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 423086
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 06:13 UTC 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[7]: lethal upgrade
by Morgan on Fri 7th May 2010 10:54 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


And most Linux users are like that. It's going to be that way for a long time.

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.


In the real world, people and companies use LTS versions (like the one we're discussing) exactly because of the stability, long-term support, and avoidance of hassle and tinkering. You do know what "LTS" stands for right?

And before you start screaming "fanboy" at me too: I started using Linux with Slackware, and it is still by far my favorite distro. I was resistant to Debian back in the late 90's/early 00's, and I didn't care for Ubuntu in its first few years either. It's only recently that I've come to appreciate it as an everyday OS. So, take it from someone who is used to the rock-solid dependability of Slackware that this current version (so far) has exceeded my expectations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by bosco_bearbank on Fri 7th May 2010 11:51 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

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.


I understand it - misguided enthusiasm. I'm willing to put up with the constant tinkering required to use the latest from Fedora and Ubuntu. For Joe Average, it's CentOS or Ubuntu LTS

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by tylerdurden on Fri 7th May 2010 19:57 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

In my experience, most companies which run Red Hat, do so because of the software they run and which is only validated with a specific RHS version.

So it is more like app support that the supposedly higher stability which tends to be the main value proposition from Red Hat,

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[7]: lethal upgrade
by Hiev on Fri 7th May 2010 14:05 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Because a secret conspirancy from Redmond?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: lethal upgrade
by lemur2 on Fri 7th May 2010 14:20 in reply to "RE[6]: lethal upgrade"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
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.
"

True. Arch is for people who know what they are doing. If people know what they are doing, they won't be running Windows.

Suggesting that a 6 month re-install of Ubuntu would be easier for users than upgrading Windows is absurd.


How so? To upgrade/re-install Kubuntu, which I have just finished doing for my wife's netbook, is a matter of booting the liveCD (or in this case, LiveUSB), clicking on the "install Kubuntu" icon once it has booted (if the liveCD or liveUSB boots OK then it obviously works on this machine), and then answering a few questions about your name, location, and what you want to call this computer. There is one tricky bit where you have to select "manually configure partitions" but all that you do is select the same partitions as you had already set up on the previous installation. If you did it last time, it isn't a big ask to get this done again this time. Just remember ... the ONLY partition that you re-format is the root partition "/". This will preserve user files and settings.

Having done that the rest of the install runs itself and is finished in 20 minutes or less.

Windows auto-updates without breaking working hardware and major upgrades are not needed every 6 months.


Oh yes they are. I have known a number of Windows users who cannot keep a Windows machine clean enough to keep it working for even that long.

Most Windows users are still running XP and don't have to worry about an upgrade breaking their USB.


But they do have to worry about not typing ANY personal information at all on their machine, lest a keylogger send their bank details off to a cyber-criminal somewhere.

BTW, I've never had anything break on me after literally hundreds of (clean) installs and re-installs of various Linux distributions. I simply don't upgrade any distribution, I always just re-format root ("/"). I think there must be a lot of masochists out there wanting to find a way to break something, and figuring that an incremental upgrade only like Windows does it (rather than a fresh re-install) is surely the best way to go about it.

"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.
"

Exactly. Upgrade to new release, and LTS stability, are antonyms. You can do one or the other, but not both.

So?

It is the same for any system.

"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?
"

That is simple. Average people can't buy it. It is not available in stores, and it is not offered to them. Some of them might have heard of it, but rarely ever seen a LiveCD, and even if they had they wouldn't try it because some nutter like you had been feeding them scare stories.

After all, it is the easiest thing in the world to check if your network, USB, printer, audio and wireless are all still working just while the LiveCD is running. If something doesn't work (not that I've ever seen such a case) ... then simply don't install this LiveCD to hard disk.

Having said that, Linux is way, way over 1% use. There is a huge PR/marketing incentive to maintain the fiction that Linux market share is only 1%, but its installed base is in reality way higher than that.

If we widen our horizons just a little to beyond simply the desktop: there would actually be more CPUs running Linux than Windows.

Edited 2010-05-07 14:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1