Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Upgrades Bug Linux

Some Early Adopters Stung By Ubuntu's Karmic Koala 1231

Norsefire writes to mention a Register piece reporting that early adopters are having a tough time with Karmic Koala, Ubuntu's latest release. "Ubuntu 9.10 is causing outrage and frustration, with early adopters wishing they'd stuck with previous versions of the Linux distro. Blank and flickering screens, failure to recognize hard drives, defaulting to the old 2.6.28 Linux kernel, and failure to get encryption running are taking their toll, as early adopters turn to the web for answers and log fresh bug reports in Ubuntu forums." What has been your experience if you've moved to Karmic?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Some Early Adopters Stung By Ubuntu's Karmic Koala

Comments Filter:
  • by Kopachris ( 1594707 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:33PM (#29969584)
    My upgrade has been quite painless, though that might be because I simply did a fresh install. My hardware is fairly old (Athlon XP processor, 1GB RAM) and Karmic is running quite well. Conky works, OpenGL works, Flash works, etc. The only thing that tripped me up was the switch to GRUB2, which left me, like many others, wondering where "menu.lst" went.
  • Wifi works (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dwedit ( 232252 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:33PM (#29969600) Homepage

    I found that the Edimax WiFi card finally survives sleep mode without breaking.

  • My experience (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:36PM (#29969642) Homepage

    Blank and flickering screens: No
    Failure to recognize hard drives: No
    Defaulting to the old 2.6.28 Linux kernel: No
    Failure to get encryption running:
    Sorta, but only because my computer took a dive in the middle of the live upgrade. I had to remount / read-write from an emergency console and run apt-get again. Or actually it told me to run "dpkg --configure -a" to correct it. That installed most things, but I had to reboot into the normal recovery console and run last updates. Rebooted and...

    Working flawlessly with full disk encryption and everything. No problems with anything so far, that's my anecdotal evidence at least.

  • netbook remix (Score:4, Informative)

    by feranick ( 858651 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:37PM (#29969684)
    I was looking to replace the default 8.04 in my dell mini 9 with the 9.10 netbook remix. I found out that the desktop-switcher is not included in the distro. So I need to stick with the default single windows window manager, instead of the full GNOME. Why you may ask? Well, the desktop-switcher application was too buggy on release time, and they decided to remove it from the distro instead of fixing it. So nobody can complain and more important, there is nothing to be fixed if it's not there in first place. I'll stick to the old but reliable 8.04, for the time being.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:39PM (#29969728)

    Actually for Kubuntu it's a whole different story, since the upgrade fixed some graphic issues with my Intel 82945G (GX) card. And the KDE 4.3.2 has a lots of improvements!!!

  • openSUSE 11.2 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:40PM (#29969760)

    openSUSE 11.2 : 8 days to go.

  • Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)

    by VirusEqualsVeryYes ( 981719 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:43PM (#29969822)

    I immediately found a very large irritant after upgrading. Previously, I had line-in set to play through to the speakers. There was a simple slider in sound preferences that existed back since at least 6.06. The same option exists under Windows. But suddenly, 9.10 removed this option. Line-in no longer plays through, and the option has been completely removed from the revamped (and somewhat disorganized) sound preference panels. I appreciate the effort to "modernize" the sound options like per-application tuning, but not at the cost of tossing simple, basic options that have existed since the invention of the sound card.

    Also, regarding the bootup animations, they've changed for three or four consecutive upgrades now. I don't mind a refresher when appropriate, but "refreshing" every six months tells me that some priorities need some reordering.

  • My problems with 9.1 (Score:3, Informative)

    by flyboy974 ( 624054 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:44PM (#29969828)
    Blank and flickering screens: Yes. I was running NVIDIA 180.29. The new kernel, being GCC 4.4 barfed. In fact, it caused screen flickers, which caused strangely Hard Disk read errors, keyboard input failures, and would lock up my computer if I couldnt' SSH in from another machien to do a "sudo service gdm stop"

    Failure to recognize hard drives: No

    Defaulting to the old 2.6.28 Linux kernel: Yep. Does not set the new 2.6.30-14-generic as default. So I have to keep arrowing up in grub. I'll reset this myself.

    I also am having a problem with X-Plane 9.40. I use to get 60FPS no problem. I get 20 now. Notably I upgraded to NVIDIA 190.42 as a result of the 180.29 issues. But, it doesn't matter on the NVIDIA version. Strangely I found a work around. If I go to Preferences/Rendering and exit out, about 1/3 of the time I get back to 60FPS. My guess is the OpenAL or pulseaudio as it's reinitialized.

  • by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:46PM (#29969882)
    Problems plugging in an external monitor on my netbook. Workarounds are available, so it's tolerable. On the upside, it seems a bit better on batter life. Strangely, I'm not seeing any improvement in boot times, which people seem so obsessed with. Until it's under 10 seconds for my netbook, I'm sticking with suspend/hibernate.

    The new disk utility picked up the informed me that my laptop disk is in serious need of replacing, which is a nice thing to know before it fails. Overall, not as smooth an upgrade as Jaunty, but not bad.
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:5, Informative)

    by V!NCENT ( 1105021 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:49PM (#29969916)

    Canonical is interested in rushing out bleeding edge versions of Ubuntu twice a year. Canonical is also interrested in stable, long term release versions, called LTS. Mod parent Troll.

  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @06:56PM (#29970066) Journal
    they can deliver something on time, rather than delivering something good

    I'm using Karmic on three computers, one fresh install and two upgrades from Jaunty.

    All of them are good - one is Xubuntu on a lower-specced laptop and it feels quicker, both booting up and in use. The biggest problem was the current MythStream not working with V0.22 of MythTV.

  • Re:Professionalism (Score:3, Informative)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:03PM (#29970192)
    Just imaging if the news had read,
    PC users upgrading from Windows Vista to Windows 7 have run into a variety of hair pulling problems since last Thursday when Windows 7 launched. Complaints range from endless reboots to refusals by Windows to accept Microsoft's assigned product keys. As of Monday morning, Microsoft had answered about 2600 questions that poured into support forum regarding upgrades. At last count, around 1400 questions remained unanswered.
    Oh wait... it does [] Not to pick favorites, I'd say both the latest Windows and the latest Ubuntu are less than perfect, but both will improve over time. I would also give Microsoft credit for having spent a lot more than Ubuntu did testing their latest release.
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:3, Informative)

    by WoLpH ( 699064 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:13PM (#29970394)

    Guess you were lucky, I was less fortunate.

    I've upgraded 2 machines from Jaunty to Karmic and both stopped rebooting/shutting down (they hang when trying to). But even besides that, loads of my settings got reset/removed. For example, I've lost all of my wifi profiles which is turning out to be quite a PITA.

  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:1, Informative)

    by mR.bRiGhTsId3 ( 1196765 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:22PM (#29970522)
    Upgrade success poll []
    35% success rate in running 9.10? That is not a good job.
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:24PM (#29970546) Journal
    Why do people insist on trotting out their own experiences of success

    Because my experiences match that of the vast majority of Ubuntu users.

    Just as the people who are caught up in the "endless reboot" problem [] with Windows 7 are a tiny minority, so are those having trouble with Karmic.

    Even your example fails since you are having difficulties but are willing to brush them off.

    My "difficulties" are that a single plugin for a single program hasn't been updated yet. The author of the plugin has been notified and has provided a beta update []beta update. I have no doubt that I'll be seeing the release version in my update manager soon.

  • Re:Great (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:25PM (#29970576)

    The options your looking for are, and have always been, part of `alsamixer`.

  • Re:Only Use LTS (Score:5, Informative)

    by vigour ( 846429 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:26PM (#29970604)

    ...6 months releasing cycles are a joke. Just look at how long Windows 7 has been tested before release.

    Then use Debian.

  • Flash (Score:3, Informative)

    by nukeade ( 583009 ) <.serpent11. .at.> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:27PM (#29970622) Homepage

    I installed this on my work and home PC with no obvious problems, and was really pleased with the responsiveness.

    It wasn't until later that I realized that Flash no longer responds to mouse clicks. It makes YouTube and Pandora hard to use, and other Flash apps nearly impossible to use. A workaround was recommended, which unfortunately causes Firefox to crash on loading a Flash app.


  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Weslee ( 1118943 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:34PM (#29970746)

    On the very poll you linked to it says this -

      *** Disclaimer for those willing to analyse this poll ***
      Most of users voting here are users with issues.
      Users with painless experience are not likely to come here.
      If you want to compare Karmic release with other releases based on this poll anyway here are the previous polls :

  • by musicon ( 724240 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:35PM (#29970758) Homepage

    Unlike previous releases where I jumped in fairly early in the beta process (beta 2 or 3), I waited to move to Karmic until the release. I also decided to do a clean install this time to ensure I wouldn't run into any upgrade issues.

    Unfortunately, despite the supposed "papercut" fixes, this release seems far more prone to problems. On my Dell Latitude 620 (with Intel graphics, mind you):

    1. Where Jaunty did great handling my laptop display and external monitor, Karmic has had no end of problems; problems that kept enforcing mirroring of displays, continually defaulting to 1024x768, random placements of the taskbar and notification popups, etc. See [] about moving the taskbar.
    2. Totem/gstreamer had no display, just a blank screen. Finally found []
    3. The system defaulted to enabling compiz. I turned it off while troubleshooting all of the other video errors, but now it won't enable again.
    4. Despite the touted KMS, I still have a 2-3 second wait at boot (text mode from Grub I'm assuming), and later a 2-3 second delay with a blank screen excepting an underscore in the top-left corner that shows up between the boot image (eg, usplash) and the "pulsing" gdm startup
    5. The overall boot time (from power on to entering my password) is roughly identical to Jaunty -- I don't notice any difference.
    6. Power usage seems to be about the same, although powertop has reported a spike of 33W whereas before I never saw it go over 19W.
    7. Much higher memory usage reported in system monitor (previously most of the memory was allocated to cache, now most of it is allocated to programs).

    About the only good thing I can say (which may also be attributed to the larger 500G drive I swapped in for the install), is that overall the system seems smoother and more responsive.

  • by hellmitre ( 963276 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:35PM (#29970766) Homepage
    I've had nothing but positive changes since migrating from 8.10 to 9.10. Wireless connectivity is far better; they seem to have ironed out the issues stemming from multiple networks being around in the same band, video out works far better, PulseAudio is finally properly implemented. Overall it's a far smoother distro, in my experience. It took me about 6 hours to get everything working, iSight, mic and Skype, full screen flash, dev headers and software, compiz and conky.
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chaos Incarnate ( 772793 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:36PM (#29970770) Homepage
    People with failures are more likely to be on the forum to see the poll in the first place.
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Falstius ( 963333 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:38PM (#29970822)
    That poll is not scientific (people who find the poll are more likely to be people with problems), and out of people who upgraded the success rate is 68%. It is listed as 35% because they count successful installs separately from upgrades. Checking the polls for previous releases, the numbers are pretty much the same as this one.

    I still don't use a new Ubuntu release for at least a few weeks though. There is always a flood of package upgrades for a few weeks after a release.

  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:5, Informative)

    by somersault ( 912633 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:44PM (#29970906) Homepage Journal

    Vista had some really pathetic issues for *months* after it was released. I expect at least these issues will be cleared up pretty quickly. And as others have pointed out, this isn't an LTS release.

    People are justified in trotting out their own experience because the summary asks for it.

    For me KK is awesome, because I finally have accelerated graphics on my Dell Mini 9. I tried setting it up on jaunty a couple of times before but just assumed that my netbook didn't have the right chipset or enough graphics memory to run compiz. Now my netbook has all the benefits of the Ubuntu installation on my MBP (avant window navigator being one of my favourite things about it, 3D desktop cube and wibbly windows next), and more.

    The only backwards step I've noticed so far is that the battery app in the system tray now just gives charge level as a percentage, with no time remaining or time to charge info. I don't think I had to install a custom app for that before. Strange.

  • by Macka ( 9388 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:45PM (#29970918)

    First thing I noticed was it didn't like the way I'd set up menu.lst. I have two disks mirrored with MD raid so I have 4 OS definitions per kernel - two for each disk (one multiuser, one single user). I don't trust Ubuntu to just update or replace, as it always wants to use root="UUID number" which is a pain in the ass if you ever restore from backup as that always changes with a new filesystem, so I just stick with - in my case - root=/dev/md2. I tried the experimental option to merge the old and new files - which didn't work, so I had to let it carry on with the upgrade while fixing it up in the background.

    Next thing I hit was more of a problem. It balked doing a post install configure on eBox. The process went zombie and the upgrade just froze. I had to kill the parent python process to get dpkg to carry on with the rest of it, but discovered that at the end of the install and configure phase, dpkg had remembered the return errno from killing that child process and it decided to act on that by aborting the upgrade at that point - before the clean up phase. So the system is in an indeterminate state.

    I rebooted, and it came up ok, but I then found I had three problems:

    • Compiz was broken again. It broke when I went from 8.10 to 9.04 and I had to downgrade the xserver, etc to get it working. I'm pretty sure the Intel chipset problems are fixed, it's just a configuration somewhere. Haven't had time to look for it.
    • About half the desktop menu items don't have icons for them any more
    • Default system sound is set to 100% so if I have the speakers turned on when I login they can hear it at the end of the street. Adjusting the slider makes no difference.

    I ran out of time to play around with it so had to leave it like that. I think when I eventually get home again I'll just install from scratch and restore what I need to from backup. I can't really complain - after all it's not as if I've paid anything for it.

  • Re:Professionalism (Score:2, Informative)

    by MrSenile ( 759314 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:47PM (#29970964)
  • by shellster_dude ( 1261444 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:50PM (#29971010)
    I upgraded to Karmic Koala on one box, and did a fresh, full ubuntu install on my EEEPC of Karmic, and I have had absolutely no problems. It even recognized my Atheros wifi and ethernet cards which I had previously had to custom compile the ethernet drivers, and install backported intrepid drivers for the wifi before, in Jaunty. In fact, this is the first ubuntu upgrade that I have never had any issues with. I have been using Ubuntu since Hoary Hedgehog.
  • Re:Professionalism (Score:3, Informative)

    by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:57PM (#29971122) Homepage Journal

    But it is a surprise. Ubuntu so far has been (if not stable) then well tested and polished.

  • Grub 2 Sucks (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:00PM (#29971152)

    Grub 2 seems to spend 4-5 seconds hammering disks while "Grub Loading..." is displayed. That sure eats into any boot time savings.

    Also, the Grub 2 boot selection screen looks primitive, no other way to say it.

    Finally, Grub 2 no longer uses our old friend /boot/grub/menu.lst, so one needs to research to find where the files are now, edit one of them, then run update-grub to ensure the change is propagated.

    And then there was the screen flickering.

    8 hours of bad road, and I haven't yet started using the damn thing.

  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:4, Informative)

    by styrotech ( 136124 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:04PM (#29971200)

    Why do people insist on trotting out their own experiences of success on a limited subset of hardware as if they somehow negate the fact that people are suffering because of the Ubuntu developer's subservience to the tyranny of the "Six Month Release Cycle (OMG)." Even your example fails since you are having difficulties but are willing to brush them off.

    Jumping to conclusions about their motivations? Maybe that persons experience was trotted out purely because the story summary itself asked for peoples experiences.

    And here is mine: Two clean installs (no upgrades yet), and no apparent problems.

  • by flyboy974 ( 624054 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:08PM (#29971258)
    It was an upgrade unfortunately.

    Unfortunately when I installed Ubuntu, I let it go with the recommended single /dev/hda1 partition that was 100%. Back in my old UNIX days, I normally would have had a small ~2GB /, ~4GB /usr, ~20GB /var, and allocated the rest under /home. But, being that everyone seemed to have been running full / partitions for desktops, I did that. WOOOPS!

    I've thought about reinstalling everything. As you see above, I've always locked down my partitions for good reason. Reallocating a few OS partitions is no problem.

    On a side note, I also had a custom 2.6.28 kernel as I was working on developing a USB driver for the NVIDIA ESA device support (which is really just HID 1.1, but, Linux is not HID 1.08 compliant). Getting closer, but, I'm really having to reimplement HID 1.11 so I'm trying to decide if I should implement it as a USB replacement for the kernel or as a HIDDEV/RAW type module.

    Troubles... yes... Switching back to Windows.. Hell no! (I booted into my old Vista drive to upgrade my iPhone to 3.0... that took 30 minutes to boot and open ITunes! Screw that!)

  • Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)

    by greg1104 ( 461138 ) <> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:11PM (#29971306) Homepage

    I ran into the same class of sound issues, in my case the primary one was trouble getting all of the output in the right mode. The sound card was convinced that the regular audio output was actually the coax one, and it was hard to figure out how to tell it otherwise (even though the problem and the solution were quite obvious). Just like old times, when everything broke after merging PulseAudio.

    I was eventually able to dig into the sound issues using tools like alsamixer and manually tweaking what driver I was using to get things working again on the sacrificial test system. The contortions required made the new setup seemed really fragile, and I'm not sure exactly what fixed the issue. That means I might have to do this again after some future system update. While the Jaunty Sound Preferences panel was never elegant, it did at least work most of the time. As you point out, it looks like all of the GUI-based tools you used to be able to do troubleshooting and easily try alternative configs with are either gone or not in an obvious place anymore in Karmic. Given how problematic Linux sound has been over the years, it takes a very peculiar form of arrogance to presume it's finally fixed now all of the sudden, and therefore it's fine to seriously deprecate alternatives that (while not the preferred approach) were sometimes the only thing that did work in earlier releases.

    Since there were some other really annoying bits in this release (the awful and so ubiquitous it's difficult to turn off new Notify OSD comes to mind), so far it looks like I'll be skipping this release. I skipped 7.10, 8.04, and the first few months of 8.10 due to quality control issues too, so this isn't that surprising. Ubuntu may put out a new release every six months, but I only seem to find one worth upgrading to every two years anyway. Seems pretty clear to me the 6-month release cycle is faster than Canonical and the community can really deliver stable software in. And that's regardless of LTS tagging, 8.04 was the worst of the bunch and its backported bug fixes were minimal for the problems I ran into; all the awful bugs were marked "fixed in Intrepid" and that was the end of it. I feel lucky that the LTS 9.04 release is the good one now, am hoping things work out similarly to how 7.04 kept me going for a long time before I needed to update. Of course, audio problems with Skype are still looming...

  • by bsims ( 895751 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:20PM (#29971420)

    The upgrade was a bit rough - the GUI system update tools are very prone to breaking, often freezing to the point that only a forcequit can put things back to normal (I almost always use the command line because of that). Unfortunately the only way I knew of to update to 9.10 was using a GUI tool, which naturally broke, forcing me to restart the upgrade (although it was called a "partial upgrade".

    I have never once gotten the GUI system update tools to work properly.
    Use the CLI version like the Omnissiah intended.
    1) Install update-manager-core if it is not already installed:
    sudo apt-get install update-manager-core
    2) Launch the upgrade tool:
    sudo do-release-upgrade
    3) Follow the on-screen instructions.

  • Re:Professionalism (Score:3, Informative)

    by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:23PM (#29971452) Homepage
    Sorry to disappoint, but Snow Leopard is having the same kinds of issues that every other 10.x.0 (and even 10.x.x) releases have had. Lost data, borked booting - just wander down to MacFixit and see the pain.
  • "stable" (Score:3, Informative)

    by XanC ( 644172 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:26PM (#29971480)

    Why not test things and then update, instead of arbitrarily picking a version and declaring it to be stable?

    "Stable" means it doesn't change. It doesn't mean it works perfectly. If you update something, it's not stable.

  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) * on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:27PM (#29971496) Homepage Journal

    Just in case you didn't see the first reply, I'll echo it:

    *** Disclaimer for those willing to analyse this poll ***
    Most of users voting here are users with issues.
    Users with painless experience are not likely to come here.

    I haven't upgraded yet, but, seriously, if it works painlessly, I'm unlikely to look for a poll to post that information in. I'll only go looking to find information if it's NOT painless.

  • by dustinkirkland ( 1462057 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:33PM (#29971576)
    As this article attacked the feature I personally worked on in Karmic, I felt it appropriate to respond in my blog at [].
    Typically, I read and respect The Register. They usually run intriguing technology articles that make me think. I'm quite disappointed with today's carelessly researched piece, specifically, the paragraphs regarding eCryptfs.
    Lack of automation? In Ubuntu 9.10, encrypting your home directory is a matter of selecting a check box in the installer: That's it. 9.04 Encrypted Home upgrading users simply run update-manager and upgrade all packages to 9.10. Their home directory encryption is not affected by this.
    The author of this article found one post in the Ubuntu Forums poorly articulating an issue with home directory encryption and suddenly Ubuntu 9.10 users are getting "bloodied" by encryption in Ubuntu? Seriously?
    I expect better journalism from The Register...
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sonic McTails ( 700139 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:37PM (#29971616)

    The release behind shipping the LTS with Firefox 3.0b4 was simply that Firefox 2 would not have been maintainable for the next five years. It was decided that as soon as firefox 3.0 final was released, it would be placed both in the updates and security tree. If your running an up to date Hardy system, you have the latest version of firefox 3.

  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:51PM (#29971788) Journal

    I think people tend to forget that the X.10 versions of Ubuntu are considered to be less stable than the X.04 versions. They're meant to be the version before the next increment to the major (e.g. 9.10 to 10.04) number and it's expected that there will be kinks to iron out.

    Since when is X in X.Y Ubuntu versioning scheme a "major number"? Last I checked, X is just year number, and Y is month; and the only stability difference is between LTS and non-LTS releases (and not every .04 release is LTS).

  • My Experience (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tarlus ( 1000874 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:52PM (#29971790)

    Whas [sic] has been your experience if you've moved to Karmic?

    The Good:

    • PulseAudio was improved and is (finally) friendly and functional with my sound card.
    • The new Intel drivers have drastically improved the performance of my video hardware.
    • My machine boots up and enters/emerges-from hibernation faster than ever.
    • General performance in GNOME is faster and more responsive.

    The Bad:

    • Notifications in GNOME were deliberately shoved downward and away from the top of the screen. Luckily there's an easy fix [].
    • The Firefox icon disappeared. Had to spend a whole five seconds re-applying it. :D
    • A couple of packages disappeared since they were mistakenly marked as deprecated. A quick apt-get reinstalled them.

    I would have to say that in my experience with Karmic, the pros greatly outweighed the cons. I'll live major increases in performance at the cost of minor fixable annoyances!

    Of course, I did an upgrade from 9.04 so I haven't taken the plunge to GRUB 2 or EXT4. Those two things are still kinda young (and bold decisions for Canonical to commit to production) so perhaps they're contributing factors to the problems that most people are experiencing?

  • Re:Professionalism (Score:2, Informative)

    by CFBMoo1 ( 157453 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @10:28PM (#29972634) Homepage
    "How much did those users pay for their copy of Karmic?"

    Actually when 9.04 came out I bought 20 CD's from them to give to people. I'm a little hesitant this time given the black screen of boot death some people have gotten. I myself have gotten this screen from a USB installer I made. It wasn't until the distro update came over the updater that I did upgrade and that worked fine.

    I would love to be able to go and buy 20 more CDs from them and give those to people. I'm putting that off for now till things settle down.
  • Re:No issues (Score:2, Informative)

    by thuerrsch ( 1442235 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @11:08PM (#29972910)
    For Handbrake, try the snapshot []for Karmic which has just been released. You'll have to forego avi and xvid, which have been dropped from Handbrake 0.9.4 and will never return. Good riddance, I'd say, but many people won't agree.
  • by melikamp ( 631205 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @11:23PM (#29973014) Homepage Journal

    Occasional pop sounds from the speakers, but audio is working fine.



    comment out

    options snd-hda-intel power_save=10 power_save_controller=N

    (last line).

  • HP laptop video pain (Score:3, Informative)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @11:42PM (#29973142) Journal
    Well, upgrading my HP laptop with Nvidia video caused it to display a flashing text console. I think the X startup was failing, and it kept restarting X. I had to reboot into Ubuntu's recovery mode, select the network start, and let apt-get get the latest updates. As I suspected, that took care of the problem. So whatever causes that problem has been solved, but it hadn't been pushed back into the release CD. The hard part was that apt-get kept asking for a CD which I didn't have, until I commented out that CD in the sources list.
  • Re:Great (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @12:01AM (#29973288)

    Yeah, issues like your volume thing are due to GNOME, not Ubuntu. Those GNOME people are some crazy fuckers. They keep removing stuff that people use.

    The one that got me is they changed the Login administration panel and removed options like being able to turn off that damn bongo sound that plays when gdm starts (at the login screen). So now it's impossible to turn off without some serious hacking (I killed it by physically removing the sound file). Why they removed this, I have no idea. Those settings aren't typically messed with my your average folk unless they have some specific reason to (like disabling the stupid sounds). Dumbing down the administration panels makes no sense because they aren't typically used by common folk anyway and when they actually do need to do something they will find that's it's really, really much harder than it needs to be.

  • by machinegestalt ( 452055 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @06:28AM (#29975900)

    Honestly, I like a lot of the stuff they're doing in Ubuntu, however having JUST set up a complete novice Linux user with Koala and watched the things they had an issue with:

    1. The SMB mounting tool is nice, except it doesn't show shares in Gnome file dialogs! The connection it makes is not persistent. Nor is SMBFS installed by default. I had to install smbfs then go in and set up everything manually in fstab, which is ridiculous for a distro not to have covered in a cleaner way. That's not hard for me but come on!

    2. Mime types are not properly set up in firefox. With a totally fresh install, a .doc downloaded from the web cannot be opened directly, even though it's listed as the type handler... She ended up going to the containing folder and opening it through the file browser, again this is pretty bad not to have working.

    3. Sound settings are not properly saved by the mixer on reboot. In addition though pulse is installed by default it doesn't work nearly as well the way it is configured by default as in some other distributions I've used. I've had to sit down and fix various sound issues several times.

    There are probably more things I'm forgetting as well, or that she has not seen fit to bother me with...

    On the plus side, the regressions in 9.04 with full screen flash and some types of webcams seem to have been fixed (no more LD_PRELOAD shortcuts). That's positive.

    Ultimately, the only thing at this point that is really keeping me considering Ubuntu/Kubuntu over SuSE is apt. YaST is pretty good, but apt is better and the package coverage is also better. I really dislike Canonical's insistence on making you jump through hoops to use "non free" software. I am very pro-free-software, however if anyone involved with high level decisions at Canonical is reading this right now, give me a freaking button I can click during the installation that says "I am a big kid, I can make my own choices regarding free/non free software, I'm not interested in making a big philosophical statement with this computer, please include non-free software in my basic installation".


  • by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @07:30AM (#29976244) Homepage

    I find 9.10 is working faster than 9.04. It boots faster and the interface is a little faster. The only issue I have is wxmaxima crashes constantly. I can't even do a sqrt(4); without crashing. I'm hoping patches will take care of everything soon.

  • Slow Boot Up (Score:2, Informative)

    by mangomama ( 1671024 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @07:40AM (#29976278)
    My old notebook (P3 650mhz) went from booting up in ~1:45 on 9.04 (that's pushing the on button to firefox loaded) to about 3:15 on 9.10. That's very disappointing. The OS still runs fine, but it ran fine before. At least that is the only issue I've had. Still, I expected improvements, not a near doubling of my bootup time.
  • by Giloo ( 1008735 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @08:01AM (#29976418) Homepage Journal
    The article sounds indeed more like a rant made public about a problem. Of course, this doesn't deny there is problems with 9.10, but heh, it was in alpha/beta, as the others, and nothing really "that serious" was pointed out I think. Anyway, people ranting loudly enough to make it to The Register may learn that they can also participate in testing the releases..

    As for my story, I was running 9.10 since alpha, and it went quite nicely.. Minor pulseaudio glitches that were solved over time and so on. At work and on my laptop, I've upgraded from Jaunty to Karmic when offered to do so by the update manager, and it went nicely too. No problem here, not even a dependency issue, it really went fine, and 2.6.31 is really nice to my setups ;)

    About all this issue.. I can't help but think it's more a PR prank than a real spotted issue.. The bugtracker doesn't tell that "that many" users are impacted, and also, that it may be more due to a ATI-card weirdness.. Heh. Not ubuntu's fault in the end, even if they could have worked around it..
  • Re:Release cycles? (Score:2, Informative)

    by jonadab ( 583620 ) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @08:05AM (#29976438) Homepage Journal
    > lets not try to claim that ANY of their releases are
    > anything other than bleeding edge beta quality releases

    Ubuntu is what it is because of the circumstances of its birth.

    At the time, Debian stable had not been meaningfully updated in, approximately, forever. The cool kids were trying out Linux 2.6, and meanwhile Debian stable offered you the choice of the "new and experimental" Linux 2.2, or the tried and true Linux 2.0. What? Linux 2.4? We can't put that in stable, it's only six years old!

    Ubuntu, or at least a large part of its popularity, was born out of frustration with this situation. The official Debian line at the time was that "stable" means "doesn't change often", but people were starting to think a new version would not come out *ever*. A lot of people started playing around with testing and/or unstable, but those are really a bit *too* bleeding-edge for most purposes.

    Something intermediate was needed, something safer and saner than running off the testing repository (an actual *release*, in other words), but built out of software released in the current decade. Warty was built out of that would eventually become Sarge, but it was built as an actual *release*. This was sorely needed at the time, so it instantly became popular, and the rest is history.

    So if you think Ubuntu is less stable than Debian stable, ... that's kind of the point.

    Of course, Debian releases have been coming out a little more frequently since sarge. Etch for instance came out practically overnight, by Debian standards. So the disadvantages of using Debian stable are somewhat less now. But Ubuntu remains an intermediate distribution, more current than Debian stable but an actual stable release unlike Debian testing. That's its niche. That's its role. And the next time a Debian release takes half as long to come out as sarge did, I'll be very glad Ubuntu is around as an option.

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger