Ubuntu 9.10 Officially Released 744
palegray.net writes "The latest version of Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala) has been released. Offering numerous enhancements for both desktop and server environments, this release includes notable features like Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud images, the Ubuntu One 'personal cloud,' and Linux kernel version 2.6.31. Please be sure to use a release mirror close to your geographic location to help reduce the stress on Ubuntu's primary servers; using BitTorrent for downloads can help alleviate the load even more. If your organization has adequate network and server resources, please consider hosting a mirror as well."
It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
A lesson for Windows Engineers. Aim for 256MB, not 2GB. The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
My Compaq laptop with XP only has 112 MB of memory.
Aim for that. ;-) And no I have no idea why it says 112 instead of an "even" number like 96 or 128. That's how much the laptop has without any expansion installed.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Informative)
Video Ram. You probably have 128 MB installed, however 16 MB is being allocated to do video work.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't know if anyone said it, but it seems to me that it's because the onboard video is using 16 of those 128 MBs..
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Funny)
My Compaq laptop with XP only has 112 MB of memory.
Here's $5 and a map to the Salvation Army. Upgrade that slab.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Interesting)
* 486 processor
* 64MB RAM (1GB+ suggested)
* About 5GB+ of hard disk space for a full install
* CD or DVD drive (if not bootable, then a bootable USB flash stick or PXE server/network card)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt it will run gnome or kde in that configuration.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Funny)
MS doesn't miss the bus. The problem is the MS bus is a short bus.
Re: Bus (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. People with those challenges tend to actually be far nicer than Microsoft!
Re: Bus (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I rode a short bus, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not true... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first generation of netbooks ran linux. Just about everything after that ran windows. Sounds like linux will miss the bus.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Funny)
Linux caught the bus. But MS made Linux sit in the back of said bus.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you mean front?
All the "cool" people take the back seats.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: burrito (Score:3, Funny)
That would mean you're saying Windows Runs. It doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But it does dump.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OK, I understand the bus analogy, but I would understand your argument more (and better), if you used a car analogy, like we're used to here on Slashdot.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Microsoft got on the bus and then forced the bus company to turn the bus into a jumbo jet so that Microsoft's fat ass could fit in the seats.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu.
>The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.
Considering netbooks are shipping with 7 and ram costs less than shipping, I'll take the 2gig model, thanks. More ram for my apps.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Informative)
Have you tried swapping xfce for lxde?
I makes one hell of a difference on my old transmeta based tablet.
This "cloud" thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then SAY that! Say "I surfed to that site to run a server-side script / call a cgi program / request data from a server [what X would do]". And not "I connected to a 'cloud'". Because that sounds silly, retarded, and PHBy at the same time.
I can just as well invent cool new words for old things, and then act as if I'm sooo avant-garde. Like those "AJAX" people... guess what, I did that, years before the word or the API were even invented (trough using the OBJECT tag and some JS).
Same thing here. Now because
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering netbooks are shipping with 7 and ram costs less than shipping
Real Netbooks are devices like the SmartQ5 and the SmartQ7 which I have got evaluation pieces from China for about $170 a piece. These devices contain the ARM-11 series processor with 256MB of RAM and 1GB of storage.
Windows7 requires regular disk drives and that makes it a mini-Notebook; not a Netbook.
Basically Microsoft took the Netbook, added a disk and forced it onto the market through big-name h/w vendors. This will not work with the ARM-range of Netbooks on which Windows will not run; but Maemo, Ubuntu, Fedora etc run decently enough.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Informative)
"I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu."
Xfce's almost as much of a resource hog as GNOME or KDE these days. On a 256MB system I'd recommend LXDE for something vaguely familiar which really doesn't eat tons of RAM. Of course, then you need low-resource apps as well. Dillo's a good basic browser, Midori if you need more than Dillo can provide. I'm partial to nedit for a very low-resource text editor. And so on...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because the Xubuntu team (on Jaunty at least) decided to destroy all that is good and wonderful about Xfce to the point that Ubuntu actually uses less recourses than Xubuntu. [linux-mag.com] I'd wait for Lubuntu to come out or do as another poster suggested and install LXDE from another Ubuntu flavor.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont think Im doing anything wrong, we just have different usage patterns. First off, the original poster claimed full ubuntu ran on 256megs of RAM. No, thats the minimum requirement for the standard installer. If you have a machine with less than that you need an alternate install disk. Or you do what I do: use xubuntu. I cant imagine running full ubuntu on less than 1gig.
My xubuntu machine barely runs at 256, which I think is a fair assessment. It boots, runs fine, but when I load up firefox, open a bunch of tabs, play some music, run a mail client, etc then it just runs out of RAM. I dont see its ram usage being much better than 2000 or even XP, but I have to deal with a less impressive and featured GUI.
That said, I am very impressed by xubuntu. Network manager could use some work. I usually just remove it and deal with IP addresses the old fashioned way. I think it hurts the linux community to spread lies about ram. Linux isnt magic. If you want to run a distro thats similar to the bells and whistles of OSX or Win7 then youre going to have to use a similar amount of RAM. Youre not getting away with using 1/4 the ram without giving up gnome.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I run it just fine on a P4 with 512MB RAM. It's very smooth and fine for day-to-day use.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds fair, but I think we should be clear then that it's not xubuntu that's using your RAM, but rather the apps you're running. As I said in my other post, I've set my parents up with a machine with only 96 MB RAM, but they're using claw email client and epiphany (I think, they're _definitely_ not using firefox!), and their usage is basic.
I agree though - Linux isn't magic, and if you want to run a machine with little RAM you'll need to work within that constraint. Having said that, I don't know which other modern OS they could run with so little RAM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows XP.
You may not consider WindowsXP modern, but its going to have have more 'features' as far as a random desktop user is concerned than Ubuntu when both have 256MB of ram.
Compare apples to apples, not apples to coconuts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The specs on the machine I am posting from, according to Xchat's sysinfo command:
os[Linux 2.6.24-23-generic i686] distro[Debian lenny/sid] cpu[1 x Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz (GenuineIntel) @ 5.00GHz] mem[Physical: 503.0MB, 30.0% free] disk[Total: 35.3GB, 30.8% free] video[ATI Technologies Inc Radeon Mobility M6 LY] sound[Allegro - ESS Allegro PCI]
The machine does well with half a gig of memory. I usually have Liferea, Thunderbird, Xchat, Pidgin on 4 IM networks, Rhythmbox playing, Firefox with severa
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Funny)
Linux isnt magic.
That's because you forgot to sudo apt-get install magic.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if they aim for being usable on 256mb of ram, just imagine how much faster than that it would run on 1gb!
When system X runs on 256mb as fast as system Y runs in 1gb ram, it is usually a given that system X will FAR outperform system Y on the same 1gb system.
Whats not to like?
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, I disagree with that statement. Imagine a world where every app required 1Gb RAM to run acceptably (Office 2010 anyone?). What you will see is not an app that runs slow if you give it less and faster if you give it more, but an app that runs slowly no matter how much you give it.
Think of that 1Gb, how long does it take to get that off disk and into RAM? Or, if the ram usage is calculated/generated and the disk image is tiny, how long does it take to fill it up with what ever it is doing?
that said, once you have the app that has all that RAM used, how much of it will fit into the CPU caches? How much time will be spent shifting data from RAM to L3 to L2 to L1 caches - and if the CPU is waiting for data to be updated in its cache, its certainly not running at those multi-gigahertz speeds, you'd be better off with an old 200 Mhz P3 and a gigabyte of L1 cache!
Of course, we wont even go into the time it takes if you end up swapping!
It doesn't matter if an app used 64k or 1Mb - both those numbers are still quite small, small enough not to make a difference that you'd notice. But when the memory usage creeps up to tremendous levels, you know its going to run like a dog. 200Mb plus another 200Mb swapped out is normal for some apps. Guess how well they run?
In some cases I wouldn't be worried about an app that did use a lot of memory, if its used for data structures or cached data, but these slow apps seem to be built on bloated frameworks that make them use masses of ram just to do nothing (well, just to make a lazy programmer's life a little bit easier)
An app that requires 256MB will always run faster than one that takes 1Gb, even if you have a machine with 100Gb RAM. RAM may be cheap but I/O bandwidth is not.
RAM is meant to be used, but I'd like that to be used by the OS to cache the disk, or whatever it likes, not to have all that gobbled up by apps that leave the OS with little left over to cache with.
RAM uses power (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently it doesn't matter too much because the main power consumption is in the display. But ne
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other thing is that some warranties are voided on netbooks whenever you add more memory (I know the EEE PC was when it first came out but I think they corrected it, not really sure about the others). Add in the fact
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Upgrading memory on the Eee 1000HE is definately allowed.
Heck, Amazon basically autoreccomends a stick of RAM as one of the "frequently bought together" combos.
Re:It says: 256MB RAM... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Correct! Also why have OSes gotten so large they required DVDs! I remember being able to install 3.11 for workgroups off a series of floppies, why can't we go back to that?!"
Because...then we'd be running Windows 3.11?
*shudders*
no it wasnt.. (Score:2, Informative)
no it wasnt..
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot confirms it!
Those party poopers in #ubuntu-release-party are in denial.
Re:no it wasnt.. (Score:4, Informative)
Not yet.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not released yet?! (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean seriously, how hard is it to go look at http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] to check?
Re:It's not released yet?! (Score:4, Informative)
Take a look at the mirrors - it's up, but the site doesn't yet reflect it.
http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/ubuntu-releases/9.10/ [uidaho.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not released yet?! (Score:5, Funny)
Once again: no (Score:2)
The RC was just released a few days ago. But the final 9.10 is still not on their website.
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T (Score:5, Informative)
Ext4 in Ubuntu 9.10 is specially problematic, as there are reports of corruption when writing large files:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910#Switching%20to%20ext4%20requires%20manually%20updating%20grub [ubuntu.com]
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/453579 [launchpad.net]
Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T (Score:4, Insightful)
On a side note. It would be nice if the Ubuntu installer by default created a seperate /home partition. (or maybe they have in the last version or so, I haven't installed from scratch).
Uh, why? For most people, that's just a pain in the ass... suddenly you have to guess how much space you'll want in / and /home, and if you underestimate, you find yourself having to resize filesystems. And for those who care (such as yourself), you can easily set things up that way during the initial install.
Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T (Score:4, Insightful)
Why a separate /home? So that you can easily do a clean install of the next version from CD without blowing away all your data.
I learned that lesson several releases ago. I have 10GB / for the OS, and the rest in /home.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why a separate /home? So that you can easily do a clean install of the next version from CD without blowing away all your data.
Except that your average Ubuntu user does an upgrade, not a re-install.
And if you're paranoid (like, apparently, you and I) and re-install rather than upgrade, you never want to install a new OS and then trust it with your old /home in the first place. It's much safer to create an entirely new installation, then copy things over as you need them. Otherwise, you may fall victim to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? With disks sufficiently large these day, just allocate 10GB for Ubuntu and take the rest for /home.
And then you run out of that 10GB because you're working with large video files, or decide to rip your audio collection to disk. Hell, my /home was over 20GB before I cleared out some old cruft I no longer needed (just one directory, the result of a large .torrent, was over 5GB).
Meanwhile, you still haven't explained the advantages of putting /home on a separate partition.
If you don't trust that, simply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, because I thought the premise was bottom-of-the-barrel computer users. Those don't have backups. Just saying...
And they also don't understand how to re-install Ubuntu and have it use their old /home partition (to do that, you have to use the advanced partitioning mode). Average users will just upgrade. And if they do that, then having /home on a separate partition presents absolutely zero advantages, while creating the pain of a more inflexible storage arrangement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They might get to understand how to re-install Ubuntu. They manage it with Windows, and tech support hand-holding them, or just slapping in the DVD and clicking next a lot.
The only good reason for a separate /home is to partition your data from everything else. I don't care if my OS dies, I can re-install it without having to worry (or copy) masses of data to a backup partition, and possibly (probably in my case) forget something. Its not something you'd do very often, but when you do come to do it you real
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only good reason for a separate /home is to partition your data from everything else.
Right. And the only advantage that provides is if you decide to upgrade and reuse the same /home. I've already pointed out how that's a bad idea, in general. And that use case requires more advanced knowledge of Ubuntu, Unix, and partitioning than your average user possesses. So it's only really useful for advanced users, who are already capable of splitting out home into a separate partition.
Its not something you'
Obligitory Culture Club (Score:5, Funny)
Karmic Karmic Karmic Karmic Karmic Koala
Download and install
Download and innnnnstaaaalllllll....
Before Installing, note: (Score:5, Informative)
Possible corruption of large files with ext4 filesystem
There have been some reports of data corruption with fresh (not upgraded) ext4 file systems using the Ubuntu 9.10 kernel when writing to large files (over 512MB). The issue is under investigation, and if confirmed will be resolved in a post-release update. Users who routinely manipulate large files may want to consider using ext3 file systems until this issue is resolved. (453579)
Ubuntu One client requires post-install upgrade
A serious bug in the Ubuntu One client software included in Ubuntu 9.10 that could potentially result in loss of data has led to disabling file syncing access for this client version on the Ubuntu One servers as a precaution. Users who see a "Capabilities Mismatch" error when trying to use Ubuntu One should install the post-release upgrade of the client that will be made available immediately after release, fixing the original bug and restoring file syncing access to the Ubuntu One servers. Files are still available via the web interface at http://one.ubuntu.com./ [one.ubuntu.com]
Contact syncing and tomboy syncing services are not affected by this issue.
Package list must be manually refreshed before installing drivers
The "Hardware Drivers" tool (Jockey) requires up to date package lists before it detects and advertises necessary driver packages. Immediately after a new installation, these package lists will not be present. Before running Jockey for the first time, update the package lists using System->Administration->Software->Update Manager (on Ubuntu) or "KPackageKit" (on Kubuntu). (462704)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bugs like this always make me worry about Ubuntu's hard release dates. The Ubuntu One bug sounds like a pretty big problem. Would it have killed them to fix this problem and delay the release? I know slippery release dates cause other problems (DNF [wikipedia.org]), but do you really want a major release to have serious problems like this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey it is ubuntu. It is not supposed to work! :)
Seriously! When microsoft treated user like beta-tester we hated them. And now we praise ubuntu which does even worse...
I am very happy with my debian stable. I know there are no such critical bugs in it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bloody hell!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I've done installs of Ubuntu on a virtual machines a couple of times but my initial experiences led me to stay away because I really like the development tools in Ubuntu and development really isn't Ubuntu's core strength - the end user desktop is or was. Installing dev tools felt like a right pain the behind and the fact that they didn't seem to allow let alone encourage custom kernel compilation put me right off. Fair enough I thought. I'm a geek I can stick with something else.
However pushing a release o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS released WinFS in a situation where one user is reporting file corruption that doesn't appear to occur for anyone else? We'd be shocked at the improvement.
USB install (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you install the desktop version (not the netbook edition) using a USB stick? They only provide ISOs on the official website, not IMGs.
Re:USB install (Score:5, Informative)
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Samba? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why the Ubuntu team has never simplified the setup process for Samba. It is simple enough to share a folder with unlimited access, but as soon as you want to create users and passwords, it becomes rather complex. I've had to set it up a couple of times, and I never seem to get it to work quite right.
Many Ubuntu users are also going to be running a Windows machine on their local network. If the goal is to give them a positive experience with Linux, then setting up the connections on the local network should be brain-dead easy. Imagine sending a novice user to this page [ubuntu.com]! They would soon be throwing away their Ubuntu disk and installing Windows.
Making an easy GUI for this configuration process shouldn't be that difficult. I hope that it will be addressed sometime soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The calculator in Windows works just like a small handheld calculator, and so it won't allow you to enter the second decimal point. However, it is also limited in the same ways as a small handheld calculator.
The Ubuntu calculator allows for expressions, not just numbers. You can enter something like this:
(47/6 - 13.222) * 8.3
And it will give you the answer. This is much better than what the Windows calculator provides. As for 2.2.2, why would anyone enter that? Isn't it better to give the user feedback abou
Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to assume that there are some "secret" plans involving Ubuntu One that make a lot of sense (if you know them) and can actually explain why Ubuntu One exists in the first place. I've read through all the public documentation and, for the life of me, I can't figure out what is even remotely unique or noteworthy about the service.
Right now, it's attempting to be a Dropbox clone. However, it's not yet there and is clearly still in beta -- even though they have the same pricing structure as the (very mature) Dropbox. Their goal for the file synchronization service is to be as full-featured as Dropbox? But not more? Seriously, if your goal is to be as good as Dropbox, then why not just use Dropbox?
It's not even that "Ubuntu One is OSS and Dropbox is proprietary". Both services have OSS parts and proprietary parts.
Maybe, then, they are trying to be more of an online backup service, ala Mozy? Well... no. I can't find any evidence that they encrypt your data so it would be a bust as online backup.
So I don't get it. Why would anybody use (much less pay for) it when there are much more robust services already out there AND there's no indication that it'll actually be better than those services in any way. There must be some secret plans that I just don't know about.
Anybody feel like letting me know what I missed?
Torrentz PLZ? (Score:3, Insightful)
KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. (Score:5, Informative)
Kubuntu fans can check the release notes here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicKoala/RC/Kubuntu [ubuntu.com]
Browsing through them, I got the feeling of tired, haggard Kubuntu maintainers congratulating themselves for surviving, but not excelling in, the production of this version which still has many issues. If you read between the lines, you see that there are still quite a number of issues. "The NetworkManager applet has received some loving from its creators, and offers a more robust networking experience than it did in Kubuntu 9.04."
I went to the Feedback page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicKoala/RC/Kubuntu/Feedback [ubuntu.com] to see how KDE would do in this version. This is where you get the honest criticism that tells you what problems you might encounter. Generally people are offering encouragement but the fact is that this version of Kubuntu is still not cutting it. Comments usually start with "Great release! However ... " and then a list of bugs. These are bugs from before. One person says: "all bugs I noticed are still there: broken knetworkmanager, no sending via bluetooth, preview file in dolphin's context menu not working. I tried 9.10 in hope they were corrected, but they weren't."
I myself have been staying with 8.04 since that is the last version that officially supported KDE 3. (I hear that you can now get KDE 3 versions of 8.10 or 9.04, but I don't think those are official.) If I'm going to retrain myself on KDE 4, I might as well wait an extra half year and get the 10.04 Long-Term Support edition --if ever Kubuntu gets around to doing one. (8.04 was LTS for GNOME Ubuntu only, not for Kubuntu.)
I think the Kubuntu developers need to be strongly encouraged to fix existing bugs instead of putting in new features.
As an aside, regarding the "Known Issues" list for standard GNOME Ubuntu:
Release notes http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910 [ubuntu.com]
Does anyone else think that there are more and more bugs now, and that Ubuntu simply is not the "install and use defaults" user-friendly distro that it used to be?
BitTorrent links (Score:5, Informative)
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-desktop-i386.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-netbook-remix-i386.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-server-i386.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-server-amd64.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-alternate-i386.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ubuntu-9.10-alternate-amd64.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
ATI Xorg 9.10 drivers (Score:4, Informative)
I'm still looking forward to the advancement of the experimental support that X.org has added to the new Xserver (1.7 me thinks) for R600/700 chipsets, go open source drivers FTW!
Buzzword bingo? (Score:4, Funny)
Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud images, the Ubuntu One "personal cloud"
Oh-oh, we're getting dangerously close to a full set of buzzwords...
What did they smoke to make those cloudy names? Did the descision taking meeting look like the car full of smoke in that old Luniz video? ^^
This is unacceptable! I will fork this, and call it "Ubuntu Social iEnterprise Vertical e-Cloud Framework", Codename: "Twitching Twitter".
'Cause I got a fever. And the only prescription is "MOAR CLOUDBUZZ"!
Very positive experience so far (Score:5, Interesting)
My experience with 9.10 so far has been extremely positive.
I did an upgrade at first, and then a complete reinstall. The upgrade process went very quickly, and I only had one problem - that my network card became "unmanaged" again. This is some remnant from my 8.10 install back in the day. Besides that, there were no problems and my desktop was exactly as I left it.
The install process from scratch also went well. The partition manager is pretty friendly, and the (I think) new time zone selector is actually easy to use. I also don't need to do a whole bunch of stuff to determine my keyboard layout -- it defaulted to US english and that was that.
The desktop system itself is much improved. The changes to Nautilus are welcome. The side bar is more user friendly, and the folders and such look a lot better.
The notification system has some improvements so it's not quite as useless -- multiple consecutive notifications from the same application drop into the same notification window, and there's a sort of glass effect when you "mouse under" the window, making that absurd behavior a bit more palatable.
My graphics card (GTX 280) was supported after downloading some binary drivers (although I had to restart to enable full desktop effects).
My sound card (X-Fi Fatality edition) is finally supported in kernel, although I had to use amixer in order to get my mic working. The new sound mixer, though, is FAR more user friendly.
I've had no problems so far with EXT4, and my load times in Heroes of Newerth have decreased since the upgrade.
The font rendering. It's much better across the board. Firefox sees the biggest improvement, likely due to the upgrade to 3.5. Font rendering used to be far worse than Windows and is now on par with Mac (I prefer the bolder, smoother look of Mac fonts, personally).
The HDD diagnosis tool is also handy. As soon as the upgrade completed and the tool ran, it warned me of some SMART errors on one of my drives. It's pretty easy to dig into the drives and run diagnostics and such.
Empathy is still bad, and I switched back to pidgin after a few minutes of use. For example, I had to find an hidden check box just to "enable" the account and get it to connect. The UI is also not so hot.
Overall I haven't regretted the upgrade at all, which is more than I can say to 9.04.
Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to incrementally update through each version. If you have 8.04, you have to go to 8.10, then 9.04, then finally 9.10.
The incremental updates can be done through the install updates on your desktop. If you wait too long, you'll have to change your apt sources, so I'd upgrade sooner rather than later.
Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? (Score:5, Informative)
You can skip from one LTS release to another. eg: 8.04 to 10.04
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes [ubuntu.com]
Re: (Score:2)
---
Linux Feed [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you'll be better off with a complete reinstall. Especially if you have /home on a separate partition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you'll be better off with a complete reinstall. Especially if you have /home on a separate partition.
Nice opinion. Got any reasoning to back it up?
My home file server was originally installed in 1998. For 11 years I've been upgrading it, never a problem. At this point there's nothing left of the original hardware or the original software, but it's the same installation. My laptop was installed in 2001. That was three machines ago, but I just copy the disk image from one to the next, and keep on apt-get upgrading. Those are both Debian systems, of course, Ubuntu doesn't go back that far. My desktop
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC it is not possible to skip a release, so you would have to update to releases in between first.
The update-manager program may be used for upgrades. If you are on a LTS release you will first have to enable normal releases in your package manager configuration (don't have Ubuntu available to tell you the actual name), otherwise you will have to wait for the next LTS release which is supposed to be 10.4.
Re: (Score:2)
you need to upgrade through each version to get to 9.10. also systems never seem to work as well once they go through dist upgrades so in my opinion its best to start afresh. Sooo... stick with what ya got.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try pressing Alt-F2 to bring up a "run" dialog, and typing
update-manager -d
I can't remember if it needs a sudo in front of it, but it uses the GUI update manager to do the equivalent of a
"sudo apt-get --dist-upgrade" from the command line. On the LTS versions, it does not announce new versions being available.
Re:Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.funnyordie.co.uk/videos/ef83afc272/hosting-your-windows-7-torrenting-party [funnyordie.co.uk]
Don't worry, this one isn't cringe-worthy like the original.
Re:Personal Cloud... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Personal Cloud... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know that Slashdot is going down hill when a perfectly reasonable comment asking for more information is replied to by three sarcastic comments about tubes, trucks, and pipes.
Ubuntu One looks like it uses other Ubuntu One users to store up to 2GB of data (hopefully securely) in a cloud-like state, e.g. with redundancy so that one failure doesn't cause you to lose those backups. I got that from a brief look at https://one.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ubuntu One looks like it uses other Ubuntu One users to store up to 2GB of data (hopefully securely) in a cloud-like state, e.g. with redundancy so that one failure doesn't cause you to lose those backups.
Nope. Apparently the data is stored on Amazon's S3 servers, according to the wiki here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuOne#"Storage" [ubuntu.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, McCloud... get off'a meh ewe.
Re: (Score:2)
It's free and I value my time and it works out great.
Not sure where you're coming from with this.
Are you used to using something like Windows?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know I shouldn't feed a troll, but I just can't resist.....
Outside of downloading, I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10 (RC1) in about an hour - mostly unattended (while I was doing other stuff as well).
A friend of mine who is a complete MS fanboy is currently at 4 days and counting for a Windows 7 upgrade.
I think I value my time too much.
Re:It's FREE! as long as... (Score:4, Funny)
Depends on your definition of noob.
He's been installing and administrating Windows systems for 15 years - so by the general definition, he is no noob.
He's using Windows - so by my definition, he is a noob.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flash? (Score:5, Informative)
Flash has been available for many versions already...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ubuntu users have been watching flash content in their browsers for a long time. If you're referring to out-of-the-box support, no (which Windows doesn't have either).
Just visit a webpage containing Flash content and you'll be guided to install the plugin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(after downloading the .flv file I could always view them with totem etc full screen no problem, so it was a flash-related problem)
Re:Canonical does something right for a change (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubuntu still needs to change a lot (scrap Upstart/clone FreeBSD init, get rid of DKMS, ideally get rid of crapt-get and clone ports, revert to OSS for sound, get rid of the insane scenario where GNOME is irremovably fused with virtually the entire rest of the system)
Or you could just run FreeBSD, rather than trying to turn Ubuntu into it...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just unsure why trying (and failing, for the most part) to be a half-assed Windows clone is such a great thing for Linux to do.
And I'm not sure why trying to emulate FreeBSD is "such a great thing for Linux to do". I like apt and it's killer dependency handling and associated, vast software repository. I like kernel modules and the fact that I don't have to build custom kernels anymore (I've done that, I've moved on). And PulseAudio. And faster boot times.
In short: I like the fact that Linux is gro