[12:57] <jvansciver> happy new year
[13:20] <ondrej_> a quick C question: I need to patch something to resolver UID/GID at runtime; could I optimize the function by doing: getuid(const char *) { static uid_t u = -1; if (u == -1) { getpwnam_jumbo... u = pw.pw_uid; } return u; }
[13:21] <ondrej> wrong channel (wanted #debian-devel), feel free to answer anyway :)
[13:28] <rbasak> ondrej: seems reasonable to me assuming a single thread and that it's OK to assume that underlying changes won't be reflected. But why do you need the optimisation? If NIS is slow, then surely the sysadmin would arrange a caching NIS mechanism further down the stack?
[13:28] <rbasak> Uh, s/NIS/NSS/
[13:29] <ondrej> rbasak: because I call it with same uname/gname every time
[13:29] <rbasak> ondrej: I don't think that's reasonable in itself. Premature optimization and all that.
[13:30] <rbasak> I mean I don't think that's a reason in itself.
[13:30] <rbasak> I'm not sure why I used the word reasonable. I'm not being particularly coherent right now, sorry.
[13:34] <ondrej> rbasak: you might be right; I'll optimize only if somebody bitches
[19:23] <tomasq> I would like to ask if Ubuntu developers are Canonical employees?
[19:23] <tomasq> or most are community developers?
[19:24] <tsimonq2> tomasq: some are Canonical, some aren't
[19:24] <tsimonq2> tomasq: it's really on a developer-by-developer basis
[19:24] <tsimonq2> tomasq: but I have enountered more community developers then Canonical folks
[19:24] <tomasq> ah, thanks!
[19:26] <tomasq> I am very interested in Ubuntu Desktop plans and roadmap. How Mark want to make it more popular?
[19:26] <tsimonq2> tomasq: what do you mean by that?
[19:26] <tsimonq2> tomasq: do you want to look into Unity development?
[19:26] <tsimonq2> (Uniy is the DE for Ubuntu)
[19:26] <tsimonq2> *Unity
[19:27] <tomasq> I am just interested in the future of Ubuntu. Who decides what is the priority, what should be developed, etc.
[19:28] <tsimonq2> tomasq: from an observational perspective or would you like to participate?
[19:28] <tomasq> It looks for me, that direction they have choosen is little bit wrong and now they are trying to do everything and developing force is not so strong now.
[19:29] <tsimonq2> tomasq: look at this for the structure of the Ubuntu connunity: http://community.ubuntu.com/community-structure/governance/
[19:29] <tomasq> Thank you very much
[19:30] <tsimonq2> tomasq: this will give you a lot of good information, this is where I got the governance page from: community.ubuntu.com
[19:31] <tsimonq2> tomasq: so would you like to contribute to Ubuntu?
[19:35] <tomasq> well, I am software developer and hardware engineer, but I am seeing areas that should be improved. It would be great to contribute and especially fix some bugs. I am participating in translations for long time, but fixing bugs is more important I guess.
[19:36] <tsimonq2> tomasq: all of it plays parts
[19:36] <tsimonq2> :)
[19:36] <tsimonq2> where would you like to fix bugs?
[19:38] <tomasq> the problem is, that there are too many changes in each release
[19:39] <tsimonq2> tomasq: if you want slower changes, use LTS :)
[19:39] <tomasq> My wish is to put gnome 2 times back :D
[19:39] <tsimonq2> tomasq: Ubutnu MATE = Ubuntu with GNOME 2
[19:39] <tsimonq2> *Ubuntu
[19:40] <tomasq> Yes, but they are not stable enough too :(
[19:40] <tsimonq2> actually it is very stable
[19:40] <tsimonq2> tomasq: it's modern, fast, and seems to be user-friendly
[19:41] <tsimonq2> tomasq: join #ubuntu-mate for more details
[19:41] <tomasq> There are system apps that are crashing, graphical glitches with some drivers, problems with pulseaudio with 7.1 sound, old apps. Generally it is good, but if you are user that can't accept single issue, it is big problem.
[19:41] <tomasq> I know Ubuntu and Mate very well.
[19:42] <tsimonq2> well then file bug reports :)
[19:42] <tomasq> I am filling, but nothing is changing for years :(
[19:42] <tsimonq2> tomasq: talk to people in #ubuntu-mate
[19:42] <tomasq> And this is what I want to change.
[19:42] <tsimonq2> well it isn't easy
[19:42] <tomasq> I know.
[19:43] <tsimonq2> tomasq: so do you want to fix bugs? or what do you want to do to change this?
[19:44] <tsimonq2> tomasq: http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/ is the packaging guide
[19:45] <tomasq> Yes, but they are in very different areas and packages.
[19:45] <tsimonq2> tomasq: well pick one and contribute
[19:45] <tsimonq2> tomasq: unless you want to fix a lot of them
[19:46] <tomasq> What I would like to see is to stop development of all the fancy stuff and make it rock solid.
[19:46] <tomasq> For example Mir development.
[19:47] <tsimonq2> tomasq: well quite frankly that isn't gonna happen
[19:47] <tsimonq2> tomasq: if you see something wrong, report it and/or fix it
[19:49] <mitya57> tomasq, re Canonical vs non-Canonical: http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~stefanor/ubuntu-activity/#affiliation
[19:49] <tomasq> I know, but all these things will contribute to the end of Ubuntu or at least strong transition to other distros. I love Ubuntu so I am worried. I know my words are strong, but you will see in 5 years. Ubuntu has potential to change the world.
[19:51] <tsimonq2> tomasq: I am afraid you are wrong :)
[19:51] <tsimonq2> tomasq: Ubutnu is stable
[19:51] <tsimonq2> tomasq: Ubuntu has features
[19:51] <tsimonq2> *Ubuntu
[19:52] <tsimonq2> tomasq: if you see something specific, fix it
[19:52] <tumbleweed> mitya57: take those stats with a pinch of salt - I wouldn't trust them
[19:52] <tsimonq2> tomasq: but that is how you are going to make an impact
[19:52] <tomasq> I am using Ubuntu from the beginning, I know its state very well. And everybody around me is using it as well.
[19:52] <tsimonq2> tomasq: It's not going anywhere
[19:52] <mitya57> tumbleweed, but it should give the rough picture :)
[19:52] <tsimonq2> it's getting better and better, but it isn't going away
[19:53] <tumbleweed> I think I curated that list by hand, and haven't touched it since
[19:54] <tomasq> I would be very glad if my words are false.
[19:55] <mitya57> tumbleweed, ok, will know that
[19:55] <tomasq> My guess is that Unity and Mac-ification were the first bad steps. It took way too long to get into really usable state.
[19:55] <tsimonq2> tomasq: well then focus on specific items
[19:55] <tsimonq2> stop being too broad :)
[19:56] <tomasq> I am not conservative user, but in our company we are using Linux on desktops, so I can see what could happen if you are using it 16h each day.
[19:57] <tomasq> Linux is super stable without any doubt.
[19:58] <tomasq> For example Mate, it is fork of Gnome 2. But it is not that stable and useable as Gnome 2. It is very strange, but it is true.
[19:59] <tomasq> There are newly introduced bugs that were not present with Gnome 2
[19:59] <tomasq> but this is not fault of Ubuntu
[20:00] <mitya57> tomasq, did you try GNOME Flashback?
[20:00] <tomasq> yes
[20:00] <tomasq> You have to add many addons to make it at least partially usable as gnome 2
[20:01] <mitya57> The default Ubuntu settings are having exactly the same set of applets as old Ubuntus (≤ 11.04) had by default.
[20:03] <tomasq> For example desktop shortcuts, menu editation, panel settings, nothing is present
[20:04] <mitya57> You have all of that :) Desktop shortcuts are configured from the System Settings, menu editor is alacarte, panel settings are there (use Alt + right click on panel).
[20:05] <tomasq> I know all possibilities of Unity, but you know that it is not so configurable as old gnome 2. Same with gnome 3.
[20:06] <mitya57> I was speaking about gnome-flashback, not Unity. But the first two points apply to Unity too.
[20:15] <tomasq> for example I dont understand, why Ubuntu in older version had nice bootsplash even with proprietary drivers. Why there are just 4 ASCII dots now? I know it is not a bug, but it is not improvement. Also there are strange text outputs at the end that shouldn't really be there.
[20:18] <tomasq> These small things can really irritate users even that it does not present any real problem.
[20:19] <dobey> ...
[20:19] <dobey> for one, dealing with UEFI systems made things much more difficult
[20:20] <dobey> for two, it's not "macification"
[20:20] <dobey> and if you don't like unity, there are plenty of other environments you can use
[20:20] <tarpman> tomasq: because the proprietary drivers don't support KMS. but the proprietary driver developers are to blame for that, not Ubuntu
[20:21] <tomasq> dobey: I have used unity for at least 2 years.
[20:21] <tomasq> I know, but there is always solution. Why it worked previously?
[20:22] <dobey> i don't understand what you say isn't working
[20:22] <dobey> the boot splash does work
[20:23] <tomasq> yes, but only with opensource drivers.
[20:24] <dobey> it worked for me on nvidia two weeks ago when i had an nvidia card, before i returned it to amazon because so many other nvidia things don't work
[20:24] <tomasq> thats interesting.
[20:24] <dobey> and well, if you have problems with proprietary drivers, you can hardly blame ubuntu for the proprietary things causing problems
[20:24] <tomasq> nono, proprietary drivers are working perfectly for me
[20:25] <dobey> http://moebuntu.web.fc2.com/img/plymouth/plymouth_default1.png is the text mode boot splash
[20:25] <dobey> http://ubuntuhandbook.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ubuntu-boot-flash-screen.jpg is the graphical boot splash
[20:25] <tomasq> yes
[20:26] <tomasq> just start ubuntu in virtualbox, why there was bootsplash with older versions?
[20:26] <tomasq> and now there is not
[20:26] <tomasq> But of course this is not a problem for me, it is just example.
[20:27] <dobey> i don't have any vms set up, so i can't do that
[20:27] <dobey> but i don't know what you're complaining about exaclty
[20:27] <dobey> afaik, the problem is that you didn't install the guest bits
[20:27] <tomasq> about similar small things, that nobody want to solve.
[20:27] <dobey> it's a poor examples
[20:27] <tomasq> dobey: yes, you are right. But previously it worked without any guest additions
[20:28] <dobey> afaik it did not
[20:28] <tarpman> virtualbox+plymouth → https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/14503 most likely
[20:29] <tomasq> previously = few releases back.
[20:29] <dobey> but, it's software. software occasionally has bugs. vague comments like "this used to work and no longer works" aren't helpful. if you want a problem solve, either solve it yourself, or at least be willing to gather enough useful information about the specific problem into a specific bug report about it
[20:29] <tomasq> dobey: I am reporting all bugs that I am encountering.
[20:30] <tomasq> but as I said previously, developers are focusing on the new features even that they are not necessary instead of fixing bugs. I understand it but I hope that it could change.
[20:31] <dobey> no, developers are focusing on either what they are assigned to focus on (if they are doing the work for employement/contrac), or what they want to work on (if they are doing it as community hobbyist development)
[20:32] <dobey> bugs are fixed daily
[20:32] <dobey> just because they are not your pet bugs, doesn't mean bugs aren't getting fixed
[20:32] <tomasq> I know that was the reason why I asked for plans and who is controlling it.
[20:32] <tomasq> and I know everybody is doing 100% what he can.
[20:32] <dobey> plans for what?
[20:33] <tomasq> plans for success in the desktop field.
[20:33] <dobey> the cloud/server developers have some different plans than the phone or desktop developers, and they have different plans than partners
[20:33] <dobey> ubuntu's success will continue to succeed
[20:34] <tomasq> with more projects developer force can't be so strong
[20:35] <dobey> all of the software available in ubuntu is not developed by employees of canonical
[20:35] <tomasq> I know.
[20:36] <tomasq> But there are projects like Ubuntu Phone that, if you think realistically, can't be profitable.
[20:36] <dobey> then why do you keep making vague accusatory statements?
[20:37] <dobey> how do you know it can't be profitable?
[20:37] <dobey> you've already implemented such platform to its full potential and lost your family's fortune on such a gamble?
[20:38] <tomasq> You can see microsoft with windows phone
[20:38] <tomasq> they have spent incredible money to move it somewhere
[20:38] <dobey> so?
[20:39] <dobey> microsoft making poor business decisions means that somehow ubuntu on phones is doomed to be complete failure too?
[20:39] <tomasq> no
[20:41] <tomasq> But you need reallistic view on the situation. If something will not drastically change with Ubuntu Phones, people will not buy it similarly as Android devices. It needs so much money for marketing.
[20:41] <dobey> your view is no more realistic than anyone elses
[20:42] <tomasq> From my point of view projects like this are only wasting of money.
[20:42] <tomasq> Altough I wish them success.
[20:42] <dobey> are you a cell phone manufacturer?
[20:42] <tomasq> no, we are manufacturing other devices.
[20:43] <dobey> sigh, my workstation locked up again. bloody graphics drivers
[20:44] <tomasq> I am Ubuntu user that wish bigger success in desktop field.
[20:46] <dobey> i just want working 4k@60Hz on intel and working low latency/rt kernel
[20:48] <dobey> do you even have a clear definition of what "success" means there?
[20:52] <tomasq> yes, using it in each school and government institutions, promoting it over proprietary software, possibility for buying it preinstalled with computers in each shop
[20:53] <dobey> so then ubuntu is successful.
[20:55] <tomasq> If this is true, then global marketshare could be at least 10%
[20:57] <dobey> ubuntu is used in many schools, by many governments and their agencies, and plenty of people promote it ove rproprietary software. and there's this: http://blog.canonical.com/2013/10/01/ubuntu-pre-installed-and-in-retail-worldwide/
[20:59] <dobey> and that blog post is 2 years old
[21:12]  * lpotter is excited to start working again
[21:19] <tomasq> dobey: it is unfortunately absolutely not enough.
[21:20] <tomasq> By the way, download Ubuntu 6.06 and try it in VirtualBox
[21:20] <tomasq> Then download latest Ubuntu and check bootsplash
[21:20] <tomasq> You will see, that 6.06 has nicely working bootsplash
[21:22] <tomasq> Then you can compare overall speed
[21:22] <tomasq> With 6.06 any click mean immediate action
[21:23] <dobey> 6.06 was 10 years ago
[21:23] <dobey> you might as well say "look at how fast windows 95 is in virtual box, compared to windows 10"
[21:23] <Unit193> I was going to say XP, as it's more accurate.
[21:24] <dobey> ?
[21:24] <dobey> i guess
[21:24] <lpotter> I was going to say DOS boots instantly :)
[21:24] <dobey> but still
[21:25] <dobey> unity requires 3d accel, and to have that working properly requires installing the guest addons
[21:26] <tomasq> yes, you are right. But even after installing guest addons it is not comparable.
[21:26] <dobey> Unit193: or i guess vista, since it came out in 06 iirc
[21:26] <maswan> And if you want a lightweight virtualized desktop ubuntu for, say, a remote graphical session thingie, you might be better off choosing a different option for ubuntu desktop
[21:26] <Unit193> OK, lets cheat a little, since that was on GNOME 2, lets say try booting MATE.  You still have so much more driver support and updated security or otherwise...
[21:26] <tomasq> You can compare Ubuntu Mate with 6.06
[21:27] <tomasq> Still, 6.06 is extremely fast in comparison with Mate
[21:27] <dobey> "fast"
[21:27] <tomasq> how is it possible?
[21:27] <Unit193> From years ago, with security holes up the wazoo, and kernel/driver support hardly existing.
[21:27] <tomasq> security holes are not making it faster.
[21:29] <Unit193> No, but recommending you not use it.
[21:29] <dobey> do you have specific complaints that are relevant to this channel, or just more vague "i think x is faster than y" stuff for which you don't have a reasonable objective measurement?
[21:29] <maswan> Now, if you could make a good regression test suite for desktop fastlyness, that'd be awesome
[21:30] <dobey> maswan: too hardware-dependent
[21:31] <tomasq> I just want to show you current development state.
[21:31] <maswan> dobey: Yeah, probably. But then, so is boot speed, and that was greatly improved thanks to serious effort
[21:31] <tomasq> But it is not only Ubuntu. PulseAudio, SystemD and similar stuff, road to hell.
[21:31] <dobey> tomasq: given that i've been sitting in this channel for years, i have a pretty good idea what the current development state is
[21:32] <maswan> Personally, the only bit with noticable latency in my desktop is the web browser, and that is not comparable to one from 06
[21:32] <dobey> maswan: eh, i just watched a 4k video on youtube in the html5 player in firefox, without any issue
[21:33] <tomasq> dobey: I understand, I just want to express my feelings, because Ubuntu could be better.
[21:34] <dobey> tomasq: can you objectively define "better" in a meaningful way?
[21:34] <dobey> your anger against pulseaudio and systemd have nothing to do with what is "better"
[21:34] <tomasq> dobey: bug-free for daily usage with faster response
[21:35] <dobey> can you define "daily usage" and "faster response" ?
[21:36] <dobey> and it's quicker, not faster :)
[21:36] <tomasq> dobey: yes, that you are working and using it each day. For example sometimes you can see random crash and report immediately after bootup. Sometimes system will not halt for 2 minutes, because it is wating for unknown process :)
[21:36] <dobey> no i don't
[21:37] <dobey> that is to say, i don't commonly see such random crashes immediately after boot, nor do i see system not halting for 2 minutes
[21:37] <tomasq> it does not mean that others have same experience
[21:37] <dobey> that is exactly my point
[21:37] <tomasq> dobey: you can see many bug reports about it
[21:38] <dobey> there are many bugs about many things
[21:38] <tomasq> yes, this is wrong state that can't be managed if new and new features are added
[21:38] <dobey> you are woefully wrong
[21:39] <tomasq> of course, if something is rewritten from the base, old bugs will disappear and bunch of new occur
[21:44] <tomasq> For example I dont understand, how Ubuntu want to be stable and fully usable with Mir, if proprietary drivers will be lacking and will never get same priority as major display server that everybody else will be using. There will be so many incompatibilities between Xorg apps that users can forget about outdated software. It will bring another abstract layers and slow downs and many, many new bugs. And what are real benefits for real users that w
[21:45] <dobey> you're right, you don't understand
[21:46] <tomasq> I am developer, I really understand.
[21:46] <tomasq> You will see the impact in the first release with Mir by default.
[21:47] <tomasq> With fallback to Xorg there will be even more fun.
[21:47] <dobey> mir is already used by default, and on systems that only have proprietary graphics drivers
[21:47] <dobey> there is no xorg on the phone images
[21:47] <tomasq> I am talking about Ubuntu desktop
[21:49] <tomasq> More possibilities and variations = more issues
[21:49] <dobey> you are making vague conjecture again
[21:49] <dobey> is all you're doing
[21:52] <tomasq> If you have company and you have employees and developing software or hardware, you must know that this is absolutely true.
[21:53] <dobey> no, nothing you've said is absolutely true
[21:57] <tomasq> You will see that anything that is in plan from approx. 2010 will fail if Mark will continue in it. From this time, there are new things that are working, but because of very strong competition, can't succeed.
[21:58] <dobey> so you're just here to troll?
[21:59] <tomasq> probably yes
[21:59] <dobey> then please leave
[21:59] <tomasq> OK, please remember my words.
[21:59] <dobey> no need
[22:01] <dobey> well, glad that's over with
[22:01]  * Unit193 waves to dobey.