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 423072
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 03:51 UTC 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[6]: lethal upgrade
by strcpy on Fri 7th May 2010 08:56 in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


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.


That is just plain fanboy comment.

I've never understood why people recommend these rolling release distributions. They need *constant* tinkering, which may be fine if you are the sort of person who likes that. Recommending those to a Joe is ridiculous.

In the real world, people and companies prefer Red Hat and SuSe exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 13:58 in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


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


Arch is described in its faq as a do-it-yourself system. That's not even on the map of usability for typical users. Suggesting that a 6 month re-install of Ubuntu would be easier for users than upgrading Windows is absurd. Windows auto-updates without breaking working hardware and major upgrades are not needed every 6 months. Most Windows users are still running XP and don't have to worry about an upgrade breaking their USB.


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.

Until you want to upgrade software that is tied a newer release.


Upgrade or update ... either way Ubuntu is way, way easier than Windows. Several times easier.


How much faith can you have in Linux advocacy when people have been trying it for years? There's obviously something wrong with the software. Every year we get reviews that claim the latest version of Ubuntu is a 9/10 and yet Linux stays at 1%. Why is that?

Reply Parent Score: 4

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[6]: lethal upgrade
by strcpy on Fri 7th May 2010 08:57 in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

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.


Just keep that tiring Linux advocacy going and the world will care. Right.

Remember to put some M-dollar-signs there to make it more convincing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 11:06 in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I have one of those HP printers too (DeskJet F2400) and I was pleasantly surprised when I put Ubuntu 10.04 on a partition and had left the printer plugged in. I never got a dialog at all, so I assumed I'd have to do some tinkering. I opened up the Printer utility and there it sat, saying "ready"! I printed a test page with no problem at all, then I opened Simple Scan again expecting to be disappointed. I put a business card on the glass and clicked the scan button, and soon enough saw the card on my screen. I was simply floored!

Even on my Leopard install, I had to use the crappy HP software to be able to print and scan, so I give the Ubuntu team major props for doing something far better than even the great Mac OS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: lethal upgrade
by ggiunta on Fri 7th May 2010 21:01 in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
ggiunta Member since:
2006-01-13

It has to be said that drivers for hp all-in-one are such a pos that they cannot be described in words. Requiring .nyet, a whopping 350mb download, completely unstable and using an unfathombale number of ports to communicate with the networked printers - but still not being able to overcome a simple router

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[6]: lethal upgrade
by nt_jerkface on Fri 7th May 2010 14:33 in reply to "RE[5]: lethal upgrade"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

This is a long term release. So your good for the next three years.


Until you want to upgrade software that requires a newer release or a trip to the command line.

Linux is not ready for the typical user until it can handle upgrades properly. That means being able to update a browser in a two year old release without having to open a command prompt. Users should not be told to stick with their current browser version if they want stability. Browsers need to be updated for security reasons and users should not have to choose between security and stability.

Reply Parent Score: 2