Reputation
777
Top tag
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
See votes, expandable usercard
Badges
1 4 22
Impact
~39k people reached

Mar
13
comment Totem sidebar gone after upgrade (playlist)
A rather arrogant way to deal with the users, simply stop offering them a playlist. thanks for informing though.
Jan
21
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
great. with /etc/issue you found yet another file of the bases-file package that tells the version. Since redundancy is great for increasing maintenance efforts the info is also available via /etc/os-release and /etc/ls-release which are also in base-files
Jan
21
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
indeed what you say is true. Considering that the strace lsb_release -a showed that eventually it simply reads if available /etc/lsb-release and is for ubuntu not very much more than cat /etc/lsb-release without python overhead, only for non Ubuntu debian or more obscure cases it seems that lsb-release can provide a heuristic based on apt system. For debian /etc/debian_version is another source. indeed I recoment against using lsb-release when the data can directly be read from the text files.
Jan
20
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
I am not married to the question. I find it a little strange you are sort of pushy with the point releases question and I think the way I asked the question is more crisp to somebody looking for an answer a similar problem as I did. Sort of 2 is the result of either "1+1" and "40/20" and "2*1". Even though the same result the way to it makes each "question" meritfully different.
Jan
20
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
@Arroincal you say Precise Pangolin? then you mean 12.04 sure? Anyway as you confirm, the benefit of the XX.XX.0 install media is that the kernel of the LTS endures 5 years and is not a somewhat fake 6-9 kernel support within LTS.
Jan
20
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
@Braiam No I wanted to know which version I have. Anyway with the answers provided and also where the iformation comes from, I know now that the question you suggest is indeed related. It is not a duplicate. The merit of this question is that the problem is approached practically from the specific question: which version do I have? I think that if not done by askubunut/SE itself, you managed to show this relatedness of the questions: well done :)
Jan
20
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
@Braiam. not excatly, I asked about the specific problem of mine. Normaly it is desired to ask very specific and hence answerable questions. The suggested non-duplicate question is simply more general and of not much merit to post afterwards. Instead of duplicate one might better call it related
Jan
20
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
thanks for your answer."The kernel version is not explicitly tied to the point release" Yes and No. Yes Of course as you lay out 12.04.5 can be either 3.2.x or 3.13.x kernel depending if you installed a 12.04.0 and updated not going on the HWE Stack). Or alternatively if you did 12.04.0 and then opted to the HWE Stack and similarly hava a 3.13.x kernel by install from 12.04.5 cd/dvd. NO if you need a 3.2.x with its 5year support you need to start with a archived 12.04.0 media.
Jan
20
comment Why do I get contradicting Ubuntu versions?
Really? wow - since I installed Sept 2012 (long before 12.04.5) was available I am amazed how that came about. Can I have installed a system via a 12.04.1 cdrom and end up with a 12.04.5?
Nov
1
comment How to make Firefox (versions 41+) accept unsigned extensions?
This is of course true, and I knew (and I should have stated with the question that the coercion to the Developer Edition, is nothing I really particularly like). Indeed asking the question was to really avoid having to use a PPA or different verions. Best would simply be a version 1:1 the seam as the current Firefox, but without the sigining shit
Oct
31
comment Is Linux getting less or more secure?
linux, is the kernel of the system (like GNU/Linux, Android, Ubuntu). Did your question relate to Ubuntu instead? Else with all those unpatched Android cellphones out there I would say, lots of unsafe system run a Linux.
Sep
27
comment What dangers have the Apt bugs security holes (USN-2348-1) caused?
@Jan can you tell what this means "If you never used repositories without having a valid signing key for the repo, you're probably not affected."? Is being a simple 12.04 user that did a clean/vanila install and then used apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade -y now a case of a valid signing key? Also did the bug affect such a user?
Sep
27
comment What dangers have the Apt bugs security holes (USN-2348-1) caused?
@muru thank you. So does it mean that not everybody has such valid signing key?
Sep
26
comment What dangers have the Apt bugs security holes (USN-2348-1) caused?
@Jan it is correct what you say. The question original is regarding the dangers that have been there in between. It is quite clear by itself that updating the flawed parts helps to end the problem.
Sep
25
comment What dangers have the Apt bugs security holes (USN-2348-1) caused?
thank you. Is a valid signing key something special or has that been with every Ubuntu user. Is that "having a valid signing key something" something that would have been true for developers only or for almost each ubuntu user?
May
7
comment Can Ubuntu cope with bad RAM?
then http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/badram/ is not real? well anyway I asked on askubutu.com because I wanted to know it ubuntu installation tries to check for faulty ram and then to apply badRAM. I need no info that bad RAM is bad. I get that ;)
Mar
1
comment What is the purpose of the ssl-cert-snakeoil.key
:) I am aware of the work origin and general meaning of snakeoil. In the answer above you say it's created for the snakeoil user and should not be deleted: which is why I thought there was one.
Mar
1
comment What is the purpose of the ssl-cert-snakeoil.key
Wow! insightful. Can you tell what this snakeoil user is?
Mar
1
comment Ubuntu Open Ports
+1 for explaining that filtered might can still mean closed. I was already freaking out having those "crazy windows service" ports open on my ubuntu setup. Yet not finding any service/process via top -bn1 nor via netstat -tuandp. Now I feel saver again
Sep
5
comment Does file /etc/apt/sources.list.apt-clone exist and if so, what is the difference to /etc/apt/sources.list?
Great! how did you find out about that? man apt-clone did work? I thought via apt-file search sources.list it would tell me the package that does have sources.list.apt-clone. But since as you explained the file seems to be created dynamically and is not a part of the deb, it was not found. Anyhow thanks a lot! great answer