Re: another thing I don't understand

[David O. Rowell]

Whoops I posted to the wrong group meant to criticize Mint and clicked
the wrong address

my apologies


-- 
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: another thing I don't understand

[Stephen V. Williams]

This is probably a bug that needs to be fixed because that screen doesn't
always show up for me on boot.  When I first loaded Oneiric I thought that
logo screen and blinking dots had been removed in the latest release.  When
I restarted several days later it was back.  Perhaps this is happening to
you Dave?
**
Stephen

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Phillip Susi  wrote:

> On 12/8/2011 9:08 AM, David O. Rowell wrote:
>
>> Folks seem to be proud of the clean uncluttered blank screen during the
>> boot process.  I thought that we as programmers/analysts/designers had
>> learned decades ago that we need to keep the users informed of what's
>> going on?  Lets go back to the moving dots (or something) to indicate
>> that the system was actually doing something.  At least if they stop the
>> user (me?) knows he's in trouble.
>>
>
> What are you talking about?  We have a big ubuntu logo with blinking dots.
>  It is even themable so you can change the look.
>
>
> --
> 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: another thing I don't understand

[Phillip Susi]

On 12/8/2011 9:08 AM, David O. Rowell wrote:

Folks seem to be proud of the clean uncluttered blank screen during the
boot process.  I thought that we as programmers/analysts/designers had
learned decades ago that we need to keep the users informed of what's
going on?  Lets go back to the moving dots (or something) to indicate
that the system was actually doing something.  At least if they stop the
user (me?) knows he's in trouble.


What are you talking about?  We have a big ubuntu logo with blinking 
dots.  It is even themable so you can change the look.


--
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

another thing I don't understand

[David O. Rowell]

Folks seem to be proud of the clean uncluttered blank screen during the
boot process.  I thought that we as programmers/analysts/designers had
learned decades ago that we need to keep the users informed of what's
going on?  Lets go back to the moving dots (or something) to indicate
that the system was actually doing something.  At least if they stop the
user (me?) knows he's in trouble.

Dave Rowell - Syracuse U replaced their drum memory machine the semester
before my first computer course.

-- 
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: apt does not update directory permissions

[Christoph Mathys]

> any attempted cure for this would be much worse than the disease.  If
> you want to fix a historical mistake in directory permissions, then yes,
> you need to do so in a maintainer script, and take responsibility for
> any coordination between packages that may need to happen in order to do
> so safely.

Thank you for stating this cristal clear!

Christoph

-- 
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 should move all binaries to /usr/bin/

[Dane Mutters]

>
> FWIW, grub.cfg is deliberately in /boot, rather than putting an
> autogenerated file in /etc.  (/boot/grub/menu.lst had its own problems,
> as a partly-autogenerated and partly-manually-maintained file - a scheme
> that might almost have been designed to create bugs.)


Colin, I'd forgotten that the autogenerated GRUB 2 grub.cfg is in /boot,
not /etc; I agree that this is less frustrating than if it had been in /etc.


> Quite frankly: there has been no discussion among Ubuntu developers
> about doing anything of the kind, and I seriously doubt that it would
> ever make it onto our to-do list which has more than enough on it
> already without making work for ourselves.  The suggestion on this list
> of moving binaries to /usr/bin hasn't been made by Ubuntu developers.
>
> If it ever came up as a serious prospective Ubuntu development project,
> I would argue strongly against it on the grounds that the gains, if any,
> would be negligible compared to the work involved and the bugs that
> would be likely to be created.  Simplifications here belong at higher
> levels.  For example, the suggestion made somewhere in this thread that
> there's no good reason for Firefox to require the full path to an
> executable to open a resource seems like an excellent one.  It should
> rarely be necessary to care about the full path to an executable at all,
> never mind attempting to consolidate them all into one directory.


I admit that I'm quite glad to hear all this.  :-)  I, for one, would
welcome Firefox and all others (where feasible) not requiring full paths to
executables.  I wonder if this is a Windows compatibility thing that isn't
fully Linux-ized?  I'm sure the bug that Chris kindly pointed-out has the
full scoop.

I can see how this issue would be better handled on a per-application
basis, than on a distribution-wide one.  Thanks for your comments.

Cheers!

--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