EFF & Privacy; hopefully Ubuntu will listen to users
The most important thing to me as a computer user is the privacy & security of the data I entrust my OS to handle and the OS's communication to me about what internet connections my OS and the Applications installed on it are making. Ubuntu is not doing well in this regard lately. In the dialog that comes up on a new 12.10 install asking me to contribute to Ubuntu, I saw no option indicating "Privacy & Security of Ubuntu." Yet this is the most important thing to me and the thing most likely to make me want to contribute. I have been speaking out about the privacy (data leaking) issues that keep popping up in Ubuntu over the last few development cycles for a while now. I've received a lot of grief over it on the Ubuntu forums & elsewhere. But it is very important to me so I have continued to speak out. I speak out not to put Ubuntu down or criticize anyone in particular. I simply want to draw attention to an important topic and hopefully get the issues addressed in the development cycle. It's encouraging to see that the EFF shares my concerns: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-amazon-ads-and-data-leaks The Amazon ads are just the latest example however. The problem was seen in 12.04 with the geoclue-ubuntu-geoip package. This package is/was a major privacy issue with no solution. There is no way to uninstall this package from 12.04 without loosing Time in the top-panel. And then there is/was the unity-lens-video and unity-lens-music package issues. These regularly connected to the internet in the early 12.04 days, even when the Local Disk filter was selected. Thankfully I spotted this and reported it and it was fixed. But the whole idea that the Dash connects to the internet for everything is a concept that is VERY unappealing to many users who value their privacy and security. Web Browsers are designed and built with Security & Privacy capabilities by design. The Dash does not have these same Privacy & Security features nor does it have the UI to communicate security & privacy to the user like Web Browsers can. Why would I want to use the Dash for internet connections when I can use a Web Browser and gain all the security/privacy it offers? I want the Dash to SOLELY work locally and have nothing to do with the internet (which is the province of my Web Browser). It is encouraging to see Ubuntu start to work towards addressing this with 13.04. But I have been speaking to this for over a year now, and all I've got from it is criticism and frankly meanness from many people. Notwithstanding the Dash, the larger issue still exists that there is no way to control internet connections in general from an Application perspective. Users of Ubuntu cannot control which Applications can and cannot connect to the internet. And users have poor options for learning about active connections. There are tools available, but these are real time apps with no logging capabilities. Couple this with the fact that Ubuntu is now sending data off to Third Parties as a course of doing business and this issue is now the most serious issue facing Ubuntu as there are users that will totally stop using the OS for privacy/security concerns. Essentially, Ubuntu needs to do two things: 1) make privacy/security a important consideration in all new features while giving users the option of making the Dash a completely LOCAL feature. 2) create an Application Firewall for Ubuntu so that users can effectively discover what applications are making connections to the internet. I really hope that resolving this issue is moved to the top of the Ubuntu Development list. And I hope that Ubuntu listens to the community as I (and others) have been speaking out on this issue for quite some time now and it only seems to be getting worse. Thanks for listening. -- 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
will bug #900670 (remove IM Status) be fixed for 12.04 release?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/indicator-messages/+bug/900670 I'm running the latest 12.04 and this bug still exists unfortunately. -- 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: Geoip examples why solution is needed -- can we find a solution to bug #820895
The Geoip behavior in Precise is another example of users' inability to control outbound connections on their computer. Users have no settings option to control/prevent these internet connections to fetch the timezone (something that can easily be set manually without an internet connection taking place). And with no application firewall, users are left with no way to block this behavior. I started a forum post on the topic here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1931021 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:52:13 +0100 Subject: RE: Dash examples why solution is needed -- can we find a solution to bug #820895 From: gregor.shap...@gmail.com To: nru...@hotmail.com Total agreement from here! /Gregor On Feb 23, 2012 1:07 PM, "nick rundy" wrote: This bug that I reported is a great example of why Ubuntu needs to be able to log internet connections by application/process and find a way to give users control over outbound internet connections: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-video/+bug/939140 The Dash Video Lens is connecting to the internet basically by default without regard to active filters. This is a major problem for users who want to control internet connection behavior for privacy reasons or for mobile broadband usage limit reasons. On Ubuntu, users do not have the same control that Windows & Mac provide over Applications' ability to connect to the internet. Ubuntu users should be able to exert this control over the applications on their computer. They should also have an easy way to discover or be apprised of the internet connections that occur on their computer. -- 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: Dash examples why solution is needed -- can we find a solution to bug #820895
This bug that I reported is a great example of why Ubuntu needs to be able to log internet connections by application/process and find a way to give users control over outbound internet connections: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-video/+bug/939140 The Dash Video Lens is connecting to the internet basically by default without regard to active filters. This is a major problem for users who want to control internet connection behavior for privacy reasons or for mobile broadband usage limit reasons. On Ubuntu, users do not have the same control that Windows & Mac provide over Applications' ability to connect to the internet. Ubuntu users should be able to exert this control over the applications on their computer. They should also have an easy way to discover or be apprised of the internet connections that occur on their computer. -- 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
FW: [Bug 820895] Re: Log File Viewer does not log "Process Name"
Re: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files) > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:43:21 + > From: 820...@bugs.launchpad.net > To: nru...@hotmail.com > Subject: [Bug 820895] Re: Log File Viewer does not log "Process Name" > > Must say I agree with Nick Rundy's comments on 2012-01-25 (above). > > We do need a way to track what application is initiating network > traffic, that can (or is) logged to the syslog. > > Can we get this progressed to the kernel and iptables teams as a feature > request. > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/820895 > > Title: > Log File Viewer does not log "Process Name" > > Status in “rsyslog” package in Ubuntu: > Won't Fix > > Bug description: > The gnome "Log File Viewer" does not log the Process Name (or > Application Name) that generated the log item. For example, if an > outbound internet connection is blocked and this event is logged, only > the "ID" (i.e., PID) is shown in the report. But the PID is useless > because it is ephemeral and does not live past the session. Users are > left with no way to learn what Application or Process was responsible > for generating the log item. > > The "Process Name" should be listed in log items instead of the PID. > > ProblemType: Bug > DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04 > Package: gnome-utils 2.30.0-0ubuntu1 > ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.32-33.71-generic 2.6.32.41+drm33.18 > Uname: Linux 2.6.32-33-generic i686 > Architecture: i386 > Date: Thu Aug 4 08:05:47 2011 > ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/gnome-system-log > InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release i386 > (20100816.1) > ProcEnviron: >LC_TIME=en_GB.UTF-8 >LANG=en_US.utf8 >SHELL=/bin/bash > SourcePackage: gnome-utils > XsessionErrors: (polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1:1444): GLib-CRITICAL > **: g_once_init_leave: assertion `initialization_value != 0' failed > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rsyslog/+bug/820895/+subscriptions -- 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: Overlay Scrollbars in the Dash
PageUp & PageDown doesn't work in Dash either! There's all this talk about "Cover Flow". But I'd be content if I could just display all applications and use PAGE-UP & PAGE-DOWN to advance the list. Hopefully PageUp & PageDown in Dash will work by 12.04. > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:40:33 +0100 > From: kai.m...@freakybytes.org > To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Subject: Overlay Scrollbars in the Dash > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hey Guys, > > i was wondering, is there a specific reason that the Unity Dash itself > isn't using the Overlay Scrollbars that got introdcued with Unity for > all other Apps? > > It kinda hard to navigate in the Dash if your mouse doesn't have a > scrollwheel.. > > greetings > Kai Mast > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPOpyRAAoJEKU5B2k1XeMEpDMP/2XFl1V7WO8l/1saIvmmFxuF > f5BI41GN48QvMTSDGgvg0FhndqBi+s9BDMMA4+smq9mtALz/BvQRTk0zxMKJXqB+ > xEuohKHdDEDsgfrwnRYkG07lnw421SQfYr625AXVU1hU5gnCO4wk8AE+dv9kKkpA > jyqn9YqhWccq1j7asniYTV4CeXIU5cY6hxbH8uuQ9vvOu1LrzW3lyxdpoE9ZJPVO > QxwQczQcmd5xycosm2uHIBaaRkxBsHkTHuqyaTjsOXyccL4dthq/1wpDUnKn5GJP > c0F5hn0Dq8PNnArv0v1OtX0DniqxfEkr/CIz6U2jprwu4gbDaluM86ui35PVMQEo > NmWmTRVgSGqYyhuYUVd7RUebRYCagD3+1Hy0gk3sxsoWxF/g+cRaIkzE8Sqh6MGD > QjpifbdcNdi2hA7syDZjzd3i4AxHmjzPxN5eu/3Yh6v7tNuWkCZ6KeqvoQGwBPy/ > TkBZjtSxpoLRp9EfrBoDFMRX9oscrTO2OnflelHTgC2SF/k1nZNctwoHkoGjwVms > e6R8VQAHNVForF+ghudvytztDX8eF3stOaRqQiSeE2wHbYt7FndSqveKqO2lHMFV > kUsb72PvNUQwR0zOHRr21AFuBlKsJ4QWtduiaBkQo46r6+QKYfcbqKdorbEuIWgv > e+cpdW0pT/LVR6zoXuHy > =Ptqq > -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 -- 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: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files) (imaginative solution/description presented)?
The Network-Enhancement-Spec does NOT solve the problem of IPTables no longer supporting rules by executables. ">Is blocking outgoing connections at all useful enough to show at the top level like this? = user is not in a position to make an informed decision on whether the application should go onto the internet (so much of the desktop reaches out to the internet)<" -this is hogwash. How can the user not be in a position to make an informed decision? He is the user of the machine! Plus I might add that "so much of the desktop reaches out to the internet" UNNECASSARILY. If I want to play an MP3 music file stored on my harddrive and open my Music Player application to accomplish this, why does my Music Player application need to connect to the internet? It may indeed have "valid" reasons for connecting (e.g., trying to download album art or something), but it shouldn't HAVE to in order to play a music file (i.e., the user should be able to reconfigure it so it doesn't connect). If the user of the machine does not want the Music Player connecting to the internet when he plays an MP3 file stored on his harddrive, he/she should 1.)be able to discover/learn that this connection behavior is happening (without having to stare at a terminal window every time he deals with an application) and 2.)be able to stop/change the behavior (e.g., via reconfiguring the Music Player application itself or configuring some "third party" app like an application firewall to block it). Outgoing filtering allows both of these desirables to be met. It provides privacy and security: it apprises users of connections & gives them control over connections. Users gain knowledge & control over the comings and goings of their machine. It is an IMPORTANT capability for computer users nowadays to know the comings and goings of their machine. And to be able to LOG the internet connection behavior of applications on their machine. Ubuntu cannot (currently) perform these actions. There are tools like netstat etc but you have to literally watch them every second. If something happens and you miss it, you're out of luck. One of the key criteria I use to base my decisions of which applications (e.g., Music player) to install on my box is their internet connection behavior. An application like VLC video player is very respectful of user's privacy. It does not make unnecessary internet connections and the ones it does make are fully configurable within the application itself. This is not the case for many other Video/Podcast/Music players. How do I know this? Because I installed the apps on a Windows machine and observed their behavior via a Windows application firewall. With an application firewall, I am informed whenever the application trys to connect to the internet OR a log can be generated that logs the internet connection attempts by an application. Ubuntu needs to provide its users a method for observing the same behavior. If not with an application firewall, then by some other means (e.g., with a GUI wrapper for apparmor & IPtables). Many Mac & Windows users speak of an application firewall. I believe this is because such an app allows them to solve these problems when using Mac & Windows. If Ubuntu doesn't want an application firewall, create something else to solve the problem (e.g., with a GUI wrapper for apparmor & IPtables). > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:04:58 +0100 > Subject: Re: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log > files) (imaginative solution/description presented)? > From: a...@biznes.linux.pl > To: nru...@hotmail.com > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneiricDesktopNetworkEnhancementsSpec > > 08.02.2012, HSO napisał(a): > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Networking#Firewall > > > > -- > > > > "powiedz mi, a zapomnę, pokaż -- a zapamiętam, pozwól mi działać, a > > zrozumiem!" > > niebezpiecznik.pl > > > > > -- > > "powiedz mi, a zapomnę, pokaż -- a zapamiętam, pozwól mi działać, a > zrozumiem!" > niebezpiecznik.pl -- 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: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files) (imaginative solution/description presented)?
An application that merges apparmor and iptables (as a wrapper) would be fantastic! add a GUI to it that helps newbies use it and problem solved. Perhaps Canonical could create such an application as part of their ongoing work with apparmor? > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Jason Todd wrote: > > Both MAC and Windows have applications for protecting users privacy > > regarding outgoing internet connections. Control over outgoing internet > > connections is a huge privacy area that is non-existent in ubuntu. Here's a > > great little program for Apple MACs: > > http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html > > > > IMHO the lack of any sort of privacy protection for Ubuntu's outgoing > > internet connections is a huge problem. Many users will not use Ubuntu > > because they can't control their outgoing connections. I can understand > > linux's lack of support considering it has traditionally been Server > > Oriented. But if Ubuntu wants to succeed on the Desktop, it needs to address > > this issue. > > Because apparmor and selinux never existed, right? That's just what > we need, another tool to do what two tools could do if they just had a > single tool to merge them together. How about we find a way to make > an application that merges apparmor and iptables (as a wrapper not as > a t ool that does them both) rather then trying to reinvent the wheel > and then after reinventing it putting spinners on it so it's ugly. > -- 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: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files) (imaginative solution/description presented)?
plications and internet connections has not
> > evolved to a consumer-desktop-level. In an age where privacy and
> > security are very important, it's going to need to address this to gain
> > more users. I was sad to see Bug 820895 marked as Won't Fix.
> >
> > I personally tried to get my friend to start using ubuntu. But he grew
> > frustrated with no application firewall capabilities. He posted in the
> > ubuntu-forums on the issue and it generated a long discussion but
> > ultimately turned into a big mess where lots of ubuntu users were
> > calling him an idiot and saying that Windows uses an application
> > firewall because Windows sucks. The thread was closed and my friend went
> > back to Windows feeling like ubuntu is only for programmers and everyone
> > that uses Ubuntu thinks he's stupid cause he wanted an application firewall.
> >
> >
> > From: nru...@hotmail.com
> > To: ps...@ubuntu.com; ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> > Subject: RE: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in
> > log files)?
> > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:16:22 -0500
> >
> > Philip, thanks for your reply. I greatly appreciate it. You said,
> >
> >>>>If you don't like the connections a program makes, then configure it
> > not to do so. If you can't do that, then don't run such a bad program.>>>
> >
> > This is what I'm trying to do on Ubuntu! :) if I can't log the process
> > name, How do I learn what connections a program is making so that I can
> > configure that program to not make those connections? You see the problem?
> >
> > For over a year I have been struggling (on Ubuntu) with a way to
> > identify the connections programs are making so that I can do what you
> > say: configure it not to make those connections or to uninstall the
> > program if I deem it a "bad program." This is a non-issue on Microsoft
> > Windows because I can easily identify connections programs are making
> > and I can KNOW the comings and goings on my computer as it is all logged
> > with Application Name in the firewall log. One of the criteria I use to
> > select which applications I install and run is "internet connection
> > behavior." It has been very difficult selecting applications I prefer in
> > Ubuntu because I am forced to sit and watch netstat while trying to
> > accomplish things. What I have ended up doing is (when available)
> > installing the same program on Windows, study the firewall log in
> > Windows and then deeming it a "good" or "bad" program for use in Ubuntu.
> > So I am still seeking a solution on Ubuntu. If there's some other way to
> > accomplish what I'm after (than using a Firewall Log), I will use it.
> > But I have yet to find as reasonable a solution on Ubuntu. As others
> > have remarked in forums etc, this is becoming an increasing priority in
> > order to manage Mobile Broadband internet connection usage as the
> > accounts come with bandwidth caps where users are charged a lot of extra
> > money if they exceeds the caps.
> >
> > I will investigate using acct package, is this the name ("acct" or "acct
> > package") I should search for in Synaptic? I have not tried this as a
> > solution and really appreciate your suggestion.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:55:18 -0500
> >> From: ps...@ubuntu.com
> >> To: nru...@hotmail.com
> >> CC: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> >> Subject: Re: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name
> > in log files)?
> >>
> > On 01/25/2012 06:22 PM, nick rundy wrote:
> >> Is there anything that can be done to create some way for Ubuntu
> >> users to get the capability of having a static record of what
> >> application/s made an outgoing connection?
> >
> > That would require a change to the iptables kernel module that
> >> implements process based rules. Last I saw, it wasn't really maintained
> >> because the whole concept is considered broken by design. In other
> >> words, you shouldn't be setting rules based on processes.
> >
> > Needing an external firewall to control network activity of a program
> >> in the first place is the result of using badly behaved closed source
> >> programs, and so it largely a non issue for the open source community.
> >
> >> The capability to log "process names" has been requested by numerous
> >> users over the years, here's some links:
> >
> > If you want to log what processes are run and when in general, then
> >> you can install and configure the acct package. You could then use the
> >> accounting information to look up what process had a given pid at a
> >> given time.
> >
> >
> > -- 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Robbie Williamson
> robbiew[irc.freenode.net]
>
> "Don't make me angry...you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
> -Bruce Banner
--
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: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)?
Philip, thanks for your reply. I greatly appreciate it. You said,
>>>If you don't like the connections a program makes, then configure it not
to do so. If you can't do that, then don't run such a bad program.>>>
This is what I'm trying to do on Ubuntu! :) if I can't log the process name,
How do I learn what connections a program is making so that I can configure
that program to not make those connections? You see the problem?
For over a year I have been struggling (on Ubuntu) with a way to identify the
connections programs are making so that I can do what you say: configure it not
to make those connections or to uninstall the program if I deem it a "bad
program." This is a non-issue on Microsoft Windows because I can easily
identify connections programs are making and I can KNOW the comings and goings
on my computer as it is all logged with Application Name in the firewall log.
One of the criteria I use to select which applications I install and run is
"internet connection behavior." It has been very difficult selecting
applications I prefer in Ubuntu because I am forced to sit and watch netstat
while trying to accomplish things. What I have ended up doing is (when
available) installing the same program on Windows, study the firewall log in
Windows and then deeming it a "good" or "bad" program for use in Ubuntu. So I
am still seeking a solution on Ubuntu. If there's some other way to accomplish
what I'm after (than using a Firewall Log), I will use it. But I have yet to
find as reasonable a solution on Ubuntu. As others have remarked in forums etc,
this is becoming an increasing priority in order to manage Mobile Broadband
internet connection usage as the accounts come with bandwidth caps where users
are charged a lot of extra money if they exceeds the caps.
I will investigate using acct package, is this the name ("acct" or "acct
package") I should search for in Synaptic? I have not tried this as a solution
and really appreciate your suggestion.
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:55:18 -0500
> From: ps...@ubuntu.com
> To: nru...@hotmail.com
> CC: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Subject: Re: can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log
> files)?
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/25/2012 06:22 PM, nick rundy wrote:
> > Is there anything that can be done to create some way for Ubuntu
> > users to get the capability of having a static record of what
> > application/s made an outgoing connection?
>
> That would require a change to the iptables kernel module that implements
> process based rules. Last I saw, it wasn't really maintained because the
> whole concept is considered broken by design. In other words, you shouldn't
> be setting rules based on processes.
>
> Needing an external firewall to control network activity of a program in the
> first place is the result of using badly behaved closed source programs, and
> so it largely a non issue for the open source community.
>
> > The capability to log "process names" has been requested by numerous
> > users over the years, here's some links:
>
> If you want to log what processes are run and when in general, then you can
> install and configure the acct package. You could then use the accounting
> information to look up what process had a given pid at a given time.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPIKR1AAoJEJrBOlT6nu756PcIAIHnAJ1jJYX9Sar62AYitrFK
> MyGj6xrVIGc+GLMxK9Nh7rGC+jS+YB3l6oFc+Mo0PJK7Z3c88Akc6TAfZX56dJQY
> JNoQqKEwat43BBAU100rRehwtsMU5zG39GkHrt/kaarQu40e4yh1Qx+TIL2IYAq3
> 76MA7FpqH4YhpjcVAek1pCrodQEZ8KrX0VR6sXHe5pqJcH9xqJHoNdLT58Ik3y4W
> OdEMs6YLvKnQ+dJEzy8COoDFYOy+QQG1uQILu3qbuOauVcSE2KX8PBwBKGOnxH/r
> DgvrUyfBsA8NOU+ml2FgSABlvuhyTrbZM96oZ+fcTwtPSNUEqBVVBsKGHiNqPfQ=
> =Lq5r
> -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
can we find a solution to bug #820895 (show Process Name in log files)?
Is there anything that can be done to create some way for Ubuntu users to get the capability of having a static record of what application/s made an outgoing connection? Since bug 820895 has been closed, perhaps some other solution can be created or put on the planning board? A lot of people want to have a log of the outgoing internet connections of applications (or at least a log of what applications are blocked by a firewall). Unless users are willing to sit and stare at the monitor while connections occur every second they are on their computer, users have no way of learning what apps are making outgoing connections on their computers (or being blocked from making connections). If the capability doesn't exist in the current software, can't it be created or added to it? Ubuntu users want this capability. People migrating to ubuntu from Windows also want this capability. This omission is a significant weakness of desktop linux. The capability to log "process names" has been requested by numerous users over the years, here's some links: Ubuntu Brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/28288/ Superuser: http://superuser.com/questions/34782/with-linux-iptables-is-it-possible-to-log-the-process-command-name-that-initiat In addition, there have been numerous forum postings I've come across in linux and ubuntu forums from users looking for this capability. -- 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: Proposal to delay release of Precise Pangolin
A lot of stuff is going to need to be backported. Here's a phoronix link that tells of 50 power patches from Intel that landed this morning in 3.3 kernel. Not to mention graphics related stuff that 3.3 gains. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA0NDE > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:24:38 +1100 > From: them...@ubuntu.com > To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Subject: Re: Proposal to delay release of Precise Pangolin > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:33:11PM EST, nick rundy wrote: > > Here's a link to a thread that was posted today on Ubuntu Forums arguing > > that Precise Pangolin should be delayed long enough to incorporate the 3.3 > > Linux kernel into the release. The argument being that the 3.3 kernel will > > resolve many more graphical and power bugs than the 3.2 kernel can. > > > > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1894436 > > In such circumstances, the Ubuntu kernel team often backports patches it > feels are important for a release. Since we do have some focus on power usage > this cycle, I am sure all useful and relevant patches will be backported from > 3.3, since this is an LTS release cycle. > > Luke > > -- > 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: Proposal to delay release of Precise Pangolin
Here's a link to a thread that was posted today on Ubuntu Forums arguing that Precise Pangolin should be delayed long enough to incorporate the 3.3 Linux kernel into the release. The argument being that the 3.3 kernel will resolve many more graphical and power bugs than the 3.2 kernel can. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1894436 -- 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/
There are several situations where I need to find an executable. One that comes immediately to mind is when I need to specify what program to use to open an online stream and the program I want is not appearing in an offered list. So I need to go find the .exe. At least this is how I have always gone about solving this problem. I have tried using the $which command but this rarely works for me. The $which command often can't find the exe because the exe has been placed somewhere else (hence why putting all this stuff in one place is a good idea). > From: jonat...@starlingcottage.co.uk > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 19:46:37 + > Subject: Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/ > To: nru...@hotmail.com > > On 1 November 2011 19:01, nick rundy wrote: > > I came to ubuntu from Windows. And one thing Windows does well is make it > > easy to find an executable file (i.e., it's in C:\Program Files\). Finding > > an executable file in Ubuntu is frustrating & lacks organization that makes > > sense to users. Fedora is considering a fix for this issue. I think Ubuntu > > should do the same. > > > > Here's a link to an article that talks about Fedora's idea: > > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Fedora-considers-moving-all-binaries-to-usr-bin-1369642.html?view=print > > > > Why do you want to "find" an executable? If you want to run it, just > type it. If you want to know where it is (for whatever reason, not > sure why if it's on the $PATH) then type $ which $command, e.g. $ > which bash -> /usr/bin/bash > > Jonathon -- 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/
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Fedora-considers-moving-all-binaries-to-usr-bin-1369642.html Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:08:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/ From: gregor.shap...@gmail.com To: nru...@hotmail.com The Link to the deviant article returned a 404 On Nov 1, 2011 8:02 PM, "nick rundy" wrote: I came to ubuntu from Windows. And one thing Windows does well is make it easy to find an executable file (i.e., it's in C:\Program Files\). Finding an executable file in Ubuntu is frustrating & lacks organization that makes sense to users. Fedora is considering a fix for this issue. I think Ubuntu should do the same. Here's a link to an article that talks about Fedora's idea: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Fedora-considers-moving-all-binaries-to-usr-bin-1369642.html?view=print -- 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
Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
I came to ubuntu from Windows. And one thing Windows does well is make it easy to find an executable file (i.e., it's in C:\Program Files\). Finding an executable file in Ubuntu is frustrating & lacks organization that makes sense to users. Fedora is considering a fix for this issue. I think Ubuntu should do the same. Here's a link to an article that talks about Fedora's idea: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Fedora-considers-moving-all-binaries-to-usr-bin-1369642.html?view=print -- 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: Proposal to delay release of Precise Pangolin
I appreciate your e-mail, Martin :) > * These types of bugs are too big/complex for quick patches and too > small or unimportant for critical attention. This is what I'm getting at. I don't doubt this is true. However, fixing this stuff is what's going to make a critical difference in users coming to, enjoying, and staying with Ubuntu. Put the "rapid release" schedule on hold temporarily and make an LTS that fixes this stuff. Then the LTS can last a long time as the face of Ubuntu. The status quo has become new releases perpetuating old bugs that are years old. The LTS releases up to this point are better than the 6-months but they still contain these bugs. I'm proposing that if bug #1 is going to be "Fix Released," the current full speed ahead rapid-release approach has to at least take a break for a cycle and address this stuff. NOW is an appropriate time because of Unity and GNOME 3.2. There's a lot of stuff that needs fixing in Unity and GNOME 3.2. > *The gnome programmer deals > with bugs as he feels like it and expects patches. Is there anything to prevent Ubuntu developers from saying, "Hey, is it okay if I take this and fix this bug?" > * No one answered the question 'did you try compact layout' Compact Layout works to some extent. But what about use scenarios where the user needs the increased zoom only available in Icon View? > I understand your point Nick, I'd really like a cycle that focuses > _only_ on bug fixing and nothing else. But I'd also like a cycle that > took everyone off coding to train a 100 new kernel hackers and 50 new > xorg slaves. Perhaps this should be done? Delay the release of Precise Pangolin and really refine it. Then miss a 6-month release or two and spend the time training 100 new kernel hackers and 50 new xorg slaves. With a strong, refined LTS, Ubuntu will be fine for 2-3 years. To use an analogy from athletics: when you've been training hard for a long time, taking some time off will help you make gains because it gives the body time to grow from the training. Let Ubuntu grow into Unity and GNOME 3.2 bug-free. Unity was an awesome accomplishment IMHO. I'm proposing that NOW is the time to pull it all together by making an ultra-refined bug-free LTS product that can truly begin to tackle Bug #1. It's going to be an LTS that takes on Windows, not one of the 6-month releases. > Subject: Re: Proposal to delay release of Precise Pangolin > From: docto...@gmail.com > To: nru...@hotmail.com > CC: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:27:01 -0400 > > On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 22:15 -0400, nick rundy wrote: > > Yet the bug has existed for more than 3 years. Sadly, the same can be > > said for many other bugs. > > To be fair to the bug: > > * No one answered the question 'did you try compact layout' > * Nautilus is a 'special' codebase which I wouldn't want to touch again > this side of the 21st century, ugly and duplicative spaghetti. > * Anything to do with how something looks, workflow or speed is not > going to get fixed by the fire fighters or cathedral builders. > * These types of bugs are too big/complex for quick patches and too > small or unimportant for critical attention. > * No user continues to pay for bug fixes, no economics and no other > relationship between programmer and user. The gnome programmer deals > with bugs as he feels like it and expects patches. > > I understand your point Nick, I'd really like a cycle that focuses > _only_ on bug fixing and nothing else. But I'd also like a cycle that > took everyone off coding to train a 100 new kernel hackers and 50 new > xorg slaves. > > If wishes could be put in dishes the world would be delicious. > > Best Regards, Martin Owens > -- 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
Proposal to delay release of Precise Pangolin
Canonical/Ubuntu, please don't feel obligated to release Precise Pangolin in April 2012. A delayed release would strengthen stability and allow more bugs to be fixed in both Unity and GNOME 3.2. Considering the "long-lived" nature of an LTS release, it would be preferable if Precise Pangolin was delayed a month or two (or more) than for it to be released on time with visible bugs. There are so many bugs that plague Oneiric. Many exist in GNOME 3.2. Perhaps Precise could be delayed a month or two and Ubuntu developers could fix some of the "minor" bugs plaguing GNOME 3.2? Although ranked as "minor," some of these bugs have existed for years and really hurt the usability of Ubuntu. For example, please see bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=552093 and take a look at the screenshots posted by the bug's commentators. John Strandberg recently posted a screenshot of Oneiric that highlights how much this bug hurts productivity. Yet the bug has existed for more than 3 years. Sadly, the same can be said for many other bugs. I love Oneiric, but it has too many bugs. Please consider delaying release and having Ubuntu developers fix as many bugs as possible for Precise, even if it means fixing bugs that GNOME themselves should be fixing. I feel confident that the community will have no problem with a delay, even if it means skipping a 6 month release for once. The integrity of the LTS is worth it. Thanks, NIck -- 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: Brainstorming for UDS-P
I'm just a user and don't know half of what you awesome developers do. But if user opinion has any influence at all, I'm hoping for only two things for 12.04: 1.) improved power consumption: Goals = --a cool running laptop (Less Heat) --a long running laptop (More Battery Life) --a quiet running laptop (Less Noise because the fan doesn't need to run as much because the laptop uses less power & runs cooler) 2.) bug fixing and refinement of already existing features/applications > Subject: Re: Brainstorming for UDS-P > From: seb...@ubuntu.com > To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:48:38 +0200 > > Le vendredi 23 septembre 2011 à 21:56 +0100, Allison Randal a écrit : > > Hi all, > > > > While we're all in the final preparations for Oneiric, it's round about > > that time in the cycle to start thinking about plans for the next cycle. > > What's on your mind? > > > > Allison > > Hey Allison, > > Some desktopish suggestions: > > - No new features, we need to stabilize and polish what we got > - Bugs fixing > - Boot and desktop performances (boot time, memory usage, power > consumption) > - Improve the GNOME3 integration (what do we do with the screensaver? Do > we use the upstream control center printer configuration dialog? the > region one instead of language selector? etc) > - Improve our "user accounts" experience, we have the upstream online > account, softwares providing their own dialogs, ubuntuone... > - Screen locking > - Do we need a calendar solution in the default installation? > - We should review the configuration options dropped in the GNOME3 > transition and see which ones we think should still be in Ubuntu > - Did I mention that we need to fix bugs? ;-) > > -- > Sebastien Bacher > > > -- > 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
