31–40 of 46 posts
The worse that happened is that it disabled my 3rd party repos (Skype, VirtualBox) - that is after warning me it would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because "early adopting" is generally used when talking about beta software, but in this case the software was declared released, but the users' experiences resembled that of early adopters'.
Bad when it's Linux, great when it's Revision A Apple hardware...
It's also easier to patch software, although it's harder to make it run on hardware someone else designed and who will not tell you anything about how it works. Apple doesn't have this problem either: the least they can do is OSX folks pointing fingers to Macintosh hardware designers.
But I have to admit Apple hardware has the good looks on its side.
Linkbait title; Ubuntu has done a great deal to make Linux look much better.
In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases. Maybe they're code-freezing too late in each cycle to be able to stabilize everything in time for the release?
Linkbait title; Ubuntu has done a great deal to make Linux look much better.
The article points this out. But it also points out (using the Ubuntu release notes) that there are quite a few regressions as well. In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases. Maybe they're code-freezing too late in each cycle to be able to stabilize everything in time for the release?
I agree. I think they should make their releases less frequent, e.g. move to a 2 year relase cycle. I have zero interest in fiddling with a working computer setup every six months in order to get the latest goodies.
Perhaps the LTS version should be offered more prominently, and the regular releases billed as experimental?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article points this out. But it also points out (using the Ubuntu release notes) that there are quite a few regressions as well. In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases. Maybe they're code-freezing too late in each cycle to be able to stabilize everything in time for the release?
> In other words, there is a lack of professionalism and polish associated with Ubuntu releases. I agree. I think they should make their releases less frequent, e.g. move to a 2 year relase cycle. I have zero interest in fiddling with a working computer setup every six months in order to get the latest goodies.
However, 9.10 hasn't been a smooth ride for me. When I plug in an external monitor, and open Display Options to enable it, my X server crashes, due to Compiz not handling such a large resolution.
Ubuntu is about optimizing the common case at the expense of the corner cases. If you want something that is actually stable, use Debian.
Do you have any specific examples? I've been bumping up against this wall a bit lately and have never tried Debian.
Debian unstable doesn't have releases, so packages that make major changes have to apply cleanly to a variety of configurations (not just whatever the previous version was). Since people are testing these packages daily, any problems are resolved way before anything is marked "stable". These changes are also incremental, so instead of a testing team having to work out 100s of major changes with a six-month deadline, they are made and tested as-needed.
The end result is a system that is very up-to-date but rarely breaks. (Debian stable probably "never" breaks, but it is not exactly up-to-date either.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind the ubuntu boot sequence you will experience will be slightly slower by doing so.
Its not just the boot process, but disk access in general will be slower, especially if your disk is fragmented. The file system is implemented as a single file on the windows partition. http://linux.about.com/od/dist/gr/dstwubi.htm http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-536450.html
I am mildly surprised every time I see a Linux system boot to completion. (And yes, Linux is my favorite OS.)