[01:50] <coz_> hey guys...doesn anyone know if some of the lucid bugs are fixed in marverick yet?/ like wallapper options for dual monitors.... capablities for installing official nvidia drivers... nad right click unmount on mulitple paritions on external drives?
[01:51] <bjsnider> there's no lucid bug installing the nvidia driver
[01:52] <coz_> bjsnider,  mm I cant seem to install official nvidia drivers on lucid
[01:52] <coz_> bjsnider,  at least not withouth blacklisting neuveau
[01:52] <bjsnider> the nvidia installer won't work, but it has been disabled by canonical on purpose, so it doesn't wreck things. the nvidia driver is installable
[01:53] <coz_> bjsnider,  mm I will have to look into this then
[01:53] <bjsnider> install the recommended driver through jockey
[01:53] <coz_> bjsnider,  no
[01:53] <bjsnider> in the name of all that is right in the world
[01:53] <coz_> bjsnider,  the recommended driver  has a memory leak
[01:53] <coz_> bjsnider,  nvidia-common is not a good version of the nvidia driver
[01:54] <bjsnider> nvidia-current
[01:54] <bjsnider> and it is the same driver
[01:54] <coz_> bjsnider,  right it is not a good driver
[01:54] <bjsnider> the libs and kernel module are pre-built
[01:54] <coz_> bjsnider,  I much prefer the official driver installation procedure to test different drivers
[01:54] <bjsnider> if it is not a good driver why do you want to install it?
[01:55] <coz_> bjsnider,  the need to install different version on different systems with different cards is essential for best performance
[01:55] <bjsnider> did you miss the nvidia sticky post about using the distribution packages? that is the official method
[01:55] <coz_> bjsnider,  limiting the choices to 2 orr 3  is not sensible
[01:55] <coz_> bjsnider,  I have been using ubuntu since day one
[01:55] <coz_> bjsnider,  I am not interested in the ubuntu version offered
[01:56] <coz_> at least for nvidia drivers
[01:56] <bjsnider> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=d39db399e4674fd731f185191ed48396&t=72490
[01:57] <bjsnider> the very first sentence says use the distribution's packages
[01:57] <coz_> bjsnider,  yeah I have never had issues with updates
[01:58] <yofel> any reason why we can't ship a few more versions?
[01:58] <yofel> It's not like we're actually fixing bugs in the drivers
[01:59] <coz_> without the ability to install official nvidia drivers ..ubuntu becomes useless in my circimstance because I need to test drivers for clients machines
[02:00] <coz_> and I never use the ones offered by ubuntu
[02:00] <coz_> rather I never install via jockey
[02:02] <coz_> this works but creates problems down the road   http://www.ubuntugeek.com/howto-install-nvidia-drivers-manually-on-ubuntu-10-04-lucid-lynx.html
[02:24] <Dink> Does the Unity doc on the left have a config file one can edit to add custom application/launcher ?
[02:29] <Dink> I have several wine application I would like to put there
[04:19] <bjsnider> yofel_, it is not too hard to package additional version of the blob, just go ahead and set up a ppa and toos them in there. but lucid already includes the 195 and the x-updates ppa has the 256, so i don't know what the point would be
[07:49] <Fudge> whens alpha2 scheduled?
[07:50] <SwedeMike> 10 days ago.
[07:51] <Fudge> alpha3 im sorry lol im using alpha2 :$
[07:51] <SwedeMike> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickReleaseSchedule
[07:52] <Fudge> ty
[07:53] <Fudge> ok 14 August cheers for that
[08:10] <Fudge> any idea how to recompile vmware modules on maverick?
[08:12] <Vigo> Fudge: Sorry , I do not do much VM stuff.
[08:23] <Fudge> Vigo  thanks anyway
[10:20] <om26er> is there any shorkey for preferences in thunderbrid (not using it)
[12:56] <joejoe> hi, i am not able to upgrade properly to the maverick, the update fails with following message http://pastebin.com/m8SgTagg
[16:48] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek starting in 12 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom
[16:49] <djbeenie_> anyone know of a linux live cd that will grab all the hd information, how many core procs, HD's and size, memory and so on and on?
[16:49] <Pici> djbeenie_: That question is more on-topic for ##linux
[17:00] <LucidFox> Okay
[17:00] <LucidFox> something is definitely wrong with my GTK
[17:00] <LucidFox> after upgrade
[17:00] <LucidFox> half the widgets are white
[17:01] <LucidFox> Buttons are always white no matter which theme I try
[17:02] <LucidFox> Any ideas, or am I better off doing a clean reinstall?
[17:12] <LucidFox> Hmmm
[17:12] <LucidFox> For once, I'm tempted to try the 64-bit version
[17:13] <LucidFox> after spending almost five years on 32-bit
[17:13] <LucidFox> since I'll be doing a clean reinstall anyway
[17:17] <LucidFox> I wonder also
[17:17] <LucidFox> can 64-bit Wine run both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows applications?
[17:18] <LucidFox> or at least just 32-bit?
[17:20] <skydrome> just wanted to see what ff4 looked like and got this
[17:20] <skydrome> /usr/bin/firefox-4.0: 175: Syntax error: end of file unexpected (expecting "fi")
[17:26] <yofel> oh 4.0 is there?
[17:28] <yofel> ah, updating package manager is fun... 'sudo aptitude install aptitude' XD
[17:29]  * yofel goes installing ffx4
[17:31] <billybigrigger> yofel, installing from mozilla daily?
[17:31] <yofel> yep
[17:34] <skydrome> 4.0b2 is the version, havent tried 4.0b1 dont really care that much
[17:40] <yofel> skydrome: about that error, open /usr/bin/firefox-4.0 in an editor, and add a new line containing 'fi' at the bottom
[17:41] <yofel> and:
 i can not start the /usr/bin/firefox-4.0 because someone miss a "fi"
 Hanmac: yes, the builds are being respun to fix that
[17:41] <skydrome> excellent :)
[17:42] <skydrome> but still not launching
[17:45] <yofel> it does here
[17:47] <skydrome> it did the profile transfer but never launched
[17:49] <yofel> meh, http://yofel.dyndns.org/pics/ext/ffx4_addons0.png :(
[18:27] <h00k> So, the daily maverick installer on my netbook is hosed :(
[18:27] <h00k> well, the installer worked okay, but it is reporting everything as crashing once at the desktop
[18:36] <Dink> When I try to run a wine app after it has been placed in the unity "doc" I get the following in my logs "kernel: [65468.497241] Skipping EDID probe due to cached edid" and it never starts
[18:36] <yofel> h00k: even that apport crashed? if yes then that's known
[18:36] <charlie-tca> h00k: Seems to be an issue today. I have so many apport crashes, it is unusable
[18:36] <yofel> fix underway
[18:37] <yofel> bug 603919
[18:38] <h00k> Yeah, it's...phew. I am wondering if I should hang on and grab updates if I can, or just daily install when that's fixed
[18:39] <Dink> I had the same issue it was barely useable. I grabbed the d-i and used it to install netbook.
[18:39] <yofel> h00k: can you install 'gir1.0-glib-2.0' and see if that helps?
[18:40] <Dink> yofel, after that installation things have been better. I noticed it in todays update.
[18:40] <yofel> ah, so it's already out, good :)
[18:40] <h00k> yofel: I'll check that now.
[18:41] <Dink> I do notice though at times things hang a bit when I go between the application menu and main screen
[18:41] <yofel> h00k: or simply update python-gobject, that will pull it in
[18:43] <uga> yofel: remember the qt webkit thingie?
[18:44] <yofel> yes
[18:44] <uga> strange thing is that I have another box with karmik+ppa. Same numbered packages were updated...
[18:44] <uga> ... and it all went smooth. It seems ppa packages were linked against webkit beta1
[18:44] <h00k> yofel: doing python-gobject now
[18:44] <h00k> Also, on this reinstall, btrfs seems to be working smoothly.  it didn't take 12 hours to install.
[18:44] <Dink> Another thing I have a javaws app that does not show up on the doc when it is ran. Is that normal?
[18:45] <yofel> h00k: does btrfs work with grub2 now?
[18:45] <h00k> yofel: I don't know, I just made a 200mb /boot with ext2
[18:45] <h00k> i could try it!
[18:46]  * h00k boots from USB
[18:46] <uga> oh ,is it stable already? (btrfs support)
[18:46] <uga> I mean at least upstream, I don't mean in the distro
[18:47]  * h00k shrugs
[18:47] <uga> lolz
[18:48] <yofel> IIRC it was supposed to be not experimental anymore in 2.6.35, not sure if that's actually the case
[18:48] <uga> h00k: I don't want to go the reiser4 way. I've had reiser4 partitions for a while, and see now...
[18:48] <h00k> uga: they've come back to kill you?
[18:48] <h00k> s/kill/haunt/
[18:48] <yofel> then again, ext4 wasn't experimental in jaunty too...
[18:48]  * yofel shudders...
[18:49] <uga> h00k: almost. Now that the guy went to prison, nobody wanted to develop anymore, and the fact that it was never fully accepted by the kernel people...
[18:49] <uga> so I wanted to know if they already accepted btrfs as something working and "complete" ;)
[18:49] <h00k> As far as I know, it was supposed to be that way, as yofel said
[18:50] <uga> thanks, then it's good enough for me
[18:50] <uga> yofel: I've been using ext4 for quite a while here
[18:50] <uga> and I migrated everything to it as soon as I figured out how to make grub work on it
[18:51] <uga> it's called "backups" :P
[18:52] <h00k> okay, going through the installer
[18:54] <h00k> "Your root file system is a btrfs file system.  This is not supported by the boot loader used by default by this installer.  You should use a small /boot partition with another file system, such as ext3."
[18:54] <h00k> yofel: ^
[18:54] <yofel> ok, thanks
[18:55] <mirak> I created an init script for a daemon that is not supposed to run as root. this dameon creates a pidfile in /var/run/foo.pid . Since /var/run should be only writtable by root, can I touch the file and chown it in the init script before start ?
[19:14] <uga> mirak: wouldnt' it have been easier by just touch, su to another user and ask? =)
[19:14] <uga> btw, yes, it should work (tm)
[19:15] <uga> but you won't be able to delete the file
[19:15] <uga> s/and/thank
[19:15] <uga> urgh
[19:15] <uga> s/and/than
[19:16]  * uga notes his english is getting worse, worse, worse, worse...
[19:21] <cixa> anyone have any tips on what thinkpad i should get? i have looked at the x301 and the t410. i run maverick now on an r51
[19:22] <jpds> x301s.
[19:22] <mirak> uga, what ?
[19:23] <uga> mirak: you asked if you could create a file under /var/run and later be writeable by a script running by another user, right?
[19:23] <uga> I said the answer is yes, but it'd have been quicker if you just tested ;)
[19:23] <uga> (or so I intended to write, in a very poor english)
[19:24] <uga> just that, the script won't be able to delete it, if not run as root
[19:24] <mirak> uga, seems the right way is to create a folder writable by the user
[19:25] <mirak> touch && chown works too
[19:25] <mirak> I did that
[19:25] <uga> the other option is setuid, but I never liked that
[19:26] <yofel> cixa: that's more something for #ubuntu-offtopic, I'm using an t510 right now (my r61 broke :/ )
[19:26] <uga> mirak: not sure but I think it'd have been much harder using policykit
[19:26] <uga> ?
[19:29] <Daijoubu> guys i get an error when i try to update
[19:30] <Daijoubu> http://pastebin.com/JsUhvPyS
[19:32] <Daijoubu> can someone help please :)
[19:33] <uga> Daijoubu: sounds like somebody forgot updating python-minimal in that mirror
[19:33] <uga> there's no much you can do, I think, until somebody updates that
[19:33] <Daijoubu> ok i will switch to the main server
[19:33] <uga> as far as the package version is there, ys
[19:33] <uga> es
[19:35] <Daijoubu> weird... software sources doesn't want to start now
[19:41] <mirak> uga, ? it runs as root, so i guess it can work ...
[19:41] <mirak> uga, I mean init.d is launched by root
[19:52] <Daijoubu> uga thanks that worked :)
[20:17] <bp0> when is launchpad going to be fixed
[20:25] <Pici> bp0: If its broken, then #lauchpad would be a good place to talk about it.
[20:27] <bp0> you'd think that
[21:07] <ripps> hmmm... new cairo is out. Let's hope it fixes some crap instead of making it worse.
[21:15]  * penguin42 gently wonders about bringing my main desktop upto maverick
[21:19] <duffy> Srsly
[21:19]  * charlie-tca will upgrade next week to maverick on his main system
[21:22]  * penguin42 has put a squid on it so that all my updates on my VM are getting cached through it, and hopefully my other machine will 
[21:23] <duffy> why next week, whats happening next week..its still gonna be alpha .
[21:23] <charlie-tca> Next week is after Ubuntu Developer Week
[21:23] <duffy> well I wouldnt, personally..
[21:23] <charlie-tca> I can break it then
[21:24] <yofel> next week is that magical somewhere in the middle of devel time point where things start to get worse :P
[21:24] <charlie-tca> yup
[21:24] <charlie-tca> but it is my time
[21:25] <penguin42> having said that I'm off this week, which means I can either break it and see it, or it means I do have a chance to fix it
[21:25] <charlie-tca> heh
[21:26] <Vigo> Can I safely remove kernel 2.6.35-6.9 or should I keep it in for testing and bug squishing?
[21:27] <penguin42> Vigo: If you run the janitor it should clean out all but the last one or two
[21:28] <Vigo> penguin42: Thank you.
[21:28] <guntbert> Vigo: always keep at least a 2nd working kernel
[21:29] <Vigo> guntbert: Yes, and always make a backup BEFORE doing such stuff,,,,
[21:29] <penguin42> anyone running lubuntu in maverick? I've just had it do something *very* odd
[21:30] <Vigo> I am trying all sorts of packages and such in this testing,,,,
[21:32] <Vigo> penguin42: I have not run Lubuntu yet on this box, what occurred?
[21:32] <guntbert> Vigo: choosing another kernel is not really an issue to threaten your system - but for trying a lot I'd recommend a virtualization environment (virtual box,...)
[21:32] <penguin42> Vigo: Well it's logged in, but when I started a terminal the terminal appeared in the middle of the screen and slowly moved down until it went off the bottom, and the panel is now constantly flickering - very odd
[21:33] <Vigo> guntbert: I agree, I am using 3 HDDs all some flavor of *nix on each.
[21:34] <Vigo> penguin42: That is odd, any reports of that issue on the LXDE site?
[21:34] <penguin42> not checked yet
[21:36] <Vigo> penguin42: On one of the Linux Forums there is a report of that, is a Xorg thing, still looking though...
[21:36] <penguin42> Vigo: URL?  It does seem repeatable
[21:38] <Vigo> penguin42: Is an OpenBox WM also,,
[21:39] <Vigo> but here> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/resizing-virtualbox-with-lxde-inside-doesnt-restretch-wallpaper-741903/
[21:40] <penguin42> Vigo: What makes you say that sounds anything like what I just described?
[21:40] <penguin42> that seems to be corruption or wallpaper related
[21:43] <Vigo> penguin42: I am running Debian 5 on one drive, LXDE, Crunchbag and other WMs on it,  I have not yet had that error or issue ,,still looking
[21:45] <Vigo> penguin42: This may shed some light on it: http://wiki.lxde.org/en/LXTerminal
[21:46] <penguin42> no, it's a bug, not a feature of LXTerminal
[21:46] <yofel> penguin42: doesn't happen on my eeePC
[21:47] <penguin42> yofel: Hmm curiours
[21:47] <Vigo> penguin42: Line 6 of LXDE site may explain it a bit: http://blog.lxde.org/?p=739
[21:48] <penguin42> no, it doesn't
[21:49] <Vigo> They did a sweet rewrite of the site,
[21:52] <Vigo> penguin42: Are you using Alltray with it?
[21:53] <penguin42> not that I know
[21:55] <Vigo> penguin42: Have you hacked the XPanel at all?
[21:56] <penguin42> no, please stop guessing!
[22:01] <Vigo> Time to make a fresh backup. have a great time.
[22:05] <penguin42> that's now bug 604797
[22:06] <penguin42> I classify that as one of the weirdest ones I've seen for a long time
[23:23] <billybigrigger> bash: /etc/bash_completion.d/apt.backup: line 32: syntax error near unexpected token `;'
[23:24] <billybigrigger> anyone still affected by this bug with an up to date system?
[23:24] <billybigrigger> i thought this bug was resolved along time ago
[23:26] <penguin42> yeh, not seen it for ages
[23:28] <yofel> billybigrigger: apt.backup doesn't belong to any package
[23:31] <billybigrigger> i've got syntax errors on lines 32 and 33
[23:31] <billybigrigger> not sure which is the offending character though
[23:33] <yofel> my guess is that it's a file left by dpkg for some reason (bug?), as it shouldn't be there
[23:33] <billybigrigger> http://pastebin.ca/1899381
[23:33] <yofel> dpkg does things like backing up files and creating new ones with .dpkg-new extensions etc. when upgrading packages
[23:34] <yofel> billybigrigger: I believe you, just delete the file
[23:34] <billybigrigger> apt.backup should be safe to rm then?
[23:34] <billybigrigger> alright
[23:34] <yofel> /etc/bash_completion.d/apt is the right one
[23:34] <billybigrigger> yofel, thanks
[23:35]  * penguin42 is now curious what created that .backup, it would be a really bad idea to do that automatically in a config directory like that
[23:35]  * penguin42 wonders if you ever edited with <insert favorite editor here>
[23:38] <tj83> maybe i am just ignorantly missing something here...... I have a SD card with some python scripts on it, under no circumstances have I been able to give execution permission on the files. why?
[23:38] <penguin42> tj83: I think automatically mounted disks mounted by users are probably mounted noexec (but that's a guess)
[23:39] <penguin42> as a 2nd guess they're probably vfat and I'm not sure they store flags like that
[23:39] <tj83> even sudo chmod +x file wont change it/
[23:39] <tj83> as root
[23:39] <tj83> oh, that makes sense, its fat for sure.
[23:42] <tj83> penguin42, here's a catch, I just pop'd the sd card into this laptop running lucid, the x flags are set. its just maverick
[23:42] <penguin42> curious
[23:42] <tj83> very
[23:42] <penguin42> I'd compare the /proc/mounts from the two
[23:50] <tj83> penguin42, i'm no linux expert, can you help with that? http://www.pastebin.ca/1899394
[23:51] <tj83> whats this tag? "showexec"
[23:51]  * penguin42 looks
[23:51] <yofel>        showexec
[23:51] <yofel>               If set, the execute permission bits of the file will be allowed only if the extension part of the name is .EXE, .COM, or .BAT. Not set by default.
[23:52] <yofel> so we have the culprit
[23:52] <tj83> yofel, awesome
[23:52] <yofel> tj83: that's from the mount manpage ;)
[23:52] <penguin42> what an odd option
[23:52] <tj83> now how do we kill that for default behavior. and why on earth would they include .exe!?! ><
[23:52] <penguin42> tj83: so on the old one it's just marking everything execute (because there is actually no way to express execute sensibly on fat)
[23:52] <yofel> well, vfat is for windows originally, so .exe makes sense
[23:53] <penguin42> yofel: Well I guess if you're going to do wine, but I'd agree the old option actually makes more sense given that it's not just windows stuff on usb sticks these days
[23:54] <yofel> depends, maybe they thought it makes sense from some security point of view, and you can always use a different file system
[23:54] <tj83> so, someone gonna make it easy for me how to kill this showexec bit or am I gonna have to look it up myself o.O
[23:54] <yofel> tj83: I'm thinking, can't remember where that's set though
[23:55] <tj83> the portability is the ONLY reason to keep vfat
[23:55] <penguin42> yofel: If the .exe's and .bat's are executable I don't see the security benefit
[23:55] <tj83> penguin42, i will side with you. but we roll with the punches.
[23:56] <yofel> penguin42: actually, nautilus asks you what to do with executable files iirc, you don't want that for documents usually..
[23:56] <penguin42> tj83: Well, it would be worth tracking down what caused it to change and see if there was a rational or whether it was accidental
[23:56] <penguin42> yofel: True
[23:56] <tj83> penguin42, this is a brand spank new install of maverick, its something the developers chose.
[23:57] <tj83> nothing has been modified by me the user, i just slapped this sd card in from the laptop i was using under lucid, there it worked fine. seems together we have found the cause, just not the solution yet.
[23:57] <penguin42> tj83: Well, be careful - someone might have chosen it, they might not have fully figured out why or if it was a good default
[23:58] <tj83> my personal machine.... nobody else has touched it, and this installation of the os is less than 24 hrs old.
[23:59] <yofel> tj83: it's a change of default settings, which - if my guess above is right - actually is a benifit for many users
[23:59] <tj83> I expect this behavior could be observed by anyone with maverick and a SD card.
[23:59] <penguin42> tj83: No, I mean don't always assume directors have fully thought about it - if they did there would be no bugs!
[23:59]  * yofel goes searching for a flash drive that actually has vfat on it...
[23:59] <tj83> penguin42, :) fair enough