Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ubuntu Dev Summit Lays Out Plans For Hardy Heron

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 02, 2007 07:36 AM
from the hee-such-humorous-names dept.
Opurt writes "On the first day of the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Boston this week, a roundtable session focused on the vision for the upcoming Hardy Heron Ubuntu release. Unlike Gutsy Gibbon, which brought a handful of experimental features along with some new functionality, the focus with Heron will be on robustness as it will be supported on the desktop for 3 years. 'The Compiz window manager, which adds sophisticated visual effects to the Ubuntu user interface, will be a big target for usability improvements. Keyboard bindings and session management were noted as two areas where Compiz still needs some work.' PolicyKit and Tracker will also be significantly tweaked, while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon" Is Out 755 comments
Many readers are sending the news that Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon has been released. Download options include mirrors and torrents. Wired has a review based on the release candidate: "Gamers and hardcore media hounds may still feel left out... but we found playing music and watching movies in the new Ubuntu to be every bit as pleasant as it is under OS X or Windows... Wi-Fi, printing, my digital camera and even my iPod all worked immediately after installation — no drivers or other software required... I did have to install additional codecs to get MP3 and Windows Media Audio support."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The Debian swirl doesn't hack it any more.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Well, as a total outsider to the Debian mindset, let me offer this.

      I used Redhat with the RPMS and all, even maintaining software. It was the second foray into Linux; the first time was with Slackware 2.3 and about 30 floppies. I stayed with Redhat from 4.0 until FC4, but by that time I was sick of the business bias. For about a year OpenLdap on their repo was busted. It was nearly herculean to get it to work, and keep it working. Then they offered a replacement to it in the purchase of the Netscape Directo
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        We really owe a lot to "Deb" and "Ian" for their brilliant, visionary start.
        If memory serves, Deb isn't one of the Debian founders, she is Ian Murdock's wife (then girlfriend).
        • You know what they say: Behind every great man is a woman pushing him to excel. Or something. I'm just glad it worked out -- imagine the flame wars on what to rename the distro had they broken up!
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Ubuntu has done a fabulous job with Debian's beginnings [...] Personally, I love Ubuntu. And I've grown to love it [...] for it's product as well.

        I think Ubuntu is great in that it is helping people migrate away from the default OS.

        But I have to say, Debian *itself* is a great product. There seems to be this idea that Ubuntu is the usable Debian, and that's just not true. Debian has become really a very advanced OS in terms of usability, portability, and reliability. Debian is so much more than just a great beginning for other OSes to build on.

        Granted, its not the bee's knees in terms of the latest versions of apps and so forth (talking stable here)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02 2007, @07:39AM (#21210179)

    "hairy hardon"
      • by kazade84 (1078337) on Friday November 02 2007, @09:12AM (#21211221)
        The numbering system in Ubuntu is based on year, month of release (e.g 7.10) Obviously in development no-one knows if they are going to meet the deadline or miss it like they did with 6.06. This is the reason that the code names are used.

        To make it clearer, development has just started on Hardy Heron, or what is likely to be known as 8.04. To start development the Ubuntu devs create repositories named after the codename (e.g. Hardy). If they used 8.04 and the deadline was missed and the release was actually 8.06 they wouldn't easily be able to change the repositories and other stuff.

        The names are just code names, after release the number is the identifier that is used by Ubuntu (see if you can see 'Gutsy' on the Ubuntu.com front page, it's not there) its just usually the the code-names stick it peoples' minds.

        So to sum up, the code names are there for a perfectly logical reason, and the animal thing is just a consistent naming theme that was chosen.
              • Excellent point. Like many techies, I used to underestimate marketing, sneering a bit at it I guess. Then I had the privilege of working with a very astute marketing person on product development, and she totally changed my opinion. If it's going to work for many people, it has to work on many levels - technical is important, but nowhere near the only one.

  • more details (Score:5, Informative)

    by sayfawa (1099071) on Friday November 02 2007, @07:41AM (#21210213)
    Here's a better summary [fsckin.com] of things to come in Hardy, linked from an OS News [osnews.com] posting.
    • Installing Ubuntu from within Windows
      ubuntu-install.exe... nuff said... might not make it though... it is listed as 'dangling' which means it can't be scheduled or has circular dependancies... no idea why it can't be made to work.

      (from your interesting link [fsckin.com])

      Don't whether that's a good idea.
      But imagine the possibilities that such an exe-file would have as a spam-email attachement: "Mark Shuttlewort wants you to click on this link." or "Bigger hard drive, better performance! Click below!"

      • Being tricked into installing linux is the least of your problems if you're getting spam with 700mb attachments.
  • by tttonyyy (726776) on Friday November 02 2007, @07:52AM (#21210297) Homepage Journal
    ...as well as adding new features?

    'oops' proxy, for example. Worked great under other Debs distros, but kept crashing under FF. Left out of GG altogether.
    • by JediTrainer (314273) on Friday November 02 2007, @08:41AM (#21210785)
      Hear hear. I'd particularly like the regressions addressed - the latest upgrade broke my installation of Eclipse so I can't run Ant inside it [launchpad.net]

      Yes, the workaround is to either download/install Eclipse manually or run Ant from the command-line, but it is annoying to see a basic feature still broken for weeks when it worked perfectly fine before.
      • by haeger (85819) on Friday November 02 2007, @09:12AM (#21211225)
        Yeah.
        Gutsy broke my vmware. Not expected and from what I hear there's no vmware in gutsy still. We who have technical know-how can still fix it, but it does seem that the QA-dept slipped a bit on Gutsy.

        .haeger

        • by nhaines (622289) <nhainesNO@SPAMubuntu.com> on Friday November 02 2007, @10:10AM (#21212061) Homepage
          Ubuntu 7.10 didn't "break" your copy of VMware server. Every time you change your kernel, you need to recompile the kernel modules for VMware. VMware provided kernel modules for Ubuntu 7.04's updates. Currently they do not provide kernel modules for 7.10. They will probably begin providing these updates within a few weeks.

          In the meantime, you just have to compile your own modules. It's very simple--it's a matter of running vmware-config.pl every time you upgrade the kernel, which will automatically take care of everything for you as long as you have build-essential installed.

          As annoying as this is (and I find it mildly annoying, at least), it is the price of using a proprietary solution like VMware instead of similar Free solutions (like QEMU or VirtualBox).
    • Or, maybe, oops proxy has been abandoned for 4 years and doesn't work very well today. Last official release was Nov. 21, 2003. oops! downloads [paco.net].

  • It'll be a while for before Hardy Heron is Hardly Hereyet (*bada bum*!) But seriously, I'd like to see some big improvements in Gnome file management. Much of this could be done with pre-configured custom Nautilus actions, but where Nautilus could use some help:

    • Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.
    • Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.
    • Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching. See the support for this in Total Commander. Really easy.
    • Install the GNOME GPG frontend by default. (is this already in Gutsy?)


    • Other stuff I'd like to see:

    • Support for ext3 extended attributes and ACLs turned on by default.
    • An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.
    • LVM and RAID supported in the graphical installer. C'mon, guys, LOTS of people use RAID and LVM, especially now that most new computers have an integrated SATA RAID controller!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.

      Yeah, and their current permissions tab on the folder/file properties dialog which was introduced in 2.18 (I think), made the whole dialog a whole lot taller. It's pretty ugly.

      Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.

      This is a good idea, in fact I'd be happy if i

  • Given the way Linux users look at the Vista users, Haughty Heron might be more appropriate. Given the higher security of Linux, it could be Hardened Heron too. Given the cryptic command lines preferred by the unixy people, it could be Hackneyed Heron. Given the effect it is having on Redmond, it could be Haunting Heron.
  • by RandoX (828285) on Friday November 02 2007, @08:06AM (#21210425)
    Bake at 325 for 45 minutes. Serve with Wine sauce.
  • Experiences (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PinkyDead (862370) on Friday November 02 2007, @08:34AM (#21210707) Journal
    If I was asked what things annoyed me most about Feisty (Offtopic?!), I would have said two things: Printers and all that stuff you needed Automatix for. Everything else was pretty much fine.

    Along comes Gutsy and... Printers, wow! - doesn't get easier, and Automatix? I've been using Gutsy for about 2 months now and I still haven't downloaded Automatix (Sorry guys, great tool - but don't need it anymore)

    Gutsy brings Ubuntu to a level where it can really stand up against the likes of Windows (even coming out better in a lot of surveys than Vista). Compiz is incredible - and anyone I know with Windows stands open-mouthed when they see it.

    Heron really needs to up the level way beyond what it is at now, and become the Windows Slayer. I have no idea how they would do that though.
      • Re:Experiences (Score:4, Insightful)

        by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday November 02 2007, @12:02PM (#21213943) Homepage Journal

        It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does.

        No, it doesn't.

        I needs to run all of the software that people need. With a few exceptions, Ubuntu provides equivalent software to what's available for Windows, typically at a much better price. And the exceptions tend to be fairly specialized, expensive software packages, not general desktop stuff.

        As for hardware, at this point in time Gutsy has better hardware support than Vista does, overall. There are a couple areas where Vista is better (wireless), but there is lots of hardware around, particularly older stuff, that Vista does not support and Ubuntu does.

        In any case, the real way to beat the hardware support issue is to get Ubuntu pre-installed, and put it on the manufacturer to make sure that all of the hardware in the box works. That's how it works for Windows. You also need support for add-ons, but these days those are all USB and danged near everything works (cue the anecdotes from people who've found something that doesn't) just fine on Ubuntu. In fact, it often works *better* than it does on Windows because Windows will often require you to install some driver software whereas with Linux you just plug it in and it starts working.

  • by ceeam (39911) on Friday November 02 2007, @08:59AM (#21211029)
    Are they gonna start regarding KDE as first-class citizen? 'Cos Gutsy Kubuntu is a joke. And GNOME IMO is totally evil.

    You know, after using Kubuntu for quite a long time and recently having played with PCLinuxOS I think I understand now why it has moved to #1 at Distrowatch. It rightly deserves the spot.
      • by ericrost (1049312) on Friday November 02 2007, @11:55AM (#21213849) Homepage Journal
        This is why I love Linux. Gnome fills my needs perfectly, but I'm not every user. KDE fills your needs perfectly, but again, you're not every user. Rather than getting into ugly pissing matches about who'd desktop is better, we can coexist and each have something we like.

        I think the reasons for KUbuntu being less polished are pretty easily guessable. Ubuntu tends to be for newer Linux users (although I fall into the PowerUser/wannabe dev category). Gnome is a good DE for the underlying philosophy of Ubuntu (usable out of the box with little to no configuration, but able to be tweaked to your level). KDE tends to be for those that just need things exactly their way. KDE is not the default, so it falls to the downstream Kubuntu dev team to put the polish into the releases, and their a minority. Their working hard (I would imagine) on finishing KDE4's integration.

        Anyhow, less of a point, more of a "this is why Linux gets my vote" post.
  • In my opinion... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Derek Loev (1050412) on Friday November 02 2007, @10:38AM (#21212593)
    Right now the biggest fault with Ubuntu is Gnome. I've been using Ubuntu since the day Gutsy was released (previously a Gentoo user) and I love so many aspects of it. I even like the simplicity of Gnome compared to KDE. But, why does Gnome lack so many customization options. I mean, seriously, with so many developers it cannot be very difficult to create some small programs that modify GConf. That should be Gnome's priority and because Ubuntu relies so heavily on Gnome it needs to be one of Ubuntu's priorities to get the ball rolling.
    I want to add different folders to my Places bar at the top of the screen, I want to add different buttons (like the Home folder, seriously, it was difficult) to the desktop. I want to be able to edit my Network servers in the Places bar.
    I've figured out how to do all of this with gconf but there is absolutely no reason for me to not to be able to go into my System tab and figure out how to do this with a nice, pretty graphical program.
    This post may be a little off topic and I know that Ubuntu comes in different flavors (Kubuntu, Xubuntu) but when the majority of users are going to be using Gnome with Ubuntu, then Gnome needs to improve to the point where it does not detract from the Ubuntu experience.
    • You know, you could just buy OSX
      • Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:4, Informative)

        by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsn@ear ... t ['hli' in gap]> on Friday November 02 2007, @12:52PM (#21214711)
        Apple has made some changes in their EULA recently (or, possibly, I've recently noticed some features) that make them no longer an acceptable choice. They've added that obnoxious(paraphrase) "we have the right to add, remove, copy, or delete any files from your system". That makes them an unacceptable choice.
    • Rejected

      Reason: Linux is not OSX, nor does it need to be.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.

        Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...
          • * /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory


            I would have thought this was fairly self-explanatory.
          • Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:4, Interesting)

            by johannesg (664142) on Friday November 02 2007, @09:17AM (#21211297)
            But I have to ask the obvious question here: In just what way does Linux NOT have a clean filesystem?

            In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already. It reduces the chances of having naming clashes with files that are already there, and it would allow installation and de-installation using nothing more than drag and drop instead of the elaborate scripting systems now in place. It would also make it far easier to understand what specific files do: if you now find a file, let's say /etc/y13f4, and assuming for a moment that there is nothing on your system even remotely called "y13f4", would you know what it is for or who put it there? If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application. And then there is security: access to files in /etc and other directories could be far more limited than it is today, since no applications would have any business sticking their files there.

            And let's have a look how Windows does it: every application writes a bunch of crap into the registry, and everyone is moaning about it. Yet when it is UNIX doing it it is fine? That really doesn't make ANY sense.

            Yes, the idea that we want full control over our OS, rather than it having full control of us, is a bad thing.

            I cannot image where that came from. Are you sure you were even replying to my post?

            Also, the idea that we should not strive too hard to copy the ideas of someone else is a bad thing. I can definitely see the point in not avoiding lawsuits or stale, cheap imitations or accusations that we're just copying off of somebody else.

            There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple), or to store everything all over the filesystem (the model used by UNIX and Windows). So you get to be like Windows, or you get to be like Apple. On that basis I would strongly prefer to be more like Apple - even when discounting the advantages of that model.

            I completely understand now that the first Model T was the penultimate in cars because it was made by professionals, and we should never have made cars which were different.

            But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

            My alternative theory is that you urgently need to take some more medication.

            Okay, rant over. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by keeping a clean filesystem. Please to elaborate, so that I may investigate its feasability. No seriously, I need something to do.

            Oh, NOW I see: you are the person in charge of development over at Ubuntu! Sorry, I had no idea! Well, it is really simple. The original poster would like to see a system whereby applications don't write crap all over the /etc, /var, /lib, /usr, /usr/lib, /var/log, and whereever you stick manfiles these days. Instead he would like to store ALL THAT SHIT in one directory (per application, of course). Wouldn't that be neat? Moreover, I support that position: it would be extremely neat.

            Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

            Your baseless flaming of me, mostly based on statements that I did not actually make but only occurred in your head, unfortunately rules out that possibility. Too bad, but maybe we can try again in three years or so...
            • by DaleGlass (1068434) on Friday November 02 2007, @09:37AM (#21211591) Homepage

              In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already.

              That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration. Meaning, having part of the filesystem be shared through NFS. /etc, /bin, /sbin and /lib are needed for the system to boot. /usr may be mounted from a share, and can be readonly.

              The different locations for binaries, settings, etc, makes it very easy to share data between a hundred boxes, but not the configuration, or the configuration as well if you want it.

              Even if you don't need a network, this is still nice for system administration. For example my general layout is root FS on plain RAID-1, then /usr, /var and /home mounted from LVM. This ensures that even if LVM gets messed up somehow, the box still boots, and in fact it boots from any surviving drive since it's a software RAID-1. Since a functional system is already in place, recovery is much easier.

              But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

              The thing is that you don't understand the original model. You seem to think that the layout is the way it is because people just threw stuff into the first place they could think of. Learn why it's the way it is, then come up with a good reason why the original reasons are no longer good, and only then there can be a sensible discussion of the subject.

              Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

              If I wanted OS X, I'd use OS X. Your idea isn't new, and has been discussed hundreds of times before. That Ubuntu still keeps the old layout should be a hint.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                Thank you for a well-thought out reply. However, I'd like to point out that I was already well aware of why things are the way they are; I just don't agree with the reasons anymore. I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized. Even if you want to share packages between different users, symlinks provide a much better way to make applications visible within their own home directories without taking
                • Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday November 02 2007, @11:54AM (#21213835) Homepage Journal

                  I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized.

                  Why? Given a decent package manager (and Ubuntu has an excellent one), what does it matter?

                  Here's a data point for you -- my wife's iBook is off for repairs (and Apple appears to have lost it since it's been gone for two weeks) -- so she's using Gutsy on a Thinkpad I had lying around. She quite likes OS X and is very comfortable with the drag'n'drop installation approach, but she was very impressed by Ubuntu's Add/Remove Software app, and commented that Apple should do something like it.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    Both the OSX and Linux ways are good, IMO. OSX: every program and all its components are in a folder. Linux: this sort of program file goes here, this sort here, and you can mount these folders from various sources to achieve all kinds of neat administrative voodoo.

                    Either CAN be broken, but usually isn't. They're fairly consistent.

                    Windows? Let's see: how about we make a folder in "Program Files"... let's name it after our company, then make a sub-folder for each program from us! Yeah! Never mind that
              • by dan the person (93490) on Friday November 02 2007, @12:01PM (#21213927) Homepage Journal
                That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration.

                Meanwhile, the OS X filesystem layout which also comes from Unix, has been adapted to be optimal for users.
                • How much would it cost to pay you to just go the fuck away?

                  If you give me a million euro's I promise I won't log on to Slashdot again. Please?
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application.

              And the tradeoff is that you have to add /usr to your backups because 512KB on that 8GB partition is now local-created data and not easily recreated by a reinstall. Also forget mounting /usr read-only for security purposes.

    • > App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

      This is a fucking terrible idea. The Linux/*nix file system layout IS CLEAN.

      All your user apps are in /usr/bin, what is wrong with that?
      All your user libraries are in /usr/lib, what is wrong with that?
      All your library/executable hybrids (stuff that can function as either), is in /usr/libexec, what is wrong with that?

      If you shove everything in an "/App" dir you're going to end up with a massive symli
    • by gclef (96311) on Friday November 02 2007, @08:36AM (#21210721)
      There's one problem with this: Patches. One of the truly lovely things about a package manager is that it becomes your one-stop place for patches to all applications on the system. Once you leave the package manager, and have users dumping .app files randomly onto their system, you have no good way of getting patches for those apps. This dramatically weakens the security of your system.

      I can see wanting a way for little userland apps (that are unlikely to ever get patches anyway) to install in for just one user. But for big, system-wide things (like a browser, or OOo) a free-for-all /Application directory is a really bad idea.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      <sarcasm>

      * switch binaries to PE executables with .exe file extension

      * change directory delimiter from / to \

      * identify partitions with a single-letter name followed by a colon, before the file path

      * change "home" to "Documents and Settings"

      * move applications to "Program Files" folder

      * replace symlinks with "shortcuts" with a .lnk file extension, which point to the linked file only when double-clicking it in the file browser, and cannot be used as a "virtual" file

      * ignore bugs

      </sarcasm>
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      * /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

      Which user? One could expand it to /Preferences/user1/settings and so forth, but how is that better than /home/user1/.settings ? Having all the .settings files in a home directory means that backing up, restoring and transferring /home saves all those files at the same time. Thus, it is less fragile than storing them anywhere else.

      In short, /Preferences is a stupi

    • Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:5, Informative)

      by EsbenMoseHansen (731150) on Friday November 02 2007, @09:44AM (#21211681) Homepage

      * Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system
      We have this. It's called "deb packages". Works like a charm.

      * /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to
      You mean /application... no need to use capitals. Anyway, I don't see the advantage over the current system. I don't really care where packages are stored, that is my package manager's job. Oh

      * /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory
      You mean /preferences :p Anyway, that sounds like a horrible idea. Cleanup after users would get more messy and quotas too. But putting them under ~/.prefs/... might not be a bad idea. There is some merit there, but not an easy thing to change!

      * An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layo
      Hmm..I think OSX apps looks terrible, while KDE apps are the cleanest. But all three are quite usable, so I don't see this as a priority. And technically, it isn't the interface building tool's job to layout widgets, that would be horrible! Just imagine what happens when the font changes, or the resolution.
      • Installing software via Ubuntu's Add/Remove app is the greatest thing, way better than dragging to install. I still can't figure out how to uninstall some of my OSX apps that were installed into the control panel instead of in the apps folder :P
      • ...it would be nice to see some flavour of Linux adopt a sensible, user-friendly way of installing software.
        For Debian-based systems in GNOME, open the Synaptic Package Manager, find the software you want and mark it for installation. The Manager will even find and install the necessary dependencies. There's also KDE version known as Kynaptic. In Ubuntu, there's an "Add/Remove" program under the Applications menu that functions the same way, except with pretty pictures. I'm really not how much more sensib

          • Ubuntu has made more progress toward useability in the last 12 month than any other OS I know of.

            You could say that's because they had more ground to cover, but they still lag (Gnome, KDE or Enlightenment.) Package handling is still an issue and NOTHING is easier than the OS X drag and drop. Synaptic is nice. Very nice. Best thing I've seen in Linux since pkginstall on Slack.

            I also disagree with your '12 month' assessment. The big strides take longer and are an accumulation. Perhaps you've just come

        • not drag and drop easy... how do you install a package if it is running from the cd? I've used Linux for almost 10 years. But I am tired of having to work like hell to get stuff that should just work to work. I want to use the tool not build it. At one time Linux wasn't just about using a tool (the OS) it was about building and playing with the tool. I'm not into that part anymore. If I want to program a business app on a computer, I want to program the business app. Programming today is starting to
    • Is anyone really going to miss the stupid sticky note or photo apps in the default install?

      In fact, in the default install, there are no Microsoft libraries installed with Mono. All that is installed is ECMA C# and the various Gnome-C# bindings. Those are no more susceptible to patent threats from Microsoft or anybody else than gcc, Gnome, or KDE.

      And, yes, people use f-spot and Banshee.

      The inclusion of that more than anything leaves ubuntu open to patent threats

      Why don't they remove C, C++, Objective-C, F