experchange > slackware

Chris Elvidge (11-21-18, 05:51 PM)
On 21/11/2018 15:31, root wrote:
> Chris Elvidge <chris> wrote:
> Replacement is where I am: that is why I am considering a slot
> drive. So far, no one has claimed any experience with
> slot drives.


My only experience with slot drives was on a Mac. User had put in a
"small" (~3") CD. It wouldn't read or eject (as expected). Cue call to
Apple engineer.
Rich (11-21-18, 05:52 PM)
root <NoEMail> wrote:
> Chris Elvidge <chris> wrote:
>> I had one of these. Turned out the clamping ring was sticking to
>> the drive tray and stopping the eject. Cheaper to replace it rather
>> than dismantle and try to fix.

> Replacement is where I am: that is why I am considering a slot drive.
> So far, no one has claimed any experience with slot drives.


I suspect that if you do go to a "slot" drive that you'll simply find
that the mechanical failure modes differ, but that mechanical failures
still occur.

At the price point within which CD drives compete, high quality, long
lasting, mechanical mechanisms are just likely not on the designers
radar. Instead, how cheaply can this part be made, and will it last at
least past the warranty end date, is the likely design point.
maus (11-22-18, 01:16 PM)
On 2018-11-21, root <NoEMail> wrote:
> Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist> wrote:
> eject returns 0 and there is no entry in dmesg.
> The system thinks the tray opens. It tries to open
> but it is a mechanical failure.


I have not used a DVD/CD player in years, I backup to usb or cloud.
I would think it inadvisable to post as 'root'.
Donald Duck (11-22-18, 04:32 PM)
maus <mausg> wrote:
> On 2018-11-21, root <NoEMail> wrote:
>> eject returns 0 and there is no entry in dmesg.
>> The system thinks the tray opens. It tries to open
>> but it is a mechanical failure.

> I have not used a DVD/CD player in years, I backup to usb or cloud.
> I would think it inadvisable to post as 'root'.


You /do/ realize that it is possible to post as anyone you want, right?
(see from field of this message). Therefore, 'root' as a Usenet name
has zero correlation to "posting using the root user to do so" in a
general sense.
Michael Black (11-22-18, 08:13 PM)
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Donald Duck wrote:

> maus <mausg> wrote:
> You /do/ realize that it is possible to post as anyone you want, right?
> (see from field of this message). Therefore, 'root' as a Usenet name
> has zero correlation to "posting using the root user to do so" in a
> general sense.

Except you and others do. There has to be a reason, other names could
come up just as easily if it was random.

I assumed it, as I have in the past when I think we've ahd proof that a
"root" poster was indeed running as root all of the time. I would suggest
that it does make you seem like a beginner, another assumption I made.

They've mostly disappeared, but there was a time when here we'd get lots
of posters running as root, their problems coming from that. So they find
a program that won't run as root, they want to fix it so they can, rather
than take it as a notice that they shouldn't. It's kind of amusing.

Michael
The Real Bev (11-22-18, 09:19 PM)
On 11/22/2018 10:13 AM, Michael Black wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Donald Duck wrote:
> Except you and others do. There has to be a reason, other names could
> come up just as easily if it was random.
> I assumed it, as I have in the past when I think we've ahd proof that a
> "root" poster was indeed running as root all of the time. I would suggest
> that it does make you seem like a beginner, another assumption I made.
> They've mostly disappeared, but there was a time when here we'd get lots
> of posters running as root, their problems coming from that. So they find
> a program that won't run as root, they want to fix it so they can, rather
> than take it as a notice that they shouldn't. It's kind of amusing.


As far as I know, xscreensaver is the only one that won't let me run as
root. At least it's the only one I've found. There used to be a
workaround, but that doesn't work any more. JWZ is probably getting
crotchety in his senior years.

I started running as root in 1995. I have done so much non-standard
tweaking to my system since then that I would have no idea at all how to
reproduce it as a user rather than root. It's never caused me a
problem, but it seems to infuriate others.

It's bad enough that firefox has changed significantly since FF52 -- the
last one I actually liked. To have my whole system become DIFFERENT is
more than I'm willing to tolerate.

Happy Thanksgiving anyway!
notbob (11-23-18, 12:25 AM)
On 11/20/2018 10:17 AM, Jimmy Johnson wrote:

> Do you push the disc into a slot or put it on a tray?


Neither. It is not a "tray" you can put a Coke can on, but a vertical
(disc arranged with the disc 90 degrees from horizontal) tray-like
projection that is propelled outward by some kinda spring mechanism,
which I then hafta push in, by hand. No electro-mechanical mechanism
ejects a "tray". ;)

nb
Mike Spencer (11-23-18, 09:24 AM)
The Real Bev <bashley101> writes:

> As far as I know, xscreensaver is the only one that won't let me run as
> root. At least it's the only one I've found. There used to be a
> workaround, but that doesn't work any more.


On my system, if I've started X as a normal user, by default root
can't run X apps. That can be altered with:

xhost +local:root@localhost

A similar situation occurs if you telnet into another computer and
want to run, say, a browser to appear on the same display as your
telnet window. xhost can fix that up.

> I started running as root in 1995. I have done so much non-standard
> tweaking to my system since then that I would have no idea at all how to
> reproduce it as a user rather than root. It's never caused me a
> problem, but it seems to infuriate others.


I buy the notion that running as root can lead to messes or even
calamities. But I have a xterm open all the time, su'd to root,
running emacs with two shell buffers. It gets fairly frequent use,
e.g. running tail -f /var/log/debug or improving cgi-bin scripts that
fetch and edit webpages before the browser sees them.

> It's bad enough that firefox has changed significantly since FF52 -- the
> last one I actually liked. To have my whole system become DIFFERENT is
> more than I'm willing to tolerate.


Just so. Don't get me started.

On the DVD matter, I see a curious bug. On my laptop, eject (as a
user) will work only once per boot sesion. eject -v says it succeeds
with the CD-ROM eject command. A second or any other try fails. But
eject by root works and -v shows that the CD-ROM eject command failed
but SCSI commands worked. I have no idea how the CD-ROM code (or
related ioctl) can can set a never-again flag. Another reason to
occasionally be root.
The Real Bev (11-23-18, 07:49 PM)
On 11/22/2018 11:24 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:

> On the DVD matter, I see a curious bug. On my laptop, eject (as a
> user) will work only once per boot sesion. eject -v says it succeeds
> with the CD-ROM eject command. A second or any other try fails. But
> eject by root works and -v shows that the CD-ROM eject command failed
> but SCSI commands worked. I have no idea how the CD-ROM code (or
> related ioctl) can can set a never-again flag. Another reason to
> occasionally be root.


I just push the button. I need the exercise!
Jimmy Johnson (11-27-18, 12:25 AM)
On 11/21/2018 07:29 AM, root wrote:
> Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist> wrote:
> eject returns 0 and there is no entry in dmesg.
> The system thinks the tray opens. It tries to open
> but it is a mechanical failure.


It broke, probably while the tray was forced closed or maybe it was
grabbed while closing, that's why they have a button on them. I test
systems and sometimes I have to hold the button while restarting because
there is no pin hole. I suggest you replace it with another that's also
tray. Both tray or slot will break if forced. Slot drives are used
where there is not enough room for a full tray drive. When you insert a
disc in a slot drive it will grab the disc and pull it on in. Do not
force a disc into a slot drive it will break the drive.

I own three slot drives and if one breaks I will replace it with the same.
Jim Diamond (11-28-18, 02:52 AM)
On 2018-11-23 at 03:24 AST, Mike Spencer <mds> wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101> writes:
> On my system, if I've started X as a normal user, by default root
> can't run X apps. That can be altered with:
> xhost +local:root@localhost
> A similar situation occurs if you telnet into another computer


telnet? Mike, Mike, Mike.

ssh -Y is your friend.
Henrik Carlqvist (11-28-18, 09:15 AM)
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 20:52:32 -0400, Jim Diamond wrote:

> On 2018-11-23 at 03:24 AST, Mike Spencer <mds>
> wrote:
> telnet? Mike, Mike, Mike.
> ssh -Y is your friend.


Yes, today ssh is usually the most convenient way to run remote X
applications. However, even today there are still situations when you
prefer to use xhost and more or less manually set the DISPLAY variable on
the remote machine.

All the X traffic is encrypted and decrypted when going through the ssh
tunnel. If your X application is doing something like showing high
resolution, high framerate graphics you might prefer to send that
graphics on your network without the performance penalty given by
encryption and decryption.

regards Henrik

Similar Threads