Re: GParted installed by default?
Am 04.12.2007 um 07:58 schrieb Dane Mutters: On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 15:57 +0100, Jonas Jørgensen wrote: I would consider partition editing a basic feature that should be provided by the operating system For advanced users, I agree. For average users, partitioning is something they shouldn't even get in touch with. Note: even without gparted, one can still partition from the command line using fdisk, cfdisk, or parted, but this obviously isn't ideal for an inexperienced user who just wants to partition/ format an external drive or some such. As drives come partitioned off the store, why should a normal user have a need to change this partitioning at all? gparted (or any partitioning software) is a pretty dangerous tool for the unexperienced user. Two, three wrong clicks and the whole system is gone to a state where only expert users can recover data. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
On 04/12/07 17:30, Markus Hitter wrote: As drives come partitioned off the store, why should a normal user have a need to change this partitioning at all? Well, for one, how are you supposed to tell Ubuntu that you have just installed a new HDD? (Other than opening up fstab and editing it :) gparted (or any partitioning software) is a pretty dangerous tool for the unexperienced user. Two, three wrong clicks and the whole system is gone to a state where only expert users can recover data. Sure, that is true, but then you could say that about a whole lot of tools. For example, if you were to type sudo rm -rf / into a terminal window, then you'd also loose a fair whack of your system. My point is this, there are many tools that have the chance of killing your computer, let alone 17 year old drivers in a car on a freeway where a wrong move could really wreck your day. Just because there are things that are dangerous... -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06 - E115°50'39 (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
On Dec 4, 2007 9:30 AM, Markus Hitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 04.12.2007 um 07:58 schrieb Dane Mutters: On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 15:57 +0100, Jonas Jørgensen wrote: I would consider partition editing a basic feature that should be provided by the operating system For advanced users, I agree. For average users, partitioning is something they shouldn't even get in touch with. [...] [...] why should a normal user have a need to change this partitioning at all? A normal/average user won't ever use GParted, nor will they ever use many of the other tools in System-Administration -- but that isn't an argument for not including those tools. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Boot with a degraded raid 5
Hi all
I have setup 2 software raids (5 and 0) with 3 hard disks (120, 160, 250
Go) on my gutsy box. The raid 5 array (md0) contains the root system,
and the raid 0 array (md1) is mounted as a storage (unused) partition.
The /boot partition is a normal ext3 partition, present on each disk
(duplicated manually, for the moment).
I'm trying to let this setup boot, even if the raid 5 array (md0) is
degraded (ie one disk fails). When all hd are present, the system boots.
But if I try with only 2 disks, initramfs loads well, but md0 is never
mounted so the system doesn't find / and stop loading.
When the boot fails, the system gives me the hand in initramfs console.
Here, I can run my md array with this command :
# mdadm --assemble --scan --run
The --run option tell mdadm to start array, even in degraded mode.
So here, I suspected that the wrong option was passed to mdadm in
initramfs, and tell it to not to run a degraded array.
I've found (with grep on initrams content) that the file
/etc/udev/rules.d/85-mdadm.rules contains this line :
SUBSYSTEM==block, ACTION==add|change, ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}==linux_raid*, \
RUN+=watershed /sbin/mdadm --assemble --scan --no-degraded
I guess it's the boot parameter for mdadm ! So, I changed it, made a new
initramfs, reboot with only 2 disks and... nothing more, it doesn't
start anymore :/
So, after this long story (sorry), my questions :
Do you think I'm totally lost, or editing this file is the good way ?
Is there a good reason why ubuntu's dev chose this --no-degraded
option for mdadm by default ?
What can I do more ??
Thank's for reading !
Ben
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
Am 04.12.2007 um 09:51 schrieb Onno Benschop: On 04/12/07 17:30, Markus Hitter wrote: As drives come partitioned off the store, why should a normal user have a need to change this partitioning at all? Well, for one, how are you supposed to tell Ubuntu that you have just installed a new HDD? (Other than opening up fstab and editing it :) You don't. Removable hardware just appears (gets automounted) and changing/adding internal disks includes a reboot anyways, making them appear automatically after that. Average users carry their computer to a repair store if they feel something needs to be changed inside the case. Am 04.12.2007 um 10:11 schrieb Jonas Jørgensen: A normal/average user won't ever use GParted, nor will they ever use many of the other tools in System-Administration -- but that isn't an argument for not including those tools. Not including non-essential administration tools reduces confusion and enhances user experience. BTW:, obviously, somebody decided disk space is tight. Gutsy doesn't come with a working C compiler either, which I'd consider far more essential than a graphical partition editor (think about installing non-packaged software). Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Clarification over Alpha 1 and dual monitors
Christopher Halse Rogers wrote: As for the original question: you can create an xorg.conf X will use it. You could also try the System-Administration-Screens Graphics program, which should set it up for you. File bugs if it doesn't work :). Well, I dont think its detecting my setup properly. I went into screens and graphics and it is only showing one monitor as unknown and a resolution of 640X480. (Btw the monitor that is working is my widescreen laptop monitor and it is set to 1280X800 according to xrandr). When I go in to change the monitor type and press Detect, it does find the correct model of my second monitor, however it will not activate it. In Gutsy, both my monitors show up on this page. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=) -- Fernando wrote: Dane , you can manually bypass this by using tune2fs, and disable the fsck on your server. Yes, indeed this will do the trick. But it requires knowledge of some quite arcane utilities -- not usually what the casual user has --, and bypasses the basic issues: 1. fsck takes an inordinate long time for large filesystems; We distribute Ubuntu with the installation by default in one single monolithic filesystem (and most other distributions will do the same). Of old this was no biggie, since the disks were (relatively) small. But, nowadays, we usually get harddrives in excess of 100G. Very few of us (based on my experience) will partition the HD. I have had issues on Ubuntu on this (I *do* run many partitions), with software updates putting critical system utilities in /usr/[s]bin instead of /[s]bin -- which causes some rather bad errors on boot (/usr is a mount point on my systems) 2. a generic ~30 mounts per check is too short an interval. Although this is probably good enough for desktop systems, it breaks fast on laptops. I, for example, boot my laptop at least twice a day -- so, on my personal case, I will have a forced check in (usually) less than 2 weeks time. If I were to be running a single fs, it would take about 25 minutes for it to complete. Fortunately for me, since I broke my install in many filesystems, not all of them get done at the same time. [as an example, I have seem my wife get out of her laptop in disgust when such a check started. And, of course, blast me for that :-)] 3. taking out the check is potentially dangerous in the long run. A direct question here is: how long can such a check be postponed? This question has not yet been answered, and we have people either disabling (via tune2fs or friends), or putting in some arbritary values. What we need is some consensus on how to deal with it. -x-x-x-x-x-x- I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also. Perhaps a way would be a routine to prompt the user for a check next reboot, and be increasingly more vocal if the user keeps on postponing the check: * This system has run for xxx (days|months|boots|whatever) * without a FS check. Do you want this check performed * next boot? * * [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] postpone for now And then the routine would set a flag to be read by something next boot. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Couldnt fsck be run periodically in read-only mode during normal operation (ie. while the disks are mounted), and if an error is detected ask for a restart so fsck will be run during boot-up? I am not aware of how fsck operates, so this may not be possible. On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:40 -0600, HggdH wrote: On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=) -- Fernando wrote: Dane , you can manually bypass this by using tune2fs, and disable the fsck on your server. Yes, indeed this will do the trick. But it requires knowledge of some quite arcane utilities -- not usually what the casual user has --, and bypasses the basic issues: 1. fsck takes an inordinate long time for large filesystems; We distribute Ubuntu with the installation by default in one single monolithic filesystem (and most other distributions will do the same). Of old this was no biggie, since the disks were (relatively) small. But, nowadays, we usually get harddrives in excess of 100G. Very few of us (based on my experience) will partition the HD. I have had issues on Ubuntu on this (I *do* run many partitions), with software updates putting critical system utilities in /usr/[s]bin instead of /[s]bin -- which causes some rather bad errors on boot (/usr is a mount point on my systems) 2. a generic ~30 mounts per check is too short an interval. Although this is probably good enough for desktop systems, it breaks fast on laptops. I, for example, boot my laptop at least twice a day -- so, on my personal case, I will have a forced check in (usually) less than 2 weeks time. If I were to be running a single fs, it would take about 25 minutes for it to complete. Fortunately for me, since I broke my install in many filesystems, not all of them get done at the same time. [as an example, I have seem my wife get out of her laptop in disgust when such a check started. And, of course, blast me for that :-)] 3. taking out the check is potentially dangerous in the long run. A direct question here is: how long can such a check be postponed? This question has not yet been answered, and we have people either disabling (via tune2fs or friends), or putting in some arbritary values. What we need is some consensus on how to deal with it. -x-x-x-x-x-x- I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also. Perhaps a way would be a routine to prompt the user for a check next reboot, and be increasingly more vocal if the user keeps on postponing the check: * This system has run for xxx (days|months|boots|whatever) * without a FS check. Do you want this check performed * next boot? * * [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] postpone for now And then the routine would set a flag to be read by something next boot. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:40:25AM -0600, HggdH wrote: I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also. You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. And this issue has at least one official blueprint: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec You can try AutoFsck: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:03 -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote: You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. And this issue has at least one official blueprint: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec You can try AutoFsck: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck Autofsck looks like it would do the trick, IMHO. It would eliminate the nastiness of a 10+ minute boot time, and still go a long way to protect against filesystem corruption. --Dane -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Hardy Alpha 1 released
On Dec 3, 2007 7:34 AM, Ped [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From forum post I learned the sagem modem *did* work in 5.xx ubuntu (probably 2.4 kernel with eagle-usb driver) right after install, but when I did install 6.10 first time on my PC, it took me 5 days to connect to internet finally. The reason is probably 2.6 kernel no more working with old eagle-usb (so far perfectly understandable), and while the 6.10 (7.04 and 7.10 too) does contain newer ueagle-usb driver, it's not functional! FYI, Ubuntu has always used a 2.6 kernel; note http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu CK -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Boot with a degraded raid 5
Woh ! Absolutely nobody can help me on this question ? I've already
asked about this on 4-5 lists or forums, and I've cumulated : 0 answer.
Where could I find help on this subject ? The kernel team ? Who has
developped this part (boot on initramfs and device detection) ?
I'm stucked on that problem since 2 weeks. Please, help :)
Ben
Ben Ben a écrit :
Hi all
I have setup 2 software raids (5 and 0) with 3 hard disks (120, 160, 250
Go) on my gutsy box. The raid 5 array (md0) contains the root system,
and the raid 0 array (md1) is mounted as a storage (unused) partition.
The /boot partition is a normal ext3 partition, present on each disk
(duplicated manually, for the moment).
I'm trying to let this setup boot, even if the raid 5 array (md0) is
degraded (ie one disk fails). When all hd are present, the system boots.
But if I try with only 2 disks, initramfs loads well, but md0 is never
mounted so the system doesn't find / and stop loading.
When the boot fails, the system gives me the hand in initramfs console.
Here, I can run my md array with this command :
# mdadm --assemble --scan --run
The --run option tell mdadm to start array, even in degraded mode.
So here, I suspected that the wrong option was passed to mdadm in
initramfs, and tell it to not to run a degraded array.
I've found (with grep on initrams content) that the file
/etc/udev/rules.d/85-mdadm.rules contains this line :
SUBSYSTEM==block, ACTION==add|change, ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}==linux_raid*, \
RUN+=watershed /sbin/mdadm --assemble --scan --no-degraded
I guess it's the boot parameter for mdadm ! So, I changed it, made a new
initramfs, reboot with only 2 disks and... nothing more, it doesn't
start anymore :/
So, after this long story (sorry), my questions :
Do you think I'm totally lost, or editing this file is the good way ?
Is there a good reason why ubuntu's dev chose this --no-degraded
option for mdadm by default ?
What can I do more ??
Thank's for reading !
Ben
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Boot with a degraded raid 5
ben.div wrote:
Woh ! Absolutely nobody can help me on this question ? I've already
asked about this on 4-5 lists or forums, and I've cumulated : 0 answer.
Where could I find help on this subject ? The kernel team ? Who has
developped this part (boot on initramfs and device detection) ?
I'm stucked on that problem since 2 weeks. Please, help :)
Known issue... though I can't seem to find the bug # now.
Ben Ben a écrit :
So here, I suspected that the wrong option was passed to mdadm in
initramfs, and tell it to not to run a degraded array.
I've found (with grep on initrams content) that the file
/etc/udev/rules.d/85-mdadm.rules contains this line :
SUBSYSTEM==block, ACTION==add|change, ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}==linux_raid*, \
RUN+=watershed /sbin/mdadm --assemble --scan --no-degraded
I guess it's the boot parameter for mdadm ! So, I changed it, made a new
initramfs, reboot with only 2 disks and... nothing more, it doesn't
start anymore :/
Not sure what's going wrong without any description other than it
doesn't start anymore, but that should allow you to boot in a degraded
array.
So, after this long story (sorry), my questions :
Do you think I'm totally lost, or editing this file is the good way ?
Is there a good reason why ubuntu's dev chose this --no-degraded
option for mdadm by default ?
What can I do more ??
The reason is because we don't want to degrade an array just because one
of the disks has not been detected yet. The proper solution is to wait
for either a timeout or manual intervention to go ahead and mount the
array degraded.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:59 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: Am 04.12.2007 um 10:11 schrieb Jonas Jørgensen: A normal/average user won't ever use GParted, nor will they ever use many of the other tools in System-Administration -- but that isn't an argument for not including those tools. Not including non-essential administration tools reduces confusion and enhances user experience. BTW:, obviously, somebody decided disk space is tight. Gutsy doesn't come with a working C compiler either, which I'd consider far more essential than a graphical partition editor (think about installing non-packaged software). Markus An advanced windows user knows how to install new hard drives, they shouldn't have to find the right package to install as well - new drives should just work. I reckon our desktop users are much more likely to install a new hard drive than compile a package. I don't know why you think my Ubuntu experience is improved by giving me less configuration options than Windows. Caroline -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
RFC: Thunderbird, mail.prompt_purge_threshhold=true
Hi With a recent thread on ML i came again across a problem with Thunderbird that i had myself 1 or 2 years ago. Thunderbird uses mailbox files to store mails and an aditionally *.msf file for meta data of that mbox-file. Now when you delete a mail in TB it only disappears in the mail pane but is still physically stored on harddisc in the mbox. To really delete a mail then s.o. has to compact that folder. New users (or those not interrested in technic) wont notice that and then the profile folder can become very large. In the specific thread the OP had mails back from 2005 still in his profile which had grown up to 2 gig. 2 gig is approximately where we come to filesystem limitations (max size per file) Now to prevent that i call for commend on change the default of: pref(mail.prompt_purge_threshhold, false); to pref(mail.prompt_purge_threshhold, true); that way a user gets a dialog when the threshold (default is 100kB iirc) is reached and gets asked to compact (read as really physically delete all previous in TB deleted mails) that folder. I have searched bugzilla.mozilla.org for bugs like that and coulnd´t find one. Also on launchpad is no similar bug report it seems. So i would like to know is it feasible to solve that somehow? TIA -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
Am 04.12.2007 um 22:12 schrieb Caroline Ford: An advanced windows user knows how to install new hard drives, [...] Yes. Ubuntu says it exists to make _un_experienced users productive. new drives should just work. gparted won't help here. If you want to make sure new, even unformatted drives just work, you have to provide some sort of one- click formating on the desktop. Something like An unknown disk was found: [ignore] [initialise]. Initialise would format a single partition without asking further technical questions. Firing up the right application, finding the right disk in a partitioning GUI and making a making a good decision what to do is far beyond what an average human knows or wants to know. Even people like me (25 years of computing experience) have to find out each time what's the current state of device naming (hda, sda, disk1s3, which order, ...). I don't know why you think my Ubuntu experience is improved by giving me less configuration options than Windows. Since when is MS Windows a measure for good user experience? After all, your favorite partitioner is just a apt-get install away. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Autofsck does look like the way to go. Especially nice would be the option
to run a manual fsck, although that might already be an option ('a test can
be run' or is that something else?). I'm definitely in favour of this.
On Dec 4, 2007 11:50 AM, Dane Mutters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:03 -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote:
You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. And this issue has at
least one official blueprint:
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec
You can try AutoFsck:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck
Autofsck looks like it would do the trick, IMHO. It would eliminate the
nastiness of a 10+ minute boot time, and still go a long way to protect
against filesystem corruption.
--Dane
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: RFC: Thunderbird, mail.prompt_purge_threshhold=true
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Thilo Six wrote: Hi With a recent thread on ML i came again across a problem with Thunderbird that i had myself 1 or 2 years ago. Thunderbird uses mailbox files to store mails and an aditionally *.msf file for meta data of that mbox-file. Now when you delete a mail in TB it only disappears in the mail pane but is still physically stored on harddisc in the mbox. To really delete a mail then s.o. has to compact that folder. New users (or those not interrested in technic) wont notice that and then the profile folder can become very large. In the specific thread the OP had mails back from 2005 still in his profile which had grown up to 2 gig. 2 gig is approximately where we come to filesystem limitations (max size per file) Now to prevent that i call for commend on change the default of: pref(mail.prompt_purge_threshhold, false); to pref(mail.prompt_purge_threshhold, true); that way a user gets a dialog when the threshold (default is 100kB iirc) is reached and gets asked to compact (read as really physically delete all previous in TB deleted mails) that folder. I have searched bugzilla.mozilla.org for bugs like that and coulnd´t find one. Also on launchpad is no similar bug report it seems. So i would like to know is it feasible to solve that somehow? From what I know, thunderbird compacts folders automatically for some time now. It might however be the case that old profiles still rely on manual compacting. Are you sure that new profiles are not getting cleaned up automatically? - Alexander -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
Op dinsdag 04-12-2007 om 11:59 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Markus Hitter: Gutsy doesn't come with a working C compiler either, which I'd consider far more essential than a graphical partition editor (think about installing non-packaged software). Actually, GCC is available in the small CD-repository on the Gutsy live/install CDs, and GParted is available inside the live-CD... -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Clarification over Alpha 1 and dual monitors
As for the original question: you can create an xorg.conf X will use it. You could also try the System-Administration-Screens Graphics program, which should set it up for you. File bugs if it doesn't work :). Well I got it to detect both monitors for a little bit. At first all it would show was my secondary monitor which was not activated. After I set the correct resolution and restarted the x server, It showed a second monitor which I presumed to be my laptop's monitor. After I set that resolution, I tried to reset the x server again and got the following error: /etc/gdm/failsavexserver: line47 [: too many arguments warning: could not retrieve EDID because set-edid is not installed (1): error: this program does not know how to configure the 10 shared/default-x-server doesnt exist. X server warning:Could not generate /etc/X11/xorg.conf.failsafe for vesa driver. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Patent issues with automatic codec installation
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:20 -0400, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: Right and thats what we do but GNU/Linux isn't about breaking the law. On Dec 4, 2007 5:47 AM, Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wasn't saying that paying Fluendo is silly etc. If people wish to follow that path, that's great. I was simply stating that I think that something as simple as audio/video codecs shouldn't have to come to this. It's insane!! ;-) The whole point of gnu/linux is to create a free and open source environment. And it seems that paying for simple codecs is going against what gnu linux stands for. -- Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yes, but I think you're missing the whole point that I'm making. If laws pressure linux users into setting up a pay-for-codec system, then it's completely wrong. Remember when DeCSS was first released? Sure, the laws were there telling tux users that using a simple css script to simply watch a css encrypted DVD was 'illegal'. But users kept doing it anyway and it has now become accepted as a simple decryption script that is required for watching DVDs. Sure, Ubuntu cannot pre-install this by default as it could still be illegal in some countries. But by warning the user before they install the script/codecs that they ,ay be breaking a law in X country, Canonical are covering themselves as it's up to the users discretion whether to install it or not. My point... the codec issue(s) we are talking about is no different. And it seems that the laws are happy if we pay for a codec (depending of course on what country we're talking about here) it's fine. But if you source it for free, that's viewed as wrong. C'mon mate, seriously, do you see something stupid going on here? Regards -- Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: RFC: Thunderbird, mail.prompt_purge_threshhold=true
Op dinsdag 04-12-2007 om 21:46 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Thilo Six: 2 gig is approximately where we come to filesystem limitations (max size per file) Actually, the (default) filesystem file size limit is at 2 TiB instead of 2 GiB, and that should be enough... ;) -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Kickseed, Kickstart, Preseed
Folks, Wondering where Ubuntu is going w/r/t automated installations. I see bits on Kickseed, but nothing in Gutsy. I see per https://launchpad.net/kickseed/ that it was in Feisty. Perhaps the focus is on Kickstart or Preseed? Thanks, Mike -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GParted installed by default?
Am 05.12.2007 um 00:47 schrieb Jan Claeys: Op dinsdag 04-12-2007 om 11:59 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Markus Hitter: Gutsy doesn't come with a working C compiler either, which I'd consider far more essential than a graphical partition editor (think about installing non-packaged software). Actually, GCC is available in the small CD-repository on the Gutsy live/install CDs The version installed is incomplete: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.1/+bug/163453 Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
