On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 10:12 -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> The possibility for error with resizing partitions is why I think LVM
> would be a good thing; however, from what I hear, LVM is pretty buggy
> on Ubuntu.
I strongly disagree on both counts -- LVM still relies on filesystem
resizing feat
Please stop filing nonsense bugs without first understanding the situation.
ext4 will become the default filesystem once upstream recommends it for
adoption (i.e. 2.6.28). GRUB still does not support reading ext4 so we will
probably need a separate /boot on ext2/ext3, or wait for one of the SoC
pro
use.gvfs-fuse-daemon file system
> /home/shirish/.gvfs
> Output information may be incomplete.
> Fully defragmented!
>
> This output is from a tool called pyfrag which was made by John Dong
> quite sometime ago.
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=169551
>
s what shirish seemed to be talking about. Just
> because it is not considered development status doesn't necessarily mean
> it is stable enough to use as the default for all Ubuntu installs.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 09:30 -0500, John Dong wrote:
> &
Now I remember why I didn't subscribe to this list.
There's no need to e-mail the list hours after filing the bug.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Isaenko Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Please, consider this bug
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/294454
>
>
>
As listed, the choices are noop, anticipatory, deadline, and cfq.
Kernel gurus look away as I try to explain this, lest you risk dying a bit
(or a lot) on the inside
The default is CFQ which tries to separate IO requests by priority classes,
and then provides fair timeslices to each process w
Well of the listed packages, gnome-settings-daemon would be my first
suspect.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Mario Vukelic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today a number of updates were pulled, aptitude log excerpt follows
> below. They included gnome-settings-daemon and
> linux-restricted-
Usecase described at
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-mount/+bug/78505/comments/10
As Colin said, it seems to be more of a cosmetic issue with Nautilus.
On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Jeff Hanson wrote:
> Whenever I plug in a USB FLASH drive on a system with Ubuntu 8.04
> (Har
On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Chris Coulson wrote:
>>
> AFAIK you need the executable bit to be able to browse the folders.
>
Which is separately manageable by the "dmask" mount parameter; The
fundamental problem here is on VFAT the exec bit is all-or-nothing at
mount time, not per-file configu
On Oct 25, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Jordan Mantha wrote:
>
>
> I've accidentally hit this zoom thing many many more times than I ever
> accidentally hit the dreaded Ctrl-Alt-Backspace. I've never figured
> out a good
> way to get out of it other than to reboot my computer so the effect
> was about
>
I just helped a Mac user the other day whose cat was stumbling across
the keyboard as she scrolled and it ended up doing the zoom gesture.
Completely unfamiliar with the feature, she was unable to restore the
screen to original zoom level.
So, no, while I feel super-scroll is obvious when
Doing so probably upsets some Sun legal fairies
On Nov 4, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Onkar Shinde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Evan Hazlett
> wrote:
>> Greetings...
>>
>> Is there any way to bypass the license agreement for the sun-java6-
>> jre
>> package making it possible to silently
The Upstart event-driven bootup doesn't really have the notion of progress,
unlike the old SysV Init script bootup. It's hard to provide a linear measure
of progress...
The same thing happened in OS X -- in 10.4 they introduced a parallelized init
daemon and the "progress" bar was just a simple
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:19 AM, John Moser wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, John Dong wrote:
>> The Upstart event-driven bootup doesn't really have the notion of progress,
>> unlike the old SysV Init script bootup. It's hard to provide a linear
>> measure
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Joe Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:41 AM, John Dong wrote:
> > It's familiar, and when something stalls it's suddenly not familiar.
> > I don't have to care WHAT it's doing, just as long as it's doing
>
A partial check doesn't make sense with the current fsck tools AFAIK. We
should do a full filesystem check if anything, and if a user decides to abort
it, it's his choice.
There should be a graphical or otherwise easily accessible way of re-touching
the /forcefsck flag so that users can choose whi
The main roadblock in my mind is that few people use LVM as the main installer
doesn't support it.
Also, I have no idea how sane this idea is in terms of the abilities of ext3.
It's an interesting solution but probably too insane to ship in a distro.
Something like autofsck is easier/less risky t
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> update to the bash package?
>
No; it is a configuration file, which means dpkg will prompt you whether or
not to replace the file. You can choose not to.
This is not very constructive. All of us here put our heart and effort
into the distro and comments like this don't help. Exactly what things
are bug-ridden that need attention? It's one thing to raise awareness of
last-minute important bugs, but this seems to be nothing more than
flamebait
John
I don't think it'd hurt if we had a warning in gdebi when installing a
.deb not from or signed by the Ubuntu Archive key, to the likeness of
"Installing packages not from Ubuntu repositories can introduce software
bugs, upgrade conflicts, or security vulnerabilities. Make sure you
trust the origin
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.20/+bug/106217
This bug has been reported for around 6 months, the cause (typo in a
postrm file) has been diagnosed, but it's been sitting there with no
developer activity for a good deal of time.
I don't mean to be sitti
0 Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Hello everybody,
> > >
> > >I had some discussions with John Dong and João Pinto and both
> > >acknowledged the fact that there's a need for installing just a select
> > >few backport packag
Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I had some discussions with John Dong and Jo?o Pinto and both
> >> acknowledged the fact that there's a need for installing just a
> >> select few backport packages and not all of them.
> >>
> >> Let's
Wow, never knew about NotAutomatic -- that sounds great!
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:39:12AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> John Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, IMO the UI, underneath, should be adding the entire backports
> > repository,
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
