|
Until it's fixed, just do javascript work.
No one will notice.
|
|
|
|
|
Astronaut Alan Bean dies[^]
Only Harrison Schmitt, Buzz Aldrin, David Scott, and Charles Duke are left, of the just 12 who have walked on the moon.
Damnit! We're supposed to have colonies on Mars and Titan by now ...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Just over a year until the 50th anniversary of the first moon walk and only 4 years to the 50th anniversary of the last one. Will any of them be left to celebrate that milestone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Damnit! We're supposed to have colonies on Mars and Titan by now
Still working out immigration issues...
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to have a small partition to have Linux/Ubuntu, and boot to that whenever I would like, but I am a bit afraid that it might somehow screw up the rest of the system - in which case I don't want to take the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
One risk of course is that one of the options is to replace the current OS, thus removing windows. Obviously just make sure you do not choose that option.
Other than that you will need to deal with the dual boot every time.
I haven't otherwise seen any impact.
Have you considered just using virtualization like Docker or VirtualBox?
|
|
|
|
|
I installed Ubuntu on my Windows pc without any problems. Make sure you create a free disk partition in Windows where Ubuntu will be loaded. You may also need to alter the grub settings so that Ubuntu is not started by default on boot.
|
|
|
|
|
Works like a charm for me. This laptop, not only do I have dual boot Ubuntu / Win10, but each OS can access the other's partitions. No need to duplicate files...
To make that work smoothly you need two things: ext2fsd so Windows can see your Ubuntu partitions, and you need to turn OFF "fast boot" or whatever it's called in Win10. This is necessary for Win10 to properly close its partitions at shutdown, so they are not flagged as "unclean" when Ubuntu want to mount them.
Another thing that makes life easier - set GRUB_DEFAULT=saved and GRUB_SAVEDEFAULT=true (in /etc/default/grub)
That means all those involuntary reboots won't get hung up on the wrong side of the fence.
Happy dual-booting!
Peter
[edit] added GRUB_SAVEDEFAULT=true [/edit]
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
modified 26-May-18 13:35pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not VirtualBox?
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
I tried dual boot and at one point hit an issue where the MBR got corrupted.
It took me a bit of sweating and work to fix it(not too much work more sweating and a fair amount of swearing too) and after googling more on the issue I decided to use Virtualbox instead which suited my needs.
After my experience with the MBR corruption I would not use dual boot again largely because a VM is so much safer.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Likely windows has used up the whole disk so you will need to shrink the partition to make space. Windows disk manager can do this, and being from & within windows it's safe. (Third party products can do this too often aloowing better shrinkage, but more risky.)
Do this before running the ubuntu installer.
The ubuntu installer should handle setting up the dual boot (not used ubuntu myself but others do this).
If starting from scratch always install windows first. Most linuxes will set up dual boot if it sees a windows bootable partition, whereas windows won't do it for linux and in some cases may even wipe that 'other' partition's record. (But windows will do dual boot for other windows, what a surprise - they can do it but choose not to when it's not windows.)
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
It should work, but prepare for possible trouble. Make at least a full backup of your data like personal files and photos.
Make an extra partition with Windows and try it. Ubuntu is an established system 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I have Windows on the C:\ drive, and two different USB-pens with Linux - what gets booted is determined at startup.
The only downside was Windows continuously asking whether or not to format the USB-key that contained Linux (being a drive in an unrecognized format).
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Ubuntu takes care of this and gives you a windows boot option in grub.
|
|
|
|
|
I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, and others have already pointed it out, but I'll still say it anyway: Once I figured out what virtual machines were all about (roughly a decade ago), I stopped putting myself through the hell that dual triple multi-booting can be and never looked back.
Is there a specific reason you don't want your Linux instance virtualized? If you're scared of multi-booting because you don't fully understand its implications and intricacies - VMs are exactly what you should be looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently dual-booting Kali and windows 10 - the only problems I've run into relate to no sound when I reboot from Kali to win (I need to shut down and power on again - no idea why, and not that much of a drag TBH).....
HOWEVER - be aware the pretty much every time there's a major windows update (such as the April 2018 one recently), windows will probably screw up your boot loader meaning you can't boot either - apparently it's been an issue since the windows 7 days, but MS aren't fixing it - windows assumes it's the only OS and overwrites GRUB.....it's pretty simple to fix, but does require some searching to find the correct incantations lol...
If you just want to user Linux, and your processor supports it (most do), then I'd suggest switching on hyper-v and installing to a VM.....or even Windows Subsystem for Linux - not the full smash, but close enough to learn the terminal etc...
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone else has already covered the issues with installing Linux to an existing windows box, so I've nothing to add other than I've done it for years. However, since I was doing it mostly to keep a Linux image around for fixing windows, another option is to put a live "CD" image of Ubuntu on a flash drive and boot to it when you want Linux -- that's what I do these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Hacknet deluxe is for free in humble for the next 2 hours 45 minutes.
I just found it out and wanted to let you know.
EDIT: Cool... they give you the soundtrack in mp3 too 
EDIT2: Not for all tastes, but I find most of the soundtrack to be cool. Elegant Electronic beat and parts minimalistic, parts bombing out like in a disco... pretty nice.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 26-May-18 15:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
CSS is powerful, but can throw Separation of Concerns out the window. A single class is often used for selection, box layout (height, width), and "theming" (color). What are peoples thoughts on separating CSS? For example, a skeletons.css file that only contains layout styles and a skin.css file that only contains theming styles.
.bigBox{ height: 40px; width: 40px; }
.littleBox {height:10px; width: 10px;
.red {color: #F00; }
.blue { color: #00F; }
<div class="bigBox red"></div>
<div class="littleBox blue"></div>
The browser parses the css into box and "theme" trees when it processes them. Does doing that ourselves provide value?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks.
I've been playing with dynamic css through WebSockets and I'm doing things like this
<style type="skeleton">
.node { height: 20px; width: 20px; }
</style>
<style id="greenTheme" type="skin">
.node { background-color: green; }
</style>
<style id="blueTheme" type="skin">
.node { background-color: blue; }
</style>
I parse these and send them over WebSockets. Using script I go straight to the CSSOM (styles collection) and delete "greenTheme" and then add "blueTheme". Or I modify the sheets dynamically. I'm not a CSS guy, so I don't know if there are big issues with using the same class name in several files. It seems to work OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure about that, never had to change CSS dynamically like that.
I could imagine you'd either send the file green-theme.css or blue-theme.css, but not switch it with AJAX or even WebSockets.
By the way, when you use a preprocessor like LESS, SASS, or SCSS you can use a variable.
$primary-color: green;
$primary-color: blue;
.node {
background-color: $primary-color;
}Now you only have to switch or overwrite some variables instead of writing your complete theme twice 
See also my reply to Marc Clifton below.
|
|
|
|
|
RandyBuchholz wrote: For example, a skeletons.css file that only contains layout styles and a skin.css file that only contains theming styles.
I'm fine with that, but I tend to think (and mind you, this is based on the fact that I still consider myself somewhat junior with web development) that the bigger problem is the abuse of CSS. So you lets say you have class="bigBox" for several divs. Now someone asks you to change the style in for just one of those divs. Now you have to create a separate style for just that one div. What if you don't realize that there are other divs using that style? How do you find them? Sure, by searching, which seems easy enough but I've discovered isn't, particularly if you don't have access to all the scripts -- perhaps it's a common style sheet used across multiple web apps.
The result then ends up being a mess of another kind -- lots of styles with minor variations, not to mention the potential nightmare of nested styles. And what do you name them? bigBox2? bigBoxThatJoeWanted?
So, knowing that, you create separate styles based on the function of the div. So you might have bigBoxLogin and bigBoxLogout. But then your mostly needlessly creating redundant styles for the potential future of having to change the style later on.
Alternatively, you could just code the style directly in the div. But that's frowned upon and worse, if you want to change the style for all the divs of a particular "look", you're back to the first problem -- searching for where the common styles are used.
Or, you have styles associated strictly with the unique id of the element. Still the same problem.
Personally, I believe that the idea of associating styles with an id or a class is a totally farked up kludge. It's bassackwards IMHO. Tags should be what they're supposed to be -- ways to find an unique element or a set of common elements.
Personally, I'd like to see a completely separate mapping, ok, use the class and id tag values, that would map those values to the css that styles those elements. And there should be a simple rule -- an ID overrides / extends any styling that the element's class value mapped style defines.
To me, that would be a clean separation of concern and make it really easy to change the style globally or of specific element without caring about whether the style is used elsewhere.
Maybe such a thing exists. It shouldn't be to hard to actually write something like that that applies styles to elements after the DOM is loaded but before the page is rendered.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
