hardy heron

matrim

I upgraded my laptop this morning and all went well. The only issue I had was fonts displaying in firefox. This was fixed easy enough by changing the font dsi in firefox about:config.

The one thing I didn't like about the install is that, I had removed my old linux install and left the space on the HD unpartitioned. When I went to install I assumed that the default would be to install to unpartitioned space, but it was to resize my windows partition (and leave the no free space on it), and leave the unpartitioned space unused
I was lucky that I just noticed it before clicking OK. Then I had to manually choose the linux partitions.

sobriquet

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Slutmonkey is probably talking about the Month of Apple Bugs

Wow, don't recall it being that bad. They're all dated at Jan 2007 though, for clarity OS X 10.0 came out in March '01.

Slutmonkey57b

sobriquet wrote: »

Thousands of users and businesses globally depend on Linux and the BSDs. Why? Perhaps, and it's just a thought, it's because the above is not true.

I am not talking about the Linux/Unix metaverse as a whole, though. I am talking about ubuntu and its derivatives specifically.

The 'better made, better supported, and more useful' comment comes across as nothing but flamebait. You took stereo_steve to task for implying that you were a liar, that your experience means nothing. You're right, no-one here can tell you what did or didn't happen. What we can do though is reject what you're doing above: concluding from this experience that Linux is worthless not just for you but categorically, for everyone.

Ok, good point. My negative experience doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has a problem. But again, I am not saying Linux is worthless, I am saying that Ubuntu is worthless - and primarily not because of the technical issues or faults that I experienced, but because of what I see as the sloppy attitude of the devs, and the approach they have towards their releases and their stability.

Same goes for Linux, and every other system worth looking at out there. That some Gnome code is shaky or the application is badly designed or integrated says nothing about the quality of any other code on the system.

What it says is about the dev's committment to quality and quality control. As I said, the lack of quality control in the end-user experience leads me to the conclusion that quality control in other areas isn't all it could be either.

I'm sorry, but no. It takes no time at all to find out about the large numbers of Linux and BSD servers out there in critical roles, handling all sorts of sensitive data. The targets are very much there, and at least as worthwhile as their MS or other proprietary equivalents.

You're right, many banks and high risk targets do use Linux or some other Unix derivative. The problem there is that they're not running Ubuntu Linux, they're running closed-source distros that have been designed for them by one of the enterprise linux specialists. In essence, they're running not just a niche OS that isn't a big hacker target, they're running a custom designed OS with a lot of their software written in-house. As you said, if they do have breaches, it's bad sysadmin practice. But these institutions can't be used as an example of why Ubuntu is a viable option.

I don't know what Apple claimed, but I'm very interested in 'holes all over the place', because I don't remember that. Have you got a source for this? I somehow don't imagine that 'holes all over the place' is a particularly accurate recollection of how things panned out.

There was a good article on this in the Inq recently, I'll look it up. As above, the Month of Apple Bugs project proved that just because an OS doesn't have any published bugs doesn't mean that they aren't there. The fact that the Bug project was 2007, when OSX was released in 2001 only goes to prove one thing: Apple's complacancy and arrogance left their customers exposed for 6 years while they made a lot of noise about how unhackable and secure they were. I see a lot of the same complacancy in the Ubuntu devs.

sobriquet

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I am not talking about the Linux/Unix metaverse as a whole, though. I am talking about ubuntu and its derivatives specifically.

But the point still stands: I, and many, many others, find Ubuntu to be useful and worth using.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Ok, good point. My negative experience doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has a problem. But again, I am not saying Linux is worthless, I am saying that Ubuntu is worthless - and primarily not because of the technical issues or faults that I experienced, but because of what I see as the sloppy attitude of the devs, and the approach they have towards their releases and their stability.

Again, my point stands: I was talking about Ubuntu as well as Linux in general. From my experience, and those of Windows users I know who've given it a spin and been impressed for a variety of reasons. Where you see a sloppy attitude, I can see a impressive level of vision and drive to integrate it well, in spite of a hostile market (apathy from hardware makers with respect to drivers). The fact that Dell and other large manufacturers are getting on board is testament to this.

Slutmonkey, it sucks that you're dissappointed by Ubuntu and that it failed you, but if your experience was really representative would things have really unfolded as they are like that? Would the remarkable surge in its' popularity have happened?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

What it says is about the dev's committment to quality and quality control. As I said, the lack of quality control in the end-user experience leads me to the conclusion that quality control in other areas isn't all it could be either.

Ok, that's much clearer. Nevertheless, I don't think it stands. The Linux kernel alone stands at some 5.2 million lines of code. The GNOME desktop environment, in all its' programs, probably covers at least that if not more. Redhat 7.1, 30 million. Windows XP, about 40 million. (Source)

Bearing that scale of things in mind, does it make sense to make a blanket declaration of quality across any of those systems? I don't think it does, whether it's open source or proprietary. Quality of code and testing will inevitably vary between those projects.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You're right, many banks and high risk targets do use Linux or some other Unix derivative. The problem there is that they're not running Ubuntu Linux, they're running closed-source distros that have been designed for them by one of the enterprise linux specialists. In essence, they're running not just a niche OS that isn't a big hacker target, they're running a custom designed OS with a lot of their software written in-house. As you said, if they do have breaches, it's bad sysadmin practice. But these institutions can't be used as an example of why Ubuntu is a viable option.

My emphasis. I think you're making a fatuous distinction here. Redhat Enterprise Linux, Suse Linux Enterprise Server, and the variety of other 'big iron' type Linux distros are not closed-source, and are not designed on a site by site basis. They're marketed as being drop-in options for people wanting mail or file servers, firewalls or what have you.

Besides all that, the code the RHEL or SLES use, whether it's the kernel, GNOME, Firefox, Apache, whatever is the very same that Ubuntu use. There's no magic pixie dust that gets sprinkled on the code that Redhat use to make it more enterprisey and secure, though I'm sure their marketers would love for you to think so.

By the way, if you've evidence that many (any?) businesses replace time tested parts of critical infrastructure (any mail or webserver software for example) with their own in-house stuff, please let me know, I'd like to make sure I don't do business with them. Using stuff you can't in the default repositories like Oracle or Websphere doesn't count by the way.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

There was a good article on this in the Inq recently, I'll look it up. As above, the Month of Apple Bugs project proved that just because an OS doesn't have any published bugs doesn't mean that they aren't there. The fact that the Bug project was 2007, when OSX was released in 2001 only goes to prove one thing: Apple's complacancy and arrogance left their customers exposed for 6 years while they made a lot of noise about how unhackable and secure they were. I see a lot of the same complacancy in the Ubuntu devs.

I'm well aware of the arrogant attitude Apple seem to have, but there's a difference between the noise the marketers make and the efforts of developers to secure their systems (the same goes for everyone). Since 2001, OS X has not been static. Code has been added, removed and changed, viewed and reviewed. To accuse their developers of being complacent might be fair, but as likely as not it's not on target. Same goes for the Ubuntu developers, and despite your bad feelings about their complacency, there's nothing like the Month of Apple Bugs for Ubuntu.

Khannie

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I am not talking about the Linux/Unix metaverse as a whole, though. I am talking about ubuntu and its derivatives specifically.

For what it's worth, I find the ubuntu server to be very solid at the backend. I've yet to come across a major enterprise that uses it though. My experience (mostly at telcos) is that they use RHEL or Suse (less) or Debian (less again). Someone must be using it though, or they'd be out of business.

edit: I'm currently running Ubuntu 7.04 on the box I'm writing this from. Haven't bothered updating it as I don't see the need.

stereo_steve

I really want ed to let this go but just had to write back....

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

How is it superior? Is it faster? Smoother? More stable? Less bloat? Looks prettier? What functionality does it provide that other OS's don't? I couldn't find a single (positive) unique, interesting, or more importantly, useful thing about it. It doesn't allow me to do anything I haven't already been doing on some other OS for several years now.

No more "euros for eulas".
No more viruses.
No more bsods
No more registry.
No more dll`s
No more wga
More freedom
Not limited to a closed list of hardware (Apple)

With regard to other distributions... Ubuntu has won Best Distribution , Best Community , Outstanding Contribution to Linux , Linux Journal's Reader's Choice , and many more.

What? I must have been hallucinating when I saw a box pop up and ask me for the administrator password when I wanted to open the hard drive then?
Disagree with me if you want, but don't call me a liar.

We covered this. When you install Ubuntu you are presented with a screen showing all your harddrives. Where do you want Ubuntu installed etc. You obviously did not select for the other drives to be mounted on boot. Add them to you fstab and the problem is fixed. Should this have been made clearer to you on install? Perhaps it could be done better.

Ubuntu would have every right to not bother looking at the install disk and jump straight to searching the net, IF it didn't have such a well-deserved reputation for incomplete wireless support. It doesn't, so it has no business assuming that the internet is its first port of call.

Repeat, there is nothing on the disk to install later, nada, zilch! There is no reason to look on the disk for anything. Maybe a DVD will be created in the future with alot of packages on it maybe not. Its not really the responsibly of Ubuntu to do this. They provide an OS and some core packages, thats what you get. If you want something else, go get it yourself!

Then you're missing the whole point of what I was arguing about.

Not really you seem to have an absolute vendetta for Ubuntu.

Again, you're missing the point I was making. As to whether the LTS would "probably" not have been released, that depends on how much faith you have in Canonical's commitment to Quality Control. I have very little.

They are doing a superb job, especially with Launch pad. Everyone can contribute bugs and you can review their status online. I'm very happy with it. Although I seem to have a different view of it. I think, you think Ubuntu should meet some high standard that will revolutionise computers for all time and never be surpassed by a future release. Is it perfect, no! But I think its the best OS for my needs out there.

Useful requests on the front page of brainstorm, then:
Integrated Compiz-Check
Written by artir the 2 May 08 at 11:53. Category: Look and Feel. New
Compiz-Check(http://forum.compiz-fusion.org/showthread.php?t=8167) is a script that checks your system and sees why you cant run compiz. So, with this script, Ubuntu will say: "Desktop effects couldnt been enabled because X" instead of just "D.E. couldnt been enabled."

This is an excellent example of why I love linux. People just creating stuff for the community. However it should not have been released with Hardy. Why? Because Hardy was released after the script was written. I'm sure we will see it in the next hardy realease, Ibex.

Migrate settings like on a Mac
Written by terra the 2 May 08 at 04:18. Category: Installation. New
There should be a way to duplicate settings from one installation to another. Mac can do this...

That would be nice all right. As far as I am aware though, can the Macs update their OS with the latest version by the click of a button? Ubuntu can.

When renaming a file in nautilus, there is no way to undo changes made while typing. Just as in most other applications, the last changes should be reverted when the user hits CTRL+Z.

Definitely not good. But still this is more of a GNOME problem that effects all GNOME desktops.

Have a device manager
Written by ToSsMaStR the 1 May 08 at 21:33. Category: Look and Feel. New
Have a device manager, similar to windows, where one can see what devices are functioning properly and what needs to be installed and what not.

Device management could defiantly be better.See I don't disagree on everything

IMHO, if a version of a package exists on a CD, it should use that package, and only download a patch file, if that saves any time. If the version on the CD is the latest, it should certainly not download from the net - doing so wastes ubuntu.com bandwidth and consumes additional time.

But there is nothing extra on the CD. There is just no space....

Ubuntu pre-installed on the usb drives
Written by eyerouge the 2 May 08 at 04:06. Category: System. New
Canonical store is already selling 1 GB usb flash drives. Why not start selling 2, 3 or 4 GB drives with latest Ubuntu pre-installed on them?
It's actually quite astonishing this isn't in the store already.

If you are seriously using this as an argument, your just trolling now. What do you want? Would you like a 4GB memory stick in midnight blue? Maybe with a nice keyring attached? What does that have to do with Ubuntu?

As for the server edition of Ubuntu, its great, I have it on my home PC. Its rock solid. Why wouldn't it be though?! Its based on Debian. I see no problems with it. Nothing you have mentioned in this post so far gives reason to dismiss the server edition.

Can we let this go though? This thread has gone on long enough. We can just agree to disagree!

PogMoThoin

Can a mod please lock this thread, Slutmonkey57b is just trolling at this stage.

Khannie

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Can a mod please lock this thread, Slutmonkey57b is just trolling at this stage.

I disagree. s/he just doesn't like ubuntu. I think this is making for some good conversation tbh.

on this point / bug:

When renaming a file in nautilus, there is no way to undo changes made while typing. Just as in most other applications, the last changes should be reverted when the user hits CTRL+Z.

esc reverts changes. I agree that ctrl+z should work though.

pickarooney

corkie wrote: »

After these two steps:

1. Ctrl-AltF1
2. login

> sudo su (and entering password)
> telinit 1 (brings you to single user mode killing all X sessions)
> X -configure (will give you a new X configuration to use)
Follow instructions as directed from that prompt!
backup your old one (edit and paste the differences for mouse/touchpad settings)
> cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup
> cp /root/xorg.conf.new /etc/X11/xorg.conf
> reboot

That should hopefully resolve that issue. (I Got into the habit of doing that under slackware, when i was recompling)

Regards,
J.

No use, I'm afraid - there's nothing wrong with the xorg.conf file (X starts eventually after messing around deleting lock files). I think there's something up with the KDM initialisation process (one-line error message about trying to resume previous session on the screen) - startkde or klauncher or something?

I'll try and get the relevant xsession errors posted when I get the laptop on line (wifi is erratic as buggery on that still under Hardy).

Dartz

I can has WiFi trouble too...

And touchpad problems that won't go away.

I think both might be Hardware, but an XPS 1530 is hardly the rarest thing in the world.

synaptics driver doesn't like the Alps touchpad.

Wireless light doesn't even light up and doesn't connect to networks, despite being able to detect 'em fine. and it certainly knows it has a wireless card too...

ethernet

Dartz wrote: »

I can has WiFi trouble too...

And touchpad problems that won't go away.

I think both might be Hardware, but an XPS 1530 is hardly the rarest thing in the world.

synaptics driver doesn't like the Alps touchpad.

Wireless light doesn't even light up and doesn't connect to networks, despite being able to detect 'em fine. and it certainly knows it has a wireless card too...

• Found this brief and general report about installation of Debian on this machine (Ubuntu's base so very similar).
• This might help with the track-pad.

Oracle

While on the subject of touchpads I always install Gsynaptics when I put Ubuntu on a Dell notebook. Most Dell notebooks have Synaptic touchpads. I'm not sure if it's put on by default now but it's a very handy utility to have for controlling the touchpad and setting preferences.

P.S. Oh yeah forgot to say, for all noobies and those who prefer to do things the easy way (like me self!) You can install Gsynaptics using Add/Remove Applications, just search for Gsynaptics.

BopNiblets

I had Vista all alone on my OS hard drive so I put Gutsy on a partition to keep it company, and updated it to Hardy while I waited for my free CD (free delivery, how can you lose? \o/)

I had tried the Wubi Way but it seemed to want to download the whole CD again (or 650 odd megs of data) even though I was running Wubi from the Hardy CD I had burned already!

Finally got AWN dock working, I'm patiently awaiting for the Firefox Addon monkeys to get crackin' and update their stuff, had a little trouble installing Krita (screw The GIMP, it sucks, Krita is nice and enough like Paint.NET to be usable) but got it on with Synaptic eventually.
I had no problems with wireless on my mams computer (updated from Gutsy to Hardy too) which has some sort of wifi card, still connects to my NETGEAR wifi router.

<- Happy customer.

An Fear Aniar

What I love about Linux is that licensing is simply not an issue.

If I see something I like, I just download it. WOOT!!!:)

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/index.php?lang=

.

Dartz

Okay, now that fixe worked a charm. It's a little slow, but it works straight off the bat now.


For those who want to know:

When on the grub screen, press 'e' to edit your kernal commands and addd this to end:

i8042.nomux=1

If it works, add it to this file in the same manner.

/boot/grub/menu.lst

From: Here

BopNiblets

Speaking of the GRUB screen, is the latest kernel version "2.6.24-16-generic"?

I had message popup a few days ago that wanted to change my GRUB menu and now that I think about it it was probably because it wanted to put a new kernel version in, I disarded it and kept my current GRUB menu with "2.6.24-16-generic"...

If there is a new one how do I restore it? I'm using QGRUBEditor and Startup-Manager.

ethernet

BopNiblets wrote: »

Speaking of the GRUB screen, is the latest kernel version "2.6.24-16-generic"?

I had message popup a few days ago that wanted to change my GRUB menu and now that I think about it it was probably because it wanted to put a new kernel version in, I disarded it and kept my current GRUB menu with "2.6.24-16-generic"...

If there is a new one how do I restore it? I'm using QGRUBEditor and Startup-Manager.

kernel.org tells me: "The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.25.4". Your distro will, most likely, put the newer release in its repo in a while and then installing it is painless.

NotMe

BopNiblets wrote: »

Speaking of the GRUB screen, is the latest kernel version "2.6.24-16-generic"?

Yep that's the latest. I chose to keep current menu.lst aswell and then thought oh maybe I shouldn't have done that. But it was updated anyway. Don't think it would boot otherwise.

pickarooney

Just bumping this in case anyone can think of a solution to my X-won't-start-on-boot problem before I format the laptop.