Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu 8.04 Released

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the ok-ok-we-get-it dept.

Operating Systems 678

Nate2 writes "The Hardy Heron has taken flight: it's the second LTS (Long Term Support) release of the world's most popular distro. New features include the Wubi Windows installer and Firefox 3 beta 5. Grab a copy here, and check out Linux Format's overview of the release."

cancel ×

678 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Started the download 20 minutes ago (2, Informative)

Syncroswitch (656450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182312)

I seem to be stuck at 98%....

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (3, Interesting)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182424)

And ladies and gentlemen, that is why I won't be be 'apt-get dist-upgrade' until next week. I swear, Ubuntu get's the world's worst slashdotting twice a year. I could download the alternate, but meh, I'm not that concerned. As a side rant, last week I installed the Kubuntu 8.04 Remix RC, and after two hours I retreated to 7.10. I have no doubt Ibex will be awesome, and I might even upgrade sooner to KDE4, but as of right now, it's not so good.

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (5, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182438)

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (5, Funny)

Syncroswitch (656450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182538)

Torrents don't work at work...

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (0, Troll)

ChuckSchwab (813568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182714)

Uh, yeah, except that: isn't it kind of ILLEGAL to download copyrighted stuff via torrents?

Might want to watch yourself there, since the RIAA can see stuff like this...

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182734)

Is...was....err....was that a joke?

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (2, Interesting)

qualidafial (967876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182874)

If I download the torrent and burn it to disc, can apt-get do a dist-upgrade from the DVD?

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183002)

I believe you can actually. Never actually done it, though, so YMMV

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (-1, Flamebait)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182458)

Actually, your IQ is far lower... Why don't you choose a system that you won't want to upgrade everytime it gets a gayer name, slashmoron?

I'm sure there has to be better news than this bullshit...
For example, how you, yanx, are stuck with biggots as well as blood-sucking billionaires.

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (2, Interesting)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182476)

Thats why I got the beta a week ago ;) I was thinking ahead to this very day. Course when somethings didn't work right I was never sure if it was the code or if it was the OS. Speaking of if you get a java window that doesn't seem to display anything there is a bug with xgl. bug 48404 [launchpad.net]

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (-1, Flamebait)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182600)

Thanks jerks. I had been running hardy off the archive for a week, and was just installing an apache/php/postgres stack when you all decided to crap up the archives.

Re:Started the download 20 minutes ago (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183116)

What's it like when the world revolves around you? Do you get dizzy?

Anonymous Karmawhoring! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182324)

The server was overloaded; it's back up now, but in case it becomes unstable again... Cached lists of mirrors (for all versions):

        * http://www.ubuntu.com.nyud.net/getubuntu/downloadmirrors [nyud.net]
        * http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubuntu.com%2Fgetubuntu%2Fdownloadmirrors [google.com]

Torrent for 8.04 desktop version i386 ISO:

        * http://releases.ubuntu.com/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso.torrent [ubuntu.com]
        * http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4153415/Ubuntu_8.04_Hardy_Heron_-_Desktop_i386.4153415.TPB.torrent [thepiratebay.org]
            (Piratebay mirror because official tracker is unstable)

Direct links to 8.04 desktop version i386 ISOs:

        * http://releases.ubuntu.com/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [ubuntu.com]
        * http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/ubuntu-releases/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [uwaterloo.ca]
        * http://mirrors.ccs.neu.edu/releases.ubuntu.com/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [neu.edu]
        * http://mirrors.rit.edu/ubuntu-releases/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [rit.edu]
        * http://ubuntu.media.mit.edu/ubuntu-releases/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [mit.edu]
        * http://ubuntu.osuosl.org/releases/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [osuosl.org]
        * http://banner.uits.indiana.edu/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [indiana.edu]
        * http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/CDs/8.04/ubuntu-8.04-desktop-i386.iso [anl.gov]

"Hairy Hardon" (-1, Troll)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182496)

What's with the name? Are they trying to appeal to Mac users or something?

No, Hairy Hadron. (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182882)

No, it's Hairy Hadron, which is actually a new kind of subatomic particle predicted by stringy-hair theory. It's the particle that makes hippies and geeks smell the way they do. It can also give you telapathetic powers. People will know you're pathetic before you even walk into the room.

Re:Anonymous Karmawhoring! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23183026)

If everybody is getting their Linux on, who is manning the internet?!?!

Whats that sound I hear? (5, Funny)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182328)

Its as if thousands of bittorrent peers suddenly started connecting at once.

Re:Whats that sound I hear? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182568)

No, it's the sound of UbuntuDupe firing up his keyboard to remind everyone how lousy his Ubuntu experience was.

Re:Whats that sound I hear? (5, Funny)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182852)

Its as if thousands of bittorrent peers suddenly started connecting at once.

Comcast filters...engage.

Re:Whats that sound I hear? (5, Funny)

getto man d (619850) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182860)

These aren't the .ISOs you're looking for.

Kubuntu (5, Informative)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182346)

Don't forget Kubuntu [kubuntu.org] !

There are some of us who don't (or kan't) run Gnome...

Re:Kubuntu (1)

j3tt (859525) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182422)

I thought KDE uses more resource than Gnome. I haven't tried Kubuntu yet. It might be time to give it a shot ...

Re:Kubuntu (0, Offtopic)

cparker15 (779546) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182488)

KDE runs much more smoothly on my laptop [gateway.com] than GNOME.

Re:Kubuntu (3, Informative)

kernowyon (1257174) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182888)

Just to note that the Kubuntu 8.04 release is not an LTS one, because of the upcoming KDE4 apparently. So if Long Term Support is something you really need - and you want Kubuntu - then you are still going to be using 6.06 for a while yet.

Re:Kubuntu (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183096)

Are you sure? I thought that was true of the KDE4 version (Remix); pretty sure I read that the KDE3 build of 8.04 was LTS.

Site down.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182394)

little surprise there!

Slooow! (0)

desmondhaynes (1269862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182414)

Its as if the whole world is at it! And I chose the most obscure download site! :) Guess everyone did that! :( -- TechWatch [reviewk.com]

Re:Slooow! (3, Interesting)

desmondhaynes (1269862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182462)

Its as if the whole world is at it! And I chose the most obscure download site! :) Guess everyone did that! :( -- TechWatch [reviewk.com]
Ok, got the whole file. Give you a tip. Go to the ones where people are sleeping - I chose .tw enjoy. I am going to be busy now! :) Will send some screenshots soon! TechWatch [reviewk.com]

Slashdotted. (0, Redundant)

bannerman (60282) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182430)

Could someone please link directly to torrent?

Re:Slashdotted. (4, Informative)

AlecLyons (767385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182750)

wasn't slashdot this time, the things just wildly popular.

Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (5, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182434)

I'm not the kind to diss a distro over most things, but does it actually ship with a beta web browser? (Or is that just an option the user can add?) There's a few things F3B5 just doesn't quite do yet (mostly relating to extensions). I wouldn't want it to be my only choice available via the package manager, or anything.

(Note that I don't use Ubuntu or plan to use it any time in the very near future, so I really have no idea how easy it'd be to swap things out.)

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (5, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182506)

AFAIK, since this is a LTS (Long Term Support) release, they went with the beta Firefox so there wouldn't be major shocks when Mozilla stopped updating 2.x and Ubuntu updated everyone to 3.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182678)

Yeah I actually realized this after I posted, I guess it makes more sense in the long run. It's not like you can't install firefox2 in the meantime.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182832)

AFAIK, since this is a LTS (Long Term Support) release, they went with the beta Firefox so there wouldn't be major shocks when Mozilla stopped updating 2.x and Ubuntu updated everyone to 3.
agreed. and even mozilla says its ready for prime time [reuters.com] ... and for me Beta is just another name.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

andhar (194607) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182876)

Good point. Also since this release is so fresh, it'll be some time before it gets adopted in an enterprise environment, and hopefully ample time for FF3 to make it outta beta.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (2, Interesting)

cronot (530669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182956)

That, and I think FF3b5 is already more stable than FF2 is, aside from the numerous performance and footprint improvements.

There's the issue with extensions, yes. But there are few extensions at this point that doesn't have a FF3 compatible version, even if in beta. In my case, the ones that doesn't, I was able to replace with another extension that does the same thing, or better. In my case:

  • - Duplicate Tab => Tab Clicking options
  • - All-in-one Gestures (seems abandoned, btw) => Mouse Gestures Redox
  • - Firebug 1.0 => Firebug 1.1b12
  • - Foxmarks (they supposedly have a beta version that works in FF3, but it's only open to a select group of beta-testers - wtf?) => Mozilla Weave (it isn't as smooth, but it works)

Also, there are a couple of extensions I've just remove since FF3 has the features I've used these extensions for natively.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

asac (643533) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182974)

exactly ... and remember that even mozilla thinks its ready for prime time [reuters.com]

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

Phyrexicaid (1176935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183164)

AFAIK, since this is a LTS (Long Term Support) release, they went with the beta Firefox so there wouldn't be major shocks when Mozilla stopped updating 2.x and Ubuntu updated everyone to 3.
In that case, they should have shipped with KDE 4.0.3 and made Kubuntu LTS too

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (2, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182580)

As usual with Ubuntu they seem happy to ship whatever state it's in on the official launch date.

I'm not trolling here, I'm running Hardy myself, but for a supposedly 'hardy' long term support release it's still pretty buggy for me. Sound in Flash stopped working yesterday (for plenty of other people too by the look of the bug on launchpad), I have to re-enter my WPA password every time I boot, and font hinting isn't working for gnome-terminal and KDE based apps.

Hohum...

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (4, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182840)

This would be why I usually wait a month or so before I upgrade to the newest version of Ubuntu. I expect open-source stuff to have bugs but they fix most of them; it just takes little time. For now I'm hanging on to Gutsy until the rush dies down.

As for the WPA password...did you check the Keyring settings? Chances are that a config file was modified, switching the default save setting...if I had to guess.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (3, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183104)

Nah it's storing *something* but it seems to be the password in hex form which it's then applying as though it were ASCII or latin1 or whatever they use for passphrases.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182796)

Simple this is going to be the long term support version. Firefox2 is close to being at the end of it's life. Ubuntu doesn't like to update major version during the life of the release so this makes sense.
I really like FF3. I think it is much better than FF2.
As to the problem with plugins... Well that is up to the plug in authors.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

LinuxDon (925232) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182798)

You can always download the Linux binary version of firefox. Just untar it to /opt/firefox2 and start running.

Also, it's easy to delete when you don't need it anymore and are ready to switch to version 3.

But KDE 3.5 (1)

Epeeist (2682) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182808)

If they are putting this beta into an LTS then I must admit I don't understand why they can't put KDE 4.0.3 in.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (4, Informative)

Burpmaster (598437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182904)

Firefox 2 is in the software repository, so it's easy to install. Look either in Synaptic or in add/remove programs.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182918)

They ship both 2 and 3. I think they anticipated that 3 would be out of beta before release, but even if it's another month or two, it's probably worth having version 3 available as a primary choice.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

deragon (112986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182924)

I have been running 08.04 for over a month now (started with alpha). Firefox beta is very stable and works well. Most of my extensions are now supported. In this area, you do not need to fear.

However, I am disappointed by 08.04. Compiz is buggy. Even in normal desktop mode, keymaps are not working properly. It also lacks refinement. Stuff that used to work for me in Feisty Fawn do not work anymore. However, stuff that used to fail now works too. Overall, it is a worthwhile upgrade, but not the quality I expect of a LTS.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183166)

Agreed, this is the curse of Ubuntu as far as I'm concerned. I've been having a love hate relationship with it for ages. I'd switch back to Fedora if it had the repositories, I'd switch to Debian (well I have for my desktop) but Etch is too old and Lenny/Sid is currently broken for proprietary nVidia drivers. On the other hand, where it works Ubuntu is lovely, they have enough useful extras that Debian doesn't have to make it worthwhile, but the quality control and willingness to hold back a release is completely lacking. It drives me up the wall.

Re:Firefox 3 Beta 5? Really? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23183012)

from http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com/2008/04/faq-hardy-upgrade.html

Why is Firefox 3 beta 5 included? It's beta!

        * Firefox 2 will not continue to get security updates from Mozilla long enough to be in an LTS release. FF3b5 is in very good shape, and the final release is due in June. June is also when 8.04.1 is due, which will include all updates up to that point on an updated iso image, and also (I expect) FF3 final.

btw. LTS means its supported for the next 3 years.

Can't be bothred to use the torrent.. (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182444)

Instead of D/L the ISO i've opted for the web update. Gonna take another hour to d/l the updates so it's probably just as quick as D/L via torrent, burning to CD then running the upgrade... :D

I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (2, Insightful)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182446)

It's beta. It's also widely unsupported right now and doesn't work with several plug-ins I love to use. I do like some of the built in features of it, and use it on several of my systems, but I don't see it as belonging in an OS Release.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182530)

This is a Long Term Support release, obviously they didn't want to have to support Firefox 2 for another 5 years.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182604)

So, uh, they're going to support a beta Web browser instead? Interesting.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (2, Insightful)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182666)

They'll release 3 final to the repositories when it's released and probably reroll the installer CD I'd have thought.

They could really do with a bit more flexibility on their launch dates though.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182914)

It's not their fault that Firefox 3 isn't ready yet. It's just like how Gutsy shipped with the release candidate for the Gimp 2.4 and not the final. I could understand if the Ubuntu developers were also responsible for building Firefox, but as it stands there was no reason to postpone the release of the entire operating system just because Firefox was a stage away from production.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182948)

If making a new spin is an option then why not just ship with ff2 now and then re-spin it with ff3 when it hits release? I've got to say the idea of shipping with beta software as default kind of bothers me.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1, Funny)

claytonjr (1142215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182802)

No, they will support FireFox3, whether beta, rc1, rc2, final...

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182822)

Not exactly... at least not as far as I can presume... they'l support any further beta's, the RC's and finals to come aswell...

As the AC GP said... "they didn't want to support FF2 for another 5 years" (paraphrase) if they had included FF2 they would have to support that, and either support FF3 aswell, or cut FF3 out of the support...

So, there decision makes the most sense, besides its not exactly 0m6 fuk diz hard to switch back to, or install FF2 beside it...

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182880)

It's easier to deal with bugs in a beta for 2 months, than it is to deal with security holes popping up 5 years from now in a no longer supported version.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

asac (643533) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183118)

So, uh, they're going to support a beta Web browser instead? Interesting.
yes, firefox practically always gets updated to the latest minor release. So from the support side it doesn't really matter ... and if you ask about security support: mozilla lands security fixes they push into 2.0.0.x branches first on trunk. so you will surely get those too ... maybe even before the firefox 2 release that would include those.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (0, Redundant)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182634)

So instead they would rather support a beta release?

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (1)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183092)

Beta for a couple of months versus dealing with dead crap for five years. duh.

Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5 (5, Informative)

Tikkun (992269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182716)

Ubuntu releases based on a schedule (1 major release every 6 months, 1 release with long term support every 2 years), not when software is completely "ready". The merits of this can be argued by better geeks than I (I'll continue to use 7.10 on my desktop for a month, but 8.04 is going on my lappy pronto).

If you need completely stable software you should use another distro (Debian comes to mind) or wait a month or two.

Use BitTorrent (1)

kasot (1274250) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182524)

Re:Use BitTorrent (1)

Peturrr (940456) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182650)

1000+ seeds for the i386 iso at the moment, I downloaded it with >1mib/s

Aumix (1, Flamebait)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182544)

Sweet, maybe now I can adjust my volume [launchpad.net] .

Re:Aumix (1)

Russianspi (1129469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182894)

Um...you could have done so a month and a half ago, as long as you're keeping up with updates. The recompiled .deb was put in gutsy-updates on March 5th...Patch Verified [launchpad.net]

Re:Aumix (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183028)

Oh I see. Last I checked they were just going to wait until Hardy, and I've gotten used to using the volume knob on my amp anyway. But that's good news.

Torrent-only mirror (5, Informative)

rmullen (1258212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182562)

The Boston University Linux Users Group is providing a .torrent-only mirror that should be able to be easily reached regardless of traffic. It's often difficult to fight through the hordes around the other servers just to get a torrent file, so we felt this would be convenient. We also have a copy of the MD5SUMS if you need it.

ftp://lug.bu.edu/pub/distro/ubuntu/ [bu.edu]

Contains the alternate, desktop, and server torrents for both i386 and amd64.

Hope this helps.

Re:Torrent-only mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182812)

haha .. even your torrent mirror is down

Re:Torrent-only mirror (1)

rmullen (1258212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182898)

Let's see how Apache can handle it: http://lug.bu.edu/ubuntu/ [bu.edu] Same files.

Re:Torrent-only mirror (1)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183128)

Hm, unfortunately I'm getting "connection refused" messages from the tracker. I guess they're getting much more traffic than they expected.. (or something). Isn't it possible to have redundant trackers for a torrent?

Anyways, the pirate bay link (posted in a comment above), seems to work better, though not exactly blindingly fast. (Aaarr)

Bug #188226 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182586)

What an excellent decision it was to release with this bug not being addressed

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/188226 [launchpad.net]

Great release unfortunately no Abiword 2.6 (2, Interesting)

splict (1024037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182598)

I am very happy that there has been another LTS release (and on my birthday)! I've been running the beta and it has been very stable other than than the firefox alpha (which seems to work fine on my debian lenny box).

I am dissapointed that abiword 2.6 didn't make the cut, though. It is a great release, however the timing of things didn't work out. You can get some context on what happened at one of the developer's blog [livejournal.com] and the bug report [launchpad.net] . Seems there was a little tension involved. Also, here are the release notes [abiword.com] for Abiword.

Being an LTS release, I wonder if they can get it backported? I don't think that usually happens with that drastic of an upgrade - is it just security updates that get backported? However, the Abiword team will not be supporting 2.4.x for the next 3 years so I hope that something along those lines is possible.

Oh well, off to compiling it myself. :)

Fast Mirror (2 gbps net connection) (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182642)

http://193.147.168.122/ubuntu/

Please, always check MD5SUMS

Re:Fast Mirror (2 gbps net connection) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23183064)

I modded this troll, because I don't think we should trust a naked IP address (posted by an AC) with a folder with a few ISOs where the parent directory is the Apache test page.

What do you think?

Re:Fast Mirror (2 gbps net connection) (1)

polymerousgeek (1196703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183112)

Awesome, thanks whoever you are. Best mirror I could find up until now was peaking at about 40K.

Differences between last week's Release Candidate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182676)

I downloaded both the Ubuntu and KUbuntu Release Candidates this past week. Is there a list of differences somewhere or is it fairly safe to assume that the RC is identical to the real release?

Dealing with various issues during upgrade (2, Informative)

tmgtmgtmg (744407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182686)

I didn't have such a great experience upgrading.

My video card didn't work, sound didn't work, and, apparently, I use stale software with has been deprecated.

Either way, here's a review of my adventures:

http://thomer.com/howtos/hardy_heron.html [thomer.com]

Here's a summary of the woes described on that web page:

1) to get nvidia to work for a GeForce 8600 GTS (and in my case TwinView, for two displays), you need to download a beta driver straight from nvidia,

2) to get sound to work you need to run a completely undocumented /etc/init.d/alsa-utils reset,

3) Firefox 3 (beta) is cool and all, but it does not support various plugins so I downgraded to firefox-2, and

4) xmms, which is ugly but worked just fine, has been deprecated and its replacement, audacious segfaults and freezes.

5) I got annoyed by trackerd hosing my disk and my CPU, so I removed it.

Hope this helps.

Terrible. People should know about this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182722)

I am a long-time user of Ubuntu and I am -very- disappointed with how Canonical's volunteers handled the announcement of this release. Not 20 -minutes- before the official announcement was made, anyone asking whether or not the ISO on the main page was indeed the final release (which it was) was banned. Anyone who posted a link to the ISO, the .torrent, or even the MD5SUM of any of the files was banned.
20 minutes after the release? The channel operators were soliciting people to Digg up the link to the torrents they had just BANNED people from the channel for even talking about.

This is NOT the way to treat your prospective users!

Re:Terrible. People should know about this! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23183142)

The channel operators

So wait, let me get this straight: people went on IRC, asked particularly stupid questions, and got banned for it?

Stop the presses, we've got headline news right here!

You can also get it shipped (4, Interesting)

old_skul (566766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182730)

Instead of doing the bittorrent dance, I started having the disc shipped to me. You can order whatever you need from https://shipit.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] - they do a great job of getting the discs shipped, free of charge, in a lot less time than what they indicate on the site.

I ask for 25 discs at a time, put a pile of them on my desk at work, and they're gone in a week. Here, have a Linux, it's free.

I Want My First Personal Linux Machine (3, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182780)

I'm running XP at home. I've got two large hard drives, not in a RAID. Were I to download this Ubuntu release, would it be easy to set up dual-booting? What's the best way to do that, assuming I don't want to upset by Windows install in any way? Would I need to use FAT32 on a drive to make it visible to both OSs? Is there a robust method to at least read NTFS in Linux? Would it make sense to install on a USB memory stick or an external hard drive?

Re:I Want My First Personal Linux Machine (4, Informative)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182848)

I'm running XP at home. I've got two large hard drives, not in a RAID. Were I to download this Ubuntu release, would it be easy to set up dual-booting? What's the best way to do that, assuming I don't want to upset by Windows install in any way? Would I need to use FAT32 on a drive to make it visible to both OSs? Is there a robust method to at least read NTFS in Linux? Would it make sense to install on a USB memory stick or an external hard drive?

NTFS read/write access has stable for a long time. No need for FAT32.

You don't need an external harddisk or usb-stick. Ubuntu won't disturb Windows.

Just download, burn and boot the live cd, then click the install icon. Ubuntu will guide you smoothly into making some space and dual-booting.

Don't Panic

Re:I Want My First Personal Linux Machine (3, Informative)

atlastiamborn (1252206) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182946)

The easiest way would probably be to use Wubi, which installs the ubuntu system as an application inside your Windows install (or something like that, haven't tried it myself as I don't have Windows installed).

If you choose to install ubuntu on another drive and dual boot your ubuntu install should be perfectly capable at reading your NTFS partitions (helped a friend back up his stufs from a borked XP install just last weekend, worked great), I'm not sure about writing to NTFS partitions though, but it might work.

Re:I Want My First Personal Linux Machine (5, Informative)

wintermute000 (928348) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183136)

Most modern distros will overwrite the XP bootloader with GRUB the linux bootloader. However GRUB will detect windows and present it as a boot option so its pretty much seamless.

To prepare, use partition manager in windows to free up some space on one of your drives, then install linux in the free space. As above GRUB will detect windows partition seamlessly.

If you ever want to revert to windows bootloader, just boot off the XP disk, go into recovery console and type a command which I can't remember but googling will reveal it very quickly (its something like fixmbr).

NTFS is fine with a driver called ntfs-3g, may not be out of the box but it is usually easily obtainable via an update. In Ubuntu it will be a one-line command to install, same as installing anything (you will love this about linux) as long as you have an internet connection. There will be a general 'install X package' commmand, from memory in ubuntu its 'sudo apt-get XXX'.

However this will only install the driver, you will probably have to manually mount the windows partition via either the mount command or editing your fstab which is the file linux uses to determine what file systems to mount.

Personally if its ur first go I would install linux on a spare box to have a tinker first. I went down this path for a year before I was game enough to muck with my 'production' desktop.

The critical thing is to have another working computer with the internet available so you can look up instructions on the fly whilst you're in linux in case you can't get something to work in linux that also kills your web browsing. Once you have google at your disposal, your issues (barring bad-luck hardware incompatibilities) are all solvable and someone out there will have solved it already and posted a solution for you, often with cut-and-paste commands to follow.

Have fun, and don't get discouraged - remember it took you however many years to learn what you know about windows, and for the first few weeks it will feel like learning how to walk again. Remember: most of what you know about PCs is actually what you know about WINDOWS, so don't be surprised when things are done differently in linux (on the upside it generally makes perfect sense). But in the long run it will pay off. The great thing is that in linux everything is controlled via human readable text files, no registry hunting required, even if you don't know anything about X you can tell a lot from the config files and tonnes of issues can be solved by a simple and obvious parameter change.

Disclaimer: above is general linux advice from a Fedora user, I do not use ubuntu so your mileage may vary.

Curious about Ubuntu (3, Informative)

UberHoser (868520) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182826)

Well more than curious. It looks pretty slick.

And I am really not asking to be flamed here, but can someone tell me why I might want to move from Windows to Ubuntu? Either for home (World of Warcraft has to run on it) or from work?

(Puts on asbestos boxers)

Re:Curious about Ubuntu (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182962)

haha, I asked the same question about open office (why use it over ms office). prepare to get flamed.

Although, ubuntu is great if you want to mess around in linux. But if you don't know why you'd want to switch away from XP ... and you don't know why you'd want/need linux, then there probably isn't much point.

All that aside... It is really REALLY easy to dual boot - it does it automagically when installing for you... and it is cool to try (at least once - and the first one is free... oh wait, they all are...)

Torrent download (1, Informative)

dramaley (20773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182834)

I found a nice page for downloading all the .torrent files that doesn't seem to be overwhelmed yet. It even lists torrents for the 8.04 DVD and PowerPC versions!
http://torrent.ubuntu.com:6969/ [ubuntu.com]

Features (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182866)

So from the review there are several new features here that might be of use:

  • - Wubi - for improved installation experience.
  • - Compiz - now enabled by default, for some eye candy as well as an expose clone and nicer application selection using tab.
  • - Vinagre - a new, built in VNC client that uses zeroconf for local auto-discovery. (Man I hope this works with OS X's implementation.)
  • - Brasero - CD/DVD burning application.

So it sounds like a couple of useful new features and probably more the review did not cover. opefully I'll give it a test run tonight.

Wireless still doesn't work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23182900)

I've tried installing the last 3 versions of Ubuntu on my HP Pavilion 6000. None of them work with the wireless out of the box.

I was told this version has much more support for the Pavilions, but sadly it was the same thing again.

No wireless.

I don't want to take the time to figure out how to get it to work, so I'll be staying with XP for now.

Which sucks, because I really want to get off Windows.

Awesome news! (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182930)

Fancy that... an open source team releases a product on time, as promised, and delivers the feature sets they promised.. meanwhile, the leading closed source competitor.....

I'm really looking forward to upgrading my Linux box to this new release, but judging by the posts, I shall wait a few days for the downloads to die down.

Hope they fixed the problems I have with the RC. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23182954)

I did a network update to the RC and my network stopped working. I have posted messaged on the forums and still no joy.
I am using an Nforce4 motherboard so I would think that there might be a lot of cranky people out there if it isn't fixed.

The world's most popular distribution? (0, Offtopic)

repetty (260322) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183082)


>> it's the second LTS (Long Term Support) release of the world's most popular distro.

The world's most popular distribution? No, that can't be right. I've never used it.

I upgraded (4, Informative)

Blice (1208832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183106)

I upgraded from 7.10 to 8.04;

I like the new compiz-fusion plugins it includes.
Includes 3d windows for the cube (Where the windows stick off of the walls), this new "Shelf" plugin, that makes it able to shrink the size of windows to a thumbnail where you can dock them to the side of your desktop or wherever. They also have an "Error notification" plugin which is neat- Gives you an alert whenever any program has an error, and you can specify how serious an error has to be before it notifies you. The notification is just a little popup on your notification area.

In the new Gnome, I really really like the new VNC client. It has a "bookmark" section to the side, and it has tabs. Tabs for VNC! I love it. The other really useful thing it has is a "VNC scanner", which scans computers on the domain for VNC ports to connect to, and gives you a nice list. Besides that, there isn't really much else great about the new Gnome- They try to keep things "simple" (A.K.A., not much customization to be done.)

I've had a couple problems so far with Ubuntu 8.04, though. The first noticeable problem was that only one window on my desktop had a border. I.E, if I switched from one window to another, the window I switched to would lose it's border and title bar, and the new window would get borders and a title bar. I fixed this by installing Xgl, apparently I didn't have it.

The other issue is these odd black dots.. They consist of maybe four pixels making a block. There's about 10 of them in a row on my screen, even when I do the cube and other things, they stay on top of everything. Even in my log in window. I have no idea what's causing it.

And, finally, my sound isn't working now. But I see a lot of people are having this problem.

Oh, and one more con- The "Unlock" button for network manager is really annoying. I'm not sure why it was needed, maybe someone can enlighten me?

New Icon (5, Insightful)

somegeekynick (1011759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23183126)

Slashdot should start using Ubuntu's symbol instead of Debian's. Oh and, I'm downloading via the torrent right now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>