Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Ryan Oram wrote: [...] > > The idea of developers being better maintainers is a bit of economic > theory. My goal is to make the Linux distribution more scalable. If > developers concentrate on their packages and distributions concentrate > on the core operating system, this make for a much more efficient > system there is much less duplicated work. The cost of adding more > software to a distribution under this system would rapidly approach > zero, as the distribution would just run a minimal check and do > minimal testing. > > Ryan Hi, this may sound attractive but it really feels like a half-backed argument. First, as some already mentioned, most upstream have little or no knowledge on packaging. More importantly, not all upstream are ubuntu-centric. The linux world is very wide and while ubuntu is for sure a very visible distribution, it is not the only one by a long shot. Furthermore some upstreams are not even linux-centric... Even if all upstreams were ubuntu-centric, this kind of approach has pro and cons, you can't just pretend the pro outweight the cons without a detailed study of the userbase, which is quite large... Packaging is hard and maintaining a consistent distribution is a huge task. I for one would love to have newer versions of some software when I need newest features or specific bug fixes, but throwing new versions of working stuff all over the distribution would eventually lead to more broken stuff. PPAs are great for this, it is a clear improvement for the previous alternatives (stick with whatever is in stable or run unstable) even if it may be a definitive solution. I do think a proper way to achieve this may be worth discussion, maybe by extending PPAs or making it easier to have nightly builds of the latest upstream version for existing packages, possibly in a semi-official and integrated way (like offering test channels for some applications in the application manager) but I'm pretty sure this must be used with caution: it can cause fragmentation and combination-dependant bugs that are hard to track (but if done properly, ubuntu-bug would also be able to collect this kind of information). BTW, I think something in this line has already been experimented (and failed) in the debian world, wasn't it the purpose of Ian Murdock's "Progeny Componentized Linux"? Best regards. -- Aurélien Naldi -- 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
ecryptfs creates ~/Private directories instead of something like ~/Encrypted
Hi, please comment to recognize the issue. ecryptfs started to create ~/Private directories by default, but * ~/priv, ~/private or ~/Private are in use for directories with private filesystem permissions, (Managing access permissions among users in an easy directory based manner with the "user private groups" used in debian/ubuntu is explained at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiUserManagement) * and ecryptfs' current ~/Private default does not point out that it is actually encrypting things in this directory on the disk. I see the on-disk-encrypted directory provided by ecryptfs is by default mounted with private permissions (rwx--), but * We can not assume every private directory is on-disk-encrypted. * An on-disk-encrypted directory does have to always have private permissions (not if it is for collaboration by users of the filesystem tree the directory is mounted on). I'd like to request a more distinguished default name for on-disk-encrypted directories. -Christian -- 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
Chromium for Xubuntu?
I only use Ubuntu/Gnome, but Google seems to tell me the state of things is: - Ubuntu comes with Firefox - Xubuntu comes with Firefox - KDE comes with something called Arora Arora seems to be a Webkit-based browser, as Chrome. I'm currently playing with SRWare Iron, which is a build of Chromium with most of the Google tracking stuff disabled or flat-out removed. I think a sane default configuration of Chromium and a blanket configuration setting that disables those "intrusive" Google enhancements (like Search Suggest-- which by the way I enjoy in Firefox...) would be a better approach to this. More directly, I'm pondering if Xubuntu should default on Firefox; or if something lighter-weight like Arora or Chromium would fit better. I think the look and feel of Chromium is more natural to XFCE, though it's a bit shocking to me (the lack of a status bar at the bottom is one point of contention ...). Plus Chromium is GTK+ based and uses the current GTK+ theme; Arora is Qt based and would require Qt plus qt-gtk-engine or something to look right, which would consume more disk and memory and possibly be unstable. -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 6 May 2010 00:58:36 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > > I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it > does not always work with existing code. > Yes, this is true. But again, the problem is with the existing code, not PulseAudio. If we are going to simply give up whenever new code breaks existing broken code, I don't know how we are going to meet the challenge of keeping up with Windows and Mac OS X. > Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that > everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. I still don't understand why you would think that OSS4 is going to be able to deliver the same functionality as PulseAudio without the bug burden. But, as others have said, feel free to try it in your own distribution. - 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Ryan Oram wrote: > Until the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested, infinityOS will > continue to use pure ALSA. How will you determine that "the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested?" Best, -Dan -- 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: Chromium for Xubuntu?
On 6 May 2010 16:01, John Moser wrote: > I only use Ubuntu/Gnome, but Google seems to tell me the state of things is: > > - Ubuntu comes with Firefox > - Xubuntu comes with Firefox > - KDE comes with something called Arora > > Arora seems to be a Webkit-based browser, as Chrome. Chromium-browser is in Lucid repository. Epiphany-browser is also available Both use Gtk and Webkit. I find epiphany the most integrated into Gnome desktop at the moment not sure how well both fit into xubuntu. -- 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
[Xorg] Help needed
Hi, Since yesterday (the kernel update) I'm affected from a bug of Xorg (?), the resolution of the display is "800x600" and I can't change it. First of the update I had "1024x768" and it worked properly. I have tried to disable the nvidia driver, to generate a new xorg.conf (but it doesn't work with the standard xorg.conf nor with the nvidia xorg.conf). Since that I can say it isn't a my problem. I have reported a bug for that: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/576453 Feel free to comment it (any help is apprecciated). For me this bug should be fixed soon, since it's a critical bug. -- Lorenzo De Liso -- 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: Chromium for Xubuntu?
On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:01:26 -0400 John Moser wrote: > I only use Ubuntu/Gnome, but Google seems to tell me the state of things is: > > - Ubuntu comes with Firefox > - Xubuntu comes with Firefox > - KDE comes with something called Arora > > Arora seems to be a Webkit-based browser, as Chrome. > > I'm currently playing with SRWare Iron, which is a build of Chromium > with most of the Google tracking stuff disabled or flat-out removed. > I think a sane default configuration of Chromium and a blanket > configuration setting that disables those "intrusive" Google > enhancements (like Search Suggest-- which by the way I enjoy in > Firefox...) would be a better approach to this. > > More directly, I'm pondering if Xubuntu should default on Firefox; or > if something lighter-weight like Arora or Chromium would fit better. > I think the look and feel of Chromium is more natural to XFCE, though > it's a bit shocking to me (the lack of a status bar at the bottom is > one point of contention ...). Plus Chromium is GTK+ based and uses > the current GTK+ theme; Arora is Qt based and would require Qt plus > qt-gtk-engine or something to look right, which would consume more > disk and memory and possibly be unstable. > Perhaps the best fit of all would be midori, which is part of Xfce development now. Is chromium still in beta? I don't seem to keep up with all of these anymore. -- Charlie Kravetz Linux Registered User Number 425914 [http://counter.li.org/] Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com] -- 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: Chromium for Xubuntu?
On 6 May 2010 17:30, Charlie Kravetz wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:01:26 -0400 > John Moser wrote: > > Perhaps the best fit of all would be midori, which is part of Xfce > development now. Is chromium still in beta? I don't seem to keep up > with all of these anymore. > Chromium is operating in continuous release model with "channels": they have trunk, dev channel, beta channel, stable channel. All of these are getting continious releases with trunk being the fastest and stable being the slowest. They haven't made a release tarball & it doesn't look like they are planning to. Pick a channell and you will get security & improvements & bugs in all of them in different proportions and latency. Chromium daily ppa is packaging trunk & beta channels similar codebase that google is using in their linux builds. -- 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: Chromium for Xubuntu?
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Charlie Kravetz wrote: > > Perhaps the best fit of all would be midori, which is part of Xfce > development now. Is chromium still in beta? I don't seem to keep up > with all of these anymore. That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out consideration. Chromium is beta 5, I don't know if it's officially production in ANY version yet though. Everything's constantly Beta from Google, I think gmail was beta until like last year? That said, there are two arguments here. One is to use the bundled software for the DE, that being Midori. The other is to use a best fit solution for the distribution, including design goals (Xubuntu is a less-intensive distribution using less RAM right?) and look-and-feel; that means Firefox might fit less well than Midori or Chromium, and Chromium is a viable consideration. Given that, we now have deeper considerations to deal with, including philosophical considerations, technical considerations (feature set, fitness for a purpose), and political considerations (Chromium, IE, and Firefox are the top 3 browsers in the world, yes?). Chromium is a viable option in that second set. Firefox as well, since it has GTK theme integration and is a top ranked browser in terms of popularity. Personally I think the UI of Chromium fits in better with XFCE than Firefox, and I think its technical features (low memory usage, fast JavaScript engine, standards compliance) put it at least on par. I think in terms of general popularity and familiarity, Firefox wins out; though Midori is obviously at the far end of obscurity. As for feature set, it's difficult to say. Chromium has a less than stellar ad blocker available (it downloads and then hides the ads) and no support for NoScript or equivalent; it does have a functional locally-implemented AwesomeBar (I'm looking at SRWare Iron, which has all Google-communication stripped out flatly), as well as support for NS plug-ins (flash, gears) run in external processes, and every tab run as an external process. Midori has all the standard features-- tabs, extensions, adblock, user scripts, a search bar, a clean UI-- but nothing spectacular. It's viable, but I think Chromium might have a technological and political advantage, without being too resource heavy or cluttered looking. I think Firefox is lagging in some aspects and better in others, but is too heavy for Xubuntu. -- 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 needs a new development model
Indeed, but what you suggest is not economically relevant although it may be interesting socially. Work on making GPG keys easier to work with and easier to trust people and packages signed by people and organisations, then you can work on getting it more distributed. Martin, On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 23:26 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > This is intentional as I am a economics/computer science major, > currently writing my thesis on the economics behind the open source > development model. To be frank, I feel that the current Ubuntu > development model is unsound as it simply does not scale. -- 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 needs a new development model
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Martin Owens wrote: > Work on making... easier to trust people hahahahahahaha. Hey man, I'm calling from your bank. There's like, a problem with your account... Wait, what were you suggesting again? -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 02:27 -0400, Ryan Oram wrote: > Skype will work on infinityOS and on any audio system that I propose > Ubuntu should adopt. Skype works fully on the pure ALSA system > employed currently by infinityOS as I use it personally. I did question whether Skype will work on your distro, but intended to use it as a popular example application that many users will want a bluetooth headset for. And even if other systems are really better, it does not change the fact that many people use bluetooth. > I highly suggest, based > on my own personal experience, that you do not deploy Bluetooth > headsets at your workplace. We are sometimes not stupid :) and of course are testing before we deploy. 150 users at the helpdesk have been using bluetooth headsets for months without encountering significant amounts of the issues you describe. > Bluetooth support will be in what ever audio layer infinityOS uses (or > anything I support Ubuntu to use) or at the very least be on the > roadmap. Game support is, however, just a plain higher priority, as it > is required by home users You are of course free to prioritize in your distro any way you want, I just don't buy that it's clear cut that games are a higher priority than simple bluetooth audio connectivity. Also games are required by *some* home users. And in fact not that many people play sophisticated PC games, believe it or not. -- 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 needs a new development model
On 6 May 2010 20:33, John Moser wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Martin Owens wrote: > >> Work on making... easier to trust people > > hahahahahahaha. > > Hey man, I'm calling from your bank. There's like, a problem with > your account... > > Wait, what were you suggesting again? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust The thing that all packages in debian rely on to prove that they are authentic? and you shouldn't be laughing at Martin Owens that's disrespectful considering the amount of work he his done for ubuntu. > -- > 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 22:05 +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote: > I did question whether Skype will work on your distro, I did *not* question .. Sorry. -- 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 needs a new development model
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust > > The thing that all packages in debian rely on to prove that they are > authentic? He said easier to trust PEOPLE. Look at the PGP web of trust, people with dozens or hundreds of signatures on their PGP public keys. When I was using GPG for a year to sign my e-mails, I re-downloaded my public key from the key server and had found that some 15 or so people that I'd never heard of had signed my key. Your first response to this is going to point out that Ubuntu could trust only keys signed with keys that themselves are signed with an Ubuntu Master Key or some such; so maybe Martin's key is signed by Canonical, Inc and Martin signs your key, so you're valid. You sign another key, that is still called "untrusted." Thus, we don't have the crazy uncontrolled mess described above. Which brings us back to trusting people. Out of the hundreds, thousands of people that you want to incorporate into your trust hierarchy, how do you determine which can be trusted? Who is talking their way through you, showing good work, uploading hundreds of excellent packages with stopgap patches or well-requested features and things that won't go into Main or will go in later; but in secret, really waiting for a good time to slip malware into a package? It doesn't have to be patches they wrote; could be a -ck kernel or a kernel with a piece from -mm, or a patch onto Gimp that's gained popularity but nobody felt fit to pay attention to, or any other 3-seconds-of-work patching process. More than 3 seconds? Oh, this one I hit a bump with, I think I'll just discard it; I've got plenty of other "work" to show. The smoke and mirrors is a bit complex; but we're talking about a threat that essentially amounts to "someone wrote, compiled, packaged, tested, and uploaded a piece of malware to a repository they needed special permission to join." This is not a fat businessman pushing the "SPAM THE WORLD" button. Every time someone suggests finding a way to trust people more (or in this case, trust more people), God laughs at them. A lot. The only way to fully trust an individual is to hang a camera and a turret above his head constantly, and even then you can't be sure; the only way to improve how much you can safely trust someone is to devote resources to learning about them on a personal and technical (i.e. background check) level. When you add hundreds of developers or just random people to a project, with direct access, you WILL have problems, and you WILL hand access to people who desperately don't need it. This is why the Linux Kernel has 30,000 developers and all of 1 or 2 people with commit access (Linus and who else? Drepper and Andrew maybe). -- 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 needs a new development model
On 6 May 2010 21:23, John Moser wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs > wrote: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust >> >> The thing that all packages in debian rely on to prove that they are >> authentic? > > > He said easier to trust PEOPLE. Look at the PGP web of trust, people > with dozens or hundreds of signatures on their PGP public keys. When > I was using GPG for a year to sign my e-mails, I re-downloaded my > public key from the key server and had found that some 15 or so people > that I'd never heard of had signed my key. > Debian is not using public gpg servers. Instead they maintain their own keyring shipped in the debian-keyring package. You cannot add signatures to that from non-dd's. And DD's are only keeping real signatures on their keys from key signing parties. > Your first response to this is going to point out that Ubuntu could > trust only keys signed with keys that themselves are signed with an > Ubuntu Master Key or some such; so maybe Martin's key is signed by My response is to not use public gpg keyservers as authorative source of keys & signatures > Canonical, Inc and Martin signs your key, so you're valid. You sign > another key, that is still called "untrusted." Thus, we don't have > the crazy uncontrolled mess described above. > That's more inline with SSL keys with CA keys and so-on. Debian does self-signed onces, then sign it by gpg key =) cause CA keys are imho a bit of mess and I can't really trust them for distributed nature. > Which brings us back to trusting people. > > Out of the hundreds, thousands of people that you want to incorporate > into your trust hierarchy, how do you determine which can be trusted? > Who is talking their way through you, showing good work, uploading > hundreds of excellent packages with stopgap patches or well-requested > features and things that won't go into Main or will go in later; but > in secret, really waiting for a good time to slip malware into a > package? > I don't recall that this ever happened with ubuntu or debian to the point that it got distributed to users. Plus there is hiearchy of human review of all packages which go into the archive. Such things will be noticed very quickly. > It doesn't have to be patches they wrote; could be a -ck kernel or a > kernel with a piece from -mm, or a patch onto Gimp that's gained > popularity but nobody felt fit to pay attention to, or any other > 3-seconds-of-work patching process. More than 3 seconds? Oh, this > one I hit a bump with, I think I'll just discard it; I've got plenty > of other "work" to show. > you lost me here. > The smoke and mirrors is a bit complex; but we're talking about a > threat that essentially amounts to "someone wrote, compiled, packaged, > tested, and uploaded a piece of malware to a repository they needed > special permission to join." This is not a fat businessman pushing > the "SPAM THE WORLD" button. > I maybe be wrong but there are about 200 people with upload rights to ubuntu archive. It's not so hard to know 200 people. Most of these people are putting their reputation and work prospects when they sign a package for upload. One such incedent can invalidate years of hard work in open-source. I don't think there are people motivate enough to cause such a thing. > Every time someone suggests finding a way to trust people more (or in > this case, trust more people), God laughs at them. A lot. The only > way to fully trust an individual is to hang a camera and a turret > above his head constantly, and even then you can't be sure; the only How does that help to read someone's mind? I don't follow. > way to improve how much you can safely trust someone is to devote > resources to learning about them on a personal and technical (i.e. > background check) level. When you add hundreds of developers or just > random people to a project, with direct access, you WILL have > problems, and you WILL hand access to people who desperately don't All people are already filtered like that. The suggestion here is that you can extend this model to unofficial repositories and allow users to connect to those easier. You might want to look at openSUSE buildservice which allows 1-click install of packages from any random user's published repositories. They even kind of hide the fact that it is a team or person they just display a catalogue with package names and versions. > need it. This is why the Linux Kernel has 30,000 developers and all > of 1 or 2 people with commit access (Linus and who else? Drepper and > Andrew maybe). > Everyone has commit access to linux tree. Go clone it and commit. Every linux based distribution are maintaining forks with custom set of patches applied & different compile settings. If you think about it this way there are 100 of activly maintained forks which are distributed to users without explicitly going through Linus, Drepper nor Andrew. But in order to get into the mainline and
Re: Ubuntu needs a new development model
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 16:23 -0400, John Moser wrote: > Which brings us back to trusting people. I'll ignore your over the top theatrics and merely posit that perhaps solving the problem of trust can only really be tacked once you've got a firm grasp of human dignity. Most people are not out to get you, you just need a proper system of reputation that can signify the trustworthiness of someone you don't know through the people you do. I've often said that I think PPA keys shouldn't be added until the user has had a chance to look at a well designed page about the signatory and their connections to other people and organisations. As I said, the tools we have a insufficient and the workflows we have are immature, but don't just sit there with your hands under your bum telling me it's not possible and we should give up. Martin, -- 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: Window controls: minimise and maximise icons are confusing?
>>Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 13:58:47 -0400 (EDT) >>From: chom...@lavabit.com >> >>Hey, just a thought: >> >>On Lucid, after I've maximised a window and I then want to unmaximise it I >>keep finding myself pressing the minimise button instead. I think it's >>because of the icons: minimise is a down arrow and maximise is an up >>arrow, which suggests that minimise is the reverse of maximise, but it >>isn't, the reverse of maximise is unmaximise. Just as a general note, I'm still struggling a little with the new window control buttons location to the left. I am persevering with it though as I am accepting that it's a good location for them being right next to the File, Edit, etc. menu controls. So it does make sense to have the windows control buttons close to the menu. But purely out-of-habit I keep moving the mouse all the way over to the right of the windows to close/minimize the window. Damn! Some days I get frustrated and go to change it back to the traditional way of doing things. But then I have to remind myself to "just be patient". And it doesn't help also being a Windows user and having to compete with the Windows window control buttons which are of course the traditional layout also. Just my 2 cents. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: -- 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: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: -- 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: RE: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On May 6, 2010 8:11 PM, "Chris Jones" wrote: Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: -- 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: RE: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
(Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? On May 6, 2010 8:11 PM, "Chris Jones" wrote: Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: -- 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
