<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Adding my $0.02...<br>
<br>
If you pick "samba file server" during install, libnss-winbind
libpam-winbind are not installed by default. It took me a long to
time to track down why in 16.04 I can "join" an AD domain just
fine, but domain users get "access denied" to samba file shares.
Not sure the logic behind not installing relevant packages...<br>
<br>
Also, the whole network device naming scheme is just a fiasco...
Before, I could have a simple template for all my systems... now
every system requires a unique template that takes me to the HW
level to figure out what it might be. And this is supposed to be
more intuitive and/or predictable than "eth0"? <br>
<br>
Thx.<br>
<br>
-ml<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/19/2016 2:48 PM, John Moser wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1468964902.4680.122.camel@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 14:29 -0700, Jason Benjamin wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="margin-top: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0.08in;
line-height: 100%; page-break-after: avoid" align="left">I've
been irritated by so many obvious shortcomings of Ubuntu this
version (16.04). So many of the most obvious fixes are easily
attributed to configuration files. I don't know if those who
purchase the operating system directly from Canonical versus a
download are having to deal with the same problems or are
getting a <b>supe</b><span style="line-height: 100%;"><b>rior</b>/</span><i
style="font-weight: bold;">better</i> operating system.
Some of my main qualms that I am unable to deal with are the
theming. Even using alternative themes most of them won't
even look right as supposed. </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0.08in;
line-height: 100%; page-break-after: avoid" align="left">The
HIBERNATION itself seems to work fine on other closely related
distros (Elementary OS I tested). but Ubuntu has problems
with it. AFAIK the GRUB_CMDLINE breaks this if anything, and
alternatives such as TuxOnIce don't work either. My guess is
that its Plymouth and there doesn't seem to be any clear
pointers to a solution. After desktop session saving was
deprecated (or removed because of transition from Gnome?),
this seems like a serious and necessary *implementation* of
desktop application saving. </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0.17in; margin-bottom: 0.08in;
line-height: 100%; page-break-after: avoid" align="left">I've
seen a lot of these blogs that suggest installing extra
programs and such after the installation. Here's mine:</p>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You just listed a bunch of odd things about hiding the boot
process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've been repeatedly distressed and confused by this hidden
boot process. I've sat and waited at blank screens and splashes
that give no feedback, wondering if the kernel is hanging at
initializing a driver, trying to find network, or making
decisions about a disk. There is no standard flow which can be
disrupted with a new, non-error status message curtly explaining
that something is happening and all is well; there is a standard
flow in which the machine displays a blank, meaningless state
for a fixed amount of time, and deviation in that time by any
more than a few tenths of a second gives the immediate,
gut-wrenching feeling that the system has hanged during boot and
is terminally broken in some mysterious and completely-unknown
manner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What Ubuntu needs most is a simple, non-buried toggle option
to show the boot process--including displaying the bootloader,
displaying the kernel load messages, and listing which services
are loading and already-loaded during the graphical boot.
Ubuntu's best current feature is the Recovery boot mode, aside
from not having a setting to make this the standard boot mode
sans the recovery prompt. "Blindside the user with a confusing
and meaningless boot process and terror at a slight lag in boot
time because the system may be broken" is not a good policy for
boot times longer than 1 second.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Even Android displays a count of system assemblies AOT cached
during boots after update so as to convey to the user that
something is indeed happening.</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>