Re: 9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu

[Clint Tinsley]

> --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@...>
> > Subject: Re: 9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu
> > To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions"
> > <ubuntu-users@...>
> > Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 11:00 AM
> >
> > On Thursday 05 November 2009 11:50:47 Clint Tinsley wrote:
> > > It appears that Karmic Koala was rushed out the door
> > and is really giving
> > >  Ubuntu and Linux a black eye as a very flawed,
> > buggey release.  There have
> > >  been two derogative reviews with the second one
> > today on Linux Magazine
> > >  Daily titled "Hey Ubuntu, Stop Making Linux Look
> > Bad" and it sad to
> > >  acknowledge that they are right.  The
> > article reports that maybe 10% of
> > >  the user population is getting a "succesful"
> > working installlation and
> > >  after my experience this morning, I wonder for
> > how longed.  I did an
> > >  inplace upgrade from 9.04 to 9.10, things were
> > seriously broken.  I did a
> > >  clean install, had a few challenges, not a
> > perfect install. Then this
> > >  morning, I found that my Wine menu was "reset"
> > and one of my application
> > >  folders was missing off the hard drive, this
> > after a update that sort of
> > >  worked, I think.  And like many have
> > experienced, 9.10 is very slow to
> > >  boot.  Waiting for the real release of
> > 9.10... or atleast a remix.  I
> > >  cannot recommend 9.10 to my user
> > community.  9.04 was great, it worked,
> > >  Gloria Mint 7 put on the polish.
> > > > Sorry, please no flames.
> > > > Clint
> > > Totally opposite of my experience. I upgraded to the 9.10
> > beta a few weeks ago from 9.04 and have had no problems with it.
> >
> I too have had less issues with karmic beta than many other earlier
> releases.  My .02.
> Leonard Chatagnier
> lenc5570@...

I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great and I have been using Gloria Mint 7 for several months now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.  Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early adopters who are willing to deal with all the problems.  And most of all, it is suppose to be stable, which it is not.

Clint

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Walter Garcia-Fontes]

* Clint Tinsley [05/11/09 18:34]:
> I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great and I have been using
> Gloria Mint 7 for several months now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in
> 9.10.  Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and
> early adopters who are willing to deal with all the problems.  And
> most of all, it is suppose to be stable, which it is not.

What I don't understand is why the two paths stable-> Hardy (LTS) and
bleeding edge -> Karmic has been lost. When I adopted Ubuntu (it was
around Edgy) I remember that the first thing that I saw when I arrived
to www.ubuntu.com was that if wanted stability I should install Dapper
(was that the name?) and if wanted bleeding edge but didn't mind
risking some instabilities I should install Edgy. I decided to go the
Edgy way but I was prepared to get some unstable or broken things.  

Nowadays when you arrive to www.ubuntu.com no mention to the LTS
version and it seems the only suggestion is to install 9.10.

--
Walter Garcia-Fontes              
Barcelona


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Robert Holtzman]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Clint Tinsley wrote:

>> I too have had less issues with karmic beta than many other earlier
>> releases.  My .02.
>> Leonard Chatagnier
>> lenc5570@...
>
> I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great and I have been using Gloria Mint 7 for several months now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.  Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early adopters who are willing to deal with all the problems.  And most of all, it is suppose to be stable, which it is not.

I saw nothing in any of the replies that you could interpret as a flame.
If that wasn't what you were referring to...my apologies.

--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
  check the price of the beer"

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Leonard Chatagnier-2]

--- On Thu, 11/5/09, Robert Holtzman <holtzm@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Holtzman <holtzm@...>
> Subject: Re: 9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu
> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...>
> Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:23 PM
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Clint Tinsley
> wrote:
>
> >> I too have had less issues with karmic beta than
> many other earlier
> >> releases.  My .02.
> >> Leonard Chatagnier
> >> lenc5570@...
> >
> > I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great
> and I have been using Gloria Mint 7 for several months
> now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.  Ubuntu
> is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early
> adopters who are willing to deal with all the
> problems.  And most of all, it is suppose to be stable,
> which it is not.
>
> I saw nothing in any of the replies that you could
> interpret as a flame.
> If that wasn't what you were referring to...my apologies.
>
>

I't wasn't a flame just my .02 or me too.  Apology accepted.
Leonard Chatagnier
lenc5570@...


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[thomas-257]

A further thought on the disastrous Ubuntu 9.10.

All of the developers and people responsible for releasing Ubuntu
should watch a series of old commercials about wine, which featured
orson welles.  The most famous part of these was the tag line of
"No Wine before it's time".

Each developer should write a version which states the following:
"No Software before it's time" in bold letter and paste it on the top
of their monitors and look at it before they released anything beyond
beta or development versions.

Thomas

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[dean-62]

thomas wrote:

> A further thought on the disastrous Ubuntu 9.10.
>
> All of the developers and people responsible for releasing Ubuntu
> should watch a series of old commercials about wine, which featured
> orson welles.  The most famous part of these was the tag line of
> "No Wine before it's time".
>
> Each developer should write a version which states the following:
> "No Software before it's time" in bold letter and paste it on the top
> of their monitors and look at it before they released anything beyond
> beta or development versions.
>
> Thomas
>
>  

This cycle happens with most new releases on most operating systems
especially this one since of how popular it is.  Overall I've had no
problems with Karmic, the only issue I had was finding an appropriate
PPA for VDPAU-Mplayer.  But thats really nothing to do with the OS at
all.  Can't wait for Lucid Lynx :)

Dean

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[NoOp-4]

On 11/05/2009 10:18 AM, Walter Garcia-Fontes wrote:
...
>
> Nowadays when you arrive to www.ubuntu.com no mention to the LTS
> version and it seems the only suggestion is to install 9.10.
>

They fixed the website:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
but it still has issues; you need to click on:
Alternative download options, including Ubuntu installer for Windows

Choose a version

Download Ubuntu 9.10
    This is the latest version, released in October of 2009 and
maintained until 2011
Download Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
    Released in April 2008 and maintained until April 2011 - ideal for
large deployments

Choose the architecture

32-bit version
    This version is suitable for most computers
64-bit version
    May provide additional capabilities for computers that are able to
use 64-bit software

Don't know why they decided to do a full website makeover at 9.10
time... but send comments to web feedback:
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/contactus


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Derek Broughton]

Clint Tinsley wrote:

> I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great and I have been using
> Gloria Mint 7 for several months now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.
> Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early adopters
> who are willing to deal with all the problems.  And most of all, it is
> suppose to be stable, which it is not.

I beg to differ.  It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
working for almost everybody.  If you post such inflammatory statements, you
_will_ get flames.
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[dean-62]

Derek Broughton wrote:

Clint Tinsley wrote:

  

I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great and I have been using
Gloria Mint 7 for several months now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10. 
Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early adopters
who are willing to deal with all the problems.  And most of all, it is
suppose to be stable, which it is not.
    

I beg to differ.  It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's 
working for almost everybody.  If you post such inflammatory statements, you 
_will_ get flames.
  

Clint I agree, it has been amazingly stable for me. I am starting to get sick of this release is crap, it doesn't do this, it doesn't do that.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  After all this is a free operation system and it is all about choice.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[thomas-257]

 > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
 > working for almost everybody.

You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
which was the first that I used, was much better. There
are too many problems to go into details again since so
many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
agree with the statement.


 >> Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.

This is very true and is true for Firefox. In 9.04 both of
these tended to work with problems

 >> Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies
 >> and early adopters

I was led to believe that Ubuntu was not just for techies or
for those who have the potential but lack the time or the
desire to be techies.

My decision to give up on Windows and go Ubuntu instead
of the MAC was due to money and the fact that I have a lot
of investment in Windows software which made it illogical
to buy a higher price (but much better) MAC computer to
just access the internet. I am using a Windows computer
that is not connected to the internet. I went this way after
a couple of bad incidents in which the "protection" apps
did not protect the computer and were disasters for me.

The final problem of using Windows that made me switch
might have been due to a buggy XP upgrade. It happen
around midnight a few months ago while I was looking at
books on Amazon.Com. I am sure that this was not due to
the Amazon site and I had not been to any sites (such as
porno) which would have sent me a trojan. Plus a lot of
other had such problems at the same time, including a
couple neighbors my age who would never be interested
in porn or other bad sites.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Douglas Pollard-2]

Ive had my 9.10 up and running an hour  and been busy trying everything,
sweet as a honey bees Knees.    There may be problems there but I
haven't found any yet.
                                                                         
                                          Doug


thomas wrote:

>  > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
>  > working for almost everybody.
>
> You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
> which was the first that I used, was much better. There
> are too many problems to go into details again since so
> many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
> agree with the statement.
>
>
>  >> Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.
>
> This is very true and is true for Firefox. In 9.04 both of
> these tended to work with problems
>
>  >> Ubuntu is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies
>  >> and early adopters
>
> I was led to believe that Ubuntu was not just for techies or
> for those who have the potential but lack the time or the
> desire to be techies.
>
> My decision to give up on Windows and go Ubuntu instead
> of the MAC was due to money and the fact that I have a lot
> of investment in Windows software which made it illogical
> to buy a higher price (but much better) MAC computer to
> just access the internet. I am using a Windows computer
> that is not connected to the internet. I went this way after
> a couple of bad incidents in which the "protection" apps
> did not protect the computer and were disasters for me.
>
> The final problem of using Windows that made me switch
> might have been due to a buggy XP upgrade. It happen
> around midnight a few months ago while I was looking at
> books on Amazon.Com. I am sure that this was not due to
> the Amazon site and I had not been to any sites (such as
> porno) which would have sent me a trojan. Plus a lot of
> other had such problems at the same time, including a
> couple neighbors my age who would never be interested
> in porn or other bad sites.
>
>  

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Rashkae-2]

thomas wrote:
>  > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
>  > working for almost everybody.
>
> You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
> which was the first that I used, was much better. There
> are too many problems to go into details again since so
> many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
> agree with the statement.
>

9.04 was a disaster by comparison.  KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.

I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
'better' than 9.10 is a joke.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[dean-62]

Rashkae wrote:

thomas wrote:
  

 > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
 > working for almost everybody.

You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
which was the first that I used, was much better. There
are too many problems to go into details again since so
many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
agree with the statement.

    

9.04 was a disaster by comparison.  KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.

I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
'better' than 9.10 is a joke.

  

http://laserjock.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-myth-of-the-bad-ubuntu-release/

I rest my case :)

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Robert Holtzman]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Leonard Chatagnier wrote:

>>> I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked great
>> and I have been using Gloria Mint 7 for several months
>> now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10.  Ubuntu
>> is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies and early
>> adopters who are willing to deal with all the
>> problems.  And most of all, it is suppose to be stable,
>> which it is not.
>>
>> I saw nothing in any of the replies that you could
>> interpret as a flame.
>> If that wasn't what you were referring to...my apologies.
>>
>>
> I't wasn't a flame just my .02 or me too.  Apology accepted.
> Leonard Chatagnier
> lenc5570@...

My reply wasn't directed at you. It was for the guy saying "I asked,
please, no flames."

Apology retracted :-)

--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
  check the price of the beer"
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Leonard Chatagnier-2]

--- On Thu, 11/5/09, Robert Holtzman <holtzm@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Holtzman <holtzm@...>
> Subject: Re: 9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu
> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...>
> Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 9:25 PM
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Leonard
> Chatagnier wrote:
>
> >>> I asked, please, no flames.  9.04 worked
> great
> >> and I have been using Gloria Mint 7 for several
> months
> >> now.  Even Thunderbird is flaky in 9.10. 
> Ubuntu
> >> is suppose to be for everyone, not just techies
> and early
> >> adopters who are willing to deal with all the
> >> problems.  And most of all, it is suppose to be
> stable,
> >> which it is not.
> >>
> >> I saw nothing in any of the replies that you
> could
> >> interpret as a flame.
> >> If that wasn't what you were referring to...my
> apologies.
> >>
> >>
> > I't wasn't a flame just my .02 or me too. 
> Apology accepted.
> > Leonard Chatagnier
> > lenc5570@...
>
> My reply wasn't directed at you. It was for the guy saying
> "I asked,
> please, no flames."
>
> Apology retracted :-)
>
>

Oh me.  That's about the second time I misunderstood your
replies.  Must be my old Alzheimer's brain failing me again.  What's new, hugh?
Leonard Chatagnier
lenc5570@...


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[thomas-257]

I did not start out with the first release of 9.04. I had read about
it in Ubuntu magazine (or similar) and believed the glowing
review.

So, as has been stated by those who know about the earlier version
it got better. This is good because the folks working on it might be
able to solve most of the major problems that I am encountering. I
hope that it won't be long. I became addicted to the on-line radio
and old radio shows that I listened to.

Thomas

Rashkae wrote:

9.04 was a disaster by comparison.  KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.

I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
'better' than 9.10 is a joke.



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[thomas-257]

dean wrote:

> Rashkae wrote:
>> thomas wrote:
>>  
>>>  > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
>>>  > working for almost everybody.
>>>
>>> You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
>>> which was the first that I used, was much better. There
>>> are too many problems to go into details again since so
>>> many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
>>> agree with the statement.
>>>
>>>    
>>
>> 9.04 was a disaster by comparison.  KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
>> ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
>> chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
>> Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
>> followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
>> that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.
>>
>> I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
>> 'better' than 9.10 is a joke.
>>
>>  
> http://laserjock.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-myth-of-the-bad-ubuntu-release/
>
> I rest my case :)

I see that I need to correct my posting.  The corrected version of 9.04
was a lot
better than the first version of 9.10.

Thomas

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Avi Greenbury]

Walter Garcia-Fontes <walter.garcia@...> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the two paths stable-> Hardy (LTS) and
> bleeding edge -> Karmic has been lost. When I adopted Ubuntu (it was
> around Edgy) I remember that the first thing that I saw when I arrived
> to www.ubuntu.com was that if wanted stability I should install Dapper
> (was that the name?) and if wanted bleeding edge but didn't mind
> risking some instabilities I should install Edgy.

I don't recall ever seeing this between LTS and normal releases - I've
always seen them regarded as equally stable in the crashing sense, but
the LTS retaining the stability (in the software volatility sense) for
longer than the normal release.

I've always inferred that at time of release, both should be release
ready. People who want bleeding edge and crashes would be running Debian
Sid.[0] I don't know what ubuntu offers now as far as people who want
to help test for 10.04, but it doesn't appear to follow the same
snapshot-of-testing approach as Debian does, and I've never really
wondered about other ways of doing it.


--
Avi Greenbury
http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;)
http://aviswebsite.co.uk/asking-questions

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Avi Greenbury]

thomas <valhalla2100@...> wrote:
> All of the developers and people responsible for releasing Ubuntu
> should watch a series of old commercials about wine, which featured
> orson welles.  The most famous part of these was the tag line of
> "No Wine before it's time".
>
> Each developer should write a version which states the following:
> "No Software before it's time" in bold letter and paste it on the top
> of their monitors and look at it before they released anything beyond
> beta or development versions.

This is exactly the approach that Debian is derided (and praised in
equal measure) for, and ISTR a change from that was one of the founding
tenets of Ubuntu. IIRC, there was actually some reasonable discussion
on Slashdot (well, reasonable for /.) when Debian announced a switch to
timetabled releases.

Having ready-based releases is great for stability but atrocious for
getting anything bigger than an individual to buy into. Businesses need
to know the lifetime of a piece of software they intend to deploy in
order to compare with the competition and timetable a tender for the
replacement.

Timetabled releases are _hard_ but they're also quite necessary for
anything interested in commercial applications.

--
Avi Greenbury
http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;)
http://aviswebsite.co.uk/asking-questions

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

[Karl F. Larsen]

Avi Greenbury wrote:

> thomas <valhalla2100@...> wrote:
>> All of the developers and people responsible for releasing Ubuntu
>> should watch a series of old commercials about wine, which featured
>> orson welles.  The most famous part of these was the tag line of
>> "No Wine before it's time".
>>
>> Each developer should write a version which states the following:
>> "No Software before it's time" in bold letter and paste it on the top
>> of their monitors and look at it before they released anything beyond
>> beta or development versions.
>
> This is exactly the approach that Debian is derided (and praised in
> equal measure) for, and ISTR a change from that was one of the founding
> tenets of Ubuntu. IIRC, there was actually some reasonable discussion
> on Slashdot (well, reasonable for /.) when Debian announced a switch to
> timetabled releases.
>
> Having ready-based releases is great for stability but atrocious for
> getting anything bigger than an individual to buy into. Businesses need
> to know the lifetime of a piece of software they intend to deploy in
> order to compare with the competition and timetable a tender for the
> replacement.
>
> Timetabled releases are _hard_ but they're also quite necessary for
> anything interested in commercial applications.
>
> --
> Avi Greenbury
> http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;)
> http://aviswebsite.co.uk/asking-questions
>

        The business people tend to stay with a particular operating
system a long time. There are large companies still using
Windows 98.

        Now the Linux business software is made by Red Hat which
trades on the big board. This IS the business source.

        What Ubuntu should do is provide an operating system for the
world. It appears that Ubuntu is used more outside the USA
than within. It is installed by the user with all the problems
that causes.

        I hope version 9.04 will be worked on and get better. It
seems to be the best so far for the single user.


73 Karl


--

        Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
        Linux User
        #450462   http://counter.li.org.
         Key ID = 3951B48D


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@...
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users