Yes; it is custom code, for the Prolix operating system!oldefoxx wrote:Neither Ubuntu nor OpenSUSE recognize tl or dr ... This muxt be custom code...nco2k wrote:tl;dr
> Cambridge: prolix
> Wikipedia: tl;dr
Yes; it is custom code, for the Prolix operating system!oldefoxx wrote:Neither Ubuntu nor OpenSUSE recognize tl or dr ... This muxt be custom code...nco2k wrote:tl;dr
Sorry but you complain about people not answering you ... This was just a hint why you don't get answers. We are unable to read your texts in such a short amount of time. Summarize them please, without subjective content and in simple English. There are a lot of non-native English speakers. Also the IT English is consisting of only about 200 words if I remember correctly.oldefoxx wrote:Ah, so ir is not a fix you propose, but a comment on my writing style: tl is too long, dr is didn't read. Pity. I thought you were offering help. but you are just digging in the spurs even more. like I needed that. Here is a po;ga back at you.
Code: Select all
gsettings list-recursively | grep trash
org.gnome.eog.ui disable-trash-confirmation false
org.gnome.gedit.plugins.filebrowser.nautilus confirm-trash true
org.gnome.desktop.privacy remove-old-trash-files false
org.gnome.eog.ui disable-trash-confirmation false
org.gnome.nautilus.preferences confirm-trash true
org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-name 'Trash'
org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-visible false
org.gnome.nautilus.preferences confirm-trash true
org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-name 'Trash'
org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-visible false
Looks like I found the error.oldefoxx wrote:I realize that about gparted. But this seems to be something new in the way of a problem, not related to gparted. gparted is but one tool in the arsenal provided for managing hard drives/sticks/SDDs which are treated as hard drives. As an experiment, I tried to install Linux to a NTDS and FAT32 volume and that was a no-go.
It seems a number of prople aren't really reading the later posts I wrote, as they complain I have not set forth a coding question. I explained the problem in depth to warn people from making unnecessary partition changes and what happens if they so it wrong and how to do it right, and that takes words, lots of them.
There is another warning I am going to add now: If you are going to have several partitions all going at once, and move folders and files from a different partition, or delete them off other partitions, make the change permanent by avoiding the trash or empting the trash.
The way Linux plays right now, the active trash is confined to the primary partition, so all that stuff gets added to it as you continue to do this. The trash can then fill the active partition completely and there is no overflow mechanism in place to prevent this. That makes a lot of problems in its own right.
I.m somewhat shaken by the news that different flavors of Linux have different tool sets, and what you learn with one may not fit with another. They don't even have one too that does all, or you may find it takes three tools her to do the job of five tools there. But actually that is a good thing in a way, as it makes each version not like the others, making it harder to write a general hack, and leaving room for innovation, as well as focus on specific audiences like teachers, students, and so on.
So this applies specifically to Ubuntu and derivitives, of which there are many:You can use gsettings to set new values from the terminal, ir install dcof-tools or dconf-editor (the real component in dconf-tools) and make change that way from the GUI. The later way gives you a better idea of what these keys do and even what choices you have, but one you learn this, the first way is faster and cleaner.Code: Select all
gsettings list-recursively | grep trash org.gnome.eog.ui disable-trash-confirmation false org.gnome.gedit.plugins.filebrowser.nautilus confirm-trash true org.gnome.desktop.privacy remove-old-trash-files false org.gnome.eog.ui disable-trash-confirmation false org.gnome.nautilus.preferences confirm-trash true org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-name 'Trash' org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-visible false org.gnome.nautilus.preferences confirm-trash true org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-name 'Trash' org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-visible false
This is the likely key that is causing the problem: ",org.gnome.desktop.privacy remove-old-trash-files false". If set true, the old trash should go away at some point. I don't see any setting for how long it is kept, do you confirm the final delete or not after its life expires, or deleting early if the partition gets close to its limit of storage space.
It's mind set again you see. People focus on just one partition as a rule, and that works fine on its own. What they need to do is leave the trash on the original partition, then check all the trash at its source when emptying it. Like a janitoral service checking the trash in each classroom or office space when cleaning the building.
To actually move it to the Trash might seem sensible, but that is like moving all the building's trash into the lobby and leaving it there when you want it out of your room. It may be under wraps and not that noticeable, but it takes up space. Too much space, and nobody gets in or out. Think of the lobby as the primary partition, and you might get my point, especially if you realize the rooms can be in other buildings around you (meaning other partitions), even those connected by bridges and roadways (USB for instance).
I have stated the problem with superblocks several times, and will not repeat myself on that topic. But to satisfy those that still complain I have made no coding request, it should be obvious: Remove or modify orphaned superblocks to avoid future confusion. That means direct writes to specific sectors on any attached hard drive. The specific sectors are mapped by testdisk in its deeper search mode that can be witten to a log file. It that were done, the problem with false superblock leads woud disappear with them. So how to do this one thing in code:
WRITE ZEROS TO A SPECIFIC DRIVE SECTOR.
That is seven words. Not too long for you I hope. Maybe you can even handle a "HOW TO " in front of all that, to make it a question or answer. It's my question, what is your answer?
Just one? Come on, Lord!Lord wrote:Looks like I found the error.oldefoxx wrote:I realize that about gparted. But this seems to be something new in the way of a problem, not related to gparted. gparted is but one tool in the arsenal provided for managing hard drives/sticks/SDDs which are treated as hard drives. As an experiment, I tried to install Linux to a NTDS and FAT32 volume and that was a no-go.
It seems a number of prople aren't really reading the later posts I wrote, as they complain I have not set forth a coding question. I explained the problem in depth to warn people from making unnecessary partition changes and what happens if they so (do) it wrong and how to do it right, and that takes words, lots of them.
There is another warning I am going to add now: If you are going to have several partitions all going at once, and move folders and files from a different partition, or delete them off other partitions, make the change permanent by avoiding the trash or empting (emptying) the trash.
The way Linux plays right now, the active trash is confined to the primary partition, so all that stuff gets added to it as you continue to do this. The trash can then fill the active partition completely and there is no overflow mechanism in place to prevent this. That makes a lot of problems in its own right.
I.m (I'm) somewhat shaken by the news that different flavors of Linux have different tool sets, and what you learn with one may not fit with another. They don't even have one too (tool) that does all, or you may find it takes three tools her (here) to do the job of five tools there. But actually that is a good thing in a way, as it makes each version not like the others, making it harder to write a general hack, and leaving room for innovation, as well as focus on specific audiences like teachers, students, and so on.
So this applies specifically to Ubuntu and derivitives (derivatives), of which there are many:You can use gsettings to set new values from the terminal, ir (or) install dcof-tools or dconf-editor (the real component in dconf-tools) and make change that way from the GUI. The later way gives you a better idea of what these keys do and even what choices you have, but one (once) you learn this, the first way is faster and cleaner.Code: Select all
gsettings list-recursively | grep trash org.gnome.eog.ui disable-trash-confirmation false org.gnome.gedit.plugins.filebrowser.nautilus confirm-trash true org.gnome.desktop.privacy remove-old-trash-files false org.gnome.eog.ui disable-trash-confirmation false org.gnome.nautilus.preferences confirm-trash true org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-name 'Trash' org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-visible false org.gnome.nautilus.preferences confirm-trash true org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-name 'Trash' org.gnome.nautilus.desktop trash-icon-visible false
This is the likely key that is causing the problem: ",org.gnome.desktop.privacy remove-old-trash-files false". If set true, the old trash should go away at some point. I don't see any setting for how long it is kept, do you confirm the final delete or not after its life expires, or deleting early if the partition gets close to its limit of storage space.
It's mind set (mindset) again you see. People focus on just one partition as a rule, and that works fine on its own. What they need to do is leave the trash on the original partition, then check all the trash at its source when emptying it. Like a janitoral (janitorial) service checking the trash in each classroom or office space when cleaning the building.
To actually move it to the Trash might seem sensible, but that is like moving all the building's trash into the lobby and leaving it there when you want it out of your room. It may be under wraps and not that noticeable, but it takes up space. Too much space, and nobody gets in or out. Think of the lobby as the primary partition, and you might get my point, especially if you realize the rooms can be in other buildings around you (meaning other partitions), even those connected by bridges and roadways (USB for instance).
I have stated the problem with superblocks several times, and will not repeat myself on that topic. But to satisfy those that still complain I have made no coding request, it should be obvious: Remove or modify orphaned superblocks to avoid future confusion. That means direct writes to specific sectors on any attached hard drive. The specific sectors are mapped by testdisk in its deeper search mode that can be witten (written) to a log file. It that were done, the problem with false superblock leads woud (would) disappear with them. So how to do this one thing in code:
WRITE ZEROS TO A SPECIFIC DRIVE SECTOR.
That is seven words. Not too long for you I hope. Maybe you can even handle a "HOW TO " in front of all that, to make it a question or answer. It's my question, what is you (your) answer?
I thought my reply here was kind of "obvious" - http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 43#p488473oldefoxx wrote:I have stated the problem with superblocks several times, and will not repeat myself on that topic. But to satisfy those that still complain I have made no coding request, it should be obvious: Remove or modify orphaned superblocks to avoid future confusion. That means direct writes to specific sectors on any attached hard drive. The specific sectors are mapped by testdisk in its deeper search mode that can be witten to a log file. It that were done, the problem with false superblock leads woud disappear with them. So how to do this one thing in code:
WRITE ZEROS TO A SPECIFIC DRIVE SECTOR.
Don't use quick format. Long format overwrites all sectors with 'fill bytes' - last time i checked - hexadezimal F6. That's why it takes so long.If you format a partition, you can do a quickformat. That quickformat will just write the new filesystem information and not overwrite the existing sectors with "fill bytes". If you quickformat a partition and use a tool like testdisk, you might find structures for two partitions on your hard disk (usually if the old partition and the new one that was quickformatted had a different size or location). Quickformatting is convenient and we likely all do it, but for later recovery processes, it can confuse any recovery software (like testdisk).
I always start reading from the bottom at this kind of posting.TI-994A wrote:Just one? Come on, Lord!Lord wrote:...
Looks like I found the error.
...
I don't know what you mean by orphaned superblocks, maybe because I'm not often enough working on that level. IIRC superblocks are storing the main partition information (am I right?), but why does someone mark them as orphaned and why shouldn't they be deleted during a format? Can you answer these questions in short answers, please (<=100 words each)? Doesn't the fsck utility help?oldefoxx wrote:I'm not offered a choice of doing either quick or long formats. gparted and the installer so quick formats for ext4, but long formats for ext2 and ext3. Trouble is, these formats skip the orphaned superblocks according the teskdisk's deeper search after the format completes. Like I said, it seems normal writes apparently avoid or skirt existing superblocks, though new superblocks are written to report details of the partition during the format process.
I still have my 40 year old HP-25C, and it still works. One could do a lot with those 49 "steps". The TI products were not as well made or as innovative. I was also a HP printer enthusiast from over 20 years ago when the Deskjet 500C was about $500, and its huge printer ink cartridges were only $15. Now the printers are almost $15 and if they were selling those same big ink carts at today's ink prices, they'd be about $500.oldefoxx wrote:Why would I buy a laptop that bad? I'm an invalid and shopped online, and it had great stats and a good price. HP did once have a rood rep, especially for printers. I owned a 49-step HP-25C RPN Programmable Calculator, and it sold me on HP and on RPN. I liked that calculator better than the TI SR-52 I bought and used later. So yes, I had some confidence in the HP brand. Now I know better.
A little harsh; for someone who clearly knows very little about it. Here's a quick lesson for you.oldefoxx wrote:...the TI-99/4, It was honestly a piece of junk.
The TI-99/4A had its own version of the Microsoft Multiplan spreadsheet program. To say that it was not able to handle something so trivial such as recording grades and scheduling, only demonstrates the gross ineptitude of the programmer.oldefoxx wrote:I programmed it to track student grades and work on class schedules, but it was barely adequate to the job as it used an RF adapter to clip to TV antenna, had very low resolution, only block characters that could be colorized (the screen color was a fixed yellow), only did floating point ( not integers and fractions (?), had no PEEK() or POKE commands (meaning you could not examine memory or write assembler code)
Granted, the peripheral expansion was poorly designed, and that's why the peripheral expansion box was introduced.oldefoxx wrote:You had to attach all peripherals as extensions off to the right side stiffly in a straight line.
Sure you did.oldefoxx wrote:I wrote a text-based golf game for the TI-99/4, a black box game, and a version of Life, but it was so depressing to work with that I lost interest in it.
The TI-99/4 was never dropped; it evolved into the TI-99/4A. That was discontinued.oldefoxx wrote:Remember when the TI-99/4 was dropped...
In this post alone, you've clearly shown the limits of your experience and knowledge, ignoring facts and not verifying what you think are facts; and now you're showing that you don't even read the very words you're commenting on.oldefoxx wrote:So saying how great the TI-99/4 was sort of shows the limits of your experience and knowledge. Ignoring facts or not verifying what you think are facts can come back and byte (it's spelt "bite") you.
What I see are the words "poor design", which, sadly, is a fact. Texas Instruments have always manufactured the highest quality electronics, and the TI-99/4A was no exception. It comprised some of the finest componentry from Texas Instruments, especially the 16-bit TMS9900 processor, and the solid state speech synthesizer; the only computer in its class to have one. Unfortunately, in a bid to remain competitive and easy to use, the design was compromised.TI-994A wrote:Texas Instruments 99/4A Home Computer: the first home computer with a 16bit processor, crammed into an 8bit architecture. Great hardware - Poor design - Wonderful BASIC engine. And it could talk too!
Let's hope you do; to steer clear of topics that you obviously know nothing about.oldefoxx wrote:Now I know better.