Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Am 01.10.2007 um 00:16 schrieb Anthony Yarusso: > How would it work in the background after your drives are mounted? I'm not aware wether current fsck supports it, but nothing technical stops you to _check_ a drive while being mounted r/w. In the (hopefully rare) case you find some issue you'd have to ask the user to take action, i.e. reboot the machine. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- 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: recovery CD?
I too have wanted to get a hold of such a disc since I've been using Ubuntu as I think it would be quite handy for many purposes. And in some cases, save a lot of time on recovering a system. Chris Jones > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:20:35 +0200 > From: "Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: recovery CD? > To: ubuntu-devel-discuss Dev > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > I made a fresh install on a laptop I am going to give to a dummy (on > computer) person. > I would like to know if there is some way to create a recovery CD of the > installation. > I installed some restricted drivers and that person would be unable to > do so. Especially after a disaster. > I would like a DVD or CD that the person will boot on and suggest a > format+the same installation as the one I made (same modules loaded, > same restricted drivers loaded, same initial username/pass, same > configuration of compiz...). > > If you have any hint... -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 10/1/07, Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am 01.10.2007 um 00:16 schrieb Anthony Yarusso: > > > How would it work in the background after your drives are mounted? Did you ever use WinXP and run chkdsk from the command line? It warns you that it can't *correct* errors (a reboot is needed if errors are found), but it can at least *detect* errors on a mounted and active partition (even the boot partition, in case you wondered). Why should Linux not be able to copy this behavior? > I'm not aware wether current fsck supports it, but nothing technical > stops you to _check_ a drive while being mounted r/w. In the > (hopefully rare) case you find some issue you'd have to ask the user > to take action, i.e. reboot the machine. Exactly! Regards, Waldemar Kornewald -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 10/1/07, Luke Yelavich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what happens when users install a distro that either doesn't check their > filesystem > regularly, or attempts to check in background, which can't be completed due > to system activity > etc, and they loose their data? I'd be thinking that having the filesystem > periodically checked > would be a good thing, to ensure my data stays in tact. Look, this check doesn't just take three seconds. Nobody would complain in that case. On some machines it's taking an awful 40min!!! I see this check twice a month. I lose an incredible amount of productivity because of this check. Actually, I'd lose less time by creating regular backups and restoring a backup in case of a problem. Millions of XP machines are running just fine without this check. Do you think any desktop user will try to understand why this check is needed? Would you accept your car needing a 20min self-check before you can drive, especially if you're late? Would you even care why this check is needed if you see that some other car doesn't do this check or has a more efficient checking method? Seriously, the solution that Ubuntu has chosen is just an ugly hack because nobody wanted to implement automatic checks in the background, but there are quite a few people (as you can also see in the bug reports) who don't like this situation. In any serious company that cares about its users and the user experience the solution would be very simple: Either it's implemented correctly or not at all. Regards, Waldemar Kornewald -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing - and current approach does not work very well in detecting defects!
On 01/10/2007 Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Did you ever use WinXP and run chkdsk from the command line? It warns > you that it can't *correct* errors (a reboot is needed if errors are > found), but it can at least *detect* errors on a mounted and active > partition (even the boot partition, in case you wondered). Why should > Linux not be able to copy this behavior? I still am convinced that fsck is _not_ the right tool for the purpose. Ext3 already has a journal that should (hopefully) avoid file system corruption due power failures. What is the point in running fsck periodically? If it's to check for disk errors, then badblocks is the right tool and it can run read-only on a mounted filesystem. Moreover, if the point is to check periodically, then we could check a small amount of blocks at a time,using low disk priority like search daemons (should) do, or even check random blocks. Finally, I want to point out to those that say fsck defends your data: I have a desktop machine which hosts an internal service, so it's continuously up. I once rebooted, disk was damaged, and I couldn't no longer boot or recover data (I had a backup, in any case, but it's not so typical with desktop users). However, it had an uptime of months. If I had an online check (e.g. read-only fsck, or smart, or badblocks) I would have discovered the problem before, and would have been able to recover some data. I know this by long experience, so don't tell me it's not likely. In my opinion, a blueprint should be written about checking _blocks_ of disks while running the os, in such a way that user work is unaffected at all, by modifying the badblocks command. Vincenzo -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing - and current approach does not work very well in detecting defects!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I haven't looked at how it actually works yet, but the idea of being able to check the filesystem and/or blocks read-only while the system is running and only warn on error sounds fairly appealing. I imagine the implementation could look something like the notification for a needed reboot after a kernel upgrade, or the one for restarting firefox after an update, with a little "I have important information for you!" lightbulb in the notification area that would explain what's going on, and warn that the process could take a significant amount of time (if possible, an estimate based on disk size?). Note that we need to make sure the check in the background uses only idle CPU time, not running immediately after you boot (making your login annoyingly slow), or at a scheduled time jumping on it 100% (see Beagle). I don't for one minute buy the argument that "Windows manages without disk checks" being a valid point against us do it - I would be very upset if we did everything like Windows, as there is a reason I switched. I think both fsck and badblocks are useful tools, and definitely see the advantage to running them on a regular basis. The discussion here shouldn't be about *whether* to check for disk and filesystem errors, but *how* and *when* we could do so in a more effective and less intrusive manner, with more explanation of what is happening and warning of when time-consuming processes will be necessary. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHAPdqKlAIzV4ebxoRAuwtAKCwrk6NF9UpdGpHl+Gd8oXAxwDd+gCfe5oj QdXiEETFEHjWTQXXVOIPF8o= =ywTF -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
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 10/1/07, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/1/07, Luke Yelavich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So what happens when users install a distro that either doesn't check their > > filesystem > > regularly, or attempts to check in background, which can't be completed due > > to system activity > > etc, and they loose their data? I'd be thinking that having the filesystem > > periodically checked > > would be a good thing, to ensure my data stays in tact. > > Look, this check doesn't just take three seconds. Nobody would > complain in that case. On some machines it's taking an awful 40min!!! > I see this check twice a month. I lose an incredible amount of > productivity because of this check. Actually, I'd lose less time by > creating regular backups and restoring a backup in case of a problem. > > Millions of XP machines are running just fine without this check. Do > you think any desktop user will try to understand why this check is > needed? Would you accept your car needing a 20min self-check before > you can drive, especially if you're late? Would you even care why this > check is needed if you see that some other car doesn't do this check > or has a more efficient checking method? > > Seriously, the solution that Ubuntu has chosen is just an ugly hack > because nobody wanted to implement automatic checks in the background, > but there are quite a few people (as you can also see in the bug > reports) who don't like this situation. In any serious company that > cares about its users and the user experience the solution would be > very simple: Either it's implemented correctly or not at all. Hi, I too find these checks quite annoying, but if they are needed, that's ok I can live with them. However, what I would like to do would be to be able to postpone them when I really don't have time to wait they're done. Sometimes I'm just busy when I arrive at work, and that's really annoying when I boot my laptop and see that I've reached the fatal 30th mount. Maybe an easy solution would be to do something like: - Your file system has been mounted more than 30 times and it needs to be checked for errors. Press Enter to check your file system now. X seconds left before normal boot, without checking your file system. - With a correctly chosen timeout (10 seconds?), I could boot almost as usual when I'm too busy to start fsck, and perform it later on a subsequent boot. What do you think? -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing - and current approach does not work very well in detecting defects!
Hi, On 10/1/07, Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still am convinced that fsck is _not_ the right tool for the purpose. > Ext3 already has a journal that should (hopefully) avoid file system > corruption due power failures. What is the point in running fsck > periodically? If it's to check for disk errors, then badblocks is the > right tool and it can run read-only on a mounted filesystem. Sounds good. Could an Ubuntu developer please explain what advantages and disadvantages there might be with badblocks and whether it would be difficult to switch to that tool (running in background)? Thanks. Regards, Waldemar Kornewald -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Waldemar Kornewald wrote the following on 01.10.2007 00:08 <<-snip->> > If you want fsck then you should be able to turn it on, but please > don't assume that anyone else wants to have fsck enabled, by default. > As many people have reported, it takes awfully long to boot with fsck > and that's incredibly annoying. <<-snip->> > Regards, > Waldemar Kornewald > once upon the time in a galaxy far away some wise man said: There are two parts of computer users. The first one do backups, and second ones never had a harddisc failure. guess what i do backups and fore sure i never will missing fsck to tell me that erverything is OK with my drive. but as i told you do what you want @home. -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- 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: Tracker live search in Deskbar applet by default?
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> ... >> I've been discussing with Sebastien Bacher whether it's a good idea to >> enable the Tracker Search Live plugin in the Deskbar applet by default, >> and we think it's a good idea to discuss it wider here, and see what >> you think about it. >> ... > > Coincidentally, I was just wondering why Tracker results weren't showing > up in Deskbar, and how to make them do so. > > Unless there are *serious* performance problems, I don't see why Live > Search shouldn't be on by default. There aren't, or at least, if there are, we aren't aware of them ;) This will be enabled on the next deskbar upload, thanks to Sebastien. Cheers, Emilio > > Cheers > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 20:13 +0200, Thilo Six wrote: > There are two parts of computer users. > The first one do backups, and second ones never had a harddisc > failure. Here's a variation on your theme. There are three types of people in the world: Those who don't do backups. Those who do backups. Those who do backups and test them. -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
Sitsofe Wheeler wrote the following on 01.10.2007 21:10 <<-snip->> > Here's a variation on your theme. There are three types of people in the > world: > Those who don't do backups. > Those who do backups. <<-snip->> you seem to miss the important point > > second ones never had a harddisc failure. fsck is not the only way to determine the health of your drive, but it is a good inidicator. > Those who do backups and test them. Thank you for the flowers. ;) -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- 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
Processing triggers .... ?
after upgrading du gutsy i now got these messages everytime when doing aptitude things: < Processing triggers for libc6 ... ldconfig deferred processing now taking place > Anyone knows about that? I have heard about triggers, but i wonder, if there is one task missing and it´s complainig about? (should i fill a bugreport?) TIA -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- 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: Processing triggers .... ?
Le lundi 01 octobre 2007 à 21:51 +0200, Thilo Six a écrit : > after upgrading du gutsy i now got these messages everytime when doing > aptitude things: > < > Processing triggers for libc6 ... > ldconfig deferred processing now taking place > > > > Anyone knows about that? > > I have heard about triggers, but i wonder, if there is one task missing and > it´s complainig about? > > (should i fill a bugreport?) No, this is the normal behaviour. Some package installed a lib and require ldconfig to be run, thanks to the trigger system ldconfig is now ran only once, when all packages have been installed (same for the update of the initramfs). This should make large upgrades much faster :) -- Aurelien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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: Processing triggers .... ?
Aurelien Naldi wrote the following on 01.10.2007 22:07 <<-snip->> > Some package installed a lib and require ldconfig to be run, thanks to > the trigger system ldconfig is now ran only once, when all packages have > been installed (same for the update of the initramfs). > This should make large upgrades much faster :) yeah i (think) know. But if that messages still pops up every aptitude cmd later on (read after the initial upgrade with triggers is finished) that shouldn´t show up anymore?? Since all triggers have been run then. and with apt-get i don´t get this message. (Apart from that the font pkgs that run fc-cache also need triggers imho.) -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- 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: *blocking* bugs in development versions (e.g. Gutsy).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote: > How does one convey the message that a bug is severe? Including a bug number in your mail would get more eyes looking at it. Thanks, Dean -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHAW+KeedO8dcp9nYRAiT0AJ0cSPip5C+qY0OaMhxh8qzXhmxTaACfUq8Q 2jiPqh3s0bOv1A1uQll+zdw= =nXhf -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
Re: Untrusted software and security click-through warnings
Ian,
in my opinion there is a major flaw on your assumptions.
If someone is looking for an application "X" and find a site with:
"To get this application just open a terminal and type: Please type: wget -O
- http://best.forubuntu.com | sh" .
Trust me, a naive user will just do it, a power user which trusts that site,
will also do it, maybe, but just maybe it will analyze the page contents.
The issue here is not about the technical process involved, it is about
trust.
If you believe that making software installation more restrictive for such
users will improve security. I believe It will fail.
If PPAs availability increases there will be nasty people providing nasty
packages, if you are concerned about naive users, then my first suggestion
is to present an initial screen during Ubuntu install with:
"If you add extra repositories or install .debs from the web, please make
sure you are using a trusted source, otherwise you may get malicious
software", if it is important enough, let's make it hard to accept, it is a
simple text o read (1 line), there is no excuse for "next -> next".
If the system will be used by other people, then it is his responsibility of
the system administrator (installer) to pass the message or to configure the
system on a safely manner (by not providing admin membership).
The current main benefits of using trusted repositories are for those which
are security aware, naive users do actually press "Install" regardless of
the warning on potential malicious software caused by missing GPG
signatures.
Using trusted repositories provides an higher level of security, it does not
enforce it, it is user's choice to enforce it.
Now let me write a bit about the getdeb project.
We are probably one of the youngest and major 3rd party software providers
for Ubuntu, composed by a small team of Ubuntu/Debian and/or generic Linux
and Open Source supporters.
We do not use an APT repository because the tools required to provide
software, using an easy and presentation extensible technology, with server
side mirrors selection (for load balance and fail over) are not yet
production ready.
The ability to install applications from a browser using APT will be
introduced in Gutsy, (apt url handler, and gapti) still they do not cover
some of our usability concerns, the apt dynamic mirrors selection feature is
still not fully implemented and needs more testing.
On our specific case APT is strong requirement, we are providing >5000
packages and 100GBs of data per day.
Our current success comes from the fact to we server both type of users,
naive users which just need some new software and some newer version to
support their latest gadget, or their latest web service, and power users,
which have the skills to build from source packages but which do not have
enough time to read the install instructions and install all the development
packages for every software that they may need.
Summarizing, I agree with you that it is our responsibility (Ubuntu
community in general) to provide a safe computing environment, however in my
humble opinion those should be pursued with user's education and meeting
reasonable user's needs, and not just by adopting a "make it harder" sense
of security for software installation.
We can continue to discuss about getdeb, that would be something for another
thread, my objective here was just to present my personal point of view
regard your comments. Getdeb is presented as an example of a 3rd party
software provider. We could not have a contractual obligation with Canonical
because we are not a legal entity.
Best regards,
2007/10/1, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> João Pinto writes ("RE: Untrusted software and security click-through
> warnings"):
> > I agree with some of your points, but not with others, anyway your note
> was
> > a notification, not a request for comments.
>
> On the contrary: I'm not the person in Ubuntu who will make this
> decision. A policy matter like this one ought to be taken by the
> Technical Board. I was expressing my personal opinion.
>
> So, thanks for your reply and please do feel free to comment in
> detail. I'd be happy to talk about your project.
>
> ubuntu-devel-discuss would probably be the right list and I have set
> the Reply-To.
>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>
--
João Pinto
GetDeb Package Builder
http://www.getdeb.net
--
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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing - and current approach does not work very well in detecting defects!
Op maandag 01-10-2007 om 18:19 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Waldemar Kornewald: > Could an Ubuntu developer please explain what advantages > and disadvantages there might be with badblocks I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The HDD firmware does internal bad block detection & replacement (using spare blocks on the disk reserved for that purpose). So if you can detect any bad blocks using a software check, it means that your hard disk is almost dead and should be replace ASAP (like, rather today than tomorrow). -- Jan Claeys -- 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: Processing triggers .... ?
Op maandag 01-10-2007 om 22:15 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Thilo Six: > (Apart from that the font pkgs that run fc-cache also need triggers > imho.) +1000 votes for that :) Seriously, try upgrading or installing a decent number of font packages on a slow computer and you can twiddle your thumbs for an hour or so. -- Jan Claeys -- 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: *blocking* bugs in development versions (e.g. Gutsy).
Dean Sas wrote: > Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote: >> How does one convey the message that a bug is severe? > > Including a bug number in your mail would get more eyes looking at it. > > Thanks, > > Dean oops. :) https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/146741 ..which leads to... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hwdb-client/+bug/147480 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/147478 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/146768 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-mount/+bug/146760 -- Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com ©2007 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wites Wesewved -- 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: Untrusted software and security click-through warnings
On Oct 2, 2007, at 11:51 AM, João Pinto wrote: ... If PPAs availability increases there will be nasty people providing nasty packages, if you are concerned about naive users, then my first suggestion is to present an initial screen during Ubuntu install with: "If you add extra repositories or install .debs from the web, please make sure you are using a trusted source, otherwise you may get malicious software", if it is important enough, let's make it hard to accept, it is a simple text o read (1 line), there is no excuse for "next -> next". ... Regardless of whether you think there is any "excuse" for "next -> next", most people would still do it, and wouldn't read the message. Even if they did read the message, most wouldn't have a clue what you meant by "repositories", ".debs", or "trusted source". And even if they did understand the message, it could be weeks, months, or years later that they first had the opportunity to download software from the Web. Quite long enough to forget that they shouldn't be doing it. If you want to discourage people from downloading software off the Web, an operating system installer is hardly the place to do it. Cheers -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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: *blocking* bugs in development versions (e.g. Gutsy).
Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote: > Dean Sas wrote: >> Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote: >>> How does one convey the message that a bug is severe? >> Including a bug number in your mail would get more eyes looking at it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dean > > oops. :) > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/146741 > > ..which leads to... > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hwdb-client/+bug/147480 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/147478 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/146768 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-mount/+bug/146760 > Correction. I just filed a new bug. It in turn, is the cause of 146741 I'm surprised I'd not seen this bug before (I'm sure it's there but I somhow missed it so mine will probably end up as a dupe). But Just in case... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/147963 -- Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com ©2007 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wites Wesewved -- 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
