Ubuntu

[Americano]

I tried v.9.10 and it was a nightmare. Spent time on the Ubuntu forum with what I considered competent people and finally gave it up. 9.10 is supposedly out of beta and I was disappointed.

Installed 9.04, no problems, I'm still tinkering with it. With winter coming on, I'll be spending more time indoors and try to determine if I'm comfortable using the 64-bit as my primary OS. It takes Firefox, Open Office so I need to load our graphics and music programs and see how they fare. I have apprehension about iTunes.

I've since read two posts on other general forums by people giving up on 9.10.

[Donkey]

The netbook remix was horrible for me. I've been holding off on upgrading to 9.10 because I read some negative things about 9.10 on the acer netbook. 9.04 has been great on the netbook, except for a few sound issues, and the fact that I can't really use Skype.

[drgoodtrips]

The more mainstream something, especially an OS, becomes, the more you're going to read early-adopter horror stories. All Linux distros function in a reasonably similar way:

1. Version x.0 is released and stable.
2. Start development on version x.1.
3. x.1 is "feature complete" (meaning that all desired features/fixes are implemented but not tested).
4. x.1 is made available on the distro site as "unstable/beta".
5. Hardcore linux-types download it in spite of its warts and actively participate in the quality assurance process, diligently reporting bugs and issues to the developers.
6. Once all show-stoppers and serious reported issues are fixed, version x.1 is tagged as stable and released.
7. There is an ongoing bug reporting/fixing process even with released software.

Now, keep in mind that there are literally dozens of kinds of Linux out there, and with many of them, the general user population isn't much larger than the hardcore beta tester population. So, when a version is tagged as stable, it's already been accepted by most users.

Ubuntu is relatively unique in its popularity with people who aren't bona fide Linux hackers. This is a good thing for the Linux community, but it's also a unique and unprecedented challenge for them. Hardcore Linux hackers are going to find different bugs in different places than your average user. I run Ubuntu on 5 different computers (although virtualized on 3 of them), but the things that concern me are the code compilers, web servers and runtime environments. I don't ever use them for audio/video, storing pictures, etc. So, if I go out and get Karmic Koala, I might give it the thumbs up never having tested the things that a lot of users test. In fact, I might find it awesome that they've fixed system calls in the java runtime and whole-heartedly endorse it. But, this doesn't matter to the wider user base.

Anyway, I'd suggest a Windows-like approach of waiting to increment the version on your machine until (1) you really need something that it addresses or (2) it's been released for a while and patched. Ubuntu is nice in that it gives you a lot of granularity with individual updates.

[Americano]

Will Chrome's OS eventually take a lot of the attention from Ubuntu?

[Donkey]

What I've read of Chrome makes it FAR too web-dependent for me.

[Americano]

What I've read of Chrome makes it FAR too web-dependent for me.

I like the idea of web storage for general purposes but proprietary software that can't be used offline is an unpleasant thought. And then there's the advertising angle, what will we be subjected to in an AOL type atmosphere?

[Michael]

I like the idea of web storage for general purposes but proprietary software that can't be used offline is an unpleasant thought. And then there's the advertising angle, what will we be subjected to in an AOL type atmosphere?

The software industry has been pushing this kind of model for a long time. They see it as the holy grail of endless profits. And if all the software companies agree that this would be good for them, that means it is NOT GOOD FOR YOU.

Personally, I consider Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to have the servers that are most likely to be targetted, attacked or down.

I can't imagine paying one of these three companies to store my information on the net. That sounds like a joke. You can be sure that any such service will include a legal rider making sure that Google, Microsoft or Yahoo (or whoever) will not be responsible for data loss, corruption, theft or illegal hacking.

I'd pay good money to avoid Google, Microsoft and Yahoo (and Apple too!). In consider the four of them to be the greatest risk to internet freedom, computer security and personal privacy.

[Donkey]

Chrome and its services will be "free."

[Michael]

Chrome and its services will be "free."

Yes, just like Microsoft. Free until it becomes expensive. :shrug:

[Donkey]

In what way does microsoft even pretend to be free?

[Michael]

In what way does microsoft even pretend to be free?
You are showing your age again. :lol:

MS-DOS was always given away for free. Right up until they got about 75-80% market share, then they started to charge for it. Bill Gates isn't dumb.

[Donkey]

You are showing your age again. :lol:

MS-DOS was always given away for free. Right up until they got about 75-80% market share, then they started to charge for it. Bill Gates isn't dumb.
:lol:

I wondered if that might be what you meant. That is, I wondered if Microsoft was ever free, not as in "ah yes, Michael must be referring to the good old days of free microsoft, pip pip cheerio."