Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) Released
SDen writes "Bang on target, the new version of Ubuntu Linux is available for our downloading pleasure. Amongst various changes it sports updates to the installer, improved networking, and a new 'Mobile USB' version geared towards the blossoming netbook market. Grab a copy from the Ubuntu website, and check out Linux Format's hands-on look at the Ibex."
Well of course it's bang on target. They have a six month release cycle where they release come-what-may without a feature list.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Isn't that exactly the kind of situation something called the "Live CD" was invented?So that you could check out whether all your hardware works before you install.Or was that too newbie for you?
Now, RMS seems to spend his time avoiding soap and bitching that Linux should be called 'GNU/Linux' since it 'uses GNU software, and Linux is just the kernel.' If RMS had actually spent more time working on projects like HURD instead of writing the GNU Software Manifesto he may have a right to bitch.
Also, see the italic text here. Bottom line: don't listen to this guy.
If you use comcast ( and others ) your monthly bandwidth is limited.
Most people don't use anywhere near their quota.
Are YOU going to share what you have left with others? Im not.
If you have 3 apples and are only hungry enough for 1 apple, do you refuse to share your remaining apples simply because your apple supply is limited?
You were doing quite well up until this point. Generally, blanket insults (particularly one that blithely ignores highly salient details relevant to the situation) will turn people away from giving you help with the project you're insulting. If you want help, please be nice. Otherwise, you will only spark a flamewar.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Why upgrade an existing system to this release? I have a working, nicely functional laptop that has support for the next three years for security updates, why should I hop on the update treadmill again and deal with upgrade headaches every six months? I like where I got Hardy (after waiting through 4 releases to get to another LTS).
My Babylon
I don't want to share my now limited bandwidth for some commercial company to give out updates.
And you paid how much for your copy of Ubuntu? Yeah, I thought so.
Besides, if you're on comcast, your "now limited bandwidth", isn't all that limited. For 99.99% of comcast customers, it's practically unlimited, which isn't all that much worse. If you use so much bandwidth that you routinely approach the cap, maybe you aught to upgrade to a commercial service. Also, they actually appear to be using legitimate QoS these days, to appropriately set p2p data as low priority, instead of using the retarded policy of resetting torrent connections.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Well, it sucks that you had that experience. Next time, try the live CD and make sure things are working -- if it works there, you know it can work with the full install.
:)
As for your commentary, let me point out two things.
1- Lack of standard, reducing support available and compatibility consensus.
I'd argue there's far more standards and compatability in Gnome and Ubuntu than for Windows. From a user perspective, Windows allows any executable installer to basically vomit anywhere it wants -- sure, go ahead and muck with the registry, install three systray icons, a quicklaunch shortcut, a desktop shortcut, and two start menu entries. Which might be named after the manufacturer, or maybe the product, or maybe the parent company. Who knows? There's no standard way of doing it -- it's just that users have been trained to accept it. In Gnome, basically everything gets filed so it's never more than one click away, and it's always under a sane, general heading. "Internet", "Games", "Graphics", "Office", whatever.
Same with installation of new stuff. Want a CD burner for Windows? Google "cd burner software" or similar, tromp through eight or nine results looking for one that doesn't look sketchy, isn't crippled trialware, and that you're reasonable sure won't install some spyware or other. Download it, run the installer, agree to weird EULAs and maybe it'll work. Maybe not -- maybe it was XP only and you have Vista, or vice versa. And unless you really know what you're doing, you can't be sure it didn't stealthily install some crapware alongside it. Finally, clean up the mess it left behind when installing (extraneous icons, shortcuts, start menu entries, etc).
Ubuntu? Open Synaptic and click whatever you want. Then ignore it. It'll download, configure, and install without any further interaction, and there's accountability for who made it and where it is coming from. You're done.
2- Linux Geeks expecting average joe to spend time (which he doesn't have) browsing at forums for his answers, often "on his 2nd computer" (which he doesn't have either).
No one expects this. And honestly I have never, ever had trouble with drivers on any machine, on any distro -- including random ones like DSL, Puppy, or other ones I just want to use for experiments. The sole exception has been wireless Broadcom stuff...and that headache stopped over a year ago with the Restricted Drivers manager.
Compare this to Windows, where I've never gotten an install to work the first time. A clean install of Windows will not have drivers for your wireless or ethernet, sound card, video card, and probably a few other things. You either have to have some sort of recovery CD, which Joe User doesn't have lying around, or you have to have...a second computer, so you can go to dell.com or whatever, and download the drivers. Then install them one at a time, by hand. And clean up the mess they leave behind, again.
I guess my point is that Linux in general and Ubuntu does a much, much better job at hardware detection and driver handling. Windows is essentially incapable of it, and either way, if you're Joe User, you don't know how to fix Windows problems any more effectively than Linux problems, so it's kind of a null point.
No, I think the real reason Ubuntu doesn't have a solid base of home users is because the overwhelming majority of users just buy a computer that has Windows already on it, and stop thinking about it right then. They see no reason to switch because to most people, "Windows" IS a computer, and the only other option is to buy a Mac. So they put up with Windows' endless annoyances and nagging because it's what they're used to, and are blissful in their ignorance.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
However, when I upgraded to a non-OEM machine of my own, and tried to install 8.04, I wasn't so lucky.
I think this is not an issue with Ubuntu 8.04 specifically, but instead with your new hardware.
I got a new system with an Intel motherboard that was introduced only this summer, after the release of 8.04. That version--and 7.10 before it--gave me no joy. There was no support for the new Intel graphics chipset and there were some other problems too. Not much blame can be put on Intel though; they had Linux drivers out publicly before the motherboards based upon the chipset were even available to the public! Linux being a more...errr...diverse ecosystem means it is a bit more challenging to package and distribute such divers (alas, my board did not include binary packages suitable for Ubuntu with the appropriate modules backported to the kernel in 8.04).
So, I've been running 8.10alpha5 (and upgrading as alphas and betas became available) and had more luck (still no digital audio out, but I may need to tune my system--and for a couple weeks I had to disable onboard NIC and use a cheapo spare to keep the e1000e driver from bricking it--ubuntu blacklisted it anyways and has since fixed it and I am using my onboard 1000bT again--but considering it is pre-release quality I cannot complain).
Trouble is, I spent way too much time messing with Linux before, and now I no longer have that patience.
Honestly, aside from using alpha and beta distros, it has been YEARS since I've had to "mess around" with Linux. As a matter of fact it is faster and easier to set up a "bare" PC with Ubuntu (or Fedora or SuSE for that matter) than it is with Windows. Ubuntu install is done faster, I can run a 3-D desktop just as well on literally half the machine Vista requires, updates and upgrades are easier and faster, there is NOTHING like "software repositories" for Windows--you always have to insert a damn disk or explicitly google and download an EXE or MSI and you cannot install applications with MSFT update--only upgrade. when I do a fresh install of Windows I ALWAYS need to run Windows update and reboot 2 or 3 times, and with new hardware you still need vendor drivers, sometimes event to get out of the initial install phase! Hell, I hardly have the patience for WINDOWS anymore!
As to your assertions about barriers to Linux adoption:
1 - there is no lack of standards, just resistance to universal adoption. There are many Debian-derived distros that use the same package format and can work against the same repositories. There is Fedors, RHEL, SuSE,Mandriva, etc that all use the same "standard" in RPM and related apt/synaptic style management and update tools, and above that is the LSB that not only specifies standard packaging and deployment practices, it outlines a cross-distro binary compatibility standard!
For some reason, for every complaint about lack of a single standard there is a chorus of calls against any and all attempt at establishing a formal or de-facto standard! Perhaps it is because in the MSFT and Apple worlds there is no choice because standards are so entrenched--to the point of lock-in. People that move to Linux right now LIKE the choice and don't want to lose it in the process of creating standards.
2 - I fail to see the point here. When people have problems with Windows the exact same thing happens--some Windows guru saying to do something way above a beginner's head, useless tech support, etc. The average joe still has to rely on forums (which are relatively useless for windows compared to Linux), second computers, or an expert friend or coworker. In fact, I think your argument here is quite false: If an average Joe user starts off with an Ubuntu system that is working, it continues to work and is LESS likely to just break with everyday use. Windows, however, seems to break much easier with normal use--installing and uninstalling, various upgrades that break other things and above all VIRUSES.
Ah, good old American spirit.