[Bobboau]

on the 10th second of the 10th minute of the 10th hour of the 10th day of the 10th month in the 10th year of the millenium, Ubuntu version 10.10 is now available.

not much new this time around a few interesting things like the introduction of the BTRFS file system that I've been waiting about a year for, some big changes for the netbook edition. it has integrated multitouch capability apparently if you have the hardware for it.

as always this is an excellent opportunity to try something other than windows, remember it can run off of the CD so you can try it without installing it.

I will be seeding as soon as the download is done
Standard 64 Bit
Standard 32 Bit

64 Bit Kubuntu
32 Bit Kubuntu

[S-99]

Not everyone knows that the spring ubuntu releases are the most stable and solid. Fall releases are the beta's, most problematic and least stable. I recommend 10.04 lts.

[Bobboau]

yeah, there's not much different between them either. but still, it's out.

[Bob-san]

Xubuntu links?

[Titan]

on the 10th second of the 10th minute of the 10th hour of the 10th day of the 10th month in the 10th year of the millenium, Ubuntu version 10.10 is now available.

That's kinda cool.

[Nuke]

its been a couple years since i dicked around with linux. maybe they fixed all the crap that pissed me off last time i ran it. too bad all my computers are already being used, and cant be formatted.

[achtung]

its been a couple years since i dicked around with linux. maybe they fixed all the crap that pissed me off last time i ran it. too bad all my computers are already being used, and cant be formatted.

VM?

I use Fedora, but I have several people (friends/family) I'm supporting with Ubuntu installs. I always have it in a virtual machine so I can walk people through crap. I really need to install Gentoo or Arch as well, just for fun.

[Bob-san]

its been a couple years since i dicked around with linux. maybe they fixed all the crap that pissed me off last time i ran it. too bad all my computers are already being used, and cant be formatted.

Some installs can be installed via Windows.

[S-99]

Xubuntu links?

**** xubuntu. Go for lubuntu. Lxde desktop. Xubuntu aside from people liking it just for xfce, doesn't eat that much less memory. Lubuntu actually eats a significant portion less memory than xubuntu.

[Bobboau]

its been a couple years since i dicked around with linux. maybe they fixed all the crap that pissed me off last time i ran it. too bad all my computers are already being used, and cant be formatted.

remember it can run off of the CD so you can try it without installing it.

[Bob-san]

Xubuntu links?

**** xubuntu. Go for lubuntu. Lxde desktop. Xubuntu aside from people liking it just for xfce, doesn't eat that much less memory. Lubuntu actually eats a significant portion less memory than xubuntu.

Then I will see about Lubuntu. I have low-RAM crunchers that need an OS.

[Admiral LSD]

Not everyone knows that the spring ubuntu releases are the most stable and solid. Fall releases are the beta's, most problematic and least stable. I recommend 10.04 lts.

...

You have to be kidding, right?

I've generally found the October releases to be far less problematic than the April ones, especially the one that immediately follows an LTS. The strict 6 month development cycle and 3-5 year support cycle lead to the LTS releases being rushed, often with several questionable decisions being made in the process and requiring weeks of updates afterwards to become even remotely usable. The following .10 release is more often than not a night and day difference in quality and reliability.

I'm actually finding myself warming to Linux Mint as far as desktop Linux is concerned. When I first tried it, at version 5 or something, I didn't like it terribly much. I can't quite remember why, possibly something to do with making basic desktop stuff more difficult to set up than Ubuntu (upon which it's based). However, after messing around with the latest version, 9 or Isadora, I've found that it's either improved immensely or I just didn't get the right version to begin with. Rather than make you wade through a mess of stuff deliberately and menacingly labelled "restricted", Mint includes things like Flash, Java and video support (including DVD playback I believe) out of the box. It's not perfect, things like the core web fonts and proprietary graphics drivers still need installing by hand, and I'm not really that big a fan of the SuSE-style menu setup it has going, but go to woah is still quicker than Ubuntu.

[Admiral LSD]

Finally got the netbook upgraded earlier today. It took two goes over a span of about 24 hours, which I'm guessing was because my mirror hadn't fully updated when I started, but here we are:



Not much has changed on the surface. A few of the icons look a little different, but that's pretty much it. At least with the theme/icon set I'm using.

Performance seems like it wants to be faster, but is being strangled by the weaksauce hardware I have it running on (it's an Eee 900 with the Celeron M and crap SSDs). I'll have to get it running on something that sucks less to gauge that properly.

One thing that stands out, and will require further testing, is the ath5k wireless driver seems less failtastic now than it used to be. I've never been happy with this driver, it seemed like it was rushed into the kernel way before it was ready purely to replace a piece of proprietary software that, apart from being proprietary, worked far better. It's not perfect, but it seems like an improvement.

I'm really starting to get pissed off with Ubuntu moving or removing controls panels about for no good reason and often without decent replacements. Over the last few years a filesharing configuration tool, an X configuration tool (the best I had ever seen in any distro ever in 10 years of using Linux), a sound scheme tool, the system control (Shutdown, restart, etc) menu and possibly others I can't remember off-hand have been dropped or moved around out of the blue. This time, it's the Software Sources panel. It's been removed from the System Administration menu forcing you to either go through Synaptic or the Software Centre, which is annoying and unnecessary.

[S-99]

You have to be kidding, right?

I've generally found the October releases to be far less problematic than the April ones, especially the one that immediately follows an LTS. The strict 6 month development cycle and 3-5 year support cycle lead to the LTS releases being rushed, often with several questionable decisions being made in the process and requiring weeks of updates afterwards to become even remotely usable. The following .10 release is more often than not a night and day difference in quality and reliability.

I'm not kidding. Fall ubuntu releases is when ubuntu releases something where they try out some uber new sauce that more time often than not makes for a crappy working release. Then the spring release comes out which features the same stuff, with maybe some new features, but is more ironed out. And after a monumental lts release, i guarantee you they are trying out new stuff in ubuntu 10.10 that a lot of people won't like. Things like bugs and instability, or the stupid bull**** of moving the title bar buttons over to the left side of the screen.

Because of the 6 month ubuntu releases. I normally don't use ubuntu, but i'm rather at home with their lts releases. I like the philosophy "release when it's ready" that many other distros follow except big names like opensuse, ubuntu, fedora, and mandriva.

Granted i haven't used ubuntu 10.10 yet. After testing a lot of their releases in succession over the years, i'll stick with the idea that 10.10 has a good probability of almost living up to how crappy ubuntu 6.10, 7.10, and 9.10 was. ubuntu 8.10 was really the only fall release that worked pretty good. More or less the a similar thing happens with mandriva and fedora since releases are pretty much synchronized; which means all of the software in fedora is going to be the same stuff ubuntu.

I use linux mint myself. Standard ubuntu is pretty nice, but mintiness is pretty great.

[Admiral LSD]

After testing a lot of their releases in succession over the years, i'll stick with the idea that 10.10 has a good probability of almost living up to how crappy ubuntu 6.10, 7.10, and 9.10 was. ubuntu 8.10 was really the only fall release that worked pretty good.

8.10 was good because 8.04 (an LTS release, if you remember) was an absolute dog. 8.04 was the one that released PulseAudio and the beta Firefox, among other annoying regressions, on the world. 7.10 was better than 7.04 (7.10 introduced the drver handler, autodownloading of codecs and whatnot as well as the X configuration panel I mentioned earlier), and still one of my all-time favourite Ubuntu releases. 9.10 was an improvement in several areas (most notable font rendering) as well. The .04 releases are *always* complete ****, *especially" when they're an LTS.

[Polpolion]

Xubuntu links?

**** xubuntu. Go for lubuntu. Lxde desktop. Xubuntu aside from people liking it just for xfce, doesn't eat that much less memory. Lubuntu actually eats a significant portion less memory than xubuntu.

High five for LXDE! Granted I'm running it on actual Debian and not some degeneracy...

[S-99]

9.10 was horrid. You most likely weren't affected by the same problems me and my friends had with it which is as simple as having different hardware with that specific release. 9.10 had issues with proprietary video drivers. Not to mention even better for me was the fact that the nvidia driver in the 9.10 repo's was unstable. If anybody uninstalled the ati or nvidia proprietary drivers, rebooting would bring you to a console. 9.10 just didn't know how to switch back over to an alternate video driver if you uninstalled the proprietary one. Not to mention default permissions for peripherals like scanners and dialup modems were ****ed.

I didn't mind 8.04. It was pretty ok. I can understand some regressions for an lts release, it is going to be supported for 3 years, some kind of sacrifices may need to be made in the name of stability.

In an lts release, they still do try to integrate some new stuff, but for the most part, they .10 releases is where they toss in everything new. It's my experience with fall releases is that they aren't as polished as spring releases.

Then again, it'd be better if they didn't have a 6 month release (yearly would be better).

[qazwsx]

I'm still using 9.10 D:

[jr2]

I'm actually finding myself warming to Linux Mint as far as desktop Linux is concerned. When I first tried it, at version 5 or something, I didn't like it terribly much. I can't quite remember why, possibly something to do with making basic desktop stuff more difficult to set up than Ubuntu (upon which it's based). However, after messing around with the latest version, 9 or Isadora, I've found that it's either improved immensely or I just didn't get the right version to begin with. Rather than make you wade through a mess of stuff deliberately and menacingly labelled "restricted", Mint includes things like Flash, Java and video support (including DVD playback I believe) out of the box. It's not perfect, things like the core web fonts and proprietary graphics drivers still need installing by hand, and I'm not really that big a fan of the SuSE-style menu setup it has going, but go to woah is still quicker than Ubuntu.

Mint 9 w/ gnome-desktop is the shizzle.  Now to find one based off of Lubuntu for those dog machines (368MB RAM on 500-800 MHz).

[S-99]

I'm still using 9.10 D:

Good for you, seriously. The only time i can imagine not having problems with 9.10 is if i was using intel graphics or something and didn't need to setup a dialup modem and scanner.