Re: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
2008/9/13 (R)om [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). -- Marcin Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/ -- 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-time improvements
2008/9/14 Tristan Wibberley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 12:51 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: As an author of Prefetch, I cannot agree that it would not fix seeks ;) Part of my implementation, not enabled by default as it is highly experimental, is ext3 defragmenter which puts all files for prefetch in one place on disk, so the requests to read them can be merged into big streaming reads. There could be an automatic algorithm for this if done inside the filesystem. If there is a last-read counter in the filesystem kernel object then the filesystem can pick a pseudorandom number n on some histogram chosen empirically and set last-read to the nth block read, then pick a new pseudo random number m and move the mth block next to the last-read one from earlier. then repeat with a new n and m. set last-read to the start of the disk to begin with and start with selecting an m to move and your filesystem will tend to gather time-related files in space. After several boots you'll have a boot-up and login readahead tailored specifically to your typical use case. This would have practically no discernable overhead or dead-time and requires very little system analysis by humans. It is also something that Ubuntu could very easily give back by delivering to upstream. It is not necessary. Prefetch analyses boot and application startup and knows how files should be layed out. The problem is in relocation of files. -- Krzysztof Lichota -- 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: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
ma, 2008-09-15 kello 11:05 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk kirjoitti: 2008/9/13 (R)om [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). That's certainly useful -- for some people. For a lot of us, the list is too short to be useful: the file I want has usually already dropped off the list, even if it's a file I use several times a day. As a result, I have stopped using the list and instead go directly to the file I want. I'd like to be able to change the length of the Recent Files list. (I'd change the length to zero.) -- 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-time improvements
2008/9/12 Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 09:35 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: Thanks. There are some rough edges in patches themselves which should be straightened out. And the feedback on using prefetch was pretty much non-existing. What is the recommended way of enabling prefetch to test? And can it be tested by people still using Hardy? There are 5 Ubuntu laptops in the room right now... There is an installation instruction at http://code.google.com/p/prefetch/wiki/TestingBootPrefetching This is still Gutsy kernel, but it should work on Hardy. You can also install Hardy kernel which was prepared by Scott James Remnant (available at: http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/prefetch/ ). Before and after installation please measure boot time and, if possible create bootcharts for comparison. Please report results to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Krzysztof Lichota -- 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: Configuration Validation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Owens wrote on 13/09/08 04:18: ... One of the concerns I have is with configurations, specifically those in /etc and those in ~/.* . The files in /etc are known to the apt system and it's been built to warn the user if config files are to be overwritten. The config files in ~/.* are not recorded anywhere and they are at the mercy of the competency of the developers in format and version control. I'm not aware of any guidelines for these files. ... So when you choose Mark for Complete Removal in Synaptic, for example, it will remove system-wide settings for the package, but not your personal settings for the package? That seems unfortunate. Another use for this: If a graphical program crashes in Mac OS X, the alert explaining what happened lets you relaunch the program. If you choose to relaunch it but it then crashes on startup, the resulting alert gives you the extra option of relaunching without your personal settings, in case it was the settings that triggered the crash. If apt knew which settings files belonged to which program, we could do something similar. Cheers - -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIziGi6PUxNfU6ecoRAiSCAKCqDF7piWgWEQHKJgHR2JJNfq1Q4ACeJ+Eu BkUicnWBoU5tnAO0NowZEBU= =TvKo -END PGP 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: Backtracing, Invalidated Bugs and Quality
Am 14.09.2008 um 03:32 schrieb Null Ack: Action Item 1: I'm not a developer, but I can help any developers with testing and feedback for enhancements to Apport. Null, your investments in enhancing Apport ist great. Now, a few weeks later, I've learned Apport can map coredumps to readable text already. One of the bugs I've filed shows how things can go wrong: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evince/+bug/260715 Another one went a lot better: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/ 269595 Minutes after I've Apport-reported the later bug, stack traces came out of (apparently) nowhere and within a day, a fix was posted. Short of self-healing applications, this is about as good as one can imagine. 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
Firefox newly insists on showing an EULA
Hello all, readers of this list might be interested in the discussion here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/ It's about a new requirement from the Mozilla Foundation, how End User License Agreements (EULAs) are against the spirit of free software and the GPL, how click-through requirements affect the user experience and about wether Firefox should be replaced with a differently branded equivalent: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13200/ http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/ http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13202/ 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: Firefox newly insists on showing an EULA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Linux is trademarked, yet I see no EULA for it. Trademarks can be free depending on how they're licensed. I already believe Firefox's no modifcations policy is already fairly bad, and now we need an EULA on top of being restricted on changing it? Bah, if that's how they want to play ball, I recommend debranding it; as we already have abrowser as a debranded Firefox in the repo, I recommend simply changing the seed, and moving Firefox to multiverse. The same applies to Thunderbird, Sunbird, and Seamonkey. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjORWYACgkQpblTBJ2i2psp4QCfWBdrnMI2V93LDoLX2J+4Tmt5 WNQAn3zzglS5oOY7ZjG9ZLOdTJjfxr49 =tdgt -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Peteris Krisjanis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! IMHO, several ways to handle that: 1) Cave in to Mozilla request (Trademarks are trademarks. They are bitch and their protection are somehow incompatible with free software. But that's life) 2) Provide Iceweasel and rebrand it as Ubuntu Web browser, and provide easy way to install Firefox from universe. Those who will care will install it, OEMs will install it on new boxes by default anyway, and those who care about libre, will stay clean. 3) Ditch Firefox as default browser in Intrepid+1 and go on with Epiphany/Webkit. Still, provide easy way to install FF. One big point is that most users who would like to see Firefox as familiar brand are OEM users anyway - they will get their browser installed by support guys. Also Hardy still get FF 3.0 without EULA (so far), so propably not so much to worry about. Just my two cents, Peter. 2008/9/15 Markus Hitter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello all, readers of this list might be interested in the discussion here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/ It's about a new requirement from the Mozilla Foundation, how End User License Agreements (EULAs) are against the spirit of free software and the GPL, how click-through requirements affect the user experience and about wether Firefox should be replaced with a differently branded equivalent: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13200/ http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13201/ http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/13202/ 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 -- mortigi tempo Pēteris Krišjānis -- 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: Firefox newly insists on showing an EULA
One compelling reason (which I also posted on that launchpad thread) not to keep on using Firefox is that Mozilla can hurt Ubuntu with this stuff. They can demand all kinds of stuff way too late in Ubuntu's development cycle, with no time for Ubuntu to properly respond to it. The web browser is a very important part of Ubuntu, and that puts Mozilla in a perfect position to blackmail Ubuntu. That should never happen again, so all trademarks without a clear, perpetual, free-software compatible license should be removed from Ubuntu. I'd go further to say that trademarks are inherently incompatible with free-software, since their sole purpose is to give the owners the power to restrict use of their trademark. That one purpose becomes void if you slap a free-software compatible license on it. Remco -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 13:12, Peteris Krisjanis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! IMHO, several ways to handle that: 1) Cave in to Mozilla request (Trademarks are trademarks. They are bitch and their protection are somehow incompatible with free software. But that's life) 2) Provide Iceweasel and rebrand it as Ubuntu Web browser, and provide easy way to install Firefox from universe. Those who will care will install it, OEMs will install it on new boxes by default anyway, and those who care about libre, will stay clean. 3) Ditch Firefox as default browser in Intrepid+1 and go on with Epiphany/Webkit. Still, provide easy way to install FF. One big point is that most users who would like to see Firefox as familiar brand are OEM users anyway - they will get their browser installed by support guys. Also Hardy still get FF 3.0 without EULA (so far), so propably not so much to worry about. John Gilmore complains about the EULA and finds a way to install and use Firefox without agreeing to it: http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#firefox-eula-sux Regards Morgan -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
Disclaimer: I'm not trademark lawyer, but do know people with some professional insight in this field. Linux is trademarked, yet I see no EULA for it. And it was one of reasons why Linux foundation almost lost trademark. When they tried to enforce it properly, they heard all the same cries, bashes and arguments. Deal with it - trademarks are here, are much older than Linux and free software, and they are incompatible with our way of thinking. Yeah, we could try to live without them, but this world is a nasty place and last thing I would like to see is some SCO-like company trademarking Linux and starting to request license it for using in distros. Trademarks can be free depending on how they're licensed. Actually no, trademarks are trademarks. They must be enforced and only way for owners to control them is agreements. Additional agreements to free software is big no no no matter how do you paint it. We are actually lucky that OpenOffice.org or other trademarked free software don't require this. In a way, the would have to. I already believe Firefox's no modifcations policy is already fairly bad, and now we need an EULA on top of being restricted on changing it? You are not restricted to change it - it's free software, after all. But when distributed as Firefox, it is coupled with trademarked brand name and artwork, which requires agreement to be used (see trademark enforcement above). Unfortunately, Ubuntu modifies Firefox a lot, therefore they shall have such agreement. Bah, if that's how they want to play ball, I recommend debranding it; as we already have abrowser as a debranded Firefox in the repo, I recommend simply changing the seed, and moving Firefox to multiverse. The same applies to Thunderbird, Sunbird, and Seamonkey. In fact, too much emotions in this issue won't be good. Ubuntu is about the choice - users should be possible not to be nagged with EULAs, but in same time, if they want to use FF, they should have most easiest way to do so. Cheers, Peter. -- 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: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk a écrit : 2008/9/13 (R)om[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). That's true for ~/.recently-used.xbel, but ~/.recently-used is not cleared when you clean the recent documents from this menu. The problem is not really a problem of usefulness, but a problem of privacy : - there is no way to disable (a priori) this tracability - there is a way to clear recent documents a posteriori, but it clears only one of the 2 log files -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
Almost every industry product we know has some sort of a trademark. Yet, when you buy paper towels, grocery, shoes, ... nowhere you have to agree to such an agreement. Not even when buying high-level items like cars. This is about the ability to distribute, not about the private at the end of the line. I bet if you want to distribute some brand, you would also have to have an agreement with the trademark holder. My 0.02 Paul -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:01 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote: Am 15.09.2008 um 13:45 schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: trademarks are trademarks. They must be enforced and only way for owners to control them is agreements. Almost every industry product we know has some sort of a trademark. Yet, when you buy paper towels, grocery, shoes, ... nowhere you have to agree to such an agreement. Not even when buying high-level items like cars. This perception of trademark enforcement you describe ist really unique to some parts of the software industry. This is true. Why would this be a EULA? End-User? If you're *just* a user, you're not modifying it and so trademark issues don't apply to you anyway. This is a Modifiers License Agreement, or something. No reason for it to show up on releases. If it shows up in Bon Echo, where it's being branched and modified by anyone, ok, sure that makes sense because modification is going into it now, except, well, it's already been renamed Bon Echo to avoid the Firefox trademark issues, so what gives? -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
Giving out CDs for an early celebration of Software Freedom Day yesterday, we were asked *very* often if Ubuntu had a web browser. Yes, Firefox Oh good, I use that on Windows. #1: Same response, and they're used to click-throughs anyway #2: We'd have to explain all the trademark stuff and they'd be wondering why we're changing Firefox (hey, why is that anyway?), why anyone cares, etc. having to go more into the messy legal stuff. Or you say: Yes, it's Firefox with a few improvements such as security, plugin-manager, and no nag screens. #3: Yes, it's called Epiphany. But Firefox is available too, if you're used to that. I guess we could say it's like Safari on a Mac since it's the same rendering engine... So nobody switches to a Mac, because it has Safari, and not Firefox as a default? Whatever browser you choose, you choose the best one and tell your friends that it's a great browser. Firefox is not the reason people switch to Ubuntu. It's the reason people can continue using Windows. And just like Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Chrome, Epiphany can be a brand, too. Remco -- 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: Full boot in 45s, 3 possible improvements (for Jaunty Jackalope 9.04?)
2008/9/15 Andre Mussche [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to try to use e2defrag on my ext3 disk, to try to reorder the bootfiles (of the readahead list), so less head movements. e2defrag is dangerous, can destroy your data, and should not be used. See http://marc.info/?l=ext3-usersm=116231468911590w=2 -- Krzysztof Lichota -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
I don't really like #3 because while I recognize that Webkit is a *great* rendering engine, Firefox has a monopoly on extensions. Hrm, maybe there needs to be some mass attempt at migrating FF extensions to Epiphany. By the way, I thought the same, and then I decided to check out Epiphany - haven't done it for several years. And goes what - there is package in Hardy called epiphany-extensions, which contains lot of plugins, adblock included. Extentions isn't issue - if there will be huge Ubuntu market with Epiphany used as default, there will be most useful extensions ported over. It's not rocket science. Firefox is one of those big successful open source projects that we use to introduce people to the idea of open source and to get them used to what they'll be using on Linux before making the big switch. I think the list of F/OSS-for-Windows that's most recognized is Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GIMP, and Pidgin. Yes, I fully agree that Firefox is big brand. As I said previously, OEMs and individual computer builders will install it anyway (as rest of Java/Flash/codecs world), and those people who will install it individually could have option at install time or when system is installed, nice icon with Install Firefox in Applications = Internet. Anyway, Firefox long-held criticism in Ubuntu/GNOME enviroments has been integration issues. Firefox 3 has lot of improvements, but Epiphany still owns web browser for GNOME official title rightfully. Maybe it is time to stop hyping project which Linux port is actually big afterthough (no offense, but Windows *is* priority for Firefox devs) and start to help to improve our own. Just my two euro cents, Peter. -- 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: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:18 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2008-09-15 kello 11:05 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk kirjoitti: 2008/9/13 (R)om [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). That's certainly useful -- for some people. For a lot of us, the list is too short to be useful: the file I want has usually already dropped off the list, even if it's a file I use several times a day. As a result, I have stopped using the list and instead go directly to the file I want. I'd like to be able to change the length of the Recent Files list. (I'd change the length to zero.) Is there a way to disable this? I've never looked in Recent Documents. I have ~/.bash_history for that ;) Hmm, I have the Search for Files still in Places too, apparently. Why does that stay there even though I removed Tracker on first boot? I think we need a way to edit the Places menu (if one doesn't exist already...if it does, tell me where), just like we can edit the Applications menu. I want to remove those two, Connect to Server, and Network. Why is CD/DVD creator still in there if we have Brasero now? If it's staying there, it ought to open Brasero instead of Nautilus, shouldn't it? -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
2008/9/15 Neal McBurnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: But first I'd like to actually read the EULA, and I'm surprised no one has posted the text of it (as far as I have found) to this discussion or to the bug. The link to it was in the bug: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox3-en.html -- Marcin Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/ -- 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: Full boot in 45s, 3 possible improvements (for Jaunty Jackalope 9.04?)
hi, On Mo, 2008-09-15 at 15:57 +0200, Andre Mussche wrote: But I do not know how to optimize udev/modprobe and gnome? i plan to work on some improved scripts for the modprobe issue in jaunty, what you can do today is to provide a fixed list of modules in /etc/initramfs-tools/modules, that speeds up the probing stuff already ... one (really evil) option that can go hand in hand with such a hardcoded list is to disable /etc/udev/rules.d/90-modprobe.rules in initramfs and enable it later again, that way you can get rid of *all* modprobing at boot (but mind you it really needs a working module list) ... that can gain you massive speedups but indeed makes you lose a lot of flexibility ... (dont do that at home if you dont know what you're doing ) i will write a spec to discuss a possible enhanced profiling mode with something similar for the UDS and will announce it here before mountainview ... ciao oli 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: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:18 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2008-09-15 kello 11:05 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk kirjoitti: 2008/9/13 (R)om [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). That's certainly useful -- for some people. For a lot of us, the list is too short to be useful: the file I want has usually already dropped off the list, even if it's a file I use several times a day. As a result, I have stopped using the list and instead go directly to the file I want. I'd like to be able to change the length of the Recent Files list. (I'd change the length to zero.) Is there a way to disable this? I've never looked in Recent Documents. I have ~/.bash_history for that ;) Hmm, I have the Search for Files still in Places too, apparently. Why does that stay there even though I removed Tracker on first boot? The file is written by Gtk+, not Tracker. gtk-recent-files-max-age=0 in your gtkrc file should make it go away, per the documentation: http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/GtkSettings.html#GtkSettings--gtk-recent-files-max-age -A. Walton I think we need a way to edit the Places menu (if one doesn't exist already...if it does, tell me where), just like we can edit the Applications menu. I want to remove those two, Connect to Server, and Network. Why is CD/DVD creator still in there if we have Brasero now? If it's staying there, it ought to open Brasero instead of Nautilus, shouldn't it? -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo -- 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: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:08 -0400, A. Walton wrote: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:18 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2008-09-15 kello 11:05 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk kirjoitti: 2008/9/13 (R)om [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). That's certainly useful -- for some people. For a lot of us, the list is too short to be useful: the file I want has usually already dropped off the list, even if it's a file I use several times a day. As a result, I have stopped using the list and instead go directly to the file I want. I'd like to be able to change the length of the Recent Files list. (I'd change the length to zero.) Is there a way to disable this? I've never looked in Recent Documents. I have ~/.bash_history for that ;) Hmm, I have the Search for Files still in Places too, apparently. Why does that stay there even though I removed Tracker on first boot? The file is written by Gtk+, not Tracker. gtk-recent-files-max-age=0 in your gtkrc file should make it go away, per the documentation: http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/GtkSettings.html#GtkSettings--gtk-recent-files-max-age I figured Tracker would be the cause of Seach for Files, though. Is it? -- 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: Full boot in 45s, 3 possible improvements (for Jaunty Jackalope 9.04?)
Krzysztof Lichota wrote: 2008/9/15 Andre Mussche [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to try to use e2defrag on my ext3 disk, to try to reorder the bootfiles (of the readahead list), so less head movements. e2defrag is dangerous, can destroy your data, and should not be used. See http://marc.info/?l=ext3-usersm=116231468911590w=2 FUD and needless paranoia should be avoided. While there is always a chance something like this can go wrong, you always keep backups right? Right? A while back I made a few patches to the ubuntu e2defrag to make it work properly on ext3 and stress tested it quite a bit on a small test filesystem with no issues, so using it SHOULD be fine. -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 02:12:52PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: IMHO, several ways to handle that: 1) Cave in to Mozilla request (Trademarks are trademarks. They are bitch and their protection are somehow incompatible with free software. But that's life) 2) Provide Iceweasel and rebrand it as Ubuntu Web browser, and provide easy way to install Firefox from universe. Those who will care will install it, OEMs will install it on new boxes by default anyway, and those who care about libre, will stay clean. 3) Ditch Firefox as default browser in Intrepid+1 and go on with Epiphany/Webkit. Still, provide easy way to install FF. One big point is that most users who would like to see Firefox as familiar brand are OEM users anyway - they will get their browser installed by support guys. Also Hardy still get FF 3.0 without EULA (so far), so propably not so much to worry about. Thanks for listing some options. My gut reaction is to do #2 above: reluctantly drop the problematic Firefox brand and go with a brand that doesn't introduce trademark and EULA hassles for our users and redistributors. But first I'd like to actually read the EULA, and I'm surprised no one has posted the text of it (as far as I have found) to this discussion or to the bug. Though the bug is so verbose now that I haven't managed to read all the way thru, I must admit - but I didn't see any attachments. Thanks, Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:12 +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Hi! IMHO, several ways to handle that: 1) Cave in to Mozilla request (Trademarks are trademarks. They are bitch and their protection are somehow incompatible with free software. But that's life) 2) Provide Iceweasel and rebrand it as Ubuntu Web browser, and provide easy way to install Firefox from universe. Those who will care will install it, OEMs will install it on new boxes by default anyway, and those who care about libre, will stay clean. 3) Ditch Firefox as default browser in Intrepid+1 and go on with Epiphany/Webkit. Still, provide easy way to install FF. One big point is that most users who would like to see Firefox as familiar brand are OEM users anyway - they will get their browser installed by support guys. Also Hardy still get FF 3.0 without EULA (so far), so propably not so much to worry about. Giving out CDs for an early celebration of Software Freedom Day yesterday, we were asked *very* often if Ubuntu had a web browser. Yes, Firefox Oh good, I use that on Windows. #1: Same response, and they're used to click-throughs anyway #2: We'd have to explain all the trademark stuff and they'd be wondering why we're changing Firefox (hey, why is that anyway?), why anyone cares, etc. having to go more into the messy legal stuff. #3: Yes, it's called Epiphany. But Firefox is available too, if you're used to that. I guess we could say it's like Safari on a Mac since it's the same rendering engine... I don't really like #3 because while I recognize that Webkit is a *great* rendering engine, Firefox has a monopoly on extensions. Hrm, maybe there needs to be some mass attempt at migrating FF extensions to Epiphany. Firefox is one of those big successful open source projects that we use to introduce people to the idea of open source and to get them used to what they'll be using on Linux before making the big switch. I think the list of F/OSS-for-Windows that's most recognized is Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GIMP, and Pidgin. -- 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: .recently-used : provide a way to disable the logging
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 14:08 -0400, A. Walton wrote: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:18 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2008-09-15 kello 11:05 +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk kirjoitti: 2008/9/13 (R)om [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Every action taken is logged in ~/.recently-used and ~/.recently-used.xbel. It should be fine to provide a way to disable this (useless?) logging. It's definitely not useless: the documents are seen in Places → Recent Documents (and the list can be manually cleared from there). That's certainly useful -- for some people. For a lot of us, the list is too short to be useful: the file I want has usually already dropped off the list, even if it's a file I use several times a day. As a result, I have stopped using the list and instead go directly to the file I want. I'd like to be able to change the length of the Recent Files list. (I'd change the length to zero.) Is there a way to disable this? I've never looked in Recent Documents. I have ~/.bash_history for that ;) Hmm, I have the Search for Files still in Places too, apparently. Why does that stay there even though I removed Tracker on first boot? The file is written by Gtk+, not Tracker. gtk-recent-files-max-age=0 in your gtkrc file should make it go away, per the documentation: http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/GtkSettings.html#GtkSettings--gtk-recent-files-max-age I figured Tracker would be the cause of Seach for Files, though. Is it? Depends. Like Nautilus, Gtk+ has search engine support for Beagle, Tracker, (only in Gtk+ Quartz) and Simple (with Simple being a simple file-name search engine used in the event the others can't be loaded). I think Gtk+ uses some dlopen() trickery to load library support for Beagle and Tracker; we don't do that in Nautilus. -A. Walton -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo -- 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
Rejecting the Firefox EULA in Ubuntu
Is there an easy way to reject the EULA on the Firefox shipped with Ubuntu and still be able to use the software? Has anyone patched the source code to remove this yet? I'm not just an end-user of the software, and I do not want to mess around with licence agreements each time I want to modify parts of it that could be construed as branding. If someone has a solution right now, I'll roll a package and point to it on the Wiki. -- 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
Platinum Arts Sandbox to Appear at the ABLEconf Linux Conference and Test Release soon!
Just wanted to let everyone know that might live in Arizona about the linux conference going on called Ableconf. You can find out more information at the webpage http://Ableconf.com Platinum Arts Sandbox is to be featured there. The Sandbox presentation media will be posted online after the conference is over for anyone who is interested. In addition over at http://Kids.PlatinumArts.Net we have a ton of Platinum Arts Sandbox updates including a new test release soon. It will feature Moviecube so kids will actually be able to create their own movies. For anymore unfamiliar with Platinum Arts Sandbox, it is a free kid friendly open source game design tool for ages as young as five. In addition we hope to have a version of Sandbox that meets the Debian Free requirements so hopefully it can be included in Ubuntu, Debian and Edubuntu sometime in the near future :) Take care and thanks for your time. -mike http://Kids.PlatinumArts.Net http://Doom3Coop.com Former Multiple Award Winning project. May contain content not suitable for kids. -- Check out http://PlatinumArts.Net ! It features movie reviews, stories, free video games and more! -- 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: Rejecting the Firefox EULA in Ubuntu
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Sean Hodges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there an easy way to reject the EULA on the Firefox shipped with Ubuntu and still be able to use the software? Has anyone patched the source code to remove this yet? Is ABrowser [1] sufficient for your purposes? Denver 1. http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/abrowser -- 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: Rejecting the Firefox EULA in Ubuntu
Denver Gingerich wrote: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Sean Hodges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there an easy way to reject the EULA on the Firefox shipped with Ubuntu and still be able to use the software? Has anyone patched the source code to remove this yet? Is ABrowser [1] sufficient for your purposes? Denver 1. http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/abrowser Unfortunately there appears to be a bug[0] where abrowser asks about the EULA. I don't know if this would be a blocker. Iain [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubufox/+bug/269795 -- 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: Packages in Main/Universe I'm not allowed to modify ...
Cross-posting to Ubuntu-devel-discuss. On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not directly about the current Firefox EULA debacle, but that is what got me thinking about this topic. As an Ubuntu developer, I am not allowed to patch Firefox and upload it because of the Trademark restrictions. I think that's unfortunate, but I agree it's currently allowed under Ubuntu policy. As I have thought about this, I am concerned that there are packages for which this is the case that I'm not aware of. When I work on a package in Main or Universe, I assume it's FOSS and I have a legal right to modify and distribute it. I do not make a habit of reviewing debian/copyright each time I work on a package and I suspect I'm not alone in this. If we're going to allow packages such as this in our primary archives, then I think there needs to be a reference list somewhere that developers can use to see which packages they cannot touch. Consider this a pre-discussion of a proposed change in Ubuntu policy. If there is some consensus around something like this, I'll gather up the ideas and propose a diff to Ubuntu Policy. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I remember correctly, packages in main and universe are supposed to be Free and Open Source software: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components If that's true, why is Firefox in main? http://packages.ubuntu.com/intrepid/firefox-3.0 If it's true that main should only contain FOSS, I think Firefox (tm) should be moved to the restricted repositories now. If that's somehow changed, then maybe we should change the definition of the main repository on all those pages. Now that I'm done being surly, I really do feel that Firefox (tm) should be moved to restricted if its use is to be restricted in this way, and that we should include a FOSS browser with the LiveCD and main install (possibly alongside Firefox). I understand if developers need to wait for Jaunty to make this move; however, I believe this should be the policy, both for Firefox (tm) and any other packages that become non-free software. Joe Terranova -- 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 newly insists on showing an EULA
On 15/09/08 18:52, Markus Hitter wrote: Hello all, readers of this list might be interested in the discussion here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/ It's about a new requirement from the Mozilla Foundation, how End User License Agreements (EULAs) are against the spirit of free software and the GPL, how click-through requirements affect the user experience and about wether Firefox should be replaced with a differently branded equivalent: In summary the issue is this: 1. There seems scope for Canonical to negotiate with Mozilla to make this go away. 2. The EULA seems to attempt to protect something that is covered under the GPL Preamble. 3. The EULA seems to be referring to a binary that wasn't created by Mozilla. 4. Allowing this EULA is the thin-end of the wedge to others wanting to pop-up something. The bug links[1] to this text which I think is important: [1] http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#firefox-eula-sux [..] In particular, they kept repeating, Fedora has a EULA, so why shouldn't we?. That seemed to be the main reason for it. I have news for them. Fedora doesn't have a EULA any more. The reason it doesn't is because I complained about it, and made the case to their management, lawyers, and release manager, that: * They don't need a EULA, trademark law applies anyway * It's free software so people can go in and remove the EULA anyway (which in fact I did, so I never agreed to it) * Putting EULAs into Fedora was causing all sorts of unsavory characters to go see, Fedora is doing it and stick EULAs into their own distros -- EULAs that contain really objectionable provisions. * I don't want my relationship with Fedora/Mozilla to be governed by a one-sided contract written by them. I want it to be governed by the laws, which are already one-sided enough. The Fedora Project Leader, Max Spevack, was nice enough to send me a note thanking me for making it go away. Getting rid of it was on his list of battles to fight, but he had had some more pressing things ahead of it. He also pointed out that if you did a text-mode install, it never presented you with the EULA anyway, so if Red Hat's lawyers had been serious about really, really demanding that every copy of Fedora was accompanied by a signed contract with the end user, their releases weren't doing that anyway. So it's gone now. It's been gone since Fedora 7. [..] Could this point a way forward that might allow Canonical to negotiate with Mozilla about this? I think that other proposed methods of resolving this are much more destructive and that Canonical can point at the user response that is beginning to emerge. I do not understand what the EULA is actually trying to protect and why. Which particular threat is perceived that needs protecting with this EULA? I wonder if the whole thing covered under this paragraph in the GPL Preamble: [..] Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations. [..] The opening statement in the EULA is most puzzling, this sentence appears to be the basis of the license: The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation [..] Last I looked, our distributed executable code wasn't created by Mozilla at all, it was compiled by a compiler running on a Canonical/Ubuntu server from source-code supplied by Mozilla, that is, Mozilla didn't supply the executable, so this license makes little sense. I suspect that the EULA comes from the downloadable .exe files used to install under Windows and that it is a hang-over from that. One comment[2] points that the EULA came from the installer - which we never used - and that it was moved to be more visible. [2] http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2008/05/23/firefox-eula/#comment-367 To me this issue is the thin-end of the wedge, next we'll have a EULA for which ever developer wants to have a EULA. I realise that not all applications will go down this route, but if this stands as a precedent, then we're likely to be bombarded by pop-up EULA's and we'll no longer have the option of installing software within (large) organisations without having a lawyer present. -- 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] --
