Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th May 2006 18:19 UTC, submitted by georfge
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The developers of the popular Ubuntu Linux distribution plan to make a new landmark version of the software widely available this week. Ubuntu's public schedule for releasing the software lists 1 June as the date for the new version, code-named 'Dapper Drake', to be made public. The milestone release will be officially supported by the project for a longer period than previous versions, and will be billed as suitable for enterprise use.
Order by: Score:
ingredients
by netpython on Mon 29th May 2006 18:27 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Dapper has all ingredients to become a sucesstory.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ingredients
by raver31 on Tue 30th May 2006 07:32 UTC in reply to "ingredients"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I does on the desktop....
But not in the enterprise.

For a start it is using Gnome 2.14 which has not been tested long enough, also, kernel 2.6.15 which, also, is not old enough.

Ubuntu always has brand new software included with it, just because they are going to support it for years does not mean that it will be tried and tested on the first day of release.

THAT, is what enterprise level means.

Reply Score: 2

This is really going to be interesting
by ralph on Mon 29th May 2006 18:38 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

I think it's fair to say that Ubuntu really was incredibly successful in gaining a relatively huge market share in the enthusiast linux community (for lack of a better word) in a very short time.

Now it'll be really interesting to see whether they'll be able to translate this momentum to other markets. If they really are able to pull this off, others should definatly take a closer look at what they did to achieve this.

Reply Score: 2

Serge Member since:
2005-07-06

The reason they managed that, is Ubuntu really is more a user community than a commercial distro.

They do it the Open Source Way.

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Amen Brother

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

No , not that its not part of its charm. its not the main reasons

- They are superbly managed by a real manager who know how to run a company. ( Mark Shuttleworth )

- They ship CD , gratis , to anyone who ask. Just like AOL did with its free CD. ( Not all People have net access , broadband or the internet , not all people are whilling to wait for download , not all internet connection are reliable )

- They are based of Debian an already mature distribution , who only for lack of real leadership cannot deliver a finished product.

- They are very well funded and targeted. ( They are not after making money of of you first , they are about delivering a real working solution first. )

- They are following the Free software principle.

Open Source as NOTHING AT ALL , to do with GNU/Linux and Ubuntu success. GNU/Linux is free software. Open source is only having access to source code , its only the start and is clearly not enough , Free software does that and grant you the right to modify , redistribute and garantee that it will stay Open for all to use and that it cant be closed for any reason.

No offense meant to the Ubuntu community , its still a great community , but if you guys started paying 2$ - 50$ each into a fund to help advance and further your distribution , There would be a lot of the current GNU/Linux problem that would be already fixed by now.
Simply because that would be 4+ X times the current Canonical budget.

Open Source is crap , if it was not we would all be using Unix by now.

Reply Score: 1

v Ubuntu vs SUSE
by exigentsky on Mon 29th May 2006 18:50 UTC
RE: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by dark child on Mon 29th May 2006 20:09 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu vs SUSE"
dark child Member since:
2005-12-09

Try it and find out yourself. Distro performance tends to be hardware dependent so one distro can work fine for one person and not work well for another.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by exigentsky on Mon 29th May 2006 20:43 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu vs SUSE"
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

It's not for me. I want to install Linux on a friend's computer and I want to give him the best performance. I would rather not have to hassle him by installing and testing two different distributions. Any general ideas on performance between SUSE and UBUNTU?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by maxx_730 on Mon 29th May 2006 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
maxx_730 Member since:
2005-12-14

I have both installed, and in my experience Ubuntu is a bit faster and more 'polished'. Keep in mind that Ubuntu has Gnome 2.14, which has had lots of optimization, and that Suse still has Gnome 2.12.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by gpierce on Mon 29th May 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
gpierce Member since:
2005-07-07

I have to agree with the previous poster. Ubuntu is definitely more polished and perhaps more current. It really is a nice looking desktop and very fast. It works very well with laptops as well, especially if you install it on a poplular model like a Thinkpad from Lenovo. All the buttons, hibernation, and sleep will work out of the box. It may all be a matter of taste and habit but apt-get is such any easy installation method that almost anyone can use it with ease. The forums in Ubuntu are simply great as well. I have used them often and the community there is absolutely the nicest anywhere. SUSE is probably great as well, but my reccomendation would be Ubuntu!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by wyth on Mon 29th May 2006 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
wyth Member since:
2005-12-28

I was doing the comparisons between Suse 10.1 and Ubuntu 6.06 like many people, and found I really disliked the Suse Gnome setup, which wasn't as logically laid out or as customizable as Ubuntu, the fisher price feel of the default KDE, and the byzantine package management. On certain things Suse flew, but in general, and leaving out tech specifics, if I compare two hours work on Suse and two hours work on Ubuntu, I get much less of a headache and less fatigue working on Ubuntu.

Kubuntu is also much more customizable, I found; this might just be because I'm more comfortable with Kubuntu's KDE than Suse, but I was able to easily set up a slick looking interface that was soooo fast it made my windows and ubuntu partitions jealous. I just couldn't keep it stable enough for long enough (that was a couple months ago, toying with dapper).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by raver31 on Tue 30th May 2006 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

for what you want to do, Suse is the better of the two. The download version of 10.0 includes flash, java, realplayer etc,

Suse has optimised drive access, and also patched EXT3, so Suse will always run faster if you use that as the / filesytem and have an Ordered journal.

Ubuntu is too much work if it is not for you, it is truely open source based, so you need to run Automatix or Easyubuntu to get the missing parts.

Drive performance is not optimised under Ubuntu, and DMA is switched off by default, so the desktop will feel slow.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by thebluesgnr on Tue 30th May 2006 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Your post is factually wrong. For one, Ubuntu does enable DMA by default.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by raver31 on Tue 30th May 2006 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmmm, no, in fact my post was factually correct.

Install eitherr Automatix or EasyUbuntu and both of these scripts ask if you would like to have DMA enabled.

Quick test.

Get a new machine, install Ubuntu, install Automatix, and do not select enable DMA. Play a DVD. Re-run Automatix and select enable DMA. Play the same DVD. This time you will notice that it plays without being choppy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by mjg59 on Wed 31st May 2006 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
mjg59 Member since:
2005-10-17

Have you tried this with dapper? If so, could you please file a bug with the output of

lspci -n

and

sudo hdparm -I /dev/cdrom

and the contents of /var/log/dmesg ? To the best of our knowledge, all hardware should now have DMA enabled by default unless it's on a known-bad list.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by raver31 on Wed 31st May 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

sorry, too late. like I said, I run Automatix, which fixed this.

looking forward to the official release !!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by wyth on Tue 30th May 2006 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ubuntu vs SUSE"
wyth Member since:
2005-12-28

I'll just say running Easyubuntu was a lot quicker in getting me towards my preferred system than what I went through with Suse 10.1. I don't really have a problem wiht Suse, I just prefer Ubuntu, and I've found through some completel non-scientific tests (my wife, friends, family), they've been able to use Ubuntu easier and more efficiently than Suse. Granted, they're not doing anything too heavy, but intuitiveness will get you a long way towards desktop adoption.

Reply Score: 1

phibxr
Member since:
2006-05-25

...since I have been using Ubuntu exclusively for a few years on my iMac G4 750MHz with great success.

Unfortunately, there has been a confirmed bug (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.15/+bu...
) around for about a quarter of a year, rendering Dapper unbootable on some iMac G4 750MHz, and with only a few days left before release, this isn't very likely to change.

Sadly enough, I guess there are more than a few users out there who won't know about this until they hit the 'apt-get dist-upgrade' by june.

Reply Score: 5

ryan Member since:
2005-07-06

Dapper also has a regression (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/linux-restricted-module...) for the nvidia driver for certain laptops including mine that they aren't going to fix either... upgrading for me meant a black screen with flashing cursor -- a hard system freeze. It takes a complicated workaround to get my system bootable with acceptable working video drivers (nv driver doesn't quite work properly either).

Obviously this is out of the direct control of Ubuntu engineers, but regressions like this suck.

Reply Score: 1

jcinacio Member since:
2006-03-12

Actually, because dapper isn't finished/released yet, it doesn't have regressions ;)

now seriously, check out the latest linux-restricted-modules updates, wich fix many issues.

Reply Score: 1

Success
by segedunum on Mon 29th May 2006 18:52 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

"I, and others, would very much like Dapper to stand proud amongst the traditional enterprise Linux releases from Red Hat, Debian and SUSE as an equal match on quality, support and presentation," he continued.

Well, unless Dapper is technically a complete and total disaster he can rest assured on that one. With commercial distributions like Red Hat, and certainly Suse now, you get the definite impression that they are simply test distributions for their enterprise stuff, and enterprise for the vast majority of users means nothing and isn't worth paying for at all.

Even better, (K)Ubuntu is not alienating Gnome or KDE users and is not rewriting everything in some latest pet technology which has no chance of working. They're building on stuff that is proven to work, focusing it and giving people the confidence to use it.

I can only see (K)Ubuntu getting better.

Reply Score: 5

Baby Steps
by ThawkTH on Mon 29th May 2006 19:12 UTC
ThawkTH
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ubuntu has managed to get a few things right...namely, the user shouldn't have to spend hours configuring anything. Things should be a simple and straighforward yet also flexible and powerful as possible.

That said, let's hope they can help give a lot back to the Linux community. Because while any non troll can easily see Linux has grown and improved by leaps and bounds the past few years, it still has a long way to go before it can hope to claim any real Desktop mindshare.

For instance, anyone ever try getting a D-Link dwl-g650 working in Dapper? Yeah, madwifi drivers are included for the chipset. But what if you're trying Xubuntu (or a server install)? How do you configure everything? (Slightly bitter this afternoon, I've been trying this on an old laptop for 24 hours now)

Polish, polish, polish. It's a great concept. Let's never forget how much improvement can, no needs, to be done before Linux is usable to the masses.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Baby Steps
by dark child on Mon 29th May 2006 20:14 UTC in reply to "Baby Steps"
dark child Member since:
2005-12-09

Ubuntu has managed to get a few things right...namely, the user shouldn't have to spend hours configuring anything. Things should be a simple and straighforward yet also flexible and powerful as possible.

Thats a very good point but this can also be a turn off for some users. If someone is new to Linux, then distros with minimal choice and configuration options are ok because they don't overwhelm the user, but for users wanting more control of their sytems, this may not be a good thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Baby Steps
by ThawkTH on Mon 29th May 2006 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Baby Steps"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but once one learns how things are set up, they are free to configure things as they wish. Afaik, many Ubuntu users know their way around a config file or two.

I do not believe Ubuntu keeps any options from you. While it may not be a LFS or Gentoo (Or even a Slack or Arch), it certainly isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

What does Ubuntu keep you from choosing/doing? Nothing that I know of.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Baby Steps
by dark child on Mon 29th May 2006 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Baby Steps"
dark child Member since:
2005-12-09

I do not believe Ubuntu keeps any options from you. While it may not be a LFS or Gentoo (Or even a Slack or Arch), it certainly isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

What does Ubuntu keep you from choosing/doing? Nothing that I know of.

Simple examples are package selection and network configuration. I prefer choosing only the packages that I need (and their dependencies of course), but you can't do this with Ubuntu. It would be good if there was something like an express install for those that like the current state of things and another option for those wishing to customise the installation.

In terms of network configuration, when I installed Dapper from the live cd, I didn't see an option to configure static networking instead of dhcp. Its a minor problem to fix, but I would prefer to do this at during install time.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Baby Steps
by ricks1950 on Mon 29th May 2006 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Baby Steps"
ricks1950 Member since:
2006-03-21

>>Simple examples are package selection and network configuration. I prefer choosing only the packages that I need (and their dependencies of course), but you can't do this with Ubuntu. It would be good if there was something like an express install for those that like the current state of things and another option for those wishing to customise the installation.

Select server at install time, and pick and choose what you want to put in it. Want to run with no gui -- no problem.

>>In terms of network configuration, when I installed Dapper from the live cd, I didn't see an option to configure static networking instead of dhcp.

This is so minor to fix, and standard practice for Debian -- could it be easier? I suppose, but it's no show stopper.

I've been running Dapper on an old, old PC since the first beta -- pain in the ass to keep it updated, with 15-75 changes every day, but it WORKS.

If Ubuntu Dapper is too tough for you to use, you probably shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer. Adding software is brain-dead simple; updates too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Baby Steps
by dark child on Tue 30th May 2006 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Baby Steps"
dark child Member since:
2005-12-09

If Ubuntu Dapper is too tough for you to use, you probably shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer. Adding software is brain-dead simple; updates too.
Ubuntu is not tough at all for me. I have been using Linux and FreeBSD for the best part of 7 years and when I started distros weren't easy to install. My point was that the installer needs to be streamlined so that you don't end up installing things you do not need and I was also thinking that network configuration could be made easier. For me these are non issues but for someone new to Linux this may not be the case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Baby Steps
by Terracotta on Tue 30th May 2006 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Baby Steps"
Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

I think they do a very good job for someone who doesn't know a lot about linux. They give you one app for each application instead of three like suse does if you go for default install. If the default one isn't of your likeing, uninstall it. It's a desktop release meaning they have to supply a sollution for desktop tasks: music,video, internet...
By picking a default one they can focus on one solution and make it better than focusing on a lot of solutions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Baby Steps
by Arno on Mon 29th May 2006 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Baby Steps"
Arno Member since:
2006-01-10

Simple examples are package selection and network configuration. I prefer choosing only the packages that I need (and their dependencies of course), but you can't do this with Ubuntu. It would be good if there was something like an express install for those that like the current state of things and another option for those wishing to customise the installation.
This a one CD distro, it's not like SUSE or Debian, you don't have 5 CDs of programs to choice of. There is one program for each task ... if you want another one you have to download/apt-get it later.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Baby Steps
by dark child on Tue 30th May 2006 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Baby Steps"
dark child Member since:
2005-12-09

This a one CD distro, it's not like SUSE or Debian, you don't have 5 CDs of programs to choice of. There is one program for each task ... if you want another one you have to download/apt-get it later.

There are many one disc distros out there that still allow you to choose what to install. Yeah there aren't many packages on the default installation, but I have noticed that with Ubuntu I end up with many things I don't want on my system e.g. raid software and vnc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Baby Steps
by ThawkTH on Tue 30th May 2006 02:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Baby Steps"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

While it's not as convenient as, say, a step by step package selection in the install, you could either

A. Open adept/synaptic and go through all installed packages, removing everything that you don't want. As a plus, apt will remove any uneeded dependancies these programs used

B. Do above in a terminal using apt.

While I don't want to start an RPM vs DEB war, I've been amazed at the strength of apt (it's certainly not perfect, I've needed my share of workarounds and fixes...and yum has worked very well for me as well).

T

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Baby Steps
by da_Chicken on Tue 30th May 2006 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Baby Steps"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

This a one CD distro, it's not like SUSE or Debian, you don't have 5 CDs of programs to choice of. There is one program for each task ... if you want another one you have to download/apt-get it later.

Hmm... you talk about it like this was Ubuntu's asset instead of a shortcoming. But think about it for a minute. If you had a computer with no net connection, would you rather install Ubuntu (with one CD's worth of software) on it or Debian (with 14 CD's worth of software)?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Baby Steps
by jdub on Tue 30th May 2006 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Baby Steps"
jdub Member since:
2005-08-19

If you had a computer with no net connection, would you rather install Ubuntu (with one CD's worth of software) on it or Debian (with 14 CD's worth of software)?

Ubuntu. With one DVD's worth of software. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Baby Steps
by da_Chicken on Tue 30th May 2006 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Baby Steps"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

OK, that's your choice -- although it's more like a half of a DVD than a full one because Ubuntu doesn't support enough packages to fill a whole DVD. So the DVD is actually half empty.

But I wouldn't choose the Ubuntu DVD over Debian's DVDs. You see, I use quite a lot of software from Ubuntu's "universe" and that isn't included on the Ubuntu DVD. Debian's DVDs, on the other hand, have about 4 times more stuff than Ubuntu's. Sometimes it seems to me that most of the good and useful stuff in Ubuntu is in "universe".

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Baby Steps
by _LH_ on Tue 30th May 2006 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Baby Steps"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

>If you had a computer with no net connection, would you rather install Ubuntu (with one CD's worth of software) on it or Debian (with 14 CD's worth of software)?

You only need the first disc of Debian to install a working desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Baby Steps
by ThawkTH on Mon 29th May 2006 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Baby Steps"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

You can certainly do all the above, and learning to do things has helped me to fall deeply, madly in love with apt (shhh! Don't tell anyone!)

Seriously though, a server install (don't use the livecd if you want to configure your install...it's simply designed to make things, well, simple) will give you the absolute barebones. From there you can install anything you do or do not want. Most DE/WM's are available and very easy to install.

For instance, if you have an ubuntu breezy cd but want to install kubuntu dapper then (if you have broadband) you can do a server install, modify your /etc/apt/sources.list and change all the breezy to dapper, do an apt-get update, then apt-get install kubuntu-desktop. Don't want all the kubuntu apps? KDE is available too (as are, say, just the libs if you use gnome and want to run a KDE app).

Network config can be done from a console as far as I know (though I am having trouble with this darn d-link/madwifi/dapper combo and no GUI at all).

Also, the installer has a few advanced options.

Edited 2006-05-29 22:13

Reply Score: 1

ubuntu on Dell Inspiron 600m
by 2501 on Mon 29th May 2006 20:51 UTC
2501
Member since:
2005-07-14

I am running 6.06 right now and it is running "perfect". No problems at all. I got Xine movie player to watch my movies and Wine, of course.

It is rock stable and I am really keeping this one.

Thanks, ubuntu.

-2501

Reply Score: 2

Ubuntu Servers
by jcinacio on Mon 29th May 2006 21:06 UTC
jcinacio
Member since:
2006-03-12

Let's see how ubuntu server will be accepted and looked upon.

Since this will have a 5-year support period (along with comercial support), that should help Ubuntu dapper penetrate the linux server market: everyone seems to love RH and derivates and ubuntu keeps getting dismissed as a real server OS.

Lets hope things change, because personally i think it's as good and powerfull as debian, just easier...

Edited 2006-05-29 21:06

Reply Score: 1

Why I use Ubuntu
by SEJeff on Mon 29th May 2006 21:30 UTC
SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

Some people call me a Linux vet, but I've only used it for about 8 years now and learn new things every day... Through Slackware, Redhat 6.x, Fedora, SuSE, Debian, and a few others not worth mentioning, my current distro is Ubuntu.

Why Ubuntu? Because of polish and integration. The package manager is integrated into the system better than any other distro I've ever seen. Don't have ntp installed but you select the option to use it in the time/date settings? No problem, you get a friendly dialog asking if you would like to download and install it. Just like that, ntp syncing now works!

Right click on a folder to share it with your windows pc but don't have samba installed? No problem another friendly dialog asks if you would like to install it. Then you go on to share the folder and everything works as expected. The folder you shared will show up in /etc/samba/smb.conf without any command line "craziness" for lack of a better newb friendly word.

Spoken from someone who uses Linux every day at work/home and is more comfortable in the terminal than the gui, I use Ubuntu because it "Just works". My friends use gentoo and laugh at me because I don't. I laugh at them because I can install a new system and be productive in under 20 minutes with minimum hassle.

I also love Ubuntu because they "give back". A good example would be GParted. It wasn't nearly as actively developed until some Ubuntu devs decided to use it in the partitioner for Ubiquity (the live cd installer).

Ubuntu is a polished version of debian that works on integration and collaboration. With the right leadership, they can't go wrong!

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Baby Steps
by theine on Tue 30th May 2006 01:54 UTC
theine
Member since:
2005-09-29

Yeah there aren't many packages on the default installation, but I have noticed that with Ubuntu I end up with many things I don't want on my system e.g. raid software and vnc.

Is it that big of a deal for you to remove those packages afterwards?

Reply Score: 1

kubuntu & mepis
by adiwibowo on Tue 30th May 2006 04:20 UTC
adiwibowo
Member since:
2005-07-15

I am interested in using desktop oriented distro full time. As mepis now also use ubuntu reps, i want to know from people who used both, what are differences between mepis & kubuntu then, for daily use?

Thanks alot.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; Smartphone; 176x220)

Reply Score: 1

RE: kubuntu & mepis
by mwtomlinson on Tue 30th May 2006 13:12 UTC in reply to "kubuntu & mepis"
mwtomlinson Member since:
2005-11-06

My understanding is aside from "look 'n feel" differences, probably the major one would be the inclusion of non-free software with a MEPIS install. This is mainly media-related stuff (codecs, etc.) and closed-source binary drivers.

Being a GNOME user, I've only taken a passing look at Kubuntu and MEPIS. Perhaps a KDE fan could confirm or deny?

Reply Score: 1

So much for enterprise level
by Temcat on Tue 30th May 2006 10:44 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

A quote from Ubuntu Wiki (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RestrictedFormats):
========================================================
Playing DVDs

Most commercial DVDs are encrypted with CSS (the Content Scrambling System). The movie players provided in Ubuntu are capable of reading DVDs that are not encrypted. You can enable reading encrypted DVDs in MPlayer, xine and Totem-xine by installing libdvdcss2.

* Ubuntu 6.06's GNOME default version of Totem does not support playing DVDs. You must install Totem-xine in order to play DVDs using Totem. See Alternative Media Players for instructions.
========================================================

Nice. The DEFAULT version of video player doesn't play DVD (though it did in Breezy)! Why not make Totem-Xine the default or delay the release further and fix Totem-Gstreamer? Yeah, that's an enterprise level for sure, Just Works (TM) and stuff...

Reply Score: 1

RE: So much for enterprise level
by thebluesgnr on Tue 30th May 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "So much for enterprise level"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

That wiki is outdated, totem-gstreamer can play DVD's.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: So much for enterprise level
by Temcat on Tue 30th May 2006 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: So much for enterprise level"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Ah good then!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: So much for enterprise level
by archiesteel on Tue 30th May 2006 13:56 UTC in reply to "So much for enterprise level"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yeah, like playing DVDs is a common business task...whatever!

In any case, it's an easy fix, like for all the other "restricted" content: run EasyUbuntu.

I'd rather Ubuntu make me do this extra step but stay within the limits of the law...

Reply Score: 1

RE: So much for enterprise level
by phoenix on Wed 31st May 2006 01:26 UTC in reply to "So much for enterprise level"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And how many enterprise users do you know that watch DVDs all day on their desktop? Or even a single DVD on their desktop? Probably not a lot. And the few that do, probably have a tech dept with enough know-how to install the needed bits on the few systems that need it.

Now, for a home distro, that might be a downside. But not for a business.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ubuntu vs SUSE
by theine on Tue 30th May 2006 11:28 UTC
theine
Member since:
2005-09-29

Drive performance is not optimised under Ubuntu.

What exactly does SUSE do to enhance drive performance?

Reply Score: 1

Snore
by Sphinx on Tue 30th May 2006 13:59 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

After watching a friend struggle to install Ubuntu latest on his new 64 dual core last week and then seeing the Ubuntu desktop next to Suse and it can't even hold a candle to it, I'm not going to get excited or even think there is any possibility Ubuntu got the server right or did it better than anybody else.

Reply Score: 0

Dashing Dapper
by soulglo83 on Tue 30th May 2006 16:03 UTC
soulglo83
Member since:
2006-05-30

I have been using ubuntu since warty, it was my first and only lasting attempt at avoiding windows. In the 2 years I have been using gnu/linux or ubuntu, i have been able to play counterstrike online @ 100+fps and near 0 ping, i can watch embedded movies, manage my ipod; author burn and rip dvds, and even doing all this within xgl and compiz! With Ubuntu I (Dapper specifically) don't feel like I found a replacement for windows, I'm pretty certain I'm using what will soon become its successor! Ubuntu dev's are producing the highest quality code at a feverish pace; did anyone expect even a year or two ago that we would be blessed with such a terriffic operating system? Kudos Ubuntu, gnu, and linux communities! You guys are on to something!

Reply Score: 2