Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Apr 2011 20:55 UTC
Linux Yeah, it's the day of double-dippin' today. And, the contradiction couldn't be bigger. In one corner we have one of the oldest and most respected distributions, and in the other corner we have the sometimes controversial but immensely popular relative newcomer. Slackware 13.37 and Ubuntu 11.04 have been released.
Order by: Score:
Comment by motang
by motang on Thu 28th Apr 2011 21:17 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

Been running Ubuntu 11.04 since the first beta, and I am really liking it. Though I do have and Fedora 15 install for Gnome (Shell) 3, I do prefer Unity for my production, but that doesn't mean I don't like Gnome Shell. I like that they are different, and that they are a departure from the conventional Gnome desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by motang
by orestes on Fri 29th Apr 2011 03:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by motang"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Same here, although I fall more into the Gnome camp than the Unity side. After getting used to the Gnome 3 virtual desktop handling I'm finding it hard to go back... it took quite a while to wrap my brain around the new setup but it really does feel more natural.

Kudos to Unity though for actually working in Virtualbox and cleaning up massively since those godawful alpha releases.

Reply Score: 2

Gnubuntu ?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 28th Apr 2011 21:21 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

kubuntu = ubuntu - unity + kde
xubuntu = ubuntu - unity + xfce

So is some one going to create a derivative of

ubuntu -unity +gnome3 = ?

The Gnubuntu.com/ Gnubuntu.org domain is already redirecting to ubuntu because it was going to be a fsf approved version according to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=312280.

So Anyone think there will be a demand for it, or will ubuntu-gnome fans just move to a different distro. ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gnubuntu ?
by Lennie on Thu 28th Apr 2011 21:37 UTC in reply to "Gnubuntu ?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I would first try it out and I suggest others to do so too.

I'm not so sure GNOME3 might be what I want either, it is kind of similair in my opinion.

So I'm just gonna try them out first and decide later.

If I don't like it, I'll probably be on Xfce.

I still have my hopes up for E17 being released too. :-)

The libraries recently turned 1.0 and were declared stable so it could happen, right ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Gnubuntu ?
by computrius on Sat 30th Apr 2011 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnubuntu ?"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

If duke nukem forever will be released, anything might be possible ;)

Edited 2011-04-30 00:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Gnubuntu ?
by Lennie on Sat 30th Apr 2011 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gnubuntu ?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Do you really think DNF will happen ? They still seem to be moving dates.

Maybe I should test http://www.bodhilinux.com/ if I want to know if Enlightenment is for me this time round.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gnubuntu ?
by JAlexoid on Fri 29th Apr 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "Gnubuntu ?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

gnobuntu!

Reply Score: 1

OpenOffice/LibreOffice, actually Go-OO
by Lennie on Thu 28th Apr 2011 21:27 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

It is kind of funny when people mention in articles:

"Open Office in Linux distribution X has been replaced by LibreOffice"

It's not really true.

The version of OpenOffice which was included with most Linux distributions wasn't OpenOffice standard, it was the version from http://www.Go-OO.org

Go-OO is the version of OpenOffice which was created by the Linux distributions, because OpenOffice was rules by Sun/Oracle and they didn't accept all the patches (or not quickly enough). So they worked together to create their own patchset(s) against OpenOffice or version of OpenOffice.

The first patches applied to LibreOffice after they had setup their code repository based on OpenOffice? All/most of the patches from the Go-OO project.

So what version of OpenOffice was in the previous version of Ubuntu ? Go-OO, what version is in the lastest Ubuntu ? A newer version based around Go-OO.

Reply Score: 2

Wait, so...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 22:03 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Wait, so Ubuntu 11.04 doesn't even have GNOME 2 *at all*? It only has a GNOME3 fail-safe made to mimic GNOME 2, which was meant for those users who don't have adequate (read: 3D) graphical processing power to run full-fledged GNOME 3... and this is an alternative to Unity? Wow... just wow. As if it didn't already lose my interest, Ubuntu is looking worse and worse every time I hear something about it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Wait, so...
by lucke on Thu 28th Apr 2011 22:15 UTC in reply to "Wait, so..."
lucke Member since:
2007-01-07

Fallback mode is traditional, albeit ubuntified - as previously - gnome2.

Edited 2011-04-28 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wait, so...
by ajslye on Fri 29th Apr 2011 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait, so..."
ajslye Member since:
2009-11-25

First of all none of gnome3 is in 11.04. Clasic Mode and Clasic Mode (no effects) is gnome 2.32.? without unity on top however, Clasic Mode still uses Compiz (3d) while Clasic Mode (without effects) is using Metacity (2d) instead, these will eventually be droped with the later being replaced with Unity 2D (QT based).

Reply Score: 2

da_Chicken
Member since:
2006-01-01

I've been tracking the stats of DistroWatch visitors since November 2010.
http://distrowatch.com/awstats/awstats.DistroWatch.com.osdetail.htm...

In 01.11.2010 I saw these stats:
49,1 % Windows
43,2 % Linux
15,8 % Ubuntu

Today the same stats are:
47,2 % Windows
44,7 % Linux
11 % Ubuntu

So Ubuntu seems to be on the decline in desktop use.

On the server side there seems to be an opposite trend for Ubuntu.
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux

Ubuntu is clearly the fastest growing GNU/Linux distro for servers.

Reply Score: 2

jbicha Member since:
2008-07-10

Or maybe, contrary to popular opinion, Ubuntu users don't need to visit a site about other distros because they have already found a distro they're happy with.

Reply Score: 3

Lack of Unity
by truckweb on Thu 28th Apr 2011 22:28 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

So, open FireFox and the menu bar is in the Unity menu bar at the top. Open any LibreOffice apps, and the menu bar is with the apps...

Where is the unity in that? It's inconsistent, that's what it is.

Reply Score: 5

Wayland
by tuma324 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 22:32 UTC
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

Does Ubuntu 11.04 now use Wayland instead of X?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wayland
by BluenoseJake on Thu 28th Apr 2011 22:35 UTC in reply to "Wayland"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

No

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Wayland"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

No


When it will use Wayland please?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wayland
by phoenix on Thu 28th Apr 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wayland"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I'm betting a week or two after Wayland can actually be used by non-Wayland programmers. ;) Would seem to kind of pointless to switch to a non-usable windowing system.

Edited 2011-04-28 23:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wayland"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

I'm betting a week or two after Wayland can actually be used by non-Wayland programmers. ;) Would seem to kind of pointless to switch to a non-usable windowing system.


Perhaps a little misinformed?

How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working. It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.) and it allows you to run multiple X11 sessions for backwards compatibility.

It also makes good use of KMS, it doesn't have all the cruft and hacks that X11/Xorg does have, and it's lean and mean. That's far from pointless IMHO.

Edited 2011-04-28 23:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wayland
by joekiser on Thu 28th Apr 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wayland"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working. It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.) and it allows you to run multiple X11 sessions for backwards compatibility.


On Linux.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[6]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wayland"
v RE[7]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wayland"
RE[5]: Wayland
by Elv13 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wayland"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Because it does not work with all hardware
Because it is not released at all
Because it have not been tested enough
Because, as it's just barely useful hosting X session, it only add bloat to the current X
Because no toolkit support it correctly
Because support for essential protocols is non-existant even on paper
Because it's years away from being ready
Because Unity can't work with Wayland by design (compiz)

I could come up with some more, but its enough

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wayland"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

Because it does not work with all hardware
Because it is not released at all
Because it have not been tested enough
Because, as it's just barely useful hosting X session, it only add bloat to the current X
Because no toolkit support it correctly
Because support for essential protocols is non-existant even on paper
Because it's years away from being ready
Because Unity can't work with Wayland by design (compiz)

I could come up with some more, but its enough


I believe you're trying to knock Wayland too much. Wayland is coming faster than you think.

Edited 2011-04-29 03:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wayland
by Elv13 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 05:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wayland"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

It will take 2 full years at best before it start to replace X in non-mobile distros, never at worst. I have a lot or problems with X, currently, it use 1.2gb of ram because of leaks that are mostly unfixable and untraceable, it's also quite unresponsive and inferior to other rendering system like OSX/QuartzExtreme+CoreImage. But going as far I saying it could be replaced as of -today- is going way too far. There is nothing to replace X in the short term.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wayland"
RE[5]: Wayland
by WereCatf on Fri 29th Apr 2011 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wayland"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.)


But not with any of the closed-source ones. That already is enough for it to be unusable for many a people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wayland"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.)


But not with any of the closed-source ones. That already is enough for it to be unusable for many a people.
"

Sure but many people also prefer the open-source drivers with good 2d acceleration and good enough 3d acceleration, KMS, RANDR, and so on that the close-source drivers lack.

Edited 2011-04-29 15:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wayland
by OddFox on Sun 1st May 2011 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wayland"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Sure but many people also prefer the open-source drivers with good 2d acceleration and good enough 3d acceleration, KMS, RANDR, and so on that the close-source drivers lack.


I'm not knocking Wayland because I look forward to the day when I can use it with any video card including my current NVidia one but I think you should qualify your "many people" statement because I'd say the vast majority of people with ATI and NVidia hardware that is capable of great 3D and 2D performance do not generally prefer to have no decent or even usable 3D hardware accel whatsoever. I know there are people out there with 9600 GT or some other card that is far more suitable for gaming than desktop usage who would really like to actually use the hardware they purchased. There are also nice things like power saving and fan control that Nouveau just simply does not support on many (any?) cards. As far as the F/OSS drivers go, there are plenty of people such as myself that can't even get to square one with a working X display depending on the graphics stack. Hell, even a console is something that might not present itself.

This last paragraph is a little off-topic, but I for one wish that distros would stop trying to hoist Nouveau onto me and just stop giving me a kernel that I have to wrestle with on many modern systems. I haven't even successfully installed the latest Ubuntu onto my system because Nouveau keeps screwing up and I wind up with a screen flicker every 5-10 seconds and a hung terminal interface. I appreciate that it needs testing but quite frankly I can't imagine a worse thing to mass alpha-test on end-users. The whole DRI and graphics situation is a mess right now and even Linus has noted that stuff just breaks way too often in the graphics stack lately.

To be clear, that previous paragraph was not directed at any way towards Wayland, as I don't recall ever being forced to use it or deal with it when it's basically unusable for me. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wayland
by phoenix on Fri 29th Apr 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wayland"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working.


Sooooo, you can run a replacement windowing system ... with your normal X11 windowing system on top ... and that's suddenly better than just running X11 by itself? How is adding extra layers "removing bloat"?

Until there are Wayland apps, toolkits, frameworks, etc, there's really no reason to make it available in Ubuntu as the default. Which is what the OP is about.

Sure, those who want to play with it can install it themselves. Those who want to develop for it can install it themselves.

But it should not be an option on the main Ubuntu install CD until it's a viable alternative to X11, including native app support.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wayland"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working.


Sooooo, you can run a replacement windowing system ... with your normal X11 windowing system on top ... and that's suddenly better than just running X11 by itself? How is adding extra layers "removing bloat"?

Until there are Wayland apps, toolkits, frameworks, etc, there's really no reason to make it available in Ubuntu as the default. Which is what the OP is about.

Sure, those who want to play with it can install it themselves. Those who want to develop for it can install it themselves.

But it should not be an option on the main Ubuntu install CD until it's a viable alternative to X11, including native app support.
"

You have no f--king clue of what you are talking about, just like the other idiots in this site.

Wayland does use KMS by default and there is no need to make any configuration to start the compositor. This alone simplifies all the work that Ubuntu has to make in order to automate and secure the booting of the Xorg process so that users won't end with a f--king terminal when they install Ubuntu for first time.

Because to this date a xorg.conf is still needed. Yes, in f--king 2011. And those who say that no xorg.conf is needed they need to learn their system more and stop talking out of their asses.

Wayland will help to avoid cases like this:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=284356
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1594122
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1586131
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1292427
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=358906
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/13673
http://www.ubuntux.org/ubuntu-wont-boot
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/newbie/92694-x-wont-start-ubuntu.h...
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21398281-X-wont-start-on-2-of-my-3...
http://askubuntu.com/questions/10078/x-wont-start-after-installing-...

Educate yourself before making lame comments like that.

Edited 2011-04-29 21:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wayland
by phoenix on Fri 29th Apr 2011 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wayland"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Well, if this is suddenly so stable, so simple, and so wonderful, why have you not submitted any PPAs for doing just this?

Where are all the announcements about how stable, simple, and wonderful this is?

Just because you think it's so stable, simple, and usable, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. I don't see a mad rush of users switching over to Wayland right now.

So, again, why should the Ubuntu devs go to the trouble of making this work on the install CDs when it's not ready for "regular users" to use?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wayland
by BluenoseJake on Fri 29th Apr 2011 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wayland"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

About 2 versions before it's really ready.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wayland
by tuma324 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 02:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wayland"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

About 2 versions before it's really ready.


I see. Awesome. Thanks (can't wait) ;) .

Edited 2011-04-29 02:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wayland
by orestes on Fri 29th Apr 2011 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wayland"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

It'll likely be in the repos for the next round of distros, for those who want to play around with new tech. I wouldn't expect it to become the default for anything anytime soon. Think more like 3-5 years out barring major pushes to get it done.

To give you perspective on other major projects: BTRFS has been an option in Fedora for years now, since Fedora 10 if not earlier, if nothing major changes it'll finally hit default install status in Fedora 16 6 versions and 3 years later. I wouldn't expect to see more conservative distros pick it up for another version or two after that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: BtrFS
by jessesmith on Fri 29th Apr 2011 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wayland"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

BtrFS is available in other, non-Fedora, distros as an option. Ubuntu 11.04 has BtrFS support as does Slackware. If you're thinking other distros are going to wait around for Fedora to declare it stable, you're a bit behind the times.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: BtrFS
by orestes on Fri 29th Apr 2011 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: BtrFS"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Nothing to do with other distros including it. I just used Fedora as an example because they tend to be among the first of the major distros to adopt these things and I'm most familiar with it's timelines.

The point was that it takes quite a long while for things to mature enough to be considered the default choice.

Reply Score: 2

Ubuntu on Notebooks - Almost There
by dc.ricardo on Fri 29th Apr 2011 00:14 UTC
dc.ricardo
Member since:
2009-06-02

Using it. Loving it. I host a Windows Virtual Box for developing and 11.04 for everything else on a Z460 Lenovo. It's a 9 out of 10 just because hibernation does not work (again). But, hey!, Ubuntu has come, on the notebooks area, from a bad joke to just hibernation does not work. Maybe on 11.10?

Reply Score: 3

dc.ricardo Member since:
2009-06-02

My bad. Hibernation is working. Guess it's already a 10!

Reply Score: 1

Slackware for the win!
by kristoph on Fri 29th Apr 2011 00:33 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

I've been using Slackware since the late 90's and although I've tried a number of other distributions along the way I remain convinced it's the best choice for those who know what's what.

Case in point, in the most recent AWS meltdown, all my (ephemeral) Slackware instances kept humming along while various other sites dropped off the face of the earth for 24 hours or more (we were unreachable for 2 hours while US East lost connectivity totally but everything was back thereafter).

]{

Reply Score: 4

RE: Slackware for the win!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 29th Apr 2011 14:17 UTC in reply to "Slackware for the win!"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Case in point, in the most recent AWS meltdown, all my (ephemeral) Slackware instances kept humming along while various other sites dropped off the face of the earth for 24 hours or more (we were unreachable for 2 hours while US East lost connectivity totally but everything was back thereafter).


I'm not exactly up to date with the causes and effects of the AWS meltdown. Are you saying that some sites managed to continue working ... because they were running slackware?!? Or are you just saying that Slackware didn't cause anything to go down? Or maybe just that some slackware instances lost connectivity and managed to stay up?

It sounds like you're either saying slackware is magical, or that its more stable than windows 95.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slackware for the win!
by metalf8801 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 22:07 UTC in reply to "Slackware for the win!"
metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

I've been using Slackware since the late 90's and although I've tried a number of other distributions along the way I remain convinced it's the best choice for those who know what's what.

Case in point, in the most recent AWS meltdown, all my (ephemeral) Slackware instances kept humming along while various other sites dropped off the face of the earth for 24 hours or more (we were unreachable for 2 hours while US East lost connectivity totally but everything was back thereafter).

]{

That's not possible because Amazons entire data center in Northern Virginia went down not just in individual servers so it wouldn't have mattered what operating system the servers were running. So the only way you wouldn't have noticed any problems would have been if the servers you were using were not located in Northern Virginia. So It has nothing to do with running Slackware instead of Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by zizban
by zizban on Fri 29th Apr 2011 01:37 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just installed 11.04. I like Unity. No, it's not perfect but it's pretty slick. It does take some getting used to, though.

Reply Score: 2

Slackware
by timalot on Fri 29th Apr 2011 02:49 UTC
timalot
Member since:
2006-07-17

You you've got be 13.37 to use Slackware...

I hope point release version "13.37" is intentional ;)

1337 = leet = elite = Slackware users...

Reply Score: 2

Live-CD broken?
by avgalen on Fri 29th Apr 2011 04:30 UTC
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

I downloaded the iso, burned, verified it (no problem), booted it on my Asus Netbook and my girlfriends MacBook Pro and ...... doesn't work
(first a syslinux line, then a keyboard+user image, then a black screen and 2 more minutes of cdrom lights flashing)
I used the burned iso to create a bootable usb-stick and.....doesn't work
(this time only the syslinux line appears but after 10 minutes nothing has changed)
Finally I used the burned iso to install Ubuntu (I choose inside Windows), install went fine, reboot, choose Ubuntu, get a nice 'introduction to Ubuntu' screen but no way to close it. (It was entirely unclear to me that it was still installing) After another reboot the installation WAS finished (total installation time, about 30 minutes) and a shiny desktop appeared.....completely unfit for the screensize of my netbook (1024*600). Scrolling down to application in the list on the right takes about 5 seconds and I had to find the terminal under "list 74 other programs".
I entered the system settings to check a harddisk for problems but couldn't find the check and repair tool. It took me a while to realise that I could scroll down on that screen even though no scrollbar was shown. The check and repair tool told me it couldn't work because the disk was mounted and because it was FAT32
I started the spreadsheet and after 10 seconds it had opened. I closed it and started it again, after 9 seconds it opened.
I opened my resume (Word 2010 format, VERY easy layout) and it looked garbled
Ubuntu simply isn't a good match for this netbook. It requires a more powerful machine with a higher resolution to become productive
Ubuntu also isn't suitable for a Window user like myself that is used to "Doc(X) and Fat32" just working.

It did seem to detect all my hardware, but so did Windows 7. Compared to my previous testings of Linux (startet with RedHat 5.2 about 15 years ago) hardware support and graphics has greatly been improved and I loved the "install in Windows option" that removed the need for a whole "how shall I partition things". The Live-CD / USB-Boot are simply broken and speed, usability and Windows-compatibility just aren't good enough.

Conclusion: better than before, but not good enough

Reply Score: 1

Kubuntu
by anarchisttomato on Fri 29th Apr 2011 05:02 UTC
anarchisttomato
Member since:
2010-05-17

Kubuntu it is, then.

Reply Score: 2

Stick
by Gone fishing on Fri 29th Apr 2011 05:12 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Ubuntu has received lots of stick for being a non-innovative, user. Well this use of the Unity desktop looks both brave and innovative to me. Maybe it will crash and burn, but I’m downloading now to find out.

Reply Score: 4

Free CD
by timosa on Fri 29th Apr 2011 07:20 UTC
timosa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Great news always, when a new Ubuntu gets released. Sadly there won't be a free CD, because Ship It service was closed.

Reply Score: 1

Confused ...
by pandronic on Fri 29th Apr 2011 12:39 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

I'm kinda confused. I've tried the Live CD on two computers already and it starts in classic Gnome. Isn't Unity supposed to work with the Live CD?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Confused ...
by pandronic on Fri 29th Apr 2011 13:39 UTC in reply to "Confused ..."
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Apparently, it works only on Intel video cards and a few AMD cards. Well, that sucks for Ubuntu. I guess I won't try it out after all.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by aaronb
by aaronb on Fri 29th Apr 2011 13:33 UTC
aaronb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am impressed with Ubuntu 11.04.

The Unity interface is simple and easy to use. But there should be more configuration options. Currently the only available options are:

Show the launcher then the pointer:
Pushes the left edge of the screen
Touches the top left of the screen

I would like options to change the size of the icons and not hide the launcher.

I was pleasantly surprised by the open source 3D drivers. They now support the ATI Radeon HD 6870 in terms of 3D desktop and can run games such as Nexuiz (Half Life 2 using Wine does not work with open source drivers but work fine with the FGLRX drivers).

Wine and Flash seem to work with Pulseaudio, welcome back to 2007 when no such audio issues occurred.

In terms of stability, Unity in Ubuntu 11.04 beta 1 continually crashed. With the released version, these crashes are gone.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by aaronb
by Gone fishing on Sun 1st May 2011 21:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by aaronb"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22


I would like options to change the size of the icons and not hide the launcher.


You can do both of these things you need to install Compiz settings manager (why it's not installed by default I don't know). You will find some Unity tweaks including the above.

Reply Score: 2

3D Graphics Dependancies
by sb56637 on Fri 29th Apr 2011 15:00 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

I think that Unity and Gnome 3.x are both fundamentally flawed due to their dependance on 3D graphics. The current state of video drivers on Linux is truly a disaster, and it's actually gotten worse with time. Sorry, but it's true, and I am a full-time desktop Linux user.

Because of poor video drivers, many users simply will not see the new Unity and Gnome 3.x interface because their hardware doesn't support it and it will go to the fallback mode. This normally wouldn't be a problem, even Windows Vista / 7 have "classic" fallback modes for older systems. However, the Aero vs. Classic interface differences are largely visual, and do not introduce major workflow changes for the user. On the other hand, (Unity | Gnome 3.x) vs. (Gnome 2.x | Gnome 3.x fallback mode) introduces major paradigm shifts in workflow. I don't like the idea of this inconsistency.

Another major issue with dependance on 3D graphics is that even when the video driver officially supports 3D and the new 3D interfaces are enabled out of the box, in many cases the user experience is terrible, once again owing to poor video drivers. I have Intel graphics on my laptop, for example, and desktop effects cause tearing, spotting, blotches, remnants, you name it. I noticed the same issue on quite a few Youtube videos of the new Gnome 3.x and Unity. Additionally, at least on Gnome 2.x and KDE, 3D effects consistently lead to freezing and lockups. That's why the first thing I do when upon installing a new distro is disable 3D effects. They cause more trouble than they are worth. I know how to do this. But new users will not appreciate losing work or having a frozen system because developers forced a bunch of pretty but useless desktop effects on them.

The solution? I don't know. Unity has a 2D version built on QT, which sounds a lot more feasible to me. Unfortunately it's not available by default on Ubuntu 11.04. This should probably be used as the default option, and users who want to play with the 3D gadgetry could enable that version optionally if they want. As for Gnome 3.x? I hope they try to develop the 2D fallback interface to make it much more similar to the 3D interface. And they should set the 2D interface by default.

Again, I don't mean this to undermine the efforts of the Unity and Gnome devs. It's not their fault, but they still need to recognize the awful state of the entire Linux video architecture and learn to work around it instead of exacerbating the issues for ignorant users.

Reply Score: 4

RE: 3D Graphics Dependancies
by orestes on Fri 29th Apr 2011 23:45 UTC in reply to "3D Graphics Dependancies"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Requiring 3D isn't for the effects so much as it is for the rendering performance and smoothness it brings. The visual bling is just a side effect. It's not even an unreasonable expectation that machines have 3D cards these days, even cell phones are starting to get decent chipsets with good 3D capabilities.

The problem as we're all acutely aware is the drivers, which are getting better all the time but still aren't there yet for everyone.

I completely agree that inconsistency between "fallback" and normal workflows are ultimately a bad idea though. If anything it's a temporary band aid for the transitional period more than an actual solution.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 3D Graphics Dependancies
by Savior on Sat 30th Apr 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: 3D Graphics Dependancies"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

The problem as we're all acutely aware is the drivers, which are getting better all the time but still aren't there yet for everyone.


I'm sorry, but when I learned English, "better" still meant... well, better; in this case, more functionality, increased stability and speed, etc. I have an Intel card, and I must tell you that in this last 3 years, the quality curve looked like the track of a roller coaster, which, even at it topmost point was nowhere near acceptable. And currently we are heading down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 3D Graphics Dependancies
by orestes on Sun 1st May 2011 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 3D Graphics Dependancies"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

I can only speak for the AMD side. The gallium drivers have been improving with every release on my Fedora boxes, to the point where I don't even bother with the Catalysts unless I really need the extra rendering performance.

Reply Score: 2

Slackware + ubuntu in one article - FAIL
by wigry on Fri 29th Apr 2011 16:47 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Please, do not post Slackware and Ubuntu in the same article. The Ubuntu gets all the focus and nobody seems to care about slackware. If there would be separate article about Slackware, then there would also be interesting comments about it. Currently it is all about Ubuntu + Gnome (or lack there of)

Slackware used to be my distro of choice, but last few years I've been windows only, as it fits my needs perfectly.

Reply Score: 3

Unity is a letdown...
by jtfolden on Fri 29th Apr 2011 23:24 UTC
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

By 10.10, I thought Ubuntu had gotten to the point where I could finally, satisfyingly use it on secondary systems and recommend it to certain people.

I was really looking forward to 11.04 and even enthusiastically ran the beta releases. Unity is kind of "fun" at first glance but after using it a while, I realized that it really isn't bringing anything new to the table at all....

Global menus aren't bad but they're implemented extremely oddly here. They should NOT be invisible until moused over. That's just bad UI design. A user should be able to aim for the exact menu item they want instead of having to make the menu visible and only then being able to see the options available to them.

The Unity Launcher/Dock is serviceable but, again, it's hardly revolutionary. Every OS and its brother has a dock available in some way these days and this one isn't very configurable.

The Dash/Places are fine but why must I see an advertisement in every category for uninstalled apps? I'd rather see that space devoted to showing me the app I *do* have installed.

On top of that there are a lot of annoying or badly designed aspects to the rest of it. Such as - having a small blue triangle in the top left of the screen when an app needs attention seems kind of brain-dead. It doesn't tell you WHICH app needs it.

Dissatisfied with the above, I decided to try out the Gnome 3 PPA and was quite surprised at how much better Gnome Shell seems over Unity. Sadly, the PPA is not complete nor up2date so I'm running Fedora 15 ATM.

I think, despite a few possible shortcomings, that Gnome 3 and the Shell are headed in a much more interesting and useful direction. GS makes Unity and the global menus feel like just another hack.

Reply Score: 1

Unity is in the right direction
by sarchiapon on Sat 30th Apr 2011 08:10 UTC
sarchiapon
Member since:
2011-04-30

As a long time Mac OS developer I have to say that I'm really impressed of the progression Ubuntu did using Unity.
I'm using it on a netbook and they really optimized a lot the use of the scarce pixels available on a small screen. Really well done canonical!
Ubuntu could really get a large share if it only would provide an effective way for developers to earn money developing for it.
I have to admit I would love to develop for Ubuntu if only it would possible to get some money realizing software for Linux.
Unfortunately till the situation is in that way it is almost a desperate situation.
As anyone will say ' never think to realize something for the Linux market, simply because 'There is no any Linux Market for desktop'
I will develop only for Mac and iOS and Windows and anything other where people pay for software.
It's a pity. I hope it will change.

Reply Score: 1

Open Source Reminds Me of Microsoft Vista?
by JoeNerd on Sat 30th Apr 2011 11:55 UTC
JoeNerd
Member since:
2011-04-30

I can see the challenges, from devices that are 480x800 phones, to big screen monitors, people should learn from Microsoft.

Vista changed the way you navigate your files, and new desktops change the way you navigate your applications (which are files). The fastest way to get your customers running to the competition is to what?

Changing default programs and getting lumped into community preferences seems to be an issue, and netstat pops up some interesting information with no explanations out of a default installation?

Microsoft gives you a core system you build on, yet Linux users want to use the Microsoft name like a four letter word, and yet, if you install a community installation package operating system, you might have to tear down an installation to get what you want, or just need it to do, because 5000 applications might be installed, you just have to figure out which ones, and which ones you can remove without breaking the system?

That is not operating system basics taught in school, it is not modular?

This is a general rant, not a review of a singular operating system. Major installations allow modular selection of programs during the install process, although not all, and some are not as intuitive as Open Suse with its option to select all or no packages at any level?

I am not forced to live with an operating system, I use what works, what is dependable, and what I can back up without wondering if they are going to change the navigation and file systems (which changes the way we back things up)?

Changing a desktop sometimes has a lot more impact than we like to admit? I was fairly comfortable with Ubunutu 9.01. I actually thought Suse 1.4 was corrupted because of the desktop background was all mashed up after I installed it, and then wiped the disk.

Time will tell is these operating systems will be useful or not, I think it is clear why they are not adopted at a wider level?

Otherwise Linux will remain the domain of people that use IDE platforms to program stuff....?

Have a nice day.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I have no idea what you're trying to say or what your point is. Do you have to end every sentence with a question mark?

Reply Score: 2

Slackware 13.37 FTW:)
by hitest on Sun 1st May 2011 15:05 UTC
hitest
Member since:
2006-10-28

I've been running Slackware since version 10.0. I am very happy with 13.37; I just finished upgrading my PCs yesterday. Everything works:)

Reply Score: 1

11.04's new gui... who cares?
by benali72 on Tue 3rd May 2011 03:30 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

I don't see why Canonical spends so much time and effort in changing the GUI. If I wanted to get jerked around with a new GUI hyped to the stars every release I'd just go with Microsoft. I'm looking for consistent, incremental improvements in the product, not radical changes for the sake of salesmanship.

Reply Score: 1