PureBasic Forums - English

oldefoxx wrote:

nco2k wrote:tl;dr

Neither Ubuntu nor OpenSUSE recognize tl or dr ... This muxt be custom code...

Yes; it is custom code, for the Prolix operating system!

> Cambridge: prolix

> Wikipedia: tl;dr

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.

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.

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.

From my experience, old versions of gparted and the hard disk structures created from installing Windows® 7 do not play well together.

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.

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 you answer?

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:

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

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.

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?

Looks like I found the error.

Lord wrote:

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:

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

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.

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?

Looks like I found the error.

Just one? Come on, Lord!

At least, now he can't say no one's read it.

oldefoxx 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.

I thought my reply here was kind of "obvious" - http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 43#p488473

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).

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 all goes well, a quick format should be enough though.

ps: of cause you can use a linux bootdisk/stick and do something like "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda". to literally fill hard disk A with zeroes, but be careful with that, if you arent sure about the partition layout or linux is'nt (bugs happen everywhere), you might spend hours with erasing valid data.

TI-994A wrote:

Lord wrote:...
Looks like I found the error.

Just one? Come on, Lord!
...

I always start reading from the bottom at this kind of posting.
Sometimes the essential is found there. After finding (the first)
essential thing I stopped reading because I didn't want to forget
where I found this essential part in that posting.

To clarify this, I didn't want to make fun of this guy. I just want him to understand that I won't read those long texts and thats the reason why he gets no answer in my eyes.

[EDIT] to answer the coding question: on linux write to /dev/sdX and on windows: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/100027

The windows part was already answered I think.

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.

It's remarkable how some people think they have all the answers when they spout off with opinions. I explained most of this up front, but you didn't read that, did you.

Oh, as to the TI-99/4, It was honestly a piece of junk. I had to program and use one fo r a year as my commanding officer was totally disillusioned with the one he bought, and gave it to me ro use for the technical school I was in charge of. 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),.

You had to attach all peripherals as extensions off to the right side stiffly in a straight line. We had to cut a piece of plywood the length of a table and bracked the sections down to make it stiff enough to not have intermittent connections. This is when the thing was used. I was accustomed to the Northstar Z80 and TRS-80 with built-in b/w monitors with 25 rows of 80 columns of text, and even the Commodore 64 offered a real Basic, and had 25 lines of 40 characters that could auto doubleline out to up to 12.5 lines of 80 characters. 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.

Remember when the TI-99/4 was dropped, and the crew in Dallas took what they had on hand and spread it in a field, ran a tractor over it, and poured concrete over the remains? I didn't know why they bothered. The first 8-bit CPU was the 8008 in 1972. TI came out with theirs in 1974. By then there was the Motorola 6502, 6800, the Zilog Z80, and others. TI did have a success with the SR-52 programmable calculator. But its focus on controlling what people could do with their TI-99/4s meant it would not mature enough to catch on. What it wanted was developers to invest in an expensive course to learn how to write programs, then market them, but there was littlr to bring people to the TI-99/4 in the first place, and developers knew it. IBM was a big name. it went to the Intel line instead, and everybody pretty much followed suit, except for some holdouts like Apple and Commodore. Apple controlled both hardware and software and pushed the Mac into the classrooms, and with some real innovations, survived. Commodore came out with the VIC-20, again the 6502 CPU, the C-128 which paired the 6502 with a Z80, and the Amega with a 6809 processor.

The Amega was well liked and showed potential, but Commodore went under. There was no market for the VIC-20, and ir was picked up in bulk by the after market and given away as a lure to bring customers in. The same with the diminitive Sinxlair Z80 and clones.

Like the TI-99/4. these last two products relied on low-res block characters on the tv rather than using a higher res monitor, and people now knew the difference and wanted what IBM or Apple offered. Eventually IBM was essentially squeezed out because it was competing with Microsoft, its source for its software. Microsoft delivered a preliminary version to IBM, then refined it further and sold it under its own brand.

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 you.

My laptop with the webcam is trashed. Last time I will invest in a HP product. Badly designed inside and out, and kept shorting out. I am stripping it of parts for other uses. But for a webcam, I am just getting one that plugs into a USB port. I hope o use it to deliver some views of this problem in future posts.

I did not need to mention the failed laptop, but I let HP know the facts of my bad experience with that laptop would not past quietly. This is a slap at them and a warning to others. On most laptops, you can remove 5 ot fewer screws to get access to critical areas. By my count, 21 screws had to be removed to separate top and bottom, and getting these to separate was a real task. The battery catches are thin and weak, and the battery keeps falling out. You have to completely dissassemble the latop to get to the memory slots. There are about a dozen other shortcomings, but this short list should be enough to make my point.

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.

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 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?

I know how to directly access the harddrive under linux. Just write to /dev/sdX or /dev/hdX (depending on the harddisk type). Handle it like a normal file, but make sure no partition of it is mounted. If you only want to write to a specific partition you can also attach the corresponding partition number Y to it.

Off Topic:

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.

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.

Right now I'm, looking at a HP monitor, connected to my HP8000 desktop. I got a refurbished 2009 model year desktop to assure that I got a quality unit. I agree with you that today's HP ELECTRONICS SUCK BIG TIME (mostly due to Carly doing her thing) and I'll most likely never buy anything new from them ever again.

So far over the past 7 months I've configured 4 of these HP8000s (as MicroCenter's price has dropped from $120, to $110, now to $100), and I thoroughly recommend this enterprise class unit to anyone looking for a more than decent workstation, one without the UEFI security lockout BS instead of a real BIOS.

oldefoxx wrote:...the TI-99/4, It was honestly a piece of junk.

A little harsh; for someone who clearly knows very little about it. Here's a quick lesson for you.

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)

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.

Furthermore, it came with its own composite monitor (the RF modulator was a later home option), it could do PEEKS & POKES, and it could change both text and screen colours. The default numeric variable type was single-precision, as was the default for many BASIC dialects (GW-BASIC included), but it handled integers just fine. Plus, it had its very own assembler too.

oldefoxx wrote:You had to attach all peripherals as extensions off to the right side stiffly in a straight line.

Granted, the peripheral expansion was poorly designed, and that's why the peripheral expansion box was introduced.

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.

Sure you did.

oldefoxx wrote:Remember when the TI-99/4 was dropped...

The TI-99/4 was never dropped; it evolved into the TI-99/4A. That was discontinued.

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.

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.

The signature says:

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!

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.

There's a big difference between great computer and great hardware.

oldefoxx wrote:Now I know better.

Let's hope you do; to steer clear of topics that you obviously know nothing about.