[05:50] <jk^> hi all
[05:59] <jk^> why at this link https://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop it doesn't let me choose between 32 bit and 64 bit version and offers me just 64 bit version?
[06:02] <tsimonq2> jk^: Ask them yourself ;) https://github.com/canonical-websites/www.ubuntu.com/issues/new
[06:03] <jk^> tsimonq2
[06:04] <jk^> i'm not registered
[06:04] <jk^> i can't
[06:04] <jk^> :\
[06:06] <tsimonq2> Ah k
[06:14] <SwedeMike> jk^: press "alternative downloads", then scrool down and there are multiple ways to get 32bit 
[06:17] <SwedeMike> jk^: btw, why do you want the 32bit version?
=== floccula1t is now known as flocculant
[07:18] <jk^> SwedeMike, what means "btw"?
[07:19] <tsimonq2> jk^: By The Way, it's like saying "while we're at it"
[07:23] <jk^> my pc is at 32 bit
[07:23] <jk^> however in the "alternative download" there aren't the direct link for 32 bit version
[07:23] <jk^> just link for torrents
[07:23] <jk^> tsimonq2
[07:23] <jk^> SwedeMike
[07:49] <SwedeMike> jk^: http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/cdimage.ubuntu.com/cdimage/netboot/xenial/ has both amd64 and i386
[07:49] <jk^> it isn't the official site
[07:50] <SwedeMike> jk^: *Sigh* http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/cdimage/netboot/xenial/ 
[07:50] <SwedeMike> better?
[07:53] <jk^> what means "netboot"?
[07:54] <tsimonq2> jk^: Here: http://releases.ubuntu.com/
[07:56] <jk^> mmmmh :| 
[07:56] <jk^> one time, i can download it from the link i pasted .(
[07:56] <jk^> :(
[07:56] <jk^> i remember it let me choose between 32 and 64 :|
[08:01] <SwedeMike> jk^: since most processors from the past 10 years can do 64bit, 32bit is not the recommended choice for most people.
=== Guest34295 is now known as |Night|
=== flocculant is now known as flocculant_
=== flocculant_ is now known as flocculant
[11:29] <scenick> Hi, can I be any good?
[12:56] <GumiBot> Hello! I've installed 17.10 pre-release on a laptop that I'm using every day
[12:57] <GumiBot> and I've already found some weird "bugs" but I'm not sure if these are related to Ubuntu itself
[12:57] <GumiBot> Can I still report them to the Ubuntu team?
=== IRCGate23448 is now known as jk^
[16:35] <lotus|artfulbox> anyone else has empty icons in gnome software in 17.10 when launching?
[16:35] <lotus|artfulbox> after a while package icons showup afterall
[16:36] <lotus|artfulbox> just wanna know if its worth making a bug
[16:43] <oerheks> lotus|artfulbox, 
[16:43] <oerheks> what gives: killall gnome-software ; gnome-software --verbose
[16:45] <oerheks> .. and from what mirror do you update?
[16:48] <oerheks> https://askubuntu.com/questions/760278/the-new-software-center-in-ubuntu-16-04-shows-no-application-data-found also gives a weird answer: System Settings > Language Support, re-apply system-wide, and reboot. Now the new app store actually functions.
[16:49] <oerheks> maybe this is still the same for 17.10
[16:53] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, im installing languages right now, lets c what that gives
[16:54] <oerheks> :-)
[16:55] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, bingo! that worked like a charm
[16:55] <oerheks> i was reading this old bug too, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-software/+bug/1563155
[16:55] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1563155 in gnome-software (Ubuntu) "No Application Data Found" [High,Confirmed]
[16:55] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, weather banner shows up gnome software in my language now
[16:56] <oerheks> maybe you can confirm that this solution works for 17.10, perhaps for those xenial users too
[16:56] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, ill do that right away, didnt test on xenial yet
[16:56] <oerheks> did it happen after install or updates?
[16:57] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, updates didnt solve problem was from the fresh iso install
[16:57] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, just now language support fixxed it
[16:57] <oerheks> good :-)
[16:57] <oerheks> just asking, to determin when this happens
[16:58] <oerheks> you just saved 100.000 systems :-P
[16:59] <lotus|artfulbox> lol
[16:59] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, too bad the 17.10 devs wont notice this when i just add comment on existing old bug?
[17:00] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, isnt there a trick to force ubuntu-bug onto an existing bug?
[17:00] <lotus|artfulbox> without making a dupe
[17:01] <oerheks> if you file a bug, you get some examples of same bugs, no?
[17:01] <lotus|artfulbox> yeah
[17:01] <oerheks> search for the same in a 2nd browser
[17:03] <oerheks> i https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-software/+bug/1706488
[17:03] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1706488 in gnome-software (Ubuntu Zesty) "Snaps without icons not showing" [High,New]
[17:03] <lotus|artfulbox> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-software/+bug/1563155
[17:03] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1563155 in gnome-software (Ubuntu) "No Application Data Found" [High,Confirmed]
[17:03] <lotus|artfulbox> #46
[17:03] <lotus|artfulbox> gonna remind in #ubuntu-devel oerheks 
[17:05] <oerheks> i am sure they read back here too
[17:05] <lotus|artfulbox> kk
[17:06] <lotus|artfulbox> oerheks, tnx for the fix
[17:09] <oerheks> have fun :-)
[17:11] <lotus|artfulbox> really hope they will fix a quicker way then activities
[17:12] <oerheks> it is holliday time also, but the belgium-dutch bughunt-team lotuspsychje&oerheks are on it :-P
[17:12] <lotus|artfulbox> lol
[17:12] <lotus|artfulbox> bughunting never sleeps
[17:13] <lotus|artfulbox> cu next session oerheks 
=== JanC is now known as Guest48595