PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] Upgrade or stick with what I know and love?



scratman
October 2nd, 2011, 07:06 PM
Hi guys.

I'm still using Ubuntu 10.10, because I really don't like Unity, and was not impressed with the GNOME implementation in 11.04, along with some hardware and software compatibility issues and a few stability niggles. There was nothing that was an absolute showstopper, I just didn't see anything in 11.04 that made me want to put the effort in at the time, 10.10 does what I need it to do, and I'm happy with that.

I'm just wondering whether there is anything at all in 11.10 that will make me want to install this distro, or just seed the .iso as I did with 11.04. I've read the release notes and some reviews, but frankly there doesn't seem to be anything inspiring about Oneiric Ocelot:- changing the email software and updating the default browser don't merit attention, frankly.

In particular, I read this review:- http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Ubuntu-11-10-Features-218467.shtml

Are they the big news stories, because if they are, I think I'll keep what works for me. Is there anything in 11.10 that should get me excited that isn't included above?

Peace and love folks

Scratman.

Copper Bezel
October 2nd, 2011, 07:23 PM
I've read the release notes and some reviews, but frankly there doesn't seem to be anything inspiring about Oneiric Ocelot:- changing the email software and updating the default browser don't merit attention, frankly.
The big change is the move to the Gnome 3 libraries and applications. All the little everyday applications got a facelift and are slightly lighter as I understand it, and the theming kit is entirely new. The Unity interface is also much improved, as you can see from the images. The stability issues in early Natty should be less of an issue as well, since they resulted largely from the Compiz rewrite and have tamed dramatically since.

But 10.10 has support until 12.04 is released, so if it's doing everything you need it to do, there's no stress.

3Miro
October 2nd, 2011, 07:31 PM
Since 11.10 moves to Gnome 3 and GTK3, it is bond to be somewhat buggy. If you feel like experimenting, then give it a try, if you want something stable, then hold for now.

12.04 will be the next LTS and it should be more stable. You can stick with 10.10 until then. 12.04 will have Unity and optional Gnome-shell. This is the safest bet for using new software.

If you like what you have in 10.10, then I suggest you switch to Debian. It is a bit more hassle to set up, but once you have it running, you will be able to use Gnome 2 for another 3 years. This is the most stable option, although it means using somewhat older software.

scratman
October 2nd, 2011, 10:52 PM
Using older software is not an issue, frankly if I had an issue using older software, Ubuntu wouldn't be my operating system of choice, and Unity would probably be more attractive to me. My issue is not the age of the software, but the usability of the system as a whole. Unity was not suited to my thought processes or working methods, and for that reason I choose not to use it.

As far as I can see, Unity has taken Macintosh's "We know best" philosophy and Windows' "Make it look fun for kids, but make it difficult to customise at the same time", resulting in a system that is a long way from what I wish to use. And then didn't release a stable version back in April.

If I want cutting edge and buggy software, then I'll use Arch, if I want a system that I can't configure, or has a V-Tech inspired theme with stability issues, Windows and Mac cater for those desires. What I want is what Ubuntu 10.10 gave me, simple, logical, customisable and stable. And frankly, if all the new release has to offer is new libraries supporting the whole thing, and fewer annoyances with Unity, I really don't see how 11.10 is worth the leap.

It seems to me a little bit like Microsoft's Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 story, OK yeah, there were a great many things that were novel and interesting about Vista and 7, but frankly, when it comes to getting things done, XP is still the weapon of choice for the majority of Windows users, and 10.10 is likely to remain the weapon of choice for this Ubuntu user.

vwbug
October 2nd, 2011, 10:56 PM
I only upgrade from one LTS to the next. And then I usually wait awhile to make sure all/most of the bugs are worked out.

mrgs
October 2nd, 2011, 11:01 PM
I would stick to 10.10 for as long as it is supported and switch to Xubuntu after that. Try a live boot and see if you like it.

drawkcab
October 2nd, 2011, 11:23 PM
You couldn't be more right. Sadly, we'll have to move on from gnome 2.x at some point. I don't think xfce is on par with Gnome 2.x yet, but it might be the way forward for a lot of us. 4.8 has given xubuntu users a lot of nice improvements.

I do wonder, however, how gnome applications will play with other desktop environments in the immediate future.

Copper Bezel
October 3rd, 2011, 05:27 AM
It seems to me a little bit like Microsoft's Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 story, OK yeah, there were a great many things that were novel and interesting about Vista and 7, but frankly, when it comes to getting things done, XP is still the weapon of choice for the majority of Windows users, and 10.10 is likely to remain the weapon of choice for this Ubuntu user.
Ubuntu has LTS releases every two years, roughly the same period between Windows releases save for the gap in XP, and the last LTS was 10.04. 10.10 dies in April 2012, while 10.04 dies in April 2013. 10.04 is the old and stable release that many users are sticking with.

Just to clarify this - 10.10 might be your personal XP, but 10.04 is the actual XP, if you want to make that comparison. = ) (And of course, Ubuntu didn't exist as an OS at the time Windows XP was launched, and the differences between 10.04 and 11.10 are smaller than the differences between Vista and 7.)


If I want cutting edge and buggy software, then I'll use Arch, if I want a system that I can't configure, or has a V-Tech inspired theme with stability issues, Windows and Mac cater for those desires.
And, again, if you want a system that takes it slow and steady as a matter of principle, you'll use Debian.


What I want is what Ubuntu 10.10 gave me, simple, logical, customisable and stable. And frankly, if all the new release has to offer is new libraries supporting the whole thing, and fewer annoyances with Unity, I really don't see how 11.10 is worth the leap.
No one actually suggested that you should upgrade. = / I simply answered your question about what's new.

polardude1983
October 3rd, 2011, 04:31 PM
For myself I usually upgraded from release to release. But then I hit 11.04 and well I downgraded to 10.04. 11.10 seems really interesting but I think I will stay with the desktop that I love till 12.04 comes out. That way i can do an easy upgrade from LTS to LTS. 12.04 isn't now to far away.

lykwydchykyn
October 3rd, 2011, 04:52 PM
And, again, if you want a system that takes it slow and steady as a matter of principle, you'll use Debian.


I was about to say this myself. Based on the constant streams of complaints about Ubuntu's development cycle, Unity, plymouth, etc -- I honestly wonder why more people aren't just using Debian.

3Miro
October 3rd, 2011, 05:16 PM
To me, it seems like scratman would be happiest with Debian 6. It is basically 10.10 that is very stable and supported for another 3 years or so.

Debian isn't for everyone, for example I wouldn't run Sandy Bridge graphics on any kernel pre 2.6.37. Setting it up is also a bit harder.

Moving to newer software is a dilemma for people dissatisfied with both Unity and Gnome-shell. I think the main problem with XFCE is the way it is implemented in most distributions. Distros first take Gnome and then to get XFCE, they just replace some components of Gnome. The result is not clean XFCE, but a Gnome/XFCE. I find my Gentoo XFCE build better than any Gnome 2. I still use some Gnome apps like Evince, but I have no conflicting sound applets or slow panel running Gnome-applets or Thunar conflicting with Nautilus.

beew
October 3rd, 2011, 10:17 PM
I am running 10.10 on my main machine and probably not going to trade it in for 11.10 til Feb or March (or 11.04 if 11.10 turns out to be buggy because of switching to gnome3) unless there are some really compelling reasons. It is not because I don't like Unity, but since I have a good thing going why break it? I have the most updated softwares through ppas, install from source and .debs (LibreOffice 3.4.3 which is not availiable in Natty's repo, I installed the .deb manually) so I don't need to update the whole OS just to get up to date software.

On my other machines I am running Natty with Unity, it is faster than 10.10 and is quite stable too, I like it quite a bit so aside from the hassels I have no problem updating my main machine to 11.04, just don't feel I need to. I have not tried 11.10 except for one day with beta2 until updating with xorg-edgers broke Unity. I think there are quite a bit of issues to work out because of switching to gnome3, I am going to wait.

beew
October 3rd, 2011, 10:44 PM
Using older software is not an issue, .

It can be an issue if some older software doesn't work or doesn't work well (media players for example). Not trying to derail the thread I think the repo freeze is seriously hurting Ubuntu's competitiveness. While the newest is not always the greatest it is insane to have to wait 6 months to get a version update or bug fix for any software you install (and that's if you don't mind the hassels and risks of trading in a working OS for a newly released and therefore most likely buggy one) So I use a lot of ppas and install some from .debs and compile some from source. I basically make my Ubuntu install quasi-rolling and that is the best in all worlds IMO.

drs305
October 3rd, 2011, 10:54 PM
With each new release, we inevitably get posts such as "How Can I Revert to ....". And the answer, if a backup wasn't made, is that you can't without reinstalling.

So my advice is, if you make the decision to upgrade, make a backup copy of your existing installation. That way, if you are unhappy or run into problems, you can easily revert.

There are several ways to create a backup image. Although it's not often discussed here, I like 'fsarchiver'. It makes a complete backup of the partition (not an image) in an .fsa file, which can be restored to any partition as large as the original. (For functionality of Grub, fstab, etc, it's best to restore to the same partition but it's not required).

I use it as a regular backup of my OS, but it would be a good candidate as insurance if you decide to upgrade.

The fsarchiver is a simple command-line backup. There are lots of options, which you see in 'man fsarchiver', but the one I use is:

sudo fsarchiver savefs -z 3 -v backup.fsa /dev/sda5
About the only drawback is I run it from another OS/Ubuntu installation, or the SystemRescueCD, on which it is preinstalled.

tartalo
October 4th, 2011, 02:21 AM
I already decided I won't update any of my computers to Ubuntu 11.10, I tried Unity and Gnome 3 and can't get anything done with any of both, so I started looking at my options.

The short term solution is to stay in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. But the main problem is not that Unity and Gnome 3 are very buggy now, it's that the concept itself is a huge step backwards in usability.

In the middle-term, Ubuntu variants are a natural alternative. LXDE is in a very usable state and fells really fast, but I missed the network manager. XFCE is a serious candidate to substitute Gnome 2 and it's also faster. KDE is full featured and visually very pleasant, and although it fells slower than Gnome 2 I get things done faster in KDE than in Unity or Gnome 3.

In the long term I'm afraid I'll have to leave Ubuntu completely. It looks like Ubuntu users will soon become the betatesters of wayland too, and judging by how things are going lately I expect that the fallback to Xorg will be happily removed before things work properly.

When computers as we know them are gone and everything has a touchscreen and people buy apps from the Ubuntu Store, these brave decisions will make a lot of sense, I guess. But since I don't plan to throw my regular PCs to the trashcan anytime soon I'll have to find an OS for regular PCs.

For now I only tried Debian 6, some hardware can be an issue if there is no working free driver, and if it affects the network card it's really annoying. I'll keep trying distros.

Khakilang
October 4th, 2011, 07:19 AM
I want to stick to LTS but my situation doesn't permit. Sold my hard disk, break my system and hard disk crash are the few reason I move to the latest version. Of course I prefer the one that work for another 3 years or so but again it depend on circumstances.

KonfuseKitty
October 4th, 2011, 08:19 AM
I've gone the full circle from 10.04 to 10.10 to 11.04 and back to 10.04. The upgrading just didn't work out for me, even though I was being as careful as possible. I upgraded to 10.10 just before 11.04 came out, to make sure I wan't an 'early adopter'. That was relatively painless, but I lost sound and nothing would fix it. Now, just before 11.10 comes out, I upgraded to 11.04, and it's a disaster. Sound is back, but there's a XKB warning that comes up, and each mode - Unity, Classic, Classic with no effects - has its own issues. I've done a clean re-install of 10.04, and all is well again. Now I just need to learn more about Linux, so in 2013 I'm ready to switch distros if need be.

mrgs
October 4th, 2011, 10:06 AM
It is important to distinguish between problems originating from the new release and problems from the online upgrade itself.

An upgrade can break any system, no matter how well it is crafted. If you are going to try a new release, begin with a live boot and after that a fresh install. Most users should be able to free a few GB for experimenting (without deleting the old installation).

mips
October 4th, 2011, 11:46 AM
I NEVER upgrade unless I'm running a rolling distribution like Arch or Gentoo, just to many variables involved. Nothing like a clean install.