5 ms·

Ubuntu 10.04: First Thoughts

40 points by RyanMcGreal 17y ago

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
Um, I can't get ubuntu one to work. Maybe because I use swiftfox... Seriously you can't even enter your username/password into the tool directly. I guess dropbox is the way :P
neovive 17y ago
Has the font rendering improved on 10.04? I had to do quite a bit of tweaking on 9.04 to get Firefox fonts to looks close Windows/Mac. Regardless, this upgrade looks great!
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  From a rough glance at the screenshots, they do seem to have improved. But if they haven't, all you really have to do is copy the fonts from Windows 7 to the newly installed Ubuntu distro, really just a minute-long task.
d0m 17y ago
I have the feeling that ubuntu is trying to hard to look like Windows (for new users) but in the same time doesn't want to copy the UI. I think there is a decision to be made: Copy or not copy. If they really want to get new users from the Windows world, I think they should simply include a Windows theme with the same icons, the same X_[], etc. Anyway, advanced users doesn't really use ubuntu.. and for some that use it, it's really a modified version. Last thing, I find also that if their goals is to attract new users, they should stop with the mentality of over-configuring everything, every icons, every possible smallest thing you can think changing and instead, provide a clean and simple interface. Configuration files and script already exist for those special configuration, no need to pollute every window configuration with that. That's my 0.02$ from someone who's been using Linux for 10 years. (I use arch, btw)
- natrius 17y ago
  Plenty of "advanced" users use Ubuntu. Just because it's easy for people to get started with doesn't mean that users necessarily grow out of it.
- rufugee 17y ago
  Look like...Windows? Really? Have you even looked at a screenshot? Ubuntu looks nothing like Windows. If they're mimicking anything, it's OS X.
  - barnaby 17y ago
    Agreed. They're competing at a whole new level now, having surpassed Windows in usability, functionality, and aesthetics a long time ago, they have their sites set on competing with Apple. If they're going to copy anything, it's going to be from the higher benchmark OS X has set than from Windows.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
I agree that the best new feature for most people is faster bootup time. I have a dual boot (Widows 7, Ubuntu) Toshiba U505 and the difference in bootup used to be huge (Widows 7 being a lot slower), now the difference is humongus! Wifi support now supports my new laptop. I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it.
- bitwize 17y ago
  Despite the fact that I call it "N00buntu" sometimes, I know a few advanced users who use stock Ubuntu and are perfectly happy with it. With Synaptic, your development tools and apps are pretty much a click away if not already installed. Me, I use Arch. I'm always tweaking shit and don't want the distro getting in my way, which Debian-based distros have a tendency to do.
  - wwortiz 17y ago
    The thing I like about ubuntu is that some things you don't really have to tweak to get right, like font rendering under X (such as having to go and use AUR to get ubuntu type rendering). I liked arch for a little bit but just like ubuntu more, debian sadly is too dated for my hardware and I don't feel like using sid. If you do like arch for the fact that you can start from the ground up you should try doing an ubuntu minimal install (from here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD).
    - bitwize 17y ago
      Not what I was looking for. That just snarfs packages from FTP rather than providing them on the CD. I don't use Arch because I want the absolute bare minimum of functionality. I am just tired of seeing comments of the type: # don't edit this file; use debian-specific-tool(8) instead to change it in my /etc. I want to tweak e.g., resolv.conf my own damn self, without fearing that I'm interfering with the distro's way of doing things. That's what I want from my Linux. Arch gets me most of the way there, has a kick-ass package system and rolling releases like Gentoo, but without the hassle of recompiling the freaking world when some critical library changes.
bitwize 17y ago
Best feature for me: The "Windows XP got pissed and shit on" theme is gone.
hoop 17y ago
I upgraded to 10.04 (server) on my Wind PC last night, which I use as a print server and torrentflux box. Everything seemed to handle the upgrade fine (samba needed an additional service restart, but I digress) For those of you not happy with your upgrade/download speeds, just use a local mirror in your sources.list. An impartial list is available here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/1004overview http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/1004overview Or you can just google for "ubuntu mirror <name of nearby educational institution>" For example, I picked MIT
futuremint 17y ago
Upgrading my eeePC 1001P right now. Hopefully my funky wireless card will continue to work fine with the nidswrapper. Something I appreciate is that I don't have to go to a "store" somewhere and get a "disk" to install and do an "upgrade". Update Manager is pretty nice at being no-hassle. Overall my opinion is that Ubuntu is roughly equal to OS X for the little to no-hassle OS department. I used to run Gentoo years ago, and then I got a real job and didn't want to spend time configuring and compiling and wanted Photoshop, so I switched to OS X. My PS needs are much less now days and I'm quickly drifting back to Linux and liking Ubuntu.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  I took this same path (except for the Photoshop bit; I ended up using OS X because support for the shiny new PB17 I'd just bought was terrible in Gentoo -- or any Linux -- at the time), and after fighting with Ubuntu for a coupla months, installed Arch, and things are better, now.
bho 17y ago
i was looking to install this on my old laptop yesterday (Fujitsu P5020D, the precursor of netbooks!), wiping my old install of crunchbang linux. however, i got hit by this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/568779 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video... , and the liveCD booted to a blank screen even with nomodeset. i just put arch on it, but i really wanted to see the UI changes that were made in this release.
prog 17y ago
> Yet I just don't see a benefit to moving them to the left side that justifies the aggravation of having to unlearn a habit that goes back nearly 20 years. I am a big fan of Ubuntu. Been using it exclusively for quite a few years now. But I really don't get the point of moving the window buttons. First thing I did after upgrade was shift the theme back to Clearlooks[1]. Apart from that the upgrade was smooth, boot time is good and I plan to stick to Ubuntu :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu_Clearlooks.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu_Clearlooks.png
- algorias 17y ago
  I didn't like the buttons at first, but decided to stick with them anyway. Took me all of 10 minutes to get used to them. Most of the time I Alt-F4 anyway, so it's really not a big deal.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  I picked Clearlooks as well - it's easy on the eyes and doesn't get in the way of what I'm working on.
alanl 17y ago
Just upgraded from 9.04, took about 2 hrs. Finding the the left side windows icons a little unnatural, but going to stick with it for a couple of days. Otherwise it looks great, and no issues at all. Great work Canonical, also I see linode have 10.4 vm's available already, fast work guys...

40 points by RyanMcGreal 17y ago

Um, I can't get ubuntu one to work. Maybe because I use swiftfox... Seriously you can't even enter your username/password into the tool directly. I guess dropbox is the way :P

neovive 17y ago

Has the font rendering improved on 10.04? I had to do quite a bit of tweaking on 9.04 to get Firefox fonts to looks close Windows/Mac. Regardless, this upgrade looks great!

jimmyjim 17y ago
From a rough glance at the screenshots, they do seem to have improved. But if they haven't, all you really have to do is copy the fonts from Windows 7 to the newly installed Ubuntu distro, really just a minute-long task.

d0m 17y ago

I have the feeling that ubuntu is trying to hard to look like Windows (for new users) but in the same time doesn't want to copy the UI. I think there is a decision to be made: Copy or not copy. If they really want to get new users from the Windows world, I think they should simply include a Windows theme with the same icons, the same X_[], etc. Anyway, advanced users doesn't really use ubuntu.. and for some that use it, it's really a modified version. Last thing, I find also that if their goals is to attract new users, they should stop with the mentality of over-configuring everything, every icons, every possible smallest thing you can think changing and instead, provide a clean and simple interface. Configuration files and script already exist for those special configuration, no need to pollute every window configuration with that. That's my 0.02$ from someone who's been using Linux for 10 years. (I use arch, btw)

natrius 17y ago
Plenty of "advanced" users use Ubuntu. Just because it's easy for people to get started with doesn't mean that users necessarily grow out of it.
rufugee 17y ago
Look like...Windows? Really? Have you even looked at a screenshot? Ubuntu looks nothing like Windows. If they're mimicking anything, it's OS X.
- barnaby 17y ago
  Agreed. They're competing at a whole new level now, having surpassed Windows in usability, functionality, and aesthetics a long time ago, they have their sites set on competing with Apple. If they're going to copy anything, it's going to be from the higher benchmark OS X has set than from Windows.

mark_l_watson 17y ago

I agree that the best new feature for most people is faster bootup time. I have a dual boot (Widows 7, Ubuntu) Toshiba U505 and the difference in bootup used to be huge (Widows 7 being a lot slower), now the difference is humongus! Wifi support now supports my new laptop. I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it.

bitwize 17y ago
Despite the fact that I call it "N00buntu" sometimes, I know a few advanced users who use stock Ubuntu and are perfectly happy with it. With Synaptic, your development tools and apps are pretty much a click away if not already installed. Me, I use Arch. I'm always tweaking shit and don't want the distro getting in my way, which Debian-based distros have a tendency to do.
- wwortiz 17y ago
  The thing I like about ubuntu is that some things you don't really have to tweak to get right, like font rendering under X (such as having to go and use AUR to get ubuntu type rendering). I liked arch for a little bit but just like ubuntu more, debian sadly is too dated for my hardware and I don't feel like using sid. If you do like arch for the fact that you can start from the ground up you should try doing an ubuntu minimal install (from here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD).
  - bitwize 17y ago
    Not what I was looking for. That just snarfs packages from FTP rather than providing them on the CD. I don't use Arch because I want the absolute bare minimum of functionality. I am just tired of seeing comments of the type: # don't edit this file; use debian-specific-tool(8) instead to change it in my /etc. I want to tweak e.g., resolv.conf my own damn self, without fearing that I'm interfering with the distro's way of doing things. That's what I want from my Linux. Arch gets me most of the way there, has a kick-ass package system and rolling releases like Gentoo, but without the hassle of recompiling the freaking world when some critical library changes.

bitwize 17y ago

Best feature for me: The "Windows XP got pissed and shit on" theme is gone.

hoop 17y ago

I upgraded to 10.04 (server) on my Wind PC last night, which I use as a print server and torrentflux box. Everything seemed to handle the upgrade fine (samba needed an additional service restart, but I digress) For those of you not happy with your upgrade/download speeds, just use a local mirror in your sources.list. An impartial list is available here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/1004overview http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/1004overview Or you can just google for "ubuntu mirror <name of nearby educational institution>" For example, I picked MIT

futuremint 17y ago

Upgrading my eeePC 1001P right now. Hopefully my funky wireless card will continue to work fine with the nidswrapper. Something I appreciate is that I don't have to go to a "store" somewhere and get a "disk" to install and do an "upgrade". Update Manager is pretty nice at being no-hassle. Overall my opinion is that Ubuntu is roughly equal to OS X for the little to no-hassle OS department. I used to run Gentoo years ago, and then I got a real job and didn't want to spend time configuring and compiling and wanted Photoshop, so I switched to OS X. My PS needs are much less now days and I'm quickly drifting back to Linux and liking Ubuntu.

randallsquared 17y ago
I took this same path (except for the Photoshop bit; I ended up using OS X because support for the shiny new PB17 I'd just bought was terrible in Gentoo -- or any Linux -- at the time), and after fighting with Ubuntu for a coupla months, installed Arch, and things are better, now.

bho 17y ago

i was looking to install this on my old laptop yesterday (Fujitsu P5020D, the precursor of netbooks!), wiping my old install of crunchbang linux. however, i got hit by this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/568779 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video... , and the liveCD booted to a blank screen even with nomodeset. i just put arch on it, but i really wanted to see the UI changes that were made in this release.

prog 17y ago

> Yet I just don't see a benefit to moving them to the left side that justifies the aggravation of having to unlearn a habit that goes back nearly 20 years. I am a big fan of Ubuntu. Been using it exclusively for quite a few years now. But I really don't get the point of moving the window buttons. First thing I did after upgrade was shift the theme back to Clearlooks[1]. Apart from that the upgrade was smooth, boot time is good and I plan to stick to Ubuntu :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu_Clearlooks.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu_Clearlooks.png

algorias 17y ago
I didn't like the buttons at first, but decided to stick with them anyway. Took me all of 10 minutes to get used to them. Most of the time I Alt-F4 anyway, so it's really not a big deal.
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
I picked Clearlooks as well - it's easy on the eyes and doesn't get in the way of what I'm working on.

alanl 17y ago

Just upgraded from 9.04, took about 2 hrs. Finding the the left side windows icons a little unnatural, but going to stick with it for a couple of days. Otherwise it looks great, and no issues at all. Great work Canonical, also I see linode have 10.4 vm's available already, fast work guys...