I agree that the best new feature for most people is faster bootup time. I have a dual boot (Widows 7, Ubuntu) Toshiba U505 and the difference in bootup used to be huge (Widows 7 being a lot slower), now the difference is humongus!
Wifi support now supports my new laptop.
I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it.
"I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it."
Using Ubuntu is much like the OS X experience: things just work, little wasted time. OS X wins a bit with apps like TexShop and OmniGraffle while Linux wins a bit with easier package maintenance.
I hate to admit this but I will: it took me about 20 hours to get Windows 7 set up with everything that I need for development and writing. Not bad once it is set up, but what a time-killing overhead expense. Now, I want to not drop my Windows/Ubuntu laptop: nice having a Windows machine available, but I hope to not have to spend the setup time again for many years.
The thing I like about ubuntu is that some things you don't really have to tweak to get right, like font rendering under X (such as having to go and use AUR to get ubuntu type rendering).
I liked arch for a little bit but just like ubuntu more, debian sadly is too dated for my hardware and I don't feel like using sid. If you do like arch for the fact that you can start from the ground up you should try doing an ubuntu minimal install (from here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD).
Not what I was looking for. That just snarfs packages from FTP rather than providing them on the CD.
I don't use Arch because I want the absolute bare minimum of functionality. I am just tired of seeing comments of the type:
# don't edit this file; use debian-specific-tool(8) instead to change it
in my /etc. I want to tweak e.g., resolv.conf my own damn self, without fearing that I'm interfering with the distro's way of doing things.
That's what I want from my Linux. Arch gets me most of the way there, has a kick-ass package system and rolling releases like Gentoo, but without the hassle of recompiling the freaking world when some critical library changes.
Last time I used a minimal install it was pretty small (it does grab packages from a cd but only a minimal installation of ubuntu).
It was more if you just like having the minimal system and choosing which software you wanted. Debian administration really isn't as bad as you seem to think but you're welcome to your opinions.
Personally I like BSD's (mostly freebsd) and am using ubuntu for matlab and an unsupported wireless card in bsd, but that just makes arch seem lacking when I use it
> debian sadly is too dated for my hardware and I don't feel like using sid
Did you try debian testing?
My experience with rolling release:
I tried Gentoo and then Arch, moving off both after they pushed updates which completely broke my system.
Gentoo has a disclaimer that you need to check each update individually, Arch was a little bit more realistic, but on the flip-side contradictory - some places they tell you to just update often, and others tell you to check packages for problems as with Gentoo.
If you do not intend to check each update for breakages (like me), then my advice is to not use Gentoo or Arch (but if you are willing to check all updates, then I'd recommend them).
Debian testing's been okay for me so far and I've got greater confidence that they a) won't be as likely to break my system, and b) will send an update to revert or fix in a reasonable time if they do.
If (or when?) this breaks, I'll go back to Ubuntu, full circle.
Widows? Seriously? I thought we're above juvenile name-calling here.
Also, startup time simply isn't a big deal. It's a big deal for people who dual-boot, but I think dual-booting is just stupid when virtualization is so easy.
I don't dual-boot, and boot-up time is still important to me. I don't want to leave my PC running when I'm not using it, but I do want it to be available as fast as possible when I turn it on.
Why don’t you want to leave your PC running? My sleeping MBP needs one Watt. That’s what, maybe the equivalent to one hot bath for a year worth of leaving your computer running? I can live with that. Being able to always pull that laptop out and have it running within two seconds is just damn cool.
Bootup time still matters, waiting forever until the system reboots after you installed that security update is still annoying. But it arguably matters less.
I have a desktop and don't want to leave it running all the time. Besides the power, the fact that the fan is running means that friction is slowly killing my moving parts. What's the point? I'll turn it on when I want to use it.
Upgrading my eeePC 1001P right now. Hopefully my funky wireless card will continue to work fine with the nidswrapper.
Something I appreciate is that I don't have to go to a "store" somewhere and get a "disk" to install and do an "upgrade". Update Manager is pretty nice at being no-hassle.
Overall my opinion is that Ubuntu is roughly equal to OS X for the little to no-hassle OS department.
I used to run Gentoo years ago, and then I got a real job and didn't want to spend time configuring and compiling and wanted Photoshop, so I switched to OS X. My PS needs are much less now days and I'm quickly drifting back to Linux and liking Ubuntu.
I took this same path (except for the Photoshop bit; I ended up using OS X because support for the shiny new PB17 I'd just bought was terrible in Gentoo -- or any Linux -- at the time), and after fighting with Ubuntu for a coupla months, installed Arch, and things are better, now.
I upgraded to 10.04 (server) on my Wind PC last night, which I use as a print server and torrentflux box. Everything seemed to handle the upgrade fine (samba needed an additional service restart, but I digress)
For those of you not happy with your upgrade/download speeds, just use a local mirror in your sources.list. An impartial list is available here:
> Yet I just don't see a benefit to moving them to the left side that justifies the aggravation of having to unlearn a habit that goes back nearly 20 years.
I am a big fan of Ubuntu. Been using it exclusively for quite a few years now. But I really don't get the point of moving the window buttons. First thing I did after upgrade was shift the theme back to Clearlooks[1].
Apart from that the upgrade was smooth, boot time is good and I plan to stick to Ubuntu :)
I didn't like the buttons at first, but decided to stick with them anyway. Took me all of 10 minutes to get used to them. Most of the time I Alt-F4 anyway, so it's really not a big deal.
Just upgraded from 9.04, took about 2 hrs. Finding the the left side windows icons a little unnatural, but going to stick with it for a couple of days. Otherwise it looks great, and no issues at all.
Great work Canonical, also I see linode have 10.4 vm's available already, fast work guys...
i was looking to install this on my old laptop yesterday (Fujitsu P5020D, the precursor of netbooks!), wiping my old install of crunchbang linux. however, i got hit by this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video... , and the liveCD booted to a blank screen even with nomodeset.
i just put arch on it, but i really wanted to see the UI changes that were made in this release.
Has the font rendering improved on 10.04? I had to do quite a bit of tweaking on 9.04 to get Firefox fonts to looks close Windows/Mac. Regardless, this upgrade looks great!
From a rough glance at the screenshots, they do seem to have improved. But if they haven't, all you really have to do is copy the fonts from Windows 7 to the newly installed Ubuntu distro, really just a minute-long task.
I have the feeling that ubuntu is trying to hard to look like Windows (for new users) but in the same time doesn't want to copy the UI. I think there is a decision to be made: Copy or not copy. If they really want to get new users from the Windows world, I think they should simply include a Windows theme with the same icons, the same X_[], etc.
Anyway, advanced users doesn't really use ubuntu.. and for some that use it, it's really a modified version.
Last thing, I find also that if their goals is to attract new users, they should stop with the mentality of over-configuring everything, every icons, every possible smallest thing you can think changing and instead, provide a clean and simple interface. Configuration files and script already exist for those special configuration, no need to pollute every window configuration with that.
That's my 0.02$ from someone who's been using Linux for 10 years. (I use arch, btw)
Agreed. They're competing at a whole new level now, having surpassed Windows in usability, functionality, and aesthetics a long time ago, they have their sites set on competing with Apple. If they're going to copy anything, it's going to be from the higher benchmark OS X has set than from Windows.
Wifi support now supports my new laptop.
I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it.