Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 6th May 2010 21:05 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The recently released 10.04 version of Ubuntu is the third Long Term Support (LTS) version Canonical has released. I installed this new version on four of my laptops (2 netbooks, 1 normal laptop, 1 portable desktop replacement), and here's my impression of it.
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Thu 6th May 2010 21:14 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

You are right, damn those H.264 pushers they should.....

Oh, this is about Ubuntu..... good review.

Reply Score: 11

How to save panel space
by Zifre on Thu 6th May 2010 21:25 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

To get rid of the messages thing, uninstall indicator-messages.

If you don't use the me menu, you can uninstall indicator-me (this will allow you to still use the the session indicator, which IMO is much better than the other replacements for the GNOME panel).

If you want to save horizontal space on the panel, install dockbarx (it's in some PPA), which works much like Windows 7's taskbar.

Also, replacing the "Menu Bar" with "Main Menu" saves a lot of space.

Reply Score: 4

RE: How to save panel space
by Hiev on Thu 6th May 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "How to save panel space"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Hey, dockbarx is so cool, thx. for the tip.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How to save panel space
by Eugenia on Thu 6th May 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "How to save panel space"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I know how to do all this, but it's not what I want to do. You see, I still want the battery and volume indicators. I don't want to remove the whole applet! I just want to be able enable/disable some of them to never show up (e.g. mail). Another example, in the me menu, is the fact that it displays my username, "eugenia", while it would save space if it just displayed my user icon. So basically, I do want the features offered, I just need some basic power over them. The solution is not removal, but some preferences.

Also, I avoid third party toolbars etc. I need stability and memory efficiency for my mom. Third party stuff usually break after updates, so I try to avoid them. If something breaks on my mom's netbook, she will have no one to take care of the problem, since she's in Greece, and I'm in the US.

Edited 2010-05-06 21:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: How to save panel space
by Zifre on Thu 6th May 2010 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: How to save panel space"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

You see, I still want the battery and volume indicators. I don't want to remove the whole applet! I just want to be able enable/disable some of them to never show up (e.g. mail).

Removing indicator-messages will only remove the mail icon. It will not remove any of the other things like volume (same thing with removing me menu).

I agree that a setting certainly would be nice, but removing it and installing it as needed should be okay in most cases.

Also, I avoid third party toolbars etc. I need stability and memory efficiency for my mom. Third party stuff usually break after updates, so I try to avoid them. If something breaks on my mom's netbook, she will have no one to take care of the problem, since she's in Greece, and I'm in the US.

Then you probably would want to avoid dockbarx. I've never had any issues with it, but I've noticed that some people (even people who are good with computers) have a hard time with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How to save panel space
by Lennie on Fri 7th May 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: How to save panel space"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What about adding the applets: 'User Switcher' and/or 'Shut Down' or something like that, their is more then just the ones that are selected by default

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How to save panel space
by kbloodstone on Fri 7th May 2010 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: How to save panel space"
kbloodstone Member since:
2009-06-03

One of the features that I really love from the new Empathy/Ubuntu is the integration of "Share my desktop" in Empathy, using Vino. It makes remote support for my family members much easier. Give it a try.

I have also seen people "hacking in" support for GMail into the message indicator, without having to go through Evolution. It is still far from easy, if I remember correctly, but it will surely be polished and packaged up nicely soon.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How to save panel space
by KenP on Thu 6th May 2010 23:09 UTC in reply to "How to save panel space"
KenP Member since:
2009-07-28

If you're getting rid of all that, you might anyway switch to using Kubuntu 10.04! In fact, Kubuntu is quite close to the usability offered by the 'default' Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How to save panel space
by Hinrik on Fri 7th May 2010 11:14 UTC in reply to "How to save panel space"
Hinrik Member since:
2009-08-31

To get rid of the messages thing, uninstall indicator-messages.


She only wanted to remove the email/evolution part. Uninstalling indicator-messages also removes the gwibber applet (Twitter/Facebook messages).

Reply Score: 1

MSI Wind 12 U230
by fretinator on Thu 6th May 2010 21:34 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just installed Lucid on my new netbook. It was mostly a good experience. One of the funny things was that MSI chose to not provide a driver for the touchpad and Windows 7 treats it as a standard PS/2 mouse with no finger scrolling. There was no driver on their site (it just said: Use Windows 7 standard PD/2 driver). Fortunately, Ubuntu had no problem with that! I likes my finger scrolling.

The only problems, challenges:

1. I do not like the new battery widget. Clicking on it shows you the time left, but I cannot see the percentage. I suppose I could just install the Acpi command-line application and do 'acpi -V' to get details.

2. The buttons are wierd on the left, but things like that don't bother me. Muscle memory won't take long.

3. The Wifi did not work out of the box. I had to download a .deb package for the card (from a third party), and install DKMS, as well as edit /etc/modules. As long as there is a solution, I don't mind.

I started with Linux aroud 1994. MY how things have improved. We really take this ease of use for granted. I especially like how well suspend works these days. That was always a real pain for me.

Edited 2010-05-06 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: MSI Wind 12 U230
by Eugenia on Thu 6th May 2010 21:36 UTC in reply to "MSI Wind 12 U230"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>Clicking on it shows you the time left, but I cannot see the percentage

Click on that indication text, and a new dialog will open up. There, you will find the percentage.

This also bothers me btw.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: MSI Wind 12 U230
by fretinator on Thu 6th May 2010 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: MSI Wind 12 U230"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks, I never would have guessed that. I'm used to just hovering over the battery icon.

Reply Score: 2

i agree with the review
by REM2000 on Thu 6th May 2010 21:39 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

I am simply amazed by this release, it really feels like an off the shelf OS easily earning a place with Windows and Mac OSX. Im not putting down other distributions, as linux as a whole is pushing forward. However 10.04 is really polished, it's fast and stable, it's really made my jaw hit the ground.

I had numerous problems with the 9.10, 9.04 was ok but many of the times i reverted to 8.04 LTS. I am a debian / ubuntu fan, i do love debian however i tend to use this only on servers. I have only tested 10.04 on the desktop, i haven't really tried the server edition out, i have tried a standard lamp install and the server did boot up very quickly which was impressive, however back on topic.

I installed 10.04 on a Lenovo G530, 2GB RAM and a 250GB SATA HDD, intel VGA, 15.4" widescreen monitor.

I do like the new dark theme, it seems to work really well with the screen, making text easy to read. Opening applications and menus is incredibly snappy. 9.10 was a lot slower. Gnome seems to be multithreaded or enhanced in a big way, i can keep clicking and opening apps without the menu's pausing or any sort of slow down.

The wireless connection seems very stable, even coming out of hibernation or sleep.

I also agree with the article in regard to memory, default memory usage was about 350 - 400MB at boot, which might be a sign that because of the 2GB the machine is using more memory for caching? I don't mind too much on this machine however i have to test this with 1GB machines to be really sure of how well this system works. As i mentioned i don't mind as Win7 uses the same amount of RAM on the same machine (well perhaps a little more say about 520MB - 550MB).

ill just end with another Wow, this is an incredible release for linux, this really should start making more inroads for the linux world.

Reply Score: 11

Comment by motang
by motang on Thu 6th May 2010 21:48 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

This article (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/gmail-notifier-puts-gmail-in-you...) should help you add GMail to the mail indicator applet.

Reply Score: 3

SSD boot speed
by foobaz on Thu 6th May 2010 21:49 UTC
foobaz
Member since:
2009-12-05

Why would it boot faster from a HD than from an SSD? I thought SSDs were faster at everything.

Reply Score: 2

RE: SSD boot speed
by jokkel on Thu 6th May 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "SSD boot speed"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

Netbooks normally have cheap and slow SSDs. Normal Notebook Hds are faster.

Reply Score: 5

RE: SSD boot speed
by darknexus on Thu 6th May 2010 21:56 UTC in reply to "SSD boot speed"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Why would it boot faster from a HD than from an SSD? I thought SSDs were faster at everything.

Well, they aren't always faster especially if it's a low-end cheap ssd such as those found in Acer netbooks. Some of those ssds are no better than class 2 sd cards. NOt saying this was the case for the ssd, just pointing out that in order for them to be fast you need a high quality one. Otherwise, they can be dog slow.

Reply Score: 3

RE: SSD boot speed
by kristianhk on Sun 9th May 2010 22:18 UTC in reply to "SSD boot speed"
kristianhk Member since:
2009-06-08

I thought it was a typo or something, my SSD-installs boot "way" faster than regular HDD-installs.

Reply Score: 1

Agree
by darknexus on Thu 6th May 2010 22:04 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I have to agree with the review. I've had nothing but positive experiences so far. I'm particularly happy with the removal of the hal daemon, which finally brings GNOME's power consumption down to proper levels and is very very good for battery life. I also wish I could change the indicator's mail icon, though in my case to Thunderbird. I hate Evolution, it's massively bloated and crash-prone and it doesn't seem to be getting any better, quite the opposite. Evolution is devolving, though it's an upstream problem not an Ubuntu one. At least Thunderbird, while a bit on the heavy side, doesn't crash on me and actually threads my mail properly.
Ubuntu One is nice for what it is, I use it to sync my documents across my systems. I wish it had bookmark sync too, but hey there's Xmarks for that I guess.
All in all, a very nice release.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Agree
by pepa on Sat 8th May 2010 02:05 UTC in reply to "Agree"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

This is for Thunderbird, although it needs to be running, which makes it a bit superfluous to my usage; I'll probably uninstall it. Note that Evolution has this 'service' running all the time...

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2010/02/09/indicator-applet-libnoti...

Reply Score: 2

Adding to this Review
by NathanHill on Thu 6th May 2010 22:23 UTC
NathanHill
Member since:
2006-10-06

I was thinking about submitting a review from a Mac user's perspective.

I have Ubuntu 10.04 running on an old Dell Dimension 2400 with PCI Radeon 9250 card (yuk).

Once things were finally setup, it runs pretty well despite the age of this old machine. There are weird screen flickers and no compiz support on this old card (due to some bug in its rendering). Not sure if those are driver problems or what... but otherwise, it browses the web fine and seems to even have a slight edge on good ol' XP.

But that's after it was finally setup.

It took me about three days worth of down time to get it working right after the install.

I used the wubi installer feature, which seemed to work painlessly in XP but died after reboot. The GUI installer could not continue, and it said I had to reboot. And that's it. No indication of the error. I rebooted a couple of times to see if it would continue and finally chose the verbose/failsafe option since I had no other information.

It continued and finished installing finally.

Booting into Ubuntu did work although I noticed that the screen resolution was wrong and everything was a little fuzzy. Turns out, it did not seem to detect my video card or lcd monitor. Might be because I use a KVM on this, which might be problematic for Linux, but works brilliantly in XP and Leopard.

Here was a dead end for a while. I tried different options of detecting my monitor, but X would not go above some weird resolution for a widescreen monitor. I searched a long time for how to add resolutions or detect my monitor or video card to fix this (xrandr and other stuff) but had no luck until I found someone's old xorg.conf file posted on some other Linux forums with the settings for this silly LCD monitor. Plugged them in and now I can use 1280x1024 resolution and things seem less fuzzy.

So sort of a happy ending for now. I would love to see Ubuntu polish itself up with more options for helping people. I know things have improved, but it should not let video cards and monitors go undetected. If they are undetected, Ubuntu should quickly tell you this is a problem and fix it for you (or allow you to punch display information yourself and search a database for solutions). Maybe more troubleshooting options or direct links to troubleshooting information?

Of course, as long as you still have to edit xorg.conf, Ubuntu (or X) should get an F for usability, but it sounds like it may just have been my goofy KVM setup. If it works for most people, it should be good enough. Still, I've never had to use the Terminal or command line in Windows or Mac OS to get things installed, so there is still work to be done.

The OS looks great, is beginning to have a decent sense of personality and style to it, and comes with Chromium or Chrome easily installed. Ubuntu is starting to put a serious shine on the Linux name. I'm enjoying playing around with it for now.

Reply Score: 6

Not much use for me
by rklrkl on Thu 6th May 2010 22:55 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sadly, I can't comment much on Ubuntu 10.04 because my combo of a Dell Vostro 400, an ATI HD 2600 XT card and a Dell 24" (1920x1080) monitor apparently upset 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04 enough that the graphical installer blanked the screen and never came back.

I did indeed manage to use the text installer to get Ubuntu 10.04 onto the Vostro, but then hit the same screen blanking problem when booting the installed Ubuntu.

Note that the same machine has run Fedora 8 through to 13 beta fine, both Vista and Windows 7 fine and Ubuntu 9.04 fine too. I suspect that my combo hasn't been tested with Ubuntu 10.04 and I've no idea what to report ("blank screen with my setup") really. I think I'll stick with Fedora, which at least works for me!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not much use for me
by Shakey on Fri 7th May 2010 13:53 UTC in reply to "Not much use for me"
Shakey Member since:
2005-10-11

I had the same issue with an aging Toshiba laptop that I currently run Arch on. With that said, I'm not terribly upset, as I only use it to test distros and 10.04 runs fine on my main machine.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not much use for me
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 7th May 2010 15:15 UTC in reply to "Not much use for me"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

That confirms what I've experienced as well. Fedora seems to work better with the different systems I've had.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not much use for me
by ggiunta on Fri 7th May 2010 20:52 UTC in reply to "Not much use for me"
ggiunta Member since:
2006-01-13

Try hitting ESC at grub time, and edit the vmlinuz line of the bootloader config adding at the end "nomodeset" (no quoutes).

Reply Score: 1

lethal upgrade
by vtolkov on Thu 6th May 2010 23:58 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

Before upgrade, I had working 9.10. During upgrade it asked me something about config file. But it has already lost USB, so I could not use keyboard or mouse. I've tried to connect to other ports, nothing works. So I've rebooted. And it does not boot anymore. F...ing grub2. I needs to reinstall everything. Maybe this is a good moment to try different distribution.

And another thing. People were complaining about colors of previous themes. But, personally, the brown one was Ok. But the pink one is disguisting.

Reply Score: 4

RE: lethal upgrade
by Zifre on Fri 7th May 2010 00:02 UTC in reply to "lethal upgrade"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Before upgrade, I had working 9.10. During upgrade it asked me something about config file. But it has already lost USB, so I could not use keyboard or mouse. I've tried to connect to other ports, nothing works. So I've rebooted. And it does not boot anymore.

That's why I never upgrade any OS. I have never had an upgrade of any OS that did not break things. Clean installs work much better.

And another thing. People were complaining about colors of previous themes. But, personally, the brown one was Ok. But the pink one is disgusting.

I agree. A quick "sudo apt-get install shiki-colors" fixes the problem though. ;)

Edited 2010-05-07 00:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: lethal upgrade
by vtolkov on Fri 7th May 2010 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: lethal upgrade"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

> A quick "sudo apt-get install shiki-colors" fixes the problem though.
I like this theme, thanks for the reference.

Edited 2010-05-07 00:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


That's why I never upgrade any OS. I have never had an upgrade of any OS that did not break things. Clean installs work much better.


Heh? 9.10 came out in october. What are you suggesting here, that Ubuntu users do a clean install every year?

I also don't see how losing USB is excusable.

Ubuntu obviously still has problems with breaking working hardware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" That's why I never upgrade any OS. I have never had an upgrade of any OS that did not break things. Clean installs work much better.
Heh? 9.10 came out in october. What are you suggesting here, that Ubuntu users do a clean install every year? "

Twice each year.

It isn't difficult ... with Linux distributions, it is possible to mount the user files area ( /home ) on a different partion to the OS + applications.

If you prepare your hard disk with appropriate partitions in this way, and you also save a backup copy of all files in /etc to an archive, then an Ubuntu update to a new version of the OS from a liveCD takes no more than 10 minutes or so (one re-boot with the LiveCD, and a second re-boot to the new OS HD installation is all that is required, and Ubuntu boots in 15 seconds anyway).

I know this is hard to understand for anyone who has installed or restore a Windows OS (the last one I did required about 20 re-boots, and each re-boot took 3 minutes), but it is true.

I have found one even better solution, though (at least it works better for me). If you are not afraid of having to follow a set of instructions, then Arch Linux is a very good rolling distribution, I have found. A rolling distribution is one where incremental updates are installed whenever they become available, in a fashion similar to Windows Update (except the scope is the entire set of installed software, not just the OS and the Office suite).

http://www.archlinux.org/

Arch Linux updated to KDE 4.4.3 a few days ago:

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=-last_update&arch=x86_64&re...

and so it is already more up to date than Kubuntu 10.04. Arch has an intrinsically better implementation of KDE than Kubuntu does anyway. Having tried Kubuntu 10.04 for a week or so, I have moved back to Arch. This is what I am running right now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Twice each year.

It isn't difficult ... with Linux distributions, it is possible to mount the user files area ( /home ) on a different partion to the OS + applications.


To the regular user this is going to seem ridiculous. If Ubuntu wants to expand their marketshare then they need to improve their upgrade process.


If you are not afraid of having to follow a set of instructions, then Arch Linux is a very good rolling distribution, I have found.


I'm not looking for a Linux distribution, I only periodically test Linux distros out of curiosity to see how much they have progressed. My opinion is that Linux is not ready for the desktop and upgrade issues are a major factor. It's fine for the server but even then I would trust FreeBSD over the typical Linux distro when it comes to upgrades.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm not looking for a Linux distribution, I only periodically test Linux distros out of curiosity to see how much they have progressed. My opinion is that Linux is not ready for the desktop and upgrade issues are a major factor. It's fine for the server but even then I would trust FreeBSD over the typical Linux distro when it comes to upgrades.


You are clearly not an expert then in the suitability of Linux for the desktop.

Either way of keeping a distribution upgraded ... a rolling distribution such as Arch, or a 6-monthly re-install (upgrade) of the OS partition (with user files intact), is far faster and easier than Windows Update plus however many independent application updaters must be running. Then again, Windows Update + application updaters don't actually upgrade your Windows version, does it, it merely updates the current Windows version. You have to pay over again for Windows if you want an upgrade.

Ubuntu 10.04 is a LTS edition. Of course this means that if you like, you can stick to this standard for three years or more, if you are after updates only (stability-with-security-patches) rather than cutting edge upgrades every six months. It is up to you.

Upgrade or update ... either way Ubuntu is way, way easier than Windows. Several times easier.

Edited 2010-05-07 06:33 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by strcpy on Fri 7th May 2010 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Either way of keeping a distribution upgraded ... a rolling distribution such as Arch, or a 6-monthly re-install (upgrade) of the OS partition (with user files intact), is far faster and easier than Windows Update plus however many independent application updaters must be running.


That is just plain fanboy comment.

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.

In the real world, people and companies prefer Red Hat and SuSe exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That is just plain fanboy comment.

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.


And most Linux users are like that. It's going to be that way for a long time.

In the real world, people and companies prefer Red Hat and SuSe exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering.


In the real world, people and companies use LTS versions (like the one we're discussing) exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering. You do know what "LTS" stands for right?

And before you start screaming "fanboy" at me too: I started using Linux with Slackware, and it is still by far my favorite distro. I was resistant to Debian back in the late 90's/early 00's, and I didn't care for Ubuntu in its first few years either. It's only recently that I've come to appreciate it as an everyday OS. So, take it from someone who is used to the rock-solid dependability of Slackware that this current version (so far) has exceeded my expectations.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by bosco_bearbank on Fri 7th May 2010 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.


I understand it - misguided enthusiasm. I'm willing to put up with the constant tinkering required to use the latest from Fedora and Ubuntu. For Joe Average, it's CentOS or Ubuntu LTS

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by tylerdurden on Fri 7th May 2010 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

In my experience, most companies which run Red Hat, do so because of the software they run and which is only validated with a specific RHS version.

So it is more like app support that the supposedly higher stability which tends to be the main value proposition from Red Hat,

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Either way of keeping a distribution upgraded ... a rolling distribution such as Arch, or a 6-monthly re-install (upgrade) of the OS partition (with user files intact), is far faster and easier than Windows


Arch is described in its faq as a do-it-yourself system. That's not even on the map of usability for typical users. Suggesting that a 6 month re-install of Ubuntu would be easier for users than upgrading Windows is absurd. Windows auto-updates without breaking working hardware and major upgrades are not needed every 6 months. Most Windows users are still running XP and don't have to worry about an upgrade breaking their USB.


Of course this means that if you like, you can stick to this standard for three years or more, if you are after updates only (stability-with-security-patches) rather than cutting edge upgrades every six months. It is up to you.

Until you want to upgrade software that is tied a newer release.


Upgrade or update ... either way Ubuntu is way, way easier than Windows. Several times easier.


How much faith can you have in Linux advocacy when people have been trying it for years? There's obviously something wrong with the software. Every year we get reviews that claim the latest version of Ubuntu is a 9/10 and yet Linux stays at 1%. Why is that?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by Hiev on Fri 7th May 2010 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Because a secret conspirancy from Redmond?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Either way of keeping a distribution upgraded ... a rolling distribution such as Arch, or a 6-monthly re-install (upgrade) of the OS partition (with user files intact), is far faster and easier than Windows


Arch is described in its faq as a do-it-yourself system. That's not even on the map of usability for typical users.
"

True. Arch is for people who know what they are doing. If people know what they are doing, they won't be running Windows.

Suggesting that a 6 month re-install of Ubuntu would be easier for users than upgrading Windows is absurd.


How so? To upgrade/re-install Kubuntu, which I have just finished doing for my wife's netbook, is a matter of booting the liveCD (or in this case, LiveUSB), clicking on the "install Kubuntu" icon once it has booted (if the liveCD or liveUSB boots OK then it obviously works on this machine), and then answering a few questions about your name, location, and what you want to call this computer. There is one tricky bit where you have to select "manually configure partitions" but all that you do is select the same partitions as you had already set up on the previous installation. If you did it last time, it isn't a big ask to get this done again this time. Just remember ... the ONLY partition that you re-format is the root partition "/". This will preserve user files and settings.

Having done that the rest of the install runs itself and is finished in 20 minutes or less.

Windows auto-updates without breaking working hardware and major upgrades are not needed every 6 months.


Oh yes they are. I have known a number of Windows users who cannot keep a Windows machine clean enough to keep it working for even that long.

Most Windows users are still running XP and don't have to worry about an upgrade breaking their USB.


But they do have to worry about not typing ANY personal information at all on their machine, lest a keylogger send their bank details off to a cyber-criminal somewhere.

BTW, I've never had anything break on me after literally hundreds of (clean) installs and re-installs of various Linux distributions. I simply don't upgrade any distribution, I always just re-format root ("/"). I think there must be a lot of masochists out there wanting to find a way to break something, and figuring that an incremental upgrade only like Windows does it (rather than a fresh re-install) is surely the best way to go about it.

"Of course this means that if you like, you can stick to this standard for three years or more, if you are after updates only (stability-with-security-patches) rather than cutting edge upgrades every six months. It is up to you.

Until you want to upgrade software that is tied a newer release.
"

Exactly. Upgrade to new release, and LTS stability, are antonyms. You can do one or the other, but not both.

So?

It is the same for any system.

"Upgrade or update ... either way Ubuntu is way, way easier than Windows. Several times easier.


How much faith can you have in Linux advocacy when people have been trying it for years? There's obviously something wrong with the software. Every year we get reviews that claim the latest version of Ubuntu is a 9/10 and yet Linux stays at 1%. Why is that?
"

That is simple. Average people can't buy it. It is not available in stores, and it is not offered to them. Some of them might have heard of it, but rarely ever seen a LiveCD, and even if they had they wouldn't try it because some nutter like you had been feeding them scare stories.

After all, it is the easiest thing in the world to check if your network, USB, printer, audio and wireless are all still working just while the LiveCD is running. If something doesn't work (not that I've ever seen such a case) ... then simply don't install this LiveCD to hard disk.

Having said that, Linux is way, way over 1% use. There is a huge PR/marketing incentive to maintain the fiction that Linux market share is only 1%, but its installed base is in reality way higher than that.

If we widen our horizons just a little to beyond simply the desktop: there would actually be more CPUs running Linux than Windows.

Edited 2010-05-07 14:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm not looking for a Linux distribution, I only periodically test Linux distros out of curiosity to see how much they have progressed. My opinion is that Linux is not ready for the desktop and upgrade issues are a major factor. It's fine for the server


Just on the topic of suitability for the desktop, comparing Ubuntu with Windows, I have an illustrative anecdote that people may wish to comment on.

My sister-in-law and her son both bought new Windows laptops recently, one for work and the other for school. The laptops wouldn’t work with their existing inkjet printer, and they asked me if I could help. I googled the model of the inkjet printer, and of course the only driver available was for XP, and wouldn’t install on either of their new laptops. So they had to buy a new printer.

They asked me to buy a new printer, and then set it up for them. I got an inexpensive HP PSC, and they were happy with that, because it gave them a scanner also, which they did not expect to get. On opening the box, I found instructions to REFRAIN from plugging in the new printer, but rather I had first to put in a DVD and let it auto-run to install a driver. Luckily, both of the laptops did have a DVD drive, I would have been (temporarily) snookered if they had bought netbooks. After a lengthy process of installing numerous adware applets, finally it came time for the driver itself to install, and I had to plug in the printer. All went well, the new printer was recognised, and there was only a re-boot required and a few dozen nag screens to negotiate, and I had to clean up the desktop a bit of the icons that had been littered there by the install process.

That was for my sister-in-law’s laptop. I had to do it all over again for her son’s laptop.

It was a nice printer though (apart from all the adware) and inexpensive, so I also bought a new one for my own family. In contrast to Windows: I took it home, got it out of the box, put in the ink cartridges, plugged in the USB cable and power cord, turned it on, and 20 seconds later an Ubuntu dialog box popped up saying that the new printer was recognised, the correct driver was identified (it was already installed), the correct default page size for my country (A4) was selected, and the printer was now ready to print. The scanner function worked also. The HP utility worked as well, allowing me to check ink levels and clean ink heads and print test pages, etc. What is more, the same happened on three different machines ... ready to print each time in 20 seconds even though the printer had never been connected to that machine before.

It is crystal clear to me which of these OS systems is better for use on the desktop for average people, and unequivocally it isn't Windows.

Edited 2010-05-07 07:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by strcpy on Fri 7th May 2010 08:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

It is crystal clear to me which of these OS systems is better for use on the desktop for average people, and unequivocally it isn't Windows.


Just keep that tiring Linux advocacy going and the world will care. Right.

Remember to put some M-dollar-signs there to make it more convincing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by darknexus on Fri 7th May 2010 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Ah, here we go with the Linux v. Windows debates again. *Sigh*. Are you people that insecure that you can't just use what os works for you but have to argue the same old tired lines back and forth? The funny thing is that, of late, the Windows people seem to be getting more into it than the Linux people. I can remember a time not so long ago when it was the other way around. Amusing.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" It is crystal clear to me which of these OS systems is better for use on the desktop for average people, and unequivocally it isn't Windows.


Just keep that tiring Linux advocacy going and the world will care. Right.

Remember to put some M-dollar-signs there to make it more convincing.
"

This, people will notice, has absolutely nothing to do with the point. A blatant attempt at deflection, nothing more.

The point being that the "desktop experience" with Ubuntu was vastly superior to that with Windows, in every way. Installing the OS, booting it, running it, updating it, upgrading it, keeping it free of malware, keeping it free of nags and from ads begging for your money, keeping it tidy and running smoothly, adding functionality ... whatever you name, the experience is better with a good Linux distribution.

BTW, as far as updates goes ... here in Australia, ISPs like to charge a fortune for bandwidth. This is offset somewhat by ISPs offering local mirrors for some files which do not count towards bandwidth usage. My own ISP is Internode, and this is their "unmetered" mirror site:

http://mirror.internode.on.net/
http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/

There is a choice of twenty or so Linux distributions mirrored here, so one can choose from any of those and updates can be downloaded "unmetered".

There is no mirror, however, you will notice, for "Windows Updates". These have to be downloaded from a Microsoft server.

In Australia, if you have a low data cap, such as for a mobile broadband USB modem for example, you simply cannot afford to keep that Windows system updated. It would cost you a fortune in Internet bandwidth fees.

Once again, the experience with Linux is vastly superior.

Edited 2010-05-07 10:19 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Remember to put some M-dollar-signs there to make it more convincing.


Don't forget to add condescending remarks and anecdotal stories involving relatives. They should be mixed in with a few disingenuous statements for maximum effect.

But rule #1 when it comes to Linux advocacy is to never admit that an area needs work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I have one of those HP printers too (DeskJet F2400) and I was pleasantly surprised when I put Ubuntu 10.04 on a partition and had left the printer plugged in. I never got a dialog at all, so I assumed I'd have to do some tinkering. I opened up the Printer utility and there it sat, saying "ready"! I printed a test page with no problem at all, then I opened Simple Scan again expecting to be disappointed. I put a business card on the glass and clicked the scan button, and soon enough saw the card on my screen. I was simply floored!

Even on my Leopard install, I had to use the crappy HP software to be able to print and scan, so I give the Ubuntu team major props for doing something far better than even the great Mac OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I have one of those HP printers too (DeskJet F2400) and I was pleasantly surprised when I put Ubuntu 10.04 on a partition and had left the printer plugged in. I never got a dialog at all, so I assumed I'd have to do some tinkering. I opened up the Printer utility and there it sat, saying "ready"! I printed a test page with no problem at all, then I opened Simple Scan again expecting to be disappointed. I put a business card on the glass and clicked the scan button, and soon enough saw the card on my screen. I was simply floored!

Even on my Leopard install, I had to use the crappy HP software to be able to print and scan, so I give the Ubuntu team major props for doing something far better than even the great Mac OS.


Ubuntu is great for this kind of thing. Absolutely fantastic.

http://ourlan.homelinux.net/qdig/?Qwd=./KDE4_desktop&Qif=kubuntu_lu...

OTOH, there is an attraction to having a cutting-edge-right-up-to-date-yet-rarely-breaks distribution like Arch. Arch takes a bit of tinkering (for things like setting up a new printer) where Ubuntu makes it easy, but IMO Arch has got Ubuntu beat for being super-slick.

http://ourlan.homelinux.net/qdig/?Qwd=./KDE4_desktop&Qif=my-arch-de...

It works amazingly well, and very fast, considering how much stuff you can install at the very-latest version.

Edited 2010-05-07 13:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by ggiunta on Fri 7th May 2010 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
ggiunta Member since:
2006-01-13

It has to be said that drivers for hp all-in-one are such a pos that they cannot be described in words. Requiring .nyet, a whopping 350mb download, completely unstable and using an unfathombale number of ports to communicate with the networked printers - but still not being able to overcome a simple router

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by Gone fishing on Fri 7th May 2010 08:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

This is a long term release. So your good for the next three years.

Personally I always do a clean install putting the home on a different partition makes it easy. I also always clean install in Windows, which is less easy to keep settings move mail etc.

Edited 2010-05-07 08:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

This is a long term release. So your good for the next three years.


Until you want to upgrade software that requires a newer release or a trip to the command line.

Linux is not ready for the typical user until it can handle upgrades properly. That means being able to update a browser in a two year old release without having to open a command prompt. Users should not be told to stick with their current browser version if they want stability. Browsers need to be updated for security reasons and users should not have to choose between security and stability.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This is a long term release. So your good for the next three years.


Until you want to upgrade software that requires a newer release or a trip to the command line.

Linux is not ready for the typical user until it can handle upgrades properly. That means being able to update a browser in a two year old release without having to open a command prompt. Users should not be told to stick with their current browser version if they want stability. Browsers need to be updated for security reasons and users should not have to choose between security and stability.
"

Who feeds you all this utter FUD? Let me guess ... Windows fansites?

https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa

What is this guff about a command-line?
You can update your system with unsupported packages from this untrusted PPA by adding ppa:ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa to your system's Software Sources.

(Hint - copy and paste the bolded text above directly into the "Add source" GUI dialog).

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu#Adding%20R...

Edited 2010-05-07 14:50 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by gfx1 on Fri 7th May 2010 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

There is an update-manager icon in the menu which works.

Updates on Ubuntu are a lot quicker than on the windows platform. (windows xp takes forever to scan and download new updates).

The last couple of years Ubuntu is pretty usable desktop environment.
Only adobe flash support sucks a bit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by jtfolden on Sat 8th May 2010 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Totally agree. This is a complete deal breaker for me, as well. I refuse to use an OS that requires me to upgrade it every 6 months just to install a newer browser release, new version of OO.org, updated music player, etc...

Edited 2010-05-08 06:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by vodoomoth on Fri 7th May 2010 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lethal upgrade"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

If you prepare your hard disk with appropriate partitions in this way, and you also save a backup copy of all files in /etc to an archive, then an Ubuntu update to a new version of the OS from a liveCD takes no more than 10 minutes or so (one re-boot with the LiveCD, and a second re-boot to the new OS HD installation is all that is required, and Ubuntu boots in 15 seconds anyway).

I know this is hard to understand for anyone who has installed or restore a Windows OS (the last one I did required about 20 re-boots, and each re-boot took 3 minutes), but it is true.

You're right, it's hard to understand to me, using Vista on a Fujitsu Siemens laptop with 2.0 Ghz Core2 Duo and 2GB of RAM, Vista is still not usable 3 minutes after I switch the power button. Even when resuming from suspend to disk, I still have to wait for more than 90 seconds. Such a pain that I considered installing XP but most drivers are provided only for Vista...

Just bought a new HDD that should be delivered tomorrow for reviving an old Acer notebook. I intend to have a Linux install in addition to XP. Two questions though:
- is that 15-second boot of Ubuntu a reality? if so, I've found my distribution.
- how should I partition that HDD? Number, primary/extended, ... I need some advice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I have similar specs to your machine, in desktop format: Core2Duo 2.2GHz, 2GB RAM etc. Once Grub2 has started it's about 18 seconds to a working GNOME desktop with no HDD grinding. Granted, my dog-slow BIOS boot sequence in itself takes nearly 20 seconds, so my total boot time with any OS sucks. But I can honestly say that on this machine, the only OS that beats Ubuntu is Haiku, and that by only a second or two.

Also, Ubuntu and any OS other than Leopard live on a slow PATA drive, which could be negatively affecting my boot time. Leopard refuses to allow any other OS on the SATA drive and I didn't have a spare SATA for the other OSes; when I do finally get another SATA I'm sure Ubuntu will boot a few seconds faster.

Edited 2010-05-07 11:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Just bought a new HDD that should be delivered tomorrow for reviving an old Acer notebook. I intend to have a Linux install in addition to XP. Two questions though:
- is that 15-second boot of Ubuntu a reality? if so, I've found my distribution.
- how should I partition that HDD? Number, primary/extended, ... I need some advice.


It depends on the machine of course, but even my netbook can boot Lucid in 15 seconds, and my desktop is less than 10.

The simplest scheme is this:
First partition: bootable, NTFS (for Windows), install windows first, but use only up to half of the disk space for this
After installing Windows, then re-boot with a LiveCD, and install a good Linux distribution (Lucid will do) in the unused disk area.
Second partition: ext3 or ext4, mount point = /, say 10GB-20GB
Third partition: swap, 2 * RAMsize (i.e. 2GB if you have 1GB RAM)
Fourth partition: ext3 or ext4, mount point = /home, the rest of the disk

If there are to be only four partitions, it doesn't matter if they are all primary partitions, because you can have up to four.

If you prefer to have a lot of alternate OSes, you will need more than four partitions, so make the NTFS partition a bootable primary partition, and the rest all logical partitions, and you can have as many as you like.

Another trick is to leave the largest partition mounted separately (I make it /mnt/local) and have /home mounted along with /root. On the /mnt/local disk, create an ordinary folder for each user, and sub-folders under that for files, and then put symlinks to the /mnt/local/username/Folders in each username's ~/ (home). This way, each OS can "see" the same data and folders, but there can be separate user config info for each OS. This way, you can have a GNOME desktop and another boot for a KDE desktop, and they won't interfere with each other.

If you install a filesystem driver for Windows, or you make the /mnt/local disk formatted NTFS or FAT32, then all OSes can see the user data files areas without stepping on one another's toes for config settings.

Edited 2010-05-07 11:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by vodoomoth on Fri 7th May 2010 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Thank you lemur2 for the advice.
In fact, I went home this midday and the HDD was in my mailbox... I'll start installing this week-end. Thanks!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by Morty on Fri 7th May 2010 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lethal upgrade"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

with Linux distributions, it is possible to mount the user files area ( /home ) on a different partion to the OS + applications.

That said, last time I bothered to install a *buntu it defaulted to one partition for everything. Does it still default to this brain-dead behavior?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Unfortunately, yes it does. I'm sure they do that for simplicity's sake, and the fact that a lot of Ubuntu users are switchers who don't know enough or don't care to mess with multiple partitions.

I've always preferred a "root, /boot, /home" setup as a good balance between simplicity and ease of upgrade/restore. I've been doing that since the late '90s when I first started tinkering with Slackware and RedHat.

That said, when I'm just testing out a distro I let it do its default scheme, both to save time and to get a feel for how the developers prefer things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by Morty on Fri 7th May 2010 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately, yes it does. I'm sure they do that for simplicity's sake, and the fact that a lot of Ubuntu users are switchers who don't know enough or don't care to mess with multiple partitions.

Well that is bad. The user type should not matter, sounds more like developer failure.

There would be no need for users to mess with it or make it any less simple, having the installer automatically set up a sane partition scheme. Most user would not notice or need to know, other than getting the benefit of better data safety when upgrading or needing system rescue.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by denisfalqueto on Fri 7th May 2010 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lethal upgrade"
denisfalqueto Member since:
2009-02-03

Arch has an intrinsically better implementation of KDE than Kubuntu does anyway. Having tried Kubuntu 10.04 for a week or so, I have moved back to Arch. This is what I am running right now.


Welcome to Arch! I've been using it since 2006 in my desktop with just one reinstall (my own fault) and since 2008 in my laptop (just reinstalled to change to 64 bits).

And I'm really thinking of giving a Ubuntu livecd to my family members so they can start playing with Linux without too much compromise. Would you recommend Ubuntu or Kubuntu? I use KDE myself (can't even imagine me using Gnome) but maybe Gnome's implementation is better than KDE's for the *buntus?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Sat 8th May 2010 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Arch has an intrinsically better implementation of KDE than Kubuntu does anyway. Having tried Kubuntu 10.04 for a week or so, I have moved back to Arch. This is what I am running right now.


Welcome to Arch! I've been using it since 2006 in my desktop with just one reinstall (my own fault) and since 2008 in my laptop (just reinstalled to change to 64 bits).

And I'm really thinking of giving a Ubuntu livecd to my family members so they can start playing with Linux without too much compromise. Would you recommend Ubuntu or Kubuntu? I use KDE myself (can't even imagine me using Gnome) but maybe Gnome's implementation is better than KDE's for the *buntus?
"

Ubuntu's focus is GNOME, and basically Kubuntu is treated like a poor second cousin.

Having said that, Kubuntu Lucid is a lot better than previous Kubuntu's have been.

Ubuntu's strength is user-friendliness, but it is really quite heavily a GNOME-centric distribution.

So, if I wanted user-friendly and KDE, I'd probably opt for PCLinuxOS. If I wanted LTS-equivalent-stable, Debian apt repositories and KDE, (and user-friendly wasn't quite so important) I'd probably opt for MEPIS 8.5.

If I want cutting edge KDE and I didn't care about user-friendliness, then I would go with Arch ... which is what I have done.

Reply Score: 2

RE: lethal upgrade
by steogede2 on Fri 7th May 2010 20:43 UTC in reply to "lethal upgrade"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

Before upgrade, I had working 9.10. During upgrade it asked me something about config file. But it has already lost USB, so I could not use keyboard or mouse. I've tried to connect to other ports, nothing works.


I'm a bit curious as to what would cause you to lose USB during an upgrade. I don't doubt you, it's just something I have never experienced.


So I've rebooted. And it does not boot anymore. F...ing grub2. I needs to reinstall everything. Maybe this is a good moment to try different distribution.


Not really GRUB's fault that the system won't boot after a partial upgrade. I often wonder why Ubuntu doesn't us LVM by default - just think if you could take snapshot before an upgrade and easily revert it if the upgrade fails.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: lethal upgrade
by vtolkov on Fri 7th May 2010 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: lethal upgrade"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

I have IOGEAR keyboard switch, sharing keyboard/mouse/monitor between two computers. Without upgrade it was working fine, but, I guess, it was replaced some files during upgrade or, maybe, disabled some services, so when I've switched back, it could not reenable (rediscover?) keyboard and mouse.

Windows 7 uses transaction to switch all files at once when doing updates. In Linux I've experienced several times, that system is getting unstable during upgrade, because files and libraries are in inconsistent state.

Edited 2010-05-07 21:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

A little sad
by Technocracy on Fri 7th May 2010 00:15 UTC
Technocracy
Member since:
2006-01-08

It's a bit sad they got rid of the earthy tones. While I know they need to modernise the GUI, the brown and oranges nuances gave Ubuntu its own sense of identity. This is not about changing colour schemes in the settings, but being able to recognise a particular brand.

Please refer to my ostentatious example:

Say I walk into a room and see a laptop sitting on table across from where I was standing, and the GUI displayed browns and oranges - I would go 'Far out man! You are running Ubuntu! Right on brother!' *high five* *does a chicken dance*.

Now, if I did not have the knowledge that a new Ubuntu had been released, and I observed the same laptop - I might go "Looks like you running GNOME hill billy, hmm the GUI might be the love child of Mac OS X and Vista. Still looks mighty pretty though...'

I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the devolpers moved to a new scheme, I just think they have lost something in the way of brand recognition.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A little sad
by AaronD on Fri 7th May 2010 04:23 UTC in reply to "A little sad"
AaronD Member since:
2009-08-19

I completely agree.

I'd like to add that while I like dark themes, I object to dark borders and decorations mixed with plain gray window interiors. It looks half-done.

Edited 2010-05-07 04:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by koki
by koki on Fri 7th May 2010 00:20 UTC
koki
Member since:
2005-10-17

I have been using 10.4 for a while without any problems, until one hour ago, that is. I updated the system, and now GDM will not start and can only login to a terminal.

I had no choice but to fall back to my ultra-reliable Haiku pre-alpha 2 install to search the web for a solution.

Hmmm... who was telling me that Haiku needed a Linux-style package management system? ;)

Edited 2010-05-07 00:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by koki
by koki on Fri 7th May 2010 12:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by koki"
koki Member since:
2005-10-17

I have been using 10.4 for a while without any problems, until one hour ago, that is. I updated the system, and now GDM will not start and can only login to a terminal.

It turned out to be that in my attempt to remove Evolution (I hate this damn bloated program), the ubuntu-desktop package got removed too (and I did not notice). Why on earth would uninstalling an email client remove the desktop components?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by koki
by BigDaddy on Fri 7th May 2010 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by koki"
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

Why on earth would uninstalling an email client remove the desktop components?


And that is one of the things I dislike about metapackages. If you remove a piece of the metapackage, the whole of it can/may be removed. It has happened to me on my occasions. Never had it affect the stability of my system, but it has removed things I wanted to keep.

Reply Score: 2

Still Playing with the live CD
by chemical_scum on Fri 7th May 2010 00:25 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

I haven't installed it yet. I have just been trying the live CD and building up courage to replace my trusty old Hardy workhorse. Lucid is stunningly beautiful, on the other hand live CD is excruciatingly slow. But then the live CD's always are slow as I remember, right back to Dapper.

However in comparison at the same time I have been trying the sidux XFce live disk and it is blazingly fast even on CD. Nowhere near as pretty but very functional and everything works. Both of these are the 64 bit version. I have a 32 bit Ubuntu running on my three year old Celeron based current system. However it is EM64T and running these two live CD's shows its 64 bit capability really does work.

So what am I going to do? I guess I will have to install them both.

Reply Score: 2

Mandriva is much better
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Fri 7th May 2010 01:05 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

Mandriva is much better than ubuntu. It has both Gnome and KDE official support, an integrated and true "control panel", it has both livecd and DVD with traditional graphical and text installers, 6 months development cycle and it has also a good hardware support and detection.

OpenSuse is similar to Mandriva and both are better than ubuntu.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Mandriva is much better
by earksiinni on Fri 7th May 2010 05:04 UTC in reply to "Mandriva is much better"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I have to disagree. I just switched to Lucid after using Mandriva for a few months (previously, I had switched to Mandriva as Ubuntu's ath9k drivers hadn't quite stabilized yet), and boy am I glad to be done with that. Credit where credit is due: the control panel is nice, although I think in terms of design it is very amateurishly done and poorly integrated with the desktop (there were even some grammatical errors, if I recall correctly). The rest of it, however, drove me insane. Putting the laptop to sleep would occasionally result in random ext4 errors, dumping me to console; on that note, the console sometimes would just stop working altogether. When you brought up Mandriva's "6 month release cycle" you forgot to mention how the update manager pesters you almost daily with updates, and not just one or two but sometimes ten or twenty. Certainly not the path to a stable system.

No complaints about Lucid so far =).

Reply Score: 3

Quick summary....
by cmost on Fri 7th May 2010 01:20 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

The latest Ubuntu has been released. It's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It does have a few problems, some serious, but they'll be fixed in the next version which will be revolutionary... blah blah blah

Reply Score: 4

RE: Quick summary....
by AaronD on Fri 7th May 2010 04:25 UTC in reply to "Quick summary...."
AaronD Member since:
2009-08-19

Just like every version of Windows or OSX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Quick summary....
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 05:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Quick summary...."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

New versions of Windows and OSX aren't released every 6 months but more importantly they both provide a stable abi so you can expect a driver to work for the life of a system.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Quick summary....
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quick summary...."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

New versions of Windows and OSX aren't released every 6 months but more importantly they both provide a stable abi so you can expect a driver to work for the life of a system.


But it doesn't work the other way around. If you upgrade a Windows version, but you have some peripherals that are out of production (say a printer, your mobile phone and a digital camera) ... then you are in peril that the OEM of the peripheral hasn't made a new version of the driver.

Several times I have been asked to get someone's existing printer to work with their new Windows laptop ... and they somehow have a lot of trouble believing that their out-of-production printer that still works just fine with their Windows XP desktop just doesn't have any Windows 7 driver made for it, so it won't work with their new laptop.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Quick summary....
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quick summary...."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Several times I have been asked to get someone's existing printer to work with their new Windows laptop ... and they somehow have a lot of trouble believing that their out-of-production printer that still works just fine with their Windows XP desktop just doesn't have any Windows 7 driver made for it, so it won't work with their new laptop.


This is when I tell them they can either pay me for the time spent researching the issue (I don't charge much as I have a day job but it does add up) or they can buy a new printer for ~$40 that has more functionality than their old one and is guaranteed to work with Vista or 7.

So far I've only had one person choose to stick with the old device, and I suspect that is because I wasn't charging him -- it was my barber and I got two month's worth of haircuts for the trouble. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Quick summary....
by denisfalqueto on Fri 7th May 2010 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quick summary...."
denisfalqueto Member since:
2009-02-03

... it was my barber and I got two month's worth of haircuts for the trouble. ;)


Aww, that explains the haircut on your photo...

(Just kidding, could let that pass on...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Quick summary....
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Quick summary...."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Aww, that explains the haircut on your photo...

(Just kidding, could let that pass on...)


Hehe. Yeah, obviously I'm not Ted Cassidy, but my nickname in high school and at a few past jobs was "Lurch" because of my height and build. I didn't mind, as he was always my favorite character from the show. I figured it would be a good avatar.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Quick summary....
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quick summary...."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Oh so once you get your wireless adapter working with Linux you can be assured that it will always work?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Indian-Art
by Indian-Art on Fri 7th May 2010 04:24 UTC
Indian-Art
Member since:
2010-01-16

Nice review, I was waiting for Lucid Lynx to 'stabilize' before I upgraded. After reading your article, I think I am ready to upgrade.

"It loads at around 10 seconds on my hard drive-based laptops, and in about 15 seconds on my SSD-based ones."

Why does your SSD based computers take longer to load, is this a mistake?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Indian-Art
by vermaden on Fri 7th May 2010 10:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Indian-Art"
vermaden Member since:
2006-11-18

It depends what SSD disk is used, for example Intel ones are fastest (check random write I/O operations) while most of SSDs (OCZ/Kingston/...) are really bad in random write I/O operations, check benchmarks, I am sure that Intel SSD will be faster then any hdd, but a 'random' SSD may not be faster at all.

Also, from 'random' SSDs drives, SSDs with SandForce 1500/1200 controller are rather close to Intel when it comes to performance.

Reply Score: 2

Mythbuntu
by AaronD on Fri 7th May 2010 04:53 UTC
AaronD
Member since:
2009-08-19

Lucid on my MythTV box is quite nice. Not only did it clear up my remote control problems (it now uses devinput by default), but also remote input is very snappy now.

As a matter of fact, responsiveness is much improved overall. The stupid input delay is gone after the box sits for a while. Video playback and live TV starts very quickly as well.

The only problem I'm having is HD playback is very glithy. My computer was barely capable of handling HD in the first place, but now it's unwatchable. I enabled NvAGP, which was turned off somewhere along the way. That made 720p watchable. Now I'm working on 1080i. I suspect it is an ext4 problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mythbuntu
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:46 UTC in reply to "Mythbuntu"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The only problem I'm having is HD playback is very glithy. My computer was barely capable of handling HD in the first place, but now it's unwatchable. I enabled NvAGP, which was turned off somewhere along the way. That made 720p watchable. Now I'm working on 1080i. I suspect it is an ext4 problem.


I wouldn't be surprised if it is a file system issue. I'm having similar problems with HD playback. On Leopard (on an SATA drive) and on Windows (PATA drive) 1080p drops one or two frames every few seconds, and I can only tell by using the Inspector during playback. On Ubuntu, installed to the PATA drive, 1080p is nearly unwatchable. It drops half the frames every second. This is all on a C2D 2.2GHz with a GeForce 8400GS. Granted, that setup is barely enough for 1080p in the first place, but it does work on other OSes.

Reply Score: 2

Good enough for grandma
by bousozoku on Fri 7th May 2010 05:30 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

This is the one, for the most part, that grandma could use unattended. The default theme needs a cohesive colour scheme but it's a minor thing compared to the functionality with this release. Whether it's the year of desktop Linux or not, I wouldn't guess but this is good.

It's so quick that I'm not thinking that I'm waiting for the thing to do something. It reminds me of when operating systems were lighter and could run on a Motorola 68020 or 80286 to the bounds of free RAM.

For me, there is a singular problem and that's my tethered mobile phone internet connection. It's recognised and the setup is simple since my service provider is in the list, but DNS entries were not added by default and so I'm not getting anywhere with it automagically. I'll fix it later since it hasn't been the supporting machine anyway.

That's flawless in contrast to earlier releases from 7.04 onward. Everyone involved should be proud.

Reply Score: 5

10.04 desktop on netbook
by spinnekopje on Fri 7th May 2010 06:02 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I installed it on my netbook on which it runs fine. Add the window-picker-applet to the top panel in the middle and you can basically remove the bottom panel. Maximus lets me run (almost ;) ) everything maximized without title bar ;) .

9.10 disturbed me more than this version, so for me it is an improvement, although I really dislike the default theme. I have the idea the colors are choosen at random or something. The Radiance theme suits me better, but that also needs improvement as the mail notification bar in pidgin is just black text on a nearly black background.

A lot of settings need gconf-editor, but just like you I still haven't found the setting to remove text on buttons. I must admit this time it still didn't disturb me that much.

As I always perform clean installs and I take the time to put my documents back I'm working with the cable, so no idea yet on the atheros wireless card. I hope I don't need to update it myself to make it work properly.

Changes are huge that I will be using this version for a long time as I really don't see the point how 'windicators' would improve my experience.

Reply Score: 2

Kernel 2.6.33 for SSD
by bitwelder on Fri 7th May 2010 07:31 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

I have also tried the new Ubuntu 10.04 (though, on a desktop class machine) and I have been pleasantly surprised by its snappiness.
As I use a Kingston SSD as boot device that supports TRIM command, I'd recommend to install the 2.6.33 kernel that takes that SSD-friendly option into active usage. Ubuntu unfortunately ships with 2.6.32-something.

Reply Score: 1

load time
by mehturt on Fri 7th May 2010 08:29 UTC
mehturt
Member since:
2010-02-08

What are your laptop specs? I have 2 laptops, Dell Latitude D630 and Dell XPS M1530 and I can't get nowhere near 10 seconds.

Reply Score: 1

I had a couple of issues.
by Gone fishing on Fri 7th May 2010 08:56 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

First let me say - This is a good release, boots incredibly quickly, very easy to set up and all my hardware worked fine even getting the surround sound to work on my desktop was not too fiddly.

However, on instillation on my desktop with an nvidia graphic card and the recommended proprietary driver installed, I could get to tty. Bad but resolved after the first update.

Proxy server settings are inconsistency applied with sudo so for example installing the flashplayer pluggin nonfree with synaptic or sudo apt-get install fails when the installer is pulling down the application. However, sudo -i then apt-get install works fine. No doubt this niggle will be resolved soon

Reply Score: 2

"selective text besides icons"
by antenna on Fri 7th May 2010 09:50 UTC
antenna
Member since:
2006-10-22

I didn't read all the comments, but you can definitely change this in gconf still -> the key being /desktop/gnome/interface/toolbar_style (I just change it to icons)

As for the mail notitifcation thing, as someone mentioned you can just uninstall indicator-messages.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by flanque
by flanque on Fri 7th May 2010 11:39 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

I remember back in the day when upgrades occasionally would break X11 etc, but not this time.

Think again - it happened to me. I had to create an entire xorg.conf file. Not nice.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by flanque
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by flanque"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Think again - it happened to me. I had to create an entire xorg.conf file. Not nice.


Interestingly, this is the first Ubuntu release I haven't had to create or edit one. For the first time, the Nvidia control panel correctly identifies my monitor and the Auto settings work. Though, I still reduce the refresh rate to comply with my LCD's recommended 60Hz; this sharpens up the text and on an LCD the low refresh doesn't give me headaches like it does on CRTs.

Reply Score: 2

Excellent release
by z. vukman on Fri 7th May 2010 13:03 UTC
z. vukman
Member since:
2008-10-26

It is fast, it is beautiful, and what is most important to me: mobile broadband works out of the box (with correct APN).

Reply Score: 1

Dear Vista
by vodoomoth on Fri 7th May 2010 15:26 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30


And you base that on what?
The 1% comes from browser stats and it's likely a conservative estimate.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200904-201005


Seems like Vista never really took off. Poor thing. For me, this was the worst timesharing M$ OS since Windows 95, which was even better than Vista in all aspects but BSODs.

On topic (I mean "on quote"): maybe (s)he's basing that on the fact so many Linux users just don't browse the web.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Dear Vista
by nt_jerkface on Sat 8th May 2010 03:17 UTC in reply to "Dear Vista"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Seems like Vista never really took off. Poor thing. For me, this was the worst timesharing MS OS since Windows 95, which was even better than Vista in all aspects but BSODs.


Windows 95 used a junky 16 bit kernel and didn't have true multitasking.

The core of 7 is hardly different from Vista. Vista had problems with its initial release but was fixed before SP2. However the tech press wanted to keep bashing it and MS decided to release a new OS instead of trying to fix Vista's image problem.

I must have asked a dozen people exactly what was wrong with Vista and yet none could give an explanation. They just "knew" it was bad even though they couldn't even specify any problems.

I would then show them a benchmark and they would get even more confused. How is this even possible when we have been told so many times that Vista is bad?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-performance,2442-3.ht...

Windows 7 is better than Vista but to say that Vista sucks in comparison just shows ignorance. Most of the changes in 7 are superficial.

Edited 2010-05-08 03:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Dear Vista
by moondevil on Sat 8th May 2010 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Dear Vista"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08


Windows 95 used a junky 16 bit kernel and didn't have true multitasking.



Oh man! Get at least your facts straight, if you are speaking against Windows.

Windows 95 had a 32 bit pre-emptive kernel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95

I like Linux, but I also like Windows, just use the best tool for the job.

If you are going to bash Windows at least learn how to do it properly. Oh man!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Dear Vista
by nt_jerkface on Sun 9th May 2010 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dear Vista"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The 32-bit Windows API on DOS-Windows 95/98/ME is built on top of the 16-bit Windows kernel. Much of the functionality of the 32-bit API DLLs (kernel32.dll, user32.dll, gdi32.dll, advapi32.dll, and so forth) is provided by thunking from 32-bit to 16-bit and calling into the 16-bit Windows kernel, grabbing a global mutual exclusion semaphore known as "Win16Mutex" (that prevents multiple threads from executing in the 16-bit Windows kernel concurrently) for the duration.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/dos-window...

Pre-emptive multitasking was only for 32 bit code. 16 bit programs were common and forced the system to multitask cooperatively. They also shared their own address space.

Edited 2010-05-09 07:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Live CDs
by Tuishimi on Fri 7th May 2010 18:22 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I will say this for Ubuntu... the live CD came up and detected my wireless card and found all the nearby routers. It also informed me that there was a driver for my Nvidia card that I could install.

The Fedora 12 live CD did not detect my wireless card and of course it doesn't have the nice message suggesting installing an alternate driver. That's fine, it's in the documentation, with a warning that the drivers could cause system instability.

Ubuntu has become very user friendly. It always was, but it just keeps getting more so.

Reply Score: 2

Ubuntu 10.04 Rough Edges
by scorptig on Fri 7th May 2010 19:09 UTC
scorptig
Member since:
2006-03-06

I am Ubuntu user for many years, this new version has a lot going for it. However I along with many others have had issues with RaLink RT2860 Wireless.

I did my original install using EXT4 file system, and I simply could not connect to my local network, I did a new fresh install using EXT3 file system, and on my first attempt I connected. Though worth noting I do have occasional issue connecting. In previous releases 9.04 and 9.10 this was a non-issue it simply worked out of the box.

As days go by I am adding a small list of changes and or issues. But overall the product is polished, the software repository has grown, and the experience is quite satisfying.

Edited 2010-05-07 19:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu 10.04 Rough Edges
by darknexus on Fri 7th May 2010 19:18 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu 10.04 Rough Edges"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not sure what the filesystem would have to do with the Wifi card. I also have a Ralink RT2860-based card in one of my systems, and to get it to work right I had to install linux-backports-modules-wireless-lucid-generic. I had to do this in Karmic as well. Ralink drivers in general seem to be rather hit or miss, one version is stable and the next version isn't. At this point Atheros are doing a better job with their Linux drivers than Ralink, though it used to be the other way around.

Reply Score: 2

Thanks, but yawn.
by fanboi_fanboi on Fri 7th May 2010 19:31 UTC
fanboi_fanboi
Member since:
2010-04-21

Same as it ever was.

We need a review of how well an OS works for someone, *three months* after the install.

How did it perform after updating?

What did you have to work around?

What is missing that you wish was there?

etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thanks, but yawn.
by Eugenia on Fri 7th May 2010 19:38 UTC in reply to "Thanks, but yawn."
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>We need a review of how well an OS works for someone, *three months* after the install.

As mentioned in the review, 2 of the laptops were upgraded, and 2 were a fresh install. So obviously, Ubuntu does work after installation just fine, generally speaking. Otherwise, I wouldn't be upgrading an already working installation.

>How did it perform after updating?

Already discussed.

>What did you have to work around?

Already discussed.

>What is missing that you wish was there?

Already discussed.

I wonder if you actually read the article, or you just brushed it off, or you're just trolling.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Thanks, but yawn.
by darknexus on Fri 7th May 2010 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Thanks, but yawn."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Trolling. Judging by fanboy_fanboy's comment style on other articles, I suspect Rockwell might be back under a different guise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thanks, but yawn.
by vivainio on Fri 7th May 2010 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thanks, but yawn."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Trolling. Judging by fanboy_fanboy's comment style on other articles, I suspect Rockwell might be back under a different guise.


Nah, I didn't see "freetard" anywhere.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thanks, but yawn.
by fanboi_fanboi on Mon 10th May 2010 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thanks, but yawn."
fanboi_fanboi Member since:
2010-04-21

Trolling. Judging by fanboy_fanboy's comment style on other articles, I suspect Rockwell might be back under a different guise.


And judging by your general lack of anything worthwhile to say in any of your comments, I think a mentally challenged four-year-old is back under the guise of darknexus.

Or always was darknexus.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thanks, but yawn.
by fanboi_fanboi on Mon 10th May 2010 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Thanks, but yawn."
fanboi_fanboi Member since:
2010-04-21

I find it amazing that you can install and use an OS that's not even a week old three months from now, and then write a review of it based on three month's worth of updates/usage/etc. ... last week.

Edited 2010-05-10 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

chadeusmaximus
Member since:
2010-05-07

Does anyone know if there is a big list of what works and what doesn't?

I think it'd be great if you could look up your hardware, and see how well it works before you attempt to install ubuntu (or linux in general).

If it exists, great, can someone point me in the right direction? If it doesn't, why not?

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Does anyone know if there is a big list of what works and what doesn't?

I think it'd be great if you could look up your hardware, and see how well it works before you attempt to install ubuntu (or linux in general).

If it exists, great, can someone point me in the right direction? If it doesn't, why not?


LiveCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livecd

The install disk of Ubuntu is a liveCD. "see how well it works before you attempt to install ubuntu" is PRECISELY what a liveCD enables you to do, except that loading programs off a liveCD is a lot slower than hard disk, so running a livCD won't give you a good idea of the speed that is possible if you were to install to a hard disk.

Running a LiveCD does, however, let you know exactly if the OS will work on your hardware, BEFORE you install it to hard disk.

Reply Score: 2

Good work guys
by porcel on Sat 8th May 2010 08:02 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

This is by far the best LTS release Ubuntu has done.

Thanks, in no small part, to the maturity of many of the projects it includes, schools, governments, and businesses who need a reliable and feature-full operating system should test Ubuntu as it is very likely to meet the needs of a large number of users.

I have installed it on a variety of systems with very promising results. And things should only get better as any remaining edges are polished through updates or a re-spin of the original release.

Reply Score: 2

Damn good
by zankfrappa on Sat 8th May 2010 08:21 UTC
zankfrappa
Member since:
2005-09-30

Just installed it on my Samsung 2Gb netbook, no problems.
Fast bootup, snappy (noticeably faster than Win7).

I'll stick with this one.

Reply Score: 1

Ubuntu "Lucid Lynx" 10.04 LTS
by OSDiscs on Sat 8th May 2010 10:40 UTC
OSDiscs
Member since:
2010-05-08

I can only say that Ubuntu "Lucid Lynx" 10.04 LTS is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.osdiscs.co.uk

Reply Score: 0

Mixed Results
by Hotmanta on Sun 9th May 2010 01:44 UTC
Hotmanta
Member since:
2010-05-09

Great review,

I have more confidence with the upgrade method since my Jaunty to Karmic experience was good, so I jumped in and performed upgrades on my two laptops and two mythtv computers.

Went really well on Dell M1730 laptop, just minor annoyance with the panel background not a smooth gray colour for some reason.

Second laptop (Toshiba A200) had hanging issues, had to hit enter on live cd start, F6, choose ACPI=OFF. This is similair to Virtual Box install where I had to switch off ACPI setting to stop the live cd hang and OS hang once installed.

First mythtv upgrade went well, couple of issues, any new startup applications added failed to start. I had to work around this at command line by editing out newer settings in the job found in ~/.config/autostart. Found mythweb not working, had to uninstall and reinstall apache2 package to fix problem with apache2 not starting.

Second mythtv upgrade went really bad. I had to do backup and do a heap of new installs to figure out why I was getting a black screen of death after bootup. Long story short, had to change /etc/init/rc-sysinit.conf from IFACE=lo" -> IFACE=eth0 to fix runlevel unknown state causing failure of old sysv init scripts. Also when running it would just drop to the black screen, had to apply lucic-preposed updates to stabilise it. My thinking is that I had heaps of problem due to the age of this computer.


Cheers,
Homanta

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mixed Results
by darknexus on Sun 9th May 2010 11:27 UTC in reply to "Mixed Results"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

NOt to be a spoilsport or anything, but doesn't switching off ACPI on a laptop disable a lot of the power managing features? Well, unless it's an older laptop that uses APM instead, but I'm not sure how old a laptop like that would run modern Ubuntu anyway, or modern GNOME for that matter.

Reply Score: 2

Very mixed results
by vodoomoth on Sun 9th May 2010 16:23 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

As I said in earlier posts, I intended to use this release on an old Acer laptop with this config: XP Home edition SP1, Mobile Athlon 796Mhz, 512MB RAM, brand new Samsung HM160HC 160GB. The drive is partitioned as suggested by lemur2: Windows system, win swap, hidden win clone, linux, linux swap and all-OS data (15, 2, 15, 15, 2, 100 GB).
I'm bringing this old computer back to life for serving torrents, test some software development tools, maybe do some occasional web browsing and archiving.

Both Ubuntu 10.04 and XP **SP3** are up and running.

- VERY pleasant surprise: two-finger scrolling is activated on the touchpad. I did not even think that old laptop would support it.
- Another VERY pleasant surprise: the builtin RTL8180 Wifi card connected to my network which uses WPA2 with AES encryption. After discovering that, I tried the same under XP but never found the right driver even for WPA/TKIP: it just can't connect. I didn't find anyone who succeeded in using WPA on Windows with that card.
- The sound works without any tweaking. GOOD.
- Deactivating the touchpad while using the keyboard is a great feature.
- Touchpad acceleration is not an acceleration, it's a speed: no matter how fast your finger moves, the touchpad distance always yields the same screen distance. BAD.
- There's no way to set the timeout on the multi-boot screen. OK, I won't die because of that.
- The multi-boot sets Ubuntu as default. OK, why not. But there's NO way for a lay user to say "I want my original OS to be the default option". What are those choices? I had to **very reluctantly** change some 40_custom file in etc/grub.d... after searching the web and realizing that the "menu.lst" people wrote about doesn't exist anymore. The syntax seems to have changed and now the "other os" options are given by a script! I had to copy the "Windows XP Edition Familiale (on dev/sda1)" entry from a file (grub.cfg) which is itself a generated file, duplicate the entry, rename it to "WindowsXP" and put the name as the value for "default". How is my mother going to do that?
- Do Linux users usually need such a large font? I realized the desktop env was probably Gnome, which I've never liked.
- I went into the "Logithèque" (application store?), searching for KDE. Dind't find it. Seems like I'll need to download, burn and install KUbuntu, which would be a joke, right? If confirmed, the only reason I wouldn't kick Linux out of the disk is grub having taken control of the boot: I don't want to reinstall XP and all updates. I remember my student years when the Linux installs at the university offered the choice of the desktop environment from the login screen. What happened to that?
- Slower to boot than the original XP SP1. XP SP3 took 45s with the following apps launched at startup: Avira Antivir, ClipDiary, RocketDock (with 15 icons) and Oxygenator (a very well-thought 1999 memory usage indicator) and the RT73 USB connected to my wireless network. Ubuntu: 32s to show the desktop. That's just BAD. And I did not even disable the Windows services that are useless to me or the bloated software package that PC manufacturers feel compelled to add. I shouldn't complain since Vista takes 3 minutes without reaching the same readiness.

Summary: awesome detection of hardware and associated capabilities: no driver issues at all, everything worked with ZERO tweaking. Ultimate configuration options for the touchpad. Excellent disk management utility which is in sharp contrast with the overall UI experience. BUT Not user-friendly at all (reminiscent of my first encounter with Linux in 1995 or 1996):
1- As long as using Linux means "having to mess with config files and scripts", I don't think it's usable. I'm a software engineer and I hate having to do that. My mom is a secretary and her computing world is probably limited to Office, IE and Yahoo Messenger/MSN/Skype. How is she ever going to understand that? It being free doesn't mean all.
2- the ability to change all options should be given and easily accessed. The level of configuration offered by Mac OS X is just despicable, no matter how great an OS it is. Windows is not much better at least up to Vista, never used 7. I don't use Linux and probably won't in the next months, but I do wish the Linux community never ever falls in that same state of mind.

Rant: Mac OS X is for my 6-year old nephew, Windows is for my sister and Linux is still for the geek, knowing geek > (me+much much good will). But all of them are disappointing when it comes to speed. With all the power in today's laptops, high-clock speeds, multi-core architectures, abysmal-deep pipelines, why can't OSes be just fast? With all the developers, why can't we be granted a better control over configuration/options? I regretted being forced to use Vista on a new laptop, I regretted upgrading from 10.5 to Snow Leopard on my work laptop and Ubuntu 10.04 doesn't display the hyped speed. What' wrong with the OSes wrt speed? Maybe Thom or Kroc can make that the topic of a future article?
Just for the anecdote, when I bought the Acer laptop in 2003, I had a 1999 133Mhz Olivetti running W95. I remember making the experiment of starting both laptops at the same moment, the Olivetti booted faster than the Acer running XP. Office 95 launched faster than Office 2003 on the Acer. I wouldn't go back using it but anyway, too bad the AC adapter went dead.

I'm waiting for a real revolution in reactivity of systems today, including mobile ones. When hearing that a Palm Pre takes a ludicrous 100+ seconds before booting, I start thinking that the revolution may not happen in my lifetime (unless a quantic computer comes to life, but I'm pretty sure hardware makers and developers will find a way to screw it up). My 6110 Navigator takes 20 seconds including the Nokia animation and the carrier's animation, and I can start dialing a number right away but it still seems too long. More than my Amstrad CPC 6128 in its time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very mixed results
by cycoj on Sun 9th May 2010 22:55 UTC in reply to "Very mixed results"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

As I said in earlier posts, I intended to use this release on an old Acer laptop with this config: XP Home edition SP1, Mobile Athlon 796Mhz, 512MB RAM, brand new Samsung HM160HC 160GB. The drive is partitioned as suggested by lemur2: Windows system, win swap, hidden win clone, linux, linux swap and all-OS data (15, 2, 15, 15, 2, 100 GB).
I'm bringing this old computer back to life for serving torrents, test some software development tools, maybe do some occasional web browsing and archiving.

Both Ubuntu 10.04 and XP **SP3** are up and running.

- VERY pleasant surprise: two-finger scrolling is activated on the touchpad. I did not even think that old laptop would support it.
- Another VERY pleasant surprise: the builtin RTL8180 Wifi card connected to my network which uses WPA2 with AES encryption. After discovering that, I tried the same under XP but never found the right driver even for WPA/TKIP: it just can't connect. I didn't find anyone who succeeded in using WPA on Windows with that card.
- The sound works without any tweaking. GOOD.
- Deactivating the touchpad while using the keyboard is a great feature.
- Touchpad acceleration is not an acceleration, it's a speed: no matter how fast your finger moves, the touchpad distance always yields the same screen distance. BAD.
- There's no way to set the timeout on the multi-boot screen. OK, I won't die because of that.

actually there is, you have to edit /etc/default/grub. But I'd say this is clearly an option for advanced users.

- The multi-boot sets Ubuntu as default. OK, why not. But there's NO way for a lay user to say "I want my original OS to be the default option". What are those choices? I had to **very reluctantly** change some 40_custom file in etc/grub.d... after searching the web and realizing that the "menu.lst" people wrote about doesn't exist anymore. The syntax seems to have changed and now the "other os" options are given by a script! I had to copy the "Windows XP Edition Familiale (on dev/sda1)" entry from a file (grub.cfg) which is itself a generated file, duplicate the entry, rename it to "WindowsXP" and put the name as the value for "default". How is my mother going to do that?

Well that's still miles ahead of Windows which doesn't allow you to have any OS beside itself. Tell me how your mother is going to install Windows and have Ubuntu still boot?

- Do Linux users usually need such a large font? I realized the desktop env was probably Gnome, which I've never liked.
- I went into the "Logithèque" (application store?), searching for KDE. Dind't find it. Seems like I'll need to download, burn and install KUbuntu, which

I've just tried and you're correct in the software center finding the kde desktop is a bit of a pain. But you can always open a proper package manager (synaptic) and you will find KDE. No need to burn and install kubuntu. Actually the package you have to install in Ubuntu is Kubuntu-desktop IIRC.

would be a joke, right? If confirmed, the only reason I wouldn't kick Linux out of the disk is grub having taken control of the boot: I don't want to reinstall XP and all updates. I remember my student years when the Linux installs at the university offered the choice of the desktop environment from the login screen. What happened to that?
- Slower to boot than the original XP SP1. XP SP3 took 45s with the following apps launched at startup: Avira Antivir, ClipDiary, RocketDock (with 15 icons) and Oxygenator (a very well-thought 1999 memory usage indicator) and the RT73 USB connected to my wireless network. Ubuntu: 32s to show the desktop. That's just BAD. And I did not even disable the Windows services

So Ubuntu is 13s quicker than XP SP3 and that's bad? Considering that almost all the software it loads is 5-10 years more recent? And comparing it to an empty XP SP1 is not really fair. Although I have to say 32s sounds quite long, but it seems your PC is quite old too.

that are useless to me or the bloated software package that PC manufacturers feel compelled to add. I shouldn't complain since Vista takes 3 minutes without reaching the same readiness.

Summary: awesome detection of hardware and associated capabilities: no driver issues at all, everything worked with ZERO tweaking. Ultimate configuration options for the touchpad. Excellent disk management utility which is in sharp contrast with the overall UI experience. BUT Not user-friendly at all (reminiscent of my first encounter with Linux in 1995 or 1996):
1- As long as using Linux means "having to mess with config files and scripts", I don't think it's usable. I'm a software engineer and I hate having to do that. My mom is a secretary and her computing world is probably limited to Office, IE and Yahoo Messenger/MSN/Skype. How is she ever going to understand that? It being free doesn't mean all.


You're kidding right? You're trying to change some pretty advanced options (yes I consider boot-order, boot time-out and installing a new desktop environment advanced), things that are not even possible in Windows or OSX or only with editing of the Registry, but because you have to edit config files under Linux Linux is not user-friendly at all? How about a fair comparison?


2- the ability to change all options should be given and easily accessed. The level of configuration offered by Mac OS X is just despicable, no matter how great an OS it is. Windows is not much better at least up to Vista, never used 7. I don't use Linux and probably won't in the next months, but I do wish the Linux community never ever falls in that same state of mind.

You cannot change advanced options in Windows either without editing the registry. Why should very advanced options be made available in the GUI? It would just become totally cluttered.


Rant: Mac OS X is for my 6-year old nephew, Windows is for my sister and Linux is still for the geek, knowing geek > (me+much much good will). But all of them are disappointing when it comes to speed. With all the power in today's laptops, high-clock speeds, multi-core architectures, abysmal-deep pipelines, why can't OSes be just fast? With all the developers, why can't we be granted a better control over configuration/options? I regretted being forced to use Vista on a new laptop, I regretted upgrading from 10.5 to Snow Leopard on my work laptop and Ubuntu 10.04 doesn't display the hyped speed. What' wrong with the OSes wrt speed? Maybe Thom or Kroc can make that the topic of a future article?
Just for the anecdote, when I bought the Acer laptop in 2003, I had a 1999 133Mhz Olivetti running W95. I remember making the experiment of starting both laptops at the same moment, the Olivetti booted faster than the Acer running XP. Office 95 launched faster than Office 2003 on the Acer. I wouldn't go back using it but anyway, too bad the AC adapter went dead.

I'm waiting for a real revolution in reactivity of systems today, including mobile ones. When hearing that a Palm Pre takes a ludicrous 100+ seconds before booting, I start thinking that the revolution may not happen in my lifetime (unless a quantic computer comes to life, but I'm pretty sure hardware makers and developers will find a way to screw it up). My 6110 Navigator takes 20 seconds including the Nokia animation and the carrier's animation, and I can start dialing a number right away but it still seems too long. More than my Amstrad CPC 6128 in its time.


It seems to me like you want your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you want all the advanced options available in a GUI. A good GUI how you like it and all the "user-friendly" programs available, but on the other hand you want instant boot times and super fast behaviour on a 7 year old laptop. You can create a Linux installation which would boot in 5s or so, but you'd have to forgo all that user-friendlyness and do a lot of manual tweaking (and the GUI environment would also not be the latest and greatest).

Reply Score: 1