how would you rate ubuntu 8.10 ?

[Zickar]

No, it would download the version in the 8.04 repos, which would be the last version, not the current (sorry, not sure of the version numbers off the top of my head).

You could then log in using Gnome as your "session" instead of XFCE, and it would look visually just like a regular Ubuntu intallation. The difference is that in your Apps menu you will see all your Xubuntu apps plus all the Ubuntu equivalents.

Aha .... Thanks for the info and I think 8.04 is right because since the last one is 8.10 which basically means 10/2008 and Ubuntu releases a new OS every 6 months that makes the last one relases in 4/2008 hence the 8.04

[Napalm Frog]

At least it's just a simple case of

sudo apt-get remove xubuntu-desktop

if you're not happy/impressed (in theory) ;)

Actually, that's sort of incorrect. The meta-package will install everything, but using that command won't remove it all. It will only remove the meta-package itself. If you want to remove the entire flavour of 'Buntu, you will have to manually install every package that it came with. For example, to remove Ubuntu's Gnome and go back to a plain XFCE Xubuntu:

sudo apt-get remove alacarte binfmt-support brltty brltty-x11 capplets-data cdrdao cli-common compiz compiz-core compiz-fusion-plugins-extra compiz-fusion-plugins-main compiz-gnome compiz-plugins compiz-wrapper compizconfig-backend-gconf contact-lookup-applet dcraw deskbar-applet ekiga eog evolution evolution-common evolution-data-server evolution-data-server-common evolution-exchange evolution-plugins evolution-webcal example-content f-spot fast-user-switch-applet firefox-3.0-gnome-support firefox-gnome-support gconf-editor gdm-guest-session gedit gedit-common gnome-about gnome-applets gnome-applets-data gnome-control-center gnome-desktop-data gnome-menus gnome-netstatus-applet gnome-nettool gnome-panel gnome-panel-data gnome-pilot gnome-pilot-conduits gnome-session gnome-settings-daemon gnome-spell gnome-terminal gnome-terminal-data gnome-themes gnome-user-guide gnome-utils gstreamer0.10-plugins-base-apps gstreamer0.10-pulseaudio gstreamer0.10-schroedinger gstreamer0.10-tools gvfs-bin gvfs-fuse human-icon-theme human-theme hwtest hwtest-gtk libao2 libart2.0-cil libasound2-plugins libcanberra-gnome libcanberra-gtk-module libcanberra-gtk0 libcanberra0 libcompizconfig0 libdecoration0 libdeskbar-tracker libdirectfb-1.0-0 libebackend1.2-0 libedata-book1.2-2 libedata-cal1.2-6 libedataserverui1.2-8 libeel2-2 libeel2-data libegroupwise1.2-13 libexchange-storage1.2-3 libexempi3 libflickrnet2.1.5-cil libgconf2.0-cil libgdata-google1.2-1 libgdata1.2-1 libgdiplus libgif4 libglade2.0-cil libglib2.0-cil libglitz-glx1 libglitz1 libgmime-2.0-2a libgmime2.2-cil libgnome-keyring1.0-cil libgnome-pilot2 libgnome-vfs2.0-cil libgnome-window-settings1 libgnome2.0-cil libgnomevfs2-bin libgpod-common libgpod3 libgtk2.0-cil libgtkhtml-editor-common libgtkhtml-editor0 libgtkhtml3.14-19 libhyphen0 libicu38 liblpint-bonobo0 libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil libmono-addins0.2-cil libmono-cairo1.0-cil libmono-cairo2.0-cil libmono-corlib1.0-cil libmono-corlib2.0-cil libmono-data-tds1.0-cil libmono-data-tds2.0-cil libmono-i18n1.0-cil libmono-i18n2.0-cil libmono-security1.0-cil libmono-security2.0-cil libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil libmono-sqlite2.0-cil libmono-system-data1.0-cil libmono-system-data2.0-cil libmono-system-web1.0-cil libmono-system-web2.0-cil libmono-system1.0-cil libmono-system2.0-cil libmono0 libmono1.0-cil libmono2.0-cil libmtp8 libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil libndesk-dbus1.0-cil libneon27 libopal-2.2 libpisock9 libpisync1 libpt-1.10.10 libpt-1.10.10-plugins-alsa libpt-1.10.10-plugins-v4l libpt-1.10.10-plugins-v4l2 libpulsecore5 libsamplerate0 libschroedinger-1.0-0 libsdl1.2debian libsdl1.2debian-alsa libsgutils1 libspeexdsp1 libsqlite0 libtracker-gtk0 libts-0.0-0 libwps-0.1-1 libx11-xcb1 mesa-utils metacity mono-common mono-gac mono-jit mono-runtime mousetweaks mtools nautilus nautilus-cd-burner nautilus-data nautilus-sendto nautilus-share openoffice.org-base-core openoffice.org-calc openoffice.org-common openoffice.org-core openoffice.org-draw openoffice.org-emailmerge openoffice.org-gnome openoffice.org-gtk openoffice.org-impress openoffice.org-math openoffice.org-style-human openoffice.org-writer pkg-config pulseaudio pulseaudio-esound-compat pulseaudio-module-gconf pulseaudio-module-hal pulseaudio-module-x11 python-beagle python-gmenu python-gtksourceview2 python-uno rarian-compat rdesktop rhythmbox screen-resolution-extra sg3-utils sqlite sqlite3 syslinux tangerine-icon-theme tomboy tracker tracker-search-tool tracker-utils tsclient ubuntu-artwork ubuntu-desktop ubuntu-docs ubuntu-gdm-themes ubuntu-system-service ubuntu-wallpapers untex usb-creator usplash-theme-ubuntu vino whois wv xdg-user-dirs xdg-user-dirs-gtk xulrunner-1.9-gnome-support && sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

[Fish]

^ You're absolutely right, I stand corrected.

Am I right in saying though, that if you

sudo aptitude install xubuntu-desktop

then

sudo aptitude remove xubuntu-desktop

instead of "apt-get", then you will indeed remove all the Xubuntu packages, not just the metapackage?

Edit: What about

sudo apt-get autoremove xubuntu-desktop

Would that work too?

Sorry for taking this thread off at a tangent....

Edited December 5, 2008 by Fish

[Napalm Frog]

As for as I know, that won't work either. I don't know why either method will only remove the meta-package, and don't know the details of aptitude vs apt-get enough to explain it in detail, other than aptitude being more powerful in a way of dealing with dependencies.

EDIT: I'm reading if that you install with aptitude, it *should* work when removing with aptitude, but if you use apt-get it won't work (even if you mix/match). Any ideas why?

[fix-this!]

i went with xubuntu 8.10 x64 and it made a world of difference. all my apps are installed from ubuntu including open-office 3 and the system runs smooth, can't really find too many decent themes though.

i wonder why ubuntu ran soo slow ? my vista runs great with aero enabled too. :blink:

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I like Ubuntu and Ibex is great. I give it a 10/10 :D

[fix-this!]

I like Ubuntu and Ibex is great. I give it a 10/10 :D

i still think my vista install is much more responsive and quick than even xubuntu. :blink:

[Mouldy Punk]

As an OS, 3/10

Despite that rating, I do quite like it. It's just waaaaaaay too much hassle getting my wireless adapter working - which cripples it's functionality.

[thealexweb]

I would give it a 6 / 10.

[fix-this!]

As an OS, 3/10

Despite that rating, I do quite like it. It's just waaaaaaay too much hassle getting my wireless adapter working - which cripples it's functionality.

yeah alot of people are driven away because of wifi support. i found a guide for mine and it works fine other than the wireless led on my laptop doesn't work still. linux is fun to play around with but i wouldn't use it as my primary desktop yet.

[BlueFiberOptics]

Ubuntu is getting better, but it's not yet there in terms of being able to easily perform things I can do in Windows XP.

Is it just me or Ubuntu is getting slower?

[fix-this!]

Is it just me or Ubuntu is getting slower?

8.10 is much slower for me than 8.04 was. i even installed xubuntu and although it was much better, it is still very slow compared to vista. i don't have a slow laptop either so it doesn't make sense ? ive seen quite a few people complaining about 8.10 and slowness.

[markwolfe Veteran]

i still think my vista install is much more responsive and quick than even xubuntu. :blink:

I would have to disagree on that, unless you have something wrong with your *buntu install, like not using the proprietary 3D video drivers, and seeing sluggish effects and such.

I would put Ubuntu/Gnome with Vista, and Xubuntu with XP as far as performance goes.

Do you have benchmarks? Or subjective opinions on this? What hardware?

[fix-this!]

I would have to disagree on that, unless you have something wrong with your *buntu install, like not using the proprietary 3D video drivers, and seeing sluggish effects and such.

I would put Ubuntu/Gnome with Vista, and Xubuntu with XP as far as performance goes.

Do you have benchmarks? Or subjective opinions on this? What hardware?

specs:

AMD Turion 64X2 2.0GHz.

Nvidia Geforce 7150m

4GB DDR2 Ram

320GB Hard Drive

Atheros AR5007 802.11 b/g

its a x64 install, im not using kde or gnome. it isn't slow per say but im telling you it is no where near as fast and responsive as my x64 vista install. yes im using the proprietary drivers in xubuntu too. i do get some message at boot up about my system being greater than 4gigs and i will loose 64mb of ram because of this and to check my bios to enable something. there is nothing to enable for my memory in my bios. :wacko:

[markwolfe Veteran]

Well, you don't have something right! If you are using a 64-bit Linux, there should be NO message about >4GB. That is a 32-bit addressing limitation. And what is this "check bios to enable something" all about? Do you have the exact verbiage? It sounds like you got something mis-configured to me.

[fix-this!]

Well, you don't have something right! If you are using a 64-bit Linux, there should be NO message about >4GB. That is a 32-bit addressing limitation. And what is this "check bios to enable something" all about? Do you have the exact verbiage? It sounds like you got something mis-configured to me.

it's x64 bit xubuntu, i had the same message on ubuntu x64 8.10 as well. i didn't change any settings as i started getting this message the moment i put in the cd to install. it reads i have 3.75gb ram so you know its a 64bit system. im not in linux right now but next time i boot into it ill write down the exact message.

it tells me to enable something "can't remember the name" in my bios to address the issue and it says it will cost me 64mb of ram.

as i said it could be a bug with 8.10 among others because i never had this with 8.04.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I am saying that if it is limiting your memory addressing to short of 4GB, it isn't 64 bits.

That's what I said in my earlier post, and that is what I am restating now.

[fix-this!]

I am saying that if it is limiting your memory addressing to short of 4GB, it isn't 64 bits.

That's what I said in my earlier post, and that is what I am restating now.

not to argue with you but heres the iso i burned the other day, see for yourself.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Ok. I see a 64bit ISO

Why is your install using 32-bit addressing? That is my question. I never doubted that you downloaded and installed a 64-bit version. You see I said that you seem to be misconfigured.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you and claim you downloaded a 32-bit distro. I am looking for CONFIGURATION types of issues.

[fix-this!]

Ok. I see a 64bit ISO

Why is your install using 32-bit addressing? That is my question. I never doubted that you downloaded and installed a 64-bit version. You see I said that you seem to be misconfigured.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you and claim you downloaded a 32-bit distro. I am looking for CONFIGURATION types of issues.

heres the message i get at boot, every time. this happened with regular ubuntu x64 too but always the 8.10 build. i had this message since day 1 when i first booted off the live cd. so it's not user error, it must be a bug with 8.10 id think.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I googled the line that states "Your BIOS doesn't leave a aperture memory hole", and the first result has some bickering and a real solution to try.

If you are not running an AGP system (this fault seems to be associated with AGP systems), add iommu=noaperture to your kernel boot parameters in your menu.lst file.

I'm not sure if this will fix the issues, but indications are it will fix the cause of the error message.

[fix-this!]

I googled the line that states "Your BIOS doesn't leave a aperture memory hole", and the first result has some bickering and a real solution to try.

If you are not running an AGP system (this fault seems to be associated with AGP systems), add iommu=noaperture to your kernel boot parameters in your menu.lst file.

I'm not sure if this will fix the issues, but indications are it will fix the cause of the error message.

will it just fix the error message or allow linux to see the full 4gb of ram ?

[markwolfe Veteran]

will it just fix the error message or allow linux to see the full 4gb of ram ?

Not certain.

This addition may just put a bandaid over the problem, instead of fixing the root.

But I can definitely say you have a problem with your configuration.

[fix-this!]

Not certain.

This addition may just put a bandaid over the problem, instead of fixing the root.

But I can definitely say you have a problem with your configuration.

I don't see how as I didn't play with any config settings at all. I'm not the only one to say 8.10 is slower than prev ious builds. I would like to know why it only reconizes 3.75gb of ram instead of the 4gb that's installed ? Its not super slow but I do notice a difference when coming from my vista install.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Once again, I never said that you are going around and changing your settings. Please don't make this into a "markjensen thinks I broke my install". It could be that Ubuntu is using a bad default due to something it sees in your hardware, and that is causing the performance issue.