[05:39] <alkisg> Ouch, ubuntu-mate stopped i386 live cds? Meh, lubuntu and xubuntu still have them...
=== Scytale89_ is now known as Scytale89
[07:25] <sixwheeledbeast> budgie too that's a shame. People will be running 32 bit because they need to and removing that will only see them move away to another distro.
[07:28] <sixwheeledbeast> At least with the LTS its supported until 2021 from then it would be upto decisions from Debian where to go.
[07:38] <sixwheeledbeast> I thought Ubuntu where missing a trick when they dropped 32 bit TBH. Think of all the old hardware that could have been recycled in poorer countries. With no 32 bit Windows Ubuntu could easily grow in these places.
[09:03] <Scytale89> What kind of market do you mean which is only able to obtain 10-15+ year old hardware. You cannot describe it as growing market as no 32 bit HW will ever be manufactured again and the remaining 32 bit hardware will slowly break down because of old age.
[11:43] <sixwheeledbeast> The use of Ubuntu not the hardware, as the hardware is slowly replaced 64 bit Ubuntu would be used.
[11:56] <xrogaan> lo
[11:57] <xrogaan> is there a way to override the default mate-screensaver configurations with the config file generated by xscreensaver?
[11:58] <xrogaan> 'cause the mate-screensaver configuration utility is just too anemic.
[17:18] <stevenm> hey how do I submit an update for the software boutique?
[17:18] <stevenm> i've looked on github but they don't seem to maintained
[17:18] <alkisg> what "submit an update" means?
[17:18] <alkisg> You want a newer version of boutique for 18.04?
[17:19] <stevenm> i.e. the instructions on how to install something (i.e. as described in applications.json) is now wrong
[17:19] <stevenm> so i want to submit a patch
[17:21] <alkisg> I believe upstream is at https://github.com/ubuntu-mate/software-boutique/issues
[17:21] <alkisg> I don't like boutique and snaps, so I'm not using it
[17:21] <stevenm> i don't use it either - but i like it enough that I can see it may help others
[17:22] <alkisg> Eh, I see snaps as another failed attempt of canonical, which I want to avoid like unity, upstart, bazaar, mir, etc etc
[17:22] <alkisg> So I just purge snapd after install
[17:22] <stevenm> ditto - snaps bad
[17:22] <stevenm> but then SB wasn't always a snap
[17:22] <alkisg> boutique is a snap, isn't it?
[17:22] <stevenm> also i don't think that repo is right
[17:23] <alkisg> Right, so it gets removed by purging snapd
[17:23] <stevenm> no json files in there
[17:23] <stevenm> if anyone does know where sb grabs its updates from just pm/highlight me
[17:23] <stevenm> gonna have my tea... afk
[17:24] <alkisg> Packaging is maintained outside of the upstream source tree usually
[17:24] <alkisg> So if you want to search for the packaging tree, that's a different thing
[17:40] <sixwheeledbeast> I have no issue with upstart, but am not keen on snaps and didn't like unity at all. You also forget ubuntu one
[17:58] <stevenm> back - not sure why it disconnected
[18:05] <vkareh> I really miss Ubuntu One... I used to pay for it, and I would pay a lot more today to have that service
[18:06] <vkareh> sixwheeledbeast - I think snaps solve a real problem, and I have _some_ use for them, but I almost always prefer installing direct debs from the official archives if available
[18:12] <stevenm> would prefer flatpak... but sites like flatpakhub need to have a way of differentiating between apps that the authors packaged and those which 3rd parties did
=== raveit65_ is now known as raveit65