lsblk:why isn't in my Ubuntu install ?

[cogset]

I've seen this utility in other Debian-based distros and I've found its output more readable than blkid or fdisk -l ,maybe less informative but IMHO more graphical (so to speak) and easier to read at a quick glance:it should be part of util-linux package,so is there a reason why it isn't included in my Ubuntu Lucid installation,and can I install it somehow ?

[andrewruk]

lsblk was only added in v 2.19 of util-linux (see http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/util...9-ReleaseNotes) and Lucid has v 2.17, so the short answer is that this utility didn't exist when Lucid was released.

[cogset]

Thanks,that would signify that it is not actually possible to install lsblk in Lucid,since the whole related util-linux package should be upgraded,right?

[dino99]

why not upgrading to Precise ?

[cogset]

Two words: Unity,Amazon lens.

[Calinou]

Not only Precise has no Amazon lens, you are also not forced to use Unity.

After upgrading, if you want to use another desktop like the Xfce desktop, just type this in a terminal:

sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

Then log out and choose Xfce and log in.

[Cheesehead]

A few people I know who do use the Shopping Lens find it quite convenient. And not-scary.

The lens can be easily disabled in User Settings, or uninstalled entirely with a single simple command.

[cogset]

Well this is clearly going off-topic,anyhow :

• If I wanted to use Xcfe,wouldn't I be using it right now on Lucid instead of Gnome 2 ?
• If I trusted Amazon,I wouldn't bother uninstalling its search engine plugin in every Firefox installation I have and then blocking its omnipresent tracking servers with firewall and hostfile.

It really should be discussed in a separate topic I think,but still-while we're on this-I've read about Canonical being right in partnering with Amazon as a way to cover some of the expense of developing Ubuntu,which brings the question:how does Debian,on which Ubuntu itself and a number of other distros are based,manage to pull it off without even thinking of such commercial agreements?

[Cheesehead]

I've read about Canonical being right in partnering with Amazon as a way to cover some of the expense of developing Ubuntu,which brings the question:how does Debian,on which Ubuntu itself and a number of other distros are based,manage to pull it off without even thinking of such commercial agreements?

The question assumes that Debian and Ubuntu share goals or structure that would permit a single answer to apply to both. Not so. Debian and Ubuntu have very different goals.

Debian is (primarily) a collaboration driven by volunteers. Users are expected to participate - file bugs, test fixes, contribute effort and time. Not oriented to new users. Releases are quality-based, not scheduled. Open governance and discussion. Some applications have uneven quality and amateur design. Nobody can speak authoritatively for the project, nor commit the project to a goal.

Ubuntu is a more centralized project to create a branch of Debian that tries to remain compatible and supportive of Debian, retain much of the open governance, and can create/honor commitments and contracts. Canonical invests in a staff and infrastructure to create and test two releases of Ubuntu each year, plus the various projects it supports (Unity, Upstart, Bazaar, Launchpad, TV, Tablet, Phone, etc.), plus the larger ecosystem projects it contributes code to (Debian, kernel) plus involvement with hardware partners to get Ubuntu pre-installed on OEM systems.

[cogset]

That's very well put,thanks for explaining it-I would however like to see a bit more of this

a branch of Debian that tries to remain compatible and supportive of Debian, retain much of the open governance

whereas it seems we're heading in the opposite direction lately.
When someone who is supposed to know what he's talking about comes up with the phrase "we have root" ,as if Ubuntu were no different from Apple and Kindle devices that can be remote-controlled,that doesn't make a good impression,doesn't it ?