Ubuntu Dev Summit Lays Out Plans For Hardy Heron

Opurt writes "On the first day of the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Boston this week, a roundtable session focused on the vision for the upcoming Hardy Heron Ubuntu release. Unlike Gutsy Gibbon, which brought a handful of experimental features along with some new functionality, the focus with Heron will be on robustness as it will be supported on the desktop for 3 years. 'The Compiz window manager, which adds sophisticated visual effects to the Ubuntu user interface, will be a big target for usability improvements. Keyboard bindings and session management were noted as two areas where Compiz still needs some work.' PolicyKit and Tracker will also be significantly tweaked, while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh."

Comments

Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[Anonymous Coward]

The Debian swirl doesn't hack it any more.

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[WheelDweller]

Well, as a total outsider to the Debian mindset, let me offer this.

I used Redhat with the RPMS and all, even maintaining software. It was the second foray into Linux; the first time was with Slackware 2.3 and about 30 floppies. I stayed with Redhat from 4.0 until FC4, but by that time I was sick of the business bias. For about a year OpenLdap on their repo was busted. It was nearly herculean to get it to work, and keep it working. Then they offered a replacement to it in the purchase of the Netscape Directory, and I felt the time was right to look around.

Ubuntu has done a fabulous job with Debian's beginnings. They had the resources and the passion to make releases and push the envelope....but they couldn't have done it without what I CLEARLY see as the better package manager: Debian.

Personally, I love Ubuntu. And I've grown to love it, not just for it's lack of business bias, but for it's product as well.

We really owe a lot to "Deb" and "Ian" for their brilliant, visionary start.

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[domatic]

That quality you notice isn't inherent to the package manager. Debian would be just as good if it were based on rpm. Debian is quite anal about packages and their
dependencies and good mirrors for same. This is the base that makes the Debian derived distros so good.

If rpm based distros took just as care with viewing packages-as-a-unified system (and maybe some do) then they'd be as kind to you.

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[ppc_digger]

We really owe a lot to "Deb" and "Ian" for their brilliant, visionary start. If memory serves, Deb isn't one of the Debian founders, she is Ian Murdock's wife (then girlfriend).

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[pintpusher]

Ubuntu has done a fabulous job with Debian's beginnings [...] Personally, I love Ubuntu. And I've grown to love it [...] for it's product as well. I think Ubuntu is great in that it is helping people migrate away from the default OS.

But I have to say, Debian *itself* is a great product. There seems to be this idea that Ubuntu is the usable Debian, and that's just not true. Debian has become really a very advanced OS in terms of usability, portability, and reliability. Debian is so much more than just a great beginning for other OSes to build on.

Granted, its not the bee's knees in terms of the latest versions of apps and so forth (talking stable here), but talk about a system you can rely on...

Finally, to those who complain that Debian is too slow to upgrade: Look at how often the average user upgrades their windows system... umm... how old is XP? How many win98/2k boxes are still out there? There is nothing wrong with using Debian stable for 2-3 years and then upgrading. The payoff is a rock solid system that "just works".

I love debian. There I said it. :-P

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[xenocide2]

You know what they say: Behind every great man is a woman pushing him to excel. Or something. I'm just glad it worked out -- imagine the flame wars on what to rename the distro had they broken up!

Re:Maybe it's time Ubuntu got a icon

[jtrask]

ah yes, +3 insightful.
still searching my ubuntu desktop for a debian swirl, though...

Someone please tag this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"hairy hardon"

Re:Someone please tag this ...

[The Iso]

That one never gets old.

Re:Someone please tag this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words... Hong Kong.

Re:Someone please tag this ...

[rubycodez]

you're thinking of Gaybuntu. Most users are still at Flaming Flamingo, but some have upgraded to the Gaping Goatse.

more details

[sayfawa]

Here's a better summary of things to come in Hardy, linked from an OS News posting.

Re:more details

[zeromorph]

Installing Ubuntu from within Windows
ubuntu-install.exe... nuff said... might not make it though... it is listed as 'dangling' which means it can't be scheduled or has circular dependancies... no idea why it can't be made to work.

(from your interesting link)

Don't whether that's a good idea.
But imagine the possibilities that such an exe-file would have as a spam-email attachement: "Mark Shuttlewort wants you to click on this link." or "Bigger hard drive, better performance! Click below!"

Re:more details

[MooseMuffin]

Being tricked into installing linux is the least of your problems if you're getting spam with 700mb attachments.

Re:more details

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah, but I think this is the *best* summary so far:

-We're still going to make grub HIGHLY RECOMMENDED in the install process. I mean, obviously, it's stupid to install such a flaky bootloader that can't handle large hard drives when you don't need to, but why bother newcomers with a warning about the nasty nasty risk of locking users out of their computer? Changing this would be tantamout to admitting UbuntuDupe was right, and we can't have that. Too painful to admit error.

-Ditto for advising the user to have a reliable boot disk, like a Windows release, when they install grub. Obviously, the Ubuntu install CD is insufficient as a "reliable boot disk", but saying otherwise would -- you guessed it -- hurt our feelings.

-Continue to promote as "open access, usable by all". By "all", of course, we mean nerds who have installed Linux on six different people's PCs. Remember -- it's just a slogan, not something we actually believe in.

-Not budget any money for mass market advertising or in-store promotions. After all, only evil people affiliate with big box retailers. And do you really want our user base to include people who SHOP there? Yuck.

-Add a bunch of little widgets that only nerds who brag about their configuration will like.

-Have more names like "Hairy Hardon". See, too many corporate users are taking Ubuntu seriously. We need to remind people of our "fun" side. We definitely don't want to see the day when someone starts making those "get a mac" ads about Ubuntu!

-Take over the desktop market in '08!!!!

Re:more details

[hikaricore]

Actually... http://wubi.sourceforge.net/ It downloads the ISO and what not, the installer is only about 8mb.

visual refresh

[radeon21]

"...while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh." Thank God.

Re:visual refresh

[Gregb05]

ctrl+alt+backspace?

Re:visual refresh

[CasaVacas]

I stopped reading the notes when they mentioned having a wood texture (to combat vista's glass and osx's metal) could be cool... I think i might wait a few more years before trying a linux distro.

Re:visual refresh

[ypps]

My Gnome setup looks like MacOS X at the moment, but I doubt that I will use that look forever. A texture slightly inspired by wood could actually look good. You also have to imagine windows and bars as polygon models that stand out slightly (which will almost certainly be the standard in a few years).

Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

* /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

* An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout

That should keep them busy for the next few years...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Constantine XVI]

You know, you could just buy OSX

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ericrost]

Rejected

Reason: Linux is not OSX, nor does it need to be.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[morgan_greywolf]

If you want Mac OS X, you know where to find it.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Rocketship Underpant]

I'm quite surprised... someone in the Linux world finally gets it! I gave up Linux for OS X a long time ago, but it would be nice to see some flavour of Linux adopt a sensible, user-friendly way of installing software.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[PrescriptionWarning]

Installing software via Ubuntu's Add/Remove app is the greatest thing, way better than dragging to install. I still can't figure out how to uninstall some of my OSX apps that were installed into the control panel instead of in the apps folder :P

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Gryle]

...it would be nice to see some flavour of Linux adopt a sensible, user-friendly way of installing software.
For Debian-based systems in GNOME, open the Synaptic Package Manager, find the software you want and mark it for installation. The Manager will even find and install the necessary dependencies. There's also KDE version known as Kynaptic. In Ubuntu, there's an "Add/Remove" program under the Applications menu that functions the same way, except with pretty pictures. I'm really not how much more sensible and user-friendly software installation can get.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[JK_the_Slacker]

Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.

Your proposals have merit... in theory. But I have to ask the obvious question here: In just what way does Linux NOT have a clean filesystem? I like the idea that I can go back ten years later, on my still-running Slackware machine, and find a resume, or a paper from high school, or a backup of a game I bought way back when and am just now wanting to revisit. At least, I assume you're talking about the clutter of files that CAN accumulate on any filesystem if not properly looked after.

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux.

Yes, the idea that we want full control over our OS, rather than it having full control of us, is a bad thing. Also, the idea that we should not strive too hard to copy the ideas of someone else is a bad thing. I can definitely see the point in not avoiding lawsuits or stale, cheap imitations or accusations that we're just copying off of somebody else. I completely understand now that the first Model T was the penultimate in cars because it was made by professionals, and we should never have made cars which were different.

*exhaling*

Okay, rant over. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by keeping a clean filesystem. Please to elaborate, so that I may investigate its feasability. No seriously, I need something to do.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[baadger]

> App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

This is a fucking terrible idea. The Linux/*nix file system layout IS CLEAN.

All your user apps are in /usr/bin, what is wrong with that?
All your user libraries are in /usr/lib, what is wrong with that?
All your library/executable hybrids (stuff that can function as either), is in /usr/libexec, what is wrong with that?

If you shove everything in an "/App" dir you're going to end up with a massive symlink fiasco so all your apps can find shared libraries. Or do you want to do away with shared libraries?

In fact the only thing I agree with you on is that config files should be put in your home directory in a more structured manner, along the lines of the rest of the well structured / file system.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gclef]

There's one problem with this: Patches. One of the truly lovely things about a package manager is that it becomes your one-stop place for patches to all applications on the system. Once you leave the package manager, and have users dumping .app files randomly onto their system, you have no good way of getting patches for those apps. This dramatically weakens the security of your system.

I can see wanting a way for little userland apps (that are unlikely to ever get patches anyway) to install in for just one user. But for big, system-wide things (like a browser, or OOo) a free-for-all /Application directory is a really bad idea.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[sammyF70]

indeed. And installing of .deb packages is just one click away, generally with less hassle than installing software in windows.

I love those "I switched away from Linux to [insert commercial OS here] a long time ago"-posts. Ubuntu has made more progress toward useability in the last 12 month than any other OS I know of. If you tried some linux distro over a year ago, and never bothered again after that, then you don't have any clue about the state of Linux today.

Hell ... I even think Ubuntu is so user-friendly that I installed it on an old laptop for my 65 year old mom, and guess what : she is coping very well despite having only used windows and occasionally macs so far.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully the world is changed and moved forward by people other than twats sniping at each other in a web forum. I don't want either one of you guys making design decisions for my OS.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[argiedot]

I don't understand what you'd hope to achieve by [1], why not just keep 'where the program is' out of the list of things for the user to worry about? I fail to see the advantage that putting everything in one .app installation file gives, from a layman's point of view (I don't code, or design). What difference does [3] make, really? Unless you have a lot of non-config dot folders in your home folder I can't see why you'd be bothered with that. OS X is pretty, I'll admit that, but GNOME has been just fine for me so far, but I admit I have no idea what "An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing" is but maybe Glade is of some use?

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Serious Callers Only]

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

I would have thought this was fairly self-explanatory.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[argiedot]

That wasn't supposed to all go in one paragraph. Something ate my newlines, and I have no clue how so many buts in that last sentence. Sorry, that's a lesson learnt about Preview.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

* switch binaries to PE executables with .exe file extension

* change directory delimiter from / to \

* identify partitions with a single-letter name followed by a colon, before the file path

* change "home" to "Documents and Settings"

* move applications to "Program Files" folder

* replace symlinks with "shortcuts" with a .lnk file extension, which point to the linked file only when double-clicking it in the file browser, and cannot be used as a "virtual" file

* ignore bugs

</sarcasm>

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Vorpix]

i think by clean filesystem, he's just referring to having self contained applications and a unified, standard place to store preferences. which certainly seems cleaner to me than having applications in several places, their config files in another place, their preferences in another place..etc.

Cleaner doesn't always equate to better, though, and I think a lot of people are happy with things the way they are. The truth is, if you came in and reorganized my desk, it sure might look a lot nicer to passersby but I will have a hell of a hard time finding anything.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[baldass_newbie]

Ubuntu has made more progress toward useability in the last 12 month than any other OS I know of.

You could say that's because they had more ground to cover, but they still lag (Gnome, KDE or Enlightenment.) Package handling is still an issue and NOTHING is easier than the OS X drag and drop. Synaptic is nice. Very nice. Best thing I've seen in Linux since pkginstall on Slack.

I also disagree with your '12 month' assessment. The big strides take longer and are an accumulation. Perhaps you've just come to realize some functionality, but a lot of it has been there in one form or another all along. I've seen no great leap in the last year that I could point to re:usability. And yes, I'm writing this from a Linux b0x3n.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

But I have to ask the obvious question here: In just what way does Linux NOT have a clean filesystem?

In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already. It reduces the chances of having naming clashes with files that are already there, and it would allow installation and de-installation using nothing more than drag and drop instead of the elaborate scripting systems now in place. It would also make it far easier to understand what specific files do: if you now find a file, let's say /etc/y13f4, and assuming for a moment that there is nothing on your system even remotely called "y13f4", would you know what it is for or who put it there? If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application. And then there is security: access to files in /etc and other directories could be far more limited than it is today, since no applications would have any business sticking their files there.

And let's have a look how Windows does it: every application writes a bunch of crap into the registry, and everyone is moaning about it. Yet when it is UNIX doing it it is fine? That really doesn't make ANY sense.

Yes, the idea that we want full control over our OS, rather than it having full control of us, is a bad thing.

I cannot image where that came from. Are you sure you were even replying to my post?

Also, the idea that we should not strive too hard to copy the ideas of someone else is a bad thing. I can definitely see the point in not avoiding lawsuits or stale, cheap imitations or accusations that we're just copying off of somebody else.

There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple), or to store everything all over the filesystem (the model used by UNIX and Windows). So you get to be like Windows, or you get to be like Apple. On that basis I would strongly prefer to be more like Apple - even when discounting the advantages of that model.

I completely understand now that the first Model T was the penultimate in cars because it was made by professionals, and we should never have made cars which were different.

But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

My alternative theory is that you urgently need to take some more medication.

Okay, rant over. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by keeping a clean filesystem. Please to elaborate, so that I may investigate its feasability. No seriously, I need something to do.

Oh, NOW I see: you are the person in charge of development over at Ubuntu! Sorry, I had no idea! Well, it is really simple. The original poster would like to see a system whereby applications don't write crap all over the /etc, /var, /lib, /usr, /usr/lib, /var/log, and whereever you stick manfiles these days. Instead he would like to store ALL THAT SHIT in one directory (per application, of course). Wouldn't that be neat? Moreover, I support that position: it would be extremely neat.

Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

Your baseless flaming of me, mostly based on statements that I did not actually make but only occurred in your head, unfortunately rules out that possibility. Too bad, but maybe we can try again in three years or so...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[sammyF70]

Drag and Drop is nice ... though I prefer Synaptic's search and install functionality. The fact that Synaptic automatically checks for updates for all the software packages I installed is a very nice and appreciated touch too.
The 12 month thing was not really about the package management though. I first tried Ubuntu 6.04 (after a short SUSE Intermezzo or 7 years ago), and it was interesting but painful. I liked it still, but it was more the geek in me than anything else. Never got my sound to work right, setting up a dual head system was a nightmare, various peripherals just didn't work and Gnome or KDE (tried both) seemed particularly unstable and cumbersome to use. I had it as dual boot, but rarely used it I tried 6.10 after that, which was better, but still more a geek thing than anything else. It didn't last long on my drive.
Then came 7.04, and that was again quite an improvement. It worked nearly out of the box (still some problems setting up the dual display, but nowhere near the troubles I had had on the prvious versions), Gnome actually felt like a real GUI and was stable, and performance-wise there was nothing I could complain about. I even got Flash and Dreamweaver, both of which I need for work, to run in wine. I still had XP installed, but gave the majority of my drive space to Linux, and, I now only boot windows when I want to play some new games (you know .. like the one with the cake :P
7.10 wasn't THAT much of an improvement over 7.04, mostly eye-candy with the inclusion of compiz-fusion, and they screwed up badly with the removal of the audio-preview (just install esound and it works again. You just shouldn't need to do that though)
As it is now, Ubuntu is a valid alternative to the ~big~ OS for pretty much everybody, as long as you're not forced to use some proprietary software that will only run in a specific environment. When 6.04 came out, this just wasn't the case.

I'll admit .. That's 18 months, and not 12 ... but still ...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[tuffy]

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

Which user? One could expand it to /Preferences/user1/settings and so forth, but how is that better than /home/user1/.settings ? Having all the .settings files in a home directory means that backing up, restoring and transferring /home saves all those files at the same time. Thus, it is less fragile than storing them anywhere else.

In short, /Preferences is a stupid idea.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[DaleGlass]

In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already.

That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration. Meaning, having part of the filesystem be shared through NFS. /etc, /bin, /sbin and /lib are needed for the system to boot. /usr may be mounted from a share, and can be readonly.

The different locations for binaries, settings, etc, makes it very easy to share data between a hundred boxes, but not the configuration, or the configuration as well if you want it.

Even if you don't need a network, this is still nice for system administration. For example my general layout is root FS on plain RAID-1, then /usr, /var and /home mounted from LVM. This ensures that even if LVM gets messed up somehow, the box still boots, and in fact it boots from any surviving drive since it's a software RAID-1. Since a functional system is already in place, recovery is much easier.

But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.

The thing is that you don't understand the original model. You seem to think that the layout is the way it is because people just threw stuff into the first place they could think of. Learn why it's the way it is, then come up with a good reason why the original reasons are no longer good, and only then there can be a sensible discussion of the subject.

Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.

If I wanted OS X, I'd use OS X. Your idea isn't new, and has been discussed hundreds of times before. That Ubuntu still keeps the old layout should be a hint.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[fast penguin]

You are not thinking outside the box. When you run one of these self-contained applications, it could register itself, so the system can e.g. add a mime-type handle entry for it. It will then unregister and its stuff clean up on removal. The same system could work for some centralized patching system.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. I support most of this. But please...

DON'T TOUCH /var/log/

Having all the logs in just one place is great.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[EsbenMoseHansen]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system We have this. It's called "deb packages". Works like a charm.

* /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to You mean /application... no need to use capitals. Anyway, I don't see the advantage over the current system. I don't really care where packages are stored, that is my package manager's job. Oh

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory You mean /preferences :p Anyway, that sounds like a horrible idea. Cleanup after users would get more messy and quotas too. But putting them under ~/.prefs/... might not be a bad idea. There is some merit there, but not an easy thing to change!

* An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layo Hmm..I think OSX apps looks terrible, while KDE apps are the cleanest. But all three are quite usable, so I don't see this as a priority. And technically, it isn't the interface building tool's job to layout widgets, that would be horrible! Just imagine what happens when the font changes, or the resolution.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ealar dlanvuli]

I 100% agree. /usr is a complete mess that only made sense 10 years ago. Though I'd really prefer not to see osx style "no shared libraries - everyone uses their own." I rather like the efficiency of shared libraries.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[itzdandy]

this could be handled with a FUSE module pretty easy! have a list of acceptable config files to use tucked away in "fuse-configurator's" settings and have it mount all the acceptable config files that exsist in ~/ to /home/username/Settings. the list is so that some random . file isnt put in the Settings directory.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[m2943]

Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.

OS X's file system is no "cleaner" than Ubuntu's. Furthermore, OS X fails to conform to standard UNIX file system conventions.

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...

That attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with OS X.

In fact, there are many aspects of OS X that positively suck. You named some of them. Linux may need to imitate some aspects of Windows that suck simply because of the predominance of Windows in the market, but OS X's market share is so insignificant that the only features of OS X that are worth adopting in Linux are the ones that demonstrably are better than what Linux already has. File system organization, installers, and GUI designers are not among those.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[domatic]

Here's a hint: Only "dimwitted juvenile punks" use such language in response to polite reasoned posts.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Warui Kami]

This $appdir/ setup you mention was done in UNIX-style OSes once upon a time (and still is), and every one of these $appdirs was kept in one place: /opt.

I have a .profile I used on Solaris machines for something like ten years that had several for loops for setting up the $PATH, $MANPATH, $LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and so on, by looping through /opt/*/{bin,man,lib}. While the /opt setup has certain advantages of separation of applications from each other, it creates a messy operating environment. You have a list of applications (`ls /opt`) and can uninstall any of them (`rm -rf /opt/$app`) using standard file management tools. Package management provides these advantages of /opt, by giving you a list (in synaptic, dselect, `rpm -qa`, etc.) without the disadvantage of having a 5k $PATH. If you compile your own software and are too lazy to create a package, you install into an area meant for that (/usr/local) most of the time. Admittedly on systems with net-mounted /usr, /usr/local has another purpose, but we can safely ignore that in 99% of cases, as the two are not incompatible.

One of my housemates built a linux system that relied on loopback fs images, mounted and combined with unionfs. He had basic packages that would be loaded into the unionfs, and the file trees merged. Then, the only files on the only rw branch of the union were config files he had changed, and his home directory. It was an absolutely fascinating system, and there were scripts for hot-loading new packages, with some restrictions on unloading due to the nature of unionfs (which he had hacked the kernel to get this functionality). When he started talking about creating a package manager, the discussion really ended with us saying he had just changed where the abstraction level of standard package managers was and the only real advantage was that altered files were in a separate filesystem, and easily sorted through. All the other advantages of the system are the same as in, for example, debian. You don't need to touch any files, or know where they'll be, to install OO.o, you just install the package, and everything is interleaved into your filesystem for you.

Naively creating a /Applications directory and thinking it will make everything better and easier ignores the vibrant history of UNIX. I wish more people would learn how and why modern package management came about. It is incredibly powerful, and one of the things that Linux systems have over Windows, rather than vice versa. The 'Add and Remove Programs' control panel is a cheap imitation, and per-program installers a serious downside to the platform.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gclef]

According to the earlier post, removal of an app is as simple as deleting a folder, and addition is as simple as dropping a set of files into a folder. The only way to satisfy this is to have a bunch of API hooks that run when you move files around, which is truly ugly.

Also, I don't think I want applications specifying their own patch sources. Large organizations *certainly* *don't* want their applications specifying their own patch sources.

In the end, this is about control of software installation: where does it reside? For folks that just use their systems in a home, you want the end user to have that control. For people trying to manage hundreds of them at a time (which I do), you really don't want the end user to have that control - you want it centrally managed. Apple has come down squarely on the home user side, and Ubuntu is trying to walk the tightrope between the two. What's "better" depends on where you sit.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[freezin fat guy]

Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...

Ahem, "that attitude" is not a bug - it's a feature

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ndogg]

You might want to check out GoboLinux. They're actually trying to do some of the things you mentioned.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed. And installing of .deb packages is just one click away, generally with less hassle than installing software in windows. Not to mention that with Ubuntu all applications automatically get updated, unlike Windows and OS X where every app phones home to look for updates. Package management is why I switched to Ubuntu from Fedora. Everything I need is there and everything just works. The only tweaking I have to do is to get rid of the baby poop colors (Clearlooks+Tango ftw!). Plus, the Ubuntu desktop is far more consistent, which is a big plus.

I love those "I switched away from Linux to [insert commercial OS here] a long time ago"-posts. Ubuntu has made more progress toward useability in the last 12 month than any other OS I know of. For my usage, at least, Ubuntu is easier to use than OS X. For example, I need apache2, php5, and mysql. Under Ubuntu all I have to do is install a few packages through synaptic (apache2, libapache2-mod-php5, php5-cli, php5-mysql, mysql-client and mysql-server) and I'm good to go.

Under Leopard (fully clean install, all partitions were deleted before running the installer). I installed Xcode and MacPorts and then spent the last two days trying to get it all to actually compile. I ran "sudo port install php5 +apache2 +mysql" like the site said, but then it failed when compiling db44. Now after running "sudo port clean php5" and trying again, everything says "compiler cannot create executables". Completely removing and reinstalling both Xcode and MacPorts several times has not fixed the error. Manually compiling a simple "hello world" app works. Last night I just went "fuck it" and went back* to dual booting with Ubuntu on my PowerBook (virtualization is not an option as it's PowerPC).

I hate compiling software from source. It's something I never have to do with Ubuntu.

* Just as a note, my main desktop (Core 2 Duo E7700, 4GB ram, self built) runs Ubuntu and always has. I was just trying to go only Leopard with my PowerBook. I only did that with Tiger for about a year before Fink pissed me off to the point where I wanted to start smashing things and just went the dual boot route.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

"NOTHING is easier than the OS X drag and drop"

Wrong. Ubuntu is far easier than OS X. With macs, you first have to FIND the package somewhere, download it (assuming it is available by download), then drag it. What a hassle. With ubuntu, you just select it from a list of available software and click on it. Done. Oh, and with Ubuntu when that app is updated, the update can be applied automatically, again something OS X doesn't do.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now, children! Here, have a fork!

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[dave420]

Then Linux will never break through and topple Windows. Great work.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[LWATCDR]

"There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple)"
The Amiga often stored files in the lib directory. Well library files anyway.
I actually think that that Linux's / Unix's file structure is a huge mess. It has mutated over the years and I just don't like it.
OS/Xs is actually an interesting idea And I think there is a Linux type system that uses something like that.
But the /Preferences idea does make me stop and thing. How do yo deal with user specific settings? I have not used OS/X much at all so I don't know.
Do they have sub-directories like /Preferences/USER ?
And then you have the idea of why not store the preferences in a database like SQLLite? The downside would be that you could corrupt all your settings if the database went south but it would allow an easy way to have nested preferences.

The real reason that Linux isn't going to go that way is because of inertia. There is already too many programs that will not work that way. What you will have is an even bigger mess.

That is one of the many reasons why I am more than a little sad that Windows and Linux have pretty much killed new ideas in OS design.
I doubt that we will see a clean sheet of paper OS for the desktop or server space for a very long time.
I don't think anybody wants to toss away all those working applications anytime soon.
Pretty much the same reason we are stuck with Windows, and X-Windows. Because they work.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your primary complaint again? That Linux users are too happy with Linux? Or is it that Linux users aren't receptive to doing things your way all the time?

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, it's an issue so-called "Power Users" (particularly from Windows) have with Linux systems. Many of them have a tendancy to micro-manage everything, such as where programs are installed. They're not content to let the OS do what it was designed to do - managing the computer for you.

The Linux way is fine if you don't care where things are installed. I've been using Linux for years, and I simply stoped caring about anything outside of /home after a few months. On my home machine, I've not looked outside of /home since I installed the current distro about a year ago. Then again, I don't care about anything outside of /Users on Mac OS X, or anything outside of C:\Documents and Settings (C:\Users on Vista) on Windows. I know many people who just can't leave the filesystem alone, and until I started using Linux I was one of them - bad habits picked up from dumb operating systems (AmigaOS, DOS, and Windows 3.1 / 9x in my case, Mac OS 9 for others) that require you to micro-manage everything.

Oh, Mac apps tend to use local copies of any shared libraries not included in a base Mac OS X install. All the overhead of shared libraries, with none of the benefits. Most Windows programs are moving that way too - only Microsoft-supplied libraries are ever shared between programs, and even then only if they're installed as a separate product (IE and .NET). Everything else, from the C / C++ runtime, through the GDI+ libraries, are all shipped separately with each app.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Just Some Guy]

If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application.

And the tradeoff is that you have to add /usr to your backups because 512KB on that 8GB partition is now local-created data and not easily recreated by a reinstall. Also forget mounting /usr read-only for security purposes.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[rantingkitten]

Actually I prefer having the dotfiles in the home directory. Maybe I'm weird like that, but they don't bother me, and the average user will certainly never need to bother with them. On the up side, I can leverage it to quickly restore any machine to my personal preferences. Once I tar my home directory, all I have to do is put a CD in a new machine, ignore it for 20 minutes, come back, untar my directory, then let apt do its thing for all the applications I care about. One hour later and I'm back and running a machine configured to my exact preferences. Yes, I realize that if all preferences were in a dedicated folder elsewhere I could do that, but it's just one more thing, and I don't see any benefit, unless I'm missing something.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[jedidiah]

Loser.

The standard open platform is already there.

Not only is it already there but it is also shared with every other Unix.

Why break compatability with EVERYONE ELSE? Just because you don't like
our organizational scheme? It's not "disorganized". It's just not how
you would personally set it up.

Organized contrary to your personal preferences != disorganized.

Personally, I think not keeping my own personal preference files
in my own file space is completely assinine. I should not even
have to be aware of the filesystem outside of my own home directory.

NextStep style app directories are fine for this so long as they
don't muck around with sensible user data practices. Although Unix
already has a comparable fs hierarchy for that sort of layout anyway.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[jedidiah]

Once you start getting larger systems and need to manage cross
application dependencies, a drag+drop centric solution just
doesn't cut it anymore. And really it doesn't gain you anything.
It would be just as easy if the click or drop or whatever
triggered a proper package manager.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[HoaryCripple]

Will the above break the UNIX dir structure?

Those of us who have used UNIX for a long time know the merits of the UNIX directory structure. There is no need for it to change because a few new users think they know better.

The default install of any distribution should not break the UNIX directory structure. If there is an option to download a different version which will be easier for new users to manage, I am all for it.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

Thank you for a well-thought out reply. However, I'd like to point out that I was already well aware of why things are the way they are; I just don't agree with the reasons anymore. I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized. Even if you want to share packages between different users, symlinks provide a much better way to make applications visible within their own home directories without taking up massive amounts of space - and without losing the benefit of giving each user his own set of preferences, or being able to store the packages on a networked drive. As for the reasons why Ubuntu keeps things the way they are, my guess is they don't want to change thousands of packages, rather than holding any firm believe in things being better as they are. And didn't OS X start out from a UNIX core? The fact that Apple made this change is also a hint.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Greg_D]

Yes. Unless the software is not maintained in a repository. Then the average Ubuntu user has no clue whatsoever how to install that software.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[johannesg]

How much would it cost to pay you to just go the fuck away?

If you give me a million euro's I promise I won't log on to Slashdot again. Please?

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ericrost]

Problem solved always use either (depending on source and in order of preference)

1. apt-get/synaptic (command line/gui of the same thing)
2. dpkg
3. checkinstall

Everything will be in the proper place. You CAN (since you can maintain your system however you choose for your own reasons) put software wherever you like. More choice is better, but you have the tools to keep things organized. I think this is superior to OSX's mass of statically linked libraries with versions scattered in every stinking app that has no central way to manage updates.

Thus, proposal rejected.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[sammyF70]

If the user knows that he is running a debian based distro, he'll get the appropriate package and then (provided he has some idea what "installing" means) double click it, whereupon he will be asked about his password and the package will be automatically installed. If any of this is too difficult, then the same user would have problems installing anything either on windows ("aeh .. Vista, XP or 98? ... It's trying to download something .. save? or start?") or OSX ("what version of osX am I running?... where do I drag and drop it?") each OS requires that the user has some basic knowledge of the system to install anything, but from then on, it's not difficult, on none of the OS.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[kestasjk]

If you want everything in its own folder under an /Applications folder it's easy to do with apt, or any other modern package manager, but it wouldn't improve anything.
Okay, programs are "centralized". This means that they're grouped according to application, and in most other UNIXes files are grouped according to whether they're libraries, manuals, binaries, etc. It's mostly an aesthetic choice.

Note that Windows has had a "Program Files" folder since before OS X, but I don't hear anyone singing the praises of "Program Files" even though it groups files by application in the same way as OS X. Personally I don't see a big advantage either way (and I definitely don't see "Apple is doing it, so we should too" as a good reason).

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[delire]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

Firstly it's clear you're talking about emulating OS\X, an installation method I certainly wouldn't like to see as default in any Linux environment near me. I don't want duplicate libraries throughout my (equivalent) ~/Applications directory where they could all be using the same shared library. It's bloated and needless and culls off any chance of a centralised package management system: when on an OS\X system this is something I miss dearly (Fink and Darwin Ports both seem broken and have only a few thousand packages compared to Debian).

Making a ZIP or even ISO (like DMG) with all the libraries statically linked in on Linux is fairly easy and there are already projects which offer this. Why aren't they popular? Perhaps people that try Linux actually find they prefer a system of centralised, security-audited, version-controlled software-management, one that removes the need to go to trawl around websites to find and download software. Having used Debian systems for many years, the 'old' way of aquiring and managing software seems unncessarily backward and time-consuming. I simply don't have the time or interest to upgrade all the software on my system piece by piece, site by site. Yuk. Who would prefer this after using the apt-get update && apt-get upgrade AKA 'drink-beer-instead' method.

Secondly people that believe that libraries and config files on Linux are "scattered all over the filesystem" only point out their lack of understanding - or willingness to understand - why a Linux filesystem is structured as it is. The next time you're on a Linux machine, I thoroughly reccommend giving yourself a little education on the topic by typing the following command into a terminal:

man hier

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[hswerdfe]

you might be interested in this:
  * http://www.gobolinux.org/

Its an interesting project, its not for the mass market yet but if they got some time and money they might be able to make it ready for the mass market.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Ash-Fox]

Then the average Ubuntu user has no clue whatsoever how to install that software.

From what I've seen. It's just opening a .deb or .rpm file (the way you would open a image or such), package manager pops up and offers to install it and voila.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[ericrost]

Works fine on my desktop. Have fun with your OS.

No OS fills everyone's needs, competition is good and healthy, as is a good vision of what an OS should be and the needs it should fill.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want Mac OS X, you know where to find it.

http://www.osx86project.org/ ?

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us don't really give a shit. We don't want OS X.

Fuck off.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[TiggsPanther]

What I'd like to see is a combination of the two. Yes, having all preferences in one place would be nice. Yes, having them all in your home directory is useful. But it's not and either-or scenario. Something like /home/fred/.dotfiles/ (or .prefs, .settings, etc) would keep the home directory tidier whilst still keeping programs' user settings in the home directory structure.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[swillden]

I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized.

Why? Given a decent package manager (and Ubuntu has an excellent one), what does it matter?

Here's a data point for you -- my wife's iBook is off for repairs (and Apple appears to have lost it since it's been gone for two weeks) -- so she's using Gutsy on a Thinkpad I had lying around. She quite likes OS X and is very comfortable with the drag'n'drop installation approach, but she was very impressed by Ubuntu's Add/Remove Software app, and commented that Apple should do something like it.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[dan the person]

That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration.

Meanwhile, the OS X filesystem layout which also comes from Unix, has been adapted to be optimal for users.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

> All your user apps are in /usr/bin, what is wrong with that?

Those are system binaries; usr is an acronym for "Unix System Resources". User apps should be in $HOME/bin

> All your user libraries are in /usr/lib, what is wrong with that?
> All your library/executable hybrids (stuff that can function as either),
> is in /usr/libexec, what is wrong with that?

Again these are system resources.

I do agree that all ~/rc and ~/.config files should be moved to ~/.conf/ or ~/.etc/

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[HiThere]

Apple has made some changes in their EULA recently (or, possibly, I've recently noticed some features) that make them no longer an acceptable choice. They've added that obnoxious(paraphrase) "we have the right to add, remove, copy, or delete any files from your system". That makes them an unacceptable choice.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Warbothong]

"Application bundles" aren't needed. Ubuntu has a package manager which handles installing and things, which means that the second point is also invalid. Packages have tons of metadata, which makes them much easier to sort, filter, find, etc. than an arbitrary hierarchy. A good improvement would be to build interoperability into the different package management systems used by different Operating Systems, since it is technically possible and would be a nice thing to have. Also, applications can just be run from a folder on some kind of removable drive if wanted. On your "/Preferences" point, Ubuntu has a folder called ".config" in users' Home folders where settings are stored. I think that having users' settings in their Home is good, since they can be potentially all be on different filesystems and moved between machines (ie. I have my Home folder on a USB hard drive). An improvement would be to get more applications to use the .config convention. GNOME has some pretty in-depth Human Interface Guidelines, I'm pretty sure KDE does too. I'm sure that if such changes were added to them then you would change your post to say "* Get rid of all of the unused space in virtually every Linux app, it wastes screen real estate" (a phrase I rank up there with "bling bling" on the cheese-based scale of nightmare induction) In short, different does not mean better or worse than. It means different. Personally I have been using Linux systems for years, and whenever I'm forced to use a Mac I want to throw it at a wall (which probably wouldn't cause too many problems, since the owner'd just say "Thanks, I've been looking for an excuse to blow masses of cash on a replacement now that Leopard is out", and I am actually not kidding). For all of those Mac fanboys out there all I have to say is this: Call me when your idolised OS will run on my laptop without your idolised company suing my ass (the "I run Windows too" get a mac adverts make me literally shout my frustration. Microsoft don't sue people for running their system on the computer they want to, Apple do so why do they come out as the good guys?)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[rmdir -r *]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system

* /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to

Its being worked on, see Glick and Klick. There is also merit to the current system, which allows for stupidly easy maintenance of large amounts of programs. I expect the final solution will be a bit of a hybrid.

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

Err... there is /etc for global settings, and ~/.config for user-specific. Why would you store per user settings globally? What's the point? The home directory solution instantly solves all namespacing issues, and cleanly.

* An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout

Not everyone likes NeXT.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[manifoldronin]

Some of us actually have to use an OS like that every day at work, you insensitive clod!

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[PitaBred]

Huh. And you have the same problem that you do in Windows, in that every application needs it's own updater to keep itself updated, it's own servers, etc. You wonder why ancient bugs get exploited in Windows? It's because people don't update all their software.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 744 packages installed on my Linux install, I dread to think what sort of mess there would be if each one had it's own folder. Sure I'd be able find the files belonging to a single package slightly more easily, but it just makes things harder in other ways. Such as, the PATH would have to be updated for every single package installed. "man" would need some way of finding man pages rather than looking in the standard directories for man pages. How would shared libraries be handled?

If I want to find which files belong to a package, I ask my package manager. If I want to find which package a file belongs to, I ask my package manager. There really is no reason for any package installed by a package manager to be installed in its own directory. I really don't see what problem this proposed solution actually solves.

If you were to suggest something like Apple's dmg files for installing/using third-party applications that aren't in the repositories, then that would be a reasonable suggestion. But changing the whole filesystem layout for aesthetic reasons isn't.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

"But I have to ask the obvious question here: In just what way does Linux NOT have a clean filesystem?

when every program creates its own directory in your home directory, that's not clean...

~/.imSoImportantINeedAWholeDirectory/settings.rc

What is so hard about a ~/settings directory? (like .kde/share/apps but actually used by all programs)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[mhall119]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system There are many apps that live and work in their own directory structure, it's really a developer decision more than an OS decision. That being said, how does OS X handle third-party dependencies, multiple user's data, and all that with .app bundles?

* /Application directory - default place for App bundles to be copied to Why is this necessary? And what would you classify as an App? Sure Firefox is an app, but what about command-line tools? Some I consider apps, some tools, where do they go? The FreeDesktop folder structures will help more than this for most users.

* /Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory Again, this is both a developer's decision, and seems unnecessary. Do you keep all user's preferences in the same directory?

* An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout An App interface for which toolkit? GTK? QT? X? WX? AWT/Swing? SWT? TK? And what about themes that have different widget styles, sizes, different fonts and icons? There are too many different toolkits used in Unix land to make a single unified interface builder, it's not like OS X where you just have Cocoa.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[PitaBred]

And we could call that central bit of software... let's call it a "Registry" where applications register themselves. That's a great idea, I wonder why no one has thought of it before? Let's trust the app developers to do the right thing with this system-critical Registry!

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Fallingcow]

Both the OSX and Linux ways are good, IMO. OSX: every program and all its components are in a folder. Linux: this sort of program file goes here, this sort here, and you can mount these folders from various sources to achieve all kinds of neat administrative voodoo.

Either CAN be broken, but usually isn't. They're fairly consistent.

Windows? Let's see: how about we make a folder in "Program Files"... let's name it after our company, then make a sub-folder for each program from us! Yeah! Never mind that in three years we'll somehow manage to slightly change the company name we use on the folder by adding a dash or changing capitalization or something, and that "one folder for all our programs" goes out the window. Oh, and let's throw some DLLs in c:\windows\win32, AND write a bunch of stuff to the registry. Then, let's put a whole bunch of links in the START menu, with no regard for any categories already there (for god's sake, there's a GAMES folder in the XP start menu for a REASON, people!)

Completely inconsistent.

The first two are fine; even if I don't like the way they do things, I can always script around CONSISTENT stupidity. Inconsistent stupidity? Not so much.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. This really depends on the author of the program to implement though, most/all kde apps store their config files under .kde/, I believe GNOME apps use .gnome/ and there is .config/ for other apps. If all apps followed this scheme my home dir would look a lot tidier when I select show all files in Konqueror.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Fallingcow]

You mean /preferences :p Anyway, that sounds like a horrible idea. Cleanup after users would get more messy and quotas too. But putting them under ~/.prefs/... might not be a bad idea. There is some merit there, but not an easy thing to change!

GREAT idea.

One of the biggest structural annoyances about the Linux filesystem layout is what happens when you get an "open file" dialog from an app that doesn't respect the hiding ".". You have to scroll past 20+ folders--which, of course, are all stuck at the top, since "." puts them first in the file listing--to find what you're looking for in your /home/user folder.

Either all of those programs that ignore the "." need to change--and there are a LOT that do this--or they need to make a ~/.preferences or ~/.settings folder and make sure it all goes in there, which, though not easier than changing those programs, is probably a better long-term design decision.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[SparkEE]

/home/user1/preferences/settings may be nice though. Just to clean up the home directory a bit.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[HAKdragon]

Most of the times an application that resides in Preferences is stored in /Library/Prefpanes. At least that's how I remember it, I'm not currently at my Mac so I couldn't do a quick double check.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[MrNiceguy_KS]

At the risk of sounding like an AOL user, "Me Too!"

This would also be a great advantage for those trying to set up a properly-done dual boot system. I've tried doing so by pointing "My Documents" under XP to ~ but it doesn't work well because of all the .supposedtobehidden files and directories. (Doubly annoying because, as you mentioned, they get sorted to the top of file listings.)

The best way I've found to deal with it is to just move "My Documents" to a subdirectory of ~ and set "My Documents" as the default save location for as many of the linux apps as I can. (I also rename it to "documents" because using folder names with spaces is always stupid and using mixed case when you don't have to is stupid under a case-sensitive file system.)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Khaed]

Huh, and here I am thinking system binaries are in sbin...

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[cralewyth]

uh. Redundant much?

With /home/user/.settings, you know;
A) it's hidden, because most of the time you don't need to worry about it - And these days, these settings are usually maintained in the program anyway
B) each application's settings are already stored seperately anyway.

In short, /home/user/preferences/settings would be mostly redundant.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Arterion]

Assuming you already had apple hardware to run it on. Otherwise, you'd have to buy that, too.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gomoX]

I have been reading comments about this on the discussion quite often, and I know I have thought of it myself MANY times. How about we do something about it? It's a reasonable project, with no real downsides. If we agree on a default name and awareness is raised on the matter people would start adopting it pretty fast, as it should be a trivial change in most apps.

I say we pick .settings, because it's shorter.

I will write to the FHS guys, they should know better about this kind of thing, and try and make some sort of publicity stunt about this.

Someone else cares about this? Sign up.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[gomoX]

I have posted a comment on the FHS bugzilla on this. There was already a suggestion for using .etc.
http://bugs.freestandards.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75

Personally I couldn't care less about the name, but this should be adopted.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[fast penguin]

Isn't Windows Registry like Gnome's GConf? Isn't that just a data-base for applications settings?
Anyway, in Linux, the mime-types base is a filesystem storage edited by the applications at install (/usr/share/mime). In my system, they would even have less control over it. They'd just tell the system what mime-types they support, and it will be up to the system to handle the information -- it could even ask the user before mapping them, since its done at run-time.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[davidpack01]

Amen brother!

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[fast penguin]

The only way to satisfy this is to have a bunch of API hooks that run when you move files around, which is truly ugly.

I believe operating systems are already doing this today for the "desktop search" engines. I don't see such a daemon to be that ugly, but then I don't know how these things are layered on Linux.

With regard to centralization, you're right, I was just thinking about the desktop. Anyway, I do think Linux approach with repositories can work well. Music repositories work very well, so it can also work for applications. I think however that distros package managers are very rough for the casual user -- descriptions are not very good, the interface is intimidating, it doesn't only list the graphical application but also libraries, and so on and on. But I was told Ubuntu has some small installer's tool for the new user. (link)

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[schmiddy]

You jest.. but I was at FOSSCamp just last weekend in Boston, which was sort of bankrolled by Canonical, and pretty much all the Ubuntu devs were there (I think they tried to schedule a few conferences in the same timeframe for convenience of the attendees, many of whom came from abroad). Basically, everyone there had a laptop running Ubuntu.. except for maybe 10 or 15% who were using OSX. I saw someone had even lugged an iMac in his suitcase up to the conference. Apple has really done a great job in making an OS that's beloved by both newbies and experienced developers.

Having said that, I agree with sibling post about restrictive EULAs being simply unacceptable on an OS. I use Ubuntu.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is already a distribution which reorganizes the filesystem in such a way. It is called GoboLinux, and is available here:
http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[xenocide2]

* Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. Ability to drag an .app to anywhere in the file system at any time. App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system Succinctly put, you don't really want that.

It's a lot of man hours to remove the LSB assumptions into the code base. Plus you'd have convince every upstream application that yours is the one true way, when they've already signed on. Ubuntu doesn't own the code they give to you, and they certainly don't command the people who did write the code. It'd be not only a lot of work now, but more work every release in the future to merge patches upstream refuses to accept. And it requires a lot of ugliness with shipping libraries (I'll cover that more in a moment) that have already been solved.

Moreover, it breaks security. Currently, every package within Ubuntu main is attended to by the security team. Even things as trivial as buffer overflows in a game's image handler will be addressed (in main). Simply discarding package management in favor of drag and dropping means discarding this universal security policy. So now every application has to duplicate update functionality, and do so securely.

It breaks efficiency. Firstly, you're effectively spreading libraries out on disk, meaning more seeks to navigate the directory structure, versus one for /lib. Secondly, OSX bundles usually either build libraries statically, or ship private libraries. The only truly shared libraries are the ones Apple provides as the OS Framework. So now you've introduced this concern -- is the library available, or does the app need to carry it's own? Assuming someone takes the effort to get it right, not only does this nessecary duplication hurt diskspace (inconsequential), it also harms the purpose of dynamic loaded libraries: code shared in RAM. Each app now has to carry the full bloat burden of the libraries it calls into. For Gtk/GNOME and QT/KDE, this would likely be fatal as every program carries an entire copy of QT. By breaking out the libraries into their own packages, we can introduce versioning that alleviates "DLL hell" while avoiding the massive RAM demands of static builds. Not to mention it's basically impossible.

You could write a silly FUSE driver that presents something similar to Applications, limited to dragging INTO the directory(installing a package), copying an app (create a duplicate binary package), and deleting (uninstalling). But you wouldn't be able to run apps locally and expect the OS to be able to apply security updates.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[Burz]

Excellent post. I have written/complained about this package management syndrome "spewing" files all over the place for years.

Some comments:

As you point out, the Unix application files model was obsolete a decade ago. This veteran Linux user also agrees with you that Apple's model is far better for real world scenarios... Unix fanboys cannot make the usual claim of 'elegance' here.

...or to store everything all over the filesystem (the model used by UNIX and Windows) I would re-phrase that as ...or to store everything all over the filesystem and try to tie it all together with horrendously complex package managers and databases (the model used by UNIX and Windows)

Of course, the Unix concept is that the whole application and all its little pieces are shared with the rest of the system such that re-use of functionality is minimized. But we still end up with 3 or 4 different versions of the same libraries in our Linux systems. And then when you switch distros, the binaries shift locations even sometimes popping in and out of the CLI path.

The worst aspect of this practice, however, is that everyone expects their Linux applications to be re-engineered and re-distributed by the distro repository/packaging priests. Many bad effects ensue...

* Users stop interacting directly with the developers' organizations, shifting their application feedback to the OS vendor

* Developers no longer even try to discern what functionality from the OS will be used, and what will be included themselves since there is no more boundary between "OS" and "extra apps and libraries". They create package dependencies instead and let the user or repository priests sort it out.

* Novice coders are driven away because many attempts at sharing programs with friends, workmates or with classroom PCs become tangled dependency problems. They cannot count on any particular OS functionality that is interesting (more than kernel + GNU) just being there.

* OS vendors falsely claim they have a 'platform', when it is really more like a tarbaby. They cravenly refuse to define the core functionality that will exist on all DESKTOP systems (though they lavish such effort on their technical peers in the server space). Let the package manager sort it all out...

* ISVs that do bother to write for Linux end up down Download pages overrun sometimes with 6 or 7 different distro packages multiplied by several past app versions, multiplied the several distro versions. Its a burden on ISV developers and mountain of confusion for end-users.

* Few applications are distributed and installed independently from the OS vendor and their software repository (compilable tarballs do NOT count). As I sit here, a number of app security updates for Tor, Firefox etc. have not been made available in the Ubuntu repository. I have to either wait (possibly forever), or use my CLI skills to get the updates. It's typical "repo-madness" with Linux distros. OTOH on the Mac I know I can download a package from each vendor site and have the latest updates... actually Firefox on the Mac updates itself directly with the click of a button.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[DaleGlass]

On my machine, I'm the end user. I'm perfectly fine with the current layout.

The Mac system is nice for some things, but not really practical for Linux. Do you really want to see a /Applications directory with 400 folders for things like awk, grep, bash, OpenOffice, etc? The big /Applications model works well so long it's limited to large, end-user oriented applications. If you shove everything there then it'll be just as confusing as the current layout.

Also, this "drag folder to /Applications" model relies on a lack of dependencies. It's all nice and good if it's self-contained, but gets more complicated otherwise. For example take something like Java. On Linux, no end user really needs to care about what Java is, whether it comes preinstalled and what version. If there's an Azureus package it'll automatically result in the installation of a suitable JVM if needed.

This model also doesn't work for the OS itself. You may be able to install Firefox by just putting a folder in the right place, but you can't upgrade OS components in the same manner.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[sad_]

I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere

it doesn't matter where those files are. the program runs, that is all you need to know. ofcourse, there is nothing stopping you from installing each program in its own directory. like many commercial unix tools do (they put themself in /opt), really, you should see some of the /opt dirs i've seen to know that the way it is done now, is the right way.

Re:Ubuntu To Do List

[dan the person]

On Linux, no end user really needs to care about what Java is, whether it comes preinstalled and what version.

You've obviously never tried getting java to work in firefox on 64bit linux. It's a right pain the ass and the easiest way i found to get things working was unpack 32 bit versions of the apps in ~/apps/firefox and ~/apps/java. Getting multiple versions to coexist is otherwise painful with the way linux spreads things out over /usr/bin/firefox /usr/lib/firefox etc

How about fixing things...

[tttonyyy]

...as well as adding new features?

'oops' proxy, for example. Worked great under other Debs distros, but kept crashing under FF. Left out of GG altogether.

Re:How about fixing things...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you could always help us. If you want it in, spend an hour of your day making it a package and submit it. Or, just get the upstream developer who's writing it/packaging it to submit it to Ubuntu. It's not that hard of a process, really.

Re:How about fixing things...

[JediTrainer]

Hear hear. I'd particularly like the regressions addressed - the latest upgrade broke my installation of Eclipse so I can't run Ant inside it

Yes, the workaround is to either download/install Eclipse manually or run Ant from the command-line, but it is annoying to see a basic feature still broken for weeks when it worked perfectly fine before.

Re:How about fixing things...

[blazerw11]

Or, maybe, oops proxy has been abandoned for 4 years and doesn't work very well today. Last official release was Nov. 21, 2003. oops! downloads.

Re:How about fixing things...

[haeger]

Yeah.
Gutsy broke my vmware. Not expected and from what I hear there's no vmware in gutsy still. We who have technical know-how can still fix it, but it does seem that the QA-dept slipped a bit on Gutsy.

.haeger

Re:How about fixing things...

[nhaines]

Ubuntu 7.10 didn't "break" your copy of VMware server. Every time you change your kernel, you need to recompile the kernel modules for VMware. VMware provided kernel modules for Ubuntu 7.04's updates. Currently they do not provide kernel modules for 7.10. They will probably begin providing these updates within a few weeks.

In the meantime, you just have to compile your own modules. It's very simple--it's a matter of running vmware-config.pl every time you upgrade the kernel, which will automatically take care of everything for you as long as you have build-essential installed.

As annoying as this is (and I find it mildly annoying, at least), it is the price of using a proprietary solution like VMware instead of similar Free solutions (like QEMU or VirtualBox).

Re:How about fixing things...

[Ash-Fox]

Gutsy broke my vmware. Not expected and from what I hear there's no vmware in gutsy still. We who have technical know-how can still fix it, but it does seem that the QA-dept slipped a bit on Gutsy.

If you used the vwmare-player/vmware-server packages in the Ubuntu repositories, that shouldn't of happened (there are even vmware kernel modules in the repositories that are updated with every kernel update).

Re:How about fixing things...

[Woy]

There was also a serious regression in KDE bluetooth functionality. Really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Re:How about fixing things...

[deletedaccount]

Dammit. I thought it was just me doing it wrong, but no, it's broken. It's been Ant on the command line for me too.

Re:How about fixing things...

[ericrost]

Not in Gutsy (at least amd64 gutsy). I had exactly the same "issue" and had to reinstall from the binary package from VMWare themselves. Not a huge deal (aside from my own messing up the restricted modules package version so i was pinned a release behind on the kernel with no headers available.. but I diegress), but not in the repos.

Re:How about fixing things...

[Bigos]

check this link http://www.debuntu.org/how-to-vmware-server-workstation-under-ubuntu-feisty it will tell you what to do :-)

Re:How about fixing things...

[Seumas]

I wish the focus wasn't put on the fancy-pants Compiz/Beryl crap. I suppose that stuff is nice until a certain point, but with all of the aspects of the linux (and Ubuntu/Kubuntu specifically) desktop, having window shadows and transparency is nowhere near the top. How about changes that actually impact the robustness of the user experience?

I use KDE, because a lot of the apps I like most are on it (like kate, which seems to have no peer on GNOME) and it doesn't have Compiz by default. I did compile and install it once, but found that a big negative was that while it would make windows fold up like a paper plane and fly off the window (ooh, big fucking deal), it also wouldn't let me move any windows around. At all. I suppose it was some hidden configuration somewhere. *shrug*.

Anyway, it got kind of old after about an hour and I removed it. I mean.. shadows and folding windows are nice, I guess... but entirely pointless. And a bit distracting. And the experience is just fine without them.

In a time when there are complaints of limited resources and maintainers, it seems the focus of each release should be more than "ooh, flashy crap!" which it has been the last two releases (at least).

Re:How about fixing things...

[AncientPC]

If you're running Workstation, you just need to run the configure script (/urs/bin/vmware-config.pl) again.

Re:How about fixing things...

[andersbergh]

When using VirtualBox you have to compile modules for every new kernel version as well, so I don't see how that is different. Same with qemu if you decide to use kqemu which is equivalent to what VMware or VirtualBox does.

Re:How about fixing things...

[Poromenos1]

I'm not sure if you are referring to actual price, but VMware Server is gratis. Plus, I prefer it to free alternatives because of higher (perceived) quality/speed. I haven't used QEMU or VirtualBox extensively, but VMware has loads of features (snapshots, easy fullscreen, adding/removing hardware) that other solutions lack (or lacked, I haven't seen them in a while, please enligten me if there are better libre alternatives and I'll switch right now).

Re:How about fixing things...

[calebt3]

Install the 'compizconfig-settings-manager package'. Helps alot.

Re:How about fixing things...

[QuantumG]

It's pretty obvious (to everyone) that he wasn't talking about cost.

Re:How about fixing things...

[cliffd7]

That looks simple enough but when I do that I get an error message. The sequence is as follows; I 'open virtual machine' There is no VM shown so 'Browse' Find VM I need Click on 'Open '(twice) and get message 'Unable to add virtual machine .......No permission to perform this operation.' Can you give me a clue? Thanks

rock-solid LTS

[noshellswill]

For me, DAPPERx64 has been a rock-solid production box OS. It's hit a sweet-spot of automagic admin and *nix flexibility, stepping ahead of the M$ product. The revolution is over and the good-guys won. From HH I expect no amazement, just the next-step-up.

Looking at the release schedule

[morgan_greywolf]

It'll be a while for before Hardy Heron is Hardly Hereyet (*bada bum*!) But seriously, I'd like to see some big improvements in Gnome file management. Much of this could be done with pre-configured custom Nautilus actions, but where Nautilus could use some help:

• Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.
• Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.
• Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching. See the support for this in Total Commander. Really easy.
• Install the GNOME GPG frontend by default. (is this already in Gutsy?)
• 
  
  Other stuff I'd like to see:
  
  
• Support for ext3 extended attributes and ACLs turned on by default.
• An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.
• LVM and RAID supported in the graphical installer. C'mon, guys, LOTS of people use RAID and LVM, especially now that most new computers have an integrated SATA RAID controller!

Re:Looking at the release schedule

[Anonymous Coward]

So why don't you try Fedora that has almost all the stuff you ask for and does most of the development anyway ?
SCNR

Re:Looking at the release schedule

[baadger]

Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.

Yeah, and their current permissions tab on the folder/file properties dialog which was introduced in 2.18 (I think), made the whole dialog a whole lot taller. It's pretty ugly.

Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.

This is a good idea, in fact I'd be happy if instead of saying

A file named "morgan.jpg" already exists. Do you want to replace it? it said

A file named "morgan.jpg" already exists, but the files are the same and then gave me some options.

Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching. I think it'd be great if there was a way to sequentially number files using rename (Windows Explorer has this) or to mass change extensions, but anything more complex should resort to the command line. Perhaps with some easier to use command line renaming tools, like "chgext" or something.

An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.

Try VirtualBox, it'll blow you away :-)

Re:Looking at the release schedule

[Zonk (troll)]

An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical. I'd rather not have QEMU the default VM. It significantly lacks in features, usability, and polish. Running Windows under it gives horrible performance (even with kqemu) and has random application crashes. Instead, I'd like to see more integration with VirtualBox, which, btw, is licensed under the GPL* and included in Gutsy. It's fully GUI oriented (qt, unfortunately), has drivers for Windows to do seamless mouse and better video performance, and it also supports a "seamless" mode where Windows apps appear on the regular desktop. It's very far ahead. Overall it works rather well and has good snapshot support. I now use it instead of VMWare Server for desktop virtualization (for server virtualization Xen completely rocks).

* It's also under a "personal use and evaluation license", but there isn't a difference between the GPL version and the PUEL. They just don't provide binaries for the GPL version. Ubuntu's package is the GPL version so that's not an issue.

Re:Looking at the release schedule

[Erpo]

An easy interface for installing QEMU and Windows like QEMU Launcher and QEMU Control polished and fully supported by Canonical.

I have never used QEMU in Windows, but virtualbox-ose is in "universe". Having played with FOSS virtualization software in the past, I can say that virtualbox-ose is an order of magnitude easier to work with and is almost as user-friendly as VMWare. In some ways, I actually like it better than VMWare.

Why don't they remove mono?

[Anonymous Coward]

The inclusion of that more than anything leaves ubuntu open to patent threats and is why I recommend xubuntu even to new users. Is anyone really going to miss the stupid sticky note or photo apps in the default install?

Re:Why don't they remove mono?

[morgan_greywolf]

The inclusion of that more than anything leaves ubuntu open to patent threats Says who? Microsoft actively supports the Mono and Moonlight developers. If they tried to sue over Mono or Moonlight, they'd have a lot of problems with standing to sue, due to failure to mitigate their own damages.

Re:Why don't they remove mono?

[eu_virtual]

What? Are you crazy? I love tomboy, and would miss it immensely.

Re:Why don't they remove mono?

[calebt3]

It also takes up an enormous amount of resources for a simple note-keeping app.

Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Given the way Linux users look at the Vista users, Haughty Heron might be more appropriate. Given the higher security of Linux, it could be Hardened Heron too. Given the cryptic command lines preferred by the unixy people, it could be Hackneyed Heron. Given the effect it is having on Redmond, it could be Haunting Heron.

Re:Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed

[The Assistant]

You forgot to mention Heroic Heron, for those looking for something that will be secure, capable, and consistent without being too bloaty, or overly questioning!

Re:Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed

[digitalaudiorock]

I'm holding off for either Surly, Tipsy, or Remorseful.

Re:Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what shell you're using, but mine isn't hackneyed at all.

Re:Hardy Heron? Better adjective needed

[Spazntwich]

Why not hapless, for all the good it will do? :o

Plans for Heron

[RandoX]

Bake at 325 for 45 minutes. Serve with Wine sauce.

Re:Plans for Heron

[Gricey]

I read it as 'hardy heroin'. Clearly rockstar-grade.

Cute name game begins...

[phorest]

In 3,2,1...

Re:Cute name game begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

Angy Akata
Busty Beaner
Crackhead Coon
Ditzy Darkie
Eerie Earfucker
Fisting Feminazi
Grubby Goombah
Horny Homo
Irate Inky
Jumping Jigabo
Kinky Kike
Lame Limey
Morose Moolie
Nappy Nigger
Obscene Oreo
Puny Popolo
Queefing Queer
Reeking Rafter
Sleazy Spic
Tipsy Tranny
Ugly UncleTom
Vvenomous Velcrohead
Wretched Whigger
Xenophobic Xena
Yellow Yenta
Zany Zebra (not the animal, think Archie Bunker...)

Hey - This Ubuntu Thing Sounds High Quality!

[Anonymous Coward]

The developers were also asking each other why Ubuntu hasn't seen wider adoption in the corporate world.

Someone replied 'Warty Warthog, Breezy Badger, Dapper Drake, Edgy Eft, Feisty Fawn and Gutsy Gibbon. Oh, and Hardy Heron.'

Then Incredulous Ibex, probably, and no doubt followed by Judgemental Jackal.

Experiences

[PinkyDead]

If I was asked what things annoyed me most about Feisty (Offtopic?!), I would have said two things: Printers and all that stuff you needed Automatix for. Everything else was pretty much fine.

Along comes Gutsy and... Printers, wow! - doesn't get easier, and Automatix? I've been using Gutsy for about 2 months now and I still haven't downloaded Automatix (Sorry guys, great tool - but don't need it anymore)

Gutsy brings Ubuntu to a level where it can really stand up against the likes of Windows (even coming out better in a lot of surveys than Vista). Compiz is incredible - and anyone I know with Windows stands open-mouthed when they see it.

Heron really needs to up the level way beyond what it is at now, and become the Windows Slayer. I have no idea how they would do that though.

Re:Experiences

[dave420]

It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does. That has to be achieved before it can topple Vista. It could happen, but I fear by the time it's achieved that, new software and hardware will have been released which it needs to support. It's a game of cat and mouse, and I don't see how it can win, which sucks.

Re:Experiences

[Ash-Fox]

If I was asked what things annoyed me most about Feisty (Offtopic?!), I would have said two things: Printers and all that stuff you needed Automatix for. Everything else was pretty much fine.

Why did you use automatix? Installing the ubuntu-restricted-extras package would of given you everything automatix installs.

Re:Experiences

[swillden]

It needs to run all the software people run on Windows, and support all the hardware Windows does.

No, it doesn't.

I needs to run all of the software that people need. With a few exceptions, Ubuntu provides equivalent software to what's available for Windows, typically at a much better price. And the exceptions tend to be fairly specialized, expensive software packages, not general desktop stuff.

As for hardware, at this point in time Gutsy has better hardware support than Vista does, overall. There are a couple areas where Vista is better (wireless), but there is lots of hardware around, particularly older stuff, that Vista does not support and Ubuntu does.

In any case, the real way to beat the hardware support issue is to get Ubuntu pre-installed, and put it on the manufacturer to make sure that all of the hardware in the box works. That's how it works for Windows. You also need support for add-ons, but these days those are all USB and danged near everything works (cue the anecdotes from people who've found something that doesn't) just fine on Ubuntu. In fact, it often works *better* than it does on Windows because Windows will often require you to install some driver software whereas with Linux you just plug it in and it starts working.

Re:Experiences

[dave420]

That's what I'm talking about - running the software people want to run. Currently I can't use Ubuntu as my desktop, as my work requires me to use software that simply doesn't exist on Ubuntu (Adobe suite, mainly). The same goes for at home, as I like to play games. As for hardware support, you have to install drivers on Ubuntu, as well. It's not magic :) It does have plenty of built-in drivers, but then so does Windows. So far I've had a much better experience with hardware support on Windows than on Ubuntu (or indeed any linux distro). I'm not knocking anything, I'm just saying it's not perfect, in fact there are a few show-stoppers that need to be addressed before Windows is toppled.

Re:Experiences

[kalakala]

Does Leopar apply to that? The last time i checked Max OS X didn't run all the sofware windows runs, and didn't support all the hardware windows support (even less than ubuntu!). So, why Mac OS X is ready to kill vista but ubuntu no?

Re:Experiences

[dave420]

It's not ready to kill Vista. Not even close. Check out the market share of Windows vs. OS X, and you'll see that. Hype != reality :)

Re:Experiences

[PitaBred]

I wish people would stop saying that Windows has great hardware compatibility. It doesn't! It works most of the time, but as far as hardware goes, there is NOTHING that is anywhere close to what Linux supports, triply so if you include non-x86 architectures.

Re:Experiences

[greenbird]

That's what I'm talking about - running the software people want to run. Currently I can't use Ubuntu as my desktop, as my work requires me to use software that simply doesn't exist on Ubuntu (Adobe suite, mainly).

Runs under wine and is as easy to install there as under Windows.

The same goes for at home, as I like to play games.

The only reason I keep a Windows box around at all. The only thing Windows is good for is playing games. But that's hardly a reason to suffer through all the added expense and security pains that come with Windows. I get almost all the software I need to use free with Linux. The few that I don't (e.g. Quicken, haven't had time to look into free alternatives and have years of data) I run under wine.

It does have plenty of built-in drivers, but then so does Windows. So far I've had a much better experience with hardware support on Windows than on Ubuntu (or indeed any linux distro).

You know every time I see something like this I'm mystified. My first reaction, because of my personal experiences, is that this is complete BS from some Microsoft astroturfer. I'm sitting here with 8 computers on a KVM. I have Ubuntu, RHEL and OpenSuse along with one Windows XP box for games. The Linux boxes range in age from 3 months to 6 years and yet they are all running fairly recent Linux distro's. The oldest is a OpenSuse 10.1 server and the newest is running Gutsy. The hardware runs the gambit from Pentium III to Pentium D to AMD Socket 939 to AMD Socket 462 to AMD AM2 to Intel Socket 775. All the systems are cobbled together from custom selected hardware. Some are retired Windows boxes. I've also got 2 laptops I've put Linux on. They've all got complex partitioning with RAID 1, encryption and LVM. Yet through all that it's been several years since I installed Linux and have had any problems, with the exception of wireless networking, with something not working "out of the box" or had an install take more then a few hours. Where are these people getting this hardware that Linux is choking on?

Now at the same time I bought my newest Windows box when my old Windows box crashed for the second time (it's now happily running Feisty). Reinstalling Windows on the old box was a nightmare of driver issues that took the better part of a day. I've had the current Windows box for maybe 6 or 8 months. It's used exclusively for games and some VPN connectivity testing. I've had to boot Ubuntu off a live CD twice to fix things that were causing it to hang while starting and now it's screwed up again such that it won't even boot to a point where I can tell what's causing the problem. The problem started on a reboot after installing Microsoft patches.

I've install Linux on dozens of boxes and Windows on well less than half as many yet problems with the far more complex Linux installs have been relatively rare and easily fixable while problems with windows installs have occurred in the majority of cases and have often been a nightmare to fix. I find it very hard to equate this experience with all the crap I read about how simple it is to install Windows and how everything "just works" "out of the box". From my experience that describes Linux far better than it does Windows.

Re:Experiences

[kaizokuace]

I needs to run all of the software that people need. With a few exceptions, Ubuntu provides equivalent software to what's available for Windows, typically at a much better price. And the exceptions tend to be fairly specialized, expensive software packages, not general desktop stuff.

Those specialized software is what needs to run on Ubuntu to kill windoes. As far as I am concerned, minus those specialized softwares (3dsmax, adobe CS3, motion builder, etc.) Ubuntu already kills windows. As long as I don't need to use those software Ubuntu does everything I need. But alas I do need to often use those softwares so I have to go back into windows for a while and get work done. What I think needs to happen is that Ubuntu needs some sort of security assurance for those software companies such as Autodesk or Adobe or even game companies that they can have their software installed and it will be hard or annoying to crack the software. In other words, to sell software we need a platform for closed source packages. I know everyone is anal about not having anything closed source on their nix systems but people selling software have to protect their code. It's just business. I am all for having an open platform on which to work from but if we wanna get any real software it actually costs money to make. Look at blender, I am sorry to say but it will never be up to par with the big expensive 3d softwares. They just don't have money and man power being poured into it. So until closed source software can make it to the nix desktop in full force it cant completely squash windows.

Re:Experiences

[swillden]

In other words, to sell software we need a platform for closed source packages. I know everyone is anal about not having anything closed source on their nix systems but people selling software have to protect their code.

Actually, hardly *anyone* is anal about not having closed source on their Linux systems. There's RMS and a handful of others, but that doesn't describe the Ubuntu user base. People will buy if the vendors sell -- I have a half-dozen apps on my Linux boxen that I paid good money for (Bibblepro, Mathematica, Moneydance, some GIMP plugins). It's just going to take time for the Linux market to grow to the point that more software houses will make software for it.

If you want to help, please make it clear to the makers of the packages you use that you'd buy a Linux version. If you *really* want to help, make it clear to them that you'd pay even more for a Linux version than you do for a Windows version.

Re:Experiences

[QuantumG]

The only thing Windows is good for is playing games. Heh, I think you need to buy yourself a console to experience a platform that is actually good for playing games.

Windows sucks for playing games.

Re:Experiences

[calebt3]

3dsmax Ever try Blender?
I know it's interface isn't user-friendly in the usual sense of the phrase, but it is a great app once you get the hang of it.

Re:Experiences

[kaizokuace]

I tried blender and was able to use the interface well but I just don't like it since I really don't do the brunt of animation actually in 3dsmax, I use motion builder since that essentially rigs your character to animate. I mean you still do a lot of work back in max but using max and maya then to motion builder is part of a production pipeline that works quite nicely. I also use max to render out when I am doing video and there is no vray for blender. Basically from my point of view, blender is on its way to becoming usable but its not there yet. Just needs a lot of little things.

Re:Experiences

[Anonymous Coward]

As for hardware, at this point in time Gutsy has better hardware support than Vista does, overall. There are a couple areas where Vista is better (wireless), but there is lots of hardware around, particularly older stuff, that Vista does not support and Ubuntu does. This isn't just the case with old hardware--none of the new Nvidia cards fully support Vista either. They do have DX-10 display drivers, but not CUDA drivers (CUDA is an API that lets you program Geforce 8 GPUs as vector processors, and is the main feature of this series).

Re:Experiences

[PinkyDead]

Some things were just.... simpler with Automatix.

I've used ubuntuguide.org since Breezy and always found it amazing. Then I found that Automatix did all the bits I needed without all that awful 'reading' stuff. Plugins for firefox and multimedia codecs etc etc were always a bitch.

As an aside - RealPlayer is still a PITA to install. Tried it last night - couldn't get it to work without installing real player from bin version, the mplayer-plugin, copying the URL, running realplayer from the commandline and pasting the location. That need to get it's shit sorted. (And no I didn't install helix).

Re:Experiences

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.debian-multimedia.org/pool/main/r/realplay/realplayer_10.0.9-0.1_i386.deb

Re:Experiences

[Ash-Fox]

Uhm, the official way to install realplayer is to use Canonical's official repositories and install 'realplayer':

deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu feisty-commercial main

can we just use numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this comes from the great tradition of Debian "Woody".

But really, lets just use numbers.
Or at least no more stupid adjectives.

Apple didn't use Lanky|Leggy Leepard for reason.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[kazade84]

The numbering system in Ubuntu is based on year, month of release (e.g 7.10) Obviously in development no-one knows if they are going to meet the deadline or miss it like they did with 6.06. This is the reason that the code names are used.

To make it clearer, development has just started on Hardy Heron, or what is likely to be known as 8.04. To start development the Ubuntu devs create repositories named after the codename (e.g. Hardy). If they used 8.04 and the deadline was missed and the release was actually 8.06 they wouldn't easily be able to change the repositories and other stuff.

The names are just code names, after release the number is the identifier that is used by Ubuntu (see if you can see 'Gutsy' on the Ubuntu.com front page, it's not there) its just usually the the code-names stick it peoples' minds.

So to sum up, the code names are there for a perfectly logical reason, and the animal thing is just a consistent naming theme that was chosen.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they used 8.04 and the deadline was missed and the release was actually 8.06 they wouldn't easily be able to change the repositories and other stuff."

So you are saying renames and sym links are difficult?

If they are difficult, they could be avoided by using season instead of month, or if there is really only two releases per year, Use A and B, or r1, r2.

So instead of the funny animals, use 8r1, 8r2. So the internal name would be 8r1, and the version would be 8.04, ....

We should avoid the developers clever names. Otherwise, we get GIMP, Lesstif, and IceWeasel.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know? It is quite possible Apple referred to Leopard as Leggy Leopard or just Leggy while it was in development, the difference being is that Apple does its development behind closed doors so you don't hear about their code names, where Ubuntu does its development openly with the community so you will hear its code names.

If you don't like the code names use the version number. Like OS X, where you can call the latest version either Leopard or 10.5, you can call the latest version of Ubuntu, Gutsy Gibbon or 7.10.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[swillden]

So instead of the funny animals, use 8r1, 8r2. So the internal name would be 8r1, and the version would be 8.04, ....

Bah. I like the funny animal names, and so do lots of other people. If that wasn't the case, people would use the version numbers when talking about Ubuntu releases. But they don't, because the code names are cool.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[InlawBiker]

Using the nicknames very effective in "demystifying" the whole experience.

I've been using Linux and Unix for a long time. One thing it's never been is friendly to outsiders. Ubuntu excels at making the Linux experience seem simple and clean. The documentation, installation, desktop, even the web site is simplified and unified. Attaching an easy to remember nickname to the release is part of that plan. It humanizes the product. Techies may be chapped over it, but realize the cute nickname isn't for you. It's for people who are scared of the word "kernel."

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[Matt Perry]

The names are just code names, after release the number is the identifier that is used by Ubuntu (see if you can see 'Gutsy' on the Ubuntu.com front page, it's not there) its just usually the the code-names stick it peoples' minds.

Although you might not be able to see "gutsy" on the Ubuntu home page, the code names are used almost exclusively by people in the support forums.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[PitaBred]

Nope, but they did use Cheeze Whiz as a code name for AppleScript, which is infinitely better than a Hardy Heron, right? All software development houses use code names. They use them for a reason, so ambiguities in discussion are removed. Not all of them can be called "SuperDangerMegaCat", or something "manly" and intimidating. Deal with it.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[mattpalmer1086]

Excellent point. Like many techies, I used to underestimate marketing, sneering a bit at it I guess. Then I had the privilege of working with a very astute marketing person on product development, and she totally changed my opinion. If it's going to work for many people, it has to work on many levels - technical is important, but nowhere near the only one.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

The names are just code names, after release the number is the identifier that is used by Ubuntu (see if you can see 'Gutsy' on the Ubuntu.com front page, it's not there) its just usually the the code-names stick it peoples' minds. So to sum up, the code names are there for a perfectly logical reason, and the animal thing is just a consistent naming theme that was chosen.

That is a perfectly logical reason. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people, "Hardy Heron" does not "stick in peoples' minds".

Even more unfortunately, "hairy hard-on" *does*. Everybody's going to be calling this the Hairy Hard-on release simply because nobody can remember what it really is supposed to be. The Ubuntu guys really need to take "Branding 101: Coming up with names that don't totally suck ass" again.

Re:can we just use numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Attaching an easy to remember nickname..."

You mean like the harry one at the root of this thread?

Yes, marketing works. I'm just not convince that marketing experts are coming up with these names.

Hm

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize that the logo changed to that red swirly thing.

Agenda item

[Anonymous Coward]

Number one on the agenda: Find a way to "relieve" the naming committee of their distro naming duties.

"Gutsy Gibbon"? "Hardy Heron"?

I can barely tolerate "Tiger" and "Leopard."

Re:Agenda item

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because having anything resembling personality or character just gives your monotony-riddled apple-worshiping mind a big headache.

Re:Agenda item

[PitaBred]

Is Vista better? Of course not! Who needs "names" to tell things apart? Tell ya what, I'll give you a great deal on Ubuntu 7.10, with a numbered version just like God intended!

Re:Agenda item

[Khaed]

The distro is not named "Gutsy Gibbon" or "Hardy Heron." The Distro is Ubuntu. the versions are Gutsy Gibbon and Hardy Heron.

Are they planning to fix the most appaling issue?

[ceeam]

Are they gonna start regarding KDE as first-class citizen? 'Cos Gutsy Kubuntu is a joke. And GNOME IMO is totally evil.

You know, after using Kubuntu for quite a long time and recently having played with PCLinuxOS I think I understand now why it has moved to #1 at Distrowatch. It rightly deserves the spot.

"F"-release...

[DonCarlos]

Well, I can't wait to see what the "F" release be named after ;)

Re:"F"-release...

[Anonymous Coward]

Already been named. "Feisty Fawn"

robustness?

[matang]

i hope "robustness" translates to "apps start working more consistently". the first install i blamed on my penchant for playing around with installs/configs too much, but the next two i did i left basically "as-is" and i have to restart the machines at least once a day for various issues: evolution stops showing incoming mail, gdesklets has never worked correctly on my x64 system, wireless card on my laptop periodically stops responding, and a host of other issues that usually start as an app not functioning then cascades into chaos. bsod vs wsonsuiaw (white screen of nothing showing up in a window). just sayin'.

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE sucks. If you want to make a distro a "full class citizen" pick Xubuntu. KDE is just plain ugly and too "gadgety". For a power user a graphical environment is there to facilitate the quick launch of programs and other very routine tasks.. for anything else there's the command line.

And, why don't you just use PCLinuxOS? Oh, and Distrowatch's metrics (or lack thereof) are fucked anyway.

Screw That - We Need Hasslefree Wifi With WPA PSK

[theshowmecanuck]

It needs to allow the use of any mainstream Wifi chip set. Otherwise it will remain on the fringe. Hard wired connections to the internet are going away and people don't want to learn about chipsets and pull open packages at the store to see if the 'right one' is on the wireless card they want to buy. And if they can't figure out how to make native drivers work, they need to add a fool proof (read drag and drop easy) way of adding the windows drivers to the system. Without having to manually edit config files.

I would also suggest it allow you to install dual boot on a system with sata raid and running windows. I want it to recognize the raid and install on the partition I set up without screwing around. (Hey propeller head, I don't want to hear about how windows sata raid is fake... I don't give a shit... on windows I have a raid array and want to install Linux. If you don't want me or anyone with 'fake' raid to try out Linux, keep up the current attitude and stay in the fringe.)

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[ceeam]

You don't understand, do you? KDE is first and foremost the API to develop consistent desktop apps. KDE4 will also include unified multimedia system and that would be the only thing rivaling Windows + DirectX (and of course, surpassing it). Comparing KDE to your launcher of choice is like comparing MS Windows to TotalCommander or something. And, KDE is not ugly in my opinion at all (unless you have a poor choice of widget theme and window decoration), I think it's really, really nice with Polyester + Crystal, for example.

Kubuntu too?

[joeslugg]

In TFA and in another posted summary that had more details, the focus (expectedly) is on standard Ubuntu. I'm just wondering if anyone knows if and how much focus and time is put on improving Kubuntu as well? I read things about improvements to GUI tools and apps, and it's always Gnome/GTK related. Are the KDE/Qt counterparts getting attention as well?

(Please, no flame wars on Gnome v. KDE - it's just my preference and you have yours.)

Hmm, I should go try their forums too...

code names? apt-get ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than a code name. The apt-get repositories require it for use.

deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ gutsy main

Re:code names? apt-get ?

[kazade84]

Yes, I mentioned that and explained why. The repositories are the only place (that I know of) where they use the name.

OS X is a bad model

[m2943]

Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. /Application directory

Software installation and uninstallation is a mess on OS X: some applications are drag-and-drop, others use an installer. There is no standard way of uninstalling software, no way of figuring out what modifications a piece of software made, and no way of tracking dependencies.

/Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory

OS X applications don't store preferences in /Preferences, they store it in a messy hierarchy in ~/Library. Just think of .something as ~/Library/.../something.

An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout

I think that's just what you're used to. Personally, I don't particularly like OS X layout, and XCode's GUI builder is a nightmare.

Ubuntu is imitating some of the good parts of OS X: simplicity, nice visual effects, etc. But Ubuntu's underlying technologies--installers, runtimes, libraries, window management, etc.--are superior to Apple's.

please get your facts straight

[m2943]

Is anyone really going to miss the stupid sticky note or photo apps in the default install?

In fact, in the default install, there are no Microsoft libraries installed with Mono. All that is installed is ECMA C# and the various Gnome-C# bindings. Those are no more susceptible to patent threats from Microsoft or anybody else than gcc, Gnome, or KDE.

And, yes, people use f-spot and Banshee.

The inclusion of that more than anything leaves ubuntu open to patent threats

Why don't they remove C, C++, Objective-C, Firefox, Ext3, Java, Compiz, and the entire Linux kernel while they are at it? All of those are potentially threatened by patents, from Microsoft, Apple, Sun, and lots of other companies.

Let them fix hdparm !

[ericdujardin]

If only they could fix the hdparm issue... Since 7.04 IDE disks are mounted through scsi emulation, hence they cannot be tuned any longer... I just hope they can fix that for a "stable" release.

Re:Let them fix hdparm !

[Fallingcow]

Wow, that would explain why everything's an "sda" or "sdb" instead of "hda" and "hdb". I'd been wondering, but it didn't really affect me so I hadn't been motivated to check up on it.

Any idea why they did that?

Re:Let them fix hdparm !

[xenocide2]

Because the kernel did that. The old drivers are depricated. If you think this sucks, try telling of Linus Torvalds.

Compiz Needs Test Results

[Doc Ruby]

Compiz doesn't work on every graphics card (or with every driver). The Compiz-Fusion wiki needs reports of which HW/drivers work or don't. That list, in turn, will help recruit many more people to test and develop the feature.

Re:Compiz Needs Test Results

[Quince alPillan]

And they need to not install it or else disable it by default on those that it doesn't work on. My computers don't have video cards that it works on and when it was enabled in my upgrade, XGL kept crashing until I uninstalled XGL.

FYI, I have three video cards that are SIS derivatives and none of them support 3D with XGL and Compiz.

Hardy Heron?

[nurb432]

What happened to 'horny hedgehog' ?

Re:Hardy Heron?

[gangien]

Ron Jeremy objected to being related to a Linux distro

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[DFJA]

I seem to remember that Mark Shuttleworth chose Gnome not because of any technical reasons, but because they have a rigid 6 month release schedule which makes planning for commercial support much easier. I personally would love to see KDE switch to a similar release model (at least once KDE4 is officially released) then get the same level of attention from Canonical/Ubuntu. This would be much better for both KDE and for Ubuntu, in my opinion.

Are they gonna start regarding KDE as first-class citizen? 'Cos Gutsy Kubuntu is a joke. And GNOME IMO is totally evil.

Couldn't agree more. I have tried very hard, and on a number of occasions over the last 4 years, to like Gnome but in the end it's just too much hard work and I revert back to KDE which seems just so much better for what *I* want. OK this is my personal opinion and I don't want to start a flame war, but KDE in gutsy seems to be lacking the polish which is very evident in Gnome. Compiz works fine in KDE but requires a bit of manual fettling, for example. Even the behaviour of the update tool seems a lot slicker in Gnome - there's no reason this couldn't be done in KDE, it's just a matter of polish. If I had the time and experience I'd help out with polishing KDE, as it stands I can only really submit bug reports and hope that they get some attention who does have the time and experience.

In my opinion...

[Derek Loev]

Right now the biggest fault with Ubuntu is Gnome. I've been using Ubuntu since the day Gutsy was released (previously a Gentoo user) and I love so many aspects of it. I even like the simplicity of Gnome compared to KDE. But, why does Gnome lack so many customization options. I mean, seriously, with so many developers it cannot be very difficult to create some small programs that modify GConf. That should be Gnome's priority and because Ubuntu relies so heavily on Gnome it needs to be one of Ubuntu's priorities to get the ball rolling.
I want to add different folders to my Places bar at the top of the screen, I want to add different buttons (like the Home folder, seriously, it was difficult) to the desktop. I want to be able to edit my Network servers in the Places bar.
I've figured out how to do all of this with gconf but there is absolutely no reason for me to not to be able to go into my System tab and figure out how to do this with a nice, pretty graphical program.
This post may be a little off topic and I know that Ubuntu comes in different flavors (Kubuntu, Xubuntu) but when the majority of users are going to be using Gnome with Ubuntu, then Gnome needs to improve to the point where it does not detract from the Ubuntu experience.

Re:In my opinion...

[Anonymous Coward]

Add folders to places menu:
      Add them to Nautilus sidebar/bookmarks or file selector sidebar.

Add buttons to the desktop:
      Click and drag icons to it (for example, Home icon from Places menu)

Add network servers to places menu:
      Do a "Connect to server" on the places menu

Re:In my opinion...

[Derek Loev]

I said Edit servers, not add them. Also, if I try to drag the Home folder to the Desktop it gives an error (something about a folder can't be inside itself).

Re:In my opinion...

[notthe9]

This is an interesting read. It explains a lot about the philosophy behind things. Sometimes it looks nicer on paper (screen?) then when you just need to get something done.

Re:In my opinion...

[Fallingcow]

Right click on desktop->create launcher->select "location", name it and browse to your home folder, hit OK

Does that not do it?

In trying methods for accomplishing this, I did discover that I can't right-click+drag in Ubuntu. Never noticed that before. Anyone know if that's a hard-coded Gnome thing, or whether I can change that behavior somehow?

Re:In my opinion...

[eldacan]

tried middle-click drag?

Re:Screw That - We Need Hasslefree Wifi With WPA P

[Ultra64]

Are you looking for this?

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FakeRaidHowto

Re:Ubuntu... kinda perv?

[jimmy_dean]

People have been calling it "Ubunghole" for seemingly forever, and it didn't bother me. But after hearing about "Gutsy Gibbon"... it just seems like Ubuntu is one big joke, or else into some really twisted stuff.

"Gutsy Gibbon" sounds like one of those bizarre sex acts they talk about on South Park, like the Hot Carl or Dirty Sanchez or whatever. Now they have "Hardon Heron", which sounds really bizarre as well.

Frankly, I give up. I'm not using a distro which has people thinking I'm some kind of freak. It's bad enough that using teh lunix already makes people think you are a closet serial killer. Ok, I don't know who you hang around with, but nobody that I do thinks of me as a serial killer or freak. Plus, you could refer to each release by their more formal names, Ubuntu 7.10. The other names are akin to code names (to the best of my knowledge). And finally, how insecure are you that you won't use an amazing and free product because people think you're a freak based on the name alone? I mean wow, get a life!

Mod parent funny

[ericrost]

it made ME laugh anyway :)

32-bit c++ development files?

[icydog]

Maybe they will finally decide to package the 32-bit standard c++ headers for 64-bit machines? Other distros don't mess this up, but Gutsy still doesn't have this. I got modded flamebait when I brought this up before because somebody pointed out Gutsy was beta, but what's the excuse now?

$ apt-cache search lib32stdc
lib32stdc++6 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (32 bit Version)
lib32stdc++6-4.1-dbg - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (debugging files)
lib32stdc++6-4.2-dbg - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (debugging files)

Notice how there's no -dev package.

WARNING *OPINIONS* PRESENT

[ericrost]

This is why I love Linux. Gnome fills my needs perfectly, but I'm not every user. KDE fills your needs perfectly, but again, you're not every user. Rather than getting into ugly pissing matches about who'd desktop is better, we can coexist and each have something we like.

I think the reasons for KUbuntu being less polished are pretty easily guessable. Ubuntu tends to be for newer Linux users (although I fall into the PowerUser/wannabe dev category). Gnome is a good DE for the underlying philosophy of Ubuntu (usable out of the box with little to no configuration, but able to be tweaked to your level). KDE tends to be for those that just need things exactly their way. KDE is not the default, so it falls to the downstream Kubuntu dev team to put the polish into the releases, and their a minority. Their working hard (I would imagine) on finishing KDE4's integration.

Anyhow, less of a point, more of a "this is why Linux gets my vote" post.

Lots of GNOME problems already fixed in Kubuntu

[KWTm]

I've been reading the Ubuntu forums on feature requests etc. As a Kubuntu user, I feel like I'm irrelevant or left out.

There are lively discussions going on in Ubuntu about what can be improved. As I read through the list, I think, "Wait, that's already fixed in Kubuntu. Don't these peopel talk to each other?" To be sure, a lot of the time it's because the KDE system is more tightly integrated than GNOME, but sometimes it's just that the KDE app already has the feature and the GNOME app doesn't. (Didn't I read a Slashdot comment some months earlier wishing for a terminal app that would automatically reflow lines when the window was resized? I've been using one for the past few years.)

For example, this comment in this very thread says:

- Recursive file permissions and ownership changes: Nautilus' interface for this clunky and doesn't work right.
- Directory compare & synchronization: sync two folders by content. Yes, I know there are tools for this, but most of them are too difficult for the average user to setup and use.
- Easy interface for massive file renames by pattern matching. See the support for this in Total Commander. Really easy.

All of these are irrelevant in Kubuntu, which can do recursive renaming in Konqueror, easy one-click synchronize in Krusader (and Konqueror, too, I think), and the awesome file renamer Krename; they were already available in the v6.06 Long-Term Support version.

On the other hand, Kubuntu has some issues that are completely ignored in mainstream GNOME Ubuntu. There's all this hoopla about Meta Tracker being installed --do I understand correctly that it doesn't work with KDE? Instead, Kubuntu has to use Strigi. And there has been a problem with Kopete, which is generally ignored by GNOME users.

Also, the timing of Ubuntu releases like Gutsy are based on GNOME releases, but the newest version of KDE (3.5.8) came out half a month after Gutsy. But that's not what I'm drooling over; I'm waiting for KDE 4 to come out in December. I don't know how long it will take for that to make it into Gutsy, but it should make Kubuntu Hardy Heron a wicked, wicked upgrade. And --imagine, when onlookers say, "Wow, I wish I had that software!" then you can reply, "Ok, here's how to run KDE 4 on Windows." One more pathway to FOSS for those people too insecure to let go of their Windows boxen.

So, I'm starting to see Kubuntu being marginalized, which is a pity, since GNOME and KDE have so much to learn from each other.

Btw, lest you think I'm trying to feed the GNOME/KDE wars here, the #1 reason I use KDE over GNOME is that key bindings are configurable in KDE. <rant>When will GNOME get this? Why do I have to invoke the Paste function with Ctrl-V instead of Alt-Shift-F3 (or any other arbitrary key that I want)? When will Mozilla realize that not everyone wants to go to their home page with Alt-Home? (Yes, I know there's A Firefox Extension available, but that doesn't apply for GnuCash or Grip or any number of GNOME programs.) By contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major KDE program that *doesn't* let you assign two possible keybindings to each command. As I geek, keyboard controls mean everything to me, and until GNOME has this feature, I'll be running KDE. </rant>

Re:Lots of GNOME problems already fixed in Kubuntu

[PitaBred]

Semi-OT: The only problem I've run into with Kopete was that it'd segfault when connecting to MSN, but they have that fixed with the latest patches. Might try that out if you're still having problems.

Re:Lots of GNOME problems already fixed in Kubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

the #1 reason I use KDE over GNOME is that key bindings are configurable in KDE. When will GNOME get this? I'm pretty sure you can do this for gtk apps. The instructions to enable this taken ftom Rox-filer

User-definable shortcuts are disabled by default in Gtk2, and you have not enabled them. You can turn this feature on by:

1) using an XSettings manager, such as ROX-Session or gnome-settings-daemon, or

2) adding this line to ~/.gtkrc-2.0:
        gtk-can-change-accels = 1
        (this only works if NOT using XSETTINGS) Dunno why it is disabled by default for Gtk2, but I prefer KDE anyway, so it doesn't bother me.

Re:Screw That - We Need Hasslefree Wifi With WPA P

[theshowmecanuck]

not drag and drop easy... how do you install a package if it is running from the cd? I've used Linux for almost 10 years. But I am tired of having to work like hell to get stuff that should just work to work. I want to use the tool not build it. At one time Linux wasn't just about using a tool (the OS) it was about building and playing with the tool. I'm not into that part anymore. If I want to program a business app on a computer, I want to program the business app. Programming today is starting to be too much about configuring a million different frameworks to work together... so much so it is a pain in the ass. I don't need to worry about having to continually build and configure my OS too. :)

Feature Request:

[crhylove]

I'd like to once again submit the #1 most popular feature request for Ubuntu: Can we please have some color that's not heinous brown? The latest did a good job of obscuring it with 3d effects, and nice textures, but it's still god awful orange on brown. It's like TWO fancy shiny colors of 3d poop. So much better than Vista!

To be fair, I'm a fan of Ubuntu. But the brown has GOT TO GO.

Re:Feature Request:

[Fallingcow]

The wallpaper should not be the only source of brown in a theme that is intended to be brown, since the wallpaper is expected to be changed.

Wow, you just triggered me to realize what bothers me so much about the current default theme, which is something I'd thought about but hadn't quite pinned down:

It just looks OK with the default background, not great. But it looks like ASS with practically any other background one might choose.

Re:Feature Request:

[compro01]

then just change it.

right-click on desktop, hit "change background", change the wallpaper to something else of your preference, go to theme tab, change the color to something else you like.

i personally hate the default brown too, but it's trivial to change it yourself 10 seconds after booting up for the first time.

Re:Feature Request:

[xenocide2]

Much in the same way folding chairs don't fit in at a haute cuisine restaurant, you have to pay attention to how the whole comes together. Maybe you should file a bug asking for the Human Theme to accept color controls. It's part of GNOME theming, but not supported by the current Human theme.

zippy zebra

[Anonymous Coward]

What comes after "Yakky Yak" and "Zippy Zebra"?

Will version 27 be the greek Alfy Alpha or the hebrew Alphabety Aleph?

Will version 28 be Betty Beta or Bethany Beth?

Grammy Gamma, or Gimpy Gimmel?

These are the kinds of questions that only slashdot can ask!

Re:Ubuntu... kinda perv?

[Fast Thick Pants]

Ubuntu's official names are the Year.Month "version" numbers. The adjective-animal thing is a project codename, and it's actually useful as a pre-release codename because the ship date may slip, as it did with last year's LTS release "Dapper Drake" which was originally slated to be 6.04 but eventually shipped as 6.06.

Post-release, the cute names are useless -- who feels like keeping track of them anyway? The fact that they are in sorta-but-not-really alphabetical order doesn't help either.

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[HeavyAl]

I'm going to say in advance that my reasons for not liking KDE are shallow. No, really, I think technically KDE has a lot of merit, but what is up with having the 'K' naming convention? And why does every logo you see of KDE have those stupid gears? And then there is the whole 'adapting' of the name to the distro - I mean 'Kubuntu'?!? You've just taken a completely logical name for a Linux distro and butchered it by making it a god-awful windows-95-blue adding a friggin K and slapping more of those damned gears all over it!!!

Good grief people! Won't anyone think of the CHILDREN? Those poor little dudes are going to think you need a HAND CRANK to run Linux!

RPM vs Apt from a long time SuSE user

[spineboy]

I've been using linux since 99, and have been using SuSE since 2001. I've played with at least 6-7 other distros as well from Mandrake to Gentoo. I've stuck with SuSe for a long time just because of the number of users and support.
However, I just recently switched to Ubuntu, and have to say that the Apt system is much better than the RPM, at least for a "power user".
    I've gotten into RPM-dependency hell more often than I'd liked in the past with SuSE when installing something, and so far, haven't had any sort of problem with Ubuntu. I agree, it may only be that Ubuntu is very strict about their software library, and that's all there is to it, but as a user the ease of use and successful installs clearly make Ubuntu a superior format.

Debian Swirl

[Angelique.Tarride]

So why do we have a Debian Swirl for a Ubuntu news clip? I mean... enough already, it's not like they don't have their own logo.

Re:Debian Swirl

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and what's with that Legionnaires helmet on security stories? It's not like anyone uses Roman armour for security anymore. Well not much anyway.

Re:Ubuntu... kinda perv?

[Teun]

When you feel these names are causing ridicule and are even worried about being associated with Linux you must be one hell of a sick puppie.

You better spend some money on mental health care soon...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Keybindings terrible

[fozzmeister]

OK, so you can't bind lock screen to [WIN]-L, it shows but doesn't work. To be fair (or unfair) that's been like that for the last _2_versions_.

If you enable compiz you get [win]-[tab] which looks nice and is an alternative to [alt]-[tab]. [win]-[shift]-[tab] works too, but compiz breaks [alt]-[shift]-[tab] which I find frankly unbelievable.

Re:Keybindings terrible

[EsbenMoseHansen]

OK, so you can't bind lock screen to [WIN]-L, it shows but doesn't work. To be fair (or unfair) that's been like that for the last _2_versions_. Hmm.. that is the binding I use (each day). Though on Kubuntu, so it might be a Gnome thing.

Re:Keybindings terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

the alt+shift+tab thing is a huge problem. you can go into gconf-editor and set it there which seems to work (which is also how i have to get the hot corner for show dwlesktop working) but it doesn't seem to persist between logins

to ne be fair i wouldn't say this is the fault of compiz. as fiesty with trevinos repository worked just fine

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[PitaBred]

Well, to be fair, they didn't just make up the word, or if they did, it's a happy coincidence that it is a word in a couple other languages.

Re:Are they planning to fix the most appaling issu

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And GNOME IMO is totally evil.

Um, why?

Irritating and meaningless code names

[swordgeek]

OK, there was a time when code names were used by developers internally within a company so that the outside world wouldn't learn too much about the upcoming products. Somehow we got to the point where referring to products by their code name was a measure of hipness.

Now it seems the Linux world has to follow suit with this ridiculous and uninformative trend. Gutsy Gibbon? Hardy Heron??! Why not puking pigeon? Vomiting Vole? For that matter, Hurling Human seems appropriate, because that's what I feel like doing from all of this cutesy misnaming.

What's wrong with version numbers? Why can't we refer to products by their numbers, like (for instance) Ubuntu themselves do? It's pretty intuitive that 7.10>7.0>6.0 and so forth--we learned this notation when we were children and we've used it as part of the computer world for decades.

Just a small rant.

Re:Ubuntu... kinda perv?

[fosterNutrition]

Oh come on people, I don't know if the OP was meant as a troll or not, but it is the first post I have seen in a long time that made me (actually) laugh out loud. Fine if you disagree, but that's a +5 Funny in my book.

As a side note, I run Ubuntu on two machines here, and love it - but only thanks to the fantastic Debian legacy: the packaging system.

Incidentally, one of the boxes ran Debian before, and will soon run freeBSD. But for my personal (laptop) use, Ubuntu it is.

Wha a fucked up name

[anand78]

C'mon Ubuntu team, why do you have to come up with weird names.

Re:Ubuntu... kinda perv?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard "Hairy Hardon" but this is the first time I heard "Ubunghole."

Are you 12?

Hardy Heron?

[blind biker]

Wasn't it supposed to be called Horny Horses?

interesting icon candidate

[brentonboy]

The Debian swirl doesn't hack it any more.

Did anyone else immediately do a google search after reading this and find the first result rather... interesting?

Marketing works

[egork]

I thing many would be interested in hearing your story about marketing. Could you tell us more?
I work in Marketing myself being a bit of a techie, so I know exactly what you mean, but hearing a story is always fun.

Re:Marketing works

[mattpalmer1086]

I'm not sure there's much of a story there, but I'm happy to give some more info. Quite a few years ago, I was the technical architect on the team defining the core product of a software startup.

The head of Marketing not only understood our target market, but knew how to engage with it. We had a solution to a problem, but most people weren't aware the problem existed. She got everyone talking about it, from analysts talking about a new market sector, to the CEOs and CTOs of our target customers. On more than one occasion, we had almost all of them together at events we arranged. I have no idea how she did that - we were an unknown tiny company - but she did it.

She also played a key role in defining what technology we used. We wanted to use an object oriented database, as it provided a much better technical fit to what we were doing. She argued, correctly, that our market expected their data to be transparent to them - it's their data - so we needed to use a relational database, and build an O-R mapping layer (there's lots of them about now, but there wasn't back then). She forced us to find clear ways of explaining what we doing, which was very helpful. Her only possible failure of imagination was to use our development codeword for the product as the actual product name. It was kind of boring - just a letter and a number. I guess it works for Amazon :)

I know some engineers saw me as selling out to marketing, as I wasn't always making decisions for purely technical reasons anymore. There's a completely healthy engineers suspicion to these things, but sometimes it becomes a bit irrational - that no other reason than technical can ever be taken into consideration. Anyway, fast-forward, the dot-com crashed, the company merged with another, development went to Karachi. It was fun, and I gained some new perspectives. As far as I know the product is still being used in a few places, but I don't see it being actively developed anymore. There are other companies out there now doing what we were doing, doing it better, but still using the language she defined.

GoboLinux - More Mac-like than OS X

[Burz]

Interesting articles:

http://www.packtpub.com/article/GoboLinux-An-Interview-with-Lucas-Villa
http://www.linux.com/articles/60133

Agreed.

[newr00tic]

fuckin' Aye, Quantie. ;)

us employed people use

[Anonymous Coward]

/Users/whatelsethanOSX/Library/

Desktop Effects / Restricted Drivers bug

[BillX]

Will they fix the Desktop Effects / Restricted Driver white-screen perma-fuck?

Yum vs Apt ? or .deb vs .rpm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yum is equivalent to apt-get in RPM land. (actually apt-get for rpm is also available, but not really maintained.)

Of course were using Suse, which last I looked is missing Yum, or apt-get.
This is the fault of Suse, not RPM packages.

Using dpkg -i directly will cause the same dependency problems as using rpm -i directly.

Re:Yum vs Apt ? or .deb vs .rpm

[bigtomrodney]

Well SUSE has had YaST to manage repository-based installation. They have had rug and zypper as command line equivalents in the last few releases though many prefer to use the third party Smart Package Manager. So from that point of view you would think that all is solved as deb and rpm have roughly the same infrastructure.

But in actuality while most people that complain about rpm dependency-hell are people who insisted on installing rpm files individually there is still a noticeable difference in the quality of the maintainence of repositories between rpm and deb based distros. Even with the great Packman repositories there I have had YaST tie itself in knots more times than I care to remember. I have had to click the dreaded 'Ignore missing dependency just here' enough times to seriously limit the usefulness of the repos. And with 10.3 even that has become more difficult to do without the consolation of fully featured and self-resolving repositories.

I'm not saying Debian based distros are perfect and I am certainl not going to even dignify the rpm vs deb flamewar but I can say in all honesty that the standard of repository for Debian and Ubuntu is a lot better than for any of the rpm distros I have used. And that's from someone who ran Mandrake from 8.2 to LE2005 and then SUSE from 9.3 to 10.3. But I'll be using Ubuntu or Debian for the foreseeable future.

Re:Yum vs Apt ? or .deb vs .rpm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, Ubuntu is better than SUSE.
Yast sucks. OpenSUSE has yum, but no still no yum repositories.

I use Ubuntu and Fedora. One uses apt-get/deb. The other uses yum/rpm.
They are functionally the same.
I like .src.rpm/.rpm packaging better than .orig.tar.gz,.diff,.desc/.deb for packaging, but would prefer another choice that this. You know, the grail of packaging that everyone adopts...

I used Mandrake years ago, back when it was barely a Redhat fork, but I don't think I would have a reason to try it again.

I could see having to look at OpenSuse again (since it is Novell). I hope they use yum or apt-get by then.

Slow Experiences

[geekyMD]

How about crappy internet support?
Running the Gutsy LiveCD I couldn't download faster than 4kb/sec off of a connection I am regularly able to get over 1200kb/sec with XP. Mind you this isn't wireless, this is a wired connection. I couldn't manage to update the system in less than 4 hours, so I gave up.
Appearantly this is a "quirk" in IPv6 implementation that firefox and everything else screw up, so the Ubuntu folks don't feel that its their problem, rather it is a problem with virtually every piece of software that runs on Gutsy. At least that's my understanding. Either way, I couln't get it working at all.

Ready for prime time my fanny.

Use XFCE instead

[Colin Smith]

I've recently switched from Gnome to Xfce in Ubuntu...

The pager/session management works better, it remembers the position of windows when you logout and when you log back in, it puts them back where they were.

The Window List works well. It handles large numbers of windows with ease, where the Gnome window list would be freaking out.

It's fast, and light.