PDA

View Full Version : why are there pre-9.04 users?



ironic.demise
August 13th, 2010, 06:59 PM
I've noticed on the forums and documentation that there are more than a few ubuntu users using versions as old as warty. There's usually good support for the old versions I've noticed and I understand that they can be customized to the same capabilities as 10.04... But I assume that 10.04 is going to be a lot easier and capable... So I was wondering why some people continue to use the old versions, how they keep it running up to standards and whether there are some specific reasons why they use older versions?


...I can only imagine it's the same as win98 users who just plain... don't want to switch once they're comfortable and capable in 98?

lisati
August 13th, 2010, 07:02 PM
I use a command-line-only installation of 6.06 on one of my machines because it's the only version of Ubuntu that I've had any success installing on that machine.

TNT1
August 13th, 2010, 07:05 PM
Dunno...

I use 10.04, and everything works just great. I don't have to tweak and fiddle, so I am wondering if I will move to 10.10, or whatever comes after that. I guess there are plenty of pre 9,04 users that feel that way about their setup?

Personally I found light years of difference between any pre 9.04 distro I have used (and 9.04) and 10.04, but that's just me...

LowSky
August 13th, 2010, 07:08 PM
Some people might use 8.04 for older ATI graphic support.

mendhak
August 13th, 2010, 07:16 PM
I've noticed on the forums and documentation that there are more than a few ubuntu users using versions as old as warty. There's usually good support for the old versions I've noticed and I understand that they can be customized to the same capabilities as 10.04... But I assume that 10.04 is going to be a lot easier and capable... So I was wondering why some people continue to use the old versions, how they keep it running up to standards and whether there are some specific reasons why they use older versions?


...I can only imagine it's the same as win98 users who just plain... don't want to switch once they're comfortable and capable in 98?
Hardware reasons. Software reasons. Workflow reasons. No time to upgrade. No time or resources to find replacements or upgrades. Voices in head telling them not to.

Spice Weasel
August 13th, 2010, 07:21 PM
I was using 6.06 the other day and was surprised with how well it ran, only 45MB RAM usage (with GNOME too!)

Dustin2128
August 13th, 2010, 07:32 PM
Why should anyone else care what version you run? Hardy does everything I want it to on my older desktop and more, lucid's a RAM guzzler on my laptop. Which doesn't really matter that much with double the RAM of my desktop, but still.

ironic.demise
August 13th, 2010, 07:34 PM
@Lisati: Are you running old hardware? I can't see why only a commandline interface would work... I never tried a pure commandline, I'd like to know if it's any good?

@tnt: I'll try 10.10, it's worth a look and it's aesthetically pleasing... I'll try and just tweak it back to what I like.

@Lowsky: I'm running an old card... it works fnie and couldn't you just install old drivers?

@mendhack: It seemed easy and straightforward to me, I can't say it's the same for everybody though.

@Spice: That's a good point, Do you think the newer versions are too filled with extra resource consuming bells and whistles?

eriktheblu
August 13th, 2010, 07:39 PM
Have a friend who had an old Macbook; it could only handle 6.06.

He actually wanted to keep Mac OS on it, but he wanted Firefox more.

Cavsfan
August 13th, 2010, 07:43 PM
Hardware reasons. Software reasons. Workflow reasons. No time to upgrade. No time or resources to find replacements or upgrades. Voices in head telling them not to.

Pretty funny! :D

I started out when Jaunty 9.04 was the latest, but went to Karmic 9.10 when it came out.
It would never allow my PC to go into sleep mode.

Got into Lucid 10.04 when it went beta and it worked really well putting my PC to sleep.
I have about 7 high RPM fans and like for it to rest when it can! I believe they are all
between 2200 and 2700 RPMs most being closer to the 2700 RPMs.

Probably stick with Lucid unless 10.10 turns out to be so awesome I can't live w/o it! :D

bug67
August 13th, 2010, 07:45 PM
Valid reasons listed above. For myself, I find if it ain't broke, why fix it? I really wanted to embrace the LTS (10.04) but found it buggy on my gear. Things that worked in prior releases no longer worked. So, While not a "pre-9.04 user," I am not using the latest and (in my case) not so greatest.

bug67
August 13th, 2010, 07:55 PM
He actually wanted to keep Mac OS on it, but he wanted Firefox more.

Firefox doesn't come in Mac flavor? :confused:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/products/download.html

Unless you're talking pre-OS X. Then, I get it. ;)

Irthur Belle
August 13th, 2010, 08:07 PM
umm I try buy harddrive jackin for window 7 next soon.

murderslastcrow
August 13th, 2010, 08:12 PM
PowerPC builds of Firefox for OS X (Tiger) won't be developed anymore, They've dropped support. However, if you use the PowerPC version of Leopard, you're good. So it's still a universal blob.

The reason here is that the versions of certain libraries that are compatible with Tiger are too outdated to run the updated features in the latest Firefox, and somehow this can't be resolved very easily.

So yeah, no Firefox 4 for PowerPC Macs with pre-Leopard on them. Of course, Linux users will continue to have frequent updates.

lisati
August 13th, 2010, 08:19 PM
@Lisati: Are you running old hardware? I can't see why only a commandline interface would work... I never tried a pure commandline, I'd like to know if it's any good?

CLI came before having a GUI was common.

It's really old hardware, at least 10 years old, and not my main machine. I'm pleasantly surprised to learn that Spice Weasel managed to get a GUI working with 45Mb of RAM - when I tried to install a GUI under Ubuntu my poor 133MHz machine with 64Mb RAM and a 3GB HDD choked and the installation eventually failed spectacularly. The minimal effort I put into installing a version of Ubuntu newer than 6.06 also didn't go too well.

Puppy works on it, but runs too slow for my liking.

desconocido
August 13th, 2010, 08:23 PM
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I had 8.04 running fine but was tempted to upgrade because of the possibility of borrowing a mobile broadband device (and that came to nothing in the end).

The upgrade collapsed, had to do a clean install of 9.10 and it took me six weeks to re-install all my software, my settings and sort out a few bugs and get the printers working again. Aargh, never again. (Or at least, not until I have to.)

The wifi connection is better though.

snowpine
August 13th, 2010, 08:26 PM
9.10 and newer do not support my video card. I am using 9.04 until it reaches "end of life" in October, then I will have to switch to Debian or something I suppose. :(

MasterNetra
August 13th, 2010, 08:29 PM
I've noticed on the forums and documentation that there are more than a few ubuntu users using versions as old as warty. There's usually good support for the old versions I've noticed and I understand that they can be customized to the same capabilities as 10.04... But I assume that 10.04 is going to be a lot easier and capable... So I was wondering why some people continue to use the old versions, how they keep it running up to standards and whether there are some specific reasons why they use older versions?


...I can only imagine it's the same as win98 users who just plain... don't want to switch once they're comfortable and capable in 98?

Because for the people using them the older versions work fine enough for them. As for 10.04 working better, not true in all cases, it won't even load up on my sister-in-law's computer it gets past the loading screen and black screens until you shut it off manually. 9.10 however works fine, minus audio, the card just doesn't work no matter what you do, but at least she can do everything else she wants/needs to do with it.

Old_Grey_Wolf
August 13th, 2010, 08:30 PM
My wife doesn't need the newest software. She also doesn't like change. She will continue to use 8.04 LTS until 11.04 is released. The LTS releases get security updates for 3 years. Even the non-LTS releases get security updates for 18 months. She will use 11.04 until the 12.04 LTS is released, then stay with 12.04 LTS until 15.04 is released. That is, if they are compatible with her hardware, or the netbook hasn't died by then.

murderslastcrow
August 13th, 2010, 08:44 PM
I have friends who don't see the use in updating on anything more than an LTS. The new features just don't seem applicable to them, and they'd rather have it all at once than a ton of minor changes as time goes on. Then they can really see the improvement and enjoy it more.

Just think, if you went straight from 8.04 to 10.04. Or straight from 6.06 to 8.04. If you went from 6.06 to 10.04 you might have a heart attack XD.

But yeah, if it works, people generally don't like to tamper with it. A lot of this is due to old Windows habits, and perceived fragility of software.

It also has to do with the fact that, until recently, upgrading even on Ubuntu was a kind of hit and miss thing, resulting in a lot of backups and fresh installs. The last couple versions don't seem to have many issues with it, but it wasn't so long ago that it was a huge issue. 8.10 to 9.04 for Intel users was a pain, for instance.

ironic.demise
August 13th, 2010, 09:12 PM
See I've only used Ubuntu since 10.04 released...
Used 6.04 but it didn't support my wireless card, probably could've ficed it knowing what I know now, and I tried 9.10 but that didn't support my broadband stick...

10.04 is the first version to work for me and I appreciate keeping up to date.

:edit:
I'd like to stay up to date with hardware to, but I can't afford it and even then what I have does what I want it to and I find it works well... better than other high spec computers that run windows and more importantly runs poor users aha!

though I need new stuff if I plan to get into 3d modelling or high spec gaming

juancarlospaco
August 13th, 2010, 09:27 PM
They cant pay the new license :D

ironic.demise
August 13th, 2010, 09:57 PM
They cant pay the new license :D

Over my head...

Fludizz
August 13th, 2010, 10:07 PM
I am currently wishing I wouldn't have upgraded my server from 8.04 to 10.04... 8.04 had the last kernel not to contain a bug causing my mdadm raids to crash at random :( This has now forced me to buy new hardware to get rid of software/hardware raid all together because I've had it with driver based raid. Either you are depending on kernel modules for controlling your hardware RAID card or you are relying on the software based RAID provided by mdadm. They both can be broken (or fixed) with every update of the software/kernel.

I bought a hardware box that is a simple hardware mirroring device which is only seen as one physical drive to the OS rather then a RAID device. When I'm done moving the crippled system to this device I might be happy about my choice to upgrade to 10.04 LTS :P. New hardware means fresh new (Read: Bigger, faster) storage!

ironic.demise
August 13th, 2010, 10:17 PM
I am currently wishing I wouldn't have upgraded my server from 8.04 to 10.04... 8.04 had the last kernel not to contain a bug causing my mdadm raids to crash at random :( This has now forced me to buy new hardware to get rid of software/hardware raid all together because I've had it with driver based raid. Either you are depending on kernel modules for controlling your hardware RAID card or you are relying on the software based RAID provided by mdadm. They both can be broken (or fixed) with every update of the software/kernel.

I bought a hardware box that is a simple hardware mirroring device which is only seen as one physical drive to the OS rather then a RAID device. When I'm done moving the crippled system to this device I might be happy about my choice to upgrade to 10.04 LTS :P. New hardware means fresh new (Read: Bigger, faster) storage!

Sounds like a fun project right there!

What are you using servers for? Work or Home, I'd like to set something similar up :(

Spice Weasel
August 13th, 2010, 10:27 PM
@Spice: That's a good point, Do you think the newer versions are too filled with extra resource consuming bells and whistles?

Definitely. To be honest, the only way I think Ubuntu has improved since 6.06 is the themes, quiet boot (Gotta love the panic when you see [FAIL] in red and then realize it's just because your printer isn't plugged in. :P) and more drivers. GDM is now a pain to configure and has a lack of options, Firefox is now Firehogs, and everything else is unnecessarily bloated. I've spent a long time on 9.04 because of just GDM, but eventually was forced to switch because my hard drive had died on me. Old Ubuntu > New Ubuntu.

gcndavidmn
August 13th, 2010, 10:35 PM
Sheer laziness. If suddenly 10.10 hit tomorrow then I physically could not be bothered to upgrade.

linux18
August 13th, 2010, 10:49 PM
I use a command-line-only installation of 6.06 on one of my machines because it's the only version of Ubuntu that I've had any success installing on that machine.
you should try my 6.06 remaster (see sig) boots live in 82MB of ram without swap and has fully (for 6.06) updated packages, tweaked to be ultra lightweight, no installer though (I'm working on it)

ssulaco
August 13th, 2010, 11:47 PM
Why should anyone else care what version you run? Hardy does everything I want it to on my older desktop and more
+1,I have a turn of the century Optiplex,and Hardy hasnt even hiccuped.........once.


Valid reasons listed above. For myself, I find if it ain't broke, why fix it? I really wanted to embrace the LTS (10.04)
+1,will probably wait till Hardy eol


My wife doesn't need the newest software. She also doesn't like change. She will continue to use 8.04 LTS until 11.04 is released.
I hear ya,I dont like change either,especially when it turns south



I have friends who don't see the use in updating on anything more than an LTS.
I agree.......I'm hoping Lucid will be as solid as Hardy on my hardware,but I am in no hurry to leave Hardy,plus,will give time for Lucid to fully mature.

mobilediesel
August 13th, 2010, 11:59 PM
I've noticed on the forums and documentation that there are more than a few ubuntu users using versions as old as warty. There's usually good support for the old versions I've noticed and I understand that they can be customized to the same capabilities as 10.04... But I assume that 10.04 is going to be a lot easier and capable... So I was wondering why some people continue to use the old versions, how they keep it running up to standards and whether there are some specific reasons why they use older versions?


...I can only imagine it's the same as win98 users who just plain... don't want to switch once they're comfortable and capable in 98?

I'm still running Hardy. My computer is at least 7 years old. The 10.04 LiveCD seems to run fine on here but I'm not ready to update until I get some better hardware.

Johnsie
August 14th, 2010, 12:13 AM
Hardy was really nice looking and stable. Lucid seems uglier and buggier to me. I like the purple but there needs to be alot more improvments to compete with win7 and osx.

Not everyone wants to update 100% or their packages every 6 months. I maintain over 30 Ubuntu machines through work, friends and family. I simply dont have time to update every one of those computers every 6 months.

urukrama
August 14th, 2010, 12:59 AM
My computer at work runs Hardy, and I don't have any plans to upgrade it. The system is stable and works very well for my needs. Why should I go through the hassle of upgrading (with the risk that something might not work as well as it does now) when I have a fully functional setup?

Spice Weasel
August 14th, 2010, 02:30 PM
CLI came before having a GUI was common.

It's really old hardware, at least 10 years old, and not my main machine. I'm pleasantly surprised to learn that Spice Weasel managed to get a GUI working with 45Mb of RAM - when I tried to install a GUI under Ubuntu my poor 133MHz machine with 64Mb RAM and a 3GB HDD choked and the installation eventually failed spectacularly. The minimal effort I put into installing a version of Ubuntu newer than 6.06 also didn't go too well.

Puppy works on it, but runs too slow for my liking.

Have you tried TinyCore?

ironic.demise
August 14th, 2010, 05:48 PM
@Johnsie: Isn't there a way you can mass install operating systems? I knew there was a way to do that on windows?

So, everybody basically thinks, newer versions are either not great enough to switch, not great at all...or pure don't work...