Ubuntu 9.10 - Good, Bad, Ugly?

First

Previous page

1

2

Next page

Last

Aubrey Windows-free since '06 Advanced member 57 posts Posted: 27/10/2009 10:10 AM

It is less than a week until the Official Release of ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala) and it would be good to get the impressions and recommendations of users (given it has had no coverage at all on APC yet). I have been using Karmic since Alpha 4, so some of my experience reflects the frustrations of a tester. It has been one of Ubuntu's more messy development cycles - with several major updates completely wrecking systems. Thankfully the RC (released on 22 October) has been trouble free for me. Few of the new features are of great interest to me - the "Ubuntu One" direct connection to the (Amazon) cloud and the new startup process (grub2, xsplash and gdm) leave me somewhat underwhelmed. The startup changes, combined with the previous changes to X-server configuration, are, I believe, underdone and will cause a lot of problems for new users who want to change basic settings. They are not easy to tweak (guis are supposedly planned for next release) and old how-tos will be irrelevant. I will try to avoid the Ubuntu forums for a while as I think there will be a lot of tears with people trying to dual boot unique setups. If it isn't detected during the install, you will need your wits about you to get it working at all. Performance is, however, great (but 9.04 was the major speed boost and 9.10 just consolidates those gains) and general polish has improved greatly (at least for the Gnome version). The updates to apps (Firefox, OpenOffice, Network Manager) are welcome. I guess I'd recommend it for anyone except dual-bootin' Windows migrants. For those, I'd say use 9.04 or wait till 10.04. I generally recommend the Xubuntu variant for people with older machines, but it seems to be nearing the bloat of Ubuntu itself these days (and, for some reason, the RC installs OpenOffice, which sort of defeats the purpose of a "lightweight" install completely). A version of Crunchbag linux should be available soon with a 9.10 base and a LXDE desktop - probably a better light alternative. I have tried the new Moblin-Netbook-remix on a netbook but ditched it very quickly. Yes, it is fast but I hate the interface and the Moblin apps. It needs another release to mature. I'll be upgrading my "production" machine to 9.10 a couple of weeks after the release - I generally wait until any teething issues are resolved.

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

Halcon Live up the dream in IT Cornerstone member 63 posts Posted: 27/10/2009 1:10 PM

Ubuntu is the most talked Linux distribution, I tried several times with no success. The install routine does not like my Keyboard/mouse combination of Logitech Revolution, because is wireless, the install is waiting for a response of a corded input device which is too bad! Occasionally I use Fedora 11, this distribution is not sexier than Ubuntu, but at least works fine not closer as Windows. It will take a lot of work to make it a better product to really challenge Windows all the way. That's why people don't want to use Linux because is not like Windows, I hope this could be a reality and then we will see a difference!

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

Aubrey Windows-free since '06 Advanced member 57 posts Posted: 27/10/2009 6:10 PM

Halcon wrote: The install routine does not like my Keyboard/mouse combination of Logitech Revolution, because is wireless, the install is waiting for a response of a corded input device which is too bad! Interesting. I did once have a wireless keyboard that worked fine with Ubuntu (I didn't do the install with it - just plugged it in later). My biggest headache was dual booting (yes, I once dual booted with XP). The wireless and mouse drivers didn't load until after the OS/kernel was selected on the Grub boot screen - so I had no control over which OS booted unless I also had a wired keyboard attached. Halcon wrote: It will take a lot of work to make it a better product to really challenge Windows all the way. That's why people don't want to use Linux because is not like Windows, I hope this could be a reality and then we will see a difference! Away from the office I like to be as far from Windows as I possibly can, so I'm not a big fan of making interfaces "more like Windows", but I see your point. I do believe even a Windows fanboy could find their way around a Gnome or KDE desktop without too much assistance. On the other hand, I'm not that keen on seeing any OS, app or anything else get such a dominant slice of the market that it can dictate standards. I'd be thrilled if Linux and other FOSS OSs got 10% of the desktop/mobile market - and in some sectors it must already be close to that figure. I certainly see it and hear it discussed much more in non-geek circles these days. I even had someone in a retail computer shop (ie. where the real bottom-dwellers live) say they used it themselves after their dad recommended it to them. Personally, I mod the standard Ubuntu beyond recognition (using e17 and some different apps) but I do believe it remains the best "first" distro for new Linux users. Fedora and Mandriva would come a close second but I do love Debian packaging and the huge repositories.

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

testy New user 2 posts Posted: 01/11/2009 1:11 PM

Hi Guys, I have been a professional tech for 13 years now and I have noticed people really don't care what they use most don't even know what versions they are using. They just want it to work!!! They will even stay in a rut because they can't leave their comfort zone. Windows (all versions) have many issues i.e. crashing, virus, spy-ware, hardware compatibility in new versions. Linux has issues such as missing, incomplete or user friendly apps, hardware support etc. Macs work fine but dollars for power seems a bit high. My choice is - primary OS Ubuntu 9.10, Windows XP running in VirtualBox for those apps I can get for Ubuntu. As for moving people out of the Windows comfort zone, good luck!!!

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

Ubuntusound New user 1 posts Posted: 02/11/2009 10:11 AM

Have been with Ubuntu & Mint for last two years. In the main very happy until Karmic 9.10 this weekend. 1 The install went smooth as silk 2 as many say it just works out of the box 3 found Nvidia card and drivers and asked if it could use it Tick ! Then the perenial sound gremlins arrived Ubuntu has been a nightmare to configure sound since Ubuntu 7 they sort of got it right in 8.04 completely lost the plot (set up) from 8.10 but you could always work around with the help of forums and intuitive settings to get sound to work . And when it worked it works very well . Along comes Karmic 9.10 and no matter what is tried on 6 different machines no sound Into Virtual boxes to try and sort it out -nothing works not even on 64bit (although at times that gives more compatability issues because of unsigned drivers be it Ubuntu or various flavours of Win from xp up to windows 7 and various server set ups) The forums and google whirlpool et al are awash with these sound issues regarding Ubuntu . In simple terms until it works as does windows with sound I am afraid many will return to Windows and sadly miss out on all that is good in an otherwise fine OS As another poster very rightly states ist about *comfort* zones . In all areas bar some wireless and sound configurations very comfortable But for intending users to have to spend hours tweaking with sound configs They will leave with angst and frustration at Ubuntu . Choices are to go back to 8.04 and lose out on what the subsequent distros have improved or spend the money and go upgrade path to windows 7. As I have with a clean install in 64bit. When soem one figures out and writes a nice tweak script to get around these sound issues Ubuntu will be much improved .But to say Ubuntu simply works is just not true.

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

apt.pupil in the middle of a fanboi war Frequent poster 30 posts Posted: 02/11/2009 1:11 PM	no linux for me kthx. i have been trying to install and run without a hitch since 8.04 and each time, i get Hardware failure. the one thing i can say for windows is that when something fails- it at least gives you a blue screen which tells you what the last service running was before the crash, and what physical channel the STOP error was generated at
	permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

Raindog Why is the tag-line so damn shor Senior Forumologist 161 posts Posted: 02/11/2009 2:11 PM

apt.pupil wrote: the one thing i can say for windows is that when something fails- it at least gives you a blue screen which tells you what the last service running was before the crash, and what physical channel the STOP error was generated at Yes, I sure can see how most users can find something like Technical information: *** STOP: 0x00000050 (0x8872A990, 0x00000001, 0x804F35D7, 0x00000000) and a total system shutdown and required restart, is more user friendly than a Linux error prompt. The blue screen after all is a comforting reminder to the Windowphile that they are in a familiar place.

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

apt.pupil in the middle of a fanboi war Frequent poster 30 posts Posted: 02/11/2009 2:11 PM

Raindog wrote: Yes, I sure can see how most users can find something like Technical information: *** STOP: 0x00000050 (0x8872A990, 0x00000001, 0x804F35D7, 0x00000000) and a total system shutdown and required restart, is more user friendly than a Linux error prompt. The blue screen after all is a comforting reminder to the Windowphile that they are in a familiar place. Thats better than the random symbols MacOS dish out, and in my experience, all Linux does when something goes wrong is hang. I used to use Ubuntu, and tried OpenSUSE(i think that was the name), and both did the same thing. and it doesn't take a geek to know what channels the error is happening on, my only issue with BSODs lately is that whenever i get one(i can thank OCZ and Corsair both for my recent spouts of BSODs) it takes less than half a second for my pc to reboot, so i can never catch what physical address my pc is hitting the error. well provided you can read the BSOD message, there is more than just the physical channels in the message, it also informs you of the last .SYS process that was running before you hit the error. on second thought- you actually would have to be pretty geeky to know what to look for when you get a BSOD.

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

Raindog Why is the tag-line so damn shor Senior Forumologist 161 posts Posted: 02/11/2009 9:11 PM	apt.pupil wrote: and in my experience, all Linux does when something goes wrong is hang That experience obviously doesn't extend to how to pop out of the gui for a quick repair. apt.pupil wrote: it takes less than half a second for my pc to reboot yeah right. But why does it have to reboot on every error again? :>
	permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

apt.pupil in the middle of a fanboi war Frequent poster 30 posts Posted: 03/11/2009 12:11 AM

the same reason why you need to reboot when POST fails to load. hardware failure generally means it will hang. the BSOD jumps in and lets you know you have hardware failure- or a driver issue also- back to UNIX, i would like to know how you call an OS good if it can only be safely run from the CD- since every time it touches a Hard Drive of mine- that HDD fails. i like a lot of their ideas, but until i can successfully install and run it without it causing major issues, i can not "enjoy" it to the full extent you guys do. when i did get it running for a while- it would only run for 10-15 minutes before the inevitable hang. you wonder why there are still so many windows users out there- well for the majority of us- windows works. And when something goes wrong- it is the people who are like me who endeavour to fix the problem

permalink Digg Slashdot send to a friend

First

Previous page

1

2

Next page

Last

Not signed in
	Anonymous user
Login here
Sign up now!

	This month in APC!
read more