Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

hardy heron

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,775 ✭✭✭niallb


    If you're finding compiz slowing things down, there are a couple of settings you can change
    which might make a difference.
    First of all, install this control panel to give you the option for Custom settings:
    sudo apt-get install simple-ccsm
    Next time you go to the System menu, you'll see "Advanced Desktop Effects Settings"
    Under "General", choose the "Desktop" tab, and turn off "Detect Refresh Rate".
    Try changing the setting for "Sync to VBlank" too - good for some cards, bad for others.
    It made a difference for me on an intel i810 video chipset.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,542 ✭✭✭eoferrall


    Thanks niallb, i had a manager i got from synaptic for it to set custom settingsbut it wasnt the simple manager you have mentioned, turned off alot of the settings and it improved it. i shall give what you suggested a try and hopefully it'll work on this dinosaur!:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,604 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    You know for a while there , i considered not replying to your post. Not because of what you said, just the sheer length of it!

    Good point. You probably won't like the length of this one then! :)
    I can't think if a reason why you would need to read off the CD.

    Because your net access isn't working?
    What can they do here though? Change Ubuntu from a CD to a DVD that includes loads of windows drivers and have a script to use them with ndiswrapper? Could be an option although they probably would need permission from the writers of the proprietary drivers and its messy.

    I'm not proposing that they include every driver on the install disk. My point here was that they made a decision whereby NDISwrapper (one of the most useful and necessary tools in linux) isn't part of the default install, but PalmOS device support is. What kind of lunatic logic is that? Who thinks to themselves "Hey, we've got 300 million users who need NDISwrapper, vs 500 that need Palm sync support. Let's leave Palm support in and bugger the wifi drivers"??
    Answer: Someone who shouldn't be designing an OS.
    It doesn't let you access your harddrives? I don't understand. Do you mean the system files? Once again your not the administrator. Log in a the administrator if it bothers you.

    The problem we're talking about is mounting hard drives after a clean install. The mouse issue is from kubuntu and I didn't have it with Laurel (on the other hand kubuntu had a full logitech driver). While not defaulting to administrator access is admirable, asking me for a password to access my own drives is something that the designers and I profoundly disagree on.
    Alot of the stuff you have complained about I have no issue with and disagree on many things you see as troublesome.

    Maybe we're approaching this from different angles. You're quite right that none of this issues is "big". I don't expect the devs to come round to my house and fix everything for me, and it's not that I'm not prepared to fiddle.
    I am choosing to look at this not from the perspective of "look how far they've come" or "how can I contribute?", and there's a simple reason for that - Canonical is making a big noise about how Ubuntu is up to the standard of being a replacement for windows - not just an "advanced Linux distro". It's touted not only as a viable alternative, but as a potential sale to mass corporate users and volume licenses. From that perspective, I am looking at it as follows: Are they right, or are they full of shi.t? After my kubuntu install, I came to the conclusion that their idea of "stable release" and mine were very different. The blurb about Laurel'n'Hardy is that is an LTS "very stable" release. Having viewed it, one thing is clear - clearer than it was with the last version:

    They are nowhere near being able to design a windows replacement.

    Not because the driver support's not there, not because they need more members of the community to muck in, and not because they need more co-operation with closed software and hardware vendors.

    It's because some of the decisions they've made in the architecture, and the design choices they've made in the way the OS is structured, are beyond poor. They're not amateur, either. It's as if they've looked at the OS's shortcomings, held a very simple solution in their hands, and stuck their heads right in the sand with their fingers in their ears singing LAA LAA LAA. Windows devs have done this as well. But the difference is that the windows devs don't have to persuade people to switch (unless they're one of the unfortunates trying to flog retail copies of Vista). The three examples I highlighted at the end of my last post are all pretty small issues. Nothing life threatening. What's worrying about them is not that they're there, it's that Canonical don't see them as a problem. They should, because those decisions are telling the outside world a lot about how and why architecture decisions are being made, more than Canonical seem to realise. They're telling the world "Hey, we've slapped in a lot of stuff here, some of it's pretty cool, check it out", then when the "Ehh.. but it doesn't work" problem rears its ugly head, the logic is "Meh, whaddya gonna do, it'll be fixed a few months down the line, fuggedaboudit."

    I'll go back to my favourite example to highlight how that thinking is exposed; Firefox Beta. Here's what it tells us:
    • They had a release schedule set.
    • One of their most important release apps wasn't going to be ready on time.
    • Rather than delay the release, they slapped in the Beta version and told everybody they'd upgrade the release in a month.
    Here's what they think it tells us: "We meet our deadlines. You can rely on us to look after it."
    Here's what it actually tells us: "If it's not ready, or it's not working right, we'll whack it in anyway and maybe we'll fix it later. Fu.ck it, it's your problem now, you don't like it make your own, why should we delay the release just because it doesn't work/isn't finished/hasn't been tested?"

    That's not going to sell well to volume licensers or corporate server admins. Red Hat and other corporate Linux distros made sales because they've learned that. Ubuntu is getting a lot of goodwill changeovers, particularly playing the "free vs. microsoft tax" arguments with local government/education buyers. But that will only take them so far, and it won't allow them to get away with some of the frankly shoddy work they're doing on the OS.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Slutmonkey57b, was there anything you liked?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,604 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    I don't know. Anything I liked about it was something that, realistically, some other OS has already been doing for years, usually smoother, faster, and with less hassle. If any Linux distro is going to take away Vista sales (and as I stated above it's clearly not going to be Ubuntu), it's the opportunity to provide a "bloat-free" OS experience. As it is, I don't see that happening.

    The various ubuntu versions make a good first impression, usually with swanky visuals, but it's not backed up with solid foundations, it's not well thought out (actually it might as well not have been planned at all), and "like for like" performance is at best equal to, or in most cases, significantly behind that of XP, never mind 2000 (which would be my OS of choice). When ubuntu is at it's best, it's "Meh, ok I suppose". When it's bad it's like having teeth pulled by a blind man when you can see someone else's name on the paperwork.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Fair enough, i'd have thought a lot of things were already being done by linux and were ripped off by windows. *UAC* In the past you could say Linux wasn't very friendly but for me that has disappeared with Ubuntu, everything worked on my laptop out of the box. :eek: I don't know what you mean by bloat free either. Vista takes over 10 gigs, Ubuntu about 3/4 I think.

    If anything i'd have said Ubuntu has a solid foundation. It outperforms XP and Vista imo. It's only been good for me.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I still can't get past the fact that for the second time in 6 months I've upgraded and My X session won't start without me doing the following:
    Ctrl-AltF1
    login
    startx and wait for it to fail with error message
    delete a /tmp lock file as root/sudo
    startx again

    and that NOBODY on the three biggest Linux/Ubuntu forms has had one useful tip on how to fix it. I'm just going to have to reformat again and stay in the dark about why upgrading destros my installation repeatedly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭FruitLover


    I've upgraded and My X session won't start without me doing the following:
    Ctrl-AltF1
    login
    startx and wait for it to fail with error message
    delete a /tmp lock file as root/sudo
    startx again

    Weird. How come you need to press ctrl-alt-f1 if Xorg hasn't started? Is this from the Ubuntu 'loading' type screen? Sounds like you might be trying to start X when it's already started (although maybe not fully loaded?). If it happens again, try checking the process list to see if X has already been initiated before you run 'startx'.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    It happens every time - blank black screen when I boot up, no way past it but to drop to console and wipe that lock file.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭corkie


    I still can't get past the fact that for the second time in 6 months I've upgraded and My X session won't start without me doing the following:
    Ctrl-AltF1
    login
    startx and wait for it to fail with error message
    delete a /tmp lock file as root/sudo
    startx again

    and that NOBODY on the three biggest Linux/Ubuntu forms has had one useful tip on how to fix it. I'm just going to have to reformat again and stay in the dark about why upgrading destros my installation repeatedly.

    After these two steps:

    1. Ctrl-AltF1
    2. login

    > sudo su (and entering password)
    > telinit 1 (brings you to single user mode killing all X sessions)
    > X -configure (will give you a new X configuration to use)
    Follow instructions as directed from that prompt!
    backup your old one (edit and paste the differences for mouse/touchpad settings)
    > cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup
    > cp /root/xorg.conf.new /etc/X11/xorg.conf
    > reboot

    That should hopefully resolve that issue. (I Got into the habit of doing that under slackware, when i was recompling)

    Regards,
    J.

    ⓘ "At some point something inside me just clicked and I realized that I didn't have to deal with anyone's bullshit ever again."
    » “mundus sine caesaribus” «



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭FruitLover


    corkie wrote: »
    That should hopefully resolve that issue. (I Got into the habit of doing that under slackware, when i was recompling)

    What caused the problem? Loading old modules?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,604 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    Sherifu wrote: »
    Fair enough, i'd have thought a lot of things were already being done by linux and were ripped off by windows. *UAC* In the past you could say Linux wasn't very friendly but for me that has disappeared with Ubuntu, everything worked on my laptop out of the box. :eek: I don't know what you mean by bloat free either. Vista takes over 10 gigs, Ubuntu about 3/4 I think.

    UAC on Vista or Linux isn't something either of them should be claiming plaudits for since it's utterly crap on both (with Vista edging it in the "pointlessly wasting less of my valuable ****ing time asking me for passwords" stakes). Since the UI basis of Windows is 95, and the technological basis is NT, and both pre-date Linux (in any usable form), I don't buy the argument that Windows is ripping off Linux. Linux, Windows and OSX are all ripping off Unix would probably be more accurate. Vista is an example of massive unregulated bloat on a George Lucas scale, so I don't count that. But given the functionality offered, and the very theoretical (in my view) advantage of open source coding, Ubuntu should be a hell of a lot slimmer, more responsive, and more responsible than it is. As it is, it's a badly planned, hobbled XP alternative with nothing special or unique to recommend it, and plenty to say against it.
    If anything i'd have said Ubuntu has a solid foundation. It outperforms XP and Vista imo. It's only been good for me.

    When the screen doesn't jag and lag horribly when scrolling a window, or fonts can actually be seen clearly on screen, I might agree with you. As it is, I don't see any performance advantage at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    I'm happy with it so it's pointless for me to say anymore. We will have to disagree.

    *exits thread*


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭stereo_steve


    Good point. You probably won't like the length of this one then! :)

    The problem we're talking about is mounting hard drives after a clean install. The mouse issue is from kubuntu and I didn't have it with Laurel (on the other hand kubuntu had a full logitech driver). While not defaulting to administrator access is admirable, asking me for a password to access my own drives is something that the designers and I profoundly disagree on.

    Sigh, just add them to your fstab and stop complaining! We are not talking about Kubuntu in this thread. We are talking about Ubuntu the primary operating operating system of Canonical. I have Ubuntu and never have to put in passwords to access my drives.
    Canonical is making a big noise about how Ubuntu is up to the standard of being a replacement for windows - not just an "advanced Linux distro". It's touted not only as a viable alternative, but as a potential sale to mass corporate users and volume licenses. From that perspective, I am looking at it as follows: Are they right, or are they full of shi.t? After my kubuntu install, I came to the conclusion that their idea of "stable release" and mine were very different. The blurb about Laurel'n'Hardy is that is an LTS "very stable" release. Having viewed it, one thing is clear - clearer than it was with the last version:

    They are nowhere near being able to design a windows replacement.

    Eh ... it is. I find it vastly superior than anything I have used before. The majority if things you are saying are completely untrue.

    1. You need passwords to access your harddrive. False
    2. You need a password to change a mouse setting . False
    3 When totem installs a codec it is not system wide. False (tested this on a new install I did yesterday.)
    4. You complain about Ubuntu not looking on the install CD before checking on the internet. Why , why, why would it do this? Everything is installed from the CD. There is not reason to install anything from it later???
    5 The "jags" when using firefox I experienced this for week when hardy as still in Alpha. It was fixed with an updated video driver through the repositories.
    stuck their heads right in the sand with their fingers in their ears singing LAA LAA LAA.....I didn't have it with Laurel

    These kind of comments really don't help your argument, even when you put them in bold.a

    examples I highlighted at the end of my last post are all pretty small issues. Nothing life threatening. What's worrying about them is not that they're there, it's that Canonical don't see them as a problem. They should, because those decisions are telling the outside world a lot

    I don't see the problem either? Aside from a couple of things I agreed on, eg documentation.
    I'll go back to my favourite example to highlight how that thinking is exposed; Firefox Beta. Here's what it tells us:
    • They had a release schedule set.
    • One of their most important release apps wasn't going to be ready on time.
    • Rather than delay the release, they slapped in the Beta version and told everybody they'd upgrade the release in a month.
    Here's what they think it tells us: "We meet our deadlines. You can rely on us to look after it."
    Here's what it actually tells us: "If it's not ready, or it's not working right, we'll whack it in anyway and maybe we'll fix it later. Fu.ck it, it's your problem now, you don't like it make your own, why should we delay the release just because it doesn't work/isn't finished/hasn't been tested?"

    Firefox 3 in its current state is extremely stable and far far better than Firefox 2. I remember reading that there were 700,000 users of it about a month ago prior to the hardy release. I don't think its a problem. If there was/is a security flaw it will be patched as soon as its found. If there were issues with Firefox 3 then the LTS version probably would have not been released.
    That's not going to sell well to volume licensers or corporate server admins. Red Hat and other corporate Linux distros made sales because they've learned that. Ubuntu is getting a lot of goodwill changeovers, particularly playing the "free vs. microsoft tax" arguments with local government/education buyers. But that will only take them so far, and it won't allow them to get away with some of the frankly shoddy work they're doing on the OS.

    Again, shoddy? Seriously! Most people, definitely myself wouldn't see it as free vs MS sales tax. Microsoft made their product they can certainly charge what they want for it. I see it as caged vs freedom. Just one example this is brainstorm.ubuntu.com If people ask for something in enough numbers it happens.

    I'm gonna have to exit this thread aswell. Its taking far to much time to write this. I'm sure you'll agree! I do love linux though and I use Ubuntu because of the various versions of linux I've used, I find Ubuntu to be the best and it has a fantastic community!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Oracle


    I've upgraded using the Ubuntu Update Manager, something I've never done before, it's gone smoothly, so everything's great so far. I notice browsing with Firefox is way faster, pages load quicker, and it seems to start and close better. Some web sites freeze with it though. I'm surprised they've included beta software in this release (Firefox 3.0b5 Beta) but it seems to work well anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,604 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    Eh ... it is. I find it vastly superior than anything I have used before. The majority if things you are saying are completely untrue.

    How is it superior? Is it faster? Smoother? More stable? Less bloat? Looks prettier? What functionality does it provide that other OS's don't? I couldn't find a single (positive) unique, interesting, or more importantly, useful thing about it. It doesn't allow me to do anything I haven't already been doing on some other OS for several years now.
    1. You need passwords to access your harddrive. False

    What? I must have been hallucinating when I saw a box pop up and ask me for the administrator password when I wanted to open the hard drive then?
    Disagree with me if you want, but don't call me a liar.
    2. You need a password to change a mouse setting . False

    Again, I must have been seeing things? And seeing as I made a point of saying that this happened in kubuntu, not ubuntu, you're accusing me of lying based on a deliberate misconception.
    3 When totem installs a codec it is not system wide. False (tested this on a new install I did yesterday.)

    That did not happen with me. Again, were you looking over my shoulder? Don't call me a liar.
    4. You complain about Ubuntu not looking on the install CD before checking on the internet. Why , why, why would it do this? Everything is installed from the CD. There is not reason to install anything from it later???

    Because, as I so carefully pointed out, IF you don't have net access, you can't
    A) get help to fix your problem;
    B) install NDISwrapper which would enable you to get online in the first place. A less brainless designer would have thought of that, and made them part of the default install, or put out a DVD image with optional popular (even voted by the community) apps, drivers, and tools on it.

    Ubuntu would have every right to not bother looking at the install disk and jump straight to searching the net, IF it didn't have such a well-deserved reputation for incomplete wireless support. It doesn't, so it has no business assuming that the internet is its first port of call.
    5 The "jags" when using firefox I experienced this for week when hardy as still in Alpha. It was fixed with an updated video driver through the repositories.

    Other people (on the forums, not just me) are not experiencing the same performance. Again, they are not liars just because you don't agree with them. Just because your specific hardware is working, does not mean everyone's is.
    I don't see the problem either? Aside from a couple of things I agreed on, eg documentation.

    Then you're missing the whole point of what I was arguing about.
    Firefox 3 in its current state is extremely stable and far far better than Firefox 2. I remember reading that there were 700,000 users of it about a month ago prior to the hardy release. I don't think its a problem. If there was/is a security flaw it will be patched as soon as its found. If there were issues with Firefox 3 then the LTS version probably would have not been released.

    Again, you're missing the point I was making. As to whether the LTS would "probably" not have been released, that depends on how much faith you have in Canonical's commitment to Quality Control. I have very little.
    Again, shoddy? Seriously! Most people, definitely myself wouldn't see it as free vs MS sales tax. Microsoft made their product they can certainly charge what they want for it. I see it as caged vs freedom. Just one example this is brainstorm.ubuntu.com If people ask for something in enough numbers it happens.

    Yes, shoddy. Not up to standard. Not good enough.

    Useful requests on the front page of brainstorm, then:
    Integrated Compiz-Check
    Written by artir the 2 May 08 at 11:53. Category: Look and Feel. New
    Compiz-Check(http://forum.compiz-fusion.org/showthread.php?t=8167) is a script that checks your system and sees why you cant run compiz. So, with this script, Ubuntu will say: "Desktop effects couldnt been enabled because X" instead of just "D.E. couldnt been enabled."
    Migrate settings like on a Mac
    Written by terra the 2 May 08 at 04:18. Category: Installation. New
    There should be a way to duplicate settings from one installation to another. Mac can do this...
    Have a device manager
    Written by ToSsMaStR the 1 May 08 at 21:33. Category: Look and Feel. New
    Have a device manager, similar to windows, where one can see what devices are functioning properly and what needs to be installed and what not.
    Undo when renaming files
    Written by bdamer the 1 May 08 at 21:43. Category: Accessibility. New
    When renaming a file in nautilus, there is no way to undo changes made while typing. Just as in most other applications, the last changes should be reverted when the user hits CTRL+Z.
    apt-get from install CD should use the CD when useful
    Written by tgape the 1 May 08 at 22:18. Category: Installation. New
    Install CDs which are not full live filesystems generally have many of the install packages on them. However, apparently apt-get prefers getting them from online, because the install I just initiated a couple hours ago is fetching *everything* from the net, despite the fact that many of the packages are on the CD, and at least some of those are the latest version.

    IMHO, if a version of a package exists on a CD, it should use that package, and only download a patch file, if that saves any time. If the version on the CD is the latest, it should certainly not download from the net - doing so wastes ubuntu.com bandwidth and consumes additional time.
    Ubuntu pre-installed on the usb drives
    Written by eyerouge the 2 May 08 at 04:06. Category: System. New
    Canonical store is already selling 1 GB usb flash drives. Why not start selling 2, 3 or 4 GB drives with latest Ubuntu pre-installed on them?
    It's actually quite astonishing this isn't in the store already.

    For the record, I chose from only the most popular items on the frontpage (~50 votes+), with the exception of the CD install issue, which I included because of its humorous value (and technical discussion) and I didn't go out of my way to make ubuntu look bad.

    What do we have?
    People want an equivalent to DxDiag.
    People want an equivalent to "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard"
    People want an equivalent to device manager. (as opposed to a help file that claims there is one when there isn't)
    People want the file navigator to support Undo. (Like explorer does).
    Someone thinks that defaulting to install off the net is a waste of time and bandwith considering the up-to-date files he's downloading are already on the install CD!
    http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/usb.html - Pity nobody else thought of selling pre-installed linux pen drives....

    People want features that other OS's have been sporting for years!
    I'm gonna have to exit this thread aswell. Its taking far to much time to write this. I'm sure you'll agree! I do love linux though and I use Ubuntu because of the various versions of linux I've used, I find Ubuntu to be the best and it has a fantastic community!

    I understand I'm coming across as a big negative basher. I wish that was because I wasn't! But this install was my "second chance" for ubuntu to prove itself. Not only did it not prove itself, I found the whole experience more dissapointing this time.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,838 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Slutmonkey wrote:
    http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/usb.html - Pity nobody else thought of selling pre-installed linux pen drives....
    selling ? , you can request a free ubuntu CD ;)
    almost every live CD can be run from a USB key
    not just linux free dos and solaris clones also run from usb
    you can cheat and have a dos format usb key + loadlin
    People want features that other OS's have been sporting for years!
    0 price tag
    security
    no restrictions on number of processors / clients / services they can run without purchasing additional licenses


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,604 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    0 price tag
    security
    no restrictions on number of processors / clients / services they can run without purchasing additional licenses

    Free is exactly what it's worth though. Other OS's may cost shiny gold rocks, but they're better made, better supported, and more useful as a result. That's the tradeoff.
    Security is something I'm not at all convinced of. The quality of basic code that I've experienced doesn't bode well for the quality of the underlying security. Also, there's the simple fact that amateur hackers won't attack linux because they're for the most part linux heads who like making windows look bad, and professional hackers don't see the profit in it yet. Remember Apple made a big deal of how unhackable their Unix-based OS was - until someone spent a couple of weeks poking at it and suddenly there were holes all over the place.
    Anyone running a system where number of processors/clients/services is a serious concern factors license costs into their business. Universities get grants.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭sobriquet


    Free is exactly what it's worth though. Other OS's may cost shiny gold rocks, but they're better made, better supported, and more useful as a result. That's the tradeoff.
    Thousands of users and businesses globally depend on Linux and the BSDs. Why? Perhaps, and it's just a thought, it's because the above is not true.

    The 'better made, better supported, and more useful' comment comes across as nothing but flamebait. You took stereo_steve to task for implying that you were a liar, that your experience means nothing. You're right, no-one here can tell you what did or didn't happen. What we can do though is reject what you're doing above: concluding from this experience that Linux is worthless not just for you but categorically, for everyone.

    So maybe then you can see that your endless arguing of the above is pretty tiresome at this point. My Ubuntu install is great. Perfectly stable and responsive. My mate, a Windows head through and through, installed Hardy on his MacBook Pro during the week. Some big issues specific to his MacBook but despite that, he really liked it. Many, many others too, get value out of it, even if your experience was terrible. So could you please stop telling us that it has no value? We have experiences of our own to the contrary.
    Security is something I'm not at all convinced of. The quality of basic code that I've experienced doesn't bode well for the quality of the underlying security.
    Y'know I use Windows XP daily in work. It's sluggish, sometimes unresponsive and stall-y, no idea why. I could make the very same assumption that it's built on a house of cards, but I'd be wrong. MS have made huge strides in security engineering and code quality over the years, and the likelihood that sometimes randomly weird UI code is representative of the quality of code at the kernel level is just daft. Even if it were terrible, Windows is designed in such a way as to partition things. Bad code in area need not render the whole system vulnerable. Same goes for Linux, and every other system worth looking at out there. That some Gnome code is shaky or the application is badly designed or integrated says nothing about the quality of any other code on the system.
    Also, there's the simple fact that amateur hackers won't attack linux because they're for the most part linux heads who like making windows look bad,
    Simple fact? You're basing this on what? I could reasonably posit that most games and software (music and movies too, why not) pirates are mostly windows heads. Which gets use where? Nowhere. You're deflecting the argument that Linux is more secure by saying well h4x0rs are Linux users anyway. Do you seriously think that every script kiddie out there runs Linux and feels some kind of loyalty to it? Well if so you'd be wrong. ...in 2007 more Linux servers suffered a successful attack than all versions of Windows, combined. That took about three seconds to find out, by the way, by googling for 'defacement windows linux.' (By the way, that statistic doesn't actually say a lot about the relative security of Linux against Windows. There's a breakdown of the attack vectors: almost all to with password guessing/stealing/sniffing, misconfiguration, sql injection and the like. Nothing inherent in any system, just bad deployment and administration. I'd link to Zone-H.org directly but it seems to be down.)
    and professional hackers don't see the profit in it yet.
    I'm sorry, but no. It takes no time at all to find out about the large numbers of Linux and BSD servers out there in critical roles, handling all sorts of sensitive data. The targets are very much there, and at least as worthwhile as their MS or other proprietary equivalents.
    Remember Apple made a big deal of how unhackable their Unix-based OS was - until someone spent a couple of weeks poking at it and suddenly there were holes all over the place.
    I don't know what Apple claimed, but I'm very interested in 'holes all over the place', because I don't remember that. Have you got a source for this? I somehow don't imagine that 'holes all over the place' is a particularly accurate recollection of how things panned out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    Slutmonkey is probably talking about the Month of Apple Bugs


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,518 ✭✭✭matrim


    I upgraded my laptop this morning and all went well. The only issue I had was fonts displaying in firefox. This was fixed easy enough by changing the font dsi in firefox about:config.

    The one thing I didn't like about the install is that, I had removed my old linux install and left the space on the HD unpartitioned. When I went to install I assumed that the default would be to install to unpartitioned space, but it was to resize my windows partition (and leave the no free space on it), and leave the unpartitioned space unused
    I was lucky that I just noticed it before clicking OK. Then I had to manually choose the linux partitions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭sobriquet


    Slutmonkey is probably talking about the Month of Apple Bugs

    Wow, don't recall it being that bad. They're all dated at Jan 2007 though, for clarity OS X 10.0 came out in March '01.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,604 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    sobriquet wrote: »
    Thousands of users and businesses globally depend on Linux and the BSDs. Why? Perhaps, and it's just a thought, it's because the above is not true.

    I am not talking about the Linux/Unix metaverse as a whole, though. I am talking about ubuntu and its derivatives specifically.
    The 'better made, better supported, and more useful' comment comes across as nothing but flamebait. You took stereo_steve to task for implying that you were a liar, that your experience means nothing. You're right, no-one here can tell you what did or didn't happen. What we can do though is reject what you're doing above: concluding from this experience that Linux is worthless not just for you but categorically, for everyone.

    Ok, good point. My negative experience doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has a problem. But again, I am not saying Linux is worthless, I am saying that Ubuntu is worthless - and primarily not because of the technical issues or faults that I experienced, but because of what I see as the sloppy attitude of the devs, and the approach they have towards their releases and their stability.
    Same goes for Linux, and every other system worth looking at out there. That some Gnome code is shaky or the application is badly designed or integrated says nothing about the quality of any other code on the system.

    What it says is about the dev's committment to quality and quality control. As I said, the lack of quality control in the end-user experience leads me to the conclusion that quality control in other areas isn't all it could be either.
    I'm sorry, but no. It takes no time at all to find out about the large numbers of Linux and BSD servers out there in critical roles, handling all sorts of sensitive data. The targets are very much there, and at least as worthwhile as their MS or other proprietary equivalents.

    You're right, many banks and high risk targets do use Linux or some other Unix derivative. The problem there is that they're not running Ubuntu Linux, they're running closed-source distros that have been designed for them by one of the enterprise linux specialists. In essence, they're running not just a niche OS that isn't a big hacker target, they're running a custom designed OS with a lot of their software written in-house. As you said, if they do have breaches, it's bad sysadmin practice. But these institutions can't be used as an example of why Ubuntu is a viable option.

    I don't know what Apple claimed, but I'm very interested in 'holes all over the place', because I don't remember that. Have you got a source for this? I somehow don't imagine that 'holes all over the place' is a particularly accurate recollection of how things panned out.

    There was a good article on this in the Inq recently, I'll look it up. As above, the Month of Apple Bugs project proved that just because an OS doesn't have any published bugs doesn't mean that they aren't there. The fact that the Bug project was 2007, when OSX was released in 2001 only goes to prove one thing: Apple's complacancy and arrogance left their customers exposed for 6 years while they made a lot of noise about how unhackable and secure they were. I see a lot of the same complacancy in the Ubuntu devs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭sobriquet


    I am not talking about the Linux/Unix metaverse as a whole, though. I am talking about ubuntu and its derivatives specifically.
    But the point still stands: I, and many, many others, find Ubuntu to be useful and worth using.
    Ok, good point. My negative experience doesn't necessarily imply that everyone has a problem. But again, I am not saying Linux is worthless, I am saying that Ubuntu is worthless - and primarily not because of the technical issues or faults that I experienced, but because of what I see as the sloppy attitude of the devs, and the approach they have towards their releases and their stability.
    Again, my point stands: I was talking about Ubuntu as well as Linux in general. From my experience, and those of Windows users I know who've given it a spin and been impressed for a variety of reasons. Where you see a sloppy attitude, I can see a impressive level of vision and drive to integrate it well, in spite of a hostile market (apathy from hardware makers with respect to drivers). The fact that Dell and other large manufacturers are getting on board is testament to this.

    Slutmonkey, it sucks that you're dissappointed by Ubuntu and that it failed you, but if your experience was really representative would things have really unfolded as they are like that? Would the remarkable surge in its' popularity have happened?
    What it says is about the dev's committment to quality and quality control. As I said, the lack of quality control in the end-user experience leads me to the conclusion that quality control in other areas isn't all it could be either.
    Ok, that's much clearer. Nevertheless, I don't think it stands. The Linux kernel alone stands at some 5.2 million lines of code. The GNOME desktop environment, in all its' programs, probably covers at least that if not more. Redhat 7.1, 30 million. Windows XP, about 40 million. (Source)

    Bearing that scale of things in mind, does it make sense to make a blanket declaration of quality across any of those systems? I don't think it does, whether it's open source or proprietary. Quality of code and testing will inevitably vary between those projects.
    You're right, many banks and high risk targets do use Linux or some other Unix derivative. The problem there is that they're not running Ubuntu Linux, they're running closed-source distros that have been designed for them by one of the enterprise linux specialists. In essence, they're running not just a niche OS that isn't a big hacker target, they're running a custom designed OS with a lot of their software written in-house. As you said, if they do have breaches, it's bad sysadmin practice. But these institutions can't be used as an example of why Ubuntu is a viable option.
    My emphasis. I think you're making a fatuous distinction here. Redhat Enterprise Linux, Suse Linux Enterprise Server, and the variety of other 'big iron' type Linux distros are not closed-source, and are not designed on a site by site basis. They're marketed as being drop-in options for people wanting mail or file servers, firewalls or what have you.

    Besides all that, the code the RHEL or SLES use, whether it's the kernel, GNOME, Firefox, Apache, whatever is the very same that Ubuntu use. There's no magic pixie dust that gets sprinkled on the code that Redhat use to make it more enterprisey and secure, though I'm sure their marketers would love for you to think so.

    By the way, if you've evidence that many (any?) businesses replace time tested parts of critical infrastructure (any mail or webserver software for example) with their own in-house stuff, please let me know, I'd like to make sure I don't do business with them. Using stuff you can't in the default repositories like Oracle or Websphere doesn't count by the way.
    There was a good article on this in the Inq recently, I'll look it up. As above, the Month of Apple Bugs project proved that just because an OS doesn't have any published bugs doesn't mean that they aren't there. The fact that the Bug project was 2007, when OSX was released in 2001 only goes to prove one thing: Apple's complacancy and arrogance left their customers exposed for 6 years while they made a lot of noise about how unhackable and secure they were. I see a lot of the same complacancy in the Ubuntu devs.
    I'm well aware of the arrogant attitude Apple seem to have, but there's a difference between the noise the marketers make and the efforts of developers to secure their systems (the same goes for everyone). Since 2001, OS X has not been static. Code has been added, removed and changed, viewed and reviewed. To accuse their developers of being complacent might be fair, but as likely as not it's not on target. Same goes for the Ubuntu developers, and despite your bad feelings about their complacency, there's nothing like the Month of Apple Bugs for Ubuntu.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    I am not talking about the Linux/Unix metaverse as a whole, though. I am talking about ubuntu and its derivatives specifically.

    For what it's worth, I find the ubuntu server to be very solid at the backend. I've yet to come across a major enterprise that uses it though. My experience (mostly at telcos) is that they use RHEL or Suse (less) or Debian (less again). Someone must be using it though, or they'd be out of business.

    edit: I'm currently running Ubuntu 7.04 on the box I'm writing this from. Haven't bothered updating it as I don't see the need.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭stereo_steve


    I really want ed to let this go but just had to write back....
    How is it superior? Is it faster? Smoother? More stable? Less bloat? Looks prettier? What functionality does it provide that other OS's don't? I couldn't find a single (positive) unique, interesting, or more importantly, useful thing about it. It doesn't allow me to do anything I haven't already been doing on some other OS for several years now.

    No more "euros for eulas".
    No more viruses.
    No more bsods
    No more registry.
    No more dll`s
    No more wga
    More freedom
    Not limited to a closed list of hardware (Apple)

    With regard to other distributions... Ubuntu has won Best Distribution , Best Community , Outstanding Contribution to Linux , Linux Journal's Reader's Choice , and many more.

    What? I must have been hallucinating when I saw a box pop up and ask me for the administrator password when I wanted to open the hard drive then?
    Disagree with me if you want, but don't call me a liar.

    We covered this. When you install Ubuntu you are presented with a screen showing all your harddrives. Where do you want Ubuntu installed etc. You obviously did not select for the other drives to be mounted on boot. Add them to you fstab and the problem is fixed. Should this have been made clearer to you on install? Perhaps it could be done better.
    Ubuntu would have every right to not bother looking at the install disk and jump straight to searching the net, IF it didn't have such a well-deserved reputation for incomplete wireless support. It doesn't, so it has no business assuming that the internet is its first port of call.

    Repeat, there is nothing on the disk to install later, nada, zilch! There is no reason to look on the disk for anything. Maybe a DVD will be created in the future with alot of packages on it maybe not. Its not really the responsibly of Ubuntu to do this. They provide an OS and some core packages, thats what you get. If you want something else, go get it yourself!
    Then you're missing the whole point of what I was arguing about.

    Not really you seem to have an absolute vendetta for Ubuntu.
    Again, you're missing the point I was making. As to whether the LTS would "probably" not have been released, that depends on how much faith you have in Canonical's commitment to Quality Control. I have very little.

    They are doing a superb job, especially with Launch pad. Everyone can contribute bugs and you can review their status online. I'm very happy with it. Although I seem to have a different view of it. I think, you think Ubuntu should meet some high standard that will revolutionise computers for all time and never be surpassed by a future release. Is it perfect, no! But I think its the best OS for my needs out there.

    Useful requests on the front page of brainstorm, then:
    Integrated Compiz-Check
    Written by artir the 2 May 08 at 11:53. Category: Look and Feel. New
    Compiz-Check(http://forum.compiz-fusion.org/showthread.php?t=8167) is a script that checks your system and sees why you cant run compiz. So, with this script, Ubuntu will say: "Desktop effects couldnt been enabled because X" instead of just "D.E. couldnt been enabled."

    This is an excellent example of why I love linux. People just creating stuff for the community. However it should not have been released with Hardy. Why? Because Hardy was released after the script was written. I'm sure we will see it in the next hardy realease, Ibex.
    Migrate settings like on a Mac
    Written by terra the 2 May 08 at 04:18. Category: Installation. New
    There should be a way to duplicate settings from one installation to another. Mac can do this...

    That would be nice all right. As far as I am aware though, can the Macs update their OS with the latest version by the click of a button? Ubuntu can.
    When renaming a file in nautilus, there is no way to undo changes made while typing. Just as in most other applications, the last changes should be reverted when the user hits CTRL+Z.

    Definitely not good. But still this is more of a GNOME problem that effects all GNOME desktops.
    Have a device manager
    Written by ToSsMaStR the 1 May 08 at 21:33. Category: Look and Feel. New
    Have a device manager, similar to windows, where one can see what devices are functioning properly and what needs to be installed and what not.

    Device management could defiantly be better.See I don't disagree on everything :p
    IMHO, if a version of a package exists on a CD, it should use that package, and only download a patch file, if that saves any time. If the version on the CD is the latest, it should certainly not download from the net - doing so wastes ubuntu.com bandwidth and consumes additional time.

    But there is nothing extra on the CD. There is just no space....
    Ubuntu pre-installed on the usb drives
    Written by eyerouge the 2 May 08 at 04:06. Category: System. New
    Canonical store is already selling 1 GB usb flash drives. Why not start selling 2, 3 or 4 GB drives with latest Ubuntu pre-installed on them?
    It's actually quite astonishing this isn't in the store already.

    If you are seriously using this as an argument, your just trolling now. What do you want? Would you like a 4GB memory stick in midnight blue? Maybe with a nice keyring attached? What does that have to do with Ubuntu?

    As for the server edition of Ubuntu, its great, I have it on my home PC. Its rock solid. Why wouldn't it be though?! Its based on Debian. I see no problems with it. Nothing you have mentioned in this post so far gives reason to dismiss the server edition.

    Can we let this go though? This thread has gone on long enough. We can just agree to disagree!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    trollwebwt6.jpg
    trollwebwt6.a089b87763.jpg

    Can a mod please lock this thread, Slutmonkey57b is just trolling at this stage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    PogMoThoin wrote: »
    trollwebwt6.jpg
    trollwebwt6.a089b87763.jpg

    Can a mod please lock this thread, Slutmonkey57b is just trolling at this stage.

    I disagree. s/he just doesn't like ubuntu. I think this is making for some good conversation tbh.

    on this point / bug:
    When renaming a file in nautilus, there is no way to undo changes made while typing. Just as in most other applications, the last changes should be reverted when the user hits CTRL+Z.

    esc reverts changes. :) I agree that ctrl+z should work though.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    corkie wrote: »
    After these two steps:

    1. Ctrl-AltF1
    2. login

    > sudo su (and entering password)
    > telinit 1 (brings you to single user mode killing all X sessions)
    > X -configure (will give you a new X configuration to use)
    Follow instructions as directed from that prompt!
    backup your old one (edit and paste the differences for mouse/touchpad settings)
    > cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup
    > cp /root/xorg.conf.new /etc/X11/xorg.conf
    > reboot

    That should hopefully resolve that issue. (I Got into the habit of doing that under slackware, when i was recompling)

    Regards,
    J.

    No use, I'm afraid - there's nothing wrong with the xorg.conf file (X starts eventually after messing around deleting lock files). I think there's something up with the KDM initialisation process (one-line error message about trying to resume previous session on the screen) - startkde or klauncher or something?

    I'll try and get the relevant xsession errors posted when I get the laptop on line (wifi is erratic as buggery on that still under Hardy).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭Dartz


    I can has WiFi trouble too...

    And touchpad problems that won't go away.

    I think both might be Hardware, but an XPS 1530 is hardly the rarest thing in the world.

    synaptics driver doesn't like the Alps touchpad.

    Wireless light doesn't even light up and doesn't connect to networks, despite being able to detect 'em fine. and it certainly knows it has a wireless card too...


Advertisement