[07:31] <myownserver> What's the correct way to set up permissions for an apache server on Ubuntu for a PHP app to access and modify files?
[08:45] <rugby471> hi guys
[08:45] <rugby471> I was wondering if there are any objections to this bug
[08:45] <rugby471> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/387696
[08:46] <rugby471> otherwise I am going to try and get it in the LiveCD
[08:46] <rugby471> basically it just needs for libgsf-bin to be installed on the LiveCD
[08:46] <rugby471> (all it's dependencies are already installed)
[08:46] <rugby471> and we get thumbnails for the opendocument format
[09:13] <mac_v> rugby471: Bug 82724 how is the progress?
[09:14] <rugby471> mac_v: the bug says it is going to be fixed in gnome 2.28
[09:14] <rugby471> mac_v: so there is no point leaving it in the list of not taken bugs
[09:14] <mac_v> rugby471: yeah , that was what i was asking , are you fixing it as its going to be done in gnome 2.28
[09:15] <rugby471> mac_v: no I am not
[09:15] <mac_v> hehe got it ;p
[09:15] <rugby471> :-)
[09:15] <rugby471> sorry if I keep making a nuisance, I shall stop now :-)
[09:16] <mac_v> rugby471: no probs , just wanted to confirm no harm done :)
[09:16] <mac_v> rugby471: just got too busy with humanity/bugs, wasnt triaging papercuts ;p
[09:16] <rugby471> hehe
[09:19] <mac_v> rugby471: remind me when mpt pops in :)
[09:19] <rugby471> sure
[10:02] <tgpraveen> can you send/ receive files via bluetooth to any device? on 9.10
[10:02] <tgpraveen> using the gnome-bluetooth which is installed by default out of the box
[10:02] <tgpraveen> \in jaunty it was not possible
[19:17] <dzibo> hello
[19:17] <dzibo> can someone help me with
[19:17] <dzibo> x serever
[19:17] <dzibo> to start
[19:20] <chrisccoulson> dzibo - you want #ubuntu for support
[19:20] <dzibo> yes i tried but there are so many people
[19:21] <dzibo> i am writing but they are already trying to resolve some other problems
[19:21] <dzibo> and they may have no time to answer i dont know
[19:21] <mac_v> !topic > dzibo
[19:22] <mac_v> dzibo: also #ubuntu-x is for xorg problems
[19:22] <dzibo> thanx
[21:15] <dobey> johanbr: hrmm. I wonder if it's just compiled bad on 32-bit then. The installer from java.com doens't work for me either...
[21:17] <johanbr> I guess that's possible, but you'd think that would affect more people
[21:17] <johanbr> it used to be the other way around, that there were problems with the plugin on 64-bit
[21:18] <dobey> it probably doesn't seem like effects a lot of people, because not many sites use java in the browser any more
[21:20] <dobey> but it sucks that i have to boot into windows to use java in the browser...
[21:20] <dobey> sort of kills the whole cross-platform marketing
[22:04] <Ng> the gtk menu icon dropping change is an upstream thing, right?
[22:07] <chrisccoulson> Ng - yes
[22:07] <Ng> cool, I'll stop using gtk.ImageMenuItem() then :)
[22:08] <dobey> noooooo
[22:08] <dobey> Ng: that's not how it works
[22:08] <chrisccoulson> Ng - people can still switch them back on ;)
[22:08] <chrisccoulson> so you should carry on as normal AFAICT
[22:09] <dobey> upstream is just going through a period of fascist insanity :)
[22:09] <Ng> haha
[22:09] <chrisccoulson> dobey - i take it you don't like the decision ;)
[22:10] <chrisccoulson> i quite like the icon-less menu's, but icon-less buttons look truly hideous
[22:10] <dobey> chrisccoulson: no i don't like the 'decision'
[22:10] <dobey> which wasn't really a decision so much
[22:10] <dobey> it's like "some apps are broken, so let's just disable icons in all apps by default!"
[22:11] <Ng> hrm, I thought it was a usability driven decision
[22:11] <dobey> it's like using a 3 M-ton nuke to kill a mosquito swarm in the desert
[22:11] <dobey> Ng: no no
[22:12] <dobey> Ng: it was a "a couple artists decided to do it, since the app developers don't listen to them" sort of thing
[22:13] <Ng> hmm
[22:13] <MDC1> ohh! great - icon talk, i just have to toss some wood to the fire; why oh why did "we" remove the icons from the gnome-panel menu?
[22:14] <MDC1> it's great we're having a guide to help us deciding when to have icons and when to not - but i think that guide has to have a few exceptions
[22:14] <dobey> MDC1: we didn't. upstream did
[22:15] <dobey> what guide are you talking about?
[22:16] <MDC1> i think it was mpt "guide" (actuallt a blogpost stating when we should use icons and when not)
[22:16] <mac_v> dobey: but still we cant revert it right? its not too difficult a fix
[22:16] <chrisccoulson> MDC1 - i think those icons are coming back aren't they?
[22:16] <chrisccoulson> there's a bug report on b.g.o somewhere i think
[22:16] <MDC1> they are?
[22:16] <chrisccoulson> i think so
[22:17] <mac_v> can*
[22:17] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, the last bug i saw (and commented) was closed as fixed.. let me find it..
[22:17] <dobey> mac_v: it's a theme thing
[22:17] <dobey> MDC1: blog posts aren't guides.
[22:18] <MDC1> dobey, i know - but it seems that it is what people are using as reference..
[22:18] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322932
[22:18] <mac_v> dobey: no, i meant we could revert this setting > Bug #407621
[22:19] <chrisccoulson> hmmmmm
[22:19] <dobey> mac_v: it's a gconf key, which gnome-settings-daemon exports as a GtkSetting on the screen. you can change it on a theme-by-theme basis, although I think the gnome-settings-daemon thing overrides it
[22:19] <MDC1> dobey, that's another thing - i'm just talking about the gnome "main" menu - it looks really stupid with just some icons and menu items double the height of a normal menu
[22:20] <chrisccoulson> vuntz may know if those icons might come back or not
[22:20] <dobey> MDC1: i don't know what you're talking about
[22:20] <mac_v> dobey: yeah  , i know what it is and can revert it but for a lot it seems like a bug
[22:20] <dobey> all i know is icons are off by default in a lot of places upstream, because of some silly decisions
[22:21] <mac_v> +1^
[22:21] <dobey> mac_v: well yes, it's a rather horrible way to try and fix things
[22:21]  * dobey would rather people make stuff work first
[22:21] <MDC1> dobey, i can understand the decision and mostly respect it BUT not in the case of the gnome panel menu
[22:23] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, did you have another bug about the gnome menu icons?
[22:23] <chrisccoulson> MDC1 - no, that was the one i was thinking of
[22:23] <andreasn> dobey, didn't we try to get people to reduce icon usage for like 5 years straight now, and that approach didn't really work
[22:23] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, so we're screwed?
[22:23] <andreasn> apparenly this one did, and no bombs in my post box yet!
[22:24] <chrisccoulson> MDC1 - i don't know, i'm not really in a position to answer that ;)
[22:24] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, who should i ask?
[22:24] <dobey> andreasn: uhm, this didn't fix the problem
[22:25] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, http://www.mejlamej.nu/broken.png <-- don't tell me this doesn't look broken?!
[22:25] <chrisccoulson> MDC1 - see my earlier comment about who might know about this. he will probably see the scrollback at some point and then you might get an answer^^^
[22:26] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, vuntz? mpt?
[22:26] <chrisccoulson> MDC1 - i'm not disagreeing that it looks broken now, and i hope it will change
[22:26] <mac_v> andreasn: why not try to reduce the icons in gnome
[22:26] <chrisccoulson> MDC1 - yes
[22:26] <MDC1> chrisccoulson, great - someone understand me :-)
[22:26] <dobey> hrmm, i would totally paste a link to a clip from The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which is totally appropriate and describes exactly how this icon 'fix' works, but i can't find the clip on youtube :(
[22:26] <mac_v> andreasn: then people will use less
[22:27] <dobey> mac_v: we've done that
[22:27] <dobey> mac_v: and then we just end up with distributors putting more crap in their own themes anyway
[22:27] <andreasn> compared to how it was 4 years ago, there are like 300 less icons in there
[22:27] <mac_v> i dont think we have done enough
[22:28] <mac_v> dobey: i mean reduce this list > http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-naming-spec/icon-naming-spec-latest.html#guidelines
[22:28] <dobey> mac_v: are you kidding?
[22:28] <andreasn> it might also be partly a design philosophy thing, I tend to get the reaction that "the more the merrier" from certain app developers
[22:28] <mac_v> if we are not going to show the icons for half of those why have them?
[22:28] <andreasn> and well, the opposite isn't better either
[22:29] <dobey> andreasn: yes, well app developers are like kids in a candy store
[22:29] <dobey> andreasn: give them a gumdrop and they want the whole damn store
[22:29] <dobey> andreasn: the current 2.27 is just as bad as having too many icons
[22:29] <dobey> now we don't have enough by default
[22:30]  * mac_v has no objections to having as many icons as possible ;p
[22:32] <andreasn> I like the clean feeling, but I guess I'm kind of crazy when it comes to that :) I tend to prefer minimalistic stuff
[22:33] <dobey> my desktop was clean before
[22:33] <mac_v> lol^
[22:33] <dobey> now it's clean and harder for me to find stuff
[22:34] <mac_v> andreasn: if the main goal is to *not* show all the icons in the guidelines? why are they in the guidelines? why not just remove the ones which are decided to not be used?
[22:35] <mac_v> its like a strip tease!
[22:35] <dobey> mac_v: what are you talking about?
[22:35] <mac_v> dobey: the gconf setting
[22:35] <dobey> no, what guidelines are you talking about?
[22:35] <mac_v> http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-naming-spec/icon-naming-spec-latest.html#guidelines
[22:36] <dobey> you are confused about what that is :)
[22:36] <mac_v> hmm... :(
[22:36] <andreasn> the idea was bounced around a bit, and mpt suggested it at some point, but we ended up doing it that way
[22:36] <dobey> the icon naming spec does not provide guidelines for the user interface
[22:36] <andreasn> mac_v, I guess we could do it for the next release, if someone patches every single application
[22:37] <dobey> sigh
[22:37] <andreasn> the patch will be pretty quick, the discussion(s) for including it would go on for maybe 2-3 years
[22:37] <andreasn> :)
[22:37] <mac_v> ;p
[22:37] <andreasn> mac_v, you mean the bug report about the gnome hig addition?
[22:38] <mac_v> i didnt understand? which bug?
[22:40] <andreasn> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588668 ?
[22:40] <mac_v> dobey: oh.. that i understood , that those are the guidelines. but what i'm saying is the UI should have been driven to update the list
[22:41] <dobey> mac_v: the problem is that gnome, kde, and xfce all think they need different sets of icons, and need to display them in different ways
[22:41] <mac_v> ah!
[22:41] <dobey> mac_v: nobody wants to agree with anyone
[22:41] <mac_v> ;)
[22:41] <dobey> mac_v: otherwise we'd have sane HIG that works for all the desktops
[22:41] <dobey> and everything would work nicely together
[22:41] <dobey> but alas
[22:41] <dobey> we are open source, and everyone has to do it their own way, because obviously it's better
[22:43] <mac_v> andreasn: oh this bug ... i remember  , but nothing seems to have moved forward :(
[22:44]  * mac_v for now has icons set to TRUE , until a sane decision is made
[22:46] <andreasn> why did I ever get involved in this bug? I want to work on bugs that noone cares about :/
[22:47] <dobey> andreasn: people care about icons. get used to it :)
[22:47] <andreasn> maybe I should become a Bar Pianist
[22:48] <andreasn> playing the piano to drunk people, I think I would like that
[22:50] <andreasn> anyway, it might have been a crazy thing to do, but I kind of like that we do stupid, crazy things sometimes, because the opposite would be really bad
[22:50] <andreasn> not doing anything at all
[22:50] <dobey> wouldn't the opposite be doing non-stupid crazy things? :)
[22:53] <mac_v> chrisccoulson: hehe we had a mid air collision ;)
[22:53] <dobey> i really wish java worked right on karmic
[22:57] <mac_v> andreasn: i'v seen a bar pianist get hit on the head with a bottle ;p
[22:57] <andreasn> really? sounds fun :)
[22:58] <mac_v> andreasn: he kept planning some song which reminded the guy of an old girlfriend !
[22:58] <andreasn> heh
[22:59] <dobey> but whatever
[22:59] <dobey> later