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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #85275 > unrolled thread

Old geeks and thread drift

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

Contents

  Old geeks and thread drift Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-03 05:31 -0700
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-03 10:37 -0400
    Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-03 14:45 +0000
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2026-04-03 16:05 +0000
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-04-03 14:27 -0400
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-03 19:29 +0000
            Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Rinaldi J. Montessi" <rinaldij@alien.free> - 2026-04-03 15:07 -0500
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-03 22:48 +0000
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-04-04 07:14 +0200
            Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 05:29 +0000
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-04-03 18:10 +0000
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-03 22:50 +0000
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-04 05:55 -0700
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-04 14:10 +0000
            Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-04-04 14:21 +0000
              Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2026-04-04 15:57 +0000
                Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-04 14:00 -0700
                  Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:17 +0000
                    Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-04-05 10:42 -0700
                      Wayland vs. X11 (Was: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-04-05 18:28 +0000
                  Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-05 04:02 +0200
                    Re: Top posting Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-05 10:00 +0100
                  Re: Top posting Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-05 12:41 +0000
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-04-04 18:43 +0000
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-03 22:20 +0200
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-04-04 07:16 +1000
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-04-04 21:12 +1100
            Re: Old geeks and thread drift The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 13:22 +0100
      Unix-ness of Windows NT (was: Re: Old geeks and thread drift) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 00:18 +0100
        Re: Unix-ness of Windows NT Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-04 14:41 +0100
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-04 18:52 +0200
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-04 18:10 +0100
          Re: Old geeks and thread drift "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:14 +0200
        Re: Old geeks and thread drift Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-04-04 13:14 -0700
      Re: Old geeks and thread drift Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-04-05 12:26 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#85275 — Old geeks and thread drift

I love the banter between the dozen or so people that make up most of 
these chats, but it seriously clutters up comp.os.linux.misc and 
alt.comp.os.windows-11 to the point that they are practically unusable 
for the technical questions that they are supposed to serve, and for 
which I also do occasionally need them.

I *really* wish people would move all the wildly off-topic chatter to 
alt.unix.geeks *as soon as they go off-topic. I also with they would 
change the subject line when the follow-up becomes completely unrelated 
to what the subject line says.

If you don't know how to do it:

Start a followup. Change the subject line to what you want it to be.
Add a "Followup-To: alt.unix.geeks" header.

I occasionally try to move a thread over, but usually I don't find such 
a thread until 20+ messages down, and by then it seems to be too late to 
move it, because it has already split into 5 or more branches.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - the old geek who found alt.unix.geeks, and hopes to
                revive it

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#85282

Humans "drift" - we are not industrial-control processors.
One idea/theme invokes/evokes others.

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

#85283

[Followup to alt.unix.geeks ignored.]

Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
> I love the banter between the dozen or so people that make up most of 
> these chats, but it seriously clutters up comp.os.linux.misc and 
> alt.comp.os.windows-11 to the point that they are practically unusable 
> for the technical questions that they are supposed to serve, and for 
> which I also do occasionally need them.
> 
> I *really* wish people would move all the wildly off-topic chatter to 
> alt.unix.geeks *as soon as they go off-topic. I also with they would 
> change the subject line when the follow-up becomes completely unrelated 
> to what the subject line says.

  I think it's not logical if Windows users, who are a part of said
audience, have to move to a Unix group.

  Anyway, moving threads to another group hardly ever - if ever - works.

  I think it would be better to just mark the offending (sub-)threads
with the standard '[OT]' tag at the start of the Subject: line.

> If you don't know how to do it:
> 
> Start a followup. Change the subject line to what you want it to be.
> Add a "Followup-To: alt.unix.geeks" header.

  And *say* that you did that!

> I occasionally try to move a thread over, but usually I don't find such 
> a thread until 20+ messages down, and by then it seems to be too late to 
> move it, because it has already split into 5 or more branches.

  I don't think either of the above methods will work, because it needs
more discipline than most users are willing (able?) to practice.

  FWIW, I 'just' filter the stuff, by (part) of the Subject, Newsgroups,
From, etc., etc., often with a timed filter, so that I don't lose the
'offending' posters in on-topic threads.

  BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
adding only a few lines of new text.

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

#85288

[snip]

>   BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
> adding only a few lines of new text.

Serious undersnippage, which I find much worse than top-posting.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

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

#85295

On 4/3/26 12:05, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>    BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
>> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
>> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
>> adding only a few lines of new text.
> 
> Serious undersnippage, which I find much worse than top-posting.

   But if you DO trim then the OP will scream about
   you undermining their "context", what they see as
   relevant info  :-)

   Sorry, no pleasing everyone.

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

#85302

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 4/3/26 12:05, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>    BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
> >> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
> >> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
> >> adding only a few lines of new text.
> > 
> > Serious undersnippage, which I find much worse than top-posting.
> 
>    But if you DO trim then the OP will scream about
>    you undermining their "context", what they see as
>    relevant info  :-)

  Note that I was (mostly) complaining about *cumulative* quotes, often
many levels 'deep'.

  As to people screaming about snipping relevant info: Yes, that kind of
snipping happens and IME is often intentional and hence dishonest. A
dead giveaway is often that they don't mark what they snipped, resulting
in misrepresenation and lying by ommision.

  I always use snip marks ('[...]') and as you can see, Mark did the
same.

  Moral: One *can* behave responsibly and honestly on Usenet.

>    Sorry, no pleasing everyone.

  But one can please (the majority of) the Good Guys and Girls.

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

#85307

On 4/3/26 14:29, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 4/3/26 12:05, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>     BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
>>>> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
>>>> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
>>>> adding only a few lines of new text.
>>>
>>> Serious undersnippage, which I find much worse than top-posting.
>>
>>     But if you DO trim then the OP will scream about
>>     you undermining their "context", what they see as
>>     relevant info  :-)
> 
>    Note that I was (mostly) complaining about *cumulative* quotes, often
> many levels 'deep'.
> 
>    As to people screaming about snipping relevant info: Yes, that kind of
> snipping happens and IME is often intentional and hence dishonest. A
> dead giveaway is often that they don't mark what they snipped, resulting
> in misrepresenation and lying by ommision.
> 
>    I always use snip marks ('[...]') and as you can see, Mark did the
> same.
> 
>    Moral: One *can* behave responsibly and honestly on Usenet.
> 
>>     Sorry, no pleasing everyone.
> 
>    But one can please (the majority of) the Good Guys and Girls.

I don't post often, but when I do I quote the portion I am replying to. 
In this case, all of the above ;-)

Rinaldi
-- 
Cogito, ergo dubito

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

#85320

On 03 Apr 2026 16:05:06 GMT, Mark Lloyd wrote:

> Serious undersnippage, which I find much worse than top-posting.

People often complain when I snip irrelevant parts when replying to
their postings. Maybe they believe I have made that part of their
posting disappear and become unreadable, or something.

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

#85341

Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>People often complain when I snip irrelevant parts when replying to
>their postings.

You're still supposed to do that. Those people are wrong.

>Maybe they believe I have made that part of their
>posting disappear and become unreadable, or something.

They're used to the stupidity called top posting that has ursuped
E-Mail für decades. Thankfully, Usenet quoting is still sane.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

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

#85342

On Sat, 04 Apr 2026 07:14:26 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe they believe I have made that part of their posting disappear
>> and become unreadable, or something.
>
> They're used to the stupidity called top posting that has ursuped
> E-Mail für decades. Thankfully, Usenet quoting is still sane.

I sometimes get the feeling some of them don’t know how to go back and
re-read older postings ...

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

#85294

On 2026-04-03, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>   BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
> adding only a few lines of new text.

And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

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

#85321

On Fri, 03 Apr 2026 18:10:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...

Fun hobby: look up ”lawyer jokes”, and repurpose them as “top-poster
jokes”. E.g.

A: Not enough sand.
Q: What do you have when you bury six top-posters up to their necks in
   sand?

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

#85355

On 2026-04-03 11:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-04-03, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>    BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
>> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
>> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
>> adding only a few lines of new text.

> And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...

TBH, it depends a lot on which newsreader you are using.
ThunderBird makes it easy, /slrn/ makes it next to impossible.

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

#85358

Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
> On 2026-04-03 11:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > On 2026-04-03, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >>    BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
> >> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
> >> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
> >> adding only a few lines of new text.
> 
> > And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...
> 
> TBH, it depends a lot on which newsreader you are using.
> ThunderBird makes it easy, /slrn/ makes it next to impossible.

  It doesn't matter if it's easy/easier or hard for the multitude of
(human) readers, the *poster* should spent the effort to make it easy
for *all* readers. Why should umpteen readers suffer, just because a
poster (i.e. *one* person) can't be bothered to do the right thing?

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

#85359 — Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)

In article <10qrd58.1dig.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>,
Frank Slootweg  <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> On 2026-04-03 11:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> > On 2026-04-03, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >>    BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
>> >> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
>> >> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
>> >> adding only a few lines of new text.
>> 
>> > And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...
>> 
>> TBH, it depends a lot on which newsreader you are using.

Just to clarify, the "it" in the previous sentence is referring to the
practice of not top posting.

And yes, most "modern" (and/or GUI) newsreaders default to MS style (i.e.,
top posting).

>> ThunderBird makes it easy, /slrn/ makes it next to impossible.

This surprises me.  I'd have thought exactly the opposite would be true,
but I've never used either one.

>  It doesn't matter if it's easy/easier or hard for the multitude of
>(human) readers, the *poster* should spent the effort to make it easy
>for *all* readers. Why should umpteen readers suffer, just because a
>poster (i.e. *one* person) can't be bothered to do the right thing?

I think you lost the thread here.  I don't see how the previous poster's
words could be interpreted as having to do with the ease of reading.

Of course, we are talking about the ease of posting.  And, of course, if
software makes it difficult (or impossible) to do something, users of that
software will shy away from (and not make any effort to correct the
problem) using that functionality.  It is just the way the world works.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Pedantic

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

#85367 — Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)

On 2026-04-04, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <10qrd58.1dig.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>,
> Frank Slootweg  <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>>> On 2026-04-03 11:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> > On 2026-04-03, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >>    BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
>>> >> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
>>> >> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
>>> >> adding only a few lines of new text.
>>> 
>>> > And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...
>>> 
>>> TBH, it depends a lot on which newsreader you are using.
>
> Just to clarify, the "it" in the previous sentence is referring to the
> practice of not top posting.
>
> And yes, most "modern" (and/or GUI) newsreaders default to MS style (i.e.,
> top posting).
>
>>> ThunderBird makes it easy, /slrn/ makes it next to impossible.
>
> This surprises me.  I'd have thought exactly the opposite would be true,
> but I've never used either one.

In the slrn.rc(configuration) file, this will set the cursor at the
bottom of messages... set editor_command "vim -c %d '%s'"
Next to impossible ;)

>>  It doesn't matter if it's easy/easier or hard for the multitude of
>>(human) readers, the *poster* should spent the effort to make it easy
>>for *all* readers. Why should umpteen readers suffer, just because a
>>poster (i.e. *one* person) can't be bothered to do the right thing?
>
> I think you lost the thread here.  I don't see how the previous poster's
> words could be interpreted as having to do with the ease of reading.
>
> Of course, we are talking about the ease of posting.  And, of course, if
> software makes it difficult (or impossible) to do something, users of that
> software will shy away from (and not make any effort to correct the
> problem) using that functionality.  It is just the way the world works.
>

-- 
End Transmission

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

#85394 — Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)

On 2026-04-04 08:57, Adison Vohn Caterson wrote:
> On 2026-04-04, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <10qrd58.1dig.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>,
>> Frank Slootweg  <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-04-03 11:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-04-03, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     BTW, now we're 'complaining', *my* pet peeve is people quoting endless
>>>>>> cumulative sections of previous text - often tens and tens to some
>>>>>> hundred lines - without commenting on the text they quote and then
>>>>>> adding only a few lines of new text.
>>>>
>>>>> And then using that as a justification for top-posting.  Grrr...
>>>>
>>>> TBH, it depends a lot on which newsreader you are using.
>>
>> Just to clarify, the "it" in the previous sentence is referring to the
>> practice of not top posting.
>>
>> And yes, most "modern" (and/or GUI) newsreaders default to MS style (i.e.,
>> top posting).
>>
>>>> ThunderBird makes it easy, /slrn/ makes it next to impossible.
>>
>> This surprises me.  I'd have thought exactly the opposite would be true,
>> but I've never used either one.
> 
> In the slrn.rc(configuration) file, this will set the cursor at the
> bottom of messages... set editor_command "vim -c %d '%s'"
> Next to impossible ;)
> 
>>>   It doesn't matter if it's easy/easier or hard for the multitude of
>>> (human) readers, the *poster* should spent the effort to make it easy
>>> for *all* readers. Why should umpteen readers suffer, just because a
>>> poster (i.e. *one* person) can't be bothered to do the right thing?
>>
>> I think you lost the thread here.  I don't see how the previous poster's
>> words could be interpreted as having to do with the ease of reading.
>>
>> Of course, we are talking about the ease of posting.  And, of course, if
>> software makes it difficult (or impossible) to do something, users of that
>> software will shy away from (and not make any effort to correct the
>> problem) using that functionality.  It is just the way the world works.

My testimony was not addressing the ease of top-posting versus bottom-
posting, but the ease of looking up an earlier post in the thread if
that level of "previous" had been snipped.

/slrn/ (because it runs on a TTY socket) does not allow you to click 
through via a "References: " header, nor indeed via *any* embedded URL.

The second of these can be remedied via the features of the terminal 
program on the user end (highlight, copy and then paste into a browser 
address line) but the "References:" has no easy solution.

I was using /slrn/ for a long time, because I wanted to be able to read 
News from desktop PCs at several different locations (using SSH to get 
into my Linux desktop). I have now resigned myself to only read when I 
am at my desktop at home.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

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

#85396 — Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)

On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 14:00:54 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> I was using /slrn/ for a long time, because I wanted to be able to
> read News from desktop PCs at several different locations (using SSH
> to get into my Linux desktop). I have now resigned myself to only
> read when I am at my desktop at home.

Other possibilities would be screen/tmux (for remote non-GUI access)
or VNC or RDP (for remote GUI access) or like that.

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

#85421 — Re: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift)

[ moving this to alt.unix.geeks ]

On 2026-04-04 15:17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 14:00:54 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> 
>> I was using /slrn/ for a long time, because I wanted to be able to
>> read News from desktop PCs at several different locations (using SSH
>> to get into my Linux desktop). I have now resigned myself to only
>> read when I am at my desktop at home.
> 
> Other possibilities would be screen/tmux (for remote non-GUI access)
> or VNC or RDP (for remote GUI access) or like that.

Thank you all for "revealing" the "u" (upstream) keystroke.
I still find Thunderbird much nicer to work with; despite the difficulty
of getting to an identical newsreader from 3 different desktops.

I used to share the Linux box's desktop with TigerVNC. It worked well 
for years, but broke (actually disappeared) around the time of a version 
upgrade that turned into a re-install on new hardware; I think this was 
related to the X11-to-Wayland transition, but when re-installing 
TigerVNC server, it no longer generated the systemd service module 
template, and I have not had the patience to track down what the new 
best way to share the desktop. It may well be that RDP is the way to go 
nowadays. Is there an easy "howto" for getting that up both on Linux 
(Fedora) and Windows-11? Does Windows Home edition have an RDP client?
A server? Or is that strictly a Pro feature?

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

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

#85424 — Wayland vs. X11 (Was: Top posting (Was: Old geeks and thread drift))

In article <10qu6td$1i99t$1@dont-email.me>,
Lars Poulsen  <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
...
>I used to share the Linux box's desktop with TigerVNC. It worked well 
>for years, but broke (actually disappeared) around the time of a version 
>upgrade that turned into a re-install on new hardware; I think this was 
>related to the X11-to-Wayland transition, but when re-installing 
>TigerVNC server, it no longer generated the systemd service module 
>template, and I have not had the patience to track down what the new 
>best way to share the desktop.

The easiest thing to do is just to switch the server box back to X11.
(Assuming you have the necessary privs and authority to do so)

Over in Raspberry Pi Land, there is lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth
over this issue, with Wayland breaking pretty much everything.  One of the
first things people noticed is that VNC no longer worked, but that was
quickly fixed by somebody putting together a WayVNC server.  You might
check to see if that is available in your Linux environment.

I would not bother with RDP - that's an MS thing.
-- 
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy  of the church so decides." 

    - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web