To Ubuntu 13.04...or, not to Ubuntu 13.04 - Complete Disappointment

[peshko-lnx]

Guys, I don't want to poop on the party, but I don't want to make the thread unity vs non-unity. Frankly speaking I was a long time Gnome user, but I don't like Gnome3 and I like xfce. But all this is personal preference...

The idea if the thread was to point the fact that Canonical pasy less and less attention on testing and rather rushes releases out of the door prematurely. I was running 10.04 for years and recently I decided to try 13.04 it for me it was a complete failure!

There are way too many issues that keep out of completely moving to 13.04. I will try 13.10 and see how the development goes...but I just recompiled and installed kernel 3.9.3 and Ubuntu 13.04 looks a bit better. I suspect why they do not put it in mass release, but to me it is questionable...

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

Running Xubuntu with zero problems. I actually followed development of 13.04 a little in the Ubuntu +1 section of these pages. There was simply a feeling from quite early on that 13.04 was quite stable and this was indeed my own experience on those occasions when I tried out a development build of Ubuntu (not Xubuntu).

Not sure where this instense criticism of Ubuntu comes from but as someone used to running CentOS and Debian stable, I find the latest Ubuntu to be comparable to say Fedora or openSUSE. In other words, good for a modern desktop. Buggy, bloated and unstable? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I actually find criticism of Ubuntu getting buggier, more bloated and increasingly unstable with each new release. So maybe its detractors need to pull their finger out, hmm?

[Sam Mills]

The idea if the thread was to point the fact that Canonical pasy less and less attention on testing and rather rushes releases out of the door prematurely.

Then there are those that do research and prepare for a new release/buy/build linux compatible hardware. It's really a rather old concept. I'm sorry things didn't work out for you, but I have a high end laptop that will run anything. Because I did homework instead of running off to BestBuy and buying any old thing. Would you go to System76 if you wanted a Windows computer?

[Sam Mills]

Not sure where this instense criticism of Ubuntu comes from but as someone used to running CentOS and Debian stable, I find the latest Ubuntu to be comparable to say Fedora or openSUSE. In other words, good for a modern desktop. Buggy, bloated and unstable? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We all have different experiences based on our hardware. Those with compatible hardware have great experiences, and those who don't, not so much. I realize ubuntu won't work on every computer, (nothing will) that's why I choose hardware that's certified for ubuntu/linux. Sure, the average person won't follow that path, but then again ubuntu isn't targeted for my grandmother. Unless I install it for her, and maintain it. But I would have to do that with windows too.

Ubuntu is doing just fine, considering it gets little help from manufacturers. If your computer doesn't work right with Ubuntu, get one that does, or stay with what you know. No big deal. It doesn't really concern me that people love windows or mac. If that's your thing, that's cool.

If you want the best linux experience, buy a pc with linux preinstalled, or buy compatible hardware. Isn't that what windows and mac users do?

Btw, 13.04 has been pretty much perfect so far. For me. Good luck.

[ARooster]

In this day and age there are several computers (in various formats) around any household or workplace. When buying a new computer you can do research and squeeze out a bit of extra money and get a high-end PC, but a lighter weight OS with less bloat will run well on an older PC as well. This is why many people come to Ubuntu. A modern-looking OS without the need for the newest hardware to run it. Unity has removed that. The problem with this, the way I see it, is as soon as your OS requires "new hardware" to run it is competing with Windows and MacOS on their terms.

As far as buying compatible hardware, I would really like to know which graphic card works great out of the box with Ubuntu. Both nVidia and AMD have closed-source drivers, as far as I'm aware, Intel's no better. When Ubuntu doesn't even have the option to start with proprietary drivers (which it could probably download during installation as easily as it does the Fraunhofer mp3 decoder) and defaults to Noveau it forces you into sorting out issues before you're even done logging onto your account for the first time. This doesn't happen with Windows or Mac systems. I guess this is why Ubuntu is loosing out. It still requires some knowledge to install, thus driving away inexperienced users, while at the same time being a "modern OS" with all the bells and whistles that generally does not sit well with the hardcore Linux crowd.

Having said that, personally I like Unity as a productive desktop environment, it's less gimmicky than say Cairo dock or the Mac dock thing (I really hate it when buttons move around on mouse-over) and once you install the proper 3D-supported display driver it is reasonably stable. The buttons on the side bar work well (and as they don't move around or hide by default it's really a nice way of having all your most frequently used software available in a single mouse click. Kind of a tidier desktop with icons that also doubles as a task bar. For anyone who uses a lot of various pieces of software infrequently I would suggest installing the Classic Menu Indicator as the Dock takes quite a bit of getting used to and can be slower than browsing through the classic (GNOME 2) menus.

In my experience 13.04 is much more stable than 12.10, however, so I would definitely suggest 13.04 to anyone on 12.10. In fact, I find it is about as stable and as fast as the 12.04 LTS, but has a bit more polish.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

Intel graphics driver works out of the box, although I hear it's not great for games. Running Intel now and the shear joy of not having to fear Xorg updates cannot be conveyed through mere words. So here is a small picture to express how it makes me feel :

[Bucky Ball]

@ peshko-lnx: Stick to LTS and save the headache, then. It is a known fact that interim releases can be problematic and to expect the unexpected. If you want stability, install a stable OS and have a spare partition or two to play around with the interim releases. It is quite common. Why complain about something that is par for the course and a known fact, i.e. Interim releases are prone to crashes, especially after updates and especially within the first few months after release?

You have the proof: 10.04 is an LTS release and has been out for three years (and now EOL). 13.04 is interim and has been out not quite a month. Go figure. It's logical. One's a stable, tried and test over time workhorse with the bugs ironed out, the other is a wet behind the ears plaything which will stabilise probably just in time for it to reach EOL (by which time 14.04 LTS will have been released anyway).

You can upgrade directly to 12.04 LTS from 10.04 LTS (LTS is ALWAYS upgradeable directly to the next LTS when it is released without having to go through every interim release on the way). I'd install Xubuntu 12.04 LTS and get into it rather than wasting time on this. Good luck.

[prusswan]

Guys, I don't want to poop on the party, but I don't want to make the thread unity vs non-unity. Frankly speaking I was a long time Gnome user, but I don't like Gnome3 and I like xfce. But all this is personal preference...

The idea if the thread was to point the fact that Canonical pasy less and less attention on testing and rather rushes releases out of the door prematurely. I was running 10.04 for years and recently I decided to try 13.04 it for me it was a complete failure!

There are way too many issues that keep out of completely moving to 13.04. I will try 13.10 and see how the development goes...but I just recompiled and installed kernel 3.9.3 and Ubuntu 13.04 looks a bit better. I suspect why they do not put it in mass release, but to me it is questionable...

Well, direction has vastly changed between 10.04 (which runs much faster than 12.04 even on an old machine) and 13.04, now given their different position in the market, they kind of decided that luring people with eye-candy towards a more profitable business model, should be the way to go. Unity is just a small piece of the grand puzzle, but still a significantly annoying one. It's kind of like the Linux parallel to Windows 8, except that the group-think may go on for a little longer since they have less to lose compared to Microsoft.

[craig10x]

I wouldn't compare unity with windows 8 metro interface...unity is easy to use, intuitive and works well for either mouse or touch screens...metro is confusing to use, un-intuitive and only works well for touchscreens...

People go to apple stores (who have only known windows) and ooh and ahh over the mac interface...well, unity desktop is actually very mac like with a dock, global menu and a search that is also like the mac has...nothing annoying about that at all...does everything have to be like windows???

Also, i think the original poster is a little confused...gnome 3 has nothing to do with the interface....gnome itself actually has the gnome shell now...unity is a much sleeker, streamlined version that ubuntu created on it's own...gnome 3 works with gnome shell, unity, gnome fallback, even interfaces like linux mint's cinnamon desktop, and others...

[monkeybrain2012]

Well, direction has vastly changed between 10.04 (which runs much faster than 12.04 even on an old machine) and 13.04, now given their different position in the market, they kind of decided that luring people with eye-candy towards a more profitable business model, should be the way to go. Unity is just a small piece of the grand puzzle, but still a significantly annoying one. It's kind of like the Linux parallel to Windows 8, except that the group-think may go on for a little longer since they have less to lose compared to Microsoft.

Not sure what your point is. I started off with 10.04 and I can tell you everything works a lot better and smoother in 12.04 if you have relatively up to date hardware.My main labtop is 4 years old and got it for $600 in a sale, hardly high end, in 10.04 I have to install the Nvidia driver or the graphic is really glitchy, it wouldn't even work with something like google earth, now I can use nouveau out of the box with all the eye candies and it is smooth as silk (in fact it works better than the blob for most things except games and vdpau). Now if you have <= 1G of ram then unity is not recommended but then kde would be even slower on such spec.For lower end or older machines Lubuntu is excellent and it is an 'official' Ubuntu respin, it is not like you are forced to upgrade your hardware, so I really don't get the complaint (and btw lubuntu 12.04 is light years ahead of lubuntu 10.04 (or 10.10?, don't remember if it was even around the time of 10.04)

You can't expect Ubuntu to cater always to the lowest common denominator hardware and be forever stuck in the past just because some people have ancient hardware and/or hate changes.

Luring people with eye candies has always been the case, look at all the Youtube videos with the compiz rotating cube and special effects. I see nothing wrong with trying to expand into the mobile market and get "mainstream". For one thing it brings in better hardware and software support that will enrich the entire Linux ecosystem, yes, even on the desktop.