On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Remco wrote:
> And please don't talk about "people making noise". That gets us nowhere.
>
> Remco
>
That was not supposed to be the only contents of my mail.
The people who are against the removal of C-A-B or equivalents think
that Ubuntu would be better in gener
And please don't talk about "people making noise". That gets us nowhere.
Remco
--
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 13/02/09 10:41, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> Okay, I have been reading this thread from the beginning. It seems like
> those making the most noise are the same individuals with the knowledge
> and ability to easily add the ability to use C-A-B back. Why should the
> thousands who do not need the abi
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Charlie Kravetz
wrote:
> Okay, I have been reading this thread from the beginning. It seems like
> those making the most noise are the same individuals with the knowledge
> and ability to easily add the ability to use C-A-B back. Why should the
> thousands who do n
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:16:02 -0500
Mike Jones wrote:
> > 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
>
> 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
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:16:48PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 06:54 -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:18:09AM +, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> > > Boot-charting jaunty-A3 [1] on my
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 22:41 +0100, Remco wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>> > In light of that new info, I would say all of my objections are handled
>> > quite nicely by Alt-Sysrq-k.
>>
>> I haven't tri
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 22:41 +0100, Remco wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> > In light of that new info, I would say all of my objections are handled
> > quite nicely by Alt-Sysrq-k.
>
> I haven't tried it out yet, but I agree that this new A-S-K
> combination woul
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
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:16:48PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 06:54 -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:18:09AM +, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > > Boot-charting jaunty-A3 [1] on my SSD system, we see both the
> > > 'hwclockfirst.sh' and 'hwc
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
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> In light of that new info, I would say all of my objections are handled
> quite nicely by Alt-Sysrq-k.
I haven't tried it out yet, but I agree that this new A-S-K
combination would be a good replacement. Now we only need to teach
everybody
Evan,
Now, I didn't know that the Alt-Sysrq-k shortcut existed previously. If
the C-A-B shortcut is being disabled because Alt-Sysrq-k does the exact same
thing with simply a different key combination, then I have no objection at
all to disabling C-A-B. Its true that its easy to hit if your no
>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
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Scott James Remnant
wrote:
> In the meantime, you can obtain these from:
>
> http://patches.ubuntu.com/
>
> In particular:
>
> http://patches.ubuntu.com/by-release/extracted/ubuntu/
>
Scott,
Thank you, I know in the meantime people can do that.
I'm
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 09:49 -0800, Joseph Smidt wrote:
> I think many people, especially upstream, would be benefited if
> Launchpad would provide download links to patches in addition to the
> orig tarball, .dsc and .diff. It is much harder digging through those
> files to search for patches the
Hi,
I would post this to a launchpad devel list, but I didn't see one.
I think many people, especially upstream, would be benefited if
Launchpad would provide download links to patches in addition to the
orig tarball, .dsc and .diff. It is much harder digging through those
files
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
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:15 +, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
> On Thursday 12 February 2009 00:17:51 Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > This is most likely simply a difference between *your* 2.6.29 config and
> > the Ubuntu 2.6.28 one - I expect you compiled in many of the drivers
> > your compute
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 00:44 -0500, John Moser wrote:
> On 2/11/09, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > By modifying the boot-time readahead to be at lower I/O and processor
> > priority than the boot scripts and asynchronous, I see a 20% reduction
> > in overall boot time (from installing bootchart) on m
Olá Scott e a todos.
On Thursday 12 February 2009 00:17:51 Scott James Remnant wrote:
> This is most likely simply a difference between *your* 2.6.29 config and
> the Ubuntu 2.6.28 one - I expect you compiled in many of the drivers
> your computer needed, and omitted those you didn't
Hope I dont
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Daniel J Blueman [2009-02-12 0:57 +]:
>> By modifying the boot-time readahead to be at lower I/O and processor
>> priority than the boot scripts and asynchronous, I see a 20% reduction
>> in overall boot time (from installing bootchart) on
Martin Pitt [2009-02-12 10:09 +0100]:
> Thus the parallelize RA makes things slightly worse to me. I
I forgot, I put my bootcharts at
http://people.ubuntu.com/~pitti/tmp/bootchart-parallel-readahead/
--
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)
Hello all,
Daniel J Blueman [2009-02-12 0:57 +]:
> By modifying the boot-time readahead to be at lower I/O and processor
> priority than the boot scripts and asynchronous, I see a 20% reduction
> in overall boot time (from installing bootchart) on my desktop: 41s
> down to 33s.
I tried it on
Daniel J Blueman [2009-02-12 0:57 +]:
> I've produced a complete and tested debdiff at:
> http://quora.org/hive/readahead-list_0.20050517.0220-1ubuntu5.diff.gz
To spare anyone else the fun with discovering the double gzip'ing and
diffing, that's the real debdiff.
Thanks Daniel, will try it o
> This is most likely simply a difference between *your* 2.6.29 config and
> the Ubuntu 2.6.28 one - I expect you compiled in many of the drivers
> your computer needed, and omitted those you didn't
>
> If you used our config, and just tweaked where necessary, I'd be very
> interested to see compar
Null Ack [2009-02-12 4:06 +1100]:
> As do I Scott, but I am careful to distinguish between features and
> fixes. I'd like to know if .29 fixes will be backported into Ubuntu's
> .28 and how the thing will be managed.
They are, and there will be more. E. g. look at 2.6.28-7.18 at
https://launchpad
33 matches
Mail list logo
