Re: is sawfish maintained on ubuntu?
Awesome, thanks, F On 2 July 2010 05:24, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Fergal Daly wrote: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sawfish/+bug/433358 > > Thanks for bringing this bug to our attention. I have taken ownership > of this report, have isolated a git changeset, and will be working > through a StableReleaseUpdate candidate for Maverick, Lucid, and > Karmic. > -- 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: is sawfish maintained on ubuntu?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Fergal Daly wrote: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sawfish/+bug/433358 Thanks for bringing this bug to our attention. I have taken ownership of this report, have isolated a git changeset, and will be working through a StableReleaseUpdate candidate for Maverick, Lucid, and Karmic. -- 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
is sawfish maintained on ubuntu?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sawfish/+bug/433358 means that sawfish is a lot less usable that it could be. I see that this mailing list is listed as the maintainer while there was a specific debian maintainer. Why is there a specific ubuntu package if it's not going to be maintained? Can I just install the debian version? Or was some essential change made for ubuntu? F -- 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: ntfs-3g - mount defaults
I'm glad you brought this up, Milan. I have been dealing with annoyances from this issue for several years now. (More reply text is in-line.) On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 01:28 +0200, Milan Niznansky wrote: > Hi all, > presently, default mount options for ntfs-3g are: > ... gid=46,umask=007 ... > > This has (common user) usability consequences: > 1) it disables "silent" option > 2) it activates "default_permissions" option > See http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-manual/ > > > When a user attempts to copy files from ext filesystem to NTFS mounted > with this option, he is very likely to be greeted with a huge ammount of > ntfs-3g error messages as the "silent" behavior is suppressed. > > When user then searches for the problem, most solutions navigate him to > create and configure .NTFS-3G/UserMapper. > Getting that file right is several levels beyond getting /etc/fstab > right manually for a casual user... > > > I would suggest both gid and umask options be removed for desktop > releases. I believe that this would be preferable to the current options, both for the reasons mentioned, and also because on a typical Desktop system (at least in my experience), having to deal with permissions on NTFS filesystems from Linux is really a pain at times, and seems entirely unnecessary. >From the tuxera.com link above: "By default, files and directories are owned by the effective user and group of the mounting process and everybody has full read, write, execution and directory browsing permissions. You can also assign permissions to a single user by using the uid and/or the gid options together with the umask, or fmask and dmask options. Doing so, Windows users have full access to the files created by ntfs-3g." It seems that this would make sharing and dual booting less of a hassle. > > User mapping is of limited use for basic dual-boot filesharing and > requires extensive maintenance for correct operation. > Also, the preferred way to create UserMapper is from within Windows > which is by no means intuitive. > > > Hopefully, I am not duplicating this. > > Regards, > Milan > > --Dane -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
I'm not sure how you can say "I honestly cannot think of a single bug (even security related) that would be so critical a user needs it on the hour instead of once a day." What would your reaction be if you were to learn that you had been browsing the web for the past 12 hours with a remotely exploitable version of firefox? Just shrug it off and continue with your day? On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Gareth McCumskey wrote: > > > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 20:32:34 Nathan Dorfman wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: >> > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >> >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >> >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >> >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >> >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >> >> >> >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >> >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >> >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >> >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >> >> >> >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >> >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >> >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >> >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >> >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >> >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >> >> >> >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >> >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >> >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >> >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >> >>setting from its default of "daily." >> >> >> > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >> > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two >> > days. >> >> Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the >> 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? >> >> > Scott K > > I am going to be the devil in this discussion and just ask .. is this even > necessary? Sure, might be a "nice to have" option, but are hourly update > checks really worth the effort. I honestly cannot think of a single bug (even > security related) that would be so critical a user needs it on the hour > instead of once a day. > > Like I said, its nice to have, but is it really worthwhile making somebody do > the work needed for this if only a very small subset of people will use it for > what I see as really very little gain. There are bigger issues that that time > can be spent on rather. > > Gareth McCumskey > -- 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-devel-discuss Digest, Vol 44, Issue 1
Some times when i start ubuntu it's panel get invisible or the buttons of window get removed -- @@k...@$h -- 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
