Slashdot Mirror
What Normal Users Can Expect From Ubuntu 8.10
notthatwillsmith writes "With Ubuntu 8.10 due to be released in just a few days, Maximum PC pored through all the enhancements, updates, and new features that are bundled into the release of Intrepid Ibex and separated out the new features that are most exciting for Linux desktop users. Things to be excited about? With new versions of GNOME and X.Org, there's quite a bit, ranging from the context-sensitive Deskbar search to an audio and video compatible SIP client to the new Network Manager (manage wired, Wi-Fi, VPN, and cellular broadband connections in one place)."
#1. As you mentioned, you need to unmount a partition to modify it.
#2. "...the garbage the LiveCD left on your drive."
But the LiveCD does not leave anything on your drive.
#3. "...because the liveCD requires the NTFS partition to be mounted..."
But the LiveCD does not require that any partitions be mounted.
I think that it was just a troll and one of the moderators did not know any better and mod'ed it up.
Unless there is a rootkit in an ubuntu or debian package you're not making a lot of sense.
Even if there were you got the name and email address of the people who made the package and also the people who were responsible for checking the package.
You can even take that package and compare it to the original upstream version using diff.
You are just talking bullshit. Hence why you're probably posting anonymous, because you know you're talking nonsense.
Posts like yours are always fun because they're always wildly biased. First, you overstate the Windows partition step while over-simplifying the Ubuntu partition step. Second, I love how you include Microsoft Office in the Windows steps just to pad the list, as if most Windows PCs and their factory reinstall discs don't already include some form of Office. You also pad the list with things like "Windows installs more files," as if Ubuntu doesn't also, you know, install files. You even throw in Windows Update, as if Ubuntu doesn't pop up a red triangle on the Gnome menu telling you there are updates to download.
All in all, a biased post that will probably hit +5 instantly.
I see a few stumbling blocks between Blu-ray and Linux being licensed to play it.
1. The distro would likely have to rewrite most of the driver architecture to support the required media path protection.
2. It would almost certainly have to go closed source.
Somehow I don't see that happening.
Personally, I'm not touching Blu-ray with a ten foot pole due to the DRM. DVDs were bad enough, but at least they would never tell me "sorry, I don't like your TV so I won't let you watch me". Once region free DVD players became the norm, I was ok with spending money on them. As for Blu-ray.. Until they are willing to sell me a product I feel comfortable buying, I'll enjoy HD content via mkv on my Tvix.
How so? What I said is exactly that. On an unformatted disk you get three options, 1- use the whole disk, 2- custom partiton, and.. wait. there's only two.
I can't figure out what I mean by me over simplifying it because that's what it is, simple.
Since you didn't include an example of what you mean (no need to backup your claims, right) i'll just have to assume you don't know what you're talking about.
I did that because Ubuntu comes with Office software already on the disk.
You do realise that people use office software don't you?
This is nonsense, how can you do a fair comparrison of installing the operating system on a custom pc and come up with "the vendor disk".
It's totally irrelevant anyway because it's still not a click install even with the vendor disk. Which was my whole point in the first place.
Yes because it would be irresponsible not to download updates for Windows. It's so important that your box can get owned in less then 4 minutes.
You know what doesn't work for me? Dual monitors. Every time I try to use dual monitors with Ubuntu it gets all confused and ends up giving me two copies of a 640x480 desktop or some crap like that. I've never had it work without writing my own xorg.conf which makes all the video control panel stuff break.
Why can't I just have what I have in Windows - A properly working Xinerama type desktop (not Twinview)? I don't want all my dialogs centered on the seam in the middle and I don't want to maximize across both monitors. Has any progress been made in this area?
As a Linux Zealot with Mod points, I'd love to mod your exaggerations down. But, I use dual monitors and it never works as well as it should. On my laptop, I can only clone screens. On my desktop it works well except that compiz gets confused with dual monitors (so I turn it off). The latest Fedora and Ubuntu are making strides but it is still extremely disappointing. I love Linux, I'd never go back to Windows but I really wish dual monitor setup was better.
What is it with these morons complaining about default colours? The unspoken premise of all their whinges is that the chosen hues are bad, and that if only a different (and obviously superior) colour had been chosen, then there would be no complaints.
What these idiots don't realise is that if it were XP-blue instead of earthy African reds and browns, then a million other idiots would be making exactly the same complaint in reverse.
Fools, please try to understand: a strange quirk of human beings is that we each have a favourite colour. This means that you will never be able to design a colour scheme that nobody dislikes. Your whining is therefore utterly pointless. It's redundant before it even leaves your mouth. I have three machines: they run Ubuntu Hardy, Kubuntu Intrepid beta, and Xubuntu Hardy. They are red-brown, cyan-black, and white-cerulean, respectively. And you know what? They are all perfectly fine. No, they do not "make me hurl with those turd colours"; no, they do not "give me a headache". They're just fucking colours. If the defaults are not in line with your personal inclinations, then learn how to click on the Preferences menu. Fuck.
I do like it, and I think it's great branding. It's a color scheme absolutely unlike any other desktop OS. You know when you're sitting down at an Ubuntu machine, and I think that was the point.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Everyone else is probably going to rip you to shreds for this, or if you're lucky try to give you a solution that by now you've discovered on your own anyway.
I won't do that. I'll say this instead: The stress you describe in your post is in no way related to "X being hard" or "Y being easy" or the technicalities of an install process or anything like that. What you experienced there was the fear of breaking out of your comfort zone and moving into the unknown. That's natural, it's part of what makes us people.
I remember that "are you sure?" moment from my first Linux install very well. I had to stare at that "Yes No" dialog for something like twenty minutes. Two or three cigarettes were smoked. I was petrified thinking of all the horrible things that could happen. And looking back on that now, that stare-down with my monitor didn't have a damn thing to do with partitions or installers or even the prospect of losing all my data. I was just scared of the unknown, as you were, and that's fine. Then we faced that fear and now we're more self-sufficient people because of that. So go us.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!