Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #203792 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-02 12:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-01-11 16:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 12:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 15:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 15:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 17:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 19:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-02 21:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 23:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-03 01:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 22:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 23:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2019-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-02 21:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 10:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-03 12:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-01-04 19:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 21:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 10:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 04:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gary Dale <garyndp@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 05:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server steef <debian.linux@home.nl> - 2019-01-03 16:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 17:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-03 20:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 22:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 23:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 04:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 09:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 12:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 22:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 23:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 22:40 +0100
Re: bad printing results (was: Why choose Debian on server) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 23:20 +0100
Re: bad printing results (was: Why choose Debian on server) Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2019-04-03 16:10 +0200
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 10:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-05 12:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 14:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 13:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 15:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-05 20:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-05 20:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 01:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 13:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 16:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 16:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 17:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 17:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 18:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 18:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 18:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 18:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 19:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 19:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 20:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-10 11:10 +0100
Re: long page screenshots (was: Why choose Debian on server) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-07 01:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 01:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 19:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 22:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-08 01:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 20:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 21:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-16 00:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 18:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 19:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-10 21:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 02:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-07 15:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 16:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-08 14:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 22:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2019-01-04 22:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 23:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-04 22:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 22:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 19:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server francis picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 16:50 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdkyZ-5gC-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204127 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:05:19 +0000, Curt wrote: > >> On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >> I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the >> >> control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite >> >> different for other users. >> > >> > No. FF uses SHIFT+F2. >> >> It doesn't seem to here (on latest stable Quantum). > >>From an earlier post: > > > > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and > > > > take a screenshot of the whole page. > > > > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this > > > magic key combo documented? > > > Tools --> Web Developer --> Developer Toolbar > >> Left-click the page and select "Take a Screenshot," or click the >> triple-dot ... in the address bar for the roll-down menu appears to be >> the way to go on my browser. >> >> Moderately awkward to capture a 7-pager. > > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. > Oops. Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdkIF-5kc-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204128 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. >> > >> >> Oops. >> >> Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item). > > There is here (60.4.0esr). Inbetween "Storage Inspector" and "webIDE". > In any case, does SHIFT+F2 bring up a console line with a flashing > cursor at the bottom of the screen? > In between "Storage Inspector" and "WebIDE" I have "Accessibility." SHIFT+F2 seems to do nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdlbH-5JS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204129 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:47:16 +0000, Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. > >> > > >> > >> Oops. > >> > >> Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item). > > > > There is here (60.4.0esr). Inbetween "Storage Inspector" and "webIDE". > > In any case, does SHIFT+F2 bring up a console line with a flashing > > cursor at the bottom of the screen? > > > > In between "Storage Inspector" and "WebIDE" I have "Accessibility." > > SHIFT+F2 seems to do nothing. What is your version of FF? (Help/About Firefox). -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdlEK-5U5-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204133 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:47:16 +0000, Curt wrote: > >> On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Oops. >> >> >> >> Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item). >> > >> > There is here (60.4.0esr). Inbetween "Storage Inspector" and "webIDE". >> > In any case, does SHIFT+F2 bring up a console line with a flashing >> > cursor at the bottom of the screen? >> > >> >> In between "Storage Inspector" and "WebIDE" I have "Accessibility." >> >> SHIFT+F2 seems to do nothing. > > What is your version of FF? (Help/About Firefox). > 64.0 (64-bit)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdlOq-5Xd-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204133 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:47:16 +0000, Curt wrote: > >> On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Oops. >> >> >> >> Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item). >> > >> > There is here (60.4.0esr). Inbetween "Storage Inspector" and "webIDE". >> > In any case, does SHIFT+F2 bring up a console line with a flashing >> > cursor at the bottom of the screen? >> > >> >> In between "Storage Inspector" and "WebIDE" I have "Accessibility." >> >> SHIFT+F2 seems to do nothing. > > What is your version of FF? (Help/About Firefox). > I found it. Tools --> Web Developer --> Toggle Tools (checked) In the console :screenshot foo --fullpage https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Web_Console/Helpers saves foo.png in the default download location. On the stackexchange thread in question this process seems to "get it all." We have arrived safely, Captain!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdmKu-6xF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204140 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:53:55 +0000, Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:47:16 +0000, Curt wrote: > > > >> On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Oops. > >> >> > >> >> Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item). > >> > > >> > There is here (60.4.0esr). Inbetween "Storage Inspector" and "webIDE". > >> > In any case, does SHIFT+F2 bring up a console line with a flashing > >> > cursor at the bottom of the screen? > >> > > >> > >> In between "Storage Inspector" and "WebIDE" I have "Accessibility." > >> > >> SHIFT+F2 seems to do nothing. > > > > What is your version of FF? (Help/About Firefox). > > > > I found it. Tools --> Web Developer --> Toggle Tools (checked) > > In the console > > :screenshot foo --fullpage > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Web_Console/Helpers > > saves foo.png in the default download location. > > On the stackexchange thread in question this process seems to "get it all." > > We have arrived safely, Captain! Thank you for your persistence. I was beginning to think your Firefox was not from Debian. It appears the feature you describe has disappeared from it in more recent versions: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/05/21/firefox-62-developer-toolbar-removal/ To summarise: The claim was made that a certain web page was not "printable". The user was using a clapped out version of Debian and an unknown version of Firefox. The claim is demonstrably incorrect on stretch. His "glass half-full" philosphophy dictated that no effort be made to investigate further and seek a solution. Kitchens can certainly be hot, but they are tolerable when the the chef has some ingredients, techniques and skills to offer the diners and stimulate their appetites. Preferably by not cooking with candles. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeFrI-6kn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204148 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > Thank you for your persistence. I was beginning to think your Firefox > was not from Debian. It appears the feature you describe has disappeared > from it in more recent versions: > > https://www.ghacks.net/2018/05/21/firefox-62-developer-toolbar-removal/ > It would seem rather that the feature or process you have described is the one that has disappeared from more recent FF versions (F2 SHIFT etc...). The process I described (sorry for the confusion, but I used FF 64.0 downloaded directly from the FF web site) is the current one. Tools--->Web Developer--->Toggle Tools (check) Or Tools--->Web Developer--->Web Console (select) Once the web console is apparent, you can enable the screenshot icon in the settings menu by checking "Take a screenshot of the entire page" (you click the ellipsis on the upper right to access the settings menu). Clicking on the screenshot icon takes a full-page screenshot in png format and saves it to the default download location. There is also a settings option to save screenshots to the clipboard. However, as you have remarked elsewhere, the full-page screenshot process is not infallible (and with savory irony fails on the recursive, auto-reproductive bugzilla thread I pointed to in another post, producing a truncated image).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 01:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: long page screenshots (was: Why choose Debian on server) |
| Message-ID | <xdrh8-UG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204140 |
Curt composed on 2019-01-06 18:53 (UTC):
> Brian wrote:
>> What is your version of FF? (Help/About Firefox).
> I found it. Tools --> Web Developer --> Toggle Tools (checked)
> In the console
> :screenshot foo --fullpage
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Web_Console/Helpers
> saves foo.png in the default download location.
> On the stackexchange thread in question this process seems to "get it all."
Another way to get much larger images is to use the panning facilities provided
by Xorg if you're not subject to the misfortune of broken Xorg. Wheezy could be
among those. On Stretch and Buster the xorg.conf method is broken (the mouse is
constrained to CRTC size). Panning size is completely arbitrary, subject to the
limits of the gfxchip and video RAM.
Examples:
1-put xrandr in a startup script for a(n 8000px tall) virtual desktop:
# cat <mystartupscript>
# inxi -GxxS
System: Host: fi965 Kernel: 4.18.0-3-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 7.3.0 Desktop: Trinity R14.0.6 tk: Qt 3.5.0
wm: Twin dm: startx Distro: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid
Graphics: Device-1: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD/ATI] Cedar [Radeon HD 5000/6000/7350/8350 Series] vendor: PC Partner Limited
driver: radeon v: kernel bus ID: 01:00.0 chip ID: 1002:68f9
Display: server: X.Org 1.20.3 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa alternate: ati resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: AMD CEDAR (DRM 2.50.0 / 4.18.0-3-amd64 LLVM 7.0.1) v: 3.3 Mesa 18.2.6 compat-v: 3.1
direct render: Yes
# xrandr | head ...
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1920 x 8000, maximum 8192 x 8192
DVI-I-1 connected 1920x8000+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 673mm x 284mm panning 1920x8000+0+0
1920x1080 59.96* 60.00 59.93
2-use /etc/X11/xorg.con* to provide a (3600px tall) virtual desktop (openSUSE Tumbleweed):
# cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf
Section "Device"
Identifier "Default Device"
Option "monitor-DVI-I-1" "Default Monitor"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Default Monitor"
Option "PreferredMode" "1920x1080"
Option "Panning" "1920x3600"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Default Screen"
Device "Default Device"
Monitor "Default Monitor"
EndSection
# inxi -Gxx
Graphics: Device-1: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD/ATI] RV610 [Radeon HD 2400 PRO] vendor: Dell driver: radeon v: kernel
bus ID: 04:00.0 chip ID: 1002:94c3
Display: server: X.Org 1.20.3 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa alternate: ati compositor: kwin_x11
resolution: 1920x1080~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: AMD RV610 (DRM 2.50.0 / 4.19.2-1-default LLVM 6.0.1) v: 3.3 Mesa 18.1.7 compat-v: 3.0
direct render: Yes
# xrandr # head...
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1920 x 3600, maximum 8192 x 8192
DVI-I-1 connected 1920x3600+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 673mm x 284mm panning 1920x3600+0+0
1920x1080 59.96*+ 60.00 59.93
1680x1050 59.95 59.88
1400x1050 74.76 59.98
1600x900 59.94 59.95 59.82
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdkIF-5kc-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204128 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:33:56 +0000, Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:05:19 +0000, Curt wrote: > > > >> On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the > >> >> control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite > >> >> different for other users. > >> > > >> > No. FF uses SHIFT+F2. > >> > >> It doesn't seem to here (on latest stable Quantum). > > > >>From an earlier post: > > > > > > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and > > > > > take a screenshot of the whole page. > > > > > > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this > > > > magic key combo documented? > > > > > Tools --> Web Developer --> Developer Toolbar > > > >> Left-click the page and select "Take a Screenshot," or click the > >> triple-dot ... in the address bar for the roll-down menu appears to be > >> the way to go on my browser. > >> > >> Moderately awkward to capture a 7-pager. > > > > Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. > > > > Oops. > > Still, Tools --> Web Devloper --> (but there ain't no Developer Toolbar item). There is here (60.4.0esr). Inbetween "Storage Inspector" and "webIDE". In any case, does SHIFT+F2 bring up a console line with a flashing cursor at the bottom of the screen? -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdqO5-KZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204124 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 16:53:03 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:28:55 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:37:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote:
> > > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and
> > > > take a screenshot of the whole page.
> > >
> > > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this
> > > magic key combo documented?
> >
> > I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the
> > control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite
> > different for other users.
>
> No. FF uses SHIFT+F2.
>
> > For example, my fvwm uses Shift-F2 for speaker-volume-down because the
> > Lenovo-W10 system chose to engrave {Speaker]- on the key.
Yes, my Shift-F2 ≡ your SHIFT+F2.
But having released fvwm's hold on this key combination, I can see
that pressing it does now give me a prompt at the foot of the window.
However, the simple way (for me) seems to be a right-click in the page,
and "Take a Screenshot" is the last menu item. The image of the full
page appears in the default download location, and has its name
constructed as Screenshot-<YYYY>-<m>-<d> <page title>.png with
subsequent shots labelled with (1) like wget does it. Not the most
elegant name (they sort badly) but sufficient. I much prefer not
having to type.
So thanks for pointing out that tool. It's complements my ^A method of
getting the text, and my scrot methods for the window image.
> > But if FF can take a screenshot itself, I would hope that you get
> > the whole page, not just the whole window (which is all the WM can
> > give you, of course) because configuring an application like scrot
> > can give you *much* more functionality.
>
> There is no "if" about it; your hopes would also be fulfilled.
I shall have to think about ways of handling PNGs that can be tens of
thousands pixels in height.
> > > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage
> > >
> > > And pray tell, where does it stash this .png? FF it seems, goes out of
> > > their way to select where it stashes a downloadable file. Its instructed
> > > to ask me, but rarely does.
> >
> > # find / -type f -mmin -10
> >
> > for files created in the last 10 minutes, say.
> >
> > > > Use TAB to complete and move along the command line. The file produced
> > > > is named filename-fullpage.png and is, of course, printable.
> > >
> > > Good to know.
> >
> > Yes, but some of the advice given seems to come with a lot of attitude.
>
> Don't understand this. You would have to explain.
Blaming FF's inability to create usable PDFS on users' incompetence,
blaming reluctance to use Chrome/ium on FF users' laziness or
bewilderment, name calling and so on.
BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable"
document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly.
$ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page,
and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes
gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text.
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdHOW-2Op-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204155 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:13:58 -0600, David Wright wrote: [...] > BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable" > document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly. > $ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page, > and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes > gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text. To nitpick, the claim was that the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange page was printable. Whether the marks on paper satisfied a user in all regards wasn't touched on until now. For me, printing the screen image obtained from my chosen page from the Print Preview of FireFox gave an acceptable output with a Custom Scale. It helped to choose Landscape mode. 'lp -d.....' benefits from fiddling with the scaling= option and from orientation-requested=4. For a screenshot, the mouse right-click is a more straightforward way than the other method. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdKa6-4a7-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204189 |
On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 18:21:07 (+0000), Brian wrote: > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:13:58 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > [...] > > > BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable" > > document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly. > > $ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page, > > and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes > > gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text. > > To nitpick, the claim was that the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange page > was printable. Whether the marks on paper satisfied a user in all > regards wasn't touched on until now. I think it's reasonable to demand a certain level of legibility. > For me, printing the screen image obtained from my chosen page from > the Print Preview of FireFox gave an acceptable output with a Custom > Scale. It helped to choose Landscape mode. The landscape mode changes the output from a very tall image printed on a portrait page to the same image printed across it instead, reducing the scale by the golden proportion. > 'lp -d.....' benefits from fiddling with the scaling= option and from > orientation-requested=4. This gets very involved. Having tried feeding convert with the image, I see that it can produce a pretty faithful PDF which suffers only from the usual problem of being overtall. If I was going to indulge in this very often (which I'm not) I think it would be worth writing a script to run convert on page-size slices of the image, outputting them as PDFs, and collate them into a conventional multipage document with pdftk. It would be fairly simple to compute the y-size by ratioing the x-size according to the paper regime, and even allow for some overlap between pages (because one doesn't know where to slice in between lines of text). PS what's a backdoord malward? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdMYh-5Um-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204200 |
On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 14:37:30 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 18:21:07 (+0000), Brian wrote: > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:13:58 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable" > > > document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly. > > > $ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page, > > > and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes > > > gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text. > > > > To nitpick, the claim was that the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange page > > was printable. Whether the marks on paper satisfied a user in all > > regards wasn't touched on until now. > > I think it's reasonable to demand a certain level of legibility. Indeed. That is why I am looking at printouts from Firefox and lp which nobody with reasonable eyesight would have any trouble reading. > > For me, printing the screen image obtained from my chosen page from > > the Print Preview of FireFox gave an acceptable output with a Custom > > Scale. It helped to choose Landscape mode. > > The landscape mode changes the output from a very tall image printed > on a portrait page to the same image printed across it instead, > reducing the scale by the golden proportion. > > > 'lp -d.....' benefits from fiddling with the scaling= option and from > > orientation-requested=4. > > This gets very involved. Having tried feeding convert with the image, > I see that it can produce a pretty faithful PDF which suffers only > from the usual problem of being overtall. Printing from Firefox is hardly involved. Basically, choose the scaling. Forget about lp; most people never use it directly. > If I was going to indulge in this very often (which I'm not) I think > it would be worth writing a script to run convert on page-size slices > of the image, outputting them as PDFs, and collate them into a > conventional multipage document with pdftk. It would be fairly simple > to compute the y-size by ratioing the x-size according to the paper > regime, and even allow for some overlap between pages (because one > doesn't know where to slice in between lines of text). Sounds more involved than using lp. > PS what's a backdoord malward? Pass. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xeroJ-64W-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204205 |
On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 23:51:36 (+0000), Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 14:37:30 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 18:21:07 (+0000), Brian wrote: > > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:13:58 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable" > > > > document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly. > > > > $ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page, > > > > and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes > > > > gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text. > > > > > > To nitpick, the claim was that the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange page > > > was printable. Whether the marks on paper satisfied a user in all > > > regards wasn't touched on until now. > > > > I think it's reasonable to demand a certain level of legibility. > > Indeed. That is why I am looking at printouts from Firefox and lp which > nobody with reasonable eyesight would have any trouble reading. > > > > For me, printing the screen image obtained from my chosen page from > > > the Print Preview of FireFox gave an acceptable output with a Custom > > > Scale. It helped to choose Landscape mode. I think I see what you're doing now: you take the snapshot in FF, then open the snapshot in FF again and then use Print Preview to set the scaling factor before you print it. > > The landscape mode changes the output from a very tall image printed > > on a portrait page to the same image printed across it instead, > > reducing the scale by the golden proportion. > > > > > 'lp -d.....' benefits from fiddling with the scaling= option and from > > > orientation-requested=4. > > > > This gets very involved. Having tried feeding convert with the image, > > I see that it can produce a pretty faithful PDF which suffers only > > from the usual problem of being overtall. > > Printing from Firefox is hardly involved. Basically, choose the scaling. > Forget about lp; most people never use it directly. Well, I couldn't see any scaling options in lp except fit-to-page which would be fighting what one is trying to do. > > If I was going to indulge in this very often (which I'm not) I think > > it would be worth writing a script to run convert on page-size slices > > of the image, outputting them as PDFs, and collate them into a > > conventional multipage document with pdftk. It would be fairly simple > > to compute the y-size by ratioing the x-size according to the paper > > regime, and even allow for some overlap between pages (because one > > doesn't know where to slice in between lines of text). > > Sounds more involved than using lp. I've found that the package posterazor can split the FF image and, trying it out, it seemed to be able to fit-to-width. It can also yield overlapping pages so you don't get lines of print split across pages as with your method. But again, if I were having to do this regularly, I would prefer to write a script rather than have to go through its 5-step interactive dialogue on each occasion. Most of the degrees of freedom given by posterazor are unnecessary because the values can all be computed. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xesXv-6QP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204261 |
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 12:47:42 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 23:51:36 (+0000), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 14:37:30 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 18:21:07 (+0000), Brian wrote: > > > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:13:58 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable" > > > > > document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly. > > > > > $ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page, > > > > > and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes > > > > > gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text. > > > > > > > > To nitpick, the claim was that the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange page > > > > was printable. Whether the marks on paper satisfied a user in all > > > > regards wasn't touched on until now. > > > > > > I think it's reasonable to demand a certain level of legibility. > > > > Indeed. That is why I am looking at printouts from Firefox and lp which > > nobody with reasonable eyesight would have any trouble reading. > > > > > > For me, printing the screen image obtained from my chosen page from > > > > the Print Preview of FireFox gave an acceptable output with a Custom > > > > Scale. It helped to choose Landscape mode. > > I think I see what you're doing now: you take the snapshot in FF, then > open the snapshot in FF again and then use Print Preview to set the > scaling factor before you print it. That's spot-on, but do not think I am wedded to this technique. If I had a desperate to print a one-off (like the originator of this sub-thread) I would use it but would be cogniscent of its limitations. Manipulating images within the printing system is fraught as far as I am concerned. Curt informatively posted: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00447.html A twist with the page he refers to is that getting the whole page with a right click is not possible at this site. > > > The landscape mode changes the output from a very tall image printed > > > on a portrait page to the same image printed across it instead, > > > reducing the scale by the golden proportion. > > > > > > > 'lp -d.....' benefits from fiddling with the scaling= option and from > > > > orientation-requested=4. > > > > > > This gets very involved. Having tried feeding convert with the image, > > > I see that it can produce a pretty faithful PDF which suffers only > > > from the usual problem of being overtall. > > > > Printing from Firefox is hardly involved. Basically, choose the scaling. > > Forget about lp; most people never use it directly. > > Well, I couldn't see any scaling options in lp except fit-to-page > which would be fighting what one is trying to do. CUPS itself has removed or deprecated such options: https://github.com/apple/cups/issues/4010 It is cups-filters which carries the flag now. > > > If I was going to indulge in this very often (which I'm not) I think > > > it would be worth writing a script to run convert on page-size slices > > > of the image, outputting them as PDFs, and collate them into a > > > conventional multipage document with pdftk. It would be fairly simple > > > to compute the y-size by ratioing the x-size according to the paper > > > regime, and even allow for some overlap between pages (because one > > > doesn't know where to slice in between lines of text). > > > > Sounds more involved than using lp. > > I've found that the package posterazor can split the FF image and, > trying it out, it seemed to be able to fit-to-width. It can also > yield overlapping pages so you don't get lines of print split across > pages as with your method. > > But again, if I were having to do this regularly, I would prefer to > write a script rather than have to go through its 5-step interactive > dialogue on each occasion. Most of the degrees of freedom given by > posterazor are unnecessary because the values can all be computed An ordinary user shouldn't have to do this. OTOH, an ordinary user should not feel it is acceptable to impute motives and spread false information. A skilled user (such as the starter of this sub-thread) could have copied and pasted or used 'lynx -dump ....." to get what was wanted. It's a pain, But needs must on occasion. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-16 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xgG9Y-7pT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204263 |
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 20:43:19 (+0000), Brian wrote: > On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 12:47:42 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 23:51:36 (+0000), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 14:37:30 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Jan 2019 at 18:21:07 (+0000), Brian wrote: > > > > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 18:13:58 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > BTW if this Screenshot method is meant to yield a "printable" > > > > > > document, I haven't yet figured out how to print it sensibly. > > > > > > $ lp -d PDF very-long-image.png gives me the image on one page, > > > > > > and looks, as it happens, like the sort of output that FF sometimes > > > > > > gives when printing articles: a narrow column of minute text. > > > > > > > > > > To nitpick, the claim was that the Raspberry Pi Stack Exchange page > > > > > was printable. Whether the marks on paper satisfied a user in all > > > > > regards wasn't touched on until now. > > > > > > > > I think it's reasonable to demand a certain level of legibility. > > > > > > Indeed. That is why I am looking at printouts from Firefox and lp which > > > nobody with reasonable eyesight would have any trouble reading. > > > > > > > > For me, printing the screen image obtained from my chosen page from > > > > > the Print Preview of FireFox gave an acceptable output with a Custom > > > > > Scale. It helped to choose Landscape mode. > > > > I think I see what you're doing now: you take the snapshot in FF, then > > open the snapshot in FF again and then use Print Preview to set the > > scaling factor before you print it. > > That's spot-on, but do not think I am wedded to this technique. If I had > a desperate to print a one-off (like the originator of this sub-thread) > I would use it but would be cogniscent of its limitations. Manipulating > images within the printing system is fraught as far as I am concerned. I have discovered, through using this Take a Screenshot command (sort of in anger), that it pays to hit End (or scroll there) before taking the shot. When imaging this page (which prints poorly here) https://www.howtogeek.com/112888/3-ways-to-access-your-linux-partitions-from-windows/ the shot was, at first, taken before all the diagrams had been fully rendered. > Curt informatively posted: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/01/msg00447.html > > A twist with the page he refers to is that getting the whole page with a > right click is not possible at this site. Confirmed here. > > > > The landscape mode changes the output from a very tall image printed > > > > on a portrait page to the same image printed across it instead, > > > > reducing the scale by the golden proportion. > > > > > > > > > 'lp -d.....' benefits from fiddling with the scaling= option and from > > > > > orientation-requested=4. > > > > > > > > This gets very involved. Having tried feeding convert with the image, > > > > I see that it can produce a pretty faithful PDF which suffers only > > > > from the usual problem of being overtall. > > > > > > Printing from Firefox is hardly involved. Basically, choose the scaling. > > > Forget about lp; most people never use it directly. > > > > Well, I couldn't see any scaling options in lp except fit-to-page > > which would be fighting what one is trying to do. > > CUPS itself has removed or deprecated such options: > > https://github.com/apple/cups/issues/4010 > > It is cups-filters which carries the flag now. > > > > > If I was going to indulge in this very often (which I'm not) I think > > > > it would be worth writing a script to run convert on page-size slices > > > > of the image, outputting them as PDFs, and collate them into a > > > > conventional multipage document with pdftk. It would be fairly simple > > > > to compute the y-size by ratioing the x-size according to the paper > > > > regime, and even allow for some overlap between pages (because one > > > > doesn't know where to slice in between lines of text). > > > > > > Sounds more involved than using lp. > > > > I've found that the package posterazor can split the FF image and, > > trying it out, it seemed to be able to fit-to-width. It can also > > yield overlapping pages so you don't get lines of print split across > > pages as with your method. > > > > But again, if I were having to do this regularly, I would prefer to > > write a script rather than have to go through its 5-step interactive > > dialogue on each occasion. Most of the degrees of freedom given by > > posterazor are unnecessary because the values can all be computed > > An ordinary user shouldn't have to do this. OTOH, an ordinary user > should not feel it is acceptable to impute motives and spread false > information. A skilled user (such as the starter of this sub-thread) > could have copied and pasted or used 'lynx -dump ....." to get what > was wanted. > > It's a pain, But needs must on occasion. A fairly simple script: read the image pixel size, compute the slice heights using the paper's aspect ratio, allowing for desired overlap between pages (and I also make allowance for my printer's excessive top margin, assuming I'm going to actually put marks on paper). The tricky bit is finding the needles (-crop, -extent and -page) in the haystack that is man convert (and its web page), and then using convert twice, once to generate each image section, and again to turn this section into a PDF page. Finally, pdftk catenates the collection of pages into a single document. No interaction required. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdkfE-59P-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204123 |
On Sunday 06 January 2019 11:28:55 David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:37:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote:
> > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 14:42:08 +0100, deloptes wrote:
> > > > Curt wrote:
> > > > > I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users
> > > > > too lazy or bewildered to try another browser is good enough
> > > > > for stackexchange, because, goddammit, you take what you can
> > > > > get.
> > > >
> > > > Please be nice - I am not lazy - I have Chromium, but I do not
> > > > want to use it. I like FF more and I can not accept the argument
> > > > regarding 1 page printing in FF, because other sites do not have
> > > > the problem, hence it is doable to overcome the issue from
> > > > within the site (perhaps css definitions - I do not know what
> > > > exactly the issue is and I do not care). If site developers may
> > > > embed 100s of lines of code to check browser and version and can
> > > > adapt their sites to IE,FF and Chromium the least, they could
> > > > also take care of this "feature", so lazy is not me, but the one
> > > > that does not care, test or provide proper support for printing
> > > > from within FF. This is my opinion only, you may accept or
> > > > not... and I agree with Gene - stackexchange is phony in their
> > > > philosophy, but it is their right to be so and my right to
> > > > qualify it as such. OF course you have the right to have a
> > > > different opinion and I respect this.
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the
> > > printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for
> > > printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web
> > > page.
> > >
> > > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange
> > > end is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an
> > > elderly user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today
> > > while eating his free lunch.
> > >
> > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum)
> > > and take a screenshot of the whole page.
> >
> > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this
> > magic key combo documented?
>
> I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the
> control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite
> different for other users.
>
> For example, my fvwm uses Shift-F2 for speaker-volume-down because the
> Lenovo-W10 system chose to engrave {Speaker]- on the key.
>
> But if FF can take a screenshot itself, I would hope that you get
> the whole page, not just the whole window (which is all the WM can
> give you, of course) because configuring an application like scrot
> can give you *much* more functionality.
>
So I installed scrot. But I don't see anything in its man page resembling
the --fullpage option. So I'll have to play I guess.
> > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage
Humm:
gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$ sudo apt-get install screenshot
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package screenshot
gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$
I do have ksnapshot though, and it works well for what I've needed to,
but I don't think it has the --fullpage option.
> > And pray tell, where does it stash this .png? FF it seems, goes out
> > of their way to select where it stashes a downloadable file. Its
> > instructed to ask me, but rarely does.
>
> # find / -type f -mmin -10
>
> for files created in the last 10 minutes, say.
>
> > > Use TAB to complete and move along the command line. The file
> > > produced is named filename-fullpage.png and is, of course,
> > > printable.
> >
> > Good to know.
>
> Yes, but some of the advice given seems to come with a lot of
> attitude.
Yes, there is that at times, but if one can't stand the heat, he really
ought to stay out of the kitchen.
I try to remember to say thank you to those supplying good information.
> Cheers,
> David.
Thank you David.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdkSl-5ny-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204126 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 12:15:09 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: [...] > > > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage > Humm: > gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$ sudo apt-get install screenshot > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > E: Unable to locate package screenshot > gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$ This is on one of your ancient, unsupported wheezy machines? At least I had the grace to say which version of FF I used. You do not know what you are doing. screenshot is not a Debian package. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xePho-3Kg-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204132 |
On Sunday 06 January 2019 12:56:14 Brian wrote: > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 12:15:09 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage > > > > Humm: > > gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$ sudo apt-get install screenshot > > Reading package lists... Done > > Building dependency tree > > Reading state information... Done > > E: Unable to locate package screenshot > > gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$ > > This is on one of your ancient, unsupported wheezy machines? At least > I had the grace to say which version of FF I used. You do not know > what you are doing. screenshot is not a Debian package. Oh? I only have two non debian listings here in house, and thats the buildbot.linuxcnc.org for keeping linuxcnc up to date on all of them, and two are running tde for a nice stable gui. Its available on 4 32 bit wheezy machines and one jessie armhf machine. I've done screen snapshots on every one of those machines with ksnapshot. And only two of them aren't xfce, but tde You may want to check the height of your ladder before you dismount next. Cheers, Gene Heskett --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdrAu-1gF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204126 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 12:15:09 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 06 January 2019 11:28:55 David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:37:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote:
> > > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 14:42:08 +0100, deloptes wrote:
> > > > > Curt wrote:
> > > > > > I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users
> > > > > > too lazy or bewildered to try another browser is good enough
> > > > > > for stackexchange, because, goddammit, you take what you can
> > > > > > get.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please be nice - I am not lazy - I have Chromium, but I do not
> > > > > want to use it. I like FF more and I can not accept the argument
> > > > > regarding 1 page printing in FF, because other sites do not have
> > > > > the problem, hence it is doable to overcome the issue from
> > > > > within the site (perhaps css definitions - I do not know what
> > > > > exactly the issue is and I do not care). If site developers may
> > > > > embed 100s of lines of code to check browser and version and can
> > > > > adapt their sites to IE,FF and Chromium the least, they could
> > > > > also take care of this "feature", so lazy is not me, but the one
> > > > > that does not care, test or provide proper support for printing
> > > > > from within FF. This is my opinion only, you may accept or
> > > > > not... and I agree with Gene - stackexchange is phony in their
> > > > > philosophy, but it is their right to be so and my right to
> > > > > qualify it as such. OF course you have the right to have a
> > > > > different opinion and I respect this.
> > > >
> > > > Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the
> > > > printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for
> > > > printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web
> > > > page.
> > > >
> > > > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange
> > > > end is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an
> > > > elderly user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today
> > > > while eating his free lunch.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum)
> > > > and take a screenshot of the whole page.
> > >
> > > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this
> > > magic key combo documented?
> >
> > I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the
> > control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite
> > different for other users.
> >
> > For example, my fvwm uses Shift-F2 for speaker-volume-down because the
> > Lenovo-W10 system chose to engrave {Speaker]- on the key.
> >
> > But if FF can take a screenshot itself, I would hope that you get
> > the whole page, not just the whole window (which is all the WM can
> > give you, of course) because configuring an application like scrot
> > can give you *much* more functionality.
> >
> So I installed scrot. But I don't see anything in its man page resembling
> the --fullpage option. So I'll have to play I guess.
That's right: scrot works with windows (any window, including root,
the entire screen). But window, not page. That's why I wouldn't use it
for this case.
> > > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage
> Humm:
> gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$ sudo apt-get install screenshot
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> E: Unable to locate package screenshot
> gene@coyote:~/linuxcnc/nc_files$
>
> I do have ksnapshot though, and it works well for what I've needed to,
> but I don't think it has the --fullpage option.
--fullpage has to rely on the application (browser) because it alone
knows what's off the screen. (In fact, FF's "screenshot" is a misnomer
as it's really a "pageshot".) Both types of snapshotting have their
strengths and weaknesses.
Under X, scrot works with any application, can produce a variety of
image formats, can take a screenshot with the mouse or a single
keystroke, which means you can easily take screenshots at, say, one
second intervals, and can (using a delay) capture things like open
menus. I don't know any other way of doing that particular trick.
But it can't capture the whole page.
And of course, neither gives you the text like ^A can.
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web