Ubuntu 16.10 Released, Ready to Download (omgubuntu.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu 16.10 Released, Ready to Download (omgubuntu.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:50AM from the new-ubuntu-delights dept.

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.

78 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 06:52 · Score: -1

Do not want.
1. Re:systemd by sittingnut · 2016-10-13 07:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ubuntu comes with a no systemd option.
2. Re:systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:systemd by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-10-13 09:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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
4. Re:systemd by jellomizer · 2016-10-13 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  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.
5. Re:systemd by Erik+Hensema · 2016-10-13 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:systemd by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-10-13 20:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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
7. Re:systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-14 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  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?
  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.
8. Re: systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-14 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  You need OpenBSD for sure.
9. Re:systemd by Billly+Gates · 2016-10-14 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  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/
10. Re:systemd by Billly+Gates · 2016-10-14 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  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/
11. Re:systemd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-15 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  The text logging has to pass through journald, so if you compromise journald the text logs are worth squat all.
12. Re:systemd by bankman · 2016-10-17 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Xubuntu, here I come! by ADRA · 2016-10-13 06:53 · Score: 1

...Maybe in a few weeks. Thanks in advance to all you brave unpaid QA's!

--
Bye!
1. Re:Xubuntu, here I come! by fbobraga · 2016-10-13 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  anyone here knows if http://lubuntu.net/ will use LXQT (instead of LXDE) by default on 16.10?
2. Re: Xubuntu, here I come! by taxman_10m · 2016-10-13 10:22 · Score: 2
  
  No, it will not.
3. Re: Xubuntu, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks
Most popular? by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-13 06:58 · Score: 2

world's most popular desktop Linux distro
Hasn't it been Linux Mint for a while?
1. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Distrowatch itself affirms that its page rankings are "a light-hearted way of measuring the popularity of Linux distributions and other free operating systems among the visitors of this website. They correlate neither to usage nor to quality, and should not be used to measure the market share of distributions. They simply show the number of times a distribution page on DistroWatch.com was accessed each day, nothing more."
  https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0278lsn,%2Fm%2F03x5qm
2. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Which is basically Ubuntu + some stuff. You can arguably claim that the stuff is significant enough to make it its own distro, but it still contributes to the number of people running Ubuntu.
3. Re:Most popular? by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-13 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  So, Debian?
4. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  That is pretty close to saying Debian is the number one distro :P
5. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I would argue that Debian and Ubuntu are different enough to be separate distributions. Every Mint release is still based on an Ubuntu release, unless I'm mistaken they even use the Ubuntu package repositories directly. Ubuntu on the other hand has its own release process and at least rebuilds the packages that they import from Debian, often adding their own additions.
6. Re:Most popular? by i.r.id10t · 2016-10-13 07:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Of course, there is also LMDE - Linux Mint Debian Edition. Rollign release based on Debian -testing plus some customized Mint stuff.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
7. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  Hasn't it been Linux Mint for a while?
  Well it was for many, until they removed all the really useful [multimedia] codecs from their .ISO downloads.
  There is no option for them at all now [via ISO], unless you install the distribution first and then seek them out. So it was a unique distribution for that for a time. Now I see no compelling reason to even visit their site let alone use what they distribute.
8. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  No thanks. I'll wait for the GNU/Linux Mint Debian Ubuntu Wigwam Edition.
9. Re:Most popular? by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-13 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. You're right.
  http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
  This sucks. Systemd, no codec in ISO...
10. Re:Most popular? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-19 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  not according to Del, Microsoft and system 76 to name a few. it takes more than page hits at distrowatch to sit comfortably at the adult. The big boys see ubuntu as the most popular but also as built by a company that will support them and work with them besides having a large community.
  if you are talking just popular with community users it could be. mint has a nice following.
More LUDDITE garbage! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:00 · Score: 0

Modern app appers ONLY app apps using the Appdows 10 apperating app, NOT LUDDITE software like LUDDITE Ubuntu!

Apps!
1. Re:More LUDDITE garbage! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  what about apperating apps apping apps without appdevs apping apps?
  apps!
Kubuntu by Dadoo · 2016-10-13 07:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I'll wait for Kubuntu, thanks. The latest versions of Unity and Gnome are awful.

--
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
1. Re:Kubuntu by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-13 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  The latest versions. You mean, the last 22 ones or so?
2. Re:Kubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Kubuntu is awesome, no doubt, but I prefer Gnome, so those are fightin' words.
  Wait. We can both agree that Unity sucks, so we are good. ;)
3. Re:Kubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Maybe you should try Neon? It's the latest Ubuntu LTS with the latest KDE binaries on top.
4. Re:Kubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Kubuntu was my distro of choice for a long time. Unfortunately, they've followed Plasma 5 over the cliff.
  I'm still on Linux Mint 17.3 KDE. I really hope Plasma 5 gets there, but it's taking a lot longer than KDE4 did.
5. Re:Kubuntu by blackomegax · 2016-10-13 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Try neon. Plasma 5.8 LTS is baller
6. Re:Kubuntu by dargaud · 2016-10-13 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  2 questions:
  - is it possible to go from the current Kubuntu version to Neon without breaking anything ?
  - how stable is Neon and is it one of those pet projects that'll die off as soon as his only maker graduates from high school ?
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
7. Re:Kubuntu by DMFNR · 2016-10-13 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  https://neon.kde.org/faq
  
  Sounds like it's basically just Kubuntu with a preinstalled KDE PPA. Given that it has it's own page under KDE's domain, I'm sure it's more than just a teenager in his basement hacking it together, but like all things in open source it all depends on having people willing to do the work. As far as the upgrade, it says it's possible in the aforementioned FAQ... at your own risk of course. You'd probably have to read a bit more depending on what software you use, it sounds like things that are dependent and the KDE 4 libraries might break, so that may or may not be an issue for you. Otherwise you can always give it a shot, just make sure you keep track of every step involved in the process so that if everything goes tits up you are prepared to reverse it.
8. Re:Kubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  It has several paid full time developers by Bluesystems
9. Re:Kubuntu by dargaud · 2016-10-13 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  On one of my many systems I performed the upgrade from kubuntu to neon as indicated and it worked but it was a close call with a lot of breakage for a while. Several iterations of update / upgrade / dist-upgrade in a console were necessary before the dust settled (had to remove kde-destop). Seems to be working fine now. Lots of visible differences.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
10. Re: Kubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-14 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  No, he means the last 11 twos or so.
Who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:19 · Score: -1

Ubuntu is for low lifes.
useless systemd comment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:19 · Score: 0

Also don't want.
Key question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:20 · Score: -1

What version of systemd is it running. I love systemd.
1. Re:Key question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  231-9git1, 231 being the upstream systemd version and 9git1 being the ubuntu-specific version tag.
Do wireless dongles from TP-Link work now? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 07:24 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Do wireless dongles from TP-Link work now? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  hahah tp-link.. toilet paper link is right..
  get a real adapter.
Yakkety Sux by SurenEnfiajyan · 2016-10-13 07:28 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Yakkety Sux by gigne · 2016-10-13 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  It's enough for limited internal testing. Who do you think the real QA team is here? Yup everyone who updates. I'll wait a while.
  
  --
  Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
2. Re:Yakkety Sux by SurenEnfiajyan · 2016-10-13 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Modern Linux OS-es are much more complex than say 8 years ago and 6-month cycle was fine that time. And that's why newer Ubuntu releases fell much more buggier. Ubuntu 16.04 was broken compared to 14.04 (when it just relesed).
3. Re:Yakkety Sux by jedidiah · 2016-10-13 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like an artificial problem created by the likes of systemd.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:Yakkety Sux by Blaskowicz · 2016-10-13 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  Ironically, 11.04 was a version I liked fine. It "offered" Unity (smooth, but empty), then after you spent a couple minute wondering how you get to launch a second terminal rather than constantly bringing the first one back, you could log out and choose a fully featured Gnome 2 instead.
  12.04 seemed fine but on the machines I installed it on, it suffered a little name change and got called "Linux Mint 13" instead. I'd almost go back to it. I used to look forward new versions as they'd be faster, less buggy, now it's more about whether the support for my graphics card will worsen, if there's some random regression or if there's some new GTK3 goo (not a big problem currently for me. GTK3 open/save dialog seems to have improved even).
Or stay on LTS by Zo0ok · 2016-10-13 07:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?
1. Re:Or stay on LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Same here. I used to do upgrades but ran into problems occasionally. The last time I tried an upgrade it went into a logon loop, accepting my username/password but looping back to the logon screen. Ever since that I just back up my home directory then do a full install only with LTS versions. I don't have the time or patience to fix bugs like that anymore. Oh yeah... Unity sucks. I start with Ubuntu Gnome then install gnome-flashback. If I wanted a shitty Metro interface I'd use Windows or Mac, but I like a traditional desktop. KDE, Mint, LXDE, and all the rest of the flavors just don't do it for me. It has to be gnome-flashback with compiz.
2. Re:Or stay on LTS by ilsaloving · 2016-10-13 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm doing the same thing. The differences are purely incremental, I haven't run into any significant bugs in current LTS, and some of the improvements (such as low-gfx mode) are going to be backported anyway, so.... I'm not going to update solely because I mindlessly covet the latest shiny.
3. Re:Or stay on LTS by somenickname · 2016-10-13 08:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's been a few years since the non-LTS versions were a compelling upgrade. Traditionally you'd upgrade if you needed a newer kernel (primarily for hardware support) or for some reason needed the newest version of a software package. These days those arguments are no longer very interesting because new kernels get backported to older versions and, if you just need a newer version of a specific package, using a PPA is easier than upgrading the entire system.
  The entire ecosystem has really stabilized at this point (with a few exceptions). At a superficial level, I'm not even sure if I could tell the difference between 14.04 and 16.04. So, I'd probably stick with the LTS versions unless you just want to fiddle with the latest bits. Ubuntu LTS versions make for excellent workhorse machines (both desktop and server) so if you are trying to get real work done, LTS is where you want to be.
4. Re:Or stay on LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  The vast majority of people are expected to stay on the 16.04 LTS release.
  That is officially the expected behaviour. You stay on the 16.04 LTS release and upgrade (if you like) to the 16.04.1 (since July), 16.04.2 (early 2017) and so on.
  You would only need to upgrade to the non-LTS release if you have very specific needs, like the updated Linux kernel.
5. Re:Or stay on LTS by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-10-13 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still on 14.04.
  It's also LTS, still supported for a few years. Having migrated some stuff to Upstart I have no interest in migrating them again to systemd.
  Maybe some time when I have a few spare weeks. Like after I've retired or something.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
6. Re:Or stay on LTS by Sesostris+III · 2016-10-13 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  I migrated from Mint LMDE (which was getting stale) to 16.04, and intend to stay there. I'll upgrade when 18.04.1 comes out. The few things for which I need the latest versions (Java JDK, VirtualBox) I upgrade separately anyway.
  
  (I originally left Ubuntu for Mint due to horror stories about Unity. To be honest, after using 16.04, I've now got used to it).
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
7. Re:Or stay on LTS by TimMD909 · 2016-10-13 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Stay on the LTS version you're running until the absolute latest possible moment. I've gone through a decade of Ubuntu updates, and I can say without doubt that it's always a pain in the ass. Every 3 years I lose a week or more of productivity due to things breaking, or being changed, or whatever. Much like a knee replacement, put it off as long as possible.
8. Re:Or stay on LTS by hcs_$reboot · 2016-10-13 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Depends. If it's a server, keep LTS. If it's on your laptop, jump to 16.10. There are always nice additions to the GUI between LTSes (like wifi support, applications,... and kernel upgrade that adds hardware support.)
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
9. Re:Or stay on LTS by hcs_$reboot · 2016-10-13 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Upgraded a server, laptop and desktop from 14.04 to 16.04. Had to rewrite one _specific_ upstart to systemd, and it took 10 minutes. Systemd is transparent. Besides, many kernel and database (and GUI for desktop/laptop) upgrades are worth the update.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
10. Re:Or stay on LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  Definitely stay, unless you need something specific from a non-LTS branch, or if you just want the latest and greatest / most cutting edge ... bugs. :)
11. Re:Or stay on LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  and some of the improvements (such as low-gfx mode) are going to be backported anyway
  Where may I find the status of the low graphics backport to 16.04?
12. Re:Or stay on LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  So I think about remaining on LTS, for the first time ever. Thoughts on that?
  The developers of Linux Mint decided to do just that. Their planned releases -- every 6 months -- are:
  Mint 18 (based on 16.04 LTS) -- already released
  Mint 18.1 (based on 16.04.1 LTS) -- to be released later this year
  Mint 18.2 (based on 16.04.2 LTS)
  Mint 18.3 (based on 16.04.3 LTS)
  Mint 19 (based on 18.04 LTS)
  etc.
  They started this pattern with Mint 17 (based on 14.04 LTS).
  By basing every release on LTS, they hope to improve the quality of their releases.
13. Re:Or stay on LTS by JanneM · 2016-10-13 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm using LTS for all my work machines. The last round I rarely felt I missed out on anything compared to my updated machine at home. I think it's perfectly reasonable to stay with LTS if you want. You can still update to newer versions of, say LibreOffice and similar applications using snaps if you need it.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
14. Re:Or stay on LTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  Probably /var full. If only there was a way to analyze this sort of problems.
15. Re:Or stay on LTS by ilsaloving · 2016-10-14 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't know. It was mentioned in the article. I personally don't care about that feature, so I didn't look into it further.
16. Re:Or stay on LTS by Billly+Gates · 2016-10-14 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I am waiting for Ubuntu 17.04 Don't Talk Back edition before I upgrade
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
17. Re:Or stay on LTS by armanox · 2016-10-14 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  You could give MATE + Compiz a shot, or TDE if you were a fan of KDE 3.x
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
New is not always better by wjcofkc · 2016-10-13 08:14 · Score: 1

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.
Minimal install by GuB-42 · 2016-10-13 10:27 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Minimal install by hcs_$reboot · 2016-10-13 14:41 · Score: 2
  
  No graphics but you can install it later
  And what do you install later? "ubuntu-desktop"??
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Minimal install by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  "And what do you install later? "ubuntu-desktop"??"
  Every t'ing you want!
Tails Linux - new version coming in Nov! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 13:39 · Score: 0

Now why can't /. ever post about new versions of Tails when they're released. I only read about negative news surrounding Tor.
Noobuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 20:32 · Score: 0

Haha!
1. Re:Noobuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-14 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Newbuttlube
Mir? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-14 01:59 · Score: 0

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.