The release candidate for Ubuntu 7.10 has been released. "The Ubuntu developers are hurrying to bring you the absolute latest and greatest software that the open source and free software communities have to offer. This is the Ubuntu 7.10 release candidate, which brings a host of excellent new features. We consider this release candidate to be complete, stable and suitable for testing by any user. The final stable version will be released in October 2007."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2007-04-30
Looks like a better release than the previous, but I'll be sticking with my Debian install. It should be noted that this new printer stuff in this release is taken from Fedora. But it's nice to finally see the Ubuntu team tackling some of the security issues..I've been seeing rants about it for years on the forums.
Edited 2007-10-11 22:26
Member since:2005-07-06
As someone involved with Fedora for a long time, I can say this and when I do I believe I am speaking for everyone in the Fedora community that I am happy that Ubuntu is taking things from Fedora like desktop effects preferences and system-config-printer and that they are interested in doing that more and we go out of our way including changing our infrastructure to enable them to do exactly that
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg022...
A number of innovations (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions) from Fedora constantly go into other distributions and Fedora has a strong upstream focus (http://fedoraprojecct.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream) that is specifically geared towards this. Just a while back I noticed that Mandriva's latest release had some Udev changes that they acknowledged as being from Fedora which is great.
The latest OpenSUSE, Debian etc ship Fedora's virtualization related tools too and practically everybody is including things like the HAL, DBus, NetworkManager etc along with recently Iced Tea which is a competely Free derivative of OpenJDK created originally for Fedora.
This is not a one way street. Ubuntu adopting system-config-printer got Fedora a number of bug fixes which saves time and effort for everybody. So take what you will and share the changes if you can. This is Free software at it's best. Have fun.
Member since:2007-09-03
Member since:2005-07-06
The single CD distribution idea existed long long back. I believe Mepis did it way before the rest and it might even not be the first and Fedora spins are not just single CD distributions.
Take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CustomSpins and read the referneces to understand what spins are all about.
Edited 2007-10-11 22:58
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-08-28
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-05-31
Member since:2006-01-01
Knoppix is not and was never installable.
Wrong. My first successful Debian installation (back in the Debian Woody days) was done via Knoppix. The installation was simple and quick -- it just created a new file system and then dumped the contents of the live-cd onto the hard drive (kind of like the current Ubuntu desktop installer does).
The problem was that Knoppix mixed packages from Debian Stable, Testing, and Unstable, plus many packages from unofficial repositories, and the first "apt-get dist-upgrade" immediately broke my installation. 
Member since:2006-11-24
How can this be modded up where it is obviously false? Knoppix was installable off the live CD for the longest time. There was an option within the booted system from where you could start a HD install. It even had/has (?) a feature where you could set it up to act as a thin client server.
Member since:2006-01-10
I think something got lost in this thread of conversation.... I think it originally was about it being great to have a One CD install. Then it changed a bit to be about LiveCD install, which Knoppix was definitely the first. Then again, I think Knoppix was the first LiveCD.
Other than that, I can think of several One CD installs. Storm Linux (later Stormix), Corel (already mentioned), and of course any of the older versions of Linux. RedHat 4.2 came on a single CD.
Of course we can go the other route and talk about the largest amount od disks for install. Debian holds that title at 21 CDs or 3 DVDs. Now that's a lot of software, and I think Sarge had 16 or something. Debian is getting HUGE.
Member since:2005-07-07
Knoppix was indeed installable, but that didn't lead to a very stable installation. Kanotix, a Knoppix deriviate focussed on installation, should imho qualify as the first properly installable livecd. There was of course a lot of cooparation between kanotix/knoppix, and I think the installation tools and stuff from kanotix got merged back in knoppix, so it is properly installable nowadays.
Member since:2006-01-01
Knoppix was indeed installable, but that didn't lead to a very stable installation. Kanotix, a Knoppix deriviate focussed on installation, should imho qualify as the first properly installable livecd.
I checked the DistroWatch page for Kanotix and it seems that Kanotix was started sometime in the late 2004. But in the early 2003 there was already an installable live-cd called Morphix. It used only packages from Debian Sid and there were three versions: one with XFCE, one with GNOME, and one with KDE. Morphix had a nice-looking GUI installer and at that time I found Morphix an ideal way to install Debian Sid easily. Morphix, as the name suggests, was originally derived from Knoppix but it also sported some GUI system configuration tools that its developer had ported from Red Hat.
IIRC, there was also another Knoppix-derivative before Kanotix, called Gnoppix, that came with GNOME. But I'm not sure if Gnoppix was actually installable and I never used it, so I don't have any first-hand details about it. However, I have a vague recollection that Canonical might have hired the Gnoppix developer when Ubuntu was first started, which would make the current Ubuntu live-cd a descendant of Gnoppix (and Knoppix).
Member since:2005-07-07
Gnoppix wasn't installable, and I remember Morphix. Morphix was a more modular Knoppix, but by that time, not anymore installable as Knoppix was, afaik. Kanotix was to my best knowledge the first Knoppix deriviate solely focussed on installation, which was (apparently) harder to do then compared to these days.
Member since:2005-07-11
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:2005-08-07
I think people are forgetting about Ark Linux and Corel Linux who also offered one cd installs with best of breed either around the same time or before...
Does it really matter who was first?
To me the beauty of open sourceGPL is no matter who goes first we all reap the benefits! Well that and the knowledge that with Open SourceGPL you know there's a good chance anything good is likely to survive or be resurrectable... How many closed source projects or OSes have managed to come back from the dead?
--bornagainpenguin
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:2005-08-07
What in hell is "open sourceGPL"?? I know what Opensource is, and I know what the GPL is, but I don't know what open sourceGPL is.
[SIGH] That's because this site hates the slash symbol for some strange reason. The only way to say Open Source \ GPL is to put a couple of extra spaces between the slash symbol...
But yeah I get your point, not all Open Source Software is GPL and vice the versa... 
I actually just wrote it as Open Source the first time when I wrote it and then added the slash GPL because I knew this would come up....
--bornagainpenguin
Edited 2007-10-13 01:51
Member since:2006-12-05
Member since:2005-08-07
Member since:
2006-03-13
It's certainly better than Feisty on an Asus Z3300 laptop. Things like resume from hibernation work better (i.e. the machine runs at full speed now), and sound works (it quit under Feisty after an update).
I'm running the Kubuntu version. It's a simple, blah KDE desktop, and that's a good thing.
Debian unfortunately won't let me turn the built in wireless on. KDE on Debian ran rings around Feisty. It's still a little faster than Gutsy, but the differences are far smaller.
Gutsy is the first Ubuntu release that I actually like.
Member since:
2005-07-02
I was really surprised at how easy it was to install ATI and Broadcom Wireless support. The entire desktop is also well-integrated - all in all a very good distribution.
There is one problem, however, and unfortunately it seems it won't get solved quickly: suspend/hibernate does not work if you use the fglrx driver (something to do with SLAB vs. SLUB support, whatever that is), and apparently the Ubuntu devs can't fix it on their end. We'll just hope that the next ATI driver (8.42.X) will solve this issue, in the meantime if one has a laptop with ATI chipset, one must choose between 3D acceleration and suspend/hibernate...
Member since:2005-08-07
Do you know if they managed to fix ATI Radeon Mobility 7500 support?
Over on the launchpad they were reporting constant issues and breaks with the teams rushing fixed upstream as quickly as they could for release time, and just as they would report a fix someone would report it being broken by another patch for something different...
--bornagainpenguin (who has tried the Herd releases and the RC but is not willing to risk a working install again at this point...)
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2007-08-17
Member since:
2005-07-06
If someone wants a Gutsy CD for Free, pre-order it at https://shipit.ubuntu.com
Member since:
2006-05-11
Member since:2007-09-08
If you only want to install on one machine, you can just upgrade to the release version from the installed system.
For the Live CD, it's impossible to provide a delta between the RC and final images, because of the way the data on the live CD is compressed.
For the alternate install CDs, you can use Jigdo to build a new CD image from the RC and the newest packages. This way, you can download only the changed files.
Member since:
2006-01-23
Member since:2005-07-07
Well, it depends on what you're looking for, I guess. I will NEVER go back to a distro without a rolling release schedule, ever. I can't stand not being able to compile stuff because there hasn't been a stable release with the needed library yet, even though the library itself is completely stable.
Take a look at Ubuntu - they sync with Debian Testing (between a week and 2 months old software) then stabilise it and release it with some updated enduser software (X, KDE/Gnome). You use it 6 months, then there's an update.
During these six months, you start out with software at least 6 months old, so you're behind on the latest STABLE(!) development in the linux world somewhere between 6 and 14 months. That's 10 months behind on average for the lower-level stuff. I wouldn't be happy with that.
Of course, it's fine for many end users and companies... I guess...
Member since:2006-06-26
I might be a bit retarded, but is this in favour or against Ubuntu??? I always thought Ubuntu has a rolling release schedule ...
And what does "stable" really mean? Once Gnome releases, say, Gnome 3.0, it's stable. And tho it's considered "stable", it takes weeks/months to appear in distributions like Gentoo or Arch. With Ubuntu you know it'll be released in 10 and 04 (well, mostly). And Debian releases when it's finished altho I see promising signs of a changed attitude.
Member since:2005-07-07
A rolling release schedule means: when a new version of some app or library is released as a stable version and basically tested, provide it to the users of your distribution via updates. That means you never have 'new releases', or have to install or update new versions.
Arch for example has 'new releases': just a cd with the latest version of all packages, which they release when a new kernel comes out. But users never have to upgrade anything, ever, they are always up-to-date.
So I'm behind a package on average (average testing time)/2 months, Ubuntu is behind:
average testing time in Debian Testing + 6 months working and testing + 6 months using it/2
First sync; then 6 months development (and I ignore here the fact they sometimes DO upgrade to newer versions in this time, like they do with Gnome/KDE, X, the kernel and some other important stuff) then the release cycle/2. This gives an average of 10 or 11 months.
For stuff they DO upgrade until the last minute (eg RC1) you're just a little over 3 months behind on average (release schedule/2 + test period).
But that's 3 months more than on Arch still...
Member since:2005-11-11
Not updating the libraries all the time is the point of fix release. This means you know that for some time, your system won't break because of incompatible libraries. If you don't care about that, just use debian unstable.
For many people, having a stable system is much more important than continuous update, though. As a relatively long time debian user, that's the whole point of ubuntu for me.
Member since:2005-07-07
Debian unstable is of course way more unstable than Arch. Arch might not be as stable as Debian Stable, but it is at least as stable as Ubuntu, and a year ahead ;-)
If you don't care about STABILITY, yes, then you can use Debian Unstable (I have), Mandriva Cooker (I have) or the Ubuntu unstable repositories (idem). But Arch (and Gentoo, which has the same schedule) are as stable, if not more so, as distro's who release only once very 6 months or longer.
Member since:2006-01-10
Actually you have some information incorrect here. Ubuntu synchronizes with Debian Unstable, not Debian Testing.
Debian Testing IS a rolling distribution. Granted much like with anything that you will run that is in continuous flux, you'll have some breakage, but it's exactly what you're asking for if you want to constantly have the newest software. The only downfall of Debian is if the program you're after doesn't have a good package maintainer, but then again you can always attempt to step up to the plate and help them out.
The main problem with that though is that becoming an official Debian Developer is a pain in the butt (well it used to be, I think it's a bit easier now). It's not as hard in Ubuntu, but then again you can also tell that it's not as hard by the quality of the packages in Ubuntu (read they're not quite as good at fixing dependencies and conflicts as Debian's usually are).
Debian Testing works like this; A new package goes into Unstable. Once it's in Unstable for 10 days, it gets put into Testing unless there is a release bug or something wrong with the package, then it gets updated. Well it's 10 days or a week, can't recall at the moment.
With Ubuntu, after a release, they sync with Debian Unstable for about 3 months. Then they spend the next three months patching and stabilizing it. So you're not 6 months behind, more like 3. Of course then if you wait until the next release of Ubuntu you'll be 9 months behind. But really that's not all that bad. Plus there is always www.getdeb.net which has newer versions of packages for the latest Ubuntu release.
Besides if you just want to compile all of your software, stick to a source based distribution. Hell, a lot of times backporting a program is as easy as using prevu.
Member since:2005-07-07
I only compile KDE4, but I need the latest packages for that.
In a sense, Arch works like Debian Testing, except of course the target for arch is to have it stable, not 'good enough'. And you can say what I want, but I have used them both, and I really know which one is more stable - Arch. Besides, I like the simplicity and speed of Arch.
I have Kubuntu on my laptop, as I don't want to fiddle with that, btw - and OpenSuse on another laptop. I know my distributions. And really, Arch is way superior to Debian Testing. Having to fix that is a pain in the but, Arch almost never breaks.
Member since:2005-11-14
(If you compile OO.o yourself under Ubuntu with the correct encryption flags, the signing works but then unfortunately it has other problems related to Ubuntu-specific compile/integration options)
Member since:
2006-09-23
Member since:2005-10-11
Member since:2005-11-11
Why not using the alternate CD for configuration with limited amount of memory ? This uses a text-based installer, and does not require a lot of memory (128 Mb is definitely enough, maybe 64 would do, not sure though, since I have never ubuntu on this configuration). You can also try the server install.
Ubuntu should be perfectly usable with 256 Mb, once installed. Firefox is always a problem, unfortunately, but a basic desktop (with a few removed applets) takes much less than 100 Mb on Gutsy (I noticed gutsy takes less space so far).
Member since:2006-01-28
Member since:2006-05-11
Member since:
2006-09-30
Member since:2006-01-28
Member since:2006-09-30
Member since:2006-01-28
Member since:
2006-09-23
For 7.04 to install from a LiveCD you need 192 MB of RAM. I have 256 and I it took for 7.04 less than 20 minutes to finish installation on my pc. You can always use alternative CD to install Ubuntu because it needs less RAM.
Browser: Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.0.8993/58; U; en)
Member since:2006-09-30
Member since:
2006-06-26
Member since:2006-09-22
Wow, my Athlon X2 3800+, with just 512 mb RAM seems to handle Gutsy (eye candy included) just fine :S
I've been running Gutsy for two weeks now and, so far, it works great. Compiz still has its fair a mount of glitches/annoyances, but running it along with the new Clearlooks gives a pretty cool-looking desktop. I'd like to see a better "Human" theme though.
Gutsy itself feels fast and stable, I didn't notice major speed differences with Feisty, and that's a good thing in my books. Tracker search seems to be less of a resource hog than I expected (most of the time you won't notice it's there).
I'll update to RC as soo as I get home 
Member since:2007-02-17
Tracker is great. When I used Beagle I would generally turn it off because their was a noticeable shift in resources when it was indexing. As of gutsy, I hardley eve remember that tracker is running at all. Its very resource conscious and its slim and fast. This is what and indexing system should be, beagle was always a bad idea in my mind.
Member since:2007-09-08
Member since:
2006-02-12
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:
2005-07-15
I had to rebuild the kernel to get Intel HD Audio working. But the downside to this is that I can no longer use the "restricted" drivers. With that said, I also cannot install the Nvidia drivers from the Nvidia site as they bomb. Sigh. Either no sound or no dual monitor support on a Latitude 630.
Member since:2005-09-29
Either no sound or no dual monitor support on a Latitude 630.
This is gonna get fixed, see:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/131133
Member since:2005-07-15
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-12
Download in progress - the big thing I'm hoping for is better support when going PAST two monitors with different cards. I've got a Ge7600GS in here driving a my right monitor and a Ge8800GTS driving my center and left displays - and in linux I cannot get that extra 17" working right (if at all) even with the binary drivers.
ANY improvement in the monitor setup features to make me not have to go nutzo google-fu playing with xorg.conf - only to repeatedly crash X...
We'll see. Fiesty was DAMNED close. (I could get it working if I moved the center display to the 7600 - NOT entirely what I wanted)
Member since:
2006-02-09
Member since:
2007-01-11
After 3 or 4 Ubuntu in a row, I begin to be really bored with this distro.
Since a long time nothing really exiting comes out to us distract from "Next time you will get...." I heard this too long from another "$"ystem.
Of course it works, of course the devs are tip-top, of course it's a solid distrib, but and there is a but: what else ? nothing or so few, people coming to the Linux world expect a bit more fantasy or creativity.
Just tell me why I fell so bored, it's maybe just an impression that gutsy is just a feisty + or a debian ++ ?...
Member since:2006-02-09
Member since:2007-01-11
And your next question will be
This distrib don't have this or that so why you change ?
As I have to explain ...
No I won't, because I express an opinion and after a large support to Ubuntu I don't feel excited any more, that's it.
I have recently installed a Debian unstable and saw not much difference, but a better performance, and no special tool that I don't get there, so what's the point ? Why so much about Ubuntu? Now the egg or the hen witch one came first I don't care.
Just to point that a lot is said about Ubuntu, but after 4 release they all look the same.
just one point by distro :suse have yast, mandriva draktools, debian apt-get, redhat-fedora...and so on Ubuntu have c,e,k,x etc buntu like a long movie without a star, or a story...
Is that enough ?
Member since:2006-09-22
Member since:2005-07-07
This is the biggest release of Ubuntu as long as I've been using it. The last release was good for its codec handling and, for me, read/write HFS+. You might be bored by it, but it tipped the balance for me to make it my primary OS.
I'm particularly excited about this next release - Compiz, X-Windows config, metadata search, better printing, slimming down the preferences apps - those are all things you'll benefit from immediately.
A little, rarely mentioned thing like read/write NTFS might be all some users need to stop booting their Windows partition after Feisty.
Member since:
2007-08-30
Member since:
2006-01-23
I downloaded and installed 7.10 over a period of about 5 hours, using an EV-DO connected mobile phone, and that included a quick power outage.
The update manager seemed to duplicate some steps in full but started at the proper file in the list apparently.
I got a warning that I needed to install restricted drivers not supported by Ubuntu for the 3D functionality (nVidia 7600GS) but I don't see any difference in the desktop.
After I powered down, the machine hung with a Network Manager problem.
It seems very stable for a release candidate, though.
Member since:
2006-07-16
I don't know why everyone is so geeked for the release of 7.10. As everyone should realize by now, Ubuntu is an African word that apparently means "anticipation." A stable version will drop and almost immediately hype will begin for the "next big one." In fact, many users will add the repos for the next release almost immediately. I'm about sick of this myself (even though I'm technically an Ubuntu user as a user of Linux Mint.) The devs need to work on bug fixes and stability before adding reams of new features that work half-assed for some people and not at all for others. I would be happy to see Ubuntu move to a once-a-year release schedule and backport updated (and stabilized) packages into the stable version.
Member since:2005-07-06
Than don't feel the urge to upgrade. Nobody is forcing you. Personally the prime is the kernel and i allways stay in sync with the most current tree. Other than that i don't give the rats ass about what version the userland apps have as long as security fixes and or patches have been applied.
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2006-01-17
http://www.getdeb.net
Edited 2007-10-13 15:03