Contributor droetker

It is likely that the situation will occur that you vote an idea up or down, only to then take part in the discussion and change your mind about it. After all, there is bound to be someone with more expertise with a different view on the subject that you hadn't considered. Currently, you cannot see, remove or reverse your vote. I think you should be able to, on the basis that it would give a more accurate and up-to-date representation of user opinion.

The counter-argument to this would be that it could cause an element of uncertainty, but I do not feel that avoiding this should come at the expense of being able to change your mind.

In Mac OS X when you try to copy/move a file in a protected folder appears a pop-up that asks you to insert admin password.

In Ubuntu the same thing become very difficult, especilly copying multiple files: you have to access to the terminal and write a command. This could be really stressing for a new user.

Could you implement the same function seen on Mac?

Allow signing for Personal Package Archives (PPA). APT does not use SSL, so there is no security. Someone could send your a modified package. I want to know if the package is really from this person I trust.

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas

It would be great if ubuntu developers would ask/offer all projects to merge.
For example: merge Gnome and KDE, Merge all media players,office suites, browsers, movie editing software and others.
If ubuntu had the power to help them merge, linux would be easier and less confusing. Look at other OSes they have only one powerful application that does the job. Or look at compiz and beryl, they merged and you have less work configuring and there is one powerful application that meets you needs.
what do you think?

I want to set up real unprivileged users. The only should be able to run posix commands like cd, ls etc. The also should be able to use their home directory.

The bad thing is they are currently able to run root programs, can mount und can read details about the system.

When you cannot copy into a location, Gnome throws up a dialog box. The only problem is that for long paths, it truncates the path in the middle and adds in an ellipsis*. This has the effect of leaving you wondering what exactly couldn't be copied to/from. See the links for examples.

I doubt this is unattended (and therefore not a bug), as it would be much easier for the devs to simply show the whole path instead of truncating it. Call it a misfeature.

Gnome should show the full path.

Image 1: http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=filecopytk9.png
Image 2: http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=filepathcopyev7.png

* This: "..."

I was disappointed with ubuntu and kde applications when i tried to burn a mp3 disc.of larger base of applications freewares in gnome and kde still doesnt yet support making mp3 disc,i dont know about right and legal issues please make it simple to burn mp3 disc if i have mp3 files on my hdd.k3b,braserom,gnome baker none have capability to burn mp3 disc as most of the audio players support mp3 discs.thanks

gnome-system-monitor provides a cleaner interface than Windows "Task Manager", and provides many useful features including list of processes running, memory and network usage, etc.

This functionality should be more accessible by key binding it by default to CTRL-ALT-DELETE as Windows does--as this is more familiar to users coming from Windows. The current key binding for CTRL-ALT-DELETE brings up the shutdown/logout options, which is already accessible as a desktop button, which is redundant for a relatively less used function.

gnome-system-monitor is an idle interface for monitoring the system and killing processes without using the terminal and provides an interface for doing this that most are already familiar with. Changing it's key binding would make it's functionality much more accessible.

A part of the power of Linux is it's modularity. With dependencies not all libraries have to be shipped with a program. This works great for packages in the repositories. However, if a package isn't in the repositories and it isn't in a .deb format it's hard for the developers to make sure all dependencies are present on the system.

Creating a system that allows other programs to check what programs are installed and request programs to be installed when needed would make this a lot easier for people that want to distribute their programs on a different way. It would also make the use of RPM packages easier.

There should an updated version including the plugins required for the fire fox.
Every plugins have to be loaded to the browser.
These plugins shd be already there . It Shd include in the next version.
Thanks.

We could ask another users about some problem and other users respond us.

May be like a forum but directly accesible from the system, without go trhought the navigator

The current packet management system of Ubuntu, dpkg, is build for this conditions:

* All packages do come from a central repository
* The user trusts this repository with all its packages fully
* Software is installed by the system administrator

In future the number of software for ubuntu will may grow up. So they will be may application provider who don't want to their software in the ubuntu repository. If they provide the user an debian package, he shouldn't install it, because he does not fully trust this application provider. The package could be a rootkit. Also you always need to ask your administrator to install an package. You can't even install something in your home directory.

The new packet management system of Ubuntu should be build for this new conditions:

* Packages do come from a decentral network
* Packages are trust differently
* Packages can be installed by most users

In Nautilus should be accessible Compact List View in Thunar.
It's very convenient - you can see many files at once, and for that I take Thunar.
Also, such a review would be more habitual users rolling with Windows.

A bootable CD or USB to let you install Ubuntu over the Internet selecting the programs you need rather than the default install. What is needed can be installed more quickly.

Update: already exists https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/Netboot

Search "Totem" and "totem" tags and you get different results.

Or clicking "Tags" vs. "tags" gives different results (see below).

Please make tag searches case-insensitive. They are far less effective if there are two sets of results for each tag.

There are so many "ideas" that are none.

You (brainstorm team) would have less work if there were a *button* at each idea page which easily let *us* mark the idea as 'not an idea', to be reviewed by you, and you can decide if it really is one or not and set the flag

Let us help a bit.

Since there are not enough moderators to go around and constantly update all 10,000 ideas, I suggest having a 'implemented' queue, just as there is a 'duplicate' queue, where a user can mark the idea as "implemented" and a moderator has the choice to approve or decline.

Why am I suggesting this?

Because my idea "Fix "Places > Connect to Server..."" has already been implemented between GNOME 2.20 and 2.22 (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/1549/) and this gentleman's "Fix Major Bug in ShipIt Website " has been fixed as well (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/6539/).

Both have stayed flagged as 'new' for over 1 month and 2 months respectively.

Everyone has a bad day once in a while. Mod's may occassionally mark things wrongly. Fair enough, they are human.

How do we know if they are having a bad month/year though? Constantly making serious mistakes like making unrelated ideas as dupes, marking totally incomplete ideas as done, or deleting ideas which shouldn't be.

I propose we introduce meta moderation, to allow us to review all the changes made by a specific mod to an idea. This way, Canonical can establish the % (and total number) of good changes made. Otherwise they may hire some chump who claims his doing alot, but really, is just ruining brainstorm.

And, the meta mods can be anonymised, in fact, its better if they are, so that its totally fair. It also means that admins can get a better understanding of the public (ie, if they mark it done without reasoning), we wont vote that change so well, because we want more information

The whole duplicate process is a little confusing.
It is hard to tell which idea you are making the 'master' and which are duplicates.

On the admin side when comparing two reported duplicates, the "Mark as Duplicate" text doesn't give you an idea as to which one is being marked as the master.
[updated]
After looking at the URL in the admin section for approving a dupliate, apparently they both go to the same place. You can not specify which one is the master. You can only approve what the user has already specified.

This would allow for idea hijacking.

I could go find an incredibly popular idea, and then create my own idea with similar wording. Then I can flag the popular idea as a duplicate of mine, then when the admins hit the approve button, the votes, and ideas are suddenly all mine. Mwahaha.