It’s been like 3 hours without an Ubuntu article, so here we go. “With the release of Ubuntu 7.04, Feisty Fawn, I naturally couldn’t resist taking Kubuntu, my preferred Ubuntu version, for a quick spin on my trusty old Thinkpad testbed. Here is a six-step process through which I speedily arrived at a highly usable, fully capable desktop Linux system.”
OSnews really should have quota on the number of articles per OS/distro…
It’s been like 3 hours without an Ubuntu article, so here we go
How about posting a bit about Debian? I got back to Debian after a couple of years of Ubuntu->Kubuntu and I can say it’s really great, simpler and faster. And seriously, name a computer noob who installed by itself Kubuntu without any “over the shoulder” guidance, so the argument of Debian not being usable is not valid if you get someone else to install and configure it for you.
Just out of curiosity … i used ubuntu for a while and really liked it (currently using opensuse) … especially because it is Debian based. How does Debian compare in terms of packages / stability (especially if you want up to date software)
Debian is known for stability, but also for being really slow at updating packages. I’m running Etch (latest version of Debian), and as an example it provides Amarok 1.4.4 even though 1.4.5 has been out since February 4. So if you want up to date stuff, you will have to compile lots by yourself.
Otherwise Debian is a decent distro. If you want to try it live without messing with partitioning, grab Qemu download a Debian ISO.
A stable distribution doesn’t update packages to newer versions. That’s why it’s called stable.
It just backports some security/bug fixes.
If you want updated packages you need to run an unstable distribution (or branch of a distribution).
Unstable doesn’t mean necessarily that it will break every day, though there are always chances of breakage (I run Arch Linux and nothing important broke to me in the last 1.5 years, only minor fixes needed). What unstable means is that it changes/evolves.
Stable means it won’t change/evolve. So chances for breakage are minimum.
“Debian is known for stability, but also for being really slow at updating packages. I’m running Etch (latest version of Debian), and as an example it provides Amarok 1.4.4 even though 1.4.5 has been out since February 4. So if you want up to date stuff, you will have to compile lots by yourself.”
Not strictly correct. In fact you are passing on a well-known misapprehension (or indeed canard as this is K/Ubuntu so we are talking Tufty Club stylee). Etch is the latest version of Debian Stable. It gets updated about every 18-24 months. Versions that get updated frequently – continuously, in fact, on a rolling basis – are Debian Testing and Debian Unstable.
Testing is ideal for a desktop machine. So is Unstable is you’re a bit more knowledgeable and prepared to put up with the occasional foobars. In my experience, neither is “really slow at updating packages”. There’re not really any slower or faster than anyone else. It is also not very likely that you’ll be obliged to “compile lots by yourself” if you run Testing/Unstable or check out backports for Stable.
For the original poster: I run Debian Testing with a fully loaded KDE. It look quite a lot more elbow grease to get there than it would have done under K/Ubuntu. I have an older kernel and I don’t have some of the nifty Ubuntu things like Upstart, Automatix and the hardware manager come system configurator.
OTOH, what I do have is so similar to K/Ubuntu that it would be crazy to change. Besides, I like knowing that I’m running Debian and I get complete freedom from the smuggier fanboi aspects of the Ubuntu bangwagon.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
Actually no.
You are generalising from the position of the Debian stable branch, comparable to Ubuntu LTS.
Similar to Ubuntu, Debian itself also has different branches with different release cycles.
If one compares the versions of packages from comparable branches, one will mostly find the same versions for both distributions.
Ubuntu unstable has releases twice a year, Debian unstable is released whenever you want to.
It isn’t too bad if you use Debian Testing instead of Debian Stable. Occasional breakage, but not too bad. The very latest is in Debian Unstable, but I wouldn’t use it on a day-to-day machine. WAY too unstable (thus the name!). What Distro’s like Ubuntu do is provide a buffer between you and the instability of test versions of Debian. Thus you get newer packages but _hopefully_ a lot less breakage.
The very latest is in Debian Unstable, but I wouldn’t use it on a day-to-day machine. WAY too unstable (thus the name!).
I wouldn’t go that far. I use debian unstable for my work every day on my laptop, I update every few days, and I haven’t had anything break yet (in about 6 months of use). I remember years ago I ran Debian unstable on a different machine, and in 3 years the system did break once due to an upgrade, but overall it is very stable for me, and like running the newest software right away.
I even run a few packages from the experimental branch, with no problems so far. There you have to very careful though which packages you update and that requires some knowledge about which packages are fundamental to the system and therefore dangerous to update.
Oh yeah, and to make debian usable for multimedia, you need the package source from:
http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
Edited 2007-05-04 18:26
A brief summary…
With Debian, you get a choice between Stable, Testing, and Unstable. Stable offers only security and bug fixes in the service stream for maximum… stability. Testing and Unstable have rolling package version updates, with Testing benefiting from significant vetting in Unstable. Ubuntu is essentially a fork of the Debian release cycle to provide time-based releases. Both pull from Unstable, freeze, stabilize, and service. Ubuntu also does a bit of targeted polishing for the desktop, provides a reasonable default package selection, and adds some assorted goodies, particularly for the GNOME desktop. The main difference is that Ubuntu is time-driven, whereas Debian is quality-driven.
Both distributions support Automatix2 if that’s your thing. Debian Etch provides an option in the installer to handle the root account either the Ubuntu way or the traditional *nix way. Kubuntu isn’t significantly more polished or enhanced than the KDE desktop provided by Debian. Ubuntu has a strong, user-oriented community, whereas Debian is geared more towards developers and admins. Ubuntu is riding a wave of enormous popularity, while Debian is showing signs of recovering from missteps in recent years.
Many Ubuntu users, including many reasonably computer-literate Windows refugees, will feel quite at home on today’s Debian offerings (particularly Testing). Although long-time Debian users probably don’t perceive a compelling reason to switch to Ubuntu, it does have some very nice touches–but also some troublesome quality issues.
Both are wonderful choices. I would highly recommend any of the Debian-based distributions ahead of Red Hat or Novell distributions where ISV certification and runtime security features are not requirements.
While your answer is great to the point that I can’t think of anything to add to it, I feel that I should correct one small detail where you say:
Kubuntu isn’t significantly more polished or enhanced than the KDE desktop provided by Debian.
I would say that it is actually the other way around: any KDE implementation – even vanilla KDE! – is better than Kubuntu’s. Kubuntu’s KDE is shock full of Ubuntu specific patches that lead to unexpected behavior that can’t be seen anywhere else. Even the KDE developers acknowledge that and advise Kubuntu users with problems to seek help within the resources provided by the distro.
I spent a fair time playing with Kubuntu and got nothing but headaches for at least two weeks. Shortly after I went directly to Etch (the testing branch back then) using the alternate first CD with KDE as DE and couldn’t be happier! Surely, I had to get my hands dirty to do some adjustments manually but the good thing is that, once you change something Debian acts exactly as expected.
That’s not to say that the developers are unresponsive: I spent some time lurking at #kubuntu at FreeNode and I could see that jriddell would show up fairly often at the channel helping people as best as he can. I can’t stress this enough: this guy is a truly nice person.
I think that Kubuntu would benefit much more from KDE if they stopped the gratuitous patching and just changed the settings to make it behave as Windows per default, as that seems to be goal with their patches. KDE already provides the means to do that! Also having Canonical to actually put some honest effort into Kubuntu development wouldn’t hurt either.
Edited 2007-05-05 00:27
This is my first comment, so I’m sorry to critisize an otherwise great site. But COME ON people.
We ALL heard Ubuntu Wordy Whatever was released over two weeks ago. We’ve seen ENOUGH f***ing screens of that useless weirdo Automatix thing, we’ve seen enough Beryl screens for a lifetime, and the Ubuntu installer is the worst example of usability, performance and stability EVER so please, please stop. Just stop.
I have to admit it’s a tiny bit better to promote Kubuntu over Ubuntu, but not by enough. Especially not when the guy in the “review” just tells you to install the ugliest, most BLOATED, least feature packed browser in existence (yes, I’m talking to you, Scabweasel).
Why don’t you just post a link to Distrowatch every once in a while instead of flooding the feeds with this stuff?
I would have to disagree with you on all your points except for the frequency of the articles on Ubuntu. the installer is the best example of an installer I’ve ever used, at least related to linux. People who complain about the livecd install are usually used to their installs being more complicated or want more options usually related to partitioning. If they wer smart they would realize that gtkparted is in the menu and partition their disk anyway they like. If you want more control over packages use the alternate cd, thats what its for and its based off of the new debian installer that has finally been released by the debian camp. To say that ubiquity is the worst example of usability is incorrect and considering vista, and OSX installers have about the same options and complexity, I realydon’t see your point. I personally welcome the simplicity as I usually do all my custom stuff after install.
“People who complain about the livecd install are usually used to their installs being more complicated or want more options usually related to partitioning. If they wer smart they would realize that gtkparted is in the menu and partition their disk anyway they like.”
“To say that ubiquity is the worst example of usability is incorrect and considering vista, and OSX installers have about the same options and complexity, I realydon’t see your point.”
My biggest problem with this “Live CD” approach is performance and stability. The fact is that it takes a very long time to boot, considering the pretty simple task I want to perform. Furthermore, I can’t even count the times that the Ubuntu Live CD crashed on me while installing. I can’t count the number of CDs and DVDs I’ve burned of Ubuntu/Kubuntu either, just to rule out the possibility of damaged discs. I’ve only ever experienced these problems with Ubuntu Live CD environments, from Dapper to Fiesty.
This whole thing is actually not a problem just limited to Ubuntu. It’s the new mentality that’s plaugeing the Linux world. If Windows has an ugly, useless 2.5D window stack, then all Linux users should be crazy about an even more useless rotating cube. If Windows has a pretty simple installer with no “advanced” options, then “Linux” needs to have the same whack installer, but slower, buggier, and more hyped.
Bottom line: if the so called user friendly installer actually enabled me to install Ubuntu easily, I would not whine. But since it takes me an average of 3-8 hours to install it, (1) with the starting up, (2) crashing, (3) rebooting, (4) goto (1) I’ll whine all I want.
Edited 2007-05-04 15:54
Odd I suppose I’ve only installed Ubuntu on about 30 PCs and some with only a little RAM and never had the Live CD crash. Just Boot up on a gparted CD make a linux swap partition and the Live CD will run fine even on a PC with 128 meg RAM. Install can take up to about 45mins on a limited PC. Even after adding winbind and making it play with the domain takes less than an hour.
The crashing might actually not be a bug. There might very well be a problem with my DVD reader, among other things. But why should I buy a new DVD reader just so I can install Ubuntu, when every other OS I’ve tried including the notorious Windows, heavy stuff like Sabayon (up until recently in a much lighter live environment + anaconda installer), the lenghy cli install of Gentoo, all work flawlessly?
I don’t know what the problem is, I just know I have lots of problems and no options with Ubuntu.
I would at least want to have the option to choose if I want to start a full-blown live environment to install from, or if I just want a quick, painless text based install.
Use the alternate installer if you want the text install. You can’t have both. its only a cd after all, and that can only hold so much.
i guess that is your experience and I can’t really fault you for not liking it if it doens;t work well for you. However, it works perfect for me and has never crashed. You had issues with the installer but other haven’t, making a general statement on the usability of the isntaller based on your hardwares stability or support isn’t right. If you had issues file a bug. As for the me too, comment you made about compiz/beryl, that all depnds on if you think that vists’s effects are better or if you think having nasty tearing in X or 1989 style canvas drawing is a good thing. My point wasn’t that ubiquity should be like vista’s installer, considering ubiquity has been around longer I’d say it the other way around, my point was one of usability. The ubiquity installer is just as usable functionality as OSX installer. The days of having an install take 45 minutes are over, nobody wants that anymore. The days having to use multiple cd’s to install your distros are over, people want hassle free installation.
The task isn’t that simple: the LiveCD has to determine all the PC’s hardware and configure it on the fly.
As for taking a “very long time to boot”, you may be surprised to learn that, on a 512MB machine, it takes *less* time to boot into the Kubuntu LiveCD than it does booting into Vista from the hard drive!
That said, it does sound as if you should be using the Alternate Install CD.
There’s probably something wrong with your hardware. I’ve used the LiveCD on about half a dozen different computers, and I’ve never had any such problems.
The cube is actually pretty useful when you have more than one virtual desktop – though I personally find the Exposé-like “Scale” plugin to be more useful myself. However, to say that the cube is “useless” seems a bit uncalled for, IMO.
I’m not even sure what that sentence means. You might want to rephrase that.
It’s not the Ubuntu devs’ responsibility if your hardware is defective. As I’ve stated above, I’ve installed Ubuntu from the LiveCD on at least four machines, and booted into two more without installing it, and I’ve never had any of the problems you mention.
By the way, there’s an option on the LiveCD bootloader to test the CD for defects, so you really don’t need to burn multiple copies just to make sure they’re not damaged. Just pop in the disk and select the appropriate option on the bootloader menu, and you’ll know for sure if the CD is fine or not.
Instead of flooding this place with comments, I’ll answer apocalypse and archiesteel in this post.
apocalypse:
Why not? Do you think a Windows user, that have not yet experienced any hardware problems, are going to buy a new DVD drive or RAM or whatever hardware might cause the freezes — just so he can install Ubuntu? I don’t think so. I think he/she would be pretty turned off by this new so-called better OS.
I think a reliable installer is very important for any operating system. So basing the installer on a live environment, with much, much more possibilities that something goes wrong, seems like a bad decision to me.
Yeah, hassle free. That would be nice.
I havn’t seen the OSX installer, so I don’t know about it. But I still think that the Ubuntu installer is more like a playground than a useful tool.
And fine, let’s say the Ubuntu installer is just as good or in fact much better than the OSX installer or the Vista installer. I can remember back in 1999. I was 11 years old, installing Red Hat Linux. Anaconda had everything that installers have today, and much more, including a simple but powerful interface. I don’t know the reason why that code isn’t re-used as much as it should be today, but it seems to me like things are going downhill.
—–
archiesteel
I’m not familiar with how the detection works, but take the text based Debian installer which were used in Ubuntu before Breezy. It boots up quickly, and then checks and configures hardware for less than a minute. So I’m pretty sure the Ubuntu installer could be more effective. (Not while being a Live CD at the same time of course, if that’s what you meant. The 2-3 minutes it takes to boot a full desktop Linux environment is impressive, but it’s way too much for an installer.)
Well, that says more about Vista than anything else.
Actually it is their problem. Their number one priority (like it or not) is to convert me as a user. But they’ve driven me away.
Again, my hardware, defective or not, works fine with other distributions (even light live environments). To have a fullblown live environment in an installer is not necessary, and since it actually prevents me — and possibly many other potential users — from installing it… well, what can I do, but to think it’s a quite ironic?
What I meant is that the Ubuntu’s Live CD installer has been hyped. Not just on OSNews, but everywhere, there’s some guy who has nothing but good things to say about this approach. I think the most commonly used argument is that Windows users that are unsure about converting can test what Ubuntu is like before making the change definitive. But then, we have everyone else, with no real need to have access to OpenOffice while installing. And: there is no way a Live CD installer could ever be as fast and effective as a dedicated installer. Furthermore it’s obviously much more likely that something goes wrong in this critical task, if the program is busy handling an entire OS.
Did it with some Edgy discs. Sometimes the test would not work correctly, sometimes it would report errors and sometimes it would say things were fine.
Actually, no. Their number one priority is to make sure the Install CD works for the most people possible. The fact that it didn’t work for *you* doesn’t mean that this is a widespread problem. In fact, from my own experience as well as I’ve read on the Internet, the installers works well for most people.
Again, what that tells me is that you want to use the Alternate Install CD, which is *not* a LiveCD and in fact is pretty similar to a Debian install.
As for the “possibly many other potential users”, that doesn’t seem to be the case, though some people *have* had problems with SATA drives. In any case, you should also consider entering bugs in launchpad to help the Ubuntu devs fix the LiveCD problems.
So, to sum up that point, the LiveCD serves a dual purpose: to let people try Ubuntu without installing it, and then install it if they want. The Alternate CD is only an installer. Take your pick!
Yes, and what does that tell us? That the LiveCD works for most people.
True, which is why you have the Alternate Install CD.
Well, I don’t know about that. The installer seems pretty robust – after all, Linux *is* a multi-tasking OS. Of course, if you manually mount the drives you are installing the OS to and then perform disk operations *while* you’re installing, there might be some issues. Otherwise, I don’t see how it could be a problem.
Please provide a source for this. My experiences tell me differently.
Thanks.
I’m your source. I recently purchased a Vista PC for my ex’s parents. I would have bought one with XP, since they wanted the cheapest one and it happened to have only 512MB, but they only sold Vista PCs at Future Shop (they wanted their new computer right away, since the ISP technician was coming in the next day, and so I couldn’t shop around).
After the 3 hours it took to reinstall Vista Home Basic in French (I can’t believe that you need to reinstall the entire OS just to change its language – and I deal with localization every day in my job; this is a business decision, not a technical one, but I digress…), I rebooted it a couple of times to make sure everything was installed and ready. I then rebooted it again and timed it. Starting from POST, it took 2 minutes and 35 seconds to get to a usable desktop.
Out of curiosity, I then popped the Kubuntu Feisty LiveCD in the combo drive then rebooted. Starting from POST, it took 2 minutes and 10 seconds to get to a usable desktop – 25 seconds less than booting Vista from the *hard drive*.
Of course, I hadn’t tried to optimize Vista in any way (it was past midnight at that point, and I was just too tired). I’m sure I could bring the boot-up time down a little. However, I think it says a lot about Vista’s ridiculous system requirements…and with that (Home Basic) I couldn’t even navigate through my LAN’s Samba shares.
I was almost tempted to leave the LiveCD in the tray, and see if my ex’s parents would have noticed…
Edited 2007-05-04 22:11
I don’t know you, but I do know your history as a linux advocate, so please excuse me for not taking your anecdotal evidence as anything more than pure conjecture.
Hey, I may be a Linux advocate, but I use Windows (XP) everyday. If you know my history, and you’ve read my posts, you’ll also know that I don’t have anything against Windows per se. I think there have been some really good Windows OSes (2K is still the best one in my mind). So yeah, Windows OSes are okay…not as good as Linux in my mind, but pretty good OSes all around. I *do* distrust Microsoft, but that has nothing to do with that particular experience. I was really disappointed with Vista performance on a 512MB machine. You’re free not to believe me, but I know what I saw.
If you want to call me a liar, go right ahead. I’m curious, though, how long does it take for you when you boot Vista on a 512 MB machine?
The word liar never was written down. You inferred that.
One person saying Ubuntu’s liveCD boots quicker than Windows Vista should mean little to most people unless it is backed up by more evidence.
Sorry, I really don’t care this offends, I’m not a sheep that just follows people because they say so.
I’m not asking anyone to follow me. I’m only reporting what I experienced. People are welcome to try it out themselves.
512MB? No clue, I will say that on 1GB it’s roughly 40 seconds, and I just tried the Ubuntu LiveCD and it was closer to a minute.
That seems reasonable, since 1GB *is* the “real” recommended minimum for Vista. With 512MB, you’d get a lot more swapping with Vista (you shouldn’t get any more swapping with the LiveCD, since it’s not mounting hard drives in the first place).
Here’s the deal: turn your PC off, open it up and remove some RAM (assuming you don’t just have a single 1GB chip) so that you bring your PC down to 512MB, then try it again. I wouldn’t be surprised if the LiveCD took less time to boot because of the reduced memory (and the increased need for swapping with Vista).
I’m an ubuntu user and I must say these articles are getting ridiculous, if they can even be called articles. I should post one entitled “Six Things That Are Brown in Ubuntu”. Really at this point its all just chatter.
I agree! Let’s get back to that new Vista thing I’ve been hearing so much about.
I do have to agree I use Ubuntu at home on 4 different computers and even I am a little tired of these. Ubuntu is awesome great distro but stuff like this isnt news.
>It’s been like 3 hours without an Ubuntu article, so here we go.
Ads for hits, do you really need such a nonsense? Especially you Thom? Most of the time your postings are of great quality.
And something ontopic, show some more Debian postings. Debian is the Linux system, Ubuntu is just couture.
Ads for hits, do you really need such a nonsense? Especially you Thom? Most of the time your postings are of great quality.
What on earth are you talking about? OSNews is a voluntary effort, we don’t get paid.
If you don’t want to read something, then don’t, and don’t litter the comment section with nonsense. A few more of these comments and I will start to moderate.
And something ontopic, show some more Debian postings.
I don’t take orders. If you want more Debian news, then submit some, and we’ll see what we can do.
There is no law and no order in my saying, just some noisy conspicuity in recent topics. And there are no adverts at OSNews? Sorry, I’m silent now. But please moderate, would be something new to OSNews.
>If you don’t want to read something, then don’t
You could kill comment section at OSNews at once or almost 90% of it with this new rule of yours.
But thanks, you made my day.
Someone mentioned breakage using debian testing and unstable. That’s what apt-listbugs is for my friend =) It lets you know if the package you are about to install has any known bugs BEFORE it’s actually installed.
“If you don’t want to read something, then don’t, and don’t litter the comment section with nonsense. A few more of these comments and I will start to moderate.”
Since when has this site threatened to moderate “nonsense”? Practically EVERY thread on every article posted here has “nonsense” in it on a daily basis.
Struck a nerve, did he?
Someone have an Ubuntu fetish, maybe?
Since when has this site threatened to moderate “nonsense”? Practically EVERY thread on every article posted here has “nonsense” in it on a daily basis.
It’s in our rules.
“VIII. OSNews is not just about operating systems. We report on other technology news, on development issues and articles, hardware, and if it is a slow news day, we might kick in some sci-fi movie news or other stuff we might find interesting. It is not your job to tell us what should and should not be posted on OSNews. Hence, any comment along the lines of “Why is this OSNews?” will immediately be moderated down and locked from any further moderation. No questions asked.”
Deal with it.
These comments will be put at -5 shortly.
Edited 2007-05-04 16:47
You certainly don’t value your readers. This is not the first time I have to tolerate this beahavior towards dissatisfied readers. You can do all the talk you want about not taking orders or OSNews rules, but in the end a site without real news is useless. Bitch all you want about people getting unhappy with the published content, but it’s just an indicator of OSNews declining quality. You don’t need to publish every article submited without restrictions or QA, just because you don’t have news to post. There are news, everyday, in the IT industry. Ubuntu is not news anymore, not right now, not until the next release. And the same could be told about any other thing IT related after 1 million published articles, be it Debian, Vista, Ubuntu, whatever.
What about something touching on all the distros apparently based on Ubuntu, instead (some did appear to be based directly on Debian from a brief scan of the following list):
http://www.debianadmin.com/list-of-ubuntu-based-linux-distributions…
Otherwise I ain’t sure what all the fuss is about, either way.
IF you don’t want to read articles about Ubuntu, then STOP reading the frigging articles, Ubuntu is generating buzz that the Linux community can use to raise awareness in the general public. This is a good thing. That is why Ubuntu is always in the news, because they are getting the word out.
I say good for them, and good for us. Now try to stay on topic, instead of complaining
I’ve got latest Lenovo/IBM ThinkPad T60p two weeks ago and Ubuntu Feisty miserably fails to load !!!
I made sure installation CD is OK by installing Ubuntu on other PC ( Dell Optiplex 500 MHz Pentium III ) where it detects Crustal Sound chip but for no obvious reason unloads kernel module I need for my sound card.
On same laptop PCLinuxOS Test 4 runs very well ( does not detects wireless card and screen resolution was only 1024×748). Mepis 6.5 choses better screen resoultion 1280X1024 but styill no wi-fi connection. On this same machine Xandros Desktop 4 is clear winner setting up correct screen resolution to 1600×1200.
I think this was last chance I gave Ubuntu on my machines.
For older CPU there’s nothing better than Vector 5.8.
or SAM Linux which is charming xfce desktop I used to revive my old Compaq Armada v300 ( 466 MHz Celeron )
Have you tried the Alternate Install CD?
No, I haven’t Archie!
It was not my plan to install Ubuntu, anyway, since I don’t really like distro, but rather to run tests in Live CD mode.
The more I try Ubuntu the more I’m inclined to install something elese and as of recently my favourites are all
Slackware based distros Vector 5.8, Zenwalk 4.4.1 and GoblinX 2.
However, as of now Xandros 4 is sharing disk space with Win XP Professional on this powerhouse from Lenovo (http://tinyurl.com/ysagfm) but I think soon it’ll be FreeBSD 6.2 since Atheros wi-fi LAN driver is available.
Edited 2007-05-04 23:03
Wait, are you telling me that all these distros have LiveCDs now? Otherwise, it seems as if you’re comparing apples and oranges, i.e. a LiveCD (that may not work 100% with your hardware) with a regular install (which may in fact work *better* with your hardware). That doesn’t seem like a very fair comparison…
“Wait, are you telling me that all these distros have LiveCDs now?”
-Yes. They all have Live CD versions !!!
Wow, can’t believe my eyes, a news not about ubuntu with nice screenshots of the gnome desktop. That’s a switch. So after all, non gnome users do exist in the ubuntu world ? lol
Seems like new version was rushed to release…
16page thread on install issues
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=415009
It’s not my hardware…opensuse 10.2 was an uneventful install.
JUNK