What about rocks? They clearly aren’t theists either. I’m not being dickish here, I think this is interesting semantics and I have no strong inclination either way.

I can, but it’ll be hard to get definitive evidence as the phenomenon can be quite elusive, and I cannot run the daily for very long periods (as it gets in the way of productivity). Obviously, if I catch it even once on the daily, it’ll be proof enough that the issue persists, but on the other hand, not seeing the issue may just mean it didn’t happen to occur during the time running from the daily.

(Upgrading the system to latest release would be a surer way to find out, but for now I intend to keep running 12.04 until the next LTS, 16.04.)

And my axe

Hi Christopher, the apport-collected data above was gathered from my main desktop, which only has Intel graphics. (I mentioned the other system with Radeon just because it *didn’t* suffer from this problem despite having the same software. I no longer have access to that system so unfortunately I can’t provide the same logs from it for comparision.)

Not speaking for The Chromium Projects or anyone, but I think the things you mention are just not considered issues to be addressed in the project. The Chromium Projects are, by their own words, ”open-source”, which by FSF’s definition (as also mentioned in one of the threads you linked to) is different from free software. Barring any actual non-free licensing issues, any party with an interest to do so should, in my understanding, be able to branch a new project from Chromium and address those issues, turning their branched codebase into what the FSF and Trisquel would then consider free enough to qualify.

In other words, these aren’t issues to be fixed ”by Chromium”, but by parties with an interest to have them fixed. And at least according to G4JC at the aforementioned thread, it would be quite a substantial amount of work to be done.

Are their names supposed to be redacted? ’Cause I can read them just fine through the red strikethroughs.

Hassua: itse muistan Dourifin tästä X-fileestä, mutten B5:stä lainkaan. Piti ihan guuglata kuvia jälkimmäisestä, eikä niistäkään herännyt mitään muistikuvia.

Tuo kuvan kohtaus oli kyllä tosissaan karmiva, hui sentään.

notsure.jpg

Has anyone ever found themselves thinking anything beyond the apps and perhaps the files lenses are useful? Only half /s here, I love Unity as much as the next guy (maybe even more), but perhaps my workflow is just stuck in the past as I never even touch the Dash unless I need an app not currently locked to my Launcher. The first thing I do after installing a recent release is a big apt-get –purge for all other scopes, just to better see those apps which are all I (ever) need.

Note: I’m attaching a video below demonstrating the issue. In it I’m reproducing the problem with the amd64 ISO of 15.04.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Have a (virtual) machine with a clean 10 GB hard disk and 8 GB of RAM.
2. Start the installer, select ”Erase disk and install Ubuntu”, click ”Install now”.

What happens:
A ”Do you want to return to the partitioner?” window pops up, saying ”Some of the partitions you created are too small. Please make the following partitions at least this large:

/ 3.5 GB

If you do not go back to the partitioner and increase the size of these partitions, the installation may fail.”

Selecting Continue then goes on to an installation which fails due to lack of space as promised. This is because the installer has partitioned the disk with a 8+ GB swap partition, and only what remains of the 10 GB after that allocated to /.

What I expect to happen:
I know this is a tricky corner case, but I think there are better ways to deal with it than exhibited by the installer above. Here are some alternative suggestions I came up with:

1) change the way the disk space requirement is calculated for the ”Preparing to install” view: make it require at least the minimum ”/” size + expected swap size, thus notifying the user beforehand if the requirement is not met. (As you see in the video, currently it has the green checkmark even when the installer is about to fail predictably.)

2) have the installer select a partitioning scheme where ”/” is the minimum required and allocate whatever remains for swap; warn the user that swap will be too small to do hibernation.

3) at the very least, have the ”Do you want to return to the partitioner?” window describe the situation better. It was the biggest source of confusion for me because the wording implied I had partitioned the disk (which I hadn’t done) and prompting me to ”return to the partitioner” where I hadn’t been to.