I kind of half agree
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Nov 13, 2009 1:55 PM EDT |
In principle the author is correct. The problem is that Ubuntu doesn't market the semiannual releases as "interim". They're considered final, ready for the public releases. Yes, the LTS releases have generally been better and more stable, at least after the first maintenance release. I also agree that LTS releases make a lot more sense for typical users who do not need to be on the leading or bleeding edge. So perhaps, rather than claiming Ubuntu isn't broken, the author should convince the people at Canonical to rethink how they describe their releases. Certainly, if the six month release cycle is for final releases the answer to the question "Is Ubuntu broken?" would be a "yes" all too often. Another point which needs to be made: a lot of the reported problems are with older ATI graphics cards. The manufacturer has removed support for the older chipsets from the latest proprietary drivers forcing users to use the Open Source drivers instead. Sadly, those drivers are not up to snuff. Canonical and other distributors had two choices: support an older version of X.org that works with the older drivers or live with the problem. They chose the latter, which makes sense since much newer hardware, including almost anything with an Intel chipset, requires the latest and the greatest to work properly. It was a lesser of two evils choice and it's not restricted to Ubuntu. Mandriva, OpenSUSE and Fedora all have the same issue. This is an excellent argument against proprietary drivers. ATI seems to be trying to force upgrades and purchases. A chipset with solid Open Source drivers will almost certainly never have such issues. I have an 11 year old system which still has decent graphics but it uses Open Source drivers. FWIW, I've had very good results with 9.10. I don't have the impacted hardware so I don't run into the issues. |
| softwarejanitor Nov 13, 2009 3:41 PM EDT |
@caitlyn The thing that I don't think that ATI gets is that they are forcing a lot of upgrades... when people get so frustrated with their cr@ppy drivers that they buy nVidia cards to replace them or make sure their next laptop doesn't have an ATI chipset. Seriously... I have passed on a number of laptops because I've had enough bad experiences in the past with bad drivers from ATI -- and not just on Linux (although I've never personally run Windows at home I've had to deal with it at work or had people bring me their hardware to try to fix it)... I was hoping that things would have gotten better once ATI was bought by AMD, but sadly any improvement seems to be slow in coming. |
| azerthoth Nov 13, 2009 3:50 PM EDT |
softwarejanitor, add in the infamous issue where ATi has dropped support for card that are still out there in the wild. This is another selling point for not buying ATi cards ... when will they arbitrarily decide that they dont want to support that card any longer? what is their criterion or drop dead date? ATi has always been a bear in working with linux and I dont see them changing their tune any time soon. |
| techiem2 Nov 13, 2009 3:54 PM EDT |
The one time I actually used an ATI card for any length of time (All in Wonder 128 back in the late 90's), it worked much better in Linux than Windows (Windows would lock up if I tried to actually record from the tv tuner on the card...). Of course, that machine was also running the cursed configuration of the time of a Via Chipset, ATI Video, and Creative soundcard. It's a miracle Windows ran at all. :P But after that I pretty much switched to Nvidia cards because they just worked (for the most part), in Windows and Linux. I too have been hoping that AMD would shove ATI in the right direction since the acquirement. From what I understand these days ATI makes some fairly decent products, but their drivers tend to be rather lacking, which is a rather important thing to consider when purchasing hardware. :P |
| tuxchick Nov 13, 2009 4:42 PM EDT |
Quoting: their drivers tend to be rather lacking, which is a rather important thing to consider when purchasing hardware. Making good drivers hardly seems to be a priority for most hardware manufacturers. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 13, 2009 6:55 PM EDT |
From the article in question:Quoting: Is there a solution to this? Ubuntu could make LTS releases every year, reducing the problem. They could invest more in backporting drivers and applications to the current LTS (although this can be problematic since drivers are part of the kernel). I believe this is what Red Hat does in RHEL for point releases. Presumably they add things to the kernel as far as drivers go for increased hardware compatibility while staying with the same general kernel (2.6.18 for RHEL 5.x). I would love to see Ubuntu backport additional hardware compatibility into the LTS kernel; even offer the "original" kernel alongside the "enhanced" kernel for those who have trouble with the newer build. My main problem with the LTS vs. the six-month releases is that to get newer packages of things such as Firefox (3.5.x instead of 3.0.x) or OpenOffice (3.1 instead of 2.x), it initially seems easier to upgrade the distro rather than explore the use of backports or PPAs to bring newer applications into older distributions. |
| montezuma Nov 14, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
I think this is a rather complex question: The latest Ubuntu distro often lacks polish in the bug department. It does however contain close to the very latest of many packages. This often means support for newer hardware AND the removal of various bugs upstream. Thus I would say that if you are a relatively inexperienced linux person with oldish hardware then use the LTS release. OTOH if you are experienced and have new hardware then use the latest distro and spend a day or so sorting out all the (mainly solvable) problems. I have been through all the releases since warty and haven't really had any unsolvable problems on order 6 boxes for all releases. It has often taken me quite a while to track down and sort out various glitches in a wide range of packages. Another thing that can be done in the second scenario is to set up the development distro on a spare partition and report bugs. I would recommend doing this on your most problematic and/or newest box. I have had many bugs sorted out before final release via launchpad. Finally if you are inexperienced and have new hardware buy your hardware from a Linux vendor (I have had good experiences with Zareason and Los Alamos Computers). You aren't guaranteed to have everything worked out but you then have support and most major issues sorted. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 16, 2009 5:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:when people get so frustrated with their cr@ppy drivers that they buy nVidia cards to replace them or make sure their next laptop doesn't have an ATI chipset. I went the other way around. I replaced my nVidia with an ATI Radeon HD because ATI is opening up the documentation and supporting the development of open source drivers. It will only be a short while before the r700 chipsets can be fully exploited with FOSS drivers. |
| azerthoth Nov 16, 2009 1:16 PM EDT |
That atleast is the theory Sander, for your sake I hope the actual practice is as effective as the hope. I however wont be holding my breath or changing my purchasing habits anytime soon. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 16, 2009 3:54 PM EDT |
I stuck with the Ubuntu LTS for over a year; I still have it on one machine. I wanted some newer apps, including Firefox 3.5 and OpenOffice 3.1. And looking backward, I'm glad I got the upgraded NetworkManager in Ubuntu 8.10; once I got it working, it has been doing much better than the version in 8.04 LTS. And I have "enjoyed" Firefox 3.5, which is a big quicker, but certainly no slower. I also have to deal with the dreaded .docx and .xlsx, making OO 3.1 a must-have. In regard to wireless networking with my particular NIC (CNet CWD-854), my system became significantly more stable once I left 8.04 behind. I had to gauge whether sticking with 8.04 and using backports (or PPAs) was easier than upgrading (through 8.10, 9.04 and finally 9.10). So there were bright spots amid the regressions and bugs. The whole thing makes me less eager about upgrading. And until another must-have app upgrade presents itself, I aim to stand pat on 9.10 until 10.04 has a few months or more to shake out the bugs. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 16, 2009 6:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:That atleast is the theory Sander Not really. The open source ATI drivers are moving very fast. Much faster than the open source Nvidia drivers (Nouveau). Many cards can already be used by the open RadeonHD drivers. They're working on my chipset at the moment. Just keep an eye on Phoronix :-) |
| caitlyn Nov 16, 2009 8:52 PM EDT |
@Steven: In my experience every release of every major distro is a mixed bag, some excellent, some good, some not so good, and some ugly. The difference between a very good release and a very bad one is the proportion of things in each category. There is no perfect OS. Linux is as close as I've found, warts and all. FWIW, I didn't include small distros in the mix because there are some real stinkers in that group as well as some real gems. Unfortunately the stinkers really do outnumber the gems. |
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!