Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:configuration profile (Score 1) 280

by udippel (#48181311) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Stop PulseAudio From Changing Sound Settings?

Though you're an AC, I reply because this is about the closest what I can find in this discussion and what I also experience. In my case on kubuntu. So far everyone has shifted the responsibility to everyone else. Slowly I am getting sick of FOSS, though I have used it happily for close to 20 years.
Alas, also me getting old, and the youngsters don't always follow the philosophy of the old days. So we have to endure the modern types as well, the Lennart Ps, Christoph Fs, Vishesh Hs, etc., for whom the FOSS-thing is closer to an ego trip than a community effort.
Though back to the topic: I run kubuntu almost exclusively on a number of boxes, 32-bit, 64-bit, always updated. And for the last years, none has ever been willing to store my audio settings; except of the volume.
One DELL-box has seen me setting the output to 'headphone' some 50 times, after each reboot. Another self-assembled box (MSI) with internal audio and extra sound card comes back on the internal sound card after each reboot, and graciously accepts me setting it to the extra sound card; only to revert to the built-in device after the next reboot. And, yes, I have saved the settings close to one hundred times by now. Then I stopped, giving up, and start by setting the audio system to use the add-on sound card.
In the old days the distros could know much better what angle they were responsible for; and what was upstream. With the more recent smudge-over of functionality (against the UNIX philosophy of small, modular, distributed) it is also more difficult for them to locate the trouble. And so more recent bug reports on kubuntu are returned with 'report to KDE', and from there 'report to [application]'.

Sad, just sad, very sad.

Comment: Re:Does anyone still use Gnome? (Score 1) 56

by udippel (#48153207) Attached to: KDE Releases Plasma 5.1

Your ID is way too low to play on your alias.

I *think* you could understand how to use it; though you could not easily understand how to use all its features. Correct me if I am wrong. KDE unfortunately loves to pop in new concepts, or even old ones, with hitherto unknown labels. Activity is one of those, and its further development was kind of abandoned before it was actually ripe to harvest. I for one use it, and curse it for being incomplete. Was it complete, you'd have not 2, 4 or 8 (identical) desktops, but 2, 4 or 8 totally different desktops, according one's current needs. Imagine one for photos. Not cluttered with other crap; just optimised for photos. Another for search and search results. One for when you happen to have a touch screen monitor. Maybe a kiosk-type desktop, if you wanted your kids or some stranger to just use a single application and not see your personal stuff immediately. That's the potential, though a half-hearted and half-done implementation prevents this from happening. is an old, and inactive bug report on this misery. And then they want to compete with MS, the 'semantic desktop' and had some Nepomuk earlier, Akonadi, and since neither ever worked, now 'baloo', which is closer to the term that describes what it actually is. And impossible to deactivate, effectively.

To me all this is just sad; on the best desktop that I know. Aside of Windows XP. With some serious focus in the project's intestines, it could be the best desktop that I know, among all that I know.

Comment: Re:Does anyone still use Gnome? (Score 1) 56

by udippel (#48152971) Attached to: KDE Releases Plasma 5.1

Some small things are annoying, for example when using the treeview in Kate, sometimes it has happened that I accidentally dragged a folder instead of clicking on it, and the editor loaded all the files inside, crashing in the process. Kate also has refused to open some files in write mode since it considers them to be too large, gEdit/Geany just open it and let me work.

High time for a bug report, or two. Don't you think so?
I can't, for these bugs, because I didn't run into them. And I prefer Kate compared to gEdit.

Comment: Re:Cart before the horse. (Score 5, Interesting) 264

by udippel (#48143537) Attached to: Confidence Shaken In Open Source Security Idealism

You can't. But that's not the point at all.
But in one case one could, if only one wanted, to check the code quality and apply a patch; in the other case this door is totally shut. The first alternative is light-years ahead of the second, irrespective of the field. Because it leaves you the freedom of choice. Be it contributing to retirement benefits or invest your money at your own discretion, the decision to smoke certain substances or not, choice always has a connotation of freedom. The same choice that one has to buy this operating system or that one.
Once you decide for closed source, you are
1. totally dependent on the manufacturer
2. without a chance to check yourself
3. unable to analyze if the manufacturer has inserted some malicious code like a trapdoor, eventually on purpose
Now, where would be any advantage in using a system of closed source?

Comment: Re:LEDs should be date stamped (Score 1) 602

by udippel (#48010393) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

One day later I still think this is great business idea, that some company ought to pick up. Or, some individual.
In another thread, someone pointed out, that some organization does a 12.5 khour test. But that's unconvincing to me, since buying a lamp and let it run for close to 2 years, and then measure the light output is totally unrealistic, because it doesn't take ageing of the elements into account. I don't want a bulb that emits some 70% or 80% of the light after 2 years of continuous burning; I want a bulb that emits some 70% or 80% of the original light after I have been switching it on for 3 hours a day; after the accumulated 12.5 or 25 khour. You can't test that, you can at best artificially age the lamp.

In a nutshell, yes, I'd be prepared to pay considerable money for a LED bulb that is
1. date stamped, AND
2. has its output measured after manufactured, and documented, AND
3. where the manufacturer guarantees that this bulb will produce at least, e.g. 75% of the light after 5 years in service.

Remember those bulb testing equipment in shops, at least in Europe, where you could test your new bulb before going to the cashier? My suggestion in this respect is, to set up similar testing locations in future, where one can walk in and test the remaining light power of one's bulb(s). With a unique serial number, like stamped on the side, and the original value stored with the serial number, just bringing one's bulbs, one can easily test one bulb(s). With a reading of the serial number and the display of the remaining efficiency, everyone could check his/her bulbs. With an (almost) automatic exchange, if the performance of the bulb remains below a guaranteed efficiency.
As I said, that's what I'd call fair; and be prepared to pay extra for.

Comment: Re:The Government also ruined my washer and dryer (Score 1) 602

by udippel (#48003755) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

Now you start talking!
We used to have a close to 40-year-old dish washer ('Constructa'), that still worked perfectly okay. Maybe some don't know the social pressure that Germans can exert? Almost no visitor failed to point out our 'serious shortcoming', our mistake, to 'waste water and energy' like there was no tomorrow. Call it group-think. I measured the consumption, and found that it consumed around 30 liters of water, and 1,7 kWh. Yep, that 's close to 50 cent here. A new, branded, modern, A+++ that we bought cost us a good € 500. With a consumption of close to 25 cent, this gives us a ROI after some 2000+ rounds of dish-washing. And we use it once per week, so it will balance out the investment in another 40 or 50 years. ;-)
Plus, I take bets of considerable amounts that the new one is not going to last that long. Additionally, the cleaning results of the new one are very good, and yet below those of the 40-year-old machine.

No, we haven't given in to the silly social pressure. We have totally voluntarily passed the old one on to our son, who's starting a household.

Comment: Re: This idiocy again (Score 1) 602

by udippel (#48003525) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

Of course, but the latter implies an arbitrary effect introduced by the manufacturer to bring down the lifespan. The 1000 h, however, as GP pointed out so insightful, is already - aside from being a cartel - some technical optimum of efficiency versus lifetime. Because reducing the temperature quickly increases the lifespan; while increasing the optical efficiency quickly brings down lifespan. And the temperature is required to produce visible light. Don't forget that red is at the very edge of light being visible to humans. And the 2000K+ is needed to produce that light.

Comment: Re:LEDs (Score 1) 602

by udippel (#48003231) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

Lucky you!!

We took over an old house, large house, with likewise well above 50 traditional lightbulbs. I have invested close to €1000 for almost strict replacement of all bulbs. The electricity bill is down to little less than half (good!), the failure rate is very low, but, and this is a huge but, the promised 25000+ hours are fiction. Some have clearly reduced the amount of lumen / lux to between 1/8 and 1/5 of the original brightness. I have recently returned a batch of 8 (I tried a number of brands) to GP, where I fortunately had 2 in the original wrapping, that I took out only to replace 2 bulbs that had gone down to no more than a bright candle; but since it was over time, I hadn't really noticed. Only then did I. And then I collected all 8 from the house, and they all had lost measurably, quite linear with the hours of use. Now comes the serious disappointment: with hours of use between 50 and 800. After 800: about 1/8, measured in the same socket. And, as mentioned, the others had gone down proportionally.

Therefore my suggestion: If you come from CFLs, I agree from own experience, the 'long-lasting' isn't always as lasting as long as promised. Once you enter LED-country, I agree with mother that LEDs tend to not fail. But they tend to be lose brightness much faster than the manufacturers promise. Most LEDs here are much less bad than the GPs mentioned further up, though observed closely, the person eventually living in our house once we are dead, will take over a fscking dark place, lit by some 70 'candles'.

Comment: Re:I dunno about LEDs, but CFLs don't last (Score 1) 602

by udippel (#48003023) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

DC doesn't work well over distances, which is why AC was adopted as the grid in the first place.

... and you have, alas, already disqualified your remarks, irrespective how good the rest might have been. Because DC is the preferred transport over large distances. Its only downside is that conventional transformers constitute an insurmountable obstacle.

"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." -- Marvin the paranoid android