Olá Matthew e a todos.
On Friday 13 February 2009 18:27:06 Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> I have no doubt that it could be solved if people put their minds to
> it. System Monitor (or a process-specific buset) could reduce the
> priority of your other programs whenever it is running, be special-case
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Remco wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
>> Can someone tell me how will I protect myself from fake login screens in
>> multi-user ubuntu setups? Even my office machine is multi-user!
>
> It took me a while to figure out what you m
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> Can someone tell me how will I protect myself from fake login screens in
> multi-user ubuntu setups? Even my office machine is multi-user!
It took me a while to figure out what you meant by this, but yeah!
That's actually a pretty nasty
Vincenzo Ciancia escreveu:
> I see, but did I miss the thread or why such big changes are not
> publicized in early stages? Announces of the planned changes or
> something like that? Is there some web page I should monitor that will
> explain the planned changes for jaunty+1? I may be just ignor
Mario Vukelic ha scritto:
> On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 16:18 +0100, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
>> I see, but did I miss the thread or why such big changes are not
>> publicized in early stages?
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty ?
>
>
Fine, I did not know. Will look at the blueprints f
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 16:18 +0100, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> I see, but did I miss the thread or why such big changes are not
> publicized in early stages?
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty ?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify setting
Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:24:32 +0100 Vincenzo Ciancia
> wrote:
>> I typically am the guy that persuades friends using linux that the new
>> *DEFAULT* choices ubuntu makes in every release are good even though
>> they look like evil. But this time I don't really have
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:24:32 +0100 Vincenzo Ciancia
wrote:
>I typically am the guy that persuades friends using linux that the new
>*DEFAULT* choices ubuntu makes in every release are good even though
>they look like evil. But this time I don't really have a justification.
>
Vincenzo,
You will
On 13/02/2009 Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> The fact is, many things are easier to fix afterwards.
> Particularly because that's the only time you'll find people
> motivated enough to bother about it. If you were to need to fix
> everything before-the-fact, nothing fundamental would
Thomas,
Thank you for letting me know what additional information I needed to
provide. I will get it as soon as I have an opportunity. I really appreciate
the help.
As for the whole C-A-B issue... yes, honestly, dude, I wish that I never
had to use C-A-B. But I do. I report bugs when I'm
Mike Jones wrote:
> It is unreasonable to expect even users who have programing experience to
> use the terminal for honestly much more than occasional scripts. I have
> absolutely no desire to C-A-F#, find the program that is giving me fits, and
> then kill it in the hopes it fixes my issue.
In or
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Remco wrote on 12/02/09 22:33:
>> Every program that hangs but doesn't release grabs is a problem. You
>> could certainly implement some kind of solution to that, but only
>> after that solution is implemented, C-A-B or equivalents should be
>> disabled. Not before.
>
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Thomas Jaeger [2009-02-12 17:16 -0500]:
>> This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
>> can't live without C-A-B
>
> Nobody stops them from re-enabling it (to the contrary, there's a new
> tool "dontzap" which makes this very easy). Please keep in mi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remco wrote on 12/02/09 22:33:
>
> Every program that hangs but doesn't release grabs is a problem. You
> could certainly implement some kind of solution to that, but only
> after that solution is implemented, C-A-B or equivalents should be
> disabled
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:30:38 +
> From: Andrew Sayers
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Is disabling ctrl-alt-backspace really such a good
>idea? - no.
> To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID: <49954bce.80...@pileofstuff.org>
> Content-Type: t
Disclaimer: I am not developer, just active bug reporter and Ubuntu
tester and advocate :) And I agree with one of previous posters that
this is one of rare places where you actually can speak with Ubuntu
devs about things you like/don't like/would like to see implemented
(another is #ubuntu-devel
Fergal Daly wrote:
> Anyway, I'm curious, is this really a developer list? I subscribed
> because it was the only way to _contact_ ubuntu developers and I've
> seen lots of people use it for that. So maybe it has more technical
> users than the average but that's not the same thing as being a
> dev
2009/2/13 Fergal Daly :
> 2009/2/13 Martin Pitt :
>> Thomas Jaeger [2009-02-12 17:16 -0500]:
>>> This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
>>> can't live without C-A-B
>>
>> Nobody stops them from re-enabling it (to the contrary, there's a new
>> tool "dontzap" which make
2009/2/13 Martin Pitt :
> Thomas Jaeger [2009-02-12 17:16 -0500]:
>> This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
>> can't live without C-A-B
>
> Nobody stops them from re-enabling it (to the contrary, there's a new
> tool "dontzap" which makes this very easy). Please keep i
Thomas Jaeger [2009-02-12 17:16 -0500]:
> This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
> can't live without C-A-B
Nobody stops them from re-enabling it (to the contrary, there's a new
tool "dontzap" which makes this very easy). Please keep in mind that
we aren't discussing
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 20:16 -0500, Mike Jones wrote:
> I have absolutely no desire to C-A-F#, find the program that is giving
> me fits, and then kill it in the hopes it fixes my issue.
You rather lose your complete X session along with all data in open
files than switching to a virtual console an
> No. What surprises me is when people are fine with those bugs
as
> long
> as there is a quick way to kill the X server that is enabled by default.
>
>
> People do file bugs. Perhaps not everyone, and perhaps not every
time.
Well, then it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a few
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Thomas Jaeger wrote:
> I know that this is possible, but the question is how common this
> situation is.
Apparently it's pretty common, as some people use C-A-B every week. I
don't use it quite that much, but I don't want it to go away. You
don't remove a fail-sa
> This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
> can't live without C-A-B, yet they're unable to come up with any
> *concrete* situations where they need it.
Compiz always crashes on me, and I need CAB to get back to something.
Yes, it is a workaround because of another bug
Remco wrote:
> Every program that hangs but doesn't release grabs is a problem. You
> could certainly implement some kind of solution to that, but only
> after that solution is implemented, C-A-B or equivalents should be
> disabled. Not before.
I know that this is possible, but the question is how
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Thomas Jaeger wrote:
> This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
> can't live without C-A-B, yet they're unable to come up with any
> *concrete* situations where they need it. I don't doubt that these
> issues exist, but my guess is that
Every program that hangs but doesn't release grabs is a problem. You
could certainly implement some kind of solution to that, but only
after that solution is implemented, C-A-B or equivalents should be
disabled. Not before.
Every program that makes the system so slow that it becomes unusable
is a
This is not a healthy discussion. We have people claiming that they
can't live without C-A-B, yet they're unable to come up with any
*concrete* situations where they need it. I don't doubt that these
issues exist, but my guess is that in most of those cases, C-A-B is the
wrong way to go about it.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:17:30 -0500 Evan wrote:
>From what I understand, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace isn't the only way to kill X.
>
>Alt-Sysrq-k also works, and is still enabled, as it is significantly less
likely to be hit by accident.
>
... for some definition of "works" and not on all hardware. A subs
>From what I understand, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace isn't the only way to kill X.
Alt-Sysrq-k also works, and is still enabled, as it is significantly less
likely to be hit by accident.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about? People who know what they're
doing can still kill X if necessary, and pe
Hi Thomas,
I'm one of those users who would prefer that the C-A-B command be left
as it is, or be modified to allow the ability through some other interface:
such as twice successive.
I have filed several bug reports about issues related to problems with
X, https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs
31 matches
Mail list logo
