Ubuntu 11.10 released

Ubuntu fans rejoice: the twice-yearly release of a new version has come around once again, and this time it's Oneiric Ocelot's turn in the spotlight. One of the big changes with Ocelot is the removal of GNOME by default. Ubuntu is now entirely running on Unity, but for those without the hardware to power all those flashy 3D effects, a special 2D version of Unity has been included, meaning that users will have a more consistent experience from here on out.

A new dash, accessed by clicking the Ubuntu logo in the top left, has been reworked to give better integration with Banshee audio player. The dash now allows for filtering by genre, artist, album, and a whole host of other options. In short, the dash is now much better for music control.

In terms of more technical changes, Ubuntu is now running with Linux kernel 3.0, although changes in the jump to 3.0 were minimal. The Evolution mail client is now gone, with Mozilla Thunderbird taking its place. The Software Centre in itself has now been redesigned, a feature that should encourage more new users to try out different software. Even the login panel has been retouched, reflecting the Unity look throughout the rest of the system.

The community isn't resting on its laurels though. Plans are already being laid out for Ubuntu 12.04, titled Precise Pangolin. 12.04 will be an LTS release, which means it'll receive three years worth of support rather than the usual cut-off point of 18 months. Server users will be receiving Pangolin support until 2017, which means a key focus of an LTS release is making sure it's up to the task of running for all those years.

Image credit: Canonical

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Quirky responses found by new Siri users

Next Story

Windows 8 Task Manager updates detailed

56 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Deihmos said,
It is ridiculous how slow this runs and graphics do not look that good. Not impressed at all.
Go to additional drivers, see if your graphics are installed. If they are fall back to unity 2d

I took the plunge and upgraded, encountered a few errors with flash plugin not being compatible but otherwise it went alright.

I noticed everything is a lot smoother even on this Inspiron 6400 (Core Duo) with 1GB of DDR2 RAM.

Memory usage has gone down by 350MB with 3 tabs Firefox 7.0 opened, this is looking mighty impressive.

I'll be copying this post to the main thread

I'm going to test this, I wonder whats news and different. For a while Ubuntu has became a bit bloated, I hope they've been cleaning some useless code. Hope it's improved, ubuntu has changed somehow the linux industry.

Good thing to hear today. I installed 11.04 and worked fine even on my Netbook.I definitely am looking forward to my Ubuntu-Based Sabily Distro.

Still on 10.04. Will be waiting until 12.04 to reinstall. Should be enough time to get all the kinks worked out with Unity...

Xilo said,
Still on 10.04. Will be waiting until 12.04 to reinstall. Should be enough time to get all the kinks worked out with Unity...

Unity has always worked for me since day one. o.O

To the article author... do links offend you in some way?

There's not a single link in your article. To Ubuntu's home page, or download page. Seems kind of an odd omission given this is talking about a new software release

No matter how much UI changes it is still sucks because the Kernel is so outdated and does not take advantage of current technology. Memory hungry and push CPU processor to the limit rendering the whole computer toasty hot as frying pan. Sorry, used it many times, disappointed many times.

satus said,
No matter how much UI changes it is still sucks because the Kernel is so outdated and does not take advantage of current technology. Memory hungry and push CPU processor to the limit rendering the whole computer toasty hot as frying pan. Sorry, used it many times, disappointed many times.

What the hell are you talking about? It uses the 3.0.1 Linux Kernel, that's pretty much as modern as your going to get. It's hardly outdated. And Linux is usually quite a head when it comes to Kernel integration. For example, Intel recently added stuff for their Ivy Bridge platform to the mainline kernel.

This is just a troll comment from someone who doesn't know any better.

satus said,
No matter how much UI changes it is still sucks because the Kernel is so outdated and does not take advantage of current technology. Memory hungry and push CPU processor to the limit rendering the whole computer toasty hot as frying pan. Sorry, used it many times, disappointed many times.

Really?
Then please explain to me how my Linux installs always seem to use LESS memory than my Windows installs do?

Also what current tech does the Linux kernel not support? Last I checked it even supported tech that isn't even publicly available yet.

Tony. said,

What the hell are you talking about? It uses the 3.0.1 Linux Kernel, that's pretty much as modern as your going to get. It's hardly outdated. And Linux is usually quite a head when it comes to Kernel integration. For example, Intel recently added stuff for their Ivy Bridge platform to the mainline kernel.

This is just a troll comment from someone who doesn't know any better.

If so how do you explain to my thick skull why my laptop drain battery in 1 hour 30 min when using Ubuntu. When I use Windows 7, it is 3-4 hours?? Plus the computer is so hot on Ubuntu?? But in Windows 7 the fan rarely need to crank up.

Linux just plainly sucks. I am not talking to troll. I am talking the fact I encounter. If they use all latest technology in kernel, why that happens? if what you say is true, it is clearly they don't implement those tech well.

Tony. said,

What the hell are you talking about? It uses the 3.0.1 Linux Kernel, that's pretty much as modern as your going to get. It's hardly outdated. And Linux is usually quite a head when it comes to Kernel integration. For example, Intel recently added stuff for their Ivy Bridge platform to the mainline kernel.

This is just a troll comment from someone who doesn't know any better.

If so how do you explain to my thick skull why my laptop drain battery in 1 hour 30 min when using Ubuntu. When I use Windows 7, it is 3-4 hours?? Plus the computer is so hot on Ubuntu?? But in Windows 7 the fan rarely need to crank up.

Linux just plainly sucks. I am not talking to troll. I am talking the fact I encounter. If they use all latest technology in kernel, why that happens? if what you say is true, it is clearly they don't implement those tech well.

SharpGreen said,

Really?
Then please explain to me how my Linux installs always seem to use LESS memory than my Windows installs do?

Also what current tech does the Linux kernel not support? Last I checked it even supported tech that isn't even publicly available yet.


have u even tried ubuntu?
it ran on free install on 800ish MB, win7 on 750.. haha
i can get win7 to run on 280MB without completely breaking down, ubuntu only under 300MB with command line only

KingCrimson said,
Oh great they copied the Windows superbar! Way to go Linux guys!

Right cause the final version of Windows 8 is out already. Oh wait..

If it weren't for the background image I would have sworn it looked more like the Mac OS X dock (especially with the trash bin)...

Ultimately it is just a row of icons so give me a break.

recursive said,

Right cause the final version of Windows 8 is out already. Oh wait..

Oh great they copied the Windows superbar! Way to go Linux guys! .......
I'm not ready anything about windows 8 in his comment..
Grow up.

recursive said,

Right cause the final version of Windows 8 is out already. Oh wait..

Huh?

Copying the taskbar from Windows 7 has what to do with Windows 8?

Oh, wait, you are a Linux user, so you don't realize what Windows has or is capable of doing... Um. (When you finally realize what NT is capable of, you are going to want to punch the person that conned you in the old Unix thinking and got you to install Linux.)

If I have a free/open partition is it as simple as installing Ubuntu to it (I run Windows 7 right now). Ive heard other releases required installing Ubuntu first or something like that.

BoyBoppins said,
If I have a free/open partition is it as simple as installing Ubuntu to it (I run Windows 7 right now). Ive heard other releases required installing Ubuntu first or something like that.

You can install it second just fine, but be aware it'll overwrite your bootloader so if you want to get rid of linux later restore your bootloader to the Windows one with BCD before deleting the Linux partition.

Thanks, so overwriting Win7 bootloader still lets me choose which to boot into at startup, but the only issue is if I clear Ubuntu I need to redo my Win 7 boot mgr? I assume I could use the Windows disk for that too to fix the bootloader after deleting Ubuntu?

omnicoder said,

You can install it second just fine, but be aware it'll overwrite your bootloader so if you want to get rid of linux later restore your bootloader to the Windows one with BCD before deleting the Linux partition.

Actually, you don't need to do that now either. You have a Windows boot loader version which uses the Windows boot loader as a chain loader for the Linux one. It's on the Ubuntu site. You just install it via Windows and the computer will reboot and you'll have OS options and you just select Ubuntu/Linux and your on your way.

Ridlas said,
That taskbar looks a lot like the Windows 7 super bar.

The Windows 7 taskbar looks a lot like the Apple dock. EVERYONE was saying this when Windows 7 came out, and it's true. Their functionality is just about indentical. Good UI ideas should be copied. There's nothing wrong with that. There's plenty of innovative ideas on the Linux side with GNOME 3 and Unity. GNOME 3 has integrated instant messaging into the desktop and made the experience non-intrusive, and Unity's new popup "start" menu is a neat idea and packs a lot of new functionality. Those are just two examples, but there's quite a few fantastic ideas going about in these two new Deskops.

WickedScribbler said,
Why? It is Ubuntu. It is Linux. No need to download, install, test. It is as silly as the last version.

Right lets all go back to our cave.

WickedScribbler said,
Why? It is Ubuntu. It is Linux. No need to download, install, test. It is as silly as the last version.

Ubuntu and Linux are not "silly".

Tony. said,

Ubuntu and Linux are not "silly".

Yes.. yes they are. Been playing with this silliness since 08 or so... which, by the way, was the last "distro" that actually supported all the hardware on my machines. Since then, nada, regardless of "distro". Linux is a joke on the desktop, and Ubuntu is the comedian of the group.

WickedScribbler said,

Yes.. yes they are. Been playing with this silliness since 08 or so... which, by the way, was the last "distro" that actually supported all the hardware on my machines. Since then, nada, regardless of "distro". Linux is a joke on the desktop, and Ubuntu is the comedian of the group.

im sorry have you been living under a rock? all hardware is supported by linux in one way or another you just need to know how to do it.....
secondly linux has the easiest method of getting programs! as well as setting **** up.... your skills with computers obviously does not go much further then facebook and googling... you are entitled to your own opinion and fine i respect you don't like it but if you are going to slag it off atleast have some sort of good reason to not just because your crap at using it. also ubuntu is good for a server and IS the best FREE OS for usability.....

WickedScribbler said,
Why? It is Ubuntu. It is Linux. No need to download, install, test. It is as silly as the last version.

Linux isnt silly but ubuntu is. I use ubuntu server personally on a system, but the desktop ver is trash. They keep making changes to the UI(that just make it more inefficient) and its utterly horrible now.

SPEhosting said,

im sorry have you been living under a rock? all hardware is supported by linux in one way or another you just need to know how to do it.....
secondly linux has the easiest method of getting programs! as well as setting **** up.... your skills with computers obviously does not go much further then facebook and googling... you are entitled to your own opinion and fine i respect you don't like it but if you are going to slag it off atleast have some sort of good reason to not just because your crap at using it. also ubuntu is good for a server and IS the best FREE OS for usability.....

No. On my laptop I've not been able to use wireless since 2009. On my desktop, audio may or may not work, and forget trying to get 3d graphics to work, never mind Blu-Ray. I'm sorry, but the "linux works on everything including jockstraps" is total absolute FUD. You know, I know it, and the entire "Linux community" knows it.

WickedScribbler said,

No. On my laptop I've not been able to use wireless since 2009. On my desktop, audio may or may not work, and forget trying to get 3d graphics to work, never mind Blu-Ray. I'm sorry, but the "linux works on everything including jockstraps" is total absolute FUD. You know, I know it, and the entire "Linux community" knows it.

right .... look for the chipset.... i installed an ancient wireless device just by wrapping ..... post in the forums here im sure some of the people here can help you... their is more then one way to skin a cat.... i have never had any long lasted trouble installing hardware even on a machine that was made in the early 90s ..... as long as it has a CD rom drive or a usb port i can get linux working perfectly on it

SPEhosting said,

right .... look for the chipset.... i installed an ancient wireless device just by wrapping ..... post in the forums here im sure some of the people here can help you... their is more then one way to skin a cat.... i have never had any long lasted trouble installing hardware even on a machine that was made in the early 90s ..... as long as it has a CD rom drive or a usb port i can get linux working perfectly on it

I've done all the looking and posting i care to do over the last couple of years. Screw Linux. If it isn't wi-fi, it's audio or graphics or printer or blu-ray or dvd or what not. It is a piece of software in search of a system to run on... it jsut won't run on either of my systems. I've tried so many distros it isn't funny. Debian based will NOT run my laptop wi-fi. Fedora based will not run my desktop audio. Neither will run my BD. And for all the others, there are a host of features and hardware they will NOT run. Linux is crap. It always HAS been crap, and it always WILL be crap.

WickedScribbler said,

No. On my laptop I've not been able to use wireless since 2009. On my desktop, audio may or may not work, and forget trying to get 3d graphics to work, never mind Blu-Ray. I'm sorry, but the "linux works on everything including jockstraps" is total absolute FUD. You know, I know it, and the entire "Linux community" knows it.

I can say for sure that I didn't not know that. Also the fact that it works on more hardware than it doesn't is proof that you're wrong. Ubuntu runs just fine on my desktop. Including a fully working video card. And audio. And printer. And WiFi. And printer. And if I recall, it could also play DVDs.

Looks like it works to me. The only crap I see here is your linux skills

SharpGreen said,

I can say for sure that I didn't not know that. Also the fact that it works on more hardware than it doesn't is proof that you're wrong. Ubuntu runs just fine on my desktop. Including a fully working video card. And audio. And printer. And WiFi. And printer. And if I recall, it could also play DVDs.

Looks like it works to me. The only crap I see here is your linux skills

Funny, I never had issues like this with Windows 3.xx, 9x, XP, Vista, nor 7. I find it curious that Linux advocates always claim it is the fault of the user instead of the OS. If these self-same issues were happening with anything by Microsoft of Apple, Linux-land would be claiming it was the fault of the OS, not the user. I'm sorry to tell you this, but no, Linux doesn't just work.

And just to let you know, a couple of years ago I would have recommended it to people looking for something else. However, these constant issues that Linux claims is MY fault have turned me in to someone who will steer people away from this abortion of a desktop OS with the same fervency that Linux cultists try to convert people.

WickedScribbler said,

Funny, I never had issues like this with Windows 3.xx, 9x, XP, Vista, nor 7. I find it curious that Linux advocates always claim it is the fault of the user instead of the OS. If these self-same issues were happening with anything by Microsoft of Apple, Linux-land would be claiming it was the fault of the OS, not the user. I'm sorry to tell you this, but no, Linux doesn't just work.


Um, no. If hardware is not detected automatically, then it's up to the user to install the software/drivers for it. I bet your computers came with a driver disc to install all the drivers on those Windows operating systems. If all manufacturers made one for Linux (or more specifically, Ubuntu) then it would work just as well.

You shouldn't abuse something just because you don't know how to use it. It's probably best you leave installing operating systems to those who know what they're doing.

WickedScribbler said,

Yes.. yes they are. Been playing with this silliness since 08 or so... which, by the way, was the last "distro" that actually supported all the hardware on my machines. Since then, nada, regardless of "distro". Linux is a joke on the desktop, and Ubuntu is the comedian of the group.

It doesn't work on my end so it's a piece of crap. Great deduction!

Mikeyx11 said,

Um, no. If hardware is not detected automatically, then it's up to the user to install the software/drivers for it. I bet your computers came with a driver disc to install all the drivers on those Windows operating systems. If all manufacturers made one for Linux (or more specifically, Ubuntu) then it would work just as well.

You shouldn't abuse something just because you don't know how to use it. It's probably best you leave installing operating systems to those who know what they're doing.


from winXP my pc never needed any drivers to work on their own. real drivers where mostly allot better but with win7 most works properly with defaults to.
I've tried ubuntu several times, and always been horrid to get it working as smoothly as its windows counterpart of its time.
Besides the fact i've been using Debian since before the release of Sarge(forgot Debian 2.0 name) altho been running Sid most of the time on my servers, also played around with the old 4 disks red hat (forgot version). Used Knoppix for virus infested PC's and even where able to (after days of work) make Fedora Core work smooth in a Windows only cooperate environment.
Ubuntu really bakes the cake. its a horrible OS/Distro, a rip off from Debian Sid (they basically use Sids repositories) which is awfully packed together with their custom crap. Out of the box Debian Sid supports more hardware then Ubuntu ever will! Only had problems once using Debian as desktop, but as its better off as a server OS, i never really bothered playing with it as a desktop.
Your lucky if your drivers work out of the box, if not. enjoy 'hacking' your OS to get drivers working, how will this ever work for the general public, they dont want to figure out how to vi/nano .cfg files and spend hours if not days to get their ATI/AMD GFX to work, or their wifi, often audio or any random USB hardware....

Don't get me wrong, its great to see Linux reach out to the average public, but not how Ubuntu is going. The Debian distro tree is better build for servers then desktops, the SUSE tree are much, much better suited for desktops

I kicked out Ubuntu when they went with Unity... but this looks a decent release for their user base. I'm currently using Linux Mint!