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

Fix Ubuntu

fixubuntu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 304 posts

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#251

Post by laumars »

rlpb wrote: post #168
nivla wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does, how is it going to ask for my permission in a server environment? It automatically sets "report_crashes=true" under (/etc/default/whoopsie) when Ubuntu is first installed. Here are some resources with more people reporting the same: [1] http://blog.retep.org/2012/07/05/whoopsie-how-to-disable-it-... [2] http://glog.procrasstination.com/index.php?/archives/47-Ubun... [3] http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread…

It's vestigal on a server. It's there because the server installation and the desktop installation share that component. But since there's no UI for you to approve transmission, currently the crash reports sit on the server awaiting (local) examination and do nothing. All the resources you pointed appear to be people who have found a setting and do not understand that it does not do anything. Like my posts elsewhere…

> It's vestigal on a server. It's there because the server installation and the desktop installation share that component. But since there's no UI for you to approve transmission, currently the crash reports sit on the server awaiting (local) examination and do nothing.

Aside eating up 8GB of RAM on one file server I'd built. I couldn't believe it when I saw that.

Wooopsie is just one of many reasons why I always recommend vanilla Debian over Ubuntu Server.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#252

Post by laumars »

levesque wrote: post #190
zx2c4 wrote: post #102

Solution: stop using Ubuntu. There are lots of other very able distributions out there, many of which not only have better privacy features but also are technologically superior in one way or another. In no particular order, these are all very capable operating systems for a variety of needs: * https://fedoraproject.org/ * http://www.centos.org/ * http://www.opensuse.org/ * http://www.mageia.org/ * https://www.archli…

The problem with other distros is the lack of a design. Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~). Even today's Gnome Shell does not look as good as Unity... it also does not scale well for my display's 1600x900 resolution (top bar icons are way too small). The other distros might work well technically, but imho they don't look as good and they require more tweakin…

> The problem with other distros is the lack of a design.

Not true - plenty of distros ship pretty default themes (ArchBang, Mint, ElementoryOS, etc). And themes are just that - a theme. They can easily be installed on any distro - even ones that look "ugly" out of the box.

> Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~).

They key bit there is "I used" - ie there's been plenty but you're unaware of them. Ubuntu wasn't the first to place emphasis on aesthetics (I remember being wowed by Mandrake back in 2002) and it's certainly not the only distro to care about that at the moment. Ubuntu is just the distro that shouts the loudest because Shuttleworth has deep pockets.

> Even today's Gnome Shell does not look as good as Unity.

Subjective. Personally I think Unity is the ugliest of the heavyweight desktop environments. And Unity is certainly the least attractive part of Ubuntu (the colours, icons and font rendering is what makes Ubuntu look good, in my opinion)

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#253

Post by vacri »

Pxtl wrote: post #16

All Linux distros should be free charities and their developers should eat catfood and ramen.

Cat food (tinned meat, not kibbles) is more expensive than vegetables. If you're eating catfood to advertise your poverty, you're doing it out of a twisted sense of pride.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#254

Post by emn13 »

stackcollision wrote: post #232
0X1A wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is completely subjective. A lot of people hate Unity, the same way people hate every DE that exists. So much so that some do not even use a DE. Using a DE as an argument for Ubuntu's advantage is weak as they're usually ambiguous. I say usually because it tends to be that Unity, like Mir, isn't really adopted into any other distribution in official repositories. Even more so after Mir's release, since it'll be d…

Reporting in from the "I hate Unity" department. If I wanted to use something that looks like a mac, I would just get a mac.

Favorite "bonus" feature: annoying semi-transparent blurs you can tweak but not turn off. Gratuitous fades. Choppy animations on an underpowered GFX.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#255

Post by vacri »

NateDad wrote: post #24

If people did 30 seconds of searching they'd realize this information is available on the official Stack Exchange site AskUbuntu.com which is directly supported by Canonical's paid staff: http://askubuntu.com/questions/192269/how-can-i-remove-amazo...

The way to do things changes with every single Ubuntu release. A colleague once looked up some way to alter a desktop setting (can't recall which) and he found that it was different in each of the past four ubuntu releases (as of 13.04).

Similarly, you have to know you want to remove each of the items - fixubuntu hits a bunch at once. It doesn't require as much a priori knowledge.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#256

Post by ansible »

Ahhh... Unity.

Shortly after upgrading, I needed to burn a CD. So I go to fire up Gnome's Brasero. I start typing it in, and before I've finished, Unity helpfully provides me with advertisements of bras for women. At work. Yeah, that's helpful.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#257

Post by orionblastar »

Canonical is using people and organizations who use Ubuntu: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/canoni...

I had recently made Blastarix: http://blastar.in/linux/

I am now scared that I'll get sued, just because I modified Ubuntu, renamed it to Blastarix, and removed the Amazon search and ads feature with some other tweaks. I do not know how to remove the Ubuntu logo and startup screens and I used uck to make the distro. I also added the 32 bit Steam for Linux client so gamers had it pre-installed and most developers play games on Steam anyway.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#258

Post by orionblastar »

balls187 wrote: post #207
jccc wrote: post #111

Regarding that "disclaimer" in the corner, here's why it was added: https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trade...

US Trademark law is kind of sticky. If you don't actively defend your trademark, you can lose it.

But isn't there a 'fair use' clause? At least there used to be one at one time before we lost our liberties, rights, and freedoms with the DMCA and Patriot Act.

Re: Fix Ubuntu

#260

Post by Thrymr »

jebblue wrote: post #157
bluedino wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unstable is pretty dang stable.

If I understand it right, Unstable doesn't get security fixes: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable And Testing doesn't get fixes for contrib and non-free: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing

It means that unstable isn't specifically tested for security, but security fixes will go to unstable first, before they propagate to testing.
Post reply on HN