[10:29] <bkerensa> So
[13:28] <Wilson2B> Unity screwed my 12.04  . Causing refresh problems with desktop.. blanks out. Running unity from terminal shows errors.I went into software center and removed/reinstalled Unity and Compiz. No noticeable problems in 2D mode
[13:28] <quequotion> unity 5.16.0 does not fix bug 1025535
[13:28] <quequotion> i really had my hopes up
[13:29] <quequotion> also affecting unity 6.6.0
[13:32] <Wilson2B> Thanks, adding myself to the effected with problem group
[13:32] <Wilson2B> So people are thinking that problem is more to do with Compiz
[13:33] <quequotion> me too
[13:33] <quequotion> take a look at the bug description
[13:34] <quequotion> i don't think it's a problem in unity at all
[13:34] <quequotion> i've been on here now and then looking for help.
[13:35] <quequotion> one thing i heard, but don't quite understand, still has me wondering:
[13:35] <quequotion> unity was designed not to be affected by screen transitions, so it would be visible while doing things like looking at desktops in Expo or rotating the cube
[13:37] <quequotion> maybe compiz thinks the screen is in some kind of transition when the cube is transparent, and so renders unity above everything
[13:37] <quequotion> ...but that's just a theory
[13:52] <Wilson2B> quequotion: Sounds plausible to me.. better than I could have said it ;-)
[13:55] <quequotion> thanks. i wish it were more than a theory, but i haven't heard from anyone working on the code for quite a while now.
[13:56] <Wilson2B> Well, what did you do to bandaid?
[13:56] <Wilson2B> I tried uninstalling Unity, and Compiz - and reinstalled
[13:57] <Wilson2B> I think I did add a beta source for Compiz
[13:58] <quequotion> the only "workaround" at the moment is not to make the cube transparent
[13:58] <quequotion> which really ruins my day (actually this bug has been bugging me for over a year now)
[14:00] <quequotion> what version of compiz do you have? (in a terminal: compiz --version)
[15:20] <dmj_nova> Hmm...is polite constructive feedback on making web search in dash better welcome atm?
[15:22] <dmj_nova> I think there's been far too much of a shitstorm over it and none of it really focusing on the right questions.
[15:26] <quequotion> dash has web search?
[15:29] <dmj_nova> well the amazon thing
[15:29] <dmj_nova> it sends queries over the internet in the home lens in quantal
[15:30] <quequotion> ah.. haven't tried it yet.
[15:31] <dmj_nova> quequotion: There has been quite some unrest over this.
[15:31] <dmj_nova> But I think it's been for the wrong reasons.
[15:32] <quequotion> i've missed out, concentrating on pushing for someone to fix bug 1025535
[15:32] <quequotion> nobody talks about my problem anymore...
[15:33] <dmj_nova> It's not "Ubuntu becoming adware" because there are no ads.  I think the real issue is that the dash feels "personal" and people want a clear way to search locally *or* with web results.
[15:34] <quequotion> in the larger scope of things, seeing how things have developed over the last two years, ubuntu may indeed become adware... at the very least advertising itself.
[15:34] <dmj_nova> quequotion: I don't think it will
[15:34] <quequotion> i hope you're right
[15:34] <dmj_nova> Why do you think it will become adware?
[15:35] <quequotion> i see ubuntu becoming more unique, not more useful, in a lot of ways.
[15:35] <quequotion> it looks to me like canonical wants to make a brand they can use for some purpose.
[15:36] <dmj_nova> Well, there was a big sea change with Unity, which initially had a lot of regression usabilitywise
[15:36] <quequotion> i wouldn't call it regression, more like sabatoge.
[15:37] <dmj_nova> And yes, I think they're trying to build a brand.
[15:37] <quequotion> *sabotage
[15:37] <dmj_nova> quequotion: I wouldn't call it sabotage.
[15:37] <quequotion> you used the first version of unity?
[15:37] <dmj_nova> Nobody wanted to release something with problems
[15:37] <dmj_nova> I used 11.04 a bit, hated it.
[15:38] <dmj_nova> 11.10 was improved but still didn't like it
[15:38] <dmj_nova> really like 12.04
[15:38] <quequotion> unity was ready for initial release around the time 12.04 hit.
[15:38] <dmj_nova> 11.04 was like Ubuntu's version of Vista
[15:39] <quequotion> maybe even ME
[15:39] <dmj_nova> difference was that we got our "7" equivalent within a year
[15:39] <quequotion> it was really bad.
[15:40] <dmj_nova> That said, Unity makes a lot of sense given the political climate within GNOME and Ubuntu's plans for mobile.
[15:40] <quequotion> sort of.... still waiting for customizable options, personalization, some kind of screensaver implemenation, but then some of those are more GNOME problems than Unity problems
[15:41] <quequotion> i don't know what's going on at GNOME but it scares me.
[15:42] <dmj_nova> I think lack of customization is largely that options cost in code complexity and they've got enough on their plate getting the default perfected.
[15:43] <dmj_nova> I like customizability too, but good defaults are better.
[15:43] <quequotion> probably, but having a few options to fiddle with might even help people relax while they wait for things to get smoothed out.
[15:43] <dmj_nova> I've had horrible experiences with RHEL-based workstations that have shitty defaults.
[15:48] <quequotion> i'm probably over-thinking this, but I'm worried that this is a really bad time to turn users away from linux, and getting a bad impression from Ubuntu--which had a reputation for being newbie friendly--will do just that.
[15:48] <quequotion> GNOME going mad and a year of hell from Unity had a big impact on the community size.
[15:48] <dmj_nova> quequotion: Actually, the newbies I've shown Unity to were very pleased
[15:50] <mhall119> quequotion: I haven't seen any indication that the community size, for either, is being impacted to any large extent
[15:50] <quequotion> that's good news. since version 5 or so it's shown some promise, but still people get pretty lost at first (the ubuntu button isn't the "start" metaphor they're used to, windows don't minimize to the bottom of the screen etc)
[15:51] <quequotion> there was a bit of an exodus to Mint during 11.04, but Mint is also an Ubuntu variant.
[15:52] <mhall119> there was also an influx of new people
[15:52] <dmj_nova> Filmmakers using OSX love Unity in my experience.
[15:52] <dmj_nova> and are looking for an excuse to switch
[15:53] <quequotion> i heard the latest OSX got pretty good reviews. I haven't used it yet.
[15:53] <quequotion> ls
[15:53] <quequotion> oops
[15:56] <quequotion> did the numbers balance out? i hope so. we're not going to fix bug 1 without converts.
[15:56] <dmj_nova> quequotion: OSX has some serious memory issues
[15:57] <dmj_nova> not to mention its own controversies
[15:57] <dmj_nova> everyone is controversial these days
[15:57] <dmj_nova> except the ones playing it safe
[15:58] <quequotion> this is one of the points i try to make people when they ask me why i go to all the trouble of using an open-source operating system and open source software: avoiding shady corporations as reason #1
[15:59] <quequotion> *try to make TO people
[16:01] <dmj_nova> mhall119: what are your thoughts on the amazon dash search?
[16:07] <mhall119> dmj_nova: I like the idea, and it'll open the door for a lot of new features for users
[16:08] <mhall119> I also think it ties in with our device initiatives
[16:08] <mhall119> especially content purchases
[16:10] <dmj_nova> mhall119: Overall, I like the idea
[16:10] <mhall119> I actually watched Iron Man 2 on Amazon Prime over the weekend, because of playing with the shopping stuff
[16:10] <mhall119> I didn't even know they supported streaming video on Linux
[16:11] <dmj_nova> I do think it could use some modifications to allow for local-only home lens use though
[16:12] <dmj_nova> right now, if someone wants to use the home lens without uploading their usage history, they have to lose the shopping feature.
[16:14] <mhall119> true, but it's most useful in the home lens, so that would take away a lot of it's utility
[16:15] <dmj_nova> well, I never suggested removing it from the home lens
[16:15] <mhall119> making it opt-in or on-demand on the home lens has the same effect
[16:15] <dmj_nova> I'd like to see the home lens with the ability to be local-only or webby
[16:16] <quequotion> why not have a button in the home lens to activate/deactivate internet access? default off.
[16:16] <dmj_nova> that would be my suggestion, a simple toggle
[16:16] <mhall119> quequotion: same effect, the shopping lens is much less useful when you have to think about using it
[16:16] <mhall119> the primary goal of the Dash is to find what you want, without caring about where it is
[16:17] <quequotion> why do users have to upload their usage history?
[16:17] <mhall119> once we make the user think about and care about it's location, we've lost half our utility
[16:17] <mhall119> quequotion: what do you mean "upload their usage history"?
[16:17] <dmj_nova> everything you search for is logged by canonical
[16:18] <dmj_nova> unless you force yourself to think about "which lens do I want?" and select the files lens before typing anything.
[16:18] <mhall119> your search terms are sent to Canonical's servers, then forwarded on to Amazon and the Ubuntu One Music Store
[16:18] <quequotion> does that mean everything you search for in the home lens, in the shopping lens, or everything you search for in the dash?
[16:19] <dmj_nova> quequotion: the home lens
[16:19] <dmj_nova> you can avoid it by never pressing the super key but only pressing combos like <super>+f
[16:20] <quequotion> nobody uses those keyboard shortcuts. i have a hard enough time explaining to people that they can use the keyboard to copy and paste.
[16:20] <mhall119> the data collected by Canonical is all anonymized, and no identifying information is passed on to Amazon
[16:20]  * mhall119 uses those keyboard shortcuts
[16:21] <dmj_nova> personally it's a lot of mental friction to use those shortcuts
[16:21] <dmj_nova> mhall119: How do you anonimize filenames?
[16:21] <mhall119> I use super+<something> so much
[16:21] <mhall119> dmj_nova: IP addresses are anonymized, not search terms
[16:21] <dmj_nova> A lot can be leaked by search terms
[16:21]  * quequotion does use a fe custom shortcuts i created for some purpose
[16:22] <dmj_nova> well, I suppose the user could create a script that spams canonical with every possible combination of search terms so that nothing useful is revealed
[16:22] <mhall119> dmj_nova: but without it being tracable to a person, is there still a risk?
[16:23] <dmj_nova> So you search for "M Hall's resume"
[16:23] <mhall119> and what?
[16:23] <dmj_nova> or "top secret ______"
[16:23] <quequotion> or super sexy ____
[16:24] <mhall119> but again, if it's not tracable to you, what are you worried about?
[16:24] <dmj_nova> also, you are storing it with IP address information
[16:24] <mhall119> hashed IP address information
[16:24] <mhall119> technically the hash is specific to a "stream", not to an IP
[16:25] <mhall119> so if I search for "foo" then for "bar", each will have a different hash
[16:25] <mhall119> so you couldn't even tell that the same person searched for both, let alone tell who that person way
[16:25] <mhall119> was
[16:26] <quequotion> hashed or not, i don't like things tracking my ip. i never got into "features" that involve usage tracking, and i disable it wherever possible. this means some things are less useful for me, but i almost never feel inconvenienced.
[16:26] <mhall119> it's not tracking
[16:28] <quequotion> it's worth considering your original point though, there will be users who don't want to send information out into the internet for whatever reason--and they will want a switch to turn it off somewhere.
[16:28] <mhall119> yes, I agree
[16:28] <mhall119> right now the option is there to remove the shopping lens, and I believe there's work on a simple enable/disable option
[16:29] <dmj_nova> I'd think a persistent toggle would be a good solution
[16:29] <quequotion> placement is another issue i suppose
[16:29] <dmj_nova> and the toggle stays set at the user's preferred setting until they request the change
[16:30] <quequotion> does this toggle go in unity, on the dash, in the unity settings in ccsm, etc?
[16:30] <dmj_nova> mhall119: https://plus.google.com/101813889111560624054/posts/a3CNNkbkZRq
[16:30] <dmj_nova> this was a thought I had the other day
[16:31] <dmj_nova> It also has the effect of informing the user that they're searching online or not
[16:32] <quequotion> is it possible to have two switches, one to enable/disable sending searches out, and another to enable/disable online searching?
[16:32]  * quequotion understands that is a difficult sentence to understand
[16:33] <dmj_nova> quequotion: what do you mean by that?
[16:33] <mhall119> quequotion: how would you do online searching without sending search information out?
[16:33] <quequotion> i mean, one option to choose if a user wants their searches indexed or not, and another option that enables or disables searching the internet from the dash
[16:34] <dmj_nova> I'd think that if someone didn't want online searches they'd also not specifically want to send data out
[16:34] <mhall119> I'm still not understanding the difference
[16:34] <dmj_nova> If they do want web searches, then they *have* to send data.
[16:34] <quequotion> indexed/profiled/stored/etc. separately from being able to search the internet from the dash.
[16:35] <dmj_nova> quequotion: You're still sending the data out there.
[16:35] <mhall119> you mean send your search terms out, but with a flag that says "please don't remember this"?
[16:35] <quequotion> yes i know, so i suppose it's going to be indexed either way.
[16:35] <quequotion> mhall: yes
[16:35] <dmj_nova> and then trusting that the server will forget you
[16:35] <quequotion> nova: which will probably not happen....
[16:35] <mhall119> I think that the fact that searches can't be linked together, or to the user, is enough
[16:36] <quequotion> now can we do it through tor? j/k
[16:38] <mhall119> um....probably, but do you gain any extra anonymity that way?
[16:39] <quequotion> theoretically i suppose. you might be so hard to recognize that your search results would never get back to you.
[16:40] <mhall119> true, there would be maybe 4 fewer people in the world who could do that
[16:41] <mhall119> look, didrocks is already working on making it easier to disable sending out your search terms: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/quantal/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/1054746
[16:41] <dmj_nova> yeah, tor gives you nothing unless Canonical's hashing is shit
[16:42] <quequotion> -offtopic: you know what i could use on launchpad right now? a function that showed packages as they were, all across the site, up to a specific date... never mind that..
[16:44] <dmj_nova> wonder what solution didrocks is coming up with
[16:45] <seb128> dmj_nova, https://code.launchpad.net/~didrocks/libunity/add-remote-disabling-support/+merge/126284
[16:45] <didrocks> dmj_nova: a setting in gnome-control-center that enables to remove all network access from the default lenses
[16:46] <didrocks> so no more suggestions in the dash, music and video lens
[16:46] <didrocks> also, no more software-center suggestions in the app lens
[16:46] <didrocks> (as there are some commercial proposal, like magazines)
[16:47] <quequotion> giving people this kind of choice will earn their trust
[16:48] <quequotion> sounds good
[16:48] <dmj_nova> hmm...would it be possible to be able to set this in the dash itself?
[16:49] <didrocks> no, it will be in gnome-control-center, the dash doesn't have this kind of functionnality
[16:49] <dmj_nova> like with the G+ link above
[16:50] <quequotion> perhaps someday there could be a settings lens
[16:50] <didrocks> would be a nice community project :)
[16:50] <dmj_nova> didrocks: well, there's already options for local vs remote in many lenses
[16:51] <dmj_nova> under filter results
[16:51] <didrocks> dmj_nova: yeah, this one will be global and persistent
[16:51] <didrocks> so different settings
[16:51] <didrocks> the filter are more to refine one search
[16:51] <didrocks> filters*
[16:51] <didrocks> not really to be seen as an "option"
[16:53] <dmj_nova> didrocks: does this patch allow specific lenses to do online search?
[16:54] <didrocks> dmj_nova: no, the goal here is to cut all online search
[16:54] <dmj_nova> hmm
[16:54] <didrocks> dmj_nova: as both are using the same server, the privacy concern applies for all
[16:54] <dmj_nova> Well, the same could be achieved via apt-get remove
[16:55] <didrocks> indeed, the complain is that it's too complicated, hence the settings
[16:55] <dmj_nova> didrocks: In my mind the idea is to give the user control over when they want to search online
[16:55] <didrocks> or that just one user on the machine want that privacy option
[16:55] <didrocks> not the other
[16:55] <didrocks> dmj_nova: in that case, remove the scope you are not confortable with
[16:55] <didrocks> and done
[16:55] <didrocks> same answer :)
[16:55] <dmj_nova> didrocks: do you use google plus?
[16:55] <didrocks> yeah
[16:56] <dmj_nova> So I frequently post things as public
[16:56] <quequotion> one big button is good. later, a small dialogue with a big button and a checklist for individual lenses could be put together.
[16:56] <dmj_nova> but I appreciate the fact that it's made easy to change the scope of my post
[16:57] <didrocks> dmj_nova: the lenses doesn't support that and it's not in the quantal timeframe. We are already breaking all the processes of feature freezes/string freezes and such to deliver that in a hurry
[16:57] <didrocks> quequotion: agreed
[16:57] <dmj_nova> didrocks: so this is a stopgap
[16:57] <dmj_nova> and it can be done proper in R
[16:57] <didrocks> dmj_nova: if people contributes to it, yeah, can be done in R :)
[16:58] <dmj_nova> didrocks: when can work start on R?
[16:58] <didrocks> the underlying infra would be there at least
[16:58] <didrocks> dmj_nova: well, if you want to branch out right now (or maybe rather tomorrow, when I'll have finish this), you can start this :)
[16:58] <dmj_nova> didrocks: https://plus.google.com/101813889111560624054/posts/a3CNNkbkZRq
[16:58] <dmj_nova> I'd imagine something like this for scoping.
[16:58] <didrocks> dmj_nova: the mockups/getting design is not the issue there
[16:58] <dmj_nova> didrocks: What are your thoughts?
[16:59] <didrocks> the issue is to get people to do the implementation TBH :)
[16:59] <dmj_nova> I know there's lots of code to be changed
[16:59] <didrocks> dmj_nova: the UI can work
[17:00] <dmj_nova> Just trying to feel out if that sort of scoping is an agreeable direction
[17:01]  * quequotion is about to logout/login to test yet another unsupported compiz/unity installation. wish him luck.
[17:01] <dmj_nova> work on GNOME's UI back in the day taught me not to go chasing things without checking if that's where they want to go :P
[17:03] <bernie> does anybody have problems with ccsm being unable to parse hotkey strings containing "<Super>" ?
[17:10]  * quequotion still has a desktop.. mostly
[17:10] <dmj_nova> mhall119: anyway, thanks for listening and showing that it's being worked on the the best of feature freeze's ability
[17:10] <bernie> quequotion: then i should feel lucky :)
[17:10] <dmj_nova> This got way too much of a shitstorm
[17:10] <dmj_nova> it's an important issue
[17:11] <dmj_nova> but there wasn't a lot of productive dialogue going on (relative to the shitstorm) because a lot of people didn't really get the issue
[17:28]  * quequotion is now using compiz 1:0.9.8+bzr3319-0ubuntu1 and unity 6.2.0-0ubuntu4... in precise.
[17:38] <bobweaver> more reasons too drop unity 2d http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po8nqy1PP_U
[17:41] <bobweaver> That took me 2 days at maybe 3 hours f programing a day
[17:43] <bobweaver> most of the time was spent on implanting the browser into the dash , wont play flash videos but plays webm great as the browser is wrote for  html5
[17:46] <quequotion> wasn't unity-2d already dropped?
[23:00] <ike> if wayland succeeds x, will unity run still with compiz optimized for wayland? or will it run as a separate thing using weston or a fork, etc? I'm guessing it's not decided but what are the discussion highlights so far....
[23:00] <ike> ?
[23:02] <ike> (that was a forgotten punctuation question mark, not an impatiently waiting question mark)
[23:30] <thumper> ike: I don't believe there have been any discussions around running compiz on wayland/weston
[23:31] <popey> morning thumper
[23:31] <thumper> hi popey
[23:32] <ike> i found some stuff here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Wayland
[23:32] <ike> "Where does Compiz fit in with this new architecture?
[23:32] <ike> Compiz will be the display server, using the Wayland protocol to talk to the clients. Ubuntu's Unity would be a compiz plug-in.
[23:32] <ike> In this architecture, Compiz would communicate with the kernel video drivers using the EGL+GLES2 and evdev protocols. So for getting "Wayland support" in Compiz, it means enabling Compiz to communicate with these protocols.
[23:32] <ike> On the other side, Compiz would communicate with the client applications via libwayland-server"