Is ubuntu really ready ???

[steve007]

I was told that installing Ubuntu was a simple 10 step process.

No way! Yes its simple ten step to install, but it doesnt work.

I have an x server wont start error (amongst others!) and I dont think its
ready for people to install "like windows" by menu driven options.

Has anyone else had problems installing?

[rbrimhall]

Yeah, I got a blank screen as well on my laptop with the official cds... though the pre-release worked fo=ine (just the wrong resolution)... Ubuntu is much easier than most distros though in terms of configuration and will only get better. I think a configuration should be introduced in the installer to test video settings and configure X.

[jdong]

Well, unsupported hardware and failure of the autoconfig happen very very rarely! And do we need a reminder of WINDOWS with unsupported hardware ;)

In the Linux world, Ubuntu has one of the absolute best installers!

[kris kincaid]

I had no problems installing Ubuntu. This is distro has by far been the easiest to setup. I have quit using Windows, and I have never been able to say that with past distros. Everything about Ubuntu I like!

:D

[ra1]

Well, i must say that i had absolutely no problems whatsoever with Ubuntu. It just works.

[matt]

Prior to Ubuntu, I had never installed Linux before. I'd installed various Windows and Mac OSs, but this was my Linux distro on my own computer (my extremely limited prior experience was on friends' machines).

It was simple and flawless. Ubuntu "just worked."

Based on my experience, I'd have to say Ubuntu is ready...I would (and have) recommend it to anyone.

[CowPie]

Well, unsupported hardware and failure of the autoconfig happen very very rarely! And do we need a reminder of WINDOWS with unsupported hardware ;)

In the Linux world, Ubuntu has one of the absolute best installers!
HI jdong, disagree. UBuntu uses "two step" installer, legacy of Debian. IMO this is the horrible method, and as soon as UBuntu gains agood installer I can recommend it.

Also it is text based, not that I recommend something like crap Anaconda though ;) Maybe YaST?

[mark]

HI jdong, disagree. UBuntu uses "two step" installer, legacy of Debian. IMO this is the horrible method, and as soon as UBuntu gains agood installer I can recommend it.

Also it is text based, not that I recommend something like crap Anaconda though ;) Maybe YaST?
The graphical-vs-text-based installer issue is going to be with us for quite a while, I fear. And while I don't intend to get involved in a "holy war"<g>, FWIW, I prefer a clean, straight-forward text-based installer to a graphical one that is either hiding everything that's going on or bombarding me with hyperbole while it does its business.

I do not say that the Ubuntu (Warty) installer is the best I've used; I will say that it's far from the worst. As for the "perfect" installer - well, see Next Year's Model (maybe!) <g>.

Mark

[burlap]

Not really.

Installation is pretty ok (comparing to sarge at least...), for me it was once flawless and once I had to reboot (no X, no other terminals). It is not a problem as most of windows (98) installations I have experienced had to be repeated.

The problem begins later - setting up ubuntu is as difficult as almost any other distro, especially when you have an old machine (grub menu.lst editting is necessary), dial-up (nightmare) and wireless (relatively easy). The performance makes it up, but you have go through typical linux problems first.

And finally text vs. graphical. Ubuntu text-based is good enough, I have nothing against anaconda, actually I had some problems with yast. One thing I would recommend is some info on packages - why and how to change them later.

[jdodson]

The graphical-vs-text-based installer issue is going to be with us for quite a while, I fear. And while I don't intend to get involved in a "holy war"<g>, FWIW, I prefer a clean, straight-forward text-based installer to a graphical one that is either hiding everything that's going on or bombarding me with hyperbole while it does its business.

I do not say that the Ubuntu (Warty) installer is the best I've used; I will say that it's far from the worst. As for the "perfect" installer - well, see Next Year's Model (maybe!) <g>.

Mark

i agree. the ubuntu installer gets the job done, it is a bit terse at times, however compared to winxp installer, the ubuntu one is much easier to use imo.

i guess this issue seems pretty moot as how much does anyone install gnu/linux? if you did a CD install every ubuntu release that would only make for 2 times a year. however if you add in multiple machines, and installs for people it just get easier to install.

not sure why everyone is coming down on anaconda, i found it very simple to install redhat/fedora using anaconda.

[zenwhen]

Ubuntu works perfectly on my Dekstop and server. This thread is a PERFECT example of "trolling for help". :P

steve007, you could have just posted in a support forum on these forums and we would have helped you without this thread and its "your distro sucks, prove me wrong" undertones.

[CowPie]

i agree. the ubuntu installer gets the job done, it is a bit terse at times, however compared to winxp installer, the ubuntu one is much easier to use imo.

i guess this issue seems pretty moot as how much does anyone install gnu/linux? if you did a CD install every ubuntu release that would only make for 2 times a year. however if you add in multiple machines, and installs for people it just get easier to install.

not sure why everyone is coming down on anaconda, i found it very simple to install redhat/fedora using anaconda.
Hi, well Anaconda asks so many questions, takes a long time, plus its ugly. I think Xandros installre is the perfect one for Linux, too bad its closed source :>:

[HiddenWolf]

I was told that installing Ubuntu was a simple 10 step process.

No way! Yes its simple ten step to install, but it doesnt work.

I have an x server wont start error (amongst others!) and I dont think its
ready for people to install "like windows" by menu driven options.

Has anyone else had problems installing?


It isn't as polished as Suse/redhat, but we're getting there.