Re: Bulid dedicated kernels.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 06:19 PM, HSO wrote: > Smart buld. - Only Laptopo/Notebook - One kernel in one/two Month - > and not bulid form scratch - but bulid by decres a module range like: > some Laptop have no AGP - other have no PCI-E - one use pcmcia - other > don't have - one use PAE ext, other don't etc, etc. And bulid only for > lack performens of Laptopo/Notebook computers. And when it's costly - > then do a long in time - by 10 - 20 Years - above 60 or 120 or 240 > Kernel - and it's some of collection. Even if this could be done easily what would be the point? Just about all hardware drivers are built as modules so even with the 'all inclusive' kernels we have now you are still only loading what's needed for your specific hardware. All you'd be doing by building a custom kernel is saving an insignificant amount of disk space on the installed system (a few 10's of megabytes at most). Not to mention that your custom kernel wouldn't support new hardware devices that the user might buy out of the box, adding extra complexity to something that can already be tricky. Tim -- 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: Bulid dedicated kernels.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 06:19 PM, HSO wrote: > Smart buld. - Only Laptopo/Notebook - One kernel in one/two Month - > and not bulid form scratch - but bulid by decres a module range like: > some Laptop have no AGP - other have no PCI-E - one use pcmcia - other > don't have - one use PAE ext, other don't etc, etc. And bulid only for > lack performens of Laptopo/Notebook computers. And when it's costly - > then do a long in time - by 10 - 20 Years - above 60 or 120 or 240 > Kernel - and it's some of collection. Even if this could be done easily what would be the point? Just about all hardware drivers are built as modules so even with the 'all inclusive' kernels we have now you are still only loading what's needed for your specific hardware. All you'd be doing by building a custom kernel is saving an insignificant amount of disk space on the installed system (a few 10's of megabytes at most). Not to mention that your custom kernel wouldn't support new hardware devices that the user might buy out of the box, adding extra complexity to something that can already be tricky. Tim -- 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: Bulid dedicated kernels.
Yes - and you have right. It's o lot of bigger idea - how to creat software (kernel and above - user space) to be one hand secure ( by process) and other hand Dynamic/Matching to Hardware to be in end speed with cheap machines. So Secure (porcess) Dynamic and speed. Os based on linux time to time have troble with someting make "now" and it's start form wrtie/read/ex. permisson - and question it's how yo Optimaze dynamic but not droping secure ? And for this all - how to do less to code. I think - it's how to manage a exist software - how to put the part to be fast as posible - with not to lot of codeing. 2012/2/13, Tim Edwards : > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 06:19 PM, HSO wrote: >> Smart buld. - Only Laptopo/Notebook - One kernel in one/two Month - >> and not bulid form scratch - but bulid by decres a module range like: >> some Laptop have no AGP - other have no PCI-E - one use pcmcia - other >> don't have - one use PAE ext, other don't etc, etc. And bulid only for >> lack performens of Laptopo/Notebook computers. And when it's costly - >> then do a long in time - by 10 - 20 Years - above 60 or 120 or 240 >> Kernel - and it's some of collection. > > Even if this could be done easily what would be the point? Just about > all hardware drivers are built as modules so even with the 'all > inclusive' kernels we have now you are still only loading what's needed > for your specific hardware. > > All you'd be doing by building a custom kernel is saving an > insignificant amount of disk space on the installed system (a few 10's > of megabytes at most). Not to mention that your custom kernel wouldn't > support new hardware devices that the user might buy out of the box, > adding extra complexity to something that can already be tricky. > > Tim > > -- > 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 > -- "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: Bulid dedicated kernels.
in short - how to more creative and smart glueing some pice of open source software - or good knowed software - making some new. 2012/2/13, HSO : > Yes - and you have right. > > It's o lot of bigger idea - how to creat software (kernel and above - > user space) to be one hand secure ( by process) and other hand > Dynamic/Matching to Hardware to be in end speed with cheap machines. > > So Secure (porcess) Dynamic and speed. Os based on linux time to time > have troble with someting make "now" and it's start form > wrtie/read/ex. permisson - and question it's > how yo Optimaze dynamic but not droping secure ? And for this all - > how to do less to code. > > I think - it's how to manage a exist software - how to put the part to > be fast as posible - with not to lot of codeing. > > > > > > 2012/2/13, Tim Edwards : >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 06:19 PM, HSO wrote: >>> Smart buld. - Only Laptopo/Notebook - One kernel in one/two Month - >>> and not bulid form scratch - but bulid by decres a module range like: >>> some Laptop have no AGP - other have no PCI-E - one use pcmcia - other >>> don't have - one use PAE ext, other don't etc, etc. And bulid only for >>> lack performens of Laptopo/Notebook computers. And when it's costly - >>> then do a long in time - by 10 - 20 Years - above 60 or 120 or 240 >>> Kernel - and it's some of collection. >> >> Even if this could be done easily what would be the point? Just about >> all hardware drivers are built as modules so even with the 'all >> inclusive' kernels we have now you are still only loading what's needed >> for your specific hardware. >> >> All you'd be doing by building a custom kernel is saving an >> insignificant amount of disk space on the installed system (a few 10's >> of megabytes at most). Not to mention that your custom kernel wouldn't >> support new hardware devices that the user might buy out of the box, >> adding extra complexity to something that can already be tricky. >> >> Tim >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > -- > > "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
12.04 OpenSSL Package Question
I am sure that this can be answered very quickly. I was browsing the list of packages in 12.04 at http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/allpackages?format=txt.gz I noticed that the openssl packages are only at version 1.0.0e-3ubuntu1 - openssl (1.0.0e-3ubuntu1) Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and related cryptographic tools Yet when I was browsing the Debian packages at http://packages.debian.org/testing/allpackages?format=txt.gz The version is openssl (1.0.0g-1) - openssl (1.0.0g-1) Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and related cryptographic tools Is there any reason for this discrepancy? I guess that this could be as simple as that was the version when the last sync was made, but I thought I would check anyway. Thanks Chris -- 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
Gnome session fallback
When using the gnome fallback mode there is no more System menu as is used to be with Gnome 2. Some of the items that used to be in System-> (Preferences | Administration) are now in the Gnome System Settings but the remaining ones are now in the application menu under a section called "Other". This is really undescriptive so I would suggest to rename it to "System" or "Administration" which is more descriptive than "Other"? Should I file a bug about that? -- 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
Canonical can add a new services.
Hi. How about - about new service - bulding dedicated dynamic kernel - for corporation - and firm who want to - reserach for who else. -- "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: MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On 02/13/2012 01:20 AM, Eddie Bachle wrote: > I would like to say we would still switch, or still heavily consider it > for the grains that could be made by using Ubuntu, however > realistically, the lack of native MySQL in any OS would be a huge mark > against it. FTR, we would not *drop* MySQL support. Worst case scenario, we'd place them in partner, much like we did with sun-java. The change would be that our default/recommended DB would be MariaDB. > Also that being said, if the technical concerns are > answered adequately for a vast majority of applications and hardware/OS > setups, then I would be totally behind switching to a more open source > friendly and compatible database software as there would be little love > lost between me and MySQL. One thing to note, the primary motivator for this proposal isn't about moving to a more "open source friendly" application. We have genuine security concerns/issues with how MySQL handles and publishes their security updates. We can't simply update supported prior Ubuntu releases to newer MySQL versions, so we have to backport patches. Their lack of information and access to the bugs addressed makes it *very* time consuming and difficult for our security and SRU teams to do this. If we can resolve these issues, then MySQL's future in main looks much brighter. -Robbie -- 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: Gnome session fallback
On 02/13/2012 08:04 AM, Lanoxx wrote: > When using the gnome fallback mode there is no more System menu as is > used to be with Gnome 2. Some of the items that used to be in System-> > (Preferences | Administration) are now in the Gnome System Settings but > the remaining ones are now in the application menu under a section > called "Other". This is really undescriptive so I would suggest to > rename it to "System" or "Administration" which is more descriptive > than "Other"? > > Should I file a bug about that? > In 12.04 (Precise), Gnome Classic does not show "Other". Instead I see the following menu: Application > System Tools > Administration Application > System Tools > Preferences And then there is also System Settings. I would say that it is accessible and I can't find a reason for an additional menu. I would say it's not bug worthy. What really bothers me more in gnome-fallback-session is users don't know alt-right_clicking the gnome-panel get additional features like adding an applet, panel properties, deleting items etc... -- 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: 12.04 OpenSSL Package Question
Excerpts from Chris Woollard's message of Mon Feb 13 04:31:11 -0800 2012: > I am sure that this can be answered very quickly. > > I was browsing the list of packages in 12.04 at > http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/allpackages?format=txt.gz > > I noticed that the openssl packages are only at version > 1.0.0e-3ubuntu1 - openssl > (1.0.0e-3ubuntu1) Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and related > cryptographic tools > > Yet when I was browsing the Debian packages at > http://packages.debian.org/testing/allpackages?format=txt.gz > > The version is openssl (1.0.0g-1) - openssl (1.0.0g-1) Secure Socket Layer > (SSL) binary and related cryptographic tools > > Is there any reason for this discrepancy? I guess that this could be as > simple as that was the version when the last sync was made, but I thought I > would check anyway. Yes, precise in particular only imported automatically from testing. 1.0.0-g-1 entered testing on January 21, several days after DebianImportFreeze. Even then, it needs a manual merge because we have Ubuntu delta to preserve/evaluate. I'm sure somebody will evaluate merging it soon. -- 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: 12.04 OpenSSL Package Question
On 02/13/2012 08:19 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Chris Woollard's message of Mon Feb 13 04:31:11 -0800 2012: >> I am sure that this can be answered very quickly. >> >> I was browsing the list of packages in 12.04 at >> http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/allpackages?format=txt.gz >> >> I noticed that the openssl packages are only at version >> 1.0.0e-3ubuntu1 - openssl >> (1.0.0e-3ubuntu1) Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and related >> cryptographic tools >> >> Yet when I was browsing the Debian packages at >> http://packages.debian.org/testing/allpackages?format=txt.gz >> >> The version is openssl (1.0.0g-1) - openssl (1.0.0g-1) Secure Socket Layer >> (SSL) binary and related cryptographic tools >> >> Is there any reason for this discrepancy? I guess that this could be as >> simple as that was the version when the last sync was made, but I thought I >> would check anyway. > Yes, precise in particular only imported automatically from > testing. 1.0.0-g-1 entered testing on January 21, several days after > DebianImportFreeze. Even then, it needs a manual merge because we have > Ubuntu delta to preserve/evaluate. > > I'm sure somebody will evaluate merging it soon. > This was actually already merged this morning. Thanks, Micah -- 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
