sarah31

sorry i didn't mean fior my posts to sidetrack to much inot a discussion odf helping or not helping people. to close that conversation i do help noobs but at the same time i try to get them as self reliant as possible as quickly as possible. if that means pulling off an apparent elitist attitude ( i prefer curt) then so be it. some people need to be scared straight. i know i got several kick before i got going. arch or gentoo? try both. the advantages are varying both ways but ultimately it is what you prefer. i did not like gentoo as it was very buggy at the time used it. there was a period for awhile too where the zealots were incredibly annoying and i slagged the distro alot for that. it was not a pretty scene and i still have an arch user periodically liabeling my name indirectly every so often (well actually they take aim at me by tainting new users to using the forum or my advice and all my friends there in the process). fortunately i don't care because he ends out being the bigger ass in the end because all he does is gripe gripe gripe. he even was on the dev team until he quit because he could not hack it. at that point he went on his rampage.

i know i am free to not use something but i am also free not to help people that are just too lazy to try and figure things out for themself. i was left out to dry many times. until i finally started to take initiative and actually want to learn then things changed. anyone that knows me knows that i will help anyone. but if someone takes takes takes and makes the community do all the work i have no time for. i was taught right from before i even delved into linux that if you don't want to get your hands dirty then you should stick with windows or mac os. as time has gone on i have come to the realization that the less someone knows their system and their OS the more it will cost them in time and money. the more hand holding we do the more people will demand it. the more we make things point and click the more we compromise the security of our systems .... some things in *nix are just not meant to be done without considerable risks.

i recommend the book PHP For the World Wide Web by Larry Ullman Second Edition from Peachpit press. http://www.dmcinsights.com/bk_pages/books.php?i=php i have been using it it is really helpful (and inexpensive). you could also use the php manual found at the php home site.

you would probably care if you had to create a 508 compliant site. While the sites I am working on have decent 508 compliancy it still need to clean them up a bit. why should i care about 508 compliancy? well if i want all people to access my site then i damn well want disabled people to be able to and i need 508 compliancy for that. clean code is one key to universal compliancy. (i do share your point of view too though in that i do not press really hard to make things perfect for IE. since that often forces me to break something. IE allows too much shit code. it is really frustrating.) clean code is easier to work with. imo.

using css instead of tables allows the code to be lighter and alot easier control of positioning. using css over tables also allows for a much more forward compatable code to result. while table are useful (don't get the idea that i am anti-tables) it is alot more work to get them compliant in many browsers. css cannot replace some of what tables can provide (such as the small chart on the page i provided) but using them to set up simple columns is just pointless when css does a better job of it and with less effort. i thought tables were cool until it ried to do some stuff with forms and what not. it get so hard to deal with tables and it is even more frustrating when you toy with them for hours only to find that they render poorly isn foo browser. yeah and zengarden has excellent examples of just how much you can do with simple templates and some decent graphical skills. the pages look great and render quickly. tables are great and serve useful purposes but when i can i use straight css layouts.

no tables here: http://www.comicgradinggroup.com one header file, one footer, one content page it is al css controlled (except for a few small tables that hd to be made for the sake of properly positioning them and for "the look" that was needed

i would be one of those. but i don't consider myself "elitist" i just don't want arch to become loaded with gui interfaces for simple apps such as pacman. it is not that dislike guis but the more of them that you have hiding the "dirty underbelly" of linux the more people will require help. i am a firm believer that anyone using a computer, regardless of what OS, they should know the basics of their system. i know that is a bit idealistic but if you hang out in forums enough it get very annoying to see the same questions asked over and over when at least familiarizing themselves with website docs, man, and info pages they could have had their answers. i'm as lazy as the next person but i still am able to find most of my answers on my own and this is because i know some basics and i know what is in my computer, hardware-wise.

udev is stable and functional for most people that use it. there are some problems here and there but they are very very minor at this point. the package is called udev and with a few current initscript package changes allows udev to drop right in. in my opinion though i kind of prefer devfs. i don't see the advantages one the surface. admittingly though i have not read up on the differences. ntpl is not used yet because arch still has a fair number of 2.4 kernel users and it does not support ntpl.

ah i was wondering how this could have slipped by a distro ho like you ;)

took you a loooong time to "find" this "distro"

couldn't agree more. i dunno what it is about the unix crowds but there seems to be an over abundance of people that despise any sort of large business or anything that may remotely be made to look as though it *could possibly somehow* encroach on "rights". it is really funny actually. only in the *nix world have i found somebody that actually considers copyrights "bad law". *nix users seem to have some incredibly warped sense ideology. on one hand they love the socialist nature of the open source community (which in its self is hilarious considering how bad a word liberal is in the USA) and demonize certain big business. little do they realize that what is actually spewing from their mouths/hands/heads is so much hypocritical drivel even a free diver would drown in the mire. woo....and do some people get emotional about it....ooo boy. i say if something is definitely not impeding my life and health then it is a pretty minor matter. there are definitely situations and companies in this world who are actually endangering or taking the lives of people (ie tabacco companies) or the environment. i mean really, why should i worry about Microsoft or legalizing gay marrige when neither impede how i live my life? why should i care what OS somebody uses and whether or not it contains proprietary code? nope it is all very silly. that being said though though Microsoft is no threat to my life and living how they conduct some of their business and the fearmongering and intimidation does bother me. i mean really a company that is that large that rich should not be worried to much about competition. they should also be taking a different approach to priracy rather than intimidating politicians, etc into endorsing/creating laws that can or will be a large problem in the future or actually disregard certain other existing laws (ie paladium technology flies in the the face of monopoly laws). anyway...enough ranting.

ctrl+alt+backspace that should drop you into a login screen

how will this effect xfree86 (4.4)? it won't. xfree86 is a dying stale project as it is. there have been no major changes in the functionality and performance of X for the entire thre or four years i have used linux. while x generally gets the job done it is not good enough yet to really woo the rest of the computer world over. xfree86 needs some drastic changes in order to step into the present century. if fact so do the gui toolkit developers for that matter.

download the first debian disc. install base. reboot apt-get whatever you want. of course this means you have to do some configuration of x and get your sound going but it s the easiest, fastest and best way to install debian. forget libranet, knoppix or any other gibberish.

most distributions have a set standard for where a rpm will install the various files. for example with arch linux mozilla installs to /opt/mozilla. with mozilla and some other apps they will create a users diredctory in /home/<username> and with moz there is usually a plugin directory in there an some plugins work when put in there. but looking at your path to moz now it looks like you did not install a moz rpm? all i know is that my java plugins do not work unless: 1. they come from a gcc3 compiled java release 2. they are symlinked to the root (main) mozilla plugin directory

try symlinking them to the main mozilla plugin directory. java is sometimes very picky and must be in the main browser plugin directory. note you may have to quit and relaunch moz to be able to actauily use the plugin. (same with flash plugins, mplayer plugins, etc) you should NOT have to reboot.

fair enough

actually no it does not "need to be" or "should be" that way. i for one do not run a source based distro and definitely do not want to run one as they do not validate all the time that goes into it. the distro i do run, however, packages source in the manner it is distributed....that is with the "devel" parts included. the learning process is hindered greatly when people assume that their distro has supplied all that a user needs to compile their own source. in fact few of the distros that split up their source packages even bother to mention to the user the they may need to install foo-devel package. sure these distros often have a "developer" set of packages that can be installed at install time but the average user that installs mdk will often pass on that package set because they say to themselves.."i am not a developer"... so right then and there they are making a mistake. so then they are learning their system and find out about such and such and app but, being unfamiliar with the packaging system and package management options, they do not know all of the places to look. they come to a forum like this and ask and someone who is season may just go " if you cannot find it why not just compile it/" they then proceed to answer the inevitable question of how to compile. now thinking they have all the wares to compile they go ahead and start only to find they need this that and the other package. it becomes a huge burden even with package managers that can solve dependencies etc. now as a user of a distro that does not separate out the "devel" components i know how much smoother things can be and how much easier it is to manage the system. i am sure our dial up customers appreciate the fact that once they have their system installed and set up they know they can compile source right away without seeking more and more packages. if they should need to install a package foir what they are trying to build then it is one instll and that is that. for developers it would be alot easier too. i can just imagine what it is like for debian developers or rpm packagers to try and include all of the possible core and developer packages in the metadata in order just to solve dependencies for the package manager demands. granted it is handy in situations where you may only need certain headers or lib files to build your source but those situations are actually rare for the standard user that only occasionally compiles from source. all this being said i think the "best answer" is the one that point to the easiest way for the user of a distro to manage packages. in this case the plf sources. why go through the hassle of compiling when a few tweaks of your system can get your package manager grabbing nice premade and easily manages binary packages.

means the libgift devel pkg/s is missing (devel because that's what we're doing involved with a *.h). That's what urpmf will say bah we all said the same thing. anyone who compiles enough will learn those errors. my problem is that why would people packaging mandrake rpms want to go through all the work of splitting off lib and include files .... especially on such a small little package as gift. (yes i understand it make some packages smaller but uis it not annoying ahving to go seek a stupid package when it should have been included in the first place?) aze .... it believe tht you will obviously have to install the gift package first then the devel package then you should finally be ready to go.

what i meant is that your kernel.h does not contain a reference to stdarg.h. audiofunc.c in the source you are trying to compile makes ference to the kernel.h header which is fouind without a problem but the problem with kernel.h is that there is no reference to stdarg.h. the source you are compiling is expecting it though. that is what i mean by your kernel headers are depreciated or missing code. there were likley changes in gcc standards forced kernel coding changes for the header files. however, the changes did not take place unitl after your kernel version. i am not completely sure of this (without looking at your kernel.h file) but that is what the error is telling me.

looks like you need libgift installed. apollon needs a few headers from it that are likely responsible for the other errors shown after the mention of the libgift headers.

well do you knwo for sure what package requires those lib files? if the 3.0.4 lib files are not require for runtime depends of any package then why not remove the package and the symlink and try rebuilding. you errors could all boil down to those 3.0.4 files. well edit that actually...it looks like your kernel header files have depreciated code or missing code.

well i will be interested to hear of progress. it is a weird problem but sure sounds like some package has buggerd up your original setup.

ah good show. thanks for the followup.