[00:18] <BUGabundo> w...t....helll
[00:18] <BUGabundo> opening FF 3.6 restarted metacity/compiz??
[00:29] <chrisccoulson> WM bug ;)
[00:32] <BUGabundo> I'm no bug :|
[00:42] <BUGabundo> asac: http://adblockplus.org/blog/impact-of-adblock-plus-on-startup-time-revisited fyi
[02:38] <bobby> 3.7a5pre opening bug still hasn't been fixed :(, 3.6.6 can't stop crashing either :'(
[02:38] <ddecator> xr1.9.3 still hasn't built (last i checked), i haven't had any issues with 3.6.6
[02:40] <bobby> Lucky, it just keeps crashing on me :s
[02:40] <bobby> But xr 1.9.3 should hopefully be fixed tomorrow
[02:41] <bobby> I'm also looking forward to the FF4 A1 later this month :)
[02:41] <ddecator> is that when it will be officially released? nice :)
[02:41] <ddecator> and FF 3.6.6 could be crashing due to an extension. i'm using a clean profile atm
[02:41] <bobby> Yeah, that is what the roadmap said, hopefully the A1 by the end of the month
[02:41] <bobby> And I bet it is an extension
[02:42] <bobby> But 3.7a5pre should be fixed hopefully tomorr
[02:42] <bobby> tomorrow, right now I'm just running WCG... Not getting much done on my whimpy laptop though
[02:42] <bobby> I wonder what FF5 will look like...
[02:42] <ddecator> assuming micah isn't waiting for me to fix it :p
[02:42] <bobby> :P I wonder...
[02:43] <bobby> I should probably get to sleep... I guess I'll need it for finals next week
[02:43] <ddecator> i said i could do it this weekend, but not sure if that means i'm supposed to do it this weekend or if he's gonna fix it before then...
[02:43] <ddecator> haha, alright, cya bobby
[02:43] <bobby> Why not fix it right now?
[02:43] <bobby> cya
[02:43] <ddecator> bobby: writing a 10-page paper
[02:43] <ddecator> dang
[03:03] <micahg> ddecator: what did I miss?
[03:03] <ddecator> micahg: nothing really. are you going to take care of xr1.9.3 or am i supposed to do that this weekend?
[03:03] <micahg> ddecator: nah, I'll fix it now
[03:03] <ddecator> micahg: ok, thanks :)
[03:03] <ddecator> that was pretty much it
[03:04] <micahg> if the last upload was working I'd wait, but it's totally broke ATM
[03:04] <ddecator> yah i was hoping you wouldn't wait. i know a lot of people want 3.7 to work again :p
[03:07]  * micahg hopes this doesn't take too long
[03:09] <micahg> ddecator: I don't have time for full builds, so I'm fixing the patches but don't guarantee it won't FTBFS
[03:10] <ddecator> micahg: that's fine, still progress
[05:12] <LLStarks> gfd.
[05:12] <micahg> LLStarks: gfd?
[05:12] <LLStarks> firefox is locking up the entire system as an untinteruptable process
[05:12] <LLStarks> god ****ing dammit
[05:12] <micahg> LLStarks: which version?
[05:12] <LLStarks> 3.6.6
[05:13] <micahg> you're the second person to report that
[05:13] <LLStarks> causes other processes to become uninteruptable
[05:13] <LLStarks> any way to deal without save for a reboot?
[05:14] <micahg> killall -11 firefox-bin?
[05:14] <LLStarks> i've been doing regular killall
[05:14] <LLStarks> no dice.
[05:14] <LLStarks> will that work>
[05:15] <micahg> LLStarks: -11 is SIGSEGV
[05:15] <micahg> should popup apport
[05:15] <micahg> if  you have it enabled
[05:15] <LLStarks> just locked up again
[05:15] <LLStarks> as we spoke
[05:15] <LLStarks> doesn't kill it
[05:15] <micahg> LLStarks: try -9 as a last resort
[05:16] <LLStarks> nothing
[05:16] <LLStarks> everything else is now locking up
[05:16] <LLStarks> you still there michahg?
[05:16] <micahg> LLStarks: yes
[05:17] <micahg> LLStarks: ddecator seems to have it working and suggested a new profile
[05:17] <LLStarks> ugh
[05:17] <micahg> LLStarks: which version of ubuntu
[05:17] <LLStarks> os[Linux 2.6.35-2-generic i686] distro[Ubuntu "maverick" 10.10] cpu[2 x Genuine Intel(R) CPU           T2050  @ 1.60GHz (GenuineIntel) @ 800MHz] mem[Physical: 2.0GB, 82.9% free] disk[Total: 123.0GB, 21.1% free] video[Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller] sound[HDA-Intel - HDA Intel]
[05:17] <LLStarks> \
[05:17] <micahg> LLStarks: no guarantees with maverick until the graphics stack settles
[05:17] <LLStarks> i've held back
[05:18] <micahg> oh
[05:18] <micahg> hmm
[05:18] <micahg> ddecator: do you know if the otehr guy was running maverick or lucid w/3.6.6.
[05:18] <LLStarks> chrome won't launch now
[05:18] <micahg> LLStarks: could be another system lib bump that broke it
[05:18] <LLStarks> <__<
[05:18] <LLStarks> DAMN IT MIDORI IS DOWN!
[05:18]  * micahg thought that was fixed with the last upload
[05:20] <LLStarks> can't even use the terminal
[05:20] <micahg> LLStarks: I suggest checking in +1
[05:20] <LLStarks> ?
[05:20] <micahg> #ubuntu+1 to see if it's a maverick issue
[05:20] <LLStarks> i want to ppa-purge so badly right now.
[05:20] <LLStarks> but i can't
[05:26] <micahg> LLStarks: in 4 more hrs bugabundo will be back
[05:31] <LLStarks> probably 2.6.35 doing this
[05:32] <LLStarks> have had endless problems with rc1 and rc2
[05:32] <ddecator> micahg: no idea, i think lucid but not sure
[05:32] <micahg> this is why I wait for the kernel to be stable before upgrading :)
[05:37] <ddecator> oh, what's that? a xulrunner-1.9.3 update? why thank you :)
[05:38] <ddecator> T_T
[05:39] <ddecator> well so much for that..
[07:04] <ddecator> woot, webm support should be in the firefox trunk once it's working again
[09:14]  * ddecator hugs FF 3.7
[09:19] <ddecator> and webm works :D
[09:22] <ddecator> buggy though..
[09:23] <ddecator> video plays, and the audio plays twice. pausing stops the video and one of the audios...still, progress
[10:34] <fta> ddecator, works fine in chromium, even 720p
[20:04] <fta> jdstrand, thanks for pushing chromium forward in lucid. about you're comment regarding the other fixes that i putted in, the idea is to keep the package manageable, and so, limit the differences between distros
[20:05] <jdstrand> fta: right. I understand, but typically a security update won't incude such things. I just wanted to make sure the SRU team was aware of the new stuff
[20:05] <micahg> fta: with mozilla stuff, we generally minimize the packaging changes between updates
[20:06] <micahg> fta: unless it's a major version update
[20:06] <gnomefreak> xul191 FTBFS?
[20:06] <fta> jdstrand, how do you propose to land the fixes then? the lp bugs filed by users..
[20:06] <micahg> gnomefreak: where?
[20:07] <gnomefreak> micahg: dont know but everything except xul191 and tb30 were not updated
[20:07] <gnomefreak> tb3 even
[20:07] <fta> micahg, sure, but with continuous upgrades, you have to let fixes in at some point, if not in security upgrades, then when?
[20:07] <micahg> gnomefreak: no TB3 updates last night
[20:08] <gnomefreak> xul192 and 193 and both versions of ff landed
[20:08] <ddecator> thankfully
[20:08] <gnomefreak> micahg: ah that makes it a week now?
[20:08] <micahg> fta: well, packaging changes unrelated to code changes, we wait for major versions
[20:08] <gnomefreak> Candidate: 3.0.6~hg20100530r4865+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1
[20:08] <jdstrand> fta: well, normally those things are done via SRU. In this case, I alerted the SRU team to those issues/bugs, and therefore the followup/testing should be commented on in those bugs
[20:08] <fta> micahg, hm. i want to unbreak users asap
[20:08] <gnomefreak> Installed: 3.0.6~hg20100530r4865+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1
[20:09] <gnomefreak> week and 1/2
[20:09] <micahg> fta: sure, in the devel release, you can do what you want, in the stable release, it should be limited to what is needed for the update
[20:10] <jdstrand> fta: a note in each of those bugs saying that the package is in -proposed and asking for testing would probably be fine (and subscribing ubuntu-sru and sru-verification)
[20:10] <micahg> gnomefreak: they've been trying to get TB3.1RC2 out the door
[20:10] <jdstrand> the sru team may do that for you... they may not (I don't know)
[20:11] <gnomefreak> micahg: k
[20:12] <fta> jdstrand, i'm open to suggestions but from my pov, there's no real difference between security updates and regular updates, besides the changelog. I can delay some changes until the stable channel jumps, but that could mean months without the corresponding fixes
[20:12] <fta> all those fixes land early in the PPA channels, so we have feedbacks very early
[20:13] <jdstrand> fta: from an archive perspective, there is a difference. if the patchset is only from upstream and for security, there is one bug and one verification. adding all the other stuff justs adds more bugs to be verified
[20:14] <jdstrand> fta: eg, with mozilla, you do all your packaging in the devel release, and then freeze the debian/ directory for each stable release
[20:14] <jdstrand> fta: then you just drop the new tarball in and tweek the changelog and you should largely be good to go
[20:14] <jdstrand> fta: if you are going to fix packaging bugs along the way, the SRU team needs to verify them
[20:14] <jdstrand> (ie, one debian/ directory)
[20:15] <jdstrand> fta: the choice is really yours (and whoever will come along to help with chromium)
[20:16] <jdstrand> fta: fwiw, I also blogged about the chromium in lucid-proposed, so hopefully more people will provide feedback and it'll happen faster this time
[20:20] <fta> jdstrand, i have to play with 34 bzr branches to maintain that single package with all its channels and backports, not to mention all the deps, so if someone can do better, i'm sure willing to hand over the releases and stick to daily/trunk
[20:21] <jdstrand> fta: I'm not suggesting you do anything differently or that you aren't doing a good job. I merely said what the mozilla team does and that if you are going to fix packaging bags in a stable release, those need SRUs. that is all
[20:21] <jdstrand> s/bags/bugs/
[20:22] <jdstrand> this isn't me, this is Ubuntu policy
[20:22] <jdstrand> if you want to deviate from Ubuntu policy, it has to be brought up with the TB and a MicroReleaseException granted (as discussed with the last update)
[20:25] <fta> i hope someone will help with that at some point, i always had troubles following that policy
[20:27] <fta> i really wonder how the next upload will work then, because i've dropped half of d/rules yesterday..
[20:27] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: when you get around to updating the script please let me know. I will try to get what i have to fix on it in near futer tonight or this weekend
[20:29] <micahg> fta: maybe take the current lucid package and push debian to a branch
[20:29] <BUGabundo> gnomefreak: update what?
[20:29] <BUGabundo> that's gonna happen on next cycle :)
[20:30] <fta> micahg, seems you can drop debhelper from umd: http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/ppa-dashboard/ubuntu-mozilla-daily--ppa.html
[20:30] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: the zsync script you said you had to update it for bash
[20:30] <BUGabundo> well, I may have too
[20:30] <BUGabundo> if I get time too
[20:30] <fta> micahg, there's already a .maverick and .lucid branch in lp
[20:30] <BUGabundo> I'm not the best bash writter I know :)
[20:30] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: i dont see where it sasves the images to
[20:31] <fta> micahg, i just dropped the testsuite, to it builds in 1h instead of 3
[20:31] <micahg> fta: I still don't have rights to umd
[20:31] <fta> -to+so
[20:31] <BUGabundo> gnomefreak: .
[20:31] <fta> oh
[20:31] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: ok
[20:32] <gnomefreak> i will test when the images make it back to daily page
[20:32] <fta> !info debhelper hardy
[20:32] <ubot4> fta: debhelper (source: debhelper): helper programs for debian/rules. In component main, is optional. Version 6.0.4ubuntu1 (hardy), package size 503 kB, installed size 1260 kB
[20:32] <fta> !info debhelper hardy-updates
[20:32] <ubot4> fta: 'hardy-updates' is not a valid distribution: hardy, jaunty, karmic, lucid, maverick
[20:33] <micahg> fta: hardy is at debhelper 6
[20:33] <fta> then it's bug in my dashboard
[20:33] <micahg> that's why I can't rewrite all the mozilla stuff for debhelper 7 until next year :)
[20:33] <fta> what do you want to rewrite?
[20:34] <micahg> fta: I think it's in the PPa
[20:34] <micahg> fta: the locales packages
[20:34] <fta> oh
[20:34] <micahg> they're at dh4 :)
[20:51] <fta> BUGabundo, do you see this when you open the ntp? http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium-ntp.ogv
[20:51] <BUGabundo> when I open what?
[20:51] <fta> new tab page
[20:51] <fta> the "+"
[20:52] <BUGabundo> no
[20:52] <BUGabundo> or if it does, its TOOOOO fast
[20:52] <BUGabundo> fta do you know http://code.google.com/p/mail-trends/ ?
[20:53] <fta> nope, but it looks nice
[20:54] <fta> hm, doesn't seem to happen with a fresh profile
[20:54] <bobby> Is it me, or is 3.7a5pre crashing a ton when loading flash pages?
[20:56] <gnomefreak> i thought 3.7 had the thing(forgot name) where it will not crash due to addons
[20:57] <gnomefreak> micahg: ^^^
[20:57] <fta> BUGabundo, n-m, found it. it's https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bpeohalpamaeaimliodkepkphdnhdidf
[20:57] <bobby> Well, it just turns dark for a few seconds, then it is fine
[20:58] <BUGabundo> gnomefreak: separate process
[20:58] <BUGabundo> fta COOL
[20:58]  * BUGabundo installs
[20:59] <micahg> gnomefreak: for the ones that are enabled
[20:59] <bobby> Yeah
[21:00] <gnomefreak> micahg: he stated 3.7 was crashing when loading a flash page
[21:00] <bobby> Flash 10.1rc7
[21:00] <micahg> is there a bug?
[21:01] <gnomefreak> bobby: is there a bug?
[21:01] <micahg> bobby: do you have a backtrace?
[21:01] <gnomefreak> thanks
[21:01] <bobby> No, not sure
[21:02] <bobby> The screen just darkens for several seconds, then it is fine
[21:02]  * micahg will be back later
[21:02] <gnomefreak> that isnt a crash ;)
[21:03] <bobby> What do you call it?
[21:03]  * gnomefreak smoke while i wait for 6 gigs to copy over
[21:04] <gnomefreak> bobby: crash == browser closes. what you are seeing is most likely the thing i cant recall the name of i mentioned above
[21:04] <bobby> Oh... I... See...
[21:04] <bobby> Okay, how about: Temporary browser freeze when loading pages with Flash
[21:04] <bobby> AKA: Pretty much every website on the internet
[21:06] <BUGabundo> fta COOL
[21:06]  * BUGabundo installs
[21:06] <BUGabundo> gnomefreak: you really should stop smoking
[21:06] <BUGabundo> and im not the kind of person that likes to tell ppl what they should do
[21:06] <bobby> ... I don't smoke, I can't even if I wanted to: I have asthma
[21:07] <BUGabundo> ehe gnomefreak aint the healthy horse either
[21:07] <bobby> >.< Sounds just like 3.7a5pre trying to load pages w/ Flash using Flash 10.1rc7
[21:08]  * gnomefreak still alive :)
[21:09] <bobby> You'll get emphysema, don't worry ;)
[21:09] <gnomefreak> bobby: 32 or 64bit? what version of flashplugin-installer is installed?
[21:10] <gnomefreak> bobby: you mean i dont have it?
[21:10] <gnomefreak> ;)
[21:10] <bobby> lol, I have 64 bit plugin
[21:10] <bobby> ;)
[21:11] <gnomefreak> bobby: that could be the problem. it works here on 32bit *-installer installed
[21:11] <Dimmuxx> there is no 64bit version of 10.1 yet afaik
[21:11] <bobby> Oh wait, nevermind. I just have the 10.1rc7, which I think is 32 bit only, let me check
[21:11] <bobby> Yeah, just remembered that :P
[21:11] <bobby> It removed the Flash Plugin too
[21:12] <gnomefreak> bobby: apt-cache policy flashplugin-installer please
[21:13] <gnomefreak> ill be here but i might not be at keyboard during this intermission of mine
[21:14]  * gnomefreak gets this feeling lockups are going to happen
[21:14] <bobby> flashplugin-installer:
[21:14] <bobby>   Installed: (none)
[21:14] <bobby>   Candidate: 10.0.45.2ubuntu1
[21:14] <bobby>   Version table:
[21:14] <bobby>      10.0.45.2ubuntu1 0
[21:14] <bobby>         500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid/multiverse Packages
[21:15] <gnomefreak> bobby: you are not using our plugin
[21:15] <gnomefreak> you are using flashes package more than likely
[21:15] <bobby> Ooooooh... Snap
[21:16] <bobby> But I didn't have this problem before 3.7a5pre's opening bug was fixed
[21:17] <bobby> I also had 10.1rc7 installed then too
[21:17] <bobby> 10.1rc7 hasn't been updated since either, so it has to be FF3.7a5
[21:18] <gnomefreak> bobby: himt install our version and see if it helps but mine works great here
[21:18] <bobby> Okay, I'll do that ;)
[21:18] <gnomefreak> bobby: for you to get updates for flash you have to redownload them
[21:19] <gnomefreak> and adobe is a pain in the ass with naming the tarballs. the name stays the same even if updated
[21:19] <Dimmuxx> I hope they will release an updated 64bit too today
[21:19] <gnomefreak> that is why our flash package gets errors about wong tarball or something likel that
[21:19] <bobby> Question: How do I remove 10.1?
[21:20] <gnomefreak> bobby: remove the .so you have in plugins
[21:20] <gnomefreak> to be exact on what dir i dont recall
[21:20] <gnomefreak> yay only 1 hour 34 minutes left
[21:21] <bobby> flash-plugin non-free right?
[21:21] <gnomefreak> you can run find to find the dir(s)
[21:21] <gnomefreak> bobby: flashplugin-installer
[21:21] <bobby> right
[21:22] <gnomefreak> not -nonfree
[21:22] <gnomefreak> that is still there as a dummy package for upgrades
[21:22] <gnomefreak> oh and there is a PPA with 64 bit flash
[21:23] <bobby> Okay, so how do I remove 10.1?
[21:23] <bobby> All I can do is disable it
[21:24] <gnomefreak> if you remove the *.so it will no longer be there. im not sure if our packag will pull it out or not. i suggest you look for the 64bit PPA
[21:24] <bobby> I just disabled 10.1, and have yours enabled
[21:24]  * gnomefreak switches between gnash and flash, i gave up on adobe years ago
[21:24] <bobby> Let's see
[21:25] <gnomefreak> using our package will also use nspluginwrapper IIRC that is why i keep teloling you to try the PPA version of 64
[21:25] <bobby> Okay, no more crashes, so I'm guessing it is something with the compatibility between 10.1 and 3.7ae
[21:25] <gnomefreak> bobby: hint flash 64 == very unstable
[21:26] <gnomefreak> that is why it hasnt been released but has been there since karmic dev cycle or before
[21:27] <bobby> Yeah, I tried 64bit flash on 9.10 a while back - HUGE mistake
[21:27] <bobby> Also used Gnash a while back - Almost as big a mistake
[21:27] <bobby> Gnash - I hate to say it - Is really unstable
[21:27] <gnomefreak> bobby: it will not be released any time soon so dont expect our repos to have it
[21:28] <bobby> Yeah, I don't expect it to
[21:28] <bobby> Okay, how do I completely remove 10.1, because it won't let me in the plugins manager, and it isn't in synaptic
[21:29] <Dimmuxx> 64bit flash is the most stable flash I've ever used
[21:29] <gnomefreak> Dimmuxx: your the only one :)
[21:29] <Dimmuxx> crashed once in 2 months
[21:29] <Dimmuxx> 32bit in linux/osx/windows crashed at least once a week
[21:30] <gnomefreak> 32 bit hasnt crashed here in >1 year (that suprises me) but my win version crashes alot
[21:30] <bobby> Anyone know the repository for 64bit flash off the top of your head?
[21:31] <gnomefreak> be back i need to read this :(
[21:32] <Dimmuxx> or it doesn't crash in linux but it stops working until you restart firefox once a week at least
[21:33] <bobby> What is the repository for 64bit flash?
[21:33] <ddecator> bobby: there is no official 64-bit flash in the repos
[21:33] <bobby> Are you serious?
[21:33] <bobby> I could have swore there was one when I used it on Karmic :s
[21:34] <ddecator> 64-bit flash for linux is still unstable, so the one in the repos is 32-bit with a wrapper that allows it to work on 64-bit
[21:34] <gnomefreak> nope only PPA or adobe
[21:34] <gnomefreak> but im still not here
[21:34] <bobby> Okay, how can I remove 10.1, can't do it in the plugin manager
[21:35] <ddecator> did you install it using the repo, or manually?
[21:35] <bobby> Manually :s
[21:36] <bobby> Okay, wait
[21:36] <ddecator> depends where you installed it :p
[21:36] <bobby> I just re-enabled 10.1, and it is working great again :)
[21:36] <ddecator> there you go :)
[21:37] <gnomefreak> it looks like its brandon sniders PPA but i keep locking up so search for him in launchpad.net
[21:37] <ddecator> gnomefreak: you're as bad as me at this "i'm away" thing
[21:38] <bobby> lol
[21:38] <bobby> Yeah, now for some reason it is great
[21:38]  * gnomefreak cant get up yet
[21:39] <gnomefreak> but search for him in launchpad also iut should be posted on the master bug for including 64bit in our repos
[21:39] <bobby> H
[21:39] <bobby> Hey you guys know that large Java applets take a good amount of time to load right?
[21:40] <bobby> My brother plays an online game called uh... Runecape or something like that, and it takes forever for the applet to load
[21:40] <bobby> I was trying to figure it out for him, and it took a little bit, and some clicking to get it to start loading
[21:41] <gnomefreak> java has always been slow and large (java-script is lighter im told) but you cnat always use both to do what you want
[21:41] <gnomefreak> ok now for real im away
[21:41] <bobby> oh, okay
[21:41] <bobby> Although, it did start running very well once it loaded
[21:44] <Dimmuxx> hmm it seems that adobe released 10.1 final instead of an updated 10
[21:45] <BUGabundo> it did?
[21:45] <bobby> Oh yeah, I noticed that
[21:45] <bobby> That was the default download for Linux, and I was like "WTF?"
[21:45] <Dimmuxx> I can't find any 64bit version though :/
[21:45] <bobby> It is from adobe labs :s
[21:46] <bobby> Again, Alpha quality
[21:46] <Dimmuxx> well they updated it last time there was a security bug
[21:47] <bobby> Yeah
[21:47] <bobby> Oh yeah, anyone else see the huge boost the JS engine is getting for FF4?
[21:47] <bobby> I heard it is getting some overhaul of epic proportions
[21:47] <bobby> I think it said something about taking elements from Google's V8 engine
[21:48] <bobby> Anyone know if that is true?
[21:48] <ddecator> yah, it's getting a huge overhaul
[21:48] <ddecator> jaeger monkey
[21:48] <gnomefreak> bobby: https://edge.launchpad.net/~brandonsnider/+archive/experimental-flash
[21:49] <gnomefreak> remove edge. if you dont run edge
[21:49] <Dimmuxx> Is jägermonkey really in the current nightly builds though?
[21:50] <ddecator> no
[21:50] <bobby> lol not
[21:50] <ddecator> it's still early in development
[21:51] <bobby> Yeah, the current engine is now behind Opera's and Chrome's... Safari is supposed to be faster, but from my experience it is pitifully slow, same with IE9 dev preview
[21:51] <Dimmuxx> oh I didn't read what you wrote properly bobby :P
[21:51] <bobby> rofl
[21:51] <Dimmuxx> I thought you said you experienced the boost already
[21:53] <bobby> >.<
[21:54] <bobby> And I got my powered by ubuntu stickers from System76 today, loving it - I know off topic, but I had to say so... Wish there was a "Powered by Firefox" sticker too :(
[22:02] <gnomefreak> i thought there was. i know they have a banner you can add to your website
[22:04] <bobby> No, no, I mean for my laptop :P
[22:05] <gnomefreak> they should have stickers as well
[22:05] <bobby> Hooray! Less than 5 hours left on my WCG application :D
[22:05] <bobby> Yeah, I'll look for some :P
[22:05] <gnomefreak> 3.7+Lp extreamly slow
[22:05] <bobby> What's Lp?
[22:05] <gnomefreak> launchpad
[22:06] <bobby> Oh no, that is the launchpad servers, not FF
[22:06] <gnomefreak> it be all the attachments on this bug
[22:06] <bobby> Yeah, Launchpad's servers have always been slow as heck for me
[22:06] <gnomefreak> bobby: 3.6 isnt this slow on same page
[22:07] <bobby> oh okay
[22:07] <gnomefreak> good all my attachments are there
[22:08] <gnomefreak> and my transfer is done. im running out of things to do now
[22:08] <gnomefreak> email can go to hell for another day or 4
[22:08] <bobby> How about make FF3.7a5 read my MIND!!!!!?
[22:09] <bobby> I mean, if we can take down IE (like we be doingz), we can probably get that done right?
[22:09]  * gnomefreak doesnt play with firefox anymore thankfully, but even the packages i maintained i havent had time to touch but sunbird used to read your mind when you asked it to
[22:09]  * gnomefreak took down IE already, i dont run it on anything
[22:10] <gnomefreak> :)
[22:10] <gnomefreak> there is a hack to remove it from windows safely
[22:10] <gnomefreak> s/is/was
[22:10] <bobby> IE8 = Slowest software made - EVER
[22:10] <bobby> IE9 isn't much better than what I used of it
[22:11] <bobby> Hey guyz, I've n0t1cd a pattern! Open source software is running much betterz than proprietaries st00fz!
[22:11]  * gnomefreak hasnt used IE in ~3-4 years
[22:12] <gnomefreak> ok brb wife is yelling at me, im going to hide
[22:12] <bobby> Yeah, I haven't used IE since I had to RE-INSTALL XP BECAUSE OF A F****** VIRUS and update it :(
[22:12] <bobby> My parents still insist on using Windows and IE for some reason :s
[22:12] <bobby> gnomefreak - lol
[22:19] <bobby> Anyone see the letter that 74 reps. sent to the FCC saying that they don't support net neutrality and an open and free internet?
[22:21] <bobby> gtg guys, cya later
[22:23]  * micahg doesn't suggest using the 64 bit PPA w/out a disclaimer about no updates/support
[22:23] <micahg> gnomefreak: ^^
[22:24] <micahg> gnomefreak: also, it's not supported by our team
[22:24] <gnomefreak> good point
[22:24] <gnomefreak> micahg: have you gotten adn y emails from admin@ubuntu.com?
[22:25] <gnomefreak> s/adn y/any
[22:25] <micahg> gnomefreak: not that I know of
[22:25] <gnomefreak> great this isnt looking good at all
[22:25] <micahg> \o/ we get a flash update soon :)
[22:26] <BUGabundo> humm http://www.youtube.com/webm
[22:27] <gnomefreak> oh great more breakage
[22:27] <BUGabundo> micahg: 10.1?
[22:27] <micahg> BUGabundo: no, 10.0.53
[22:28] <BUGabundo> ahh
[22:28] <BUGabundo> we are slow
[22:28] <micahg> why?
[22:29] <BUGabundo> Your average video speed at this location from May 12, 2010 to June 09, 2010 was 6.22 Mbps. http://www.youtube.com/my_speed
[23:02] <Dimmuxx> is it possible to use 32bit flash in 64bit firefox with OOPP yet or is the wrapper still needed?
[23:02] <gnomefreak> wrapper using our archive version
[23:02]  * gnomefreak be back
[23:14] <gnomefreak> ok cleaned up ML and i rejected the admin@ubuntu.com mails
[23:14] <gnomefreak> they are garbage emails
[23:14] <gnomefreak> ok gone for now
[23:15] <ddecator> Dimmuxx: i'm using the flash in the repos and lorentz works fine for me
[23:22] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: running the zsync script i get (no matter how i run it) gnomefreak@Development:~/scripts$ sudo sh maverick-zsync-iso.sh
[23:22] <gnomefreak> ionice: execvp failed: No such file or directory
[23:22] <gnomefreak> what is wrong with this
[23:22] <gnomefreak> with or without sudo same thing
[23:23] <micahg> gnomefreak: why not use testdrive?
[23:23] <BUGabundo> its not a script :S
[23:23] <gnomefreak> testdrive?
[23:23] <micahg> daily ISO testing
[23:23] <BUGabundo> sudo ionice -c3 zsync http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/maverick-desktop-amd64.iso.zsync
[23:23] <micahg> !info testdrive
[23:23] <BUGabundo> this should work
[23:23] <ubot4> micahg: testdrive (source: testdrive): run the daily Ubuntu ISO in a virtual machine. In component universe, is optional. Version 1.38-0ubuntu1 (lucid), package size 21 kB, installed size 104 kB
[23:23] <BUGabundo> attention to PATH
[23:23] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: not a script how do you run it?
[23:24] <BUGabundo> copy paste ? :)
[23:24] <BUGabundo> I cat it, then open several tabs
[23:24] <BUGabundo> one per line
[23:24] <gnomefreak> ah
[23:24] <micahg> testdrive does this for you though
[23:25]  * gnomefreak thinking not enough mem for a vt
[23:25] <gnomefreak> 256mb
[23:26] <micahg> ah
[23:26] <micahg> so grub2?
[23:26] <BUGabundo> I use that
[23:26] <BUGabundo> grub 2 and iso booting
[23:26] <BUGabundo> works fine for me
[23:27] <gnomefreak> even cp+pst gives same error sudo ionice -c3 zsync http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/maverick-desktop-i386.iso.zsync
[23:29] <gnomefreak> wget should work
[23:29] <Dimmuxx> ddecator: well the repo is using nspluginwrapper so that doesn't count
[23:30] <gnomefreak> ok im out for a few hours
[23:31] <micahg> Dimmuxx: I use nspluginwrapper w/out issue :)
[23:33] <Dimmuxx> well it's the principle, I don't wanna use it since one of the goals with oopp was to be able to use 32bit plugins in a 64bit browser
[23:33] <micahg> Dimmuxx: no it wasn't
[23:33] <micahg> not AFAIK
[23:34] <Dimmuxx> well maybe not a "goal" but I'm pretty sure it will be possible in the future
[23:35] <micahg> Dimmuxx: I don't know, that doesn't sound like a good idea
[23:35] <micahg> Dimmuxx: we'll have a 64 bit version of flash hopefully next year
[23:35] <Dimmuxx> indeed and that's why I don't like nspluginwrapper
[23:36] <Dimmuxx> hopefully adobe will release a 10.1 64bit alpha soon
[23:38]  * micahg will use what's packaged as long as it works
[23:40] <Dimmuxx> I wanna live on the edge ;)
[23:40] <Dimmuxx> at least on my desktop computer, stability is for servers and workstations
[23:41] <bobby_> The edge?
[23:41] <bobby_> FF3.7a5pre and 10.10 alpha 1
[23:41] <BUGabundo> micahg: "You have version 10,1,53,64 installed"
[23:41] <micahg> BUGabundo: no, YOU have it installed :)
[23:41] <BUGabundo> :)
[23:41] <Dimmuxx> bobby_: I still want it to be usable
[23:41] <bobby_> HEY! It works great for me :D
[23:42] <BUGabundo> just did an upgrade
[23:42] <micahg> ah, right, that's 10.1 :-/
[23:42] <BUGabundo> noticed it
[23:42] <bobby_> lol
[23:42] <BUGabundo> LOLOLOL
[23:42] <BUGabundo> micahg: you don't even KNOW what you are doing :)
[23:42] <bobby_> I tried 10.10, nothing new really, except for some updated interfaces, but a ton of lag
[23:42] <BUGabundo> here, relax http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRpeEdMmmQ0
[23:42] <Dimmuxx> I'm running 2.6.33 kernel since 32 lockups hard on this computer
[23:43] <Dimmuxx> I'm gonna switch to firefox 4 once it's beta
[23:43] <micahg> mdeslaur: are we going to get flash 10.1 in lucid?
[23:44] <bobby_> Well, I'd assume so
[23:45] <Dimmuxx> hmm it looks like oopp won't get support for 32bit plugins in 64bit browser any longer.
[23:45] <Dimmuxx> I haven't kept me updated about since 64bit flash have been so stable
[23:46] <bobby_> ... Wow... 32bit flash works great in 64bit FF3.7a5pre :D
[23:46] <bobby_> Don't want to tinker with Flash in alpha :s
[23:46] <mdeslaur> micahg: yes, it's building
[23:46] <mdeslaur> micahg: I'll test it tomorrow morning first thing and release it
[23:46] <micahg> mdeslaur: great :) wasn't sure since it's a version bump
[23:47] <mdeslaur> micahg: well, we don't have much of a choice
[23:47] <bobby_> Working beast here, just saying
[23:47] <mdeslaur> micahg: I'll gladly fix 10.0 is adobe will sent me their source code :P
[23:47] <mdeslaur> s/is/if/
[23:47] <micahg> mdeslaur: oh, they didn't do they're backport security fixes?
[23:47] <mdeslaur> micahg: they released 9.x, but for 10 they updated to 10.1
[23:47] <micahg> mdeslaur: ah, ok
[23:48] <micahg> mdeslaur: well, I guess that's good for us, so that we can jump to 64 bit flash when it's released :)
[23:48] <bobby_> It is still in alpha testing... Probably will be until Fall if I had to guess
[23:50] <mdeslaur> micahg: I _wish_ they'd release 64 bit already...they haven't even updated their 64-bit alpha yet
[23:52] <mdeslaur> It's probably politically-blocked by windows 64 bit support or something
[23:52] <bobby_> Yeah, since February right?
[23:52] <bobby_> Yeah, I hate MSFT too