Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu 9.10 Officially Released

palegray.net writes "The latest version of Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala) has been released. Offering numerous enhancements for both desktop and server environments, this release includes notable features like Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud images, the Ubuntu One 'personal cloud,' and Linux kernel version 2.6.31. Please be sure to use a release mirror close to your geographic location to help reduce the stress on Ubuntu's primary servers; using BitTorrent for downloads can help alleviate the load even more. If your organization has adequate network and server resources, please consider hosting a mirror as well."

744 comments

  1. Personal Cloud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that kind of like your own personal Internet?

    Do its pipes get filled with enormous amounts of materiel?

    1. Re:Personal Cloud... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but I believe the proper word is 'tubes'. Please remember that it is a series of said tubes, and not a dump truck. Treating your personal series of tubes as if it were a dump truck will definitely crash your Internets and give your CPU a virus.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    2. Re:Personal Cloud... by noundi · · Score: 1

      Is that kind of like your own personal Internet?

      Do its pipes get filled with enormous amounts of materiel?

      Internet is a series of tubes, not pipes. That would be plumbing, silly man.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    3. Re:Personal Cloud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they make a cream for that, don't they?

    4. Re:Personal Cloud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet is a series of tubes, not pipes. That would be plumbing, silly man.

      Ubuntu is not a truck!

    5. Re:Personal Cloud... by dsginter · · Score: 1

      Do its pipes get filled with enormous amounts of materiel?

      I believe that the Rolling Stones answered this decades ago:

      I said, Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
      Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
      Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
      Don't hang around 'cause tubes'll crowd
      On my cloud, baby

      --
      More
    6. Re:Personal Cloud... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, McCloud... get off'a meh ewe.

    7. Re:Personal Cloud... by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know that Slashdot is going down hill when a perfectly reasonable comment asking for more information is replied to by three sarcastic comments about tubes, trucks, and pipes.

      Ubuntu One looks like it uses other Ubuntu One users to store up to 2GB of data (hopefully securely) in a cloud-like state, e.g. with redundancy so that one failure doesn't cause you to lose those backups. I got that from a brief look at https://one.ubuntu.com/

    8. Re:Personal Cloud... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ubuntu One looks like it uses other Ubuntu One users to store up to 2GB of data (hopefully securely) in a cloud-like state, e.g. with redundancy so that one failure doesn't cause you to lose those backups.

      Nope. Apparently the data is stored on Amazon's S3 servers, according to the wiki here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuOne#"Storage"

    9. Re:Personal Cloud... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Oh. Well that's pretty interesting. I'm surprised that they (either Canonical or Amazon) were willing to foot the bill for 2GB/user.

    10. Re:Personal Cloud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only uses Canonical's servers, not other users' hard drives.

    11. Re:Personal Cloud... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why is that surprising? It's less than you get with a Gmail account (albeit easier to use since you get a filesystem interface without hacks).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. time by pppjurac · · Score: 0

    to start upgrade ! 5,4,3,2,1....

    1. Re:time by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Well, given that it HASN'T been released yet, that might be a bit premature.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:time by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      That's the same combination I have on my egaggul!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:time by natehoy · · Score: 1

      President Boorcs? is that you?

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:time by awpoopy · · Score: 1

      I hate it when someone guesses my password.

      --
      I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
    5. Re:time by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The beta bas been around for a while, so there would be no difficulty in upgrading anything that has changed.

      I happen to have tried out the beta just 3 days ago when a failed HDD forced a reinstall of any Linux distro of my choice. I loaded up the beta, and for once I stuck with it for a whole 2 days before trashing it and going back to Arch Linux, which is my current choice for a post-Slackware flavour.

      I guess Ubuntu must be great for people who want everything "out of the box" without ever needing to look at the internals. I just found it incredibly irritating to have to resort to google when all I wanted to do was change one line in /etc/inittab, which the Ubuntu devs obviously consider to be beyond our ken and proceeded to make it so by burying the function in some $BIGNUMBER of subdirectories of /etc. And don't get me started on trying to set a static IP for a LAN. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't - but if I have to bust out a root terminal to use ifconfig and route to set it up manually, I would rather have a distro that offers me the option to do that easily without a GUI getting in the way.

    6. Re:time by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No, just a random elohssa sitting at his terminal.

  3. It says: 256MB RAM... by jkrise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lesson for Windows Engineers. Aim for 256MB, not 2GB. The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      My Compaq laptop with XP only has 112 MB of memory.

      Aim for that. ;-) And no I have no idea why it says 112 instead of an "even" number like 96 or 128. That's how much the laptop has without any expansion installed.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Video Ram. You probably have 128 MB installed, however 16 MB is being allocated to do video work.

    3. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Cambo67 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You've got 128Mb RAM, with 16Mb being used by the onboard video. 128 - 16 == 112

    4. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      MS doesn't miss the bus. The problem is the MS bus is a short bus.

    5. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.

      The first generation of netbooks ran linux. Just about everything after that ran windows. Sounds like linux will miss the bus.

    6. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu.

      >The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.

      Considering netbooks are shipping with 7 and ram costs less than shipping, I'll take the 2gig model, thanks. More ram for my apps.

    7. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Linux caught the bus. But MS made Linux sit in the back of said bus.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't know if anyone said it, but it seems to me that it's because the onboard video is using 16 of those 128 MBs..

    9. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can run kde 3.5 and MATLAB 7.2 on my old laptop with 256Mb of RAM, and it works well.

    10. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by dunezone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lesson for Windows Engineers. Aim for 256MB, not 2GB. The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.

      Aim for 256MB? Are you still living in 2001? I just replaced my 1.6ghz/256MB laptop with a netbook with a similar speed processor but 1GB of RAM. That laptop could barely get by with that much RAM. Firefox could only handle maybe 4 pages at a time and if one was loading video it would go to a crawl. My netbook has no issues, both were running Windows Home. A lesson for Windows Engineers, don't aim for 256MB.

    11. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody actually sell a netbook with less than a gig of RAM? Not that I disagree with you; I'm just sayin'.

    12. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you tried swapping xfce for lxde?

      I makes one hell of a difference on my old transmeta based tablet.

    13. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really matter, since the most important apps (browsers, office suites, etc.) have become so #%& heavy. My Arch + Openbox combo starts up with something like 50MB memory usage, but Firefox with few tabs open adds a "nice" 100MB to that. Besides, memory is cheap these days and caching really improves performance, so I see little point in having anything less than 1GB even on a netbook.

    14. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct! Also why have OSes gotten so large they required DVDs! I remember being able to install 3.11 for workgroups off a series of floppies, why can't we go back to that?!

    15. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      I saw one with 512 MB in the store a few weeks ago (was probably old model, but still, they were selling it).

    16. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'd be inclined to suggest that you were somehow doing something wrong.

      I got Xubuntu 8.04 to install and run rather nicely on an old Dell Latitude CPx H500GT. 500 MHz processor, 256 MB of RAM, and a 30 GB HDD. It doesn't seem to stress the processor very much, either -- Windows XP on the same machine could get the fan to turn on if I breathe in its general direction, much less launch a music playing app.
      I ended up installing Wine so I could at least have Foobar2000 for music, and plugged it into the line-in of the speakers running around my place.

      Easy enough to get di.fm playing that way, but it's time for me to find something else to stream (or pay for di.fm to get rid of the "Hey. You love di.fm, so why not subscribe to shut me up?" ads that are inserted).
      Pandora was out of the equation -- Flash chokes the computer (but then again, what low-end PC doesn't choke on Flash?), and Soma FM, while interesting, doesn't really have what I want to listen to for days on end.

    17. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Rigrig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the 256MB is the requirement for running the graphical installer, 64MB is listed as the bare minimum for running a desktop install(which you'd have to install using the alternate cd), while the recommended minimum for running a desktop reasonably well is listed as 384MB.
      Jaunty runs fine for me with 512MB, only getting a bit sluggish when running openoffice+lotsa firefox tabs(+some more apps that don't eat much memory, but do add up).

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    18. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Dude, 256 MB of RAM costs like $3. Seriously. Like another post in this thread says, you'll pay more for shipping than the 256 MB costs.

      My netbook shipped with a gig, and I've put in another 512 MB. (I think that maxes it out, but not sure.) Considering the netbook itself was $300, I'm not complaining about spending another $20 on memory.

      You really need to get a grip on reality.

    19. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Hmm what? All netbooks I've seen have at least 512MB or ram and the majority have 1GB.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    20. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Microsoft might control the desktop market, but don't forget that the vast majority of servers and supercomputers run Linux. You might have Windows on your PC at home, but all your Interwebz are belong to Linux.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    21. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't you mean front?
      All the "cool" people take the back seats.

    22. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by dsavi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Full Ubuntu runs quite nicely on my 256mb/366ghz 11 year old laptop, so I would disagree.

    23. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      i ran xubuntu with 96MB on a 400MHz laptop under a year ago. Wasn't what you could say fast by today's standards, but usable for basic net surfing and email. Had ubuntu 8.04 on a 256MB desktop machine a few years back used it for video editing (raw dv) and rarely needed more memory. Have 2GB now on both my laptop and desktop machines, don't think i'll be needing more anytime soon.

    24. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much does linux cost vs. Windows??
      So I will go with the cost effective solution,thank you
      256 mb's, for me that is a video card , small one at that

    25. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      Really? I've set up my parents with Xubuntu running on a Pentium II and 96 MB RAM. They get by ok...

      Not sure what you're trying to run - Office inside Vista inside QEMU or something?

    26. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dont think Im doing anything wrong, we just have different usage patterns. First off, the original poster claimed full ubuntu ran on 256megs of RAM. No, thats the minimum requirement for the standard installer. If you have a machine with less than that you need an alternate install disk. Or you do what I do: use xubuntu. I cant imagine running full ubuntu on less than 1gig.

      My xubuntu machine barely runs at 256, which I think is a fair assessment. It boots, runs fine, but when I load up firefox, open a bunch of tabs, play some music, run a mail client, etc then it just runs out of RAM. I dont see its ram usage being much better than 2000 or even XP, but I have to deal with a less impressive and featured GUI.

      That said, I am very impressed by xubuntu. Network manager could use some work. I usually just remove it and deal with IP addresses the old fashioned way. I think it hurts the linux community to spread lies about ram. Linux isnt magic. If you want to run a distro thats similar to the bells and whistles of OSX or Win7 then youre going to have to use a similar amount of RAM. Youre not getting away with using 1/4 the ram without giving up gnome.

    27. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      I just replaced my 1.6ghz/256MB laptop with a netbook with a similar speed processor but 1GB of RAM.

      Are you sure it's a similar speed? That 1.6GHz hints to me it's an Atom and Atoms are veeeeery slow. The original laptop was probably a Pentium-M which running at 1.6GHz which beats the Atom hands down. I heard (but not confirmed) that a 1.6GHz Atom runs about as fast as a half-that-speed (800MHz) Celeron. Not good at all!

      I have had the unlucky experience of running Ubuntu 9.04 on an Atom 330 desktop board (I bought it to toy around as a server, but my main desktop died -popped a cap- and I just used the Atom 330 as a stop-gap solution.) It is unbearably slow. On web 2.0 sites, often I can see the text lagging several words behind while I type. A flash game on facebook? Forget it... At least it plays youtube well (but not full-screen). This particular desktop board has 4Gig of RAM (3.4Gig usable) It's definitely not memory starved.

      Now this might be because I run Ubuntu. Never tried Windows XP on it, perhaps it fares better.

      Of course, if you don't have an Atom.... forget this rant.

    28. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The first generation of the EEE PC had 512 MB of RAM, such as my EEE 701 4G Surf

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    29. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by HamburglerJones · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless there's a bathroom on the bus. Who wants to sit next to that? MS had a burrito for lunch and is in there every five minutes.

    30. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by akorvemaker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I cant imagine running full ubuntu on less than 1gig.

      I run it just fine on a P4 with 512MB RAM. It's very smooth and fine for day-to-day use.

    31. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if they aim for being usable on 256mb of ram, just imagine how much faster than that it would run on 1gb!

      When system X runs on 256mb as fast as system Y runs in 1gb ram, it is usually a given that system X will FAR outperform system Y on the same 1gb system.

      Whats not to like?

    32. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends. Yeah, DDR2 RAM is dirt cheap. If you have a desktop with DDR2 RAM you should have already maxed it out long ago. But DDR1 costs twice as much as DDR2, you can get a gig of DDR2 for about $13 (or less) while 512 MB of DDR1 costs the same amount. And 1 gig of DDR3 costs about $20.

      The other thing is that some warranties are voided on netbooks whenever you add more memory (I know the EEE PC was when it first came out but I think they corrected it, not really sure about the others). Add in the fact that when compared to a desktop changing out RAM on a netbook is a total pain means that the vast majority of people will stick with the default amount of memory.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    33. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Spazztastic · · Score: 2, Funny

      I rode a short bus, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    34. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by wall0159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds fair, but I think we should be clear then that it's not xubuntu that's using your RAM, but rather the apps you're running. As I said in my other post, I've set my parents up with a machine with only 96 MB RAM, but they're using claw email client and epiphany (I think, they're _definitely_ not using firefox!), and their usage is basic.

      I agree though - Linux isn't magic, and if you want to run a machine with little RAM you'll need to work within that constraint. Having said that, I don't know which other modern OS they could run with so little RAM.

    35. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The problem is the MS bus is the same bus you send to pick up those special kids with....

    36. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Sheafification · · Score: 1

      I think you're just illustrating the GP's point. You had a laptop with 256 MB running Windows Home that was super slow. In order to get more acceptable performance you had to quadruple the RAM. Hence the GP's assertion that Microsoft will miss out on all the smaller devices that don't have huge chunks of RAM.

    37. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering netbooks are shipping with 7 and ram costs less than shipping

      Real Netbooks are devices like the SmartQ5 and the SmartQ7 which I have got evaluation pieces from China for about $170 a piece. These devices contain the ARM-11 series processor with 256MB of RAM and 1GB of storage.

      Windows7 requires regular disk drives and that makes it a mini-Notebook; not a Netbook.

      Basically Microsoft took the Netbook, added a disk and forced it onto the market through big-name h/w vendors. This will not work with the ARM-range of Netbooks on which Windows will not run; but Maemo, Ubuntu, Fedora etc run decently enough.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    38. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You cannot buy a 2gig netbook. Microsoft won't sell windows at netbook price rates to go on machines with over 1gig of memory.

    39. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Larryish · · Score: 2, Informative

      The specs on the machine I am posting from, according to Xchat's sysinfo command:

      os[Linux 2.6.24-23-generic i686] distro[Debian lenny/sid] cpu[1 x Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz (GenuineIntel) @ 5.00GHz] mem[Physical: 503.0MB, 30.0% free] disk[Total: 35.3GB, 30.8% free] video[ATI Technologies Inc Radeon Mobility M6 LY] sound[Allegro - ESS Allegro PCI]

      The machine does well with half a gig of memory. I usually have Liferea, Thunderbird, Xchat, Pidgin on 4 IM networks, Rhythmbox playing, Firefox with several tabs open, sometimes Evince with a PDF.

      The only real memory hog is Firefox.

    40. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Interesting. My other laptop which is an identical model, but with expansion, says an even 256 MB. Why isn't it 256-16 == 240? (shrug).

      In any case please aim your OS at 128 MB so I can keep using my old laptop. ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    41. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by bitMonster · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    42. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Upgrading memory on the Eee 1000HE is definately allowed.

      Heck, Amazon basically autoreccomends a stick of RAM as one of the "frequently bought together" combos.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    43. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we have to wait for Ubuntu 10.4 to be released? "Rosie Parks"?

    44. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand this netbook push. Seems like a fabricated market to me. Kinda like e-readers.

    45. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by matrixownsyou · · Score: 0

      In the back's were all the fun is. only old ladies sit at the front

    46. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you alluding to the Fujitsu Lifebook P2120? I myself was amazed at how quickly the desktop loads with lxde compared to, say, gnome (on Mint Gloria) on my Fujitsu.

    47. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by matrixownsyou · · Score: 0

      and microsoft engineers :p

    48. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by tixxit · · Score: 1

      Well, not necessarily. Perhaps System X made trade-offs of speed to save on space. Yeah, it requires a smaller footprint, but that may have come at the cost of more disk access or longer look up times that could be improved with a cache or redundant data structures or more indexes in a database-like system. That said, your RAM is meant to be used. Using 25% or your RAM provides no speed increase over using 70% of your RAM. However, I do agree that they should also scale with available space. Apps and OSes should try to make best use of all available space (whether that is 4GB or 256MB), otherwise they're not doing their job.

    49. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that system X looks like outdated shit from my TI 99/4a years. Probably works about the same too.

    50. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then linux got off and got into a waiting ferrari

    51. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      No kidding, in the MS bus the front seat is also "the back of the bus", go sit there, consumer.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    52. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      366 GHz??? Can I have one?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    53. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. I fell for the netbook craze. It is the Nintendo Wii of computers. An over-hyped paper weight.

    54. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by AdamWill · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu."

      Xfce's almost as much of a resource hog as GNOME or KDE these days. On a 256MB system I'd recommend LXDE for something vaguely familiar which really doesn't eat tons of RAM. Of course, then you need low-resource apps as well. Dillo's a good basic browser, Midori if you need more than Dillo can provide. I'm partial to nedit for a very low-resource text editor. And so on...

    55. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      My Compaq laptop with XP only has 112 MB of memory.

      Here's $5 and a map to the Salvation Army. Upgrade that slab.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    56. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by AdamWill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Correct! Also why have OSes gotten so large they required DVDs! I remember being able to install 3.11 for workgroups off a series of floppies, why can't we go back to that?!"

      Because...then we'd be running Windows 3.11?

      *shudders*

    57. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, MS took the back seat because that's where all the cool kids who can figure out how to play video games sit.

      aw snap.

    58. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      By the same token, why haven't I upgraded my laptop to more than 1GB of RAM? It is super cheap, after all. Oh, right. My laptop doesn't support more than 1GB. I imagine his is a similar case.

    59. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it ran speedy for me on a P3 with only 128 megs of RAM. It did because I say so. Mod me Informative.

    60. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      "I don't want one" == fabricated market, right?

      That's what I have to assume you meant since you didn't give any details... The market wasn't born because someone just came up with a new term, in my opinion it emerged because Asus found out that $200-400 is a really, really good price point for small laptops. It turned out that a lot of people don't mind missing some features as long as the price is right.

    61. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first generation of netbooks ran linux. Just about everything after that ran windows. Sounds like linux will miss the bus.

      No. Microsoft got on the bus and then forced the bus company to turn the bus into a jumbo jet so that Microsoft's fat ass could fit in the seats.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    62. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, I am running Win7 Ultimate on my EEE here with 1GB of ram and have so far felt absolutely no need to get 2GB, it has been running great and very little if any noticeable issues from running with only 1GB. Only 600MBish used now, with almost 100MB from Firefox. I just use my netbook as a netbook, for browsing, notes, and some IRC.

      My workstation on the other hand has 6GB and seems just about perfect with Win 7 Ultimate (remember it's used as a workstation, not a desktop).

    63. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by mwildam · · Score: 1

      No. Microsoft got on the bus and then forced the bus company to turn the bus into a jumbo jet so that Microsoft's fat ass could fit in the seats.

      Yes indeed, full ACK!
      But now Linux fit even better or 4 times into the Jumbo jet!

    64. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by STFS · · Score: 1

      Or you do what I do: use xubuntu. I cant imagine running full ubuntu on less than 1gig.

      Have you actually tried Ubuntu out with 256Mb? I ask because what you're saying directly contradicts this article which says Ubuntu is actually easier on the memory than XUbuntu: http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html

      And the subject of the article is of great relevance of course, LUbuntu, which supposedly beats both XUbuntu and Ubuntu's pants off.

      --
      You don't think enough... therefore you better not be!
    65. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by leeosenton · · Score: 1

      Not really. I just received my shiny new Dell Mini with Dell/Ubuntu outdated Linux installed. I immediately loaded the latest Ubuntu and rediscovered how great things are in Linux land. Visit dellmini.com or ubuntumini.com and you will find I am far from alone.

    66. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It might be fast, but

      It is especially designed for cloud computers with low hardware specifications, such as, netbooks, mobile devices (e.g. MIDs) or older computers. [...] It provides a fast desktop experience; connecting easily with applications in the cloud.

      that completely disqualifies it.

      How does one even "connect" to applications in a "cloud"? Wouldn't that be "Connecting easily to X clients on headless systems."?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    67. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by selven · · Score: 1

      So you think people should have to upgrade their computers every 3-4 years to be able to run the latest operating systems? A lot of poor (and even lower middle class) people disagree with you, and would prefer an OS that runs on an 8 (or even 12)-year-old computer.

    68. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by silanea · · Score: 1

      Netbooks make sense as (relatively) cheap, light, small mobile web browsing devices with a long battery run time for people who need to go online on the road and maybe type up a text, but who do not need the raw power and do not want to carry the size and weight of a full-size laptop. Students come to mind. Most netbooks are the size of a medium book, so they do not take up much space in your backpack, while a 15" laptop can be as unwieldy as a binder.

      Netbooks will not replace laptops and PCs for the majority of people, but for certain groups they are useful as a secondary, portable device in place of a true laptop.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    69. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cool kids sit in the back unless, its a 5 foot bus, where the back is the front.

    70. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      I'll take both the 2 gigs and Ubuntu, thanks!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    71. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by CSMatt · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because the Xubuntu team (on Jaunty at least) decided to destroy all that is good and wonderful about Xfce to the point that Ubuntu actually uses less recourses than Xubuntu. I'd wait for Lubuntu to come out or do as another poster suggested and install LXDE from another Ubuntu flavor.

    72. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      More to it than running on small amounts of RAM.
      I bought a 2GB stick of RAM on newegg for $20.
      Who cares if it can hit 256MB?

    73. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Kreeben · · Score: 1

      A lesson for Windows Engineers. Aim for 256MB, not 2GB.

      That's not really the engineers' fault, now, is it? Leave those kids alone. The bling-lovers at Microsoft, the those who own the requirements, they're to blame.

    74. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by buttle2000 · · Score: 0

      I think Gates belongs at the front.

    75. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by dsavi · · Score: 1

      As I said in a reply to my own post, MHZ, not GHZ. But the reply doesn't seem to have appeared.

    76. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Aim for 256MB? Are you still living in 2001?

      No, but some of us have machines dated from that era or older, and would rather see some use out of them then chucking them in the garbage.

      Some of us have also noticed that computers, from the perspective of those who's most resource-intensive computing task is playing videos, have crossed the line from improvements to planned obsolescence around that same time. I for one am sick of the unnecessary bloat.

    77. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Maybe people should ask those who used PS2 Linux kits as desktops for advice on making the most of one's RAM. Having done so in the past (and having Linux on my PS3 as well), I know all sorts of tricks. Personally I'd dump XFCE (getting to be a pig these days) for Fluxbox. As you said, Dillo's a good (but minimalistic) browser, and I'd use Claws-Mail instead of Thunderbird. I've not heard of Midori so I'll have to check it out. I've used nedit, which is a fine graphical editor, but prefer vim/gvim/cream. I like Rox-filer for graphical file management, though I ignore that Zero-install crap and just compile/install it normally. XFCE's thunar isn't bad if you're willing to install XFCE to get it.

    78. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Supposedly netbooks with an ARM-chip are called Smartbooks. ;-)

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    79. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Here's $5 and a map to the Salvation Army. Upgrade that slab.

      I got my computer from the Salvation Army you insensitive clod! .....or are you saying they have loads more better ones now all the Windows users have thrown their old 1Gb PCs out when they upgraded to Windows7?

    80. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Linux isnt magic.

      That's because you forgot to sudo apt-get install magic.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    81. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Come now, I could run Firefox, Claws-mail and xmms on my PS3 with a YDL6.2 install and it would still be quite responsive. I even did the same thing on my PS2 with a Linux kit equipped, though it was sluggish swap city if I did that.

    82. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has always been on the short bus.

    83. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 1

      Mine is a Compaq TC1000 - one of the first of that tablet generation. Still useful for some things, but a real dog of a machine.

    84. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting Smartq7s for $170? That sounds cheap.

    85. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Here's $5 and a map to the Salvation Army. Upgrade that slab.

      I checked two SA stores in my home town, and neither had laptops in stock. What did you mean?

    86. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Microsoft might control the desktop market, but don't forget that the vast majority of servers and supercomputers run Linux.

      In other words, the computers that are as far as you can get from being a netbook while still being a computer.

    87. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by radish · · Score: 1

      "Real" netbooks? I think most people associate Netbook with the Eee, which has always been x86 based. Something like the Q5 is more of a MID. I have a $250 Netbook with 2GB/16GB SSD and it runs Win 7 just peachy, I'd take that over a $170 ARM device to be honest, particularly with those specs. My phone has more storage...

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    88. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Calithulu · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I use my netbook (travel, coffee shops, etc) and my Wii (great party games) all the time. Perhaps the "hype" isn't the problem, but that you are not part of the intended audience.

    89. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Except he specifically mentioned Netbooks, all of which come with *at least* 512 MB. And I think the vast majority ship with a gig or more now.

      If he had meant old notebooks, I'm assuming he would have typed old notebooks.

      Anyway, people who use ancient notebooks aren't likely to bother to upgrade their version of Windows, so, frankly, why should Microsoft give a crap about you? You're not their customer. Despite that, I wager Windows 7 on your 1 GB machine would run as well as XP.

    90. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      How does one even "connect" to applications in a "cloud"?

      Let me introduce you to a fascinating new piece of technology! It's called a web browser...

    91. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not try Cruncheee or eeebuntu or something actually made for those things?

      Cruncheee has Openbox and light applications. But it still is full desktop linux.

    92. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually, I disagree with that statement. Imagine a world where every app required 1Gb RAM to run acceptably (Office 2010 anyone?). What you will see is not an app that runs slow if you give it less and faster if you give it more, but an app that runs slowly no matter how much you give it.

      Think of that 1Gb, how long does it take to get that off disk and into RAM? Or, if the ram usage is calculated/generated and the disk image is tiny, how long does it take to fill it up with what ever it is doing?

      that said, once you have the app that has all that RAM used, how much of it will fit into the CPU caches? How much time will be spent shifting data from RAM to L3 to L2 to L1 caches - and if the CPU is waiting for data to be updated in its cache, its certainly not running at those multi-gigahertz speeds, you'd be better off with an old 200 Mhz P3 and a gigabyte of L1 cache!

      Of course, we wont even go into the time it takes if you end up swapping!

      It doesn't matter if an app used 64k or 1Mb - both those numbers are still quite small, small enough not to make a difference that you'd notice. But when the memory usage creeps up to tremendous levels, you know its going to run like a dog. 200Mb plus another 200Mb swapped out is normal for some apps. Guess how well they run?

      In some cases I wouldn't be worried about an app that did use a lot of memory, if its used for data structures or cached data, but these slow apps seem to be built on bloated frameworks that make them use masses of ram just to do nothing (well, just to make a lazy programmer's life a little bit easier)

      An app that requires 256MB will always run faster than one that takes 1Gb, even if you have a machine with 100Gb RAM. RAM may be cheap but I/O bandwidth is not.

      RAM is meant to be used, but I'd like that to be used by the OS to cache the disk, or whatever it likes, not to have all that gobbled up by apps that leave the OS with little left over to cache with.

    93. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by armanox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let me introduce you to Slackware. Slackware requires:

      * 486 processor
      * 64MB RAM (1GB+ suggested)
      * About 5GB+ of hard disk space for a full install
      * CD or DVD drive (if not bootable, then a bootable USB flash stick or PXE server/network card)

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    94. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Cambo67 · · Score: 1

      Probably just sloppy BIOS programming :/

    95. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Since Windows uses the network stack from bsd (or used, once infected always infected), be sure to include the $699 you need to send to SCO.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    96. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      So did I.

      Not smooth, not smooth at all - when compared to 1 gig.

    97. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I recommend Ratpoison.

      It'll teach them to use $20 for a gig of memory.

    98. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Mine was sluggish on my 486 w/ 16 MB of RAM, so I had my Unicorn fart on it and that thing is blazing!

      As in melted into a charred pile, don't mess around with Unicorn farts...

    99. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One million internetz to you, sir! Hahaha

    100. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "If you have a machine with less than that you need an alternate install disk."

      Maybe I'm missing something here. I use the "alternate install". The "Desktop" disk is exactly that - desktop. A laptop needs to be set up differently than a laptop, doesn't it? Everything is different on a laptop. To be honest, I haven't downloaded their Desktop disk since - uhhhmmm - 7.04 I think.

      If you're really interested in running *buntu on a laptop, I suggest you try installing from that alternate disk.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    101. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I know this will be considered flamebait by most of slashdot but ...

      A usable ubuntu desktop in the default configuration with 256mb of RAM is not the same as what Win7 is on 512MB of ram. Sorry to disappoint but you're comparing apples to oranges. Win7 just does not allow you to cut your options down so far that you have a system that can work on 256MB, and thats fine because now days people expect far more out of their machines than you can run usefully on 256MB.

      You're comparing ram requirements as if both OSes provide the same level of functionality. They do not. Which is fine, some people don't need/want the additional functionality, but lets not try to pretend that Ubuntu on 256MB is anything like Windows7.

      I can run my BitStreamOS on 1k of RAM on an ATmega microcontroller, suck that UNIX! Of course, I have no video driver, require a special file system, only work with a specific type of MMC card for disk IO, have no keyboard or mouse support, (continue the list of just about everything useful on the desktop). You get a serial console with some debugging output and two processes with pre-emptive multitasking (with no memory protection mind you) that flash LED and play specially formatted audio from a MMC card. This is a basic musical greeting card with blinky lights. It is NOT what you get with Ubuntu or Windows in any way.

      You can boot a linux machine on far less ram than 256mb, that doesn't mean it actually compares to a Win7 desktop.

      I'm not saying you need to run Windows 7 on your netbook, I'm just saying you are comparing one part of the system and ignoring the rest of it which other than using a mouse, keyboard and monitor, are pretty much entirely different. Ignorance is bliss, but this is just a ridiculous comparison.

      Might as well compare the 0.95 Linux kernel to the 2.6.31 kernel while you are at it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    102. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      No, it's real. Half the people in my office ended up buying one. They're a) cheap and b) disposable, making them the ultimate travel computer (unless you like playing the newest 3D games on your vacation). Most people I know use them to dump digital camera pics onto and check email. Students use them for schoolwork (I've seen this, and I do this personally). Also they sold something like elventy-billion of them last year. Oh dear, I think I just got trolled.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    103. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Informative

      FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows XP.

      You may not consider WindowsXP modern, but its going to have have more 'features' as far as a random desktop user is concerned than Ubuntu when both have 256MB of ram.

      Compare apples to apples, not apples to coconuts.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    104. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I checked two SA stores in my home town, and neither had laptops in stock.

      Other potential sources for a better laptop than he has for practically free: any electronics shop ("got anything someone left here 6 years ago?"), Craigslist ("free to good home: 2 cats and a Celeron"), or the soup kitchen ("where do hobos throw out their old stuff?").

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    105. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, man. The TI 99/4a had PARSEC, you tit.

      "Alert! Enemy craft Advancing!"

      *sigh* /nostalgia

    106. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by the_crowbar · · Score: 1

      Despite that, I wager Windows 7 on your 1 GB machine would run as well as XP.

      If I was the original poster I would take that wager.

      On my wife's computer Windows 7 does not run as well as Windows XP in 1GB of RAM. Her system is a little old. AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4GHz I think) with onboard GeForce 6150 and 1GB of RAM. It had Windows XP Professional on it and it ran ok. Her computer does not run as well as my laptop with 2GB and a Core 2 Duo, but ok. She uses Firefox and can have 20-40 tabs open at once. I installed Windows 7 Business on it and while the basic OS runs ok, things slow down considerably as soon as any apps are open. Windows 7 Business is not as efficient as Windows XP Professional on her machine. Both versions of Windows are 32 bit.

      Cheers,
      the_crowbar

      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
    107. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I really don't think you're getting the right idea...

      The alternate install CD allows you to perform certain specialist installations of Ubuntu. It provides for the following situations:
      - setting up automated deployments;
      - upgrading from older installations without network access;
      - LVM and/or RAID partitioning;
      - installs on systems with less than about 256MB of RAM

      Nothing about "desktop versus laptop".

    108. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you read the replies from ARM CEO, their main target is to get MS to use their chips instead of intels. In the end they don't give a shit about crap maemo buntu fedrora. Nerds can think MS missed the bus all they want, and even if they did..the bus will come back to pick them up and kick linux out.

    109. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      If your installing on a 486 something tells me you probably won't have USB. Heck your CD-ROM will have a good chance of being routed through an IDE connection on the soundcard.

      Ahh, those were the days...

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    110. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. If the system requires 256mb of ram (without using swap) then on a 99999mb of ram system it will run just as fast as a 256mb of ram system. The rest of the ram memory will be useless :) more memory does not make the system run faster (if the system does not require it)... what make it run faster is less latency in the ram memory.

      cya.

    111. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when did netbooks have to have high power processors and a 150Gb hard drive and cost £400! I got my acer one for £200 I have seen them being sold for £175, though they are rare now :(, ok i moded it opened it up and added 1Gb of ram for £12 and got rid of the shitty linplus shite distro in flavor ubuntu using ext 2 and no swap so as not to burn out the ssd, but at leased then I could have firefox and other applications open at the same time, and i doubt xp would have beeten it for performance, there are some shitty xp machines at work with 500mb of ram and man they kick up a fuss when you try to do anything hdd klicking away like a buzz saw, why dose xp do that? i guess its paging, gode knows cos its not FOSS. ubuntu beats xp for boot time, the number of times I have been sitting at an xp machine tearing my eyes out with boredom because it was booting or waiting for ffox or ie to load, (and dont give me shit about how xp is great on a clean system with no programs installed and the Internet connection pulled, preferably with the machine switched of in a sealed room, just to be safe, any real M$ machine with more than a year of use sucks ass, probably because of the registry getting corrupted, hey guys ant M$hit idea for you failure mode analysis? ==dont depend on massive data bases for all your configuration data).
      the dell one as well now only £200 and with the beter n270 chip set fudging bargin! but what's this i see "netbooks" on sale in currys and pc world for £350-£500, running xp, it cant just be because the pound is weak (thanks Gordon) these things are on the same chipset processor, the same specks the works what gives, whats with these news reports from the bbc," netbooks great! but dose it come with xp?"
      [fcuk you Nate Lanxon you cokc] - because disappointment is familiar, and an extra £50 on the price.
      also what gives with the guy ubuntu got out for this news interview
      not the slickest, especially when you consider the hy$$pe M$ has been pumping into the nicely timed release of window$ 7. and still the presenters ask the same lame ass questions about M$, mac isnt doged by these shitty questions, but on the other hand they spend money on marketing.

      also another reason ubuntu is better than xp/vista/7, 700Mb install disk (instead of ~4Gb) and i have never once had to install drivers separately for sound cards ect, it just comes as is, but with xp i have to find the drivers for my mother board/graphics card/disk drives! (and they say M$ is the easier option!) also you then have to fork out for office (£50-100 i dont know I have never payed) and anything else that lets you use the hard ware you bought like the disk burner.
      aaaaarrgggg i am sooo angryyyyyy

    112. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by armanox · · Score: 1

      I have my CD-Drive on the IDE bus on my 486. Now, being able to boot to it is another story...

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    113. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only real memory hog is Firefox.

      Yes, check your apps. I had a 128MB machine up until this year, running debian lenny. iceape (aka seamonkey aka mozilla) had finally become too bloated and started swapping out too much. Tried konqueror, 'top' showed memory usage dropped by at least 1/3. (can't recall the details, though.) Was happy.

      kpackage was completely unusable for the same reason, so it's not like KDE has a lock on memory-tight apps.

    114. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Also many netbooks fit into those common "large size" handbags, while most laptops don't.

      Then there's battery life and the "solid state" stuff.

      --
    115. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If you are running something that low of RAM you would probably be better served by one of the distros that specialize in older machines, like DSL or Puppy. Of the two DSL is probably the most RAM frugal, but I prefer Puppy thanks to "puplets" which are pre-built Puppy derivatives, everything from super light DEs to even a mini LAMP/XAMP server.

      I may be a Windows guy, but I also believe in using the right tool for the job, and below 256Mb DSL or Puppy would serve you better than XP or a mainstream Linux like Ubuntu. If you've never tried either one I would go for Puppy, as the puplets make for a smoother experience with less of a learning curve. They even make a few with an XP or Vista skin, if you prefer to keep the Windows "look and feel".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    116. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a ppa out there for this? Doesn't seem to be in the standard repos.

    117. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      This is the same argument those dialup users used when they said they didn't want broadband. The reality is that they don't understand what they are missing.

      A 12 year old computer will have very limited capabilities and while it can be used for things like writing papers its more or less just a glorified type-writer. People would be missing out on a lot of what the web has to offer running such old machines. After 4 years most people I see will buy a new computer and pass the old one on to one of the wee ones. Some go as far as 8 years back but at that stage full screen flash is out of the question and at some point waiting for every little thing ruins the fun of computing.

      Course I ran an Athlon 750 until last year when it finally died. It's only limitation was anything video related. A new video card can only do so much without the rest of the system feeding it faster. The good news is that people are throwing out old machines less and less so the poor can benefit that way.

      The sad part is that most people weren't buying new machines to run the latest OS, they were buying new machines that weren't so cluttered with crap because most people lack basic organizational skills. Since Microsoft took so long coming out with a product after XP they missed that train of the 9x era where people did upgrade their machines just for the latest OS because it gave them new abilities. Now the focus on Windows isn't in new functionality but in making existing functionality more accessible to users.

      Ubuntu has lacked a lot of what desktop users expect and the inconsistencies are something that turn off a lot of users. I run Ubuntu and the latest kernel upgrade killed the ability for network manager to manage my network card. As opposed to another kernel update which broke the network card of my aspire one. It was working using the stock kernel and then I had to run out and get a kernel patch so I could use some wired networking fun. These are not issues Windows users typically encounter.

    118. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a threat...seeing as how 90%+ of the netbooks sold have a variant of Windows on it.

      For the record, 9.10 isn't THAT much different than the previous releases. 8.04 vs 9.10 isn't like Windows XP vs 7.

    119. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      That's because you're using the 32bit version. The 32bit version of Vista is terrible as well. Windows 7 also starts out slow but as you use your computer it gets noticeably faster, much the same way as Vista and is honestly why Vista generated so much negative PR. Most people when evaluating the OS don't evaluate it for long enough to get a true feel for it. After a couple months now with Windows 7 at home I can say that it is quite a bit faster than the initial install and certainly faster than XP was. Of course with a quad core processor and enough ram to make life good, let's face it, both were fast.

      The question is, why are you running 32bit Win7 on a machine that can run 64bit Win7?

    120. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      Because your video card has "integrated" (on the card) memory rather than "shared" video memory. While shared memory subtracts from total memory, integrated memory is not added to available system memory.

      In theory your card could have a soft driver rather than use the bios to allocate memory, but I am not sure if such a system exists, but knowing Compaq someone has probably tried (though the idea makes me a little sick)

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    121. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      You got it all wrong. Everyone else is on the long bus. M$ Bus recently became a standard with the support of the EPA, Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore; so I think that makes a scientific consensus.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    122. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be of the crowd that leaves the basement to go and party or travel. I love my netbook, working in wiring closets is a breeze now and 10+ hours of battery life means that I can keep documentation up to date as the majority of my job is setting up temporary infrastructure. Anyone that is mobile a lot will appreciate a netbook.

    123. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the Nintendo Wii of computers.

      In other words, something that gets used all the time while its newer and more capable "competitors" gather dust and eventually sold off to suckers who don't know better? Yeah, I can see that.

    124. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Whoooosh!

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    125. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has said that it beat out Linux on Netbooks. Without getting into all the gory details, HP and Dell have not made the same "observation". Being as neutral as I possibly can it is all a matter of how you define Netbook :)

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    126. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Last time I was in a thrift store, I came across a Windows 98 machine. They were asking $125.

    127. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt it will run gnome or kde in that configuration.

    128. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Considering netbooks are shipping with 7 and ram costs less than shipping

      Real Netbooks are devices like the SmartQ5 and the SmartQ7 which I have got evaluation pieces from China for about $170 a piece.

      What OS do they ship with?

    129. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Is there a ppa out there for this? Doesn't seem to be in the standard repos.

      The address of the repository is posted in Diagon Alley.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    130. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Also why have OSes gotten so large they required DVDs!

      Because RAM is now cheaper than programmer time - even when you're programming once for millions of machines - and RAM cost is dropping faster than humans, or even programs, can tighten the code.

      And OSes come with lots of extra applications, which take up most of the distribution media.

      Even with that, Ubuntu (which doesn't include non-open drivers and apps on the distribution even when it recommends you download and use them) is still slim enough to fit on a CD. You only need the DVD if you want to include ALL the language options on one install disk. (But it has gotten big enough that several distribution flavors - graphic install & run from (live) CD vs. typewriter-picture menu install for small RAM machines & encrypted disk support ("alternate"), for instance - require separate CDs.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    131. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are suggesting that Microsoft is cool? On slashdot?

    132. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu.

      Um, what? I was using xubuntu as a desktop on a 333mhz server with 64 mb of ram while waiting for my laptop to arrive this month. A little frustrating? sure. but it worked. Most of the problems i had were the web's fault and not xubuntu. 333 mhz just can't handle flash, java, and most modern codecs.

      I'm thinking you expect too much. If you want a netbook that will do stuff more than basic web use(which doesn't include youtube or flash games :/) and word processing, then you don't want a netbook. You want an ultramobile laptop.

    133. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by jaunty · · Score: 3, Funny

      OK, I understand the bus analogy, but I would understand your argument more (and better), if you used a car analogy, like we're used to here on Slashdot.

      --
      Why did I post this? Ask me now!
    134. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Netbooks installed with MS run XP not the then current released Vista, skipping over it just like everybody else did who had the option to (due to the aforementioned limits and aims).

    135. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by selven · · Score: 1

      They're missing very little. Many people use their computers mainly for web browsing and email, and if your computer is powerful enough to run the latest browser it is powerful enough, and you don't get much by adding more on top of that.

    136. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by dgr73 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they had a chipotle burrito, but are using chipotlaway. No more of those nasty bloodstains.

    137. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      http://blog.laptopmag.com/msi-upgrading-wind-ram-voids-warranty and http://www.i4u.com/article13439.html partially tell the story. On the older models of the EEE, there was a label saying "warranty void if removed" over the memory area. They eventually made a statement that changed it, but its still a risk on some of the netbooks on if you can upgrade memory.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    138. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too, unfortunately the mb died and now I'm using a much better Pentium D 3GHz with 1gig ram..

    139. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Slackware may still support installation from a stack of floppies. The result is...well, let's just say that it's arguably better than Win3.1 and leave it at that. I don't want to start any religious wars here. :)

    140. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Unless you can prove how close your usage metrics are to the OP then your argument is utterly useless.

      Everyone's usage is different.

    141. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.
      What "features" would XP have compared to Ubuntu with Gnome, XFCE, KDE or even LXDE default installs?
      I run my virtual servers with 192MB of RAM and during normal operation they seem to only use 64MB or less when running a LAMP stack with just a blog. X Servers and userland applications are bloated, not Linux.

    142. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      A lesson for Windows Engineers. Aim for 256MB, not 2GB. The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.

      More netbooks come with Windows than with Linux. This is old but Study: Windows clobbers Linux on netbooks with over 90% share.

      Falcon

    143. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I'd hit 256MB.

    144. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      Oh bullocks. This old myth is tired and sad.

      The reason modern software requires so much resources is because it's modern. It does things we couldn't dream about 10 years ago. In years past, we wouldn't bother to write software that ran like shit because we only had 128 MB of RAM. We write that software today because the hardware supports it, not because we are too lazy to optimize software like your myth concludes. Software developers develop software to the capability of their current machine, not the one they had 15 years ago.

      15 years ago, running a single video in a tiny window was pushing the envelope. Before we ran games we shut down everything else, even killing processes we couldn't see. 15 years ago, a couple animated gifs on a web page could make a system crawl (oh, sweet Mosaic). Heaven forbid that you want to keep something running in the background while you did something else.

      Today we concurrently run 3D desktop effects, a media player with software EQ, a couple dozen background processes, a browser with 10 tabs all running various flash animated applets and ajax processes, and a 3D game the likes of which we couldn't imagine 15 years ago. This is why it takes resources.

      In other news, Ubuntu Karmic is pretty nice.

    145. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by VoltageX · · Score: 1

      Can I purchase any of the Smart netbooks yet? I want one. A lot.

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
    146. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      A laptop needs to be set up differently than a laptop, doesn't it?

      How is a laptop different from a laptop?

      The "Desktop" disk is exactly that - desktop.

      I was going to install Jaunty Jackalope on my laptop, both Gnome and KDE desktops. Now I may install Karmic on it instead. Or I may install Jaunty then upgrade, I'm not sure. I want to see a how-to for my laptop first.

      Falcon

    147. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      meh netbooks are generally shipping with 1GB of ram as standard and I bet they would be shipping with 2GB if it wasn't for microsoft's rules on XP home ULCPC.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    148. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      And I think the vast majority ship with a gig or more now.
      Afaict the majority ship with exactly a gig. Few ship with more than a gig because that makes them ineligible for "XP home ULCPC" which is a lot cheaper than "vista buisness downgraded to XP pro" (afaict this is just a restriction of the agreement between the OEMs and MS and it is perfectly acceptable for the end user to upgrade such netbooks to 2GB but IANAL)

      win7 starter allows up to 2GB (and since it's a proper edition I suspect the limit will be enforced this time) it remains to be seen how long win7 will take to replace XP on netbooks and whether when it does 2GB will become standard on them.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    149. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Bollocks right back at you.

      It's a matter of cost-benefit. Modern software is far more bloated for a given functionality than software of a couple decades ago. This is because there is little benefit to spending extra effort to de-bloat it.

      When machines were slower or smaller such effort would make perceptible improvements in performance or make something fit that otherwise would not. Now you can get to something with excellent performance that "rattles around" in the large storage available without such effort. So a programmer can move on to other things while his employer stops paying to have the product developed and starts making revenue by shipping it.

      Of course when you try to stuff a lot of such programs together on a distribution medium or run them simultaneously the bloat adds up enough to notice - and sometimes cause problems.

      And as a programmer from the '60s until I mostly transitioned back to the "hard side of the force" in the late '90s I've watched this happen.

      In my own programming - even 'way back then - I would (unlike my colleagues) normally go for the straightforward solution first, rather than trying to pull subtle stunts to shrink or speed the code. Then I'd go back and check where the bottlenecks and bloat were. Per Knuth's law they weren't where they were expected - and the straightforward solution USUALLY turned out to also be the tight and fast one. A little work in the right spots - possibly replacing a chunk if it turned out to be a bottleneck and there was an algorithm with a better ORDER of execution time - and it was tight, clean, and fast.

      But nowadays there's little point in the "go back and tighten it up" step. If it runs at all it's usually product-ready.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    150. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Having said the previous - I WILL agree with you that, with the faster processors, larger memory, and more capable peripherals, there's a lot more that CAN be done. And thus there's a lot more code to do it.

      Perhaps we can agree that BOTH effects are present and together they account for the bloat?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    151. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu has lacked a lot of what desktop users expect and the inconsistencies are something that turn off a lot of users.

      Windows has two items this user was glad to get rid of, instability and spyware. I switched from Windows to Linux then OS X because of these two problems. As for new things, the day I can't or don't want to learn new things is the day I want to die.

      Falcon

    152. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Afaict there are two groups who want "netbooks" (I hate that term, it implies that the machines are far more crippled than they actually are) with somewhat different requirements.

      One is the group that wants a mobile internet terminal. Most smartphones have screens that are just too small for comfortable web browsing while the 1024x600 of a typical netbook is reasonably comfortable since it is as wide as 1024x768 (which is the resolution most web designers assume as a minimum).

      The other is those who want an ultra-portable laptop but couldn't reasonably afford one. Before the netbook craze started the vast majority of notebooks were 15 inch with the odd 12 or 13 inch and hardly anything smaller than that (and what there was that was smaller was pretty expensive for what you got). Now thanks to the netbook craze I got an ultraportable with a 10 inch 1366x768 screen, a 160GB hard drive, a 1.66 GHz atom processor and a gig of ram (upgradable to two with no tools required) for less than £450 inc VAT and delivery. If I was prepared to put up with a crappy screen and a 1.6GHz processor I could get one for under £200.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    153. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Which netbook did you buy? there is a huge ammount of difference between the first eeepcs (which were crap, a 7 inch screen in a case big enough for a 9 inch, hardly any storage and really crappy processor), the 9 inch flash based machines (better but the storage was still an issue) and the 10 inch HDD based machines.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    154. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by PrntlUnit27 · · Score: 1

      My kid rides the short bus, you insensitive clod!

    155. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      Your premise sounds good in theory, but that doesn't make it true. I'd like to see some solid evidence of this.

      Today, more code is peer reviewed. WAY, way more code is reused due to the mass explosion of publicly shared libraries, the worldwide adoption of OO languages, and the popularity of open source. Very few software systems today are built from scratch. They usually use some framework that is used and reviewed by thousands of other projects. Much more code today is managed code. As a result, programmers aren't left to make the mistakes they would've previously made. Developers are often developing software that is optimized far better than their skill or time would normally allow. As a result, I'd argue that typical software today might be more efficient than it was 15 years ago.

      As for tightening things up, I can't speak for Windows or OSX, but if you watch mailing lists for desktop Linux projects from the kernel to Gnome, code is frequently scrutinized, discussed, and patched to "go back and tighten it up".

      The ironic thing is hearing people complain about the heavy weightedness of a modern OS. Whenever someone brings up switching to Linux, people frequently claim they can't make the switch because doesn't run on Linux. Photoshop, the latest DirectX games, etc.

      People want their cake, and more cake, and then to eat the cake, and the more cake.

    156. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you were last in a thrift store some time in 1999.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    157. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by angus77 · · Score: 1

      I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu.

      I was running Ubuntu on an old 500MHz desktop in my office with only 256MB of RAM, and it ran well enough to get my work done (mainly with OpenOffice).

    158. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try Puppy. Before you laugh, consider the fact that I'm typing from a Dell CPx with a 350Mhz PIIIm, 128Mb of RAM, no hard disk (it failed) running off a Puppy CD.

    159. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the OP did not use X nor Emacs.

      You are doing disservice to Linux by claiming it is usable with less than 1 gig - people might accidentally believe such a bullshit and try.
      And laugh.

    160. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by wisty · · Score: 1

      Virtualization is looking like a real killer app. Putting your whole OS on a memory stick would be awesome. Just carry it around, and plug in where-ever you want.

      OS footprint would matter then.

    161. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Believed it, tried it, and am yet to be disappointed.

      I got a call from a teacher of mine who had just bought a "vista capable" laptop with 512Mb of RAM. He couldn't use it and asked me to come around (2 hour trip!) to fix it. I struggled trying to get Vista to work with it. Even after all the optimisations it still wouldn't function.

      I took the plunge and installed Ubuntu on it. After setting the thing up (installing skype, installing media codecs) it functioned beautifully. The teacher was over the moon (hadn't seen linux before), he's still using it and loves it.

      He's asked me to look into setting up his outback school with linux as their current crop of computers is too slow with Windows XP.

    162. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by craagz · · Score: 1

      DAMN small Linux around 50MB, a live boot gives you an awesome interface with systems stats (CPU, RAM utilization, Network speed etc.) on the desktop.I VirtualBox it if i need to see Linux.

    163. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show how thrift store owners often have no clue whatsoever what the stuff they're trying to sell is (or is not) actually worth.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    164. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then SAY that! Say "I surfed to that site to run a server-side script / call a cgi program / request data from a server [what X would do]". And not "I connected to a 'cloud'". Because that sounds silly, retarded, and PHBy at the same time.

      I can just as well invent cool new words for old things, and then act as if I'm sooo avant-garde. Like those "AJAX" people... guess what, I did that, years before the word or the API were even invented (trough using the OBJECT tag and some JS).

      Same thing here. Now because I have some app running on a server, that I can interact with with a browser, I suddenly can "Connect to my cloud."?

      The level of retardation to think like that boggles the mind... It's the typical behavior of people who are so dumb that they think they are smarter than you and that you don't get it. Because what you say is waay over their head that they have parse errors, resulting in non-understandable logic.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    165. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      off a series of floppies

      These days you can install off a series of tubes.

    166. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure nobody did, but just to be clear, his Onboard Video is using up 16MiB of the 128MiB installed.

    167. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      My Compaq laptop with XP only has 112 MB of memory.

      Aim for that. ;-)

      Okay man. Here you go:

      http://www.puppylinux.org/

    168. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the GPP is alluding to Rosa Parks, who was not allowed to sit in the front of the bus.

    169. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The era of...

      Next year, in Jerusalem.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    170. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by lorteau · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. That's because they don't install a desktop environment by default. Install GNOME and your 64MB of RAM will melt down.

      Don't compare a distro aimed at Joe Average user and a distro aimed at hardcore linux sysadmins.

    171. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      I dont think Im doing anything wrong, we just have different usage patterns. First off, the original poster claimed full ubuntu ran on 256megs of RAM. No, thats the minimum requirement for the standard installer. If you have a machine with less than that you need an alternate install disk. Or you do what I do: use xubuntu. I cant imagine running full ubuntu on less than 1gig.

      On my old system, an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ with 512MB RAM and a 200GB hard drive, I used to run XP Pro. For a while I played an MMORPG called Silkroad Online. On that system, I always had to run Silkroad's graphics settings at the bare minimum with the detailed shadows feature turned off to be able to play the game without significant lag. It was well known among the community that detailed shadows really drag Silkroad down on most people's systems.

      Then I decided to install Ubuntu on that system (I believe it was Ubuntu 8.x). I loaded the OS, installed wine, installed Silkroad and started it up. Silkroad ran quite nicely with the default settings. I turned all the graphic settings to max, detailed shadows on, and it still worked quite well. I had a minor amount of lag if I went into town when a lot of other players were there, but not much of a lag. I even had Compiz-fusion enabled on that system and it wasn't really that bad to have the game up and spin the 3D cube.

      I think Ubuntu (at least about a year ago) is perfectly fine running on less than a gig of RAM. Today's Ubuntu can't be that much more of a RAM hog.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    172. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      Let me introduce you to Slackware. Slackware requires:

              * 486 processor

              * 64MB RAM (1GB+ suggested)

              * About 5GB+ of hard disk space for a full install

              * CD or DVD drive (if not bootable, then a bootable USB flash stick or PXE server/network card)

      Let me introduce you to Damn Small Linux. Damn Small Linux requires:

        * i486
        * 24MB RAM
        * 50MB of hard disk space for install with X-Window environment
        * CD or DVD drive, or USB flash stick, etc to install.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    173. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I personally love my netbook. Small enough to take everywhere. Cheap enough that it's not a big deal if something happens to it. It's no speed demon, but it's fast enough for most of what I want to do with it. I wouldn't want one as my only PC, but for the price of a laptop that would do everything, I can get a desktop and the netbook.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    174. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by the_crowbar · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 also starts out slow but as you use your computer it gets noticeably faster, much the same way as Vista and is honestly why Vista generated so much negative PR.

      I really wish this were the case. Windows 7 has not increased in speed on her machine. I know Windows has some sort of disk access optimization, but with only 1GB of RAM (minus whatever is used by onboard video) it is simply constrained. Maybe the home versions are a little better with memory use. I plan on putting another 2GB in her computer as soon as I get a chance.

      I am running 32 bit Windows 7 because I got it for free. If I had to pay for it the machine would continue to run Windows XP. Windows 7 for basic home use is no better than XP.

      Cheers,
      the_crowbar

      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
    175. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by melf-san · · Score: 1

      No problem :)
      This is where I bought it from:
      http://mp4nation.net/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1_27
      But there are other sites:
      http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.27441
      And there is a "Where to buy ?" thread on the unofficial SmartQ users board:
      http://www.smartqmid.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6

    176. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by melf-san · · Score: 1

      The default OS is is shipped with is quite ironicaly modified Ubuntu 9.10 :)
      They just grabbed some alpha/beta and customized it for the device.

      Other than the default distro, you can run Mer, Android and WinCE.
      The os can be booted from the internal flash (some iNand) or from the SD card and the device is said to be basicaly unbrickable.

    177. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by melf-san · · Score: 1
    178. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Bootarn · · Score: 1

      OK, I'd mod this 'insightful' if I had the points. It's still kind of funny, though.

    179. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by armanox · · Score: 1

      Slackware installs a DE by default. Just not GNOME. And, Slackware works just as well for the average user as Ubuntu does.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    180. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      That sounds great. I have som long service leave coming to me and I have considered renting a shop for a couple of months and selling laptops like these. I would be interested in getting a unit to trial.

    181. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dual boot Vista 64-bit and Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit on my laptop. The laptop came with a lot of crapware pre-installed but I managed to remove all or most of it. I also added Komodo firewall and Avira antivirus. I turned off Windows Defender. Despite all that, Vista uses at least 1.3 GB of memory. Ubuntu uses at the very least, just over 500 MB of memory.

    182. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can barely run xubuntu on a machine with 256megs or ram let alone full ubuntu.

      >The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus.

      Considering netbooks are shipping with 7 and ram costs less than shipping, I'll take the 2gig model, thanks. More ram for my apps.

      I had a laptop (600MHZ PIII w/ 512MB of RAM) that ran Ubuntu fine, but I agree - many apps today require more ram. The point I think is that the OS should always need the SAME amount of RAM. I originally had XP on the laptop I mentioned and when I put XP back on it, it runs fine until it Downloads all the updates... I think M$ makes windows slower on purpose to make us buy new computers. The point is an OS should be stable, fast, and it should leave the RAM available for the applications... not gobble it all up.

    183. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the apps are using the ram. I am curious - if you load XP on that laptop (or 98, or me) and run the same ammout of apps, does it get sluggish?

      I work on a team that supports over 20,000 customers and some customers use applications that are memory (or hard drive) hogs. Most of our customers can run XP with all the standard office and other applications with 1GIG of ram and it is plenty. Others (because of the applications) have 2-4 GIGs and faster processors.

      Just realize that regardless of the OS, running too many things at once will paralyze old hardware because it can't handle the workload.

    184. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Cato · · Score: 1

      Actually a big part of the RAM usage *is* Xubuntu - see the 'simple comparisons' section of http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html where it talks about RAM usage immediately after boot including Lubuntu, which is a much lighter LXDE-based variant of Ubuntu. Lubuntu should become an official Ubuntu derivative using LXDE. The RAM usage stats from that page are:

      * Lubuntu 58 MB
      * Xubuntu 157 MB
      * Ubuntu 154 MB

      Yes, Ubuntu used slightly less than Xubuntu, which is a surprise - presumably this was a recent Xubuntu version which is more bloated.

      When you have various apps running including Firefox, Lubuntu apparently used about 150 MB vs over 300 MB for Xubuntu / Ubuntu.

      Since Lubuntu is quite hard to track down, here are some links:

      * http://linux.softpedia.com/get/System/Operating-Systems/Linux-Distributions/Lubuntu-50492.shtml - Lubuntu 9.10 Beta 14 - final release was due Oct 29th but isn't yet available.
      * http://download.lxde.org/lubuntu-9.10/ - betas 14 and 23.

      Or you could try the LXDE project's distro, or Debian with LXDE: http://lxde.org/download

    185. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Hillview · · Score: 1

      'Correct! Also why have OSes gotten so large they required DVDs! I remember being able to install 3.11 for workgroups off a series of floppies, why can't we go back to that?!' 3.11 wasn't an OS. It was a miserable excuse for a gui that required an OS to be installed first.

      --
      -Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
    186. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you tell much much video ram is allocated, and how do you change it?

    187. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lesson to Ubuntu Engineers. Create a distro that actually works and doesn't make your programs crash. As for the netbook. Installation of the new distro on my netbook caused it to not restart. I now have to reinstall the OS and I am having nightmares of windows 95 proportions.

    188. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Usually it's a setting in the bios

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    189. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The thing is even netbooks are shipping with 1GB of ram as standard now and afaict the only reason they aren't shipping with 2GB is microsofts rules getting for "XP home ULCPC".

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    190. Re:It says: 256MB RAM... by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      If you want to run a distro thats similar to the bells and whistles of OSX or Win7 then youre going to have to use a similar amount of RAM. Youre not getting away with using 1/4 the ram without giving up gnome.

      Right now I've got gnome, with compiz, running. I also have Firefox with five tabs, an IM client with several windows, four terminals, Audacious, Evolution, and gedit (with several tabs). In other words, the majority of my day-to-day stuff is running just fine, including the fancy bells and whistles of compiz, which to me are a hell of a lot nicer looking, and way more functional, than anything Win7 has to offer. 'free -m' shows I'm using 960 megs of RAM. This machine has been running for just over five days.

      On my Windows 7 machine, I've got Firefox open, with one tab displaying a directory listing (no flash or anything). That's it. Task manager says it's using 894 megs of RAM, AND it has 884 megs paged for god-knows-what reason. This machine is just sitting there doing nothing, and I just restarted it like half an hour ago so it's not some weird memory leak nonsense.

      No, Linux may not be magic, but when I see numbers like this, and compare them to what the machines are actually doing, it becomes clear that Linux is much less resource intensive than Windows.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
  4. How to get Ubuntu 9? by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

    I'm currently running Ubuntu 8.something. If I want to upgrade do I have to a do a complete reinstall, or can I just click "install updates" on my desktop? If it's the former, then I'll just stay with Ubuntu 8.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Lothsahn · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to incrementally update through each version. If you have 8.04, you have to go to 8.10, then 9.04, then finally 9.10.

      The incremental updates can be done through the install updates on your desktop. If you wait too long, you'll have to change your apt sources, so I'd upgrade sooner rather than later.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    2. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you'll be better off with a complete reinstall. Especially if you have /home on a separate partition.

    3. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 1

      IIRC it is not possible to skip a release, so you would have to update to releases in between first.

      The update-manager program may be used for upgrades. If you are on a LTS release you will first have to enable normal releases in your package manager configuration (don't have Ubuntu available to tell you the actual name), otherwise you will have to wait for the next LTS release which is supposed to be 10.4.

    5. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by phyrz · · Score: 1

      you need to upgrade through each version to get to 9.10. also systems never seem to work as well once they go through dist upgrades so in my opinion its best to start afresh. Sooo... stick with what ya got.

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
    6. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Just try it. My gut feeling says it should be possible to do it in steps if it is 8.10. Otherwise, see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EOLUpgrades

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    7. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      You can do the latter, but it's not recommended. You are guaranteed to have a mess. I did an upgrade from 7.10 to 8.04, and that was sticky. 8.10 to 9.04 went okay, but doing two in one go is going to cause all sorts of trouble. I would expect, at the very minimum, that you will have sound randomly crapping out on you.

      Clean install is best.

    8. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To do the distro installs, incrementally, from your desktop hit Shift+F2 and enter "update-manager -d" without the quotes. The update manager will launch (as it usually does when loaded) but will give you a button at the top to upgrade to a new distribution (8.10/9.04/what-have-you). They take a little while.

      Or, you could listen to Jurily and do a complete reinstall. I personally have had little problems doing the incremental upgrades, but YMMV.

    9. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can do the latter, but it's not recommended. You are guaranteed to have a mess. I did an upgrade from 7.10 to 8.04, and that was sticky. 8.10 to 9.04 went okay, but doing two in one go is going to cause all sorts of trouble. I would expect, at the very minimum, that you will have sound randomly crapping out on you.

      Clean install is best.

      I would chalk the sound randomly crapping out on you to pulseaudio becoming the default sound system during one of your upgrades. It did that on clean installs too. Pulseaudio was (and still is??) a mess.

    10. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      spoken like a windows user.

    11. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can skip from one LTS release to another. eg: 8.04 to 10.04

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

    12. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by physburn · · Score: 1
      So that means we can slowly upgrade with normal graphic upgrade, or aptitude from the command line, on version per run. With that many versions and data to download, it might be faster to just download the full install of 9.10. Hope you got all you data on the /home partition that you don't overwrite.

      ---

      Linux Feed @ Feed Distiller

    13. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      While it's easier and cleaner to do so with home on its own partition, you can re-install Ubuntu over an existing install without data loss. If you're going for a clean-ish install, I think you can just delete everything except for the home directory and install. Either way, chose to manually set up the partitioning and be sure you don't format anything.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    14. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by he-sk · · Score: 1

      During my Debian days I never had to do a complete reinstall.

      Of course, Debian didn't have Ubuntu's release schedule.

      But then I always followed unstable.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    15. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by knarf · · Score: 1

      I have never done a re-install of Debian or any Debian-derived distribution. The upgrade process is generally smooth and painless. My current main system (a Thinkpad T23) has seen all versions starting from Hoary (5.04) in succession without (the need for) a re-install or (possibly more important) the need for extensive manual intervention during upgrades. You get to answer the standard 'this configuration file has changed, what do you want to do' or 'these services need to be restarted' questions but that is about it.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    16. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      If you want to upgrade to the ext4 file system, or encrypting your /home with eCrypt, then a reinstall is well worth it. Otherwise it will take some extra well-researched steps to use those features.

      I'm on 8.10, but will wait about 2 months before moving to Karmic, a clean install :)

    17. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to incrementally update through each version. If you have 8.04, you have to go to 8.10, then 9.04, then finally 9.10.

      The incremental updates can be done through the install updates on your desktop. If you wait too long, you'll have to change your apt sources, so I'd upgrade sooner rather than later.

      Here, take a look at http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/upgrading. If you are several versions behind, then you may need to do this more than once.

    18. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try pressing Alt-F2 to bring up a "run" dialog, and typing
      update-manager -d

      I can't remember if it needs a sudo in front of it, but it uses the GUI update manager to do the equivalent of a
      "sudo apt-get --dist-upgrade" from the command line. On the LTS versions, it does not announce new versions being available.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    19. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During my Debian days I never had to do a complete reinstall.

      Of course, Debian didn't have Ubuntu's release schedule.

      But then I always followed unstable.

      Because Debian only released every 20 years back then...

    20. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by ericrost · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry, but the root partition must be formatted even when doing it manually. Please try again and layout your partitions with a separate /home to begin with. This is the reason partitions exist.

    21. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by crimsun · · Score: 1

      As others have stated, the recommended upgrade path for non-LTS Ubuntu versions is through each successive release.

      For Kubuntu only, you can upgrade to 9.10 from 8.04 LTS or from 9.04.

    22. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth as an anecdote: I recently took a deep breath and upgraded an 8.04 machine. The 8.10 update ran a very long time and then reported that it had failed and would try to run a recovery script. The machine was pretty hosed afterwards. Nothing to lose - I told it to try to update to 9.04.

      Guess what: afterwards, everything worked! One of those very rare positive surprises in the IT world!

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    23. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure this isn't true. The ubuntu installer complained a bit when I tried it a version or two ago but it let me do it. Don't remember if the install succeeded though.

    24. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by aronschatz · · Score: 1

      Not at all. With /home on its own partition, settings will migrate over (personal settings, not system (/etc)). I've done this a bunch of times and it works fine. Lately I've been going the upgrade routine, but sometimes it is just easier to clean install off a CD rather than waiting x hours for the damn updates to download and install.

    25. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Martin+Soto · · Score: 1

      For the most part, they keep working well. The major problem is that the upgrade changes the layout of files on the disk, and, since the highly optimized boot procedure depends on that, your boot will likely become slower. You can at least mitigate this problem by rebuilding the boot readahead list as explained here.

    26. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you'll be better off with a complete reinstall. Especially if you have /home on a separate partition.

      Nice opinion. Got any reasoning to back it up?

      My home file server was originally installed in 1998. For 11 years I've been upgrading it, never a problem. At this point there's nothing left of the original hardware or the original software, but it's the same installation. My laptop was installed in 2001. That was three machines ago, but I just copy the disk image from one to the next, and keep on apt-get upgrading. Those are both Debian systems, of course, Ubuntu doesn't go back that far. My desktop machine was originally installed with Ubuntu 7.04. It's now on 9.04 and will be upgraded to 9.10 soon.

      There's no reason whatsoever to reinstall.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    27. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Jon_S · · Score: 1

      Not according to the Kubuntu page. And Kubuntu is just Ubuntu with KDE.

      https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KarmicUpgrades/Kubuntu/8.04

      Says you upgrade directly from 8.04

    28. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Guess what: afterwards, everything worked! One of those very rare positive surprises in the IT world!

      I upgraded directly from 8.04 to 9.04 with no problems. I was amazed as well, as I've never seen a perfect upgrade from one version to another in any Linux distribution. There has always been some glitch or gotcha that was easier to fix with a clean install and restoration of stuff from backup. It has been an act of purist optimism to even try, but one finally rewarded with the upgrade to 9.04. I'm going to try upgrading to 9.10 that way, though I'll wait a couple of days for the rush to be over.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    29. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just rsync the home directory to a backup drive, install the fresh copy and copy the backup back to the home directory. Not rocket science.

    30. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Why do they turn off the incremental updates, rather than keeping them working forever? It seems that if it worked at all they could keep the "update to version x.yy" button on the updates panel, and you could click that through all the intermediate versions to update to the current one.

      I had to reinstall because I had not updated my Ubuntu machine for too long and I finally got some software (google earth) that required the new system. This was rather annoying, in particular because it insisted on partitioning my existing Ubuntu partition in half to preserve the old system (I instead wiped the Windows install because I had not ever used it and it did seem to be happy with having the entire disk be Ubuntu).

    31. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I just did this. Under one of the tabes in the update manager there's an option to change from "upgrade from LTS" to "upgrade on every major release". Check that, hit ok, and refresh. I upgraded from 8.04 to 9.04 via 8.10, and I'm about to make the 9.10 jump. I'm going to wait a week, let any major bugs get sorted out, let the servers rest a bit, and then make the jump.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    32. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to do it with Ubuntu either. I just edit the sources list, to swap out the release name then..
      sudo aptitude update
      sudo aptitude -f full-upgrade

      Saves you from getting all the unwanted apps reinstalled.

    33. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      The command line equivalent is "sudo do-release-upgrade", fyi.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    34. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      There's no reason whatsoever to reinstall.

      Three words, Third party repositories. Your upgrade should go fine and dandy when you've only used official repos, but when extra repos are in the mix it's best to not even try it.

      Same deal with custom installed things, while they are usually cleanly in a different prefix like /usr/local it's always good to blow away all of your custom bits and configs to either leave it if no longer in use, or try again with the latest version to make sure it all still works.

      My /home has been consistent for about five years now without issue, last time it was blown away was a new drive ago. I agree that if you don't screw with things too much upgrades should be fine.

      But fact of the matter is, we are linux users, we do strange things like bake our own binutils/gcc for different platforms from scratch, compile kernel modules that haven't went mainline yet for some specific piece of hardware and other such nonsense. This is why I keep /home seperately :).

    35. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Three words, Third party repositories. Your upgrade should go fine and dandy when you've only used official repos, but when extra repos are in the mix it's best to not even try it.

      Bah.

      I ALWAYS have third-party repositories in the mix, and custom-installed packages (usually from DEBs I built myself). It's really not an issue.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    36. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Your mileage may vary, and I'd bet breakages aren't common, but long ago circa 2000'ish after a severe breakage I swore never again, and while I'm sure it has improved why bother taking the risk no matter how small when a fresh install will always work no matter what?

    37. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Cool. Can you point me to the apt repo for 10.4?

      thanks

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    38. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by swillden · · Score: 1

      In the common case, where the system hasn't been manually tweaked much, it just works. The only real downside is that some of your 3rd-party packages will get automatically removed and you'll have to reinstall them. For the average user, there's almost zero risk in upgrading -- and the only reason I toss the "almost" in is because I can't stand being absolutist.

      In my case, I make lots of modifications to my system, and so there is some risk of breakage, but I also have the knowledge required to fix it. On the other hand, I know that if I installed from scratch it would take me a long time to get the new system configured the way I like it. It's easier to upgrade and then fix whatever tweaks got broken.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    39. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      The thing with complete reinstalls is that once you do a fresh install, you have to go out and install all of the additional apps you had on the old system, reconfigure various settings, things like that. Perhaps it's not too bad though if all that involves is 'sudo apt-get install program1 program2 program3... programN' after the clean OS install.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    40. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by pyrr · · Score: 1

      Sure, in April of 2010...

    41. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu lucid main

      Not that i'd reccomend trying to upgrade to it just yet ;)

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    42. Re:How to get Ubuntu 9? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      IIRC it is not possible to skip a release
      It's not supported, that doesn't mean it isn't possible ;)

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  5. no it wasnt.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    no it wasnt..

    1. Re:no it wasnt.. by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Slashdot confirms it!
      Those party poopers in #ubuntu-release-party are in denial.

    2. Re:no it wasnt.. by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Informative

      The main page may not say so, but check the mirrors. It's there.

    3. Re:no it wasnt.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaporware!

      Microsoft's ad agency swings into action...

    4. Re:no it wasnt.. by Rigrig · · Score: 1

      All I see on that page is the release candidate...

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    5. Re:no it wasnt.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This link is for the pre releases, it's not official until the main download page swaps over

    6. Re:no it wasnt.. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      That's not the release candidate. Are you looking at the page I linked in the GP?

    7. Re:no it wasnt.. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      That is not the RC. It's the release image.

    8. Re:no it wasnt.. by kauttapiste · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh look, that isn't an argument. It's just contradiction. I came here for a good argument.

  6. no by pele · · Score: 0, Redundant

    it's not

    1. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes it is!

  7. Not yet.. by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    Looks like somebody jumped the gun. Download link is for 9.04 as of now...

    1. Re:Not yet.. by drumguru · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check out the mirrors http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadmirrors#dvd. Most of them have it up. I'm torrenting it now.

  8. Not yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you anticipated a little...
    The website is not yet updated and the release can not yet be downloaded
    Just a little bit more patience

    1. Re:Not yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://noncdn.releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/

      This is the main site -- you might be able to find 9.10 on a mirror by changing "9.04" in the url to "9.10" (though this is some advanced hacking.) If you're a BitTorrent user, though, you can grab a torrent file from the above.

    2. Re:Not yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But who cares about the next load of brown turd to come out of Canonicals backside?
      Not me for one. It has fat too much Nannying for my liking.

      Ah well, back to my endless Slackware compilations.

    3. Re:Not yet by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Then what's in the file ubuntu-9.10-desktop-amd64.iso I'm torrenting right now?

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    4. Re:Not yet by yamfry · · Score: 2, Funny

      A 4x HD Rick Roll?

    5. Re:Not yet by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      Metaphor for what you just did: The thermites just raided the black ants hive and left red ant bodies behind as proof the red ants did it.

      You sir, are not a red ant.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    6. Re:Not yet by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      Last Measure?

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  9. It's not released yet?! by kazade84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean seriously, how hard is it to go look at http://www.ubuntu.com/ to check?

    1. Re:It's not released yet?! by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at the mirrors - it's up, but the site doesn't yet reflect it.

      http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/ubuntu-releases/9.10/

    2. Re:It's not released yet?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're getting started early so that there's time for three or four dupes.

    3. Re:It's not released yet?! by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      The main page may not say so, but check the mirrors. It's there.

    4. Re:It's not released yet?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mirrors start syncing when the release candidate is released, ie, a week before release. Then rsync is used to update everything just before the final is released. So it can look like the final is on all the mirrors, and sometimes it is, but you can't be sure till the release announcement.

      Which hasn't happened yet!! Thu Oct 29 13:49:26 UTC 2009

    5. Re:It's not released yet?! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I mean, c... c... come on, g-g-g-guys!

    6. Re:It's not released yet?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So it's not _officially_ released, is it?

    7. Re:It's not released yet?! by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      For the mirrors reporting an up to date status, it's the real deal. Download the ISO and check it out. The public announcement is assuredly going to be made soon.

    8. Re:It's not released yet?! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      I mean seriously, how hard is it to do a little digging. According to the mirrors, it's been up for at least a day. Jeeze, don't try or anything.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    9. Re:It's not released yet?! by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      It's officially released on the mirrors.

    10. Re:It's not released yet?! by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

      /. actually got breaking ubuntu news BEFORE the main site. And people say /. is slow.

    11. Re:It's not released yet?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes I live on the main ubuntu page. I check it every 20 or 30 mins just incase!

      Oh and by the link you posted its out... At the time you posted the web site was a bit behind.

    12. Re:It's not released yet?! by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      That was pretty much my goal ;). I did make sure that most mirrors had it first, though.

  10. Broke for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My server upgrade from 9.04 broke, and it looks hosed. Something about dbus complaining a messagebus user already existing, then the init process used 100% cpu and memory 'til it dropped offline. Sigh.

    1. Re:Broke for me by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      One clue I'll give you is that it hasn't yet been released, even though slashdot says so. What exactly did you upgrade too?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Broke for me by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      His issue isn't with the packages; they're good to go (check out the ISO on the mirrors). It's a case of plain old-fashioned "test on another machine" before applying to production. Going from one LTS release to another is well-supported, but the upgrade path he took is not.

  11. Too soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Ubuntu website still has 9.04 listed, and do-release-upgrade does not give me an option to upgrade just yet...

  12. Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party by axor1337 · · Score: 0

    I just had a windows Seven Launch Party (I signed up so I could get the free copy of Ultimate) now it is time for the Ubuntu Party. I love Ubuntu but need to run windows as my host OS for work reasons. Dual booting takes to long to switch back and forth so i use Virtual Box. and Run Ubuntu as a VM. I am stoked.

    --
    there are 10 types of people in this world, those who read binary and those who don't. which are you!
    1. Re:Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      http://www.funnyordie.co.uk/videos/ef83afc272/hosting-your-windows-7-torrenting-party

      Don't worry, this one isn't cringe-worthy like the original.

    2. Re:Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It's still not funny. I guess that leaves "or die," so please come with me to the gas chamber...

    3. Re:Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Unlike the other replier here, I thought the video was great. :D

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    4. Re:Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party by Fulg · · Score: 1

      This video springs to mind...

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    5. Re:Time for my Ubuntu 9.10 Launch Party by PenisLands · · Score: 1

      Heh heh! Oh, boy! PENISWORLD. PENISLIFE. Hah! Yea man, what a video.

  13. Once again: no by fluch · · Score: 1

    The RC was just released a few days ago. But the final 9.10 is still not on their website.

    1. Re:Once again: no by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      The main page may not say so, but check the mirrors. It's there.

    2. Re:Once again: no by InEnacWeTrust · · Score: 1

      The RC was just released a few days ago. But the final 9.10 is still not on their website.

      Once again: yes. but, I guess we'll just have to keep arguing for a couple of hours waiting for the website to make the announcement. Theeeeeen maybe the debate will be over.

    3. Re:Once again: no by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      But the final 9.10 is still not on their website.

      It's on the Finland mirror...
      http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/releases.ubuntu.com/karmic/

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    4. Re:Once again: no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the iso's are from the 27th while everything else is from today, so am i getting the latest version if it's been up since the 27th?

  14. Re: http://noncdn.releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can download it now from http://noncdn.releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/ or mirror sites.

  15. Not true... by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All of the reviews of Windows 7 on NetBooks that I have seen so far have been positive about how well it performs on them. Microsoft actually targeted them because it knows it can't afford to make an OS which runs poorly on them or not at all.

    1. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to think those reviews were written by people wearing the rosiest of rose tinged glasses. I mean I'm a die-hard Windows user myself but I did try the Ubuntu 9.10 beta on one of my older laptops and it ran like a dream on the 192 MB of RAM it had in it. On the other hand, Windows 7 on my Acer Aspire One netbook with 1 GB or RAM seemed to run well at first but after a few days, the sluggishness showed through. Little delays here and there and the Aero effects stuttering just started driving me up the wall. I just went on and put XP back on it though, I'm very seriously considering putting Ubuntu on it now. I can't believe it but I finally think Linux might be ready. That beta on my old Toshiba with the 600 MHz Celeron certainly made a believer out of this Windows user.

    2. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about just turning the Aero effects off?

    3. Re:Not true... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      I can definitely recommend Ubuntu for the Acer Aspire One

      I have been using it for almost a year now, and it runs better on it than the Windows XP it came on

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    4. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why run 7 sawed off at the knees when I can just run XP in its full glory. Besides, I kind of like having an "up" arrow in my file manager...

    5. Re:Not true... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Well, remember that almost all reviews of Vista were positive too...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    6. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      192MB of RAM and it ran like a dream? More like a nightmare I'd say. Maybe if you were using the CLI only, but there's no way you were running Gnome or KDE on ANY variant of Linux with 192MB of RAM with anything that even approaches reasonable performance.

    7. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, maybe it was the version I was using. It was a beta after all but it ran really well. I was just about to throw the old machine away as the resolution doesn't even exceed 800x600. Now, my wife uses it as a recipe appliance in the kitchen so, I'd say it is a success.

      Actually, what really sealed it was I distinctly remember trying to watch videos it with Media Player Clasic and it being a complete slide show. When I first put Ubuntu on it, I tried some video and it still ran like crap so I went looking for some other players in the Ubuntu Software program and happened upon something called "mplayer". It isn't much to look at but the videos played in it are smooth. As I said, "Like a dream."

    8. Re:Not true... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Err...even on my work desktop, the first thing I shut off in Vista is Aero. The cool effects completely clash with my matte black case. If I wanted the shiny on my GUI, I'd get the shiny on my hardware to match (re: I'd go Mac).

    9. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd hardly consider turning of Aero effects "sawed off at the knees". It is more like "no makeup".

      And I'd say just enabling the styles without any other effect it looks better than XP possibly can and doesn't need much performance.

      I would always choose 7 before XP because of:
      - UAC / usable privilege escalation mechanism
      - better firewall
      - searchable control panel
      - better organized start menu, taskbar and tray icons
      - better volume control
      - UDF for non-optical drives

    10. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would always choose 7 before XP because of: - UAC / usable privilege escalation mechanism

      I'm not my grandmother.

      - better firewall

      Why use a firewall from an OS company when I can get a better one from a firewall company?

      - searchable control panel

      With XP, I can set the control panel to just fan out when I mouse over it in the Start Menu. It's alphabetized so what possible reason would I need for it to be searchable? That's a total of 2 clicks and about 8 seconds to get to something like "System".

      - better organized start menu, taskbar and tray icons

      Hah. Don't make me laugh. The Vista/7 start menu is a joke with confusing flip-flop click-fest menus. With XP, everything just fans out for a total of 2 clicks to get to anything I want.

      - better volume control

      You mean more confusing. Let's see, is it the main volume, the volume in winamp or the special winamp volume control in the volume control menu that I need to fiddle with to make my goddamn mp3's play?

      - UDF for non-optical drives

      Well, damn, I guess that seals the deal. Win7 FTW!111

      Seriously, get off the kool-aid pitcher. It's sour. Windows 7/Vista is a jumbled nightmare of confusing menus and stupid effects. Win2000/XP has a vastly simpler and more subtle interface and user experience. Microsoft deserves to fail for laying these 2 turds in a row.

    11. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very seriously considering putting Ubuntu on it now. I can't believe it but I finally think Linux might be ready.

      Look out... The Year Of The Linux Desktop has finally arrived.

    12. Re:Not true... by black88 · · Score: 0

      Confusing for you. I have been primarily a user of Windows since 95. During that time, I have run a number of distros with varying degrees of success, with the best user experience being Slackware.

      Quit posting your opinion as if it were a fact. I have been running Windows 7 RC fine for a few months now. If you don't like it, fine, just shut the fuck up about it, you obsessive cunt.

    13. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Confusing for you.

      Confusing to a lot of people actually. Vista introduced the current menu system where multiple entries in different menu panes will lead you back to the same place as sub options of each other. The display and styles configurators are particularly bad. This has been one of the primary complaints by most users I've had personal experience with.

      Quit posting your opinion as if it were a fact. I have been running Windows 7 RC fine for a few months now. If you don't like it, fine, just shut the fuck up about it, you obsessive cunt.

      You're absolutely right and your stunning display of subtle wit and eloquence has truly shown me the errors of my ways. Or you're just a pathetic and moronic fanboy. I'll think about it and get back to you.

    14. Re:Not true... by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      I can definitely recommend Ubuntu for the Acer Aspire One

      I have been using it for almost a year now, and it runs better on it than the Windows XP it came on

      I reckon Ubuntu is also better than the Linpus Linux it came with

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    15. Re:Not true... by txwikinger-slashdot · · Score: 1

      Well.. Windows is not commonly available before its launch, hence the crowd that can review is more tightly controlled. For FLOSS anybody can review before the release.

    16. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR

      Get off my lawn!

    17. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

      *Shakes cane in your general direction*

    18. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      An operating system's job is to run my applications and allow those applications to interface with my hardware. When an application that I need stops working or my hardware no longer works, then we can talk about moving to the next version of the operating system. Anything else is the tail wagging the dog.

      Actually, it's this "Buy Buy Buy!! It doesn't matter if it really meets your needs!! Get on that upgrade treadmill, what are you some kind of loser?!11" mentality that put the world in the financial mess it's in right now. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

    19. Re:Not true... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Mine came with XP, so I can't comment on Linpus.

      However, there's not a lot of love in the Acer Aspire One User's forum

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    20. Re:Not true... by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Problem is Aero shouldn't slow down the machine as much as it does. I run Dual Screen Compiz (Extra Desktop Effects in Ubuntu) with a few extra things turned on, with a crappy Intel GMA 945 and it actually makes the environment slicker and faster (well apart from intels first addition of the drivers in 9.04, but I believe they addressed this in 9.10), not only faster, but longer battery life and less cpu usage! And it's been this way for quite some time, even when I was running Beryl on my 7.04 install a few years ago on my even slower/crappier intel card I had in my old notebook.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    21. Re:Not true... by Lorkki · · Score: 1

      I just went on and put XP back on it though, I'm very seriously considering putting Ubuntu on it now.

      I can heartily recommend it. The last release came into a bit of a weird spot as far as graphics drivers were concerned, but now everything runs a lot smoother again and the accelerated desktop is properly vsynced as well. Compared to XP, there seems to be less disk rattling and throttling of fans, though battery life is about equal.

      Just do a bit of googling up front; there were a few minor issues with my Samsung NC10 too, but nothing people hadn't thought to pre-package fixes for.

    22. Re:Not true... by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      If you do put ubuntu, I highly recommend Ubuntu Netbook Remix. 9.10 is just beautiful and fully optimized to this kind of hardware

      --
      -- dnl
    23. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you've done it already, but i've been running the 9.10 RC for Karmic, netbook remix edition, since it was available. I have an Acer Aspire One D250 (N270 1.6Ghz Atom, 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, etc..) and it's run perfectly (plus wired ethernet works OOTB as apposed to 9.04 which required compiling the drivers). I will say my Windows XP that came by default was actually very nice as well. So keeping a middle ground, if you need Windows on it, XP is definitely my recommendation. If you're a Linux fan, 9.10 is a perfect fit. I'm a Linux fan so all i run on it is Ubuntu 9.10, just my 2c.

    24. Re:Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've improved the netbook interface over 9.04, but I was under the impression that the only optimization was for the limited screen real-estate. Is there any other optimization they have done? If not, I wouldn't call it fully optimized for the hardware.

  16. I can has? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can has Karmic Kandy?

    Oops, that's not the name of this release... Darn.

  17. Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime Time by QBasicer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The new Ubuntu seems to have a lot of new stuff that I feel slightly uneasy about. I'm not sure if Ext4 has proven itself yet (then again, I haven't been paying attention), and grub2 isn't even available on Gentoo yet (my somewhat crude stick of measuring when things are considered "new" or not). I like the progress, I'm just interesting in hearing some discussion about it (hal deprecation, new input system, NX, AppArmor, etc).

    --
    x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
  18. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    It's free and I value my time and it works out great.

    Not sure where you're coming from with this.

    Are you used to using something like Windows?

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  19. Actually, yes it is by mldi · · Score: 1

    OK, so it's not "official" as the links aren't available yet, BUT the files are on their servers. Just look at current links, copy, replace 9.04 with 9.10, and voila! At least with the torrent files anyway...

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  20. Indeed it is!!!! by Harribo99 · · Score: 1

    The files are there and can be downloaded goto http://noncdn.releases.ubuntu.com//karmic/ and see for yourself

  21. Obligitory Culture Club by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Karmic Karmic Karmic Karmic Karmic Koala
    Download and install
    Download and innnnnstaaaalllllll....

    1. Re:Obligitory Culture Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      brainwashed fanboy alert!

    2. Re:Obligitory Culture Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c'mon man, that's just gay. We don't do gay here.

    3. Re:Obligitory Culture Club by bhunachchicken · · Score: 1

      "c'mon man, that's just gay. We don't do gay here."

      Said the anonymous coward.

    4. Re:Obligitory Culture Club by Samah · · Score: 1

      Karmic Karmic Karmic Karmic Karmic Koala Download and install Download and innnnnstaaaalllllll....

      I hate you. I now have that stuck in my head... ARGH!

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  22. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And Windows costs no matter if you value your time or not. Even nicer!

  23. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by PinkyDead · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know I shouldn't feed a troll, but I just can't resist.....

    Outside of downloading, I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10 (RC1) in about an hour - mostly unattended (while I was doing other stuff as well).

    A friend of mine who is a complete MS fanboy is currently at 4 days and counting for a Windows 7 upgrade.

    I think I value my time too much.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  24. VM images? by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

    Have people made virtual machines of it yet? I usually run Ubuntu through VMware Player on Windows, could I grab an image right this second?

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:VM images? by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Informative

      Use the mirrors :). I've been running the alphas and the RC in VirtualBox for weeks now, and everything seems to work perfectly.

    2. Re:VM images? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      I used to use vmware player, config is shit. Switch to virtualbox and build your own image, much more fun.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:VM images? by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

      Same here. Installed it yesterday in fact to test out some software I'm working on.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    4. Re:VM images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or use apt-upgrade unless it doesn't have the internet that should work. Of course if you want a clean install I have no idea.

    5. Re:VM images? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You're doing it wrong, two ways.

      1. Use Virtualbox, lots more features.
      2. Ubuntu on hardware, windows virtualized if you must have it.

  25. REMEMBER! by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you are running an older version, you must upgrade incrementally. For instance, if you are at 8.10, you have to go to 9.04 and THEN 9.10. Kind of makes it a pain, but at least you don't have to do much. Just go to the update manager GUI and update. Hope this helps!

    And hopefully this version will run a little better. When I went from 8.10 to 9.04, everything went to a standstill. Maybe that's why these Dell Linux PCs are still shipping with 8.10. :\

    1. Re:REMEMBER! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a known bug in the 8.10 to 9.04 upgrade process. Ya gotta run another kernel to keep the install from freezing.

    2. Re:REMEMBER! by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      I upgraded a machine from 8.04 to 9.04 and everything went smoothly. But YMMV.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    3. Re:REMEMBER! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      There's a known bug in the 8.10 to 9.04 upgrade process.

      Huh?

      Do you have a link for that bug? It worked flawlessly for me.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:REMEMBER! by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I ran into this, but I've never seen it documented. Do you have information?

    5. Re:REMEMBER! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ah, my mistake. The bug (which happened to me) is actually from 7.10 to 8.04, I had to go through that to continue to update to 9 from a 6.06 disk (masochism!)

      Source link.

      The upgrade will freeze on the locales package if you are using the (current) Gutsy kernel, 2.6.22-15. Reboot into 2.6.22-14 before upgrading. See the bug report on Launchpad for full details.

    6. Re:REMEMBER! by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      You know, downloading and installing 9.10 would have been 4-10 times faster, but I guess you already knew that.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    7. Re:REMEMBER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, upgrades have never worked for me. Ever.

      I always do a clean install.

    8. Re:REMEMBER! by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      You know, they support direct upgrading between LTS releases. That is, if you were on 6.06, you could have upgraded directly to 8.04 without the intermediate steps of 6.10, 7.04, and 7.10. And they'll be supporting a direct upgrade from 8.04 to 10.04.

    9. Re:REMEMBER! by dmsuperman · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I haven't found any OS that can handle upgrades well for everybody. The problem is that as time progresses, little hacks and tweaks here and there are applied, as well as a random bug that results in undesired behavior, and the result is that your OS is far enough away from what would be considered a "vanilla" install, and the upgrade fails to complete as expected. I imagine that if you were to install a default 8.04 you could probably upgrade all the way to 9.10 without many issues.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };: Go!
  26. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by BlackCreek · · Score: 4, Informative
  27. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by moonbender · · Score: 1

    So don't use the stuff you don't like. Not sure if you can still use grub1 on a new install, but certainly nobody is forcing you to use ext4. As a second measuring stick, the upcoming Fedora 12 doesn't include grub2, either (it's targeted for F13). I upgraded and kept grub1 as well as my ext3 partitions.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  28. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by Ben4jammin · · Score: 1

    well, the question is does fanboy = competent. Someone who is a Linux veteran SHOULD be able to upgrade faster than some windows noob. I have installed every windows OS there is, and a few Linux ones as well (Redhat, Ubuntu, etc). With clean installs, I found Windows to be easier (probably due to the fact I have more experience). I have had issues with Ubuntu upgrades before breaking stuff. Maybe this is the fault of Ubuntu, but is more likely due to my relative inexperience. Bottom line, upgrading has more to do with the skill of the upgrader than anything else.

  29. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by BorgHunter · · Score: 1

    I've been using Kubuntu Karmic since the beta, and it's been working fine for me. I've had precisely two problems: Slightly flaky sound (fixed by installing PulseAudio and using that as the default over whatever KDE defaults to), and the kernel bitching a bunch at me about having ECC disabled in BIOS (fixed by blacklisting the ECC modules in /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist.conf).

    ext4 is fully mature--it's no more "bleeding edge" than the 2.6.28 kernel used in 9.04--but you can choose ext3 if you want, and if you're upgrading it won't in-place upgrade you to ext4. Grub2 was an interesting choice, though if you're updating from an older Ubuntu version, again it won't upgrade that for you. Grub2 works fine for me; it's just a bunch slower than legacy GRUB.

    --
    "Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
  30. Re: Bus by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nah. People with those challenges tend to actually be far nicer than Microsoft!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  31. Ubuntu 9.10 Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Features in Ubuntu 9.10 ... http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ubuntu-9-10-Officially-Released-125578.shtml

  32. Download Page updated by citybird · · Score: 1

    The download page has been updated to 9.10 but some of the mirror links still point to the Jaunty folder. Use the backspace key :-)

    1. Re:Download Page updated by Sadaiyappan · · Score: 1

      No, no they don't. I'm in the USA and it STILL points to 9.04. They have yet to update it for the USA.

  33. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what do you mean? I've been using flash in Ubuntu for years. what's your problem, exactly?

    swan:~$ cat /etc/lsb-release
    DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
    DISTRIB_RELEASE=9.10
    DISTRIB_CODENAME=karmic
    DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 9.10"

  34. Re:Flash? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flash has been available for many versions already...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  35. They past five releases could have Flash.... by Sits · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you had some particular problem or were looking for out of the box support. I've been able to have in browser Flash support since at least 2005 regardless of Linux distro.

    Slashdot isn't a great support forum though (just because I say it works for me doesn't mean it didn't work for you nor will I follow up on this. You will find better advice on http://www.ubuntu.com/support/communitysupport ) but for what it's worth you might want to take a look at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/Flash . Another hint is to install the libflashsupport package too (but as always some people say that makes things much worse whereas others say that makes things better).

  36. Re:Flash? by JacobSteelsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    $ sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree

    Thanks, Ubuntu!

  37. Re:Flash? by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

    Flash works very well in Ubuntu for me, I actually installed the 64 bit version... hey, that's not even available in Windows (BTW, whose fault is that? Microsoft's or Adobe's?)

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  38. Before Installing, note: by delire · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the Release Notes.

    Possible corruption of large files with ext4 filesystem

    There have been some reports of data corruption with fresh (not upgraded) ext4 file systems using the Ubuntu 9.10 kernel when writing to large files (over 512MB). The issue is under investigation, and if confirmed will be resolved in a post-release update. Users who routinely manipulate large files may want to consider using ext3 file systems until this issue is resolved. (453579)

    Ubuntu One client requires post-install upgrade


    A serious bug in the Ubuntu One client software included in Ubuntu 9.10 that could potentially result in loss of data has led to disabling file syncing access for this client version on the Ubuntu One servers as a precaution. Users who see a "Capabilities Mismatch" error when trying to use Ubuntu One should install the post-release upgrade of the client that will be made available immediately after release, fixing the original bug and restoring file syncing access to the Ubuntu One servers. Files are still available via the web interface at http://one.ubuntu.com./

    Contact syncing and tomboy syncing services are not affected by this issue.

    Package list must be manually refreshed before installing drivers

    The "Hardware Drivers" tool (Jockey) requires up to date package lists before it detects and advertises necessary driver packages. Immediately after a new installation, these package lists will not be present. Before running Jockey for the first time, update the package lists using System->Administration->Software->Update Manager (on Ubuntu) or "KPackageKit" (on Kubuntu). (462704)

    1. Re:Before Installing, note: by Nukenbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bugs like this always make me worry about Ubuntu's hard release dates. The Ubuntu One bug sounds like a pretty big problem. Would it have killed them to fix this problem and delay the release? I know slippery release dates cause other problems (DNF), but do you really want a major release to have serious problems like this?

    2. Re:Before Installing, note: by godrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey it is ubuntu. It is not supposed to work! :)

      Seriously! When microsoft treated user like beta-tester we hated them. And now we praise ubuntu which does even worse...

      I am very happy with my debian stable. I know there are no such critical bugs in it.

    3. Re:Before Installing, note: by ACS+Solver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a serious WTF. I understand their predisposition towards fixed release cycles, but we're talking about possible data loss here. Just about every standard I know considers bugs that cause data loss/corruption to be of critical severity, meaning that you don't ship with it. Files that are >512MB in size aren't even that rare today. They say writing to such files is suspected to result in data corruption, and I do not find it likely that the devs believe this to be anything less than a critical bug.

    4. Re:Before Installing, note: by bhassel · · Score: 1

      To be fair, reading the referenced bug report it looks like the corruption has only being reported by one user. Apparently no one else has reproduced it, and faulty memory has not been ruled out as a suspected cause.

      It is prudent to mention in the release notes, but doesn't quite seem worth holding up the release for.

    5. Re:Before Installing, note: by goldspider · · Score: 1

      It's examples like this that demonstrate why Ubuntu is widely considered the most user-friendly Linux distribution available.

      Snark aside, what would the average Slashdotter's response be if Microsoft released WinFS in such a state?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:Before Installing, note: by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      I recently migrated 1.5TB of large files from ext3 to ext4 on karmic. There was no corruption. All files verified by md5sum. Important files additionally verified with a diff.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    7. Re:Before Installing, note: by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      So I just have to wait for Ubuntu SP1, just like ... other OSes.

    8. Re:Before Installing, note: by Homburg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If MS released WinFS in a situation where one user is reporting file corruption that doesn't appear to occur for anyone else? We'd be shocked at the improvement.

    9. Re:Before Installing, note: by socceroos · · Score: 1

      But, you see, Ubuntu 9.10 isn't a major release. The next major release will be either 10.40 or 10.10. One of those will be the LTS release which is the major release.

      People quickly forget that all these releases in between LTS's are the testing ground for new technologies. This is so that by the time the next LTS comes around, it would be expected that the technologies have improved and solidified.

  39. Re:Flash? by tokul · · Score: 1

    Of course, that's Adobe's fault, or ATI's fault.

    What Adobe or ATI has to do with the fact that you can't install flashplugin-installer package?

  40. Torrent by atisss · · Score: 1

    Downloading upgrade CD from torrent right away. I wonder when aptitude will do updates and upgrades transparently through bittorrent network

    1. Re:Torrent by crazybilly · · Score: 1

      ooooo...now THAT'D be awesome. I concur.

  41. Re:Flash? by delire · · Score: 2, Informative

    Will this version support Flash? It sure would be nice to view Youtube movies or play online games.

    Ubuntu users have been watching flash content in their browsers for a long time. If you're referring to out-of-the-box support, no (which Windows doesn't have either).

    Just visit a webpage containing Flash content and you'll be guided to install the plugin.

  42. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use Gentoo as a measuring stick for what's new. At least, not the stable branch. I'm a happy user of Gentoo stable (amd64), but it seems as if we're more in the middle of the pack, rather than cutting edge.

  43. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    not 64bit.

    And the version of flash that is "available" to me does not support left-mouse-clicks. Uhm.. thanks?

  44. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by PinkyDead · · Score: 3, Funny

    Depends on your definition of noob.

    He's been installing and administrating Windows systems for 15 years - so by the general definition, he is no noob.

    He's using Windows - so by my definition, he is a noob.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  45. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Slammer64 · · Score: 1

    If you want a better yardstick for bleeding edge linux, try Archlinux, grub2 has been there quite awhile.

  46. Mod parent down by orzetto · · Score: 1

    ... and kick whoever modded this troll up. Flash on Ubuntu has been available since ages.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  47. flash? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    Will this be the first version of Ubuntu to have out-of-the-box working Flash support in the 64b version? Or will the pain continue?

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  48. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you have an ATI graphics card it's basically useless with the audio/video latency and the poor framerates.

  49. USB install by Narishma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can you install the desktop version (not the netbook edition) using a USB stick? They only provide ISOs on the official website, not IMGs.

    --
    Mada mada dane.
    1. Re:USB install by British · · Score: 1

      That's what struck me as odd. I wanted to try ubuntu netbook remix on my EEE PC. It's available as an .IMG file, but Ubuntu's own utility won't even support it to write to a USB stick. Great jaerb, guys.

    2. Re:USB install by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if you run the live session there is a tool to build a bootable usb stick (which you can install from)

    4. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a "Create bootable USB stick" app in the System administration menu. That's how I did it: Booted from the CD to the desktop, copied everything to the stick with the app, rebooted with the USB stick and installed it from there.

    5. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do a Google search for UNetBootin. It can create a bootable USB stick from an ISO. It works on Linux and Windows.

    6. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup... download the iso, and download unetbootin. use unetbootin to install the setup files on the usb drive. from there, all you have to do is boot that drive and you're in!

    7. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Treat USB stick as hard drive, the installation procedure is the same. However, the process is very slow.

      8GB is enough, but I recommend 16GB.

    8. Re:USB install by $tefan · · Score: 1

      UNetbootin can create a bootable Live USB drive from ISO images (also requires a USB thumb drive of course)

    9. Re:USB install by golrien · · Score: 1

      Yes you can. You need either -
        a Windows system and unetbootin: http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/
        or, an Ubuntu system with usbcreator: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/FromUSBStick#usb-creator%20(Windows%20or%20Linux)

      I used unetbootin on Windows and it's a very well-made program, no problems at all.

    10. Re:USB install by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Get unetbootin. It will download the ISO and jam it on a USB stick for you.

    11. Re:USB install by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That's not the only ISO->bootable USB stick program, but I can confirm I've used it successfully to install the previous Xubuntu on my EEE. I know I've used another one or two as well, but I never bothered to bookmark or note which ones. I let google remember for me.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      apt-get install usb-creator. Run it and select your fresh .iso image as the source.

    13. Re:USB install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the "USB Startup Disk Creator" thats available on recent Ubuntu distributions including their live CD's

    14. Re:USB install by kcbnac · · Score: 1

      If you already have Jaunty, download the ISO. System->Administration->USB Startup Disk Creator

      Point at ISO, point at USB stick. Demand it Make It So.

      If you don't have Jaunty, use unetbootin as suggested by others. (Or, boot ISO in a virtual machine, if you have access to USB devices via your VM solution)

  50. Better than 9.04... by Sits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been testing out the beta and I've been finding that things are generally better than in 9.04. Hopefully this release should be more stable for Intel graphics card users too (the major work Intel was doing reworking their stuff is calming down). However be warned if you use multiple monitors and compiz - xorg lockups will lie in store. Boot speed is improved too. The Moblin version of Ubuntu felt unfinished though and had lots of lockups for me (plus it is absolutely not geared for enterprise style networks - I couldn't get on my Uni's wifi because with Moblin because there's nowhere to enter a wifi username. Regular Ubuntu was no issue though). Obviously some people are going to be upset about Pulseaudio being there but you can see improvements there that the Linux desktop has been needing for some time (even though it's not there yet).

    There are areas that don't seem quite polished enough and people will moan about the Linux apps look terrible and how open source people keep doing this on purpose. If I hadn't seen multimon stability issues I would have already have switched from my 8.04 install.

    1. Re:Better than 9.04... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However be warned if you use multiple monitors and compiz - xorg lockups will lie in store.

      Huh? Using what hardware? I haven't seen this at all and I have been running the alpha/beta releases for months. I'm using an nVidia 8800 GTS (the newer G92 modelu) and the nVidia proprietary drivers from the Ubuntu repository with two LCD monitors (using TwinView).

  51. Officially by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's not _officially_ released, is it?

    It depends on which "office" you ask.

    Heh, "official" and "officially" are funny words. They're generally used as almost-synonyms for "legitimate" (although even that is a funny word too, but I won't go into it) except tht they're specialized to imply legitimacy through authority. It almost makes sense to say, "Ubuntu 9.04 is the latest release according to orthodox Ubuntu dogma, but the orthodoxy itself is currently undergoing reformation by progressives within its own community."

    When you look at it that way, you'll see how dumb it is to even ask whether something is "official" or not, because it has no serious meaning. So the real answer to your question is: Ubuntu 9.10 has arrived.

  52. Multiple Desktops/TV hookup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about some damn S-video out that works?!

  53. Samba? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand why the Ubuntu team has never simplified the setup process for Samba. It is simple enough to share a folder with unlimited access, but as soon as you want to create users and passwords, it becomes rather complex. I've had to set it up a couple of times, and I never seem to get it to work quite right.

    Many Ubuntu users are also going to be running a Windows machine on their local network. If the goal is to give them a positive experience with Linux, then setting up the connections on the local network should be brain-dead easy. Imagine sending a novice user to this page! They would soon be throwing away their Ubuntu disk and installing Windows.

    Making an easy GUI for this configuration process shouldn't be that difficult. I hope that it will be addressed sometime soon.

    1. Re:Samba? by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

      Mandriva makes their own setting up Samba application. But you have to realize that Samba is a VERY sophisticated peice of software. But you are right.

    2. Re:Samba? by crimsun · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great blueprint to be written.

    3. Re:Samba? by PartickThistle · · Score: 2, Informative

      apt-get install system-config-samba

    4. Re:Samba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight, it's one of the reasons I'm no longer running running Ubuntu. Very few of the apps show any polish.

      Want an example? Bring up the calculator, Type in 2.2.2 and add 1. It will display error. It should have disallowed the second decimal point as an input

    5. Re:Samba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your Google must be broken. There are several: http://www.samba.org/samba/GUI/

    6. Re:Samba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a gui for exactly that, "ubuntu-config-samba" iirc. It manages users, passwords, and shares pretty easily. However, it's not included in the distro by default; it has to be added via apt or the Software Centre. This is problematic, of course, as most people don't know what "samba" is, much less that they need a gui for it.

      The tools for managing network *anything* in Ubuntu are in the baby stages still. Most problematic, imo, is mounting Windows shares locally. There's still no function analogous to mounting a network drive in Windows, apart from installing smbfs and editing fstab, which I don't need to tell anyone is beyond the ken of your average user.

      They're working on these problems--apparently--but they're still problems, especially in an era of networking and mixed-system homes/offices.

    7. Re:Samba? by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      That's what I use and it works okay. However, it would be really convenient if new users became Samba users automatically and password changes reflected in Samba too.

      I'd like something akin to Windows 2000 so I could right click a folder, share it and set the security from there.

      Overall it's not a BIG deal though. How often do you mess with shares?

    8. Re:Samba? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      That's the wrong way to go. Better would be to implement something like Windows Live Sync, an easy-to-use file-sharing application that goes over the Internet instead of requiring extremely complicated local network setup. (It still sends at LAN speeds if it detects both computers are on the same network, natch.)

      Imagine AOL Instant Messenger's awesome filesharing feature but without all the IM baggage attached (heh), and that should give you an idea of how Live Sync works.

      Samba filesharing is way overkill for this kind of use, IMO.

    9. Re:Samba? by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 1

      Don't point them to the community page, point them to this: http://doc.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/serverguide/C/samba-fileserver.html

      The official server help doc. Not the best, but better than what you linked to.

      GUI's are nice.

    10. Re:Samba? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the Ubuntu team has never simplified the setup process for Samba

      If you're the Samba configuration expert (or even someone who has managed to get a setup that works like that), why not share some of your existing config files, with some description of what you did, with the Ubuntu team. Most of the time, the GUI is not the hard part - its the figuring out what to make the GUI do that is difficult. Providing your expertise removes a lot of that workload in one fell swoop.

    11. Re:Samba? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The calculator in Windows works just like a small handheld calculator, and so it won't allow you to enter the second decimal point. However, it is also limited in the same ways as a small handheld calculator.

      The Ubuntu calculator allows for expressions, not just numbers. You can enter something like this:

      (47/6 - 13.222) * 8.3

      And it will give you the answer. This is much better than what the Windows calculator provides. As for 2.2.2, why would anyone enter that? Isn't it better to give the user feedback about this typo? Someone who enters 2.2.2 probably intended to enter 2+2.2 or something along those lines. In the Ubuntu calculator, they would realize their mistake. In the Windows calculator, they would have the wrong answer and not know it.

      To me, this is a perfect example of rejecting Linux just because it is different, even when the difference is an improvement.

    12. Re:Samba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried using swat? or is that what you used?

    13. Re:Samba? by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      I agree, my first install was debian slink on a laptop, currently I have Ubuntu 9.04, and granted I havent put in much time, but i have NEVER gotten samba figured out enough to make it work.

    14. Re:Samba? by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      I'd like something akin to Windows 2000 so I could right click a folder, share it and set the security from there.

      Uh, am I missing something? I don't have any windows machines on my network to test against, but I could have sworn I'd seen something like you describe, and sure enough, right-clicking on a folder gives a "sharing options" choice, which lets me share it and set the security from there, prompting me to install the "Windows networks sharing service" since I haven't used it before. Connecting to a windows share likewise looks to be as easy as the Places->connect to server menu.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  54. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have had issues with Ubuntu upgrades before breaking stuff.

    That's funny, I often break stuff after installing Windows.

    --
    Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  55. Wireless by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

    Will my internal wireless card have a better chance of working with this one.? I've had a lot of trouble with the previous version getting any of the wireless drivers to work.

    1. Re:Wireless by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Which internal wireless card do you have?

      I can tell you that 9.10 has MASSIVE improvements in 5 GHz support (as in "it works and it didn't at all before") compared to 9.04. That's why my new laptop has been running 9.10 betas for the past 2-3 weeks.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Wireless by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      It's atheros. That's promising news. I will give it a try when I get home.

    3. Re:Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but the level of information you provide is useless.

      I could have listed some chipsets that have much improved support in recent kernels (and some that still don't have working free drivers) here but if you aren't prepared to even tell what laptop you have (let alone the wireless chip manufacturer and make), I won't bother.

    4. Re:Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm the AC who flogged you for not providing info -- only saw this reply after reloading)

      Atheros has a wide variety of linux support: some are very well support, some only as lip service. ath5k and ath9k seem to be doing very well and have improved a lot in the last kernels but some things (like the rt2860 that Atheros seems to use use in some netbook chips) are just crap.

  56. Watched the story.. by schmu_20mol · · Score: 1

    ... and the obligatory quote thus said:

    Another good night not to sleep in a eucalyptus tree.

    --
    "Nae Kin! Nae Quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"
  57. Re:flash? by phyrz · · Score: 1

    Worked for me today with RC & intel 64bit.

    --
    Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
  58. Yes, you can install the desktop version from USB by Sits · · Score: 1

    You can create a USB stick version from the CD after you boot it. If you know what you're doing you can even use the ISO to create a USB stick version directly. Slashdot isn't a great support forum and one of the one mentioned on http://www.ubuntu.com/support/communitysupport will probably be better but https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/FromUSBStick may be of use to you.

  59. Re:Flash? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

    Flash works fine. Watching youtube videos full-screen at their original frame-rate would be nice though. Or is that just me?

    --
    Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  60. Re:Flash? by joostje · · Score: 2, Informative
    As others reported, flash worked in previous Ubuntu versions. However, I and a coworker of mine noticed flash being too slow for full screen youtube movies in 9.04. After upgrading to RC 9.10, I can watch youtube flash movies in full screen again.

    (after downloading the .flv file I could always view them with totem etc full screen no problem, so it was a flash-related problem)

  61. DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at all) by Concern · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Amazingly, if you click on the release notes link all the way down at the bottom of the "cool new features" page, and read about 2/3 of the way down that page, oh yeah by the way:

    Possible corruption of large files with ext4 filesystem

    There have been some reports of data corruption with fresh (not upgraded) ext4 file systems using the Ubuntu 9.10 kernel when writing to large files (over 512MB). The issue is under investigation, and if confirmed will be resolved in a post-release update. Users who routinely manipulate large files may want to consider using ext3 file systems until this issue is resolved. (453579)

    What... the... fuck... are these morons thinking. They make ext4 their default filesystem, and release to the world with a bug like this open. I don't care whether they charge for this, give it away for free, or pay people to use it. This is not a release, it's an ugly prank. A giant fuck you to the entire world. "Hey, here's an awesome free OS! Just kidding it eats your files, lulz!!!!"

    How hard is it to put a giant warning label ("MAY EAT YOUR FILES, TBD") on the front page? Why not just say, whoops the release will be late, sorry? What is it about their ego that makes it more important than peoples' data? You don't have to do work for free, just don't fucking trick people!

    Between the increasing mess of 8.10 and 9.04, and this debacle, I am just losing all respect for Canonical.

    Also, btw, the whole story is wrong and 9.10 is not available for download yet. Thank god.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  62. Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by Kurt+Granroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have to assume that there are some "secret" plans involving Ubuntu One that make a lot of sense (if you know them) and can actually explain why Ubuntu One exists in the first place. I've read through all the public documentation and, for the life of me, I can't figure out what is even remotely unique or noteworthy about the service.

    Right now, it's attempting to be a Dropbox clone. However, it's not yet there and is clearly still in beta -- even though they have the same pricing structure as the (very mature) Dropbox. Their goal for the file synchronization service is to be as full-featured as Dropbox? But not more? Seriously, if your goal is to be as good as Dropbox, then why not just use Dropbox?

    It's not even that "Ubuntu One is OSS and Dropbox is proprietary". Both services have OSS parts and proprietary parts.

    Maybe, then, they are trying to be more of an online backup service, ala Mozy? Well... no. I can't find any evidence that they encrypt your data so it would be a bust as online backup.

    So I don't get it. Why would anybody use (much less pay for) it when there are much more robust services already out there AND there's no indication that it'll actually be better than those services in any way. There must be some secret plans that I just don't know about.

    Anybody feel like letting me know what I missed?

    1. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by butalearner · · Score: 1

      Canonical wouldn't make money if they just pointed users to Dropbox, now would they?

    2. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by masterQba · · Score: 1

      i'm guessing they are aiming at something like mobileme rather than dropbox. i have 3 ubuntu desktops right now and it would be truly fantastic if i had a way to automatically sync my settings and or home folders across all three...

      --
      xb0x
    3. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by lilrobbie · · Score: 1

      I suspect a lot of this is to create a springboard into web storage and seamless sync. Existing backup solutions have closed clients, and are therefore not acceptable for tight inclusion into Ubuntu. Ubuntuone allows Canonical to start moving forward with integration with the desktop client things such as file and data synchronising. Other moves that point towards this desire to sync can be found in the heavy pushing of CouchDb for data-storage... something which also allows synchronizing between computers.

      Basically, UbuntuOne is a move towards a tightly cloud integrated desktop. The other upside is the client and protocol is fully open source, so it is possible to create and host home servers (eventually... once someone starts putting the interface together). I agree with you the current setup is very over-priced, but I tend to suspect this is a proof of concept more than a solid business solution :-)

    4. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tomboy sync and Addressbook syncing are also available in Karmic, so it's more than just a dropbox clone already.

    5. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      To reiterate what I've said before, Ubuntu One is a new service.

      The real benefits of Ubuntu One will be seen in the next LTS when we'll be able to sync a large amount of applications data and settings with your Ubuntu One account. Imagine not having to worry about re-setting up your email account, chat accounts, F-Spot data, Rhythmbox data/settings (and more) after a fresh install of the latest Ubuntu because all your settings were downloaded from your Ubuntu One account.

      To me, this service is going to become a must-have.

    6. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by TennCasey · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Ubuntu One: Secret Plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody feel like letting me know what I missed?

      Gee, I don't know.
      Could it be that they think there's money to be made?

      You're effectively advocating monopolies. Gosh, we don't want a second company entering a market supplied by an incumbent.

  63. Re:Flash? by Chief+Crazy+Chicken · · Score: 1

    The problem with flash content (for me at any rate) has been stability. On 64bit I've tried Adobe's preliminary native 64bit player, and it didn't work. So I'm back to using the nspluginwrapper to run the 32bit within my 64bit OS. After some period of time, the sound will go bad. Various other observations coming out of troubleshooting the sound layer led me to conclude that it is indeed the flash plugin that's wonky.

    So, it's "there", but it's not stable yet.

  64. ITS HERE!!! by Conzar · · Score: 1

    Canonical has updated their home page http://www.ubuntu.com/

  65. aria2c by TheGreatOrangePeel · · Score: 2, Informative

    using BitTorrent for downloads can help alleviate the load...

    apt-get install aria2c and you can download from multiple mirrors + BitTorrent in parallel to both divide the load while downloading and help start seeding sooner.

    1. Re:aria2c by praseodym · · Score: 1
  66. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by Ben4jammin · · Score: 1

    LOL...good point...so I guess he is a noob, but not a windows noob. I would be interested in what his holdup is. I was pleasantly surprised with 7 and ease of installing, etc. I recently replaced my laptop hd and it was a breeze to restore the 7 backup image and resize it to the bigger hd (stuff I was used to being able to do with Ubuntu for some time). I used to dual boot Win/Ubuntu in part for some of the partition tools that were native to Ubuntu. I haven't done a Vista --> 7 upgrade simply because I believe you are better off with clean installs, at least on the Windows side, not experienced enough on the Linux side to say.

  67. Re:Flash? by shentino · · Score: 1

    You have to install the plugin under windows too...

  68. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by kriston · · Score: 1

    The Fedora Project seems to like it just fine enough for it to be the default starting with Fedora 11 back in April.
    Have another look:
    http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ext4DefaultFs

    --

    Kriston

  69. Re:Will it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and finally, "Will trolls ever grow a brain?"

  70. A suggestion... by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

    from a long time *buntu user (Edgy Eft):

    Don't download it yet!

    Ubuntu's repository servers time and time again get kicked in the balls on release day. You will wait two days minimum to get the upgrade done. PLUS there are some pretty nasty bugs which cause all sorts of havoc once they get officially released. I have never had a dist-upgrade go clean and always had to reinstall. Please resist the urge to jump at the brand new and shiny. Wait until Monday or Tuesday. And back up your sources.list, samba, bookmarks and newsfeeds.

    That being said, I generally like Kubuntu's Karmic Koala. I've been running it since Beta 1 and while not mind blowing, it's pretty good. It's a 'stay the course' release.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    1. Re:A suggestion... by crazybilly · · Score: 1

      That's why I always grab the torrent and do a fresh install. A regular/in-place upgrade has always failed for me. That and I'm always curious about what's configured and how by default.

    2. Re:A suggestion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I upgraded 2 days ago to the RC (which, AFAICT, is equal to the release) to beat the rush hour traffic and everything works beautifully, the upgrade went smoothly. My 9.04 install had been upgraded previously from 8.10 and that also worked like a charm.

      anonymous_coward@slashdot:~$ cat /etc/lsb-release
      DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
      DISTRIB_RELEASE=9.10
      DISTRIB_CODENAME=karmic
      DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 9.10"

    3. Re:A suggestion... by RPoet · · Score: 1

      It's all about picking a good mirror. I use one from my own city, and I saturated my DSL while upgrading. Meanwhile, our national mirror was (and still is) bogged down.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    4. Re:A suggestion... by VoltageX · · Score: 1

      And this is why mirrors exist. If my local mirror has it, yours does too.

      http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/ubuntu/releases/9.10/

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
  71. Re:flash? by zwede · · Score: 1

    Of course not. You have to install just like you have to on any other OS. sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree Oh the pain is unbearable...

  72. UNABLE TO DOWNLOAD NETBOOK REMIX by Sadaiyappan · · Score: 1

    The links for netbook remix don't work

    1. Re:UNABLE TO DOWNLOAD NETBOOK REMIX by wizkid · · Score: 1

      The torrent is working

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  73. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    And I can tell you that, in my experience on my MythTV backend, Ubuntu 9.04 plus ext4 resulted in kernel panics. Switching back to ext3 resolved the problem.

    That said, my laptop has been running a 64-bit 9.04 on ext4 for months now with a hitch... OTOH, I don't tend to beat the hell out of my disk the way my Myth box does.

  74. Re:Will it... by heri0n · · Score: 1

    No

  75. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    That is worrying, I'm very surprised they use ext4 as the default in this case! However calm down, screaming and shouting just attracts zombies.

  76. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

    I don't understand your first link. That has nothing to do with corruption when writing large files.

    Ubuntu has hesitated to update the bootloader for a while now, because it might not understand how to handle things you have setup (like dual booting with BeOS or something not common) so they will install grub on new installs, but not upgrade it. Since a newer version of GRUB is required to change your boot partition to EXT4 (you can change all your other partitions, such as "/home" to ext4 in 9.04) they don't convert your partitions to EXT4 on the upgrade.

    On a side note. It would be nice if the Ubuntu installer by default created a seperate /home partition. (or maybe they have in the last version or so, I haven't installed from scratch).

    But it sure does make it easier to keep your data..

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  77. Torrentz PLZ? by BetterSense · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't seem to find torrents for the either 32 or 64 bit versions on the download page. Why hide the torrents, especially when traffic is so heavy right after release?

    1. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by jisatsusha · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're "hidden", you have to click the "alternative downloads" option. torrents.

    2. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think they are editing the page now. Before, all the links that now say 9.10 were 9.04 links, and right now the title still says 9.04 even though the links have been changed to 9.10. And regardless, the the site is slammed and I can't download from it.

      http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n78/daravon/torrents.jpg

    3. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

      Because torrents are bad, The RIAA say so
      If you have a torrent you are obviously sharing ubuntu illegally, destroying canonical's profits (after all noone would willingly give software away for free) and hurting developers

      /sarcasm

    4. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      I anticipate having to have a phone conversation w/IT about why I need to use bittorrent at work.

    5. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://torrent.ubuntu.com:6969/

    6. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't seem to find torrents for the either 32 or 64 bit versions on the download page. Why hide the torrents, especially when traffic is so heavy right after release?

      http://noncdn.releases.ubuntu.com/9.10/

    7. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by hayalci · · Score: 1

      Torrent files are here:
      32-bit
      64-bit

      --
      hayalci
    8. Re:Torrentz PLZ? by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

      I can save you time. We'll say no.

  78. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Yosho · · Score: 1

    Between the increasing mess of 8.10 and 9.04

    Of of curiosity, what do you mean by "the increasing mess"? I've got 9.04 installed on multiple systems and haven't had any problems with it.

    (to be fair, I use XFS for all my filesystems)

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  79. Now Ubuntu can watch you by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu One allows for seamless integration of your desktop with Canonical's Servers. Ubuntu One can keep your Evolution contacts safely stored up on the Ubuntu cloud, along with much of your other data. This way, Canonical always has your personal data, one day maybe even your bookmarks and copies of your e-mail and IM logs, allowing you to access them from anywhere and survive system crashes.

  80. Re:Will it... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    Run MSO, PlanetSide, WoW, Crysis, GTA X, Global Agenda, Steam and the games i download for it?

    Stop whining and start WINEing.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  81. KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by KWTm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kubuntu fans can check the release notes here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicKoala/RC/Kubuntu
    Browsing through them, I got the feeling of tired, haggard Kubuntu maintainers congratulating themselves for surviving, but not excelling in, the production of this version which still has many issues. If you read between the lines, you see that there are still quite a number of issues. "The NetworkManager applet has received some loving from its creators, and offers a more robust networking experience than it did in Kubuntu 9.04."

    I went to the Feedback page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicKoala/RC/Kubuntu/Feedback to see how KDE would do in this version. This is where you get the honest criticism that tells you what problems you might encounter. Generally people are offering encouragement but the fact is that this version of Kubuntu is still not cutting it. Comments usually start with "Great release! However ... " and then a list of bugs. These are bugs from before. One person says: "all bugs I noticed are still there: broken knetworkmanager, no sending via bluetooth, preview file in dolphin's context menu not working. I tried 9.10 in hope they were corrected, but they weren't."

    I myself have been staying with 8.04 since that is the last version that officially supported KDE 3. (I hear that you can now get KDE 3 versions of 8.10 or 9.04, but I don't think those are official.) If I'm going to retrain myself on KDE 4, I might as well wait an extra half year and get the 10.04 Long-Term Support edition --if ever Kubuntu gets around to doing one. (8.04 was LTS for GNOME Ubuntu only, not for Kubuntu.)

    I think the Kubuntu developers need to be strongly encouraged to fix existing bugs instead of putting in new features.

    As an aside, regarding the "Known Issues" list for standard GNOME Ubuntu:
    Release notes http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910
    Does anyone else think that there are more and more bugs now, and that Ubuntu simply is not the "install and use defaults" user-friendly distro that it used to be?

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by crimsun · · Score: 1

      With very few exceptions, Kubuntu developers are volunteers and have the unenviable task of setting QA vice feature development priorities given their resource constraints. One way to encourage Kubuntu developers is to become one, and in that respect you, too, would contribute to fixing existing bugs instead of putting in new features.

    2. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      I've been perfectly happy with the state of KDE in 9.04, with the exception of the network manager was quite annoying in that release.

      It's vastly improved and I'm very happy with it in 9.10 - 9.10 fixed basically every wireless problem I had except for one PEBCAK issue. (I never realized that the "password" they gave me at one of my favorite places to eat was actually a valid 40-bit WEP key and not a passphrase. Windows automatically detects this and tries it as a key instead of a passphrase, Ubuntu does not.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone else think that there are more and more bugs now, and that Ubuntu simply is not the "install and use defaults" user-friendly distro that it used to be?

      Yes.

      Especially Kubuntu. Konsole, for example, is almost unusable.

    4. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing out. I've had very good performance with this release and KDE 4.3 rocks.

    5. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by lanner · · Score: 1

      I have used KDE for many years, mostly on Debian. I get the impression that most of the issues that we are having lately is due to KDE, not Debian/Ubuntu.

      KDE4 was/is crap. If I wanted Windows Vista, I would have just bought it.

      I don't know what the issue is with the developers but they seem to have gotten it in their heads that KDE should be for entry-level computer users.

      KDE3.5 was great. KDE4 was a disaster. It's really a shame.

    6. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      knetworkmanager is broken by design. I have it purged from my system, and if something reinstalls, it, I will purge it again, with prejudice. It is the bane of all networking. (Okay, maybe just in my static IP experience, but still.)

      Aside from that, KDE4 works fine now. I can't speak to Bluetooth, but previews in Dolphin work just fine (though I don't know what you mean by "in the context menu"). Only problem I have with previews is that when you're downloading a previewable file, Dolphin regenerates the preview constantly, resulting in 100% CPU until I stop it somehow.
      It also seems that when using apt-get, reading package lists takes at least three times as long.

      But yeah, other than that, everything else flies.

    7. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      I think Ubuntu needs more work on existing features/apps instead of introducing new features/apps each release. Most people do not want to spend time relearning how to do tasks they already know how to do - they want things to work better, not differently (and yes, I know sometimes you can get both).

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    8. Re:KDE summary: usable but not great. I'll pass. by JacobSteelsmith · · Score: 1

      I have been using kubuntu since the days of 3.5. I love KDE 4. In my opinion, it will be the desktop of the future. In fact, after using Windows 7 all this week, I'm pretty sure it's what Microsoft was aiming for. I use Kubuntu 40 hours a day in a Microsoft environment, joined to the domain, and I have yet to run into a show stopper, or a bug that wasn't easily fixed. KDE 4 has made tremendous strides and has laid the framework to do great things in the future, while being stable and feature-full enough to be my daily driver. And it is as aesthetically pleasing productivity enhancing as desktop environments get.

  82. BitTorrent links by praseodym · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:BitTorrent links by karlrado · · Score: 1

      Well the header at http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadmirrors#bt says 9.04, but the actual links below it are for 9.10.

    2. Re:BitTorrent links by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      Just a few minutes ago, the links themselves were also 9.04 links. Now they have changed the links but the header still says 9.04. And I still can't download the freakin torrent. Will someone put the 64-bit alternate torrent up somewhere?

      http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n78/daravon/torrents.jpg

    3. Re:BitTorrent links by dbc001 · · Score: 1

      Anyone know where to get a torrent for Ubuntu Studio 64? The Ubuntu Studio site only links to the cdimage server.

    4. Re:BitTorrent links by unifyingtheory · · Score: 1

      I plan to seed for a while. I won't be installing it myself for a couple months to allow time for most of the bugs to be patched.

      Call me old-fashioned but I like a stable operating system.

  83. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    A brand new install may destroy your files. If you're upgrading, the separate /home or /data partition isn't going to be affected. Large files on / (maybe /tmp/cd_image.brasero.iso) may be affected. The risk of data corruption is pretty minimal, because where the hell do you get REALLY BIG FILES after a FRESH INSTALL? Backups that you had anyway?

  84. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    I have had issues with Ubuntu upgrades before breaking stuff.

    That's funny, I often break stuff after installing Windows.

    Steve, this wouldn't happen if you'd just stop throwing chairs.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  85. Re:Will it... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Nope. For that you want XBox360. Ask Valve to get you a version of Steam for the XBox360.

  86. Re:Flash? by jspenguin1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    killall npviewer.bin
    That's the best part about running 32-bit flash: it runs in a separate process, so you can kill it when it goes wonky without restarting the browser. Just refresh the page with the plugin and it will be restarted.

  87. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Concern · · Score: 1

    Intel video driver issues were huge. Also, for Kubuntu users, the transition to KDE4 (which started at 8.10) was botched and caused a mass exodus from KDE and Kubuntu - some of which was down to KDE and a lot of which was down to Canonical. Linus Torvalds stopped using KDE during this period IIRC, though I don't have the link handy for his (characteristically scathing) comments. By comparison, KDE3 in 8.04 was a shockingly polished, stable system.

    To this day, I see 9.04 kernel-crashing occasionally on the best supported laptops (thinkpads of various vintages) where before, crashes on that same hardware were unheard of with ubuntu/kubuntu.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  88. Re:flash? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    Obviously you don't understand what I meant when I said "64b" in my post.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  89. It's still not ready for prime time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously something called (or should that be kalled) Karmic Koala is no way robust enough for prime time. I'm waiting for the Boisterous Badger build.

  90. Re: Yes by colinnwn · · Score: 1

    I did this with Jaunty, but I already had another computer running Jaunty. I used the USB boot disk creator in Jaunty and when it asked what image I wanted to burn, I selected the Ubuntu9.04.iso to install on another computer. Worked a treat.

  91. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Concern · · Score: 1

    You've got to be kidding me.

    Work with any file larger than 512MB and you get intermittent corruption, and you seem to imply it's not that bad?

    Read the bug, for god's sake, people's apt cache gets corrupted before they even start heaven forfend installing real apps, doing development, working with media, etc...

    All they had to do was just not use ext4 until it was ready. I.e. no open data loss bugs for a little while. Probably a conservative approach is warranted, it being a filesystem and all... That's _all_ they had to do.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  92. The problem is config files. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    And not just system config files, but user config too.

    If it was just a matter of '# genisofs -o /dev/dvd ~ ', reinstalling, and then copying back in, then it would be a snap. But there are config files even in the user directories that may not be compatible with newer versions of programs, or have options specified that are no longer optimal.

    This is a problem with upgrading any OS, and I wish that more thought was put into properly translating configurations between versions. There needs to be some kind of semi-automated way of reconciling *all* config files. Ideally transparently for things the user doesn't want do deal with, and with a walk-through for settings the user might want to fiddle with if the menu system has changed. I'm sure that's quite a difficult problem to solve, though.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  93. Re: Bus by Reece400 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think it would be more apporpriate to say the problem is that the MS bus is actually a stretch hummer.

  94. ATI Xorg 9.10 drivers by slack_justyb · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those looking to get Ubuntu 9.10 on a ATI grfx card with a R600/700 chipset, you may want to take a look at the latest drivers from AMD. As opposed to the usual Envyng or Ubuntu provided drivers. There are a few people who are having a bit of weirdness with the ones shipped there (nothing big just a bit of oddities).
    I'm still looking forward to the advancement of the experimental support that X.org has added to the new Xserver (1.7 me thinks) for R600/700 chipsets, go open source drivers FTW!

    1. Re:ATI Xorg 9.10 drivers by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      Karmic's built-in xorg Radeon drivers are awesome. I've been running them on an R635 for months. The 2d acceleration is fast and video support is tear free. 1080p is no sweat. No 3d yet but check back around March...

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    2. Re:ATI Xorg 9.10 drivers by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the new X.org drivers support 3D so you can enable compiz. You can see them in effect here. Remember that they are still experimental.

  95. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On a side note. It would be nice if the Ubuntu installer by default created a seperate /home partition. (or maybe they have in the last version or so, I haven't installed from scratch).

    Uh, why? For most people, that's just a pain in the ass... suddenly you have to guess how much space you'll want in / and /home, and if you underestimate, you find yourself having to resize filesystems. And for those who care (such as yourself), you can easily set things up that way during the initial install.

  96. RAM uses power by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The holy grail of portable devices is long battery life. Other things being equal, the system that uses the least memory will use less power and have a longer battery life. It will also be more reliable, because the probability of memory errors is proportional to the number of bits. And if you can use fully static RAM, the power goes down and the speed goes up because you do not need to refresh the memory cells.

    Currently it doesn't matter too much because the main power consumption is in the display. But new display technology will change this.

    Canonical's big opportunity is in mobile devices and in the Third World where power is expensive. Xubuntu is already a much nicer system than earlier versions of Windows.

    Slightly OT, but the car industry has already bought into the logic. The new VW engine that replaces the 3 litre V6 is a 2-litre inline 4 that generates more power, is lighter and has 20% better fuel consumption. Nobody is saying "but my last Golf had a 3-litre V6, this is crap". Companies that focus on doing more with less are future proofing themselves.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:RAM uses power by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Nobody is saying "but my last Golf had a 3-litre V6, this is crap". Companies that focus on doing more with less are future proofing themselves.

      Ehm... Never met any big-block affectionados, I see? (I'm not one) There are a lot of people (mainly in the US) who would never buy anything less than a V6, regardless performance and/or fuel consumptions. Years ago, I had a few drinks with the guy at VW responsible for US sales. He told me, that they even didn't bother to import anything below the VR6 (Back then 2.8l V6).

      Times might have changed by now, but I'm pretty sure you can find people that diss a turbocharged I4 in favour of an atmospheric V6/V8.

    2. Re:RAM uses power by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      The new VW engine that replaces the 3 litre V6 is a 2-litre inline 4 that generates more power, is lighter and has 20% better fuel consumption.

      And in order to achieve this, they would have had to done at least one of a few things.. higher revlimit or possibly turbo'd, both of which drastically lower the life of the engine.

      My last car (friend wrote it off.. lesson don't let friends borrow car) was a 4L v6 (use motorbike to get places when economy is concern) it only had 170k kms on it, which is nothing for an engine that size since it rarely goes over 2k rpm unless accelerating hard even though it redlines at 6. My previous car beforehand though, a little daihatsu mira with it's 3 cylinder 600cc engine, did about 140k km's before it started to really have some problems.

      In the end, there is no replacement for displacement... it's just a matter of physics of the moving parts.

    3. Re:RAM uses power by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      A V6 is definitely not a "big block" engine. At any rate, it certainly wasn't when the phrase "big block" originated. Not even all V8s were/are "big blocks". source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine I'm not a big-block aficionado either. My car (1993) has a V6, but if I were buying a new car, I'd expect to find that lighter, smaller, more modern engines could put out more than enough power for me.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    4. Re:RAM uses power by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.... Where I live V6's are the exception not the norm. I myself drive an I4, turbocharged, good enough for 225HP. It's wasteful. I used to drive a non-turbocharged I4 doing 80HP, which was very driveable.

  97. JPeg Version by Nerdfest · · Score: 1
  98. Mod this up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just used up all my mod points but I'd really like to mod this up too. I'm a Maemo user and I'm in the market for something a little larger - hopefully running an something similar to an ARM and something similar to Maemo.

  99. Re:Flash? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    The problem with flash content (for me at any rate) has been stability. On 64bit I've tried Adobe's preliminary native 64bit player, and it didn't work.

    I think you're in the minority, here. I've been running the native 64-bit flash plugin since Ubuntu 8.10 without any problems. Have you tried reporting the issues you're having?

  100. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Gentoo has been falling behind lately.

    They didn't remove the unstable mask from Firefox 3 until Mozilla basically said, "We are no longer supporting 2.x in any way" and Mozilla had released 3.5.

    KDE 3.5 is still the "Stable" release in Gentoo, despite the KDE team EOLing 3.5 a while ago. Yeah, 4.0 and 4.1 sucked, but 4.2 was quite good and 4.3 fixed nearly all remaining issues. Ubuntu has been successfully using KDE 4.x releases in Kubuntu since 8.10 (or maybe even 8.04 I think?)

    This is why all of my new systems are getting Ubuntu installed instead of Gentoo - It's simply too much time and effort to try and get a stable Gentoo system with even remotely up-to-date packages.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  101. Re:Flash? by crazybilly · · Score: 1

    It's just you. I'll stick w/ running days-long, outlandishly esoteric processes that no one really cares about on my 4,096 cores.

  102. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

    I don't understand your first link. That has nothing to do with corruption when writing large files.

    Of course you don't! I gave the wrong link... (my bad).

    The actual link is be http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910#Possible%20corruption%20of%20large%20files%20with%20ext4%20filesystem

  103. Re:Flash? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    What graphics chipset did he have?

    Keep in mind that Intel graphics chipset support was AWFUL in 8.10 and 9.04, especially 9.04.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  104. website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god they cleaned up their homepage

  105. Re:Flash? by Lusixhan · · Score: 1

    You can get 64-bit flash by installing ubuntu-restricted-extras. However, from what I've seen, it's not true 64-bit, just 32-bit that runs in a wrapper called npviewer.bin that consumes 100% of your CPU until you close it, and even then it will occasionally continue to consume 100% of your CPU. It mostly works, though.

  106. Animal Farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shuttleworth is a businessman who has identified a business opportunity. Great, I hope he makes millions. But try to remember that he is not in it to fight for freedom.

    The Ubuntu name belongs to Canonical. Ubuntu One, a commercial service is included in the default install (while other commercial services are kept out) and the Software Centre, while it looks great and is good for newbies to use, will by version 3.0 include commercial software for installation.

    He is running a business and the ideals which created Debian from which most of the codebase of Ubuntu was sourced, are being eroded as his success enables him to sideline those who supported them.

    What with the reference to animal farm? Are my eyes deceiving me or has that Ubuntu promise just got a bit smaller on the Ubuntu main page... and, don't the words mean something different now from what they once did...

  107. Re:Flash? by jisatsusha · · Score: 1

    aptitude install ubuntu-restricted-extras

  108. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    suddenly you have to guess how much space you'll want in / and /home, and if you underestimate, you find yourself having to resize filesystems.

    Why? With disks sufficiently large these day, just allocate 10GB for Ubuntu and take the rest for /home. For basic usage 10GB is overkill for applications, logs, etc...

    If you don't trust that, simply use LVM. Really, this is childsplay.

  109. Buzzword bingo? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud images, the Ubuntu One "personal cloud"

    Oh-oh, we're getting dangerously close to a full set of buzzwords...

    What did they smoke to make those cloudy names? Did the descision taking meeting look like the car full of smoke in that old Luniz video? ^^

    This is unacceptable! I will fork this, and call it "Ubuntu Social iEnterprise Vertical e-Cloud Framework", Codename: "Twitching Twitter".
    'Cause I got a fever. And the only prescription is "MOAR CLOUDBUZZ"!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  110. Re:Will it... by godrik · · Score: 1

    I'd like more subtle troll as well. This one is boring.

  111. Very positive experience so far by Radhruin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My experience with 9.10 so far has been extremely positive.

    I did an upgrade at first, and then a complete reinstall. The upgrade process went very quickly, and I only had one problem - that my network card became "unmanaged" again. This is some remnant from my 8.10 install back in the day. Besides that, there were no problems and my desktop was exactly as I left it.

    The install process from scratch also went well. The partition manager is pretty friendly, and the (I think) new time zone selector is actually easy to use. I also don't need to do a whole bunch of stuff to determine my keyboard layout -- it defaulted to US english and that was that.

    The desktop system itself is much improved. The changes to Nautilus are welcome. The side bar is more user friendly, and the folders and such look a lot better.

    The notification system has some improvements so it's not quite as useless -- multiple consecutive notifications from the same application drop into the same notification window, and there's a sort of glass effect when you "mouse under" the window, making that absurd behavior a bit more palatable.

    My graphics card (GTX 280) was supported after downloading some binary drivers (although I had to restart to enable full desktop effects).

    My sound card (X-Fi Fatality edition) is finally supported in kernel, although I had to use amixer in order to get my mic working. The new sound mixer, though, is FAR more user friendly.

    I've had no problems so far with EXT4, and my load times in Heroes of Newerth have decreased since the upgrade.

    The font rendering. It's much better across the board. Firefox sees the biggest improvement, likely due to the upgrade to 3.5. Font rendering used to be far worse than Windows and is now on par with Mac (I prefer the bolder, smoother look of Mac fonts, personally).

    The HDD diagnosis tool is also handy. As soon as the upgrade completed and the tool ran, it warned me of some SMART errors on one of my drives. It's pretty easy to dig into the drives and run diagnostics and such.

    Empathy is still bad, and I switched back to pidgin after a few minutes of use. For example, I had to find an hidden check box just to "enable" the account and get it to connect. The UI is also not so hot.

    Overall I haven't regretted the upgrade at all, which is more than I can say to 9.04.

    1. Re:Very positive experience so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There also many serious problems, especially if you need particular packages. For example, many packages using python + boost-python are broken in these release, despite bug reports since the early alpha stages. Lots of glossy features on the surface but pretty rotten at the core for some. I suspect that will stay that way until the next debian release brings stability to ALL packages again.

    2. Re:Very positive experience so far by Frostmint · · Score: 1

      What did you do to make your mic work?

    3. Re:Very positive experience so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, during upgrade I was prompted for the change in /etc/NetworkManager/nm-system-settings.conf from managed=true to managed=false. I told it to stuff it and as a result my network connection came back without a hitch.

      I don't understand why the upgrade process does that. If you need to take down NetworkManager temporarily then do it yourself behind the scenes, don't ask me (but warning me would be nice) and definitely don't make it into a permanent change to the configuration!

  112. Darn it. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    I installed 9.04 literally two days ago. Guess I'll try the update process, but I really wish I could have started with this fresh instead. I didn't think this was set to go live until December or so.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Darn it. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Umm, you are aware that the version number, 9.10, indicates the year and month the release will come out in, aren't you? Hence why 9.04 came out in April 2009, and 9.10 came out in October, 2009?

      Furthermore, every Ubuntu release comes out on an April or October: 8.04, 8.10, 9.04, 9.10, and the forthcoming LTS, 10.04...

      Silly newbs. ;)

    2. Re:Darn it. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Actually no, I wasn't aware of that. Never looked into the versioning scheme. Good to know though :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Darn it. by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Actually, version 6.06, (Dapper Drake) came out in June of 2006.

      Other than that, yeah it's x.04 or x.10.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  113. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by metamatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why a separate /home? So that you can easily do a clean install of the next version from CD without blowing away all your data.

    I learned that lesson several releases ago. I have 10GB / for the OS, and the rest in /home.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  114. Yes you can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes you can.

    Running Jaunty or Karmic either installed or from the live CD, menu System->Administration->USB Startup Disk Creator. It will then ask to be pointed to a .iso CD image to transfer to the stick.

  115. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My experience with Flash in Ubuntu was far from that smooth..

  116. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by matts-reign · · Score: 0

    Personally, I've been using grub2 for a long time now. A year or two, probably. Even Debian has it available -- and that's my measuring stick as to whether things are "old" or not.

    --
    Waffles rock.
  117. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why? With disks sufficiently large these day, just allocate 10GB for Ubuntu and take the rest for /home.

    And then you run out of that 10GB because you're working with large video files, or decide to rip your audio collection to disk. Hell, my /home was over 20GB before I cleared out some old cruft I no longer needed (just one directory, the result of a large .torrent, was over 5GB).

    Meanwhile, you still haven't explained the advantages of putting /home on a separate partition.

    If you don't trust that, simply use LVM. Really, this is childsplay.

    What part of "average user" don't you understand? If you understand enough to use LVM, you understand enough to set up the partition table the way you see fit. Again, we're talking about Ubuntu's *default* configuration. And I've yet to see an argument for why the default installation should have /home on a separate partition.

  118. half-arsed waffle by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    "Shuttleworth .. is running a business and the ideals which created Debian from which most of the codebase of Ubuntu was sourced, are being eroded as his success enables him to sideline those who supported them"

    On the day Canonical releases the totally free-of-charge Ubuntu 9.10, all you can do is piss on the ocasion. Shame on you for a Linux Advocate ;)

    "Are my eyes deceiving me or has that Ubuntu promise just got a bit smaller on the Ubuntu main page... and, don't the words mean something different now from what they once did..."

    Where, how, what are you waffling on about. Do you have any links or citations to this smaller promise? What I see when I go there is:

    * Ubuntu will always be free of charge, along with its regular enterprise releases and security updates
    ..
    * Ubuntu core applications are all free and open source. We want you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on

  119. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    ROFL, weak... you said allocate 10GB to /, and the rest to /home, not the other way 'round. *sigh* :)

    But in that case, you run the risk of running out of space in / (if you throw things in /opt or /local, it could happen pretty easily).

    But, granted, this would work better... though I still don't see the advantage.

  120. Oh, and flash just works by Radhruin · · Score: 1

    Also, flash worked out of the box somehow. I haven't investigated how yet, but I haven't had any flash problems yet and I certainly didn't install it manually. I'm on an AMD64 platform as well.

  121. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grub2 is on my Gentoo. It's just hard masked.

    Although Grub2 has a funny version, if you go to the webpage you'll see it's on version 1.97 (as in not quite 2) and if you eix it you'll see ~1.97.

  122. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why a separate /home? So that you can easily do a clean install of the next version from CD without blowing away all your data.

    Except that your average Ubuntu user does an upgrade, not a re-install.

    And if you're paranoid (like, apparently, you and I) and re-install rather than upgrade, you never want to install a new OS and then trust it with your old /home in the first place. It's much safer to create an entirely new installation, then copy things over as you need them. Otherwise, you may fall victim to old config files that no longer work with the new applications, etc (I've had that happen with Gnome on more than one occasion).

  123. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    Haven't had the need ever for more than 10GB on /.... Normally, I do the full /usr /tmp /var /opt /home separation anyway.

  124. MOD UP TRISEXUALPUPPY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What douchebag modded her/him/it -1, Offtopic? This is ENTIRELY on topic.

  125. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Good Christ, *why*? Yeah, 20 years ago that might have been a good idea, but I really don't get the need these days, given the size of disks and the popularization of journaling filesystems (which minimize fsck delays).

  126. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by AdamWill · · Score: 1

    I don't know what Ubuntu did to it, but we've been using ext4 by default on Fedora throughout the 11 and 12 cycles and haven't had any reports of this bug that I can find.

  127. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, you still haven't explained the advantages of putting /home on a separate partition.

    Simple: less risk that you forget to uncheck the "format" checkbox when installing the OS. If it is on a separate partition, your data is safe. (Well as safe as the disk hardware).

    Default Ubuntu install is "format" the / disk. If this includes your /home, you're fucked. At least the average user is.

  128. Triple K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kubuntu Karmic Koala - I predict a problem.
    Now Ubuntu (or GNOME if you will) lovers got another argument in an endless fight ;).

  129. Re: burrito by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    That would mean you're saying Windows Runs. It doesn't.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  130. MS's lesson for teh Lunix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe MS can teach them how to program. I mean, three versions of their OS in two years? Wow. No wonder their market share is so low.

  131. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    Sharing the same home over different distros? Look, you don't need it, it's clear.... Just don't come whining at me when you actually do format your / accidentally.

  132. Canonical does something right for a change by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18833

    The Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) Daemon is becoming obsolete, starting with Karmic Koala. Apparently the plan is to augment udev.

    This is what they should have done all along. HAL was always a case of running another instance of udev when, in most cases, there was of course already one running; it doesn't do anything new, and simply adds complexity and extra resource usage, unnecessarily.

    Ubuntu still needs to change a lot (scrap Upstart/clone FreeBSD init, get rid of DKMS, ideally get rid of crapt-get and clone ports, revert to OSS for sound, get rid of the insane scenario where GNOME is irremovably fused with virtually the entire rest of the system) in order to become a system I'd consider installing, but this is an important step in the right direction, and is a solution for what was truthfully, one of the major issues that I have traditionally had with Ubuntu.

    1. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ubuntu still needs to change a lot (scrap Upstart/clone FreeBSD init, get rid of DKMS, ideally get rid of crapt-get and clone ports, revert to OSS for sound, get rid of the insane scenario where GNOME is irremovably fused with virtually the entire rest of the system)

      Or you could just run FreeBSD, rather than trying to turn Ubuntu into it...

    2. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by quippe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ubuntu still needs to change a lot (scrap Upstart/clone FreeBSD init, get rid of DKMS, ideally get rid of crapt-get and clone ports, revert to OSS for sound, get rid of the insane scenario where GNOME is irremovably fused with virtually the entire rest of the system) in order to become a system I'd consider installing,

      ...or you could install another distro which satisfies your needs, instead of asking to completely change the aim and view of ubuntu. Let diversity reign in FOSS

    3. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Or you could just run FreeBSD

      Guess what I'm running right now? ;)

      I'm just unsure why trying (and failing, for the most part) to be a half-assed Windows clone is such a great thing for Linux to do.

      Linux was originally a UNIX clone, before Mark Shuttleworth got hold of it. So to me it makes more sense for Linux to resemble BSD than Windows. Canonical have had to do some fairly unnatural things to force Linux to resemble Windows to the degree that they have.

    4. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by Disgruntled+Goats · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Linux was originally a UNIX clone, before Mark Shuttleworth got hold of it.

      No it wasn't. Linux was a Minix clone which was a clone of Unix.

      So to me it makes more sense for Linux to resemble BSD than Windows.

      How did anything you critique about Ubuntu have any resemblance to anything in Windows? Other than purely superficial cosmetics, there is nothing about the internals of Ubuntu that match anything in Windows.

    5. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm just unsure why trying (and failing, for the most part) to be a half-assed Windows clone is such a great thing for Linux to do.

      And I'm not sure why trying to emulate FreeBSD is "such a great thing for Linux to do". I like apt and it's killer dependency handling and associated, vast software repository. I like kernel modules and the fact that I don't have to build custom kernels anymore (I've done that, I've moved on). And PulseAudio. And faster boot times.

      In short: I like the fact that Linux is growing past it's Unix roots and embracing good ideas from *everywhere*, as I realize that an operating system frozen in the 1980's isn't necessarily a good thing.

      Linux was originally a UNIX clone, before Mark Shuttleworth got hold of it.

      Holy shit, I can't even describe how much bullshit that is. Package managers? Kernel modules? Sound daemons? What, you think Shuttleworth invented those ideas? Good god, have you paid *any* attention to the last 15 years of development in the Linux world?

      Ubuntu is the natural consequence of years of development as Linux has matured into an OS that consumers can actually use. If you don't like that, please, just go away and enjoy FreeBSD. It exists to do what you want. Leave Ubuntu, and Linux, the hell alone.

      Canonical have had to do some fairly unnatural things to force Linux to resemble Windows to the degree that they have.

      Total, utter bullshit. Canonical has done *nothing* that hadn't been pioneered by others. They just did a better job of refining it than anyone else.

      What I want to know is why you're even participating in a discussion about Ubuntu, or Linux in general. Clearly you're a BSD fanboi... or perhaps I just fell for a troll?

    6. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scrap Upstart/clone FreeBSD init, get rid of DKMS, ideally get rid of crapt-get and clone ports, revert to OSS for sound, get rid of the insane scenario where GNOME is irremovably fused with virtually the entire rest of the system

      Screw that. Things like Upstart, DKMS, apt-get, and ALSA are the reasons why I'm using Ubuntu in the first place. Go back to FreeBSD if that's what you want to use.

      Oh, and GNOME isn't fused to the rest of the system. You can get the server distro of Ubuntu to install a headless system, or get Xubuntu or Kubuntu to install XFCE or KDE by default.

    7. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, please leave all of those as they are, even if some of them suck, if only to keep people who like to use names like 'crapt-get' far, far away.

    8. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Linux was originally a UNIX clone, before Mark Shuttleworth got hold of it. So to me it makes more sense for Linux to resemble BSD than Windows. Canonical have had to do some fairly unnatural things to force Linux to resemble Windows to the degree that they have.

      It still is. However if you want more people to use it them you need to make it easier to use, and that's what Mark Shuttleworth has done.

      Of course elitists don't want more people using Linux.

      Falcon

    9. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it sounds like he wants OpenSolaris, which does use OSS, no Upstart, etc, etc.

    10. Re:Canonical does something right for a change by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      And if he doesn't want GNOME, he can just pick another Ubuntu derivative. I mean, there's Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Fluxbuntu, OpenGEU (Enlightenment), the LXDE thing, Crunchbang...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  133. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Simple: less risk that you forget to uncheck the "format" checkbox when installing the OS. If it is on a separate partition, your data is safe. (Well as safe as the disk hardware).

    Default Ubuntu install is "format" the / disk. If this includes your /home, you're fucked. At least the average user is.

    Most Ubuntu users upgrade, not re-install.

    For those that do re-install, it's a *really* bad idea to use your old /home straight away, anyway, as you'll inevitably run into configuration files that no longer work. Plus the cruft builds up.

    No, if you do a full re-install, you're much better off backing up your home directory, then doing a full re-install and copying the files over that you want. Or, as I do, you just keep two partitions around, one with the old OS+home, and one with the new OS+home (after all, as you say, disks are huge these days), and just copy from one to the other on a major OS upgrade.

  134. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by AdamWill · · Score: 1

    On a side note. It would be nice if the Ubuntu installer by default created a seperate /home partition. (or maybe they have in the last version or so, I haven't installed from scratch).

    Uh, why? For most people, that's just a pain in the ass... suddenly you have to guess how much space you'll want in / and /home, and if you underestimate, you find yourself having to resize filesystems. And for those who care (such as yourself), you can easily set things up that way during the initial install.

    Going from experience, many of those who care only realize they care when it's too late. i.e. after they've installed Linux, decided they like it, and hit their first upgrade point, whereupon someone says 'of course, if you have a separate /home, you can just...'

  135. Microsoft owns the bus. by westlake · · Score: 1

    A lesson for Windows Engineers. Aim for 256MB, not 2GB. The era of Netbooks is upon us, and it looks like Microsoft will miss the bus

    WalMart.com lists 12 Win 7 netbooks for sale on line, 3 in-store.
      Netbooks

    Atom CPU. 10 inch screen.
    1 GB RAM and a 160 or 250 GB HDD. Prices start at $300 US.

    The life of the geek is hard:

    This is a nice little netbook.
    I got it home and installed Mandriva 2009.1 on it. I ran into a couple problem I want to share. The Ethernet is not recognized by 2009.1 and the wireless requires additional packages, so your left without any Internet connection. I went and bought a usb to Ethernet adapter "linksys usb300M plugged it in and had Internet in seconds. Another flavour of Linux may work fine without issues, I just like Mandriva.
    Acer Purple 10.1" Aspire One [Comment Posted Oct 23]

    WalMart doesn't sell a netbook with less than 1 GB RAM.

    The geek's obsession with "saving" RAM puzzles me.

    RAM is generally the simplest and cheapest way to improve the performance and reliability of any system:

    ReadyBoost works with most flash storage devices. In Windows 7, it can handle more flash memory and even multiple devices--up to eight, for a maximum 256 gigabytes (GB) of additional memory. This feature comes with all versions of Windows 7. ReadyBoost

    If your computer has a hard disk that uses solid-state drive (SSD) technology, you might not see an option to speed up your computer with ReadyBoost when you plug in a USB flash drive or flash memory card. You may instead receive the message, "Readyboost is not enabled on this computer because the system disk is fast enough that ReadyBoost is unlikely to provide any additional benefit. This is because some SSD drives are so fast they're unlikely to benefit from ReadyBoost. Using memory in your storage device to speed up your computer

    1. Re:Microsoft owns the bus. by Asklepius+M.D. · · Score: 1

      The geek's obsession with "saving" RAM puzzles me. RAM is generally the simplest and cheapest way to improve the performance and reliability of any system:

      You are correct about RAM being a simple and relatively cheap way to improve performance. But I want my RAM to improve performance of my APPLICATIONS. The amount of RAM available for me to USE is (System RAM) - (RAM required by the OS just to run). This is especially true since, as a geek, I tend to have my computer doing many things at a time - oftentimes working with unstable alpha or beta software that may not yet perform optimally. The non-geek's obsession with the "visually stunning operating system" puzzles me. My OS should stay out of my way. My window manager should enable me to work, not dazzle me with eye candy. I don't ask my toaster to spend half its power "improving the experience", why should I expect that of my computer? The geek knows the computer is but one tool among many, and the trend toward glittering operating systems is no more useful to the geek than pasting sequins on a screwdriver.

      --
      He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
  136. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by quippe · · Score: 1

    For the mythtv storage, you should really consider using JFS / XFS

  137. Ubuntu One Too Expensive by rliden · · Score: 1

    I think they have a great idea with Ubuntu One. I think this type of idea (syncing your desktop data, sharing, and collaboration) is going to be wildly popular. However, I think they have have their business model out of whack. The idea of expensive recurring service fees from a software vendor is about as archaic and unpopular as expensive recurring version licensing fees from proprietary vendors. To put it bluntly $120/yr for 50GB is too expensive. Other players like Google will offer a more ubiquitous service at a more reasonable price point with a wider integration into their existing services. I like Ubuntu and would love to see this succeed. I just think they are missing the mark.

    When I see almost good ideas like this I just cringe. This is similar to the idea Microsoft has put out with their Live Services. There you get 25GB of free storage for your pictures, files, or whatever for free (web pages have adverts on them though), however the interface, file management, and integration between online services and the desktop is klunky at best. The team that gets this right (all the way right) first will own this market. My bet is on Google.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
  138. Re:Will it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Run MSO, PlanetSide, WoW, Crysis, GTA X, Global Agenda, Steam and the games i download for it?

    Nope! No crappy, overpriced games for you to whine about whenever you get your troll a$$ pwn3d! Isn't it great? AND it'll help encourage you to get out of your parents' basement and get an actual life! This one benefits all of us!

    Will it use the peripherals available at Best Buy, or that the people around me have?

    Oh, hell no! Thankfully, with Linux, you can learn to avoid the borderline-fraudulent practices of Best Buy and use superior sales outlets, like just about anywhere on this wild new invention called the "Internet", where they actually sell you decent hardware, and you'll most likely save hundreds in the process over Best Buy's "premium" name brand nonsense!

    Will it work with contemporary video and sound cards?

    Certainly! It won't work on flipping exotic just-released-five-days-into-the-future cards that the whiny framerate-scrapers use, leaving you open to actually do useful work, as opposed to sitting around and wanking off to your "l33t" 594.2 frames per second and eighty-bajillion-speaker sound!

    Will i be able to share files/programs with more people or fewer people?

    That's the best part! Since all those viruses you love to share don't work on Linux, not to mention the existence of an actual security-first design policy that prevents trivial exploits from popping up on a regular and all-too-frequent basis, you won't be able to share them, thus allowing you to actually get some work done once in a while, rather than spend all day updating sleazy, questionably-operated anti-virus programs whose functionality amounts to little more than voodoo dances to ward off a constantly-mutating enemy!

    Glad I could clear things up! Enjoy your more convenient life trolling for less!

  139. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Sharing the same home over different distros? Look, you don't need it, it's clear

    But most people don't, that's my entire damn point. Ubuntu's default configuration should be reasonable for normal users, not 30-year Unix dinosaurs. ;)

    And sharing a /home over distros seems like a deeply bad idea... incompatible versions of software packages would wreak havoc on your config files.

    Just don't come whining at me when you actually do format your / accidentally.

    Ah, I see you've never heard of backups. Weird, given your proclivity for clinging to age-old Unix traditions. ;)

  140. Do we really need... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    ...a new Ubuntu every 6 months? Seems like a support nightmare - and as other posts here have mentioned, the incremental upgrades are only really viable if you don't skip releases. It would certainly worry me if I were a hardware mfr looking to sell Ubuntu-based machines.

    Yes, there are the LTS versions, but the website pretty much steers visitors towards the latest 6-monthly release. Even then the "long term support" seems to be mainly critical bugfixes rather than keeping applications up-to-date. Now, your typical /.er may have no problem scouring the web for a suitable tarball or .deb containing the latest version of Open Office, but with no established equivalent to the user-friendly installers used by Windows and Mac, non-techie users really need to get their upgrades via their distro's "install new software" tool.

    Seems to me that, although there will always be a place for bleeding-edge distros, its about time for mainstream, end-user focussed distros like Ubuntu to grow up a bit and settle down to a more sedate lifecycle, with a couple of years between major OS updates (just like MS and Apple) and concentrate on keeping their application repositories up-to-date.

    Most users want to run the latest applications, not re-configure their OS every 6 months.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:Do we really need... by pizzach · · Score: 1

      Hrm. You contradict yourself a lot a and I don't think you know the difference between major releasing and incremental releasing methodology. I urge you to read Release early, release often.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    2. Re:Do we really need... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Just because an idea is described in wikipedia doesn't make it good.

    3. Re:Do we really need... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      As Linux still lacks a proper standardized and userfriendly way to ship software or kernel drivers outside of the distribution we absolute need regular releases, as the alternative would be to be stuck with year old software and drivers which wouldn't support new hardware.

    4. Re:Do we really need... by bevoblake · · Score: 1

      As an off-again-on-again linux user since the early days of Redhat and Caldera, I would have historically agreed with the need for a relatively long-use release. However, I think Ubuntu has become very easy to use for the installation of new programs. Apt-get is a huge win. This helps eliminate the difficulty of setting up a new environment when you reinstall the OS. For the few applications that aren't available via apt-get, I'm willing to spend some extra time (although installing the latest version of ruby/gems/somewhat rarely used gems/rails on my last ubuntu install was a bit brutal).

      That said, I probably will stick with the next long-term release for an extended time period for many of the reasons you mention compounded by my general laziness.

    5. Re:Do we really need... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      As Linux still lacks a proper standardized and userfriendly way to ship software or kernel drivers outside of the distribution we absolute need regular releases

      Sounds more like it absolutely needs a proper way of shipping software or kernel drivers... I don't see why this can't be solved within a distribution, though. However, the current policy seems to be "if you need that new WiFi driver then either hack it in yourself from a tarball or upgrade the whole system and run the risk of fixing a whole load of things which ain't broke".

      as the alternative would be to be stuck with year old software and drivers which wouldn't support new hardware.

      Yet competing operating systems manage to let you upgrade drivers and individual software packages as and when they need in the years separating OS releases... Its not even as if its not possible on Linux - its the distro system that dictates the all-or-nothing upgrade approach. I suspect the problem is that the techie types who make the decisions don't think twice about stepping outside the distro and rolling a custom kernel or building a tarball, and fail to realize just how inaccessible that is to other types of user.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    6. Re:Do we really need... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know the difference between major releasing and incremental releasing methodology.

      Yes, because assigning a buzzword solves all the problems associated with an idea.

      Meanwhile, changing the default filing system from EXT3 to EXT4 (for example) doesn't sound very "incremental" to me - not to mention something which should have been in beta for a year before showing up in a public release.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:Do we really need... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      That said, I probably will stick with the next long-term release for an extended time period for many of the reasons you mention compounded by my general laziness

      Plus the odds are that you, like me, faced with the need for a package or driver not available for your LTS distro, would reach for a tarball and spend a happy afternoon getting it to build. Heck, I'll probably download Karmic for fun, at some stage. Trouble is, Linux needs to start selling itself to people who don't regard installing and troubleshooting a new linux distro as a good weekend's entertainment.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    8. Re:Do we really need... by Draek · · Score: 1

      So you want everything to be updated faster, but slower. Great thinking, there.

      I don't think you quite understand how Linux development and distro packaging work just yet.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    9. Re:Do we really need... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      ...a new Ubuntu every 6 months?

      It's your choice to upgrade or not, if you don't want to then don't. Others want to so they can.

      Seems to me that, although there will always be a place for bleeding-edge distros, its about time for mainstream, end-user focussed distros like Ubuntu to grow up a bit and settle down to a more sedate lifecycle, with a couple of years between major OS updates (just like MS and Apple) and concentrate on keeping their application repositories up-to-date.

      Then switch to a distro more to your liking. You want your freedom to get what you want but you would deny others their freedom.

      Falcon

    10. Re:Do we really need... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      So you want everything to be updated faster, but slower. Great thinking, there.

      No: I want to install the latest version of the wordprocessor without simultaneously upgrading every other part of the operating system, and committing myself to the glitches, troubleshooting and re-learning that inevitably entails. I want to install a mature, stable core OS that will be viable for several years, and only upgrade the bits of it I have to. I want distros to spend less time generating a new major release every 6 months and more time keeping the individual packages in the software repository up to date with the minimum of dependencies.

      Or, more accurately, while I can probably figure out how to do a piecemeal upgrade, a non-techie user should be able to do it from the click-and-drool "add new software" panel. Realistcally, I'd be more inclined to start with something stable like Debian and install my key apps from tarballs or third-party .debs - but Linux needs to stop pitching itself at people like me.

      I don't think you quite understand how Linux development and distro packaging work just yet.

      And I think you typify the "you're too stupid to use Linux" attitude that has always hampered the widespread adoption of Linux. Users don't give a flying fuck about "how Linux development and distro packaging work" - users are accustomed to an OS version which remains viable, and capable of running the latest applications and hardware, for years. Unlike Linux hackers, users want operating systems in order to run applications - not as a source of recreation. Witness Microsoft's difficulty in killing off XP...

      If the "Linux development and distro packaging" system means that mainstream, production releases of the OS have a shelf life of 6 months, then it is unfit for purpose and needs to be fixed. The main flaw of Linux distros is that packages have dependency issues that make the old Windows "DLL Hell" look like heaven. That is not a feature - it is a bug that needs fixing.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    11. Re:Do we really need... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      It's your choice to upgrade or not,

      You really don't get it, do you?

      For example, if I want to stick with the current LTS version of Ubuntu, 8.04, the only version of OpenOffice on offer in the repository is 2.4. AFAIK, all the "LTS" release means is that any critical patches released for OoO 2.4 should appear. If I'd just grabbed the latest release from ubuntu.com (you have to dig a bit for the LTS).

      Now, possibly the latest .deb from the OpenOffice site will work, maybe some kind soul has set up a repository with a newer version, or perhaps I have the time, patience and knowledge to build it from a tarball. However, the only way I'll get a more recent version of an application configured, compiled and properly integrated with my distro is to upgrade the whole operating system.

      This isn't "the way Linux works" it is the chosen policy of the distro maintainers to continually tinker with the core OS infrastructure... and I can fully understand that when the distro maintainers are systems programmers working for free.

      Then switch to a distro more to your liking.

      This isn't about me. I'd be quite happy to use Debian or CentOS and build my packages from Tarballs. I don't personally mind upgrading the OS every 6 months - but that's the pathological Linux "works for me" attitude. This is about "selling" the idea of Linux to users of other OSs who really aren't going to accept that, in order to install the equivalent of Office 2007, they are going to have to upgrade to Windows 7 or Snow Leopard. Yes, Linux is different because the software is free, but upgrading a whole OS still "costs" time, expertise and risk.

      Anyway - this thread isn't about "expert" distros designed for serious production use (CentOS, Debian) or bleeding-edge showcases (Fedora, Gentoo) - it is about Ubuntu, the highest profile distro, apparently aimed squarely at mainstream use, but apparently stuck in perpetual beta.

      You want your freedom to get what you want but you would deny others their freedom.

      Want to install the latest version of an application? Not confident to - quite unnecessarily - completely re-build your system and face questions about disc partitioning, bootloaders and video drivers? Tough. - yeah, that's really increasing freedom.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    12. Re:Do we really need... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      This is about "selling" the idea of Linux to users of other OSs who really aren't going to accept that, in order to install the equivalent of Office 2007, they are going to have to upgrade to Windows 7 or Snow Leopard.

      And how many users of other OSes, OS X and Windows, upgrade their software without upgrading their OS by buying a new computer? I bet few people upgrade software other than games but not the OS or the PC. Stores like Best Buy even offer to install software for people because people don't want to do it themselves.

      Anyway - this thread isn't about "expert" distros designed for serious production use (CentOS, Debian) or bleeding-edge showcases (Fedora, Gentoo) - it is about Ubuntu, the highest profile distro, apparently aimed squarely at mainstream use,

      And it is. Ubuntu, and distros based on it, is about the easiest Linux distro for most people.

      Falcon

    13. Re:Do we really need... by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      I have an idea. Why don't they release LTS versions every two years, but support them for, say, three years on the desktop and five on the server, so you can take your time upgrading? Oh wait, that's what they already do. It's posts like these that I can never figure out if the poster is clueless or deliberately trying to mislead people. Or option 3: hubris leads him to see himself in the "bleeding edge" group of users, but he is frustrated at his inability to actually maintain a stable system with bleeding edge applications, so he lashes out at the people who know what they're doing but are "holding out" on him, relegating him to stable, albeit slightly outdated software.

      OEMs use the LTS versions. My wife has one, precisely because she doesn't want her computer's OS reconfigured every 6 months, even though the other computers in the house are. Do you think she cares about what version of openoffice.org it runs, as long as security updates are current? You realize the newest MS office was released a full year before the last Ubuntu LTS release? I still haven't seen Office 2007 in person. Everyone I know with office uses 2003 or earlier, including my own workplace. That's 6 years old. You might want to rethink your conception of "most non-techie users."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  141. Where do you get the IMG file for 9.10 UNR? by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Most netbooks don't have optical drives, so the ISO is pretty much useless. v9.04 provided an IMG file that could be used to created a bootable USB flash, but I don't see that for v9.10. Anyone know where the UNR IMG file is for this release?

    1. Re:Where do you get the IMG file for 9.10 UNR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right here:

      http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook

  142. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Going from experience, many of those who care only realize they care when it's too late. i.e. after they've installed Linux, decided they like it, and hit their first upgrade point, whereupon someone says 'of course, if you have a separate /home, you can just...

    Can just... backup. Then either re-install and copy everything over, or do an 'apt-get dist-upgrade'.

    I mean, you don't really trust a new OS with your old data without backing it up first, do you?

    BTW, I've been running Linux for 15 years now. I have yet to see a pressing need for a separate /home partition, and I've learned the hard way what a pain in the ass it is to run out of space, particularly if /home happens to be butted up against the end of the disk.

  143. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

    It's child's play for us, not for 'normal' people. File sizes don't mean much to non-computer people.

    Ubuntu makes computers possible for the bottom-of-the-barrel folks and keeps it flexible and powerful for experienced users. If you want them separated, do it yourself.

    --
    The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
  144. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Been there, kernel panicked. Thanks, but no thanks. Meanwhile, ext3 has been rock solid stable, across multiple distros, with years of service.

  145. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ext4 is an abomination. Ext was shit. Ext2 wasn't as shitty, but was still below par in many respects. Ext3 was just ext2 with journaling. And ext4 is clearly a heap of shit if it'll corrupt files over 512 MB in size.

  146. Give me a break by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

    One user is reporting file corruption and nobody else can replicate it. That's no reason to hold up a release or worry at all.

    Otoh, for a while I repeatedly got file corruption copying large ~10gb files on 9.04 from my ext3 filesystem to an SMB share. The hash would be wrong maybe 3/4th of the time after copying and doing an 'md5sum smb/thefile'. So we should stop using ext3 also? disable cifs?

    Chances are in both cases it had nothing to do with the filesystem at all and was something else like flaky hardware.

    1. Re:Give me a break by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      If you actually read the whole thread, you will notice that there are 2 other users reporting it as well:
      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/453579/comments/80

      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/453579/comments/86

      There is also this (on a newer kernel). It is the sort of necessary debugging, but that at the same time doesn't quite encourage me to migrate my data systems to ext4 at this point. http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14354#c90

    2. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually read the whole thread...

      One of the whole two other people has a wonky RAID and an SSD. Since Intel and Indilinx both had to withdraw firmware, it's a good bet the problem is with the SSD. It sound a heck of a lot more likely than it being EXT4.

      The other guy reporting it is also using the same SSD... hmm interesting. And Intel just yanked their SSD firmware upgrade.

      Notice a pattern here? Like I said, there's no reason to hold off on releasing 9.10 or for anybody to be at all concerned with ext4. The sky isn't falling.

  147. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specialization can have performance advantages. The problem is that there is no one "best" filesystem. Instead of compromising on one all-around good performer like ext3 for everything, you can use the best tool for each job. Reiser3 is awesome for mail, jfs is ideal for /var/lib/mythtv/recordings, etc.

    Also, breaking up your heirarchy into multiple filesystems can help with fragmentation. You might have one area where there's a lot of fragmentation (my mythtv setup is like this, because I have more tuners than storage groups), and by letting it be its own filesystem, its fragmentation doesn't "infect" the rest of the system.

  148. Re:flash? by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

    Emmm... obviously you don't understand what "out of the box working flash support" means...

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  149. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah, I see you've never heard of backups.

    Funny, because I thought the premise was bottom-of-the-barrel computer users. Those don't have backups. Just saying...

    Your solution is just as bad as mine for the computers users who are targeted by Ubuntu.

  150. MS Office vs. OpenOffice by jerryluc · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu finally explains the difference between the two: "The big difference is that OpenOffice.org is free (and promises never to introduce Mr Clippy)"
    http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/910features

  151. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are using the 64Bit edition, then you should use this flash version:

    http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html

    It is alpha alright, but trust me, it works WAYYYYYYYYYYY better than the version available in the main download page

    PS: plugin goes to /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/

  152. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny, because I thought the premise was bottom-of-the-barrel computer users. Those don't have backups. Just saying...

    And they also don't understand how to re-install Ubuntu and have it use their old /home partition (to do that, you have to use the advanced partitioning mode). Average users will just upgrade. And if they do that, then having /home on a separate partition presents absolutely zero advantages, while creating the pain of a more inflexible storage arrangement.

  153. Re:Flash? by Kreeben · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, ah, you've had flash for a couple of months now, you say. Hmm, that's cewl. I've had it for a while now, a decade I would say, but, you know, that's cool, you'll be ready for the desktop pretty soon.

  154. EEEPC Fixes? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So is the video fixed for the EEEPC so the menu isn't so painfully slow? ( its the video driver, don't remember which chipset )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:EEEPC Fixes? by thelamecamel · · Score: 1

      Yes! It got fixed in Jaunty a month or two ago - and it looked like they were sitting on the bugfix for about a month. Pretty unprofessional stuff, since many people's computers were rendered unusable, but now it's fixed and Karmic sings on my EEE. It does tell me that my battery's broken and that the SMART status of my SSD indicates that it's on its way out, but let's not shoot the messenger.

  155. Netbook Remix Nearly impossible to Install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously Ubuntu, how could you allow such a difficult to install Netbook Remix?

    First of all, no easy way to get to the torrent. Horrible, especially because the traffic is the heaviest today. I found it, but had to figure it out by going through the clogged mirrors to find.

    Then, it's still very difficult to install once you get it. They used to be released as IMG files which could be installed easily enough, but now it's an ISO and there are all kinds of utilities that need to be discovered, and even bad links on the Netbook page! If you download the ISO and read the howto linked from the download page, it directs you to:

        https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/FromImgFiles

    Which isn't even the right page, because it isn't an IMG file anymore. It's an ISO. Then I found this page:

        https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/FromUSBStick

    And maybe that works, but their own utility couldn't create a bootable USB key, so now I'm downloading "UNetbootin". Maybe that will work.

    I'm sure the average user will have no problem doing this. They'll will a lot of converts this way!

  156. Re:It's FREE! as long as... by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

    I'm definitely willing to say that I have had bad experiences with Ubuntu upgrades breaking things in the past, mostly in the way of my monitor set up.
    However, the 15 minutes it takes to get three monitors each with virtual desktops back up and running vastly outweighs the Windows alternative of one giant screen with no virtual desktops.
    I also don't know how anyone familiar with package repository systems can see that as anything but a huge time saver with respect to an operating system like Windows.

    Very truthfully, cost of an operating system isn't that important to most tech-savvy people. If I want to use Windows 7, I can either pirate it, or get a free student copy. There is some time investment in getting a Linux setup that works for you, but after that's done, you can be far more productive than you ever would be with Windows.

  157. GRUB2 by phorm · · Score: 1

    It's not out on Gentoo? That's odd, because even on our Debian/Lenny systems at the office Grub2 has been available for quite awhile, and Debian/stable is hardly known for being "bleeding edge"

    1. Re:GRUB2 by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      It's not out on Gentoo?

      It is available actually (grub-9999, e.g. compiled from grub2's source repo), along with latest KDE4 that was mentioned earlier, they just aren't marked 'stable' in Gentoo's main repo.

      I think that things not moving quickly to 'stable' on Gentoo has to a lot to do with, aside from the smaller user-base, my suspicion that most Gentoo users are running the Gentoo equivalent of 'unstable' by default.

      Gentoo doesn't have fixed releases, its a continuously updated source-based distro, so 'stable' and 'unstable' have different meanings for it anyway, and once you add in 'overlays' (external repos, typically bleeding-edge stuff), which are commonly used in Gentoo, then comparisons to the popular binary-based, versioned distros become almost meaningless.

  158. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    I like to make /home partitions the size of my backup volume (currently 800GB/LTO-4).
    That way I can be sure that a block-level backup will fit on a single uncompressed
    volume.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  159. nspluginwrapper by phorm · · Score: 1

    npviewer is part of "nspluginwrapper", and IMHO should be avoided like the plague. It causes nothing but problems, especially the infamous "I've crashed your firefox but will continue to run flash in a wrapper while consuming CPU" issue.

    Adobe has had flash10 in "alpha" for linux/64-bit for awhile now. I'd heartily recommend it over the 32-bit wrapped version.

    See here:
    http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
    http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html

  160. Re:flash? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    So you still have to use sudo and create a password to install it? That part is different from "any other OS".

  161. too much focus on window manager flair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Latest is always quite sketchy with too much focus on just trying to make things prettier wtf.

    Agree with some of the comments mentioning targeting 256mb ram, though that's probably a bit low these days.
    But all I want is the under the hood linux base and apps upgraded, I don't give a damn about more flash.

    If all I cared about was flash I'd use fscking windows.

    Needs to be a version or distrib that focuses on under the hood components, fixing the million existing bugs in current window managers, and stop trying to give us more flair that just slows your fscking computer down.

  162. No Corruption Here by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    I've just migrated approximately 1.5TB of "large files" from ext3 to ext4 on karmic. Every single file was verified by md5sum. Critical files were additionally verified with a diff.

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
  163. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by jspenguin1 · · Score: 1

    I can testify that bad ram is likely the culprit. I had a single bit get flipped in one of my apt database files. If it were a filesystem issue, it would likely affect whole blocks, not bits.

    The comment where the md5sum was constantly changing has the distinct odor of a memory problem. When it "stabilized" it was probably due to being flushed out to disk.

    Keep in mind that a memory error in high memory (>1GB) will most likely result in the disk cache being corrupted: process memory won't be affected until you launch something big.

  164. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by quippe · · Score: 1

    ..."kernel panicked"...

    That means absolutely nothing. Panics dont depend on which filesystem you intend to use, and the perfect filesystem doesn't exists and never will. You probably misconfigured grub or forgot to remake initrd or such.

    The suggestion to use JFS for mythtv storage is because it has constant time on file deletion over file size, and your myth storage dir will be packed up with lots of very big files. Besides that, you will appreciate the resize feature with is executed on the fly with mount -o remount,resize , very helpful when coupled with LVM.

    That obviously doesn't mean you should use JFS for your /home or /usr, ext4 will do it's best there. But it is not always perfect, ie if you rely on an netbook SSD you probably don't want journalling, and would mount with noatime to preserve write cycles on that device.

    Reading man pages helps a lot, too.

  165. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by DrXym · · Score: 1

    In this day and age, a 512Mb file is not really big. A typical .iso or movie rip exceeds that amount.

  166. Re:Flash? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    Great, you can use this certificate:

    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000818.html

    I've struggled mightily with my Radeon 9200 video card under Ubuntu. I don't get any acceleration. Often the resolution goes back to default VESA, at 800 x 600 @ 60Hz. Irritating but livable.

    Viewing any Flash movies ends the browsing session, taking all resources and preventing any other loads. The only way to fix it is to close the tab. If I didn't have Flashblock, surfing would be impossible. No Flash. Think about that for a minute.

    Yes, I've installed the proprietary drivers AND the Flash drivers. I'm not an idiot. I have a fair bit of Unix / Linux experience.

    Support has ranged from "lol get a better card" to "ATI has proprietary drivers and doesn't work under Ubuntu. It's their fault for not supporting a GPL framework" to "your computer is too old and you should buy another one". I note that Voodoo cards are supported.

    So realistically, the attitude is "buy $100 - $500 worth of stuff that may or may not work in order to get the free program to work."

    Personally, I'm looking forward to when my wife gets her new laptop so I can get the XP licence back and actually be able to use my computer. Ubuntu's been a pain in the ass for the last two years, and I'm sick of it.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  167. What can I run in 64MB / old Pent 166 w/ security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What can you run on an old 64MBy Laptop for www browsing?

    I've got an old laptop with 64MBy RAM and a P-II 166MHz or something like that. Runs Win98 well enough natively.

    I've been trying to find a modern UNIX distribution to run on it just as a web/email terminal. It apparently lacks the CMOV instruction and lacks enough RAM that for whatever reason I haven't had luck booting Debian Live i386 or Ubuntu Live on it. I'd prefer a modern distribution
    just for the ongoing useful security updates and recently maintained versions for the browser / OS / email clients, but I don't
    expect any high level of features other than a very basic set of window manager and connectivity applications.

    I've avoided LTSE / DSL / Puppy Linux etc. so far since AFAICT from their spec. pages they either effectively 'require' (or highly
    suggest as being almost required if you don't want to swap 99.9% of the time) more RAM than this or they are such old releases that
    I can't believe they've got anything like recent critical security updates since they often aren't even "updates/package" based but
    are monolithic distribution images.

    I've heard of things like Splashtop and other images that can fit into a 512MBy or even floppy sized boot distribution, but MASS STORAGE is
    not in short supply with a multi GBy HDD, it is RAM and CPU capability that is lacking. Any suggestions? I'm thinking of trying NetBSD with some window manager, though I'd prefer a download it & boot it LINUX distribution over the full on customization & package management work BSD usually entails, and even many of the BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD) stopped working on my systems without CMOV a number of years ago, so I'm skeptical they'd fit well into RAM/CPU either.

    Can't run Win98 effectively for the lack of security patches, obviously, if I don't expect the machine to get pwned in the first day of browsing.

    Anyway, nice keypoard, nice screen, fine HDD of a few GBY size, so it'd be a shame to toss it, it is just too limited in RAM/CPU, and it seems
    like there may be few / no forks of modern OS / browser / thin client distributions to use such old hardware. Even LINUX/BSD is leaving platforms of this capability behind, even though years ago this was a very mainstream and adequate "Win98" class internet desktop.
    There must be millions of these available running, you'd think some kind of OLPC type of project could even be targeted to taking in 3 generations old laptops and putting them to good use as book readers or net terminals or so on.

    I'm a bit confused on the CMOV thing since I thought that it was an acknowledged BUG in GCC that it didn't admit the required instructions to
    CHECK at runtime for the platform OPTIONAL instruction capability and then work around it if absent via an alternate instruction or use it for better performance if present. So I don't quite see why/how so many kernels still today seem to just crash if that instruction is absent rather than having proper fall-back code or just not using it at all... Isn't this a bug for i386 targeted distributions?

  168. Radeon X1300 by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    I haven't read up on 9.10 yet, but I'm hoping it supports
    03:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV516 [Radeon X1300/X1550 Series]

    Better than 9.04 did. That was a complete mess, and left older radeon card users scrambling for the best solution.

  169. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    That means absolutely nothing. Panics dont depend on which filesystem you intend to use, and the perfect filesystem doesn't exists and never will. You probably misconfigured grub or forgot to remake initrd or such.

    No, I hit a bug in the filesystem. It *does* happen from time to time, believe it or not.

    ROFL, "panics don't depend on which filesystem you intend to use"... your 6-digit UID would suggest you're not a newb, and yet that comment is so silly it seems to suggest otherwise. The contradiction is puzzling yet fascinating.

    The suggestion to use JFS for mythtv storage is because it has constant time on file deletion over file size, and your myth storage dir will be packed up with lots of very big files.

    I'm aware of that. I don't care. Slow delete in Myth 0.21 works around the issue for ext3 and works perfectly fine. This is on a system with 2 tuners, a TB of storage, and around a dozen recordings per day, many simultaneous, with regular auto-expirations occuring (ie, the filesystem is being regularly hammered, both in terms of writes and deletes).

    As for resize, I don't resize. When my RAID fails, I buy a new set of drives, copy over the data, and move on. And if I did feel the need to tack on storage, I'd use storage groups, not LVM (which, having used it in the past, simply isn't worth the additional hassle, not to mention cognitive load).

  170. I second the recommendation of UNetbootin by tepples · · Score: 1

    You can create a USB stick version from the CD after you boot it.

    Which requires 1. a working CD burner to make the CD, and 2. a machine with a bootable (that is, usually internal) CD-ROM drive whose hardware is compatible with Ubuntu. PCs typically don't come bundled with a USB optical drive, and some BIOS versions that can boot from a USB drive can't boot from a USB optical drive. So for people who have a Windows PC and a second PC with no optical drive, I recommend the UNetbootin instructions on the page at help.ubuntu.com that you linked. I used it to make an SD card to install Hardy on an Eee PC with a 4 GB SSD, and I used it to make an SD card to install Jaunty after I replaced the stock SSD with a 32 GB RunCore SSD.

  171. Kubuntu... I'm upgrading right now! by gosand · · Score: 1

    When I checked for updates this morning, it asked if I wanted to upgrade to the newest version. I did. In the last 10 years, this will be first time I will (hopefully) have a successful upgrade. In the past, all the way back to RedHat 5.something upgrades have killed me and I've had to do a fresh install. I was always running 2 monitors, and that seemed to be a never-ending battle re-configuring X. I've gone from RedHat to SuSE to Mandrake to Kubuntu.

    Having said that, I recently built a new computer with Intel quad-core and ditched the 2 monitors in favor of a big flat screen... so I did a fresh install of 9.04 64-bit Kubuntu. I've been loving it! There have been a few things I didn't care for, but even KDE4 is OK, and Compiz is great.

    Still crossing my fingers. :)

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  172. Serious Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Pulse Audio fixed/implemented properly yet?
    I've been holding out with my properly configured 8.10 system and seeing that no upgrade since 5 has ever worked properly (always ended up doing reinstall) the only thing I really want is proper working Pulse Audio and I don't want to install a system with a crappy default audio setup that I have to spend forever fixing.

    1. Re:Serious Question by grumbel · · Score: 1

      At the moment the situation looks a good bit worse in 9.10 then it did in 9.04, as Pulseaudio is no longer optional, but required part for Gnome. If you uninstall Pulseaudio you can no longer access the gnome-volume-control (which has been completly rewritten), volume control buttons on the keyboard no longer work, volume control applet is gone as well.

      And with Pulseaudio installed I now have weird "klack" sounds whenever an application starts to use sound and applications like Rhythmbox seem to stall sometimes when they try to start playing sound, neither of the things happened with 9.10.

      There are also other issues, such as a new Grub which is extremely slow (40sec(!) just to get to the Grub menu).

      So far the release is rather disappointing.

    2. Re:Serious Question by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Pulseaudio is optional in 9.04? I've been trying to get rid of that piece of shit since 8.04. Every time I try to jump through the hoops, I end up hosing sound entirely..

      PLEASE enlighten me. I beg of you. I don't want to have to switch to kubuntu.

    3. Re:Serious Question by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Pulseaudio is optional in 9.04?

      More or less, as far as I remember, you could just do a:

      sudo apt-get --purge remove .*pulseaudio.*

      and then reboot/logout and have Gnome continue to work fine. With Ubuntu9.10 its the first time that the audio daemon seems to be mandatory for very basic functionality.

    4. Re:Serious Question by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the heads up. I've finally got 9.04 working, sort of (sound acceptable to my daughter, plus DVD, plus fully functional non-YouTube videos again - esp. Vimeo and Rachel.MSNBC.com) and so feel very disinclined to dork with it. My family hated me for three days after I "upgraded" from 8.04 -> 8.10 -> 9.04. Getting it all right again took weeks.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  173. Re:Flash? by Abreu · · Score: 1

    Complain to ATI/AMD, not Ubuntu

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  174. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    My big problem with 9.04 was trackerd, which would fairly frequently pop up a dialog box that wouldn't go away. After a while, it started using so many system resources when it popped up that the system would lock. (I don't know which resources, since my terminal program running top froze also.) I checked the bug system, and it was a fairly common complaint, while one workaround they suggested did nothing for me.

    The secret to running 9.04 turned out to be "sudo apt-get remove tracker". It's great. It's like having a computer again. Even the sound works now (it didn't under 8.10, and installing drivers myself didn't fix the problem).

    Frankly, if I wanted to troubleshoot system problems, I'd have installed Gentoo or something.

    I think I may just skip 9.10 and wait for the next LTS version (10.04, I believe).

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  175. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by voodoosteve · · Score: 1

    You can choose other filesystems, such as ext3, if you setup the partitions manually.

  176. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I've yet to see an argument for why the default installation should have /home on a separate partition.

    How about not losing the /home partition if you decide to wipe / upgrade the OS with the next version.

    For what it's worth, I allocate 20GB to /, the rest to /home. Works great for last few years.

  177. First notes after installing by harris+s+newman · · Score: 1

    Boot up seems slower, it hung on reboot at the close of the upgrade, but otherwise, looks and feels solid. GREAT JOB!

  178. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

    Ext3 was not exactly perfect either. At least with the default configuration that came with ubuntu I had data loss problems. Never had that with NTFS. I also have second hands accounts of disks that didn't even boot with ext3 that worked fine when formated with NTFS.

  179. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or install the ubuntu-restricted-extras package which will make pretty much all audio and video to work. Flash, Java, mp3, dvd, etc...

  180. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the increasing dependence on Mono will fix all the problems.

  181. Re:flash? by armanox · · Score: 1

    Because we have 64bit flash in Windows and Mac OS...

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  182. Re:Will it... by armanox · · Score: 1

    I haven't had any issues with picking up hardware from Best Buy and dropping it in Linux systems for years.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  183. should still be beta by FewClues · · Score: 1

    Released usually means stable. The first failure notice I had after installing the RELEASED Ubuntu 9.10 was that the highly touted Ubuntu One was broken. My client was more advanced than the server according to the alarm. So as far as exhibiting their cloud capability they score a negative. My web cam is useless. Skype only partially works. It may say released but its still a beta!

  184. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 1

    The new Ubuntu seems to have a lot of new stuff that I feel slightly uneasy about. I'm not sure if Ext4 has proven itself yet (then again, I haven't been paying attention), and grub2 isn't even available on Gentoo yet (my somewhat crude stick of measuring when things are considered "new" or not). I like the progress, I'm just interesting in hearing some discussion about it (hal deprecation, new input system, NX, AppArmor, etc).

    My theory is that this is a release to load up on almost-stable technologies, work out the shit, and have everything 'proven' for Ubuntu 10.04.

  185. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They might get to understand how to re-install Ubuntu. They manage it with Windows, and tech support hand-holding them, or just slapping in the DVD and clicking next a lot.

    The only good reason for a separate /home is to partition your data from everything else. I don't care if my OS dies, I can re-install it without having to worry (or copy) masses of data to a backup partition, and possibly (probably in my case) forget something. Its not something you'd do very often, but when you do come to do it you realise why you did it. If you have Windows on, you'll realise exactly why you did it when Windows 7 practically won't let you do an upgrade anyway.

    In these days of super-large disks, there's no reason to give / a mere 10Gb. Give it 25Gb (which is what I gave Vista, and is nearly full now :( ) and you'll never fill that, not with Linux software.

    I tend to do 3 partitions anyway - one for the OS and stuff; one for my data; one for temp files, downloads, backups etc. It works well for me. I think it'd work well for the common user too, the days of one big "C:" partition should be over.

  186. Re:Will it... by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Awesome.

    Does that include sound/video cards?

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  187. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by jadedoto · · Score: 1

    If the user is trying out Linux and doesn't want to worry about losing settings and data with different distributions? Also, the partitioning would be invisible to the user unless they are fiddling with things, and if they then discover they needed separate partitions, it's easier to have it done already than backing up data and wasting time...

  188. Re:What can I run in 64MB / old Pent 166 w/ securi by eudaemon · · Score: 1

    I would look to BSD. OpenBSD is my personal favorite but any of Open, Free or Net should run fine on that.

    I think you'll find that modern-day web pages and their heavy client-side requirements have left
    these desktops behind more than the operating systems. Any OS will run great, until you load a web
    page filled with AJAX and Flash.

  189. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um Ubuntu has had flash for a while, you stupid dumb cunt.

  190. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flash doesn't use HW acceleration scaling if you are using Compiz.

  191. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by willyg · · Score: 1

    For those of you that need wireless, and need to access Access Points with hidden ESSIDs (like I do for work), you should stay away from the KDE version of 9.10 (Kubuntu) for the time being, unless you're still comfortable with installing/running wicd. The latest release candidate of 9.10 I ran last week still had issues out of the box. If you need this capability, stick with the plain vanilla version (Gnome). I'm told that nm-applet works O.K. with wireless, although I've not had the chance to confirm it yet.

    As always, YMMV...

  192. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only good reason for a separate /home is to partition your data from everything else.

    Right. And the only advantage that provides is if you decide to upgrade and reuse the same /home. I've already pointed out how that's a bad idea, in general. And that use case requires more advanced knowledge of Ubuntu, Unix, and partitioning than your average user possesses. So it's only really useful for advanced users, who are already capable of splitting out home into a separate partition.

    Its not something you'd do very often, but when you do come to do it you realise why you did it.

    No, you might. I haven't. I've upgraded from 7.04 -> 7.10 -> 8.04 -> 8.10 -> 9.04, and soon 9.10, and never once have I regretted not splitting out /home. In fact, given the incompatibilities I've experienced due to config file changes and so forth, I've been extremely *glad* I chose to create a whole new /home, followed by copying over the things I want, as that ensures I start with a clean slate as far as the desktop environment goes.

    I think it'd work well for the common user too, the days of one big "C:" partition should be over.

    Again, you say 'should', as if it's just a foregone conclusion that your way is better and that everyone else is too dumb to realize it. But that's not at all true. A split partition scheme brings certain advantages. A unified scheme brings others. Hell, this whole discussion is about that very topic. To pretend that your approach is the end-all and the be-all is absurd.

  193. Re:Will it... by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

    Okay, mods, that was pretty funny, come on.

  194. Looks like the same old shit to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same as 4.10, 5.04, 5.10, 6.06, 6.10, 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, 8.10, and 9.04. A turd it a turd (even if it's a slightly darker shade of brown).

  195. Re:Will it... by armanox · · Score: 1

    Yes it does. Last video cards I bought were an ATi Radeon HD 4550 and (years ago) a GeForce 3. Both worked perfectly for me (after downloading drivers).

    I have two Sound Blaster Live! cards at home that I also purchased at Best Buy, that also worked without issue.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  196. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by quippe · · Score: 1

    No, I hit a bug in the filesystem. It *does* happen from time to time, believe it or not.

    ROFL, "panics don't depend on which filesystem you intend to use"... your 6-digit UID would suggest you're not a newb, and yet that comment is so silly it seems to suggest otherwise. The contradiction is puzzling yet fascinating.

    Sorry sometimes my english is not good enough and i get misunderstood. I meant that bugs are everywhere in software, and if you change your tools whenever you bounce on the first bug, you are a leecher who doesn't give anything back to the community.
    Choose the right tool for your task: that said, help improving it as you can; testing and reporting the bug, for instance. Or we will end up with a very solid general purpose filesystem and no specialized one.

    I'm aware of that. I don't care. Slow delete in Myth 0.21 works around the issue for ext3 and works perfectly fine. [...]

    Ok, your choice. It's like when you completely flawed the schema design underlying your application, and try to fix things in the business logic. Again, your choice.

  197. Re: burrito by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    But it does dump.

    --
    I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  198. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Well, I've never had a problem like that with configs... But then again, I don't use GNOME.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  199. torrent.ubuntu.com by imtheguru · · Score: 1

    http://torrent.ubuntu.com/
    Standard ubuntu is under 'releases'.

    Cheers.

    --
    Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
    A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
  200. Metalinks available (a bit hidden) by logfish · · Score: 1

    There are also metalinks available for download. They are a bit hidden, so I've posted the links on my blog http://log.logfish.net/node/68

  201. Bloody hell!!!! by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've done installs of Ubuntu on a virtual machines a couple of times but my initial experiences led me to stay away because I really like the development tools in Ubuntu and development really isn't Ubuntu's core strength - the end user desktop is or was. Installing dev tools felt like a right pain the behind and the fact that they didn't seem to allow let alone encourage custom kernel compilation put me right off. Fair enough I thought. I'm a geek I can stick with something else.

    However pushing a release of an end user system like this that corrupts large files is just fucking moronic. I'm dumbfounded. Add allegations of pushing cloud computing shite to the mix and I'm giving Ubuntu a wide berth for now. This only confirms that i want to find another distro. Centos and Debian are looking to me like the leading distros for a geek to use, though I haven't checked out some of the others for a while. I don't hear as much about Mandrivel and SUSE these days.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  202. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been running ext4 for a long time and have not had a problem - yet. knock on wood.

  203. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    I meant that bugs are everywhere in software

    Conversely, if the tool you choose doesn't have wide use in the community (like, say, a niche filesystem) you're far more likely to encounter bugs.

    , and if you change your tools whenever you bounce on the first bug, you are a leecher who doesn't give anything back to the community.

    Bullshit. I've been in the Linux community for over a decade. I've written OSS, I've contributed to projects, and I've filed my fair share of bugs. But when I have a project that needs finishing, I'm not going to waste my time testing other people's code while living with a flaky system. I'm going to switch to software that *works* so that I can move on with my life.

    Or we will end up with a very solid general purpose filesystem and no specialized one.

    So what? XFS and JFS are *meant* to be solid, general purpose filesystems. They're just not, due to lack of acceptance.

    Frankly, I disagree with your premise. I don't believe there *is* a need for special-purpose filesystems, unless the underlying devices require it (for example, log-based filesystems are useful for solid-state storage).

    It's like when you completely flawed the schema design underlying your application, and try to fix things in the business logic. Again, your choice.

    When the alternative is kernel panics triggered by the "right tool" (as you put it), what other choice is there? You could, like a sucker, live with the instability. But I use Linux because it works. If I wanted an unstable operating system, I'd use Windows. So instead, I switch to the actual "right tool"... that being, the one that works without my system crashing every frickin' night.

    Now, maybe you have a bunch of free time on your hands and like the idea of debugging other people's broken code. And if you do, hey, more power to ya. But some of us have better things to do with our time.

  204. I do appreciate Kubuntu maintainers by KWTm · · Score: 1

    Kubuntu developers are volunteers and have the unenviable task of setting QA vice feature development priorities given their resource constraints.

    To clarify, I should emphasize my appreciation for the existence of Kubuntu and the Kubuntu maintainers.

    I guess the main thing I'm griping about is not the actual work they've put into KDE 4, but the decision of management of Kubuntu to drop support for KDE 3. Things that worked before no longer do (networkmanager is one but not the only one). In fact, if they put NO changes into each succeeding version of (the KDE 3 version of) Kubuntu from 8.04 onward, but still released an updated KDE 3 version each time, it would still be helpful (we'd benefit from non-backported packages to Ubuntu in general). This would relieve the Kubuntu maintainers of the pressure of scrambling to fix KDE 4 software issues, and give them more time to work on things that the adventurous can try, while the rest of us have a KDE 3 distribution that is staid and "just works" at the expense of not being the newest flashiest thing.

    Having said that, I am looking into trying to get a quick and easy "DBus-tool" command-line util (probably Python-based) running, to replace that easy-to-use, powerful and versatile "dcop" command that was for KDE 3. That would be my contribution to KDE 4, but having about 1 hour of free time per week to devote to this doesn't help, and probably someone else will write the util before me.

    But I can't use KDE 4 until I figure this out (too many of my scripts rely on "dcop klipper klipper GetClipboard" or whatever the command is for retrieving text), so I need to figure DBus out before moving on, and if I work on this, might as well get a bunch of people to benefit from it. See? I *do* want to use KDE 4, but it has to "just work" like my KDE 3 setup.

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
  205. Two reasons for a separate /home by Wee · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, you still haven't explained the advantages of putting /home on a separate partition.

    I put /home on a separate disk. Actually, two of them, in a RAID 1 pair. I like taking /home with me if I need to move to new hardware or whatever -- plus I don't trust installers and upgrades to leave it alone. And if you do a lot of I/O-heavy stuff (reading and writing those large video files in a $HOME subdirectory, for example) then you improve overall system performance.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:Two reasons for a separate /home by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Putting /home on another spindle is a whole other matter. In that case, yes, there are substantial advantages, and the issue I brought up (running out of space on one of the partitions) is minimized (since you've clearly chosen to dedicate separate disks to / and /home). But on a single disk, I really don't think it makes any sense for the *default* configuration to split out /home.

  206. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    du -sk?

  207. Next release name: by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    Looming Lama

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
    1. Re:Next release name: by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I would've said Lesbian Lemur...

  208. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    Why is LTO so fracking expensive? I've never seen a more out-of-whack market for tape capacity vs. disk-size. $4500 for an LTO-4 from Dell. Insane. Nevermind the $50/tape per unit charge. I almost *AM* better off using hard drives as disposable media.

    I could get 45 TB of external storage for backing up my 1TB of data for that price. Insanity.

    $1000 for LTO4 I could understand. $1500 might be the top-end of what I pay (as a SOHO).. $4500 is a non-starter.

  209. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    I have. I somehow got one SUSE 9.3 YAST repository confused on with a 9.1 installation, and some major change to Gnome borked the entire setup. A quick purge of / (but not /home /data) and an upgrade to OpenSUSE 10, and I was back in business.

    And I have a /apps for those applications I build myself (self-contained apache usually, with nothing in /usr or /etc)

  210. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

    If you chose not to have a separate /home and use upgrades rather than fresh installs, that should work reasonably well.

    That doesn't mean there aren't significant advantages to using a separate /home partition if you want to put in the effort. All you have to do is remember to move your user directory (e.g. to user-old) before doing the clean install, and you have all the advantages of a clean install without having to backup and restore your files.

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  211. This "cloud" thing by thtrgremlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    UbuntuOne, to strip away all the fancy words, is a 2gb (free version, $10/month for 50gb) of online storage linked to your Launchpad account (used for Ubuntu Forums, bug reports, and other community activities). Similar to ftp, but is secure and allows you to have a friends list such that files and folders can be marked for sharing to specific individuals for either read only, or read/write. In addition to that, any computer with Ubuntu (Jaunty or Karmic+) can have ubuntuone-client installed which will add a directory in your home folder called "UbuntuOne" that will automatically stay synchronised with the files online. You can connect as many computers as you like to that online account. Only one UbuntuOne account can be linked per user.

    I for example, have a computer at home, and a computer at work. My current projects are stored in my UbuntuOne directory so at work or home I have access to the same files locally and backed up in three locations automatically in addition to being able to use a web browser to get the files wherever I go. I had used Google Docs, which still works great, but it requires constant Internet access. With UbuntuOne I need only enough Internet access to sync my files when I am done.

    As a teacher, in my classroom I have 4 computers with Ubuntu (2 dual boot windows, and 1 dual boots MaxOSX). On the Ubuntu side have a classroom UbuntuOne account all the computers connect to. If a student saves their files on one machine it is automatically backed up online and then to every other computer "in the cloud" Then any computer a student chooses to use will have all their files on it. If a computer is off or not running ubuntu there will be a delay in the sync, but as soon as it is switched back, the files get sync'd and they are good to go. Before I used sshfs and a central machine. It only worked when the computer was on, and though never had any problems, there was no redundant storage. It worked "ok", but UbuntuOne is really the "right" way to be doing it. While it is not necessary, each student could have their own accounts and share files with each other as desired; that is just more than is needed.

    --
    Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
  212. Re:What can I run in 64MB / old Pent 166 w/ securi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i agree and with the great porst system or pkg_add
    i would install the awesome wm

    it really is awesome even if you'll only use it as
    terminal multiplexer although you could use screen
    but you could run into some keyboard shortkeys/collisions

  213. Re:flash? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

    Then WTF is Ubuntu doing? Or what are you doing? I have had 64-bit Flash support in Debian for almost a year now. Ubuntu has had two releases to get in sync with their base distro.

    Mart

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  214. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and grub2 isn't even available on Gentoo yet

    Gentoo has hardly been what you'd call "bleeding edge" for some years now. It took them a good year or so to upgrade to KDE 4 or X.org 1.5 for example...

  215. Re:Will it... by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Remember kids: Asking critical, honest questions is trolling!

    Way to ignore the points i was making with butthurt hyperbole. Stay classy.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  216. UBUNTU doesn't mention linux or GNU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As anyone noticed the first page of Ubuntu doesn't contain any mention to Linux, or GNU.

    What is Ubuntu?

    Ubuntu is an operating system built by a worldwide team of expert developers. It contains all the applications you need: a web browser, office suite, media apps, instant messaging and much more.

    Ubuntu is an open-source alternative to Windows and Office.

    Even after you press the "take-the-tour" or the "Embrace the Ubuntu Philosophy" button's, there's still nor reference to Linux or GNU.

    >> Posted as AC because of previous mod on this page

    1. Re:UBUNTU doesn't mention linux or GNU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As anyone noticed the first page of Ubuntu doesn't contain any mention to Linux, or GNU.

      Ever seen this before - "Ubuntu, Linux for human beings."

      Also there is a link to the GNU website. Look harder.

    2. Re:UBUNTU doesn't mention linux or GNU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever seen this before - "Ubuntu, Linux for human beings."

      Yes, I've seen it but not on the first page... today.

      Also there is a link to the GNU [gnu.org] website. Look harder.

      Where??? You must have a different version of http://www.ubuntu.com/ than me.

  217. Re:Will it... by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Hi moderators!

    Did you know that asking critical, honest questions isn't trolling? Yeah, and the mod for troll does NOT mean "I Disagree/Uncomfortable Truth". If you want to bury comments that disagree with your religious OS affiliation, go to Digg.

    i wasn't trolling. i was pointing out that *nix hasn't caught up to Windows on some fields. Even WINE can't run everything. The driver support for *nix hasn't caught up. It's still a tiny market share, so switching to it exclusively would seriously cut my options in hardware, software and interacting with other users.

    Nothing i said was even insulting to *nix or it users. So it wasn't even flamebait.

    Mod points aren't meant to be used for censorship or retaliation against someone who disagrees with you.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  218. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by walshy007 · · Score: 1

    Otherwise, you may fall victim to old config files that no longer work with the new applications, etc (I've had that happen with Gnome on more than one occasion).

    I've had a persistent /home partition for the last five years, and have never encountered this, but I typically use kde so your mileage may vary

  219. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by walshy007 · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu makes computers possible for the bottom-of-the-barrel folks and keeps it flexible and powerful for experienced users.

    The bottom-of-the-barrel influence is strong though, long since to the point where it inconveniences advanced users even of other distributions by them convincing maintainers to do silly things

    Prime example, the X11 zap command.. is now completely disable by default, you have to manually enable it in the config, now, considering you'd mainly want to use it when x11 has shit itself and you have no control (or just want to kill it real quick for some reason) it's pretty useless to have to enable it AFTER you want this quick access to it.

    Why was this well established command removed? some silly laptop user using ubuntu bitched about accidentally managing to hit ctrl-alt-backspace.. well now they know not to hit that combo don't they.

    People are entitled to run what they want to run, I just hate it when noobs screw up something that's functional and has worked well for decades.

  220. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by walshy007 · · Score: 1

    If up to date is what you're after, fedora seems to be the only extreme bleeding edge distro out there atm, I mean ubuntu is just doing ext4 now, fedora has done it since april.

  221. Moving the goalposts by westlake · · Score: 1

    Real Netbooks are devices like the SmartQ5 and the SmartQ7
    Basically Microsoft took the Netbook, added a disk and forced it onto the market through big-name h/w vendors.

    The driving force was sales - and profit.

    It was a rout - and the geek ought to be honest enough to admit it.

    Instead he will - once again - redefine the netbook as a product - the mobile internet device, the MID - that sells at a price point he knows Intel and Microsoft cannot match.

    The cheapest 10" Win 7 SE netbook at Walmart.com is $300 with 1 GB RAM and a 160 GB HDD.

    For the SmartQ7:

    smartdevices smartq 7 7.0 inch touchscreen linux mid internet tablet 667mhz cpu $300 US

    The big box retail price in the states should be cheaper, I suppose. But by how much?

  222. VDPAU enabled media player? by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if mplayer or vlc or any other media players will have vdpau or hardware acceleration installed by default in this version of Ubuntu? It was supposed to be in Jaunty but never was. I could compile it myself but it's a pain in the ass and I just want the system to work out of the box. I just want to double click on my 720p and 1080p mkv files and have them load and run smooth without manually adjusting 80 different settings, compiling my own player, and doing a jig while crossing my fingers and praying to our Noodley overlord to get it to work.

    1. Re:VDPAU enabled media player? by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      If and when you've learned more information on this, come back here and let us know, will you?

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
  223. Win7 vs Ubuntu by icsx · · Score: 1

    Well i guess the Ubuntu will lose the Windows 7 release.. Even Linus approves it.

  224. Re: burrito by socceroos · · Score: 1

    But he is saying that Windows does eat Sh*t. (sorry to all those burrito lovers out there)

  225. Re:Flash? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

    For the longest time I thought everyone knew that nvidia were the only real option so far as linux 3d is concerned (intel is good now I know, but it used to be shite also)

  226. Re: Bus by alexandreracine · · Score: 1

    ... with a disco ball, fog lights, neon tubes, and ... some drivers...

    --
    No sig for now.
  227. Success! It just completed... by gosand · · Score: 1

    Everything looks OK so far...

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  228. Does Ubuntu have a big advantage over debian? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I have been using debian for years. But, I would switch to Ubuntu, if there is some good reason to do so.

    1. Re:Does Ubuntu have a big advantage over debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you enjoy using buggy shit then Ubuntu's the distro for you! Make the switch my good man/woman!!!

  229. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    10GB is probably a good number to have, been running less than that for years, but then again I'm not quite an average user. It's handy to have home on a separate partition, I've had the same /home for 5 or 6 versions of Ubuntu, means I can upgrade to the next version (i like to keep up with the latest to see where Ubuntu is going) in under an hour and not have to re-set everything up again. Simple case of install, add a few apps that I need that aren't installed by default and get back to work.

    /dev/mapper/system-root     6.9G  4.5G  2.1G  69% /
    /dev/sda1               449M   79M  346M  19% /boot
    /dev/mapper/system-home   67G   22G   45G  34% /home

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  230. ext3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Users who routinely manipulate large files may want to consider using ext3 file systems until this issue is resolved. (453579)

    I have a uh, friend who's been waiting for 9.10 to come out so that he could try out Linux. If uh, he wanted to install Ubuntu with ext3 instead how exactly would I tell him to do that? ;>

  231. switching by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Whenever someone brings up switching to Linux, people frequently claim they can't make the switch because doesn't run on Linux. Photoshop, the latest DirectX games, etc.

    Of course, most people get computers to perform tasks such as editing photos or playing games not to play with the OS.

    Falcon

  232. Re:Flash? by rapu · · Score: 1

    r200 cards should work fine using the open source driver. I used to have one. Ati (or AMD) has stopped supporting it with their proprietary drivers (they do that a lot, they just stopped supporting my new r430-based card!), but the open source driver should get the most out of r200 and r300 cards, and nowadays r400 and r500 too. If you really want to use fglrx with your old Ati card, you need to get an ancient version from Ati's website. Ubuntu isn't going to offer old fglrx drivers based on your card model, because they typically wouldn't be compatible with new kernels and XServers.

  233. not any faster with ram need more processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ram gives you about a 10% increase.
    Processor is what makes the difference.

  234. installer defaults by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if the Ubuntu installer by default created a seperate /home partition.

    The problem with defaults is different people want different defaults. My preferred default is to be asked if I want a separate /home partition or want to use one that is already created.

    I am typing this on my Mac currently running Leopard. I'll upgrade to Snow Leopard, do a clean install that is, then install Ubuntu to dual boot. Yy hard disk is already partitioned into 3 partitions, one for OS X, one for /home, and one for Ubuntu. I have Leopard installed on it's appropriate partition, my users are on the /home partition and I'll install Ubuntu on it's partition. When I do install it I want it to ask where to put /home. This would be easier than it would be for me to edit fstab, I've never done it before and would be pissed if I screwed up. Of course I'll have to use chmod, which again I've never done, and edit permissions so the user files can used in both OSes.

    But it sure does make it easier to keep your data..

    Yeap, I agree bigtime. I'll go ahead and clone the /home partition before installing Snow Leopard and Ubuntu, I've already cloned Leopard and made an external boot disk just in case, but it'd be nice if I could install them without nuking the data. One problem I've come across is that OS X adds metadata to files that Ubuntu doesn't have.

    Falcon

  235. Re: burrito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Abreu? Yeah that Mexican bitch is such a shit eater. The nerve of him acting like he didn't steal that Acer. By "installing Linux" he means he either sold it for some drugs or a cheap Mexican whore. Abreu makes me laugh. Almost more than the Jews.

  236. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    suddenly you have to guess how much space you'll want in / and /home, and if you underestimate, you find yourself having to resize filesystems.

    Why? With disks sufficiently large these day, just allocate 10GB for Ubuntu and take the rest for /home. For basic usage 10GB is overkill for applications, logs, etc...

    Disks for desktop and tower PCs may be big enough for most uses but it different for laptops as well as special uses. When I got my laptop I got the biggest hard disk Apple offered, 160GiB. I replaced it with the biggest drive I found at that tyme, a 320GiB drive. As of right now I have the disk divided into 3 partitions, 2 30GB partitions for OS X and Ubuntu and the rest for /home. The user partition will fill quickly once I start scanning the photos I have on film. Some pro, even amateur, photographers have RAIDs setup with terabytes of photos.

    If you don't trust that, simply use LVM. Really, this is childsplay.

    For gurus and geeks perhaps but how many know what LVM is? I certainly don't.

    Sorry but this, "this is childsplay", elitist attitude turns many off.

    Falcon

  237. Something strange about this Kubuntu by GoochOwnsYou · · Score: 1

    I downloaded the ISO for Kubuntu this morning, I hear nice things about KDE 4.3 so after 5 years Im finally switching back from Gnome.

    When I was looking on the site and I found something amusing: Kubuntu Karmic Koala... KKK... I was thinking "Surely they saw this coming a while away!". I found it amusing. Now fingers crossed I dont get dependancy issues for Citrix client like last time (had to wait for a new version of the client last time).

    --
    This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
  238. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    you still haven't explained the advantages of putting /home on a separate partition.

    I was able to easily clone my /home partition. With a separate /home partition I can nuke the OS partition and not worry I'll lose all the data. There's another reason to have a separate /home partition. Currently I have the hard disk in my laptop set up with 3 partitions. The first partition has OS X installed on it. I'll install Ubuntu on the 3rd partition. And I use the 2nd partition for /home. Once I install Ubuntu I will be able to use the user files in both OS X and Ubuntu.

    Falcon

  239. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No, if you do a full re-install, you're much better off backing up your home directory, then doing a full re-install and copying the files over that you want. Or, as I do, you just keep two partitions around, one with the old OS+home, and one with the new OS+home (after all, as you say, disks are huge these days), and just copy from one to the other on a major OS upgrade.

    You ask why use a separate /home partition but them admit you use two yourself. Now why would you copy /home from one partition to another? If you use a separate /home partition you don't need to copy over old documents when upgrading.

    Falcon

  240. syncing by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    i'm guessing they are aiming at something like mobileme rather than dropbox. i have 3 ubuntu desktops right now and it would be truly fantastic if i had a way to automatically sync my settings and or home folders across all three...

    I don't know about settings but home folders can be synced using rsync. Using cron a schedule to run rsync can then be created. Mind you, I don't know how to use either one but I came across them when researching and preparing to install Ubuntu on my Mac.

    Falcon

    1. Re:syncing by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      don't know about settings but home folders can be synced using rsync
      Not really

      rsync basically checks for differences (using cryptographic hash functions to avoid sending all the data over the wire) between a master copy and a slave copy. Then it modifies the slave copy to match the master copy. Hence it is suitable for situations where all modifications are performed on one master copy and then replicated to one or more slave copies.

      syncing homedirs is a bit trickier because you have a number of copies being edited, potentially at the same time. The changes to each copy need to be determined (which is likely to require keeping a "base version" for each copy that is being edited) and then merged into the master copy. If there are conflicts (which is likely) then there needs to be a method for helping users resolve those conflicts (ideally with some smarts about what the files mean). There is also the issue of what to do with files that are still open (and therefore potentially inconsistent) come upload time.

      This is a large part of what a vcs like subversion does and indeed you could use a vcs for this but keeping every version of every file can get pretty expensive in terms of disk space so a tool disigned for the job may be preferable.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:syncing by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      don't know about settings but home folders can be synced using rsync Not really

      rsync basically checks for differences (using cryptographic hash functions to avoid sending all the data over the wire) between a master copy and a slave copy. Then it modifies the slave copy to match the master copy. Hence it is suitable for situations where all modifications are performed on one master copy and then replicated to one or more slave copies.

      I consider what you describe as syncing, making sure two or more folders contain the same data. Except that is data on one drive being deleted but it's not deleted on others, this being useful for archival purposes.

      syncing homedirs is a bit trickier because you have a number of copies being edited, potentially at the same time. The changes to each copy need to be determined (which is likely to require keeping a "base version" for each copy that is being edited) and then merged into the master copy.

      From what I understand, though I don't know the command options, rsync can save edits and new versions but keep older versions. A basic utility that does that came with Iomega Zip drives. With it I set a certain folder to be backed up. After I edited documents in it I'd end up with a bunch of saved versions in the backup folder on the Zip disk. I rarely let more than a few minutes tyme pass by before saving docs I'm editing, so starting with a new doc in an hour's tyme I may have a couple of dozen saved versions in backup, each tyme "save" was executed the utility would save the file in backup. For some, though not necessarily all docs, I'd like to do the same with rsync.

      Falcon

  241. Wordpress users do not upgrade by Fishy_Fishy_Fish · · Score: 1

    They still don't seem to have fixed the PHP5 zlib bug that stops Wordpress auto-upgrade from working: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/php5/+bug/451405 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/php5/+bug/439407

  242. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by infinitelink · · Score: 1

    Isn't Fedora the testbed for RedHat? Isn't that why CentOS exists, so RedHat stable can be used without the costs of trademarks? I wouldn't be surprised if Fedora used it: Fedora is meant to be unstable, isn't it? Or did Fedora fork into another project?

    --
    Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
  243. dual monitors by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I was always running 2 monitors, and that seemed to be a never-ending battle re-configuring X.

    You've had problems running dual monitors? I won't be doing it right away but when I can afford a new monitor I'll set it up as a second monitor. My main goal doing so is I want to do some development, graphics work, and photo editing. I'll use the big new monitor for what I'm working on and use an old monitor or the built in display on my laptop to hold all the pallets and tools.

    If there's a problem do you know if it's with Ubuntu or KDE? I plan to install and run both Gnome and KDE. With KDE I want try Krita for photo editing, GIMP just doesn't cut it, to see if it can do what I'll want. Otherwise I want to try both desktops to see which I prefer.

    Falcon

    1. Re:dual monitors by gosand · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised GIMP doesn't do what you want.. I love it.

      On the two monitor thing, I ran them for years and LOVED it. I still miss some things about it. The problem wasn't really in setting them up the first time... it was when something changed. I don't remember if it was in the video driver, X, or kernel updates... but every so often it took fiddling with to get it right.

      Maybe it was my video card at the time - Nvidia GeForce4 MX440. I switched to an ATI, but had bigger issues with drivers. Of course, this was all a couple of years ago.. things always just seem to get better and better with Kubuntu.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  244. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and grub2 isn't even available on Gentoo yet"

    Do not worry, by the time your machine finished the compilation, it will be available.

  245. You know when someone has nothing to offer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they resort to immature comments. Writing 'crapt-get' instead of apt-get isn't funny or witty. Nor is it an argument.

    How old are you?

  246. Re:Flash? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

    That may be, but in my experience it's actually the nvidia binary blob that has trouble with fullscreen flash for some reason. The intel driver (even older versions) and nouveau do just fine.

  247. Re:flash? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

    It actually asks, when you view a site using flash, if you want to download and install flash. Click yes and it does so. That's more user-friendly than the other OSes.

  248. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Let's examining what we have here:

    • A 512M+ File
    • ... on an EXT4 file system
    • ... that was created fresh as an EXT4 file system
    • ... in some, rare, but not easily reproducible situations

    May experience file corruption. So you're telling me that you're wiping your whole hard disk and re-installing, and you're scared that you'll lose your large data files, which you somehow magically don't have back-ups of? I mean, the combination of shit above is pretty fuckin' far out there. It's pretty much limited to video editing folks that decide today is a good day to stop fanboying Fedora and up and switch to Ubuntu's brand new release, on a brand new hard drive, and wipe the old hard drive right away to get rid of the Fedora disease they've been slaven to. Does that sound like ANYONE?

  249. libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because of so many shared libraries. The major cause of borkage on updates, that and closed source binary drivers that just don't work. There's no way around that other than static apps that include everything, then the distro gets to be really huge. I don't think today that would be a big problem with hard drive sizes being what they are, but there is tremendous resistance to that in the dev community because shared is the unix one true way and thou shalt not do it another way from back in the Pleistocene. But a device manufacturer who wanted to include "a linux" could go that route, just pick the most useful apps people might want for their targeted market, and do it themselves and slap huge warnings all over for the users to not install random crap from here and there across the web if they want to maintain stability, etc.

    As to current six months release cycles, I agree, both ubuntu and fedora have proven that is just too fast, even though they stick to it. The main devs lose interest in fixing in favor of new features, resulting in perpetual betaware at best. "Stable" is a nice theory.

    Redhat has made it quite clear they are in no way interested in the home user desktop, so they are out. "Enterprise" only. Canonical claims to be for the home desktop, but still insists on the Pleistocene method of building a linux, even with their long term support releases.

    For a linux home user desktop to be successful, they would have to really emulate the apple way. Control the hardware and the software and ship it together, and not support outside hardware officially, or outside software, and also somehow really integrate wine, etc, seamlessly. I mean, they could still allow people to fork around with it, it is open source after all, no way to stop it, but only officially support what they release exactly. That could work but getting it setup would require one of the big OEM manufacturers to do it, and they'd have to do all of their own packaging. Some ship linux now in small quantities, but it is barely smoothed out "Pleistocene way".

    Who knows, maybe one of the cellphone guys will get it right eventually.

    1. Re:libraries by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I used to work for one of those big commercial software farms that released the main product every 6 months. It got to be a clusterfuck. It's just not sustainable past a certain point. Ubuntu is maturing, someday Canonical too will feel the pressure, and you'll drop back to releases once per year. I think that's acceptable, some time to put in decent features, and yet leave yourself enough QA and bugfixing time.

  250. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Concern · · Score: 1

    Oh, so no one can just be a first time user, use the thing for a while, put a lot of stuff on there, and get bitten when they finally cross some wacky hidden threshold that Canonical buried on their website? Right I forgot, assuming everyone has backups is just how we do things...

    Your way of thinking about filesystem reliability, while interesting, isn't that useful to anyone.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  251. How can they miss the bus.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... if they are in the driving seat?

    And tied all the passengers to the seats.

    And some of the passengers even enjoy to be tied to their seats, or like them because is the only kind of seat they have seen before...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  252. You think? What about you know? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I do know, and have updated a good amount of machines without any major issues (last time with no issues at all).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  253. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by tenco · · Score: 1

    Since when is Fedora a metric regarding stability?

  254. Re:flash? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    I think it does that in Windows and Mac too, but on Ubuntu it won't let you perform the install without extra steps (unless I'm choosing the wrong packaging option).

  255. GIMP by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised GIMP doesn't do what you want.. I love it.

    I print photos and while GIMP is fine for online work it lacks what many print artists demand. Like high colour bit depths. GIMP only offers 8 bits per colour channel, 24 bit total. PhotoShop does 32 bits per colour channel Supposedly GIMP 2.6 works with 16 bits per colour channel but in practice it doesn't. For professional prints CYMK is needed. That's comes standard in PS, GIMP requires a plug-in. GIMP also lacks other thing pro print photographers need. The digital darkroom forum at photo.net has some discussions on what photographers think of GIMP. Some like it, mostly for online work, and others don't like it because it does not do what they want or need.

    On the two monitor thing, I ran them for years and LOVED it.

    Same here. Years ago I was set up with dual monitors using Windows and Paint Shop Pro. A few months ago I bought a new LCD monitor I connected to my MBP, but I returned it. I've been looking at getting an HP LP2475w which has gotten good reviews from photographers. It may not be an Ezio, La Cie, or NEC monitor but it doesn't come with their price tags either. It's actually one of the cheapest LCDs with an H-IPS panel, currently about the best panels for graphics and photography.

    Falcon

  256. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have to do a completely fresh install (re-installing all of your software and many many settings) every time a new version comes out -- i.e. every 6 months -- then maybe something's wrong?

  257. Re:Ubuntu Bleeding Edge Features Ready for Prime T by metamatic · · Score: 1

    You don't have to do a fresh install, but some people prefer to. And doing a fresh install doesn't require losing your settings on any OS other from Windows.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  258. Re:flash? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

    Aside from entering your password, I'm not sure what extra steps you're referring to. It's all done through a GUI and in just a few clicks. No browser restart required either. When it's done it reloads the page automatically and you have your flash content.

    I think what's there is better than what IE/Windows does, which last time I saw was just direct you to a webpage where you download an EXE-based setup program. Downloading and running an installer, and clicking through all of its dialogs as well sounds like more steps to me. I'm not sure what Safari/MacOS does.

  259. Slimmer Xubuntu by Cato · · Score: 1

    Xubuntu installs more RAM-consuming daemons than some other XFCE-based distro installs such as Debian's - see http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504#feature for a guide on how to slim down Xubuntu, resulting in about half the memory usage before starting applications. Distrowatch also did a similar guide on how to slim down the main Ubuntu distro here: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20081215#feature

    You could also try Crunchbang, an Ubuntu derivative that uses OpenBox: http://crunchbanglinux.org/ - or U-Lite which is even lighter, or see this thread for discussion of Linux distros for 192 MB RAM: http://www.linux.com/archive/forums/topic/4908

  260. Magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually magic is a Python module, as in:

    import magic

    You may as well also:

    import levitation
    import timetravel
    import grits

  261. Re:Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How tiny your life must be if this is what you choose to have a dick-measuring contest about.

  262. Re:flash? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    I believe on Ubuntu you don't automatically have authorization to perform installations just using your password. I believe you must use sudo.

  263. Re:flash? by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

    No, you do have authorization just using your password. Otherwise the thing I described wouldn't work. As long as you're an admin user the Add/Remove programs app (or the new Ubuntu Software Center in Karmic), the Update Manager, and the plugin finder (which is just a specialized instance of the add/remove app or Ubuntu Software Center) will all pop up a password prompt to gain root when they need it. No command line work needed.

    I'm not going by word of mouth here. It's my primary OS.

  264. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    It's likely that by the time a newbie encounters something like this, it'll be fixed. Just statistical. Either that or it'll be total failure to burn a CD due to CD image corruption in /tmp.

    Remember, every file system has weird bugs. The fact that someone stumbled across one doesn't make it any more significant; the fact that several someones did in a short time, however, does. Even NTFS on Windows has bugs, they're just sufficiently rare that they don't happen often enough for anyone to notice; seriously, if you find a random corrupt file, do you automagically assume there's a horrible deadly file system bug, if it never happens again?

  265. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Concern · · Score: 1

    You amaze me, man.

    How did you figure out how long the average newbie would go before hitting the bug? And how did you estimate the time to the fix? By saying "Remember, every file system has weird bugs", I'm sure you don't imply there aren't certain widely accepted standards for stability in a filesystem? Not zero bugs (an untestable condition), but on the other hand, not "we down to a dozen patches a release, and there are only a few open data loss bugs. Well, wait, there's another."... :)

    Your ability to estimate dates and quality levels is no doubt fearsome. But there is an easier way: simply shipping with an ext3 default for another 6 months (or however long it takes until the code stabilizes to the appropriate degree for a filesystem). Most users will not even notice. This is the way you behave if you have any conscience - or if moral arguments don't appeal, if you care about your reputation, or want any repeat users of your products or services.

    In case you are not keeping up, Linus Torvalds himself reported losing a filesystem to ext4 in a kernel bugreport last week.

    This is just not a filesystem that is ready for primetime. And that is no slight on anyone - these things take time. For a filesystem, in particular, many years. Where I do have a problem is when some mean-spirited person is out there tricking people into using it before it's stabilized, without properly communicating the risks.

    Risks which, if you can make the average Ubuntu user understand them, they would almost never choose to take.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  266. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    XFS is still prone to freezing (and thus data loss-- it can deadlock while updating a database file, forcing a system reboot) but people use that cruft in production. Apparently only one user noticed ext4 issues by the time Ubuntu shipped, and then there was Linus. Also as others have stated, Fedora has been shipping ext4 by default for some time; the sheer install volume of ext4 indicates that there isn't much of a problem. It's also notable that Ubuntu is shipping ext4 later than Fedora, which I guess is more conscionable; although not enough for your standards. I've been using ext4 for one full release (I switched just before upgrading to 9.04) with no issue, too.

  267. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Concern · · Score: 1

    Yes, and Reiser was nuking people's data for years. He used to claim his FS was stable before his consistency checker was even finished. XFS was/is better by comparison, and neither are anyone's default filesystem. Obviously it's the default that matters, not what other options you offer (where presumably someone making an affirmative choice knows what they're doing, or will learn the hard way fast enough).

    When talking about an mp3 player, and only one person out of 100 says "it crashed" then no one gets heated. When talking about a filesystem, someone saying "But I used filesystem X for two years and never lost data," and expecting that fact to matter, is really just saying "I do not understand how to discuss filesystem reliability." A 1/100 or 1/000 shot of data loss in filesystem-land is not a finished product.

    It does seem as if Fedora switched to ext4 as a default in April. Good old Redhat. I remember back in the day when they switched to PAM while it was still in the low 0.# versions, and was barely functional or documented. Many a server needed a rescue CD after one of several rpm upgrades "disturbed" the pam configs and all authentication would then fail... But the sloppiness and race to the bleeding edge was just typical for them, and among Linux users at the time, it was hardly a scandal, just yet another headache, to be expected. IMO Fedora never made a serious effort to be usable by non-experts. I used to expect better from Canonical, but apparently not anymore.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  268. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    We're still discussing a problem you can't reliably or probabilistically reproduce without a large time investment. Like, you can't sit your ass down, right now, and install Ubuntu, and cause file system corruption by concentrated effort. I mean, not like "if I do X it breaks," but like just run a benchmarker that's nothing more than a huge file modify/md5 program (custom MD5 routine: read to a point where you're gonna modify, then create 2 MD5s, one using alternate blocks of data for 16k; then finish MD5ing across both files; then write the alternate blocks of data after a seek() and re-MD5 the whole file to see if it matches what it should be). Eventually after 24 or 48 hours of horrible torture, something should break, right?

  269. Re:DANGER! DO NOT Install 9.10 with ext4! (if at a by Concern · · Score: 1

    We're hardly starting at zero developing test cases for filesystems. A reputable OS shop will have a battery of them. As the state of the art in that field progresses, new ones are required continuously, since we keep finding new and interesting ways for a FS to fail. I personally have kept seeing many novel and amusing ones over the years. :)

    I neither have test cases nor bug fixes for ext4. I only say that you should have a much, much harder time finding bugs, patches, and blog posts recounting stories of woe and data loss, before you decide a filesystem is ready for Linux's largest group of low-skilled users.

    They do not care about the advantages of delayed allocation or nanosecond timestamps. But when their thesis or novel or day's video shoots go poof and our answer is some blame-the-victim nonsense about backups, or reading all the fine print... who wants this on their conscience, really? Especially when it was so easily avoidable, either by not taking silly chances, or warning more loudly not to trust us.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!