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 423070
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 06:13 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 Parent Score: 8

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 07:00 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by Gone fishing on Fri 7th May 2010 08:36 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 Parent Score: 3

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[5]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:20 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 11:21 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 Parent Score: 3

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[5]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:30 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 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

RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Sat 8th May 2010 09:51 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 Parent Score: 2