| DrMax | eelstrebor : not upgrading due to phasing is for packages that are for the next (sub)release but released now | 00:36 |
|---|---|---|
| DrMax | say, something that would be with 26.04.1 but you're still in 26.04(.0) | 00:37 |
| DrMax | not upgrading are usually packages that will require some other package to be removed | 00:37 |
| DrMax | https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PhasedUpdates | 00:38 |
| DrMax | packages that are "not upgrading" can be upgraded with full-upgrade | 00:40 |
| DrMax | it will warn you normally: upgrading X, removing Y | 00:40 |
| DrMax | sudo apt full-upgrade | 00:41 |
| DrMax | you will get the usual behavior: upgrading X, removing Y, [y/n] | 00:41 |
| eelstrebor | i kinda figured that i would have to force the upgrade of some packages | 01:12 |
| === rebel is now known as Guest9558 | ||
| === deepend1 is now known as deepend_tilde | ||
| === Seb_ is now known as Sebastien | ||
| DrMax | somewhat unrelated to ubuntu itself, but linux-centric: is there a framework that allows distributing processes across several linux boxes as if it was one big machine? | 04:31 |
| DrMax | of course, there must be, I meant, which one is favored | 04:31 |
| computelabs_in | Hello good morning fellow! | 04:36 |
| DrMax | yoes | 04:37 |
| === Remy_ is now known as Remy | ||
| twobitsprite | DrMax: generally it's considered best practice these days to just have a program on each syste that communicates over a high-speed network connection. sharing raw memory across machines is doable, but generally not optimal | 04:48 |
| DrMax | they don't really need to communicate... just enough to know on which part of the data to work | 04:52 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: you want a dispatching system, not "the same process running on multiple physical computers" | 04:53 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: check out the Python framework called Celery | 04:54 |
| DrMax | I also need to know when they're dead | 04:54 |
| DrMax | so I can launch some more | 04:54 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: are you running this on AWS or something? Because you can have liveliness checks on nodes and auto-scaling. | 04:55 |
| twobitsprite | Kubernetes also supports the same concept | 04:55 |
| twobitsprite | (AWS also supports Kubernetes with AKS) | 04:56 |
| DrMax | no, at home. I have several machines. | 04:59 |
| DrMax | what I want is run the same program on different chuncks of data, but making sure that if a core is free, I can launch another instance | 05:00 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: there is no good way to just take an existing program and "just add processors" by linking up other computers. processes need memory, which means transfering memory over a network | 05:00 |
| DrMax | (different chunks of data or with the same but different parameters, same difference) | 05:00 |
| === timj2 is now known as timj | ||
| twobitsprite | DrMax: you're going to have to do some programming. What's the program you're trying to run on multiple machines? | 05:01 |
| DrMax | a compression algorithm. chunks are independent | 05:01 |
| twobitsprite | what compression tool are you working with? | 05:02 |
| DrMax | I'm writing it. Not bzip or something like that | 05:02 |
| twobitsprite | I guarantee that trying to transmit chunks over your CAT6 LAN is going to be slower than just running it on a single machine | 05:03 |
| DrMax | but the algorithm admits a wide number of possible internal parameters, and one combination will give the best results. | 05:03 |
| DrMax | it's basically an hyperparameter search | 05:03 |
| === rebel is now known as Guest3239 | ||
| DrMax | It's compute-intensive, not io-intensive | 05:04 |
| twobitsprite | "a wide number of possible internal parameters" just screams "lots of network traffic" if you're trying to cluster this | 05:04 |
| twobitsprite | compute = memory | 05:04 |
| twobitsprite | = network traffic | 05:04 |
| DrMax | one block, a large number of hyper-parameters. | 05:05 |
| DrMax | Not IO-Bound. | 05:05 |
| twobitsprite | and how will your cluster nodes get those "hyper-parameters"? | 05:05 |
| DrMax | the parameters can be passed as arguments, from the launching script, I guess? | 05:06 |
| twobitsprite | are all of your nodes connected to a SAN or NAS with the same raw data to work with? | 05:07 |
| DrMax | if you launch a process and tell it try all values from 10 to 1000, you don't need that much communication | 05:07 |
| twobitsprite | do you have a Fiberchannel switch? | 05:07 |
| DrMax | hmmm I guess the files can be replicated locally? | 05:07 |
| twobitsprite | are you compressing data, or guessing numbers? | 05:07 |
| DrMax | yes | 05:07 |
| twobitsprite | lol | 05:08 |
| DrMax | It's like asking are you training a NN or are you guessing numbers? | 05:08 |
| DrMax | Well, that's how hyperparameter search works | 05:08 |
| twobitsprite | right, but it still needs access to the raw data you're compressing | 05:09 |
| DrMax | I have enough local storage to replicated the data set before hand | 05:09 |
| DrMax | to replicate* | 05:09 |
| twobitsprite | are you just doing this once, or is regular compression performance a requirement? | 05:10 |
| DrMax | otherwise I'd have to go with *shudders* NFS? | 05:10 |
| twobitsprite | are you just trying to copy your MP4 collection somewhere? | 05:10 |
| twobitsprite | what's wrong with NFS? | 05:10 |
| DrMax | Actually it's research. I'm not trying something silly like fiddling with ffmpeg until my animes are small enough | 05:10 |
| DrMax | I had difficulties in the past with it | 05:11 |
| twobitsprite | no offense, but you probably weren't using it right | 05:11 |
| DrMax | probably. | 05:11 |
| twobitsprite | do you know what jumbo frames are? | 05:12 |
| DrMax | None taken, I'm not a linux admin | 05:12 |
| DrMax | I use it | 05:12 |
| DrMax | yes, I know what jumbo frames are | 05:12 |
| DrMax | I'm still only wired in Gbit, though, even if I have a couple of boxes with 2.5, 5 and 10 gbit ethernet | 05:13 |
| twobitsprite | that's going to be a huge bottleneck for large data xfers | 05:14 |
| DrMax | For a first exploratory phase, replicating a couple of tens of GB of data is not really a problem | 05:14 |
| twobitsprite | why can't you run your compression algorithm on tens of GB of data over SATA and a few cores of CPU? | 05:15 |
| DrMax | Because the hyperparameter space is big. | 05:16 |
| DrMax | If I can divide time by 100, it'll show | 05:16 |
| twobitsprite | is it a memory constraint? | 05:16 |
| DrMax | no, not really. It's really compute-bound | 05:16 |
| twobitsprite | you can't just "divide time by 100" by adding a few ethernet-connected computers | 05:17 |
| DrMax | Well, I have 200 cores available | 05:17 |
| DrMax | that should help | 05:17 |
| twobitsprite | the limit is the ethernet | 05:17 |
| DrMax | it's not like I'm using my second laptop | 05:17 |
| twobitsprite | bring in FiberChannel, at least, and then we'll talk | 05:18 |
| DrMax | Hmm not sure if true. I can slice the hyperparameter search across many cores, each core will work at least a few seconds | 05:19 |
| DrMax | it's not communication or io-bound | 05:19 |
| twobitsprite | what will the hyperparameter search work with? | 05:19 |
| twobitsprite | it has to work with real data, right? | 05:20 |
| DrMax | the working set is somewhat small, and the data is read sequentially | 05:20 |
| DrMax | true | 05:20 |
| DrMax | but the data is local on each box | 05:20 |
| DrMax | (or, the data can be made local) | 05:20 |
| twobitsprite | how long does it take to make the data local? | 05:21 |
| DrMax | once? How long to copy 20GB? | 05:21 |
| DrMax | 5 minutes max? | 05:22 |
| twobitsprite | sounds like a performance testing exercise | 05:23 |
| DrMax | I guess it can be seen like that | 05:23 |
| twobitsprite | is distributing the data over 5 minutes faster than running the algorithm locally? | 05:23 |
| DrMax | no | 05:23 |
| DrMax | The goal is to gather lots of data about how the algorithm performs with the various hyperparameters | 05:24 |
| DrMax | it's not meant to be practical just yet | 05:24 |
| twobitsprite | are you a doctoral student? because this is sounding increasingly academic | 05:25 |
| DrMax | I am a tenured professor doing research | 05:25 |
| DrMax | but yes, it is very doctoral-like | 05:25 |
| twobitsprite | so, this is "lets make this worse to prove a concept" | 05:25 |
| DrMax | worse in what way? | 05:26 |
| twobitsprite | slower | 05:26 |
| DrMax | how, "let's divide a very large expensive-by-instance hyperparameter space search across as many core as possible" slow? | 05:27 |
| twobitsprite | I thought we already established that... | 05:27 |
| twobitsprite | ethernet | 05:28 |
| DrMax | IT IS NOT IO BOUND | 05:28 |
| twobitsprite | you just said it would about 5 minutes to copy the data over. I asked if that would be faster than running it locally. you said "no". | 05:28 |
| DrMax | that's a standard corpus | 05:29 |
| DrMax | every one uses it | 05:29 |
| DrMax | If I copy once, that's it. That's the setup for the experiment | 05:29 |
| twobitsprite | everyone in your university? or everyone in real life? | 05:29 |
| DrMax | then each computer can cache it all it wants | 05:29 |
| DrMax | Some disciplines do have standard benchmark data sets | 05:30 |
| DrMax | If you do medical image compression, it helps greatly to use the same xray image database | 05:30 |
| twobitsprite | sure, the setup for the experiment... must be nice working in academia, using pre-cached data for your tests. what exactly do you think your experiment will prove in real-life scenarios? | 05:30 |
| twobitsprite | if the image is already compressed, what's the point in a clustered compression algorithm? | 05:31 |
| DrMax | ... | 05:31 |
| twobitsprite | the entire point of data compression is to reduce transmission time | 05:31 |
| DrMax | when you use an algorithm that has been standardized | 05:32 |
| DrMax | but you see, sometimes you want to develop new algorithms | 05:32 |
| DrMax | example of standard test-set: https://loki.disi.unitn.it/RAISE/ | 05:32 |
| twobitsprite | new algorithms are great, but they have to be functionally better than previous algorithms | 05:32 |
| DrMax | ... | 05:32 |
| DrMax | ok, that's getting nowhere | 05:33 |
| twobitsprite | the difference between what you're describing, and RAISE, is that each node would have to download each image anyway. But if the data you're trying to compress is on a local HDD on one node, there's no reason to transmit "chunks" of it to other nodes unless you have an extremely fast network | 05:35 |
| DrMax | I'll try to give you a better idea of what the algorithm does (without entering in the details) | 05:36 |
| DrMax | let's say you have a function that takes a block of data and a few "tweak" parameters and returns a score (the compression achieved, or quality, or something else) | 05:37 |
| DrMax | f(block,param1,param2,param3) | 05:37 |
| DrMax | each param_i are independant | 05:37 |
| DrMax | each are drawn from a large number of possible values | 05:38 |
| DrMax | you could do, naïvely, three nested loops and do that sequentially | 05:38 |
| DrMax | pick the best one | 05:38 |
| DrMax | and say param1=3, param2=281, etc. | 05:38 |
| DrMax | that's the best value, next block | 05:38 |
| DrMax | ...but that's silly to do sequentially | 05:39 |
| DrMax | you should do that with as much parallelism as possible | 05:39 |
| DrMax | (by block, by file, etc.) | 05:39 |
| DrMax | but once a given block is loaded in ram, you'd use shared memory and as many parallel threads as possible to search the hyperparameter space for that block | 05:40 |
| DrMax | (while, arguably, some other computer does another block, or some other region of the parameter space) | 05:41 |
| DrMax | If the future, maybe a GPU-based implementation would allow more parallelism, I don't know | 05:41 |
| DrMax | First step is to evaluate if the new algorithm does, or can, at least in principle, do better than the previous, similar algorithms | 05:42 |
| DrMax | (compression-wise, I mean) | 05:42 |
| twobitsprite | I wish you the best of luck | 05:44 |
| DrMax | Sooo... the initial plan is to launch, on possibly a large number of different computers, searches on limited regions of the hyperparameter space | 05:44 |
| DrMax | just like what you'd do with a neural network | 05:44 |
| DrMax | you train networks independently with different initialisation+hyperparameters | 05:45 |
| DrMax | you don't do that sequentially if you have a large number of cores available | 05:45 |
| DrMax | (I guess you'd say you'd use a large number of GPUs...) | 05:45 |
| twobitsprite | I just think you're only CPU-bound until you're suddenly IO- or network-bound. If you don't have high-end networking (FiberChannel, iSCSI over 10BG with jumbo frames, etc), I suspect you're going to end up IO-bound. | 05:48 |
| mujaasi | Hey I am new here i dowloaded mint | 05:49 |
| DrMax | Maybe | 05:49 |
| DrMax | You were speaking of "dispatch system" earlier | 05:49 |
| DrMax | what did you had in mind? | 05:49 |
| DrMax | mujaasi : welcome | 05:50 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: maybe if your algorithm is in-memory only (i.e., the client nodes aren't also SATA-bound) and are serving their chunk directly over high-speed ethernet or FiberChannel.... | 05:50 |
| mujaasi | thanks Drmax | 05:50 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: Celery is an HPC library for Python | 05:50 |
| DrMax | it is mostly in-memory, I suspect. The blocks would be much larger than ... 1GB I guess ? | 05:51 |
| DrMax | Hmm I could have a python think launching local instances | 05:51 |
| DrMax | Celery is a task queue thing... (what I get from the blurb)... that might be the thing | 05:52 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: I've been a sysadmin/DevOps for 20 years, and I've seen people try hairbrained clustering solutions over and over again... it's always network- or IO- bound, even if the initial system seemed CPU-bound | 05:52 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: I genuinely wish you the best of luck, but I just want to temper your expectations | 05:53 |
| DrMax | Each individual machine is rather capable (32, 64 cores, with 128GB ram) | 05:53 |
| DrMax | I expected I could cache data in ram in each | 05:54 |
| DrMax | by far the easiest solution is to use a single machine with OpenMP | 05:54 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: yeah, I'm not worried about the CPUs. It's one of those "9 women can't produce a baby in 1 month" kind of scenarios. Just throwing more CPUs at is isn't always the solution. | 05:54 |
| DrMax | I dont think the analogy holds, but ok, I understand what you're saying | 05:55 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: obviously I don't have a full flowchart of your algorithm, or how you're providing the data to each node. I'm just telling you my experience with HPC. | 05:56 |
| DrMax | it's just at the PoC level, of course | 05:56 |
| DrMax | it may be shit, erm, "unsatisfactory" anyway | 05:57 |
| DrMax | but it's, I think, in the "embarassingly parallel" category | 05:58 |
| twobitsprite | If each node was connected via 10GbE iSCSI with jumbo frames, or FiberChannel, to a multi-platter disk array, like a NetApp or EMC, *maybe* clustering the algorithm would improve performance | 05:58 |
| DrMax | How much faster is FiberChannel? | 05:58 |
| twobitsprite | up to about ~120 Gb/s, but it's not even the bitrate, it doesn't have the protocol overhead of TCP/IP, and the back-and-forth SYN/ACK stuff | 06:00 |
| twobitsprite | it's not ethernet, so it has it's own network switches that speak a totally different protocol because it doesn't have to route internet traffic | 06:01 |
| DrMax | and how is it supported by the os? | 06:01 |
| DrMax | and the applications? | 06:02 |
| twobitsprite | there is hardware like PCIe cards, then OS drivers, then you mount a LUN (Logical UNit) on the OS, and the application just sees a filesystem | 06:02 |
| DrMax | I'm reading on that | 06:05 |
| twobitsprite | Brocade and Juniper were FC switch providers I've worked with the most | 06:06 |
| twobitsprite | they're pretty solid, but I've also heard good things about Cisco's FC switches. (obviously Cisco is king of ethernet switches, but FC is mostly Brocade's domain) | 06:08 |
| DrMax | and how expensive is it? | 06:08 |
| twobitsprite | very | 06:08 |
| DrMax | very 2000$ or very 200k$ ? | 06:08 |
| twobitsprite | I don't know. it's one of those things the accountants and managers work out without inviting me to the meeting. like a restaurant that doesn't print the price on the menus | 06:09 |
| DrMax | I see | 06:10 |
| DrMax | Unfortunately, I have the bill and it's easier to get a research grant if it's not *that* expensive | 06:10 |
| twobitsprite | I worked as a level 3 escalation engineer at NetApp for 3 years and I never saw a billing price on anything | 06:11 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: iSCSI is the next best if you have a 10GbE network switch that can be configured for jumbo frames | 06:11 |
| twobitsprite | and assuming all of your nodes have true 10GbE ports | 06:12 |
| DrMax | I'm looking for prices and it varies wildly: from 200$ to ... 115k$ | 06:12 |
| DrMax | from 2000$ * | 06:13 |
| DrMax | from 2000 to 115k$ | 06:13 |
| twobitsprite | yeah, if you're doing this on your own dime, and/or limited budget, go with iSCSI over 10GbE if you can get the budget for that | 06:14 |
| DrMax | No, I have grant money | 06:14 |
| DrMax | just not an unlimited amount of | 06:14 |
| twobitsprite | then bilk them for all they're worth and spring for the FC rig! :P | 06:14 |
| DrMax | So, what does Fibre Channel does, beyond being stupid-fast? | 06:15 |
| twobitsprite | it's just stupid fast. that's it's entire purpose | 06:15 |
| DrMax | what's the model? It creates shared memory spaces? Virtual FS? How does that work? | 06:15 |
| twobitsprite | it's for shared storage, as in disks. usually it links large RAID arrays | 06:16 |
| DrMax | (apparently you can route IP v4/v6 over it...?) | 06:16 |
| DrMax | So OS-side, I'd see what? Just a mount? | 06:17 |
| twobitsprite | yep | 06:17 |
| DrMax | That's interesting | 06:17 |
| twobitsprite | a really fast mount shared by other systems. now, you have to use software to coordinate locks between other systems so you don't end up overwriting each other's blocks... | 06:18 |
| twobitsprite | but yeah, it just shows up as a block device | 06:18 |
| DrMax | that's be a cromulent, albeit expensive solution | 06:19 |
| twobitsprite | as in, you can `fdisk` the LUN, etc. Set up partitions, formate filesystems. just like a disk drive | 06:19 |
| * twobitsprite googles "cromulent" | 06:20 | |
| twobitsprite | ahh | 06:20 |
| DrMax | So one plays host? or the shared volume can also be distributed? | 06:20 |
| DrMax | cromulent is a made-up word from the Simpsons | 06:21 |
| DrMax | it seems to mean "acceptable" | 06:21 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: something has to be host, usually a "filer" like a NetApp or EMC appliance. It's basically a rack-mounted computer with tons of memory and high-speed networking card, running an OS that serves FC, iSCSI and/or NFS. There are opensource alternatives like TrueNAS, but you still need the hardware | 06:24 |
| DrMax | is there a real advantage using the "real" appliances vs the hardware+opensource? | 06:27 |
| DrMax | Also, what kind of setup would you have to host a small-ish quantity of data? | 06:27 |
| DrMax | (small-ish is, say, 4 to 10TB, or something like that) | 06:28 |
| twobitsprite | the advantage is you have someone's desk to stand on when things go wrong. the enterprise stuff is about 10-50x the cost of the actual hardware. if you want to set your own filer by piecing together COTS hardware and configuring the OS yourself, go for it. | 06:29 |
| twobitsprite | as for the size of the data, the performance question is really about "spindles". in a RAID array, the number of actual drives is the most important part. | 06:31 |
| DrMax | that's the kind of thing I'd hire a grad student for | 06:31 |
| DrMax | explain? | 06:31 |
| twobitsprite | sure, and that grad student can put it on their CV, so yeah | 06:31 |
| DrMax | everybody wins. | 06:32 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: each drive as seek time (if it'f a physical disk, it has to wait for the spindle to come around and the reading head to position to the right cylinder, etc), so if you stripe the data across all the cylinders in the array, you can read from all of them at once instead of waiting for the next rotation | 06:33 |
| twobitsprite | modern SSD based system still have IO delays, but not as bad... but they're way more expensive. | 06:34 |
| DrMax | it's usually in µs instead of ms | 06:34 |
| twobitsprite | oh, thanks for the correction, from the guy who doesn't know what FiberChannel is :P | 06:35 |
| DrMax | I said I wasn't an admin, not that I never used a computer | 06:35 |
| DrMax | on my current box, "seek" is 60µs | 06:36 |
| twobitsprite | he says from his ivory tower | 06:36 |
| DrMax | the view is nice from above | 06:36 |
| twobitsprite | DrMax: yeah, now too 20000 seeks on the filesystem at once | 06:36 |
| twobitsprite | let me know when you've run a production Orabel database for IBM | 06:39 |
| twobitsprite | Oracle... it's late and I've been drinking. Good night XD :P | 06:39 |
| DrMax | I also never said I'm masochistic | 06:39 |
| DrMax | Maybe I should also run a km with glass shards in my shoes? | 06:40 |
| twobitsprite | But you did come here asking for advice... | 06:40 |
| DrMax | Soak my contacts in lemon juice? | 06:40 |
| Mekaneck | what has this to do with ubuntu support? | 06:40 |
| twobitsprite | Mekaneck: nothing | 06:40 |
| DrMax | Mekaneck : does it have to? | 06:41 |
| Mekaneck | go to offtopic if you want to chat | 06:41 |
| Mekaneck | it's a support channel after all | 06:41 |
| twobitsprite | Mekaneck: go to bed if you want to dream about being in power. We're not interrupting on-topic chat, we're just chatting | 06:41 |
| DrMax | the conversation started about distributing tasks over linux boxes | 06:41 |
| lotuspsychje | !ot | 06:41 |
| ubottu | #ubuntu is the Ubuntu support channel, for all Ubuntu-related support questions. Please use #ubuntu-offtopic for other topics (though our !guidelines apply there too). Thanks! | 06:41 |
| Mekaneck | twobitsprite: in #ubuntu-offtopic you can just chat as you please, not here | 06:42 |
| twobitsprite | it's not like this is a busy channel and we're obstructing Ubuntu support questions | 06:42 |
| Mekaneck | doesn't matter | 06:42 |
| twobitsprite | I'm sorry this conversation has bothered you | 06:43 |
| Mekaneck | not only me, others too | 06:43 |
| lotuspsychje | you can read the guidelines twobitsprite | 06:43 |
| Mekaneck | they probably can't read | 06:43 |
| twobitsprite | yes, we're on IRC because we can't read | 06:43 |
| lotuspsychje | lets just move on please | 06:44 |
| twobitsprite | this conversation has been going on for at least an hour and no one has complained, and you wake up and want to exercise your domain as overlords | 06:45 |
| lotuspsychje | twobitsprite: feel free to continue in #ubuntu-discuss | 06:45 |
| twobitsprite | you started this discussion here | 06:45 |
| Mekaneck | and it ends here, enough said | 06:46 |
| twobitsprite | I think it's totally fair to have side conversations in a mostly dead channel in the middle of the night on Internet Relay CHAT as long as it's not interfering with on-topic discussions. If someone else joined and had a serious Ubuntu question, I would stop and address it | 06:47 |
| lotuspsychje | the rules are the rules twobitsprite read the guidelines please | 06:47 |
| lotuspsychje | the volunteers didnt invent the guidelines | 06:48 |
| twobitsprite | yes they did... did a corporate CEO invent the guidelines? | 06:48 |
| lotuspsychje | feel free to dicsuss it in #ubuntu-discuss | 06:49 |
| twobitsprite | nah | 06:49 |
| DrMax | I'm off to bed too | 06:50 |
| DrMax | tourlou | 06:50 |
| twobitsprite | g'night | 06:50 |
| === gabes5 is now known as gabes | ||
| === pusher is now known as keypusher | ||
| BluesKaj | 'morning folks | 11:21 |
| waltman | 20 | 14:18 |
| twobitsprite | 21 | 14:19 |
| lotuspsychje | can we help you waltman twobitsprite ? | 14:19 |
| waltman | Sorry, just a typo. | 14:23 |
| sem | Hi, I found a package in Debian that I can't find in Ubuntu; https://packages.debian.org/en/trixie/gnome-shell-extension-caffeine | 14:23 |
| sem | can't find it in ubuntu https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=gnome-shell-extension-caffeine&searchon=names&suite=resolute§ion=all | 14:23 |
| sem | is there a reason why it wouldn't be in the Ubuntu repos? | 14:23 |
| sem | previous search link was mistaken -- the one searching 'all' also finds no packages https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=all&searchon=names&keywords=gnome-shell-extension-caffeine | 14:24 |
| tomreyn | sem: it's available for some older ubuntu releases (only): https://paste.debian.net/plainh/e84c1b78 i don't know why, though. you can still install gnome-shell extensions through one of the gnome shell extension managers. | 14:36 |
| sem | thanks -- it is a mystery! | 14:37 |
| === kelt0m is now known as fdp | ||
| DrMax | sem: because it was moved as a shell-extension: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/517/caffeine/ | 16:41 |
| === ancientz0 is now known as ancientz | ||
| === pusher is now known as keypusher | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!