Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 16.10 Released, Ready to Download (omgubuntu.co.uk)
After six months of development, Ubuntu 16.10, the latest stable release of the world's most popular desktop Linux distro, is now available to download. The ISO image file of Ubuntu 16.10 is a little larger (up from 1.4GB to 1.5GB). OMGUbuntu talks about the new features (condensed): Ubuntu 16.10 is not a big update over Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, released back in April. If you were hoping it'd be a compelling or must-have upgrade you'll be sadly disappointed. There are a number of small improvements to the Unity desktop and the Compiz window manager that powers it. Improvements that help everything work that little bit faster, and that little bit smoother. Ubuntu 16.10 also performs better in virtual machines thanks to the new Unity Low Graphics Mode. An all-new version of the Nautilus file manager also features, and is packed with some significant UI and UX differences. Plus, as always, there's a newer Linux kernel to enjoy.
...Maybe in a few weeks. Thanks in advance to all you brave unpaid QA's!
Bye!
Hasn't it been Linux Mint for a while?
Modern app appers ONLY app apps using the Appdows 10 apperating app, NOT LUDDITE software like LUDDITE Ubuntu!
Apps!
I'll wait for Kubuntu, thanks. The latest versions of Unity and Gnome are awful.
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
Also don't want.
231-9git1, 231 being the upstream systemd version and 9git1 being the ubuntu-specific version tag.
I found out the chip is the Realtek 8192CU.
Well, just seen some github thing to compile. Before that I had found some crap from TP-Link that said install these tons of devel packages, then try to compile it but we provide it only on Ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3.16. Didn't try (had to lend the dongle to Windows 7 users)
But.. hard to download and compile things when you don't have internet on the machine, don't think so?
Anyway, had a look at TFS. It's using the file manager from Gnome 3. Well, if you're going to have a limited environment where you only run firefox, the file manager and VLC, do you want some weirdass file manager with a special toolbar. But still, I'll be able to try 16.10 soon, Mate version on a PowerPC Mac G5 - I wonder if it will be fast enough to play 480p html5 video in full screen. I remember five years back, these stupid G5 thingies were crippled by the lack of Flash. Well, I miss the 4:3 TV and VCR, and I don't have a lawn.
I don't expect anything good from this release. I think Canonical should focus more on LTS releases. This 6-month stupid BS isn't enough for testing nowadays.
ubuntu comes with a no systemd option.
I have always upgraded Ubuntu to the latest version. But 16.04 is LTS and the rate of change is not very high (it was long since I needed to upgrade to get something I did not have access to in the earlier version). So I think about remaining on LTS, for the first time ever. Thoughts on that?
I learned along time ago to stick with LTS releases. I would tell you horror stories, but I don't want to trigger PTSD. I'm sure other here have stories.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
How? I'd do anything to get it off our systems. Seems like almost every day we hit a niggling bug and the bugtraq just shows "shrug, doesn't seem like a concern, will not fix". Absolutely driving us nuts.
ubuntu comes with a no systemd option.
Good to know.
- How does one use it?
- How do you KNOW no systemd hair is still tangled in your system?
- Do all the components work correctly when you opt out of systemd? Nothing breaks or performs substantially more poorly?
- Are they all supported as well in both environments? No obscure "gotcha"s?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Or, you can do without that unity crap and get the minimal install with only the things that are required to boot the system and install the rest. No graphics but you can install it later.
http://cdimages.ubuntu.com/net...
The good thing with this is that you have a very customizable system but it is still Ubuntu, so it tends to be well supported by third parties. Debian has a minimal install too and it is pretty much interchangeable with Ubuntu.
and for all those people who have such hate for systemd.... How many actually had used init.d?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now why can't /. ever post about new versions of Tails when they're released. I only read about negative news surrounding Tor.
Honest question: in what use case does systemd bother you? Or do you even so much as notice what system is running?
I mean, passion for a desktop environment, that I get. Or text editors. That's where your interaction with the system is. But such a low level thing as an init system / device manager / login manager?
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
Honest question: in what use case does systemd bother you?
I'm in a startup, still on angel funding and strapped for resources, building a multi-layered platform. One of the four-or-more layers is implemented on a machine about the power of a smartphone/credit-card-computer in the raspberry/beaglebone/etc. class. That layer needs an O.S., and it's internet-facing, so it needs to be secure - and auditable.
Posix-compatible OSes, such as Linux, should be ideal. But there's that little matter of being reasonably sure that they're not full of security holes or reliability issues, and doing so on a shoestring, using a handfull of people who have a LOT of OTHER stuff to do in order to get through the market window before the wolf gets to our door.
Even if systemd were solid as a rock and the best thing in init systems since pre-slicing was applied to bread, it's an extra complication - with its fingers in a lot of pies. That makes security auditing much harder and more time consuming. And THAT makes it "more expensive than money" for us - to the point that the current move of Linux versions to systemd may drive us to abandon Linux entirely for something else. (OpenBSD would be one contender. A plethora of other, stripped-down-to-minimal-functionality, OSes also come to mind.) (The main reason we haven't done so already is that we can't afford that effort, either, until our concept's proven and we must bite the security bullet in order to ship.)
One of the great things about pre-systemd Unix and unix-like systems was the design philosophy, which explicitly drove strong modularity, with simple modules that did single jobs and were easy to check - or encapsulate. (This was one of its big advantages over things like Windows, where all the apps were in bed with each other and any security hole in one became a security hole in many.) Systemd violates that philosophy.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Haha!
Is this the full Mir based release we've been waiting for? I'm not going to bother trying Ubuntu again until that ancient X crap has been stripped out of it.
I don't use Linux on the desktop. I use it for servers. systemd is constantly getting into the way of system administration tasks. Viewing logs, creating and controlling services, stability and reliability, etc.
systemd isn't as "low level" as you think. Many people, myself included, have to interact with it directly on a daily basis. It has its fingers in too many things and is still trying to take over more and that's frustrating.
You need OpenBSD for sure.
I was going to say FreeBSD if you need something .... then read down where you mentioned OpenBSD :-)
If you really are not a super expert with security there are cloud options as Azure has a custom version of FreeBSD where MS backported the tools back to FreeBSD 11 and I am sure Amazon has an EC3 already configured with either BSD option.
It costs more money when you get hits but starting up you maybe fine using a cloud provider and then move to your own servers when you get the money rolling in where you can get a security consultant to help out.
I am sure you can do Linux auditing. I see this repeated over here and usually someone always gives a response of you are doing it wrong just do x and y in systemD, but I am not an expert on SystemD by any sense of the means.
http://saveie6.com/
I don't use Linux on the desktop. I use it for servers. systemd is constantly getting into the way of system administration tasks. Viewing logs, creating and controlling services, stability and reliability, etc.
systemd isn't as "low level" as you think. Many people, myself included, have to interact with it directly on a daily basis. It has its fingers in too many things and is still trying to take over more and that's frustrating.
You do know you can do all of this. Binary logs is a feature as a hacker can rewrite /var/logs/x to hide his or her attempts with init. So you need to use the right tools and yes you can turn on text logging too if you want, but I agree with the decision of using binary logs as Windows, Solaris, Mainframes, and other platforms use binary logging.
http://saveie6.com/
The text logging has to pass through journald, so if you compromise journald the text logs are worth squat all.
and for all those people who have such hate for systemd.... How many actually had used init.d?
You don't necessarily have to have experience with sysvinit to hate systemd. For many it is making such a compelling argument on its own that you don't need to compare it to other systems.
I feel so sig.