Hardy has some problems
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Apr 27, 2008 11:49 AM EDT |
I've read stories about difficulties getting Hardy installed. Mine installed perfectly. I've been using Hardy for a couple of weeks now (I needed to record some live TV, and it seemed Mythbuntu was the way to go.) I installed Ubuntu and then added Mythbuntu. Maybe my problems have resulted from installing the beta and then updating. Maybe a fresh install would fix all my problems. Every so often the computer just freezes. Everything locks up for five or ten seconds. Additionally, some programs for my work are just unbelievably slow. I enabled Compiz to see what that looks like. Nothing new on that front compared to what I saw eight months ago, so I shut it off. Now my background has changed to the default and I can't get it to change back. Some applications get installed, but don't appear in the menus. Even worse than that, not all the dependencies that should be set actually are. Annoying for me, a dealbreaker for a Windows convert. I even found a package that didn't work after installation. That's inexcusable, as it doesn't take much to start an app and see if it works. Doesn't LTS mean we should be able to expect the basics to work? Hopefully I'm the only one with these problems. I'll probably start over with a fresh install just to see if that fixes things. I was going to hand out Ubuntu CD's to some friends - Wubi is pretty nice. That won't happen unless my new installation works the way it's supposed to. I don't have these problems with Mandriva or Arch. And I can live with a few outdated packages in Debian if need be, compiling as necessary, rather than using Ubuntu. Not impressed right now, to say the least. It wouldn't bother me if Ubuntu 8.04 wasn't getting so much coverage everywhere, even in the non-tech press. |
| tuxchick Apr 27, 2008 12:27 PM EDT |
The author was trying out Wubi, not doing an ordinary install, so it's not surprising he encountered problems. It would be nice if these things were released after they actually worked right, rather than before. And if he says "pop my cherry" one more time I'm going to hunt him down and pop his pointy head open. |
| tracyanne Apr 27, 2008 12:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:And if he says "pop my cherry" one more time......... Only if I don't get there first. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 27, 2008 2:23 PM EDT |
Look at the packages in 8.04-- Firefox 3 beta, OpenOffice 2.4 ... there are probably many more that haven't been around long enough to get the bugs shaken out. It's a calculated gamble: either a) wait until the release is "really" ready, b) front-load the damn thing with the newest packages you can, and let it "ripen," or "mature," in the months ahead or c) make the release date but use older, more-proven packages. You can see that Ubuntu has chosen b) They feel that the LTS must have the requisite "excitement" of a regular six-month Ubuntu release. So thing of 8.04 as a kind of Debian Testing/Unstable that should get to Testing level at some point, and probably to Stable grade by the time a year is out. That gives you a couple more years of "Stable" goodness, no? The way OpenBSD makes its six-month release schedule is that the project is steadily making improvements, and every six months they take a snapshot, put out a changelog and give it a release number. So it's a more organic, less-rushed process. You can stick with the numbered releases, or go with the -stable or -current branches. I know that most use -current, since it's been somewhat tested but is constantly being updated. For me, however, Ubuntu 8.04 has been doing quite well. No major issues yet. I did have issues with 7.04 and 7.10, but I'm giving Ubuntu another chance, especially because 6.06 was and is so good. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 27, 2008 8:15 PM EDT |
Quoting: They feel that the LTS must have the requisite "excitement" of a regular six-month Ubuntu release. There is a lot to be said for a regular release schedule, which is what Ubuntu and Mandriva both have. Those distros that are rolling (PCLOS really comes to mind) don't get the press all of the time due to the fact that there's nothing new to report. The MiniMe 2008 that came out a while back was just an updated ISO of the 2007 version, allowing you to download updated programs to start with. If you installed the 2007 version you'll be able to update until the cows come home, and even if a 2008 version comes out soon, you can just install the updates on the 2007 version and be up to date. They could just release updates ISO files every six months if they wanted, but since it's not a commercial release they don't really need to. If a new one hit the wires every few months you'd hear time and again how good the distro is, but that's not how it is. I think the same is true for Mepis...not sure if it's a rolling distro, however. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 28, 2008 11:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:There is a lot to be said for a regular release schedule, which is what Ubuntu and Mandriva both have. Those distros that are rolling (PCLOS really comes to mind) don't get the press all of the time due to the fact that there's nothing new to report. It's a double-edged sword, all right. I still think that OpenBSD has it right: work on a rolling-release basis (which is what OpenBSD-current is) and freeze a copy every six months for a release, but continue the steady work on the project so there are no big surprises. Since so many OpenBSD users run -current, if things don't work, the developers aren't hit all at once with the bugs. The same approach, sort of, is taken in Debian, where users can run Testing or Unstable all the time, and any fixes that are made will eventually wind up in Stable. The only problem there is that Stable releases of Debian are not on a set schedule, and now we're looking at a year and a half between Stable releases. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!