Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#11

Post by old-gregg »

scorxn wrote: post #9
old-gregg wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Ubuntu for 2 years as my primary environment and I miss it a lot despite terrible performance of Firefox and flash. Everything else pretty much rocked. I don't have room for a desk with a workstation PC to run it and all PC laptops are so lame these days that I'm stuck with Macbook Pro but keep toying with a double boot idea.

Some, not all ;) http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:Ubuntu

My last 3 laptops were all Thinkpads. I switched to MBP because I couldn't stand the LCD panels they started to use: dark, dim and low contrast TN-film without 24-bit color support. [I owned their FlexView at some point, I was crushed when I got T61]

Even resolution is wrong: 15" panel shouldn't be higher than 1440x900: many web sites aren't readable at resolutions higher than that, yet Lenovo offers only 1280 and 1650 horizontal pixels (too few and too many).

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#12

Post by jerf »

old-gregg wrote: post #11
scorxn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some, not all ;) http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:Ubuntu

My last 3 laptops were all Thinkpads. I switched to MBP because I couldn't stand the LCD panels they started to use: dark, dim and low contrast TN-film without 24-bit color support. [I owned their FlexView at some point, I was crushed when I got T61] Even resolution is wrong: 15" panel shouldn't be higher than 1440x900: many web sites aren't readable at resolutions higher than that, yet Lenovo offers only 1280 and 16…

I have a 1650x1050 15" panel on this laptop, and web browsing is fine, with the latest browsers and their "zoom" support. Theoretically, you should be able to have a 200DPI display and have everything work.

(I'd swear there's a huge bug in the Firefox image scaling algorithm, but since it's persisted this long it must just be me.... resized images are a bit ugly, but as we move into a world of resolution independence, a period of "ugly" is inevitable, unfortunately.)

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#13

Post by suhlash »

I spent the last three days converting my xps dell laptop from vista to ubuntu 8.10. I had to spend over 25 hours to get it to work properly. Things like trying to figure out how to make my dual monitor system work with only one of them rotated 90 degrees. It took so much searching and reading to make sure that what I was doing was not going to mess up everything else up to the point. I am no novice computer user. The task of getting ubuntu to run right is not trivial.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#14

Post by jackowayed »

suhlash wrote: post #13

I spent the last three days converting my xps dell laptop from vista to ubuntu 8.10. I had to spend over 25 hours to get it to work properly. Things like trying to figure out how to make my dual monitor system work with only one of them rotated 90 degrees. It took so much searching and reading to make sure that what I was doing was not going to mess up everything else up to the point. I am no novice computer user. Th…

it really depends. my last install was awesome. It's really good at figuring out the partitioning for you. (I did a dual-boot, and I thought I'd have to manually partition but didn't because it knew what it was doing.)

The actual install is fast and comprehensive. It sets up a lot for you. I remember having to install X on Free BSD not that long ago (maybe 5 years).

I've had good luck with wifi cards, but that is still sometimes an issue.

25 hours seems like a really long time (Unless you're counting hours of ignoring it while it updates and installs all the programs you pick. That is pretty slow.)

I'm not sure what you were doing, but I've set it up on several laptops and desktops and never had to spend more than 2ish hours of my time getting it setup. (Maybe a little more to install and configure everything.)

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#15

Post by homme »

suhlash wrote: post #13

I spent the last three days converting my xps dell laptop from vista to ubuntu 8.10. I had to spend over 25 hours to get it to work properly. Things like trying to figure out how to make my dual monitor system work with only one of them rotated 90 degrees. It took so much searching and reading to make sure that what I was doing was not going to mess up everything else up to the point. I am no novice computer user. Th…

I purged my dell laptop of xp and installed ubuntu over it. Love everything about it except the loss of wireless. It even gave me 9 extra gigs on my hard disk, 6 more than the advertised disk space!

If the linux community could step it up on the driver front for wireless cards it would be a beautiful thing.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#16

Post by tsuraan »

old-gregg wrote: post #11
scorxn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some, not all ;) http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:Ubuntu

My last 3 laptops were all Thinkpads. I switched to MBP because I couldn't stand the LCD panels they started to use: dark, dim and low contrast TN-film without 24-bit color support. [I owned their FlexView at some point, I was crushed when I got T61] Even resolution is wrong: 15" panel shouldn't be higher than 1440x900: many web sites aren't readable at resolutions higher than that, yet Lenovo offers only 1280 and 16…

Why shouldn't resolutions be as high as the technology allows? Every OS that I know of offers scalable fonts, and a higher resolution allows for nice smooth fonts without hacks like anti-aliasing and cleartype. My 13.1" laptop has a resolution of 1600x900, my 4" Nokia 770 has a resolution of 800x480, and my cell phone's 3" display is 480x320. I don't think anybody's complaining about not being able to see their phones or tablets, and I certainly have no trouble using my laptop.

In what way does a higher resolution hurt anything?

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#17

Post by artaak »

suhlash wrote: post #13

I spent the last three days converting my xps dell laptop from vista to ubuntu 8.10. I had to spend over 25 hours to get it to work properly. Things like trying to figure out how to make my dual monitor system work with only one of them rotated 90 degrees. It took so much searching and reading to make sure that what I was doing was not going to mess up everything else up to the point. I am no novice computer user. Th…

Add to the top of it a properly installed Radeon videocard and you get 30 hours in total.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#18

Post by old-gregg »

tsuraan wrote: post #16
old-gregg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My last 3 laptops were all Thinkpads. I switched to MBP because I couldn't stand the LCD panels they started to use: dark, dim and low contrast TN-film without 24-bit color support. [I owned their FlexView at some point, I was crushed when I got T61] Even resolution is wrong: 15" panel shouldn't be higher than 1440x900: many web sites aren't readable at resolutions higher than that, yet Lenovo offers only 1280 and 16…

Why shouldn't resolutions be as high as the technology allows? Every OS that I know of offers scalable fonts, and a higher resolution allows for nice smooth fonts without hacks like anti-aliasing and cleartype. My 13.1" laptop has a resolution of 1600x900, my 4" Nokia 770 has a resolution of 800x480, and my cell phone's 3" display is 480x320. I don't think anybody's complaining about not being able to see their phone…

Because most web site designers assume 96DPI and set font sizes in pixels?

Guys with 15" 1680x1050 laptops, can you tell me if you're comfortable reading dpreview.com with default font settings?

Every OS that I know of offers scalable fonts

There are more to it than just scalable fonts. Windows is essentially hardwired to 96dpi, only fonts scale, everything else does not: there are virtually no vector graphics involved in traditional Win32 UI API, even icons are fixed bitmaps: 16x16, 32x32, 48x48 or 64x64 pixels. They have some logical units of measurement of dialog boxes, but everything else is measured in pixels, see GDI/GDI+. Switching to 120dpi on windows is downright painful: a lot of applications either start to look ugly and disproportional or sometimes even break down: UI layouts fall apart.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#19

Post by whatusername »

suhlash wrote: post #13

I spent the last three days converting my xps dell laptop from vista to ubuntu 8.10. I had to spend over 25 hours to get it to work properly. Things like trying to figure out how to make my dual monitor system work with only one of them rotated 90 degrees. It took so much searching and reading to make sure that what I was doing was not going to mess up everything else up to the point. I am no novice computer user. Th…

I spent 4 hours troubleshooting my neighbours computer (it's full of spyware). We basically got no-where with it in that time.

The task of getting Windows to run right is not trivial.

Re: Ubuntu 9.10 is named Karmic Koala, promises to bring boot time under 25sec

#20

Post by callmeed »

suhlash wrote: post #13

I spent the last three days converting my xps dell laptop from vista to ubuntu 8.10. I had to spend over 25 hours to get it to work properly. Things like trying to figure out how to make my dual monitor system work with only one of them rotated 90 degrees. It took so much searching and reading to make sure that what I was doing was not going to mess up everything else up to the point. I am no novice computer user. Th…

You should blog the process ... so the next person only has to spend 20 hours
Post reply on HN