Dissapointed in Ubuntu 8.04

By dmd3x
in Linux

 Share

Dissapointed with Ubuntu 8.04?  

162 members have voted

  1. 1. Dissapointed with Ubuntu 8.04?

    • Yes
      43
    • No
      83
    • I don't care for Ubuntu/never used it.
      36

Recommended Posts

Community Regular

Boktai1000

Posted
Posted

Um, sorta on topic but according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyReleaseSchedule Ubuntu 8.04.1 is going to be released on July 3rd. They did something similar with the 6.06 LTS release, and basically its still 8.04 but it includes the updates to a lot of the files that were initially released, for example Firefox 3 beta 5 will most likely be replaced with the full version of Firefox 3. What i really don't understand, is why people whine and moan about Firefox 3 b5 being included... Do you even use Ubuntu? It was updated to RC1, RC2, Then the final as far as I'm aware of, unless you prefer to not update your operating systems. There trying to support with the LTS, and making it easier by including all these updates so you don't have to download that extra ~200-300mb worth of updates so hopefully this will also bring a bit more compatibility and performance also, and be able to get Ubuntu running quicker after installs with less updates to install.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

^^^ More important than the Firefox thing, I think the SSL bug introduced by Ubuntu would be a very important piece of code to replace, and distribute the secure version as 8.04.01 rather than risk users installing 8.04 with the serious security bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

dmd3x

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm gonna argue that one. I don't want a bunch of crap installed that I won't use. Yeah I can remove it but I like the idea of downloading things if I want them, rather than removing them if I don't.

I hear that totally. I remember the days when there was a lot more of that attitude regarding Linux.

I think it is unfair to attribute all issues to a user/admin issue.

Some things, like an app saying "reboot is required" are silly, when many experienced users know just an X restart is needed. Mikee's complaint ("don't Linux zealots insult Windows about requiring a restart after installing software/drivers?") about that seemed to be a cheap and petty shot. But other observations he makes are no more or less valid because a few of them can be looked at and dismissed - like when the app programmer just assumes that people will understand "reboot" over "restart X". Heck, give a non-Linux user the instruction to "restart X", and they will give you that same look you get when you describe physics to a dog. :blink:. Say "reboot" and everyone knows that. It is not necessary to fully reboot, true, but it is expedient and well-known.

I wasn't taking a cheap shot at anyone here. I was poking fun at zealots who constantly preach that Linux does not require a restart upon installation of drivers and software. As for the restart, I used the pop-up window that Ubuntu showed informing me to restart my system after the installation of the software (in this case, it was VirtualBox, NOT the video drivers).

Most Linux users including myself still reboot as it's the easiest way to restart your services and get new versions up and running without issues. You don't have to reboot... it just makes things easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Kreuger

Posted
Posted
I hear that totally. I remember the days when there was a lot more of that attitude regarding Linux.
Well it must be taken into account that new users may not wish to do so and others that just want it to work will also want everything included. Others find it bloated. Personally I think Ubuntu usually does a good job picking applications to include by default. I use Xubuntu which also has a different set meant to be more lightweight. Some distros have a similar version, even Ubuntu does; the alternate install where you can install a base setup and add on what you want (I believe thats how it works).
Most Linux users including myself still reboot as it's the easiest way to restart your services and get new versions up and running without issues. You don't have to reboot... it just makes things easier.
Yeah, lately it's been telling me I need to reboot after updates and I just leave it for days on end. I was actually just asking markjensen about this because I found it a bit annoying. These restarts aren't mandatory as he explained to me, it's likely just one service in need of a restart. However usually after a few days I get bothered by the icon and reboot to get rid of it because it's easier to do it that way (only to have it come back the next day anyway haha). So yeah, whenever I get around to it I reboot but I can safely say I have no trouble leaving it sitting there for days on end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Phixion

Posted
Posted

Ubuntu is a decent OS, I'm using it atm on my Laptop.

I just wish they'd integrate a "base" install ISO where you can select the DE of your choice and what programs you want installing by default. I know you can download the server version and install the stuff you need from there, but alot of the packages you need also install a bunch of unneeded stuff. I tried it before and ended up with an identical system to a default Desktop Install.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted

I just installed ubuntu on my other older pc a dell xps 400 because I now have an extra hdd. I think I'm oing to blame the nvidia driver for why linux seemed unresponsive on my previous pc's which all had nvidia cards (FX5200, 7600GT, 9600GT) Ubuntu seems to fly on this pc ( P4 3 ghz, x300 2 g ram) which is significantly less powerful than my main pc which has a dual core 4 gigs of ram and a 9600gt, this pc is running the open source ati driver and it seems even faster than xp is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I just installed ubuntu on my other older pc a dell xps 400 because I now have an extra hdd. I think I'm oing to blame the nvidia driver for why linux seemed unresponsive on my previous pc's which all had nvidia cards (FX5200, 7600GT, 9600GT) Ubuntu seems to fly on this pc ( P4 3 ghz, x300 2 g ram) which is significantly less powerful than my main pc which has a dual core 4 gigs of ram and a 9600gt, this pc is running the open source ati driver and it seems even faster than xp is.

I am not sure what problems you have experienced with nVidia, as for my wife and I, it just worked. From your descriptions in other posts, it sounds like (for whatever reason) it may have installed the dirver, but your xorg.conf may have still been using the opensource "nv" driver (which has only 2D support). You mentioned any 3D effects (shadows, compiz) are done at about single-digit FPS (a screen refresh a couple times a second) which was absurdly laggy, like a slideshow.

I didn't see a thread of yours on this topic (except those that mentioned problems in the past), so if you ever feel like popping in an nVidia card and taking another look, just start a thread because I am very curious what the problem might be. nVidia support in Linux is often considered top-most, as ATI has been lagging over the years. And from the Vista lockups attributed to Vista by Microsoft, themselves I would dare say that nVidia has better drivers for Linux than they do Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Budious

Posted
Posted
From your descriptions in other posts, it sounds like (for whatever reason) it may have installed the dirver, but your xorg.conf may have still been using the opensource "nv" driver (which has only 2D support).

This can be easily determined by a large "NVIDIA" logo which appears as the desktop loads. If you don't have it, the 3D driver is not loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
This can be easily determined by a large "NVIDIA" logo which appears as the desktop loads. If you don't have it, the 3D driver is not loaded.

I think Ubuntu defaults to "OPTION nologo", so you won't see that. Pretty sure I never saw the logo on my wife's default install.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Budious

Posted
Posted
I think Ubuntu defaults to "OPTION nologo", so you won't see that. Pretty sure I never saw the logo on my wife's default install.

You could be right. My install has been 6.10>7.04>7.10>8.04 updated so no telling how screwed up it is by now. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted

Yeah ubuntu does not show the logo and hasn't for the last few versions. You can try checking the "Restricted driver manager" though to see if the proprietary nvidia driver is loaded, or just try enabling compiz which won't work if you are using nv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

MrFuji

Posted
Posted

To be honest, I am a bit dissapointed in Ubuntu 8.04.

I never experienced major problems from 6.04 to 7.10 but my system completely freezes every now and then in 8.04. I suspect the new pulseaudio server to be the problem as it mostly occurs when there is more than 1 audio stream active, but I'm not entirely sure. However, I'm normally quite motivated to solve these problems myself but this even happens after a fresh reinstall so I don't see myself fixing it by editing a few files :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Kreuger

Posted
Posted
I just wish they'd integrate a "base" install ISO where you can select the DE of your choice and what programs you want installing by default. I know you can download the server version and install the stuff you need from there, but alot of the packages you need also install a bunch of unneeded stuff. I tried it before and ended up with an identical system to a default Desktop Install.
I thought that's what the "alternate" ISOs were for. But if not, I'm pretty sure you could do it with Debian and then switch to Ubuntu's repos if you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

dmd3x

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This strikes me as the sort of thread that says that Ubuntu has 'arrived'..... ;)

It sure has arrived... it's arrived just like dog crap on my shoe! :angry:

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

Vista

Posted
Posted

8.04 just doesn't have any noticeable improvements under the hood. Sure it has some new, pre-installed, up-to-date applications, but the system itself seems to have stayed the same since 7.04.

Stability on certain systems is STILL a problem and it doesn't seem that the developers are actually focusing on fixing bugs or optimization. They're too busy looking for the latest versions of the add-ons they want to include in the distro.

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rookie

lithiumx

Posted
Posted

I've not been disappointed with Ubuntu 8.04 when I've had cause to use it. If anything it seems to be a marked improvement in it's number of bugs and overall stability compared to edgy and feisty. I guess the more popular a distribution, the more numerous and vocal the complaints but all things considered I think the Ubuntu guys do a good job and provide a good advert for Linux in places which have traditionally been Windows territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Borbus

Posted
Posted

No I think Ubuntu is getting better and better. I do not use it because it holds my hand a bit too much but it is the distro I recommend when somebody needs an operating system.

8.04 does have some improvements under the hood. It now uses pulseaudio and GVFS for seemless integration of ssh and smb etc. which is really cool.

That is a trolling comment. The poster was not asking for this kind of advice..... nor did it address his question. I'd suggest not posting these types of remarks in the future.

I don't think it was trolling, the poster just did not explain why he said what he did. Zune and iPod and Sony things are all restricted so that they only work with certain software ie. WMP and iTunes. For a free software user this does make them an expensive paperweight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

MidnightDevil

Posted
Posted

I like ubuntu for its simplicity. Its debian based so I dont think can be that bloated. I just dont use it cause I cant install on raid.. and I dont wanna bother following a tutorial lol.

But everything else worked fine, performed fast and stable, but no sound no matter how many times i recompiled the kernel with alsa, and no flash for x64 (not exacly their fault but libs32 should exist while flashx64 doesn't come out).

But everything else worked pretty well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Julius Caro

Posted
Posted

I can't say I'm disappointed since it works perfectly for me. But I will say that I dont think ubuntu is evolving as fast as it should. When it comes to features and hardware support, ubuntu always delivers for me. But when it comes to GUIs, they don't feel as nice or responsive as in windows or OS X. Even kde feels more 'responsive'.

But I hate gtk. Gnome is the best but the thing that makes it work is slow and doesnt provide tools for developing more advanced GUIs.

We live in the era of "web-2.0" apps. Simple apps but with some dynamism (when it comes to GUI forms) is what I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Budious

Posted
Posted

Gnome with advanced desktop features enabled and compizfusion is superior to Vista's GUI, but who can really be bothered to be slowed down by all that nonsense. Sure it looks pretty, but it has no real functional purpose being on a screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Gnome with advanced desktop features enabled and compizfusion is superior to Vista's GUI, but who can really be bothered to be slowed down by all that nonsense. Sure it looks pretty, but it has no real functional purpose being on a screen.
I agree. But, as a flux user, I find even desktop icons obnoxious and a start button in a corner as 'out of the way' when I can just right-click.

I think Ubuntu with compiz provides good performance and enough eye candy for those who like that, but what I like most of all about Linux, is that it is so modular and I can make it into my Linux that suits me so well. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

tsupersonic

Posted
Posted

Actually on my laptop, I find Vista's aero interface to be faster than Compiz-fusion. I don't know why, but my integrated ATI card absolutely hates linux. When I use compiz, CPU usage goes way up, laptop fan runs constantly. I've had nothing but bad luck with compiz. The compiz interface is not as smooth as Aero. :( Very disappointing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Actually on my laptop, I find Vista's aero interface to be faster than Compiz-fusion. I don't know why, but my integrated ATI card absolutely hates linux. When I use compiz, CPU usage goes way up, laptop fan runs constantly. I've had nothing but bad luck with compiz. The compiz interface is not as smooth as Aero. :( Very disappointing
I can only say with certainty is that the PC in question did not have the proprietary ATI driver installed and in-use for X. If the CPU usage shoots up, then the CPU is doing the work, not the card. In order for the card to do the work, X must be using a driver that understands how to overlay textures and process shading and such.

I seem to remember you working on this in another thread, (unless I am confusing your issue with someone else) too bad you weren't able to get the driver properly installed. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.