On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 14:48 -0500, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009 11:23:32 am (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
> > Jaunty had/has the objective to have a fast startup (<25 secs),
> > But the current technique to resume hibernated machines (using the kernel
> mode) is too slow,
I noticed that the package git-daemon-run by default expects the repositories
it serves to be located in /var/cache/git. This behavior contradicts the FHS
which states
/var/cache is intended for cached data from applications. Such data is
locally generated as a result of time-cons
On 2009-02-13 04:39 (-0700), Aaron Toponce wrote:
> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>> I am writing a GUI front-end for a GPLv2 or later, perl script, I
>>> can't find the original author and I need to modify it, so as to
>>> work with my front-end.
> The beauty of the GPL is that you don't need the autho
hi,
could you please abort my subscription ? as I could not find how to do it ?
««Les opportunités apparaissent le plus souvent sous la forme de malchance ou
d’échec temporaire.»
Napoléon HILL
--- En date de : Mar 10.2.09, Martin Mai a écrit :
De: Martin Mai
Objet: Announcing the Next Ubun
Hi,
My name is Guillermo Dominguez. I work in Mexico and we are trying to get
working a backup server using wget to mirror files from remote offices. So,
lately I realized about the fact that wget doesn't finish the download when
it suffers a connection loss and then reconnect. Because of a bug
Hi Martin,
This is a very cool feature. I notice that it sends a separate email
for each file attached. Any chance it could be modified to attach all
the files in one go, so only one email is produced?
Bryce
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 02:03:26PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Ubuntu developers
Hello there,
I don know if I am posting to the right mailing list. If I am not please
excuse me. One issue I have to discuss.
Ubuntu is getting really good popularity which is really appreciable. One
issue I have seen can be explained with a real life experience.
I have started to use linux from
Hi All,
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Timo Jyrinki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started JauntyTranslationIssues page in the wiki a while ago to
> followup the previous similar page David created for Intrepid:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TranslatingUbuntu/JauntyTranslationIssues
>
> Please help to keep i
Olá Mark e a todos.
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:40:04 Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> 4. opening a system modal window in the foreground (obviously, this is only
> for total emergencies)
Even in the case of emergency, can these *popups* not take control of keyboard
(and may I even dare to say t
Bryce Harrington [2009-02-19 16:27 -0800]:
> This is a very cool feature. I notice that it sends a separate email
> for each file attached. Any chance it could be modified to attach all
> the files in one go, so only one email is produced?
Unfortunately not, launchpadlib does not offer this poss
Asha Rose wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I don know if I am posting to the right mailing list. If I am not
> please excuse me. One issue I have to discuss.
> Ubuntu is getting really good popularity which is really appreciable.
> One issue I have seen can be explained with a real life experience.
>
>
Asha Rose wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I don know if I am posting to the right mailing list. If I am not
> please excuse me. One issue I have to discuss.
> Ubuntu is getting really good popularity which is really appreciable.
> One issue I have seen can be explained with a real life experience.
>
>
(``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
Olá Mark e a todos.
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:40:04 Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
4. opening a system modal window in the foreground (obviously, this is only for
total emergencies)
Even in the case of emergency, can these *popups* not take control of k
Olá Steve e a todos.
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 17:45:07 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:48:18PM -0500, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > Kernel modesetting for graphics was mentioned as a possibility for Karmic.
> > That should make the flicker time for graphics after resuming f
The behaviour of the places menu is driving me insane. In short, I want
to be able to have more than five bookmarks or drives before the menu
truncates into another level. See:
http://i.thepcspy.com/blog/20080626-ubuntu/menu.jpg
I posted this in the forums yesterday but I guess that's the wrong
au
Your snapshot shows that you have an AMD 64-bit CPU. I believe you have
two choices:
1. Download and install the 64-bit flash player. There is a beta
GNU/Linux 64-bit flash player available on Adobe's site. Google for it
and instructions. I've tried it and not gotten great results.
2. Ins
2009/2/26 Bud Roth
>
> Your snapshot shows that you have an AMD 64-bit CPU. I believe you have
> two choices:
>
> 1. Download and install the 64-bit flash player. There is a beta
> GNU/Linux 64-bit flash player available on Adobe's site. Google for it
> and instructions. I've tried it and not
From: Surfaz Gemon Meme
> wget
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.d21.1.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz
Please note that the above URL should not be used. Instead, use:
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.
2009/2/26 Dan Chen
>
> From: Surfaz Gemon Meme
> > wget
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.d21.1.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz
>
>
> Please note that the above URL should not be used. Instead, use:
>
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libfla
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/310353
This discussion was started becaus Sebastien Bacher asked for it.
-
Hello, now that the default DPI is asked to X, it's no more '96' as it
used to be in intrepid. This means that if I have a 1440x900
resolution, my DPI
On 2009/02/26 18:29 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> A default value of 8 should be ok, in my opinion
> What do you think of this change?
Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no trouble using
the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may not be
abl
which resolution have you got?
--
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
On 26/02/09 12:32, Felix Miata wrote:
> Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no trouble
> using
> the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may not be
> able to see to make a change.
>
> Windoz defaults to 8pt, and that's way too small even when set to la
On Thursday 26 February 2009 1:44:13 pm Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> which resolution have you got?
It's not just the resolution. It's also the screen size. A 1024x768 12" v. a
1024x768 20" screen will have different DPIs. Obviously, the larger screen
will have fewer pixels per inch.
I have a 1280
Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discus
Can you execute
xdpyinfo |grep resolution
and attach the output?
--
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
On 2009/02/26 19:44 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> which resolution have you got?
High. (Several of those found in this chart): http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.xhtml
--
"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your
mouths, but only what is helpful for building
others up."
On 26/02/2009, at 19.32, Felix Miata wrote:
> Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no
> trouble using
> the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may
> not be
> able to see to make a change.
Perhaps it would be possible to ship an optional theme th
On 26/02/09 13:08, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
>
> 1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
>
You're probably at ~100 DPI, but you will need to measure it yourself to
be 100% sure. Just divide 1280 and 800 by the
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 18:29 +0100, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/310353
> This discussion was started becaus Sebastien Bacher asked for it.
>
> -
>
> Hello, now that the default DPI is asked to X, it's no more '96' as it
> used to
On 2009/02/26 20:08 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
> 1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
1-You can calculate it. Divide the inches your display measures (~12.7" wide)
into the screen resolution (1280px
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 15:05 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/02/26 20:08 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
>
> > Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
>
> > 1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a
> > monitor?)
>
> 1-You can calculate it. Divide the inch
On 2009/02/26 13:59 (GMT-0500) Mackenzie Morgan composed:
> I have a 1280x800 13" screen, and the fonts look fine to me.
1280x800 on 13" is ~116 DPI. That produces a specified default 10pt font that
is in actuality 6.2pt (72/116*10), because 1pt is 1/72". That's about half
the size my mother and
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:15 +0100, Siegfried-Angel wrote:
> 2009/2/26 Chris Cheney :
> > [...] personally I think they are already fine [...]
>
> I don't agree. Having fonts as displayed in
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg is clearly not right
> and would make, IMHO, a awful first
On 26/02/09 14:04, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I think we should select some sensible defaults, personally I think they
> are already fine, without making it too small to be readable. Users with
> exceptionally good eye sight, or who are sitting much closer to their
> screen, can make the fonts even smal
On 2009/02/26 12:54 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> The point is not to alienate any users, or even to reduce the visible
> size of the font. The problem is not just a matter of "preference".
On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
unacceptable.
> The prob
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:29:06 +0100
Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/310353
> This discussion was started becaus Sebastien Bacher asked for it.
>
> -
>
> Hello, now that the default DPI is asked to X, it's no more '96' as it
> used t
For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
Did your opinion change?
Thanks
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss maili
On 2009/02/26 22:01 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
> font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
The DejaVu Sans is the default font
--
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
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
> On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
> unacceptable.
>
There are two separate issues here. You seem to be arguing that the OLD
size is too small, and want it to be larger. Fair enough--but that is a
separate issu
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hayle wrote:
> which is
> evident in this screenshot:
>
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
Nothing at all is evident in screenshots that are saved as jpg to show
font issues. It's impossible to distinguish font rendering compression
artefact
They are png. I renamed them to jpg by mistake
--
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
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:45 +0100, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> They are png. I renamed them to jpg by mistake
Oh, goody then :)
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discu
On 2009/02/26 17:33 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> It seems to me like there might possibly be another issue here. At
> high DPI, it seems as if the font rendering engine makes larger fonts
> (by that I mean 10pt) appear more "bold" than they should (in my
> opinion). Is this the intended
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hayle wrote:
> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
> > On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
> > unacceptable.
> >
>
> There are two separate issues here. You seem to be arguing that the OLD
> size is too small, a
On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
>> release.
> I don't see this to actually be the case. Even with laptops it seems
> that ~ 130 dpi is the maximum that most manufacturer
On 2009/02/26 17:33 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> Yes, and DPI will continue to increase. This should result in sharper
> fonts, NOT larger or smaller fonts. That's the whole point of this
> effort. We need a sensible default which looks good "out of the box" on
> the majority of systems
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>
> >> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
> >> release.
>
> > I don't see this to actually be the case. Even with l
On 26/02/09 20:43, Felix Miata wrote:
> "Visually impaired" is most older users, which you will probably be someday,
> and and shouldn't be equated to handicap. They don't necessarily consider
> themselves impaired. Many have the money for the better stuff, and aren't
> pleased to pay more for an i
On Thursday 26 February 2009 11:04:13 pm Ryan Hayle wrote:
> Did this study take DPI into account though? I agree that most people
> (myself included, until recently) think of 10pt as a minimum, but only
> because it looks so small on Windows. It seems really odd for me to be
> setting 7.5pt f
On 26/02/09 22:26, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> Er...what? If it's a high dpi, and they specify 10px, then it'd be really
> really tiny. But weren't you complaining that text is too big?
>
Two different issues, sorry for the confusion. The 16 pt default is
overridden by specifying e.g. 16px, wh
to, 2009-02-26 kello 13:59 -0500, Mackenzie Morgan kirjoitti:
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 1:44:13 pm Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> > which resolution have you got?
>
> It's not just the resolution.
"Resolution" tends to be a bad word for these things. I'd suggest "pixel
count" for number of pixels o
On 2009/02/26 22:04 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> On 26/02/09 20:43, Felix Miata wrote:
>> I think your majority is a majority of young people. We're not talking
>> extremely here. Scientific studies (hard to find, but they're out there) have
>> shown that most people (not a group skewed to t
On 2009/02/26 21:12 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>> >> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>> >> Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
>> >> release.
>
55 matches
Mail list logo
