Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Ubuntu Open Source Operating Systems Linux News

Ubuntu 10.10 Beta Released 291

Posted by Soulskill
from the still-a-maverick dept.
RandyDownes sends word that Canonical has released the beta version of Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat). The release announcement boasts faster boot times, GNOME 2.31, and a speedier version of Evolution. In addition, "The Ubuntu Software Center has an updated look and feel, including the new 'Featured' and 'What's New' views for showcasing applications, and an improved package description view. You can now easily access your package installation history too." The release notes and download page are both available.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu 10.10 Beta Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Compaqt (1758360) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @09:55AM (#33474964) Homepage

    Bottom middle?

    • Top right, on my 10.4 desktop. Crap - you can edit any settings on a Linux desktop. Nothing is cast in stone - not even the kernel! (Of course, I think NTKRNL should have been cast into the sea, along with Bill Gates, but that is a bit irrelevant.)
    • by Belial6 (794905)
      No, They realized in the rush to be more Mac like, they got the button wrong, so now sometimes it closes the applicaions and sometimes it just closes the window and leaves the application running windowless in the task bar. is now in a context sensitive menu on a monitor that may or may not be the monitor running your application.
  • I thought the 10 stood for the release year, and the .10 for the release month. This is only 10.09, so what gives?
    • Re:10.10? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lawand (1345185) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @10:07AM (#33475034) Homepage
      This is a beta version. The final release is scheduled for October (10.10)
      • by mangu (126918)

        The final release is scheduled for October (10.10)

        If only they could get it out by October 10... But no such luck, I guess it will only come out at Halloween, as usual.

      • I only upgraded to Lightweight Ubuntu (lubuntu) 10.0 a few days ago.

        Man Ubuntu's cycle runs fast if they are already releasing another version. Is there any particular advantage to having a new OS every half-year (versus Apple's two year cycle or Microsoft's 3-4 year cycle)?
        .

        • by jimicus (737525)

          Well, if you want a Linux distribution with a long release cycle, use Debian. But by the time your version is getting to the end of its cycle, it's going to start looking pretty aged.

          Probably not a problem for a server, but for a desktop (where the state of the Linux desktop is still very much in flux) it makes some sense.

        • Re:10.10? (Score:4, Informative)

          by timeOday (582209) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @10:38AM (#33475240)

          Is there any particular advantage to having a new OS every half-year (versus Apple's two year cycle or Microsoft's 3-4 year cycle)?

          Microsoft isn't on any cycle. They are lost in the woods.

          If you're like me and don't like the risk of upgrading all the time, pick a LTS ("Long Term Support") release, and stick with it for the next 3 years. Lucky for you, it sounds like you installed 10.04 which is an LTS release.

          • by sarhjinian (94086)

            The problem with Ubuntu's LTS releases is, well, sometimes they throw in stuff that's barely ready for a "normal" release, let alone long-term. 8.04 saw the first cut at PulseAudio, for example, which wasn't even close to ready for prime-time.

            As a result, things that are broken often stay broken. Sure, you can get unsupported backports or PPAs, but you shouldn't have to in a stability-first endeavour like the LTS releases.

            • My experience has been positive with both Dapper Drake and Hardy Heron. I still have Karmic installed on my notebook because I don't like either the new color schemes or the buttons-on-the-left. I'm annoyed at the high-handed way that Canonical treats long-time users, so I've refrained from upgrading to Lucid Lynx on the desktop until, kicking and whining, I have to next March if I'm sticking with Ubuntu. Hardy has been stable, quick and thanks to Ubuntuzilla, I've got the newest Firefox. I'm also using ALS

          • Is there any particular advantage to having a new OS every half-year (versus Apple's two year cycle or Microsoft's 3-4 year cycle)?

            Microsoft isn't on any cycle. They are lost in the woods.

            Correction: if Microsoft are on a cycle, it has two punctured tyres, a broken brake cable, and the rear derailleur has just overshifted into the spokes. Oh, and they're lost in the woods.

        • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday September 04, 2010 @10:43AM (#33475266)

          Is there any particular advantage to having a new OS every half-year (versus Apple's two year cycle or Microsoft's 3-4 year cycle)?

          It allows (in theory) for the faster development of the system. The new code goes through a short testing cycle and gets out into the public twice a year.

          No matter how much effort you put into testing, it always seems like the majority of the bugs are only found once it is released.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by camperdave (969942)
          Is there any particular advantage to having a new OS every half-year (versus Apple's two year cycle or Microsoft's 3-4 year cycle)?

          Well, it fits into the "Release early. Release Often." philosophy that made linux what it is today. Apart from that, one advantage is that all of the hard core folk can install it and give it a good thrashing over. All of the major hardware work-arounds will have been sorted out, major weaknesses will be eliminated, etc. A year from now, you'll have a good yea-or-nay fe
          • by tenco (773732)
            Non-LTS releases have only a 18 month support cycle and you seriously suggest waiting 12 month of that time before deciding if you should switch?
            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              Non-LTS releases have only a 18 month support cycle and you seriously suggest waiting 12 month of that time before deciding if you should switch?

              support cycle is relative, they still get backports. the smartest thing to do if you are concerned about such things is to never run anything but an LTS release. or run Debian stable :p

        • by rubycodez (864176)

          if that's too fast just follow the lubuntu LTS releases, every two years is much more relaxed

        • Applications and their dependencies are offered in the repositories as a coherent set.

          Canonical's emphasis has been on producing a Linux distribution that appeals to desktop users. Many of the applications that desktop users most use -- Web browsers, most especially -- have significant updates frequently.

          So, you can stick with the long term support (LTS) version of the distribution, if you prefer to avoid the frequent upgrades and are satisfied with older versions of the more volatile applications. If you w

    • It's still a beta.
  • Either nobody cares, or it must be a slow Slashdot day, this has been posted for 25 minutes and no comments?
  • Lucid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JimboG (1467977)
    I'm still getting 10.04 working!
    • by Lennie (16154)

      Luckily 10.04 is a LTS-version, if you got it right you can stay with it for 3 years. So it is not all wasted ;-)

  • I for one have been awaiting the day when free and non-free software could mix and mingle in a safe environment free from the nasty comments and glares of those who would have us stay separated..

    • by tomhudson (43916)

      I for one have been awaiting the day when free and non-free software could mix and mingle in a safe environment free from the nasty comments and glares of those who would have us stay separated..

      They can - it's called WINE [winehq.org].

      Sorry, not available on Windows :-p

      Try installing one of the linux distros - they shouldn't be too hard to find. There's even one mentioned in the article summary (oops, my bad, I keep forgetting how many slashdotters don't RTFS, never mind RTFA).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jimicus (737525)

      You could say the same thing about "Protestants and Catholics", "Muslims and Christians" or even "Theists and Atheists". For exactly the same reasons.

      • You could say the same thing about "Protestants and Catholics", "Muslims and Christians" or even "Theists and Atheists". For exactly the same reasons.

        That is a really bad example. My family are all Catholic (so am I technically, but I think denominations do not matter), my wife is protestant, as are many of my friends. Some of my closest friends are atheists, and since I moved to a town that has a large Muslim population (about a quarter of the total) I have been making Muslim friends.

        We all manage to get along with a minimum of glares and nasty comments, and those are rarely about religion.

        If you cannot get on with people with different opinions about r

  • by Sloppy (14984) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @10:21AM (#33475120) Homepage Journal

    Ubuntu 10.04 has got to be the most fragile Linux I've used in ten years. Are there any filesystems that can't be mounted? Then NO BOOT FOR YOU!

    I'll admit I like how fast it boots when ureadahead works, but I'm willing to wait an extra minute for the boot to finish, if that means I actually do get to boot instead of having to boot from a rescue CD and comment-out or "noauto" the problem filesystem in fstab.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Yep. That's why I recommend 10.04 to my friends and run 9.10 myself.

      Guinea pigs, you see. HeheheehHAHAHAHAHAH!
    • by mikael_j (106439)

      For me ureadahead just crashes and then the boot continues anyway. But hey, at least it sort of works (and it's not like I'm running it on any important systems).

    • by De Lemming (227104) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @01:28PM (#33476334) Homepage

      For those who don't know ureadahead, there's a good explanation by the developer [ubuntuforums.org] on the Ubuntu forums.

    • by SheeEttin (899897)

      Ubuntu 10.04 has got to be the most fragile Linux I've used in ten years. Are there any filesystems that can't be mounted? Then NO BOOT FOR YOU!

      I don't know what you're doing to break it, but I can't think of any scenario where this would happen. Are you putting needless filesystems in your fstab?

      • by Yetihehe (971185)
        Do you have a better way to automount a removable disk always in a folder with custom name?
        • by Cato (8296) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:48AM (#33480072)

          Yes - give the removable disk's partition a name - if it's ext3, use something like "e2fslabel /dev/sdg1 DRIVENAME" where the DRIVENAME is the name you want to use. Then you should find that GNOME will auto-mount your drive under /media/DRIVENAME, and it will appear in the Nautilus file explorer as well.

          For NTFS drives, use ntfslabel with same syntax, and for FAT32, use "mlabel drive:label" - you will of course need to replace the 'g' in sdg1 above with whatever your drive uses (dmesg | tail -22 just after connecting your drive should tell you).

          See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RenameUSBDrive [ubuntu.com] for a more complete HOWTO.

    • by Jugalator (259273)

      > comment-out or "noauto" the problem filesystem in fstab.

      I don't intend to be a troll, but this is why I'm on a Mac and OS X as my personally perferred desktop *nix system. :-/

      Seriously - why is this a bug in 10.04? Shouldn't their QA process catch these things? Like, in 2005?

  • One of the problems I have with this is the fact that as of Version 2.10 of the Intel driver, kernel Mode setting is mandatory. When I upgraded from Jaunty to Lucid, thats when first Kernel Mode Setting became available, and you had to disable it in /etc/modprobe.d/i915-kms.conf

    But the only reason I was able to do that is because version 2.9 still retains the older User Mode Setting method that avoids the flicker. As of 2.10, Intel's drivers require Kernel mode setting. I use S-video to connect my Laptop to

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They replaced it with Gmail?

    • by IANAAC (692242)
      I'm still on 10.04, but managed to get the latest version (2.30) of Evolution through another ppa.

      It really is faster. And more stable too (although I had never experienced the crashes some had with 2.28).

      They've also changed up the interface a bit with updated icons - it no longer looks like something out of 1998.

  • Ugliness! Now Say I am a troll but default Ubuntu is ugly and therefore not pleasing to the eyes. When one slaps another desktop environment on it, things get appreciably better.

    • by LingNoi (1066278)

      You're a troll, people have been saying this since the first Ubuntu started. It's an old and boring complaint. No one cares about what colour you think the bike shed should be.

      • by bogaboga (793279)

        It's not about the color...it's the theme...the feel and the technologies behind it. Compare the latest GNOME to the latest KDE or Windows 7 or even OSX then tell me which looks better.

  • A few thoughts (Score:4, Informative)

    by TejWC (758299) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @11:12AM (#33475430)
    I have been using Kubuntu 10.10 for the last 2 weeks. Some impressions:
    • Still haven't fixed a number of dual screen bugs :(. Sad because Fedora 13 fixed them in their KDE.
    • I didn't like how KDE 4.5 changed the buttons so I had to change the coloring system back to KDE 4.4 style
    • Lots of updates; every day!
    • Rekonq still crashes each time I go to google maps. Latest git commit crashes on startup so Kubuntu guys can't do much about it yet
    • Qt 4.7 is awesome. It seems fairly stable despite not being released yet.
    • R600 open source driver still has issues with KDE's window manager (in terms of performance). At least its a little faster. Also, they fixed all the issues it has with Blender3D!
  • by Brad1138 (590148) <brad1138@yahoo.com> on Saturday September 04, 2010 @11:15AM (#33475458)
    I have been using Ubuntu since 6.04, and really like it. However usually when I try to upgrade from 1 version to the next it crashes and I end up just installing the new version from scratch. Hope it is different this time.
    • I've also been on Ubuntu since 2006 with the 6.06 release, which was their first LTS .. I only upgrade when the following LTS comes out, so I was on 8.04 until very recently. Just went out and bought a new 160GB system drive (and a new 1TB drive data drive to replace the old 500GB) for the main desktop and a 500GB for the laptop and did clean installs of 10.04 on both systems. I *tried* to upgrade 6.06 to 8.04... was not pretty... Now I do clean installs.

      • by bheerssen (534014)

        Ubuntu installs so fast, I tend to try the upgrade process first, figuring 'what the hell, may as well try it.' In my case, 10.04 was the very first time an upgrade actually worked. I was pleasantly surprised.

  • Anyone know then Ubuntu 10.10 will make available the close-source ATI driver?

  • by FoolishOwl (1698506) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @04:37PM (#33477514) Journal

    The summary mentions that Evolution will be faster. Can any beta-testers report on whether it is much of an improvement?

    I'd been increasingly unhappy with Evolution. It's very, very slow; it usually fails to display HTML email, which is increasingly common, and it often freezes for thirty seconds or so when I try to do it. I use Gmail and Google Calendar, but prefer to use a local client; Evolution offers integration with Google services, but that integration is clumsy. For instance, to "archive" email in my inbox, I have to click the "delete" button.

    So, I finally got around to installing Thunderbird. In order to get the functionality I wanted, that I'd had in Evolution, I had to install several addons: Enigmail, Lightning, and Provider for Google Calendar. Importing contacts was a bit messy, and I haven't worked out yet how to sync Thunderbird's address book with Google Contacts. There's less thorough integration of Thunderbird into the GNOME interface.

    Yet despite those difficulties, Thunderbird is much, much better at the core functions for which I'd been using Evolution: email and calendaring. It is faster, displays messages more cleanly, and integrates better with Google services.

    I've been seeing complaints from Ubuntu users for years that they'd rather have Thunderbird as the default client, and that it works better than Evolution, save for the less thorough integration into GNOME. Having made the switch, I'm really at a loss why Ubuntu and GNOME are sticking with Evolution, and not at least treating Thunderbird as a peer.

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.

Working...