Re: Trouble with 32 bit Gtk app on 64 bit system - no or misleading error msgs
I don't mean to be a [citation needed] troll, but I've honestly never heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding was that as long as you installed ia32-libs then you shouldn't have to do anything else; the software having problems in this thread is some sort of anomaly. It probably is not rpm being better than deb. But right now most 32-bit library packages cannot just be installed on a 64-bit installation. 32-bit packages will take over /usr/lib 'namespace' in a 64-bit installation when they should be stuffing themselves under /usr/lib32. It is as if you need to have a separate repository for 64-bit distros just so that their 32-bit library packages can be told to make their home in /usr/lib32 and not try to take over /usr/lib which really belongs to 64-bit libraries on a 64-bit installation. In fact, this is exactly how Fedora and RHEL work. They have a separate repository for 32-bit distros and for 64-bit distros. The 64-bit distros' repos have both 32-bit and 64-bit packages which are going to stick their contents in the places. The problem therefore is the way packaging is currently done and the repository architecture. That is why you have to resort to an uber ia32-libs package which is really not a solution at all but a cloth being tied around a leak of a pipe. It helps but does not completely solve the problem. -- 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: Question about this list
Amahdy, thanks for the show. You should try irc some time. Christopher -- 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: Supporting a GNU Hurd port?
Danny Piccirillo wrote: I'm not sure if this has been discussed on here before, but i started a discussion on the forums a while ago: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1096370 and filed a bug on launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/343452 and someone created a blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-hurd There seemed to be a lot of support on the forums. At that point, the GNU Hurd seemed to be developing at a snails pace, but since then they've gotten a new website and I just noticed that they've been making progress recently: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/news/2009-11-30.html via Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/ac80r/whats_this_the_gnu_hurd_is_making_progress/ Still far from a usable kernel/microkernel. A GNU Hurd port may not be for most users, but i was wondering if we had the resources to support such a port as Debian does, and if it would be worth the effort. I think it would be cool, but are there any reasons against this? Yes. Why put effort into something that looks like it is light years away from being put on the desktop when there is something else much closer and already on desktops in another form? How about supporting or doing an OpenSolaris port? www.stormos.org A foundation of sort has been laid if helping out StormOS is not possible. www.nexenta.org/os -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle this inherently political section. That can of worms has to be opened and emptied. The one single problem about adopting 'Linux' has pretty much been a lack of a uniform standard whether it comes to administration or programming. We can thank the Linux kernel developers for contributing to this with their 'moving target interfaces' mantra too. I guess we can sigh with relief that at least with respects to office software, there is more or less one standard - Openoffice and ODF. Finally, I think it's fair to give MS its due here. Whether by fair means or foul, MS has a commanding presence in the market and we simply have to accept that as the way things currently are. Any meaningful effort to get market share away from MS needs to be able to successfully accomodate the windows users and help them migrate, at least long enough for them to get the feel for The Linux Way (tm). People used to Windows that are trying out Ubuntu anything for the first time are from their point of view venturing into uncharted waters. Those same people ventured into uncharted waters before getting used to Windows. You bet that they were quite happy to do the same when they bought their Mac. Of course, if we take the server side angle, it would be a whole different story. Users are probably more willing to learn something new than a certain breed of Microsoft administrators that is forever implied at here. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ryan Dwyer wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle this inherently political section. That can of worms has to be opened and emptied. The one single problem about adopting 'Linux' has pretty much been a lack of a uniform standard whether it comes to administration or programming. We can thank the Linux kernel developers for contributing to this with their 'moving target interfaces' mantra too. I guess we can sigh with relief that at least with respects to office software, there is more or less one standard - Openoffice and ODF. Finally, I think it's fair to give MS its due here. Whether by fair means or foul, MS has a commanding presence in the market and we simply have to accept that as the way things currently are. Any meaningful effort to get market share away from MS needs to be able to successfully accomodate the windows users and help them migrate, at least long enough for them to get the feel for The Linux Way (tm). People used to Windows that are trying out Ubuntu anything for the first time are from their point of view venturing into uncharted waters. Those same people ventured into uncharted waters before getting used to Windows. You bet that they were quite happy to do the same when they bought their Mac. Of course, if we take the server side angle, it would be a whole different story. Users are probably more willing to learn something new than a certain breed of Microsoft administrators that is forever implied at here. That's not true for me. I manage Windows networks at work and use Ubuntu exclusively at home. I would love to migrate them all to Ubuntu and rid Windows from the workplace but Ubuntu has no suitable product to do so which just works out of the box. Windows networks do not work out of the box. You need to configure each computer from ADS controller to the last Windows XP/2000 Professional workstation. I hope you are not expecting something different with Linux (but I love to see that though - it would give whichever distro that does this an upper hand). But if you are looking for controlling the desktops/profiles, yada, yada, please thank the Kubuntu Team for taking KDE 3 off their packaging list as there is nothing else available but KDE 3.5 and kiosktool that gives you the ability to control desktops based on groups and nobody has as yet stepped up to the plate to port kiosktool over to KDE 4. Though it would be interesting to know just how many Windows administrators have heard of Linux, used Linux, and done sysadmin tasks on Linux. and what level of administrator they are too. I pretty much expect paper MCSEs not to be part of the list but now that Microsoft is phasing out the MCSE certificate, I guess we need a new name for those who got their certificate by cramming. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
If someone wants to make a tool that makes it easier for Windows admins to run Linux servers, I'm sure that would be useful to some. But to claim this as a cure-all for the perceived (but nonexistent) additional complexity is bogus. I salute you, sir, for being humble enough to make this case with your own experience. -- 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: upgrade from 9.04 - 9.10: the most broken Ubuntu / Debian upgradeI have ever experienced
Ethan Baldridge wrote: Out of curiosity, what does do-release-upgrade do that editing your sources.list, sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop sudo apt-get dist-upgrade wouldn't do? I think handle circular dependencies was one of them. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
and attacking me personally I attacked you personally, Derek? If that's the way it sounded, then rest assured that was not my intention. Please point out what appeared to be a personal attack so that I can learn not to do it again. Maybe there was a bit of culture clash. He is probably a bit touchy lately after Steve Lamb's post in the kubuntu list. Something about strawman arguments. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Jan Claeys wrote: Op woensdag 28-10-2009 om 07:36 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef Christopher Chan: Remotely administer a UDS server with a non-web-based, X-based GUI and therefore you need an Xserver on Windows. xrdp is probably better given that rdp is way faster than X or if we are going to install something on a Windows workstation to remotely administer a UDS server, just use freenx. Think mom and pop shop. Eh, why not use LDAP (and maybe other standard protocols) to talk to the UDS? That's way more economical than RDP or FreeNX even. And Gtk or Qt apps work just fine on Windows without X (with a little bit of work sometimes). (Always over a secure tunnel, of course.) Sure, whatever. GOSA gtk/qt frontend to a ldap directory. I was just explaining why some people would want Xming on WIndows plus putty or whatever. Nice suggestion there. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with using Xming on a Windows box. Maybe xrdp is the answer to that one or freenx For remote admin of what, though? If you're going to remote admin both Windows and 'nix boxen, why wouldn't you be using your Linux desktop? If you're remote administering Windows boxes, then RDP is the way to go. I administer a heterogeneous environment, and I've never felt the need to add X to Windows. Well, you see, they have this great idea of creating a server administration GUI tool for Linux and given that one of the first things the OP was hoping for (a replacement for Windows ADS servers) it would appear that the workstations will primarily be Windows. Then there's no need for X on Windows. I'm still not getting something... Remotely administer a UDS server with a non-web-based, X-based GUI and therefore you need an Xserver on Windows. xrdp is probably better given that rdp is way faster than X or if we are going to install something on a Windows workstation to remotely administer a UDS server, just use freenx. Think mom and pop shop. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the masses. Assessible in this context meaning seemingly designed for. I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already accessible to the masses. They can set up completely bollixed servers with MS tools. So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a better, more secure, solution isn't going to help. Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that Ubuntu has to do the same. That's what we're suggesting - that Ubuntu don't do the same. Really, it's insulting to tell someone with an idea that he can't do it because it can't be done. No, that is not what we are suggesting. Not with that uber list of capabilities outlined in the beginning. The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_ proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. So we desperately need tools that can limit the hazards. Which translates to limited functionality tools that enable a 'share folder' with share level security only or simple predefined configurations. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer program couldn't do any of the above. We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any difference between the two. But in practice... Professionals are primarily required to protect professionals' jobs. In practice, computers can't actually do any of those jobs _yet_, though it probably wouldn't be beyond current capability to have them rebuild engines or provide good legal advice (at least in any precedent-based legal system). I certainly believe that UIs can be built that can do a better job of system and network administration than the average person currently doing those jobs, and it really doesn't matter how much you, or anybody else, thinks that those jobs _should_ be done by professionals - it isn't going to happen. The problem with your examples is that they assume routine work. I agree that for 90% of what professionals do, a computer could do better and cheaper. One has only to look at the autobuilding industry for a classic example. I think all of the professions have made it pretty clear that really, you don't have to be a member of the profession to do most of the job. Paramedics, paralegals, paragliders ... Er, yeah, but you at least got some training before they let you loose to do what you have been taught to do. So in the end, it is not recommended that the masses get do stuff like that. However, a professional must be present for the 10% of cases where something goes wrong. In most (I admit not all) cases that means having a professional available 100% of the time, so that he will be there when things fail. Professionals need to be on-call. In fact, for most medical treatment, the doctor _is_ on-call. If we could make the day-to-day administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. Sure, which is only possible with predefined fixed configurations that meet the needs of a mom and pop shop and that would be all the tools does; setup things according to the specification. Right or wrong, companies don't believe in paying professional rates for administrative work. This is a valid viewpoint for them, as their interest is in saving money. That does not mean that Ubuntu or any other entity needs to give the impression that their GUI tools (which we have already established covers 90% of use cases) cover 100% of their use cases and no experienced professional is needed. Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal. You are saying that a system that creates disk images for installation and a software auditing tool does not require an experienced professional. Give me a break. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it commercially. This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all replying to. I think it's been stated quite widely now that using a GUI to configure Apache, SMTP, etc is probably unwise (RHEL seems to disagree, but whatever), I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a gui for domain server administration, or essentially what landscape is already doing, at least in part: controlling users, pushing updates, monitoring systems; it may be worth looking at. RHEL has a tool for SMTP/Apache? Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user account database, the update repository and the monitoring software. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user account database, the update repository and the monitoring software. So now you're what, bashing landscape too? Canonical supposedly makes some money off it, probably from at least a few competent administrators who find it makes their job easier. An alternative might at least solve a few of the wants of the original post without going too far overboard. No I am not bashing landscape, I was bashing some of the ideas such as any Dick, Tom and Harry could administer a server. I think the proposal needs to be separated into two different things since you all want to gun for it. One fully automatic distro that only offers a tool to share a directory with share level access and printers for mom and pop shops. As for landspace, when you work out what 'domain server' stands for then we can say whether it fits the bill for the OP's idea. His idea of 'domain' is not just a central user account database for all machines. He differentiates between 'domain accounts' and 'local accounts' and what is available in UNIX/Linux land is at most shared 'local accounts'. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Professionals need to be on-call. In fact, for most medical treatment, the doctor _is_ on-call. If we could make the day-to-day administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. Sure, which is only possible with predefined fixed configurations that meet the needs of a mom and pop shop and that would be all the tools does; setup things according to the specification. All the RFCs are defined as finite-state engines. There really is NO reason that a tool capable of making all the correct configurations need to be predefined and fixed. It's 30 years since I did FSEs in university, but I'm pretty sure we learned that they could _all_ be automated, even then. Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal. You are saying that a system that creates disk images for installation and a software auditing tool does not require an experienced professional. Give me a break. My recollection is that the disk images came after the initial proposal, Maybe you need to reread the first post then. but even so: yeah. What makes a _second_ disk image any more significant than the first? If the first is correct, then the second, with specific mods to make it reflect a unique machine, is not that difficult. Are still talking about mom and pop here? I imagined that they would get computers that come with UDS preinstalled? They are supposed to know what mods to make? Do I hear experienced professional required? -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: John Moser wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer ryandwy...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what they're prepared to use? This is an easy question. First off, we need a Windows and Linux tool like Putty for easy X11 forwarding over SSH. The Windows version needs to bring an X server of its own (or at least have a fully proper MSI package that you can publish with it, to give a viable X server). It could integrate with Cygwin/X as well or something. I say like putty because the actual application interface is going to be different. What you're going to want is a tool that connects across; discovers a specific set of applications; and gives one-click access to run them over a compressed X11 session. I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with using Xming on a Windows box. Maybe xrdp is the answer to that one or freenx For remote admin of what, though? If you're going to remote admin both Windows and 'nix boxen, why wouldn't you be using your Linux desktop? If you're remote administering Windows boxes, then RDP is the way to go. I administer a heterogeneous environment, and I've never felt the need to add X to Windows. Well, you see, they have this great idea of creating a server administration GUI tool for Linux and given that one of the first things the OP was hoping for (a replacement for Windows ADS servers) it would appear that the workstations will primarily be Windows. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Jan Claeys wrote: Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 11:57 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Kevin Fries: I mentioned this the other day, and other than a few people making off line comments indicating that they had never heard of the product, my suggestion of GOsa got completely ignored. Maybe it needs better documentation (howtos etc.) promotion? ;-) And I mean howtos that also explain how to integrate it with all the other stuff. Or maybe those exist, but nobody knows them? Then it needs better marketing... ;) What it really needs is people agreeing to use that as a standard. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
schultz.patr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain how the system becomes inflexible by adding a GUI tool? Well, the whole premise for the tool was apparently to enable non-admins to administer a server. Are you going to give a whole list of options that they know nothing about? As for those in the know, feel free to create a tool for the myriad possible configurations out there. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:05:37 To: Caroline Fordcaroline.ford.w...@googlemail.com Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.comubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server Caroline Ford wrote: On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Caroline Hey, you know what. I think I like this idea. This will guarantee a fixed, non-flexible solution that will require the services of real system administrators to do whatever or troubleshoot in the event of a problem. In the end, the GUI will make some things inaccessible and I could setup a company and actually charge per incident instead of trying to convince mom and pop outfits to pay some monthly/yearly service charge and try to justify it when nothing seems to go wrong. Please make sure you do not say anything about raid1/mirrored disks, backup and whatever during the installation process. As for the initial ambitions of creating disk images, replacing Windows ADS servers and audit software, please remember not to mention that although there are no viruses for Linux, there is no guarantee of the Windows clients being protected, we do not currently have ADS support and you can forget about all the random software currently installed may or may not work with Wine if you intend to convert the workstations to Ubuntu. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Ryan Dwyer wrote: It doesn't matter how much work is involved. Do you think the Linux/Ubuntu community would be willing to change the way system logons work if it meant bug #1 could be completed? Let us see. To change the way system logons work would mean changing pam, the C library and just about anything that has to do with system accounts. You are welcome to try to convince the Ubuntu community to maintain a fork of all these essential system libraries and offer some form of backwards compatibility to avoid having to also modify who knows how many other packages like sendmail, apache, bind, ..., ..., ..., everything. Mac OS X, a certified UNIX system as of Snow Leopard, is enjoying a measure of success without having to become Windows like. You are barking up the wrong tree here. Note that OS X (that UNIX certified system) has completely changed how system logons work. User accounts (and a ton of other things) are managed through the Open Directory service even on the local machine. The plus of this is it is also highly compatible with external directory services. It takes three or four clicks of a mouse to configure the system to use a domain server and authenticate domain users against a centralized system. Their system is both compatible with traditional UID/GID, and also allows for separation of local machine and domain accounts. I am not extremely familiar with the intricacies of the OS X Open Directory system and know that they have put in the work to make it work well and be compatible. It is not impossible and certainly worth considering before writing it off. Of course it may be that it is too much work to implement something similar. OH? Now this is interesting. I wonder if it is present in Darwin where we can have a look at it. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Paul Smith wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:56 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: It doesn't matter how much work is involved. Do you think the Linux/Ubuntu community would be willing to change the way system logons work if it meant bug #1 could be completed? Let us see. To change the way system logons work would mean changing pam, the C library and just about anything that has to do with system accounts. You are welcome to try to convince the Ubuntu community to maintain a fork of all these essential system libraries and offer some form of backwards compatibility to avoid having to also modify who knows how many other packages like sendmail, apache, bind, ..., ..., ..., everything. You guys need to step back a bit. There's absolutely no reason whatever that this _feature_ cannot be implemented on UNIX/Linux. Yes, obviously the _implementation_ that relies on changing the UID/GID scheme is a complete non-starter and cannot even be considered. There's no chance that anyone upstream will be willing to break that behavior and as you say, Ubuntu cannot essentially rewrite the entire GNU/Linux operating system to do away with it (don't forget that UID/GID is heavily embedded in the kernel, too, so Ubuntu would have to rework the kernel itself extensively). If this is Ryan's question then the answer is definitely no, not even if it meant bug #1 could be completed. Let's all remember our goal here is NOT to beat Microsoft by becoming a free version of Windows. Our goal is to produce a better product, while still staying true to the UNIX roots and philosophy (which we believe will lead to better software). However, luckily for us we do not HAVE to change or do away with UID/GID in order to implement automatic joins of a workstation. There's absolutely no reason that user paul.smith cannot have UID 1000 on one system and UID 2000 on another system: you just need to implement a mapping mechanism. At least you are attempting to address the system. Mapping system? I guess that means no shared filesystems. Let's try again. But there are so many things to be considered before you even get here that impact directly on this. For example, obviously security is critical and so you'll need a secure way to do AAA. How do you add users? How do users authenticate? Etc. etc. All critical questions. Most likely you will need to base this on Kerberos, just because there's nothing else out there with the requisite features + security, that I know of anyway. Once you have that figured out you must end up with some secure token which represents a user that you can present to other systems as proof of identity. Then all you have to do is have each host map that token to a locally relevant UID/GID. UID/GID cannot be used between hosts, anyway, in any secure fashion. That's just one idea. There are various different setups to share uid/gid between hosts. Since NIS to winbind. I'm certainly NOT saying it's not a lot of work. I'm saying that it can be done, and it doesn't require throwing out 30+ years of UNIX/POSIX history to do it, so let's not dismiss the big idea based only on one possible bad implementation. I just want to ram in the fact that you cannot change the current system of uid/gid and the only other option will be to build a new aaa system but that requires consensus within the Linux community or it will be an Ubuntu only thing in the beginning and work will be needed on all packages that will use it. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ryan Dwyer wrote: I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what they're prepared to use? You started it. :-D. BTW, please do not top post. Although it seems that the first topic to discuss is how the uid/gid system can be changed or mapped to support local and domain accounts (forgive me if I'm not using the correct terminology). The only option will probably be to extend the system and add support for 'domain' accounts to other applications. In an environment where new machines are added straight away to a domain/realm/whatever there is no problem but if you envision being able to move from a 'workgroup' environment to a 'domain' environment, that is currently not possible without major intervention by an admin. -Ryan On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Onno Benschop o...@itmaze.com.au mailto:o...@itmaze.com.au wrote: On 23/10/09 07:04, Chris Jones wrote: But we shouldn't be encouraging the use of a GUI inside a server environment simply because it breeds dumb users. While I agree that users, well sysadmins (and I use the term loosely) are getting dumber in the world, I don't think it's because of a GUI. I have seen plenty dumb things in CLI environments - Netware used to be a CLI environment and I saw much that made me shudder. In the good old days of DOS you could do plenty of dumb things with its CLI. I don't think that the GUI is breeding dumbness as such. I'm sure that it's a contributing factor. Education is the key. It's always been the key, and it will continue to be the key. When You Earnestly Believe You Can Compensate For A Lack Of Skill By Doubling Your Efforts, There's No End To What You Can't Do. For me if a GUI helps me solve a problem by explaining what's going on, it's done its job. A final thought, which I've not come across. In the early '90s, Apple had an OS called AU/X, which was a murder between BSD and UNIX. It had one redeeming feature. If you were on a CLI and you typed a command and pressed Apple-Enter, you'd get a dialog that provided you with a GUI to that command. It allowed you to compose a command and on completion, you'd be back at the CLI, ready to run the tool. -- Onno Benschop Connected via Bigpond NextG at S31°54'06 - E115°50'39 (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - o...@itmaze.com.au mailto:o...@itmaze.com.au -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com mailto:Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ryan Dwyer wrote: I've never used remote installation services or SCCM. I'll change the spec so it doesn't deny their existence. That will definitely give this credibility. If you look at the mockup pictures I made email is the list and so is file sharing. A centralised account database is so obvious that I didn't mention it in the spec. It does mention it in the Name and Role mockup. But that part will be the one that is fraught with challenges. For example, an existing 'standalone' machine cannot just 'join' a 'domain'. You have to reconcile the standalone machine's system accounts with those in the 'domain'. It might be so obvious but you have not addressed the challenge posed. Your last line has got me curious. Why can't this be applied to Linux/UNIX systems? Eg: as above, there is no such thing as 'local' accounts and 'domain' accounts with Linux/UNIX systems. -Ryan On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Shentino wrote: My first impression is that it's something to look into. Disk images? Give me a break. Disk images (a feature that Windows Server does not have) will make this the laughing stock of the IT world. There is a reason by Windows Server offers automatic remote installation of workstations and not creation of disk images. It is completely impractical and impossible if you include all the various software that may need installing on the workstation. Even I do not ghost the hundreds of Windows workstations I have to manage here in the school whether by CD or over the network. Automatic *installation* over the network complete with hostname assignment on installation is what you want. Tools for this are already in place. How about 'install image' that can be put on a CD or a flash drive or loaded over the network and performs the installation by prepping the box and then pulling the packages over the network since you are targeting businesses. I love the part about auditing and centralized management of software being features that Windows does not have. Ever heard of System Management Server? Wait, that thing is ancient. Ever heard of System Configuration Center Manager? Auditing, software management, patch management, all there. Even without buying that, you can already push software packages via group policy. Man, check out the competition before you got listing supposedly missing features. What is with the love of NT-style domains or terminology? Oh, where is the part about integrating services like email (I think this is rather crucial to a business) and file/print? OH, please do not forget a centralized user information database. Somehow, the part about 'joining a workstation' sends shivers down my spine on how you think this will be accomplished. I'm sure that us open source monkeys can improve on Microsoft in this area :) Yeah. By doing things the 'Linux' way and not copying concepts that even Microsoft has moved on from and cannot be applied to Linux/UNIX operationg systems. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Ryan Dwyer ryandwy...@gmail.com mailto:ryandwy...@gmail.com wrote: I've made a specs page here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBusinessServer You can also see some mockup pictures I made here: Name and Role: http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/1210/namerole.png Computer Details: http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1740/computerz.png Workstation Images: http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6757/22666240.png Web Server: http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1795/webserver.png I'm unsure at this stage whether I'll submit it to Brainstorm or go straight to a Launchpad blueprint, but at least I've got a spec for people to look at. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated. -Ryan On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Shentino wrote: I can't very well speak as a heavy iron type server administrator but as an end user peon, so to speak, I have found that GUIs add convenience, and in many cases point and click is faster and
Re: Ubuntu Domain Server
John Moser wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Shentino wrote: My first impression is that it's something to look into. Disk images? Give me a break. Disk images (a feature that Windows Server does not have) will make this the laughing stock of the IT world. There is a reason by Windows Server offers automatic remote installation of workstations and not creation of disk images. It is completely impractical and impossible if you include all the various software that may need installing on the workstation. Even I do not ghost the hundreds ... what? When I went to school, they had Altris, which would routinely blast out disk images (yes, from Norton Ghost) to a list of desktops that were malfunctioning. Each type of class had its own installation (programming class, library, networking class, general IT study class that would have to have ALL the software from Word to Visual C++), so there were about a dozen disk images. In an era when there was no such thing as remote installation services ghost was the next best thing. On the Linux side of things we have the debian-installer supporting remote installation and Redhat's anaconda's kickstart supporting remote installation. None of them offer disk images. Why do you think that is the case? Every corporate environment I've been in has had GP Desktop, GP Laptop, and then departmentalized images. Phone support had their own stuff, etc; but if you were i.e. IT or a general consultant or something where you may need some software but not other software and whatnot, you got an image that had the basics on it. Visual Studio licenses are expensive, so people got Microsoft Office and then if they did C# development they got that part installed and if they did VB.NET dev they got that part installed, and if they needed Access (a $50 upgrade probably; for individuals it's a $300 upgrade) they got that, after filing for approval. There's a lot of we need to install a base OS with our Anti-virus, system management, and custom software all installed, with Microsoft Office already going on out there, with IT basically loading a base image with all the usual software installed and then locally installing or remotely pushing/publishing the rest. Hell, there's even the push/publish thing in Active Directory, where you lay out that users in $OU get $SOFTWARE and when they log on it's made available to them, and when they click the icon on the desktop it automagically installs for you. You snipped out the part where I said: 'I love the part about auditing and centralized management of software being features that Windows does not have. Ever heard of System Management Server? Wait, that thing is ancient. Ever heard of System Configuration Center Manager? Auditing, software management, patch management, all there. Even without buying that, you can already push software packages via group policy.' The last sentence here talks about push/publish software in Active Directory. So, stripped base image, custom software, categorized USERS, everything handled on-the-fly. Nice base image. Need to change the computer name for each box. How convenient. Flip, what we really need is a decent, group based, desktop management system for Linux like kiosktool did for KDE 3.5.x. While you guys are at, please make that a blooming priority. I got really burned by the latest Ubuntu distros. I should probably look at the latest Debian stable instead. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ryan Dwyer wrote: Do you think the Linux/Ubuntu community would be willing to change the way system logons work if it meant bug #1 could be completed? Bug #1? Oh, btw, about the part about changing the uid/gid system. ROTFL. Do you have any idea how much work is involved in 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
Re: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ryan Dwyer wrote: Bug #1: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1 (currently giving me a timeout error - it's called Microsoft has a majority market share). Sorry, that is not a bug. That is a dream that we want to make into reality. It doesn't matter how much work is involved. Do you think the Linux/Ubuntu community would be willing to change the way system logons work if it meant bug #1 could be completed? Let us see. To change the way system logons work would mean changing pam, the C library and just about anything that has to do with system accounts. You are welcome to try to convince the Ubuntu community to maintain a fork of all these essential system libraries and offer some form of backwards compatibility to avoid having to also modify who knows how many other packages like sendmail, apache, bind, ..., ..., ..., everything. Mac OS X, a certified UNIX system as of Snow Leopard, is enjoying a measure of success without having to become Windows like. You are barking up the wrong tree here. -Ryan On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Ryan Dwyer wrote: Do you think the Linux/Ubuntu community would be willing to change the way system logons work if it meant bug #1 could be completed? Bug #1? Oh, btw, about the part about changing the uid/gid system. ROTFL. Do you have any idea how much work is involved in 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
Re: grub error 18
Dane Mutters wrote: It sounds like your menu.lst file in /boot/grub is being overwritten by the maintainer's version of the config file from the updated package. Usually, if you've edited that file even a little, it'll ask whether you want to change it or keep it the same and update it manually. Something to consider. Never touched the file. It is blooming embarrassing putting Jaunty on a box for other people to use and then have to deal with this blasted mysterious 'grub error 18' problem. After each and every reboot, I have to pop in the LiveCD, load konsole, sudo -i root, get into grub and run setup to get the box to boot into the installed Jaunty. What blasted script keeps on murking about with grub?!?!!?!?!? --Dane On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 22:58 +0800, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: I remember reading something about commenting out some line that did something with grub that would solve this problem. Unfortunately I have not been able to find that url again and I wondered whether anybody knows where a command involving grub during shutdown might be located in the shutdown scripts. BTW, the grub.conf file is nothing like I have seen. It was full of comments and other stuff and not just menu entries. -- 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: grub error 18
Goh Lip wrote: Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: I take it that you now have no problem booting after the root...setup... from the livecd. Yup. Grub legacy have precisely some problems not only with LBA cylinder but also with newer bios. Instead of trying to fix your grub, I suggest you convert your grub legacy to grub2. After all, karmic will default to grub2. sudo apt-get install grub-pc the weird grub file somehow gives me the impression that grub2 is installed? What grub does the LiveCD for Jaunty use? Livecd? I don't know without popping in the livecd. you can check by going to /boot/grub/ and see if there is menu.lst or grub.cfg, maybe both. But it doesn't really matter, right? Livecd grub is always quite empty, just to start up the cd. The more important point is your installed jaunty partition. If you have meaningful entries in grub.cfg, then it is installed. There should also be meaningful entries in menu.lst whether grub2 is installed or not. If you have installed grub2, you can always reinstall if you did not follow up on the instructions where it wasn't installed to mbr giving rise to your problem. If it wasn't installed, okay, install it. Let me make it CRYSTAL CLEAR. Jaunty booted up fine after the first installation. However, after updating the packages to whatever latest versions available, it apparently keeps messing up grub whenever it is shutdown or rebooted. I have done nothing at all with grub or grub2 manually. I have not had a chance to check yet but I get the impression my problems stem from grub2 since I see comments and other stuff besides menu entries in the grub configuration file. At this moment, it would seem that the LiveCD probably installs grub but the updates snuck in grub2. When I next get my hands on that box, I will verify what package(s) of grub are installed. Now if someone can tell me what script messes around with grub/grub2 during shutdown, I will happily file a bug report since I have no other Jaunty installation lying around. -- 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: AMD/ATI vs NVIDIA vs Intel
Martin Owens wrote: On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:39 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Or just because they take profit of the fact that they are advertised as _the_ free video card for linux, but they do not really work for fixing their drivers timely. I have nvidia, ati and intel cards. The most problematic and buggy are the intel drivers, and the most hateful thing is that on windows, their drivers work. Do not make me link bugs here again. I wouldn't be counting nVidia as favoured partners any time soon: http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/online/news/nvidia_eschews_android_and_linux_prefers_windows_for_tegra Go AMD! -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
John McCabe-Dansted wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Besides, I have already made clear in later posts in this thread that I really do not care what is used so long as it is uniform across all operating systems. If Ubuntu wants to do its thing while other operating systems keep convention, be my guest. You bet that I, for one, will not be installing it anywhere on school campus because the school has more important things to do than preach Ubuntu is right and all other operating systems are wrong which is why you have different numbers for GB on Ubuntu and XP, Solaris and Mac OS X and I will not risk looking like a fool or an Ubuntu/Linux fundamentalist for something the school may or may not care about. Opinion noted. But how will you explain that you can't burn a 4.5GB file onto 4.7GB DVD? The same as how we are currently explaining things about hard disks. I just say they use different standards. No, I am not going to make an issue unless the teacher is one that actually wants to know and learn. Preach that Microsoft is right and TDK, Verbatim, Western Digital etc. are all wrong? :-D. I don't go into that. I just say operating systems use 1024 and hardware use 1000. Tada. For my myself I don't much care what Microsoft does. But I do have to read hardware labels, and the DVD example caught me. At first I thought k3b was being ultra-conservative in case it needed an absurdly large 200MiB index for some reason. YMMV. Yeah, just as you don't care what Redhat, Sun Microsystems/Oracle, and Apple do. Oh, oh, and HP and IBM too. I do broadly agree that it would be best to discuss this with other OS vendors, or at least other OSS vendors, before making such a change. However, my hunch would be that users wouldn't be too scared by GiB. I'd imagine at first that they would see GiB where they expect GB and figure they look much the same, so they probably mean something similar. But maybe it would still provide a useful clue as to why they can't fit 4.5 GiB file onto a 4.7GB disk. We'd really have to test this on real users though to be sure (and this test may be relevant to the other vendors and standards bodies too). Nah, they won't be scared by the GiB. It is just that GiB won't meet the wants of certain ones here. All in favour of the 1000 kB/MB/GB/TB? 1+ -- 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: On apturls and repositories
Derek Broughton wrote: Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Il giorno sab, 06/06/2009 alle 23.55 -0400, Martin Owens ha scritto: Is it? I didn't think is was the port that defined the protocol but the nature of the messages sent over the connection. The port is a default but not a requirement, like ssh or ftp. For heaven's sake, I presented the evidence. Split hairs if you must. The simple fact is that many keyservers support requests on port 80, and keyserver.ubuntu.com doesn't for reasons that can make no technical sense. Ah, that is to make things challenging to push out Ubuntu in business environments just like how the Kubuntu team decided to pull the rug on KDE3.5.x after Hardy. Oh wait, Ubuntu is for home users only right? Sorry, could not resist. I cannot help but notice that it appears many Ubuntu/Kubuntu users seem to not understand what is going on with Ubuntu/Kubuntu. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
(``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote: Olá Chan e a todos. On Wednesday 03 June 2009 15:57:58 Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: You have ENTIRE communities of Linux users who have never even heard of kibi/mebi/gibi let alone the IEC. Let me take this a bit out of context: you have entire countries who never heard of FOSS or GNU/Linux. Should that stop us from improving this movement and OS? Except that this is not 'improvement'. This is about blowing that erroneous three decade or so operating system convention of using SI prefixes for 1024 multiples of bytes out of the water without adding to the confusion that is leading to this move back to standards. That is absolutely not something Ubuntu specific and therefore not an improvement for the Ubuntu 'movement/OS'. Besides, I have already made clear in later posts in this thread that I really do not care what is used so long as it is uniform across all operating systems. If Ubuntu wants to do its thing while other operating systems keep convention, be my guest. You bet that I, for one, will not be installing it anywhere on school campus because the school has more important things to do than preach Ubuntu is right and all other operating systems are wrong which is why you have different numbers for GB on Ubuntu and XP, Solaris and Mac OS X and I will not risk looking like a fool or an Ubuntu/Linux fundamentalist for something the school may or may not care about. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
It is certainly an improvement to make these things make sense. Call it whatever you will. Improvement/fixing three decade long error We can argue about how to do it, who to work with, etc, but this confusion finally needs to be cleaned up. If I earlier gave the impression not to clean up, it was because this whole let's go back to standards did not quite hit me then. Now that we are done with that, let us get back on to the how/who part. Knock the doors of the POSIX committee and whoever else (Microsoft) down with a battering ram if you have to, we need to get operating systems makers to make a nice big announcement that they will finally stop using SI prefixes for multiples of 1024 and schools/whoever should stop explaining that kilobyte/KB = 1024 bytes, etc, 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: shameful censoring of mono opposition
Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: sorry stephan for getting this twice, didn't hit reply-to-mailinglist Oh well...in the 80ties/90ties when Java was invented and was used by more people then Turbo Pascal in no time, I said the same...It was closed source, and had too much of Sun in it.. KDE/Qt we should start a wall of fame =D Probably not on anybody's radar but let's add: Firebirdsql/Interbase (is this about closed software going opensource? :-D) -- 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: shameful censoring of mono opposition
Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that a technical argument can be had in a civilised tone. Ah, but you see...these are NOT technical arguments. These are about 'standards'. Can there really be a technical argument between using say the metric system versus the foot/yard or the ounce/pound? That is why it is easy for flamewars to start when it comes to bash vs c-shell vs korn or c vs c++ or whatever combination you wish because in the end...it is about 'standards'. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: Ok can we at least fix applications to use Ki Mi etc prefixes when they are counting in base 2? That might actually be the best for now if there is not going to be any public fanfare about Ubuntu taking the lead in returning to standards and dropping convention. Use the IEC prefixes and drop all mention of the SI prefixes since there is currently no consensus between operating systems yet. Or go banging on the doors of POSIX or make this return to standards as big as the Y2K bug even though some may not feel it is as critical. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Mike Jones wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com mailto:m...@f2s.com wrote: Mike Jones wrote: Do we have agreement that the correct prefixs for units that are counted in powers of two are kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi, and so on? Not really, no. Some of us, myself included, are somewhat annoyed at standards bodies attempting to foist a bunch of overly-similar, awkward to pronounce, and generally stupid-sounding names on us. Max. Max, Thanks so much for your reply. Could you elaborate on what you feel that we should do in this case? You have a point that the prefixes are strange sounding, and confusing, but how do you differentiate between prefixes meaning powers of ten versus powers of two? People have pointed out earlier that some portions of the various major OS's will report in powers of ten, and others will report in powers of two. That's hard for me, as a user to deal with, so I generally just assume everything is a power of two and hope I have enough left over to not explode my PC. I know this is not addressed for me but I wish to clarify one point here. If it was the case that VARIOUS major OS's will report in powers of ten, I would not be asking for the SI/IEC prefixes to be added to POSIX. What is currently taking place is that some applications in Ubuntu in GNOME are reporting in powers of ten while others are still holding to the old convention of base2. There is contention about this very issue within GNOME too. The report of Windows using powers of ten is false. The page on Brainstorm has people citing Windows as being a problem because they use legacy (base2) units. There are no other operating systems that I know of that use base10 units when it comes to file sizes and disk space. Which I why I wish to push for taking this issue to the POSIX standard committee. I, personally, do not care what units are used so long as everybody agrees on their meaning. That everybody of course being other operating systems and not the Ubuntu team. A suggetion I would like to make is that perhaps instead of everyone bickering back and forth, we could gather some statistics on what the opinions of Ubuntu's developers are? I don't know how to go about doing that, but perhaps someone else might? The main thing that I am trying to get across is that you cannot treat this as an Ubuntu only thing. Unless you want to drive away some of your current users. On my own home machine, I don't mind what is used. But others will. The server distribution will certainly have to be careful on how and when a return to SI definitions is made. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Evan wrote: I have been hesitant to add my voice to this discussion thus far, but I think there has been some confusion as to what we are debating. There are really two entirely separate issues at stake, and it would be nice to clarify them. The first issue is how various things such as disk space should be counted, either in base 2, or in base 10. I would actually favour base10 for disk space, file size. After all, I'd rather not have to divide by whatever power of 1024 to get the number of bytes. Memory in base2 because that is the only way we can get neat numbers. The second issue is how we can distinguish between base 2 and base 10 in the user interface. For what it's worth, I think we should count everything in base 10 and use the proper SI unit prefixes (KB, MB, etc). Most normal users have no idea what base 2 even is, and this is at least consistent with packaging for HDDs etc. Perhaps have an option to switch to base-2 mode (with KiB and MiB prefixes) for those who know what it means. Just my two cents. This is where the main problem is. Other operating systems are still using base2 but SI prefixes. Solve that and the first issue won't be an issue. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Neal McBurnett wrote: On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:59:10AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: Neal McBurnett wrote: I agree. More details and discussion are at this ifconfig bug report, which came to the same conclusion: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/net-tools/+bug/240073 The interface speed in base10 yes. The number of bytes transferred, NO, because that is and has always been base2. You are barking up the wrong tree with regard to ifconfig's report on RX and TX bytes. Your beloved bit_rate page is only for interface speed. So a 100mbit/s interface can be reported as 12.5MB/s interface (100,000,000bits/8 = 12,500,000bytes) which is still base10 but the amount of bytes transferred has to be base2 because that is how blinking file sizes are calculated. The size of a file has always been base2 and so this nonsense of reporting disk space in base10 will only lead to discrepancies between the amount of space available and how many files you are dump on it. That stupid IEC standard is at complete odds with the way computers operate. I don't want to have to miscalculate just because tools started following stupidity and gave me numbers that were rounded up or down. Take this MB/Mib nonsense and stuff it. As a system administrator, I am having NONE of it. Have you read the actual references we've been providing? Would you mind providing some of your own if you disagree? This is not just the IEC promoting consistent use of the metric system - it is most of the relevant standards bodies. The world doesn't care that some system admins got used to a bad idea when it was in vogue for a short while in the overall history of the metric system. Users buy disks that list decimal multiples on the box, and are pissed when the system reports it as a smaller number. There are more users who want the world to agree on what the prefix M means, than sysadmins who want to redefine the metric system. Too bad it took over a decade (two?) before someone tried to sort out that misuse of the metric system. And they still have got nowhere after a decade too. Looks like the computing world don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Typical eh? E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#Software The binary convention is supported by standardization bodies and technical organizations such as IEEE, CIPM, NIST, and SAE.[4][2][5][58] The new binary prefixes have also been adopted by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) as the harmonization document HD 60027-2:2003-03.[59] This document will be adopted as a European standard.[60] Yawn. Please go rap something like the UNIX definition. As described elsewhere on that page, with pictures of labels and reference, files have been described with both properly labeled decimal multiples, and with mislabled binary multiples over time. The insanity must stop, and imagining that people will prefer a system where you transmit at 1 MB/s for one second and end up with . Saying that having 8 bits in a byte affects these arguments makes no sense to me. I bet most users and consumers don't even know how many bits are in a byte, and would see no reason to change what the prefixes mean based on it. Likewise, just pointing out these bodies makes no sense to me. Get this into the POSIX standard and then I'd be happy as a fish in water. Except for the part where I have to talk like a frog. Gribbit. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Benjamin, Benjamin Drung wrote: Hi, I hope this mailing list is the right place to discuss the problem. No, I now feel old because of your post. There is currently an inconsistency with units across the Ubuntu desktop. Some applications (such as gvfs) use legacy units, such as a 1024-byte kilobyte. Others (such as System Monitor) use international standard units, such as a 1000-byte kilobyte. Ubuntu should decide its units philosophy and apply it consistently across the desktop. Details: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-unit-consistency/ [looks up links] Ubuntu should use following convention: k- = 1,000, M- = 1,000,000, ... Ki- = 1,024, Mi- = 1,048,576, ... Here are some pro arguments: * The users want it. Look at brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/4114/ http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/17839/ * The Linux kernel uses it (man units). * It is standardised. * It would avoid ambiguity and consumer confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#Consumer_confusion Yeah, yeah. I guess I now know how an old dog feels. /me goes off to practice saying: kibibyte, megibyte, gibibyte, tebibyte. /me swats the first bee he sees. /me uses a GNOME as a decoy for the angry bees coming after him. /me gets a stiff jaw. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Neal McBurnett wrote: On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 09:23:25AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: Remco [2009-06-01 5:15 +0200]: I have a file here of 701.2 MB, which is 735270912 bytes. Now, if it really *were* 701.2 MB, then it would be 70120 bytes. So that's clearly base 2, which should be MiB. Indeed this is a bug which we should fix. It should say 735.3 MB. While that may be true, the most useful thing about base 10 is that normal humans can actually understand it. We cannot calculate using a binary number system. Base 2 is not useful for anything, except sometimes in programming. I'm still inclined to keep the exception for RAM size, though, since they consistently come in multiples of MiB/GiB. Everything else should use MB/GB, though. I agree. More details and discussion are at this ifconfig bug report, which came to the same conclusion: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/net-tools/+bug/240073 The interface speed in base10 yes. The number of bytes transferred, NO, because that is and has always been base2. You are barking up the wrong tree with regard to ifconfig's report on RX and TX bytes. Your beloved bit_rate page is only for interface speed. So a 100mbit/s interface can be reported as 12.5MB/s interface (100,000,000bits/8 = 12,500,000bytes) which is still base10 but the amount of bytes transferred has to be base2 because that is how blinking file sizes are calculated. The size of a file has always been base2 and so this nonsense of reporting disk space in base10 will only lead to discrepancies between the amount of space available and how many files you are dump on it. That stupid IEC standard is at complete odds with the way computers operate. I don't want to have to miscalculate just because tools started following stupidity and gave me numbers that were rounded up or down. Take this MB/Mib nonsense and stuff it. As a system administrator, I am having NONE of it. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Nils Kassube wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: That stupid IEC standard is at complete odds with the way computers operate. I don't want to have to miscalculate just because tools started following stupidity and gave me numbers that were rounded up or down. Take this MB/Mib nonsense and stuff it. As a system administrator, I am having NONE of it. Why do you refuse to learn something new? Ha! Why should I learn something that is NOT STANDARD? Yap all you like about IEC and whoever else but until this thing is consistent not only across all Linux distributions but also across other operating systems like the BSDs, Mac OS X, members of the UNIX family (Solaris, OpenSolaris, AIX) and Windows I am not having any of it. A bunch of academics gets together and says, no, you cannot call that whatever, call it crumbybyte and nobody has paid much attention for the last decade. Great. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Lars Wirzenius wrote: to, 2009-05-28 kello 23:23 +0200, Benjamin Drung kirjoitti: There is currently an inconsistency with units across the Ubuntu desktop. Some applications (such as gvfs) use legacy units, such as a 1024-byte kilobyte. Others (such as System Monitor) use international standard units, such as a 1000-byte kilobyte. Ubuntu should decide its units philosophy and apply it consistently across the desktop. Ubuntu has, pretty much, decided on base-10 kilobytes. This is wrong in imho. RAM comes in multiples of 1024. Network throughput is also in multiples of 1024. Disk storage is expressed in multiples of 1024 under any operating system. base-10 kilobytes/kilobits/whateverbytes/whateverbits are only used by disk manufacturers (hence the 'discrepancy' between that the label on the disk says and what the operating system says) and misconceptions of certain network equipment manufacturers (eg: 100megabit/1000megabit) being base-10. Each block on disk remains 512 bits (half a proper kilobyte) and so going for base-10 kilobytes requires translation while using proper kilobytes requires no translation. base-10 kilobytes/megabytes/gigabytes have no place in software. They belong solely on hard disk labels along with their footnote indicating that they are the wrong kilobyte/megabyte/gigabyte definition. A thought: Quite a number of programs need to convert sizes and other amounts into units suitable for the user. While this is reasonably easy to do (unless you want to be fancy), it's silly to duplicate the code everywhere. Wouldn't it be sensible to add some functions to, say, glib to do this? Something like: char *unit_format_time(double seconds); char *unit_format_filesize(long long bytes); unit_format_time(1) would return 1 s unit_format_filesize(1024) would return, depending on user preferences and software context, 1 kB 24 bytes, 1 kilobyte, or 1 KiB (user could indicate preference for power-of-2 kilobytes). Such functions could be made fancy to allow things like unit_format_filesize(1500) returning either 1.5 kilobytes or 1 kB 500 B, depending on the number of significant digits desired. Take that up with the GlibC guys and/or the C/C++ standards body if you wish and I personally do not want to see any distribution specific library of such functions and the resulting distribution specific patches of packages to use that library. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Sunday 31 May 2009 9:12:37 pm Christopher Chan wrote: Disk storage is expressed in multiples of 1024 under any operating system. base-10 kilobytes/kilobits/whateverbytes/whateverbits are only used by disk manufacturers (hence the 'discrepancy' between that the label on the disk says and what the operating system says) and misconceptions of certain network equipment manufacturers (eg: 100megabit/1000megabit) being base-10. Are you sure? Usually I see Windows users in #ubuntu complaining that Ubuntu only sees 112GB of their 120GB drive while Windows sees all 120GB. This then results in an explanation that no no, see Ubuntu says GiB, not GB, and that little i in there means it's Gibibytes which the IEEE has decided means 1024- based, not 1000-based which is Gigabytes and the way the manufacturer measures so that they can give you fewer Gibibytes and pretend it's just as many. Rubbish. Properties on the C: Drive of one Windows computer reports: Capacity: 62,915,133,440 bytes 58.5GB Do you want to guess what might be on the label? FYI, different disk manufacturers claiming similar amounts of disk space will actually give you different amounts of disk space. That is, not all 60GB disks are the same unless from the same manufacturer and the same model at that too. That has been the case for years and only recently have I heard this nonsense of base10 whateverbyte units in stuff other than misleading but covered my behind disk labels. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Remco wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: RAM comes in multiples of 1024. Network throughput is also in multiples of 1024. Disk storage is expressed in multiples of 1024 under any operating system. base-10 kilobytes/kilobits/whateverbytes/whateverbits are only used by disk manufacturers (hence the 'discrepancy' between that the label on the disk says and what the operating system says) and misconceptions of certain network equipment manufacturers (eg: 100megabit/1000megabit) being base-10. Bit rate is measured in base 10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate Okay, you are right there...bit rates and reported throughput in bytes are actually different so there is no misconception about network equipment. 1000mbits = 12.5 MB/s. I, therefore, stand by my statement that software has always (or had as it now seems that new software is no longer following conventions of the past) been base2. Each block on disk remains 512 bits (half a proper kilobyte) and so going for base-10 kilobytes requires translation while using proper kilobytes requires no translation. base-10 kilobytes/megabytes/gigabytes have no place in software. They belong solely on hard disk labels along with their footnote indicating that they are the wrong kilobyte/megabyte/gigabyte definition. Base 10 is easier to calculate for humans. Try calculating the sum of 754 MiB and 1.42 GiB without using a calculator. I did not know that people care about doing that nowadays. You are bound to have left over space if you assume 1000 instead of 1024 anyway. So are you going to try to express amounts of RAM in base10 too? You are guaranteed to not have nice and easily identifiable base2 related numbers of 16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,etc and additions of those. 768MB of RAM anybody? If the conversion is done properly by Nautilus, it should be no problem. At the moment, Nautilus lies to us: it talks about MBs, while in fact they are those pesky MiBs. Stop changing age old conventions. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
So, what does KDE do? Crash. Any KDE users running something stable? My upgrade to Karmic seems to have broken things. Was on Inteprid with the 4.2 backport. But I use Firefox/Thunderbird/Pidgin/OO and I can live with the odd scroll bars...not crashing on me..at least I have not encountered any yet. Kubuntu users are not at all happy with the Kubuntu team's decision to release a kubuntu with not quite ready KDE 4.x (as the KDE team themselves have clearly stated) and no choice of using the mature KDE 3.5.x desktop as recommended by the KDE team. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Sunday 31 May 2009 11:51:16 pm Christopher Chan wrote: That has been the case for years and only recently have I heard this nonsense of base10 whateverbyte units in stuff other than misleading but covered my behind disk labels. The IEEE decided nearly a decade ago that instead of redefining the SI units (which were base 10 long before the invention of digital computers), we should have our own prefixes for 1024-based numbering schemes. Oh did something like that happen? Too bad no operating system before and after ever paid attention to that. Unless Ubuntu wants to be the first oddball. -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Monday 01 June 2009 12:13:43 am Christopher Chan wrote: So, what does KDE do? Crash. Any KDE users running something stable? My upgrade to Karmic seems to have broken things. Was on Inteprid with the 4.2 backport. But I use Firefox/Thunderbird/Pidgin/OO and I can live with the odd scroll bars...not crashing on me..at least I have not encountered any yet. Kubuntu users are not at all happy with the Kubuntu team's decision to release a kubuntu with not quite ready KDE 4.x (as the KDE team themselves have clearly stated) and no choice of using the mature KDE 3.5.x desktop as recommended by the KDE team. Recommends where? Feel free to take this up on the Kubuntu list. There was a thread on this very topic. I hereby quote what Dotan Cohen said in one of his posts: That is a distro issue, not a KDE issue. Be mad, but at *buntu, not at KDE. KDE still offers KDE 3.5.10 for download, and still calls it the more mature version: http://kde.org/download/ And note that I said *Karmic* as in, I'm running Alpha 1, not a stable release of Kubuntu. KDE 4.2.2 has been quite stable on Jaunty (*shrug* backports are never guaranteed to work). It's 4.3 (which is still in development) which is unstable. :-D There was a lot of screaming and yelling about even 4.2.3 :-D As for me, I am going to scream and yell about the lack of a kiosktool in 4.x -- 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: Ubuntu Desktop Unit Consistency (LP: #369525)
Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2009-06-01 kello 09:12 +0800, Christopher Chan kirjoitti: Take that up with the GlibC guys and/or the C/C++ standards body if you wish and I personally do not want to see any distribution specific library of such functions and the resulting distribution specific patches of packages to use that library. The point, of course, would be to do this upstream, not just in Ubuntu. Phew. Whether the free software world standardizes on base-2, base-10, or whatever-the-user-chooses, it would simplify things to have the formatting in one place, so there's only one place to configure it. Hence, the dedicated (sub)library. Heh. Good luck changing du, ls, df, yada yada to anything other than base2 upstream. I guess KDE is the better desktop afterall. They are only half as mad as the GNOME chums. Time to look at ICEWM. -- 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
[Fwd: Re: [rfc] improving 32bit user performance/experience...]
---BeginMessage--- I challenge anyone to find someone using Ubuntu 8.10/9.04 on a processor which doesn't support the full i586 instruction set (eg i386/i486 or something with incomplete i586 support). i586 binaries should be only installed on actual Pentium computers. Every other subsequent cpu's architecture all handle i486 or i686 and above better than they would handle i586 tuned binaries. The Mandrake business of releasing i586 is plain dumb and only relevant to actual Pentium processors. All older VIA processors, AMD Geode procs and so on support the full i586 instruction set, which including MMX instructions and registers, which itself can provide a good win. You might find that i586 specific optimization will actually be slower on those processors than i486 optimization. Have you done a test at all? Also, even if 1% of the users use i586, we can allow instruction scheduling for deeper pipelines (with eg -mtune=i686) for the other 99%, generating fewer stalls on more modern processors - important with far higher core vs memory latency. This gains more for i686 than it loses for i586. Pentiums are so rare. I still have one but I sure am not going waste my time getting Pentium specific tuning. I think we have opportunity; Gentoo users tackled this problem in their way 10 years ago. I wonder how many had actual Pentiums and how many months it took to compile. -- sounder mailing list soun...@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder ---End Message--- -- 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: [Fwd: Re: [rfc] improving 32bit user performance/experience...]
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: I have no idea how Christopher sent his message, but KMail claims there's nothing to quote O_o :-D I did not hit reply all and then sent it to sounder by mistake. Then I forwarded that back here. My apologies. Anyway... He said, i586 binaries should be only installed on actual Pentium computers. Does that mean Pentium The Original, or does it include Pentium 2, 3, 4 and M? Pentium the Original. Pentium II, III are all based on the Pentium Pro (i686) and they have a different architecture than Pentium the Original. Pentium II is basically the Pentium Pro + MMX. Pentium 4 and M use the Netburst architecture which is again different from the Original. -- 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: [Fwd: Re: [rfc] improving 32bit user performance/experience...]
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Tuesday 19 May 2009 9:35:28 pm Christopher Chan wrote: Pentium the Original. Pentium II, III are all based on the Pentium Pro (i686) and they have a different architecture than Pentium the Original. Pentium II is basically the Pentium Pro + MMX. Pentium 4 and M use the Netburst architecture which is again different from the Original. Oh, wow, ancient then, yeah. I've got a Pentium 2 here. The most RAM it can take is 384MB. That *might* be enough RAM to run Xubuntu (mine has 192MB and technically GNOME can run, if it has about 1GB of swap, but then no other apps can). A motherboard from the days of the original Pentium would max out at...what? 128MB? Higher end ones can go up to 768MB. The Pentium uses Socket 7 and that is used by many others like the AMD K6-2, AMD K6-III, Cyrix..all these preferring i486 over i586 specific binaries and of course i686 over the rest but with gotchas with respect to MMX or 3DNow optimization/support. -- 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: Ubuntu Gaming Team
Danny Piccirillo wrote: In recognition of the value of FOSS gaming, the Ubuntu Gaming Team has been formed of mutual benefit to Ubuntu and FOSS gaming. As of today, the team is now open for anyone to join and participate in. Working towards improving FOSS games and developing its community will turn a significant barrier against Ubuntu adoption into an appealing reason to switch. The Ubuntu Gaming Team will work to address the obstacles hindering growth in FOSS gaming such as the need for effective distributed content management or significant investment in free content development in order to promote FOSS gaming through Ubuntu and Ubuntu through FOSS gaming. New ideas are encouraged and appreciated. So is not about taking in part in code development? FOSS gaming is important to Ubuntu as a lack of quality games is one of the most cited reasons preventing users from switching from Windows. Gamers, who currently feed off of the proprietary software model, represent a large and valuable user base. They will not even begin to gradually migrate to Ubuntu until their needs are met. They are very capable of understanding the ideological and technical benefits of using a free operating system like Ubuntu, and are often interested in switching, but higher value is placed on high quality gaming and the entire demographic will not budge until the pragmatic advantages of open source actualize through FOSS gaming. The team is dedicated to FOSS gaming, and will not push for commercial games on Linux as significant effort is already put into the development of Wine and pressuring video game publishers to port their work to Linux. Once FOSS gaming reaches its tipping point, code and content will be easily reused to foster the development of new games and innovative ideas in gaming. The Ubuntu Gaming Team fills a great need for an organized effort to support FOSS gaming. Or is it? Code will be easily reused... Is this team planning on doing things like set up a Ubuntu Wesnoth game server, create campaigns/scenarios for Wesnoth and then get Ubuntu users to use the Ubuntu game server/campaigns/scenarios and establish an Ubuntu gaming community? -- 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: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
I suggest you go do some reading before claiming things... E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair is a good start: Ethernet over twisted pair refers to the use of a pair of copper cables, twisted around each other, for the physical layer of an Ethernet network (that is, a network in which the Ethernet protocol is used in the data link layer). There are several different standards for a copper-based physical medium. The most widely used are 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, and 1000BASE-T (Gigabit Ethernet), running at 10 Mbit/s, 100 Mbit/s, and 1000 Mbit/s (1 Gbit/s) respectively. Please do point out where it says megabit = 1000x1000 bits and not 1024 x 1024 bits. I guess the only possible point of contention would be what appears to be 1000mbits = 1gbit. -- 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: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Thursday 26 March 2009 11:54:06 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: Yep, its 10 mbit internet I hope you mean 10 Mbit/s, not 10 mbit/s... ;) My connection is 10 mbit. Though the last ISP I had, the sales people tried to say 10 Mbit. They didn't know there's a factor of 8 difference. This is like that Verizon Math: $0.002 and 0.002¢ are totally the same thing...right? For crying out loud it's MB/Mb megaBYTE and mb megabit. 10Mbit and 10mbit are the same. It's 10Mbyte and 10Mbit that is different. -- 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: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Scott James Remnant wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:13 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) The latter isn't true either. Network speeds are generally in thousands of bits per second and multiples thereof. I don't know about you but I have never seen any network speed measured at anything other than the 1024 bits/bytes = 1 kilo and so on. The primary users of binary multiples is the RAM industry, since it's a fundamental multiple of how RAM works. I have only noticed disk manufacturers put a footnote out saying that their KB/GB/whatever is defined as 1000 and not 1024. Everybody else uses the standard unit of every 1024 for kilo/mega/giga/whatever. -- 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: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
I believe he's talking about network devices manufacturer's (ethernet, wifi, modem, etc), which do indeed bis Xbps. You seem to be referring to the software interfaces and GUIs for downloads/uploads, i.e., applications. They still do not use multiples of 1000 for kilo/mega/whatever. No network device manufacturer has used anything other than 1024 for kilo/mega/giga. The best you can say is that ISPs use 'meg' when referring to megabit or mixing up the use of bit or byte with whatever prefix when referring to broadband connections.. -- 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
