Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

258 comments

Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186650)

The only gnome comparison is on Fedora. Why not compare with Gnome 2 on Natty? All it takes is a different selection on GDM. For that matter why not Gnome 3 from a PPA on Natty?

Re:Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186752)

Because he was comparing to a LiveCD non-install of fedora (the reason being unclear), and Im not sure you can switch between Gnome2 and Unity on a LiveCD (one potential reason being limited ramdisk space).

Not only that... (0)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187710)

but since when has memory footprint been a "benchmark?" Really, we're talking roughly half a gig here, and who's running these on a system without at least 2? The system used for this has 3 GiB, so the largest user consumes just 20% of RAM - so what? If a couple hundred meg is that important, use the CLI. Perhaps there's a design tradeoff - use more RAM for faster performance. You sure can't tell from this "benchmark."

This is just an advertisement for a "look at me" blog.

Re:Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186836)

Might have been considered too much work by the guy doing the 'test' since you cannot have Unity and Gnome 3 installed alongside each other. And Gnome 2 isn't all that interesting anymore now.

Re:Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186944)

Canonical's Gnome 3 PPA is a mess right now, spontaneously explodes, and when you try to go back to either classic or Unity there will be issues PPA Purge doesn't fix. Better spend your time looking for your next distro in 5 months when you won't have a classic mode. Debian, Mint, Arch, Puppy, Pardus, Mandriva, Fedora, FreeBSD, Gentoo, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, PC-BSD, MEPIS all will be in better shape than 11.11, try 'em out and pick one.

Re:Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187630)

I'm partial to Enlightenment - and Sabayon has a nice offering. In fact, it's the only 64 bit distro that offers Enlightenment working out of the box. Others offer E17, but you have to work at making it work.

However - most people who are using Ubuntu came from Windows, and they aren't especially likely to leave Ubuntu for the sake of a more efficient desktop manager. Most of them have little idea where they are on the food chain, and those who do, feel little need to climb any higher.

Re:Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187912)

Sabayon is great... for home use, for me. I found it a bit too unstable when updating. Wireless support would spontaneously disappear and whatnot.

The guys in their IRC channel tend to be a bit self-important as well.

  I really, really liked Sabayon but the two points above sent me back to something that made easier to concentrate on the things for which I get paid. Xubuntu has fit that niche nicely.

Previously, I had been a Gentoo-r until it started getting really horrible updates that would break the whole system. Mid-stream changes in the init or portage system. It was a terrible time. I haven't really been back since then. Slackware is always great, but I have gotten used to the Debian package management system.

Re:Why not Gnome on Ubuntu? (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187978)

As long as I can still install XFCE in 11.10 I'll probably stick with Ubuntu for my desktop workstation for now. I hate that Gnome 2.x will no longer be an option, but XFCE is a decent alternative that is still being actively developed.

I feel like trolling... (2)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186690)

I feel the urge to troll because I loved using ubuntu until 11.04, but now have switched to kubuntu 11.04. Instead I will say I look forward to the continual improvements that will be made to both unity and gnome shell.

Re:I feel like trolling... (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186848)

>>>now have switched to kubuntu 11.04

Give Lubuntu a try (LXDE plus ubuntu). It uses about 1/4 as much RAM as kubuntu requires, so it's good for old laptops or PCs with 1 gig or less memory.

As for Unity, I don't know how accurate these benchmarks are, but if it uses twice the RAM then it would not fit inside my current laptop. Still I'm willing to give it a try and see how it looks.

Re:I feel like trolling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187926)

Still I'm willing to give it a try and see how it looks.

Wait for a while. I used it for some days before switching back to Classic. It's actually nice but I hit some stability problems. It might be better to wait it to mature more before giving it a try.

Re:I feel like trolling... (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186978)

If you don't like Unity, don't use it; Gnome Shell 2 is still in Natty, and it works fine.

Re:I feel like trolling... (2)

vajorie (1307049) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187626)

now have switched to kubuntu 11.04

If you don't like Unity, don't use it; Gnome Shell 2 is still in Natty, and it works fine.

-- There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

What part of that did you not get? ;)

Re:I feel like trolling... (2)

thepike (1781582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187682)

Why does everyone bring this up? That support is leaving in 11.10 so the argument only works as a stopgap for another few months. Sure you can choose that now, but in the long run if you don't want to use unity (and who does?) you have to switch someday.

The big question is where will people go; slackware? Fedora? Xubuntu? I know Ubunutu is trying to get more mainstream, but they'll lose some of their hardcore users, and I have to wonder how that'll affect their devs.

Re:I feel like trolling... (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187826)

I do - professional developer here and I really like Unity, and am using it in a VM more then the primary OS (i'm typing this in it, even). The unified menu bar is awesome! I like it.

Re:I feel like trolling... (1)

spaceplanesfan (2120596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186986)

I switched to kubuntu too.
And I don't miss unity for sure.

Re:I feel like trolling... (1)

Astronomerguy (1541977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187786)

Having tried them, both Unity and Gnome 3 leave me feeling cold and slightly ill for reasons that many others have stated clearly and eloquently. Try Lubuntu. The LXDE interface is light, boots fast (~25 seconds on an old Pentium D 3Ghz, 2Gb RAM) and shutdown takes exactly 5 seconds. It looks Gnome 2.x-ish and even has has multi-desktop, which is important for me. My new work laptop dual-boots to Windows 7 (for work) and OpenSUSE 11.4 (for me) running their KDE implementation. I like it a *lot* which is eye-opening for me as I've found KDE wanting over the past few years. It's worth looking into now. Just my $.02.

Re:I feel like trolling... (0)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187142)

You should try Wubuntu, which is Ubuntu built on the Windows 7 windows manager.

Re:I feel like trolling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187284)

How about Aubuntu built on the Amiga shell?

Re:I feel like trolling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187814)

Or Pubuntu which is Ubuntu build on the Porn Shell.

Re:I feel like trolling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187338)

Same here - couldn't stomach the dumbed down direction Gnome and Unity are headed. I have a cell phone, thanks very much :).

KDE 4.6 is kinda nice though. WAY better than 4.0.

Unity sucks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186700)

What more do you need to know? I installed (and fully updated) Natty this weekend, and crashed it 3 times in 20 minutes with different Unity bugs. Then, I hit up the goog, and found out how to get my classic gnome interface back (it's in a dropdown at the login prompt). Waste of 22 minutes, if you ask me. I can't imagine how much time the Unity devs wasted on that crap.

hmm but linux doesn't crash (3, Funny)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186820)

everyone knows that! it's built on a solid, stable unix foundation, with a 'keep it simple' philosophy that guarantees performance and stability! with 12 overhead cams and a dual plated stainless steel cooking surface, your family will be sure to love the new Unity.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187008)

You're right, it doesn't. Software does, but unlike good old Windows, the entire system doesn't fall apart when something crashes (or starts consuming lots of CPU) on Linux.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187084)

Precisely. Linux doesn't crash. Gnome does, but... yeah.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187216)

Fag. I haven't seen a blue screen since Win98. Maybe you just don't know what the fuck you're doing. Actually I'm sure you don't know what the fuck you're doing. Now get this large with extra cheese over to the Johnson house on 4th street.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187566)

And I haven't had to post as an Anonymous Coward since I registered. Maybe you just don't know how to log in. Actually I'm sure you're just not a people person. Now get this odd saying that only I get over to that place, you know the one.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187640)

Wow, you haven't done anything interesting at _all_ on Windows then (or run on hardware that overheats...) XP doesn't blue-screen anywhere near as often as Win98 or 98SE or WinMe did, but it still knows how.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187944)

Then you haven't turned a computer on. I'll admit I haven't had Windows 7 blue-screen on me, but I haven't worked in it with as much frequency as previous versions, but I've had my share of BSODs on Vista, XP, Server 2000 and Server 2003. Most have been driver problems or related to failing hard drives. Any system can crash badly. But hey, you got to call someone a "fag" on Slashdot, so I suppose making blatantly moronic claims to get there is just fine for you.

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187428)

but unlike good old Windows, the entire system doesn't fall apart when something crashes

How about we all chip in together and buy this Anonymous Coward an upgrade to Windows 2000. It sounds like we have found the last Window ME user!

Re:hmm but linux doesn't crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187108)

Unfortunately that doesn't stop Canonical dumping a load of manure on it.

Re:Unity sucks (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187432)

I've never seen Unity (or Ubuntu for that matter) crash. I upgraded to 11.04 on a netbook and two laptops. Use 'em everyday. Never crashed on my desktop, either, but I did have a wireless problem so I'm sticking with 10.10 there.

Why do people underthink memory usage? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186728)

It's really not that big a deal these days, you want to use memory, because memory is FAST, and in comparison to the old days, dirt cheap. Loading things into memory is not an automatic sign of bloat, sometimes it is a sign of doing what you should, putting memory into use.

thats what i tell people about my gut (-1, Troll)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186842)

just because i have a muffin top doesnt mean im fat. in the old days, 'fat' only meant you werent going to starve in the winter.

sometimes, being fat is a sign of doing what you should - wolfing down entire jars of peanut butter using nothing but your fingers and a jumbo pack of hersheys bars.

Re:thats what i tell people about my gut (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187150)

Yes, because the best use of memory is it never being used.

Re:thats what i tell people about my gut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187718)

Yes, because the best use of memory is it never being used by your desktop shell, thus leaving it for legitimately memory-hungry actual applications.

FTFY

Re:thats what i tell people about my gut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187434)

I guarantee, people who are anorexic are quite unhealthy.

No fat is a bad thing.

Re:Why do people underthink memory usage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187590)

Loading data into memory for the purpose of caching is good.

Using a lot of memory because you're inefficient is bad.

Re:Why do people underthink memory usage? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188146)

It really depends, but as a general rule, the OS and the environment shouldn't take up very much memory as that's not typically why one buys a computer. As much memory as possible should be available for the applications the person wants to use. A half gig isn't really that much, however if you're into programs that use a lot of memory, that's memory that could be used for your rendering software or VM.

Using more memory isn't automatically a bad thing, but if it's software that you have to run in order to do anything, then it had better be really useful.

Re:Why do people underthink memory usage? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188148)

I want to use my memory myself, not have it used up by some bloated piece of shit window manager

Not a useful comparison in any regard (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186732)

Absolutely worthless comparison, as it compares vastly different distributions. He isnt even comparing 2 debian based distros, or trying to control for different running services; why is there not even an attempt to isolate the memory usage of the DE / WM?

Perhaps this could have been useful as a comparison of distro memory usage, but even in that it fails-- its comparing an installed Debian distro to live-CD based Fedora; why wasnt fedora installed and compared (perhaps using VMs?), or Ubuntu run from LiveCD?

Re:Not a useful comparison in any regard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187248)

I'll tell you why: the author of the article has no idea what they're doing.

LOL.

Hell of a benchmark (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186744)

just saying

Wow (3, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186750)

It's as if someone designed that "benchmark" to be criticisable in every possible way!

Re:Wow (1)

nanospook (521118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187374)

That would be "Criticizable" .. yeah I couldn't resist :)

Re:Wow (2)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187406)

It would be if I was American.......

benchmarking or jerking off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186754)

wtf?!?!

unity on ubuntu on a laptop vs gnome-shell on fedora (livecd) on laptop vs XFCE on ubuntu on desktop.

laptop and desktop have different RAM
laptop and desktop have different VGA and drives

the only thing the systems have in common is the keyboard!

Re:benchmarking or jerking off? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186768)

they were probably both bought at walmart

Worthless shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186756)

Worthless shit written by a christfag.

Re:Worthless shit (0)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187078)

I agree it's worthless, but I really don't see what it has to do with the religion. If it was worth reading, it'd be worth reading even with the religious stuff across the top, right?

Re:Worthless shit (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187154)

If it was worth reading, he'd still be a christfag.

Re:Worthless shit (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188122)

you should not use sacrilegious, disrespectful words like "christfag", until after this Saturday.

Re:Worthless shit (2, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187312)

Worthless shit written by a christfag.

Well to be fair, he had to rush it out before he's Raptured this weekend. Otherwise he probably would have spent a few more days on it.

(for those that read this comment years from now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction [wikipedia.org] )

Blog spam? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186766)

What the hell is with this obvious blog spam? This "benchmark" is even worse than the shit being pooped out by Phoronix.

I call bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186834)

This article is seriously flawed. Its comparing Ubuntu 11.04 installed to HD on a laptop vs. Fedora 15 running from the CD as a live system on said laptop vs. his own mash-up of Ubuntu using xfce4 running on a desktop. Furthermore, all he looks at is 'Memory Usage' but doesn't describe how he determined memory use so his numbers are probably flawed/meaningless. Lastly, how does software rendering come out ahead and feel more 'responsive' then hardware *accelerated* rendering let alone livecd vs. HD install? The author is a total troll and has no clue what he is talking about.

"Every software engineer should be a creationist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186864)

Yeah, that's what we need.. a bunch of software engineers that don't understand fundamental scientific principals.

If ever software engineer was a creationist, then every software engineer would be an idiot.. and the quality of software would drop accordingly.

We may even get to the point where a "software engineer" thinks it's ok to benchmark software using totally inconsistent configurations..

Re:"Every software engineer should be a creationis (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187280)

And hey, big surprise, comments disabled on that article. "You must log in to post a comment." And even if I did want yet another account just for commenting on a single blog, I don't see anywhere to register.

Just for fun, I'll respond here. I might even try to email it to him, if that works.

There are three fundamental entities that make up our universe, matter, energy and information.

I'm not sure information is an "entity" in any relevant sense. It's a phenomenon. More in a moment...

Now, creating and communicating information is demonstrably a mental process, requiring an intelligent mind to create and to receive the information.

Actually, it's demonstrably a physical process, one which can be performed entirely by machines, unless you are willing to describe my laptop as an "intelligent mind." But it depends what you mean by "information", in this case, as you point out:

In this way, information is distinct from data, which Shannon unfortunately referred to as "information" in his work on statistical-level information-theory, leading to the present ambiguity.

If that is the way in which information is distinct from data, then I work with a hell of a lot more data than information. My computer creates, interprets, communicates, and manipulates all sorts of data that no "intelligent mind" will ever touch, unless, again, you're willing to allow that my cell phone is an "intelligent mind."

This reality has been demonstrated amply in the book by Gitt and is expressed in a streamlined form in this lecture by Wilder-Smith.

I'm not willing to buy and read a book, but maybe I'll listen to the lecture.

Yet, so many software engineers remain evolutionists.

...what? Unless you're referring to the arguments you referenced via an amazon link and an mp3 file, I see nothing in your argument which requires intelligent design or negates evolution. Even if I accepted your premise that information must have an intelligent designer -- sorry, a god -- as its originator, as a "software engineer," I'd hope you understand that humans can and have written programs which simulate the genetic process at various levels -- why, then, could this god not design evolution as part of the "program" of the universe, fire it off and let it run, exactly as human beings do all the time?

Despite interpreting and often designing language conventions every day, very few software engineers seem to have considered the implications of language and information-theory for genetics, biology and metaphysics.

Again, out of the blue, you're introducing a new topic -- languages -- along with committing a stupidly trivial fallacy. Just guessing here, because you didn't actually deliver an argument, but if you did, I imagine it would look like this:

1. Humans can create languages.
2. Humans have intelligent minds.
3. Given 1 and 2, intelligent minds can create languages.
4. DNA is a language.
5. Given 3 and 4, an intelligent mind can create DNA (the language).
Therefore, only an intelligent mind could have created DNA.

Both 5 and the conclusion are absurd on their face, and I hope you can see that. 5 is fallacious because 3 asserts only that intelligent minds can create languages, not that they can create all languages. Even if 5 were sound, the conclusion is fallacious because 5 asserts only that an intelligent mind can create DNA, and not that only an intelligent mind can create (or could have created) DNA.

And again, what about this falsifies evolution? If it worked, it would falsify abiogenesis. Evolution can happen without intervention once we have DNA, just as a program can run without human intervention once we start it running.

Why is this? Well that's a discussion for another post.

If you're going to make another post on this topic, I'd suggest you actually make an argument for why anyone should take you seriously about biology, rather than trying to figure out why people don't.

But it's good that you're asking why so many people disagree with you. Maybe you'll find out. I suspect it has something to do with understanding concepts like what I just illustrated -- understanding, from experience, just how much an algorithm can do without human intervention.

And all of this still works from within a theist, even a Christian perspective, so I'm granting quite a lot of your argument and worldview, and it still doesn't work. I am neither of these things, and I don't think the argument works even at that level -- I see nothing in biology which can be called "information" given your definition, though there's certainly a lot of opportunities for data mining.

While I'm at it... (2)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187868)

So I just killed about an hour listening to the mp3 and thinking about how I'd respond... not much new there.

Starts with a few intelligence-insulting analogies, like "Bricks don't build houses." Yeah, bricks also don't reproduce.

"We ought to be able to put the contents of life into a test tube and see that it would build life." In other words, if we can't put something in a test tube and get something out of it, we require an intelligent agency for that process? Seriously? If we assume this guy isn't as dumb as he seems to be, and that by "test tube" he meant "any artificial apparatus", then we have experiments which show that things like amino acids can be formed through entirely natural, mechanical processes.

He then goes on to describe intelligence as the "third column of the universe" -- that is, matter, energy, and information -- and also that "nobody knows how to define it." Actually, we can define information, and we can do so quite precisely. If you can't, then maybe you shouldn't be claiming it's a fundamental property of the universe. When we do use precise definitions, we find that either DNA is not information, or that information does not require a designer, but this argument is almost deliberately vague.

He then goes on to talk about codes, pointing out that SOS is only a code by convention, and that if we didn't have that convention, SOS wouldn't communicate "distress" or, really, anything at all -- that sequences of syllables, or letters, or nucleotides, are meaningless unless some meaning is assigned to them -- that in this case, without the ribosomes, a particular sequence of DNA wouldn't correspond to a particular sequence of DNA into a protein. So he's already given up his premise, which he's repeated constantly, that a convention can only be established when two intelligences come together and agree on something, unless he's willing to call ribosomes "intelligent".

So why couldn't ribosomes be what assigns the "meaning"? Why is an additional entity required? Well, he says, ribosomes are needed to decode DNA, but ribosomes are themselves encoded in DNA, so there's a chicken-and-egg problem. Sounds a bit to me like irreducible complexity, and we know how well that's worked out. It's exactly the same argument -- "Half an eye is useless, so the eye couldn't evolve by steps!" It turns out that half an eye is useful, just not for quite the same things a whole eye is -- and in this case, there are entirely plausible ideas for how this mechanism could itself have evolved piecewise. (Yes, evolution can happen without DNA, it's just that DNA is the mechanism that won.)

Finally, and this is where I'm really disappointed in the supposed "software engineer" who linked to this -- the lecturer starts talking about the information that's encoded in DNA, and how much work we've had to put into just finding out what the sequence is -- that "our best computers can scarcely..." what, assemble DNA sequences? Takes some pretty heavy hardware (you want at least 24 gigs of RAM), but it's far from our best. Yes, the Human Genome Project was massive, but these days, it's fast and cheap to sequence stuff -- you could almost do it as a hobby, it's that cheap. On top of all of this, when he says that the amount of information in DNA is "almost infinite" -- there are a number of things I could nitpick, but really? It's not only finite, it's trivial by modern standards -- the entire genome is, according to Wikipedia, just over 3 billion base pairs. If each can be A, T, G, or C, that's 4 options, so you can store it in 2 bits, or 4 of them to a byte, so about 750 million bytes -- just barely doesn't fit on a single CD-R.

None of the above paragraph really affects his argument, but it shows just how little he knows about information in the modern age.

Is there anything about this argument that is worth the time I just put into it?

Re:While I'm at it... (1)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188100)

Is there anything about this argument that is worth the time I just put into it?

Yes there is - it was an entertaining read. I enjoy reading analytical breakdowns of a creationist's stance, particularly when it uses a heavy dose of critical thinking. Thanks. :)

Re:"Every software engineer should be a creationis (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187666)

If you can't tell principals from principles, maybe a field that requires attention to detail and correct use of logic, grammar, and syntax isn't for you.

Bad test, right result (3, Informative)

Tester (591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36186892)

He says Gnome-Shell uses software rendering.. It's not true, fedora ships free 3D drivers for Intel, AMD/ATI and NVidia now.

Also, why use VLC when he could use Totem on all 3.And Why does he use apt-get in his test ?

Even though I like the result, it seems like a pretty lame test.

11.04 is the Vista of Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36186966)

Twice the memory is an understatement. Not to mention the removal of a ton of features. Boo, Natty. Come out with O. O. soon, and make it Gnome again, and more similar to 10.10

Re:11.04 is the Vista of Ubuntu (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187100)

You do realize it will be Gnome 3 though, right?

lol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187002)

it's about livecd performance. this is irrelevent to my interests as i'm much more interested in benchmarks for actual installs.

do people use livecd's for anything other than backtrack and repair? what's the point of this story?

Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

subreality (157447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187060)

I don't know why /. has it in for Unity, but I suspect the only reason this irrelevant piece is being posted is to get in their digs.

A proper usability study would be very interesting to see.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187138)

I used Unity for awhile. When it worked, it was sleek and sexy. However, it definitely ate up more RAM, and had issues with minimizing/maximizing windows. For awhile I dealt with it, but ultimately I just switched to the regular Gnome desktop, before getting fed up with that and moving on to Arch + LXDE (Im on a sorta underpowered netbook). However, if I had more RAM, and some bugs were ironed out of Unity, I would probably stick with it. It looked nice, I liked the placement of the "dock/sidebar thing", and it operated at a decent speed (When I wasn't pushing at the poor netbook's limits).

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187474)

Unity 2D might be better for your netbook. That's what I have running on mine and I haven't had any issues. You can get it from the Software Center and choose it when you log in.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (2)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187214)

I just installed 11.04 this evening.
The reason /, has it in for Unity is : Unity sucks. If you don't already know where to find something, you will never find it. In my 20+ years of using computers I've never had a UI hide the details of getting shit done nearly as well as Unity. Sure thing - if all you want to do is open Firefox or an office suite nobody on this board has ever used - it is pretty damn slick. But want to do anything 'normal' besides that (or God forbid : advanced!) and unless you know exactly what you are looking for before you start, you are fucked. There is no breadcrumb trail. There is no drilling down. You are pretty much shit out of luck.

10.04 - my favorite now, and may be for a while it seems.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (2)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187488)

Right click on the Applications icon in the launcher and your sorted categories are right there just like you use to have. Or use the drop down option when typing into the search area (to the far right) to limit to specific categories. Or just click Applications and expand the Installed section and everything you have is right there.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187674)

So far it typically takes me 2-3 times as many clicks to get what I want once I know where Unity has hidden it, compared to 10.10, or more when I don't, and no, "everything you have is right there" isn't true if you have more than a dozen or so things.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187820)

Keep in launcher (one click). Or frequently run apps will show up at the top of the applications window (two clicks). Everything installed shows up when you expand Installed (three clicks). Sort applications by right click (three clicks) or by dropdown (four clicks) to find something by category.

How are you taking 2-3 times as many clicks beyond maybe the first time?

Is number of clicks really a useful measure of usability? I'm sure it's not the only one...

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187490)

There is no breadcrumb trail. There is no drilling down. You are pretty much shit out of luck.

If only someone had thought to implement some sort of searching mechanism.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188158)

I use that, however it's really not an adequate replacement as if you don't know what the name of the software you're looking for is, good luck finding it with the search mechanism.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

Orffen (1994222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187608)

If you don't already know where to find something, you will never find it.

Hitting Search (meta key on your keyboard, or the Ubuntu logo up top left) and typing in what you're looking for translates to "hard to find" now? It's a better way of launch apps than going Applications > System > Terminal (or Accessories > Terminal, or wherever your particular distro hides the Terminal emulator).

Want to know what Remote Desktop applications are installed on your system? Hit search and type in "remote". On a clean install you should get 3 entries - one for setting up remote desktop access to your box, a VNC (I think) remote access client and the Terminal Services RDP client.

Same thing if you want to "pin" an app to the launcher - hit the + Apps button, search for what you want and chuck it in.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187884)

Gnome-shell is not that much better if you want to leave Ubuntu for another Linux OS. At least Unity has a minimize and maximize buttons. The developers at Gnome smirk and are proud that they took this ability away and used that argument on why its better not to have that option at all??

Both desktops seem to be built on a premise that people only run one app at a time in a multi user and multi tasking OS so lets do this because WebOS and Android all do it with the 3 inch screens. Lets pretend people will use their thumbs to move. ok ... done gripping.

All the usability is done. MacOSX and Windows maximize it. Sun donated large amounts of R&D to Gnome which is why it has a mac like interface with easily accessible components.

I have seen Unity at my sons school which uses Dell 9 mini netbooks running Ubuntu and I feel Unity is perfect running 4 or 5 apps that kids can find. But not for normal users with a bigger screen. Dragging windows instead of clicking is hard if you have a trackpad laptop with big hands. I do not like it. My hope is gnome shell 3.1 will have ways to stack and access running programs in 3d or a simple bottom bar like Windows/MacOSX.

Re:Test the thing that matters: Usability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187366)

It's just JUST slashdot. It's every forum I've seen discuss 11.04. *Everybody* hates Unity, and that's because it truly does suck.

I moved back to Kubuntu. Too bad a lot of people don't even know Kubuntu exists.

Why should we care? (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187168)

Pointless benchmarks. How about more commentary on usability speed? My fairly typical 2008-spec desktop rig has 4gb of RAM and my aging monitor is 1920x1080. My slightly battered old notebook is not even far behind this. So why do developers insist on making using as little memory as possible even if you happen to have an ass-load of it?

Why do they have to waste my time making me click extra, hiding things away just to save another 50px of screen real estate?

Since Natty, Linux usabilty seems to be is taking backwards steps.

Re:Why should we care? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188182)

Because, most people don't load up with 4gigs of ram (or more) just to run the desktop environment. Sure Unity doesn't use anywhere near 4 gigs, but every megabyte that's used by the desktop environment is a megabyte that's not available for whatever it is that you're using the computer for.

But more than that, the sort of sloppy coding practices which lead to bloat also lead to other problems, ones which are of larger importance.

At the end of the day, I know that it's not realistic to eliminate all the bloat, but there shouldn't be huge gobs of RAM being wasted because the developer couldn't be arsed to optimize things.

Comparing total memory usage is stupid (4, Informative)

fudoniten (918077) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187186)

Others have correctly pointed out that comparing memory usage on two different distros is pointless. On top of that, comparing total memory usage is stupid.

Look, you have memory in your system to be used. If you dug into it and found out that most of that memory consisted of massive, unused libraries, duplicate code, empty datastructures, or garbage that wasn't getting cleaned up, then sure, you could give it a hard time. But if it's full of cached images and icons so that the interface can be quicker and more responsive, well, isn't that why you have all that RAM?

A perfect program/OS would very quickly gobble up all available memory by storing and caching useful stuff...and then free it up the instant it was needed elsewhere. That turns out to be harder than it sounds, since procs generally don't know or care about totally memory usage, but still, the ideal should not be the opposite extreme.

Re:Comparing total memory usage is stupid (1)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187650)

Yes, but a lot of people don't understand this. The prefetch functionality of Vista/7 gobbles up free memory for this very purpose (and it does seem to help speed things up over time), however it's also one of the things people choose to bash them for without knowing how it works.

I will admit that 7 improved upon Vista in that it's a fair bit less aggressive than Vista. and won't prefetch much if there's limited RAM available, whereas Vista prefetches regardless of the impact of using what little RAM was available.

Re:Comparing total memory usage is stupid (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188192)

You could turn it off with Vista, or at least I think you could. I ran it for a bit with a half gig of RAM and didn't have any trouble doing it. I did turn off Aero, but then again my video card didn't support it anyways.

Re:Comparing total memory usage is stupid (1)

Orffen (1994222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187698)

Similar comments were made about memory usage when Vista was released, precisely because of caching and the OS keeping track of which apps you launch at which time so that they could be cached preemptively.

Some people just like seeing massive chunks of free memory :)

Using more memory to make things harder to find (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187700)

Maybe they're doing a great job of caching some things, but they're mostly hiding the applications I use and making me wait for the animated graphics to pop up different parts of the menu system so I can get at them, so I don't count that as a win.

So far, Unity has gotten me interested in taking the time to learn Lubuntu or Xubuntu, so it may end up having been useful, but I don't think that was how they intended it,

Re:Comparing total memory usage is stupid (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187754)

It is simple Slashdot editors don't like Unity so any benchmark no matter how bad that shows Unity in a bad light will be posted. Just like any article about Windows no matter how bad the facts if it shows Windows in a bad light will get published.

not enough to compare (1)

aahpandasrun (948239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187222)

Windows XP also uses more memory than Windows 3.1. Going on memory alone isn't enough to compare the two.

Re:not enough to compare (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187598)

Windows XP also uses more memory than Windows 3.1. Going on memory alone isn't enough to compare the two.

And yet Windows 7 runs better on low-spec PC than Vista. The former is loved while the latter is reviled. Sometimes using fewer system resources does matter.

But that said, any benchmark is really immaterial when compared to the user interface of a window manager.

Air Jordan 1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187238)

Jorden is in vogue in 2011.In order to pay back to all customers,there are different kinds of Cheap Air Jordan products for you ,such as Air Jordan 1, Air Jordan 3 and so on.If you have a desire to buy any Jorden goods,sincerely looking forward to your visit. http://www.airjordan113.com/ [airjordan113.com]

Comment Spammer cid=36187238 (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187708)

Hey, Admins, can you make that spammer go away?

smartphone interface. (2)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187408)

both gnome 3.0 and unity look like they were designed for smartphones and tablets.

The reason why the devs did this is because users are familiar with the smartphone interface, so putting the same interface on the linux desktop would make transition easier.

But - a 1900x1200 pixel pc desktop is not the same as a tiny 100x100 pixel smartphone screen. pc desktop users with a normal size keyboard and big sized monitor have very different requirements.

Am I being harsh here but ... (1)

SigmaTao (629358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187418)

Is this just self promotion?

Re:Am I being harsh here but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187448)

Yes, I think so. Go look at the rest of his blog entries. Clearly a creationist nutcase...

Benchmarks important, but... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187430)

Unity still has some quirky behavior, and frankly I'm just not a fan in general.

Gnome-shell is close, yet far away. It's more extensible seems like, which is promising. I just want two things:
-When I highlight an 'application icon' in the activities view, automatically show only the windows for that application in the window previews.
-Provide a means by which I can start typing and search window title bar contents (like KDE and Compiz Window Title Filter).

You have me sold on those two capabilities, which don't seem to exist. The gnome-shell-extensions have most of my other main requests covered.

Desktop Not Redrawing (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187570)

Ever since I upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04 my Desktop doesn't redraw. Whatever was the last app on the screen leaves its last bitmap up when I close the last app. And switching between apps takes about 700ms, even when there's not much going on.

My PC is an old P4/2.4GHz/2GB with Intel 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE integrated graphics, so Ubuntu refused to install Unity and left GNOME. Yeah, it's old, but one reason I prefer Linux to Windows (or Mac) is that I expect to get the full performance out of the old stuff, not the planned obsolescence of bloatware commercial OS'es. But am I stuck with a crappy desktop now? Forced to buy new HW to keep using my "free" OS?

Re:Desktop Not Redrawing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187844)

Maybe a lighter desktop environment would be more suitable for your hardware. Even with Ubuntu 10.10, your hardware would be pretty slow. Maybe try LXDE or XFCE.

Re:Desktop Not Redrawing (1)

Artemis3 (85734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188022)

I saw the same behavior with Xubuntu 11.04 using a Lenovo netbook. Luckily, being XFCE, i simply turned off compositing.
lspci shows the video as Intel 945GME. 3d is not really needed there, and i noted the machine freezing if leaving a 3d screensaver running for a while, so i changed that too.

Intel video drivers have degraded.

Re:Desktop Not Redrawing (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188098)

Are you seeing this behavior actually sitting at the desktop or are you using VNC?

Vino (aka Gnome Remote Desktop) has major redraw issues in 11.04. I installed x11vnc and it works like a champ with no performance issues.

Gnome3 and Unity... What's the difference? (1)

bsquizzato (413710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187736)

I started using Unity a few weeks ago. Now just taking a glance at the new features in Gnome3 seems like the same new features are offered... The sidebar, new window management, quick search to launch applications. Am I missing something? Are these 2 totally different projects that are delivering practically the same features to the end user?

Ram usage is not the whole story or even an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36187770)

I think it's an assumption that if something consumes more RAM that it therefore must be slower and not as responsive. To really say if a desktop environment responds faster you'd have to come up with a way to measure lag, not RAM usage, perhaps Unity is pre-loading items in RAM such that it will respond better to user input, I DON'T know this to be the case, I'm just saying, if we all run 2 GB + ram who care between 200 and 300 MB of usage by the desktop?

I've been using Unity for a few weeks, and while the new interface at first was annoying, I now find that I very much appreciate the way that the screen space is used, it's just not what everyone has always done, but I do think it's a better layout and functionality improvement.

Unity is a Compiz Plugin. (1)

drzin69 (1358429) | more than 3 years ago | (#36187832)

I guess I said it  Unity is a Compiz plug in.  I Yeah ad to brake it to figure that one out. So its a Plugin.......   So.... It going to use more system resources, simple because its not a native to Gnome, it is native to Compiz.   So... Just change your session  to "the classic Ubuntu"  done.

Well hate to say it (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36188046)

Hate to say it but they both suck anyway. Updated to 11.4 and unity. Took about 30 minutes to decide to try out Gnome 3. I should also mention I love(d) Gnome 2 with Cairo Dock and Compiz. Now Im back to KDE. Running 4.x. I persoally hate both Unity and Gnome 3. The interface is just pain awkwrd, and yes I took the tie to customize a bit hoping it would be usable by setting up my own task bars, icons etc....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...