PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu why why why why



alwayshere
January 18th, 2010, 09:58 AM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

sxmaxchine
January 18th, 2010, 10:09 AM
i understand what you mean but there are also benefits from starting with a newer releases.

kellemes
January 18th, 2010, 10:09 AM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

Newcomers want all the newest stuff and so they'll get the latest os.
By the way, the latest (K)Ubuntu works fine for me.. no issues here.

fromthehill
January 18th, 2010, 10:13 AM
better hardware detection

mörgæs
January 18th, 2010, 10:15 AM
Agree with original poster! An older version, this being 9.04 or a long time support version, should be easily available.

One simple and trivial problem could knock out a beginner, but the benefits of the newest version (say, ext4 in stead of ext3) has only a minor significance to him.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 10:36 AM
I sorta agree with the OP as well.

Stability can be an issue for many people. I think that newbies should start with an LTS release, then there's fewer bugs for them to cope with.

Primefalcon
January 18th, 2010, 10:36 AM
Agree with original poster! An older version, this being 9.04 or a long time support version, should be easily available.

One simple and trivial problem could knock out a beginner, but the benefits of the newest version (say, ext4 in stead of ext3) has only a minor significance to him.
I kind of agree, plus OS upgrades every 6 months can be a turn off too especialy when there are bugs with the new version, you could also make an option in the upgrde options to only look for a new OS release that is 1 or 2 weeks old, or a month old in the case of LTS

5dolla
January 18th, 2010, 10:57 AM
i dunno ive found 9.10 to be pretty damn stable. I
havent seen one crash or slow down. what kind of stability issues
we talkin? also ubuntu up dates every 6 months so 9.10 will soon
have a 10 upgrade which is LTS any way.

Marvin666
January 18th, 2010, 11:16 AM
If you look hard enough, you can find old versions.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 11:41 AM
If you look hard enough, you can find old versions.

If you look too hard, you will find unsupported versions.

Dayofswords
January 18th, 2010, 11:42 AM
If you look too hard, you will find unsupported versions.
look even harder and you'll find "just doing this as a hobby, wont be anything big like GNU"

mörgæs
January 18th, 2010, 11:52 AM
If you look hard enough, you can find old versions.

Exactly, that is the problem. One has to look hard to find an older version (and first of all, a beginner has to know that there is an older version, before he begins looking).

The newest version should be shown together with the next-newest version on the front page. Don't underestimate marketing.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 11:58 AM
Exactly, that is the problem. One has to look hard to find an older version (and first of all, a beginner has to know that there is an older version, before he begins looking).

The newest version should be shown together with the next-newest version on the front page. Don't underestimate marketing.

They don't have to look THAT hard:

kellemes
January 18th, 2010, 12:09 PM
They don't have to look THAT hard:

Indeed..
You should expect to prepare yourself before installing an os, if clicking "Alternative download options, including Ubuntu installer for Windows" is too hard for you, you better find another hobby.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Indeed..
You should expect to prepare yourself before installing an os, if clicking "Alternative download options, including Ubuntu installer for Windows" is too hard for you, you better find another hobby.

^^This^^

3rdalbum
January 18th, 2010, 12:19 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

So you want new users to start with Ubuntu 8.04?

You'd better hope that they don't have:

a. An Atheros wireless card (known problems there)
b. Mobile broadband (no support in Ubuntu 8.04)
c. Creative X-Fi sound card
d. Any real need for sound anyway (Pulseaudio is in a shocking state in 8.04)
e. Any hardware made after 2007.
f. Any need for recent software
g. A Sony Walkman MP3 player (Gnome's support for certain MP3 players is broken)
h. A netbook (hardware is very difficult to get going on 8.04)
i. Any need for Flash (version in Hardy no longer exists on Adobe servers, so you can't install it from Synaptic)

You'd also better hope that these new users have prior experience with Ubuntu, because 8.04 is missing 18 months worth of refinement and ease-of-use improvements.

Ubuntu 8.04 is NOT more stable than 9.10 or more devoid of bugs. It has roughly the same number and severity of bugs; but they're all well-known by now. It's not like Canonical are still issuing bugfixes for 8.04, only security fixes.

NCLI
January 18th, 2010, 12:20 PM
Indeed..
You should expect to prepare yourself before installing an os, if clicking "Alternative download options, including Ubuntu installer for Windows" is too hard for you, you better find another hobby.

I would agree if it said "Alternative download options, including Ubuntu installer for Windows, and the long-term-support version, which is a very stable version of Ubuntu with slightly older software."

3rdalbum
January 18th, 2010, 12:20 PM
look even harder and you'll find "just doing this as a hobby, wont be anything big like GNU"

lmao

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 12:28 PM
So you want new users to start with Ubuntu 8.04?

You'd better hope that they don't have:

a. An Atheros wireless card (known problems there)
b. Mobile broadband (no support in Ubuntu 8.04)
c. Creative X-Fi sound card
d. Any real need for sound anyway (Pulseaudio is in a shocking state in 8.04)
e. Any hardware made after 2007.
f. Any need for recent software
g. A Sony Walkman MP3 player (Gnome's support for certain MP3 players is broken)
h. A netbook (hardware is very difficult to get going on 8.04)
i. Any need for Flash (version in Hardy no longer exists on Adobe servers, so you can't install it from Synaptic)
[snip/]

a. Ever heard of MadWifi? ;)
d. PulseAudio works fine for me ;)
e. That can be fixed. ;)
h. Again, that can be fixed ;)
i. Just get it from the Adobe website ;)

mörgæs
January 18th, 2010, 12:33 PM
9.04 is the best compromise between stability and features for a beginner, and it should be promoted in stead of hidden away. One should not be given the impression that the only options are 9.10 and 8.04.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 12:35 PM
9.04 is the best compromise between stability and features for a beginner, and it should be promoted in stead of hidden away. One should not be given the impression that the only options are 9.10 and 8.04.

mörgæs, you have wisdom.

Vignesh S
January 18th, 2010, 12:37 PM
Never had any problems with 9.10 on any computer I've put it onto. In fact, I'd say that 9.10 works better than 8.04 for me because

1. More hardware is supported
2. It looks a LOT better
3. That neat new way of adding PPA's is totally AWESOME :-D

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 12:39 PM
Never had any problems with 9.10 on any computer I've put it onto. In fact, I'd say that 9.10 works better than 8.04 for me because

1. More hardware is supported
2. It looks a LOT better
3. That neat new way of adding PPA's is totally AWESOME :-D

I sort of agree with you here. But then again, hardware issues in 8.04 _can_ be fixed :)

alexfish
January 18th, 2010, 12:40 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

Totally agree start with LTS , then have a Version to hack about with ,its a great way to learn about Linux

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 12:42 PM
Totally agree start with LTS , then have a Version to hack about with ,its a great way to learn about Linux

Totally agree with you, 'ere! :mrgreen:

Kevbert
January 18th, 2010, 12:46 PM
I use 9.04 as my main Ubuntu revision as it's more stable. 9.10 for me is a non-starter due to bugs. Even the LTS versions have their problems.
For new users it would be better to use any released version that's at least 3 months old as that seems to be when most bugs have been ironed out.
Now back to sorting out a new 10.04 bug report...

SirBismuth
January 18th, 2010, 12:48 PM
It seems as if I was fortunate that my first Ubuntu experience was with 8.04. Even got a 3G modem working it, albeit with beta drivers from SourceForge, and it wasn't as stable as the Win version, but it worked!.

Never had any of the other issues in 8.04, but I only dabbled with wireless networking from 8.10/9.04. Sound worked from the start, but I have an Audigy 2 ZS card, so maybe that made a difference.

Then again, while 8.04 was my first exposure to Ubuntu, it wasn't my first to Linux. I have found, and still find, Ubuntu a joy to use, if I want to get down and dirty again, will experiment with Gentoo, or something like that.

B

3rdalbum
January 18th, 2010, 12:48 PM
a. Ever heard of MadWifi? ;)

Ever tried to compile a more recent version of MadWifi on an old kernel? Ever tried to do it as a new user? I've done the former but not the latter; the former was completely impossible for me so I can't even imagine a new user trying to do it.


d. PulseAudio works fine for me ;)

Did it work properly on 8.04 without that tweak thread on this forum? ;-)


e. That can be fixed. ;)

Compiling new drivers on an old kernel might not work, and certainly isn't newbie-friendly.

Or are you suggesting the new user compile a new kernel? That's why I said that the new users should have prior Ubuntu experience ;-)


i. Just get it from the Adobe website ;)

True, but that's not the Ubuntu way of doing it, and the whole point of telling new users to use the LTS release is so they can learn. You've got them learning bad habits now ;-)

jada
January 18th, 2010, 12:52 PM
I have been a windows user for the last 20 years. After serveral crashes with vista, i decided to try out linux, and was recommended ubuntu. After using it for 1 months i are ready to go back to windows. It seems like u are supposed to be a linux student og like the puzzle to get everything work.
I have three major problems.
. Loose connection when downloading torrents files.
- Cant get java to work properly
- Cant transfer music to my ipod.
After reading forums is seems like i am not alone with having these problems.
I was not able to figure out how to start a new thread, only reply, but reply fits here..

t.rei
January 18th, 2010, 01:02 PM
I have three major problems.
. Loose connection when downloading torrents files.

Are you saying that you completly lose connection to the internet or just to the tracker?



- Cant get java to work properly
enter into a terminal: (it will ask for your password)
sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras
A java version that works properly should be among what is getting installed.



- Cant transfer music to my ipod.
I dont have an ipod. But I do believe I've heard someone talk about rythmbox starting to support this? Not shure, though.



After reading forums is seems like i am not alone with having these problems.
I was not able to figure out how to start a new thread, only reply, but reply fits here..If you are in a forum where you can post threads: theres a big button saying "new thread" as seen here:
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/3107/newthreadf.jpg

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 01:35 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

Yeah I know what you mean, Ubuntu always ships with a huge long list of bugs which other distros do not (they do have bugs just not as many). I know that they like to stick to their 6 month schedule, however it's obvious that it's not working because the distro is shipped with so many show stoppers.

Look at the release notes for 9.10, it's an absolute joke, no distro should ever ship with this many bugs ever, it's totally unacceptable. Fedora has less bugs and it's a distro for new technologies!

Canonical have paid teams on Ubuntu and there's really no excuse for them to keep screwing up like they do.

V for Vincent
January 18th, 2010, 01:38 PM
I don't know. Right after a new release, okay, you may want to warn new users about possible bugs. But I've had a few issues that were resolved by upgrading, some of them really annoying ones. So I'm kind of in the middle. I wouldn't refer everyone to Hardy. At this point, I think I would recommend karmic to most people.

samh785
January 18th, 2010, 01:51 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.
How will they ever learn to get themselves out of sticky situations then? ;)

Bölvaður
January 18th, 2010, 01:53 PM
The op would be right if there wouldn't be better hardware detection by every release.

terrapin893
January 18th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Im a beginner Linux desktop user and Ive found Ubuntu 9.10 to be more than reasonable to work with. Granted I work as a technician in the web hosting industry, so I am certainly familiar with a lot of Linux terminology and theories.

That said it took me forever to get my video to work right. There were times I wanted to just throw in the towel and go back to windows, but I didnt. However eventually I got everything taken care of. I spent countless hours trying to get my integrated Intel video chipset to work and then finally relented and went out and paid for a video card. Even that wasnt 100% easy.

The point being, Linux is free and its incredible. If you want to be on the cutting edge of technology and open source operating systems, you're going to need to be able to roll with the punches and grow with the system. If you want easy . . . . go suffer with Microsoft, imho.

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 02:38 PM
The point being, Linux is free and its incredible. If you want to be on the cutting edge of technology and open source operating systems

Ubuntu is not the cutting edge of technology.


If you want easy . . . . go suffer with Microsoft, imho

It's attitudes like this why a lot of people dislike Linux. People are mislead into believing that Linux will be the best OS they've over used that does anything then they're guided to Linux and told if they want easy they need to switch back to Windows.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 02:45 PM
It's attitudes like this why a lot of people dislike Linux. People are mislead into believing that Linux will be the best OS they've over used that does anything then they're guided to Linux and told if they want easy they need to switch back to Windows.

Way to show the divs who say that Windows is easier than Linux.

I know that's true but that's because Micro$oft are practically the biggest company in the software world, followed closely by Apple. People have been using it for the past twenty years or so.

I'd say that Windows' ease of use is pretty "seductive", thus people splash out £100-£200 just for a bloody DVD?! Jeebus, when will they learn?!

XubuRoxMySox
January 18th, 2010, 03:10 PM
It's attitudes like this why a lot of people dislike Linux. People are misled into believing that Linux will be the best OS they've ever used that does anything, then they're guided to Linux and told if they want easy they need to switch back to Windows.

I agree partly. Linux certainly does not do "everything," and is often wrongly portrayed as though it does. But Linux does do "most everything" that "ordinary users" buy a computer for. Office apps, web browsing, e-mail, schoolwork, simple music, video, and photo editing, chat, that kinda stuff. Almost everything that I ordinarily did on Windows I can do on Linux, but there are some things I have to have Windows for. And it's wrong to represent Linux or any Linux distro as a fully complete drop-in replacement for Windows or Mac.

But I disagree with the second part of what you wrote above. I'm still mostly a n00b, but every Linux distro I've tried, from all the 'buntus to Crunchbang (still a favorite), PCLinuxOS, Mepis, Slax, Mint, and Debian, has been simple enough for this completely non-geeky, not-technically-inclined boy to install and configure with only minor problems. I find Linux every bit as easy to install and configure as Windows.

In fact, unless they've changed it since XP (which is the only version of Windows I've ever known), I find Linux better when it comes to installation because I can preserve the /home partition and do whole new installs without wiping away all my e-mail and browser settings, mailboxes, address books, bookmarks (even extensions!), photos, music, documents, etc. If you have to re-install Windows, you lose all that stuff. That, for me, is a big deal.

Then there's that "Windows rot" that no amount of registry cleaning and defragging and stuff can prevent (at least not for us ordinary non-techno folk), that can only be cured by a fresh new installation.

And another advantage, at least as I see it, is that Linux has alot less bloat. But I guess that depends on your definition of bloat. Here's what I mean by the term:

"Bloat" is software that is intended to be used not by ME, but by the OS (or used exclusively to maintain the OS). Anti-virus software, anti-spyware, defragmentor, registry cleaner, etc. Yes, Linux has it's libraries and daemons and stuff too, but they don't require the tireless vigil of manually updating and running them separately, nor do they consume my 'puter's resources to the same degree that their Windows counterparts seem to.

I'm not a zealot, and I'm glad that zealots are being corrected for misrepresenting Linux. But I wouldn't go too far the other way either, telling everyone that Linux is rubbish the way some people do. I like my Linux. And when there are Linux apps to do everything I need a computer for, I'll be glad to wipe away Windows and all the resource-hogging bloatware it requires.

-Robin

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 03:16 PM
Read what the guy above me posted I quote:


If you want easy . . . . go suffer with Microsoft, imho

What I'm saying is, you get Linux users who switch Windows users to Linux, on the basis of them being told that it's easier than Windows, but when they do have a problem you get people like that who I quouted. How are you going to get people to take Linux seriously if it's all well and good until they have a problem and you tell them to switch back to Windows.


Then there's that "Windows rot" that no amount of registry cleaning and defragging and stuff can prevent (at least not for us ordinary non-techno folk), that can only be cured by a fresh new installation.

I call ********. I've used Linux for 8 years and Windows for a total of 6 (2 years since Vista came out and 4 years before switching to Linux). [Before Linux I used NT4.0 and OS/2]. None of the NT flavours of Windows I've used have EVER slowed down over time.

scottuss
January 18th, 2010, 03:21 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

I would argue not. I use 8.04 LTS on my laptop and 9.10 on my desktop hooked up to the TV.

The newer packages, faster boot, better hardware support and visual advances make 9.10 much more appealing to new users. The only reason I use 8.04 is for one specific application that doesn't work correctly in newer versions.

LTS is great for enterprise use, but new users will get more benefit from using the latest version.

P.S: LTS doesn't always mean less buggy. The version of VLC shipped on 8.04 has MAJOR stability issues, crashing, browser plugin causing Firefox to crash etc etc.

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 03:24 PM
LTS is great for enterprise use, but new users will get more benefit from using the latest version.

The LTS is too unstable for enterprise use.

scottuss
January 18th, 2010, 03:40 PM
The LTS is too unstable for enterprise use.

That's a matter of opinion. I've found the LTS Server edition to be very stable.

I agree that including the Beta version of Firefox and implementing PulseAudio into Hardy were both bad ideas.

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 03:42 PM
I agree that including the Beta version of Firefox and implementing PulseAudio into Hardy were both bad ideas.

This is what I mean. Also the LTS seems to recieve a high number of updates, even when using the latest image 8.04.3.

XubuRoxMySox
January 18th, 2010, 03:44 PM
What I'm saying is, you get Linux users who switch Windows users to Linux, on the basis of them being told that it's easier than Windows, but when they do have a problem you get people like that who I quouted. How are you going to get people to take Linux seriously if it's all well and good until they have a problem and you tell them to switch back to Windows.

Your point is well taken. When newbies get the RTFM treatment at the first request for help, they're likely to go back to what they know, and what "just worked" for them in the past.




I call ********. I've used Linux for 8 years and Windows for a total of 6 (2 years since Vista came out and 4 years before switching to Linux). [Before Linux I used NT4.0 and OS/2]. None of the NT flavours of Windows I've used have EVER slowed down over time.

Could be. As I said, the only Windows I have ever known was XP, and it did slow down over time despite the ceaseless vigil of regularly scanning, defragging, cleaning, updating, and debugging. As long as new netbooks still ship with XP, though, I think my point remains valid. If the newer versions don't suffer from "WinRot," then that's great! I'm glad to hear that they fixed that in the newer versions.

Windows is still the best there is for users who need an OS that does absolutely everything including stuff that Linux can't. But I stand by what I and others have said about most common ordinary everyday users who don't need superduper CAD apps and ultra-kewl online gaming and stuff. And I stand by what I said about bloat (as I defined the term in my previous post).

But I support and applaud your observations about Linux zealots and their misrepresentations and their hostility towards anyone who runs into trouble getting Linux to work as it should on their machines. Thanks for that.

-Robin

doublewitt
January 18th, 2010, 04:02 PM
It's not because you have "bug" issues or problems that automatically you can assume others will have the same problems. Of all the people I know, none have the issues mentioned in the list above, and myself neither. I've used windows for so long (10 years) and find 9.10 very smooth, faster to install. In fact, my latest quad core was shipped with the vista nightmare. I can say that over that 10 year period, I've had so many problems with crashes, bsod's, defrag issues, registry issues, MBR issues, and the list is so long... it's torture! 9.10 installed like a breeze. Re-installing vista (several times) takes 4 hours. Over the years, there have been countless bugs and issues - not to mention the ever growing threat of virus infections. With Ubuntu, I have peace of mind. 9.10 works great for me. If someone has a few issues with it, it's no reason to tear the house down. Compare the strong points along with the weaknesses and you'll find the good points outweigh the negative ones by far. Personally, I am proud to introduce 9.10 to family and friends. I'd say that Ubuntu meets the needs of people easily. The greater majority of people employ typical usage with their computers and Ubuntu covers all of that just fine.

I don't believe in always attacking software development companies with endless rants and criticisms. There's no good in that. Neither do I believe that a forum is a place for "broadcasting" or "entertaining" or "advertising" negativism. If the glass of water is half full, stop looking at it as if it's half empty...

If there are problems, well good grief, you never had any with windows? I wouldn't go back for any reason and I'm not even "tempted" to go back. Ubuntu works great. There is a helpful support team here in the forum plus support elsewhere (other web pages and resources).

I am enjoying my experience with Ubuntu and especially 9.10
I'm looking forward to the next release and enjoy the fact that there are 2 major releases every year + regular updates along the way... Ubuntu has so much to offer...

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 04:03 PM
I have family with XP installs which we set up 5/6 years ago which are still running just as good as they were when we installed them. Although I don't use XP myself I do know it works absolutely fine when configured correctly.

XubuRoxMySox
January 18th, 2010, 04:16 PM
I have family with XP installs which we set up 5/6 years ago which are still running just as good as they were when we installed them. Although I don't use XP myself I do know it works absolutely fine when configured correctly.

Oh well, so what do you suggest? "Go back to Ubuntu, you're not ready for Windows!"?

Sorry, that was a joke. Couldn't resist.

I guess it wasn't configured correctly, then, by the manufacturer from whom I bought it pre-installed, brand new. And I guess I didn't configure it properly both times I re-installed it (when nothing else would work) to cure the slow-down. Obviously, then, configuring Windows properly is beyond the ability of the typical user.

But configuring Ubuntu is not. Even a little newbie dixiedancer can do it.

-Robin

doublewitt
January 18th, 2010, 04:22 PM
I used XP for years on 3 computers with endless headaches. System maintenance has to be taken very seriously or things eventually go sour. I've had to re-format my computer many, many times because of persistant issues. Though XP was better than vista (in my opinion) - it still was problematic enough. You have to admit it's a headache! Antivirus scans and fixes along with daily downloads to update the antivirus database, defrags, cleans, fresh new installs (re-formats), malware scanners, anti-rootkits, adware scanners, hardware issues, incompatibilities, etc., etc,. etc. Shopping around for all the "best" softwares for your daily/weekly maintenance tasks is very time consuming (endless downloads, trials, hours, purchases, refunds, hundreds of forums, ranters, and what else?) After that, guess what, I have to "report" all bugs and issues to each software developer to help things progress. I have to report bugs to microsoft for the same reasons... it took a long time to figure microsoft's techno language - believe me, for newcomers, it's still a pain. And so, the point is, I'm not saying this for rant's sake but just to illustrate the fact that life along the microsoft lane isn't easy. It's quite a burden. In comparison, Ubuntu is light. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it!

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 04:26 PM
Obviously, then, configuring Windows properly is beyond the ability of the typical user.

Well to put it another way perhaps we could all agree setting up ANY operating system properly is beyond the ability of the typical user.

Zoot7
January 18th, 2010, 04:28 PM
I've got to say that I agree with most of the negative points made about Ubuntu in this thread.
Whilst I believe you could largely overlook a lot of the problems were it another less popular distro with different goals, but the fact that Ubuntu is touted as a replacement to Windows and OSX makes it unforgivable IMO.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Well to put it another way perhaps we could all agree setting up ANY operating system properly is beyond the ability of the typical user.

My stepdad knew very little about computers yet he can reinstall operating systems!

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 04:30 PM
Reinstalling and configuring are two different things you know.

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 04:31 PM
I've got to say that I agree with most of the negative points made about Ubuntu in this thread.
Whilst I believe you could largely overlook a lot of the problems were it another less popular distro with different goals, but the fact that Ubuntu is touted as a replacement to Windows and OSX makes it unforgivable IMO.

:|

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Reinstalling and configuring are two different things you know.

That's rich, coming from you. :|

/thread

RiceMonster
January 18th, 2010, 04:36 PM
That's rich, coming from you. :|

/thread

What's that supposed to mean?

XubuRoxMySox
January 18th, 2010, 04:38 PM
I've got to say that I agree with most of the negative points made about Ubuntu in this thread.
Whilst I believe you could largely overlook a lot of the problems were it another less popular distro with different goals, but the fact that Ubuntu is touted as a replacement to Windows and OSX makes it unforgivable IMO.

This. It is not a drop-in replacement for Windows yet. But I think it could become so, and soon.

That, and the fact that Ubuntu is sometimes released before it's ready. Karmic certainly was. Xubuntu Karmic, on the other hand, totally rawked right out of the gate.

Canonical really should adopt a "it'll be ready when it's ready, to hell with the deadline" approach to new releases.

-Robin

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 04:38 PM
What's that supposed to mean?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smart_aleck

I do apologise if I sound like some grumpy old git, but I just can't stand insolence from other people. They make me feel stupid.

k64
January 18th, 2010, 04:40 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/

doublewitt
January 18th, 2010, 04:41 PM
For the typical user, it currently is a good replacement...
Hasn't windows put out things seemingly too fast?

The Toxic Mite
January 18th, 2010, 04:41 PM
For the typical user, it currently is a good replacement...
Hasn't windows put out things seemingly too fast?

This.

doublewitt
January 18th, 2010, 04:43 PM
This or that.

k64
January 18th, 2010, 04:51 PM
For the typical user, it currently is a good replacement...
Hasn't windows put out things seemingly too fast?

Of course. Microsoft Windows Vista was MUCH worse than Ubuntu 9.10 when it first came out. And let's not forget ME: the Vista of the turn of the Millenium that was even WORSE than Vista by a long shot.

Ubuntu 9.10 uses a transition release of GNOME. ('http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.28/#rndevelopers')You'll notice if you skip to 5.1 in the linked page, it's GNOME that's buggy, not Ubuntu 9.10.

MasterNetra
January 18th, 2010, 04:55 PM
I sort of agree with you here. But then again, hardware issues in 8.04 _can_ be fixed :)

Aye but what makes you think someone new to Linux, who is just your typical average user, will know how?

doublewitt
January 18th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Ubuntu 9.10 uses a transition release of GNOME. ('http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.28/#rndevelopers')You'll notice if you skip to 5.1 in the linked page, it's GNOME that's buggy, not Ubuntu 9.10.

That's an interesting point...

RiceMonster
January 18th, 2010, 04:59 PM
Hasn't windows put out things seemingly too fast?

Regardless of whether they do or not, Windows doing something wrong is not an excuse for Ubuntu to do it as well. Find something that actually justifies it. I'm tried of people saying "Yeah well windows..." in response to Ubuntu related criticisms.

XubuRoxMySox
January 18th, 2010, 05:00 PM
Ubuntu 9.10 uses a transition release of GNOME. ('http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.28/#rndevelopers')You'll notice if you skip to 5.1 in the linked page, it's GNOME that's buggy, not Ubuntu 9.10.

Oh, c'mon now. No "transitional" (read: Beta) software should have been included in a new Ubuntu release. It could simply be included in an update, once it's ready.

Same kinda thing with PulseAudio, which was also included (wrongly IMO). I know the Ubuntu devs tweak stuff, but no beta software should end up in a brand new release of any distro. Well, except those bleeding-edge distros like Sidux where risk is expected (and part of the fun).

-Robin

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 05:11 PM
I do apologise if I sound like some grumpy old git, but I just can't stand insolence from other people.

But reinstalling and configuring something properly IS two different things! It's Technically two different things, how can you even doubt that.

I can tell anyone to install an OS and hit next next next next, but then what about when it comes to installing drivers, tweaking services/daemons, uninstalling unwanted crap.

But then that's rich coming from someone who told me they only switched to Linux last June, used it for a while switched back to Windows because wireless didn't work and then only just recently switching back. The Toxic Mite, you're the typical Linux Youth I dislike.

lovinglinux
January 18th, 2010, 05:15 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

Sure, then there will be tons of posts complaining about why they have Firefox 3.0 instead of 3.5, that Ubuntu sucks and so on...

It would be better if they release each version without serious bugs. For instance, my grub still takes 30 seconds to show up because the mbr is on a different partition than the grub files, but for some people it takes minutes...that is serious in my opinion and should have been fixed before the release, specially considering it has been reported during the beta testing phase.

Desert Sailor
January 18th, 2010, 06:55 PM
My first experience with Linux was Mandrake years ago. Couldn't get my hardware to work and ended up going back to Windows, thinking that Linux needed some more maturity.

Fast Forward a few years, and I gave SuSe (Novell) a try. MUCH better than Mandrake, but still a little too techy for my old brain, and I went back to Windows.

Now not wanting to upgrade to Vista or the fix-pack known as Win-7, I switched to Ubuntu installed 8.10, just before 9.4 came out, and upgraded to 9.4 when released. Now I am running 9.10 and while there were a few bugs, overall it is working well.

My dear brother however managed to get his only computer hopelessly infected with a group of virus (is that Virui). He couldn't boot, even in safe mode. I wsa called to the rescue and was able to use the Ubuntu CD to recover some of his important files, and spent the rest of the weekend reloading his Windows XP, plus updates, plus drivers, plus software, plus service pacs, plus virus scan, plus e-mail.

After that experience with Windows, I was never so happy to get back to my Ubuntu box. It hasn't been an easy transition for this old man, but I sure am loving Ubuntu now.

cariboo
January 18th, 2010, 07:44 PM
Please keep it civil, this is no place for flame wars.

sandyd
January 18th, 2010, 08:23 PM
Ubuntu why why why why lead newcomers to the latestversion of ubuntu where we all know there is going to be bugs and stuff to iron out .

I really think the download site should promte the idea of new comers to linux to start with the LTS version where they are most likly to have a better experience with ubuntu and build there skills and move on to later versions and path the way to a better ever growing ubuntu.

i agree. as for the hardware support everyone is harping on about, the kernel driver/modules should be backported to ensure hardware compatability with newer hardware

Techsnap
January 18th, 2010, 08:31 PM
i agree. as for the hardware support everyone is harping on about, the kernel should be backported for more updates.

As in jumping from one kernel version to another (e.g. 2.6.18 to 2.6.22) no... As in jumping from a different build of the same kernel with modules backported yes and patches applied (2.6.18 to 2.6.18.4 for example), this is what RHEL/CentOS does.

sandyd
January 18th, 2010, 11:54 PM
As in jumping from one kernel version to another (e.g. 2.6.18 to 2.6.22) no... As in jumping from a different build of the same kernel with modules backported yes and patches applied (2.6.18 to 2.6.18.4 for example), this is what RHEL/CentOS does.
+1
that was what i was talking about.

post corrected to make stuff a bit clearer.