binfalse

I have an old printer, an HP Laserjet 6P. It is very reliable and fast, so no need to buy a new one. But there is a problem (I thought), this printer has no network interface, it is connected with a parallel port to my host. Some minutes ago I racked my head how to use this printer with my notebook. Now I’m wondering how easy it is using cups!!

On the server side (the machine that is connected to the printer) you just have to modify this printer and check the field called “Share This Printer”, and in the administration tab just enable “Share printers connected to this system” and “Allow printing from the Internet”.

On your client you only have to publish your server. To do it for the complete system write the following line in your /etc/cups/client.conf , to set this server only for your local user account write it to your users $HOME/.cups/client.conf :

ServerName SERVER:PORT

You just have to specify the port if your server is not listening on the default port 631.

That’s it! Open a document and try to print! I still cannot believe that it is that easy ;)

Thanks to the cups-team

Today I got my new notebook, an IdeaPad. I had some concerns about the glare display, never used glare displays but it seems to be no problem and I don’t have a choice, Lenovo doesn’t sell that kind of notebooks without glare displays.

This laptop comes with Windows XP and of course I have to fix this bug ;)

But before I’ll delete the Windows installation and install a proper os the original system has to be backed up (I want to test some things before I decide whether to buy the laptop). So I installed the first release of „Ύπνος“ to my USB flash drive and booted into it. To back up the hard drive I mounted a piece of my main machine’s hard drive via sshfs to the laptop and copied the laptop’s hard drive to the other machine:

root@sidux /tmp % mkdir mount
root@sidux /tmp % sshfs user@192.168.0.55:/backup/lenovo mount/
password: 
root@sidux /tmp % dd if=/dev/sda of=/tmp/mount/neu.ddi ibs=1024k obs=8192

Ok, the notebook’s drive keeps 160 GB and I just have a 99 ct fast ethernet switch, so you can calculate the time I have to wait… That sucks, doesn’t anyone have a gigabit switch lying around? I would prefer Cisco switches ;)

Hopefully the backup will finish today, so I can play a little bit with the laptop and its luxurious 1.280x720 screen resolution on the 10’’ glare display.

Today I had a conversation with a scientist from Bulgaria who is working with microarrays. He told me some practical experiences of his work. It was very interesting and I learned a lot of things, in spite of the fact that I gave a lecture about microarrays some time ago.

In this talk he said a wonderful sentence:

Früher dachte ich immer die Russen wären dumm, bis ich die Amerikaner kennen gelernt habe!

English translation: Some years ago I thought the Russians are stupid, until I got to know the Americans.

Topic was the structuring of websites of companies. If he has a question he always has to search through the web because everyone tells him the answer is anywhere in there! affymetrix for example has thousands of user manuals, the intersection of all of these papers is very small, but one paper has hundreds of pages… And I think he is totally right. The arrangement of information today is very terrible, to find what you are searching about is some kind of art! But he doesn’t mince matters. I really like Eastern Europeans ;)

He invented me to his lab tomorrow so I can see how this affymetrix machinery produces the data that I get to analyze.

Oh no, not that kind of quickie you might think about! Rumpel an me decided more or less spontaneously to go to Bonn and visit one of our former employee Martin and additionally take a little look at SIGINT in Cologne.

So we rent a car at Sixt on Friday morning and met Martin at 5 pm in his flat. Of course our trip was very analog, we didn’t have any navigation device, just printed a route calculated by Google maps and rely to male instinct on the way through Germany and the high traffic in Ruhr Valley at Friday afternoon before holiday… What should I say, of course everything went totally well and we had a lot of fun in our little car! You can see some pictures at picasa.

Quickie through Germany

Of course it was a great weekend! We’ve seen a lot of fascination places of Bonn and Cologne like Cologne cathedral, big ships on Rhine or Media Center in Cologne. The events at SIGINT were also interesting, where it cannot be compared with the Chaos Communcation Congress in Berlin. In Cologne you’ll always get a chair and the queues are very short. Nevertheless the topics are of high quality.

All in all it was an excellent trip, even it was very expensive.

One of the people that are working with me on some crazy stuff always forgets to pull the newest revision of the repository before changing the content and so he has very often trouble with different versions when he decides to push his work to the master repository. His actual workaround is to check out the complete repository in a new directory and merge his changes by hand into this revision… Here is a little instruction to maximize his productivity and minimize the network traffic.

Lets assume we have a repository, created like this:

/tmp % git init --bare root

And we have one user, that clones this new repository and inits:

/tmp % git clone root slave1
/tmp % cd slave1
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % echo "line1\\nline2" >> testfile
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % cat testfile
line1
line2
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % git add .
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % git commit -m "init"
[master (root-commit) bc7e4da] init
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 testfile
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % git push ../root master

So we have some content in our root repo. Another user (our bad guy) clones that repository too:

/tmp % git clone root slave2

So let a bit of time elapse, while user one is changing the root repository so that the testfile may look like this:

/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % cat testfile | sed 's/line1/&\\nline1a/' > testfile.tmp && mv testfile.tmp testfile
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % cat testfile
line1
line1a
line2

And of course, the changer commits his changes:

/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % git commit -a -m "haha, root has changed..."
[master e18f637] haha, root has changed...
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
/tmp/slave1 (git)-[master] % git push ../root master
Counting objects: 5, done.
Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 265 bytes, done.
Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
Unpacking objects: 100% (3/3), done.
To ../root
   bc7e4da..a04d363  master -> master

Ok, nothing bad happened, but now our special friend decides to work:

/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master] % cat testfile | sed 's/line1/&\\nline1b/' > testfile.tmp && mv testfile.tmp testfile
/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master] % cat testfile
line1
line1b
line2
/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master] % git commit -a -m "oops, i am very stupid..."
[master d691ada] oops, i am very stupid...
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

What do you think will happen if he tries to push his changes to the master repo? Your right, nothing but a error:

/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master] % git push ../root master
To ../root
 ! [rejected]        master -> master (non-fast-forward)
error: failed to push some refs to '../root'
To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected
Merge the remote changes before pushing again.  See the 'Note about
fast-forwards' section of 'git push --help' for details.

Mmmh, so lets try to pull the root repo:

/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master] % git pull ../root master
remote: Counting objects: 5, done.
remote: Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
Unpacking objects: 100% (3/3), done.
From ../root
 * branch            master     -> FETCH_HEAD
Auto-merging testfile
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in testfile
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

Our friend would now check out the whole repository and insert his changes by hand, but whats the better solution? Merging the file! Git has a function called mergetool , you can merge the conflicts with a program of your choice. Some examples are vimdiff , xxdiff , emerge or also for GUI lovers kdiff3 . In this post I’ll use vimdiff :

/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master|merge] % git mergetool --tool=vimdiff testfile

Normal merge conflict for 'testfile':
  {local}: modified
  {remote}: modified
Hit return to start merge resolution tool (vimdiff): 
3 files to edit

So change the conflicting file(s), you will also see the changes made in root’s and in your local revision. If you’re done just save it and commit your merge:

/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master|merge] % git commit -m "merged"
[master 6be1482] merged

Great, now there is nothing that prevents you from pushing your changes to the root repository:

/tmp/slave2 (git)-[master] % git push ../root master
Counting objects: 10, done.
Delta compression using up to 2 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (2/2), done.
Writing objects: 100% (6/6), 555 bytes, done.
Total 6 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
Unpacking objects: 100% (6/6), done.
To ../root
   a04d363..6be1482  master -> master

I think this way of solving such conflicts maybe much more efficient than cloning the whole repository again and again and again ;)