Again?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Aug 04, 2009 2:52 PM EDT |
Yet another, most important to date Ubuntu release? Dont worry, the next one will be along in six months, just like this one was 6 months after the release of the last 'most important'. Just like the never ending 'perfect' set-ups for $distro. The only 'most' important that could ever be released would be if they could ever transition to a true rolling release model, and the only 'perfect' set-ups can not be attained from a binary based distribution method, ever. Just 'good-enough-for-most', in both cases. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 04, 2009 4:18 PM EDT |
I'm surprised nobody has come up with a source-focused, Ubuntu-derived distribution with package management that allows users to easily compile and install apps and updates. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 04, 2009 4:22 PM EDT |
Look at the article. There's surprisingly little in there. The guy didn't mention UbuntuOne, anything about Mono, the woe of Intel video, FF 3.5, Ext4, Banshee vs. Rhythmbox -- there's no there there. |
| bigg Aug 04, 2009 4:30 PM EDT |
> There's surprisingly little in there I wasn't going to say it, but I agree. This article provided little information and did a lot of Windows 7 promotion. I agree compared to Vista Windows 7 is an improvement. It's also an improvement over doing arithmetic on my fingers. That's not a high standard. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2009 7:59 PM EDT |
> It's also an improvement over doing arithmetic on my fingers. I'm not so sure about that. Your fingers can't be shut down at the whim of a server across the country from you. |
| caitlyn Aug 05, 2009 12:14 PM EDT |
Rolling release model? Any distro that does that is a distro that I will never use. I want a standard starting point. That way if something goes wrong debugging becomes much less of a nightmare. I'll stick with standard release model distros. Re: the article... yawn! Another Ubuntu promo piece. Every Ubuntu release since Feisty has been buggy and at least somewhat broken. Jaunty was probably the worst of the lot as it was unusable on my system with an Intel chipset and equally unusable on my old Trident chipset. There are workarounds for both which involve considerable work and in the case of the Intel chipset, don't fully solve the problem. I am convinced that Ubuntu and all the other distros that have a release every six months come hell or high water are going to be broken and messy. Both Mandriva and Fedora seem to have fallen into that trap. Those with yearly releases or, better yet, when its ready releases do far, far better. Ubuntu LTS is fine after the first or second maintenance release because it doesn't come out often and the folks at Canonical actually feel like they have to fix it, unlike the regular releases. Oh, I'll try Karmic. I'm not expecting much... |
| gus3 Aug 05, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
Gentoo's early release model was "rolling." That led to the libffi screw-up that killed GCC... and made updates impossible. No, thanks. I'm already guilty enough of finding novel (and not so novel) ways to clobber my system. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 05, 2009 1:42 PM EDT |
I've been having a lot of luck with the Ubuntu LTS (never mind today's post-update Firefox glitch, which a reboot and then a couple of relaunches fixed). Places where I'm deviating from the Hardy packages are: -- Adobe AIR and TweetDeck, both of which I installed manually, neither of which I'm still using -- Flash 10 from Adobe, Flash 9 kept crashing X, and I couldn't get the Hardy backport to work. Otherwise I'm sticking with the LTS repos. If needed to deal with .docx files more, I'd have a reason to either install OO 3 or upgrade. And if I really felt like I needed UbuntuOne, likewise. I have another laptop on 8.04 which is also still doing well. The main account's password recently got messed up somehow, and I booted into single-user mode to reset it (makes me think about locking down GRUB and disabling CD boot and USB mounting ...) I'd favor a Ubuntu "really Unstable" rolling release as a companion to the regular releases and all those alphas they put out (though I wouldn't use any of them myself). But I suppose you could constantly change your sources.list and continually upgrade to the next release as a way of keeping it "rolling." Now that I've figured out the xorg.conf tweaks I need to keep my old Intel video chips working and I can upgrade to 9.04 (or Slackware -current ...), I'm just hanging back for the moment and looking for a reason to do it. Boosting my RAM from 768 MB to 1 GB just made me lazier because I got a nice performance boost w/o having to reinstall anything (except the SODIMM). Lazy and impatient as I am, one thing I like about running Debian Stable, Ubuntu LTS, CentOS and Slackware is that there aren't all that many updates to deal with between releases. |
| bigg Aug 05, 2009 2:02 PM EDT |
> It would be rolling, but it would be a development distro, as opposed to rolling release. Arch is probably about the best you can do in terms of a rolling release. |
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!