Linked by Jeremy LaCroix on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 18:38 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu My search for "the perfect Linux operating system" this time brings me to the latest incarnation of Ubuntu, version 5.04, also known as the "Hoary Hedgehog Release". Previously I was using Fedora Core 4, however due to some minor bugs it had, I wanted to try something different.
Order by: Score:
Ubuntu Reviews
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Reviews, reviews everywhere nor anytime to... use?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu Reviews
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:24 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu Reviews"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I actually think that the Ubuntu installer is elegant - simple, fast and effective. It suits its purpose well, and with Breezy the second stage install will be unified with a similar progress bar.

On performance, Ubuntu does the job extremely well. My computer is really fast, even with the equipped i686 kernel.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Ubuntu Reviews
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu Reviews"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I agree. Ubuntu's installer does its job well. there are definitely parts that could use better documentation for newbies (partitioning for those who choose to leave the defaults is probably one, though I don't really remember clearly at this point)

I do hope that the Ubuntu people *don't* follow this reviewer's advice regarding installers - Anaconda is a horrible installer - way too inflexible and crash-prone.

Reply Score: 0

v .
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:28 UTC
Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Amarok 1.3 came out recently, and it's not going to be in Breezy because they're already past the feature freeze, so do you know what this means? You have to wait 8 MONTHS for a software update. You don't have to do that in OS X or Windows. Pathetic.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by ralph on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:31 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu strict feature freeze"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

You are aware that backports exists, aren't you?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by andrewg on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:33 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu strict feature freeze"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes that is a problem in general with GNU/Linux software i.e. Being reliant on the distro to produce packages rather than the actual developers. You could always compile your own version. But that is probably not an answer for you.

Reply Score: 3

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

It's unfair to call it pathetic - Windows and OS X don't include a large selection of apps at all, Ubuntu gives you access to hundreds or thousands that are built to work with your system.

There's nothing stopping you installing it yourself, it just requires a manual install and won't get automatic security updates - rather like using Windows or MacOS in fact.

(also, there's the backports Apt repository where you should be able to get new versions of software installable automatically on a best-effort basis - that's likely to be enough for your usage)

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:13 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu strict feature freeze"
RE[2]: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by nimble on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu strict feature freeze"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

Amarok 1.3 will not be ported to Windblows, so I guess you'll have to wait until Hell freezes over before you install it on a Windblows box.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. KDE 4.0 will be based on Qt4, which of course has been GPLed for Windows as well now, so Amarok for Windows might be less than two years away.

Reply Score: 2

cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> > Amarok 1.3 will not be ported to Windblows, so I
> > guess you'll have to wait until Hell freezes over
> > before you install it on a Windblows box.

> Wouldn't be so sure about that. KDE 4.0 will be
> based on Qt4, which of course has been GPLed for
> Windows as well now, so Amarok for Windows might be
> less than two years away.

Maybe he was referring to this:
http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/41-porting-amaroK-to-windows.ht...

Amarok *1.3* won't ever be ported. The Qt4 version will be amarok 2.0 that may or may not be ported.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by rm6990 on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 00:40 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu strict feature freeze"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Maybe instead of posting on online forums complaining, you spend the same amount of time you look for the solution, you would become aware of Ubuntu Backports. Ubuntu also comes with gcc...although Backports should have you covered.

Reply Score: 1

v eh old news
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:30 UTC
Custom kernel
by ReyBrujo on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:46 UTC
ReyBrujo
Member since:
2005-07-17

I switched to Ubuntu three months ago. When I bought a new 512mb stick (for a 1.5gb total), I had to recompile the kernel in order to allow more than 1gb (which is the default in Ubuntu). The only hard thing was compiling the nVidia modules. But I did in around two hours, and got a perfect system working. Unluckily, in my last recompilation I forgot to add some USB modules, and now everytime I umount my flash USB disk I need to reboot... will be fixing that soon.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Custom kernel
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 21:55 UTC in reply to "Custom kernel"
Anonymous Member since:
---

sudo apt-get install linux-image-686

the 386 kernel doesn't support more than 512mb ram as I recall, for reasons of the architechture.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Custom kernel
by gilboa on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Custom kernel"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

sudo apt-get install linux-image-686

the 386 kernel doesn't support more than 512mb ram as I recall, for reasons of the architechture.


Huh?
Even if the Ubuntu kernel devs decided to compile the kernel without high-memory support and with the default __PAGE_OFFSET (0xc0000000), the Ubuntu kernel should be able to access up to 1GB of memory. (896MB to be exact).
If you choose to reconfigure the kernel by hand, an i386 (or actually i686) kernel can access up to 64GB using the PAE extensions. (CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G)

Please don't spread FUD.

Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

Mark Williamson
Member since:
2005-07-06

The VFS error suggests some kind of problem with the kernel / bootloader configuration - it sounds too early in the boot process to be the fault of the distro.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

What?

Who patched and compiled the kernel/configured the bootloader? The answer starts and ends with U. Do you think that the kernel and bootloader are vanilla, and just drop in components which every distro uses? Distros generally patch, tweak and fettle the vanilla kernel to suit what they think is their target audience. So if there are kernel/bootloader issues, the first port of call is the distro.

Matt

Reply Score: 0

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, the error I was referring to was specifically the VFS error at boot. This was on a kernel the author built from scratch from kernel.org; I think it's extremely unlikely that had anything to do with Ubuntu.

The stability regressions with the stock kernel, OTOH, can be blamed on the distro.

Reply Score: 1

rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Ummmm....duh. Reading the article would inform you he got the VFS error on his own custom configured and compiled kernel from kernel.org, not the one provided by Ubuntu.

In regards to him installing the latest kernel, that kernel wasn't meant for general consumption. It was not marked stable, you are supposed to stick with 2.6.10. The one he installed was most likely 2.6.11. I'm not sure why exactly it is in the apt repositories, because lots of people make the same mistake the reviewer did.

Reply Score: 1

v Ubuntu
by Tom K on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:48 UTC
RE: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:50 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
Anonymous Member since:
---

hear hear

Reply Score: 0

Pants on fire (RE: Ubuntu)
by massa on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:10 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
massa Member since:
2005-08-22

>> Windows XP and Server 2003 ran snappy and with ease on the same hardware. Why is modern Linux so fat and bloated?

the same hardware being: p2-450 192MB RAM ... I just got one of those here (it's a 900 celeron actually, I pulled out half of its 512MB RAM). XP boot time: 6 minutes. XP performance: sluggish. Time to start Eclipse: 5 minutes. Mind you, these machines (I'm at work) usually run 98SE -- kind of slow, too (we run Delphi and Eclipse). Kubuntu Hoary is snappier in everything (than both 98 and XP, with 256MB memory) EXCEPT Eclipse startup... it loses to 98, but not to XP.

In my laptop (700MHz Crusoe, 384 MB memory) things are similar, except for the fact that it takes loooonger to boot (because of hotplug, I don't know what is exactly the problem... yet)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ubuntu
by Sphinx on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 13:48 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Windows XP and Server 2003 ran snappy on a PII-450 with 192 MB of RAM??

I haven't seen buntutu run but man what a ludicrous troll, XP runs like crap on a pIII-600 with 512mb here, 2k runs even worse and I listen to people rant about the performance on their 1.8ghz machines all day long. Ubuntu must REALLY suck, I'm almost going to have to try it to see, a five minute boot I mean really?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Aug 2005 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Windows XP and Server 2003 ran snappy on a PII-450 with 192 MB of RAM??

Yes, that is FUD.

I cant even get Windows 2003 INSTALLED on a machine with 192MB of RAM. The installer told me that a have too little RAM.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>Windows XP and Server 2003 ran snappy and with ease on the same hardware. Why is modern Linux so fat and bloated?

You are talking about the GUI (KDE, GNOME, ...) right, not Linux?

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Ubuntu
by Tom K on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
RE[3]: Ubuntu
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Linux with KDE/Gnome (and even XFCE 4 these days) are indeed generally slower in performance and responsiveness than ie. Windows XP.

However, it's not that big of a deal. Other major operating systems 'feel' slow too (OS X comes to mind), but somehow it never really gets that bad that it gets annoying. I sure have no problems with it using Ubuntu/Gnome and Tiger. And no, I don't have super-duper hardware (check http://thom.expert-zone.com for details on my hw).

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Ubuntu
by Tom K on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu"
RE[4]: Ubuntu
by kadymae on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Other major operating systems 'feel' slow too (OS X comes to mind)>>

And yet, I've yet to have the same experience with my PowerMac with 10.3 or 10.4 and I'm using the stock video card that shipped with my MDD.

The XP computer I'm writing this on has more UI slowness than Ubuntu 4.10 on my Pismo. I find that dedicated video ram makes a *huge* difference in resposiveness and crash resistance. (This work box has "vampire video" and no way to add a video card.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu"
Anonymous Member since:
---

One of the reason I stopped using Linux was because it was pretty slow compared to me XP. And I can't be bothered to learn how to compile a kernel or any of that nonsense. I've got work to do!

Reply Score: 0

dam boy, u outta date
by doug on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 19:54 UTC
doug
Member since:
2005-07-07

Ubuntu Breezy is nearing completion. You can already download an ISO image that is quite stable and has a much more up to date kernel and other software.

Reply Score: 1

RE: dam boy, u outta date
by jayc on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 03:03 UTC in reply to "dam boy, u outta date"
jayc Member since:
2005-07-06

Nearing completion? Hardly. There are many bugs and regressions to be fixed. The release is almost 2 months away. It hasn't even reached the preview stage (current at colony 3). Breezy has not been declared stable and should NOT be suggested to new users by any means.

Reply Score: 1

another one?
by kiddo on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:02 UTC
kiddo
Member since:
2005-07-23

I'm an ubuntu fan myself, but couldn't people just stop reviewing ubuntu? ;) I think everyone is getting a little bit tired of hearing about it, especially since we are just over one month from the final Breezy Badger release. At this point in time, I feel reviewing a distro release that is almost six months old is a pure waste of energy. Bring on some news about the modularization of X.org, GCC4, stuff like that in Breezy. So... yeah, I think too many reviews might just get our audience bored or even reluctant to read anything related to that. Just my two cents.

Reply Score: 5

meh
by _df_ on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:18 UTC
_df_
Member since:
2005-07-06

i tried ubuntu. no winmodem drivers for amd64 (binary blob drivesr... sigh)...

so reinstall i386 version... meh comes back with irq=255 , so again no modem support....

since i live in the moutains, all i got is dialup.. once installed, its like every other debian install (ie: hopeless for developers as it does not install header files for anything as a base package. aka no ncurses.h etc).

its great that has the c/c++ compilers on the cd, but what good are they if only have headers files for libc??

i could have fixed this had i had my dialup access... meh.. lucent winmodems.

Reply Score: 1

RE: meh (winmodems)
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 02:12 UTC in reply to "meh"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You know, for something like $50 you can get a good quality controller based modem. It sounds like that would be a worthwhile investment for someone like yourself.

I have a USR 5610 modem myself. Don't use it, but from what i can tell Ubuntu recognizes it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: meh (winmodems)
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE: meh (winmodems)"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I wonder why Ubuntu doesn't care for modem users and
doesn't prepare some extra CD isos with popular software like that from Knopix or Fedora.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Ubuntu
by raver31 on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:24 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

it is not that the gui is slow.
it is not that the os is slow either

it just is that there is services running that you do not need.

BTW - you pick which OS I was referring to, they all have this problem

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Ubuntu
by Tom K on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ubuntu"
Ubuntu not for power users?
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

There is a claim that Ubuntu is not for power users. I consider myself a power user, I've been using Linux exclusively for almost 8 years now. I've used the whole spectrum of Mandrake, RedHat, Debian, and Gentoo, and I'm a programmer and Linux Sysadmin by trade. I definately don't fit into the "casual user who uses the computer to browse the internet and read e-mail" category. I use Ubuntu for my office workstation and at home because I want something I don't have to mess with. I want something that I know will work without me. I get paid to administer Debian servers at work, and don't want to have to worry about taking care of my system when I get home. Ubuntu does a great job of spanning the gap between casual users and power users. It is a system that is powerful enough for a power user, but easy enough for the casual user.

--John

Reply Score: 5

Jeff
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 20:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Debian Pure (www.debianpure.com) offers a better product. It takes half the time to install and is fully compatible with the official Debian repositories. Plus, it comes fully loaded with all the usual plugins (flash, java, mplayer, w32 codecs, etc). I've had Debian Pure on my desktop for about a month now and it has been great so far. I'm looking forward to their 1.0 release.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Jeff
by skx2 on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 22:38 UTC in reply to "Jeff"
skx2 Member since:
2005-07-06

If they really distribute the win32 codecs I'm guessing they are not legal, same again for Macromedia's Flash.

Still I think that Debian "Pure" is a bogus distribution, there's no real information on the webpage you cite, and they use the Debian name despite being unrelated to Debian real - a sure sign of shadyness.

I think calling it "minimally maintained Debian with only support for Desktops on x86" would be fairer; although obviously that's not a great marketting name.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Jeff
by trivas7 on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 01:57 UTC in reply to "Jeff"
trivas7 Member since:
2005-07-28

Found this distro on the backwaters of the web somewhere & it was everything I was looking for in a pure Debian install -- except for its use of KDE 3.3. instead of the latest & greatest 3.4. I upgraded to unstable to get 3.4 but couldn't find it, so I fell back to Kanotix.

Reply Score: 1

re:Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 21:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Amarok 1.3 came out recently, and it's not going to be in Breezy because they're already past the feature freeze,

You have to wait 8 MONTHS for a software update.

For the majority of real amarok users that isn't very significant.Those who really need an upgrade know what they are doing and are mostly capable to simply compile from source.

Reply Score: 0

v yesterday i insltalled it!!!(and deleted)
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 22:00 UTC
v sad
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 00:32 UTC
RE: sad
by re_re on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 01:02 UTC in reply to "sad"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

care to expound as to your reasoning for thinking all distros suck?

Reply Score: 1

enough review
by Buffalo Soldier on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 00:36 UTC
Buffalo Soldier
Member since:
2005-07-06

ubuntu user and fan here. but i honestly think there is too much ubuntu review. people are gonna get bored and tired.

if people still insist on doing ubuntu reviews, why not concentrate on future version such breezy.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BreezyGoals

some goals looks on target for the release and some goals have been defered.

Reply Score: 1

v What a Bjorked system
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 01:18 UTC
what is Ubuntu?
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 02:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think that question dosn't need asking anymore. How about a Breezey review, or beta review?

Reply Score: 0

v ubuntu - my love
by k.g.stoyanov on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 05:48 UTC
stop this already
by l3v1 on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 07:22 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

First, I don't have anything against Ubuntu, but please, stop revieweing the damn Hoary already. We know it's out, we know it's ok, and we know it ever since it was released. Enough about it, I find it a waste of space and time. Review the newset stuff, which people are inetrested in, or don't know about it much yet.

As of the professionalism of the article writer... when someone struggles to compile a custom kernel, and blames it here and there without having any clue whatsoever, he'd better stop naming himself anything besides a curious amateur.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 07:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Amarok *1.3* won't ever be ported. The Qt4 version will be amarok 2.0 that may or may not be ported.

Glad my distro keeps on track with everything.Amarok 1.3 included,so is latest KDE and kernel 2.6.12*.So my humble question without any intent to troll is:what is the key feature of Ubuntu?Can't be new packages,can't be stable either.What does Ubuntu have that debian doesn't?

Reply Score: 0

cm__ Member since:
2005-07-07

> > Amarok *1.3* won't ever be ported.

> Glad my distro keeps on track with everything.
> Amarok 1.3 included,so is latest KDE and kernel 2.6.12.

Erm, I was referring to a port to Windows, as did the posts I replied to. Not about amarok in (K)Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

disk geometry issue / question
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 07:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The last time I tried Ubuntu, it has destroyed the geometry of my hd. I do not remember the version, it was one of the first official release. Fortunately, I could reinstall win98.
Does anybody know if this has been improved and fixed.
I tried to get info on that, but my researchs failed.
Now everytime, I test a Linux distro, I'm jittering.
Thanks for any answers.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Ubuntu strict feature freeze
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 08:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ofcourse,my bad :-(

Reply Score: 0

Ubuntu sucks
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 10:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I had the same kernel compiling issues when using ubuntu.
First of all, there were a lot of libs missing needed for compiling a kernel from kernel.org (e.g. libncurses-dev).

I didn't had the problem booting it, that part went fine, only it took me ages to fix all the errormessages during boot.

I'm a dedicated Slackware user myself and Slack's using a clean kernel from kernel.org without any modifications like Fedora and Ubuntu do, and if you compile a kernel under a default slack installation, everyhting goes very smooth and you have it running within a few minutes.

Ubuntu is nice for beginners but that's it, to be honest I don't like a single bit of it, i'll stay with Slackware 10.1

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu sucks
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 10:41 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu sucks"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I used to use Slackware and loved it. Still do. But the one area i hate is installing packages. Jesus! Trying to install something with many dependencies is a nightmare. Having to trawl the net for various libs and such really starts to grate after a while. So now i use Ubuntu and love it. Slackware, imo, while being good for what it is, is really going nowhere.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu sucks
by massa on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 11:14 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu sucks"
massa Member since:
2005-08-22

If you ever go back to ubuntu, try kernel-package to compile your own kernels.

$ aptitude -r install linux-tree kernel-package libncurses-dev

What error messages during boot? I boot the linux-k7 kernel (Hoary here at home) and I don't see any error messages in my dmesg...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu sucks
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Aug 2005 14:05 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu sucks"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'm running Slackware -current and Ubuntu, and I like both. Slackware can't be beat on my desktop (and for the guy who hated installing packages, heard of Swaret?), but on my Centrino laptop I need ACPI and a good 2.6 kernel for the wireless driver. While I could get ACPI working with Slack, it was only with the 2.4 kernel. I couldn't get a 2.6.12 kernel to boot to save my life (and I've been compiling kernels in Slackware for about three years). So I threw on Ubuntu and it's a dream. I tried at least a dozen distros, from Suse to Gentoo, and Ubuntu was the best with that hardware (1.6 pentium m, 1gig ram, 60 gig hard drive, intel graphics (and everything else)). CPU frequency scaling is perfect, wireless comes up during boot, etc. I couldn't keep it on my desktop (noticeably slower than Slack), and configuring Fluxbox took some hand-jamming, but it does what I need on the laptop. Why can't that be enough?

Reply Score: 0

King of astroturfers....
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 10:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My God the reviewer is the king of astroturfers! Casually his hard disk brokes just in time to let him try and show us ubuntu live....

Mario Giammarco

Reply Score: 0

Low end system
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 11:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

One of the selling point of Linux is its ability to run on old and low spec machines. I tried to install Fedora 3 (with gnome and open office selected) on a VM with 64M RAM, 4G HD (the kind of machine NT4 runs on happy), and it failed miserably. When the RAM increased to 256M, it runs happyly. Maybe Linux is NOT that suitable for low end destop.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Low end system
by evangs on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 12:20 UTC in reply to "Low end system"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Perhaps you should try running it on a real 64 MB machine and not through a VM?

I've got Ubuntu installed on a 6 year old Dell laptop for my wife she finds it much snappier than Windows XP was.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Low end system
by gilboa on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 13:17 UTC in reply to "Low end system"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

One of the selling point of Linux is its ability to run on old and low spec machines. I tried to install Fedora 3 (with gnome and open office selected) on a VM with 64M RAM, 4G HD (the kind of machine NT4 runs on happy), and it failed miserably. When the RAM increased to 256M, it runs happyly. Maybe Linux is NOT that suitable for low end destop.

If you looking to use Linux on a low-end machine, choose a low-end Linux.
Try DSL (www.damnsmalllinux.org), slackware with XFCE, etc.

I tried DSL on a AMD 486/100 machine with 16MB (?) and it actually ran just fine. (Not sure about the memory size, though... could have been 32MB)

Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

Hate that word
by youknowmewell on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 14:12 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

"Snappy"

Who made that word? "Snappier" Why? Why use that word? I hate when people use that word to describe the speed of their computer/OS. It sounds like a fanboy word.

For that matter, I hate these constant fights about the speed of XYZ OS/distro. Isn't it obvious by now that the difference is not black and white, but a bit of grey? It seems to me that there is enough evidence to suggest that different configurations of hardware coupled with the subjective feeling of 'snappiness' different people have or need make the whole arguement moot? Can't we argue about something more worthwhile, like whether my dad can beat up your dad?

Reply Score: 1

Ubuntu - My experiences
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 15:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I like Ubuntu because it doesn't change the look and feel of Gnome like Fedora does.

Here were my bad experiences though installing on a Dell Insprion 4100 laptop.

1) KDE was not an option to install at install time. You have to add that using Synaptic Package manager. That's really trivial except you have to add each kde package by selecting them individually.

2) The hard disk kept shutting off every 5 seconds. The spin up and spin down was driving me nuts. I had to research and find the laptop-mode and set to off.

3) Intermittent pauses for now apparent reason. The asnwers is to kill the power daemon.

4) WiFi support. I have a linksys 54g card and a dlink DWL-650 rev. M card. I couldn't get either one to recognize automatically. The DLink I tried ndiswrapper with and to no avail.

5) Java Support under firefox. That took a while to get working and I had to make some symlinks I think to get it work after installing the jdk/jre.

I'm a software engineer. I had trouble getting some of this stuff working without lots of time on google. How can we expect adoption to the masses like this. There's no way my mom could do any of this stuff on her own.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu - My experiences
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 15:15 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu - My experiences"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Oh ya, I forgot - I also had to manually configure some files to allow me to mount my windows xp partition. Why doesn't this happen automatically during install?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ubuntu - My experiences
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Aug 2005 16:21 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu - My experiences"
Anonymous Member since:
---

1) KDE was not an option to install at install time. You have to add that using Synaptic Package manager. That's really trivial except you have to add each kde package by selecting them individually.

Or you could type one line on a terminal:

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

Cheers,
Daniel.

Reply Score: 0

re:RE: Ubuntu - My experiences
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 15:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why doesn't this happen automatically during install?

Some people want to have control and not everything automated.

Reply Score: 0

WD hard drive
by Manuel FLURY on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 15:35 UTC
Manuel FLURY
Member since:
2005-07-05

WD are not good hard drive then ;)

(I'm joking !)

Reply Score: 1

Installer
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 17:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I prefer the Ubuntu installer to Anaconda. Sure it's ugly, but you don't have to do anything. In my ideal world the installers would go even more in this direction. The user should just plop in a live CD, answer a few questions (with defaults ripped from the windows partition if applicable), and hit the 'install this' button.

Michael

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

This can be caused by forgetting to tack on the "--initrd" to the make-kpkg compile command or by deselecting the CramFS filesystem during the kernel config (xconfig).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Ubuntu - My experiences
by cm__ on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 18:17 UTC
cm__
Member since:
2005-07-07

> 1) KDE was not an option to install at install time.
> You have to add that using Synaptic Package manager.


You may want to try the sister distro Kubuntu then. It draws from the same pool of packages but comes with KDE instead of GNOME.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ubuntu - My experiences
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Aug 2005 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu - My experiences"
Anonymous Member since:
---

or type:

# sudo apt-get install kubuntu-base

to get your spiffy KDE desktop

Reply Score: 0

more useful reviews
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Aug 2005 02:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think a more useful review would include how easy it is to set up some shares for backup from Windows machines and sharing a printer, again for use from Windows machines.

Reply Score: 0

Author != Power User
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Aug 2005 04:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A "Power User" would have no problems googling for a howto to help out with the kernel compilation procedure, and would probably also know that ubuntu is based on debian, so it would be worth looking up a debian specific howto (like the one at newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html). The only problem I had was that the the howto doesn't tell you to build an initrd image, but adding the '--initrd' flag to make-kpkg's arguments list isn't really that hard, is it? I'm currently happily running on 2.6.12.

I also have trouble comprehending why the author had so many more issues with setting up DVD support than he did setting up mp3 support - following sets of instructions from the same guide (ubuntuguide.org), that were (for me anyhow) just as easy to follow as each other.

Reply Score: 0