Ubuntu 9.10

Canonical announced the upcoming release of Ubuntu 9.10 Desktop Edition, the latest version of the popular Linux desktop distribution. Ubuntu 9.10 brings changes small and large that all have a common purpose - to make Ubuntu the most user-friendly operating system available. Ubuntu 9.10 features a redesigned, faster boot and login experience, a revamped audio framework, and improved 3G broadband connectivity, all of which contribute to a first-class user experience.

Furthermore, the innovative '100 Paper Cuts' initiative organised with the Ubuntu Community allowed users to nominate minor annoyances that impacted their enjoyment of the platform. So far over 50 fixes have been committed, removing minor irritants such as inconsistent naming or poorly organised application choices. Larger scale user experience improvements include a refreshed Ubuntu Software Center, giving users better and more easily understood information about the software they have available - bringing the world of open source applications closer to the user. These improvements, in combination, have a transformative effect on the user experience.

Ubuntu 9.10 also includes the integration of 'Ubuntu One' as a standard component of the desktop. Ubuntu One is an umbrella name for an exciting suite of online services, which were released in beta in May 2009. Ubuntu One provides an enhanced desktop experience, simplifies backup, synchronisation, and sharing of files with an expanded set of features including Tomboy Notes and contacts synchronisation.

News source: Ubuntu website
Download: Ubuntu 9.10

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: Xbox 360 "has the best games out there"

Next Story

Google to announce how to host your own Google Wave server

46 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

A lot of people seem to be hating on 9.10 but I've found it to be the best version yet. Everything just works for me.

Ubuntu is an awesome distro! But, ohhh lord do they need to chill out with those brown-based theme... it's absolutely fugly

Whack on a theme, install compiz then it looks like a charm. You also try KDE but it is somewhat glitchy on ATI cards. If you got Nvidia, go for it and compare.

I changed the theme to "Dust" and the icons to "Humanity Dark", switched wallpaper and enabled Compiz. Much better. Honestly, what were they thinking? Brown window borders with an orange background? Are you kidding me?

Use what makes you happiest. Though, 64 Bit can access far more RAM than 32 Bit as well as other improvements.

Ansuza said,
Still looks like crap. Thank god for Kubuntu!

Hehe. It can be made to look pretty just install gnome art NG, awn for a Mac OS style launcher bar, and screenlets for the system information widgets etc..

Doesn't see my windows 7 install nor does it see half of my hard drives like 9.04 did...wtf did they do! I can load Ubuntu from CD and it sees all my hard drives but when I do the install it only sees one and the drop down box to select my other hard drives for install does not work! lol...wow...Looks like I will have to install 9.04 and do an upgrade.../suck

I don't want to run WUBI I want an ex4 filesystem on my available 100GB partition that for some reason ubuntu 9.04 can see but 9.10 can't...strange!

Ravensky said,
Doesn't see my windows 7 install nor does it see half of my hard drives like 9.04 did...wtf did they do! I can load Ubuntu from CD and it sees all my hard drives but when I do the install it only sees one and the drop down box to select my other hard drives for install does not work! lol...wow...Looks like I will have to install 9.04 and do an upgrade.../suck

If you have autodetect problems you could always add the entries in /etc/fstab ; type blkid to generate the UUID's rather than specifying the device paths (these can change).

I resolved the issue by installing Ubuntu 9.04 and running sudo update-manager -d and doing the Upgrade that way! I now have 9.10 running perfectly! Not sure what they changed as far as SATA drivers for my Nvidia chipset motherboard but 9.10 does not like it during install. I love Ubuntu though so it's worth the extra step to get it working! I now have Ubuntu 9.10 duel booting with Windows 7 flawlessly!

-Raven

I am going to install this again and try it...

"the most user-friendly operating system available." that's funny... user-friendly? well ill say this, when I cant just click install to get flash installed without it telling me it is missing some files the installer depends on that is not user friedly :P

sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree and call it a day was pretty user friendly. At least compared to some other distro's

devn00b said,
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree and call it a day was pretty user friendly. At least compared to some other distro's


Unless the OS does this for you, its not user friendly. Someone not at all into the linux enviro may get lost easily.

Klownicle said,
Unless the OS does this for you, its not user friendly. Someone not at all into the linux enviro may get lost easily.

exactly

it would be a hell of a lot more user friendly if the installer made for ubuntu which you can get on the adobe flash site would just install instead of complain about some files are missing...

or if it were in the add remove apps or something... you call having to type that in user friendly?? how am i supposed to know all of it just like that??

really i want to use linux, i want to like it but it is making it very hard, maybe it would have been easier if i had no experience with other (more user-friendly) operative systems

Klownicle said,
Unless the OS does this for you, its not user friendly. Someone not at all into the linux enviro may get lost easily.

The plugin finder for Firefox installs Flash for you on Ubuntu, same as on Windows.

Keine Lust said,
The plugin finder for Firefox installs Flash for you on Ubuntu, same as on Windows. :)

no just like in windows it gives you a manual install link just in windows and send you to adobes site for a non working installer :P

at least for me :P

Leonick said,
no just like in windows it gives you a manual install link just in windows and send you to adobes site for a non working installer :P

at least for me :P

Well, it didn't for me. I had the choice between two open source alternatives (Gnash and another one) or Adobe Flash. I selected Adobe Flash and it installed without any problems. 64 bit Ubuntu 9.10, Firefox 3.5.

All you have to do is go to the add/remove programs and type in 'restricted' I think it was. It will come up with a Ubuntu-restricted' file, along with one for Xubuntu. Install that and comes with mp3, dvd, flash and java, all in one package

Leonick said,
I am going to install this again and try it...

"the most user-friendly operating system available." that's funny... user-friendly? well ill say this, when I cant just click install to get flash installed without it telling me it is missing some files the installer depends on that is not user friedly :P

Applications menu->Software centre, type flash, then click to install. It seemed easy to me.

devn00b said,
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree and call it a day was pretty user friendly. At least compared to some other distro's

Although I tend to use the cli myself also, it's mostly unnecessary these days

Leonick said,
it would be a hell of a lot more user friendly if the installer made for ubuntu which you can get on the adobe flash site would just install instead of complain about some files are missing

Ubuntu like all linux OS's use something we call a package manager. You don't need to hunt around the net for programs, drivers, or documentation. This includes flash. Just use the Software Centre, and browse the category or type the name of the app. Couldn't be simpler. Compared to windows' chaotic installation/removal system, it's a utopia.

Leonick said,
or if it were in the add remove apps or something... you call having to type that in user friendly?? how am i supposed to know all of it just like that??

What's the difference between typing flash in google and typing flash in the integrated software centre? It's perfectly simple. You can even allow firefox to take you to the flash site just like it does in windows with the plugin finder.

Leonick said,
really i want to use linux, i want to like it but it is making it very hard, maybe it would have been easier if i had no experience with other (more user-friendly) operative systems

Okay I'll bite even though you're trolling and spreading F.U.D. Linux and especially Ubuntu is just as easy if not easier than windows. It will take some time to adjust to where things are, but it's no more different than moving from xp to vista or windows 7. Read the help menu or press F1, and discover all the essentials. If you take one look at it and say I don't know this, then you will inevitably fail, just as you would do with vista.

With Ubuntu, it's rare you even have to install a driver, unlike a fresh windows installation where you have to hunt down and install all the drivers including network (try doing that when you don't have a driver cd!). Everything just works out of the box; quite refreshing actually. Flash and java can be installed easily through the integrated Software Centre (no need to hunt down the software through your browser like in windows!).

Ubuntu isn't nearly as easy as Windows and I just don't understand why anyone would say something like that. For eg. updating Firefox in Ubuntu requires a few steps while it's just a matter of clicking install on Windows. Sudo and all those crap is just a pain....When is the last time anyone had to use Dos in Windows? In windows you can remove a program by simply going to add and remove but with ubuntu a program installs so many different things that you have to manually uninstall. I see ubuntu as something nice ot mess around with but to use as my primary OS no way.

64 MB minimum and 384 Megs recommended sounds like crap you'd see on a Windows box. Firefox alone will happily eat up 256 Megs of RAM.

Let's be serious. You'd probably want 1 Gig minimum for just a box for grandma, and 2 Gigs minimum for your own use, with at least 4 Gigs recommended.

4GB 'AT LEAST' for recommended?

i think 4GB would be plenty for most users in today's world even for gaming as i cant really think of anything (general use/gaming wise) that would benefit from going from say 4GB to 8GB RAM.

because as far as i can tell anything over 4GB RAM seems like a waste of money for the most part.

although the rest of what you said sounds about right (at least by Windows standards. which is what i am mostly basing this stuff on) ... although i think on Windows XP type PC for a light user (i.e. Grandma in your example) could get by with 512MB of RAM although 1GB would be better and since RAM is cheap nowadays almost no reason not to have at least 1GB.

i got 2GB on my Windows 7 PC and it runs fine on 2GB of ram although more would help i think as far as gaming but since my PC only has a single CORE there is no REAL need for me to upgrade to say 4GB of RAM.... but for general use i think 2GB is sufficient for pretty much everything i do as there is usually 1GB free most of the time and almost nothing (for general programs etc) would burn up the rest of that 1GB.

Xenomorph said,
64 MB minimum and 384 Megs recommended sounds like crap you'd see on a Windows box. Firefox alone will happily eat up 256 Megs of RAM.

Firefox never even approaches 256 on my machine. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it exceed 100mb. Perhaps you're referring to an older version such as 2.0? 3.5 is snappy and has the smallest memory footprint of all the browsers except textmode such as elinks.

Xenomorph said,
Let's be serious. You'd probably want 1 Gig minimum for just a box for grandma, and 2 Gigs minimum for your own use, with at least 4 Gigs recommended.

You do realise that Ubuntu comes with different desktop environments don't you? Xubuntu is the best flavour for low memory systems, and uses very little resources compared to gnome/kde. I have a machine with 512mb of ram running very nicely under Xubuntu. And additionally I have two other machines with 1gb and 2gb respectively, each running the full gnome interface with compiz quite happily. I'm sorry my friend, but the only OS's that require ludicrous sums of memory such as 4gb just to function properly are windows vista, and windows 7.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installat...temRequirements

Bare Minimum requirements
* 300 MHz x86 processor
* 64 MB of system memory (RAM)
* At least 4 GB of disk space (for full installation and swap space)
* VGA graphics card capable of 640x480 resolution
* CD-ROM drive or network card

Recommended minimum requirements
* 700 MHz x86 processor
* 384 MB of system memory (RAM)
* 8 GB of disk space
* Graphics card capable of 1024x768 resolution
* Sound card
* A network or Internet connection

Recommended for visual effects
* 1.2 GHz x86 processor
* 384 MB of system memory (RAM)
* Supported graphics card (see DesktopEffects)

EDIT: Oops. Replying to alex, above