Slashdot Mirror


Google Talks About Its Ubuntu Experience

dartttt writes "There was a very interesting session at the Ubuntu Developer Summit by Google developer Thomas Bushnell. He talked about how Ubuntu, its derivatives and Goobuntu (Google's customized Ubuntu based distro) are used by Google developers. He starts by saying 'Precise Rocks,' and that many Google employees use Ubuntu — including managers, software engineers, translators, people who wrote the original Unix, and people who have no clue about Unix. Many developers working on Chrome and Android use Ubuntu. Ubuntu systems at Google are upgraded every LTS release. The entire process of upgrading can take as much as four months, and it is also quite expensive, as one reboot or a small change can cost them as much as a million dollars across the company." Bushnell also mentions that Google Drive will soon be available for Linux. Other news out of UDS: there was discussion of a GNOME flavor of 12.10, Electronic Arts reaffirmed that they "won't delay their Windows work for Linux," and Unity 2D is likely to disappear in 12.10.

230 comments

  1. Upgrades do suck by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With Linux desktops, it's almost better to reimage them then do a mass roll out of dist-upgrade and pray it works. Even with custom package management, it seems the upgrade scripts can be very buggy.

    1. Re:Upgrades do suck by detritus. · · Score: 1, Troll

      Use Debian stable. Yeah, you'r a few years behind the latest and greatest, but it works far better than Ubuntu if stability is what you're after. In fact, I've got several Debian servers that have gone through several stable updates with zero breakage. There's a reason they are slow, because it "Just Works".

      Ubuntu simply has a shorter release cycle, thus is more bug-ridden.

    2. Re:Upgrades do suck by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      I've been running the Ubuntu upgrades for the past five or six year and for the most part and have very very few problems.

    3. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ubuntu LTS to LTS is typically a longer life cycle than Debian Stable to Debian Stable. And both are derived from Debian Testing. Both these facts make me question your reasoning and your conclusion that Ubuntu is somehow "more bug-ridden". Sounds like typical Debian fanboism to me.

    4. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This spam message was so freaking funny, it made my day. I particularly enjoyed the fact that he was talking about viruses on a thread about linux lol.

    5. Re:Upgrades do suck by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is iceweasel still version 2.5?

    6. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if it's not mission critical, use Debian unstable or Debian testing. It's rolling release, so you never have to upgrade. Despite the name I find it to be more stable than Ubuntu, and it comes minus the biannual headache to keep the latest stuff installed. The downside is you, or someone who administers your computer, will have to know enough about package management to fix the incremental breakage.

    7. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Two of them had committed suicide". Wow, spammers are going for new lows in their spam... Disgusting.

      No, he went lower in another post where his frustration over the virus had him abusing his wife and kid. Who wants their software product to show up in searches for suicide and child abuse???

    8. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Calling a guy a fan boy for the distribution which Ubuntu forked from? Debian unstable is even better than Ubuntu 6-month releases - apt-listbugs with apt-listchanges on Debian unstable makes it very unlikely to break things - you get up-to-date bug listings the moment you retrieve the packages and you have the option to pin or view the bug even before you install it.

    9. Re:Upgrades do suck by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      It does happen though, and quite severely. For example, roundcube got thoroughly busted on an upgrade when using sqlite:

      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/roundcube/+bug/900190

      This may have bitten debian as well though, so I don't know if Debian fared any better (e.g. the last comment in that bug).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    10. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I jump around distros a lot. But I have had poor upgrade experiences with Ubuntu. Not so good with Fedora either. On the other hand, I have had decent upgrade experiences with openSUSE since they introduced 'zypper dist-upgrade' (not perfect, maybe about 4 out of 5 upgrade seamlessly, including upgrading 2 versions forward.)

      What makes them so different? The package management system? Or maybe just the love and care given it?

    11. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That tends to be how I handle that outside of Windows installs. (Slightly OT, but at what point is MS going to admit that their system for user accounts is horribly broken)

    12. Re:Upgrades do suck by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      I figure, worst case, try the upgrade and if there are problems, do a fresh install then re-install all pps based applications from a backup of the list.

    13. Re:Upgrades do suck by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      I've been doing it since 6.0something (for some reason I recall it being something other than 04 but...) and there's been at least two occasions when the "upgrade" failed badly, with a single package upgrade failing and this taking down the entire system.

      One, the most recent, I was able to fix using a second apt-get command (I forget which), but the first completely destroyed the system and I had to spend a day copying data across the network to back it up, before re-imaging the entire computer.

      Ubuntu's system is mostly great, but quite honestly, I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why they don't do something more like Apple's "mv / I'm guessing they don't want to fiddle too much with people's system settings, but perhaps migration scripts would be a better approach than simply trusting each package upgrade to never fail...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Upgrades do suck by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2

      Ubuntu LTS to LTS is typically a longer life cycle than Debian Stable to Debian Stable. And both are derived from Debian Testing.

      Actually, Ubuntu draws from unstable. And then they add their own stuff, such as Unity.

    15. Re:Upgrades do suck by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I should add, that the only problem I ever had was when one of the repos I needed was off-line during the upgrade, and instead of waiting I told it to continue anyway. It was a mistake.

    16. Re:Upgrades do suck by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Debian testing's iceweasel is on...hold on one sec... 10.
      10?! That can't be right. How many versions of Firef...oh, 12.

    17. Re:Upgrades do suck by rev0lt · · Score: 2

      that is the equivalent of upgrading from windows 95 to windows 7 /8 and having a stable system (hint: ain't going to happen).

      Actually, is the equivalent of upgrading from Windows 2000 to Windows 7. Have you tried it?

      And, they are clean and stable machines post upgrade.

      Depends on what you're running. Many many applications changed configuration parameters, paths and misc dependencies since 2000 (starting with X itself), so I don't think it will work that well for everybody.

    18. Re:Upgrades do suck by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You sound like a Redshat user. (or a windows troll). Only RH and derivatives don't upgrade.

      I've never had a problem with minor version upgrades on CentOS. Only major versions need a reinstall and they happen every few years.

      Debian and derivatives are the easiest things to upgrade in the world. And, they are clean and stable machines post upgrade.

      I took one Ubuntu server through all the versions from 8.04 to 10.04 and reinstalling 10.04 from scratch was easier in the end than trying to fix up the various problems that left behind. I just upgraded my netbook from 11.10 to 12.04 and that was the worst Ubuntu upgrade experience yet; it did a half-hearted upgrade the first time, then I had to apt-get upgrade twice more before everything seems to have been upgraded to the correct version. There's stil one upgrade 'being held back' that I can't get it to install.

    19. Re:Upgrades do suck by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      OK, tell us how you really feel about Ubuntu.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    20. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Debian Mozilla Team provides a very simple page describing how to use just about any current version of Firefox/Iceweasel on any current version of Debian.

      I'm still using Squeeze myself and I've been getting the lastest verisons of Iceweasel within a day or so of them being released.

    21. Re:Upgrades do suck by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 0

      People who have a vested interest in spreading FUD about what virii do. So this is clearly the work of a Linux/Apple/McAfee global conspiracy. ;)

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    22. Re:Upgrades do suck by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With Linux desktops, it's almost better to reimage them then do a mass roll out of dist-upgrade and pray it works.

      Your opinion has been colored by the crap Ubuntu puts out. Try it on Debian, it works. My home server started as Debian Potato with kernel 2.2 and has been upgraded continuously all the way to Wheezy. For most of its life it was my desktop as well as my server. And yes, I run my server on Debian unstable. Just don't let anybody tell you you that re-imaging is a fact of life. Just because Canonical has trouble with it (and Google has major major trouble with it because of certain idiocy I won't get into) doesn't mean it can't be done. And even Canonical has managed to pull off a fairly reliable cross-release upgrade the last couple of releases.

      Re-imaging is something that happens to Windows users. Linux users generally don't need to put up with it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    23. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian stable (squeeze) is up to iceweasel 3.5.16! If you want some html5 support you can use cromium (which I think is version 6 on Debian stable).

      If you care about glitz like Flash and Java and not so much about system stability and software freedom then you can easily install the latest version of Firefox yourself and load it up with plugins but, honestly, if you're using Debian stable and iceweasel rather than Ubuntu and Firefox, you're unlikely to want this.

    24. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its kinda funny...until you're a DC tech and have to remove linux botnets/malicious scripts from customers' servers because they're so clueless.

      Then you notice the rootkits and advise the client that their linux server got infected and needs to be shutdown and reprovisioned.

      I particularly enjoyed the fact that he was talking about viruses on a thread about linux.
      no lol.

    25. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have miserable problems with Ubuntu's upgrades, but the last couple years have been very safe. I'm not sure if people griped loudly enough that they fixed things, but whatever changed, it's been for the better.

    26. Re:Upgrades do suck by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      Firefox 10 is the current version of Firefox ESR, which is meant to offer extended support. Exactly the right thing for Debian.

      And if you absolutely what the latest and greatest, then you can add that as a Debian maintained repository and just upgrade.

    27. Re:Upgrades do suck by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Projection!

    28. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QUICK, EVERYBODY! Let's install Debian and remove Ubuntu from our computers because some angry skinny dick says it's stupid and for losers!

    29. Re:Upgrades do suck by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      I don't think you really understand what "stable" means.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    30. Re:Upgrades do suck by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I've had mixed success with Ubuntu upgrades. About 90% of upgrades work, but I've had to re-image a few times when libc has got borked or when grub suddenly decides to get confused over the order of disk controllers. Sometimes the problems can be fixed, but other times it's just quicker and easier to install from scratch.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    31. Re:Upgrades do suck by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      Actually Ubuntu LTS releases draw from testing[1], only non-LTS releases draw from unstable.

      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    32. Re:Upgrades do suck by allo · · Score: 2

      debian stable is a debian testing after freeze and stabilization. ubuntu lts is whatever debian testing was, when the ubuntu LTS release was scheduled to be released + some minor fixes. so for stability parity, ubuntu would need to wait for debian testing to freeze before making a new LTS.

    33. Re:Upgrades do suck by chrb · · Score: 1

      perhaps migration scripts would be a better approach than simply trusting each package upgrade to never fail...

      That is what do-release-upgrade does. It downloads a migration tarball for the package that you are upgrading to. That tarball contains scripts that are supposed to fix any upgrade issues that can't be (or aren't) handled within the package itself. If you want to see how this works, have a look at the upgrade tarball for Precise

    34. Re:Upgrades do suck by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I agree that upgrading doesn't work well on Ubuntu. Here is what I usually do: I have to internal drives of the same size. When I have to upgrade, I install the new version on the spare drive and then copy the home folder and various other files from the old drive to the new one. It doesn't work very well, you have to adjust permissions and delete various old settings in .config and other places, but in general it's the easiest way to upgrade in my experience.

      Ubuntu is in dire need of a working migration assistant. Unfortunately, I believe it's almost impossible to create a reliable and working one, because there seems to be no way for user-space applications to let the OS know which data is volatile and which one should be preserved during upgrades.

      Another anoying thing is that at least in XFCE there seems to be no reliable way to reset panels for a single user to their original state as it has been defined by the distro. If you delete the respective data in .config/xfce, you'll get a generic "would you like to add a panel" dialog and not e.g. Xubuntu 12.04's initial panel settings. It's rather annoying, because panels still mess up or crash very easily. (Oh, and on my fresh install of Xubuntu 12.04 default panel applets crash and then the Ubuntu crash reporter crashes ...).

      To put things in perspective, the above are only minor quirks. A fresh install is still better than upgrading, which in my experience has often created some strange problems e.g. with things like Wifi settings or the keychain.

    35. Re:Upgrades do suck by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Which is incredibly easy to do in a LTSP environment.

      just do a reinstall on the server over the weekend and re mount the User data raid. all done. The 3 IT guys can play nerf wars and eat pizza for the 4 hours it takes.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    36. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment make no sense at all. Why you would re-image and then upgrade as well? Your incorrect use of the word "then" makes you sound like a complete fucking moron.

    37. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current laptop has been upgraded from 9.10 to 12.04 with the XFCE variant and I have yet to see any issues. The only thing that I have seen is sometimes you miss out on new features because they arent enabled in your older configs.

    38. Re:Upgrades do suck by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anecdotes don't make for good statistical evidence, but I've been using Ubuntu since 10.04 and the four upgrades since then all ran flawlessly.

      Then late last month I was rearranging hardware and ripped the damn SATA connector on my primary hard drive in half, so I had to reinstall from scratch. I had backups, so no data was lost, but when I bought a replacement disk I decided to give Linux Mint a spin.

      I find all this venom between the different distributions disturbing. The free software community makes some amazing cool stuff, and I love Linux and enjoy using it. But it's not hard to understand why corporations with tens of billions of dollars in the bank can invest more in bug-testing upgrade processes than projects backed almost entirely by volunteers (Debian), funded by a relatively small business (Ubuntu), or funded by a slightly larger business (Red Hat). If Microsoft still has upgrade bugs galore, and they have complete control over the operating system stack and are the primary customer of all the PC hardware vendors, it should be no surprise that the free software community does too.

    39. Re:Upgrades do suck by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes them so different? The package management system? Or maybe just the love and care given it?

      I think it's the care and love. It's not just the upgrades to new major versions of the distro, it's also updates within the same major version, and how well things work to begin with.

      Debian and Ubuntu use the same packaging system, and I have had great experiences and terrible experiences with both of them. Ubuntu made a name for itself by providing a very polished, complete experience out of the box. Since then, they seem to have been chasing new features at the expense of quality. I haven't had an Ubuntu install work completely right since 2008 or so. And that's clean installs, I'm not even talking about upgrades.

      Debian stable, for all that their long release cycles are ridiculed, really care about quality control. Basically, the new release goes out only once it has been extensively tested and either all known critical bugs have been fixed, or at least the known bug count for the new release is substantially lower than that for the existing release. Almost as a bonus, their upgrades usually work perfectly, they support a huge number of packages, and they support a great number of architectures. On the other hand, Debian is more a "build your own experience" distro than a "get a polished, complete experience out of the box" distro. I like this, but I certainly see the value of having a complete, polished system out of the box, too.

      Alas, even though Debian has done better for me than any other system I have ever used, even with Debian I have had problems; once, a system wouldn't come back up after a kernel upgrade. Another time, the Exim configuration was broken by an upgrade. Ok, so it's only two issues in over 10 years and hundreds of upgrades, but still, it means Debian is not perfect.

      In terms of packaging systems, I believe Debian was the first to really make automatic dependency resolution and single command distro upgrades work, at least for binary packages. However, the rest of the world has mostly caught up now; some distros use the tools developed by Debian, some use others, like Yum, and as far as I know, they all work. So I really think the difference is in the quality control and the priority it gets. What is the top priority for the people behind the distribution? Is it quality? Is it shipping the new release on schedule? Is it including the latest software? You have to do all of those to an extent to be relevant, but when push comes to shove, I think Debian is one of the few distros that will sacrifice everything to quality: they will delay their release and they will throw out packages that are not adequately maintained. If a distro has different priorities, it is not surprising that quality suffers somewhat.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    40. Re:Upgrades do suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DO THE FOLLOWING (after obtaining a good reputable solid HOSTS file, like mvps' -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

      ---

      1.) Get ahold of the "Android Debugging Bridge" (ADB) & install it

      2.) Mount your system mountpoint as READ + WRITE (as powerful of priveleges as you need is this)

      3.) Using the PULL command, copy the file over from your PC (or even on your ANDROID if its there already) using PULL & overwrite the etc. folder's copy of HOSTS

      ---

      * DONE!

      (Yes, it's THAT simple vs. hosts-domain based threats which ARE THE MAJORITY OF THEM OUT THERE (because hosts-domain names are recyclable unlike IP addresses)... &, it works - you CAN'T be burned if you can't go into the malware kitchen!)

      APK

      P.S.=> Of course, your HOSTS file will need to have the domain/hosts name of the C&C servers, & that you have to obtain for this to work vs. threats like bogus servers &/or maliciously scripted sites. Here's some good sources for that above & beyond mvps.org (I noted them above):

      http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
      http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt
      http://mirror1.malwaredomains.com/files/ (justdomains here)
      http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/serverlist.php?hostformat=hosts&showintro=1&mimetype=plaintext
      http://sysctl.org/cameleon/hosts
      http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
      http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
      http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
      https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=lastupdated
      https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=lastupdated
      http://www.malwareurl.com/
      http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/ (updater for Spybot "Search & Destroy" & it fortifies HOSTS files)

      Those are some of my regular sources that are reputable & reliable for custom HOSTS file data populations vs. known threats online - I consolidate them here via programs I wrote that normalize/deduplicate repeated entries, sort/alphabetize the results, & change from larger + slower 127.0.0.1 (longer & loopback ops happen here) to the faster & smaller 0.0.0.0 (or even 0 on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003): Enjoy!

      ... apk

    41. Re:Upgrades do suck by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      that is the equivalent of upgrading from windows 95 to windows 7 /8 and having a stable system (hint: ain't going to happen).

      I dunno about stable, but you can upgrade it all the way starting from DOS 6.22 and Windows 1.0, and finishing at Win7.

  2. Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope Unity 2D doesn't go away. The 3D version isn't usable on my systems. I'm growing to like Unity, but performance is only acceptable on my machines when using the 2D environment.

    1. Re:Unity 2D by ACS+Solver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just had a new bit of Unity experience yesterday. I had tried the early horribly unstable versions but switched away very quickly. Yesterday, I did a long-overdue update of Ubuntu on girlfriend's netbook to 12.04. Here's how it went after the upgrade.

      She logs in, the computer seems a tad slow (yea, Unity 3D on a netbook). Figures out the icons for launching apps are on the left panel, wants to add GIMP there. Types gimp in the search bar thing, its icon appears. Right-clicks it hoping for a context menu, instead GIMP launches. Tries again, left-click, it launches. Tries again, drags the icon to the panel, it works. Sort of - the panel gets a button for the GIMP, but there's no icon on it, it just appears blank. Next she wants to run Chrome. As she types "chro", the UI freezes and shortly thereafter there's a message that Compiz crashed. It restarts, now GIMP's button shows the icon, too. She browses the Web for a bit, then I take the computer to see if I can turn some stuff off to speed it up. I open a terminal, check performance data there, try alt-tab, doesn't work. Okay. I open the control center, go to Appearance, Compiz crashes again. Then I find online that, to change Compiz-related config, I have to separately install a settings plugin for it. It's not available by default even through Unity is the default DE. At least then I found you can switch to Unity 2D.

      I was pretty open to seeing how Unity would perform now. After all, I had only used the early versions. But this experience was horrible - 2 crashes within the first 15 minutes, definite slowness, and I'm pretty sure my gf will soon be asking to switch to a different interface, she's really uncomfortable with Unity so far.

    2. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually, once you launch an app in Unity, you right click on it's icon in the task bar and tell it to stick in the launcher. Another option for her, would be Unity2D if the netbook is too constrained for the 3D version.

    3. Re:Unity 2D by ACS+Solver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, Unity 2D is what she's currently trying. Switched to that from 3D quickly because 3D simply isn't suitable for a netbook. I'm surprised some post-install scripts don't switch the default environment to 2D for computers with weak graphics cards.

    4. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I just had a new bit of Unity experience yesterday. I had tried the early horribly unstable versions but switched away very quickly. Yesterday, I did a long-overdue update of Ubuntu on girlfriend's netbook to 12.04. Here's how it went after the upgrade.

      What a coincidence, my girlfriend and i had a unity experience yesterday too. I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure it involved DDs and not DDDs.

      I'm pretty sure my gf will soon be asking to switch to a different interface, she's really uncomfortable with Unity so far.

      I wouldn't push her to try different interfaces if she's uncomfortable with you current unity. Be patient, and when she does get curious about trying another interface, go slowly.

    5. Re:Unity 2D by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised some post-install scripts don't switch the default environment to 2D for computers with weak graphics cards.

      ..or indeed, people with nVidia cards which are still waiting for a stable driver.

    6. Re:Unity 2D by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing I hate about the launcher is how ridiculously hard it is to create a custom launcher. My use-case: I have a shell script I like to run occasionally. I'd like to have a nice clicky icon to run it from. This should be simple to do... but is sooooo isn't. Worst part is any documentation I found suggested I could create a file on the desktop, right-click that and choose a "Create launcher" open. Or something like that. Anyway, I think that option used to exist, but they dropped it from 12.04 without apparently thinking to create an alternative.

      ...I find myself ranting quite a lot over 12.04, but to be fair, I do like that DVD's play perfectly right from a fresh install, and I don't get any screen tearing when watching DVDs / web video. So it's not all bad. Only the bad bits are bad!

    7. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those guys. 11.10 actually worked perfectly on it, so something they changed in 12.04 broke compatibility. I'm actually sorely tempted to just roll back to 11.10 for a few months while I wait for them to get their shit together.

    8. Re:Unity 2D by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You could always just put a shell script on the desktop and click it when you want it to run.

    9. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! You have a girlfriend!

    10. Re:Unity 2D by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Usually, once you launch an app in Unity, you right click on it's icon in the task bar and tell it to stick in the launcher.

      Which is totally intuitive. Why the heck should I have to run an application in order to create an icon for it?

    11. Re:Unity 2D by andrew3 · · Score: 1

      If you girlfriend wants to keep using Unity 2D she could just keep using Ubuntu 12.04LTS until 2017. It's also reasonably easy to install other desktop environments such as XFCE, which is very similar to GNOME 2 (perhaps what she's used to?).

    12. Re:Unity 2D by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "How to return to classic Gnome in Ubuntu":

      http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/classicgnome

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Unity 2D by jamstar7 · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've heard nothing but horror stories about Unity. Yeah, it's installed on my machine, but I'm half afraid to try it. I put the LXDE on it instead and use that with some blackbox slit apps. Just CTRL-ALT-F1 to a shell, log in and 'sudo apt-get install lubuntu-desktop', let it churn away, hit ALT-F7 to go back to your gui, log out, select LXDE for your new login session, and you'll have a desktop that's useable.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    14. Re:Unity 2D by F.Ultra · · Score: 4, Informative
    15. Re:Unity 2D by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      But the point of a decent UI is that someone shouldn't have to post to /. to get a solution to a UI problem.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    16. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem:Lubuntu. It's Ubuntu with the classic w95 toolbar interface. Install it, then where desired, swap in the apps you're already familiar with; by default Lubuntu has slightly different and lighter versions of many.

      After that... just get back to whatever you were doing. You know how this interface works, it's got your familiar apps, and it's part of the Canonical repository system just like Ubuntu.

      And yup, it's a "lightweight", but don't worry that doesn't mean you'll be spending any time in CLI to cofig. This is a complete GUI just like you had with Gnome.

      Tip - if you install Nautilus, use "nautilus --no-desktop" as the launcher command so that it knows to be just a file manager, not a desktop manager. Though I don't know why you'd use Nautilus when there is Dolphin.

    17. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unity sucks...switch her to Linux Mint Debian edition, either xfce, install gnome 3, or simply use Cinnamon. I've been using LXDE 12 since it was released and haven't had a single hiccup.

    18. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually, once you launch an app in Unity, you right click on it's icon in the task bar and tell it to stick in the launcher.

      Which is totally intuitive. Why the heck should I have to run an application in order to create an icon for it?

      Not sure if this is a troll or not, but you don't have to do that. Just drag the damned icon to the launcher............

    19. Re:Unity 2D by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      That's useful. Cheers!! :D

    20. Re:Unity 2D by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Meh, ignore the FUD and try it. The world won't end, your computer won't explode. Like most DEs, Unity does what it's supposed to do and generally works well. Try it, if it's not to your taste then use another one.

      It's not like it's a big deal just to use a different DE.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    21. Re:Unity 2D by knuthin · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why this isn't modded up.

      I prefer Xfce to LXDE, but basically 'installing a lightweight DE' (or a WM? Even better!) is what you should do.

      --
      Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
    22. Re:Unity 2D by knuthin · · Score: 1

      ...Though I don't know why you'd use Nautilus when there is Dolphin.

      KDE dependencies.

      --
      Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
    23. Re:Unity 2D by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      wants to add GIMP there. Types gimp in the search bar thing, its icon appears

      - ha ha ha, that's right, everybody now needs to know every name of every application.

      Want to open 'notepad'? Well, unless you renamed it or have 'Wine' installed (by the way, 'Wine'), you'll need to remember 'gedit'.

      This is just all wrong, and if they wanted to replicate iPad on a desktop they got it wrong too. I don't believe anybody TYPES 'gedit' on iPad to open a notepad, they just flick to the leftmost edge and there is the notepad.

    24. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can simply lunch the application... It will appear on the left bar as an icon... right on the icon, and Pin it. That's all.

    25. Re:Unity 2D by martin-boundary · · Score: 1, Troll

      Stop trolling. Unity is unusable (for many, many people). He should know that before trying it, so that he can prepare himself in case he needs to revert. He *may* like it, in which case the warning won't do any harm.

    26. Re:Unity 2D by devent · · Score: 1

      Why are you not just install Xfce or KDE, the well tested, well used, well behaving desktops (I did not include Gnome because of Gnome 3.0)? In 5 years or the next two LTE Ubuntu versions you can try Unity again if you like so, but I see no reason to use a not tested, beta desktop, other then curiosity.

      Btw, KDE 4 with 3D effects enabled are working nice on a netbook (of course you should not enable all effects at once).

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    27. Re:Unity 2D by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Not to criticise your answer - which is as good as it could be - but is this not just a little, well, ridiculous? How on earth is this user-friendly?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    28. Re:Unity 2D by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      While I'm the anti-Unity GP, I still recommend you try it, if you're half-way proficient with Linux and know how to easily switch back and forth. I mean, sometimes you end up liking something that most people don't, and with a desktop environment there's little to lose. It's not like it takes time to install or to switch back to another one later.

      Case in point - I happen to like the MS Office ribbon and think that, except for the Office button (fixed in 2010), it's considerably superior to the old menus, but most people here on /. disagree.

    29. Re:Unity 2D by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. Why can't you just click on the script itself and have it run, just like every other GUI for the past 30 years?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No just yep edit and up it comes. Or navigate through the applications menu as before....

    31. Re:Unity 2D by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2

      The instability of Unity is not a grand conspiracy by people who dislike Ubuntu. Unity crashed every few minutes for me on 11.04, I had to switch desktops to GNOME classic (2.32). Unity has never crashed for me in 11.10 or 12.04 - but I highly doubt all these claims that it still crashes are fabricated.

    32. Re:Unity 2D by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      The ribbon is a bit of a learning curve. So is Linux itself. But most people seem to forget there's a learning curve to Windows itself, no matter what version. It's never been 100% intuitive and it never will. Every user has to learn and adapt themselves to whichever interface they use. None of this stuff comes naturally yet.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    33. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      echo "#!/bin/sh\ndo_evil_things" >> teensex.jpg
      chmod +x teensex.jpg

      That's why ^.
      Linux was not designed for technically inapt users. That's why Ubuntu needs to hide some of the internals if it's going to market itself to such people.

      Ubuntu isn't designed for technical users. I find it odd that anyone would complain that it doesn't work well for techies out of the box.

    34. Re:Unity 2D by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      . But this experience was horrible - 2 crashes within the first 15 minutes, definite slowness, and I'm pretty sure my gf will soon be asking to switch to a different interface, she's really uncomfortable with Unity so far.

      Going to have the latest Ubuntu on my new box...Your post really worried me...I am going to give it a try,but I suspect XFCE will be on that box soon enough.

    35. Re:Unity 2D by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why this isn't modded up.

      I prefer Xfce to LXDE, but basically 'installing a lightweight DE' (or a WM? Even better!) is what you should do.

      Wish I had not used up my mod points as I'd do it..Anyway, I'm looking very fondly at Xfce myself. On mt 2and Linux box I will be trying Unity,since Ubuntu is what's installed,but my crystal ball says:"You will be getting Xfce."

    36. Re:Unity 2D by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      But the point of a decent UI is that someone shouldn't have to post to /. to get a solution to a UI problem.

      I agree...And all those shortcuts...I'm a point and clicker and I hate shortcuts.

    37. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a buggy graphics driver. I'm running Unity 3D on my netbook and it is fine, not fast, but it is fast enough for me, although I'm still on 11.10, I'm not in a rush to upgrade since there didn't seem to be any compelling new features.

    38. Re:Unity 2D by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      You can simply lunch the application...

      I *never* dine with software. It's just a rule I have. ;)

      It will appear on the left bar as an icon... right on the icon, and Pin it. That's all.

      I can't test it right now, but that might work. The script itself l don't really want running in a terminal, but it uses Zenity for a few dialogs, so perhaps they can be pinned.

      Anyway... good suggestion. Thank you!! :D

    39. Re:Unity 2D by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      This is no different than the old drop-down list of applications used before or used in Windows. You still need to know that "gedit" is a text editor.

      And the same categorized listing of applications exists in Unity as it did before, the icons are just larger and presented in a different manner.

    40. Re:Unity 2D by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nobody should have to type commands in a GUI, period.

      There is CLI for that.

    41. Re:Unity 2D by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      You don't _have_ to type in Unity. Click on Applications and expand the Installed section and click on what you want. Click on a Filter if you only want a certain category of applications shown. No typing... Just a different interface style from the old dropdown menus, but the same result.

    42. Re:Unity 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no "Applications" to click on, just "Recent Apps". This is why old Gnome was better.

  3. Re:Precise by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    But this guy actually manages a large fleet of ubuntu systems. Do you?

  4. Mandatory: Unity Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to get that out of the way.

  5. Re:Precise by kvvbassboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is much more to ubuntu than the default desktop environment, right from their hardware support to their extensive list of software and ppas. Even then, it's always good to have a modern but simple DE for people just getting into Linux, and Unity is one of the best DEs for that. (I personally use gnome shell)

  6. Re:Precise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I use Unity every day and find it very productive. Maybe you're just an idiot.

  7. No more Unity 2D? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK, I'm not sure I understand the whole "get rid of Unity 2D" thing. As I understand it, Unity 3D means it's accelerated, but VMware and other virtualization environments don't support GPU acceleration for Ubuntu yet, so that leave people who prefer to run Ubuntu in a VM without a GUI. Where's the logic in that? Not even Windows forces you to have a modern video card for hardware acceleration -- if your hardware can't do Aero Glass, Windows just switches it off.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think they mean that Unity isn't going to support legacy (pre-2009ish) video hardware. That makes sense. There's a lot of cool stuff you can do on the desktop, but you need the oomph to push it. At some point you need a cutoff, otherwise you end up making a lot of comprimises to help the perhaps 1-2% of your userbase.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:No more Unity 2D? by grantek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unity3D will still be usable without GPU acceleration, it will use a new software implementation of OpenGL called llvmpipe. llvmpipe is a much better software rasteriser than we've traditionally had, but it's still software which means it's significantly slower than even the simplest of hardware OpenGL implementations.

    3. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      His example specifically called out virtual machines. The emulated graphics cards *frequently* won't do what is needed for a reasonable 3D situation. Now there is an emulated path (e.g. at least fedora 17 can do gnome shell in a VM even), but the experience is atrocious (CPU load is massive and that's another thing that is constrained in a VM). Even with my not quite-that-ancient integrated AMD graphics, compiz causes mythfrontend to crawl, whereas it is serviceable without compositing.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the Ubuntu case, they are doing the same thing Fedora did in 17. If it can't be hardware accelerated, use the CPU to do the graphics operations. And yes, it is as slow as it sounds, contrary to various advocates swearing it's good enough.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:No more Unity 2D? by stas2k · · Score: 1

      Unity 3D will use LLVMpipe to dynamically translate OpenGL to CPU commands. Modern CPUs have enough horsepower to do desktop effects in software. I will miss Unity2d though. It was the only usable Unity type. Check out this Phoronix article for more info http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5OTA

    6. Re:No more Unity 2D? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Do you know what makes sense?

      Not wasting time doing graphical gimmicks for a window manager (which will be buggy and slow anyway)

      "to help the perhaps 1-2% of your userbase"

      I think the number is higher, still, why should I upgrade my machine to run the latest versions?

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    7. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kills me. I advocated a switch from CentOS developer desktops (hideous..) to Ubuntu. No more rpm hell, and no uninstalling the whole desktop to resolve dependency issues by other repos (since CentOS 'contrib' repo is a joke)

      Being developers, we dont upgrade our desktops every 3 years. Looks like we'll be stuck planning LTS to LTS upgrades, and manually updating our browsers to current. Sigh..

    8. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "still". Unity 3D isn't usable without GPU acceleration now. Significantly slower is an understatement.

    9. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in gnome 3 the specification to run gnome 3 desktop was lowered, so even old hardwares could run gnome 3 and don't have to boot on classic desktop. Even in my experience old laptops that would refuse to boot into unity and would fallback to unity 2d has started to work on unity 3d.

      That covers most hardware, so it is not a good idea to diverse focus of desktop developers. May be both team will focus to get it running even in other low specs. In virtual boxes I often run lxde to get standard desktop speed.

    10. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      My 2009 era netbook is still running 10.04, which is the last version of Ubuntu to have the "best" Netbook Remix (pre-Unity), and will probably continue to run 10.04 until either the battery completely wears out, or the screen breaks. I have a much older 2003 era laptop that runs hardy heron (2008 release) just great.
       
      Generally I don't recommend upgrading beyond the first LTS release of Ubuntu for your system, especially mobile systems. They just can't handle it. Too much damn feature creep. Really, unless you do a major hardware upgrade (wireless networking or video card come to mind), there's no substantial reason to upgrade the OS as well.

      Which is a great reason why they shouldn't support older graphics chipsets. I'm reasonably sure the intel HD3000, and soon HD4000 that's in 50% of all laptops can more than handle the basic 3d gui tasks ubuntu throws at them. You don't need to break a bunch of functionality to support chipsets older than the crappy GMA950.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    11. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is a UI, not a video game. There's no reason why a UI should require that much oomph to work. At this point if your UI can't run on a decade old computer, that's a pretty good indication that you don't know what you're doing.

    12. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Which is why they fall back to something like Gnome 3 if the system can't handle it. If you don't like the idea of all the eye candy turned on, you can just default to Gnome 3 and call it a day. I don't know what they call it, but it's probably something along the lines of "opt-out rich computing experience".
       
      TL;DR they addressed your issues, I don't understand what you're complaining about

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I prefer my CPU spends it's time doing things I want it to be doing rather than managing windows and taskbars. Not to mention extra CPU usages increases heat and decreases battery life.

      Why do people continue to compare everything performance related to desktop sized hardware and everything GUI design related to mobile computers? They aren't the same things. Unity 3D was designed for mobile/touch devices, but requires desktop hardware. Nice choices guys.

    14. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. Win7 handles pre-2009 video hardware without a hitch.

      I think it's time to call it a day after trying to run Unity on a high end 6 year old ThinkPad and watching that train wreck of a GUI. I shouldn't need to dick with a system to get Gnome running without the residue of Unity still pulling on its resources.

    15. Re:No more Unity 2D? by andrew3 · · Score: 1

      I thought GNOME 3 required hardware acceleration as well? Except for fallback mode, if you can even call that a desktop. It's like GNOME 2, except no functionality whatsoever.

    16. Re:No more Unity 2D? by armanox · · Score: 1

      Most of the computers I deal with that can't handle the graphics acceleration certainly can't do it on the CPU (looking at a little Pentium III laptop I still use (Dell C400)).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    17. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes sense: the developer on the project moved on, and the hope is with llvmpipe to perform software rendering of 3D.

    18. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary, pcs have 3d cards that are much better at composing multiple textures tiles with ease that the best 2d cards would be hard to match. Machines have had the hardware for 5+ years, why not use it?

    19. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One slight issue here is that modern graphics capability is very much incompatible with software freedom. Ubuntu is based on Debian, very much a free software OS.

      Providing a heavy 3D desktop manager is great but redesiging a very popular Linux distribution to require modern graphics acceleration is questionable. I'm practically certain that somewhere there will be an option to disable all hardware accelerated effects or run an alternative, light, desktop manager. If not, then Ubuntu will experience a rough couple of years as hardware catches up with them. Certainly, using the latest version of gnome on my ASUS Eee PC 900 was a painful experience (not such an old system and one I've used to emulate N64, Playstation, and Gameboy Advanced at full speed). I'm now back to using gnome 2.30.2 with Debian stable (squeeze).

    20. Re:No more Unity 2D? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does "significantly slower" == "still be usable"?

    21. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "significantly slower" is actually beneficial, assuming major part of development work happens on virtual machines: How else would you expect the actual code to get optimized to reasonably speedy levels, unless it was obviously slow on developers' high-end hardware?

    22. Re:No more Unity 2D? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How does "significantly slower" == "still be usable"?

      Because our magical video cards can do this windowing shit at 600 or 6000 fps and we only need 60, tops

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:No more Unity 2D? by allo · · Score: 1

      people with modern cpus are having modern gpus. but the people with old hardware are fucked anyway then ... slow cpu, no opengl on gpu ...

    24. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Businesses dont WANT to do a lot of "cool" on their desktop.

      So in other words, Ubuntu has decided that they have no interest in business use of Ubuntu. Got it!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    25. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unity 3d will be rendered by SW instead if needed. Turn off the effects and it should work in NX etc.

    26. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of people with pre-2009 video hardware is probably quite a bit higher than 1-2%.. 2009 was only three years ago, if you don't play recent games or run other high-load tasks locally you don't really have any reason to upgrade every year or even every other year.

    27. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VirtualBox supports 3D on Linux. I.e. you can run a 3D Linux guest on a 3D Linux host and have the guest use the 3D facility of the host. No problem.

    28. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Unity 3D runs just fine on my Thinkpad T43p. IIRC, it had whatever upgraded graphics card was available at the time.

    29. Re:No more Unity 2D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the full announcement? Unity 3D will be able to run on low-end hardwares using "Gallium3D llvmpipe".

  8. I think the real news by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    is that EA has even noticed Linux. Commercial Linux games died pretty hard after all, and it's hard enough getting 3D working under Windows let alone Linux. Yeah, I know a 100 /.tters will chime saying it just worked for them, but you guys hand pick your hardware, you're in the minority.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think the real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but the EA guy disagrees with you.

    2. Re:I think the real news by IAmR007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I work for S2Games, and we have had native Linux clients for Savage 1, Savage 2, and currently Heroes of Newerth. It was the Linux support that originally got me involved with the company's games and eventually hired. Our OpenGL renderer is slightly lacking at the moment, but the main problem is that of business and market share, not technical reasons. Maintaining something around only 4% of the user base uses is difficult (mac and linux combined), but many of the community volunteers come from that mac/linux group. As the guy who runs the technical support, I really wish more people would play on Linux. The Linux problems are usually much easier to solve (except alsa problems). With Windows issues, there's a lot of uncertainty with firewall setups, antivirus, file permissions, and odd behavior in general. With Linux, the problem can usually be identified with a few tests. It's a viscous circle. There aren't many Linux games because not many gamers run Linux, and there aren't many Linux games because the companies don't want to have to increase build times for each patch by supporting another OS. EA taking this small first step may help break this cycle, which is only good news for Linux gaming.

    3. Re:I think the real news by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is that EA has even noticed Linux.

      They noticed that the browser based games they are pushing happen to work fine in Linux systems without any work at all. That's the only sort of game they are enabling. They aren't doing anything with their 3D game engine sort of stuff. Basically, Linux is a side-effect of pursuing the casual gamer market through browsers.

      but you guys hand pick your hardware, you're in the minority.

      Except that most people who even kind of care stick with brand names like 'Radeon' and 'nVidia' that do 'just work' in windows and linux distributions that are practical about helping with binary blobs (e.g. fedora isn't 'just work' until you add fusion, but ubuntu just works). Intel integrated as of *late* also just works (in more places) though it's unimpressively slow. In theory you can get non-AMD, non-nVidia, non-Intel graphics, but I'm hard pressed to think of a *consumer* product that does that anymore.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:I think the real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are were/are? awesome. I played Savage 1 when it turned free. However, I couldn't tell if I was attacking right (I never killed people and they always killed me) and there was no way to practice in a single player mode, so I only played for a couple weeks. I didn't keep track of Savage 2 development, but I hoped you fixed that problem (allow a user to be on their own in-order to learn/explore the game). Anyway, at least I loved the idea of the game (mixed RTS and FPS).

    5. Re:I think the real news by IAmR007 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Savage 1 is ridiculously hard. It took me a couple years to get a 1:1 kill:death ratio. There's no single player, but there are practice maps.

    6. Re:I think the real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for all the hard work, I just played my first match of Heroes of Newerth today and it's a blast! (I'm playing in OS X, it's a hackintosh and can boot into Windows for unsupported games but it's really nice to not have to do that).

    7. Re:I think the real news by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      Fancy seeing you here :-)

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    8. Re:I think the real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't run firewalls at S2Games? Or you don't use file permissions? Or do you just never encounter bugs in your chosen distro ever.

    9. Re:I think the real news by IAmR007 · · Score: 1

      Firewalls as in whatever software firewall the customer may have installed. The behavior of software firewalls on windows varies a lot. Antivirus and firewalls can also muck with permissions and/or stop the game from accessing its files. There are occasionally permissions issues on Linux, but every such issue I've seen can be identified with a simple ls -lR in the game directory.

    10. Re:I think the real news by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Things are looking up. More and more gaming middleware seem to be cross-platform these days, due to the desire to support iOS and Android. Once you've paid the upfront costs to make your game portable to those platforms (and OSX), there's not much additional cost to supporting Linux.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  9. Adwords Editor for linux? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2

    The irony for me here is that right now one of the things I'm struggling to get working in Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) is the Adwords Editor + Wine; this is *always* a complete pain in the arse, firstly to install, and then later on when you think you've got it working and then it wants to update... and fails.

    The worst thing is, isn't Adwords Editor written with XUL? Shouldn't that make it portable or something? At this point, I'd prefer it was written in Java!

  10. Love the OS, really can't get used to Unity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ubuntu/Precise is awesome. It really shows how much effort went into this release. I am extremely happy with how little I needed to customize or fix after installing it on my laptop (suspend/resume, encrypted file systems, unusual hardware drivers ... all the things that usually cause problems worked out of the box).

    On the other hand, despite trying to get used to Unity, the new UI just does not work for me. I can even (almost) understand the design choices. It certainly looks shiny and discoverability of most UI features is pretty good. A lot of the UI has been simplified to make it easier to use for casual users.

    Unfortunately, almost every single one of these changes really gets in the way of my day to day productivity. I spend so much time every day using my computer, I need a window manager that gets out of the way most of the time. And that defaults to doing the right thing, when I need it to do something for me.

    I am sure, as a power user with very specific requirements, I am not in the primary target group for Unity. But fortunately, after installing GNOME Panel and the Awesome window manager, I found a solution for my UI needs. I am now as happy as can be. This is by far the nicest Linux distribution I have used.

    1. Re:Love the OS, really can't get used to Unity by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I have a customization that is really useful, and hasn't been wrecked by any upgrades so far. It works like this:

      * Have 5 virtual desktops.
      * Use the compizconfig tool to make certain common programs always start in a specific desktop (2 is terminator, for instance)
      * Remap alt-arrow keys to move left and right across virtual desktops.
      * Remap alt up/down to move between tabs/subwindows/files in the common applications. Put tabs on the side, to make this visually intuitive (this is a little challenge with some apps, but it works once you've set it up)
      * remap alt +/- to open and close a new tab/subwindow in these common applications.

      This way, I always know where I have stuff.

      I originally set up this system as I was transcribing some scanned sheet music (from a PDF) into lilypond. Mentallly keeping track of where I were in both files and scrolling down all the time due to limited screen real estate, was a royal pain. This system worked fabulously, and I really miss it where I can't have it now.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  11. Re:Precise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice ad hominem, what precisely does that have to do with anything? It was still a buggy piece of crap when released and completely unsuitable for use on desktops.

  12. Re:They should get Android onto the desktop. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    I would love to see a way to test android apps directly in my desktop rather than using a virtual machine. And I don't see why it should be so hard. The phone interfaces are mocked on the VM anyway.

  13. Unity? KDE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google employees love to use KDE systems and they will be really happy when their systems are upgraded to Precise as lots of great work has been done on KDE since Lucid was released. However, not many employees like new UI changes meant for consumers and not developers. Some of the Google employees also requested removing Unity and Gnome 3 and using xmonad instead.

    1. Re:Unity? KDE? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, why not just go w/ Kubuntu? Google can also get a whole bunch of K-apps, like Calligra Office Suite, and it would be nice if they could refine some of those apps. If needed, re-brand them.

      Incidentally, what is Chromium OS based on - Gentoo? I think Google should also look at the BSDs - particularly PC-BSD, and come up w/ a derivative distro on that. Or, if Google prefers something w/ a Debian backgound (like apt), they could have people on kFreeBSD, work w/ Debian in getting that on par w/ FreeBSD 9, and then make a Chromium OS based on that.

      Is there a particularly strong reason that Google prefers Linux to BSD?

    2. Re:Unity? KDE? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Why not just install every available DE and let individual users select xmonad from the login screen?

      Offer everything; *support* only Unity.

    3. Re:Unity? KDE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusing, is that actually a quote from Thomas (what f'ing article?)? I'm the person using xmonad that he's had to deal with :P

    4. Re:Unity? KDE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These packages would probably be too big to go on the install CD (they would have to go DVD then). Everything's still available from the Software Center, you only have to search for it and install it from the repository.

  14. Re:Precise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's more likely that you're a windows user.

  15. Forget Unity and KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ubuntu 12.04 + Cinnamon. Better than Linux Mint 12, though I'm anxious to see what LM13 will look like.

    1. Re:Forget Unity and KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A LOT of people are using Cinnamon during the testing phase for precise at Google (or plan to once precise is officially rolled out internally, since we were asked to test unity)

    2. Re:Forget Unity and KDE by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Is it better than LMDE with Cinnamon out of the box, though?

  16. Re:They should get Android onto the desktop. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Well, some technical and poitical challenges about basing 'Goobuntu' on Android:
    When Canonical proposed running Android apps on Ubuntu, they received a lukewarm response from Google.
    Google have been reticient about getting their Android patches merged into the main Linux kernel (occuring slowly).
    Android uses a cut-down C library (bionic) which would make porting desktop apps. I'm not sure whether Android would build against glibc or whether there's any impetus to add missing features to bionic.
    Android uses a custom framebuffer to display graphics rather an Xorg. Making it difficult for hackers to run standard linux desktops on phones because of hardware drivers. Perhaps Google could collaborate with Canonical about using components from Wayland in a future version of Android.
    As far as I know, Android has been hacked together to NOT support multiple users.

    To me, if I was buying a tablet such as the Asus Transformer, I'd want to be writing apps on it. Quad core tablets have, or will soon have, adequate resources to develop on. Porting SWT to Dalvik would be the first step to running Eclipse and associated toolchains.

  17. Ads in the desktop by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The last update to Ubuntu brought advertising into my desktop. I tried to search for an application and the unity dashboard presented me with music albums from the music store.

    Fucking hell.

    I understand if they pack rhythmbox chokefull of advertising for their music store. I would hate it but I'd at least understand it. But when the simple task of starting an application, the most basic task of graphical shells, is used as an opportunity to advertise to me, I've had enough.

    That's jumping the shark twice.

    I already ditched Ubuntu for LinuxMint in my desktop but used Ubuntu in my media center. I'm changing OS next time.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:Ads in the desktop by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      Ads? ADS? Say it ain't so. Ubuntu was my main OS since Dapper, but Unity moved me to LinuxMint Debian and KDE. Now that I've heard about this, I'm not even going to bother checking out their new releases in virtualbox.

    2. Re:Ads in the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      try this patch ... sorry, the lameness filter doesn't allow it. oh well,

      basically /usr/share/software-center/backend/channel_impl/aptchannels.py

      ./softwarecenter/db/appfilter.py

      comment out "self._append_banner_ads()"

      and in appfilter.py
      AVAILABLE_FOR_PURCHASE_MAGIC_CHANNEL_NAME
      from if (not pkgname in self.cache

    3. Re:Ads in the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to search for an application and the unity dashboard presented me with music albums from the music store.

      Ads or convenient search results. I feel we could give Canonical the benefit of the doubt. If you can't, what you can do is uninstall "unity-scope-musicstores" as described in this Ask Ubuntu question: How do I disable music purchase results in lens?

      Seems reasonable?

    4. Re:Ads in the desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already ditched Ubuntu for LinuxMint in my desktop but used Ubuntu in my media center. I'm changing OS next time.

      You already changed the OS when you went from Ubuntu to Mint.

  18. Just don't use Unity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recommend not trying Unity. It actually destroys the entire concept of windows. You now only have 1 window for the same application, no matter how many chrome or terminal windows you might have open. That's right. Your usual File menu bar is also at the top of the screen. That's right; not near the actual window. Want to toggle between different applications easily? You can't. Welcome to Alt-tab hell. God its terrible.

    1. Re:Just don't use Unity by icebraining · · Score: 2

      You now only have 1 window for the same application, no matter how many chrome or terminal windows you might have open.

      I must be missing something. You do Alt-tab to the application, then press down to show all the windows of that application. How is that only having one window?

    2. Re:Just don't use Unity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read what that AC posted:

      Welcome to Alt-tab hell. God its terrible.

    3. Re:Just don't use Unity by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Can you tile two windows for easy comparison?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Just don't use Unity by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If you drag the window titlebar to the side, it expands to take that half of the screen (like Windows 7) - video. It's not a tiling wm like Awesome (which I still prefer), but it does the job.

  19. I've been an Ubuntu user since 8.04 by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

    I haven't looked back. I pretty much follow Google's model for my primary desktops (home and work) -- I stick with the LTS releases, and transition several months after the new LTS comes out. In the interim, I load up the non-LTS releases in VMs or on secondary machines to try them out and get a feel for what's coming in the next LTS release.

    Have to say, I'm not a Unity fan so far. I've been using GNOME up until now, but will likely transition to KDE when I upgrade to 12.04. KDE does seem to be a resource pig, but hey RAM is cheap these days, all my desktops have at least 8GB.

    Does anyone know what this alleged show-stopper (for Google) Python 2.7 compatibility issue is?

    1. Re:I've been an Ubuntu user since 8.04 by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I've been using GNOME up until now, but will likely transition to KDE when I upgrade to 12.04. KDE does seem to be a resource pig, but hey RAM is cheap these days, all my desktops have at least 8GB.

      Try XFCE (via Xubuntu). Looks like Gnome2, and is not a resource hog.

    2. Re:I've been an Ubuntu user since 8.04 by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's my fallback option; I've tried Xubuntu off and on in VMs going back to around 9.10, and it seems reasonable. But I like some of what I see in KDE, so I'm willing to make a go of getting up to speed on a new DE. If KDE pisses me off too much, I'll go with XFCE instead.

  20. Re:Precise by icebraining · · Score: 1

    I'm an Awesome WM user at home, but I use Unity at work for a couple of weeks by now and I don't see what's so problematic with it, except for the bugs (which are plenty, unfortunately).

    It has keyboard shortcuts to switch workspaces (CTRL+arrow) and a decent keyboard drive application launcher (plus shortcut for the Terminal).

    Sure, it's not tilling -which is often annoying- but that'd be a little too much to ask.

  21. Re:They should get Android onto the desktop. by JabberWokky · · Score: 2

    Well, it's probably not what you're looking for, but the next version (Jelly Bean) lists the ability to install and dual boot on a laptop as one of the goals. Reader beware: I'm not really into Android development, so I'm just going off of the Wikipedia article, which lists it as being released third quarter this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history

    I just read it, so if somebody could confirm, deny or provide more info, it would be interesting. Android could be a nice Linux on a desktop for many people. Assuming you actually mean Linux itself and not "X Windows, etc etc".

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  22. Ubuntu Sucks by ilikenwf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because Google uses it doesn't mean it's any good. I'm not being a troll here - if you'd try a distro other than Ubuntu, you'd find that Ubuntu isy really, really bad, bloated, and slow. Yes, there are other distros that are equally as bad or worse, but there is an abundance of distros that far exceed what Ubuntu provides.

    I'd suggest Archlinux myself, or plain old Debian if you want something that's stable and easy. Arch has rolling updates meaning you don't have milestones - packages just get updated as they get changed by their developers, so no real upgrade hell there. Debian is rock solid (more than Ubuntu), and is great for servers and everything in between - it's the right balance of coddling/ease of use and stability, without the bloat and crap.

    The real issue with Ubuntu's serious suckage is that it's been made too corporate, and has been hijacked by a corp. While other distros are funded and run by corps, they tend to keep the spirit of open, nonintrusive, non ad-based OS'es going instead of forcing changes, ads, and other BS (like Unity) on their users without any real notice. They also don't make people so unable to fix their own problems by coddling them with a GUI for everything.

    1. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      while I am no fan of ubuntu its hard to argue with a system out of the box installing in 20 min with just about everything you need, you cant even get debian to a installed command line in that amount of time, and those of us with shit internet access dont want to spend a day and a half for all the "bloat" that comes on a normal live cd these days

      then OMFG theres the video situation, if you dont mind the piss poor slow freetard solution your ok, but if you want to install nvidia or ati on debian prepare for a good pile of reading, ubuntu gives you a nice little 2 click option

      they both have their place, debian is no where near my desktops, and ubuntu is no where near anything I want to keep

    2. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      Arch breaks often in it's update and is seriously not recommended in production environments.

      Second debian though.

    3. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by qxcv · · Score: 1

      Arch breaks often in it's update and is seriously not recommended in production environments.

      Ironically, my experience has been that Arch actually breaks less than Ubuntu does with updates, especially when you throw the horror that is dist-upgrade into the equation. That said, the reason I stopped using Arch was the fact that they symlinked /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 for no discernible reason other than "OMG 3 > 2 SO WE MUST USE IT". This promptly broke all my third party Python 2.x apps + libraries and forced my migration to "greener pastures".

      --
      "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    4. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by houghi · · Score: 1

      If you want a change of speed, use XFCE (or LXDE) as desktop and you will notice a serious increase of speed.

      I use openSUSE, not known for its light weight. I run XFCE and get very good speeds on it. Obviously I can run XFCE programs as well as KDE and GNOME ones or any other type.

      Putting things in memory (like cache for your browser) also helps.
      If you must absolutely use KDE or GNOME, see at least that you turn off all the "My-First-Desktop" settings.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      you'd try a distro other than Ubuntu, you'd find that Ubuntu isy really, really bad, bloated, and slow. Yes, there are other distros that are equally as bad or worse, but there is an abundance of distros that far exceed what Ubuntu provides.

      So just checking, if I try a distribution other than Ubuntu, I'll find that Ubuntu is really bad, except, there's other distros which according to you are equally as bad or worse. So if I've tried another distribution, it might well seem to be like Ubuntu is really good. In fact, I've used most of the popular distributions over the years, and that is how it seems to me, so the only problem lies in your self-contradiction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by allo · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is a really nice 6 monthly debian release, just do not use the ubuntu-desktop but kde or gnome or whatever else. The Crap is centered around unity, so do not use unity and the software-center, and you do not notice the sucking parts.

    7. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Xubuntu works fine for me right now, but out of curiosity, could you or someone else recommend an alternative to Xubuntu 12.04? Most of the other distros I know (except Mint) seemed to be a bit hard to install. I'm looking for:

      • Long-term support (3 years or longer) or very stable rolling releases
      • Huge repository
      • Packages that are as up-to-date as possible
      • Easy, graphical installation on multi-boot system
      • Fast, lightweight, but still prefeably optimized for newer systems

      What would you recommend?

    8. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by allo · · Score: 1

      i do not think, you know what a rolling release distro is.

    9. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Care to explain?

      Are all of them unstable?

    10. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      Well, there can be config file changes between versions, but usually with Arch (which has an LTS kernel available), upgrading is very painless. I'm running a 3.3.6 kernel, the latest Xorg, and the latest...everything else, including Xfce.

      Rolling release means that the packages are just upgraded as each of them reaches a new version/stable release by their devs. Further, if a package is missing, you can probably find it in Arch's AUR, which has buildscripts that you can install as simply as installing the "yaourt" tool and doing a "yaourt -S whatever-the-package-name-is" or by downloading the PKGBUILD and doing a makepkg yourself.

    11. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you qualify that statement? In seven years of use, I've had three broken upgrades on Arch, all of which I immediately rolled back without a hitch. Contrast this to Ubuntu, which has broken three of the four times I've tried to upgrade, necessitating a full reinstall...

    12. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I started on Debian and got converted to Gentoo. I decided to try Ubuntu Server a couple years ago and became nauseous when the server installation included a bluetooth stack amongst other useless shit for a headless server install. I much prefer building from the ground up (or at least relatively closer to it) than starting with a whole bunch of stuff I don't want.

    13. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest Archlinux myself, or plain old Debian if you want something that's stable and easy. Arch has rolling updates meaning you don't have milestones - packages just get updated as they get changed by their developers, so no real upgrade hell there. Debian is rock solid (more than Ubuntu), and is great for servers and everything in between - it's the right balance of coddling/ease of use and stability, without the bloat and crap.

      Debian unstable is also effectively a rolling distro - and is not really any more unstable than Arch (or any other "bleeding edge" one). Testing is also kinda rolling, except that it gets frozen every now and then when it's about to be graduated to stable for a new release.

      Arch does tend to get new versions of packages quicker, though - as in 1-2 days after the upstream release. Debian, on the other hand, has aptitude, which is the single best package management tool out there.

      Also, Linux Mint Debian Edition (or just LMDE) is a very fine option for a rolling distro that is set up out of the box much like Ubuntu - with DE, drivers, common apps etc - except that it's got a sane DE (your choice of MATE - a Gnome 2.x fork; or Cinnamon - a Gnome 3.x fork with 2.x-like UI).

    14. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      if you want to install nvidia or ati on debian prepare for a good pile of reading, ubuntu gives you a nice little 2 click option

      If you're using a stock kernel, it's just:

      # apt-get install nvidia-glx

      (or at least it was last time I was dealing with vanilla Debian)

      Then of course there's LMDE, which is Debian + shiny - polished turds, and comes with drivers and everything out of the box.

    15. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Very stable rolling release" is almost an oxymoron, but Debian testing is actually kinda like that. It certainly does conflict with your goal of "packages as up-to-date as possible", which by definition contradicts "very stable" (you never know if new upstream releases don't conflict).

      LMDE is based on Debian testing, but configured out of the box with DE (MATE or Cinnamon), Office, drivers etc. "Fast" and "lightweight" are subjective, but it certainly beats Ubuntu in that regard.

      If you really want bleeding edge packages - as in, upstream releases it today, it's in the repository tomorrow - then it's hard to beat Arch. They also have a very large repository, probably larger than everyone else if you also count AUR (user-submitted packages that have to be built from source, though this can be automated). Also, since it's a no-frills distro which comes with practically nothing out of the box, and you have to install what you need yourself, it's the best candidate for fast/lightweight. Forget about "easy graphical installation", though - the installer is pretty basic TUI which assumes that you know what you're doing.

    16. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora's pretty good too. Give it a go! :)

    17. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      Problem is, Debian uses extremely nonstandard config file locations and names, and that's where most of the conflicts come. Archlinux is as close to vanilla as you can get without having to build the world yourself.

    18. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Extremely nonstandard relative to what?

    19. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      Every other non debian and non-redhat based distro. It may put it's config files in the same directories, but take a look at something like php, apache, and arno iptables firewall, where they end up splitting files up and sometimes having includes for debian/ubuntu specific config files.

      I'm not saying it's always bad (they do make apache easier to config), but debconf's methods usually end up training users to look in the wrong places for configuration files in the event they change distros.

    20. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Every other non debian and non-redhat based distro.

      Well, between Debian-based and RedHat-based distros, that's about 95% of all installs - of which Debian-based is also the majority (largely thanks to Ubuntu) - so I dare say that the way Debian does it is a de facto standard now, and it actually makes more sense to train users that way - chances are better that they'll switch to another Debian-based distro, anyway. If they switch to something that's not Debian and not RedHat, that in itself largely presupposes the willingness to read the docs. ~

    21. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by allo · · Score: 1

      a rolling release distro has no releases at all, thats the point. or, if you want to define the term: one release, which is rolling out new updates all the time.

    22. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

      ...I dare say that the way Debian does it is a de facto standard now, and it actually makes more sense to train users that way

      Not really, if it's contrary to how the package developers built it - if the people actually writing the application code design it one way, that's the standard. Anything else is a variation thereof.

    23. Re:Ubuntu Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arch has rolling updates meaning you don't have milestones - packages just get updated as they get changed by their developers, so no real upgrade hell there.

      Sorry, but I've been trying out Arch on my desktop for the past few months and every single update after the initial install has broken my system in some new and interesting way.

      Arch would be flat-out awesome as the base or development of some other OS that actually received a modicum of design, planning, and (most importantly) testing. But as is, I wouldn't trust it for anything but hardcore development or hacking.

  23. This (mediocre) video says more about Google... by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 2

    This (boring) video says more about Google and its parasitic nature than it does about Ubuntu. You'll probably want to save yourself the time and pass on it. The most noteworthy piece of information I got out of it was this: Google's internal apt repos blacklist certain packages for reasons of privacy. As the speaker mentions, many of these packages phone home, and that's unacceptable to Google. Also, no coredumps/automated bug reports will make it out alive because "who knows what's in them".

    And Google has a very, very good reason to have this policy. They know *damn* well the power of data mining. And they sure as hell aren't going to willingly participate in that game. I mean, as a contributor, that is.

    Yeah, and Google, instead of telling us how huge you are and that it costs you a megabuck to upgrade your workstations when the latest Ubuntu LTS comes down the pike, you could at least (a) keep your hubris to yourself (it's really, really cheap and tacky), and (b) thank the folks at Debian for their hard work and brilliant distro. (This coming from a die-hard Red Hat user)

    1. Re:This (mediocre) video says more about Google... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Also, no coredumps/automated bug reports will make it out alive because "who knows what's in them".

      Less idiomatically, the problem is that a lot of things can be in them which shouldn't be distributed outside the company. Two broad categories would be proprietary company data and proprietary user data. I don't think users of Google products would be happy if we were sending out core dumps containing proprietary user data whenever some program crashed while that data was in core. So we don't.

  24. Re:upgrade killed my computer by aergern · · Score: 2

    If you've been using Linux since 1997 then you should have been able to fix this. And you should have known you needed backups NO MATTER what. You trusted a vendor with a system YOU depended on? That isn't Linux OR the vendors fault .. that's ALL on you. I mean seriously ... after being a "proponent" of Linux for FIFTEEN years .. you let your "sweet setup" get borked up and couldn't fix it.

    I call bullshit.

    This I've been an advocate of Linux for years and just want it to work .. is a lot like started a statement with " I have a lot of black friends but .. " AND everyone knows here comes the line of bullshit.

    Have fun being Windows only. Rock on.

    --
    Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
  25. Re:upgrade killed my computer by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Used Linux in the '90s, technically proficient. Goes years without backups. Posts AC. I'm afraid I have to call shenanigans.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  26. Re:upgrade killed my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um yea but windows wont bluescreen after piddleshit updates

  27. Re:upgrade killed my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like hell it won't. I worked in an IT shop until a couple of years ago, and that is exactly what it does.

  28. Goobuntu a distro? I have doubts. by catmistake · · Score: 1

    and Goobuntu (Google's customized Ubuntu based distro)

    I'm not sure you can call it a distro, as it (correct me if I'm wrong) was never distributed. And from the looks of it from videos released by Google, it appeared to be merely Ubuntu with a "Goobuntu" splash screen. So, secondly, I'm not sure changing the boot splash qualifies it as a distinct distro in its own right.

    1. Re:Goobuntu a distro? I have doubts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a fair amount of changes under the hood, especially in the kernel and FUSE filesystems. And even an internal distribution is still a distribution.

    2. Re:Goobuntu a distro? I have doubts. by allo · · Score: 1

      some modified ubuntu rollout is no distro, its your way of rolling out ubuntu in your company. Its a Distribution, when you make it available for other persons.

  29. The way to do it by Compaqt · · Score: 2

    Have a separate (huge) partition for /home.

    Have multiple OS partitions (about 30GB each, give or take).

    Have your Ubuntu on one OS partition.

    Install the latest Ubuntu on another OS partition, fresh or over a dd copy of the old one.

    Switch among them as desired.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:The way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do the same. Out makes the whole process quite worry free.

  30. Re:upgrade killed my computer by allo · · Score: 1

    you're implying, that someone who uses a computer for a long time NEEDS to know something about computers. so like "you're having a car for a long time, why can't you just fix the engine yourself"

  31. Can it be use for VMware View VDI instances??? by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    You know your OS is mainstream when VMware makes it so you can centrally manage the OS instance as a VDI instance in the data center where it runs right next to big iron....

    That also means Microsoft Windows x64 versions are such a small percentage that VMware is not wasting any time with them either... I wish our HP thin clients could connect to a broker that served up Ubuntu instances. Some people need accelerated 3D, 2D, USB redirection, smart card authentication and local printers. Right now VMware has a monopoly on getting everything to work. Sun might be able to but you have to do Solaris and All Sun hardware from front to back.

    Let me know if I am missing anything here....

    --
    Your Average Joe
  32. Re:Precise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of that hardware support and extensive list of software is from Debian. That's good to know for people just getting into Linux but freaking out with Ubuntu.

  33. That is pretty awful by DaKong · · Score: 1

    I had not heard of ads before, nor experienced it myself when traveling the ubuntu upgrade path. Then again, it *is* linux; you can easily eliminate it from your system.

    --
    If not us, who? If not now, when?
  34. really feel? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    You mean like if it is a copy-cat Debian?

  35. XFCE by DaKong · · Score: 2

    When I upgraded Ubuntu and encountered Unity, I too was shocked at how bad it was. Instant revulsion. I tried to stick with it for 6 weeks to see if it was just me, but it was bad. I got rid of it and reverted to Gnome, but it had grown so bloated that the responsiveness of the entire system had gone to hell. Thank god I discovered the light-weight windowing environments that have been out there for years, maintained by a small but loyal fan base. I switched to XFCE and hey presto my venerable 600mhz machine was as spry as a young'un. It made me wonder how long I could stretch this machine out, whether or not its physical components would give out before the progressively greater demands of the OS would drive me back to the good ol' CLI for everything...

    --
    If not us, who? If not now, when?
  36. The perspective of a home user on updates by excelsior_gr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have been using computers for about 15 years now and here are my thoughts concerning OS updates and (to a lesser degree) updates in general:

    I try to avoid updates like hell.

    More often than not, an upgrade will tend to make the system slower, influence your user experience by changing the way you do stuff (for no apparent reason), and break things. So unless we are talking about an update that adds important functionality that is worth the risk it comes with, it just won't come anywhere near my system(s). Obviously, this way of filtering updates lets (most) security updates pass for machines that are online. I put really important systems on an air-gap network.

    The above also means that UI (or similar) updates are straight out. No UI is flawless. No OS comes complete with the functionality you wished for. Once you set up a system and adjust it so that it won't (badly) suck, then chances are that you will be finding ways to add functionality using 3rd party software, learn how to do things someone decided you are not supposed to (also known as "hacks" for you youngsters) and in general bring it to a state that you are more or less happy with.

    They why, oh why, do you have to go and mess it up?

    I'm not saying that I don't use the new stuff, but usually such new experiences also come with new machines that (in general) get fresh installations of the latest versions of everything that is needed. I found this to minimize the pain and time wasted, and most importantly, it puts you in control. If you perform a casual update and things go awry, then it is highly probable that you will be wasting time on trying to fix it, while you should be paying attention on more important things.

    1. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by allo · · Score: 2

      you're speaking like a typical windows user.
      update? oh no, it will break things, try to detect my pirated software and make everything slower.

      the typical linux user is more like:
      upgrade? cool, new features, more stable software, better drivers.

    2. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

      you're speaking like a typical windows user.
      update? oh no, it will break things, try to detect my pirated software and make everything slower.

      the typical linux user is more like:
      upgrade? cool, new features, more stable software, better drivers.

      and then the linux user wanders off and starts working on the dependecy graph.

    3. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      You are just trolling, but I will bite.

      For the record, yes, I'm a typical windows user. And, also for the record, I've also done my share of piracy while learning. I was just playing around with software I couldn't afford anyway, so nobody lost any money there. Now I use windows at work, paying and using software that costs thousands of dollars on a per seat/per year basis. Companies thankfully realized that if they don't let youngsters play with their software, guess what, they will also not care for it when they become paying professionals. Sadly, in my time such a thing as a "student" version was unheard of, so piracy was really the only option. There were 30-day trial versions though, which we practiced cracking to make them last more. Illegal? Maybe where you are from, but we were 18 years old and didn't give a rat's ass.

      At home I go with Fedora for my desktop, a Win7 netbook and an aging WinXP laptop that I am using right now. I also have quite a few legacy machines, going back to an 150 MHz Intel (that can still run Win98 nicely, updated from Win95). My Intel 80286 stopped working a while ago. It could run Windows 3.0 quite smoothly though (no updates were applied to that one, and no, not because of the warez).

      My Fedora machine is not connected to the internet and runs Fedora 7. If I wanted to upgrade something on it, I would pretty much have to dump the whole system because of the dependencies (kudos to Paradigma11 below for pointing this out). I will not bother (or risk) installing a "better" driver since the one that I have now runs smoothly (ATI blob) and what is there to upgrade anyway when the hardware itself is outdated? I would be surprised that someone even bothered to write a new driver for that piece of junk. Needless to say that the machine has been running fast, stable and smoothly for about five years now, and it will probably do so for at least another five. And I will still be using it for the stuff that it can do, because it will do then good. If I want new features, I buy new hardware. A new GUI is not a new feature, it is new eye candy. I want that too, and I get it with new hardware that can render the damn semi-transparencies.

      So, you see, all this has nothing to do with piracy, you were just thinking "lets go troll the windows user". In that one you were right (that I am, at least partially, a windows user), but everything else was besides the point.

    4. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Really ?.. I haven't had to worry about a dependency ever for an update.. EVER.. and thats not just my apt based distros.. I have not had to worry about dependencies at all for about 6 or 7 years now, and when I did, it was when I was doing some more complicated things involving compiling programs.. But that's the nature of the beast isn't it ?... When you do something more complicated, it's more complicated... I have gone the way of less complicated, and if it's not available in the repositories, then I don't need it.. Linux doesn't need to be difficult, and it's not unless you try to make it that way.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    5. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey,
      I'm using linux only since 15 years and i feel exactly like him. I used to enjoy it for most of the decade, now i'm using it mostly for back-compatibility reasons since i can't switch to other OS so easily, even for a dual-boot.
      Maybe at some point you will need to actually _use_ your computer (whatever the OS) instead of simply looking at its claimed "new features".. (which might cease to exists six months later anyway due to the fact that somebody decided that it's confusing users since it's not like windows or osx), then you will probably feel like us.

    6. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      upgrade? cool, new features, more stable software, better drivers.

      I have one word for you: PulseAudio.

      Windows updates these days are boring affairs, by the way. 99% of the time it's actually an update for anti-malware fingerprint database (for MSE, those are also distributed via Windows Update). About the only time there's something "exciting" there (or potentially breaking - depends on your perspective) is when a new version of IE comes out.

    7. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by allo · · Score: 1

      windows updates are slow (in download and installing) and opaque to the user. "is it done?" "reboot" "installing updates ... [while shutdown]". Start again: "installing updates [while booting]" "reboot required, because updates were installed" ... speaking for my win7 VM in VirtualBox, maybe this is making it worse than on a real pc.

    8. Re:The perspective of a home user on updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then the linux user wanders off and his package manager starts working on the dependecy graph.

      Fixed that for you

  37. Hypocrisy by StripedCow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Love the joke at 7:30: they're blocking Ubuntu packages that phone home, since they cannot afford to let work-data leave company premises... however, they CAN use Google Drive.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  38. Re:upgrade killed my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Not same poster as grandparent]. I only backup /home.

  39. Who gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they talk about how the incompetent clown known as Sundar Pichai is shutting down the Atlanta office and letting go a bunch of extremely talented engineers, many of them Google employees for 5+ years, just because he is as useless as Vic Gundotra? Those are the things I'm interested in, not in some stupid bastardized version of Ubuntu.

  40. Fascinating talk by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I found this a fascinating talk. I was particularly intrigued by the their "canary" rollouts to small subsets of users.

    Traditionally, the companies I worked for developed and tested locked-down images, taking many months to complete the testing. Rollouts were rare, maybe once a year. Only critical updates got rolled out because of the potential for breaking systems.

    Google's "canary" approach seems to be a means of radically reducing the testing time for patches and updates, allowing far more frequent updates than the "traditional" approach to desktop image management.

    And I agree whole heartedly: Computers will always fail. One of the tenets of real time systems design is to allow for bad signals, unexpected inputs, and failures of the components you're talking to. Google seems to have simply expanded that philosophy to cover their entire infrastructure.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  41. twm, baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much of the graphical "interface" debris is completely pointless. No one *CARES* if your terminal windows have fuzzy, 3D rounded edges and a hundred applications icons cleverly listed in a featureful manner that *no one ever tested on anyone but the developer who wrote it*.

    So I continue to use "twm" as my basic window manager. I can run a file browser to find applications, but lord, my graphical interface is so much faster than Ubuntu, Debian's, SuSE's, or Fedora's overloaded pieces of overdressed eye candy that I'm actively earning more than my colleagues for faster, better work.

  42. And this is why the Enterprise uses Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The entire process of upgrading can take as much as four months, and it is also quite expensive, as one reboot or a small change can cost them as much as a million dollars across the company."

    As opposed to Windows, which has built-in upgrade tools, allowing upgrades to be done within a boot cycle.

    Even funnier is how you look at the epic failures of places like Munich, which tried and miserably failed at being "zero Microsoft" shops.

    1. Re:And this is why the Enterprise uses Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS ... Upgrading Windows is much more of a hassle for companies. Often, they skip several (!) releases of Windows to keep the cost as low as humanly possible.

      If you've ever done a manual upgrade of Windows (from one release to another), you know you're lying. Upgrading Windows takes several reboots (at least 3-4). Upgrading Linux takes only one reboot.

      Munich only showed that a bunch of incompetent people tried to roll out Linux ... they claimed most of the cost came from writing device drivers, which is bullshit b/c Linux already has device drivers for just about anything. Every person who's halfway proficient in business practice knows that you don't develop a device driver if it's cheaper to purchase a new device that is compatible with existing drivers. Not to mention that CUPS is ridiculously powerful.

      There's a lot of "Linux experts" that fiddle around with manual package compilation etc. that is completely unnecessary if you use only the packages that are available in the repositories.

      What's even worse is that companies like RedHat already provide the complete infrastructure necessary for large rollouts of Linux. So there's no need to mess with manual setups that don't work.

      Had Munich relied on the expertise of advanced Linux shops like RedHat or Novell, the migration would've been painless.

      BTW, Munich still does use Linux for servers, just not on desktops anymore, but that's their own fault (and problem).

      Windows migrations (from one release to the next) are MUCH MUCH more painful. You obviously never witnessed one.

  43. Re:upgrade killed my computer by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    If you've used cars since the time you basically had to build them from scratch yourself, yes, I think that's a rather reasonable assumption. God, I remember the hell that was debian in the nineties.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  44. Debian by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

    I couldn't decide between fast and lightweight distros so I tried Debian as a temp solution. I've had Debian squeze on my Thinkpad for the last 1,5 year, and it really is an out-of-the-box great experience.

    I installed the nvidia driver, chrome,
    java and AssaultCube and was ready to go.

    For me it provides the safe harbor when slackware distros demand human sacrifice to work. I dual-boot to Haiku-OS as the fast web browser OS.

    No one is amazed at the looks. But they would be if they tried it!

  45. Re:upgrade killed my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Why didn't he just backup his crap and install it back later? I've had numerous problems with Linux during the GCC 3.x days (when the x86 code generator was buggy), and I still ALWAYS back up my crap even if my systems often have several months of uptime and I rarely encounter a problem nowadays. The advantage of doing so is obviously that it's trivial to update or reinstall a new release (or even migrate to different distros or OSes). I don't get those guys who say "yeah I've been a supporter of Linux since the early days but now I don't like it anymore" -- Linux is so much better nowadays than it ever was. I fucking hate Windows, and no-one's going to get me to use it for daily work or leisure ever again. There's even commercial software for Linux that provides everything a user could possibly want (including playing back video, DVD and Blu-Ray legally with proper licenses). And WINE's better than ever if you do need to run some Windows app (not to mention things like VirtualBox, QEMU etc.).

  46. Re:posting as AC by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    People may actually listen to your points, except you outed yourself with "a shithole full of dumb tribal niggers". Sorry, but racism is clear evidence of imbalanced thought processes and makes your entire argument suspect.

  47. Guess I'll throw away my computer now. by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

    > Unity 2D is likely to disappear in 12.10

    No. I don't need compositing to edit a spreadsheet, thanks.