Re: Grep on dictionary words

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a long binary file (about 12 MB) that I need to extract the
> text from via "strings". Naturally, there are a lot of junk lines such
> as these:
> pDuf
> #k0H}g)
> GoV5
> rLeY1
> TMlq,*
>
> Is there a way to grep the output of strings in order to only show
> lines that contain words found in the aspell dictionary? Thanks in
> advance.

I typically use something like:

strings -n 5

And that removes most of the noise.  Typically the strings I'm looking
for tend to be longer, so if I miss the occasional short text, I'm OK
with that.

Another option might be to do something like:

look '' | grep .. > dict.txt   # get rid of all single letter words
strings logfile | fgrep -f dict.txt

mrc

Re: Aptitude Configuration

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 01:34:11PM -0600, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss <at> iguanasuicide.net> was heard to say:
> I use a mixed system, partially documented at 
> On all of them, it would be quite nice if aptitude would give me just a 
> /little _bit_/ more information about which archive a particular package 
> version was coming from.  Specifically, when viewing the package info for a 
> single package, how do I change the way the lines under "Versions" are 
> displayed?

  I believe that's controlled by the Aptitude::UI::Package-Display-Format
configuration variable; i.e., you can't change it without changing the
display of the main list.  The "now" archive is not displayed, though; I
can't recall why I made that decision at the moment.

  Daniel

What can I run on Stable?

Recently I tried Testing (twice), only to be bitten by bugs in Gnome 2.8.0 that
caused metacity and gnome-panel to fail to load on login. I spent days trying
to fix the problem, but finally gave up.

Then I installed Unstable, only to have it fail to install the boot loader at
the end of the installation.

Then I gave up on Debian and installed Fedora 12. Not only did package
management suck, but I got bitten by the same bug in Gnome 2.8.0 that happened
in Testing.

I wiped the hard disk yet again and installed the recently released OpenSuse
11.2. Sure enough, it uses Gnome 2.8.0 and I got hit by the same bug yet again.

I do not know what it is that I am doing - configurations, installed apps, or a
combination thereof - but Gnome 2.8.x and I are not destined to be buddies. It
would take weeks of painstaking work to sleuth down exactly what is causing it.

For my latest effort I installed OpenSuse 11.1. It uses Gnome 2.24, and I
haven't had any problems with Gnome so far. However, package management is
atrocious. 

I absolutely require the following:

Gnome desktop (yes, I've tried all the others)
OpenOffice.org 3.1.1.4 (fixes bugs in the Math module)
Scribus 1.3.5.1 (I need the features)
Adobe Reader 9.1
Okular (any reasonably recent version)
praat (for speech analysis)

Re: What can I run on Stable?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:23:56PM -0800, John Jason Jordan wrote:
[snip]
> I absolutely require the following:
> 
> Gnome desktop (yes, I've tried all the others)

This works fine in Lenny.

> OpenOffice.org 3.1.1.4 (fixes bugs in the Math module)

It appears that Backports might help:

http://tuxarena.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-install-openoffice-31-in-debian.html

> Scribus 1.3.5.1 (I need the features)

Even unstable has only 1.3.3.13; you might have to build this on your own.

> Adobe Reader 9.1

Debian Multimedia seems to have only Acrobat 8.1, but I'd think you
can use Adobe's own distributed tarball/package?

> Okular (any reasonably recent version)

Lenny has 0.7-2; in addition, if you want to grab the KDE 4.1 version
for Lenny, see http://kde4.debian.net/ (I don't seem to be able to
open it at the moment).

> praat (for speech analysis)

Re: Quick and dirty "debian live" on USB stick.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:45:11AM EST, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > I'm playing with the idea of copying my laptop's debian lenny
> > partition to a USB stick that I can take with me when traveling.
> 
> I have a "Live USB Debian" system that follows this idea (i.e. it's
> just a plain normal Debian install, except it works off of a USB
> stick).

> > . clone the lenny partition to /dev/sda1
> > . install grub to /dev/sda
> > . make adjustments to the contents of /dev/sda1

> > The trouble is that I don't have a machine that can boot off of a
> > USB stick to test ahead of time.
> 
> You can do some of the tests by putting the vmlinuz and initrd.img on
> your harddrive and telling them to mount / from the USB stick.

Good point - I guess simply adding an entry to grub.cfg with the UUID of
my root partition on the the USB stick should do it. 

I guess the only thing that I won't be able to test will be grub on the
USB stick. Probably wise to bring a rescue CD along first time around.

> That will already help you figure out some of the tricky things
> (e.g. how to specify the right device to use to mount the USB stick:
> either use partition labels, UUIDs, or use LVM volumes).

I'll definitely use the UUID.

Re: Aptitude Configuration

In <20091201002006.GA9811 <at> emurlahn.burrows.local>, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 01:34:11PM -0600, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." 
<bss <at> iguanasuicide.net> was heard to say:
>> I use a mixed system, partially documented at
>> On all of them, it would be quite nice if aptitude would give me just a
>> /little _bit_/ more information about which archive a particular package
>> version was coming from.  Specifically, when viewing the package info for
>> a single package, how do I change the way the lines under "Versions" are
>> displayed?
>
>  I believe that's controlled by the Aptitude::UI::Package-Display-Format
>configuration variable; i.e., you can't change it without changing the
>display of the main list.  The "now" archive is not displayed, though; I
>can't recall why I made that decision at the moment.

I haven't customized the Package-Display-Format, so the one used is "%x%a%M %p 
%Z %v %V".  That gives me something like:
i A   e2fsprogs                                            1.41.3-1   1.41.3-1

However, the lines I'd like to change look like:
  --\ Versions of e2fsprogs (2)
i A  1.41.3-1
p A  1.41.9-1

(the last two)

I was hoping to be able to get something like:
  --\ Versions of e2fsprogs (2)
i A  1.41.3-1 (now, stable)
p A  1.41.9-1 (testing, unstable)

virus on linux?

Re: installing experimental supertux: libopenal0a missing

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:55:46 +0000, Liviu Andronic wrote:

> Today I tried installing supertux, both the experimental version [1] and
> the supertux .deb [2]. Strangely, both depend on a mysterious and
> missing libopenal0a package. On Ubuntu Jaunty, however, this development
> supertux worked pretty fine.
> 
> Any ideas on how to solve the dependency issues? Liviu
> 
> [1] http://packages.debian.org/experimental/supertux [2]
> http://supertux.lethargik.org/wiki/Download/Unstable#Release_0.3.1

It seems to be a bug on this:

supertux: Depends: libopenal0a but it is not installable
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=498748

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

Re: Aptitude Configuration

In <200912010129.54945.bss <at> iguanasuicide.net>, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>In <20091201002006.GA9811 <at> emurlahn.burrows.local>, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>>On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 01:34:11PM -0600, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
>
><bss <at> iguanasuicide.net> was heard to say:
>>> I use a mixed system, partially documented at
>>> On all of them, it would be quite nice if aptitude would give me just a
>>> /little _bit_/ more information about which archive a particular package
>>> version was coming from.  Specifically, when viewing the package info for
>>> a single package, how do I change the way the lines under "Versions" are
>>> displayed?
>>
>>  I believe that's controlled by the Aptitude::UI::Package-Display-Format
>>configuration variable; i.e., you can't change it without changing the
>>display of the main list.  The "now" archive is not displayed, though; I
>>can't recall why I made that decision at the moment.
>
>Are you saying I should be able to simply append "(%t)" after "%v %V" to get
>what I desire?

Replying to myself, yes.  That does work.  It makes the main list a bit ugly 
though.  It also is truncated and spaced oddly, but that's something I'm 
betting I can reduce with proper use of width and spacing specifications.

Daniel, would you be terribly averse to a wishlist bug to make a separate 
configuration option for this?

Also, does anyone know a good way to make aptitude display the section(topdir) 
in the UI?  I don't have all my package lists using that as a grouping (e.g. 
the "Recommended but will NOT be installed" part of the preview window), and I 
think you would be nice to see "[main]" or "[non-free]" next to some of the 
suggestions.

Thanks for your help, Daniel.  I didn't see any other replies, but if you sent 
one, you get a thanks for the effort.
--

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                   ,= ,-_-. =.
bss <at> iguanasuicide.net                   ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy         `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/                    \_/

Re: virus on linux?

abdelkader belahcene wrote:
> Hi,
> I am asking if there is a virus on my machine how to detect it.

Try scanning with Clamav

> the command ps aux  gives all  running processes, all really all? or it
> may be a hidden process running on background.

There might be a hidden process using rootkit techniques. For rootkits, try
chkrootkit, rkhunter and unhide.

> Until now, I considered that a virus doen't affect a system if you work
> as simple user,
> and can't damage system without root permission, am I right,  or virus
> can get root privileges ??

A malware program can get root access via a security hole in the system. One
reason to install security updates frequently.

> another thing on linux, the program can't run if it not executable, it
> must have the "x" permission, if we copy a file normally it looses the x
> permission.
> This is what I believe up now, am I right??
> thanks for help
> bela

Usually yes but some interpreters (like php and perl) run scripts without the
execute bit set.

--

-- 
Juha Tuuna