[01:14] <Madkiss> cheers.
[01:14] <Madkiss> I updated to 13.04 (because my system told me that I could 'update to this new version of ubuntu') and now bluetooth doesn't work anymore
[01:14] <Madkiss> This is a MacBook Air 5,2 with Kubuntu
[01:16] <jbicha> Madkiss: you definitely should not have been offered an upgrade to 13.04 yet since it hasn't been released yet
[01:17] <Madkiss> now that doesn't help me a lot
[01:17] <jbicha> I heard about this bug once before, maybe you should mention it in #kubuntu-devel to see if they've figured out the problem yet
[01:18] <Madkiss> yikes.
[01:18]  * Madkiss gets to be a channel-hopper this way
[01:18] <Madkiss> i doubt its a kde problem though.
[01:18] <Madkiss> "hcitool dev" shows an empty list.
[01:19] <jbicha> right, that's likely a kernel problem, but the other time I heard about the upgrade offer it was on Kubuntu too
[01:19] <Madkiss> well I guess for that it's too late now anyway.
[01:19] <Madkiss> What's the best method to debug this?
[01:20] <Madkiss> i think "modprobe btusb" ought to be sufficient quite frankly.
[01:20] <jbicha> run ubuntu-bug bluetooth
[01:20] <Madkiss> you want me to report a bug?!
[01:20] <Madkiss> without any debugging?
[01:20] <Madkiss> jesus
[01:20] <jbicha> I've not run that command before, but ubuntu-bug helps to add some debug info to a bug report
[01:21] <mandoguit> fwiw, that is how I found myself running  Kubuntu 13.04 too     seem to recall something needs to be toggled off in the sources to prevent it
[01:21] <jbicha> this channel doesn't tend to have kernel or bluetooth developers so you might not find a better answer here
[01:22] <Madkiss> okay.
[01:23] <Madkiss> I guess this is an ex-kubuntu-installation then.
[01:23] <Madkiss> I spent two full days figuring out which Linux to run on this machine because people were nagging me like hell about the bad bad bad OS X it had pre-installed.
[01:23] <jbicha> mandoguit: that shouldn't be possible so I'd consider that a critical bug
[01:23] <Madkiss> Every attempt to run Linux on this thing has ended in a plain disaster. Kubuntu, Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora
[01:24] <Madkiss> *sigh*
[01:27] <mandoguit> jbicha:   heh... tell me about it. :P    still all in all I've had very few problems with it since installing so can't complain to much :)
[01:35] <SuperLag> bjsnider: if the channel gets too noisy for you, start your own... and invite people?
[01:35] <SuperLag> just a thought
[01:36] <SuperLag> krabador: no decision has been made about a rolling release, though, right?
[01:36] <krabador> SuperLag, today i asked at UDS
[01:37] <SuperLag> krabador: and what kind of response did you get? :)
[01:37] <Belial> i read they're still not sure.
[01:38] <krabador> "Now, with new server graphic and qt, almost ready for 14.04, what we can expect from 13.10?"
[01:38] <SuperLag> QT?
[01:38] <Belial> unity next = qt/qml
[01:38] <krabador> and the response was "there not 13.10"
[01:39] <SuperLag> krabador: there is no 13.10? is that what you're meaning to say?
[01:39] <krabador> SuperLag, yes
[01:39] <SuperLag> krabador: so... that implies they *will* be moving forward with a rolling release?
[01:40] <Belial> they're definitely moving towards a rolling release. the question is when.
[01:40] <krabador> SuperLag, mostly sure
[01:40] <SuperLag> Belial: I wonder how hard it is to transition
[01:40] <SuperLag> Belial: I'm guessing not too difficult.
[01:40] <krabador> SuperLag, Belial 13.04 will be out only because people involved on develop, are working on it by 4 months
[01:40] <SuperLag> but what do I know
[01:40] <Belial> krabador, i see.
[01:41] <SuperLag> I'd love to go to 13.04, but I'm having *massive* issues with it.
[01:41] <SuperLag> works fine in a VM
[01:42] <Belial> i've been using kubuntu 13.04 and it's been smooth.
[01:42] <Belial> real smooth.
[01:42] <SuperLag> but when I try to install it on native hardware at work... regular kernel panics
[01:42] <SuperLag> I lost an entire day of work today, trying to chase it down
[01:42] <Belial> nice
[01:42] <SuperLag> reinstalled 12.10
[01:43] <krabador> http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21679/client-1303-unity-ui-converged/ my question are at 24:13
[01:43] <SuperLag> Belial: Mar  5 10:52:09 wanderlust kernel: [    5.013266] radeon 0000:01:00.0: registered panic notifier
[01:43] <SuperLag> Belial: this is what it would be, every time
[01:44] <SuperLag> does that mean the radeon driver is causing it?
[01:44] <Belial> it would seem so.
[01:44] <SuperLag> I tried the proprietary driver, but my card isn't supported, so it wouldn't install
[01:44] <Belial> i know someone else with a radeon that said 13.04 was unuseable for them.
[01:46] <SuperLag> Belial: were they in the channel?
[01:47] <Belial> no they weren't.
[01:47] <Belial> someone i know from another network.
[01:47] <SuperLag> well... they're not the only one :/
[01:47] <SuperLag> time to move this machine
[01:51] <krabador> !seen SuperLag
[02:55] <johnjohn101> so is 13.04 cancelled?
[04:08] <bjsnider> johnjohn101, what?
[04:08] <bjsnider> SuperLag, no, i'd just leave this channel
[08:26] <user_23415> Will I be able to use the Mir display server with the lxde environment (openbox+gtk2)?
[09:33] <lolzer> hi plz help me about creating a hotspot in my laptop.. it creates but no internet  connection on the other device
[09:33] <lolzer> im using ubuntu 12.04
[10:20] <zAo^> this channel is for 13.04 :)
[10:47] <snadge> i want to know why indicator-weather is still crappy
[11:41] <Madkiss> snadge: because nobody fixed it I guess
[11:55] <BluesKaj> Hey all
[13:07] <snadge> yeah.. not interesting enough.. theres 3 open bugs for weather-indicator spanning across 3 releases :P
[14:18] <mynameisbruce> same text hier :D
[14:18] <mynameisbruce> what happened to firefox settings in raring ringtail daily?
[14:18] <mynameisbruce>  privacy settings are disabled by default
[14:18] <mynameisbruce> * gustavo_ (~gustavo@187.57.64.60) has joined #
[14:18] <mynameisbruce> no chance to enable them manually
[14:19] <mynameisbruce> is it a firefox or a ubuntu customazation?
[14:20] <mynameisbruce> pretty anoying...cause now i get cookies by default
[14:20] <mynameisbruce> and i hate cookies :D
[14:20] <vivid> looks like its working to me...
[14:21] <mynameisbruce> firefox settings?
[14:21] <mynameisbruce> everything is greyed out in daily installation
[14:21] <vivid> where?
[14:21] <vivid> screenshot
[14:23] <mynameisbruce> little bit hard to take screenshot in nating virtualmachine .... firefox -> preferences -> privacy -> "use custom settings for history" ->
[14:24] <mynameisbruce> there u can see that "remember search and form history" is grey
[14:24] <mynameisbruce> and some more options
[14:24] <mynameisbruce> like remember passwords
[14:25] <mynameisbruce> which u can find in the "security" tab
[14:25] <mynameisbruce> the installation came from daily raring image...all updates applied
[14:25] <vivid> nothing in my privacy or security tabs is grey
[14:25] <mynameisbruce> maybe its a daily image bug...hmm
[14:36] <tyrog> Hi. Who is using 13.04 as the only OS?
[14:37] <vivid> <-
[14:38] <tyrog> vivid: Is it stable? I'm not enjoying 12.10 performance and stability, and can handle some issues if they appear somewhere. Do you recommend it?
[14:38] <zAo^> <- 2
[14:38] <tyrog> zAo^: for you 2 xD
[14:38] <vivid> i recommend 12.04
[14:38] <zAo^> I use server edition + xfce; thats fine
[14:39] <vivid> theres nothing in 13.04 thats going to solve issues with 12.10 or 12.04
[14:39] <vivid> if youre having trouble, focus on resolving that before moving to unstable branches
[14:39] <zAo^> except for a new mesa
[14:39] <vivid> im on mesa 9.2 in precise even..
[14:40] <tyrog> vivid: What PPA?
[14:40] <vivid> raring is only 9.0.2
[14:40] <vivid> ppa:xorg-edgers/ppa
[14:41] <tyrog> vivid: Its the performance of unity, and also some bugs with managing windows. I read that 13.04 would fixe some problems with it
[14:42] <vivid> you read that where?
[14:42] <vivid> nothing is different....
[14:42] <vivid> thats why its so "stable" and improved "daily quality"
[14:42] <zAo^> :O
[14:43] <vivid> and 12.04 gets 12.10 SRU
[14:43] <vivid> no point in being on anything but 12.04 unless youre a developer.  i suppose thats why they consider a rolling release
[14:44] <tyrog> vivid: But they release the interim non-LTS releases as stable. They should be usable by everyone, not only developers
[14:44] <zAo^> What are the latest thoughts on a rolling release?
[14:44] <vivid> my opinion is that they should do it
[14:44] <tyrog> As for Rolling Release, they are still not sure if it is the best option.
[14:44] <vivid> well, at the moment the best option is to use LTS.  the vast majority of users should be using that
[14:45] <zAo^> the .04 and .10 release model was chosen because of Gnome. Since we dont use that anymore...
[14:45] <vivid> in terms of time (money) the three releases in between are exhausting
[14:45] <vivid> rolling release, in theory, should reduce the workload, deadline stress, etc
[14:46] <zAo^> yeah, I you look at Arch; their model is working out great for them
[14:46] <zAo^> I = if
[14:46] <vivid> the 6 month cycle has worked great for ubuntu too.  that doesnt mean its the best way to do it
[14:47] <vivid> nor rolling release, but at minimum it should be thoroughly evaluated because it offers many improvements
[14:47] <tyrog> zAo^: How can you guarantee that updates won't break anything? If you say stick with the LTS then, I'm not sure that everyone wants to stick with outdated software for 2 years :S
[14:48] <vivid> most people should stick with that, and its not outdated....
[14:48] <vivid> and you guarantee against breakage by testing package.
[14:49] <tyrog> zAo^: you know how Arch can be frustrating, so not everything is smooth. With Ubuntu a failure in the updates would be a problem.
[14:49] <tyrog> vivid: You know there aren't many backports of new software to the LTS right?
[14:49] <vivid> thats why those people who cannot have breakage would use the LTS
[14:49] <zAo^> tyrog, AUR is frustrating, but the normal repos arent?
[14:50] <tyrog> zAo^: Arch stable? Even that branch is far from ubuntu in that respect
[14:50] <zAo^> tyrog, Hmm. My experience differs then. Ubuntu is less stable for me
[14:51] <vivid> ubuntu is very stable, but then again i can make any linux system stable
[14:51] <vivid> i can also hack them to peices and break everything from top to bottom
[14:51] <zAo^> But since I hate AUR, i´m back on Ubuntu for now
[14:52] <tyrog> vivid: I think they could stick with LTS releases for daily usage if they provide backports for more software
[14:52] <vivid> why? more software is available through ppa.
[14:52] <vivid> LTS remains stable as the first goal.  new software is not a priority
[14:53] <zAo^> But if you use a large number of PPA´s, breackage will come
[14:53] <vivid> maybe.  if you dont want to use LTS theres other options...
[14:53] <tyrog> Then the point LTS releases would be more relevant. As they are now, its more like the Debian point releases. They have upgraded with 12.04.2 to the 12.10 stuff to provide compatibility with new hardware, mainly UEFI machines
[14:54] <vivid> more like debian stable? i take it thats somewhat the goal
[14:54] <vivid> where a rolling release would be more like testing and unstable
[14:54] <vivid> or LTS, Rolling Stable, and Rolling Development
[14:54] <tyrog> I see, but not everyone needs to have that debian stability-level. That's why these interim releases exist right?
[14:55] <vivid> well, that is the priority.  those companies/partners that invest/pay money will be using the LTS
[14:56] <vivid> i still think a rolling release would be a really good idea, but its up to ubuntu
[14:56] <tyrog> vivid: Fedora somewhat does these releases right. You get new software sooner.
[14:57] <vivid> what? last time i looked they were behind on their schedules
[14:57] <tyrog> I'm not talking about the bleeding edge technologies they implement
[14:57] <tyrog> Just normal, daily usage software.
[14:57] <vivid> new is != better
[14:58] <tyrog> vivid: AFAIK, that was because of the new installer. The release would have been done sooner if it wasn't for that.
[14:58] <tyrog> vivid: Are you thinking about GNOME? xD
[14:59] <vivid> what?
[14:59] <tyrog> For most software new means better, more features. What did you mean with that?
[14:59] <vivid> new != better
[15:00] <tyrog> vivid: Whats the point of updates then?
[15:00] <vivid> better software, security, bugs
[15:00] <vivid> not "new"
[15:00] <tyrog> vivid: A rolling release would have new software, or not?
[15:00] <tyrog> So, its the same as exists right now
[15:01] <vivid> depends, look at gentoo.  they have the "new" software but alot of it is masked
[15:01] <vivid> pick, choose, and enable at your own risk
[15:01] <vivid> the distribution itself needs to be stable, cant just put new things in for the sake of being new
[15:01] <tyrog> That's ok. But I think Ubuntu targets people who want new software. You can get even newer software with Arch for example.
[15:01] <vivid> i dont think ubuntu targets that niche at all
[15:02] <tyrog> vivid: A rolling release would have to tinker with low-level software components, sooner or later. That's why they are risky, even now that ubuntu is doing many new projects from scratch
[15:03] <vivid> how is that different from the current model?
[15:03] <tyrog> vivid: If the point is to have MIR updates coming with a "normal" software update, then it is the same as what we have now, development releases
[15:04] <tyrog> vivid: 18 months support with each release, and 5 years for LTS
[15:04] <vivid> i dont think the point is to do MIR anything.  the point of a rolling release would be to decrease workload, deadlines, etc while increasing development time on other projects.  like mir, mobile
[15:04] <vivid> efficiency
[15:05] <tyrog> vivid: You can't guarantee that level of quality with rolling releases, you know? I don't think ubuntu wants the ultra conservative approach of other distros too, beucase they didn't want that from the very beginning
[15:05] <vivid> why cant you gurantee that level of quality.  thats exactly why you would keep the LTS
[15:06] <vivid> then mask packages on the rolling release until theyre tested, approved, and merged
[15:06] <tyrog> vivid: What is the point of a rolling release then? You keep with the development releases, its very easy to develop stuff on top of them
[15:06] <tyrog> And you can fix most stuff by yourself
[15:06] <vivid> to reduce the amount of work developers have to do.  increase efficiency
[15:06] <vivid> you would have a single development release, and a single lts release to support
[15:07] <vivid> take stable snapshots of that development release, and you can create a third stable more up to date release
[15:07] <tyrog> vivid: You mean a Stable Rolling release?
[15:07] <vivid> well, thats how i would want to see it.
[15:08] <vivid> i would handle it similar to how gentoo handles it.  publish, mask, test, approve, include
[15:08] <vivid> at the same time, have the LTS release as well
[15:09] <mynameisbruce> ubuntu installs libreoffice as a dependency for language support...omg
[15:09] <tyrog> vivid: Do you agree with providing timely snapshots of that rolling release?
[15:10] <vivid> i would, as indicated by the quality of said snapshot
[15:10] <vivid> so if a snapshot is of poor quality, skip it, remain on a high quality one
[15:11] <tyrog> vivid: What do you mean by that? Its rolling you know, you have the same software if you install from the latest snapshot or keep your system updated
[15:11] <vivid> you would have different channels
[15:11] <vivid> stable and development for the rolling release
[15:12] <vivid> a "snapshot" would be moving stable development packages into the other channel
[15:12] <vivid> a "poor snapshot" would not be included
[15:12] <vivid> anything that compromises stability gets left behind
[15:13] <mynameisbruce> keyboard layout is missing from gnome-control-panel.......anybody an idea how to reactivate "windows" key now
[15:13] <tyrog> vivid: Even debian testing with a similar philosophy to that breaks, even after trying to keep packages left behind for a long time
[15:13] <vivid> thats because they lack what ubuntu brings
[15:14] <vivid> deadline reliability and consistency
[15:14] <tyrog> vivid: openSUSE have a similar rolling model to the one you defend, and even with that things are not as stable as with their normal releases. So if they are not more stable, do you think they are a valid substitute?
[15:14] <vivid> not familiar with them
[15:15] <vivid> do they have an LTS alongside their rolling release?
[15:15] <vivid> or do they take care of that in SUSE enterprise
[15:15] <tyrog> vivid: No LTS releases there. And I can tell all of their stable releases are of very good quality
[15:15] <tyrog> vivid: Of course SUSE enterprise is what is similar to their LTS release
[15:16] <vivid> i would think so
[15:16] <tyrog> But IF LTS's are for enteprises, and I agree they should be targeted to them, then for the rest of us, normal desktop users, what would be better? These stable releases or the rolling model?
[15:16] <vivid> normal desktop users would be recommended on the LTS
[15:17] <tyrog> vivid: Ubuntu supports upgrades from one release to the next right now.
[15:17] <vivid> basically all the rolling release model does is reduce the stress of the inbetween development cylce
[15:17] <tyrog> vivid: Normal desktop users are not the same as enteprise, server, ultra-stable target
[15:17] <vivid> the focus needs to be on the LTS, mobile, etc
[15:18] <vivid> maybe not, but the same system can satisfy all of those needs
[15:18] <tyrog> vivid: Ubuntu wants to achieve full convergence. So that is not a problem, they are developing Mir, Unity Next and all the stuff at the same time
[15:18] <vivid> right, more reason to drop the interim releases
[15:20] <tyrog> vivid: 100% risk-free can't be provided with a rolling release when such major projects will be integrated sooner or later. Its simply not possible. The same applies to Debian stable with their new release and the need to upgrade to Gnome 3 for example
[15:20] <vivid> debian stable is much older no?
[15:20] <vivid> remains constant for what..5 years?
[15:21] <vivid> like the LTS, except its refreshed every two years
[15:21] <tyrog> I don't think Mir and all the new Qt stuff could come together with the normal updates with 100% risk-free for desktop users. Those with the Stable Rolling release. I don't think it is doable.
[15:21] <vivid> thats why they use the LTS
[15:21] <vivid> simple as that
[15:21] <tyrog> Other examples of Stable Rolling releases prove that. The rolling releases you said don't update that stuff for years lol.
[15:21] <vivid> provide a single stable operating system.  and a single development environmnet
[15:22] <vivid> where did i say that?
[15:22] <vivid> all the rolling releases ive used are very up to date
[15:22] <vivid> they also mask broken/problematic packages
[15:22] <vivid> you can choose to use those, and suffer any consequences as a result
[15:23] <tyrog> vivid: So how would Ubuntu advertise to people then? Only the LTS release? Then I think they need to backport more stuff then. PPAs are not completely reliable, and I would dare to say most people that use Ubuntu don't know about them.
[15:23] <vivid> SRU point releases could provide that "backport functionality"
[15:23] <vivid> they have to SRU already anywa
[15:23] <vivid> and yes, just advertise the LTS
[15:24] <tyrog> vivid: Then those point SRU point releases would be more of a Rolling Release than anything else
[15:24] <vivid> which other successful deployments (monetarily) make six month releases? in fact those are relatively stagnant and the success they get partially comes from the stability of the environment
[15:25] <vivid> keep changing it every six months and....you create more work for developers
[15:25] <tyrog> There wouldn't be much difference. If besides testing all the stuff to provide full LTS stability, they would need to maintain two development branches, then the workload would be more or less the same i think
[15:26] <vivid> essentially it would be one development branch
[15:26] <tyrog> vivid: I think the actual upgrades of Ubuntu from one release to the next are good and mostly stable. LTS -> LTS upgrades are more troublesome. With that model the latter would be even more unstable
[15:26] <vivid> id rather have a specific, stable target
[15:27] <vivid> i think most people would as well, not just linux people, but most people overall
[15:27] <tyrog> You can say not everyone will do upgrades from LTS to LTS. Well there are many people who are still with Windows XP right now. But getting Libreoffice 4 is much easier even for those XP users than for the users with the current Ubuntu LTS, for example
[15:28] <vivid> but why do they actually need that new version?
[15:28] <vivid> does it significantly increase productivity?
[15:28] <tyrog> There isn't a logical answer for that xD. But people want it, its just how things work lol
[15:28] <vivid> or is it just a "thing"
[15:29] <vivid> should be considered outside the scope
[15:29] <tyrog> New versions, lets download them right away. New major releases of software shouldn't be targeted only for early adopters IMHO
[15:29] <vivid> no, lets test those new versions
[15:29] <vivid> then, roll them out to people once we know their of high quality
[15:29] <vivid> theyre*
[15:30] <tyrog> There is some fun with having updated software. Thats how I think the people that Ubuntu mainly targets see the things.
[15:30] <vivid> those people who need that new software can figure out how to get it
[15:30] <vivid> its not about fun though
[15:30] <vivid> :(
[15:31] <vivid> but, there will always be a development release to play with, whether they do rolling releases or not
[15:31] <tyrog> I would say it is the same people as Apple, sort of. They provide minor OS updates each year and people get to test new stuff sooner. And you rarely ever see a complain about OS X upgrades
[15:32] <vivid> right, same could be accomplished with the LTS
[15:32] <tyrog> vivid: Ubuntu will continue to sync with Debian sid I think. And although sid can be controlled for the most part, it is not the same thing as debian stable of course xD.
[15:33] <tyrog> vivid: Right now they can't provide fully operational LTS -> LTS upgrades. With a rolling model I don't see how things would improve
[15:33] <vivid> they cant? i wouldnt know as i dont work on enterprise lts upgrades
[15:34] <vivid> certainly do-release-upgrade should work
[15:34] <vivid> if it doesnt, that should get attention sooner than later
[15:34] <tyrog> vivid: There is some risk even then. With a rolling release model inbetween, that wouldn't improve, I don't see how it would.
[15:35] <vivid> theres always risk
[15:36] <vivid> i would say do it, myself.  i dont see how you lose ground by removing unnecessary releases
[15:37] <vivid> though yea, i would be a little cumbersome approaching that first lts-lts upgrade under the rolling model
[15:38] <tyrog> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1228 I don't know if you have already read this post on the blog of Mark with some of the usual complaints/issues coming with a RR model
[15:38] <vivid> no, i havent, only some of the list comments
[15:39] <vivid> id like to see him take an optimistic approach to that blog
[15:39] <vivid> then evaluate it, but im sure hes got better things to do
[15:40] <tyrog> vivid: I don't even know how will the update from 12.04 to 14.04 will be doable xD, with so much new low-level stuff coming around
[15:40] <vivid> sudo do-release-upgrade
[15:40] <vivid> that has to work.  period.
[15:40] <tyrog> vivid: I know about that. But APT is not a genius, very good, but not perfect lol
[15:41] <vivid> then they have to put some focus on it working.  if it doesnt they need to start.  ive never had issues but i also never go beyond 6 months upgrades
[15:41] <tyrog> vivid: And those 6 months upgrades work for you?
[15:41] <vivid> essentially, i operate ubuntu as a rolling release as it is
[15:42] <tyrog> So you are always with the development release? That is a different scenario then
[15:42] <vivid> 4/6 months on development, depending on support for Xorg ABI from nvidia
[15:43] <tyrog> So you shouldn't need to complain. The current development model isn't ok for you? xD
[15:43] <vivid> im not complaining at all.  i just think that there are many benefits that could be realized in a rolling model
[15:43] <tyrog> I tend to prefer staying with the current release until the next comes out. But I have backups in an external drive and some on the cloud, just in case a certain ubuntu release doesn't meet my criteria xD
[15:43] <vivid> they should be evaluated thoroughly
[15:44] <vivid> if i have issues, i just solve them myself.  generally the only issues i have are lack of support for brand new x abi
[15:44] <tyrog> vivid: What do you mean by optimistic posts by Mark by the way? I think he is one of the most optimistic, with less fear of taking a risk people in the open source world.
[15:45] <vivid> the headings are very pessimistic
[15:46] <tyrog> vivid: That is because most of his posts are exposing his visions about polemic stuff xD
[15:46] <vivid>  /shrug
[15:47] <vivid> im glad theyre thinking about it
[15:47] <vivid> i think its a good idea, but ill probably still be using ubuntu either way it shapes up
[15:47] <vivid> id still be using debian if i could get the same level of operation and comfort with it
[15:48] <tyrog> vivid: I don't agree 100% with every opinion of him of course. But you have to agree his vision is unique in the opensource world, and that is good i think
[15:48] <tyrog> That is a good thing
[15:49] <vivid> honestly, im tired of the stupid interim releases
[15:49] <vivid> all they do is make more work for myself
[15:49] <tyrog> As long as Ubuntu keeps with its promise they had from the beginning
[15:49] <vivid> which was that? competent, stable, timely?
[15:50] <tyrog> Read Ubuntu philosophy xD
[15:51] <tyrog> Read about their aims, their goals. They are generic enough that i think no one would disagree with them xD
[15:57] <mynameisbruce> is thunderbird still the default mail client?
[15:59] <vivid> tyrog: nice chatting. later.
[16:01] <BluesKaj> mynameisbruce,depends on your desktop
[16:01] <mynameisbruce> unity
[16:03] <BluesKaj> I believe it is
[17:24] <mynameisbruce_> ubuntu 13.04 upgrade works nearly flawlessly
[17:24] <mynameisbruce_> it just screws up the auth stack
[17:25] <mynameisbruce_> but after that...everythings fine
[17:28] <mynameisbruce_> now the propretary fglrx driver came up with "unsupported hardware" logo
[17:28] <mynameisbruce_> anybody know how to fix that?
[17:29] <mynameisbruce_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/+bug/1132334
[17:29] <mynameisbruce_> oh its know bug
[18:19] <Bollsaq> I read that the beta release is today, is that correct?
[18:26] <Bollsaq> Oh just read its the 14th
[18:26] <Bollsaq> well suppose its close enough to beta to pretty much be considered beta
[18:27] <Bollsaq> might upgrade today