Reverting back to 10.04

[BrockStrongo]

This is just my experience and I'm not trying to bash 11.04. I'm sure it works great for many people, but...........

I did a clean install of 11.04 and was excited to use the new Unity interface however I found it was very slow to react, locked up quite frequently and would abruptly restart my session without any warning. I thought this might be a botched install so I tried to reinstall from a live USB and was greeted with a message saying I had too many partitions and that the installation had failed.

Needless to say I reinstalled 10.04 and everything is working fine now.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

I was really looking forward to this release and must say I am kind of disappointed.

Thoughts?

[VOT Productions]

Couldn't you change to the defaults to Ubuntu Classic? I'm sure you could.

[BrockStrongo]

Couldn't you change to the defaults to Ubuntu Classic? I'm sure you could.


Yeah, you can choose which style you want at the login screen, ie; unity, classic, classic no effects. I tried running "classic no effects" but it was still slower and randomly restarted.
I've never had an issue like this with an upgrade.

[gsmanners]

This was exactly what happened to me, except that I found my experience was bumpy from the word go. I installed a minimal command line interface, and even that was relatively unstable. I then reverted quickly back to 10.04. There aren't enough improvements in Natty to drag me away just yet.

[Artemis3]

You could also try Xubuntu 11.04, but sticking to LTS releases is a good idea.

[speedwell68]

I was going to stick with 10.04.2 but the curiosity about Unity got the better of me. Now I can't say that I am a fan of Unity, but I have to say that 11.04 in Classic mode is way better that 10.04. I have found it to be much faster across the board and equally as stable. Unity on the other hand is obviously still a beta, regardless of what anyone tells me, however I think Unity does have potential.

[NormanFLinux]

The LTS is generally stable and distros that use them tend to put a great emphasis on producing a coherent system that looks good and works well.

Something Canonical can't do with its 6 month release cycle. Ubuntu's traditional 6 month development cycle was a legacy of GNOME.

Ubuntu would be better served becoming a rolling release. That way improvements can be incrementally pushed out the door after they have passed quality control testing.

The only reason to stick with the 6 month cycle is now tradition.

[BrockStrongo]

The LTS is generally stable and distros that use them tend to put a great emphasis on producing a coherent system that looks good and works well.

Something Canonical can't do with its 6 month release cycle. Ubuntu's traditional 6 month development cycle was a legacy of GNOME.

Ubuntu would be better served becoming a rolling release. That way improvements can be incrementally pushed out the door after they have passed quality control testing.

The only reason to stick with the 6 month cycle is now tradition.


I agree. It feels as if Ubuntu is implementing these changes just for the sake of changing and in the process is diminishing some of the stability of the OS. I would rather see a yearly release of a well developed OS rather than what seems to be a hasty release every six months.

[Flexserve]

Yeah, you can choose which style you want at the login screen, ie; unity, classic, classic no effects. I tried running "classic no effects" but it was still slower and randomly restarted.
I've never had an issue like this with an upgrade.


Same here. Back to 10.10

[Dutch70]

I agree. It feels as if Ubuntu is implementing these changes just for the sake of changing and in the process is diminishing some of the stability of the OS. I would rather see a yearly release of a well developed OS rather than what seems to be a hasty release every six months.

That is all in your control! Just install every other release & you have yearly.

Don't install it until 6mths after the release date, you have your stability.

Just because they create more, doesn't mean you have to install them all & you definitely don't have to install them before they get the kinks worked out.

This is just how it is & it works wonderfully. Getting people to understand the how & why is a different story all together. There are many people like myself that likes to try them before they're considered stable. Please don't suggest they knock us out of the opportunity. They would never be stable if it weren't for the people using them while they're unstable.

[ade234uk]

I installed Unity last night. I do really like it, but it was very slow for me indeed, and I generally always have my desktops without 3D acceleration.

I then tried the 2D Version, much better. But then I installed some programs through Wine and these would not launch and there where a few bugs which I expect.

I then tried Ubuntu classic. But 3D was enabled so I turned it off and then the windows kept sticking.

So for the time being I have installed Fedora again. I shall wait until things are sorted.

Now I have a taste of Unity I will come back, that's why I am using Fedora for a little while.

[BrockStrongo]

That is all in your control! Just install every other release & you have yearly.

Don't install it until 6mths after the release date, you have your stability.

Just because they create more, doesn't mean you have to install them all & you definitely don't have to install them before they get the kinks worked out.

This is just how it is & it works wonderfully. Getting people to understand the how & why is a different story all together. There are many people like myself that likes to try them before they're considered stable. Please don't suggest they knock us out of the opportunity. They would never be stable if it weren't for the people using them while they're unstable.

I see your point. It is people like you, who submit bug reports and troubleshoot that make Ubuntu stable. Here is a thought, what if Ubuntu marketed their LTS releases to new users, and continued to market the new releases to current users? This would keep current users happy while giving new users a stable release to try out. I just feel that a new user coming to Ubuntu would get discouraged at the amount of tweaking and tinkering that some releases seem to require.
(This is just opinion I have no facts to back this up)

[Dutch70]

I see your point. It is people like you, who submit bug reports and troubleshoot that make Ubuntu stable. Here is a thought, what if Ubuntu marketed their LTS releases to new users, and continued to market the new releases to current users? This would keep current users happy while giving new users a stable release to try out. I just feel that a new user coming to Ubuntu would get discouraged at the amount of tweaking and tinkering that some releases seem to require.
(This is just opinion I have no facts to back this up)

In theory, that's a very good idea Brock. I don't know how they would do it, but even if they could. The whole idea of Ubuntu is that it gives you total freedom to do whatever you want to with your computer, even if that means break it.

The people that have been here for a while usually always advise new users to stick with the LTS, they almost never adhere to that advice. As a matter fact, they won't even wait the 2 months that we advise before installing 11.04.
Then they act surprised and say that Ubuntu *****. LOL ...Blows my mind.

Here is a really good example of ignorance. This is hilarious. (ignorance=unlearned, not dumb)
Please Developers! Forget about New & FOCUS ON FIXES!!!! (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=9522217&postcount=29)

Keep in mind, that Ubuntu exists & is what it is because of people like us & that means you too if you have it on your computer & post in this forum. Everyone of us started where you are.

Also, when we install alpha/beta releases, we usually do it on another partition, and still use the stable release for our everyday computing. That way, it doesn't matter if/when it breaks.
It wasn't long ago at all, that I just couldn't imagine doing that. Matter of fact, Natty is the first beta I ever installed.
Today, I'm going to start working with Oneiric, by doing a separate install of Natty & pointing my sources.lst to the Oneiric repos. It will be another first for me & I'm excited about it although I know it will be a bumpy ride.

Back to the support question...lol.
Reinstall 10.04, set update manager to only show LTS releases. Then if you want to try the other releases, use virtualbox, or a usb stick or create a small partition to put it on. It will share the swap partition & it's much simpler than you may think.

[BrockStrongo]

The people that have been here for a while usually always advise new users to stick with the LTS, they almost never adhere to that advice. As a matter fact, they won't even wait the 2 months that we advise before installing 11.04.

I've been using Ubuntu since 8.10 and never came across this advise. This is a very good rule of thumb. I will spread it. I am also going to install 11.04 on a separate partition and try to troubleshoot some of the issues I found.
Cheers Dutch70,
BrockStrongo

[cariboo]

I agree. It feels as if Ubuntu is implementing these changes just for the sake of changing and in the process is diminishing some of the stability of the OS. I would rather see a yearly release of a well developed OS rather than what seems to be a hasty release every six months.

I wish people would quit saying change for the sake of change, Gnome is behind the changes in Natty, they are making gnome better by moving to GTK-3. Apparently gnome-panel consists of a lot of spaghetti code, and it would have to be re-implemented from scratch, in order to make them work with GTK-3.

[BrockStrongo]

I wish people would quit saying change for the sake of change, Gnome is behind the changes in Natty, they are making gnome better by moving to GTK-3. Apparently gnome-panel consists of a lot of spaghetti code, and it would have to be re-implemented from scratch, in order to make them work with GTK-3.

Good to know.

Thanks.