your name appear in KDE Changelogs?
> 
> While the answer to both is "zero" you do not get to complain.
> 
> Here's another killer:
> 
> Q. What's the difference between KDE devs and Dale?
> A: KDE devs launched an editor and typed code.
> 

That's called "grandstanding", where I come from.

I certainly agree that the devs' rights trump the 
users' rights in FOSS, and that's as it should be. 

It is however a fact of life that while you have no 
ethical obligation to your users beyond telling the 
truth and not being evil, some users will choose not 
to use your software if the devs' attitude is perceived 
as dismissive or insensitive toward the concerns of their 
users.

That's just human nature. You don't have to like it or agree 
with it but in the end you are limited by it. :)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:50:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:19 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > You might be correct, but I very much doubt it.
> > I will say though that it's almost a certainty 
> > the type of user who uses kde4 is probably 
> > different from those who used kde3. 
> 
> 
> There you go again, offering opinion disguised as fact.
> 
> Other than your own (necessarily biased) experience, what do you base this 
> statement on?
> 

Yes yes yes, I am merely offering my opinion.
No scientific peer-reviewd paper will be published, 
so by all means be combative and demand I agree I am wrong.
Boy, you will not win that one.
I expressed my opinion.
You dismiss it.
It's over now.
Try to be happy. :)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:40:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:00 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
> > Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching 
> > everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally 
> > putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes 
> > my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox 
> > configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call 
> > it a day.
> 
> So why didn't you just leave the users on KDE3?
>

For the same reason I didn't leave them on windows 98 se.
Yes, it technically "still works" but is far less useful 
than it was when it was enthusiastically supported by its 
creators and still considered one of two default choices 
for DE duty.

I'm sorry if this discussion has offended you, Alan.
That was certainly not my intent. 
However, admins with stories like mine are not at all uncommon, 
and the bottom line is that kde4 lost a lot of users to other 
DEs. The kde devs clearly bit off more than could chew, but 
obviously that's water under the bridge now. But to deny it or 
make excuses now does no service to anyone. "Oops, better not do 
that again", is what we all hope they learned. We all make mistakes, 
just don't make the same ones repeatedly! :)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Indi wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:40:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>    
>> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:00 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine
>> thusly:
>>
>>      
>>> I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
>>> Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching
>>> everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally
>>> putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes
>>> my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox
>>> configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call
>>> it a day.
>>>        
>> So why didn't you just leave the users on KDE3?
>>
>>      
> For the same reason I didn't leave them on windows 98 se.
> Yes, it technically "still works" but is far less useful
> than it was when it was enthusiastically supported by its
> creators and still considered one of two default choices
> for DE duty.
>
> I'm sorry if this discussion has offended you, Alan.
> That was certainly not my intent.
> However, admins with stories like mine are not at all uncommon,
> and the bottom line is that kde4 lost a lot of users to other
> DEs. The kde devs clearly bit off more than could chew, but
> obviously that's water under the bridge now. But to deny it or
> make excuses now does no service to anyone. "Oops, better not do
> that again", is what we all hope they learned. We all make mistakes,
> just don't make the same ones repeatedly! :)
>
>    
+1

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 17:06 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did opine 
thusly:

> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:40:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:00 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Indi did
> > opine
> > 
> > thusly:
> > > I had 8 users on kde before 3 was deprecated in 2009.
> > > Now I have zero. It was a harrowing time, switching
> > > everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot, finally
> > > putting them on xfce. If xfce gets a wild hair and changes
> > > my plan is to dumb down the fluxbox or openbox
> > > configs I have for my own use, add some scripting and call
> > > it a day.
> > 
> > So why didn't you just leave the users on KDE3?
> 
> For the same reason I didn't leave them on windows 98 se.
> Yes, it technically "still works" but is far less useful
> than it was when it was enthusiastically supported by its
> creators and still considered one of two default choices
> for DE duty.
> 
> I'm sorry if this discussion has offended you, Alan.
> That was certainly not my intent.

No, you didn't offend me. I usually talk and type like that.

> However, admins with stories like mine are not at all uncommon,
> and the bottom line is that kde4 lost a lot of users to other
> DEs. The kde devs clearly bit off more than could chew, but
> obviously that's water under the bridge now. But to deny it or
> make excuses now does no service to anyone. "Oops, better not do
> that again", is what we all hope they learned. We all make mistakes,
> just don't make the same ones repeatedly! :)

Your first three sentences above contain huge sweeping generalities disguised 
as facts, but all they really are is "what Indi thinks". If you are going to 
make comments like that, you have to back them up with some kind of 
independant unbiased metrics, otherwise you are talking through a hole in your 
ass.

I have what I think might be an interesting exercise. One of the machines I 
admin is an enormous ftp server that serves an entire continent. It hosts 
every major (and many minor) distros, including gentoo and it's distfiles. One 
day when I'm motivated enough to do it, I might just draw download stats per 
distro for packages with kde in the name and plot this going back to before 
KDE-4.0.0 was released. I feel the numbers might prove very interesting.

I won't be doing it today though, the motivation is not there (in the same way 
that the authors of KDE didn't have the motivation to maintain kde3 anymore).

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:30:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 07:00 AM, Indi wrote:
> > ...It was a harrowing time, switching 
> > everyone to gnome, finding that is not so hot...
> 
> Just curious: what sort of complaints did you get about gnome?

Oh to be honest I think most of the complaints were 
that it wasn't kde and it was the first thing I put 
them on. Since they got xfce after that I think they 
simply learned to lower their expectations. Probably 
if I'd put them on xfce first they'd be attached to 
using gnome now. 

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Indi]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 10:51:32 -0400, Indi wrote:
> 
> > > If it's as good as everyone says, what more support did it need? Did
> > > the KDE guys come knocking on your door to remove it, or do it
> > > remotely (Android anyone?), or did it just keep working?
> 
> > That argument is probably valid when limiting the scope of the
> > discussion to gentoo, but the only use I ever had for kde3 was 
> > for non-techie users who wouldn't know whether to poop or go 
> > blind if they click on something and nothing happens
> 
> So install a distro that still supports KDE3 if that's what you want or
> need. KDE 3.5.10 is still there, it hasn't been withdrawn from the
> shelves. You're hardly likely to use Gentoo for such users, so lack of
> core support for 3.5 in Gentoo is not an issue either.
> 

I was just sharing my opinion, which was informed by my 
experience. I'm surprised by the vehemence and persistence 
of (apparently) political rhetoric in response to that.
Obviously the solutions look really simple and matter-of-fact 
a year and a half later. The options were rather different 
while it was actually going on, and all one has to do is STFW 
to see that many people went through much distress over it.

Frankly, I am not a fan of the "shoot the messenger" approach
to dealing with bad news, especially as I really don't feel 
I've said anything but the truth of my own experience. OK I'm 
opinionated, but that opinion is backed by experience - that 
makes it "anecdotal experience", something big corporations spend big
money to compile so they can tune and shape their ideas. The message 
I'm getting is kde guys do not want any anecdotal experience unless 
it is glowing praise or perhaps minor suggestions, so I will not speak
on it anymore. 

Employing all that sort of rhetoric has the effect of making 
discussion uncomfortable and restrictive, which I suppose is 
the idea. Personally, I do not wish to say any more on the matter, 
except to note that the sort of response I've encountered does 
not inspire hope for the future of kde. :(

And with that, I am "out" on this subject, so if someone now 
needs to shame me and put me in my place again that's fine, 
and I will not respond so you'll have the last word. Just 
know that I do not subscribe to all that shame-based grandstanding 
silliness, so it's pretty much wasted on me. 

No hard feelings, I understand we all have our burdens in life. 
:)

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How's the openrc update going for everyone?

[Dale]

Indi wrote:
> I was just sharing my opinion, which was informed by my
> experience. I'm surprised by the vehemence and persistence
> of (apparently) political rhetoric in response to that.
> Obviously the solutions look really simple and matter-of-fact
> a year and a half later. The options were rather different
> while it was actually going on, and all one has to do is STFW
> to see that many people went through much distress over it.
>
> Frankly, I am not a fan of the "shoot the messenger" approach
> to dealing with bad news, especially as I really don't feel
> I've said anything but the truth of my own experience. OK I'm
> opinionated, but that opinion is backed by experience - that
> makes it "anecdotal experience", something big corporations spend big
> money to compile so they can tune and shape their ideas. The message
> I'm getting is kde guys do not want any anecdotal experience unless
> it is glowing praise or perhaps minor suggestions, so I will not speak
> on it anymore.
>
> Employing all that sort of rhetoric has the effect of making
> discussion uncomfortable and restrictive, which I suppose is
> the idea. Personally, I do not wish to say any more on the matter,
> except to note that the sort of response I've encountered does
> not inspire hope for the future of kde. :(
>
> And with that, I am "out" on this subject, so if someone now
> needs to shame me and put me in my place again that's fine,
> and I will not respond so you'll have the last word. Just
> know that I do not subscribe to all that shame-based grandstanding
> silliness, so it's pretty much wasted on me.
>
> No hard feelings, I understand we all have our burdens in life.
> :)
>
>    

+1

Dale

:-)  :-)