PDA

View Full Version : Why has Ubuntu changed so much?



cacycleworks
March 20th, 2012, 03:00 AM
My linux revival began around Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04. Why has it changed so much that it doesn't install on hardware now that it did then? How come it just doesn't look or act the same?

What's a bummer is how when I first got my Dell D630 intel C2D laptop, there were problems with ICH9 and all that. Sometime around 9.10 and 10.04, those same problems came right back...

The desktop I'm on has the realtek 8168 problem that never got fixed and now I try to boot 11.10 and it can't even make video happen. And this is one of the newer 8 thread Xeons, so we're not talking about ancient hardware.

Why does Ubuntu keep working so hard to suck? My desktop is on 9.04 LTS and I've been casually trying other distros (on a spare HDD) in the interim and various other distros manage to boot and install ok. But I really like Ubuntu... been using it so long and I've got so many desktops and servers with it that it's home for me.

But these changes lately make me feel more lost than when kubuntu abandoned KDE 3.51. At least then, I knew using the current desktop x86_64 live CD would get me back to work.

Anyhow, sorry to be whining. :P I'm just bummed that I'm seriously distro shopping now and PC Linux OS might be my next home.

Would love to hear positive thoughts from other curmudgeonly types who have stuck with all the new stuff going on.

Thanks,
Chris
):P

wolfen69
March 20th, 2012, 03:09 AM
Why does Ubuntu keep working so hard to suck?

You need to talk to the kernel devs, not canonical. Do you honestly believe they are working hard to suck? That goes against most business roadmaps. If compatibility is an issue for you, do some research and buy a compatible pc, or buy one with ubuntu preinstalled. Windows users buy pc's made for windows, mac users buy computers made for mac. Is it hard to understand why it works out of the box for them?

There are 18 million different hardware configurations out there. It amazes me that people complain when they find one that doesn't work right, or no longer works. Some research and planning can go a long way.

And btw, what about people that had xp on their machine, but win7 won't work? It happens. Such is the nature of computing.

linuxyogi
March 20th, 2012, 04:10 AM
Yes, it is kernel related. I installed Fedora 16, did a kernel update & it won't boot anymore.

lisati
March 20th, 2012, 04:16 AM
And btw, what about people that had xp on their machine, but win7 won't work? It happens. Such is the nature of computing.

One might also contemplate why the machine I have which came with Win98SE won't run newer versions of Windows too well, let alone a graphical version of Ubuntu. I currently have a CLI version of 6.06 on it, and consider it not worth the hassle of upgrading it to run something newer.

ExSuSEusr
March 20th, 2012, 04:23 AM
Why does Ubuntu keep working so hard to suck?


They are not trying to suck my friend. They are some of the most artistic and talented programmers in the world.

The problem is where their focus is. I feel your pain in that nothing works in Linux, and as I have said in other posts - Linux is not meant for mainstream users. It is a hobbiest OS.

The main issue I see is that the authors of this OS aren't concerned with functionality and productivity. They are more concerned with 3D cube desktops and other options that do nothing to help you be productive, in real life, with your computer.

Wine sucks.
PlayonLinux is way too limited.
Virtualbox is ok if you don't mind spending half your life trying to figure out to make it work.


Instead of just being able to pop in a CD and it working.

Then when you get something to work - the next day it doesn't work. Then it works again. Then it doesn't.

The Linux community prides itself in being "free" but the thing is there is nothing wrong with paying for software. You get coders who have a mountain a student loan debt putting themselves through school to learn how to code and end up working for a company that sells whatever it is they sell. I don't have a problem paying these guys for their expert coding skills for a program that actually WORKS without having to use 5,000 lines of code in a terminal only for it to break after the every next update.

Trust me I feel you. Whether you know it or not... I actually love Linux and what it ultimately stands for... but I don't give a "f" about 3D cubes... I want FUNCTIONALITY.

thatguruguy
March 20th, 2012, 04:42 AM
My linux revival began around Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04. Why has it changed so much that it doesn't install on hardware now that it did then? How come it just doesn't look or act the same?

What's a bummer is how when I first got my Dell D630 intel C2D laptop, there were problems with ICH9 and all that. Sometime around 9.10 and 10.04, those same problems came right back...

The desktop I'm on has the realtek 8168 problem that never got fixed and now I try to boot 11.10 and it can't even make video happen. And this is one of the newer 8 thread Xeons, so we're not talking about ancient hardware.

Why does Ubuntu keep working so hard to suck? My desktop is on 9.04 LTS and I've been casually trying other distros (on a spare HDD) in the interim and various other distros manage to boot and install ok. But I really like Ubuntu... been using it so long and I've got so many desktops and servers with it that it's home for me.

But these changes lately make me feel more lost than when kubuntu abandoned KDE 3.51. At least then, I knew using the current desktop x86_64 live CD would get me back to work.

Anyhow, sorry to be whining. :P I'm just bummed that I'm seriously distro shopping now and PC Linux OS might be my next home.

Would love to hear positive thoughts from other curmudgeonly types who have stuck with all the new stuff going on.

Thanks,
Chris
):P

9.04 was an LTS?

sidzen
March 20th, 2012, 05:07 AM
@linuxyogi (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=996859) --

Starbucks Tux -- I like that avatar!

@OP --

Hell, I use peppermint now when not using Salix, hence the "Lubuntu." I learned on 9.04 and chased the Jackalope until he ran into a Lynx, abandoned ship after that and am awaiting what the new LTS may bring, but not holding my breath! Very slim repo pickings in PCLOS land almost starved me until I made my way into the Spartan city once called sidux, where at least I got fed and stronger. But, as Thomas Wolfe said, "You Can't Go Home Again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Go_Home_Again)."
(Sigh)

wolfen69
March 20th, 2012, 06:12 AM
Linux is not meant for mainstream users. It is a hobbiest OS.


Really? I stopped there. Ubuntu has done everything I've asked it to. I havn't used windows in years. I rip DVD's, bittorrent, and everything else most people do. Without one hitch or glitch.

Did you install Mac OS on a piece-meal computer and expect it to work? Oh wait, macOSX requires certain hardware. Linux works on more hardware than any other OS on earth. Don't like linux, don't use it. But if you're going to use it, use it like other OS's and use the right hardware.

wolfen69
March 20th, 2012, 06:20 AM
Yes, it is kernel related. I installed Fedora 16, did a kernel update & it won't boot anymore.

Thank you. People are quick to blame Ubuntu.

wolfen69
March 20th, 2012, 06:28 AM
it is kernel related. I installed Fedora 16, did a kernel update & it won't boot anymore

Geez, I guess it's not ubuntu's fault. If people would just calm down and ask questions on the forums, I'm sure people would help. But in the case of the OP, it's a matter of the kernel devs abandoning certain things. It has to happen, otherwise the kernel would be HUGE.

Btw, there are distros that cater to people with needs like you. I'm sorry if ubuntu didn't fuel your aging pc.

Paqman
March 20th, 2012, 08:10 AM
My linux revival began around Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04. Why has it changed so much that it doesn't install on hardware now that it did then?

Because 4-5 years of progress in computing is equivalent to about 1000 years in anything else.

There are things you can do. Stay on the LTS track for less frequent upheavel, or use a more conservative distro like Slackware. Some of the packages in the Slack repos have actually fossilised.

Peripheral Visionary
March 20th, 2012, 12:20 PM
... 4-5 years of progress in computing is equivalent to about 1000 years in anything else.

There are things you can do. Stay on the LTS track for less frequent upheaval, or use a more conservative distro like Slackware. Some of the packages in the Slack repos have actually fossilised.

As a newbie I plan on sticking with the LTS versions (even though I'm testing Precise this week), or at least one release behind whatever the current one is, just for the sake of stability.

As for functionality, though, I worry that future versions of this awesome distro will outrun my old hand-me-down hardware. When that happens, if I can't afford a new computer or just want to keep using this one, I'll switch to some newbie-friendly ultralight, ultra-long-lived alternative. Like SalixOS (http://www.salixos.org/wiki/index.php/Home) or Slax or who knows yet.

Grenage
March 20th, 2012, 12:38 PM
Geez, I guess it's not ubuntu's fault. If people would just calm down and ask questions on the forums, I'm sure people would help.

I think a lot of people just view Ubuntu as a single, whole product, rather than amalgamation. In such cases, it's Ubuntu that failed, not the kernel or a third-party package. If my car fails when the spark plugs perish, I blame the spark plugs; someone else might blame the car.

Regressions can be a pain in the a**.


Because 4-5 years of progress in computing is equivalent to about 1000 years in anything else.

Quite so; most will want to stay with an older LTS on ageing machines.

SemiExpert
March 20th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Why does Ubuntu keep working so hard to suck? My desktop is on 9.04 LTS and I've been casually trying other distros (on a spare HDD) in the interim and various other distros manage to boot and install ok. But I really like Ubuntu... been using it so long and I've got so many desktops and servers with it that it's home for me.



Ubuntu 9.04 wasn't an LTS, was released in April of 2009 and hasn't been supported since April of 2010. I really don't know why you're still using an outdated, unsupported release, but you've had the better part of 2 years to figure out a solution? If you need tech support, go with Red Hat, since they have a great business model based almost solely on the concept of providing OS support. Or you can stick with Debian, since Ubuntu is based on Debian testing. The choice is yours.

keithpeter
March 20th, 2012, 08:15 PM
My linux revival began around Ubuntu 7.10 and 8.04. Why has it changed so much that it doesn't install on hardware now that it did then? How come it just doesn't look or act the same?

Hello cacycleworks and all

Try CentOS, Scientific Linux or PUIAS Linux version 5.7 for a nostalgic experience but with security updates (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8403291/centos.html). Scientific Linux 5.7 installed fine from the live cd on an old Dell C610.

Unity is growing on me. I suspect that I use my computers for such basic things that the finer details of the user interface don't impinge on my 'workflow' much.

Ruth is laughing at the idea of me having a workflow now, so I'm going to get a pillow and start a fight :twisted:

keithpeter
March 20th, 2012, 08:30 PM
And btw, what about people that had xp on their machine, but win7 won't work? It happens. Such is the nature of computing.

Bit OT but I can't resist. I've had this one the other way round.

A previous employer had a manager who bought some actually rather nice HP tablet laptops - the ones where you can twist the screen round and fold it flat on top of the keyboard.

They came with Vista. The College standard desktop was based on XP. Techies tried to downgrade: no drivers for the tablet aspect available in XP. The network manager would not let us connect them to the network unless they had the standard College image installed....

winh8r
March 20th, 2012, 08:52 PM
It is a case of "sexiness over functionality"

Merk42
March 21st, 2012, 04:11 AM
It is a case of "sexiness over functionality"Or a case of just reading the title and hitting reply

winh8r
March 21st, 2012, 09:29 AM
Or a case of just reading the title and hitting reply

Yes, you are correct. 100%.

Ubuntu has not shifted focus. And I am in full agreement with the other respondents, if it won't run on your PC go out and buy a new PC in order that it will.
All the changes to Ubuntu have been for the better. If you find it unsuited to your needs, use an alternative OS.

Apologies for my original reply. No offence intended.

Peripheral Visionary
March 21st, 2012, 10:06 AM
...if it won't run on your PC go out and buy a new PC in order that it will.


If it won't run on my PC I'll switch distros rather than buy a new PC. There are plenty of distros designed for older hardware. That's why Linux is so cool. There's something for just about everyone.

But when I have to buy a new computer, it'll likely be a Mac if I can afford one.

wojox
March 21st, 2012, 06:31 PM
Innovation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation)

knight2000
March 22nd, 2012, 01:02 AM
Because the guys over at Gnome were ignoring Ubuntu developers. We had to break free from their control if we wanted to have any significant say over how things look and feel.

cacycleworks
March 27th, 2012, 12:50 AM
OP checking in here. Right, actually I know 9.04 isn't an LTS. I'm on 10.04.3 LTS as the newest Ubuntu that works for me.

I do not see an ASUS Maximus III GENE with Xeon X3440 as legacy hardware, to be retired from expected to run Ubuntu. I mean it is about 2 years old...

And what about all the core 2 duo's currently be sold new with win7?

uRock
March 27th, 2012, 01:07 AM
I do not see an ASUS Maximus III GENE with Xeon X3440 as legacy hardware, to be retired from expected to run Ubuntu. I mean it is about 2 years old...

And what about all the core 2 duo's currently be sold new with win7?

I do not understand where you are having any issues. I do not see where you have an active help request. Have tested the LiveCD for defects?

QIII
March 27th, 2012, 01:19 AM
I pretty much think it's crap the we don't use Unix on a yellow and black CRT terminal like we did in the day.

Why is everyone trying so hard to make things suck?

rmil
March 27th, 2012, 01:25 AM
I found very rear case in Ubuntu that some HW is not working at all. There is always help in forums to make something working. Honestly windows made me more trouble with HW than any other linux distro I tried. You need stupid drivers for everything.

One example Regarding old HW my very very old IBM 1998, Pentum II 300Mhz, with 288MB fully works with lubuntu 11.10. There was problem with sound detection but there is always good solution on fourms which is working from ubuntu 7.04

Hence I am 100% sure that solution for your problem is Google and at least try to find module that was working on previous Kernels. At least you can always build your own Kernel. Try doing that with other OS like windows.

Frogs Hair
March 27th, 2012, 01:28 AM
I started with 9.10 and every release since has worked better for me. 10.10 was my favorite Gnome 2 release and 11.04 was a transitional release . Gnome ending support for a 10 year old DE probably couldn't be avoided. I think that distributions that use it will have no choice but to move to other DEs eventually. Hardware requirements change for all operating systems over time.

cortman
March 27th, 2012, 05:13 AM
Because... (http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-times-they-are-achangin-lyrics-bob-dylan.html)

wolfen69
March 27th, 2012, 05:30 AM
Change is inevitable. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad.

mamamia88
March 27th, 2012, 06:44 AM
I agree it kind of feels like ubuntu is going backwards, but maybe that is because i started using ubuntu back when vista was out and at the time vista was a joke. If I'm honest I will admit that I love windows 7 and it's a huge improvement over vista. On the other hand unity just seems like it's not as usable as it could be right now and is change for the sake of change.

Grenage
March 27th, 2012, 08:34 AM
Vista was a good OS, Window 7 was just better received because people had time to adjust.

jon_gunnar
March 27th, 2012, 09:09 AM
The problem is where their focus is. I feel your pain in that nothing works in Linux, and as I have said in other posts - Linux is not meant for mainstream users. It is a hobbiest OS.

I have seen this statement used a few times before, I simply don't get it.

Linux has been my main system for years now, because I get thing's done there.

I swithced to a laptop a few month's ago and wanted to try and live with windows only, I really don't like Unity.

Win7 is so nice for playing games, the best thing for it. But for everything else it is to slow and unreliable.
So I am in the prosess of getting Linux installed again.

But since you writes in statement I makes my own to.
Linux is for the mainstream users who need to get work done. Windows is for games and fun. Mac I know nothing about.

uRock
March 27th, 2012, 01:11 PM
Linux has been my main system for years now, because I get thing's done there.

Same here.

Paqman
March 27th, 2012, 01:49 PM
Vista was a good OS, Window 7 was just better received because people had time to adjust.

Indeed. Clever piece of rebranding they did there.

spynappels
March 27th, 2012, 02:32 PM
Same here.

Me too, I use Ubuntu Exclusively at home and at work, and Unity rocks!

Witch Lady
March 27th, 2012, 04:19 PM
I agree it kind of feels like ubuntu is going backwards, but maybe that is because i started using ubuntu back when vista was out and at the time vista was a joke. If I'm honest I will admit that I love windows 7 and it's a huge improvement over vista. On the other hand unity just seems like it's not as usable as it could be right now and is change for the sake of change.

I like Unity better than Vista (used for few years) and Windows 7. Unity just works better for me and while using 7 I often catch myself getting things done like in Unity.

Sylos
March 27th, 2012, 04:29 PM
In the interest of making the OP feel a little better Im going to throw in a sympathetic comment....

I agree it bites like a biznitch when you loose support for a previously working device. A lot of people have said that older hardware will no longer support new OSes (the example of old boxes running windows OSes like XP or older wont run 7 etc) and some of that is due to lack of resources etc and some due to just support seemingly being dropped. I had it happen to a certain degree with an older wireless dongle. Worked fine in Hardy - Lucid doesnt like it. Part of me gets annoyed and starts cursing like a sailor blaming ubuntu/kernel devs for regressing - I mean... if it used to work why not keep it that way? But I suppose if that happened we would have Kernel images that took days to download and instead of downloading an Ubuntu install ISO youd be getting sent a whole HDD image. Doesnt mean I wouldnt get peeved that I have to buy a new machine when it used to work though.

I often want to vent about issues I have with linux and its failures - but the fact is I love Ubuntu and linux as a whole - and I wouldnt want to change to anything else right now (even though I dislike Unity) and I guess the OP (correct me if Im wrong) has stuck with the issue for the same reason.

Ubuntu has changed so much because it had to - maybe it didnt need to change in the exact ways it has - but progress is required. Sometimes it kicks you in the crotch and sometimes it gives you a big hug. Its the way of the world.

As has already been said - you are pretty unlucky if you cant find a solution or alternative somewhere in the linux universe.

Cheers

Artificial Intelligence
March 27th, 2012, 04:40 PM
Same here.

Ditto.

I know several others (both family and friends) that have it like me.

And also the majority of servers runs Linux. Go tell them they are using a HobbyOS :rolleyes:

SemiExpert
March 27th, 2012, 06:30 PM
OP checking in here. Right, actually I know 9.04 isn't an LTS. I'm on 10.04.3 LTS as the newest Ubuntu that works for me.



I believe the last and current 10.04 release is 10.04.4. The kernel is a bit old for my newest hardware, and my older hardware runs fine on 11.10.
I do not see an ASUS Maximus III GENE with Xeon X3440 as legacy hardware, to be retired from expected to run Ubuntu. I mean it is about 2 years old...



You're running a server/workstation oriented CPU on a consumer/gaming oriented motherboard?
And what about all the core 2 duo's currently be sold new with win7?

I guess that anyone can still buy a LGA 775 motherboard and a Pentium Exxx CPU. There are also 2010 vintage Macbook Airs still being sold as new with Core 2 Duo chips, and probably some older barebone whitebooks being resold. Of course, there's no reason why you can't run Ubuntu 12.04 on a Socket T/LGA 775 desktop? You can definitely run Ubuntu 11.10 on a Pentium III/IV, and probably 12.04 as well?

TeamRocket1233c
March 27th, 2012, 11:01 PM
Crunchbang's a good lightweight distro, or you could do a minimal install of Ubuntu, and set it up however you like.

farrinux
March 28th, 2012, 08:13 AM
I have been using Ubuntu since 8.04 and think that it has done nothing but improve. Yes at times there can be hardware , driver issues, but this also happens in windows. I have 3 pc's and one netbook loaded with Ubuntu. The oldest pc being a Socket A board, late 1990's early 2000's board ancient by todays standard and it hums along on 8.04. My newest a 6 core fire breathing monster running 11.10 64bit. Judging how the netbook handles 11.10 I think the old socket A would run it too. For me I will continue with Ubuntu as MS lost me years ago with their customer service.

cacycleworks
March 28th, 2012, 08:25 PM
You're running a server/workstation oriented CPU on a consumer/gaming oriented motherboard?

Yes, no difference between core i5 and this xeon, other than people claim the xeons are hand picked and overclock better. Since mine's been on 4008 MHz the whole time I've had it, I don't disagree.

I'm still not convinced to try 11.10 or 12.04. Of course, hating on the OP was my expectation from the beginning. Thank you to those who are trying. :)

forrestcupp
March 28th, 2012, 09:38 PM
I'm still not convinced to try 11.10 or 12.04.

It wouldn't hurt anything to install it on a USB thumb drive and boot to the Live environment to see if it works. The worst that can happen is that you've wasted a little time. You've probably spent as much time in this thread as you would checking out a Live CD/USB of the latest version of Ubuntu. ;)