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.
Thread beginning with comment 423068
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 03:21 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 03:51 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by vodoomoth on Fri 7th May 2010 10:24 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by Morty on Fri 7th May 2010 11:12 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by denisfalqueto on Fri 7th May 2010 17:39 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 Parent Score: 1