Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

releases.ubuntu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 303 posts

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#181

Post by joering2 »

Rezo wrote: post #121

PSA: If you're running a HTTP/2 server like NGINX on the 14.04 LTS you'll want to upgrade to this release. Google Chrome will no longer support HTTP/2 on vanilla 14.04 after May 15th [0], even if you're using the latest official upstream NGINX packages. This is because 14.04 ships with a version of OpenSSL that does not support the ALPN extension (prior to OpenSSL 1.0.2 you're limited to NPN, now deprecated). There w…

> Google Chrome will no longer support HTTP/2 on vanilla 14.04 after May 15th

Doe this mean 14.04 with Apache 2.2 is affected? Their blog doesnt explain and leave plenty of people confused...

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#182

Post by tehwalrus »

smhg wrote: post #168
jakebasile wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using the sputnik "developer edition" or the standard retail version of the XPS 13?

The Sputnik version. That indeed reminds me I swapped the wifi card for an Intel one. Because they are better supported and it was cheap. The original one was definitely working though.

Ooh, can you do that? Broadcom driver drives me up the wall every time I tweak something...

(Apart from that and the HiDPI, the latter of which is the DE devs' fault, the laptop is awesome.)

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#183

Post by JdeBP »

pavanky wrote: post #144
peatmoss wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted to oblivion, but I'm old enough to remember not being able to take bash for granted. The default shell on some modern systems (OpenBSD for example) comes to mind as well. I feel this battle has mostly been lost, however.

Default on debian is dash.

And, this page being news about Ubuntu, one should note that this has been true for Ubuntu for fast approaching a decade, now; Debian having followed in the footsteps of Ubuntu, in this regard.

* https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh

* https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh/Spec

* https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/07/msg00027.htm...

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#184

Post by Certhas »

creshal wrote: post #25
knocte wrote: post #4

I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Now, I would love to know, if I'm a maintainer of Foo (and you can get it today via `apt-get install foo`), how will I be able to start packaging using snap rather than relying on deb packages that come from debian? I'd love any feedback, cheers!

> I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Bleargh. More container bullshit, now with even less control over it by end users. Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps" instead of a single package… assuming the developers even realize they have to rebuild their snaps.

While I see your point, the idea that I as an end user have any real control now is absurd. All I can do is hope the people who package stuff for their distribution know what they are doing.

If I want to install software that's outside the stuff that the packagers have prepared, like Firefox with correct KDE integration on Kubuntu, I am relying on a number of hard to track things working correctly together. Which tehy have regularly failed to do for me in the past.

Contrast to the OSX install experience: An application is a folder which contains everything related to the application that the base system does not provide. It's brilliant. Installing is copying. Uninstalling is deleting. As a user I feel more in control of the process than with apt.

Depending on the software stack you're looking at, dependency isolation might or might not make sense. I think OSX and Windows both are good case stuides that show that some level of isolation is sensible.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#185

Post by bryanlarsen »

kps wrote: post #176
stephenr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No need for bash scripts Friends don't let friends write shell scripts targeting bash. For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Write clean, posix-compliant shell scripts (i.e. target /bin/sh commonly referred to as bourne shell) and you're in a much better position. On Debian your script will be run by Dash, on OS X it will be run by Bash, on Ubuntu or RedHat i…

And test them on a shell that isn't bash. Even with the --posix option bash accepts non-standard bashisms, particularly the execrable 'extension' of '>&'.

That's why I always put "#!/usr/bin/env bash" at the top of my scripts. Most were written to be portable, but unless it's been well tested, it's best to consider it not portable. Fail early and predictably rather than in strange ways.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#186

Post by ciokan »

ajmarsh wrote: post #53
themodelplumber wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious what you want to remove in Windows 10. Not an evangelist, just set it up on a dual-boot refurb for a friend and thought the initial experience wasn't bad.

By default, Windows sends a lot of your information to their servers sometimes without asking you to opt-in. https://fix10.isleaked.com/

That's A LOT of bs to fix. And after each update I noticed it defaults some of them back to 'Enabled'.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#187

Post by JdeBP »

curt15 wrote: post #164
creshal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Bleargh. More container bullshit, now with even less control over it by end users. Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps" instead of a single package… assuming the developers even realize they have to rebuild their snaps.

Something as core as OpenSSL should be provided by the system and updated by the system maintainers. That's what happens in Windows and OS X land, where the system provides a broad base of functionality that every application can count on (e.g. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff8... ). Thus third party programs only need to bundle the elements not already provided by the system. When goto fai…

In other words: you agree with Florian Haas.

* https://plus.google.com/+FlorianHaas/posts/4xjQP1q6DEN

* https://www.hastexo.com/blogs/florian/2016/02/21/containers-...

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#188

Post by bsg75 »

davidmichael wrote: post #146
matt4077 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZFS is only enabled for their new containers (X ) for now.

I haven't tried it but I think if you do a manual install and format disks as zfs you could have a zfs root filesystem with 16.04.

There was an issue in the beta where the installer would not recognize ZFS volumes for the boot installer. Will be verifying if still an issue as soon as I can.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#189

Post by zanny »

noisy_boy wrote: post #93

> Online searches in the dash are now disabled by default [1] A welcome and saner default. I'm thinking of moving back to Ubuntu from LinuxMint (I was thinking of Arch as well but not too confident of being on the bleeding edge). [1]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XenialXerus/ReleaseNotes

As someone who has used Arch for 4 years, the bleeding edge got boring. I haven't had a major breakage in at least a year, probably longer, unless you count KDE 4 -> 5 being a breakage - one any 14.04 to 16.04 upgrader will also have to contend with.

The last major show stopper I can recall was when Arch dropped security hooks from the kernel and I had to get rid of my MAC.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#190

Post by maaku »

Analemma_ wrote: post #172
maaku wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collision attacks matter if you don't (want to) trust the Ubuntu release team.

If you don't trust the Ubuntu release team, why are you downloading Ubuntu to begin with? Your threat model makes no sense.

It is not trust in Canonical itself that is the problem, but the constant threat of coercion it puts on both the organization and the people that compromise it. This is why I work on generalized multi-signature schemes and deterministic builds.
Post reply on HN