On Jo, 27 nov 14, 09:56:37, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 27/11/14 01:30, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Scott Ferguson
> >> ().
> >
> > Not sure what that's supposed to be a link to,
>
> It's the id of your original post. I 'should' have searched the mail
> archives to
On 27/11/14 02:46, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Chris Bannister
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:30:27AM -0500, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>>> happened. But the upgrade was of over a thousand packages. All I was
>>> trying to do was to provide information which migh
On 27/11/14 01:30, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Scott Ferguson
> wrote:
>> On 26/11/14 12:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was
made - which may have 's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:30:27 -0500
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> I identified the problem (my always closed and never before suspended
> laptop, while I was upgrading through an ssh session, suddenly
> suspended during the upgrade); I solved it (found t
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:51:37PM CET, Andrew McGlashan
said:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 26/11/2014 3:50 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > It would be nice if I could have used the time replying to your
> > obstreperous and bilious attack helping people with Debian
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:30:27AM -0500, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>> happened. But the upgrade was of over a thousand packages. All I was
>> trying to do was to provide information which might prove helpful to
>> others. But apparently one
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:30:27AM -0500, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> happened. But the upgrade was of over a thousand packages. All I was
> trying to do was to provide information which might prove helpful to
> others. But apparently one can have every good intention of not
> starting a fight on debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/11/2014 3:50 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> It would be nice if I could have used the time replying to your
> obstreperous and bilious attack helping people with Debian
> problems.
Unfortunately *systemd is very much now a Debian problem* going
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
> On 26/11/14 12:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>> On 26/11/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was
>>> made - which may have 'some' bearing on the "badness" of the
>>> upgrade/u
On 26/11/14 21:17, Erwan David wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:41:45AM CET, Curt said:
>> On 2014-11-26, Erwan David wrote:
>>>
>>> So this means gnome now depends on non free drivers ?
>>>
>>
>> So in your opinion there are no open source hardware acceleration drivers
>> in existence?
>>
>
On 26/11/14 11:07, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 26/11/14 09:14, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:44:19AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Now, (I hope I'm not wrong on this.) It seems that the default GNOME
>> installation required a graphics card with hardware acceleration
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 07:34:32 +0100
Erwan David wrote:
> >
> > It isn't a default, the Gnome3 GUI will not work without hardware
> > acceleration. In the beginning, after an upgrade, there was a
> > fallback to a sort of Gnome2 display, but minus all the panels,
> > icons etc. that had been there
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:41:45AM CET, Curt said:
> On 2014-11-26, Erwan David wrote:
> >
> > So this means gnome now depends on non free drivers ?
> >
>
> So in your opinion there are no open source hardware acceleration drivers
> in existence?
>
I've seen apps complaining that nouveau or ra
On 2014-11-26, Erwan David wrote:
>
> So this means gnome now depends on non free drivers ?
>
So in your opinion there are no open source hardware acceleration drivers
in existence?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
>
> It isn't a default, the Gnome3 GUI will not work without hardware
> acceleration. In the beginning, after an upgrade, there was a fallback
> to a sort of Gnome2 display, but minus all the panels, icons etc. that
> had been there before the upgrade. The long-term fallback is Xfce and
> other li
On 26/11/14 12:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 26/11/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was
>> made - which may have 'some' bearing on the "badness" of the
>> upgrade/update "defaults"??
>
> Oh, I get it,
Patently, and demonstrab
On 11/24/14 04:06, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I am NOT starting another flamewar about systemd, but I was just
upgrading a headless system (an old T61p laptop which has no
functioning screen any more but which otherwise runs well and which I
use as an internal webserver) by running aptitude in an ssh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/11/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was
> made - which may have 'some' bearing on the "badness" of the
> upgrade/update "defaults"??
Oh, I get it, you think Debian is perfect
On 26/11/14 09:14, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:44:19AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> Or, perhaps a general rule for default settings - "safest/do no harm"?
>> [just a wild guess]
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense having the default meaning: guarranteed to
> work on the m
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:14:40 +1300
Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Now, (I hope I'm not wrong on this.) It seems that the default GNOME
> installation required a graphics card with hardware acceleration. How
> stupid is that? It goes against the whole concept of a sensible
> default.
It isn't a def
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:44:19AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps a general rule for default settings - "safest/do no harm"?
> [just a wild guess]
Wouldn't it make more sense having the default meaning: guarranteed to
work on the majority of systems/setups enabling the admin to late
On 25/11/14 01:03, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 at 02:59 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:58:46PM -0800, Matt Ventura wrote:
>>
>>> I think the bug here IMO is that a system simply shouldn't *do*
>>> things in general without me telling it to. If I close the lid
Am 2014-11-24 15:47, schrieb Patrick Wiseman:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Jonathan Dowland
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:01:45PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
2014/11/24 17:18 "Jonathan Dowland" :
> I guess your argument makes sense if you are talking about all
source
packages
> from the
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:01:45PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> 2014/11/24 17:18 "Jonathan Dowland" :
>> > I guess your argument makes sense if you are talking about all source
>> packages
>> > from the systemd stable, including logind; it's
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:03:31AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> Personally, I suspect that the only reason "suspend on lid close" is
> thought of as a sensible default is because so many other (non-*nix)
> systems already do it, not because of anything inherent to the behavior
> or to lid-close the
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 07:38:34AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> It isn't just ideal. It's Debian policy to respect configuration
> changes on upgrade.
That isn't the case, I'm afraid. At least if you are referring to [1], this
section refers specifically to *configuration files*, in the context
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:01:45PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/11/24 17:18 "Jonathan Dowland" :
> > I guess your argument makes sense if you are talking about all source
> packages
> > from the systemd stable, including logind; it's unlikely Patrick's init
> system
> > was switched to systemd-as
On 11/24/2014 at 02:59 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:58:46PM -0800, Matt Ventura wrote:
>
>> I think the bug here IMO is that a system simply shouldn't *do*
>> things in general without me telling it to. If I close the lid of
>> my laptop, unless I have told it to susp
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> The other issue here is that if you've told your system how you want
> it to behave once, it would be ideal if you didn't have to tell it the
> same thing again.
It isn't just ideal. It's Debian policy to respect configuration
changes on upgrade.
--
John Hasler
jhas
Matt Ventura writes:
> I think the bug here IMO is that a system simply shouldn't *do* things
> in general without me telling it to. If I close the lid of my laptop,
> unless I have told it to suspend when I do so, then it shouldn't
> suspend. I should be telling my machine to do the things I want
2014/11/24 17:18 "Jonathan Dowland" :
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:29:28PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> > I don't mind having yet another reason for telling the developers they
> > should have made the systemd based debian a parallel internal fork
> > with an independent release schedule.
> >
> > Bu
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:29:28PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> I don't mind having yet another reason for telling the developers they
> should have made the systemd based debian a parallel internal fork
> with an independent release schedule.
>
> But since they chose not to, this kind of bug is just
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:58:46PM -0800, Matt Ventura wrote:
> I think the bug here IMO is that a system simply shouldn't *do*
> things in general without me telling it to. If I close the lid of my
> laptop, unless I have told it to suspend when I do so, then it
> shouldn't suspend. I should be te
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Matt Ventura
wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 8:31 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> Joel Rees writes:
>>>
>>> So, what should Patrick file the bug against?
>>
>> I'd file against udev. That may not be correct but if not the
>> maintainers will sort it out. Just explain that yo
On 11/23/2014 8:31 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Joel Rees writes:
So, what should Patrick file the bug against?
I'd file against udev. That may not be correct but if not the
maintainers will sort it out. Just explain that you are not certain of
the exact package and why.
I think the bug here IMO is
Joel Rees writes:
> So, what should Patrick file the bug against?
I'd file against udev. That may not be correct but if not the
maintainers will sort it out. Just explain that you are not certain of
the exact package and why.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:30 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Patrick Wiseman writes:
>> The manual configuration was way back when I still had GUI use of this
>> machine, and it had continued to be respected. It's not a bug when the
>> entire infrastructure is changed and power management (suspend,
>> h
Patrick Wiseman writes:
> The manual configuration was way back when I still had GUI use of this
> machine, and it had continued to be respected. It's not a bug when the
> entire infrastructure is changed and power management (suspend,
> hibernate, etc.) is handled differently.
Yes it is.
--
John
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:13 PM, koanhead wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:00:02 +0100, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>
>> I am NOT starting another flamewar about systemd...
>
> we hope.
Since I said so, why would you doubt it?
>>
>> Looking at the laptop, I noticed that the suspend indicator was on, e
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Matt Ventura
wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 2:36 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
>>
>> I am NOT starting another flamewar about systemd, but I was just
>> upgrading a headless system (an old T61p laptop which has no
>> functioning screen any more but which otherwise runs well a
On 11/23/2014 2:36 PM, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
I am NOT starting another flamewar about systemd, but I was just
upgrading a headless system (an old T61p laptop which has no
functioning screen any more but which otherwise runs well and which I
use as an internal webserver) by running aptitude in an
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:00:02 +0100, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> I am NOT starting another flamewar about systemd...
we hope.
>
> Looking at the laptop, I noticed that the suspend indicator was on, even
> though I have had power management ignore the lid switch...
> It turns out that logind, a pie
42 matches
Mail list logo
