=== irvy is now known as irv [01:50] 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] there's no lucid bug installing the nvidia driver [01:52] bjsnider, mm I cant seem to install official nvidia drivers on lucid [01:52] bjsnider, at least not withouth blacklisting neuveau [01:52] 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] bjsnider, mm I will have to look into this then [01:53] install the recommended driver through jockey [01:53] bjsnider, no [01:53] in the name of all that is right in the world [01:53] bjsnider, the recommended driver has a memory leak [01:53] bjsnider, nvidia-common is not a good version of the nvidia driver [01:54] nvidia-current [01:54] and it is the same driver [01:54] bjsnider, right it is not a good driver [01:54] the libs and kernel module are pre-built [01:54] bjsnider, I much prefer the official driver installation procedure to test different drivers [01:54] if it is not a good driver why do you want to install it? [01:55] bjsnider, the need to install different version on different systems with different cards is essential for best performance [01:55] did you miss the nvidia sticky post about using the distribution packages? that is the official method [01:55] bjsnider, limiting the choices to 2 orr 3 is not sensible [01:55] bjsnider, I have been using ubuntu since day one [01:55] bjsnider, I am not interested in the ubuntu version offered [01:56] at least for nvidia drivers [01:56] http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=d39db399e4674fd731f185191ed48396&t=72490 [01:57] the very first sentence says use the distribution's packages [01:57] bjsnider, yeah I have never had issues with updates [01:58] any reason why we can't ship a few more versions? [01:58] It's not like we're actually fixing bugs in the drivers [01:59] 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] and I never use the ones offered by ubuntu [02:00] rather I never install via jockey [02:02] 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] Does the Unity doc on the left have a config file one can edit to add custom application/launcher ? [02:29] I have several wine application I would like to put there [04:19] 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 === Jordan_U_ is now known as Jordan_U === Jordan_U_ is now known as Jordan_U === yofel_ is now known as yofel === Fudge is now known as Guest5778 === Fudgey is now known as Fudge [07:49] whens alpha2 scheduled? [07:50] 10 days ago. [07:51] alpha3 im sorry lol im using alpha2 :$ [07:51] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickReleaseSchedule [07:52] ty [07:53] ok 14 August cheers for that [08:10] any idea how to recompile vmware modules on maverick? [08:12] Fudge: Sorry , I do not do much VM stuff. [08:23] Vigo thanks anyway [10:20] is there any shorkey for preferences in thunderbrid (not using it) [12:56] hi, i am not able to upgrade properly to the maverick, the update fails with following message http://pastebin.com/m8SgTagg === jtechidna is now known as JontheEchidna === Yahweh is now known as poutine [16:48] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek starting in 12 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom [16:49] 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] djbeenie_: That question is more on-topic for ##linux [17:00] Okay [17:00] something is definitely wrong with my GTK [17:00] after upgrade [17:00] half the widgets are white [17:01] Buttons are always white no matter which theme I try [17:02] Any ideas, or am I better off doing a clean reinstall? [17:12] Hmmm [17:12] For once, I'm tempted to try the 64-bit version [17:13] after spending almost five years on 32-bit [17:13] since I'll be doing a clean reinstall anyway [17:17] I wonder also [17:17] can 64-bit Wine run both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows applications? [17:18] or at least just 32-bit? [17:20] just wanted to see what ff4 looked like and got this [17:20] /usr/bin/firefox-4.0: 175: Syntax error: end of file unexpected (expecting "fi") [17:26] oh 4.0 is there? [17:28] ah, updating package manager is fun... 'sudo aptitude install aptitude' XD [17:29] * yofel goes installing ffx4 [17:31] yofel, installing from mozilla daily? [17:31] yep [17:34] 4.0b2 is the version, havent tried 4.0b1 dont really care that much [17:40] 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] and: [17:41] i can not start the /usr/bin/firefox-4.0 because someone miss a "fi" [17:41] Hanmac: yes, the builds are being respun to fix that [17:41] excellent :) [17:42] but still not launching [17:45] it does here [17:47] it did the profile transfer but never launched [17:49] meh, http://yofel.dyndns.org/pics/ext/ffx4_addons0.png :( [18:27] So, the daily maverick installer on my netbook is hosed :( [18:27] well, the installer worked okay, but it is reporting everything as crashing once at the desktop [18:36] 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] h00k: even that apport crashed? if yes then that's known [18:36] h00k: Seems to be an issue today. I have so many apport crashes, it is unusable [18:36] fix underway [18:37] bug 603919 [18:37] Launchpad bug 603919 in apport (Ubuntu) ""python packages" crashed with ImportError in ()" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/603919 [18:38] 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] I had the same issue it was barely useable. I grabbed the d-i and used it to install netbook. [18:39] h00k: can you install 'gir1.0-glib-2.0' and see if that helps? [18:40] yofel, after that installation things have been better. I noticed it in todays update. [18:40] ah, so it's already out, good :) [18:40] yofel: I'll check that now. [18:41] I do notice though at times things hang a bit when I go between the application menu and main screen [18:41] h00k: or simply update python-gobject, that will pull it in [18:43] yofel: remember the qt webkit thingie? [18:44] yes [18:44] strange thing is that I have another box with karmik+ppa. Same numbered packages were updated... [18:44] ... and it all went smooth. It seems ppa packages were linked against webkit beta1 [18:44] yofel: doing python-gobject now [18:44] Also, on this reinstall, btrfs seems to be working smoothly. it didn't take 12 hours to install. [18:44] Another thing I have a javaws app that does not show up on the doc when it is ran. Is that normal? [18:45] h00k: does btrfs work with grub2 now? [18:45] yofel: I don't know, I just made a 200mb /boot with ext2 [18:45] i could try it! [18:46] * h00k boots from USB [18:46] oh ,is it stable already? (btrfs support) [18:46] I mean at least upstream, I don't mean in the distro [18:47] * h00k shrugs [18:47] lolz [18:48] IIRC it was supposed to be not experimental anymore in 2.6.35, not sure if that's actually the case [18:48] h00k: I don't want to go the reiser4 way. I've had reiser4 partitions for a while, and see now... [18:48] uga: they've come back to kill you? [18:48] s/kill/haunt/ [18:48] then again, ext4 wasn't experimental in jaunty too... [18:48] * yofel shudders... [18:49] 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] so I wanted to know if they already accepted btrfs as something working and "complete" ;) [18:49] As far as I know, it was supposed to be that way, as yofel said [18:50] thanks, then it's good enough for me [18:50] yofel: I've been using ext4 for quite a while here [18:50] and I migrated everything to it as soon as I figured out how to make grub work on it [18:51] it's called "backups" :P [18:52] okay, going through the installer [18:54] "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] yofel: ^ [18:54] ok, thanks [18:55] 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] mirak: wouldnt' it have been easier by just touch, su to another user and ask? =) [19:14] btw, yes, it should work (tm) [19:15] but you won't be able to delete the file [19:15] s/and/thank [19:15] urgh [19:15] s/and/than [19:16] * uga notes his english is getting worse, worse, worse, worse... [19:21] 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] x301s. [19:22] uga, what ? [19:23] 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] I said the answer is yes, but it'd have been quicker if you just tested ;) [19:23] (or so I intended to write, in a very poor english) [19:24] just that, the script won't be able to delete it, if not run as root [19:24] uga, seems the right way is to create a folder writable by the user [19:25] touch && chown works too [19:25] I did that [19:25] the other option is setuid, but I never liked that [19:26] cixa: that's more something for #ubuntu-offtopic, I'm using an t510 right now (my r61 broke :/ ) [19:26] mirak: not sure but I think it'd have been much harder using policykit [19:26] ? [19:29] guys i get an error when i try to update [19:30] http://pastebin.com/JsUhvPyS [19:32] can someone help please :) [19:33] Daijoubu: sounds like somebody forgot updating python-minimal in that mirror [19:33] there's no much you can do, I think, until somebody updates that [19:33] ok i will switch to the main server [19:33] as far as the package version is there, ys [19:33] es [19:35] weird... software sources doesn't want to start now [19:41] uga, ? it runs as root, so i guess it can work ... [19:41] uga, I mean init.d is launched by root [19:52] uga thanks that worked :) [20:17] when is launchpad going to be fixed [20:25] bp0: If its broken, then #lauchpad would be a good place to talk about it. [20:27] you'd think that [21:07] 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] 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] why next week, whats happening next week..its still gonna be alpha . [21:23] Next week is after Ubuntu Developer Week [21:23] well I wouldnt, personally.. [21:23] I can break it then [21:24] next week is that magical somewhere in the middle of devel time point where things start to get worse :P [21:24] yup [21:24] but it is my time [21:25] 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] heh [21:26] Can I safely remove kernel 2.6.35-6.9 or should I keep it in for testing and bug squishing? [21:27] Vigo: If you run the janitor it should clean out all but the last one or two [21:28] penguin42: Thank you. [21:28] Vigo: always keep at least a 2nd working kernel [21:29] guntbert: Yes, and always make a backup BEFORE doing such stuff,,,, [21:29] anyone running lubuntu in maverick? I've just had it do something *very* odd [21:30] I am trying all sorts of packages and such in this testing,,,, [21:32] penguin42: I have not run Lubuntu yet on this box, what occurred? [21:32] 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] 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] guntbert: I agree, I am using 3 HDDs all some flavor of *nix on each. [21:34] penguin42: That is odd, any reports of that issue on the LXDE site? [21:34] not checked yet [21:36] penguin42: On one of the Linux Forums there is a report of that, is a Xorg thing, still looking though... [21:36] Vigo: URL? It does seem repeatable [21:38] penguin42: Is an OpenBox WM also,, [21:39] but here> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/resizing-virtualbox-with-lxde-inside-doesnt-restretch-wallpaper-741903/ [21:40] Vigo: What makes you say that sounds anything like what I just described? [21:40] that seems to be corruption or wallpaper related [21:43] 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] penguin42: This may shed some light on it: http://wiki.lxde.org/en/LXTerminal [21:46] no, it's a bug, not a feature of LXTerminal [21:46] penguin42: doesn't happen on my eeePC [21:47] yofel: Hmm curiours [21:47] penguin42: Line 6 of LXDE site may explain it a bit: http://blog.lxde.org/?p=739 [21:48] no, it doesn't [21:49] They did a sweet rewrite of the site, [21:52] penguin42: Are you using Alltray with it? [21:53] not that I know [21:55] penguin42: Have you hacked the XPanel at all? [21:56] no, please stop guessing! [22:01] Time to make a fresh backup. have a great time. [22:05] that's now bug 604797 [22:05] Launchpad bug 604797 in lubuntu-meta (Ubuntu) "[maverick] windows move off the bottom of the display and then the panel flickers" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/604797 [22:06] I classify that as one of the weirdest ones I've seen for a long time [23:23] bash: /etc/bash_completion.d/apt.backup: line 32: syntax error near unexpected token `;' [23:24] anyone still affected by this bug with an up to date system? [23:24] i thought this bug was resolved along time ago [23:26] yeh, not seen it for ages [23:28] billybigrigger: apt.backup doesn't belong to any package [23:31] i've got syntax errors on lines 32 and 33 [23:31] not sure which is the offending character though [23:33] my guess is that it's a file left by dpkg for some reason (bug?), as it shouldn't be there [23:33] http://pastebin.ca/1899381 [23:33] dpkg does things like backing up files and creating new ones with .dpkg-new extensions etc. when upgrading packages [23:34] billybigrigger: I believe you, just delete the file [23:34] apt.backup should be safe to rm then? [23:34] alright [23:34] /etc/bash_completion.d/apt is the right one [23:34] 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 [23:38] 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] tj83: I think automatically mounted disks mounted by users are probably mounted noexec (but that's a guess) [23:39] as a 2nd guess they're probably vfat and I'm not sure they store flags like that [23:39] even sudo chmod +x file wont change it/ [23:39] as root [23:39] oh, that makes sense, its fat for sure. [23:42] 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] curious [23:42] very [23:42] I'd compare the /proc/mounts from the two [23:50] penguin42, i'm no linux expert, can you help with that? http://www.pastebin.ca/1899394 [23:51] whats this tag? "showexec" [23:51] * penguin42 looks [23:51] showexec [23:51] 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] so we have the culprit [23:52] yofel, awesome [23:52] tj83: that's from the mount manpage ;) [23:52] what an odd option [23:52] now how do we kill that for default behavior. and why on earth would they include .exe!?! >< [23:52] 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] well, vfat is for windows originally, so .exe makes sense [23:53] 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] depends, maybe they thought it makes sense from some security point of view, and you can always use a different file system [23:54] 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] tj83: I'm thinking, can't remember where that's set though [23:55] the portability is the ONLY reason to keep vfat [23:55] yofel: If the .exe's and .bat's are executable I don't see the security benefit [23:55] penguin42, i will side with you. but we roll with the punches. [23:56] penguin42: actually, nautilus asks you what to do with executable files iirc, you don't want that for documents usually.. [23:56] 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] yofel: True [23:56] penguin42, this is a brand spank new install of maverick, its something the developers chose. [23:57] 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] 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] my personal machine.... nobody else has touched it, and this installation of the os is less than 24 hrs old. [23:59] tj83: it's a change of default settings, which - if my guess above is right - actually is a benifit for many users [23:59] I expect this behavior could be observed by anyone with maverick and a SD card. [23:59] 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] penguin42, :) fair enough