Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
Tynach
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:21 am

Postby Tynach » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:49 pm

jelco wrote:
Tynach wrote:For one, I don't like to simply 'Upgrade' Ubuntu, because I always do weird things (unsupported repositories, that type of thing), so I always do fresh installs. I've not yet installed 11.10, but I've played around with it in a virtual machine... I hope that counts for you.

With our complicated networked workstation setups it generally saves time to upgrade instead of reinstalling and reconfiguring everything. This has never really presented any problem.

I wasn't implying you should do full installs - I was just preemptively saying why I don't, as an excuse for why I've not yet actually installed it.

jelco wrote:
Tynach wrote:Unity has settings. I don't like the defaults either - I prefer to make the sidebar dock thing stay there without 'dodging' windows, though to get to the settings you have to install CompizConfig Settings Manager (and then change settings in the 'Unity' Compiz plugin). As for Gnome support, it's there - you can install Gnome. But, it won't be the Gnome you know... It's that stupid new Gnome shell, which believe me, is MUCH worse than Unity (they have the idea that you should never minimize applications, and a bunch of other retarded things like that). It's quite easy to find programs to install - Go to the software center, and type in 'Gnome'. Gee, hard, isn't it? Though I personally recommend KDE. 4.7 is quite nice now. At login, you know that little 'Gear' button next to your username? You click that, and it gives a menu of the different logins (KDE, Gnome Shell, Unity, Unity 2D...)

I think you didn't really read my post. I made it pretty clear I much prefer Gnome and Gnome3 feels much, much better than Unity. At least it still allows me to customize my panels and access menus wherever I please - customizing the bars and panels in Unity requires diving so deep into Windows registry-like configuration menus that you just can't get away with calling it flexible anymore. I personally use the command-line aptitude since Synaptic is incredibly slow - there you can't get away with installing gnome-shell, you need to install "gnome-fallback" for the login menu to understand it's installed. And of course I know that logon menu for the shell - my issue is with the fact you can't teach it to remember a default other than Unity. Perhaps with local users, but not in our case where we have a networked setup through NSS; it used to be possible to select a system-wide default but if that's still the case they've done a hell of a job of hiding that setting.

I read your post, but I admit I didn't understand it until now. I wasn't aware you had tried Gnome3, and in your post you simply referred to 'Gnome' - and when I think of plain Gnome, I picture Gnome2. I apologize for that. However, now you're acting like you didn't read my post. Configuring Unity does NOT require you to go into (g|d)conf-editor (a.k.a. registry look-a-like nightmare), but rather to install compizconfig. I admit, for some settings you still have to go into the (g|d)conf-editor, though that hardly accounts for even most of the settings (I admit to doing it with the stupid 'no more 'system tray' thing - too many programs use that for getting rid of it to be useful). When I said the software center, I did not mean synaptic - I meant literally, the "Ubuntu Software Center". Yes, this thing is even CLUNKIER and SLOWER than synaptic. I personally hate using it myself. But, it makes it a LOT easy to install other desktop environments - as you simply type the name of the desktop environment into the search bar, and it'll show up as a 'package' to install (it hides the actual packages - it just lists the 'programs'. Not what I want or prefer either, but if I want to easily install Gnome, it works fairly well). I have no experience with networked logins... I admit that I'm sorta new-ish to Linux, and most of what I've done is not symbolic of what may be done in a corporate environment (especially as I only have one laptop and one desktop to try things on). All I can say there, is possibly ask on Ubuntu forums (or Kubuntu forums, as they seem to have more actual techs instead of a ton of newbs).

jelco wrote:
Tynach wrote:No, they furthered 11.04's "Ubuntu" font, into a monospaced font. It looks a little stylized, but I rather like it - it's got a nice science fiction-y look and feel to it, and yet it retains readability. Though for the console, I must admit I switch back to 'Monospace' for. Oh, and to change font settings, you have to go into Software Center and installed "Gnome Tweak", which shows up as "Advanced Settings". I do agree there - having to install customization tools is lame... They should be installed by default.

I don't care what the origins of the font are, or that you can change it - the fact that they deemed it readable for long terminal sessions just shows me they don't understand user-friendliness. You try editing something in vim with that font.

I suppose this is a matter of opinion. I personally like it and find it readable, but it doesn't "look right" to me on a terminal - so I switched back to Monospace for now. But I didn't think it looked ugly or hard to read. Oh and yes, I am a Vim user :) But I've not used Vim with that font yet, as I've only messed around with 11.10 in a VM - So, I must admit I've not had any long-term exposure to it.

jelco wrote:
Tynach wrote:You think Unity should be clubbed to death? Try Gnome Shell. Your brain will be melted to vaporized butter by the time you're done LOOKING at it. And given the choice of either Gnome Shell, or Unity? I choose Unity hands down. Between Unity and KDE? Honestly, KDE, except that Unity is more stable... So I kinda am forced to use Unity. Particularly Unity 2D.

Well, like I said a couple of lines back, I though I made it pretty clear I rather like Gnome. It may be a little different from the old Gnome, but is still fully customizable and flexible. It doesn't stick to a let's-make-a-tablet-friendly-interface philosophy where everything needs to look shiny, be big buttons and be grouped. Alt-tabbing between multiple windows of the same application has been made extremely complicated, for example - why does it need to be? Alt-tabbing between windows on different workspaces is also a weird thing to support but something I can at least understand - why you need to wait 5 seconds for Terminal to expand to the 15 windows I have running at any time is beyond me though.

As far as shells in general go I prefer xfce by the way, but since Gnome works fine on Ubuntu I never tried to install it, fearing I might break stuff.

All of the Gnome3 configuration tools work in Unity, as far as I know. I've not messed with it enough to be able to say that with 100% certainty, but from what I've read and seen myself, that much is true. I honestly felt that Gnome Shell was more "Tablety" than Unity, but to each their own. I've not played around with alt-tabbing in either new desktop environment, so I don't know. I have no idea why a terminal would need to take 5 seconds to expand - and by your usage of 'expand' to '15 windows' doesn't make sense to me, so I will say I don't have experience with what you're trying to do, and/or I'm reading your post wrong again. I'm sorry :(

jelco wrote:
Tynach wrote:Also, Ubuntu split from Debian a Looooooong time ago. The only thing they share in common, is that Ubuntu periodically takes packages from the Debian Unstable (sid) branch, and checks to see if they work with Ubuntu's own packages. But, Ubuntu is no longer Debian Sid semi-stabilized, with a custom theme. I'm afraid those days are long over.

Regardless of the different design branches, Ubuntu is still basically a Debian-derivative for desktop use (which is why Ubuntu Server is still a strange idea). I work with so many OSes on a daily basis that I start to group them up - all BSDs put together, Redhat + CentOs, Debian + Ubuntu. The packages and repos may be different, but you can still very easily swap out configs between the two different distributions. Considering we work with so much Debian at this particular association we ran Debian desktop for a long time - the only reason we switched to Ubuntu is because that's somewhat better suited for desktop use. Hence my comment: as far as I'm concerned that's not the case anymore and I'm seriously considering switching back.

By the way, my frustration is with both Unity and the rest of Ubuntu. Why has the Settings menu made way for a strange and incomplete settings Window for example? It's those strange design choices that show to me flexibility etc. have made way for weird philosophies.

Jelco

I think Ubuntu Server uses a server-optimized kernel, and a few other weird differences from Debian. But I agree, I find it weird, and whenever I make an actual server (as a VM, or helping a friend set up a Linux server) I always (tell them to) use Debian. The reason I use Ubuntu over Debian for my desktop/laptop, is because I want to have the latest software - the latest Firefox, the latest Pidgin, etc. That's much tougher to do in Debian than it is in Ubuntu... Otherwise, yeah, I'd probably be using Debian right now. Debian was my first distro, and I've found it has significantly better performance than Ubuntu in almost all cases. Though, the issues you bring up are not significant enough (to me) to switch back to Debian and drop Ubuntu altogether - especially since they can be (hopefully) changed through configuration.

I was under the impression that lame settings window came from Gnome3 - Unity still uses the Gnome application stack, so the actual applications you get with Unity are the same as with Gnome3. That was my understanding, at least. Honestly I wish they'd come up with something like what SuSE and Mandriva have - a nice, unified settings manager that can manage settings for the entire system. I'd switch to those distros, except that I've always had problems with RPM based distributions... So I stick with Debian based ones.
Tynach
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:21 am

Postby Tynach » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:53 pm

shinygerbil wrote:Ever since KDE hit 4, I found it unusable. I am aware that 4.0 was considered to be awful, and it didn't start becoming really usable until about 4.2 or so, but is it actually any good now? Or just the best alternative to Gnome and Unity. (KDE 3.5 was possibly the best thing ever, in my opinion.) *buntu was my desktop OS a few years ago, but I haven't used it pretty much since I got Windows 7. Tried the new (Gnome) version a little while ago, ironically just before 11.10 was officially released.....not impressed, Unity is bollocks. Didn't even bother downloading Kubuntu, based on my experience with KDE4 so far, but should I have? It doesn't look like it's changed since KDE 4.0 to be honest.

I've been having more fun with the Windows 8 Developer Preview, it works just like my Windows Phone 7.5. (Seeing a trend here?)

@Xocrates, I've always had mysterious activity with random System-owned processes but nothing like that...have you tried the usual, Safe mode, etc?

Also, I can never decide whether I'd actually like having a tattoo. Probably not.


The latest KDE (4.7) is actually REALLY nice. The only problem I'm having with it, is a bug in my graphics card driver that makes it so if I resize Konsole while using compositing, the entire system crashes. Hopefully that driver bug is fixed in the driver in 11.10's repositories, so when I upgrade to 11.10 it will hopefully be fixed. This is an nVidia driver issue, I'd like to note.

Because of that, I'm still using Gnome. Otherwise, KDE is quite usable and really nice.
User avatar
zach
level5
level5
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:21 pm
Location: Denmarkia
Contact:

Postby zach » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:26 pm

*disregards everything and mumbles something about arch and dwm*
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:31 pm

Jelco: try alt-tab alt-down. I actually like that application grouping quite a lot. What's your hand doing on the mouse anyway?
Oh yay, found the tickbox to disable compositing for fullscreen aps, right there in the compositing setup. One annoyance down. Only thing is that it tends to crash the whole GUI at times. Oh well.

Really? You can understand why alt-tab takes windows from other workspaces into account? I can't. Workspaces are there to keep different tasks separate. If I want to switch tasks, I switch workspaces first, then maybe applications in the unlikely event the right application isn't there where I left it. The bias settings help (simple alt-tabbing won't switch workspaces unless the app you switch to doesn't have an instance on the current workspace), but I'd very much prefer other workspaces to be completely invisible.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:42 pm

Tynach wrote:Configuring Unity does NOT require you to go into (g|d)conf-editor (a.k.a. registry look-a-like nightmare), but rather to install compizconfig. I admit, for some settings you still have to go into the (g|d)conf-editor, though that hardly accounts for even most of the settings (I admit to doing it with the stupid 'no more 'system tray' thing - too many programs use that for getting rid of it to be useful). When I said the software center, I did not mean synaptic - I meant literally, the "Ubuntu Software Center". Yes, this thing is even CLUNKIER and SLOWER than synaptic.

Technically compizconfig is for...well, configuring Compiz. There's parts of Unity that can't be configured through that since it's simply not Compiz' responsibility - panels and menus for example. As far as Compiz is concerned, I don't think anything has significantly changed since 11.4. Remember, the window manager is only part of a shell.

Also yes, the Software Center was indeed what I intended to point out. Mixed those up somehow, sorry. :|

Tynach wrote:I've not played around with alt-tabbing in either new desktop environment, so I don't know. I have no idea why a terminal would need to take 5 seconds to expand - and by your usage of 'expand' to '15 windows' doesn't make sense to me

bert_the_turtle wrote:Jelco: try alt-tab alt-down. I actually like that application grouping quite a lot. What's your hand doing on the mouse anyway?

Bwuh? Who said anything about a mouse? Let me elaborate: I have loads of terminals open at any time, all in different windows. When you Alt-Tab, there's one icon for the Terminal application. While you can alt-tab between different Terminal windows easily, going from a different application (a browser for example) to Terminal will take you to the one you last focused on. Somewhat understandable, but I want to pick the window I move to by myself. What you need to do for this is Alt-Tab, then hold down the keys while on the Terminal icon - after a couple of seconds it will vertically expand that icon into thumbnails of the actual Terminal windows, allowing you to select the one you want.

Now I did not know about the arrow keys (which I have to say actually makes sense when looking at the visual implementation) but being so used to switching windows with that one left hand it feels unnatural to suddenly use my right hand as well.

Tynach wrote:I was under the impression that lame settings window came from Gnome3 - Unity still uses the Gnome application stack, so the actual applications you get with Unity are the same as with Gnome3. That was my understanding, at least.

The old familiar Settings menu in the top panel that we had in Gnome 2 is gone, but as far as I know that old menu was something Canonical pre-configured in Gnome when they shipped it with Ubuntu (like the other two which are still there - three if you count the main Ubuntu menu that has moved from top-left to top-right).

bert_the_turtle wrote:Really? You can understand why alt-tab takes windows from other workspaces into account? I can't. Workspaces are there to keep different tasks separate. If I want to switch tasks, I switch workspaces first, then maybe applications in the unlikely event the right application isn't there where I left it. The bias settings help (simple alt-tabbing won't switch workspaces unless the app you switch to doesn't have an instance on the current workspace), but I'd very much prefer other workspaces to be completely invisible.

Don't get me wrong, I also much prefer keeping them separate. That being said, I can imagine the use case. I tend to have a browser opened up full-screen one one workspace, and the rest filled with terminals (full-screen or several scattered across the screen). If you want to jump from or to the browser, it's easy to do that with the same combination as switching between multiple terminals on the same workspace, especially if you continuously switch back and forth (like if you are changing configurations, programming etc and there's documentation opened up in the browser - which I do kind of, like...all the time). Simply put, if you happen to use workspaces as extensions of your pixel real estate, it can come in handy.

Jelco
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
GreenRock
level4
level4
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 3:47 pm
Location: Triangulating...

Postby GreenRock » Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:53 am

I don't think this is worth starting a new thread for, so here it is.

I. Fucking. Hate. Subnets.

Been studying the same goddamn chapter for the past two weeks, and nothing is making sense. It's as if the rules are constantly changing, and you can imagine my frustration. I finally thought of bringing up here, since about (everyone?) has played Uplink besides me. I was wondering if Uplink displays any of the concepts taught in a basic networking class. If that's the case, I figure, I'm an idiot, and everyone thinks subnetting subnets is SO fun, it could make for an awesome video game :D

I basically have to find network, usable hosts, broadcast, and next network, given a host address and prefix.
Tynach
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:21 am

Postby Tynach » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:08 am

GreenRock wrote:I don't think this is worth starting a new thread for, so here it is.

I. Fucking. Hate. Subnets.

Been studying the same goddamn chapter for the past two weeks, and nothing is making sense. It's as if the rules are constantly changing, and you can imagine my frustration. I finally thought of bringing up here, since about (everyone?) has played Uplink besides me. I was wondering if Uplink displays any of the concepts taught in a basic networking class. If that's the case, I figure, I'm an idiot, and everyone thinks subnetting subnets is SO fun, it could make for an awesome video game :D

I basically have to find network, usable hosts, broadcast, and next network, given a host address and prefix.


Don't quote me on this, but I heard subnets were going away with IPv6.

Your dream may yet come true...
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:22 pm

Jelco: Yeah, I got your complaint about the pause, that's why I gave you the alt-down hint. The mouse comment was merely a preemptive response to the potential complaint that you need two hands for that (or one rubber hand or a tiny keyboard).
microchip08
level5
level5
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:37 pm
Contact:

Postby microchip08 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:05 pm

Just started fiddling around in Hammer to try and map for TF2. It's much more boring than I was expecting, yet at the same time really good fun :D.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:40 am

Huh, this is interesting. I popped over to metacritic to see if there were any early reviews of the Tintin movie, which opens next week, only to find out that it will only open in the US in two months.

Which given it is a Spielberg movie, I find it very surprising we're getting it so early.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:32 am

Did they give it 10/10?
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:17 am

Mmm Organic Chemistry, retro-synthesis is nothing like SpaceChem but satisfying in a similar way.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:14 pm

GreenRock wrote:I. Fucking. Hate. Subnets.

Been studying the same goddamn chapter for the past two weeks, and nothing is making sense. It's as if the rules are constantly changing, and you can imagine my frustration. I finally thought of bringing up here, since about (everyone?) has played Uplink besides me. I was wondering if Uplink displays any of the concepts taught in a basic networking class. If that's the case, I figure, I'm an idiot, and everyone thinks subnetting subnets is SO fun, it could make for an awesome video game :D

I basically have to find network, usable hosts, broadcast, and next network, given a host address and prefix.

First off, subnets are your friends! :P Second, whether it's anything like how Uplink works I would not know, I've not touched it for far too long to make any sensible comments about that.

Tynach wrote:Don't quote me on this, but I heard subnets were going away with IPv6.

Yes and no. The 'technique' of subnetting still exists (i.e. dividing a range into subranges of certain sizes) but the sheer number of addresses an IPv6 space offers means it's possible to stick to certain standard sizes, as specified in the RFCs. The sizes used in practice tend to be a little bit different from the original proposals, and are roughly like so: /8s for RIRs, /32s for LIRs, /48s for intermediate providers (where applicable), and finally /64s for end-users. The most important thing for most people is that your home internet connection will have a /64, as will most VPS/dedicated servers you lease at webhosting providers. (Standard IPv6 marketing talk here: the current IPv4 address space is about 4.3 x 10^9 addresses - the end-user range size is (that number)^2 = 1.8 x 10^19 addresses. That's twice the amount of digits for just your home connection.)

Because these ranges are of such absurd size, generally speaking one doesn't need to divide in different range sizes much because there's more than enough flexibility with just this. However, that's theory; in practice sysadmins will still want to split up their ranges in ways they find manageable, understandable and/or logical. I have seen sizes like /40, /54 and /96 being used despite those sizes being discouraged in the RFCs.

Note that the division being made on paper may or may not result in truly separate L3-networks (which goes for the current IPv4 situation as well, by the way). It actually isn't that complicated, although you have to get used to thinking in bits more than in actual numbers.

Broadcast address: last address in the range
Amount of addresses: 2^(prefix bits)
Next network: increment the last non-variable bit of the network prefix, and use the same amount of bits.

Example: 192.168.1.100/16. 16 divided by 8 is two, so the last two octets are the variable components of the address. That makes the base address 192.168.0.0.

Broadcast address: 192.168.255.255
Amount of addresses: 2^16 = 65 536
Next network: 192.169.0.0/16

Additionally your subnet mask is 255.255.0.0, and I'd guess your gateway is 192.168.0.1. (Note that the gateway and broadcast address are not standardized and can be different, but a gateway is rarely different from the base address + 1 and the broadcast is even more unlikely to differ from its default of last address.) Subnet masks are nothing more than bitmasks, and have a 1 for a bit that's 'static' within the subnet (always the same for every address) and a 0 for every 'variable' bit. Since the last two octets are variable in /16s, the first two are static. This converts to 255.255.0.0.

Subnets that use entire octets are easy to work with (/8, /16 and /24); most confusing elements kick in at in-between range sizes. A nice example is the student-range of my Uni's address space. My own PC for example is 130.89.161.14, and I happen to know the network is a /20. With 32-20=12 variable bits there's 1.5 octet we can designate as 'variable'. A bit of binary maths and you end up with these details:

Base address: 130.89.160.0
Broadcast address: 130.89.175.255
Amount of addresses: 2^12 = 4096
Next Network: 130.89.176.0/20
Subnet mask: 255.255.240.0
Gateway: 130.89.160.1

If you do this often enough, soon you won't have to convert to and from binary all the time ("now you're thinking with subnets!").

(And then you're going to have learn to do the same tricks in IPv6 with hexadecimal awesomeness. :))

Jelco
Last edited by jelco on Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."

- Douglas Adams
User avatar
NeatNit
level5
level5
Posts: 2929
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby NeatNit » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:35 pm

Damn ponies.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:41 pm

Why does MPro7 have to be so expensive?

grumble, grumble, grumble...

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests