[Bug 970844] Re: Session off center when starting
Hasn't been any activity recently? Has anyone tried to fix it? I can confirm that it happens 100% of the time on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS using both RDP and VNC remotes. Start Remmina, connect to remote PC with RDP or VNC. The remote screen starts off center. Have to manually center the screen to view the remote. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/970844 Title: Session off center when starting To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/remmina/+bug/970844/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 175326] Re: Networking sets up a default route to every interface
Sorry about that, I didn't see the request for more info my email. I'll have to setup a test server to see if the problem still exists, and report back. Thanks. -- Networking sets up a default route to every interface https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/175326 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 187662] [NEW] Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600
Public bug reported: The initial Install window popped up by the installer on the desktop is not scrollable, resizeable or small enough to display at 800x600. On any machine where the Live CD cannot detect the video properly, the default resolution is 800x600. That would be no big deal if it were possible to just install at that point and then fix the video configuration. Problem is, the only way to install is with the Alternate CD as you can't press a Next button that you can't see. This problem was reported before in Gutsy, and now really should be fixed as most of the window is just white space. I'll attach an 800x600 screenshot. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/187662 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 187662] Re: Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600
Here's a screenshot of the first window that pops up after pressing install. ** Attachment added: 800x600 desktop image http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11676951/Screenshot.png -- Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/187662 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 187662] Re: Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 38442 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/38442 Hello Murat, Thanks for the reply and putting this one in the rights spot. I guess I did know this was reported before, but I just assumed it had been fixed and worked it's way back in somehow. I'm not trying to be condescending, really, but why hasn't this one been fixed? I don't see this problem with Linux Mint or any of the Ubuntu derivatives I've tried. This is the kind of bug that drives the average user away from a distribution and even Linux in frustration. I know any experienced Linux user can work around this one, but it's a showstopper for the average noob. Anyway, Thanks again, Jim Shanks *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 38442 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/38442 Thanks for your report. This issue has been reported as bug #38442 and I've marked your report as a duplicate of that one. ** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu) Sourcepackagename: None = ubiquity ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 38442 Ubiquity dialogues too large for 800x600 display -- Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/187662 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. -- Live CD Installer can't install at 800x600 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/187662 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 175326] Re: Networking sets up a default route to every interface
Whoops, I meant to type shouldn't be necessary. -- Networking sets up a default route to every interface https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/175326 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 175326] Re: Networking sets up a default route to every interface
Forgot one thing . . . Simply entering: route del default at a bash prompt does fix the problem, but it doesn't seem to work from rc.local, plus it really should be necessary. -- Networking sets up a default route to every interface https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/175326 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 175326] Networking sets up a default route to every interface
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: network-manager I've seen similar bug reports, but wasn't sure if I should just add to them or report this one as new. I have a test machine with two network interfaces. Gutsy detected them as eth0 and eth2 (I don't know why no eth1, but for this bug it doesn't matter). The usual configuration for this machine is to have one network card (eth0) connected to the 172.17.x.x network and the other to the 192.168.0.x network. My router to the Internet is on the 172.17.x.x network, so I want the default route (0.0.0.0/0) to be to eth0. Problem is, for some reason, Gutsy insists on setting up two default routes. When I look at the routing table, I have two default entries, one to eth0, and one to eth2. Unless I've missed something very fundamental in my networking theory, there can be only one default route (no load balancing). What's even more unnerving, is the fact that the first default route in the table always seems to be the wrong one. That may just be bad luck, but it's quite annoying. Just a side note, I multi-boot this machine with Windows XP, RHEL 5 (soon to be 5.1) and Ubuntu. The networking works correctly with RHEL 5.0 and Windows XP. ** Affects: network-manager (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Networking sets up a default route to every interface https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/175326 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
OK, I think I've found the source of the problem, I'll attach a screenshot of the error. It seems that the new nsplunginwrapper has a dependency of ia32libs version 1.6. The newest version in the archives is 1.5. I don't know when this started, but I would assume that it was after the time that some people installed the nspluginwrapper package. Possibly it would have worked if I had simply done an upgrade rather than a complete new install. In any case, something is broken. ** Attachment added: Error message installing nspluginwrapper http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10148045/Screenshot-synaptic.png -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
The solution for this problem (at least for me) was to manually download and install ia32-libs_2.1ubuntu3_amd64.deb from http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/i/ia32-libs/ I have no idea why this wouldn't auto install, I checked by sources.lst and universe is enabled. -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
avallark - I'm just downgrading to the i386 version for now . . . it seems that most of the critical ia32 libraries are missing/can't be installed in the AM64 version of Gutsy. I'm not sure if this is by design or an oversight, but it breaks compatibility with a bunch of third party applications. I wish one of the packagers/developers would chime in on this one . . . It would be helpful to know if the libraries are ever going to be available, or if this is one of those 64 bit OS won't work situations. Thanks Everyone -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
OK, I though something was up . . . what mirrors are you installing from? Is it possible that the US mirrors don't have the files? Thanks for the reply. -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
No, that's the mirror that I'm using . . . in fact I've tried the main site as well. I was able to find the info on the mirror as well. It just refuses to install. If it's not too much trouble, can you upload your sources.lst file. I'd really like to get to the bottom of this one and at least be able to post a definitive answer. Thanks for all your help. -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
Same problem here. Other bug reports say this is fixed, but I haven't found a fix. What's up? -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
** Attachment added: Screenshot of Installation through Plugin Finder http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10125704/Flash-Install.png -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
** Attachment added: Whoops, let me try that again, sorry . . . http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10125706/Flash-Install.png -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 155015] Re: Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed
** Attachment added: Trying the installation through Synaptic http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10125708/Synaptic-Install.png -- Gutsy: AMD 64 Flash Plugin cannot be installed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/155015 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 153644] zeroconfig breaks hostname.domainname.local
Public bug reported: I know this has been reported before, and always flagged as Won't fix, but I think this really deserves at least a look. Problem: A user purchases a new Ubuntu computer is shipped with zeroconfig enabled, brings it to work and plugs it into the network that has been configured using Microsoft's recommendation (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296250) for domain names (hostname.domainname.local) and it won't resolve local hosts. The user is not a computer geek (he called me for that), and he can't figure out what's wrong. A quick rearrangement of the nsswitch.conf fixed the problem, but the average user would have just followed the recommendation of their IT dept. and switched to Windows. Even though .local has been reserved as the domain name not the extension for hosts on a zero config mDNS network . . . Is there any reason why hostname.domainname.local can't resolve to unicast DNS? I've spent hours reading the specifications, and don't see why this isn't possible. So: hostname.local = Multicast DNS hostname.domainname.local = Unicast DNS This should work with both Microsoft's recommendation and with Zeroconfig. ** Affects: avahi (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- zeroconfig breaks hostname.domainname.local https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/153644 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 80900] Re: problems resolving fully qualified domain names on Kubuntu feisty
The bigger problem in large organizations is that the use of domain names ending in .local is the recommendation from Microsoft for server 2000 and 2003 configurations. It's also well documented in other places. It's unfortunate that .local was chosen for mDNS. In many cases, (mine included), we have hundreds of machines already configured with the .local domain name, plus internal Intranet servers, SQL services etc. It's going to take some major time to fix the problem, just so people can use Linux boxes with avahi installed out of the box. -- problems resolving fully qualified domain names on Kubuntu feisty https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/80900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 146456] Re: Ubuntu-Server no network after installation
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 145382 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145382 Here are the files requested. If you need any more informations, let me know. Thanks, Jim Shanks ** Attachment added: Requested Files http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9620983/requested_files.zip -- Ubuntu-Server no network after installation https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/146456 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 146456] Ubuntu-Server no network after installation
Public bug reported: After installing Ubuntu-Server from 27-09-07 daily build, there is no network available on boot. All of the builds prior to the release of the new kernel worked fine. I had to edit the /etc/interfaces file and change all references to the ethernet from eth0 to eth1 and then restart net network to make a connection. I'm not sure what is changing the reference to the ethernet card, but I've noteced quite a few network startup bugs reported. Also, because the server doesn't install with a graphical desktop there is really no configuration tool to fix this problem easily. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Ubuntu-Server no network after installation https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/146456 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 146456] Re: Ubuntu-Server no network after installation
** Description changed: After installing Ubuntu-Server from 27-09-07 daily build, there is no network available on boot. All of the builds prior to the release of the new kernel worked fine. I had to edit the /etc/interfaces file and change all references to the - ethernet from eth0 to eth1 and then restart net network to make a + ethernet from eth0 to eth1 and then restart the network to make a connection. I'm not sure what is changing the reference to the ethernet card, but I've noteced quite a few network startup bugs reported. Also, because the server doesn't install with a graphical desktop there is really no configuration tool to fix this problem easily. -- Ubuntu-Server no network after installation https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/146456 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 146456] Re: Ubuntu-Server no network after installation
Reply to Brian Murray: This looks like it is a dupe of the bug. Sorry I didn't see it in the release notes, I installed from a daily build and not the beta-CD. To David: I understand why the server doesn't have a graphical interface and that's not a problem. I'll try to get the output for you asap. -- Ubuntu-Server no network after installation https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/146456 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 144465] Re: Gutsy boot does not configure wired network
Same problem, but I'm testing Gutsy server, so I don't have the nice graphical network tool to fix the problem. Interestingly, I tried a complete reinstall, and the network worked during installation and then failed on the first boot. -- Gutsy boot does not configure wired network https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144465 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 137656] Re: Samba Backport Urgently Needed
rvjcallanan - I feel your pain on this one. For the past 5 years I've been managing two networks running Linux/Samba servers as primary domain controllers with no Microsoft servers and a mix of Linux and Windows clients. In every distribution that I've tested (Redhat/Suse/Ubuntu/Debian/Slackware), Samba has pretty much been treated as the redhead stepchild. Even in their so called enterprise version, the recommended Samba configurations generally give about as much functionality as directory sharing in Windows 95. Manually editing scripts, installing unsupported packages and compiling software seems to be the rule if you want a fully functional Samba domain controller. Especially if you want to use LDAP, DHCP and Dynamic DNS with Samba. Which to me are the basis of any fully functioning domain controller. And to top it off, most of the information you'll find googling Samba configuration, is either completely outdated or totally wrong. I can't even imagine anyone with limited experience with SMB/CIFS and TCP/IP and LDAP and the rest even attempting to setup a fully functional, mission critical system. Over time it looks like the problem has been that the Samba Team, of whom I have great respect, has been rapidly developing Samba and has never really been happy with any production product. Or at least happy enough to maintain a bug-fix only version. And it's really not so much that Windows changes require all of the newest features in the latest Samba. Face it, even Vista with a few tweaks will connect to an old NT file server. It might not have the latest functionality, but if it's new functionality you're looking for, you'll have to upgrade something anyway. It's really more the fact the the Samba Team is always looking ahead to the new version and abandoning the old version and on the way breaking compatibility. Usually the clients aren't affected, but the server configuration definitely is affection from version to version. Anyway, enough rambling . . . you're right. 6.06 by itself doesn't cut it as a Windows domain controller/server unless you're willing to manually install the latest Samba packages because there are really no backports of the latest patches. It might be worth noting though, that there are distributions out there that are getting better. Maybe we need a Samba/OpenLDAP/DHCP/Bind DNS server project that is as easy to use a LAMP. After all there are only so many UNIX servers out there to replace and small and medium businesses out there would be more than willing to give a Linux server a try if it supported their clients out of the box. Ubuntu Small Business Server. Catchy! -- Samba Backport Urgently Needed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/137656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 137656] Re: Samba Backport Urgently Needed
I'm not sure that the Samba Team is really the right place to lay blame for the lack of a stable Linux/Samba server. They are coders. Samba is not an application like OpenOffice.org, or Totem. Samba is a very complicated CIFS server with most of the bells and whistles. And they really don't have much control over how it's implemented in any particular *nix. There are just too many variable for them to expect them to do a feature freeze. Like any part of Linux that's not an application (i.e. Xorg, Gnome, OpenLDAP, PAM etc.) the decisions of how it works really needs to be done in the distribution. Where decisions of how to implement Samba along with the related packages can be made for the end user in a sane default configuration. Like I said before, the auto- configuration in almost all distributions provides the functionality of Windows 95 file sharing. That's perfectly fine for a desktop operating system or occasionally copying a file to a Windows client, but it's vastly inadequate for a domain controller/file server/print server with database sharing, file locking, full security, group rights, individual rights, etc. All of these things can be done, all of the tools are there, I have it working. Problem is, it takes years of experience to make it relatively easy. Here again, I think there should be a distribution designed primarily as a simple Domain Controller/File/Print Server. It should be a drop in replacement for Windows NT (Not 2003). Active Directory is serious overkill for most small businesses. Not to mention a general pain. Actually you can freeze any version of Samba you want. Anything over 3.0.14 will do what you need it to do as long as: (1) The security patches are backported (2) The bugfix patches are at least considered for backporting if they apply to the default sane configuration. Any new functionality should be added only in the event that there is no other option to fix a major bug. (Vista) :) Is anyone else interested in this? I'm not a coder (used to be, but got out of it a looong time ago) but I have had success in making it work, and would be interested in sharing experiences, scripts, config files and any other info as well as documentation. I would also like to note that Ubuntu Desktop is the best *NIX that I've used to connect to a Linux/Samba server. I works great. A file server distribution would be a fantastic addition to the Ubuntu experience and once again like the easy-to-use desktop, Ubuntu can be first. -- Samba Backport Urgently Needed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/137656 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
