OSNews

The wireless won't work

:trollface:

As a matter of fact it works, cause I have the same laptop right now but is not mine, It is from the place I work and wireless works good.

Let me tell you one think, if you want a Linux friendly laptop, buy a Samsung.

I normally make sure it has a intel chipset and is either lenovo or dell business.

Seconded. I've had better luck with Dell business class machines than any other when it comes to GNU/Linux support. As in, 100%, fully open driver support for pure Intel machines (CPU/GPU/chipset).

Lenovo is nearly as good in my experience, where even an AMD based laptop can be 100% compatible, with the only closed driver belonging to the GPU.

One doesn't need a closed driver for Linux for an AMD/ATI GPU.

http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature

Runs desktop software beautifully, is distributed along with the Linux kernel, requires no configuration whatsoever, works out of the box, will never be dropped (as legacy hardware) in terms of ongoing support.

Which juvenile downvoted these? They are both perfectly factual and on-topic.

Edited 2012-10-22 00:11 UTC

It depends on the generation of the GPU though. My desktop's PCIe HD 6570 runs much faster and smoother with the closed driver than the open one, and it's stable as well. It installs easily on both Slackware and Kubuntu. On the other hand, the computer's onboard X1150 GPU only works with the legacy open Radeon driver, and isn't too stable at that.

With some programs/desktops it is the open source radeon driver that runs much faster and smoother.

However, where there is a problem, it is only for the open source driver that FOSS developers can do anything about it. For the closed driver (which comes from Windows and is embedded in a translation wrapper for use on Linux) ... the attitude would be "meh, it works on Windows, will not fix".

Also, in terms of improving and upgrading the Linux graphics stack (for example, for things like KMS and Wayland) ... new directions and improvements in the stack can only be embarked upon if the drivers are open. Closed drivers force the status quo, and they will stagnate the Linux graphics stack and will frustrate attempts at improving it.

Aww, you beat me to it. I was going to say sure, avoid the pain of Windows 8 and experience a whole new level of pain you will never forget. Although, truth be told, Wi-Fi isn't really the main problem with Linux these days. Audio and video, as well as external device connectivity (scanners, etc) are where the real pains are. If your device works, great. If it doesn't work, you're fcuked.

Well, there are a SERIOUS METRIC BUTT LOAD of Packages made up for Fedora and BSDs that are from Debian.

Guess you'll just have to remove them.

Sorry to hear your bias.

It is an opinion of mine, opinions are like nipples and make snarky comments isn't big or clever.

It just repackaged Open source software. I don't like Debian and I don't like anything based off Debian.

'Opinions are like nipples'? I've never heard that comparison before; do I dare ask what it means?

The full versions is

"Opinion are like nipples, everyone has a couple".

In Australia we say "Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one."

That's why YOU have problems with scanners, printers and external devices. Fedora itself does a pretty poor job of managing, discovering, utilising those devices, and OpenBSD ... well, it has to be worse than that, because OpenBSD has less drivers in place.

I'm an OpenBSD and Debian user myself, so I perfectly know the pains of both worlds [in terms of platforms: GNU/Linux and *BSD]. Unless you shop wisely, there's going to be the problems [but less than in the past]. The same goes to mainstream OSs, actually [like Windows]. Just don't tell me you have never experienced incompatible/buggy/badly supported hardware in Windows, 'cause I won't believe you [experienced it myself].

Last, but not least: stop whining [it's to all people] about the hardware support in GNU/Linux everytime some article shows up. I know some people will always find the problems in everything, but that's just how they minds work. Pretty unproductive. I'm sorry to say, but I find more positives, than negatives in GNU/Linux/BSD tandem and I'd never voluntarily use ANY of the Windows, nor Mac OSs.
That being said, it is uber-important that GNU/Linux/BSD doesn't get that much support when it comes to HW specs for drivers or the drivers itself. Blame vendors. But you know what? I'd rather have less, but high quality drivers, than the mass crap that works in a very funky way under other OSs. In GNU/Linux/BSD I just plug it and it works. In Windows I have to install it manually.

When using OpenBSD I don't expect everything to work flawlessly with consumer hardware.

OpenBSD works with what it says it works with, nothing more or less.

Aww, you beat me to it. I was going to say sure, avoid the pain of Windows 8 and experience a whole new level of pain you will never forget. Although, truth be told, Wi-Fi isn't really the main problem with Linux these days. Audio and video, as well as external device connectivity (scanners, etc) are where the real pains are. If your device works, great. If it doesn't work, you're fcuked. "

Yeah, but then again the same can be said for Windows XP and Vista these days. Windows drops support for hardware far quicker than Linux does. The problem is if Linux doesn't have support from the hardware manufacturer at all and no Linux developers have the device to engineer drivers themselves.

Which is absolutely irrelevant if the hardware doesn't work in Linux to begin with, isn't it?

Sorry?

What a load of rubbish. Hardware vendors don't release a driver for for new hardware on operating systems that are being phased out or EOL.

Windows doesn't drop any hardware support, My brother has an ATi Rage 128 running on his desktop with Windows 7, works fine.

That's not my experience. I find that getting older devices to work on newer versions of Windows is generally more problematic than getting new hardware running on XP/Vista. Even the latest cutting edge gadgets still almost always include drivers for XP.



Probably true, although it can be inconsistent, with things that work in one distribution not working in another. The main issue I find is that graphical configuration tools aren't updated. I used to be able to control a lot of my Thinkpad's features from the GUI, but those tools don't work in newer distributions and now they only be tweaked from config files.

How exactly does Windows XP "drop support" for hardware? Does Microsoft send out an automatic update that kills the driver whenever they feel a certain group of people shouldn't be using a particular device anymore? Sorry but I call BS on that one.

It's not that XP drops hardware support at all; rather the hardware manufacturers choose a point in time where they don't want to offer XP support for their next generation device, and therefore you never had support in the first place. Nothing dropped, just moving forward.

"But if you don't like it you can always fix it yourself!" ..

Only require me learning C/C++, some graphical library and a few other bits and pieces and playing around with obscure config settings that aren't documented anywhere.

But you can fix it yourself!

Edited 2012-10-19 08:29 UTC

Aww, you beat me to it. I was going to say sure, avoid the pain of Windows 8 and experience a whole new level of pain you will never forget. Although, truth be told, Wi-Fi isn't really the main problem with Linux these days. Audio and video, as well as external device connectivity (scanners, etc) are where the real pains are. If your device works, great. If it doesn't work, you're fcuked. "

All one has to do is find a machine for which the supplier is prepared to pre-install Linux. It will then be a machine which will run Linux.

For example, here is the ordering page for the machine on which I am typing this very message (running 64-bit Kubuntu 12.10):
http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=1...

Scroll down the page to where you see the heading "Microsoft Windows", and ensure that no box under that heading is checked. Underneath that, under the next heading "Operating System Options", check ONLY the box "Ubuntu Linux OS Pre-loaded".

This is what I did. It saved me $117 over the recommended OS, which was "Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium (32/64 Bit) [+$117]". I also ensured that no other software, such as Microsoft Office 2010 Home and Business Edition [+$253], was selected, as that would be software for the recommended OS only.

All up I got the machine for the base price of $449, and I saved $370 by selecting no Microsoft software or OS, yet I ended up with a (Linux desktop) system every bit as capable, and I was assured that it was guaranteed to be able to run Linux flawlessly.

BTW, have you seen Kubuntu 12.10? Fantastic OS, it works flawlessly on my machine (as you would expect), it is as fast as blazes, and it has a vast array of excellent desktop software available at zero cost installable in next-to-no-time at the click of a button. External device connectivity (scanners, printers etc) is also flawless.

If your time is worth anything, go for such a Kubuntu option. You will save heaps of time and effort. You also get superb value for money. The total system (hardware + software) is half that of a Windows 7 + recommended desktop software option on the exact same hardware. This is easily the best way I know of to "avoid the pain of Windows 8 and experience a whole new level of pain".

Edited 2012-10-19 12:52 UTC

That's kind of illogical as most of the same software is actually also available for Windows. If you're happy running GIMP, LibreOffice, Firefox etc. etc. on Linux there is no reason why you couldn't use those on Windows, too. As such you should compare the prices with that in mind, not compare Linux+LibreOffice+GIMP+etc to Windows+Office+PhotoShop+etc -- you should compare Linux+LibreOffice+GIMP+etc to Windows+LibreOffice+GIMP+etc which quite really doesn't match your "half of that of a Windows 7" and so on.

That's kind of illogical as most of the same software is actually also available for Windows. If you're happy running GIMP, LibreOffice, Firefox etc. etc. on Linux there is no reason why you couldn't use those on Windows, too. As such you should compare the prices with that in mind, not compare Linux+LibreOffice+GIMP+etc to Windows+Office+PhotoShop+etc -- you should compare Linux+LibreOffice+GIMP+etc to Windows+LibreOffice+GIMP+etc which quite really doesn't match your "half of that of a Windows 7" and so on. "

This is the current Office Suite best integrated with a KDE4 desktop:

http://www.calligra.org/

It happens to be the only desktop suite for Linux which happens to have a functional alternative to Microsoft Visio diagramming software.

http://www.calligra.org/flow/

The Office Suite is major component of the desktop software, this particular suite is not available on Windows.

I also have occasion to use mathematical desktop software.

http://edu.kde.org/cantor/

I use a GNU Octave backend for Cantor, so I get a functional clone of MATLAB. MATLAB itself is, of course, available for Windows, but it is quite expensive.

Speaking of expensive, I am merely an amateur when it comes to photography, so I cannot justify expensive software such as photoshop. I do find GIMP is a little clumsy, so instead I tend to use the combination of the following applications:

http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about?q=about/features
(for digital photo management)
http://krita.org/
(for creation of raster graphics)
http://www.calligra.org/karbon/
(for vector graphics)

Also not available for Windows.

As part of the very nice KDE4 default desktop, I get to use very capable, very nice essential desktop utilities such as:
http://dolphin.kde.org/features.html
http://gwenview.sourceforge.net/
http://kate-editor.org/about-kate/
http://www.kdenlive.org/features
http://qalculate.sourceforge.net/

... none of which are available for Windows, as far as I know.

To get the equivalent power and functionality on a Windows box, one would have to spend more on software than one had spent on the hardware alone.

Then again, even if some of this excellent desktop software were available for Windows, to run it on a secure Windows box, one would also have to get anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. Now whilst it is true one can get good Windows software in this area for no cost, it is also true to say that one has to know what one is doing, lest one ends up in the very trouble one was trying to avoid.

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

So I repeat, the point stands, to get a great system for half the cost and none of the pain or timewasting, the best approach is to avoid Windows and go with a Linux distribution targeted for desktop users.

Edited 2012-10-19 13:49 UTC

You're cherry-picking applications that are Linux-only, even when you perfectly well know that there are completely free alternatives also for Windows. There is no reason why you'd have to buy expensive commercial apps for these simply because you run Windows.

You're cherry-picking applications that are Linux-only, even when you perfectly well know that there are completely free alternatives also for Windows. There is no reason why you'd have to buy expensive commercial apps for these simply because you run Windows. "

... unless you want to get anywhere near the capability that I have installed on my Linux desktop, for no cost.

I repeat, to get for Windows the equivalent power, functionality, and quality of desktop applications that I routinely install on my KDE4 desktop, avoiding trialware, adware, crapware, shovelware, shareware, bloat and all kinds of other dubious-ware that pervades the Windows world, one has to spend at least twice as much on a Windows desktop compared to a Linux desktop with the exact same hardware.

No joke. For real. I kid you not.

Then of course when it comes to your time and effort (have you ever waited through over an hour, and no less than four reboots, for Windows to get through an update? I have) ... one simply can't get consumer Windows that comes anywhere close to the excellent KDE4 Linux desktop experience.

As for things like Matlab ... you can't seriously be saying for such a complicated piece of software you can get a 1:1 equivalent ... they can't even get that working with Web Standards (cross browser) which are pretty simple in comparison to Matlab.

All the other applications have 100% free equivalents on Windows as well as other operating systems.

You are like a broken record.

Edited 2012-10-21 17:11 UTC

GNU Octave is a MATLAB work-alike, it uses the same language & syntax etc. Most MATLAB scripts should work fine without modification.

Contrary to your claim, about half of the software applications which I use regularly on my desktop are not available at all on Windows. If you use Windows you would have to find an alternative work-alike program. Fortunately there is a huge range of software available for Windows, but unfortunately for you, many of those work-alike equivalent programs for Windows are proprietary, and they will cost you money. So much money, in fact, that you will have to spend as much again on software as I spent for the complete system.

As far as the quality of FOSS software (such as the GNU Octave MATLAB work-alike) goes, here is one client:

http://www.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/09/large-hadron-collider--...

Mine does with Ubuntu, Mint and Debian. Samsung is fairly linux friendly

I get tired of Windows weenies dabbling with Linux and then concluding after half an hour that this that or the other didn't work so therefore Linux is crap. No, your hardware is probably crap or your knowledge of Linux is severely lacking. As a long-time Linux user (10 years now) I have learned that you do your homework before you purchase such things as new laptops, printers, scanners, motherboards, video cards and the like. It takes all of about a half hour on Google to figure out what is well supported and what isn't. Then, you simply buy accordingly saving yourself hours upon hours of headaches trying to force a square peg into a round hole and then blaming the innocent party when it doesn't work. Hardware manufactures don't write drivers for Linux and they disclose little about the inner-workings of their devices. Therefore an army of coders working for free has to reverse engineer these drivers. In my opinion, since most things simply work right out of the box, I have to conclude that these folks are doing a fabulous job! If you want to blame someone, blame the hardware vendors who don't document their devices well or support Linux in any way shape or form.

Why should anyone support something that only a very small minority use? Lets see, linux 1% share, Windows 90% share. Now I was a major Linux advocate and user for nearly ten years myself, but due to the FreeTards expecting me to give up all my time to fix their crap for nothing and not even getting any thanks I decided to go back to Windows development last month. I'm upgrading to Windows 8 because it works great out of the box, no drivers were needed, but they are on the vendors sites if I need them, and I've found people are actually paying me for my coding skills, rather than having to work a second job just so I can fix bugs in the Linux Kernel, which I stopped supporting due to the direction things are going.

I won't be porting my apps to Linux. The market is too small for me to be bothered with, plus the headaches are more in Linux Land due to the Tards unable to read my install instructions which are so easy btw my 7 yr old niece can follow them.

I've already had lots of abuse on my site because of my change of OS, and so I am in the middle of selling that site, and setting up my new Windows only Blog/site.

What can I say. Linux really is useful for servers, but as I am launching Windows server based apps then Linux is of no use to me at all nowadays, and it won't get any better, its marketshare will remain low for the next ten years at least.

Don't let the door hit you in the a** on your way out.

If Linux fanboys didn't whitewash its problems then maybe people wouldn't have false expectations.



It's nowhere near as easy as that for two reasons:

1. Something that works in one distribution may not work in another, or even in a different version of it. I've bought hardware after finding guides to using it with Debian and still had no luck in Linux Mint. My Thinkpad, which works pretty well with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, doesn't have working power management in either Fedora or Ubuntu. Even if the hardware itself works, it's often the case that graphical configuration tools are only available for certain distributions, and then aren't updated to work with newer ones.

2. When Linux compatibility guides state that a particular piece of hardware works in Linux, they don't necessarily mean that every feature of it works perfectly. For example, I've seen soundcards listed as compatible as soon as stereo output works, which isn't much use if I want to record using the optical input. I've been called a nitpicker for complaining that my "Linux compatible" laptop's special buttons and sleep mode didn't work. The fact that Linux installed and booted to the desktop was enough for it to be considered fully compatible, with no problems worth listing.

Using Windows it really is as simple as checking that the hardware has drivers for the version I'm running. With Linux, researching compatibility often turns up a lot of misleading and incomplete information, with problems only revealed after actually trying the hardware. I'd rather save myself the time and hassle of dealing with that.

"If Linux fanboys didn't whitewash its problems then maybe people wouldn't have false expectations."


Whose white-washing anything but your own ignorance?


"No, your hardware is probably crap or your knowledge of Linux is severely lacking. As a long-time Linux user (10 years now) I have learned that you do your homework before you purchase such things as new laptops, printers, scanners, motherboards, video cards and the like."


It's nowhere near as easy as that for two reasons:


"1. Something that works in one distribution may not work in another, or even in a different version of it. I've bought hardware after finding guides to using it with Debian"


See, you're confused. Debian is not Linux Mint. Red Hat Enterprise Linux isn't Debian, Fedora or Ubuntu. Again, do your homework. You don't need a graphical configuration tool to setup hardware and if you're relying on that then you don't know what you're doing and you deserve to keep paying Microsoft.


"2. When Linux compatibility guides state that a particular piece of hardware works in Linux, they don't necessarily mean that every feature of it works perfectly."

No, they don't. But why doesn't every feature work perfectly? Is it because of Linux or is it because the hardware vendor doesn't support anything other than the sacred cow Windows?


"Using Windows it really is as simple as checking that the hardware has drivers for the version I'm running. With Linux, researching compatibility often turns up a lot of misleading and incomplete information, with problems only revealed after actually trying the hardware. I'd rather save myself the time and hassle of dealing with that."


Ah yes. It's similarly easy to go out and pay for a hooker for the evening instead of doing the work required to form a real relationship. My advice to you is to just keep using Windows. It should be obvious to you why.

Edited 2012-10-21 01:49 UTC

Fanboys often claim that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. In fact it was claimed in this thread that using Linux would actually save time and effort. I don't think you can blame people for believing the hype.



You're missing my point. You claimed that finding out whether hardware is compatible is a quick and easy task. In reality it's complicated by all the different distributions, as just finding out that other people are successfully using a particular device with Linux isn't enough.



I can do without graphical tools, but given the choice I'd rather change a setting with a couple of clicks in a control panel, instead of spending time reading howto documents and editing config files. My time is worth something.

Personally, I consider graphical configuration tools to be a pretty basic feature in a modern OS. If one isn't available for a particular piece of hardware then I wouldn't consider it to be fully supported. Obviously I've been spoilt by Windows and my expectations for Linux are simply too high.



I'm not blaming Linux, but who's to blame isn't important to me as a user. What matters to me is that I can easily find hardware that does what I want and works properly with my OS.

That's made more difficult in Linux because even a distribution's official compatibility database can provide highly misleading information, listing devices as "working perfectly" when in fact significant features are non-functional.

We should all believe the Windows hype though, right?



Funny how this is always brought up as a problem. Do you also have a problem shopping in a store with more than 2-3 different brands of any product? Amazingly enough people manage this EVERY damn day yet we think they can't figure out how to chose from a few different OS products. Really?



So is mine which is why I got tired of having to wade through the registry trying change some setting that wasn't in the UI. It's also not much fun manually editing XML config files.
This stuff goes both ways.



It's exactly the opposite for me.



Wow, people aren't perfect and mistakes are sometime made. Holy crap, this is ground breaking news. Good thing mistakes like this are never done anywhere else.
Seriously, come on.

This is a completely nonsensical comparison. I don't have to worry about a particular tin of beans being incompatible with my brand of microwave.



In more than a decade of using Windows I've only delved into the registry a couple of times. In both cases it was to tweak some obscure setting and there was a simple and straightforward guide to follow to achieve what I wanted.

In Linux I've had to spend hours reading poorly written documentation and editing config files to achieve basic things that would take a couple of clicks in Windows.

Obviously I'm just talking about my experiences with Windows and Linux. YMMV.



Read the post that this was responding to. They claimed that finding out if hardware is fully Linux compatible is an easy process. My point is that it's always a minefield even if someone does their homework.

"{flamebait} often claim that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. In fact it was claimed in this thread that using Linux would actually save time and effort."

Not just "claimed" but rather "shown" or "proven" or "demonstrated".

Evidence was even provided for your perusal.

Edited 2012-10-21 10:36 UTC

Utter rubish. Get a live USB of the distribution you are investigating, and boot the machine you are investigating from that live USB.

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

"Like live CDs, live USBs can be used in embedded systems for system administration, data recovery, or the testing of operating system distributions without committing to a permanent installation on the local hard disk drive."

Here is a FOSS live USB creator program for Windows, to make it easy for you:

http://www.linuxliveusb.com/



You mean like this?

http://imgur.com/gdyAa

That is the System Settings opening GUI for Kubuntu 12.10, which is of course the equivalent of Windows Control Panel. Many of those top-level icons lead to three or four lower-level icons, which in turn lead to GUI dialog boxes for configuration settings. Enjoy.

Edited 2012-10-21 11:20 UTC

I myself am a long time Linux user. Never did I do any homework before buying new hardware. Probably I was lucky but always all my hardware worked, even wireless printers and dual video cards setups. That is not to say I did not encounter problems: I did, several. Still, as a rule I found it easier and more pleasant to deal with those Linux problems than I do dealing with Windows' problems. Perhaps Linux lacks a company or a group of people to do for a single distribution what I do for my personal use. You see, linux works, period. In too many cases better than Windows. Hardware support in Linux is close to a non-issue to me; at least no more than Windows. I repeat: one company or group should focus effort in doing it easier for users and the tech people alike to solve driver/software problems; as it stands now, it is perceivably (but in reality, for those who know their way around both OSs, it is the same) more diffilcult to solve such problems in Linux than in Windows.

Neither, I am proficient using Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Solaris.



I do this for Windows to so I don't get a crap experience.

Linux still fails short if I buy intel chipsets (usually the best support), realtek sound (usually the best supported and nvidia (their drivers on *nix are the only ones that have decent 3d support).

And something still breaks between distro releases.

Unlike bloody Ubuntu ... Windows 8 has been stable since the first beta on my hardware.

BTW

I have a GTX 660 GPU, some dodgy wireless card I picked up in a supermarket in spain and ancient nForce 6 chipset.

Just did a VM install of the new release. I use gnome-session-fall no effects (GNOME 3-based and looks like GNOME 2 with original panel) and it looks like they didn't break anything... so I might consider to upgrading.

You are truly an utter and complete moron. The problem never was that the crap you are refering to *looks* like GNOME 2 with the original panel, the problem is that it doesn't *WORK* like GNOME 2 with original panel, dipshit.

Edited 2012-10-21 17:21 UTC

I tweaked it, it does work like GNOME2 for everything I do it with it.

I use it every single day.

Have you ever tried the gnome-session-fallback ?

And just what do you do with it? Watch online episodes of "Teletubbies"?

When I use the system I work from home: system administration, network administration and programming.

Or as a hobby: fix issies with open source projects and other programming projects.

And yes also the normal things you might do with a home system: browsing and watching the occasional video.

You could try one of the many other buntus, or go with Debian proper.

It would be nice if they did the fedora specialised versions.

Anaconda is a crap from Red Hat 9.x to this day and it's getting worse with every release. How much RAM it needs now to launch graphical interface? 768 or more? Oh, you always can edit anaconda python files on Live CD and fix that. Did I say that only graphical one supports custom partitions? And you can't simply create extended partition, because it will be created automatically only after 3rd one. And it's slow as hell. Thankfully if you install the damn thing, RH/clones/Fedora are pretty fun and stable distros.

Ubuntu alternate is a brilliant thing compared to Anaconda. I always go with alternate, reminds me happy times with Debian, when I had more time for PC than today.

Anaconda work fine, you can always run the text installer if you are short on memory.

Lets make up imaginary problems about an installer that has been working fine since redhat 7.1.

Actually, Ubuntu 32-bit isn't limited to only 4GB of memory.

Exactly, PAE for the win.

Linus on PAE

http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=76912&curpostid=76973

Not a solution

What's the problem that isn't solved by either using 32bit+PAE or the simple action of choosing 64bit in the download?

Edited 2012-10-20 01:48 UTC

64-bit is fine; PAE is a hack that should not be encouraged, as Linus explains.

I would describe it like overused antibiotics: good for specific users, bad for the community. Luckily, 64-bit is the standard now, and every major distribution supports 32-bit emulation for apps like Skype.

Indeed it is a hack but on the other hand it solves the problem for most users. Few users in Ubuntu's target demographic really need to run applications that requires more than 4GB RAM and those who do know to use 64bit.

You are correct that it benefits single users who do not have demanding computing tasks.

However, it's a pain for system developers who have to cater both the desktop user and the power user, as well as those writing apps for the power user. Better to drag along the desktop user into 64-bit land.

I had a problem with lightdm as a ldap client, but its easy swapped with gdm Unity was no problem. Googling suggests the even lightdm is not a problem now

Something must be wrong with your computer or drivers then. Have you tried submitting a bug report? Unity has problems on low end machines such as those based on Intel Atom or AMD E- or C-series CPUs, but it has no problems running on for example a core 2 machine given a decent graphics card.

Unity still fast on my 7 year old laptop with 768MB ram? Check.



Never had that problem? Check.



Still feels fast on a machine with much lower specs? CHeck.



Still great dual-monitor support and the right launcher config out of the box? Check.

Edited 2012-10-20 04:03 UTC

I agree with the above as far as Unity speed, never losing settings, and the sluggishness not being problems, however dual monitor support has been a big issue for me in Ubuntu. The real issue is not Ubuntu in my case though as it is across board with any distro I use. For whatever reason I have really bad screen tearing and can't seem to resolve it. I think a hardware change is needed for my setup.

In all fairness, I must agree with this. The Empathy ui is now quite horrible.

That's a bit of a leap. All Mint variations on Distrowatch are counted as a single distro. If you combine the ranking for every official Ubuntu variation that's on the list you get a drastically different number putting it at the top. Is it as popular as it once was? No. Is it even close to being yesterday's news? Definitely not. (and to be clear, I haven't used Ubuntu in years so this isn't some Ubuntu fanboy defending his favorite distro)

Edited 2012-10-19 20:56 UTC

good point! I didn't notice the other ubuntu variations on the distrowatch list because they are so unpopular.

Distrowatch isn't an accurate measurement of anything.

WELL THEN! PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EDUCATE THE IGNORANT, GOOD SIR!

Overdramatic much?

Too bad Linux ain't up to the snuff.

Just like Windows, then.

lol. windows 8 under the hood is probably is the best windows yet. but since metro is trash, I'll give that one to you. as for the rest, you might want to see a doctor. your behavior seems abnormal

More like the anti-Ubuntu crowd. For some reason these people think it is of immense interest to the world that they do not use nor like it. In reality though, they're just annoying nitwits that no-one gives a rats ass about.

How about you shut up?