March 2008 - KCLUG

Linux scanned document handling- what software tools are recommended?
by Oren Beck 21 Mar '08

21 Mar '08

The shortest explanation is an attempt to begin archiving the flood of paper crossing my "Desk" The longer tern goal is to reduce my needed document space "in the house" So searchable indexed files are pretty much a ground up need. Human indexing is partially viable. OCR still seems to me not quite there. What is anyone using or aware of in the Linux realm that will help? There is a windows tool sold with a featherweight slot scanner called "Neat Receipts" which is what I would like a Linux replacement for. Cool has as it's claimant focus an ability to OCR and file from extracted informations as well as by date. This seems akin to related queries I have raised in the past, but this incarnation centers more on overall filing/retrieval packages as opposed to dumb "scan to file X". -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

1 0

Cryopid as boot time reduction
by Oren Beck 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

What about using Cryopid to "snapshot" a system as a moment in time and have that used as a wake up point. http://cryopid.berlios.de/ -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

3 2

Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums
by Steven Hildreth 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

Greetings, Please check out and vote; http://www.kclug.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33 It would be great to get feedback on the forum thread, for future reference for when this question comes up again (which it does from time to time with people who drop in see what a cluckerfest KCLUG is and never return). Regards, Steven

13 20

amorphous version control for configuration files
by David Nicol 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

is anyone using mercurial to manage configuration files? The everything's-a-tip version control paradigm seems like it would be really good for managing configurations; check out a configuration close to what you want, warp it a little, check it back in and keep track of the node and its branch by naming the branch after the node's host name. http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Branch -- At the bottom of this huge heap of promotional strategies, there's a product trying to chew its way out

1 0

Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums
by Julie 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

Monty J. Harder wrote: "Some people who oppose greater formal organization may consider participating in the poll to be implicitly endorsing such organization. Therefore, all people who don't respond should be considered to be "no" votes." __THANK YOU!!!__, Monty. In reference to whether one has the "right" to complain or not I have a problem with that. I've been trying to register with the Forum so that I can vote a "NO!" vote on the censorship of posting here in the 'news letter'. However, the system keeps knocking me out for some reason. grrrrrr!!!!!!!! (I _have_ contacted Steve about this since HE is the ONE pushing it the MOST.) But, I feel like there should be times when meetings could possibly have a bit more structure to them. When I first started attending, I was amazed at the disorganization, but quickly adjusted and learned how to go with the flow that existed. I admit that I expected a bit more formality at the meetings in that Linux topics would be discussed by and/or taught to the group as a whole instead of the cliquish subgroups that always seem to form. I attended the meetings to learn about Linux. I STILL want to learn about Linux, but since I can not afford to buy a laptop capable of running my chosen Distro (PCLinuxOS) I feel handicapped because I can't bring my own equipment with my own software on it to learn on and have suspended my attendance until I can procure such a laptop by whatever means I find possible. I also completely agree with Adrian when he says: "I've never bought into the argument that those who don't vote (whatever they election in question) have no right to complain. This claim is always completely without merit or foundation. We all have a constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote. Wishing people would vote and dreaming up a punishment of a restricted right to speak for those who don't yield to our wishes is just plain silly. And second, we have an existing list and a subset of people on that list who want to impose a duty to cooperate with this vote on everyone on the list. Where does the authority to impose this duty come from? Do we have rules in place about this? The fact that some of the people on this list wish we would become more formal doesn't automatically create a duty for all of us to become more formal while we discuss whether or not to be more formal. What if we only had two people voting for moderation and one voting against it? Wouldn't we reasonably have to conclude that we really didn't have much interest in the idea? We apparently have had more than three people voting, but how do we decide how much is enough to show some real interest? What principle are we using to decide if the vote is meaningful? We had a proposal for a moderated list in addition to an unmoderated list. Surely such a proposal gives those who want moderation something without imposing additional restrictions on everyone else." I watched the 'Off Topic' Religious debate, got tired of it and simply used my Delete Button... _Effortlessly ENOUGH!!!_ Just because of ONE instance of a heated discussion someone now wants to effect Censorship. Is Censorship what the group as a _whole_ REALLY wants??? What I have silently watched up until now is a small minority trying to effect its will upon the majority here in the 'new letter', the "Poll" set aside. What is wrong with this picture? ...AND does it remind you, personally, of another Greater Entity in this Country? Suggestion: Why don't ya'll just drop it like adults instead of squabbling like grade schoolers or 'rumbling' like street gangs simply carry on learning from this/these "debates" that one should live to be responsible for ones own actions, etc instead of having impositions/restrictions legislated upon everone??? There's my two cents worth ... ... ...for whatever it is worth to you. Sincerely, Julie Allen --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

6 7

Re: Kclug Digest, Vol 44, Issue 34
by Earle Beason 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

In response to Steven, I looked at the website and poll, I'm not the type to register for one poll. I did kick around a bit and found little to nothing of interest. I already made it known how I feel about the tediousness of all the stuff not centered around Linux, or computers, or even tech related. Frankly, I don't care to read a page on somebody opinion on anything outside of the tech realm. When I want to talk about religion, I talk with my preacher. When I talk about politics it on the back porch with a glass of beer. When I want to hear about Linux, I come to this forum. It along the philosophy an old boss of mine taught. You come to work, to go to work, you don't come to work for the soap opera. """On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Steven Hildreth <sphildreth(a)gmail.com> wrote: Only 10 voters? Surely there are more than 10 people who would like to have their opinion counted in the poll."""

1 0

Re: Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums
by John 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

You have some good points on keeping things on topic. There are more many more Linux users and enthusiasts in the local community. Many of the more business centered users I have talked with don't bother looking to going to the KCLUG meetings or reading the list anymore after seeing this type of thing go on. If it is more than just a hobby or something you say you associate with, you want meaningful information, topics, discussions, and presentations from time to time. Sharing of configurations, lessons learned, the real info about Linux, not a biased opinions to simply leave M$ and jump on board with the LUG. There isn't a need to stay on topic all the time. Everyone has questions, topics, and information they share that may be well off topic. But some structure would have a positive impact in people learning new things. There is a lot of expertise from the programming, admin, or simple user side that could be put to good use in sharing that information. There is much more to Linux than what you run your web server with, or which window manager and desktop environment you use. There are in depth topics that are completely skipped over that could provide benefit to users, admins, and Linux enthusiasts alike. A good example of this would be in the topic of filesystem tuning. How many people specify the tunable kernel parameters to tweak performance for their applications (elevator=cfg|deadline|noop|as) depending on what they do. This isn't just for folks trying to create high performance 10 TB encrypted storage arrays, but look at applications line Myth TV for AV files. How about if you use samba or NFS to share those in your house? There are plenty of things to talk about within Linux and people that know those topics well. The point is, a little structure good. You can call them leaders, group motivators, those that get others to contribute and make the arrangements for things, or whatever you want to call those that bring a little content to the table. It would be nice to have set presentations at given meetings. Most of the install fests I saw when I was trying to make it more often ended up in showing random videos, passing out the occasional distro CD or chats about the old times. It would be nice to see something like a demonstration for installing a distro, or configuring a new system. Maybe put it up on the projector and get others to participate. There are a lot of good folks around with the group that can do presentations, demos, or whatever and help with that sort of stuff. Why not take advantage of what others can do and share the knowledge in a more productive manner? -John Frakes PS: And yes, I wouldn't mind volunteering to help out and arrange a presentation once this is all sorted out like we did with the Virtualization presentation. That would also be a good topic to maybe go over again since there have been a few interesting (see KVM) changes in the virtualization scene. -----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Mar 19, 2008 2:01 PM >To: Julie <betelgeuse67stang(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: kclug(a)kclug.org >Subject: Re: Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums > >NOTE: I'm not taking sides in this debate. I'm just a hitchhiker >here. Also note that I'm not replying directly to Julie. She just >brought up some good points. :) > >Moderate: To keep within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, >excessive, or intense > >Censor: To examine books, films, or other material and to remove or >suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise >objectionable. > >Those are two different things. ALL social environs are moderated. >ALL. Sometimes this moderation is official and in the hands of an >individual or two and sometimes it's just enforced via peer pressure. >Censorship can be considered an extreme of moderation. I don't think >anyone is talking about censorship. What folks are asking for is for >people to exercise good judgment and manners, and if they don't, that >there be some process for correcting them. > >Talking about Hitler being a member of the Catholic church on a Linux >user group mailing list is poor manners. There are places for that >kind of discussion. Those of you who don't understand why that kind >of discussion can offend people obviously don't go outside very much. >I don't think people joined KCLUG to discuss such things, and when >they get upset by it, they are in the right and their views should be >respected. Dismissing them as wanting to "censor" is a straw man. >This isn't an issue of censorship. > >Sure, there's "free speech". Sure, you can say whatever you want. >But saying whatever you want whenever you want regardless of what >others think makes you rude and a bore. There are forums and mailing >lists where people can say offensive things to each other all day >long. Viva la Internet! > >Anyhow, seems like what folks are asking for is for there to be some >kind of standards for your general discussion list, and some way of >enforcing them. That is not unreasonable, and is how 99% of the world >works. That's why we have neighborhood watches, police departments, >and government. Those are good things, as long as they're not >overbearing. > >Nobody is asking for a dictatorship. Nobody seems to be asking for a >sanitized, always on-topic list. What folks are asking for is >_moderation_. That is, control of the extremes. After all, I'm >willing to bet that almost everyone would vocally support moderation >should someone start posting racist comments... Is that censorship? >No. That's _moderation_. There are White Power websites and forums >all over the place where that kind of "free speech" is welcome. > >Anyhow, do what you guys want, as I said, I'm a hitchhiker. Creating >a separate list for folks to say random and possibly unsavory things >could be a good compromise, but I must ask you all this: why in a >Linux User Group? Shouldn't there be some attempt to keep relatively >on-topic in a very specialized social organization like a LUG? > >Good luck. >Jeffrey. > >P.S. Julie makes a good point about taking responsibility for one's >actions, but the problem here is that sometimes people don't, and they >need to be moderated by others. Much as in real life. > >On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Julie <betelgeuse67stang(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Monty J. Harder wrote: >> >> Just because of ONE instance of a heated discussion someone now wants to >> effect Censorship. Is Censorship what the group as a _whole_ REALLY wants??? >> What I have silently watched up until now is a small minority trying to >> effect its will upon the majority here in the 'new letter', the "Poll" set >> aside. What is wrong with this picture? ...AND does it remind you, >> personally, of another Greater Entity in this Country? >> >[... snip ...] >> >> Suggestion: Why don't ya'll just drop it like adults instead of squabbling >> like grade schoolers or 'rumbling' like street gangs simply carry on >> learning from this/these "debates" that one should live to be responsible >> for ones own actions, etc instead of having impositions/restrictions >> legislated upon everone??? > > >-- > >"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy >from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a >precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine >_______________________________________________ >Kclug mailing list >Kclug(a)kclug.org >http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

1 0

Sad News....
by Phil Thayer 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697230/ <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697230/> Someone who inspired me to get into computers when I was a kid. :(...

5 4

Serious proposal for declaration of NO leadership. and NO rules.An outline.
by Oren Beck 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

One of the dynamics empowering Linux and Open Source has been an abstention from needless structure. Can we apply that wisdom here.? The overarching structural success of Linux and Open Source in general derives from Meritocracy's consensus . As opposed to Bureaucracy's fiat law. So we thus have at the moment a literal fork ahead. Look up what Linus said about forks ok? My outline is avoiding a fork by each of us henceforth being simply mindful that if there are no leaders and no rules we each are responsible for our own conduct. Post wisely and mindfully ok? "Yogi Berra said when you come to a fork in the road take it" Oren Beck 816.729.3645

1 0

Group or family web mail on self owned servers.
by Oren Beck 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

Simple in concept. Is there a Linux based webmail server not needing Guru support? -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

6 6