|
YouTuber posted:What is the deal with Ubuntu Touch? Has that project been silently dropped? There seems to be absolutely no amateur dev scene around it. XDA has people making lovely roms for almost every device and this seems like it would be equally suited to that scene. Still happening. Over the past year a handful of phones were released (I don't think any in the US). I don't necessarily see why an Ubuntu phone would benefit from custom roms, and it's possible that any amateur development is happening as code submitted to the official Ubuntu project.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
TopherCStone posted:Still happening. Over the past year a handful of phones were released (I don't think any in the US). I don't necessarily see why an Ubuntu phone would benefit from custom roms, and it's possible that any amateur development is happening as code submitted to the official Ubuntu project. I meant porting it to every device when I talked about roms. There seems to be nothing on that front as far as I can tell. There seems to be no talk about it in any of the usual places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
E: wrong thread.
Curdy Lemonstan fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Can anyone help me with running a terminal command on system startup? I want to make it so when the system boots the following command is run: mount -o soft,intr,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 192.168.1.130:/nfs /home/nfs/ which mounts my external NAS to a folder in my hold directory. I have tried a few different methods I found via google, I made a script and added it to the /etc/init.d folder, added it to the rc.local file, added the script to the startup tool in MATE, none of them have worked so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Why not just add it to /etc/fstab so it automounts? It probably isn't working from /etc/init.d or rc.local because it's trying to run before your network connection is up. Doing it through startup in MATE won't work because that runs through your user permissions instead of root's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Why not put it in fstab? mountall mounts every filesystem in there during system start and is smart enough to know to not wedge the boot process over a remote filesystem (unless you add bootwait).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
I was following through a guide using fstab but in the following line code:Edit: To clarify when I try the above method it returns the following: code:Mode 7 Samurai fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Going off your command line version, try //192.168.1.130/Public or //192.168.1.130/nfs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Mode 7 Samurai posted:I was following through a guide using fstab but in the following line That's not a command you throw into a prompt or shell script, that's a mount point for /etc/fstab... Your edit pretty much implies that you're dropping this fstab entry into a shell script somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread lol
other people fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:24
|
|
Associate Christ
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Going off your command line version, try //192.168.1.130/Public or //192.168.1.130/nfs. Both return "no such file or directory"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Mode 7 Samurai posted:Both return "no such file or directory" Again: these are not commands. The error message you pasted above indicates that you're trying to enter these on the command line. They are entries in /etc/fstab, which you can then mount using the mount command.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
try from the command line - first, make a note of your mount point where ever that is on your system. then do the following - mount.cifs //ip.address.of.device/share -o username=username,password=password /mountpoint Example from my own system: [root@homenas /]# mount.cifs //192.168.1.251/data -o username=jason,password=***** /data [root@homenas /]# mount *snip* //192.168.1.251/data on /data type cifs (rw) This is a simple CIFS/Windows mount on a Linux system. You should be able to do the same. This is what the fstab entry looks like: //192.168.1.251/data /data cifs rw,username=jason,password=***** 0 0 If you add the fstab entry first, you would mount it by issuing the command 'mount /data' or 'mount -a' to mount all filesystems. The above line is NOT a command. If you get an error, check the logs on the server side to see what's failing. Keep the command as basic as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
I am apparently bad at linux, I cant seem to get this to work. I am new to Linux so its all partially stuff I sort of understand and a bunch of stuff I dont, haha
Mode 7 Samurai fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Mode 7 Samurai posted:I am apparently bad at linux, I cant seem to get this to work. I am new to Linux so its all partially stuff I sort of understand and a bunch of stuff I dont, haha Open up /etc/fstab in an editor with sudo, and pop a line in for the path you want to mount. //ip/share /local/mount/point cifs rw,username=username,password=password 0 0 You need to make sure the local mount point exists - so if you use /data for example, make that data directory: sudo mkdir /data Once that's done, you should be able to mount /data, and you're good to go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Thalagyrt posted:Open up /etc/fstab in an editor with sudo, and pop a line in for the path you want to mount. Yeah I think I got the hang of it. I was thinking it worked a different way but after stepping away for a bit and coming back to it I think its working now
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
You guys keep on pointing out cifs, and he says he's trying to use nfs. Am I missing something where mount.cifs now includes NFS support? Or is there just some misnomer here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
It's a WD device, so it's probably exporting both. He said NFS, but it's likely that CIFS will work at the same path (and //server/export is CIFS anyway, not server:/export)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Anyone got a good write-up on the changes in 16.04?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:You guys keep on pointing out cifs, and he says he's trying to use nfs. Am I missing something where mount.cifs now includes NFS support? Or is there just some misnomer here? His replies kept including //sharename/share which is CIFS format. If it was address:/path I would have given him an NFS path instead. So basically I just went with what he was technically asking for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Reasonable points. 16.04 doesn't have anything colossal that I know of, besides moving up to 4.4 for the kernel. Anybody here ever tried to track down a kernel regression via bisecting? I've got an annoying issue that's come up on 15.10 that works 100% perfectly on the kernel that it ships with (4.2.0-16) but doesn't work at all on the later ones I've tried (4.2.0-30 and 4.4.1-040401). I was trying to crawl the commit history looking for anything obvious, but didn't see anything that stuck out. Hoping there might be an easier way to find the issue so I can try to stumble through getting a patch written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:16.04 doesn't have anything colossal that I know of, besides moving up to 4.4 for the kernel. systemd, Plasma (KDE) 5, Python 3.5
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Lysidas posted:systemd, Plasma (KDE) 5, Python 3.5 Shame on me. I was thinking from the perspective of 15.10 instead of 14.04. systemd is already live in 15.10 so I didn't think about that one at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
There's also Unity 8...hahaha no that'll never be a stable option unless you buy a phone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Wasn't there talk about Mir (?) replacing xorg at some point? Granted I heard about this years ago, so maybe it's not on the list anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
I think Mir is necessary for Canonical to go ahead with cross compatibility with Ubuntu Touch devices (phones, tablets etc.). It's a shame that they couldn't have developed Touch compatibility on top of Wayland, but I have no idea how possible that would've been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Is anyone aware of changes to the policy/philosophy of "apt-get dist-upgrade". I imaged a server today with 14.04.1 LTS and was surprised to find lsb_release reporting 14.04.4. Unhappy with a short support (five months) release I locked it down a bit more and reimaged it to straight 14.04.1 from the iso, which did report as such. When I went to apply updates dist-upgrade wanted to pull in base-files, which updates reported release to current. This behavior certainly differs from 10.04 and 12.04 LTS/HWE behavior, though I doubt they ever stated a policy clear enough to hold them to. Since these servers are for production I can't have them going out of support after a few months, or changing kernel lines on me, so 14.04.4 is really not what I'm after. It seems as though it might be 14.04.4 in name only, as it still has the 14.04.1 3.13 kernel. Well gently caress, I checked https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack "Kernel/LTSEnablementStack (last edited 2016-02-19 09:09:11" indicates all 14.04.x less then .5 will go out of support once that is out except for critical cve/secruity. gently caress ubuntu for servers. e: didn't scroll over far enough still gently caress ubuntu server. Aquila fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I think RHEL minor versions have the same limitations if a lot of updates are required, they only support the last two I think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:I think RHEL minor versions have the same limitations if a lot of updates are required, they only support the last two I think? Security updates go to EUS/z-stream as well as bug fixes to critical packages (there's a list), which is supported for two years. If it's really important, you can do AUS (6 years). ABI/API is the same, though, so your kernel's never gonna break.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Kernel will stay the same on upgrades unless you install the linux-generic metapackage that matches a later release (lts-wily for 4.2.0, for example). Other than that, dist-upgrade goes apeshit and gets you everything it can. If you use upgrade instead of dist-upgrade, it should just upgrade installed stuff without adding any new packages, and hold back anything that has a dependency on something you don't have installed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Aquila posted:Is anyone aware of changes to the policy/philosophy of "apt-get dist-upgrade". I imaged a server today with 14.04.1 LTS and was surprised to find lsb_release reporting 14.04.4. Unhappy with a short support (five months) release I locked it down a bit more and reimaged it to straight 14.04.1 from the iso, which did report as such. When I went to apply updates dist-upgrade wanted to pull in base-files, which updates reported release to current. This behavior certainly differs from 10.04 and 12.04 LTS/HWE behavior, though I doubt they ever stated a policy clear enough to hold them to. Since these servers are for production I can't have them going out of support after a few months, or changing kernel lines on me, so 14.04.4 is really not what I'm after. It seems as though it might be 14.04.4 in name only, as it still has the 14.04.1 3.13 kernel. The minor version reported by lsb_release doesn't matter; it's bumped every six months when they update base-files. What matters is if you have a HWE kernel installed, which is brought in by linux-generic-lts-* packages. The v3.13 kernel (Trusty 14.04 GA kernel) is supported for five years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
 Those updates you are forcefully reverting are the support you say you want
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Applebees posted:The minor version reported by lsb_release doesn't matter; it's bumped every six months when they update base-files. What matters is if you have a HWE kernel installed, which is brought in by linux-generic-lts-* packages. The v3.13 kernel (Trusty 14.04 GA kernel) is supported for five years. You're right, I tested it on some old systems in need of upgrade. I guess I've been living in a bizarre world where servers are out of date before I'm even hired. I still don't like it. ShadowHawk posted:
I've not force reverting anything, I'm installing the OS as distributed on the ISO and then testing what happens with and without letting it pull packages during and after install.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Aquila posted:I've not force reverting anything, I'm installing the OS as distributed on the ISO and then testing what happens with and without letting it pull packages during and after install. Support is delivered via package updates. If you prevent updates you are effectively turning down support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
do you think that linux support (for a linux other than rhel) = phone support or something?  it's support in the same way that windows update is support
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:do you think that linux support (for a linux other than rhel) = phone support or something? I'll refer you to http://www.canonical.com/services and their 24x7 support for the exact distro this thread is about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:I'll refer you to http://www.canonical.com/services and their 24x7 support for the exact distro this thread is about.  my Ubuntu server isn't performing well. what version are you running? 14.04.1 please get the latest patches in the form of 14.04.4
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
That's exactly what they should be doing. Telling you to make sure you're at the latest patches for the applications on your system first, before trying to diagnose any problems. If your problem is still occurring on that version, then they need to diagnose and fix. On LTS, as long as you don't install new packages (like the separate packages to go to a later minor or major kernel release), your packages get patch releases only which are non-breaking updates that (in 90% of cases) don't modify intended behavior. That's exactly how every support vendor I've worked with professionally has done it, and it's a reasonable expectation. They provide you with a simple mechanism to ensure you have the latest fixes, and they expect you to use it. If you aren't accepting the patches, you aren't accepting the most basic level of support, and that's where their obligation ends. Until you hold up your end of the support agreement, they don't have to hold up theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
16.04LTS Came out today. I think the most notable changes are replacing Ubuntu apps for Debian apps (Calendar and Software). Also, the ability to move the Unity dock to the bottom of the screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
I installed 16.04 beta 2 on my Chromebook the other day. Since 16.04 is final release now, do I need to do anything beyond the normal apt-get update/upgrade/dist-upgrade to make sure my computer is up to date?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:24
|
|
