READ-ONLY Archive
https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/
But thats my point.. Maybe people are having a proble finding it... (its not even in the repos)tempestuous wrote:libv4l is available as a dotpet here
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 701#469701
hanks for the info.ICPUG wrote:Beem,
Since I've tried a number of searches to find out where XOrg stores its autogenerated info and come up blank everytime I am led to the conclusion that it doesn't store them. It autogenerates at every boot up. If an xorg.conf is created anything in there will overwrite the auto generated stuff. Anything NOT in there will be autogenerated.
See here for more interesting info:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO885 ... onfig.html
Yes, interesting.shinobar wrote:You can see some info at /var/log/Xorg.0.log.
Code: Select all
(**) Option "CoreKeyboard"
(**) Keyboard0: always reports core events
(**) Option "Protocol" "standard"
(**) Keyboard0: Protocol: standard
(**) Option "XkbRules" "xorg"
(**) Keyboard0: XkbRules: "xorg"
(**) Option "XkbModel" "pc102"
(**) Keyboard0: XkbModel: "pc102"
(**) Option "XkbLayout" "be, us"
(**) Keyboard0: XkbLayout: "be, us"
(**) Option "CustomKeycodes" "off"
(**) Keyboard0: CustomKeycodes disabled
(II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Keyboard0" (type: KEYBOARD)Code: Select all
Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting,
(++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational,
(WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown.
(==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Thu Dec 23 19:43:23 2010What do you mean "awful" the contents will just collapse. Maybe one might consider tables in complicated designs or maybe not. I can't real comment because I have no experience with the sort of complicated designs I am thinking of. How ever in this sort of design there is no excuse for not using tables.ttuuxxx wrote:css vs tables, well this is kind of one of those things, some small puppy browsers don't use css, so those people would have an awful web page to look at, also tables are quick and easy, I don't really see any reason why not to use tables.
I did not want to cause sadness.Lobster wrote:Perhaps you are able to finish the formatting and host this time, so I can not alter your well intentioned efforts.
I guess soLobster wrote:I was happy with the original site, perhaps my standards are too low.
.Now there is a problem. I create web-pages a lot quicker (Well maybe not quickerLobster wrote:Just not interested in spending the time. Maybe you are.
.) and easily after leaning what I now know. I do have to use a lot of will power to get these things done, to high standards but it's worth it.I am not a expert. I have read a small amount of stuff. I have read the book (Though not all the info on individual tags.) "Website Design In A Nut Shell" and read the tutorials on http://www.w3schools.com/ and the odd article. My current knowledge is just HTML and CSS. No scripting.Lobster wrote:Maybe given a few weeks I could do better . . .
and show us how a web site created by an expert looks.
Oh noLobster wrote:I will leave our joint effort as is.
. I do not want to quit yet. I thought we did rather well. You decided on the design and content and I tweak it and made it standard compliant.Thanks for the info.acrocosm wrote:I haven't followed this thread and I'm in a hurry right now so I'll just add my two cents in the context I regard it based on the last two posts...
There's nothing you can't do with divs and css but you can do with tables. There are many things you can't do with tables and you can do with divs and css. For complex design you can use a combo of the two but it's not advized. You can do anything just with divs and css. It's very powerfull, plus it's how standards are set for a long time now. Tables are for tabular data display only, styled containers/elements are for styling.
