[00:15] <alex_mayorga> is the alpha usable?
[00:15] <alex_mayorga> !know-issues
[00:16] <alex_mayorga> !known
[00:27] <arand> http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/maverick/alpha1#KnownIssues I guess...
[00:37] <alex_mayorga> arand: thanks is it usable?
[00:37] <Sensiva> alex_mayorga note that alpha2 will be out in 10 days or so, so that list isn't really "all" known issues
[00:38] <Sensiva> Usable has many relative definitions
[00:39] <arand> Well, it has quirks, but I would claim it usable.. The kvm I maintain hasn't failed me yet, but I don't get much hardware issues though I guess...
[00:40] <arand> And it's been up since, hmm, somewhere pre-alpha..
[00:41] <alex_mayorga> arand, Sensiva: thanks I also use pre alpha most of the times with no major hiccups
[00:41] <alex_mayorga> if I'm on 10.04 how do I backup my bluetooth config before jumping in?
[00:41] <Daekdroom> I installed 10.04LTS when it was Alpha 3 and it was alright. Still haven't done the 10.10 update because my ISP cut my bandwidth down to 140kbps
[00:42] <Sensiva> alex_mayorga that's something to be asked in #Ubuntu
[00:44] <alex_mayorga> Daekdroom: shame, what's their logic?
[00:44] <Daekdroom> alex_mayorga, 2 day delay on the payment
[00:44] <Daekdroom> And it'll take them 4 to get my speed back
[00:45] <Daekdroom> It totally looks like they don't know, let's say, SQL
[00:45] <alex_mayorga> Sensiva: did that change on meerkat?
[00:46] <Sensiva> alex_mayorga I don't know, I didn't test maverick yet :D
[00:46] <Daekdroom> alex_mayorga, either way you can backup the folder in your /home/
[00:47] <alex_mayorga> trying to find the bluetooth MAC address of a cell phone that was robbed :(
[05:14] <DanaG>  !find liblzmadec.so
[05:15] <DanaG> argh.
[08:26] <Ian_corne> anyone know if the battery icon will ever display the "fullness" of the battery again?
[10:58] <Fudge> loL
[11:07] <hrw> hi
[11:10] <hrw> is it normal that when pulseaudio is running then any alsa application cannot play?
[13:03] <edgy> Hi, with the latest updates I lost my wifi, any hint please?
[13:06] <edgy> AR9285 Wireless Network Adapter
[13:06] <edgy> 2.6.35-4-generic #5-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 16 20:42:35 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[13:11] <arand> edgy: Report a bug. Try booting the older kernel -> confirming it's a kernel issue.
[13:11] <arand> Or otherwise, see if yo can find the package in question and report agains that.
[13:15] <edgy> arand: somehow I have only one kernel now, looking via synaptics I cannot find an old kernel.
[13:15] <edgy> arand: though there is linux-image-2.6.32-305-ec2 which I guess not a regular kernel?
[13:16] <arand> Nah, that's for EC2, (Amozon cloud iirc)
[13:19] <bjsnider> edgy, you should be using the ath9k driver for your card
[13:20] <arand> From https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+publishinghistory You can get the individual builds, e.g. https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/2.6.35-3.4/+build/1792286 But I'd follow bjsnider's directions first.
[13:22] <edgy> $ lsmod |grep ath
[13:22] <edgy> ath9k                 101378  0
[13:22] <edgy> bjsnider: you see it's already loaded
[13:22] <bjsnider> yeah, so if you then do iwlist wlan0 scan
[13:24] <edgy> bjsnider: $ sudo iwlist wlan0 scan
[13:24] <edgy> wlan0     Interface doesn't support scanning : Network is down
[13:24] <bjsnider> try modprobe -r ath9k, then modprobe ath9k
[13:26] <bjsnider> also, dmesg will probably have useful messages concerning the situation as it is developing thought he boot process
[13:29] <hrw> 1is it normal that when pulseaudio is running then any alsa application cannot play?
[13:29] <edgy> bjsnider: let me reboot and retry again
[13:29] <hrw> edgy: "ifconfig wlan0 up"
[13:35] <bjsnider> hrw, should be quite the opposite
[14:44] <gnomefreak> cd MetaBot
[14:45] <gnomefreak> damn
[14:45] <Pici> wow
[14:45] <jpds> Hmm.
[14:45] <patdk-wk> freaking spam
[15:27] <Oli```> What do people use for the UI mocks like this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoundMenu ?
[15:32] <gnomefreak> Oli```: in what version of Ubuntu?
[15:32] <Oli```> gnomefreak: Any. I'm talking about the picture at the top, not any of the detail on that page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoundMenu?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=cases.png
[15:33] <Oli```> Or is somebody hand-drawing on a wacom (or scanning)?
[15:33] <gnomefreak> Oli```: you would be better off asking in #ubuntu-offtopic
[15:34] <gnomefreak> i use the first one
[16:09] <Ian_corne> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/596918
[16:22] <patdk-wk> oh ya, I should try defrag again, now that I'm back :)
[16:27] <Ian_corne> defrag?
[16:32] <patdk-wk> ya, test the e2fs defrag again
[16:36]  * gnomefreak would worry more about Maverick bugs than defrg
[16:36] <gnomefreak> but hey thats just me
[16:36] <gnomefreak> it breaks your defrag means nothing
[16:38]  * gnomefreak gone for a bit
[16:41] <patdk-wk> gnomefreak, well I haven't hit any bugs yet :)
[16:41] <patdk-wk> I'm sure it's just a matter of time though
[17:02] <duffydack> will btrfs be available in a daily soon? tomorrow?
[17:05] <yofel> the installer should already show it believing https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-m-btrfs-support
[17:12] <duffydack> not seeing it
[17:12] <holstein> the alternate installer?
[17:13] <duffydack> desktop..  no alt installer for daily
[17:14] <holstein> maybe btrfs is only an availalbe option from the alternate installer?
[17:16] <duffydack> i thought that but there is no alt for dailies, but I dont see why it wouldnt appear in desktop instaler..
[17:16] <duffydack> ill zsync tomorrow
[17:17]  * holstein cant wait to kick the tires on btrfs :)
[17:18] <arand> Nah, I checked the d-i and ubiquity changelogs right after the blueprint change and there was no mention in the change logs, so I guess it's at least a daily-cycle away from the recent announcement
[19:55] <sebsebseb> Hi
[19:59] <Ian_corne> something is seriously leaking
[19:59] <Ian_corne> noone else noticing this?
[20:00] <guntbert> Ian_corne: ??
[20:01] <Ian_corne> I'm seeing memory usage of close to 100% (if i count swap too) and I can't figure it out, if I check the processes, it doesn't amount to what is actually used
[20:04] <patdk-wk> did you count kernel memory usage?
[20:15] <guntbert> Ian_corne: did you read http://www.linuxatemyram.com/ ?
[20:18] <Ian_corne> guntbert:
[20:18] <tsimpson> I like it, it has "Don't Panic!" written in large letters on the front cover
[20:18] <Ian_corne> it's not that
[20:19] <tsimpson> or is that the hitch-hikers guide I'm thinking of...
[20:20] <Ian_corne> http://pastebin.com/Mni0MfUx
[20:20] <patdk-wk> I don't see the issue
[20:20] <patdk-wk> that isn't very much ram usage
[20:20] <Ian_corne> yes it is
[20:20] <patdk-wk> how so?
[20:20] <Ian_corne> I start off with 150mb
[20:21] <Ian_corne> on a fresh boot
[20:21] <Ian_corne> or sometimes with that
[20:21] <patdk-wk> with or without X/gnome/...
[20:21] <Ian_corne> on a fresh boot
[20:21] <Ian_corne> with
[20:21] <Ian_corne> logged in
[20:21] <patdk-wk> mine uses 520megs, and I just rebooted
[20:21] <Ian_corne> I only have 1gb
[20:21] <Daekdroom> I'm using lucid and it uses 190MB post reboot
[20:21] <Ian_corne> how much do you have?
[20:21] <Daekdroom> (not counting cache)
[20:21] <patdk-wk> my maverick is used 520megs on boot
[20:22] <patdk-wk> now lucid server, is using 23megs on boot :)
[20:23] <Ian_corne> patdk-wk: how much do you have in total?
[20:23] <Ian_corne> my lucid box uses 800mb but it has 8gb
[20:23] <patdk-wk> 1gig
[20:23] <Daekdroom> Using 520megs after a boot is really leaking >.>
[20:23] <Ian_corne> idd
[20:23] <patdk-wk> daekdroom, by definition, that isn't leaking :)
[20:23] <patdk-wk> just large :)
[20:23] <Ian_corne> if you add up the % number in for example htop
[20:24] <Ian_corne> does it add up?
[20:24] <Ian_corne> it doesn't for me
[20:24] <Daekdroom> Kernel doesn't show up there, Ian_corne
[20:24] <Daekdroom> patdk-wk, 64bits or 32bits?
[20:24] <Ian_corne> I'm at 32 bit
[20:24] <Ian_corne> oh Daekdroom
[20:24] <Ian_corne> how can i see that then?
[20:24] <patdk-wk> 32bit
[20:26] <patdk-wk> Ian_corne, you do know it should never really add-up
[20:26] <Ian_corne> any way to see the usage of the kernel?
[20:26] <Ian_corne> patdk-wk: I didn't know the kernel didn't show up
[20:26] <Ian_corne> And now it happened after a suspend
[20:26] <patdk-wk> well, also, shared memory doesn't show up
[20:26] <Ian_corne> graphics?
[20:26] <patdk-wk> so you will show shared memory as being used by each program, making it larger
[20:27] <patdk-wk> no
[20:27] <patdk-wk> any kind of shared memory not using shm's or whatever it is
[20:27] <Ian_corne> so the % should overshoot the actuall number?
[20:27] <patdk-wk> %
[20:27] <patdk-wk> I dunno what you mean
[20:27] <patdk-wk> I don't use htop
[20:27] <patdk-wk> I use ps
[20:27] <Ian_corne> ps also shows %
[20:28] <Ian_corne> of memory used
[20:28] <patdk-wk> not for me it doesn't
[20:28] <patdk-wk> ps shows ram used, not %
[20:28] <Ian_corne> $ ps aux
[20:28] <Ian_corne> USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME COMMAND
[20:30] <patdk-wk> mine is undershooting big time
[20:30] <patdk-wk> but I don't think I have much running that is sharing ram
[20:30] <patdk-wk> now if I was to start a php-apc with a few hundred megs of cache :)
[20:30] <patdk-wk> it should be >100%
[20:30] <Ian_corne> underhsooting for me too
[20:30] <patdk-wk> probably >500%
[20:30] <Ian_corne> but the problem is that it undershoot
[20:31] <Ian_corne> so the kernel is leaking?
[20:31] <patdk-wk> no
[20:31] <Ian_corne> because that's the only thing that doesn't show
[20:31] <patdk-wk> ps doesn't show ram used by the kernel at all
[20:31] <Ian_corne> well then
[20:31] <patdk-wk> just cause you don't measure it doesn't mean it's leaking
[20:31] <patdk-wk> and on a boot
[20:31] <Ian_corne> the other things aren't abnormally high
[20:31] <patdk-wk> it's not leaking
[20:31] <patdk-wk> leaking means the longer it runs the more it uses
[20:31] <patdk-wk> mine was running for >2weeks, no ram usage increase
[20:32] <Ian_corne> are you telling me you don't believe me?
[20:32] <Ian_corne> I'm just reporting what I notice
[20:32] <patdk-wk> I'm telling you I don't believe the words you are using is correct
[20:32] <patdk-wk> you are saying ram is leaking
[20:32] <patdk-wk> but everything you have shown, says it isn't
[20:32] <patdk-wk> high ram usage, yes
[20:32] <patdk-wk> leaking ram, no
[20:35] <Ian_corne> http://pastebin.com/xmegY68P
[20:35] <Ian_corne> so something is memory hogging
[20:35] <Ian_corne> at the kernel level
[20:35] <Ian_corne> this is a fresh boot, logged in and terminal launched
[20:36] <Ian_corne> going to try and suspend now
[20:36] <patdk-wk> heh?
[20:36] <patdk-wk> that says 148megs used?
[20:36] <patdk-wk> that is almost nothing
[20:36] <Ian_corne> yes patdk-wk
[20:37] <Ian_corne> This is a fairly clean install
[20:37] <patdk-wk> so your system is acting completely different from mine
[20:37] <patdk-wk> so if yours grows, then it could be a leak
[20:37] <patdk-wk> mine, on fresh boot used 500megs :)
[20:37] <Ian_corne> i suspended and nothing changed
[20:37] <patdk-wk> so mine isn't a leak, or atleast I can't replicate your leak on my system
[20:37] <Ian_corne> i'm really woried by this
[20:38] <Ian_corne> since it's not often but when it happens, it makes the system pretty slow
[20:38] <Ian_corne> and was present on -3 and -4
[20:39] <funkyHat> :/ mysql isn't running on startup for some reason
[20:39] <patdk-wk> heh? -3 and -4?
[20:40] <Ian_corne> kernel versions
[20:40] <patdk-wk> strange
[20:40] <patdk-wk> rebooted again, only using 200megs
[20:40] <Ian_corne> see
[20:40] <patdk-wk> I wonder if ureadahead didn't actually flush out or something
[20:41] <Ian_corne> something is hogging :(
[20:41] <patdk-wk> well, I just did some upgrades before the last reboot
[22:25] <alex_mayorga> "To upgrade from Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on a desktop system, press Alt+F2 and type in "update-manager -d" (without the quotes) into the command box" doesn't work is that a known issue?
[22:26] <gnomefreak> alex_mayorga: it worked for me the last 3 or 4 times i did it
[22:27]  * gnomefreak didnt try today and dont plan on it
[22:27] <alex_mayorga> gnomefreak: thanks, maybe it's just me :(
[22:27] <gnomefreak> alex_mayorga: open terminal and try it. there is also do-upgrades or something like that
[22:29] <Daekdroom> do-system-upgrade
[22:29] <Daekdroom> wait, do-release-upgrade
[22:29] <Daekdroom> Yeah, that
[22:35] <alex_mayorga> looks like the laptop prefers to stay on 10.04 got "No new release found"
[22:35] <arand> Both commands should have the -d appendage, and the second needs sudo, iirc..
[22:35] <arand> And you need to specify that it accepts non-LTS releases for upgrade targets
[22:37] <alex_mayorga> arand: that's it System > Software sources Updates tab
[22:37] <arand> Indeed
[22:37]  * sebsebseb is being slightly clever
[22:37] <alex_mayorga> there's release upgrade
[22:38] <Ian_corne> arand: is correct!
[22:38] <alex_mayorga> and long term was selected there
[22:38] <gnomefreak> Ian_corne: yes. LTS is default for now
[22:38] <Daekdroom> So, will I be able to download the whole Lucid --> Maverick upgrade during, let's say 12 hours @ 18kbps?
[22:38] <Daekdroom> KB/s
[22:38] <alex_mayorga> so I guess http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/maverick/alpha1#UpgradingFromUbuntu1004LTS needs a bit of rewording
[22:39] <gnomefreak> Daekdroom: thats depands on alot of things
[22:39] <arand> I wonder how a non-gnome/nox system does that, if it even has the ability to lock anything but LTS-upgrading
[22:39] <Daekdroom> gnomefreak, I'll try a do-release-upgrade --sandbox so I can check on how large it is..
[22:39] <sebsebseb> So downloading and installing the latest updates using the update manager program wasn't working,  so  I  am updating through Synaptic instead and no problem :)
[22:40] <gnomefreak> Daekdroom: also need to relize that your connection speed is never what they say it is and changes alot
[22:40] <Daekdroom> Are there any future system breakages expected?
[22:40] <gnomefreak> yes alot
[22:40] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: of course
[22:40] <Daekdroom> gnomefreak, yeah. But it usually stays constant at 18KB/s when I'm doing nothing but a single download.
[22:40] <gnomefreak> X being one of the bigger ones
[22:40] <Daekdroom> So X is still not up to date? O.o
[22:41] <alex_mayorga> guess I better click "Cancel" huh? :)
[22:41] <alex_mayorga> is X unusable?
[22:41] <gnomefreak> alex_mayorga: /etc/update-manager/release-upgrades and set Prompt=normal; launch the upgrade  << is right
[22:41] <sebsebseb> Don't run  10.10 development
[22:41] <sebsebseb> on a machine
[22:41] <Daekdroom> I <3 system breakage, but I can't afford to have it broken right now due to low bandwidth xD
[22:41] <sebsebseb> your going to use for actsual computing
[22:41] <sebsebseb> unless its in a virtual machine of course
[22:41] <gnomefreak> thats how you do it using editor rather than software-sources
[22:41] <sebsebseb> or your an actsaull bug tester, or developer, then yeah maybe
[22:42] <Daekdroom> or you like living on the edge!
[22:42] <arand> alex_mayorga: Indeed, although the "editor /etc/update-manager/release-upgrades" instruction should work on a GUI system as well I reckon.
[22:42] <Daekdroom> Oh wait, bug tester..
[22:42] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: been there done that
[22:42] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: about four times now with Ubuntu
[22:42] <sebsebseb> and then regreted it later
[22:42] <Daekdroom> I think I always did early updates..
[22:42] <gnomefreak> using the GUI changes that file so it is exact same thing
[22:42] <arand> I'm not whom one would contact regarding the release notes though..
[22:42] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: well I would be like oh I am going to do it when the first beta comes out, but then nope, I get an alpha instead
[22:43] <gnomefreak> might i suggest do not upgrade if you need a non broken system
[22:43] <alex_mayorga> quick survey to people on this channel: how broke is it if any
[22:43] <Daekdroom> Huh, doesn't boot up as it should?
[22:43] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: don't have this  issue anymore though, since in November I switched to Mandriva :)  so  yeah,  virtual machine trying
[22:43] <Daekdroom> Fall into a BusyBox or command line.
[22:44] <sebsebseb> and I am probably going to keep the other computer on 10.04, and skip 10.10, since it seems its not going to offer me anything proper that I want
[22:44] <Daekdroom> Oh well, I guess I should wait for decent internet and stability..
[22:44] <arand> sebsebseb: You mean you don't like butter?
[22:45] <sebsebseb> arand: uhmm?
[22:45] <sebsebseb> arand: I don't like junk features, there will be more of those in 10.10
[22:45] <alex_mayorga> sebsebseb: namely?
[22:45] <arand> sebsebseb: btrfs for pete's sake!
[22:45] <sebsebseb> windicators will probably be one of them
[22:45] <sebsebseb> arand: thats a maybe
[22:45] <sebsebseb> last time I read
[22:45] <arand> It will be optional
[22:46] <Daekdroom> It should be in the next daily image, shouldn't it?
[22:46] <sebsebseb> arand: and if its not default, it won't be quite stable I geuss
[22:46] <arand> Should be available for install in the coming dailies...
[22:46] <sebsebseb> however thats how things were with Ext4 in 9.04
[22:46] <sebsebseb> and it worked great for me
[22:47] <sebsebseb> arand: I have been thinking about btrfs, but that probably won't really offer me enough of a reason to do a clean install on other computer and do 10.10
[22:47] <Daekdroom> How better is btrfs over reiser and ext4?
[22:47] <sebsebseb> for example snapshots do I need that?  nice feature, but do I need it nah,  once I am set up with an install, it will work well for ages
[22:47] <arand> But, yea, I won't be running it as my root fs I don't think.
[22:48] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: so Gnome 3, I am wondering about that.  I know it won't be in the default install in 10.10,  but still can get it from the repos?  and I don't mean just the shell
[22:49] <arand> I just used snapshotting to backup my current ubuntu on LVM online, and if I can have more of that, I'm sure not complaining..
[22:49] <sebsebseb> arand: yeah alpha 2 with  optional btfs support?
[22:50] <arand> I've never really understood what gnome3 is more than the shell.
[22:50] <arand> The Task Pooper?
[22:50] <Daekdroom> arand, deprecated Lib GTK+ functions are out
[22:50] <sebsebseb> arand: the shell is the user interface,  and then theres stuff under the hood as well, of course
[22:51] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: yes from what I read it seems,  11.04 and 11.10  will be used to well get Gnome 3 ready for 12.04 as default
[22:51] <arand> Well deprecation isn't really exciting features, as such :/
[22:51] <Daekdroom> KDE 4 transition was much more.. ehh... faster o.o
[22:52] <sebsebseb> anyway btrfs  read a little about it, but what does it actsaully ofer?  the snapshots so can easilly  get the system to how it was right, but what else?
[22:52] <arand> I read something about gnome-settings replacing gconf... I fear a great spring clean might be in the works there, pray it isn't...
[22:52] <Daekdroom> Is it faster than ext4 (other than in SSDs)
[22:52] <bjsnider> sebsebseb, from a ppa
[22:52] <sebsebseb> bjsnider: uhmm?
[22:52] <sebsebseb> bjsnider: for what?
[22:52] <Daekdroom> GNOME 3 @ maverick
[22:53] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: ?
[22:53] <gnomefreak> gnome 3 is released as of this moment in sept. think 2.31.3 IIRC will be 3.0
[22:53]  * gnomefreak not here atm
[22:53] <arand> Daekdroom: Btrfs, no, it's the features, snapshotting, compression...
[22:53] <bjsnider> sebsebseb, gnome 3
[22:53] <sebsebseb> bjsnider: what got to install it from a ppa?  I mean in the stable 10.10
[22:54] <Daekdroom> sebsebseb, GNOME 3 for 10.10 will be aviable in a PPA
[22:54] <sebsebseb> why ppa not repos?
[22:54] <Daekdroom> PPA IS a type of repo?
[22:54] <bjsnider> it's not ready for prime time
[22:54] <sebsebseb> bjsnider: uhmm
[22:54] <Daekdroom> Ah, you meant inside the official repos. :P
[22:54] <sebsebseb> bjsnider: they put KDE 4.0 in the 8.04 repos
[22:54] <sebsebseb> when KDE 4 wasn't really ready
[22:55] <bjsnider> i'm sure they regret that
[22:55] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: yes the offical repos
[22:55] <sebsebseb> anyway if ther is a ppa of Gnome 3 for 10.10 I guess there will be for 10.04 as well :)
[22:55] <Daekdroom> So, should I expect 11.04 to be a Frankenstain mixing 2.3x and Gnome 3? :P
[22:55] <Daekdroom> *frankenstein
[22:56] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: I think so yeah, from what I read
[22:57] <arand> I reckon there will be a snapshot of the reasonably stable-yet-incomplete gnome3 stuff in the repos, which frequent upgrades are supplied through PPAs Like gnome-shell is currently.
[22:58] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: arand  bjsnider http://markmail.org/message/fibykjxp5ztlgixk
[22:58] <sebsebseb> http://markmail.org/message/fibykjxp5ztlgixk :)
[23:01] <Daekdroom> That's... aggressive?
[23:01] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: no PPA for gnome
[23:02] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: for 10.04?
[23:02] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: or 10.10 as well?
[23:02] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: none at all
[23:02] <sebsebseb> why not?
[23:03] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: we do not provide builds for major meta packages
[23:03] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: everything has to be rebuilt
[23:03] <sebsebseb> indeed Gnome 3 is a big change
[23:03] <gnomefreak> everything == EVERYTHING!!!!!!!
[23:03] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: gnome == huge package
[23:03] <sebsebseb> pluss a lot of people in the Ubuntu community who have tried the shell aren't that keen on it at the moment
[23:04] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: right so yeah 11.04 and 11.10 will be used to  get Gnome 3 ready for default in 12.04?  When is it likely to become default instead of Gnome 2?
[23:04] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: no that is way too far
[23:05] <sebsebseb> right so no Gnome 3 at all for 10.10,  unless people install it in some completly unsupported way them selves?
[23:05] <gnomefreak> see http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointThirtyone/
[23:05] <sebsebseb> I have been on that before
[23:06] <gnomefreak> if not 10.10 it will land in 11.04 but i havent talked to desktop team about this since last cycle
[23:07] <gnomefreak> brb let me check somehting
[23:07] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: ok  I guess that link has been updated or something, I think I went on that before
[23:08] <gnomefreak> it was when they pushed it back to sept
[23:08] <gnomefreak> IIRC it was set for august
[23:09] <gnomefreak> IIRC our freeze is early Sept.
[23:09] <gnomefreak> at least the last one is
[23:09] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: Will 10.10 be using Gnome 2.30  like 10.04?
[23:10] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: we should get higher but until i find a blueprint or get answered from the desktop devs i wont know for sure
[23:11] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: as it stands we will use at least 2.32 in final (following past releases) we have never released same gnome version to more than one release
[23:11] <gnomefreak> s/will/should
[23:11] <gnomefreak> join the mailing list and find out :)
[23:12] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: I thought 2.32  was Gnome 3?   as for the mailing list, yeah maybe, if I had the thing to join, but I know can also read them online after woulds
[23:13] <gnomefreak> we seem to freeze august 12th not sure if gnome will get an extension on that
[23:13] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: 2.31.91 since gnome pushed back releases im not sure
[23:14] <gnomefreak> .92 even is gnome3
[23:14]  * gnomefreak trying to think what we had in karmic
[23:14] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: Gnome 2.28
[23:15] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: than as long as we stay on track we should ship with 2.31.90 or so
[23:15] <gnomefreak> if not 3 it will be close. im not sure if it will be able to be pushed as an exeption
[23:16] <Daekdroom> Bleh. Things sound so bad right when they decide to release Ubuntu on a early day in the month... :(
[23:16] <Daekdroom> Atleast they won't have to name it 10.11 if it gets delayed.
[23:16] <sebsebseb> Thats a point its coming out early as well
[23:16] <Daekdroom> I thought the point was getting it released 10/10/10
[23:17] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: so 10.10 will have nearly Gnome 3 probably,  and with the old look?
[23:17] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: yes it is
[23:17] <gnomefreak> 2.30 is filan release
[23:17] <gnomefreak> final
[23:17] <gnomefreak> PPA may be opened for upgrades as im told
[23:17] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: 2.30 is what 10.04 uses
[23:18] <gnomefreak> 2.30 with select updates will be default in 10.10 due to the push upstream did
[23:18] <gnomefreak> talked with seb about this a minute ago
[23:19] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: select updates?
[23:19] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: yes
[23:19] <Daekdroom> Ooo. So we're literally halfway to Gnome 3. Paralel worlds are coliding!
[23:19] <sebsebseb> what does that mean
[23:19] <sebsebseb> exactly
[23:19] <sebsebseb> some of the packages?  will be 3.0 basically?
[23:19] <Daekdroom> sebsebseb, some stuff are going GNOME 3-esque, some aren't.
[23:19] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: might chreey pick updates from newer release
[23:19] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: no not 3.0
[23:19] <gnomefreak> 3.0 might be in a PPA or it will land in 11.04 as it stands
[23:20] <gnomefreak> key word is MIGHT
[23:20] <Daekdroom> gnomefreak, are they going to compile new versions of the apps against LibGTK+2, is that it?
[23:20] <DanaG> hmm, this new Unity thingy is weird...
[23:20] <gnomefreak> Daekdroom: off hand i dont know but not likely if i remeber this topic
[23:20] <DanaG> try moving mouse left, right, left... onto and off of the thing over and over.
[23:20] <DanaG> The behavior seems non-constant... sometimes the tiles fold, sometimes they don't.
[23:21] <gnomefreak> its late in the day and just about off work so my ind needs a rest
[23:21] <sebsebseb> ind?
[23:21] <gnomefreak> send an email to the ubuntu-dev-disscuss list
[23:22] <Daekdroom> mind?
[23:22] <gnomefreak> more info can be found http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/maverick/alpha1#GNOME
[23:22] <gnomefreak> not much mind you
[23:22] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: anyway seems like
[23:23]  * gnomefreak not a gnome dev but i am for Mozilla for the most part
[23:23] <sebsebseb> Gnome 3.0 stable comes out just before 10.10 stable
[23:23] <DanaG> Oh, and I don't like having my panel forcibly locked down. :(
[23:23] <sebsebseb> so even if 10.10 wanted it, woudn't be that realistic
[23:23] <gnomefreak> just after our frezze about 1 month after our freeze
[23:23] <gnomefreak> right. its upstreams fault :)
[23:23] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: oh I was thinking Ubuntu Gnome dev since the name and such, but nope
[23:23] <sebsebseb> and yeah  Firefox :)
[23:24] <gnomefreak> not saying i wont be one day but have very little interst in gnome dev at this time
[23:24] <sebsebseb> why?
[23:25] <DanaG> I wonder... how much would it help things to shift the Ubuntu cycle downwards 1 month?  So, 10.11 instead of 10.10.
[23:25]  * gnomefreak seamonkey sunbird/lightning maitainer until this dev cycle i am taking time off from packaging
[23:25] <crdlb> DanaG: fedora wouldn't like that
[23:25] <gnomefreak> Daekdroom: that is a big deal. we did that with dapper and it is hell
[23:25] <gnomefreak> oops
[23:25] <gnomefreak> DanaG: ^^^
[23:25] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: uhmm Dapper was dealyed
[23:25] <sebsebseb> delayed
[23:25] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: yes
[23:25] <gnomefreak> 6.06?
[23:26] <sebsebseb> altough I don't know why
[23:26] <sebsebseb> and yes 6.06 instead of 6.04
[23:26] <gnomefreak> i do
[23:26] <DanaG> You mean about competition, or do Fedora and Ubuntu grab from each other?
[23:26] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: why was it delayed then?
[23:26] <gnomefreak> major changes but lets try to stay on topic of support+10.10
[23:26] <sebsebseb> DanaG: Fedora is meant to be a bit more cutting edge than Ubuntu
[23:26] <DanaG> s/cutting/bleeding/ =þ
[23:27] <DanaG> And fedora says not to dist-upgrade. =/
[23:27] <sebsebseb> oh?
[23:28] <gnomefreak> please dont tell anyone but this channel is only support for 10.10 please move over to #ubuntu-offtopic (one door down to right)
[23:29] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: You got op here don't you?
[23:29] <gnomefreak> sebsebseb: yes
[23:31] <DanaG> yeah, anyway, I'm done with off-topic now.
[23:32] <DanaG> say, how's support for btrfs?
[23:33] <arand> DanaG: Not in daily yet, I don't think, but soonish.
[23:34] <gnomefreak> http://www.webupd8.org/2010/05/20-chances-to-get-btrfs-in-ubuntu-1010.html
[23:36] <gnomefreak> even better from one of our devs http://www.netsplit.com/2010/05/14/btrfs-by-default-in-maverick/
[23:37] <sebsebseb> Hrm I don't seem to have the new sound thing after those updates, and I don't feel like doing alpha 1 in a vm again, so I guess i'll get it when I do a alpha 2 vm,  and with btrfs of course
[23:37] <sebsebseb> if its an option
[23:38] <sebsebseb> Not really a feature I am interested in the sound applet, but wanted to try after reading about it and that.
[23:39] <gnomefreak> new sound (thing)?
[23:39] <sebsebseb> gnomefreak: yes apparantly
[23:39] <gnomefreak> what new sound thing?
[23:39] <sebsebseb> I mean a newer sound applet
[23:40] <sebsebseb> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/06/ubuntu-1010s-new-sound-menu-starts-to.html
[23:40] <gnomefreak> and it is? do you have a link about it?
[23:40] <gnomefreak> thankis
[23:40] <sebsebseb> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/06/ubuntu-1010s-new-sound-menu-starts-to.html
[23:42] <sebsebseb> I wasn't even going to test with sound in the vm though,  so in a way a bit pointless to just see from the panel.
[23:42] <gnomefreak> mine did change this morning but seems back to normal
[23:42] <arand> Well last thing about btrfs is https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-June/030918.html
[23:42] <sebsebseb> arand: yes it might be default in 10.10
[23:43] <arand> Not likely, as per above.
[23:44] <Daekdroom> Good lord.
[23:44] <Daekdroom> It's so.. cluttered O.o
[23:45] <Daekdroom> Well, atleast it's not as bad as Vista's
[23:45] <sebsebseb> arand: ok thats recent :)
[23:45] <sebsebseb> I read the one before about how it might be default
[23:45] <arand> I do wonder which package to track in order to keep up with btrfs-installing, d-i? partman?
[23:46] <sebsebseb> anyway it will be like XFS  well not sure if XFS is still like this now
[23:46] <sebsebseb> ,but needing a /boot in Ext3 or something
[23:47] <sebsebseb> arand: thanks for link though :)
[23:48] <sebsebseb> so Ext4 by default in 10.10 basically
[23:48] <Daekdroom> Ext4 isn't that bad.
[23:48] <sebsebseb> Ext4 really made a difference optionally in 9.04
[23:48] <sebsebseb> ,but then by default in 9.10 and 10.04 nope
[23:51] <DanaG> Oh yeah, that whole "flat volumes is like Windows Vista" thing is wrong.
[23:51] <DanaG> er, maybe I should go to #offtopic for that
[23:52] <DanaG> er, ubuntu-offtopic.
[23:52] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: going back to earlier, when you said thats aggressive after the link I gave out
[23:52] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: well loads of people that use other distros, don't like the way Ubuntu is heading,  with all this non upstream Gnome stuff, and that
[23:54] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: and  that was a Redhat developer, or whatever it was.  Also someone who doesn't like Ubuntu anymore, gave me that link the other day.
[23:54] <Daekdroom> Hm
[23:55] <sebsebseb> (other day/night being a bit more exact)
[23:56] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: I personally don't like it much myself,  but can customize 10.04 to look like before so :D
[23:56] <Daekdroom> I haven't had much contact with any other ubuntu distro, so I'm sorta grounded on ubuntu.
[23:56] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: you mean another distro
[23:56] <Daekdroom> Ah, yeah.
[23:57] <Daekdroom> Meant another distro indeed.
[23:57] <sebsebseb> well loads of other good ones out there as well :)
[23:57] <sebsebseb> 10.10 is apparantly going to get a new installer, that will be good :)
[23:57] <sebsebseb> ,but other then that well
[23:58] <sebsebseb> more of these Gnome edits that I don't  want, and  a software centre probably replacing Synaptic and offering commercial apps,  which I am ok with, but  I won't be buying them.  I also really like Synaptic and sure that can still be installed.
[23:59] <sebsebseb> and it will probably be better on the netbook version, than on the desktop, so yeah  thats why at the moment I am thinking  to just stay on 10.04 on the other computer :)  since its Long Term Support as well, three years of support on the desktop :D
[23:59] <sebsebseb> not much point upgrading, if I am going to end up removing most of the actsaul features
[23:59] <Daekdroom> Ahh what?
[23:59] <sebsebseb> Daekdroom: to what?