Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Apr 2006 13:48 UTC, submitted by Philipp Esselbach
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "The Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu teams are proud to present a second Beta release of Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu 6.06 LTS, codenamed "Dapper Drake". This release corrects some serious flaws in the installer present on the Desktop CD in the first Beta release. Although the text-mode install CD also forms part of this release, it has not been modified since Beta 1. An updated Xubuntu release is also in preparation and will be announced shortly." Hey look, a screenshot tour.
Thread beginning with comment 119463
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ubuntu is pure crap!
by netpython on Sat 29th Apr 2006 16:54 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu is pure crap!"
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

$ apt-get install avidemux

Not sudo apt-get install avidemux btw?

Not all packages can be officially included for legal reasons.

You can edit /etc/apt/sources.list as described in that file or you install comfortably with the GUI add/remove apps,it will make a notice that the particular app ( in this case avidemux) is in the multiverse repository.
Furthermore it will ask you wether you want the multiverse repository to be added,it's that simple.

As far as compiling from source is concerned there is a more *fool-proof* procedure.

sudo apt-get install fakeroot build-essential (needed)
mkdir -p tmptesting && cd tmptesting (make a compile dir)

(make sure you add the deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list)

now in order to not get any dependancy errors run the following:sudo apt-get build-dep <application>
All posible dependancies are now met.


fakeroot apt-get source -b <application> will download the source(s) for you and will compile a *.deb for you which you can install with: dpkg -i <app-name>.deb

Oh c'mon, this is GNOME system, but gtk+ is not installed?

Yes the binairy compiled by the package maintainer.But as an dependancy for compiling from source you need to install certain *.dev packages.

After I try to install with apt-get and synaptic with no luck, I gave up.

Had you taken time to spend a few seconds reading the online manual this wouldn't have happened.Than again it's so easy and intuitive to use the aforementioned GUI installer and considering your style of writing i'm tempted to not calling you a troll.

So this is one of proof to the famous "proverb":

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.


As all OS's are a device and with any device comes a manual wether you read it or not.

How intuitive and nicely an certain OS's might be.You still have to gain some pre knowledge.In Ubuntu's case very little because it explains itself and is easy to extend yet still linux and thus powerfull.

So is BSD by the way.But your advocacy doesn't do anyone a favour.

Edited 2006-04-29 16:56

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ubuntu is pure crap!
by Babi Asu on Sun 30th Apr 2006 01:24 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu is pure crap!"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11


$ apt-get install avidemux

Not sudo apt-get install avidemux btw?


su or sudo -s at the beginning


Not all packages can be officially included for legal reasons.


It is true for faac and faad, but not for avidemux.


You can edit /etc/apt/sources.list as described in that file or you install comfortably with the GUI add/remove apps,it will make a notice that the particular app ( in this case avidemux) is in the multiverse repository.
Furthermore it will ask you wether you want the multiverse repository to be added,it's that simple.

As far as compiling from source is concerned there is a more *fool-proof* procedure.

sudo apt-get install fakeroot build-essential (needed)
mkdir -p tmptesting && cd tmptesting (make a compile dir)

(make sure you add the deb-src lines in /etc/apt/sources.list)

now in order to not get any dependancy errors run the following:sudo apt-get build-dep <application>
All posible dependancies are now met.

fakeroot apt-get source -b <application> will download the source(s) for you and will compile a *.deb for you which you can install with: dpkg -i <app-name>.deb



I use Ubuntu 5.1, because there was no Ubuntu 6.0 DVD iso. And I already uncomment all in sources.list: universe, mainverse, src, security, but still no luck.

In FreeBSD, most of the time, I always try to get binary first by issuing "pkg_add -r" command. If the binary package is not available, then I compile the source from ports, just only by issuing "make install clean" in the application port directory. Or if "portupgrade" application is installed, "portinstall" command will do both steps.

I don't understand why people said apt-get is bettern than ports.


Oh c'mon, this is GNOME system, but gtk+ is not installed?

Yes the binairy compiled by the package maintainer.But as an dependancy for compiling from source you need to install certain *.dev packages.


Ok, this one is the thing I forgot about linux, typically there 3 packages for each application, i.e. bin, src and dev. Also for binary, there are a large range of architecture x distro combinations, e.g. i386.rpm, i686.mdk, ppc-ubuntu.deb, etc.



After I try to install with apt-get and synaptic with no luck, I gave up.

Had you taken time to spend a few seconds reading the online manual this wouldn't have happened.Than again it's so easy and intuitive to use the aforementioned GUI installer and considering your style of writing i'm tempted to not calling you a troll.

So this is one of proof to the famous "proverb":

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

As all OS's are a device and with any device comes a manual wether you read it or not.

How intuitive and nicely an certain OS's might be.You still have to gain some pre knowledge.In Ubuntu's case very little because it explains itself and is easy to extend yet still linux and thus powerfull.

So is BSD by the way.But your advocacy doesn't do anyone a favour.


If for installing an application I have to read all manuals, than Ubuntu is already failed for targeting average home users.

I'm not advocating BSD. For your joy of life, you should use Mac OSX. I give score "almost perfect" for Desktop OS. In short try of Ubuntu and PC-BSD (or actually GNOME and KDE), the feel and touch I experenced was far below Aqua. But for server, of course I will advocate FreeBSD.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Ubuntu is pure crap!
by da_Chicken on Sun 30th Apr 2006 10:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu is pure crap!"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

I use Ubuntu 5.1, because there was no Ubuntu 6.0 DVD iso. And I already uncomment all in sources.list: universe, mainverse, src, security, but still no luck.

Yes, avidemux is not included with Ubuntu 5.10 but it will be with Ubuntu 6.06. If you want to test the beta version of Ubuntu 6.06, you can point /etc/apt/sources.list in your Ubuntu 5.10 system to "dapper" (instead of "breezy"). Then run "sudo apt-get update" and you'll be able to upgrade your system and install avidemux without reading any more manuals.

However, if you have learned to use FreeBSD's ports, then I'd expect that you already know how to read manuals. ;-) If you prefer a "ports"-like package management that allows you to build your own binaries from source, then take a look at Ubuntu's "apt-build" package (apt-cache show apt-build). For installing GNU C and C++ compilers and "make" in one go, check out the "build-essential" package.

Comparing GNOME & KDE to the Mac desktop is a bit unfair. GNOME & KDE are younger projects developed by volunteers but I'll expect that they will catch up with the proprietary Mac soon enough. Also, please consider that you can order Ubuntu from https://shipit.ubuntu.com/ and it will be shipped to your home free of charge. Now, is that easy or not?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Ubuntu is pure crap!
by netpython on Sun 30th Apr 2006 13:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu is pure crap!"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't understand why people said apt-get is bettern than ports.

It isn't.

But,there's GUI frontend (synaptic).Needless to say it's bit more user friendly.

If for installing an application I have to read all manuals, than Ubuntu is already failed for targeting average home users.

True.
At least the quick starter guide -:)

For your joy of life, you should use Mac OSX. I give score "almost perfect" for Desktop OS.

I don't know,i have unfortunately never had an opportunity to play around with OSX but i'm saving some money to do so in the nearby future.

But for server, of course I will advocate FreeBSD.

Good choice,whatever gets the job done.I could imagine lot's of people being perfectly happy with running Solaris,Linux too for example on their server(s).

Reply Parent Score: 1