14.04 Startup Screens Not Correct?
 

I installed 64-bit Ubuntu 14.04 alongside existing Ubuntu 12.04 and Windows installations on my machine using a DVD from Linux Format magazine (LXF185) that they call a "remix" and which offers multiple flavors of *buntu for trial and installation. I don't know if it makes a difference, but I should mention that I had Ubuntu 12.04 installed with a separate /home partition.

While everything works with the new installation, and 14.04 is using the original /home partition, something is amiss with the 14.04 Loading and Shutdown screens (the ones with the "loading dots").

Based on the "System Settings | System: Details" I clearly have Ubuntu 14.04 installed, but the Loading and Shutdown screens show the Lubuntu backgrounds, and I can't figure out how to correct that. I contacted the magazine, of course, but so far have received no response at all, so I'm hoping someone has some suggestions.

The screen that should be displayed (I believe) is /usr/share/backgrounds/warty-final-ubuntu.png, I've found that the config file /etc/lightdm/lightdm-gtk-greeter-ubuntu.conf references the warty-final-ubuntu.png file in its "background=" line. But that .conf file is apparently not used.

When I follow the chain of links from lightdm-gtk-greeter.conf, which is a link to /etc/alternatives/lightdm-gtk-greeter-config-derivative, which in turn is a link to /etc/xdg/xdg-xubuntu/lightdm/lightdm-gtk-greeter.conf. That latter file contains the line "background=/lib/plymouth/themes/xubuntu-logo/wallpaper.png" which isn't the same color as the background I'm seeing during load and shutdown. And, of course, that refers to xubuntu, not lubuntu.

I had thought about changing the target of the first link (lightdm-gtk-greeter.conf) to the one with warty, since the end of the current target chain doesn't refence the file I'm seeing on screen, I figured I'm starting at the wrong place or simply don't understand what's going on.

Can anyone explain how this all works, and what I'm missing. Nothing against Lubuntu, but that's not what I'm running, and I'd like to fix this.

Thanks.

This looks like an old post, but I see no one has answered it. You have said that the dissk you installed from was intended to install various versions sof "*buntu". I have noticed that many of the various versions of Ubuntu haven't removed the internal identification that links back to Ubunto. For instance when I boot into LXLE the boot menu shows "UBUNTU", and several cases within the installed distro mention "Lubuntu".

Thanks for the response.

What you've observed seems to suggest that the problem is more with Canonical (?) than with the magazine that created the disk, but the problem is still there and still annoying.

I've found that many (if not all) components of all the distributions on the disk were installed to my machine (seriously, how many word processors, text editors, configuration utilities and spreadsheets do I need?), and I've been slowly removing them as time permits. I've gradually moved and renamed things so the startup and shutdown screens reflect the actual installation (wouldn't want to get the NSA or my grandkids confused when they troll my machine).

The number of things that got installed with 14.04 reminds me of a Windows bloatware installation, although I must say I tried many of the apps just to see what they were like - which I doubt I would ever have done otherwise.

But, we've only had personal computers for thirty-five years or so - certainly not enough time to achieve any sort of consistency :)

Have a great day.

Bloatware is a pain for sure, and getting worse in many distros. But (my opinion) nowhere near Windows-style bloatware. But I don't really call it bloatware, if the install disk installs programs that I haven't used. I may or may not learn to use them.

What we be very handy is if there was a program that would allow to greatly reduce the bootup time by eliminating all of the junk and retries pertaining to equipment that is not even a part of my computer. And all of those annoying waits in the bootup scripts.

And perhaps a way to eliminate programs that are sections of "meta" installations, such as "open office draw". I'm sure that some people must like and use it, but I never do, and would like to get rid of it.

Canonical used to, and I am sure continues to, offer a netinstall ISO image. This most things from the internet. The base install is installed and then you can install what you want after that. This can make for a much smaller, less bloated install.

If you want to remove some packages from a meta package there are 2 ways to do this.

1>Remove the meta package and install just the components you want. As long as you do not purge the package your configuration files should still be in tact.

2>Open aptitude and run, as root;
You can then remove the individual components you want to remove.

The "keep-all" command changes the state of your packages to manual from, in the case of meta package packages, automatic. You need to concider this before using the command. It can lead to problems.

I have not run anything from Ubuntu for quite a while. It is rather brittle and may not function well if you go tha that route. I would be a bit leary of trying any kind of real tools for dealing with this myself. They removed aptitude years ago so users couldn't mess with the way they want to set things up. This trend toward a co-dependent system that breaks when messed with has only gotten more intense from what I read. Therefore I would not really recommend using option 2 under Ubuntu.

If you want control of your sytem and must use Ubuntu try to learn enough to go the netinstall route. It will still load your system with a lot of limiting factors and some bloat (ridiculous crap dragged in by the package ubuntu-minimal) but that is what makes Ubuntu what it is. You will not have to have all the stuff dragged in by the "whatever-desktop" packages or any other meta packages if you do a little homework.

You can see the depends for those packages in Synaptic if you set the preferencs right. It is hard to copy the information out of there though.

Much better is to use;
The Dependencies are what you need to copy out so you know what to install. For instance I really have no problem with most of what is installed with the example package above; xfce4 (from Debian obviously). Main problem there is the xfce4-goodies package which is a meta package on its own and has a lot of things I don't use. There for I install the rest of the stuff manually and then the, I think, 2 out of a lot of packages in the "goodies" package.

That is all a meta package is, an empty package with several depends. Note for instance "xfce4-goodies (0 (null)". There is no version number. It is an empty package. The actually packages are listed in the install script for the package and they get installed.

When you try to remove any package that is installed by a meta package it will, because you are removing a dependency, remove the entire package. Depends all have the state of automatic. If you install those same packages individually then they will have the state of manual. They will have depends of their own that will be installed and have state automatic.

Meta packages are great. They save a lot of typing. If you have a couple of boxes on which you want the same install you can see this could be a real pain. There are other tools for cloning an install, however, if that is the case.

Those tools are all included in any Debian based system in your package management system. Of coarse there are 3rd party applications that will do the same thing and this is the way for Ubuntu users to go. Most do not want to know what package management even means. Those 3rd party applications use the native tools without you having to think. Of coarse the first time their built in scripts to run the base commands screws up it becomes difficult to correct any issues but you can always reinstall and complain about the "hardness" of doing these things.