Hardy Heron Alpha 4 Released

LarryBoy writes "Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) alpha 4 was released Friday and Ars Technica has a look at what's new in the latest builds of Hardy Heron. 'Although many of the significant architectural features like PulseAudio and GIO are still in transitional stages and aren't fully functional yet, Ubuntu 8.04 alpha 4 is still very impressive. I'm a big fan of D-Bus and I'm very pleased to see it being adopted throughout the entire desktop stack in core components.'"

Comments

ndiswrapper

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Still doesn't work properly.
But 8.04, it's bloody nice! I downloaded it this afternoon for a play :-) Ooops, p2p, must be illegal. Its great man!

Re:ndiswrapper

[2sheds]

You mean PolicyKit? Surely granular user privileges are a good thing in this day and age? It's a D-Bus interface anyway, hardly super weird.

Re:ndiswrapper

[cheater512]

There must be very very few things that you need ndiswrapper for these days.

To be honest, I've never needed to touch it at all.
I've been pretty lucky with wifi support (every wifi device I've bought has Linux drivers even though I didnt check before hand) but other hardware also works fine.

I consider ndiswrapper a really dirty hack which is required in certain circumstances.
I would never tell anyone to use it.

Re: ndiswrapper

[Dolda2000]

I may well agree that the effects of PolicyKit are a good thing, but I have to say that I am not immediately convinced of its D-Bus implementation. D-Bus may be fun and all, but I'm getting the feeling that Linux distributions are increasingly turning into D-Bus distributions. IIRC, Red Hat has even announced a project for a D-Bus based init replacement. I liked D-Bus when it was all about the desktop, and getting the occasional system level abstraction like HAL, BlueZ or possibly NetworkManager to speak to desktop programs, but now I feel it is beginning to replace core POSIX policies.

Not that a D-Bus operating system couldn't possibly be good, but all I really want, quite honestly, is a good Unix system. More D-Bus at the system level is, for me, rather an argument to switch my laptop over to Debian instead, and then if Debian becomes GNU/DBus as well, I guess I'll switch to FreeBSD instead.

Re: ndiswrapper

[jd]

POSIX simply doesn't support all the facilities required for a trusted (as in "Trusted IRIX") Operating System and, let's face it, security has for a long time been moving more towards MAC and not just for Linux. POSIX got into updating security surprisingly late in the game, and although there are patches for POSIX ACLs for Linux, I can't think of a single distro or mega-patch that includes POSIX security. I seem to recall Linux is deprecating some POSIX functionality, like POSIX ttys, and the kernel has always included unPOSIX-ish code where it is clear that the official POSIX syntax or semantics are carp (sic) or where support for other standards has been useful or expedient.

D-Bus may not be the answer to everything, individual technologies rarely are, and it's not as if D-Bus was even the only user-level software bus commonly used in Linux, but it has interesting potential. Not sure how well it currently plays with clustering technology like MOSIX, or grid technology, but given the effort being poured into developing user-space software buses precisely for those, I imagine that's just a matter of time.

Personally, I'd rather have more localized limited-purpose buses in any case where a general-purpose solution is slower and/or heavier. The code can't be that maintenance-intensive and too much abstraction must eventually pessimize the resulting code. Moore's Law is worthless if code gets slower at the same rate systems get faster. Nonetheless, any general-purpose abstract IPC that is easier to implement against than traditional mechanisms (RPC, CORBA, Unix sockets, System V messages, etc) must surely be beneficial - even if those end up being the mechanisms used under the hood. In fact, the more of those implemented and the better you could switch data between them, the more portable such a software bus becomes as well as the more optimal - to a point. The whole trend in programming is towards such pluggable solutions, it's surprising IPC is so far behind almost every other mechanism out there, and unless there are specific technological reasons to not use a given generic mechanisms (such as performance costs), you're already using so many that are not following some standard or other that it's absurd to discriminate against one just because it's not specifically POSIX.

Re:ndiswrapper

[el americano]

Yeah, but you're just one guy. If it works for the vast majority, then that *does* cut it. I also object to your comparing pre-installed Vista, with a Ubuntu you set up yourself. Pre-installed Ubuntu is available, and it comes with everything working - I can tell you're shocked. When your only criticism is getting everything working for the first time, you're setting up pre-installed Vista to win the comparison.

To add my experiences with Ubuntu (and being more specific) I had troubles with Ubuntu 6.06 on my T42 ThinkPad trying to use wireless security, although connectivity and WEP worked straight off. Later, Ubuntu 7.10 had a greatly improved NetworkManager. It's everything thing I need. My hat's off to those guys. Even VPN works beautifully through the same interface.

I do hope an open source 11n driver comes out soon. It's really up to which chip vendor wants write one, and it was in this area that I had hopes for the Dell/Ubuntu laptops. If they want to ship 11n, then they'll push someone to support it. You see, your characterization was mistaken. You said:

HP, and Microsoft, fixed the issue with the Broadcom wireless driver

No they didn't. Broadcom fixed it. HP forced them too, and Microsoft did nothing. That's the way it's going to be. Once HP and Dell care, Linux support will be there before the product is shipped.

Re:ndiswrapper

[Daengbo]

Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX achieve what GP poster is saying.

MS achieves virtually nothing. The hardware vendors to elaborate testing and fiddling to make sure the pre-installed OS works when you get it.

Apple does a bit more: it checks for its own (limited) hardware compatability.

But pre-installed Ubuntu from Dell ... and it all works. Buy a EeePC and ... it all works.

Try installing XP or Vista on a computer you built yourself sometime. It rarely all just works out of the box. It requires hours of installing drivers, made easier because the part manufacturers supply those drivers for you.

Compare like to like, please.

Re:ndiswrapper

[JayAEU]

I've installed PCLinuxOS 2007 as a replacement for Windows XP on my wife's 6 year old laptop some 7 months ago. What shall I say, it's an absolute blessing! Boot times of 30 seconds instead of several minutes, no crashes and - best of all - everything just works, including the wireless PCMCIA card.

My wife couldn't be happier.

And you can rest your mind, PCLinuxOS 2007 doesn't put all users into root. If something requires administrative privileges, it will ask for the root password, which is where I come in, if it happens to my wife.

Anyway, in terms of ease-of-use, PCLOS is still much ahead of Ubuntu. I wouldn't run PCLOS on a server, but on desktop and mobile systems, it's top notch.

Re:ndiswrapper

[Knuckles]

Dude, this software was a gift to you. Use it if you have a need for it, or leave it if you don't, but stop insulting the givers. It's not optimal that some chipsets are not supported, but only the manufacturers can change that (by releasing specifications or drivers), so go complain to them. Meanwhile, behave rationally and research your hardware before buying, thus supporting those vendors that cater to you. It's not as if the choice was limited: as mentioned, Intel and Atheros (whose chipsets are in many good brand cards, like D-Link) work just dandy.

Re:ndiswrapper

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

What is it with Linux users and bad suggestions? I've struggled through getting one distro to work, a distro that is know for its ease of use, and now you want me to try a different one? Why the fuck do you think I would want to put myself through all that again? What is it with people who shit in the faces of those who try to offer what help they are able? Clearly one distro is not working for you. It will take you download time + 5 minutes to boot to a livecd, to see if pclinuxos works better for you. But I suppose it takes much less effort to simply be a prick. Good on ya.

PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[crush]

PulseAudio works great in Fedora 8. That's not really surprizing as the primary developer is a Red Hat employee (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Interviews/LennartPoettering ). It's weird the way Ubuntu advocacy pieces rarely mention that most of the software which is touted as being part of the Ubuntu experience is usually programmed by Debian or Red Hat or Novell developers.

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[cbart387]

Business sense most like. It doesn't really matter where it originated as long as Ubuntu does it well. If they put emphasis that PulseAudio was originally developed for Fedora wouldn't that make it more likely that people would try out Fedora instead of Ubuntu. I'm sure more knowledgeable slashdotters could name packages for Fedora that were originally developed in Ubuntu or other distros. It's all a matter of perception but perception is important.

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[pipatron]

So what you're saying is that Debian fucking sucks because they take like, Linus' kernel and GNU compilers and Theo's ssh server instead of developing their own things?

I think you need to take a deep breath and read the GPL and BSD license again. ;)

Sharing is caring.

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[alexborges]

Who ARE you? Bill Gates? Man, i thought I had heard everything when I looked at his old "Open Letter to Hobbyists", but you come even in this day and age.

If you dont want your software to be freely used and redistributed, DO NOT OPEN IT. Period. Canonical is doing what they can with what is available and has no obligation, either moral, ethical or legal, to do anything for or against the producers of the FOSS they use. About they not opening software of their own, in that very speciffic case, im right besides you: release, cannonical bastards, SLES did it for yast (although thankfully that didnt take off for the rest of the distros), redhat did it for the Netscape Directory and gfs (and that cost them a bundle) so yeah, play fair and dont use proprietary software.... or is this right?

For example, redhats RHN proxy/satellite stuff uses oracle as backing and is quite proprietary as far as i know. Novell hasnt released the code for their support portal either, is that ethically right or wrong?.... im not sure where you want to stand on this issues, but its getting more complicated to pass judgment on this stuff the more I think about it.

Now... im waiting to see if lightning strikes me. Your slashdot id gets you quite close to the very begining. I mean, you gotta be old in this game. I was about to cite the Open Source Definition but then again, maybe you're one of the authors or something and will retaliate to this strongly.... aw, hell, here it goes:

Dont you think your position goes against the spirit of the OS definition and the GPL?

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[Matt Perry]

However saying that it is your own work is quite different.

No Ubuntu developers have claimed someone else's work as their own. The GP is just upset for some strange reason that Ubuntu, like all other distros, incorporates code from other distributions into its own. All distros do this, and most companies that release Linux distros employ developers to work on existing and new projects.

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[Matt Perry]

The GPs objection to Ubuntu is that while they build on what other people have done, they don't release their own contributions back tot he community.

Ubuntu is closed-source? That's news to everyone. Source?

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[leenks]

Launchpad. Show me the source!

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[krmt]

Then why doesn't the Ubuntu community set themselves up on a totally free infrastructure? Every other major distro has one these days.

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[Zarniwoot]

Launchpad. Show me the source!

Is Launchpad even released to the public? It doesn't make much sense to discuss the license if it isn't distributed. Do you require Google to release source for its search engine?

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[Anonymous Coward]

And Launchpad is part of Ubuntu how, exactly?

More to the point, though Launchpad isn't yet open source, Canonical have made a commitment to open sourcing it. The reasons for it not being done yet are well documented - Shuttleworth himself explained things at length in a blog post some time back. They've already open sourced Storm.

So Launchpad isn't open source, but using that to level an accusation of Ubuntu being closed source is a fairly radical interpretation of the facts.

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[Cato]

This is complete crap - not only is Ubuntu 100% open source, with standard source packages, it is the root of many other distributions and almost encourages people to fork Ubuntu - e.g. Mythbuntu, Ubuntu Studio, Linux Mint, Fluxbuntu, and more. They do release their own contributions and actively merge them upstream into Debian, so they are also helping every other Debian-based distro (e.g. Sidux, Knoppix, SimplyMEPIS and many others).

How did this get moderated insightful?

Re:PulseAudio works nicely in Fedora 8

[kripkenstein]

Launchpad. Show me the source! It would be nice to have the source to Launchpad. However,

• Lauchpad is not part of Ubuntu. So this does not make Ubuntu non-free in any way
• Does Red Hat release the source code to RHN and everything else they run on their servers? Does Novell? I don't think so. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, just that Canonical aren't special. The issue is that server code isn't in the same category as code that runs on your PC. That code should be FOSS, most of us here will agree. Code that I merely access from a server, that's another issue altogether, and worthy of discussion, which the FOSS community is just now starting to get around to (see the Affero GPL).

Yet to be impressed

[bogaboga]

I am yet to be impressed because I cannot copy an Internet URL, paste it in a native GNOME application and have the application in question open the link. If the link points to a PDF document, some error is returned, even with the default PDF application installed. The only way out of this misery is to save the document onto the hard-disk. This is an non-starter GNOME folks, something MUST be done.

Re:Yet to be impressed

[mike_sucks]

Check your facts, it has been doing this for years.

I click on a PDF link in Epiphany and it downloads the PDF and opens it in Evince (or whatever is registered as the primary PDF handler). If the website annoyingly opens a new window to show the PDF in (as if you have the plugin installed), Epy even helpfully closes the empty window for you.

This works for all registered content types, not just PDFs. If on some occasions it does not work, it is because the server is misconfigured and is sending the wrong MIME content type. /Mike

Re:Yet to be impressed

[pizzach]

Oh! Oh! Oh! This in the gnome complaints thread isn't it!? Hey Gnome, why don't you do something about the foot? It stinks! No, I mean literally dammit!

I did good, didn't I?

Who cares?

[snarfies]

Call me back when you have at least a beta. Even then I wouldn't think that front-page worthy. Save that for the final release.

Another Look Available Here

[Anonymous Coward]

This was on slashdot for a while: Hardy Heron Alpha4: A Glimpse into the Future of Ubuntu; it gives a better look into the new applications included with HH, and mentions some other changes not included in the Ars Technica rewview.

Congratulations!

[BeeBeard]

Big congratulations goes to the Ubuntu team for sticking to their release schedules, and getting their fairly solid alphas and betas out there for users to bang on well in advance. Like many others, I thought that Ubuntu Linux was just another flavor-of-the-month distribution, but the tenacity, reliability, and graciousness of the Ubuntu community has proved us all wrong.

-A Longtime Gentoo User

I don't like the name

[Minwee]

I still think that calling this the Happy Harry Hard-On edition of Ubuntu would have been a much better move.

Re:I don't like the name

[Nimey]

IN the long run, if Ubuntu is looking for better corporate penetration, perhaps they should look for better release names in the future. I dunno, I think "Hairy Hardon" practically screams long-term penetration.

nautilus is undergoing big changes

[sayfawa]

The warning to not use alpha releases on production machines is a bit more severe this time. So watch out.

Snipped from the release notes:
Nautilus can behave erratically, especially in trash operations. Refrain from operating on valuable files with this version. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/185756

Queued file operations -- finally?!

[eddy]

In particular, Nautilus will now queue up long file transfer operations and display them in a single window rather than spawning a separate window for each file transfer operation.

Please tell me this means that file operations will actually queue to be run in sequence, saving us from disk and cache trashing slowing things down? With "run", "pause", "cancel" on each individual transfer? Pretty please?

Re:What about KDE integration?

[ricegf]

Kde 4.0 supposed to be a rapid improvement and Kubuntu is supposed to be alot more polished and integrated

Actually, KDE 4.0 is more of a beta quality release (like Mac OS/X 10.0 or pre-SP1 Vista) - it's 4.1 or so that'll really be ready for daily use by normal users. Unfortunately, Hardy falls at an awkward time with respect to 4.0 (or vice versa) - 4.0 isn't ready for long term support, but 3.5 isn't likely to be relevant for 3 long years. As a result, while Ubuntu 8.04 will be a Long Term Support (LTS) release, Kubuntu 8.04 will not be.

I agree with your opinion of Gnome (I use it myself), and with your assessment of KDE 4 (I look forward to trying it out - looks great so far!). And I'm very suspicious that Mono contains Microsoft-patented technology, and believe free software developers should avoid it until the title is clear. But that's just my $0.02 worth (and it seems to be worth less every day...) I don't believe any critical part of Gnome is dependent on Mono, however.

Re:Getting tired of Ubuntu

[domatic]

2K and XP don't implement all singing all dancing 3D desktops. Compiz and Vista do. As the parent post said, all is well if the uber 3D desktop is avoided. It appears that the 3D drivers aren't good enough anywhere that running everything through them is a good move. I've tried out Compiz a few times myself. Each time I've thought, "Wow! that looks cool!" and then went back to stuff that didn't blow up everytime I turned around.

cart before the horse

[clarkn0va]

I need to be productive and I need a working system. End of story.

Many people will sympathise with your frustration of hardware not working properly/having full support in non-Windows systems. Many of us, however, balk at your solution, which in my view, represents a compromise on so many levels.

You see, if I'm looking at purchasing a laptop with Broadcom wireless and I happen to know that Broadcom Don't Work That Great(TM) in linux, then rather than switch to an OS that is in my eyes inferior, insulting, buggy and patronising, not to mention the fruit of a hostile predatory monopolist, I'll just find another laptop, one that has good open hardware. They abound, at least in this market.

Now you may accuse me of being political, bigotted, or evangelist, but I've used every significant version of Windows since 3.11 for Workgroups frankly they all grate my nerves.

And I'm done screwing away hours just to get this soundcard or that wireless or video hardware to work. Yeah, most people here will agree with you, but choosing Vista over Ubuntu when there are perfectly good hardware options out there is, in my view, shooting yourself in the foot, putting the cart before the horse, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

db

Re:cart before the horse

[Evanisincontrol]

Yeah, most people here will agree with you, but choosing Vista over Ubuntu when there are perfectly good hardware options out there is, in my view, shooting yourself in the foot, putting the cart before the horse, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree. When picking an OS, you really need to throw your hat into the ring. You've got to get your hands dirty and get your feet wet. I know they say the grass is always greener on the other side, but moving to Vista is just getting out of the frying pan and into the fire. You can't cut off your nose just to spite your face. I'd say just let the chips fall where they may, and don't cry over spilt milk. This topic is really just beating a dead horse; after all, what goes around, comes around.

Needle in a haystack. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Re:cart before the horse

[Kjella]

It's not easy to find a perfect OS. If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of those dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.