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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #16526 > unrolled thread

what the hell?

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

Contents

  what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-24 08:36 +1100
    Re: what the hell? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-12-23 22:46 +0100
    Re: what the hell? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2015-12-23 23:58 +0000
    Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-24 00:28 +0000
      Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-24 11:43 +0000
        Re: what the hell? "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-24 11:57 +0000
          Re: what the hell? "D. Lowe" <d.lowe@openmailbox.org> - 2015-12-24 12:00 +0000
            Re: what the hell? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-12-24 08:01 -0600
            Re: what the hell? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-24 15:02 +0100
              Re: what the hell? Andreas Kohlbach <decem15.8.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2015-12-24 17:19 -0500
                Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-05 12:36 +0100
                  Re: what the hell? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
        Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-24 12:22 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-24 12:23 +0000
          Re: what the hell? "john@wexfordpress.com" <john@wexfordpress.com> - 2016-01-05 10:53 -0800
            Re: what the hell? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:16 +0000
              Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-06 00:40 +0100
                Re: what the hell? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 03:13 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-12-24 13:52 +0100
          Re: what the hell? Andreas Kohlbach <decem15.8.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2015-12-24 17:23 -0500
        Re: what the hell? "Carlos E.R." <cer@invalid.es> - 2015-12-24 15:05 +0100
          Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-24 14:24 +0000
            Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-05 12:38 +0100
          Re: what the hell? Andreas Kohlbach <decem15.8.ankman@spamgourmet.net> - 2015-12-24 17:28 -0500
            Re: what the hell? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-12-25 16:51 +0000
        Re: what the hell? ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-12-24 15:23 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2015-12-24 16:52 +0000
          Re: what the hell? Doug Laidlaw <doug@douglaidlaw.net> - 2015-12-25 04:16 +1100
        Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-24 09:35 -0800
        Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-24 18:23 +0000
        Re: what the hell? Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-12-24 23:20 +0000
          Re: what the hell? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-12-24 15:27 -0800
          Re: what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-25 12:18 +1100
            Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-24 17:29 -0800
            Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 02:39 +0000
              Re: what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-25 15:54 +1100
                Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-25 09:41 +0000
                  Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 11:18 +0000
                Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 16:16 +0000
                  Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 19:35 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-25 19:48 +0000
                      Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 21:02 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-25 21:47 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-25 15:43 -0600
                        Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-26 10:42 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 21:08 +0000
                      Re: what the hell? pureheart@pacbell.net - 2015-12-30 09:23 -0800
                    Re: what the hell? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-12-25 15:22 -0600
                      Re: what the hell? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2015-12-25 21:50 +0000
                      Re: what the hell? Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-12-27 03:50 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-25 21:00 -0500
                      Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-26 03:55 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-25 20:52 -0800
                          Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-26 10:01 -0600
                            Re: what the hell? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-12-26 11:41 -0800
                        Re: what the hell? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-12-26 00:16 -0600
                          Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-26 10:47 +0000
                            Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 13:40 -0500
                              Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-26 19:38 +0000
                                Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 16:27 -0500
                        Re: what the hell? Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2015-12-26 11:40 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 13:32 -0500
                          Re: what the hell? HGW <HG@...> - 2015-12-27 00:41 +0000
                        Re: what the hell? Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-12-27 20:24 +0000
                          Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-27 15:36 -0600
                        Re: what the hell? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-05 12:54 +0100
                          Re: what the hell? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-05 08:01 -0600
                            Re: what the hell? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-05 14:29 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-12-27 03:50 +0000
            Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-25 10:06 +0000
              Re: what the hell? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-25 11:22 +0000
                Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-25 16:03 +0000
                  Re: what the hell? HGW <HG@...> - 2015-12-27 00:41 +0000
                    Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-27 00:47 +0000
          Re: what the hell? HGW <hw@...> - 2015-12-25 12:20 +1100
    Re: what the hell? "john@wexfordpress.com" <john@wexfordpress.com> - 2016-01-05 10:43 -0800
      Re: what the hell? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-05 19:50 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#16539

On 2015-12-24 12:43, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

Because that's one of the reasons that there is almost no virii in
Linux. Learn to use Linux and its ways.

Windows does the same nowdays - but you will not see it if you are
already running as administrator.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#16540

On 24/12/15 14:05, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2015-12-24 12:43, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>
> Because that's one of the reasons that there is almost no virii

viruses.

Virus is NOT direct from Latin: There is an intervening stage of Old 
English in between...



  in
> Linux. Learn to use Linux and its ways.
>
> Windows does the same nowdays - but you will not see it if you are
> already running as administrator.
>


-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

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

#16671

On 2015-12-24 15:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/12/15 14:05, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2015-12-24 12:43, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>>
>> Because that's one of the reasons that there is almost no virii
> 
> viruses.
> 
> Virus is NOT direct from Latin: There is an intervening stage of Old
> English in between...

Not for me... I'm Latin :-P

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#16548

Carlos E.R. wrote on 24. December 2015:
>
> On 2015-12-24 12:43, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>
> Because that's one of the reasons that there is almost no virii in
> Linux. Learn to use Linux and its ways.

But the main reason is IMO that Linux desktop has a low market share. Not
commercially interesting enough for the bad guys to create viruses.

> Windows does the same nowdays - but you will not see it if you are
> already running as administrator.

Windows knows user accounts since NT IIRC, so mid 90s. With Windows 2000
also the home user could use non-admin account. But almost no one does,
because when you install it you usually don't "want" it. You would have
to check an additional check box and think about 2 passwords now. That is
not "user friendly" so MS decided to not "enforce" that. While Linux and
probably every other OS wants the user to create a user (and may be a
root) account.
-- 
Andreas

I use a Unix based operating system, which means I get laid almost as often
as I have to reboot my computer.

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

#16567

It was reported that Andreas Kohlbach posted:


> But the main reason is IMO that Linux desktop has a low market share. Not
> commercially interesting enough for the bad guys to create viruses.

It's generally acknowledged that Linux users are more "savvy" than their
windows using counterparts, & attacks based on tricking users into
executing malware is difficult. Also a lot of users simply don't have the
appropriate privileges to affect things outside their accounts, especially
the crucial OS directories.  UNIX systems in general also enforce a
separation in data and code that makes document-based attacks impractical.
Attacks directed at Linux systems tend to be aimed at exploiting bugs in
system services such as web browsers or Java containers. These don't
frequently run with elevated privileges either, so an exploit is typically
contained to altering the behavior of the targeted service.
Most systems don't allow a remote root login, by default, which helps.
In general, Linux systems are inherently more secure than windows ones. 
So for these reasons, a blackhat cracker who manages to remotely control a
Linux box, has more bragging rights than the ones who can take control of
windows ones. If s/he can take control of a Linux box, they have a much
more powerful tool than the would if they pwned a windows one.

Furthermore Linux server systems are attacked by malicious software *very*
often. DDOS attacks, malware etc. 
However whether the attacks will succeed is another matter. The only
moderately successful one (compared to the damage cause to windows systems
by malware) was the "Linux Hand of Thief" trojan. 

In short, just because the Linux desktop has "a low market share" (which is
estimated to be about 83 million users) it does not mean that malware
writers aren't interested, but it *is* because windows boxes are easier to
crack.

"How secure is Linux?"
https://www.futurehosting.com/blog/how-secure-is-linux-the-myths-and-the-facts/

-- 
openSUSE 13.2 64-bit
KDE 4.14.9
Kernel: 4.2.2-1.gb3ecf72-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT 
Tue Sep 29 18:51:15 UTC 2015 (b3ecf72) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

This message is virus free, as absolutely 
NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation. 

"If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to
delete is Windows."
http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html

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

#16541

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:43:25 +0000, Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>>> What does this mean?
>>> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>>>
>>> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this
>>> comes up?
>>>
>>>
>> Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help
>> you.
> 
> I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the command
> that was supposed to install a package.
> 
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested
>> operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
> 
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

If you don't like it, you can always run everything with root privilege, 
though it's not recommended for security reasons. It's an important 
protection rather than an unnecessary complication, IMHO.

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

#16542

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:43:25 +0000, Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>>> What does this mean?
>>> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>>>
>>> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this
>>> comes up?
>>>
>>>
>> Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help
>> you.
> 
> I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the command
> that was supposed to install a package.
> 
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested
>> operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
> 
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

	Because they are necessary. It's just that you do not understand 
why. Don't worry, you'll learn the hard way.

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

#16544

Jens Stuckelberger wrote:

>>
>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
> 
> Because they are necessary. It's just that you do not understand
> why. Don't worry, you'll learn the hard way.
> 
They are very necessary.  They make you think twice before pressing the 
wrong key.  There is no "undo" in Linux.  Once you have made a mess of your 
system, it stays a mess.

Windows is no different.  Any change to Windows, or installing a new 
program, requires administrator privileges.  Ignore the pop-up there, and 
your package won't be installed.  Just like Linux, only Linux did it first.

Doug.

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

#16543

On 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

To scare off people who'd screw up their systems without them?

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

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

#16545

On 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2015-12-23, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>>> What does this mean?
>>> 'requested operation requires superuser privilege'
>>>
>>> How the hell am I supposed to do anything with terminal when this comes
>>> up?
>>>
>>>
>> Since you do not tell us what you were trying to do, we cannot help you.
>
> I was doing exactly what some expert told me to do. I copied the command 
> that was supposed to install a package.
>
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

Because Linux uses safe computing. There is one user, root, that is
allowed to do many many things. Other users are restricted in what they
can do, precisely so that something they do or run cannot (or rather can
only with greater difficulty) mess thing up. It is part of the reason
you are switching to Linux-- fewer bugs, fewer attacks from the rest of
the world. 
>

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

#16549

On 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>
> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?

They're not even REMOTELY close to "unnecessary".  Too many people would
destroy their systems on a frequent basis without this feature.

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

#16550

On 12/24/2015 03:20 PM, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>>
>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>
> They're not even REMOTELY close to "unnecessary".  Too many people would
> destroy their systems on a frequent basis without this feature.
>

	Some of us get smart enough to learn all about
root then we can destroy our systems from the root.
	But it is best way (I have heard of) to do things.
Goodness knows what might have happened if you had not been
balked.

	bliss

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

#16551

On 25/12/15 10:20, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 00:28:42 +0000, William Unruh wrote:
>>> What it means is that only root can carry out the "requested operation",
>>> whatever it was. Use sudo, or su and try again.
>>
>> Why doesn't Linux get rid of such unnecessary complications?
>
> They're not even REMOTELY close to "unnecessary".  Too many people would
> destroy their systems on a frequent basis without this feature.

Look, all I want to do is perform the very simple task of installing the 
linux 'googleearth-package'.

I have downloaded it and it says it is installed. But I cannot find it 
anywhere.
I was advised to run dpkg googleearth install

then I get shoved off to about a million different commands...nothing 
works. I still dont have google earth and I have wasted about half a day 
trying. I could have downloaded it from the google site in no time at all.

I have already signed in as root to download the thing so why do I have 
to use sudo again.


>

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

#16553

On 2015-12-25, HGW <hw@> wrote:
>
> Look, all I want to do is perform the very simple task of installing the 
> linux 'googleearth-package'.
>
> I have downloaded it and it says it is installed. But I cannot find it 
> anywhere.
> I was advised to run dpkg googleearth install
>
> then I get shoved off to about a million different commands...nothing 
> works.

"nothing works" is not helpful.  What exactly did you do, and what
exactly was the result?

> I could have downloaded it from the google site in no time at all.

So why didn't you?

> I have already signed in as root to download the thing so why do I have 
> to use sudo again.

If you used sudo to download (which is silly, but again, you provide no
specifics on what exactly you tried), then sudo privileges expire after
a few minutes.  That's why you need to reacquire sudo privileges.

--keith


-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

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

#16557

On Friday, December 25th, 2015, 12:18:54 +1100,
Henrt G "I want root privileges" Wilson explained:
 
> Look, all I want to do is perform the very simple task of installing the 
> linux 'googleearth-package'.

Are the instructions at

    <https://help.ubuntu.COM/community/GoogleEarth>

or those giving more details about needed 32bit libraries when installing
on 64 bit systems at

    <http://www.webupd8.org/2014/04/install-google-earth-in-ubuntu-1404.html>

insufficiently clear and simple enough for you not to be able to follow
them in order to install GoogleEarth and run GoogleEarth on either a
32 bit or 64 bit system?

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

#16558

On 25/12/15 13:39, J G Miller wrote:
> On Friday, December 25th, 2015, 12:18:54 +1100,
> Henrt G "I want root privileges" Wilson explained:
>
>> Look, all I want to do is perform the very simple task of installing the
>> linux 'googleearth-package'.
>
> Are the instructions at
>
>      <https://help.ubuntu.COM/community/GoogleEarth>
>
> or those giving more details about needed 32bit libraries when installing
> on 64 bit systems at
>
>      <http://www.webupd8.org/2014/04/install-google-earth-in-ubuntu-1404.html>
>
> insufficiently clear and simple enough for you not to be able to follow
> them in order to install GoogleEarth and run GoogleEarth on either a
> 32 bit or 64 bit system?

Thank you.  You were the only person who offered any worthwhile 
assistance. I finally got it up and running. The photos still do not 
come up but I was informed before that that is a google problem not a 
Linux one.
Street view works well, all 360 deg.

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

#16560

On 25/12/15 04:54, HGW wrote:
> On 25/12/15 13:39, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Friday, December 25th, 2015, 12:18:54 +1100,
>> Henrt G "I want root privileges" Wilson explained:
>>
>>> Look, all I want to do is perform the very simple task of installing the
>>> linux 'googleearth-package'.
>>
>> Are the instructions at
>>
>>      <https://help.ubuntu.COM/community/GoogleEarth>
>>
>> or those giving more details about needed 32bit libraries when installing
>> on 64 bit systems at
>>
>>
>> <http://www.webupd8.org/2014/04/install-google-earth-in-ubuntu-1404.html>
>>
>> insufficiently clear and simple enough for you not to be able to follow
>> them in order to install GoogleEarth and run GoogleEarth on either a
>> 32 bit or 64 bit system?
>
> Thank you.  You were the only person who offered any worthwhile
> assistance. I finally got it up and running. The photos still do not
> come up but I was informed before that that is a google problem not a
> Linux one.
> Street view works well, all 360 deg.
This is the first tome you actually said why you needed root privileges.

BTW google earth is a bug ridden heap of wombat turds, and you may find 
it crashes on opening.

Keep opening it. Eventually it loads..



-- 
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly 
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential 
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations 
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with 
what it actually is.

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

#16562

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:41:19 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


>> Thank you.  You were the only person who offered any worthwhile
>> assistance. I finally got it up and running. The photos still do not
>> come up but I was informed before that that is a google problem not a
>> Linux one.
>> Street view works well, all 360 deg.
> This is the first tome you actually said why you needed root privileges.
> 
> BTW google earth is a bug ridden heap of wombat turds, and you may find
> it crashes on opening.
> 
> Keep opening it. Eventually it loads..

It crashes on my old computer with winXP or Linux because the video card 
is not good enough. Sometimes it stays around for a while then crashes. 

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

#16566

On Friday, December 25th, 2015, at 15:54:12h +1100,
Henry G Wilson wrote:

> Thank you.  You were the only person who offered any worthwhile 
> assistance. 

You are most welcome -- the difficulty with issues like these is always
trying to find and deliver the necessary information and/or instructions
in a format which is clear and concise but sufficiently detailed.

> I finally got it up and running.

That is good news and remember that for all the hassle this has involved
you have learnt a bit about installing packages and any necessary dependencies,
so it will come in useful for the future.

If it was all too easy, you would probably forget ;+}

> The photos still do not come up but I was informed before
> that that is a google problem not a Linux one.

Probably something to do with the application either not being able
to communicate properly to get the photographs or how to display them
because I think Google have not updated the sofware for some time.

> Street view works well, all 360 deg.

So you can go on some virtual visits now  ;+)

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

#16569

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:16:25 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

> On Friday, December 25th, 2015, at 15:54:12h +1100,
> Henry G Wilson wrote:
> 
>> Thank you.  You were the only person who offered any worthwhile
>> assistance.
> 
> You are most welcome -- the difficulty with issues like these is always
> trying to find and deliver the necessary information and/or instructions
> in a format which is clear and concise but sufficiently detailed.
> 
>> I finally got it up and running.
> 
> That is good news and remember that for all the hassle this has involved
> you have learnt a bit about installing packages and any necessary
> dependencies,
> so it will come in useful for the future.

Not so far.

> If it was all too easy, you would probably forget ;+}

There is a general problem with installing packages on linux.
After downloading with software manager some appear with an icon in the 
menu, others such as Google Earth do not.  

For instance I am looking for a good newsreader. I downloaded TIN to try 
it. According to Software manager it IS installed....but where is it? I 
can't find it. I tried terminal with no success. Why all this 
inconsistency? Why can't Linux include the required commands in the 
downloads and save people like me a lot of time and trouble?

> So you can go on some virtual visits now  ;+)

It is pretty realistic. I have been using it for many years on Windows.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web