Dissapointed in Ubuntu 8.04

[roadgeek9]

This is why I don't use Ubuntu, it has a tendency to change just too quickly. Also, I've never been a fan of the apt package system. YUM FTW.

[markwolfe Veteran]

This is why I don't use Ubuntu, it has a tendency to change just too quickly. Also, I've never been a fan of the apt package system. YUM FTW.

Isn't Fedora pretty much on the same "two releases a year" schedule? :whistle:

[tsupersonic]

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. :(

I've had issues with it, and I don't know if it was you trying to help me out. I posted my problem on ubuntuforums, can't remember if I posted it here.

Right now, I'm on a new Ubuntu install (my last install got destroyed after I installed the ATI Catalyst software :huh: Don't know how or why). I don't have the ATI accelerated graphics driver right now. The problem is if I use the restricted ati driver, I get terrible performance from playing back HD movies, even regular videos and overall terrible performance of the GUI. Now, without the restricted drivers, I can playback 1080p videos without a hitch. The GUI seems very responsive, compared to if I got the accelerated graphics driver. it drives me insane thinking about it, lol.

Another thing, I like Gnome, so I use ubuntu. But, when I try Kubuntu or other distros that use KDE (3.5 or 4), they perform absolutely terrible. It is ridiculous to the point that I can barely use my laptop. Why does this happen? Does KDE need more processing power and a good GPU?

Laptop: AMD Turion ML-32 1.8GHz (single core), 1.5GB DDR RAM, ATI x200M integrated graphics (I set it to 64MB shared graphics memory on BIOS). For integrated graphics, it performs really well, considering I can play older games pretty smoothly and run Aero pretty smoothly when I had Vista installed. I can't figure out why it's not good enough for Compiz.

[Mikee99]

This is why I don't use Ubuntu, it has a tendency to change just too quickly. Also, I've never been a fan of the apt package system. YUM FTW.

What exactly is your problem with apt? Apt virtually eliminates any dependency issues that can arise. You tell it what you want to install, it then fetches and installs the program along with all required dependencies, whereas the RPM still has dependency issues.

8.04.1 has been released. I haven't had too much time to play around with it. I do know that in order for me to boot off of the LiveCD, I still need to add the parameter: all_generic_ide

[markwolfe Veteran]

What exactly is your problem with apt? Apt virtually eliminates any dependency issues that can arise. You tell it what you want to install, it then fetches and installs the program along with all required dependencies, whereas the RPM still has dependency issues.

You are confusing yum with rpm.

Yum is to rpm as apt is to dpkg.

That is, yum does all the same management of rpm files so you don't deal with dependencies manually.

Yum is the apt of the non-debian world. If your first experience with deb files was foolishly trying to install them all manually, then you would have run into the same dependency issues, and have become equally frustrated and jaded about deb and dpkg.

So, in your post, when yum=apt, dependencies are resolved.

I don't much care whether apt or yum has which tiny technical merits over the other and vice-versa. They both do an excellent job, and both work. RPMs aren't any more prone to "dependencies" than deb files. After all, both a deb and rpm for "nedit" have a dependency for "lesstif" and will fail stating so, if one tries to install a "nedit" rpm/deb file directly. Both apt and yum will hunt down and include the dependencies.

I hope that clears things up for you a bit. I posted something very similar to this in a server thread, so am getting quite well-versed at explaining things (I hope).

[Mikee99]

You are confusing yum with rpm.

Yum is to rpm as apt is to dpkg.

That is, yum does all the same management of rpm files so you don't deal with dependencies manually.

Yum is the apt of the non-debian world. If your first experience with deb files was foolishly trying to install them all manually, then you would have run into the same dependency issues, and have become equally frustrated and jaded about deb and dpkg.

So, in your post, when yum=apt, dependencies are resolved.

I knew someone was going to catch me on that. :) I was just too lazy to explain it better.

I remember using RPM utilities, such as YaST and yum on RPM distros a few years back, and I remember them completely breaking my system. I have never experienced that with apt. I also read some articles that aren't too old where people where complaining about yum breaking their system.

Things may have changed today, but I remember going through hell trying to install software. It was that reason why I have moved onto Debian based Linux distros.