|
Log off, Restart, and Turn Off do nothing. It's been this way for a while. Such simple functions and they don't work. You get what you pay for. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried this: Turn off[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Have you tried this: Turn off[^]
Yes, luckily, that bypasses the unbuntu pOS so it works.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure that sudo shutdown -h/r should still work.
Or exit, to logout.
I think the main issue with Ubuntu is the reliance on the desktop manager.
That said, the shutdown/restart/logoff buttons on my Gnome3 desktop (on my Arch build) work just fine 
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: I think the main issue with Ubuntu is the reliance on the desktop manager.
I think you are right.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: I think the main issue with Ubuntu is the reliance on the desktop manager.
The way I see it, they based it on real-world development-department managers.
i.e. it's fruggin' useless by design.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think the current default is some flavor of GNOME 3, which is definitely the most "grown up" Linux desktop manager that I've worked with. I'm not going to crap on it, since it's leaps and bounds beyond KDE Plasma.
The problem in this case is that it becomes chained to dbus and you end up having to run your functionality through dbus (due to permissions on actual system hooks, etc). From the limited development that I've done for GNOME, it always felt tightly coupled to dbus, which is tightly coupled to specific system modules and udev.
Anyway, my point is that with a desktop manager you lose your powerful native system hooks and generally begin leaning on a chain of products from disparate sources which is not always concurrently updated and tend towards tight coupling. That's a recipe for failure if a local custodian isn't willing to maintain it (and I've been that guy, too).
It is a good argument for the LTS releases, though.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: Anyway, my point is that with a desktop manager you lose your powerful native system hooks and generally begin leaning on a chain of products from disparate sources which is not always concurrently updated and tend towards tight coupling.
So it really is a software emulation of the standard, real-world product-development environment!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
That's not completely inaccurate.
EDIT: I'd say it's more like having a hard dependency on MSMQ for hooking system operations. I know, it's a bit like splitting hairs.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Let's be honest: Anyone who doesn't split hairs just doesn't belong in CP.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to the roots (AKA console):
sudo [reboot|halt] now
|
|
|
|
|
What's sad about the state of Linux is that the answer to all problems is to go to the terminal. Granted, it is nice to have that option but they'll never beat out Microsoft when a typical end user cannot even use the software.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: . You get what you pay for
Very true. I tried Ubuntu a while ago and they did not have drivers for all my devices, like a SoundBlaster card, and I dropped it like a hot cake.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Cornelius Henning wrote: drivers
Yes, another big problem for Linux.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
That's unfair, in my humble opinion.
As matter of fact, I use Lubuntu on several different virtual machines and it doesn't look more fragile than Windows by no means.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried turning it off an on again? 
|
|
|
|
|
Made I laugh! 
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I never had that problem with Windows Vista!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: I never had that problem with Windows Vista!
Sounds like Vista was better than Ubuntu. I never used Vista.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I never used Vista.
Very sensible, it really was a bit of a mess.
As to Ubuntu, I have not used it extensively, but my general experience is that it is no better or worse than Windows. But it is different.
|
|
|
|
|
Driver support was my biggest problem and then just learning where things are is a pain in Linux. They don't name things very intuitively. So, for me, Windows is worth the money. I've learned my lesson.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Ubuntu is also worth the money (i.e nothing). You need to understand that Linux was never designed as a replacement for Windows. It's an open source version of UNIX that anyone can tailor to their own needs. As such it has many applications, but is not aimed at the average home PC user.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: that Linux was never designed as a replacement for Windows
Could be true, but that's not what the "word" was in the industry when it came out.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never heard it touted as such.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
