Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Monday, March 30, 2009

banned by google

i can not access my website these days. maybe it is because the virus on local networks. but it is strange that i can access other google service and some pages in my site but can not visit homepages that have a domain name.

for example i can visit http://blog.harrylau.com/balabala.html but can not access http://blog.harrylau.com neither http://mail.harrylau.com . i am lucky that i dont have any important emails need to check recently. otherwise i may be in trouble.

someone told me people in china mainland can visit blogger already. but it seems not true. is it ?
Posted by Picasa

Sunday, March 29, 2009

what's the hell

please tell me what's the hell .... -_-!

We're sorry...

... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer
virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can't process
your request right now.

We'll restore your access as quickly as possible, so try again soon.
In the meantime, if you suspect that your computer or network has been
infected, you might want to run a virus checker or spyware remover to
make sure that your systems are free of viruses and other spurious

If you're continually receiving this error, you may be able to resolve
the problem by deleting your Google cookie and revisiting Google. For
browser-specific instructions, please consult your browser's online
support center.

If your entire network is affected, more information is available in
the Google Web Search Help Center.

We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope we'll see you again on Google.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

[test] can i post a file here ?

ethernet driver for archlinux

atl2-2.0.5-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz.gz contains an executable file. For
security reasons, Gmail does not allow you to send this type of file


Sunday, March 22, 2009

My archlinux on eeepc (1)

Maybe it's unfair to archlinux if we just look it as a lightweight
linux distribution but it is really slim by default.

I have installed this distribution several months before. I just used
the command line during last days but finally if found I need a real
desktop instead of the text based command. Because my virus protection
software is invalid on windows. I decided to install a desktop on
archlinux though I really need several commercial software for windows
during my daily life.

1. desktop environment or window manager ?
I need a window manager indeed. A window manager can to anything i
really need on linux, but it seems that I am not very interested in
doing whole the configuration things for a desktop. So if a
lightweight desktop evironment is not a bad idea for me.

GNOME or KDE or Xfce or LXDE ?
i dont like gnome though i have to use it during working days. i like
KDE but it seems very buggy as least for the earlier version serveral
years ago. It seems Xfce and LXDE are both suite me, but xfce uses too
many gnome packages. what's important thing is i dont know if LXDE is
useable ... haha...

Final decision: try LXDE first using the default window manager for
LXDE - openbox

2. base system
pacman -Syu
pacman -Sy gcc g++ make ld
pacman -Sy udev hal syslogd
pacman -Sy vi
pacman -Sy netutils
pacman -Sy dnsutils

3. drivers for eeepc
I installed the wireless driver manually several months ago. I am not
sure if it is supported in the lastest kernel.

4. desktop
pacman -Sy xorg
need to edit the configure file for xorg (xorg.conf) to enable the
touch pad and ajust screen setting. (also multi-touch ??)
install LXDE: just install the default packages. add the start command
to xinit file following the instruction on wiki.archlinux.org.

panel, file manager, launcher, menu etc. are all included in lxde.
(randr seems not working properly, right?)
bash-3.2# pacman -Sg lxde
lxde gpicview
lxde lxappearance
lxde lxde-common
lxde lxlauncher
lxde lxmenu-data
lxde lxpanel
lxde lxrandr
lxde lxsession-lite
lxde lxtask
lxde lxterminal
lxde menu-cache
lxde pcmanfm

5. applicaitons:
browser: firefox
audio: google music manager (gmm) -- this is my first try, it looks nice
video: mplayer+codecs
IM: pidgin skype
input: scim-pinyin
office: epdfview
tools: wine
fonts: wenquan
programming: cscope

6. what's next?
a. my biggest problem is how to use windows software on it. need to
try wine but what can i do if failed ?
b. fonts may need further configuration because the english fonts is
so ugly in my current setting
c. play with alsa... volume is so small sometimes.
d. play with wireless setting -- randr is not working properly. i may
write a script to manually configure it.
e. tools for hardware: blue tooth ? camera ? battery monitor?
especially, acpi configure ?
f. at least i need to find out how to power off camera and bluetooth
and how to change to save power mode when i am using battery.

maybe i don't have time to solve all of these one by one. it works
well now at least. :)

after all, it is amazing that i did not encounter any issues during
the desktop setting. compared with about 8 years ago when i was
playing with redhat this is paradise.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

fluxbox or openbox

fluxbox is based on blackbox code wirte in c++. openbox 3 rewrite all
source code in c.
openbox: xml configure file which means easy to config
fluxbox supports tag, openbox doesn't..
license: fluxbox is MIT, openbox is GPL ==> is it important for normal
user ??hehe
fluxbox supports panel and openbox itself does not

which one will you choose ? :)
openbox, just because it is the default window manager in LXDE.

here is some comments from freebsd forum:

Originally Posted by alie View Post

so i decided to choose between fluxbox or openbox.

anyway i have a lot of questions to this community:
1) is openbox and fluxbox still in active development ?
2) is JWM theme based Window manager ?
3) is there any window manager that can support plugin or applet ?
4) is there any good file browser that doesnt have a lot of
dependencies(note: i like ROX filer) ?
5) is there any text editor like GEdit that doesnt have a lot of dependencies ?
I think you made a good choice. Both Fluxbox and Openbox are in very
active development and have a very large user base. They might be in
too active development because they are slowly getting bloated. In my
bias opinion Openbox is better What kind of answer could you expect
from somebody who used Openbox for a very long time. Joking aside the
big thing for Openbox is the fact that is coded in pure C. If you like
to have panel, task bar and those things Fluxbox is probably better
All those things can be added to Openbox but then you end up
installing another thing or two. For instance Openbox+Xfce panel is a
killer combo for people who like more or less full desktop

Let me answer the rest of your questions

@2 JWM is not based on anything. It is written from the scratch.
It is really very, very good for people who like to have built in
task bar, pager, and the launching bar. It is incredible that all that
is just little bit bigger than dwm which has 2000 lines of C code.

@3 What do you mean by that?

@4 Rox is not a browser. It is a file manager. There are three
principle types of file managers.

i) Orthodox file managers (Norton commander type) Examples are
Deco, OFM, Midnight Commander,vifm (VI file manager) (console/xterm
based) and Norther Commander, Worker, emelfm2, krusader and similar if
you want to GUI.

ii) Navigational file managers (or explorer type) typical example is
konqueror web-browser, xfm (X File Explorer).

iii) Spatial file managers. Examples include Xfm, Rox, PCmanFM,
Desktop File Manager DFM, Nautilus file manager, Thunar, Xfiler the
part of Siag suite and similar.

Then you have file managers that really could not be categorized
easily like XTree file manager, Clex, pfm, (personal file manager),
vfu, TkDesk.

I probably left out some interesting examples but you got the idea.
The least bloated file manager is command line + commands
(ls, du, rm, mv, cp) and few filters. If you have to have a spatial
file manager I really like ROX. For a Ortodox file managers I really
like deco but it is not in active development and it is useless in
console as it can not adjust the screen. OFM is very good code base
for somebody who wants to write a good non bloated console based
ortodox file manager.
Be aware that it is GPL so you will have to write everything from
scratch if you prefer BSD license like me.

@5 Learn ed and vi pronto or you will regret very soon. I do NOT like
VIM for me vi is nvi that comes with the base or Heirloom vi.

Emacs sucks IMHO and I have used it seriously. I even learned the Lisp
because of it.