Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

9 Features We May See In Ubuntu 11.10

Posted by timothy on from the working-teleporter dept.

splitenz writes "Canonical's Ubuntu 11.04 'Natty Narwhal' may still be occupying much of the Linux world's attention, but at last week's Ubuntu Developer Summit in Budapest, the next version of the free and open source Linux distribution began to take form. A number of decisions were reportedly made about Ubuntu 11.10, or 'Oneiric Ocelot,' at the conference, while numerous other questions are still being debated. ... Here's a roundup of what's been reported so far."

14 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Let's hope for another radical GUI change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because end users hate it when they upgrade their OS only to find it doesn't look completely different

    1. Re:Let's hope for another radical GUI change! by Trifthen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know one of the features is "me not using it anymore." 10.10 is probably the last version I'll ever use, and I've been looking at Mint or just going straight Debian.

      I love apt, otherwise I'd consider an RPM based distro.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    2. Re:Let's hope for another radical GUI change! by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Another radical GUI change couldn't make things any worse, could it?

      I've altered our bargain. Pray I don't alter it again.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:Let's hope for another radical GUI change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am using the "classic desktop" in Ubuntu 11.04. It's similar as the Gnome 2 desktop on Ubuntu 10.10.

      I might consider Gnome3 later this year, but not the 3.0 version. The Ubuntu desktop is moving in the wrong direction. Do they have the resources to run their own projects alone over time? The other distros share resources and costs by making software together.

    4. Re:Let's hope for another radical GUI change! by DrXym · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because end users hate it when they upgrade their OS only to find it doesn't look completely different

      Unity is sound in theory, it's just the implementation which is crap. They took a shell primarily designed for tiny netbook screens and didn't put in the functionality that would make it useful on large screens. It's not configurable enough, the defaults are extremely annoying and the intent behind some functionality such as the bizarro Ubuntu expanding panel is just unfathomable. Click on the Ubuntu icon and you get a large panel with some huge icons. Click on the expand icon within this panel and it fills the full screen by making the icons supermassive. What the fuck is it for? The apps launching panel is also horrible, where before you had a nice hierarchical list of apps, now you must filter them to see what you want.

      I hope for the next release they focus on a preference dialog that allows the position and hide behaviour of the dock to be configured in realtime, for the global menu to be disabled. As I said I think the concept is fine - GNOME 2 is looking long in the tooth and is wholly inappropriate for the transition to 3D and surface based windowing, but the implementation is just not there yet.

      IMO GNOME 3.0 looks incredibly attractive by comparison. It's clear a lot of thought has gone into it. However it screws things up just as badly in its own way. Why is the dock on a separate screen that I have to do some Expose like stuff to access? Why can't I just drag and drop icons around like I could in the good old days and enjoy spatial and contextual functionality? Why did they see fit to remove (not just hide) the minimize / maximize buttons and force me to complete a drag operation on the window to the top where I used to just have to do a single click? Where are the configuration options?

      I think GNOME 3.0 is more radical than Unity. I think both are on the right tracks to being useful desktops but its obvious they both need a lot of work. It would be nice if the projects would actually cooperate on things like infrastructure. People shouldn't be forced to take sides to have a useful desktop.

  2. Killer App? by TheStonepedo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ubuntu has gone soft. Its recent changes pushed me back to Debian. Why does it have to be targeted at social media, online music sales, etc.? Unless it has something to give that isn't better-known on another platform, there's no incentive for users to switch.
    TFA is slashdotted or I'd cross my fingers hoping for just that feature.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    1. Re:Killer App? by Shark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I wouldn't fault Ubuntu for trying to appeal to the masses. I think their aim is linux on the desktop. I don't use Ubuntu, I also don't use Facebook or social media beyond the occasional Slashdot post (and that's hardly social). The reality is that the masses do.

      I'm fine with Ubuntu turning into 'Linux for people who don't care that it's Linux'. There's plenty of choices for people who know what they're doing otherwise and it grows the market, which means that hardware vendors pay a tad (not much) more attention to the fact that linux exists and sales can be made by supporting it, etc.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    2. Re:Killer App? by cwebster · · Score: 5, Informative

      The release version is frozen in time, essentially. The only thing that a named release will get is security and some other important updates. As for stable, testing, and sid:

      stable always points to the current named release (today squeeze, later something else). When the new release is released, if you are running stable, an apt-get dist-upgrade will pull down the new release.

      New package versions are pushed into sid. Sid can be frustrating because you might update to a package with broken dependancies or other issues that will not install. Give it a few days and it'll probably be fixed.

      After some period of time in Sid, those packages move to testing. Testing is where I run, as it is continually updated and I have not observed many instances of breakage. When its time for a release, testing goes through a freeze and then becomes stable. Or something like that.

      If you want stability, run stable.
      If you want cutting edge, run sid.
      If you want a reasonable mix of both, run testing.

    3. Re:Killer App? by kvvbassboy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Actually, Debian recommends running Sid over Testing, simply because bug fixes could potentially take longer to get into testing.

      From personal experience, for a normal user I would recommend Sid too, because you get the latest software, and breakages happen very rarely.

  3. This is news? by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man, I can't believe I waited longer for the ads to load than to read the so-called article.

    Ad sponsored fluff piece. This was worth mentioning on Slashdot?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  4. Re:I have an idea! by getto+man+d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mark has gone on record stating how he doesn't like having too options...

    Too many options is why I was drawn to Linux in the first place.

    sigh

  5. I gave up on them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...when they went with the wimpy sounding Maverick Meerkat instead of Masturbating Monkey. That's when I knew I could not take them seriously anymore.

  6. Re:I have an idea! by Jahava · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well that just reaffirms my concerns then. Ubuntu's UI is in some areas far less configurable than Windows 7.

    I suppose there's a reason the Ubuntu web site barely mentions the word "Linux". The traditional benefit of everything being configurable in Linux does not translate to Ubuntu's philosophy, even if there's very little reason why it should not. Maybe Canonical just doesn't have the manpower/skill?

    If you want configurability, you will not find it in Ubuntu, old or new. Neither GNOME nor Unity are highly-configurable user experiences. Granted, GNOME is more configurable than Unity...

    No, for the Linux desktop, KDE wins the gold for configurability and integration. If you like the rest of what Ubuntu has to offer (bleeding-edge packages, Debian-based repository, etc.), use Kubuntu, an Ubuntu distribution that defaults to the kubuntu-desktop package instead of the ubuntu-desktop one. If you want a heavyweight desktop environment, the only reason to use GNOME or Unity over KDE is a simplified streamlined experience.

  7. Have non-expert users run Testing, not Sid by Sipper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Please don't recommend Debian Sid for those that aren't ready for it. There is a reason it's called "unstable"; packages uploaded to Sid are "bleeding edge" and there is occasionally breakage, and the person running the box needs to be ready to handle that and know what to do and how to fix it. This isn't for everybody. Running Testing (currently named Wheezy) is a relatively safe bet.

    Sid is not even a complete distribution -- Stable and Testing are, but Sid and Experimental aren't. I didn't realize this about Sid/Unstable either until I attended DebConf10 and was told so by a developer from Australia.

    And if you continue to recommend running Sid, at least also tell people about installing 'apt-listbugs' so that they at least if someone else has reported grave or critical bugs on packages that they're about to install that they get warned about that. I.e. this is your "Debian Unstable condom".

    The only downside to running Testing is that there are some source packages in Sid that you might need that aren't in Testing. For those situations I think it's fine to install JUST those packages from Sid onto your Testing box. That generally works fine.