Simplest and Effective way to Take Screenshot in Linux

Linux is a powerful and diverse operating system and as a result of that, naturally the screenshot tools for the platform are just as powerful and diverse. The different types of these screenshot tools available range from simple and easy-to-use to powerful command-line tools that offer the ability to script that automate the process. Screenshot is an image taken by a computer to capture the visible items on the monitor or any other output devices. There are several ways of taking screenshots in Linux but I will limit the discussion to one of the simplest and commonest means of taking screenshots in Linux thus using gnome-screenshot.

Use gnome-screenshot

The first most important way of taking screenshots in Linux is by using Tools that can give flexibility with respect to editing the captured screenshot among other benefits. When one is looking for a tool in Linux to do such a job, the Gnome-screenshot comes into play. Gnome-screenshot utility is part of the GNOME Desktop Environment, which can also be used to take screenshot. It also has a command line mode (gnome-screenshot)
Use gnome-screenshot Command line
This utility has much more features as well as flexibility when taking screenshots and is included in some linux distributions by default. However if your linux operating system does not come pre-installed the here is how to install it.


https://allguideto.blogspot.com/2018/02/how-to-take-screenshot-in-linux.html
Standard

Can a processes survive after shutdown?

I had a process in a "uninterruptible sleep" state. Trying to kill it is, unsurprisingly, unhelpful. All the literature on the subject will say that it cannot be killed, and they're right. It's called "uninterruptible" for a reason. An uninterruptable process is in a system call that cannot be interrupted by a signal (such as a SIGKILL, SIGTERM etc).

These typically arise when the kernel needs to do something that could take "a while", and that certainly was the case in this particular situation (a user filled a disk partition and NFS lost its head, but that's for another post). Uniterruptible sleeps are actually very useful; they're needed when a process reads/writes to disk for example.

More at:
Can a processes survive after shutdown? | Lev Lafayette
Standard

Get the hell off Apache OpenOffice, it’s insecure & not worked on any more. Go to LibreOffice.

Originally posted by reddragdiva at Get the hell off Apache OpenOffice, it’s insecure & not worked on any more. Go to LibreOffice.

you know OpenOffice, right? free substitute for Microsoft Office which is basically just as good, but free.

well, it's not as good. and is in fact actively dangerous to use.

the security hole: HWP files can be exploited and pwn your PC. obscure minor format, no problem ... except that if you get a HWP file with a .DOC extension - say, what appears to be a MS Word file emailed you by anyone - you can get pwned by that.

they've known about this since april 2015 and haven't fixed it. they have distributed over 8 million known-vulnerable copies of AOO since 27 april. (and the 143 million vulnerable before that.)

the fix is, literally, remove one file from the installer. they haven't got it together to do this in five months.

tell everyone you know. tell your writer friends. tell anyone you see running OpenOffice. get LibreOffice, it also originated in OpenOffice but is actually developed and they show the slightest sign of caring about their end users. LO 5.0 is really very nice. much faster to use than 4.4 too.

so what's going on here:

  • Sun Microsystems (mild yay) ran OpenOffice from 2000 to 2010. it was imperfect, but it was good enough and free and open-source. it accumulated one heck of a famous brand name. (“we need an office program” “how about that openoffice thing”)
  • Oracle (boo hiss!) bought Sun in early 2010. OpenOffice development stopped as they reassigned developers.
  • a bunch of non-Sun/Oracle developers went "bugger this" and forked it ('cos it was open source) in late 2010. thus, LibreOffice, which immediately became stupidly better.
  • Oracle had a snit and shoved the corpse of OpenOffice at the Apache Foundation in mid-2011 at the behest of IBM, who wanted to do it their way.
  • Apache OpenOffice had nothing worth the trouble, but got downloads because of the famous "OpenOffice" brand name.
  • IBM gave up in late 2013. since then, AOO has literally been sixteen ex-Sun devs squatting the name and doing bugger-all with it. their reasons are unclear.
  • they insist they still have a product, even though what they've actually achieved has been to put over eight million downloads that they knew were vulnerable on people's PCs. possibly your PC.
  • instead of fixing it, by removing one file from the installer, they post excuses for not doing stuff.

(if this sounds like a fascinating tale, feel free to check the extensively-cited history sections of the OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice articles on wikipedia, which i mostly researched and wrote.)

Apache OpenOffice's lack of developers since IBM gave up is extensively documented. many have expressed concerns over the BLATANT SECURITY HOLE. in late august a Red Hat developer posted an open letter urging them to just give up the pretense and redirect the end users (that's you) to LibreOffice. this had wide impact, and quite a pile of others concurred that they need to stop making life actively worse for the end users. the AOO people posted numerous comments making excuses ... but they still distribute their known dangerous software and just won't lift a finger to fix it.


tl;dr: get the hell off OpenOffice, get everyone you know the hell off OpenOffice. get LibreOffice, it is strictly superior in literally every dimension, and they actually give a damn about you the user and fix the security holes.


this text is CC-0 public domain. please spread far and wide.



This entry was originally posted at DreamWidth and has comment count unavailable comments. You can comment there using your LiveJournal name via OpenID.

Standard

Why is expansion faster than direct parsing in for loops?

Because existing knowledge is faster than research I thought I'd ask the question here.

time for i in {1..1000}; do echo "I hate Windows 10"; done
real 0m0.021s
user 0m0.011s
sys 0m0.006s

time for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24... etc 996 997 998 999 1000; do echo "I hate Windows 10"; done
real 0m0.161s
user 0m0.125s
sys 0m0.012s

To generate the numbers in the second example
printf "%d " {1..1000}
Standard

UK government adopts ODF/HTML/PDF

Pretty quiet around here.... But there's big news

The open standards selected for sharing and viewing government documents have been announced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude.

The standards set out the document file formats that are expected to be used across all government bodies. Government will begin using open formats that will ensure that citizens and people working in government can use the applications that best meet their needs when they are viewing or working on documents together.

...

The selected standards, which are compatible with commonly used document applications, are:

* PDF/A or HTML for viewing government documents
* Open Document Format (ODF) for sharing or collaborating on government documents

More at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/open-document-formats-selected-to-meet-user-needs

Arguments for decision here:

http://standards.data.gov.uk/proposal/sharing-collaborating-government-documents