Ashton Mills30 April 2007, 1:34 AM
It's one of the Linux kingdom's most anticipated releases, and promises to be the best user-friendly desktop distributions yet (so easy your grandma could use it, we're told). Now that it's here, does it live up to the hype?
Now I'm as fond of Ubuntu as the next penguin, but I'm a bit of distro whore really -- I'm always trying new ones and my current system has all of Gentoo, SuSE and Ubuntu installed (and some other niche operating system on the other partition - Windows Vista I think it's called).
So given that I don't pledge loyalty to any particular distro, I usually come at them with a critical eye. It's love, mostly. I love Linux and want it to succeed in the areas it doesn't currently, so I'm usually straight about what does and doesn't work -- because tip-toeing the issues isn't doing the community any favours. I have great expectations for 7.04, and unfortunately they're not all met. If you're a fanboy, don't read on, because I'll shatter your fragile world.
And so it was with some excitement and trepidation I plonked Feisty Fawn, aka Ubuntu 7.04, on my system and replacing its predecessor.
I'd like to say the install was seamless, but it wasn't -- the migration tool, while a nice touch, didn't apply to me as I was doing a fresh install, but the tool would have none of it and spewed up an error saying the process couldn't continue. Thankfully, I could choose to let the poor program bomb out and not prevent the operating system from installing -- but I ask you, was this tested at all? How long would it have taken to have someone run through the various (and limited in scope) options for the tool and ensure it worked?
Unfortunately, this seems to be an endemic problem with Ubuntu. My experience using it as a sole desktop in my 'Living in a Linux only world' series in APC Magazine series came across many small and annoying issues -- many of which appear to be a result of laziness or simply failing to test the packages bundled: for example plugging in a camera and having it recognise it just fine, but be unable to transfer the images because the programs was run with the wrong privileges (we'll see how 7.04 fares here later). Easily fixed by dropping to the command line and running it sudo -- but what of the Windows user hoping to ditch Microsoft? They'll go right back to their windows boot for something as simple as copying images.
Migration bomb out aside, the install went fine however and I booted into my tasty new 7.04 desktop. And herein lies another complaint I had with 6.10, and which 7.04 seems to continue -- I have a widescreen LCD monitor, and not only is this not detected from the monitor EDID on bootup, but the Ubuntu (or Gnome) Screen Resolution tool thinks my monitor's native res of 1920x1200 doesn't exist. So I couldn’t even manually correct it myself.
 Display settings: Lots of resolutions, but not for my monitor |
The official Nvidia drivers fared much better, allowing me to properly set the widescreen resolution -- however its version of the xorg.conf file didn't mesh well with Ubuntu's. So, yet another problem fixed by jumping to the command line and sudo nanoing xorg.conf, old stylz, to insert resolutions into the modelines -- but again, what if some poor schmuck had installed Ubuntu to replace Windows on the recommendation of his Linux nut friend, and he can't even get it to display properly? If Ubuntu is the most user-friendly distro, and pushing hard to be an alternative to Windows, is it really ready for prime time if can't even set up the monitor correctly? This same display, under Windows, works first time with no fiddling.
 Nvidia settings: The nvidia drivers fare better -- they recognises the monitor resolution |
I have to come down on this hard here -- widescreen monitors are ubiquitous now, and after all these years of X development (not to mention official driver support from Nvidia and ATI, though the latter are lacklustre) why does it not 'just work' under Linux? Five years ago this could be forgiveable, today there is no logical reason why the resolution of the monitor shouldn't work out of the box -- and if not automatic, then at least to have the option in the settings dialog. We all like to show off how Vista's snazzy effects were already done by Compiz and Beryl before Vista was released -- but at least it gets the resolution right first time.
Remember, it's out love for Ubuntu that I'm being so harsh. Look where we're at -- 7.04, a number of significant releases since 4.10 Warty three years ago -- and it still can't manage the display properly. It's the small things, the polish, that make the biggest impact.
 Ubuntu desktop: Fresh install of 7.04, with Nvidia drivers |
So, after editing xorg.conf, I had my desktop setup properly and I was ready to rock and roll.
But do I have anything good to say about 7.04 yet? Sure -- I'm attuned to my PC like a Borg to its, er, universal subjugation fetish. That is, I'm pretty good at picking up subtle differences in performance with things like drivers, and the first thing I noticed (boot time aside) was that 7.04 was just snappier. This could be due to me installing the 64-bit version compared to the 32-bit 6.10 install, but regardless it was just more responsive, which is nice start. And if comparing to Windows – it’s significantly more responsive.
Next, I set about checking out media playback, desktop effects, plugging in a camera (*glares at 6.10*) and more. Will I shout and moan some more, or be overcome with orgasmic Ubuntu bliss? I'll let you know in page 2.