×

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 11.10 Down To 12-Second Boot

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the faster-than-a-speeding-ocelot dept.

Stats 221

deadeyefred writes "Even though it's still only in alpha, it appears as though the forthcoming version of Ubuntu, version 11.10, will be much faster than earlier versions, according to this story. Quoting: 'After installing the OS onto a PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.00 GHz and a hard disk drive, we stop-watched boot-up time at 12 seconds — more than three seconds faster than the previous best time we’ve measured.' It looks as if the switch from GDM to LightDM will have a significant impact as Ubuntu gets closer to 'instant on' status."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

221 comments

HDD -- SSD (2)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876344)

I wonder what the boot time would be with SSDs?

Re:HDD -- SSD (3, Informative)

zonky (1153039) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876392)

I have a HP Probook 5320m with SSD, with Full Disk Encryption (dmcrypt) running 11.04 x64. After entering my FDE keyphrase, i am at login window in around 3-4 seconds.

Re:HDD -- SSD (1)

spblat (26399) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876406)

My wife's 2010 MacBook Air running Lion provides a login prompt 16 seconds after you touch the power button.

Re:HDD -- SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877038)

>After you touch the power button

To take it out of sleep mode, you mean? That's how they achieve their so called "instant on".

Re:HDD -- SSD (2)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877658)

After sleep mode the average Mac (SSD or not) takes 1 sec to come out of sleep, about 1s out of hibernation. IF (does anyone still turn off their laptop?) you turn off or reboot you get to a login prompt in about 16s. Even on non-SSD machines this is about similar, Snow Leopard and Lion use compressed directories to store much of the system and let the (ultrafast) memory and CPU handle the uncompressing while using less (ultraslow) hard disk bandwidth and seek time. I guess if you can get a compressed EXT4 or ZFS to boot Ubuntu off it would be at least 30-50% faster.

Re:HDD -- SSD (2)

krray (605395) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876578)

You'll spend more time in the POST than you will booting the OS up...

Re:HDD -- SSD (1, Flamebait)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877314)

Hell I think that is SOP with all OSes these days. Windows 7 optimizes files for boot performance, although rankly hybrid sleep has gotten so good I tell customers don't even bother with shutdown unless prompted for a reboot for some reason, just put her to sleep, Apple has always had excellent sleep from what I've been told, and now Ubuntu has 12 second boots.

But to me the problem with Linux was never boot or resource usage, both were usually great, but the drivers being borked all the time. When is Canonical gonna make some sort of universal driver repo that you can just click a "find drivers" button and it'll download and compile or configure the drivers FOR you, so you don't need forum hunts? Hell at least have a driver rollback button like Windows has had since Win2K so if an upgrade borks a driver you can rollback. The whole thing reminds me of this classic XKCD [xkcd.com] .

But if any Canonical devs are reading this? Congrats. You guys already have a nice OS, plenty of features, several DEs to choose from, lots of software, if y'all would fix the driver breakage problem my shelves would have plenty of Ubuntu boxes next to the Windows ones. Good luck guys and congrats again!

Re:HDD -- SSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877602)

> When is Canonical gonna make some sort of universal driver repo that you can just click a "find drivers" button and it'll download and compile or configure the drivers FOR you, so you don't need forum hunts?

There is no need whatsoever to do this for any system based on Intel graphics or ATI graphics, as these open source drivers are distributed with (and updated with) the Linux distribution.

This means that these days a machine based on nVidia must really be considered as not suitable for running Linux. If you want to run Linux well, don't attempt to do it on a machine with nVidia graphics. Linux and nVidia graphics are simply not designed for each other (compared to Intel or ATI/AMD graphics).

If you run a Linux on a machine with Intel graphics or AMD/ATI graphics, you will enjoy a better experience (in terms of drivers) than you would with Windows.

Re:HDD -- SSD (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878486)

There is no need whatsoever to do this for any system based on Intel graphics or ATI graphics, as these open source drivers are distributed with (and updated with) the Linux distribution.

Well, except that with many intel graphics systems, you have to choose between different sets of drivers that are broken in different ways (both open source and closed), so, yeah, the exact problem referred to upthread is particularly likely.

This means that these days a machine based on nVidia must really be considered as not suitable for running Linux. If you want to run Linux well, don't attempt to do it on a machine with nVidia graphics. Linux and nVidia graphics are simply not designed for each other (compared to Intel or ATI/AMD graphics).

IME, nVidia graphics work a lot better than Intel graphics on Linux. "Open source drivers are included with most distributions" is not the same thing as "drivers which work well are included with most distributions".

Re:HDD -- SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877906)

When is Canonical gonna make some sort of universal driver repo that you can just click a "find drivers" button and it'll download and compile or configure the drivers FOR you, so you don't need forum hunts?

Download the lastest Ubuntu, search for Driver in the Unity menu, click on 'Alternative Drivers' or something like that, smile, ???, profit.

Re:HDD -- SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878374)

Hell I think that is SOP with all OSes these days. Windows 7 optimizes files for boot performance, although rankly hybrid sleep has gotten so good I tell customers don't even bother with shutdown unless prompted for a reboot for some reason, just put her to sleep, Apple has always had excellent sleep from what I've been told, and now Ubuntu has 12 second boots.

But to me the problem with Linux was never boot or resource usage, both were usually great, but the drivers being borked all the time. When is Canonical gonna make some sort of universal driver repo that you can just click a "find drivers" button and it'll download and compile or configure the drivers FOR you, so you don't need forum hunts? Hell at least have a driver rollback button like Windows has had since Win2K so if an upgrade borks a driver you can rollback. The whole thing reminds me of this classic XKCD [xkcd.com] .

But if any Canonical devs are reading this? Congrats. You guys already have a nice OS, plenty of features, several DEs to choose from, lots of software, if y'all would fix the driver breakage problem my shelves would have plenty of Ubuntu boxes next to the Windows ones. Good luck guys and congrats again!

Exact opposite here: Hibernate in Windows 7 is a nightmare that takes me 20 minutes to recover from. I use it for business, so I am constantly switching networks, running 20 apps at once, so shutting down is not an option often. Hibernate and sleep are awful with my laptop. Linux hibernate works perfectly fine, and if you buy known-working hardware, the drivers are in the kernel, pal.

Re:HDD -- SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878778)

They have. Its called the 'hardware drivers' thingie the control panel. Used to be called 'restricted drivers' I think. Distro-independent drivers are supplied by the linux kernel: in other words, linux comes with the drivers.

Re:HDD -- SSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878848)

What are you fucking bipolar or something? One day you are talking shit about Linux and now you are faintly praising it. Eat shit, part switcher.

Re:HDD -- SSD (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876788)

Well my boot time is maybe 4 seconds from Grub to Desktop with 11.04. I could only imagine the new boot time.

Re:HDD -- SSD (1)

slinches (1540051) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877360)

It'll go from 4 seconds to ~3.2 seconds assuming boot is limited only by read speed. The bulk of the time will still be in POST, unfortunately. Anybody hear of new motherboards that have reduced POST times?

Re:HDD -- SSD (2)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877488)

I have to be honest, I'm so blown away by the boot time I really don't even care if it gets faster. SSD Is now the only drive type I buy, there so much faster that it's hard to go back to normal disks. Anyone who made the move will know what I mean, if you haven't don't because the speed change is to awesome.

Re:HDD -- SSD (1)

slinches (1540051) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878548)

I agree completely. It takes me longer to type in my password than it does to load the OS. I was just trying to point out that the time from boot loader to usable system is no longer the long pole and it might make sense to focus more on the hardware initialization side. I also think there's still room for HDDs where large amounts of storage space is needed, but I won't build another computer without a SSD to put the OS on, at least until something better comes along.

Re:HDD -- SSD (2)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877700)

Well, I'm running Ubuntu 10.10 on an SSD. The boot time is subdivided as follows:

1) ~10 seconds for the BIOS to load and start grub
2) ~10 seconds for Ubuntu to get to the login screen
2.5) Optional 2 hour wait if Ubuntu decides to fsck all partitions again
3) Upon login, ~30 second wait while the Nvidia driver try to configure the HDMI video.

Overall, I can just about live with it. Unfortunately though, hibernate and suspend no longer work, so things could be a lot better.

Re:HDD -- SSD (2)

WillKemp (1338605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878228)

2.5) Optional 2 hour wait if Ubuntu decides to fsck all partitions again

It's not "ubuntu" that decides, it's the file system. You can stop it happening by setting the number of times the file system can be mounted before checking to 0 with tune2fs. For example:

tune2fs -c 0 /dev/sda1

bootloader (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876362)

does this include the bootloader?

Grub?
Lilo?

Re:bootloader (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877550)

No one really uses Lilo any more really. Grub is a much more robust system and versatile. I don't see any mention of if it was from pressing the start button or from the boot loader loading up. I'm willing to believe that it's from pressing the on button rather than from the boot loader loading.

Boot times? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876366)

How many people actually reboot their Linux systems? I guess if you're on a laptop you might sometimes, but I just use Sleep functionality instead of cycles.

Still, a good (even if by now esoteric) achievement.

Re:Boot times? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876438)

How many people actually reboot their Linux systems?

Anybody who applies a kernel update, now that Oracle has acquired Ksplice.

I guess if you're on a laptop you might sometimes, but I just use Sleep functionality instead of cycles.

My Dell Mini 10 runs Ubuntu 11.04. Leaving it in sleep for a couple days will fully drain the battery. So if I know I'm not going to be near a charger for several hours, I shut it down.

Re:Boot times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36876506)

There is still kexec, which doesn't depend on ksplice.

Also note - nothing prevents many kernel updates from being done online.

Things like drivers and filesystems (non boot disk that is) can be updated and reloaded. Video drivers can be, but there are some limits there, most such "drivers" are actually part of the X server.

Re:Boot times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36876904)

>Anybody who applies a kernel update, now that Oracle has acquired Ksplice.

Because no one can fork an open source project....

Who'll make such a fork? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878336)

What organization will have the manpower to fork and maintain Ksplice? Writing and thoroughly testing the patches needed for semantic changes to each distribution's kernel takes considerable human effort, as I understand it.

Re:Boot times? (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877112)

oooh noooos. Oracle acquired Ksplice? Oh well look for Oracle to sue the pants of anyone for implementing any such open source version of that feature in Linux within the next 20 years :-(

Re:Boot times? (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876772)

I never used to, opting for sleep mode instead of shutdown. Now that I have SSDs I am able to use hibernate and get it to power back about as fast as sleep mode. Hibernate is basically shutdown with a ram image stored on the drive.

Re:Boot times? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878216)

Still not a shutdown since you don't need to re-open your documents, restart any services, unmount drives, etc. Hibernate is a LOT closer to suspend than shutdown.

Re:Boot times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36876796)

I have different distros installed at different partitions and reboot to switch. I also shutdown when done with the computer or when a storm is coming.

My media PC gets shut off a lot (2)

Wee (17189) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876808)

I typically don't run the media PC hooked up to my TV unless I'm actually watching a movie or listening to music. Because of a hardware peculiarity, the power button won't put it into standby like my desktop PC. So I just leave it shut off unless I'm using it. It's got 10.04 on it now and boot time is about 30 seconds (never timed it, I usually turn it on and head to he kitchen for a drink). I'd love a fast boot time.

-B

Re:Boot times? (2)

cuby (832037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877002)

I shutdown my laptops a lot.
Hibernate takes forever to recover (I don't run only firefox...), so I don't use it.
Slep is Ok but for 2 or 3 times I forgot a laptop for several days and the battery got completely dead. Needless to say that its charge capacity is now around +-20%. Li-ion batteries should no be completely discharged.
Now I think twice before using sleep.
(I use Ubuntu)

Re:Boot times? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877820)

How many people actually reboot their Linux systems?

Probably at least a few more when this rolls out and sleep instead of shutdown only saves 12 seconds.

Re:Boot times? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878516)

That 12 seconds does not include restarting all your applications, typing in ssh agent passwords, and all the other foo required to resume your normal working environment.

Re:Boot times? (1)

oursland (1898514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878676)

That's not true. Because the boot time is 12 seconds doesn't mean that all my applications are loaded and opened to the same files, websites, etc. as when I was using the laptop. Sleep does that, shutting down does not.

Re:Boot times? (1)

cdh (6170) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877960)

I do on my laptop because at work I use a docking station and things get wonky if I try to undock. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it's basically just easier to shutdown.

Re:Boot times? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878252)

My laptop gets rebooted quite frequently due to dual-boot (games), but my server has been up for 153 days now (about 5 months). They both run arch.

I can't believe ubuntu still takes that long. My laptop automatically starts apache, mysql, and a bunch of other services (I do web development on it) at startup and I'd be surprised if it took 10 seconds (not counting POST and grub timeouts).

Re:Boot times? (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878794)

>How many people actually reboot their Linux systems?

Desktop and servers hardly ever...

>I guess if you're on a laptop you might sometimes, but I just use >Sleep functionality

Laptop is powered off every time I am done with using it...I never use sleep, hibernate, its buggy and prone to lossing work if you don't save it every 1 uS... never had it work on Linux or any other OS *reliabably* meaning 100% operation 100% of the time, no OOOPPS! I've deceived I don't want to come back on and have to pull the battery to get the thing to even boot... and loose anything or totaly meltdown of file systems etc... pass no thanks....

Power on, do my thing, power off, pack up and move on...

"a PC"?!? (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876376)

...a PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3.00 GHz and a hard disk drive...

Well, that's a specific Intel CPU, and we know it has an unspecified hard drive.

What actual hardware did they use, so that we can reproduce their results?

Thanks,
-- Terry

define "boot up" (1)

whtmarker (1060730) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876398)

I have always been confused when I see ubuntu boot-up times. Does this mean boot to the login screen or boot to a usable desktop via 'autologin'?

Autologin and WLAN keys (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876484)

I used to use autologin until I realized I had to enter my password anyway to unlock the keyring in which the WLAN keys (WEP/WPA) are stored. Is there still a practical benefit to autologin on a laptop?

Re:Autologin and WLAN keys (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876910)

You realize that you can easily remove the password prompt on the keyring by nuking your keyring and not entering a password when it asks for it the next time?

That said, I still have to enter my password on my laptop, despite using autologin, because I have it set to lock the screen on startup. (prefer entering password through locked screen, because the network and other services start up earlier).

Re:Autologin and WLAN keys (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878230)

If you encrypt the whole disk (except the boot partition) as a LUKS volume, having to also login manually is just a nuisance.

when did you start the timer? (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876426)

When the heck did you start that timer? Bios on many computers takes 5 to 15 seconds. Starting after post I can (and do) boot XP on a 1.6 Ghz single core celeron with 1Gb ram in 20 seconds. By the same yardstick I would hardly call that "instant".

Re:when did you start the timer? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877216)

I have dual boot machine and only use Windows when I have to, Xp boots 40s for me (after boot screen). Although I have quite a lot programs installed (Virtuawin,Avast,uTorrent). On the other hand on Ubuntu I don't need antivirus, has multiple desktops by default and qtorrent loads pretty fast.
Also, it seems that as the number of intsalled buy not daemon programs can slow down Windows by the high amount of registry entries. On Linux it doesn't matter how many programs you install.

How long (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876430)

does it take to get flash and java working in the browser on a 64 bit system though?

Re:How long (1)

mhh91 (1784516) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876542)

I can have both working in less than 15 minutes, the choice of the distribution doesn't really matter as long as it's linux.

Rebooting in the Age of Hibernation? (1)

Kohlrabi82 (1672654) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876432)

I will savour the three seconds which I save each half a year.

Also, a 20% decrease might sound like much, but when we're talking about 15 seconds vs. 12 seconds, it's just not something most people will even notice at all.

Fast enough HD to restore all of RAM (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876520)

Hibernation?

Provided your hardware is fully supported. A lot of PCs that I've used have no video or no sound after coming out of hibernation. And provided that your hard drive is fast enough to restore the entirety of RAM from the swap file faster than a 12-second boot.

I will savour the three seconds which I save each half a year.

If you reboot only twice a year, how do you remain protected against newly discovered (and fixed) defects in the kernel or other long-running processes?

Re:Fast enough HD to restore all of RAM (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877466)

I've never been able to get any PC with an ATI card to hibernate correctly in linux, and I've found very little help on the topic. The best document I've found about the suspend process is here, and it is specific only to Ubuntu:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnderstandingSuspend [ubuntu.com]

Suspend works on my laptop, but it will overheat when I place it in my bag. I really would like to get hibernate to work.

Re:Rebooting in the Age of Hibernation? (1)

Jamu (852752) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876532)

Personally, unless it takes longer than the time it takes me to hit the power button and go and make a coffee, it's never going to be an issue.

What a time-saver! (1)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876436)

Those extra three seconds during my monthly reboot are really going to add up!

Re:What a time-saver! (3, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876778)

Those extra three seconds during my monthly reboot are really going to add up!

That's what I was thinking. If the only advantage of switching from GDM to LightDM is that they can book 3 seconds faster, it's not worth it. Going from 15 seconds to 12 seconds is not significant at all.

In fact, here's a simpler rule. If you need to use your stopwatch to determine whether the boot sequence got faster or not, then it's not significant.

Re:What a time-saver! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36876940)

Of course it's fucking significant... not every Linux is running on a desktop. 3 seconds taken off "cold start -> ready to use" is massive for a mobile phone/tablet.

cool (2)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876502)

but unity still sucks

Re:cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36876552)

and forever will

Re:cool (3, Insightful)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876936)

I hate Unity so much... I wiped the system and installed 10.04 again. I was perfectly happy with Gnome and the way things were set up.

The problem, is that it's form trumping functionality. I hate Windows because they push 'features' onto you even if you don't want them. Microsoft knows what you want, and if you don't want it that way, it just means the problem must be you.

The king of this trend is of course Apple, but then again they sell to a peculiar market anyway. It's like those people buy a car because it's pretty and do not even inquire about the mileage.

Ubuntu was free of it, but now they are going the same way. They decide what you want, if you want it or not.

Re:cool (0)

DCFusor (1763438) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877668)

Agree -- all my linux machines are 10.4. Ran some of the newer stuff in virtual box. Ewwww, it stank utterly. I don't need the opsys itself to be entertaining, I just want it to load my programs and get the heck out of the way, except for providing them services. Done. 10.4 does that, the newer stuff, not. Hope they get over it before the next LTS, or I'll be distro shopping myself.

Re:cool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878198)

I hate Unity so much... I wiped the system and installed 10.04 again.

There is of course a much easier solution ... install and run the KDE desktop.

Enjoy!

Re:cool (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878444)

I hate Unity so much... I wiped the system and installed 10.04 again.

That's crazy overkill; Unity is just the _default_ shell. Choose "Ubuntu Classic" from your login manager, and you'll see the familiar Gnome interface.

How to get rid of Ubuntu's weird "Unity" launchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878442)

Choose "Ubuntu Classic" from the login screen's bottom-center-right menu for the old program menus. This setting persists.

What point did they start timing? (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876576)

Heck, my computer takes more than 12 seconds to hand over to any OS... I mean, graphics card initialization, POST, initializing 3 RAID controllers.... probably at least 15-20 seconds before the OS gets a chance... I'm pretty sure every modern OS I've tried on my machine can boot to a functional desktop on a fresh install in less time than the BIOS takes...

Debian concurrent boot (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876672)

Why does Ubuntu get all the credit? Isn't this Debian's new system for running init scripts concurrently at work?

Re:Debian concurrent boot (2)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876736)

If you're referring to upstart, IIRC that was actually an Ubuntu (Canonical) project.

Re:Debian concurrent boot (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876794)

No, I wasn't; hadn't heard of Upstart. Debian does have a concurrent boot system, which is now the default in squeeze, but apparently this is an area where Debian and Ubuntu are doing their own things. I withdraw my original comment!

Re:Debian concurrent boot (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877856)

... 'cause we wouldn't want to do something crazy like come up with a single new standard for running concurrent init scripts! http://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Debian concurrent boot (1)

oursland (1898514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878710)

Blame Ubuntu for that, in this instance. Most systems had a functioning SysV init, with a few holdouts opting for a BSD style init. Then Ubuntu created their own. Debian's system is still SysV init, but the scripts all have a LSB header on them. No new standard, just evolving a system that works.

Re:Debian concurrent boot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878088)

I would not want credit for upstart.

It made a non-standard, unreadable mess out of bootup.

systemd is a step in the right direction, though the upstart may slow such a transition.

Re:Debian concurrent boot (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878118)

1: It isn't new, it's been in testing/unstable for 2 years by now. 2: This isn't Debian's init system, because this takes longer to get to a usable desktop on a 2011 3GHz multicore than that takes on my eee701 with a 630MHz Celeron.

So what? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36876876)

I thought a major advantage of Linux was supposed to be that you only had to boot it once and then it ran forever...

Re:So what? (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877678)

I thought a major advantage of Linux was supposed to be that you only had to boot it once and then it ran forever...

A well deserved reputation. However there are such things as power interruptions, kernel upgrades, physical relocation of a workstation, hardware changes. My Shuttle SD11G5 running as a server (quiet enough for always-on in the home) has typical uptime of a few months.

There is also kernel development in which boot time can easily dominate the development cycle, indirectly affecting kernel quality and hence every user.

It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877016)

It doesn't matter. You know why? Because I've just updated my Ubuntu to 11.04 (thinking: hey, it's been long enough, they've probably polished out silly issues) and now VLC doesn't work anymore. Google has hundreds of complaints on forums but apparently no one-solution-fits-all answer (extension "XFree86-DRI" missing on display ":0").

As long as developers and packagers can afford to have this kind of fuckups on a regular basis, it will be easier for me to dual-boot win7.

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877514)

Why the fuck are you using XFree86? Wasn't that depreciated 6 or 7 years ago?

Also, you still have mplayer.

Power (1)

DeeEff (2370332) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877144)

Now if only we could control those pesky, random power consumption bugs from the 11.04 kernel.........

I kid I kid. I don't know if that specific issue still affects people because I haven't upgraded, but I plan on installing either 11.10 or 12.04 when they come out.

This is still pretty impressive stuff though, good job Canonical.

Try it on a current processor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877282)

E8400 Core 2 Duo is more than a couple of years old. Be interesting to try this on a Sandy Bridge generation Core i7 (and yes, with and SSD)
Should be less than 60% of that time.

Re:Try it on a current processor... (1)

DCFusor (1763438) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877690)

You ought to see *any* opsys on a huge 8 thread i9 with SSD. Bios takes far longer than the opsys, in my case ubuntu 10.4 64 bit (because I have 16 gigs ram on that box).

Sweet! (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877432)

Now ubuntu can go from cold boot to crashing apps faster than windows! Ah, bug #1 will be solved any day now.

P.S. Mint has been better since 9.04

Sod how fast it is, fix some damn bugs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877676)

I dunno about anyone else, but i've found the last 3 or 4 releases to be increasingly unstable. It's starting to hack me off. White boxes when playing flash, missing window decorations (intermittently), 1px Stay Tray icons... the list goes on. Most annoyingly, I can't even get the native nvidia drivers working. I know i'm not on my own

Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36877702)

When are we going to see it used by default on Ubuntu instead of X?

Re:Wayland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36878634)

My guess, probably in 12.10, after the next LTS release. No need to come out with yet unproven tech with a LTS coming after Oneiric is released.

LightDM (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877954)

I am glad to see the use of LightDM -- hopefully this reduction of bloat on the desktop will continue. It is not just a matter of boot times but also CPU & RAM usage. This might not seem important of a new top of the range machine, but is great when running on a netbook or a PC that is affordable in the 3rd world.

One of the nice things about Linux was that it was lean & mean, then the desktop guys trashed that reputation.

Boot times mean nothing (2)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877962)

They are a retarded thing to try and 'show-off'. Who cares that it takes you 12 seconds to start doing something, when the system you load into can't even get past screwing things up release after release. Ubuntu needs to fix it's many recurring, regressions, and add some functionality to other wise lacking programs/code.

Boot time vs. actually doing something useful (4, Insightful)

saccade.com (771661) | more than 2 years ago | (#36877992)

I'm always skeptical of these "Boots in N seconds!" claims. Because often it takes another few -minutes- to log in, launch an application, and start doing something useful. We need a new metric. Say, the time it takes from power on to fully loading an uncached copy of example.com in a browser.

Lubuntu (1)

twocows (1216842) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878148)

I'm looking forward to the first official-status release of Lubuntu as part of the Ubuntu family. I wonder what its boot time will be?

That's really great (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#36878744)

That's really great. But I hope they remove Unity for 11.10, I've been using Windows until they fix it.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...