Slashdot Mirror
Domain: ubuntu.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to ubuntu.com.
Comments · 3,260
-
Re:Sorry Guys, It's Definitely NOT Ready
Ubuntu does a really great job of making sure you get into X even if it can't detect your graphics card and monitor. See also: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BulletProofX
-
Re:Who really benefits?
Well, certified hardware is tested by Canonical at the request of the hardware vendor. If the machine is certified, Canonical will make sure that it will work with the release for which it was certified and the next.
Source: Ubuntu hardware programme.
BTW, what do you mean by 'supported by vendor'? Do these companies make servers built specifically for a certain RHEL version? (honest question).
-
A couple things to think about
For software keyloggers, you can use a tool like SpyBot to try to find them -- however, I can't guarantee it'll find your specific keylogger, if there is one. There's probably better software at this point, but I haven't used Windows in years.
Another option is to use Windows' built-in search, and search for files modified in the past couple days. If there's a keylogger, odds are its log files will show up. I've accidentally found a keylogger on a friend's computer this way.
Another option is to use a liveCD for everything important. Pick up an Ubuntu LiveCD, and start into that when you need to do things that are suspect.
Keep in mind, however, that you may instead have a hardware keylogger. You may have a dongle like this one, which plugs in between your computer and your keyboard. You could also have one built into your keyboard -- there are companies that sell keylogging keyboards, and companies that will embed a keylogger into a keyboard -- either a specific model, or your own if you mail it to them. There could also be one built into the computer, but I don't know of any company that does that.
Moral of the story: if you can't trust the security of your computer, don't use it for things you don't want someone else to see. It might be time for her to invest in a cheap laptop, such as an Eee PC, and either do all her work on a connection he doesn't have access to, or over ssl connections or a VPN.
However, like others have said, worrying about a keylogger from your spouse isn't exactly the sign of a trusting relationship. I assume your friend knows this, and this is a preamble to a separation or divorce. If it's not, I'd suggest your friend and her spouse seek marriage counseling. Good luck to her.
-
Re:Who really benefits?
You mean like this?
Granted, RedHat's list is vastly larger, but they have been on bussiness (and on top) for much longer than Canonical/Ubuntu.
Oh, and please tell me when I can get a Dell laptop with Fedora installed on it.
-
Re:Who really benefits?
Also, can you name a piece of software that went Ubuntu --> Red Hat way?
upstart? If you count Fedora as Red Hat. -
Re:Configure it as a router
I just did this (router/firewall/wireless AP) with an old Toshiba with a busted screen, and it worked great. Here's a not-bad page that describes something similar using Ubuntu, but it takes a little additional digging to get the encryption working.
(Lack of USB2.0 for the shared external hard drive is a pain though; probably getting a new DD-WRT compatible box soon.)
-
Re:The UIs are not the problem
This https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo explains why 'sudo' is preferable to 'su'. I believe that it is due to the nature of new Linux users; they don't want to break anything or the ability to. Hats off to the devs for that. If you really want a root shell, you can do that too but 'sudo !!' has become my best friend.
-
One explanation
I'm surprised that nobody yet has mentioned the most obvious reason why Shuttleworth would want this.
Canonical shipped shipped their latest Ubuntu release, 8.04 ("Hardy Heron"), last month. Canonical wanted Hardy to include Firefox 3 instead of the getting-a-bit-long-in-the-tooth Firefox 2. However, since Mozilla's release target for FF3 was a month after the release target for Hardy, Ubuntu had three choices, none of them ideal: put off the move to FF3 for the next release (six months down the road), ship Hardy with a beta version of FF3, or delay shipping Hardy until FF3 had shipped. They ended up shipping with Firefox 3 Beta 5.
This matters because Hardy is a so-called "Long Term Support" (LTS) release, which Ubuntu commits to supporting for eighteen months instead of the standard six (for customers who don't want to be updating their OS every six months). So now Canonical is on the hook to support a beta release of Firefox until long after FF3 final is released and the betas are forgotten.
I would presume that Shuttleworth wants coordination in distro release cycles because it would give him more leverage with third parties in situations like this. If Canonical says to Mozilla "hurry up and finish FF3 so we can make our release date", that's easy to ignore because it's just one distro. If EVERY distro is saying that to Mozilla, they'd be more inclined to listen -- and probably more likely to orient their own release cycles to fit with those of the distros.
-
Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop
It's all this confusion of terminology that serves to confuse the end user even more when they think about jumping on board with a new operating system.
I agree, but you have to consider that it's somewhat of a stretch to think a certain technological field (the whole of it), such as that of the Unix clones, must adopt the terminology used by another, when they developed independently and, worse, the one using the "wrong" terminology came first.
Most Linux advocates have an engineering mindset. They prefer to stick to the precise definitions of technical terms rather than adopting the looser versions adopted by PR departments. An "operating system", in the proper, classical meaning of the expression, are the pieces of software that directly controls the hardware itself, what usually means the kernel and very few additional pieces of software (sometimes just the kernel). Whatever else you run on top of it, such as a graphical windowing system, isn't the OS properly, but something else. Thus, this something else they prefer to call a "distribution", as it's in fact just an easy way to distributed pre-compiled software packages around, one of them being a kernel.
On the other hand, manufacturers of distributions that target common people, such as Canonical (who makes Ubuntu), are aware that sticking to this strongly technical approach isn't going to help adoption among people who use these words in a much loosely way. So, in the material they use to present Ubuntu to people who usually have no idea whatsoever that something other than Windows can run in a computer, Canonical calls Ubuntu an operating system, not a distribution, and they don't emphasize the fact it runs on top of Linux, preferring to leave this information either in the small print, or even completely out. See, for example, here, here and here: in neither of these pages the word "Linux" even appears. You'll find it in the main page, but only once, without emphasis and in a matter of fact way.
I myself have also adopted this approach. When talking about what OS I use by non-technically minded people, I don't say "Linux", I say "Ubuntu". And some even answer: "Ah! I've heard about that."
As you see, there's hope. -
Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop
It's all this confusion of terminology that serves to confuse the end user even more when they think about jumping on board with a new operating system.
I agree, but you have to consider that it's somewhat of a stretch to think a certain technological field (the whole of it), such as that of the Unix clones, must adopt the terminology used by another, when they developed independently and, worse, the one using the "wrong" terminology came first.
Most Linux advocates have an engineering mindset. They prefer to stick to the precise definitions of technical terms rather than adopting the looser versions adopted by PR departments. An "operating system", in the proper, classical meaning of the expression, are the pieces of software that directly controls the hardware itself, what usually means the kernel and very few additional pieces of software (sometimes just the kernel). Whatever else you run on top of it, such as a graphical windowing system, isn't the OS properly, but something else. Thus, this something else they prefer to call a "distribution", as it's in fact just an easy way to distributed pre-compiled software packages around, one of them being a kernel.
On the other hand, manufacturers of distributions that target common people, such as Canonical (who makes Ubuntu), are aware that sticking to this strongly technical approach isn't going to help adoption among people who use these words in a much loosely way. So, in the material they use to present Ubuntu to people who usually have no idea whatsoever that something other than Windows can run in a computer, Canonical calls Ubuntu an operating system, not a distribution, and they don't emphasize the fact it runs on top of Linux, preferring to leave this information either in the small print, or even completely out. See, for example, here, here and here: in neither of these pages the word "Linux" even appears. You'll find it in the main page, but only once, without emphasis and in a matter of fact way.
I myself have also adopted this approach. When talking about what OS I use by non-technically minded people, I don't say "Linux", I say "Ubuntu". And some even answer: "Ah! I've heard about that."
As you see, there's hope. -
Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop
It's all this confusion of terminology that serves to confuse the end user even more when they think about jumping on board with a new operating system.
I agree, but you have to consider that it's somewhat of a stretch to think a certain technological field (the whole of it), such as that of the Unix clones, must adopt the terminology used by another, when they developed independently and, worse, the one using the "wrong" terminology came first.
Most Linux advocates have an engineering mindset. They prefer to stick to the precise definitions of technical terms rather than adopting the looser versions adopted by PR departments. An "operating system", in the proper, classical meaning of the expression, are the pieces of software that directly controls the hardware itself, what usually means the kernel and very few additional pieces of software (sometimes just the kernel). Whatever else you run on top of it, such as a graphical windowing system, isn't the OS properly, but something else. Thus, this something else they prefer to call a "distribution", as it's in fact just an easy way to distributed pre-compiled software packages around, one of them being a kernel.
On the other hand, manufacturers of distributions that target common people, such as Canonical (who makes Ubuntu), are aware that sticking to this strongly technical approach isn't going to help adoption among people who use these words in a much loosely way. So, in the material they use to present Ubuntu to people who usually have no idea whatsoever that something other than Windows can run in a computer, Canonical calls Ubuntu an operating system, not a distribution, and they don't emphasize the fact it runs on top of Linux, preferring to leave this information either in the small print, or even completely out. See, for example, here, here and here: in neither of these pages the word "Linux" even appears. You'll find it in the main page, but only once, without emphasis and in a matter of fact way.
I myself have also adopted this approach. When talking about what OS I use by non-technically minded people, I don't say "Linux", I say "Ubuntu". And some even answer: "Ah! I've heard about that."
As you see, there's hope. -
Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop
It's all this confusion of terminology that serves to confuse the end user even more when they think about jumping on board with a new operating system.
I agree, but you have to consider that it's somewhat of a stretch to think a certain technological field (the whole of it), such as that of the Unix clones, must adopt the terminology used by another, when they developed independently and, worse, the one using the "wrong" terminology came first.
Most Linux advocates have an engineering mindset. They prefer to stick to the precise definitions of technical terms rather than adopting the looser versions adopted by PR departments. An "operating system", in the proper, classical meaning of the expression, are the pieces of software that directly controls the hardware itself, what usually means the kernel and very few additional pieces of software (sometimes just the kernel). Whatever else you run on top of it, such as a graphical windowing system, isn't the OS properly, but something else. Thus, this something else they prefer to call a "distribution", as it's in fact just an easy way to distributed pre-compiled software packages around, one of them being a kernel.
On the other hand, manufacturers of distributions that target common people, such as Canonical (who makes Ubuntu), are aware that sticking to this strongly technical approach isn't going to help adoption among people who use these words in a much loosely way. So, in the material they use to present Ubuntu to people who usually have no idea whatsoever that something other than Windows can run in a computer, Canonical calls Ubuntu an operating system, not a distribution, and they don't emphasize the fact it runs on top of Linux, preferring to leave this information either in the small print, or even completely out. See, for example, here, here and here: in neither of these pages the word "Linux" even appears. You'll find it in the main page, but only once, without emphasis and in a matter of fact way.
I myself have also adopted this approach. When talking about what OS I use by non-technically minded people, I don't say "Linux", I say "Ubuntu". And some even answer: "Ah! I've heard about that."
As you see, there's hope. -
Re:Year of the Linux of Desktop
So... apt-get is too "command line," synaptic surely must be close to what you're looking for. If not, there's always Click-n-Run. By the way, the Linux kernel has always had "native support" for such an install system (all that is required is for the kernel to be able to read and write files.) The problem is nobody wrote such a program for several years. Many Linux distributions have avoided "dependency hell" (the problem you are describing) since I started using Linux around 2002.
-
Rootkits are hard to kill?
-
No thanks
Mac OS X?
No thanks.
No proprietary software.
I rather run Ubuntu;
* http://www.ubuntu.com/
I can use Mac4Lin theme;
* http://sourceforge.net/projects/mac4lin/ -
Re:Updated advisory from Ubuntu
-
Re:Updated advisory from Ubuntu
-
Re:Updated advisory from Ubuntu
-
Re:Of course...So yes fixing Ubuntu machines is easy, it is a PITA to have to go and re-upload my public key to all of these hosts.
Especially when they won't work anymore:
Once the update is applied, weak user keys will be automatically rejected where possible (though they cannot be detected in all cases). If you are using such keys for user authentication, they will immediately stop working and will need to be replaced (see step 3).
The GP poster said the same thing, but this is for the benefit of other readers who were skeptical that any such policy was in place.
So, basically, once you upgrade, you'll have no apparent way to access your other machines [1] to upload your new key. That's just spiffy!
[1] Uninstall openssh-blacklist first.
-
Re:Updated advisory from Ubuntu
Linky link link: Updated Advisory with instructions
-
Re:I see problems on Gutsy with mine.
Yes, same problem here. MD5 is ok for the file according to Ubuntu official security notice, so someone probably screwed up during packaging. I guess we'll need to wait for fixed packages to be uploaded...
-
ZFS? Don't forget FreeBSD!
My home servers are in screaming need of ZFS (A NetApp Filer for home use). I want ZFS implemented in Linux, like everyone else. Moving to a OpenSolaris based distribution just feels awkward and wrong, especially when ZFS has made it into FreeBSD 7.0 as an experimental feature.
I'm eyeballing the FreeNAS project daily. Sooner or later we will have a ZFS appliance, free as in beer at least. Sun have to work harder to win me over but things look promising. (Ubuntu on Sun hardware [+], trying to release Java under an Open Source license [+], closing some MySQL features [-]) -
Re:Ubuntu 8.4?Thank you for your order of 1 (one) copy of Ubuntu 8.04.
You can download your demo version here.
If you decide you like it enough to keep using it, we will bill you ZERO dollars. In fact, we won't even do that: just keep using it. It's fine.
Once again, thank you for your order. Have a nice day, come again, y'all! -
"Almost any hardware you throw at it"
I sincerely enjoy the Linux experience and appreciate the community, but this statement is positively absurd. Ubuntu's own help files contain extensive lists of wireless cards that have a big fat "No" listed under the "Works out of the box" column. And that's just wireless cards.
One of the primary reasons that the average person abandons Linux is the frustration caused by these types of misleading claims. Somebody says, "Hey, virtually everything works out of the box!" and they think... wow, well, I buy my stuff at top retailers from top brands, surely then my stuff is supported.
Unfortunately for them, their stuff may not work at all, or may work partially. Lots of gotchas for Video cards, scanners.. the list goes on and on. Nobody is well served by making statements that indicate anything except that hardware support is still a major obstacle for the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
-
"Almost any hardware you throw at it"
I sincerely enjoy the Linux experience and appreciate the community, but this statement is positively absurd. Ubuntu's own help files contain extensive lists of wireless cards that have a big fat "No" listed under the "Works out of the box" column. And that's just wireless cards.
One of the primary reasons that the average person abandons Linux is the frustration caused by these types of misleading claims. Somebody says, "Hey, virtually everything works out of the box!" and they think... wow, well, I buy my stuff at top retailers from top brands, surely then my stuff is supported.
Unfortunately for them, their stuff may not work at all, or may work partially. Lots of gotchas for Video cards, scanners.. the list goes on and on. Nobody is well served by making statements that indicate anything except that hardware support is still a major obstacle for the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
-
"Almost any hardware you throw at it"
I sincerely enjoy the Linux experience and appreciate the community, but this statement is positively absurd. Ubuntu's own help files contain extensive lists of wireless cards that have a big fat "No" listed under the "Works out of the box" column. And that's just wireless cards.
One of the primary reasons that the average person abandons Linux is the frustration caused by these types of misleading claims. Somebody says, "Hey, virtually everything works out of the box!" and they think... wow, well, I buy my stuff at top retailers from top brands, surely then my stuff is supported.
Unfortunately for them, their stuff may not work at all, or may work partially. Lots of gotchas for Video cards, scanners.. the list goes on and on. Nobody is well served by making statements that indicate anything except that hardware support is still a major obstacle for the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
-
Correction to article
It is Ubuntu 8.04 not Ubuntu 8.4. http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
-
Re:Great for Entrepeneursother than Intel I have yet to see a reliable software roadmap. Half the shit they just make up as they go, and drop it when it isn't possible.
Besides software roadmaps aren't meant to plan your business around. if that was the case more people would be upgrading to Vista. They are only for slowing down your competitors.
When it comes to software, I think "roadmaps" also include product lifecycle policies that let businesses know how long the software will be supported and available for purchase. AFAIK, Apple does not have lifecycle policies for any of their "business" software products. Is OS X 10.3 supported anymore? When will OS X 10.4 stop being supported?Users of Ubuntu LTS versions know that they'll be supported for at least 3 years on the desktop and at least 5 years on the server. Users of non-free (as in beer) versions of Novell/SUSE Linux know that they'll get at least 5 years of "general" support and an additional 2 years of "extended" support.
Users of Microsoft "business/pro" software know that they'll get at least 5 years of "mainstream" support and 5 additional years of "extended" support. Users of MS Windows can be reasonably assured that new versions of Office will work with their version of Windows as long as it's still in its "maintream" support phase. They also know that Windows desktop licenses will be available for at least 4 years after the date of general availability.
-
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway?So, if I mention just one thing, then your argument is toast, right?
- Upstart, which, except for the kernel, is about as low-level as you can go.
- Storm, since Ubuntu loves Python.
- Bazaar, a revision control system used in Launchpad.
On the less linkable front, Canonical pulled together a lot of stuff like live CDs, packaging systems, hardware detection, and best available applications and put them onto a single CD, distributing the CD for free. They even had a special installer. Having used Linux for over ten years, I can say that they were the first group in my experience to do all those things. -
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway?So, if I mention just one thing, then your argument is toast, right?
- Upstart, which, except for the kernel, is about as low-level as you can go.
- Storm, since Ubuntu loves Python.
- Bazaar, a revision control system used in Launchpad.
On the less linkable front, Canonical pulled together a lot of stuff like live CDs, packaging systems, hardware detection, and best available applications and put them onto a single CD, distributing the CD for free. They even had a special installer. Having used Linux for over ten years, I can say that they were the first group in my experience to do all those things. -
Re:!= Gobuntu?
since the 8.04 folder of the gobuntu download page it's empty.
If you look in http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/gobuntu/daily/ you will see daily builds of 8.04 up to 21st April 2008, so I would confidently predict there will be a final release of Gobuntu appearing within days. -
Re:Is there a technical reason not to allow both w
I'm not a really good goto guy for improving/personalizing IM clients. I mostly just minimize the thing and wait for others to IM me. IRC is where it's at! Look at the number of irssi plugins and scripts versus adium
One of the new features in GNOME that I like is GIO. Basically gnome VFS gets replaced with FUSE, so you can launch mplayer while browsing smb shares etc. Apps no longer have to support GNOME VFS to integrate with nautilus, which is great.
GnomeDo mimics Quicksilver substantially, though still a work in progress. Apparently I missed the fact that it's in Ubuntu repos now. Remember that Ubuntu is supposed to be usable out of the box, it's up to you to make it awesome -
Re:And why do we need another Distro?
I'm curious -- what's the difference between gNewSense (what marketing genius thought of that) and Gobuntu? Especially if that is the main purpose?
-
Re:!= Gobuntu?Mark Shuttleworth recently declared that Gobuntu was not going so well as he expected because of the lack of community support and conjectured that perhaps it was better if the development team helped the gNewSense team instead. It seems they are doing exactly that now, since the 8.04 folder of the gobuntu download page it's empty. Thanks for the info, that's very interesting.
Also, nice to see someone not afraid to admit he might have been wrong about something, and to be open to switching strategy accordingly, in this case, to support gNewSense and abandon Gobuntu. -
Re:!= Gobuntu?Mark Shuttleworth recently declared that Gobuntu was not going so well as he expected because of the lack of community support and conjectured that perhaps it was better if the development team helped the gNewSense team instead. It seems they are doing exactly that now, since the 8.04 folder of the gobuntu download page it's empty. Thanks for the info, that's very interesting.
Also, nice to see someone not afraid to admit he might have been wrong about something, and to be open to switching strategy accordingly, in this case, to support gNewSense and abandon Gobuntu. -
Re:!= Gobuntu?
Mark Shuttleworth recently declared that Gobuntu was not going so well as he expected because of the lack of community support and conjectured that perhaps it was better if the development team helped the gNewSense team instead. It seems they are doing exactly that now, since the 8.04 folder of the gobuntu download page it's empty.
-
Re:!= Gobuntu?
Mark Shuttleworth recently declared that Gobuntu was not going so well as he expected because of the lack of community support and conjectured that perhaps it was better if the development team helped the gNewSense team instead. It seems they are doing exactly that now, since the 8.04 folder of the gobuntu download page it's empty.
-
Re:I guess I need to RTFA
This explains it pretty well. In short, gNewSense was first, Gobuntu is official, and they haven't had the time or motivation to merge yet.
-
Re:I guess I need to RTFA
The FSF will not recommend distros, which contain non-free software or make it easy to install non-free software through the repos, thus giving the impression it is ok to install and use non-free software. Gobuntu seems to be dead, there's still no official release, as far as I know. There was an intresting thread on the gobuntu-devel mailing list https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-April/000650.html/.
-
!= Gobuntu?
I thought Gobuntu was the Free Ubuntu project. Not saying that more than one is a bad thing, just that there seems to be a little crossover here.
-
Re:brickAll I know is that upgrading to Hoary bricked my PC, I can't even boot into XP anymore due to GRUB errors. And you waited three years to complain about it?
-
Re:That's why Open-Source fails on the desktop
-
And here's your answer:
-
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway?
They offer training and support for their product: Support: http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid Training: http://www.ubuntu.com/training A lot of companies don't like deploying software unless they can call someone when they have problems. This is how a lot of open source companies make their money.
-
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway?
They offer training and support for their product: Support: http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid Training: http://www.ubuntu.com/training A lot of companies don't like deploying software unless they can call someone when they have problems. This is how a lot of open source companies make their money.
-
Re:EXT4(dev) and ReiserFS ExperiencesWhat is it in Ubuntu that you want more up to date? I find it a very up-to-date distro, but maybe I am missing something.
Basically, everything. If Pidgin 2.5.0 comes out tomorrow with new features, I want it by the day after tomorrow. If a totally new and interesting app comes out then I want it to appear in the respository in a reasonable timeframe. When KDE 4.0.0 came out, I could have emerged it from Portage less than a week later (I chose not to, though).
With Ubuntu, I would either have to compile it myself outside of Synaptic or wait six months for the next Ubuntu release. They enact a "feature freeze" at each release, so that *only* security updates come out through Synaptic and *no* new features or non-security bugfixes may be added. There is an Ubuntu repository called "backports" where they release newer apps, but in my experience this isn't very up-to-date either compared to Gentoo/Sabayon's Portage tree.
For most people, upgrading every six months is often enough. I'm not running a critical production server and I'm also a techie, so a 6-month release cycle is unacceptable to me (let alone 3+ yrs for something like Debian). I like having the ability to install a new and untested piece of software without giving up the benefits of package management. I've heard that there are other distros out there that offer this with a binary package system, but I've not tried one yet. The Sabayon devs are working on a binary project called Entropy and it's supposed to be compatible with Portage as well. People are already saying it works great, but I don't quite trust it yet. Looks promising though.
-
Re:Smart move
On the 'risk my Vista install' on your desktop - you can now try out Ubuntu with zero risk by installing it to a large file that's entirely within the Windows filesystem. The installer is just a few options on a single page. The only change it makes is to your c:\boot.ini file, and installing a boot program underneath the standard Windows Vista boot loader (NTLDR) - when you reboot, you can choose Ubuntu and it boots from the large file that contains the Ubuntu system. There is no repartitioning involved so this is no more risky than installing a Windows app, and probably less so as it does nothing to your registry etc.
The tool (Wubi) that does this is now part of Ubuntu 8.04, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WubiGuide for more information. -
Re:Smart move
I'm not sure that I suggested that you change your handle. I don't really care which one you use, but if I went to, say, Chevrolet forums and created an an account with the name of 'ChevyCarsSuckBalls', then any of my posts about Chevy vehicles are going to be met with hostility, regardless of the validity of any of the points I might make. But, hey, keep it, name your kids 'MandrivaDupe' and 'SUSEDupe', if that's what you want. That won't bother me a bit.
I didn't whine to anyone about my install problems because I've been trained not to do so, it's because I understood the risk of installing an operating system, and more than likely actually did something wrong. It happens, and I was the unlucky one to be bitten by that bug.
If think that the install docs are lacking, then why haven't you fixed them? There's a wiki you can contribute to, and there's a page here that tells you to back up everything and have your installation media for all of your operating systems handy.
Besides all that, it's pretty clear from your commenting that you've been scared off from trying Ubuntu or any other distribution of Linux ever again, and that's totally your decision. If it's broken for you, don't use it. But have you tried it again since your first attempt? Things rarely go right the first time when doing something new, even if you're properly prepared. A lot of development has taken place in the last two or so years. Maybe the bug you encountered has been fixed. Of course, it might not have if you have some weird nonstandard setup. Or are you frightened that your issue might have accidentally gotten fixed and you'll have no more ammunition for your flamethrower? -
Re:Smart move
I'm not sure that I suggested that you change your handle. I don't really care which one you use, but if I went to, say, Chevrolet forums and created an an account with the name of 'ChevyCarsSuckBalls', then any of my posts about Chevy vehicles are going to be met with hostility, regardless of the validity of any of the points I might make. But, hey, keep it, name your kids 'MandrivaDupe' and 'SUSEDupe', if that's what you want. That won't bother me a bit.
I didn't whine to anyone about my install problems because I've been trained not to do so, it's because I understood the risk of installing an operating system, and more than likely actually did something wrong. It happens, and I was the unlucky one to be bitten by that bug.
If think that the install docs are lacking, then why haven't you fixed them? There's a wiki you can contribute to, and there's a page here that tells you to back up everything and have your installation media for all of your operating systems handy.
Besides all that, it's pretty clear from your commenting that you've been scared off from trying Ubuntu or any other distribution of Linux ever again, and that's totally your decision. If it's broken for you, don't use it. But have you tried it again since your first attempt? Things rarely go right the first time when doing something new, even if you're properly prepared. A lot of development has taken place in the last two or so years. Maybe the bug you encountered has been fixed. Of course, it might not have if you have some weird nonstandard setup. Or are you frightened that your issue might have accidentally gotten fixed and you'll have no more ammunition for your flamethrower? -
Re:Window Size complaint.
I've heard Ubuntu now has a FailSafe X, which I tried in the HH beta, broke my xorg going for dual monitors (which is way too much of a hassle as it is, xrandr/grandr is a good step, but I had to go into xorg to set my Virtual Desktop size, which is still too much work when you can just plug in a monitor and get a popup window asking what you want to do in Vista).
However, the point is, when I broke it, it gave me a failsafe X configuration, with the monitor reset to a standard resolution and a window asking me what I wanted to do: http://people.ubuntu.com/~bryce/BulletProofX/
It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's a pretty good start