Re: Reusing old specs
Bryce Harrington pisze: The Ubuntu's blueprints page currently lists over 2000 specs. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu Some of them are implemented, but not marked as such. Some of them have been deferred, but are not marked as such. Some of them became obsolete. And finally some of them might be good for Ubuntu 8.10, at least after some cleanups. Maybe a separate spec should be created to cleanup old specs? Good but old ideas shouldn't be forgotten nor stopped in the middle. It does seem some cleanup could be beneficial. In going through the blueprints looking for Xorg-related ones, I've assembled a list of ones that look like Duplicate/Obsolete ones here: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Blueprints Hopefully now that we have brainstorm.ubuntu.com, that will serve as a better forum for raw ideas, and blueprints will become used less for that and more for detailed proposals. I've also filed a bug with lots of totally useless invalid blueprints: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/blueprint/+bug/177519 They should be marked as obsolete or just deleted. -- ## Przemysław Kulczycki Azrael Nightwalker ## # jabber: azrael[na]jabster.pl | tlen: azrael29a # ### www: http://reksio.ftj.agh.edu.pl/~azrael/ ### signature.asc Description: OpenPGP 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
1. Unabel to unmount/eject CD/DVD ? (( ``-_-?? ) -- Fernando)
Yesterday I was met, with what I think is one of the most stupid bugs I ever found. When I tried to eject a DVDr, either using nautilus tools or the drive eject button, an error popup showed up, telling me that I wasn't root. WTF, now I can't even eject CDs? I had a look at my user permitions and all looked sound, so what am I doing wrong, or is this a bug? Hi Fernado, Its not a bug,the case you mentioned happens when the process using your cd-rom isn't killed properly(or isn't killed at all),leaving the system thinking that the cd is still in use.. -- My Fingerprint:1024D/45CA88FF The box said Windoze or better,so i installed Linux Registered Linux User #46760 -- 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: Ubiquity - setting a separate /home by default
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:51:59PM +0100, Sam Tygier wrote: David Prieto wrote: Some time ago, I posted this idea on Ubuntu Brainstorm, about the possibility to use a separate /home folder by default on systems where, depending on free disk space, it is considered advisable. The main reason for a separate home seems to be so that you can do a clean install without loosing your documents. Ubiquity can now install onto a partition that has an existing home directory without deleting it. It just removes the system directories. A separate home adds the hassle of filling up one partition, but have lots of space on another. This is indeed exactly the reason we haven't offered a prominent option of a separate /home; our partition management tools just aren't smooth enough to cope when (not if) people make the wrong choice for relative sizes. In fact, we implemented this option in Ubiquity as a response to the common wish of using a separate /home file system; it just wasn't exactly the response that had originally been asked for! However, I think it will cause many fewer problems than a separate /home would. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [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: Ubiquity - setting a separate /home by default
Hi again, Ubiquity can now install onto a partition that has an existing home directory without deleting it. It just removes the system directories. Do you have to do anything special for that to work? I usually keep my /home in a separate partition, but I have another partition with some spare gigs to try Intrepid. This morning I reinstalled Ubuntu in that partition and it destroyed the previous /home folder. This is indeed exactly the reason we haven't offered a prominent option of a separate /home; our partition management tools just aren't smooth enough to cope when (not if) people make the wrong choice for relative sizes. Actually, the user won't have to make a choice at all. Do you think a good choice for an average user could be made automatically depending on the disk's size and free space? Because that's what I'm proposing. If you have lots of free space (enough to ensure that it'll be very difficult to fill / up, and that /home will be big enough that these few missing gigs will be negligible), the installer will recommend you to make a separate partition. If space is tighter, it won't. -- 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: firefox and bad ssl certificates
Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote: Notifications are never read, especially by users that are not passionate by computers - they're exactly like there was no message at all, only they annoy users: click OK and then see if there's a problem is what OS have used people to for many years. And after that the lock in the adress bar still seems to confirm you're on a secure website. I think you are dead wrong. It is absolutely wrong to say they are NEVER read as people DO see them, and CAN read, ergo some do. I would go so far as to say that that vast majority of people read them, the problem is when they fail to understand. And once you accept the invalid certificate, you ARE on a secure web site. The only thing you have to worry about is that someone has intercepted your connection and is spoofing the site with their own self-signed certificate. If a user frequents a site and does not get this warning, then one day they do, they might think something is up. If not, well, they have been warned. IMHO it's not mainly about educating the user, but to force servers to use correct certificates. When freedesktop.org will understand every person that goes to their bugtracker gets to the new Firefox warning, I guess they will change their certificate. ;-) (just an example) No, they won't, and shouldn't. Why pay some idiot corporation an extortion fee just because they bribed the browser manufacturers to include their certs by default? There is NO added security to having a paid for cert. See the several incidents where bank web sites have been spoofed on a slightly misspelled version of the domain name and issued a valid cert from a CA proving they are the bank you thought you were visiting. To continue your metaphor, it's primarily intended to force GPS vendors to provide hands-free models so that then you can drive without this kind of concern. Pissing off the users by making their life harder is not a good way to get your ( wrong headed ) point across to the web site operators. -- 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: Bug madness: High frequency of load/unload cycles
Le mardi 13 mai 2008 à 11:22 +0200, Oliver Grawert a écrit : hi, Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 23:14 +0200 schrieb Milan Bouchet-Valat: I'd like to raise the developers' awareness about bug 59695 [1]: High frequency of load/unload cycles on some hard disks may shorten lifetime please see this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/257426/ it is not aything ubuntu specific but a hardware vendor setting, note as well that the relatime mount option is the default with hardys 2.6.24 kernel. If you think it's been solved with the relatime option in Hardy, then please go there and explain it to the subscribers, and set the bug to Invalid. Don't let people talk again and again about these issues. But AFAIK the problem is still here, and some users are returning to Windows because they say then their Hard Cycle Count is not rising so quickly - whether this can be Ubuntu's fault or just a result a kind of bug in Windows, I cannot tell. Anyway, if it is real that on Windows heads don't park, and on Linux they do, so no matter of the cause, we should at least provide an easy workaround. Can you claim there is nothing in this bug but nonsensical fear from users? I'm not taking side here, I can be sure of anything. What I know is that we should tell them if something has to be done, will be done, and why. Thanks for you work -- 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: Ubiquity - setting a separate /home by default
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:51:29PM +0200, David Prieto wrote: Hi again, Ubiquity can now install onto a partition that has an existing home directory without deleting it. It just removes the system directories. Do you have to do anything special for that to work? I usually keep my /home in a separate partition, but I have another partition with some spare gigs to try Intrepid. This morning I reinstalled Ubuntu in that partition and it destroyed the previous /home folder. I presume that you did not instruct the installer to format the old /home partition? (If you did, then why?) If not, then that's a very serious bug. Please report it as soon as possible with all relevant details, including /var/log/installer/syslog and /var/log/installer/partman. This is indeed exactly the reason we haven't offered a prominent option of a separate /home; our partition management tools just aren't smooth enough to cope when (not if) people make the wrong choice for relative sizes. Actually, the user won't have to make a choice at all. Do you think a good choice for an average user could be made automatically depending on the disk's size and free space? Because that's what I'm proposing. No; I don't think such a good choice exists in general, particularly since when you get it wrong it's so horrifically painful to change. I also don't actually believe in the mythical average user ... If you have lots of free space (enough to ensure that it'll be very difficult to fill / up, and that /home will be big enough that these few missing gigs will be negligible), the installer will recommend you to make a separate partition. If space is tighter, it won't. Unfortunately, the installer has to deal with hard cases as well as easy cases, and I don't think it's acceptable to just give up with the hard cases. My bet is that many users won't think it's acceptable either, and so this will just keep on coming up. I think it's far superior to make the installer deal with /home in the way that people actually want (at the high level of I want to reinstall Ubuntu without destroying my data, rather than at the detailed level of which files should go on which partitions?), and to do so without having to make fundamentally painful decisions in the installer that are difficult to change later. It's very easy to say that a few missing gigabytes will be negligible, but if those are the few missing gigabytes that prevent Dad from editing his holiday videos then he'll be justifiably annoyed, particularly if this was an unnecessary waste of space. Multiple partitions can make sense on complex installations with dedicated system administrator capability, but on ordinary desktop installations they are needless complexity that shouldn't be recommended by default. Unless you have multiple disks (in which case some of the choices are made for you), the only reason to bother with them is the (very real) use case of wanting to preserve your data on installation; I think we should focus on that use case rather than on the suggested *implementation* of multiple partitions. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [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: firefox and bad ssl certificates
On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:32:23 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, they won't, and shouldn't. Why pay some idiot corporation an extortion fee just because they bribed the browser manufacturers to include their certs by default? There is NO added security to having a paid for cert. In 8.04, CACert is included as a provider. CACert is free. The price bit is moot. Yes, but a cert from a valid CA or one you've previously accepted only helps against MITM attacks. It helps not a bit against the rather more common problem of social engineering attacks using cousin domains (e.g. paypal.com and paypa1.com). Cert recognition/validation doesn't tell you anything about how good or bad the distant end is. The rather larger problem is that the little lock is generally presumed by users to mean much more than it does. Emphasizing cert validity only compounds the problem. As an example, after today I'd be rather more concerned if I didn't get an unknown cert warning from a Debian site than if I did. Scott K -- 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: firefox and bad ssl certificates
The rather larger problem is that the little lock is generally presumed by users to mean much more than it does. Emphasizing cert validity only compounds the problem. As an example, after today I'd be rather more concerned if I didn't get an unknown cert warning from a Debian site than if I did. Yes indeed. A web certificate, as it is used nowadays, will not do much more than get you privacy. It does not make the web site more or less secure (and I have already said that here). A self-signed is as good as one signed by a so-called trusted CA. What makes a specific public certificate more trusted is out-of-band check and validation (serial number, CN or DN verification, etc). A digital (public) certificate is nothing more than a public encryption key with some identifying data, signed by someone you do not know, but decided to trust. And, again -- it is not the web public certificate you trust, its the signer. You do not know anything about who is deploying this specific certificate, but *you* (or someone with the necessary power) decided the signer is trusted. Scott, methinks, is absolutely correct. But I doubt he, or I, or both of us, or whoever else, will be able to change the Way Things Are (TM). ..hggdh.. 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: Ubiquity - setting a separate /home by default
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 00:33 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:51:29PM +0200, David Prieto wrote: Hi again, Ubiquity can now install onto a partition that has an existing home directory without deleting it. It just removes the system directories. Do you have to do anything special for that to work? I usually keep my /home in a separate partition, but I have another partition with some spare gigs to try Intrepid. This morning I reinstalled Ubuntu in that partition and it destroyed the previous /home folder. I presume that you did not instruct the installer to format the old /home partition? (If you did, then why?) If not, then that's a very serious bug. Please report it as soon as possible with all relevant details, including /var/log/installer/syslog and /var/log/installer/partman. The paragraph quoted says that the partition into which Intrepid was installed had a /home *folder* not *partition*. It was said in response to someone saying that a separate partition is not needed because the installer no longer destroys /home directories inside the / partition. Obviously, the installer did delete the /home directory and not just the system directory. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo 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: firefox and bad ssl certificates
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:24 -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: No, they won't, and shouldn't. Why pay some idiot corporation an extortion fee just because they bribed the browser manufacturers to include their certs by default? There is NO added security to having a paid for cert. See the several incidents where bank web sites have been spoofed on a slightly misspelled version of the domain name and issued a valid cert from a CA proving they are the bank you thought you were visiting. http://cacert.org, which has its certs included in Ubuntu by default, is free. Be advised however to use the new OpenSSL[0] to generate your CSR and private key pair, in light of DSA-1571[1]. [0] http://packages.ubuntu.com/openssl [1] http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-612-1 It may also be worth considering putting off submitting CSRs to CAs (CACert included) until those CAs can confirm that they are not (or no longer) affected by the issue. Cheers, Zakame -- Zak B. Elep || http://zakame.spunge.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D -- 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: Ubuntu boot speed fall in Hardy
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 08:32 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 03:37 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 08:28 +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: Do you have a link to the discussion? Were things suposed to be any better in Hardy? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-session/+bug/128803 Someone said they'd heard it was fixed in Hardy, but subscribers say that is far from the case. Hmm I think that bug is rather different to what I'm reporting. That seems to be about GNOME being abnormally slow to the point where it takes minutes to start. Further, it seems to have become unfocused and extremely large potentially covering lots different issues. Sadly I don't think a bug like that can be resolved because too few can do the testing and report the information that would show where the real problem lies... The results of using Bootchart to map the GNOME startup process, for the many users that did it, consistently showed gnome-panel as the culprit. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo 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: Bug madness: High frequency of load/unload cycles
hi, Am Dienstag, den 13.05.2008, 22:42 +0200 schrieb Milan Bouchet-Valat: Le mardi 13 mai 2008 à 11:22 +0200, Oliver Grawert a écrit : hi, Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 23:14 +0200 schrieb Milan Bouchet-Valat: I'd like to raise the developers' awareness about bug 59695 [1]: High frequency of load/unload cycles on some hard disks may shorten lifetime please see this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/257426/ it is not aything ubuntu specific but a hardware vendor setting, note as well that the relatime mount option is the default with hardys 2.6.24 kernel. If you think it's been solved with the relatime option in Hardy, then please go there and explain it to the subscribers, and set the bug to Invalid. Don't let people talk again and again about these issues. please read the article again... relatime might help as part of a workaround but the article makes pretty clear that there is no sane way you can solve it on the software side in a nonintrusive way, its a hardware vendor setting and hardware vendors need to fix it. ciao oli signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- 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
