Yeah, it’s the day of double-dippin’ today. And, the contradiction couldn’t be bigger. In one corner we have one of the oldest and most respected distributions, and in the other corner we have the sometimes controversial but immensely popular relative newcomer. Slackware 13.37 and Ubuntu 11.04 have been released.
An unlikely duo, of course, since Slackware is a distribution for more advanced Linux users, while Ubuntu is more of a newcomer-oriented distribution. The interesting thing about these two releases is though – they’re more alike than you might think, because this Ubuntu release includes, for the first time, the Unity desktop environment as a default. As such, I personally wouldn’t recommend this release – which is likely to contain many Unity-related bugs – to newcomers. At least, not when it’s running Unity.
Let’s focus on Ubuntu 11.04, first. So, it comes with Unity, the brand new desktop environment which replaces GNOME. Users who don’t like Unity (I’m one of them) can still opt to use plain-old GNOME in this release, but as you may expect, it’s not GNOME 3.0. It’s called ‘Classic’, and you can select it from the login screen. I’d say this is a good solution for now, but personally, I’m still not entirely convinced by Unity at this point.
Unity is of course the big focus of this Ubuntu release, but there’s more in there than just this new face. It of course ships the new Firefox 4, and also replaced OpenOffice.org with LibreOffice. The Ubuntu Software Center has also received some love, and during the RC period, I found it very pleasant to use. I’m also digging the fancy new website – easily one of the most accessible Linux distribution websites out there.
As usual, all the Ubuntu derivatives have also seen new releases, with Kubuntu being the most important one.
Moving on to Slackware 13.37 (I see what u did thar), it’s all not as disruptive as the Ubuntu release (which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Patrick Volkdering himself explains the most important new features and changes in this release.
“The long-awaited Firefox 4.0 web browser is included, the X Window System has been upgraded (and includes the open source nouveau driver for nVidia cards),” he details, “The venerable Slackware installer has been improved as well, with support for installing to btrfs (for those who would like to try a new copy on write filesystem), a one-package-per-line display mode option, and alienBOB’s big surprise: an easy to set up PXE install server that runs right off the DVD!”
Take your pick I suppose!
Been running Ubuntu 11.04 since the first beta, and I am really liking it. Though I do have and Fedora 15 install for Gnome (Shell) 3, I do prefer Unity for my production, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like Gnome Shell. I like that they are different, and that they are a departure from the conventional Gnome desktop.
Same here, although I fall more into the Gnome camp than the Unity side. After getting used to the Gnome 3 virtual desktop handling I’m finding it hard to go back… it took quite a while to wrap my brain around the new setup but it really does feel more natural.
Kudos to Unity though for actually working in Virtualbox and cleaning up massively since those godawful alpha releases.
kubuntu = ubuntu – unity + kde
xubuntu = ubuntu – unity + xfce
So is some one going to create a derivative of
ubuntu -unity +gnome3 = ?
The Gnubuntu.com/ Gnubuntu.org domain is already redirecting to ubuntu because it was going to be a fsf approved version according to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=312280.
So Anyone think there will be a demand for it, or will ubuntu-gnome fans just move to a different distro. ?
I would first try it out and I suggest others to do so too.
I’m not so sure GNOME3 might be what I want either, it is kind of similair in my opinion.
So I’m just gonna try them out first and decide later.
If I don’t like it, I’ll probably be on Xfce.
I still have my hopes up for E17 being released too.
The libraries recently turned 1.0 and were declared stable so it could happen, right ?
If duke nukem forever will be released, anything might be possible
Edited 2011-04-30 00:06 UTC
Do you really think DNF will happen ? They still seem to be moving dates.
Maybe I should test http://www.bodhilinux.com/ if I want to know if Enlightenment is for me this time round.
gnobuntu!
It is kind of funny when people mention in articles:
“Open Office in Linux distribution X has been replaced by LibreOffice”
It’s not really true.
The version of OpenOffice which was included with most Linux distributions wasn’t OpenOffice standard, it was the version from http://www.Go-OO.org
Go-OO is the version of OpenOffice which was created by the Linux distributions, because OpenOffice was rules by Sun/Oracle and they didn’t accept all the patches (or not quickly enough). So they worked together to create their own patchset(s) against OpenOffice or version of OpenOffice.
The first patches applied to LibreOffice after they had setup their code repository based on OpenOffice? All/most of the patches from the Go-OO project.
So what version of OpenOffice was in the previous version of Ubuntu ? Go-OO, what version is in the lastest Ubuntu ? A newer version based around Go-OO.
Wait, so Ubuntu 11.04 doesn’t even have GNOME 2 *at all*? It only has a GNOME3 fail-safe made to mimic GNOME 2, which was meant for those users who don’t have adequate (read: 3D) graphical processing power to run full-fledged GNOME 3… and this is an alternative to Unity? Wow… just wow. As if it didn’t already lose my interest, Ubuntu is looking worse and worse every time I hear something about it.
Fallback mode is traditional, albeit ubuntified – as previously – gnome2.
Edited 2011-04-28 22:16 UTC
First of all none of gnome3 is in 11.04. Clasic Mode and Clasic Mode (no effects) is gnome 2.32.? without unity on top however, Clasic Mode still uses Compiz (3d) while Clasic Mode (without effects) is using Metacity (2d) instead, these will eventually be droped with the later being replaced with Unity 2D (QT based).
I’ve been tracking the stats of DistroWatch visitors since November 2010.
http://distrowatch.com/awstats/awstats.DistroWatch.com.osdetail.htm…
In 01.11.2010 I saw these stats:
49,1 % Windows
43,2 % Linux
15,8 % Ubuntu
Today the same stats are:
47,2 % Windows
44,7 % Linux
11 % Ubuntu
So Ubuntu seems to be on the decline in desktop use.
On the server side there seems to be an opposite trend for Ubuntu.
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/os-linux
Ubuntu is clearly the fastest growing GNU/Linux distro for servers.
Or maybe, contrary to popular opinion, Ubuntu users don’t need to visit a site about other distros because they have already found a distro they’re happy with.
So, open FireFox and the menu bar is in the Unity menu bar at the top. Open any LibreOffice apps, and the menu bar is with the apps…
Where is the unity in that? It’s inconsistent, that’s what it is.
Does Ubuntu 11.04 now use Wayland instead of X?
No
When it will use Wayland please?
I’m betting a week or two after Wayland can actually be used by non-Wayland programmers.
Would seem to kind of pointless to switch to a non-usable windowing system.
Edited 2011-04-28 23:02 UTC
Perhaps a little misinformed?
How is it non-usable? You can run a nested X11 session on top of Wayland and have all your applications working. It does work with all the open source drivers (Intel, Nouveau, ATI/Radeon, etc.) and it allows you to run multiple X11 sessions for backwards compatibility.
It also makes good use of KMS, it doesn’t have all the cruft and hacks that X11/Xorg does have, and it’s lean and mean. That’s far from pointless IMHO.
Edited 2011-04-28 23:23 UTC
On Linux.
We’re talking about Linux here (Ubuntu). Perhaps if BSD users want Wayland they should start working on implementing KMS first.
Edited 2011-04-28 23:50 UTC
We’re talking about Linux here (Ubuntu). Perhaps if BSD users want Wayland they should start working on implementing KMS first. [/q]
You freetards make me laugh, first you keep complaining that there is no progress on Linux when it comes to graphics and user interfaces, now that there is some progress you keep modding down people who are interested about this progress.
Linux will never progress on the desktop, and that’s because of you freetards. You freetards are incredibly annoying and should extinct from this earth.
Because it does not work with all hardware
Because it is not released at all
Because it have not been tested enough
Because, as it’s just barely useful hosting X session, it only add bloat to the current X
Because no toolkit support it correctly
Because support for essential protocols is non-existant even on paper
Because it’s years away from being ready
Because Unity can’t work with Wayland by design (compiz)
I could come up with some more, but its enough
I believe you’re trying to knock Wayland too much. Wayland is coming faster than you think.
Edited 2011-04-29 03:55 UTC
It will take 2 full years at best before it start to replace X in non-mobile distros, never at worst. I have a lot or problems with X, currently, it use 1.2gb of ram because of leaks that are mostly unfixable and untraceable, it’s also quite unresponsive and inferior to other rendering system like OSX/QuartzExtreme+CoreImage. But going as far I saying it could be replaced as of -today- is going way too far. There is nothing to replace X in the short term.
you’re talking out of your ass
But not with any of the closed-source ones. That already is enough for it to be unusable for many a people.
Sure but many people also prefer the open-source drivers with good 2d acceleration and good enough 3d acceleration, KMS, RANDR, and so on that the close-source drivers lack.
Edited 2011-04-29 15:08 UTC
I’m not knocking Wayland because I look forward to the day when I can use it with any video card including my current NVidia one but I think you should qualify your “many people” statement because I’d say the vast majority of people with ATI and NVidia hardware that is capable of great 3D and 2D performance do not generally prefer to have no decent or even usable 3D hardware accel whatsoever. I know there are people out there with 9600 GT or some other card that is far more suitable for gaming than desktop usage who would really like to actually use the hardware they purchased. There are also nice things like power saving and fan control that Nouveau just simply does not support on many (any?) cards. As far as the F/OSS drivers go, there are plenty of people such as myself that can’t even get to square one with a working X display depending on the graphics stack. Hell, even a console is something that might not present itself.
This last paragraph is a little off-topic, but I for one wish that distros would stop trying to hoist Nouveau onto me and just stop giving me a kernel that I have to wrestle with on many modern systems. I haven’t even successfully installed the latest Ubuntu onto my system because Nouveau keeps screwing up and I wind up with a screen flicker every 5-10 seconds and a hung terminal interface. I appreciate that it needs testing but quite frankly I can’t imagine a worse thing to mass alpha-test on end-users. The whole DRI and graphics situation is a mess right now and even Linus has noted that stuff just breaks way too often in the graphics stack lately.
To be clear, that previous paragraph was not directed at any way towards Wayland, as I don’t recall ever being forced to use it or deal with it when it’s basically unusable for me.
Sooooo, you can run a replacement windowing system … with your normal X11 windowing system on top … and that’s suddenly better than just running X11 by itself? How is adding extra layers “removing bloat”?
Until there are Wayland apps, toolkits, frameworks, etc, there’s really no reason to make it available in Ubuntu as the default. Which is what the OP is about.
Sure, those who want to play with it can install it themselves. Those who want to develop for it can install it themselves.
But it should not be an option on the main Ubuntu install CD until it’s a viable alternative to X11, including native app support.
You have no f–king clue of what you are talking about, just like the other idiots in this site.
Wayland does use KMS by default and there is no need to make any configuration to start the compositor. This alone simplifies all the work that Ubuntu has to make in order to automate and secure the booting of the Xorg process so that users won’t end with a f–king terminal when they install Ubuntu for first time.
Because to this date a xorg.conf is still needed. Yes, in f–king 2011. And those who say that no xorg.conf is needed they need to learn their system more and stop talking out of their asses.
Wayland will help to avoid cases like this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=284356
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1594122
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1586131
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1292427
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=358906
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/13673
http://www.ubuntux.org/ubuntu-wont-boot
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/newbie/92694-x-wont-start-ubuntu.h…
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21398281-X-wont-start-on-2-of-my-3…
http://askubuntu.com/questions/10078/x-wont-start-after-installing-…
Educate yourself before making lame comments like that.
Edited 2011-04-29 21:35 UTC
Well, if this is suddenly so stable, so simple, and so wonderful, why have you not submitted any PPAs for doing just this?
Where are all the announcements about how stable, simple, and wonderful this is?
Just because you think it’s so stable, simple, and usable, doesn’t mean the rest of the world does. I don’t see a mad rush of users switching over to Wayland right now.
So, again, why should the Ubuntu devs go to the trouble of making this work on the install CDs when it’s not ready for “regular users” to use?
Sorry about my tone.
I’m not saying that Wayland is ready for prime time, all I’m trying to say is that when Wayland is ready, it will have benefits over the current Xorg.
But people here talk like if Wayland is crap and if it won’t provide any benefits over the current Xorg, and that’s what saddens me, instead of supporting the Wayland development.
Le sigh.
You’re original post asked when Ubuntu would switch to Wayland.
My original response was “a couple weeks after it’s ready for use”.
Then you went off on various tangents.
And now you’re saying exactly what I said in the original reply.
Sorry about that, a big misunderstanding on my part
About 2 versions before it’s really ready.
I see. Awesome. Thanks (can’t wait)
.
Edited 2011-04-29 02:34 UTC
It’ll likely be in the repos for the next round of distros, for those who want to play around with new tech. I wouldn’t expect it to become the default for anything anytime soon. Think more like 3-5 years out barring major pushes to get it done.
To give you perspective on other major projects: BTRFS has been an option in Fedora for years now, since Fedora 10 if not earlier, if nothing major changes it’ll finally hit default install status in Fedora 16 6 versions and 3 years later. I wouldn’t expect to see more conservative distros pick it up for another version or two after that.
BtrFS is available in other, non-Fedora, distros as an option. Ubuntu 11.04 has BtrFS support as does Slackware. If you’re thinking other distros are going to wait around for Fedora to declare it stable, you’re a bit behind the times.
Nothing to do with other distros including it. I just used Fedora as an example because they tend to be among the first of the major distros to adopt these things and I’m most familiar with it’s timelines.
The point was that it takes quite a long while for things to mature enough to be considered the default choice.
Using it. Loving it. I host a Windows Virtual Box for developing and 11.04 for everything else on a Z460 Lenovo. It’s a 9 out of 10 just because hibernation does not work (again). But, hey!, Ubuntu has come, on the notebooks area, from a bad joke to just hibernation does not work. Maybe on 11.10?
My bad. Hibernation is working. Guess it’s already a 10!
I’ve been using Slackware since the late 90’s and although I’ve tried a number of other distributions along the way I remain convinced it’s the best choice for those who know what’s what.
Case in point, in the most recent AWS meltdown, all my (ephemeral) Slackware instances kept humming along while various other sites dropped off the face of the earth for 24 hours or more (we were unreachable for 2 hours while US East lost connectivity totally but everything was back thereafter).
]{
I’m not exactly up to date with the causes and effects of the AWS meltdown. Are you saying that some sites managed to continue working … because they were running slackware?!? Or are you just saying that Slackware didn’t cause anything to go down? Or maybe just that some slackware instances lost connectivity and managed to stay up?
It sounds like you’re either saying slackware is magical, or that its more stable than windows 95.
That’s not possible because Amazons entire data center in Northern Virginia went down not just in individual servers so it wouldn’t have mattered what operating system the servers were running. So the only way you wouldn’t have noticed any problems would have been if the servers you were using were not located in Northern Virginia. So It has nothing to do with running Slackware instead of Ubuntu.
I just installed 11.04. I like Unity. No, it’s not perfect but it’s pretty slick. It does take some getting used to, though.
You you’ve got be 13.37 to use Slackware…
I hope point release version “13.37” is intentional
1337 = leet = elite = Slackware users…
I downloaded the iso, burned, verified it (no problem), booted it on my Asus Netbook and my girlfriends MacBook Pro and …… doesn’t work
(first a syslinux line, then a keyboard+user image, then a black screen and 2 more minutes of cdrom lights flashing)
I used the burned iso to create a bootable usb-stick and…..doesn’t work
(this time only the syslinux line appears but after 10 minutes nothing has changed)
Finally I used the burned iso to install Ubuntu (I choose inside Windows), install went fine, reboot, choose Ubuntu, get a nice ‘introduction to Ubuntu’ screen but no way to close it. (It was entirely unclear to me that it was still installing) After another reboot the installation WAS finished (total installation time, about 30 minutes) and a shiny desktop appeared…..completely unfit for the screensize of my netbook (1024*600). Scrolling down to application in the list on the right takes about 5 seconds and I had to find the terminal under “list 74 other programs”.
I entered the system settings to check a harddisk for problems but couldn’t find the check and repair tool. It took me a while to realise that I could scroll down on that screen even though no scrollbar was shown. The check and repair tool told me it couldn’t work because the disk was mounted and because it was FAT32
I started the spreadsheet and after 10 seconds it had opened. I closed it and started it again, after 9 seconds it opened.
I opened my resume (Word 2010 format, VERY easy layout) and it looked garbled
Ubuntu simply isn’t a good match for this netbook. It requires a more powerful machine with a higher resolution to become productive
Ubuntu also isn’t suitable for a Window user like myself that is used to “Doc(X) and Fat32” just working.
It did seem to detect all my hardware, but so did Windows 7. Compared to my previous testings of Linux (startet with RedHat 5.2 about 15 years ago) hardware support and graphics has greatly been improved and I loved the “install in Windows option” that removed the need for a whole “how shall I partition things”. The Live-CD / USB-Boot are simply broken and speed, usability and Windows-compatibility just aren’t good enough.
Conclusion: better than before, but not good enough
Kubuntu it is, then.
Ubuntu has received lots of stick for being a non-innovative, user. Well this use of the Unity desktop looks both brave and innovative to me. Maybe it will crash and burn, but I^aEURTMm downloading now to find out.
Great news always, when a new Ubuntu gets released. Sadly there won’t be a free CD, because Ship It service was closed.
I’m kinda confused. I’ve tried the Live CD on two computers already and it starts in classic Gnome. Isn’t Unity supposed to work with the Live CD?
Apparently, it works only on Intel video cards and a few AMD cards. Well, that sucks for Ubuntu. I guess I won’t try it out after all.
I am impressed with Ubuntu 11.04.
The Unity interface is simple and easy to use. But there should be more configuration options. Currently the only available options are:
Show the launcher then the pointer:
Pushes the left edge of the screen
Touches the top left of the screen
I would like options to change the size of the icons and not hide the launcher.
I was pleasantly surprised by the open source 3D drivers. They now support the ATI Radeon HD 6870 in terms of 3D desktop and can run games such as Nexuiz (Half Life 2 using Wine does not work with open source drivers but work fine with the FGLRX drivers).
Wine and Flash seem to work with Pulseaudio, welcome back to 2007 when no such audio issues occurred.
In terms of stability, Unity in Ubuntu 11.04 beta 1 continually crashed. With the released version, these crashes are gone.
You can do both of these things you need to install Compiz settings manager (why it’s not installed by default I don’t know). You will find some Unity tweaks including the above.
I think that Unity and Gnome 3.x are both fundamentally flawed due to their dependance on 3D graphics. The current state of video drivers on Linux is truly a disaster, and it’s actually gotten worse with time. Sorry, but it’s true, and I am a full-time desktop Linux user.
Because of poor video drivers, many users simply will not see the new Unity and Gnome 3.x interface because their hardware doesn’t support it and it will go to the fallback mode. This normally wouldn’t be a problem, even Windows Vista / 7 have “classic” fallback modes for older systems. However, the Aero vs. Classic interface differences are largely visual, and do not introduce major workflow changes for the user. On the other hand, (Unity | Gnome 3.x) vs. (Gnome 2.x | Gnome 3.x fallback mode) introduces major paradigm shifts in workflow. I don’t like the idea of this inconsistency.
Another major issue with dependance on 3D graphics is that even when the video driver officially supports 3D and the new 3D interfaces are enabled out of the box, in many cases the user experience is terrible, once again owing to poor video drivers. I have Intel graphics on my laptop, for example, and desktop effects cause tearing, spotting, blotches, remnants, you name it. I noticed the same issue on quite a few Youtube videos of the new Gnome 3.x and Unity. Additionally, at least on Gnome 2.x and KDE, 3D effects consistently lead to freezing and lockups. That’s why the first thing I do when upon installing a new distro is disable 3D effects. They cause more trouble than they are worth. I know how to do this. But new users will not appreciate losing work or having a frozen system because developers forced a bunch of pretty but useless desktop effects on them.
The solution? I don’t know. Unity has a 2D version built on QT, which sounds a lot more feasible to me. Unfortunately it’s not available by default on Ubuntu 11.04. This should probably be used as the default option, and users who want to play with the 3D gadgetry could enable that version optionally if they want. As for Gnome 3.x? I hope they try to develop the 2D fallback interface to make it much more similar to the 3D interface. And they should set the 2D interface by default.
Again, I don’t mean this to undermine the efforts of the Unity and Gnome devs. It’s not their fault, but they still need to recognize the awful state of the entire Linux video architecture and learn to work around it instead of exacerbating the issues for ignorant users.
Requiring 3D isn’t for the effects so much as it is for the rendering performance and smoothness it brings. The visual bling is just a side effect. It’s not even an unreasonable expectation that machines have 3D cards these days, even cell phones are starting to get decent chipsets with good 3D capabilities.
The problem as we’re all acutely aware is the drivers, which are getting better all the time but still aren’t there yet for everyone.
I completely agree that inconsistency between “fallback” and normal workflows are ultimately a bad idea though. If anything it’s a temporary band aid for the transitional period more than an actual solution.
I’m sorry, but when I learned English, “better” still meant… well, better; in this case, more functionality, increased stability and speed, etc. I have an Intel card, and I must tell you that in this last 3 years, the quality curve looked like the track of a roller coaster, which, even at it topmost point was nowhere near acceptable. And currently we are heading down.
I can only speak for the AMD side. The gallium drivers have been improving with every release on my Fedora boxes, to the point where I don’t even bother with the Catalysts unless I really need the extra rendering performance.
Please, do not post Slackware and Ubuntu in the same article. The Ubuntu gets all the focus and nobody seems to care about slackware. If there would be separate article about Slackware, then there would also be interesting comments about it. Currently it is all about Ubuntu + Gnome (or lack there of)
Slackware used to be my distro of choice, but last few years I’ve been windows only, as it fits my needs perfectly.
By 10.10, I thought Ubuntu had gotten to the point where I could finally, satisfyingly use it on secondary systems and recommend it to certain people.
I was really looking forward to 11.04 and even enthusiastically ran the beta releases. Unity is kind of “fun” at first glance but after using it a while, I realized that it really isn’t bringing anything new to the table at all….
Global menus aren’t bad but they’re implemented extremely oddly here. They should NOT be invisible until moused over. That’s just bad UI design. A user should be able to aim for the exact menu item they want instead of having to make the menu visible and only then being able to see the options available to them.
The Unity Launcher/Dock is serviceable but, again, it’s hardly revolutionary. Every OS and its brother has a dock available in some way these days and this one isn’t very configurable.
The Dash/Places are fine but why must I see an advertisement in every category for uninstalled apps? I’d rather see that space devoted to showing me the app I *do* have installed.
On top of that there are a lot of annoying or badly designed aspects to the rest of it. Such as – having a small blue triangle in the top left of the screen when an app needs attention seems kind of brain-dead. It doesn’t tell you WHICH app needs it.
Dissatisfied with the above, I decided to try out the Gnome 3 PPA and was quite surprised at how much better Gnome Shell seems over Unity. Sadly, the PPA is not complete nor up2date so I’m running Fedora 15 ATM.
I think, despite a few possible shortcomings, that Gnome 3 and the Shell are headed in a much more interesting and useful direction. GS makes Unity and the global menus feel like just another hack.
As a long time Mac OS developer I have to say that I’m really impressed of the progression Ubuntu did using Unity.
I’m using it on a netbook and they really optimized a lot the use of the scarce pixels available on a small screen. Really well done canonical!
Ubuntu could really get a large share if it only would provide an effective way for developers to earn money developing for it.
I have to admit I would love to develop for Ubuntu if only it would possible to get some money realizing software for Linux.
Unfortunately till the situation is in that way it is almost a desperate situation.
As anyone will say ‘ never think to realize something for the Linux market, simply because ‘There is no any Linux Market for desktop’
I will develop only for Mac and iOS and Windows and anything other where people pay for software.
It’s a pity. I hope it will change.
I can see the challenges, from devices that are 480×800 phones, to big screen monitors, people should learn from Microsoft.
Vista changed the way you navigate your files, and new desktops change the way you navigate your applications (which are files). The fastest way to get your customers running to the competition is to what?
Changing default programs and getting lumped into community preferences seems to be an issue, and netstat pops up some interesting information with no explanations out of a default installation?
Microsoft gives you a core system you build on, yet Linux users want to use the Microsoft name like a four letter word, and yet, if you install a community installation package operating system, you might have to tear down an installation to get what you want, or just need it to do, because 5000 applications might be installed, you just have to figure out which ones, and which ones you can remove without breaking the system?
That is not operating system basics taught in school, it is not modular?
This is a general rant, not a review of a singular operating system. Major installations allow modular selection of programs during the install process, although not all, and some are not as intuitive as Open Suse with its option to select all or no packages at any level?
I am not forced to live with an operating system, I use what works, what is dependable, and what I can back up without wondering if they are going to change the navigation and file systems (which changes the way we back things up)?
Changing a desktop sometimes has a lot more impact than we like to admit? I was fairly comfortable with Ubunutu 9.01. I actually thought Suse 1.4 was corrupted because of the desktop background was all mashed up after I installed it, and then wiped the disk.
Time will tell is these operating systems will be useful or not, I think it is clear why they are not adopted at a wider level?
Otherwise Linux will remain the domain of people that use IDE platforms to program stuff….?
Have a nice day.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say or what your point is. Do you have to end every sentence with a question mark?
I’ve been running Slackware since version 10.0. I am very happy with 13.37; I just finished upgrading my PCs yesterday. Everything works:)
I don’t see why Canonical spends so much time and effort in changing the GUI. If I wanted to get jerked around with a new GUI hyped to the stars every release I’d just go with Microsoft. I’m looking for consistent, incremental improvements in the product, not radical changes for the sake of salesmanship.