On 04/05/12 22:43, Gareth France wrote:
The Pokerstars poker client has always been a little flakey under
wine. The newest version tends to crash about once a minute, but
installing an older version of wine instead produced a stable result.
It stopped working after my upgrade, can't connect to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 12:18, scoundrel50a wrote:
> Since I had to do the reinstall, I keep getting crash reports, a
> lot more than what I was getting when it was running beta 1.I
> click on the crash report logo, it brings up the box, which shows
> what has
On 04/05/12 22:39, Alan Pope wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 12:28, Keith Burnett wrote:
Hello Alan and all
So suppose I had a number of 10.04 desktops but no Canonical
support contract.
How would I upgrade to 12.04? Just wait for the LTS option to
appear in s
The Pokerstars poker client has always been a little flakey under wine. The
newest version tends to crash about once a minute, but installing an older
version of wine instead produced a stable result. It stopped working after
my upgrade, can't connect to the remote server. Having looked at what's
i
On 4 May 2012 22:32, Tony Pursell wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2012 21:17, Colin Law wrote:
>
>> On 4 May 2012 20:18, scoundrel50a wrote:
>> > Since I had to do the reinstall, I keep getting crash reports, a lot
>> more
>> > than what I was getting when it was running beta 1.I click on the
>> cras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 12:28, Keith Burnett wrote:
> Hello Alan and all
>
> So suppose I had a number of 10.04 desktops but no Canonical
> support contract.
>
> How would I upgrade to 12.04? Just wait for the LTS option to
> appear in software update?
>
Yup.
On 4 May 2012 21:17, Colin Law wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 20:18, scoundrel50a wrote:
> > Since I had to do the reinstall, I keep getting crash reports, a lot more
> > than what I was getting when it was running beta 1.I click on the
> crash
> > report logo, it brings up the box, which shows what
On 4 May 2012 20:18, scoundrel50a wrote:
> Since I had to do the reinstall, I keep getting crash reports, a lot more
> than what I was getting when it was running beta 1.I click on the crash
> report logo, it brings up the box, which shows what has crashed and where it
> says submit, I click a
On 4 May 2012 20:28, Keith Burnett wrote:
> Hello Alan and all
>
> So suppose I had a number of 10.04 desktops but no Canonical support
> contract.
>
> How would I upgrade to 12.04? Just wait for the LTS option to appear in
> software update?
>
> Cheers
> --Original Message--
> From: Alan
Hello Alan and all
So suppose I had a number of 10.04 desktops but no Canonical support contract.
How would I upgrade to 12.04? Just wait for the LTS option to appear in
software update?
Cheers
--Original Message--
From: Alan Bell
Sender: ubuntu-uk-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com
To: ubuntu-uk
On 04/05/12 19:59, Dave Morley wrote:
You can do "update-manager -d" However I would wait till there is a
clear upgrade path, or do a fresh install to get around it.
um, do be careful not to accidentally overshoot and upgrade to Quantal
Quetzal! upgrade-manager -d will show releases in developme
Since I had to do the reinstall, I keep getting crash reports, a lot
more than what I was getting when it was running beta 1.I click on
the crash report logo, it brings up the box, which shows what has
crashed and where it says submit, I click and nothing happens, so I cant
submit the crash
On 4 May 2012 19:59, Dave Morley wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/05/12 19:48, Pete Smout wrote:
> > Hi, I have 1 remaining machine to upgrade to 12.04 (my main desktop
> > / server) and it is running 10.04 lucid (fully updated as of now),
> > yet the graphical u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 19:48, Pete Smout wrote:
> Hi, I have 1 remaining machine to upgrade to 12.04 (my main desktop
> / server) and it is running 10.04 lucid (fully updated as of now),
> yet the graphical update manager is not informing me that an
> upgrade is
On 4 May 2012 19:55, Anton Kanishchev wrote:
> I dont know if this would work but would burning a dvd of 12.04 lts and
> mounting it on your machine not allow you to update anyway???
>
>
> On 4 May 2012 19:48, Pete Smout wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I have 1 remaining machine to upgrade to 12.04 (my main
I dont know if this would work but would burning a dvd of 12.04 lts and
mounting it on your machine not allow you to update anyway???
On 4 May 2012 19:48, Pete Smout wrote:
> Hi,
> I have 1 remaining machine to upgrade to 12.04 (my main desktop / server)
> and it is running 10.04 lucid (fully up
Hi,
I have 1 remaining machine to upgrade to 12.04 (my main desktop /
server) and it is running 10.04 lucid (fully updated as of now), yet the
graphical update manager is not informing me that an upgrade is possible
even though I have it set to show LTS versions only.
If I set it to 'normal r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 17:05, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 04/05/12 07:16, Gareth France wrote:
>> I have to admit I gave up trying to report bugs a long time ago.
>> It always seems that any attempt to get involved results in me
>> getting shouted at by people.
>
> Wh
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Alan Pope wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/05/12 00:59, Barry Drake wrote:
> > On 04/05/12 08:19, Alan Pope wrote:
> >> What specific investigations have led you to believe that update
> >> manager is the issue? I'm not trying to l
> What does this tell you? :)
>
> I'm happy to help people file bugs and help gather the "right"
> information to make them the best bugs they can be.
>
> The easiest way to file bugs is most often dropping to a terminal and
> running the following:-
>
> ubuntu-bug unity
>
> (replacing "unity" with
On 04/05/12 16:58, Alan Pope wrote:
One interestingly useful command which 'fixes' many issues relating to
bits missing is this:- sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install
ubuntu-desktop^ (note the caret on the end). This causes apt to
attempt to install the ubuntu-desktop task which pulls in ev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 07:16, Gareth France wrote:
> I have to admit I gave up trying to report bugs a long time ago. It
> always seems that any attempt to get involved results in me getting
> shouted at by people.
What does this tell you? :)
I'm happy to help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 00:59, Barry Drake wrote:
> On 04/05/12 08:19, Alan Pope wrote:
>> What specific investigations have led you to believe that update
>> manager is the issue? I'm not trying to labour the point, but
>> just illustrate that one mans fix is an
On 04/05/12 08:25, Tyler J. Wagner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-05-04 08:59, Alan Pope wrote:
It's funny you should ask that. I'm at a Canonical product sprint
this week and one of our tasks was to review the 12.04 release and
make suggestions for how things coul
On 04/05/12 15:16, Gareth France wrote:
I have to admit I gave up trying to report bugs a long time ago. It
always seems that any attempt to get involved results in me getting
shouted at by people. I have posted on forums for pre-release
versions, the intention being to say 'I'm having this i
On 04/05/12 07:59, Alan Pope wrote:
One point which came up was that 12.04 was very stable from very early
on in the cycle. There were very few catastrophic breakages which led
to a broken desktop (such as X version migrations or compiz/unity
inconsistencies in packaging). It was (more often th
>
> However, I'm not sure if the developer's particularly want bugs of this
> sort reported. The problem being that they are upstream issues and it
> seems that Ubuntu developers cannot do much about them until the fix
> trickles down, if it ever does. The best they can do, it seems, is to keep
>
On 4 May 2012 07:59, Alan Pope wrote:
>
Things break and when
> they do we should help people to fix them or file bugs so developers
> can fix the issue.
>
> If we don't then we're doing a disservice to the next person who has
> the issue.
>
I agree with this wholeheartedly and I have often po
I was working on exactly that theory. I just screwed up!
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Daubney wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 09:42, Gareth France wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say that we're not going to get an answer to this one. I
> made a
> > bit of a mistake. I found that I've now got 2 sepera
On 4 May 2012 09:42, Gareth France wrote:
> I'm sorry to say that we're not going to get an answer to this one. I made a
> bit of a mistake. I found that I've now got 2 seperate issues, first that my
> grafted home folder naturally has permissions issues preventing logon and
> second the original
I'm sorry to say that we're not going to get an answer to this one. I made
a bit of a mistake. I found that I've now got 2 seperate issues, first that
my grafted home folder naturally has permissions issues preventing logon
and second the original profile does indeed contain a corrupted file.
Howe
Then why does it not work when EVERY file is transplanted from a working
profile?
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Neil Greenwood wrote:
> If there is a broken user account, it definitely is a config file issue
> with one of the hidden files in that user's directory. It's not a global
> config is
On 04/05/12 08:19, Alan Pope wrote:
What specific investigations have led you to believe that update
manager is the issue? I'm not trying to labour the point, but just
illustrate that one mans fix is another mans cop-out.
The specific issues were very often missing data, programs that had
wor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-05-04 08:59, Alan Pope wrote:
> It's funny you should ask that. I'm at a Canonical product sprint
> this week and one of our tasks was to review the 12.04 release and
> make suggestions for how things could be improved.
Good luck this week, Al
On 04/05/12 08:12, Alan Pope wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 00:06, Piskie wrote:
How would you do it Alan ?
I wouldn't upgrade now.
Cheers,
- --
Alan Pope
Engineering Manager
Canonical - Product Strategy
+44 (0) 7973 620 164
alan.p...@canonical.com
http:/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 00:08, Barry Drake wrote:
> The folk I've been helping out on the Ubuntu answers pages are for
> the most part hardly able to understand the commandline and are
> initially angry.
Who said anything about the command line? It's all about ho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/12 00:06, Piskie wrote:
> How would you do it Alan ?
>
I wouldn't upgrade now.
Cheers,
- --
Alan Pope
Engineering Manager
Canonical - Product Strategy
+44 (0) 7973 620 164
alan.p...@canonical.com
http://ubuntu.com/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATUR
On 03/05/12 23:22, Alan Pope wrote:
I find this response very frustrating. It's not only inaccurate but it
means we'll never get to the bottom of the problem, so can never find
out how to fix it. If everyone just re-installed the OS whenever the
wind changed direction we'd end up with a signifi
On 04/05/12 08:04, Alan Pope wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/12 23:21, Piskie wrote:
You can upgrade now - I have a 12.10 partition up.
I use these commands to do so
sudo sed -i 's/precise/quantal/g' /etc/apt/sources.list
sudo apt-get update&& sudo apt-get dis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/12 23:21, Piskie wrote:
> You can upgrade now - I have a 12.10 partition up.
>
> I use these commands to do so
>
> sudo sed -i 's/precise/quantal/g' /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> sudo apt-get update&& sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
>
I wouldn't r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/12 23:00, kpb wrote:
> I have always had a separate /home and reinstalled when changing
> version.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with doing that. One of my
machines is setup like that too, but that's by virtue of / being an
SSD and /ho
41 matches
Mail list logo
