Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240025 > unrolled thread

Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid"

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-04-24 19:52 +0100
    Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-24 20:57 +0200
      Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2014-04-24 21:36 +0100
        Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-24 22:52 +0200
          Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-24 17:05 -0700
          Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 06:48 -0500
            Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 07:03 -0500
              Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-25 08:51 -0400
                Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 09:20 -0400
                  Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-25 11:13 -0400
                    Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 11:20 -0400
                    Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-25 11:40 -0600
                      Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 14:21 -0400
                        Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-25 12:57 -0600
                Is it hard to change xterm's font ?  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-25 16:50 -0700
                  Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-25 21:19 -0400
                  Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-27 17:45 -0400
                    Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 15:53 +0200
                    Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2014-05-01 23:06 +0000
                      Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-01 19:55 -0400
                        Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-02 07:46 -0400
                          Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-05-02 15:03 +0200
                            Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-02 09:21 -0400
                            Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-02 11:22 -0700
                        Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-05-02 13:00 -0400
    Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid" GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-24 15:32 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#240025 — Re: Marti van Lin: "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS will be rock solid"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

GreyCloud wrote:
> From another group a fellow did say that UNIX doesn't allow for more
> than 2 rings... how that is I don't know.
> And I'm not sure if Linux falls into that same category.

I have only read some parts of the UNIX specs, so I may be wrong, but I 
would bet UNIX specs make no mention of rings (or similar) at all.

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlNZXXIACgkQGQjO2ccW76pS2QD9GrR7Fatkg2O2PS7BBTgvnAB0
a9746zlT4qmMC1Pf0dcA/2t2CKTVJcQLHLtkzGSrWtQ4BZysw+sIit6RSeANAwZC
=OtAU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#240026

Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> From another group a fellow did say that UNIX doesn't allow for more
>> than 2 rings... how that is I don't know.
>> And I'm not sure if Linux falls into that same category.
> 
> I have only read some parts of the UNIX specs, so I may be wrong, but I
> would bet UNIX specs make no mention of rings (or similar) at all.

They do, even if they don't call them "rings"
All Unixes have a priviledged processor mode and a "user" mode.
Without, it gets tricky to impossible to bring real security into the OS.

For example the old "Minix" ran on 8086-class computers like the ancient IBM 
PC. It provided a "unix-environment" much the same as old unixes of that 
time. But not software security, every program could access other ones and 
even the OS itself

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240029

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> From another group a fellow did say that UNIX doesn't allow for more
>>> than 2 rings... how that is I don't know.
>>> And I'm not sure if Linux falls into that same category.
>> 
>> I have only read some parts of the UNIX specs, so I may be wrong, but I
>> would bet UNIX specs make no mention of rings (or similar) at all.
> 
> They do, even if they don't call them "rings"
> All Unixes have a priviledged processor mode and a "user" mode.
> Without, it gets tricky to impossible to bring real security into the OS.

After a quick search of the UNIX specs v4, the specs mention "kernel 
mode/space" and "user mode/space" but they are (purposely) very vague on 
what they mean and, for example, consider that the "distinction between a 
'system call' and a 'library routine' is an implementation detail".

I've not read the entire spec so I can't claim certainty but I doubt very 
much that the specs requires or even mentions rings (or equivalent) or 
places any restriction on the number of these.

<quote>
System Call*

The distinction between a "system call" and a "library routine" is an 
implementation detail that may differ between implementations and has thus 
been excluded from POSIX.1.
</quote>	
file:///home/artur/tmp/susv4tc1/xrat/V4_xbd_chap03.html

<quote>
Filenames are sequences of bytes, not sequences of characters. The only 
bytes that this standard says cannot appear in any filename are the slash 
byte and the null byte. This is a side-effect of the fact that no conforming 
implementations of the standard currently provide a way to pass information 
specifying the locale associated with strings passed between user-level 
applications and the kernel. This decision could be revisited if 
implementations develop a way to associate a locale with the strings passed 
between kernel space and user space.
</quote>	
file:///home/artur/tmp/susv4tc1/xrat/V4_xbd_chap03.html

<quote>
The pthread_setconcurrency() function may also have an effect on 
implementations where the kernel mode and user mode schedulers cooperate to 
ensure that ready user threads are not prevented from running by other 
threads blocked in the kernel.
</quote>	
file:///home/artur/tmp/susv4tc1/xrat/V4_xsh_chap02.html

Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlNZdeEACgkQGQjO2ccW76r7PAD/eNdcaCRPYOWFSYdGSq+Hp6ig
jLLHhDTi/OZ+HVdxxzEA/RbKiYXGtMhKpgqI5k35NTnUzt/kyD38yDdPPXmBPYWF
=oXxE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240030

Lusotec wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> From another group a fellow did say that UNIX doesn't allow for more
>>>> than 2 rings... how that is I don't know.
>>>> And I'm not sure if Linux falls into that same category.
>>> 
>>> I have only read some parts of the UNIX specs, so I may be wrong, but I
>>> would bet UNIX specs make no mention of rings (or similar) at all.
>> 
>> They do, even if they don't call them "rings"
>> All Unixes have a priviledged processor mode and a "user" mode.
>> Without, it gets tricky to impossible to bring real security into the OS.
> 
> After a quick search of the UNIX specs v4, the specs mention "kernel
> mode/space" and "user mode/space" but they are (purposely) very vague on
> what they mean and, 

Right, as those can be achieved differently with hardware
But they need to be distinctive. This isn't possible with software alone

> for example, consider that the "distinction between a
> 'system call' and a 'library routine' is an implementation detail".

Rightly so, as both are present on any given unix system

< snip >

> </quote>
> file:///home/artur/tmp/susv4tc1/xrat/V4_xbd_chap03.html
> 
> <quote>
> Filenames are sequences of bytes, not sequences of characters. The only
> bytes that this standard says cannot appear in any filename are the slash
> byte and the null byte. 

This is one of the main differences between unix/linux and windows.
Unix treats almost no character (except those 2) as illegal in filenames, 
whereas windows has several characters which may not appear there, in 
addition several filenames are reserved
A much bigger issue than the stupid case-sensitivity idiocy put forward by 
the imbecile Snit Michael Glasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240041

On 4/24/14, 1:52 PM, in article ljbti0$7ke$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Lusotec wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>> From another group a fellow did say that UNIX doesn't allow for more
>>>>> than 2 rings... how that is I don't know.
>>>>> And I'm not sure if Linux falls into that same category.
>>>> 
>>>> I have only read some parts of the UNIX specs, so I may be wrong, but I
>>>> would bet UNIX specs make no mention of rings (or similar) at all.
>>> 
>>> They do, even if they don't call them "rings"
>>> All Unixes have a priviledged processor mode and a "user" mode.
>>> Without, it gets tricky to impossible to bring real security into the OS.
>> 
>> After a quick search of the UNIX specs v4, the specs mention "kernel
>> mode/space" and "user mode/space" but they are (purposely) very vague on
>> what they mean and,
> 
> Right, as those can be achieved differently with hardware
> But they need to be distinctive. This isn't possible with software alone
> 
>> for example, consider that the "distinction between a
>> 'system call' and a 'library routine' is an implementation detail".
> 
> Rightly so, as both are present on any given unix system
> 
> < snip >
> 
>> </quote>
>> file:///home/artur/tmp/susv4tc1/xrat/V4_xbd_chap03.html
>> 
>> <quote>
>> Filenames are sequences of bytes, not sequences of characters. The only
>> bytes that this standard says cannot appear in any filename are the slash
>> byte and the null byte.
> 
> This is one of the main differences between unix/linux and windows.
> Unix treats almost no character (except those 2) as illegal in filenames,
> whereas windows has several characters which may not appear there, in
> addition several filenames are reserved
> A much bigger issue than the stupid case-sensitivity idiocy put forward by
> the imbecile Snit Michael Glasser
> 

And you lash out because of your humiliation. So be it.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240076

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>A much bigger issue than the stupid case-sensitivity idiocy put forward by 
>the imbecile Snit Michael Glasser

The Quack asshole agrees with the thing.  He's "at a loss" as to how
anyone could argue otherwise.  

Quack is so much smarter than the rest of us, you know.  If only he
were dictator, he would determine the best way of doing things and
eliminate all the wasteful, confusing choice that exists today.

Funny, how the "true Linux advocate" always comes-down on the
Micro$oft side of issues...

-- 
"Frankly I'm at a loss to see how a sentient human being such as
yourself can keep arguing such a weak use case."  -  "Hadron",
attacking Linux' case-sensitivity

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240078

chrisv wrote:

>The Quack asshole agrees with the thing.

(About case-sensitivity being "bad", not necessarily about the thing's
specific complaint.)

-- 
"The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
size.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240082

On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:

> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
> size.


Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font 
size on Ubuntu 14.04.

I'll be waiting.

Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and 
less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver 
improved it, even though it's still too small.

The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you 
haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about 
a 99% probability you've never used Linux.

Get it together, turd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240084

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:51:46 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
> 
>> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
>> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
>> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
>> size.
> 
> 
> Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font 
> size on Ubuntu 14.04.
> 
> I'll be waiting.
> 
> Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and 
> less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver 
> improved it, even though it's still too small.
> 
> The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you 
> haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about 
> a 99% probability you've never used Linux.
> 
> Get it together, turd.

turd doesn't run Linux so the only way he can find out is via
Googling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240097

On 04/25/2014 09:20 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:51:46 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
>>> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
>>> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
>>> size.
>>
>>
>> Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font
>> size on Ubuntu 14.04.
>>
>> I'll be waiting.
>>
>> Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and
>> less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver
>> improved it, even though it's still too small.
>>
>> The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you
>> haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about
>> a 99% probability you've never used Linux.
>>
>> Get it together, turd.
>
> turd doesn't run Linux so the only way he can find out is via
> Googling.


xterm generally has no menus - at least I've never seen them.

To [permanently] change the font you have to create/edit the 
~/.Xresources file.  You can Ctrl+right mouse and bring up a popup menu 
but the font change will be temporary, for that xterm instance only.

One of the options for font size is 'unreadable'... Only in the wacky 
world of Linux.

http://bayimg.com/kAnPmAAfm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240099

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:13:05 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 04/25/2014 09:20 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:51:46 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
>>>> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
>>>> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
>>>> size.
>>>
>>>
>>> Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font
>>> size on Ubuntu 14.04.
>>>
>>> I'll be waiting.
>>>
>>> Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and
>>> less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver
>>> improved it, even though it's still too small.
>>>
>>> The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you
>>> haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about
>>> a 99% probability you've never used Linux.
>>>
>>> Get it together, turd.
>>
>> turd doesn't run Linux so the only way he can find out is via
>> Googling.
> 
> 
> xterm generally has no menus - at least I've never seen them.
> 
> To [permanently] change the font you have to create/edit the 
> ~/.Xresources file.  You can Ctrl+right mouse and bring up a popup menu 
> but the font change will be temporary, for that xterm instance only.
> 
> One of the options for font size is 'unreadable'... Only in the wacky 
> world of Linux.
> 
> http://bayimg.com/kAnPmAAfm

Linux users love stuff like that.
It helps them forget about the crappy applications they have and for
some odd reason makes them feel superior to us normal folks because
they can edit config files.

Of course us normal folk click a menu item that says "Change Font"
and we are done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240133

On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 04/25/2014 09:20 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:51:46 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
>>>> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
>>>> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
>>>> size.
>>>
>>>
>>> Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font
>>> size on Ubuntu 14.04.
>>>
>>> I'll be waiting.
>>>
>>> Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and
>>> less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver
>>> improved it, even though it's still too small.
>>>
>>> The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you
>>> haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about
>>> a 99% probability you've never used Linux.
>>>
>>> Get it together, turd.
>>
>> turd doesn't run Linux so the only way he can find out is via
>> Googling.
> 
> 
> xterm generally has no menus - at least I've never seen them.
> 
> To [permanently] change the font you have to create/edit the
> ~/.Xresources file.  You can Ctrl+right mouse and bring up a popup menu
> but the font change will be temporary, for that xterm instance only.
> 
> One of the options for font size is 'unreadable'... Only in the wacky
> world of Linux.
> 
> http://bayimg.com/kAnPmAAfm
> 
> 
> 
> 
crtl-right click... a menu shows up.
But thats just for xterm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240142

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:40:20 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:

> On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, DFS wrote:
>> On 04/25/2014 09:20 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:51:46 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
>>>>> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
>>>>> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
>>>>> size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font
>>>> size on Ubuntu 14.04.
>>>>
>>>> I'll be waiting.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and
>>>> less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver
>>>> improved it, even though it's still too small.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you
>>>> haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about
>>>> a 99% probability you've never used Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Get it together, turd.
>>>
>>> turd doesn't run Linux so the only way he can find out is via
>>> Googling.
>> 
>> 
>> xterm generally has no menus - at least I've never seen them.
>> 
>> To [permanently] change the font you have to create/edit the
>> ~/.Xresources file.  You can Ctrl+right mouse and bring up a popup menu
>> but the font change will be temporary, for that xterm instance only.
>> 
>> One of the options for font size is 'unreadable'... Only in the wacky
>> world of Linux.
>> 
>> http://bayimg.com/kAnPmAAfm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> crtl-right click... a menu shows up.
> But thats just for xterm.

The changes are temporary AFAIK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240145

On 4/25/2014 12:21 PM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:40:20 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
> 
>> On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, DFS wrote:
>>> On 04/25/2014 09:20 AM,  flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:51:46 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/2014 8:03 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The screenshot improves it and makes it look tiny but OK, but in real
>>>>>> life you can barely read it.  It makes the default terminal nearly
>>>>>> useless."  -  DumFSck, too fscking stupid to just change the font
>>>>>> size.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without Googling, I want YOU to tell me how to change the xterm font
>>>>> size on Ubuntu 14.04.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the lousy open source driver 'video-ati' made it even smaller and
>>>>> less legible than it really was.  Installing the closed source driver
>>>>> improved it, even though it's still too small.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you don't know the default xterm font is tiny means you
>>>>> haven't ever used it.  And if you haven't ever used xterm, there's about
>>>>> a 99% probability you've never used Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Get it together, turd.
>>>>
>>>> turd doesn't run Linux so the only way he can find out is via
>>>> Googling.
>>>
>>>
>>> xterm generally has no menus - at least I've never seen them.
>>>
>>> To [permanently] change the font you have to create/edit the
>>> ~/.Xresources file.  You can Ctrl+right mouse and bring up a popup menu
>>> but the font change will be temporary, for that xterm instance only.
>>>
>>> One of the options for font size is 'unreadable'... Only in the wacky
>>> world of Linux.
>>>
>>> http://bayimg.com/kAnPmAAfm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> crtl-right click... a menu shows up.
>> But thats just for xterm.
> 
> The changes are temporary AFAIK.
> 
Yes, a per session setting.
A very old terminal program and not user intuitive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240212 — Is it hard to change xterm's font ? 

DFS,  Is it hard to change xterm's font ?

Changing the DOS console font ( for Unicode ),
is super easy.

1. Tweak a registry setting:
     [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Console\TrueTypeFont]
       "0"="DejaVu Sans Mono"
       ; Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT

2. Reboot.

3. Change some console settings...
   twice, in two different places.

4. Now Console2 ( a better console )
   will work propery, but you have
   to change its settings too.
   ( Jeff-Relf.Me/Console.XML.TXT )

5. Auto⋅Run ＜＜ @chcp 65001  &&  @prompt $P$_$g ＞＞
  [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor]
  "autorun"="C:\\__\\_Source\\Init-CMD.BAT"

6. Enjoy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240231 — Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ?

On 2014-04-25 7:50 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> DFS,  Is it hard to change xterm's font ?
>
> Changing the DOS console font ( for Unicode ),
> is super easy.
>
> 1. Tweak a registry setting:
>       [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Console\TrueTypeFont]
>         "0"="DejaVu Sans Mono"
>         ; Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT
>
> 2. Reboot.
>
> 3. Change some console settings...
>     twice, in two different places.
>
> 4. Now Console2 ( a better console )
>     will work propery, but you have
>     to change its settings too.
>     ( Jeff-Relf.Me/Console.XML.TXT )
>
> 5. Auto⋅Run ＜＜ @chcp 65001  &&  @prompt $P$_$g ＞＞
>    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor]
>    "autorun"="C:\\__\\_Source\\Init-CMD.BAT"
>
> 6. Enjoy.

Useless to me but thanks for the info.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240534 — Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ?

On 04/25/2014 07:50 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> DFS,  Is it hard to change xterm's font ?


Not hard - but to change it permanently you have to Google for the exact 
string, then create or edit the ~/.Xresources file.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xterm

Most distros don't deploy xterm with the toolbar or menus compiled in.





> Changing the DOS console font ( for Unicode ),
> is super easy.
>
> 1. Tweak a registry setting:
>       [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Console\TrueTypeFont]
>         "0"="DejaVu Sans Mono"
>         ; Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT
>
> 2. Reboot.
>
> 3. Change some console settings...
>     twice, in two different places.
>
> 4. Now Console2 ( a better console )
>     will work propery, but you have
>     to change its settings too.
>     ( Jeff-Relf.Me/Console.XML.TXT )
>
> 5. Auto⋅Run ＜＜ @chcp 65001  &&  @prompt $P$_$g ＞＞
>    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor]
>    "autorun"="C:\\__\\_Source\\Init-CMD.BAT"
>
> 6. Enjoy.


xterm is a lot easier than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240627 — Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ?

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:

> On 04/25/2014 07:50 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> DFS,  Is it hard to change xterm's font ?
>
> Not hard - but to change it permanently you have to Google for the exact string,
> then create or edit the ~/.Xresources file.

You also need to do an xrdb merge if the system doesnt do it automagically.

>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xterm
>
> Most distros don't deploy xterm with the toolbar or menus compiled in.
>
>> Changing the DOS console font ( for Unicode ),
>> is super easy.
>>
>> 1. Tweak a registry setting:
>>       [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Console\TrueTypeFont]
>>         "0"="DejaVu Sans Mono"
>>         ; Jeff-Relf.Me/Win_8_.REG.TXT
>>
>> 2. Reboot.
>>
>> 3. Change some console settings...
>>     twice, in two different places.
>>
>> 4. Now Console2 ( a better console )
>>     will work propery, but you have
>>     to change its settings too.
>>     ( Jeff-Relf.Me/Console.XML.TXT )
>>
>> 5. Auto⋅Run ＜＜ @chcp 65001  &&  @prompt $P$_$g ＞＞
>>    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor]
>>    "autorun"="C:\\__\\_Source\\Init-CMD.BAT"
>>
>> 6. Enjoy.
>
> xterm is a lot easier than that.
>
>

-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241165 — Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ?

On 2014-04-27, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
> On 04/25/2014 07:50 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> DFS,  Is it hard to change xterm's font ?
>
>
> Not hard - but to change it permanently you have to Google for the exact 
> string, then create or edit the ~/.Xresources file.

% man xterm would do the trick too

-- 
Beware of a tall black man with one blond shoe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241174 — Re: Is it hard to change xterm's font ?

TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2014-04-27, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:

He has a brain?  Get outa town!

>> On 04/25/2014 07:50 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> DFS,  Is it hard to change xterm's font ?
>>
>> Not hard - but to change it permanently you have to Google for the exact 
>> string, then create or edit the ~/.Xresources file.
>
> % man xterm would do the trick too

Or ~/.Xdefaults.

It is no harder than editing the Registry.

Of course, you could also use terminals like Roxterm, Gnome-terminal, or
XFce4-terminal, which have "GUIs" for configuration of the terminal.

-- 
Advice to young men: Be ascetic, and if you can't be ascetic,
then at least be aseptic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web