PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else feel now Hardy much more stable than the release day?



Kosimo
June 1st, 2008, 11:07 PM
My first experience with Hardy was really bad... I had an endless list of problems, I felt my system very unstable etc etc... But update after update, I feel now my system being much more stable and very responsive. Openoffice starts soooo fast, firefox doesn't crash 15 times an hour like before and well, is just a personal feeling. I'm just impressed about how fast Hardy became stable for me. Because I have to say that it wasn't at the release day.

Does anyone else feel the same?

whitefang5412
June 1st, 2008, 11:15 PM
I haven't felt the same way. Ubuntu is the reason I re-installed windows for a while, until I can change ISP's and go back to fedora.

kk0sse54
June 1st, 2008, 11:37 PM
My first experience with Hardy was really bad... I had an endless list of problems, I felt my system very unstable etc etc... But update after update, I feel now my system being much more stable and very responsive. Openoffice starts soooo fast, firefox doesn't crash 15 times an hour like before and well, is just a personal feeling. I'm just impressed about how fast Hardy became stable for me. Because I have to say that it wasn't at the release day.

Does anyone else feel the same?

well that's what updates are for ;)

speedwell68
June 1st, 2008, 11:41 PM
Gotta say I am still less than happy with it. Ubuntu was the first distro I ever really tried and I was very happy with it up to Hardy. I am thinking of giving openSuse a try.

Jose Catre-Vandis
June 1st, 2008, 11:48 PM
It's been stable all the way for me since day one, certainly helped when I shifted from ATI to Nvidia though before installing. Running on lots of blunt edge hardware though...:)

zachtib
June 2nd, 2008, 12:22 AM
i think it has gotten a little better, i'm still having a few issues with sound, though.

but overall, i can say i'm happy with it

init1
June 2nd, 2008, 12:27 AM
No, it's still very slow and unstable for me.

bufsabre666
June 2nd, 2008, 12:43 AM
i thought hardy was stable since alpha 1 but thats just me

ladr0n
June 2nd, 2008, 12:47 AM
The only issue I ever had with Hardy was more Firefox's fault than Hardy's (I was rather disapointed with the choice to use beta software in an LTS at the time) but Firefox works wonderfully now, and I have to admit it's an improvement over Firefox 2.

JT9161
June 2nd, 2008, 02:03 AM
Hardy has been stable for me since I upgraded from Gutsy but I think that has a lot to do with not believing all the hype there was.

Methuselah
June 2nd, 2008, 02:06 AM
This is my first time running Ubuntu seriously and I haven't had all the problems with hardy others have had. My only issue was with sound recording and it turns out that it was because recording volume was turned down in pulseaudio. I had to install the pulseaudio tools and raise the volume level. That step shouldn't have been necessary in a perfect world (this would stump someone less technically inclined) but it wasn't too difficult to resolve.

23meg
June 2nd, 2008, 02:21 AM
I don't feel, but I know:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/188226
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/215728
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-monitor/+bug/187383
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+source/gvfs/+bug/212789
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+source/dmraid/+bug/221824

Joeb454
June 2nd, 2008, 02:22 AM
23meg - You'll be happy to know I've had no issues with Hardy, even since the Beta :)

23meg
June 2nd, 2008, 02:42 AM
23meg - You'll be happy to know I've had no issues with Hardy, even since the Beta :)

Good for you, but I don't think one person's subjective experience with no technical backing (or that of 1000 people, for that matter) is a good data point when assessing release stability. I'd base my judgment on concrete facts rather than random bits of anecdotal evidence provided by people whose usage patterns and hardware combinations I know next to nothing about and have no way of analyzing on any useful scale.

This is precisely why the flood of "Hardy is the worst release ever!!11" / "Hardy rocks because it worked out of the box!! (on my unknown computer)" threads in the Ubuntu Testimonials and Experiences forum are pretty much useless for anything other than venting out premature frustration and (often misplaced) self-congratulation.

Joeb454
June 2nd, 2008, 02:44 AM
Haha, I see your point, I just thought I'd pop that one in there.

I do have pretty generic hardware on my laptop - it's mostly Intel stuff actually

hariprs
June 2nd, 2008, 03:49 AM
Improved a lot and become more stable. We can see this from the number of problems posted on the forum. It came down a lot. But i still face issues with the firefox. Other than that everything works fine for me.

mthei
June 2nd, 2008, 04:11 AM
I've used Ubuntu from Edgy to Gutsy, and switched to Fedora in December, but spent a week and a few days with Hardy, which was probably three weeks after it was released. It's by far the most stable of the four Ubuntus (Ubunti?) I've used, with not a single crash, although Rhythmbox gave me some grief. Other than that, my only complaint is that suspend/resume still did not work. I still went back to Fedora as it just works better with my system than Ubuntu. Still, I'd still recommend Hardy over most other desktop-friendly distros out there (along with Fedora and Arch), while Gutsy had me saying otherwise.
Also, it's nice to see that with Hardy, even though it comes with a lot installed by default, you can now remove a lot more than in previous releases to lighten up your system.

gn2
June 2nd, 2008, 11:53 AM
8.04 has been really good for me, even got suspend working properly.
Till an update broke it last week. :(

kpkeerthi
June 2nd, 2008, 12:15 PM
After recent updates, I lost sound. Thanks to this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=776739) thread. I managed to fix it. I had sound when I installed Hardy (final) for the first time.

Suspend/Hibernate doesn't work for me yet... well, that's because I'm using nvidia binary driver. I get white screen upon resume (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-screensaver/+bug/224448). I'm not too concerned with this issue as I don't use suspend/resume ( but a fix would be nice :) )

Other than that, I do not have any sporadic crashes/reboots. Overall, I'm happy with Hardy.

boomtisk
June 2nd, 2008, 12:33 PM
I've been having a couple of problems with the copy of Xubuntu I installed on my old Thinkpad (unable to play Internet radio playlists, window decoration glitchiness in the terminal and System Monitor applications) and I don't think they've been fixed yet. It's nothing really major though. It works great on my desktop, though.

bigbrovar
June 2nd, 2008, 03:09 PM
well i can confirm that hardy works better on my system now compared to when i first installed .. then it was lockups every hour .. now i have not had any since i updated to the new kernel .. its been as smooth as butter

Bungo Pony
June 2nd, 2008, 04:20 PM
It's about the same. I'm still getting the random freezing on some boots, so of course I'm still not all that happy with it. And working with sound (Pulse Audio) is still a bit painful.

TheAL76
June 2nd, 2008, 05:27 PM
Definitely smoother now than at the beginning.

Nautilus was hanging a lot before, fading to grayscale for no reason.

I've had a few occasional hiccups, but nothing too bad.

I am a little disappointed with the level of QA done on Hardy. Definitely seems like it was lacking; probably should've pushed the release date back a bit.

swoll1980
June 2nd, 2008, 05:38 PM
I've had nothing, but stability since Alpha 5

BigSilly
June 2nd, 2008, 05:42 PM
Pretty much as you were for me. It was all good on the first day, and it's all good now. The only thing I wish they'd fix is the damn logoff sound! There's a workaround that I've tried from these forums, but it's not ideal really. On Gutsy you could just install the esound package from the repo, and that would solve it. But if you try and install that on Hardy it wants to remove ubuntu-desktop, which as you can imagine is not what you want to be doing!

But really, it's a silly niggle. I had a similar problem with a Windows install once, and I had no workaround there to fix it. At least here there's some semblance of a solution if you want it. Plus, they might fix it anyway in the future.

Otherwise, I'm very happy. Hardy's cool.

insane_alien
June 2nd, 2008, 05:45 PM
of course it is more stable now. the user base has increased phenomenally so the devs have had more bug reports so they can fix bugs that never came up in the beta's

this has happened with every release of ubuntu and everytime a release dat comes around people still seem to be surprised that there are a few left over bugs.

rudihawk
June 2nd, 2008, 06:13 PM
I wasnt too happy with hardy on release day. But today I feel that hardy is much better than it was...
/i love updates hehe

beyboo
June 2nd, 2008, 06:22 PM
I have an abit P35e mobo with an nvidia card running Gutsy.

I was going in for a cheap new laptop and was looking at an acer 5920. However I had heard about the scare regarding the support for the X3100 chipset. The moment I got to know that Hardy was supporting it OK, I bought the laptop a day after Hardy was released.

A deep breath and an install later, everything on my laptop just worked out of the box. Havent seen any of the crashes at all. Firefox 3 is around the corner, Openoffice works like a charm and its just too awesome :)

Battery caliberation is much improved and perfect. Hibernate, suspend, the web cam, SD Card reader and even my Intel wireless work out of the box. Using the any-any update I also have VMWare server running on it for my Windows exclusive software.

Wine is in RC stages and its just improving support day by day for all my IBM windows software. So its all smooth sailing for me.

Plus I used Mac4Lin and transformed my laptop to look like a MAC (a poor guys Mac !!)

So, I dont really know what ppl out there are talking about when they say it dont work ;)

23meg
June 2nd, 2008, 06:24 PM
the user base has increased phenomenally so the devs have had more bug reports so they can fix bugs that never came up in the beta's

Do you have any concrete information that points to this for Hardy in specific, or are you reiterating the common assumption?

As far as I've seen, the important bugs that got fixed after release had mostly been reported before release, but some had insufficient information from reporters, and some were awaiting upstream fixes.