Ubuntu Dev Summit Lays Out Plans For Hardy Heron 261
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."
Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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:2)
dependencies and good mirrors for same. This is the base that makes the Debian derived distros so good.
If rpm based distros took just as care with viewing packages-as-a-unified system (and maybe some do) then they'd be as kind to you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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)
RPM vs Apt from a long time SuSE user (Score:2)
However, I just recently switched to Ubuntu, and have to say that the Apt system is much better than the RPM, at least for a "power user".
I've gotten into RPM-dependency hell more often than I'd liked in the past with SuSE when installing something, and so far, ha
Re: (Score:2)
People have been calling it "Ubunghole" for seemingly forever, and it didn't bother me. But after hearing about "Gutsy Gibbon"... it just seems like Ubuntu is one big joke, or else into some really twisted stuff.
"Gutsy Gibbon" sounds like one of those bizarre sex acts they talk about on South Park, like the Hot Carl or Dirty Sanchez or whatever. Now they have "Hardon Heron", which sounds really bizarre as well.
Frankly, I give up. I'm not using a distro which has people thinking I'm some kind of freak. It's bad enough that using teh lunix already makes people think you are a closet serial killer.
Ok, I don't know who you hang around with, but nobody that I do thinks of me as a serial killer or freak. Plus, you could refer to each release by their more formal names, Ubuntu 7.10. The other names are akin to code names (to the best of my knowledge). And finally, how insecure are you that you won't use an amazing and free product because people think you're a freak based on the name alone? I mean wow, get a life!
Someone please tag this ... (Score:4, Funny)
"hairy hardon"
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:can we just use numbers, please. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. I like the funny animal names, and so do lots of other people. If that wasn't the case, people would use the version numbers when talking about Ubuntu releases. But they don't, because the code names are cool.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been using Linux and Unix for a long time. One thing it's never been is friendly to outsiders. Ubuntu excels at making the Linux experience seem simple and clean. The documentation, installation, desktop, even the web site is simplified and unified. Attaching an easy to remember nickname to the release is part of that plan. It humanizes the product. Techies may be chapped over it, but realize the cute nickname isn't for you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
more details (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(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!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
-We're still going to make grub HIGHLY RECOMMENDED in the install process. I mean, obviously, it's stupid to install such a flaky bootloader that can't handle large hard drives when you don't need to, but why bother newcomers with a warning about the nasty nasty risk of locking users out of their computer? Changing this would be tantamout to admitting UbuntuDupe was right, and we can't have that. Too painful to admit error.
-Ditto for advising the user t
How about fixing things... (Score:3, Insightful)
'oops' proxy, for example. Worked great under other Debs distros, but kept crashing under FF. Left out of GG altogether.
Re:How about fixing things... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:How about fixing things... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:How about fixing things... (Score:4, Informative)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the release schedule (Score:3, Interesting)
Other stuff I'd like to see:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
This is a good idea, in fact I'd be happy if i
Re: (Score:2)
An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.
I'd rather not have QEMU the default VM. It significantly lacks in features, usability, and polish. Running Windows under it gives horrible performance (even with kqemu) and has random application crashes. Instead, I'd like to see more integration with VirtualBox, which, btw, is licensed under the GPL* and included in Gutsy. It's fully GUI oriented (qt, unfortunately), has drivers for Windows to do seamless mouse and better video performance, and it also supports a "seamless" mode where Windows apps ap
Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed (Score:2)
Plans for Heron (Score:3, Funny)
Cute name game begins... (Score:2)
In 3,2,1...
Experiences (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Experiences (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they planning to fix the most appaling issue? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu (Score:2)
WARNING *OPINIONS* PRESENT (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Kubuntu too? (Score:2, Informative)
(Please, no flame wars on Gnome v. KDE - it's just my preference and you have yours.)
Hmm, I should go try their forums too...
Lots of GNOME problems already fixed in Kubuntu (Score:2)
There are lively discussions going on in Ubuntu about what can be improved. As I read through the list, I think, "Wait, that's already fixed in Kubuntu. Don't these peopel talk to each other?" To be sure, a lot of the time it's because the KDE system is more tightly integrated than GNOME, but sometimes it's just that the KDE app already has the feature and the GNOME app doesn't. (Didn'
Compiz Needs Test Results (Score:2)
Hardy Heron? (Score:2)
In my opinion... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Reason: Linux is not OSX, nor does it need to be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
OS X's file system is no "cleaner" than Ubuntu's. Furthermore, OS X fails to conform to standard UNIX file system conventions.
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...
That attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with OS X.
In fact, th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahem, "that attitude" is not a bug - it's a feature
Mod parent funny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who have used UNIX for a long time know the merits of the UNIX directory structure. There is no need for it to change because a few new users think they know better.
The default install of any distribution should not break the UNIX directory structure. If there is an option to download a different version which will be easier for new users to manage, I am all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought this was fairly self-explanatory.
Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:4, Interesting)
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
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
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...
Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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
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.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, programs are "centralized". This means that they're grouped according to application, and in most other UNIXes files are grouped according to whether they're libraries, manuals, binaries, etc. It's mostly an aesthetic choice.
Note that Windows has had a "Program Files" folder since before OS X, but I don't hear anyone singing the prai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the OS X filesystem layout which also comes from Unix, has been adapted to be optimal for users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The standard open platform is already there.
Not only is it already there but it is also shared with every other Unix.
Why break compatability with EVERYONE ELSE? Just because you don't like
our organizational scheme? It's not "disorganized". It's just not how
you would personally set it up.
Organized contrary to your personal preferences != disorganized.
Personally, I think not keeping my own personal preference files
in my own file space is completely assinine. I should not even
have to be aware of the file
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you give me a million euro's I promise I won't log on to Slashdot again. Please?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have a
Re: (Score:2)
The Amiga often stored files in the lib directory. Well library files anyway.
I actually think that that Linux's / Unix's file structure is a huge mess. It has mutated over the years and I just don't like it.
OS/Xs is actually an interesting idea And I think there is a Linux type system that uses something like that.
But the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
1. apt-get/synaptic (command line/gui of the same thing)
2. dpkg
3. checkinstall
Everything will be in the proper place. You CAN (since you can maintain your system however you choose for your own reasons) put software wherever you like. More choice is better, but you have the tools to keep things organized. I think this is superior to OSX's mass of statically linked libraries with versions scattered in every stinking app that has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No OS fills everyone's needs, competition is good and healthy, as is a good vision of what an OS should be and the needs it should fill.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fucking terrible idea. The Linux/*nix file system layout IS CLEAN.
All your user apps are in
All your user libraries are in
All your library/executable hybrids (stuff that can function as either), is in
If you shove everything in an "/App" dir you're going to end up with a massive symli
Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I don't think I want applications specifying their own patch sources. Large organizations *certainly* *don't* want their applications specifying their own patch sources.
In the end, this is about control of software installation: where
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
* switch binaries to PE executables with
* 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
* ignore bugs
</sarcasm>
Screw That - We Need Hasslefree Wifi With WPA PSK (Score:2)
It needs to allow the use of any mainstream Wifi chip set. Otherwise it will remain on the fringe. Hard wired connections to the internet are going away and people don't want to learn about chipsets and pull open packages at the store to see if the 'right one' is on the wireless card they want to buy. And if they can't figure out how to make native drivers work, they need to add a fool proof (read drag and drop easy) way of adding the windows drivers to the system. Without having to manually edit config
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
OS X is a bad model (Score:2)
Software installation and uninstallation is a mess on OS X: some applications are drag-and-drop, others use an installer. There is no standard way of uninstalling software, no way of figuring out what modifications a piece of software made, and no way of tracking dependencies.
OS X applications don't
Re:Ubuntu To Do List (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd like to see is a combination of the two. Yes, having all preferences in one place would be nice. Yes, having them all in your home directory is useful. But it's not and either-or scenario. Something like /home/fred/.dotfiles/ (or .prefs, .settings, etc) would keep the home directory tidier whilst still keeping programs' user settings in the home directory structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly it's clear you're talking about emulating OS\X, an installation method I certainly wouldn't like to see as default in any Linux environment near me. I don't want duplicate libraries throughout my (equivalent) ~/Applications directory where they could all be using the same s
Re: (Score:2)
* http://www.gobolinux.org/ [gobolinux.org]
Its an interesting project, its not for the mass market yet but if they got some time and money they might be able to make it ready for the mass market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its being worked on, see Glick and Klick. There is also merit to the current system, which allows for stupidly easy maintenance of large amounts of programs. I expect the final solution will be a bit of a hybrid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
application dependencies, a drag+drop centric solution just
doesn't cut it anymore. And really it doesn't gain you anything.
It would be just as easy if the click or drop or whatever
triggered a proper package manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
please get your facts straight (Score:3, Insightful)
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