[00:09] <bjsnider> that only happens if the user agrees to replace his own sudoers file with the package maintainer's version
[00:15] <Sarvatt> note to self: files in /etc/sudoers.d/ need to be 0440
[00:16] <RAOF> Heh.
[03:20] <RAOF> ScottK: I've got some prospective packages for that KDE crash on logout bug in https://edge.launchpad.net/~raof/+archive/aubergine
[03:23] <RAOF> As I mentioned on the bug, GLX reference counting is moderately scary; it'll need lots of testing.
[03:58] <ScottK> RAOF: OK.  We can give them a try.
[03:58] <RAOF> Thanks.
[03:59] <ScottK> $TEENAGER2 is sleeping already so I can install them there ....
[03:59] <RAOF> If your systems start to die from swap thrashing for no obvious reason after a day or so please do pipe up; it's probably the patch :)
[04:03] <ScottK> OK
[04:06] <ScottK> Oh.  Didn't build yet....
[04:08] <RAOF> What, still?
[04:08] <RAOF> Gah, slow PPAs.
[04:09] <ScottK> I'll start a local build and we'll race.
[04:21] <ScottK> RAOF: Which of the binaries from this source do I need?
[04:21] <RAOF> Just xserver-xorg-core should do.
[04:21] <ScottK> OK.
[04:22] <RAOF> Ah, you'll also need xserver-common.
[04:24]  * ScottK nods
[04:41] <ScottK> There was not an immediate kaboom of any kind.  That's something.
[04:41] <RAOF> Hurray!
[04:45] <ScottK> I've also been able to login and logout a couple of times without crash (I did remember to remove the workaround for the logout crash first)
[04:45] <ScottK> So I'll leave this on here and we'll see what happens.
[04:46] <ScottK> This is also the system that's been having the random X crashes, so we can see if this helps that too.
[17:05] <Sarvatt> ScottK: sorry for not mentioning this yesterday but there is still a lot of discussion going on about the glx drawable patch and it might not get taken in that form
[17:05] <ScottK> Sarvatt: OK.  That would have been good to know, but oh well.  At least it's not obviously worse.
[17:05] <ScottK> Thanks for letting me know.
[17:07] <Sarvatt> v3 of it here now http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/3252/
[18:24] <ilmari> huh, why can't I send to #intel-gfx?
[18:27] <Sarvatt> need to be registered with nickserv probably
[18:31] <ilmari> ah, I'd failed to identify after my last disconnect
[20:06] <ko2> hi, are there any newer driver releases available for the Intel 82865G for Linux Kubuntu Hardy Heron?
[20:06] <ko2> mine is very old. I need a newer one
[20:12] <tjaalton> ko2: for the third time, no
[20:13] <bjsnider> hardy is also very old
[20:17] <jcristau> 865G is also very old
[20:17] <ko2> a driver drom last year could be sufficient
[20:17] <ko2> drom=from
[20:25] <ScottK> FWIW, I've got an 865G system that worked very well on Hardy, so I doubt what's shipped is a problem.
[20:25] <ScottK> Sarvatt: When there's something worthwhile on the patch, please convince RAOF to upload it to his PPA and let me know.
[20:41] <bjsnider> Sarvatt, i just emailed you some ppa usage stats for x-updates and xorg-edgers
[20:47] <Sarvatt> bjsnider: neat!
[20:47] <Sarvatt> ScottK: will do, v3 has problems now too
[20:48] <Sarvatt> 11k downloads of intel-gpu-tools since august 30th in x-updates, hmm
[20:49] <Sarvatt> number is a lot higher than I imagined it'd be actually
[20:51] <Sarvatt> oh wow
[20:51] <Sarvatt> thats just from december 8th to december 16th!?
[20:51] <Sarvatt> and just for maverick too, wow
[20:54] <Sarvatt> bjsnider: that's awesome, thanks for passing that along
[21:02] <bjsnider> Sarvatt, no, it's retroactive to when the package first appeared int he archives
[21:03] <bjsnider> in other words the nvidia-96 package has a lot of downloads because it's been there for a long time
[21:03] <bjsnider> but the scanner started going through the logs on the 8th, and i'm still not sure if it has finished scanning them all the way back to the beginning or not
[21:10] <Sarvatt> bryceh: check it out - http://sarvatt.com/downloads/ppadownloads/x-updates~maverick~2010-12-08--2010-12-16.htm
[21:10] <Sarvatt> oh not here
[21:11] <Sarvatt> intel-gpu-tools is a good one to compare, that's in every desktop install and hasn't been updated since aug 30th
[21:12] <Sarvatt> http://sarvatt.com/downloads/ppadownloads/xorg-edgers~maverick~2010-12-08--2010-12-16.htm
[21:12] <bjsnider> amd64 only
[21:12] <Sarvatt> oh
[21:13] <bjsnider> you can grab the i386 numbers easily
[21:13] <bjsnider> i have no idea how many people still use i386
[21:13] <Sarvatt> yea looking at the script now
[21:13] <Sarvatt> uh because they might have netbooks for one thing? :)
[21:14] <bjsnider> yeah but outside the lpia type devices
[21:14] <bjsnider> but you could come up with a decent ratio with this script i suppose
[21:34] <JanC> bjsnider: I use two 32-bit intel systems still, and none are "LPIA"  ;)
[21:35] <bjsnider> JanC, why is that?
[21:35] <JanC> why not?
[21:36] <JanC> they still work fine...
[21:36] <bjsnider> i think you've misunderstood what i meant
[21:36] <JanC> maybe  ;)
[21:36] <bjsnider> i meant i wasn't sure how many people who have 64-bit cpu-systems choose to install i386 ubuntu on them instead of amd64
[21:37] <JanC> ah
[21:37] <bjsnider> i didn't mean 32-bit processors
[21:37] <JanC> most new users
[21:37] <JanC> because the official CD is 32-bits...
[21:37] <bjsnider> right, i thought of that
[21:37] <bjsnider> but all of us super-nerds use amd64
[21:37] <JanC> and people recommend 32-bits because of issues with flash etc.
[21:40] <Sarvatt> got i386 numbers here http://sarvatt.com/downloads/ppadownloads/
[21:40] <bjsnider> are the numbers higher than the amd64 numbers?
[21:42] <JanC> at first sight i386 numbers are somewhat higher...
[21:43] <bjsnider> perhaps it's not quite as bad as you think JanC 
[21:49] <JanC> for xorg-edgers a little more i386 than amd64, for x-updates it's about 18k i386 vs. 11k amd64 -- so the more of a graphics freak you are the more likely you use amd64 I guess  ;)
[22:34] <ScottK> bjsnider: I use 32bit on all my systems as 64bit doesn't offer significant advantages worth the trouble of reinstalling + flash and stuff.
[22:37] <JanC> flash works fine on 64-bit if you know where to find the "developer pre-release", but that's not exactly something to explain to "newbies"
[22:38] <ScottK> Next time I buy new hardware, I'll probably install 64bit.
[22:38] <JanC> ScottK: you have no systems with > 4 GiB RAM ?
[22:38] <ScottK> I don't.
[22:38] <bjsnider> i madw a ppa that provides the 64 bit flash
[22:49] <bjsnider> ScottK, if one of your 32-bit systems experienced a dead hard drive and you had to reinstall everything, would you go to 64-bit or stay with 32?
[22:51] <ScottK> Probably stay with 32.  I don't see a reason to mess with something different.
[23:00] <bjsnider> even though 32-bit ubuntu has all of those backdoors put there by the FBI?
[23:00] <bjsnider> j/k