×

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 Beta Released

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the heron-your-chest dept.

Software 214

markybob writes "Ubuntu Hardy 8.04 beta has been released. It features GNOME 2.22 and uses Linux kernel 2.6.24. Furthermore, it uses Firefox 3 beta 4, and PulseAudio is enabled by default. To ease the transition of Windows users, it includes Wubi, which allows users to install and uninstall Ubuntu like any other Windows application. It does not require a dedicated partition, nor does it affect the existing bootloader, yet users can experience a dual-boot setup almost identical to a full installation."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

Don't Care (-1, Offtopic)

anand78 (832850) | about 6 years ago | (#22818874)

I am happy with OpenSUSE 10.3

Re:Don't Care (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819180)

That's great, now go away and let adults have the discussion which is so irrevelant to you.

Actually (-1, Troll)

El Lobo (994537) | about 6 years ago | (#22820062)

me think that all Linuzz distros are concentrating toooooo hard to be a Windows replacement and to get more and more Windows users, when the thing they should do is to keep being a better Linuzzz for Linuzzz user and let Windows users be Windows Users or Mak users and whatever.

Hell, even there are some wise words somewhere out there that say "Linuzz is not Windows, and it's not trying to be". Well, let keep things so. If I want to use Linuzz I will do so because I want to use it by it's values not because it is a Windows clone. That's one thing. Another thing: as a Linuzz contributor (which, believe it or not, I am), i couldn't care less about how many users I will get...

Re:Actually (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | about 6 years ago | (#22820292)

Another thing: as a Linuzz contributor (which, believe it or not, I am), i couldn't care less about how many users I will get...

If you are truly a contributor why do you insist on trolling by using "Linuzz"? It detracts from anything you may say, positive or negative, with regard to Linux.

WUBI? (3, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | about 6 years ago | (#22818894)

Anyone have any information about this? I prefer having a linux environment but my work laptop *must* run windows thanks to company software. This seems like it may be a much better solution for me compared to, say, cygwin.

Re:WUBI? (4, Informative)

SpecTheIntro (951219) | about 6 years ago | (#22818936)

I think it's new enough that there isn't a lot of first-hand experience with it. The FAQ [wubi-installer.org] describes it in Alpha, although the download link refers to it as Beta... in any case, my suspicion is that it is likely not very stable yet. You may want to experiment with it on a home PC before putting it on your work laptop.

Re:WUBI? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 6 years ago | (#22819034)

It you are planning on installing it on a work laptop, my only advise (I have not tried this at all) is to make sure there is a documented uninstall process.

Re:WUBI? (5, Informative)

binaryspiral (784263) | about 6 years ago | (#22818950)

Take a look at http://wubi-installer.org/ [wubi-installer.org] and see for your self. Essentially it uses a large file on your windows OS as the file system. When you install it, it modifies your bootloader to give you the option of booting to that machine.

If you decide you don't like it, just reboot into Windows and uninstall it via add/remove programs.

Performance is slightly slower due to the extra hoops your *nix OS has to jump through, but you won't notice if you're running on modern hardware. I liken it to being able to boot to a VMWare image.

Re:WUBI? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819312)

So it's like UMSDOS? A good idea though, ZipSlack [slackware.com] was the easy way to try Linux that got me started.

Re:WUBI? (4, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | about 6 years ago | (#22819998)

There's a small difference. UMSDOS was a (ugly, but useful) hack that allowed to use FAT files and directories as if they were UNIX-like files and directories. So even if you booted in MSDOS/win you could read the linux files. WUBI is different: It stores a whole Linux filesystem in a file. Wubi then mounts the NTFS filesystem with NTFS-3G, and the big file containing the linux filesystem is mounted with the loop device as an ext (or reiser, or whatever) filesystem.

Re:WUBI? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819710)

Thank you Captain Obvious -- I knew all that before even reading your bs explanation. Now you're going to tell me that Virtualbox pwns all those solutions.

** How does this compare with VMWare server perf? (5, Informative)

scuba_steve_1 (849912) | about 6 years ago | (#22819736)

I use (the free) VMWare Server (not ESX) on Windows boxes for various Linux installs...including Ubuntu. I do not understand an earlier comment stating that VMWare Server is complex. You install it as a Windows application, fire it up, select "new VM", choose a linux distro (Ubuntu 32 and 64 are options) for the VM architecture, and away you go...you now have a VM ready for a Linux install. The Live Ubuntu CD works with no issues...as does the default Ubuntu install.

You can also tweak the number of processors, hard disk size, and memory that you assign to the VM, but VMWare suggests low-end (working) default values. I have run VMWare on numerous machines (laptops, desktops, servers) and it just plain works. It is a fantastic way to test out various distros without putting the Windows partition at risk. If you take the time to mount and install VMWare Tools in the VM's hosted OS, switching back and forth between the host and guest OSes (including copying and pasting) is a breeze. You can also have as many VMs (and OSes) installed as you please. Want to play with 8.04 without losing 7.10? No problem. Create a new VM.

Downsides include:

  - It is virtualized. Thus, it is going to run significantly slower than a native install.

  - You are limited by the types of hardware architectures that VMWare simulates. That said, I have not had issues getting any sound or graphics card to work...and the networking options are fantastic. I cannot get access to all four cores however. The free VMWare server only allows me to create a VM that simulates either 1 or 2 CPUs...and I am not sure how many cores the VMWare container is using.

  - Memory...since Windows is still running, it needs its share. Thus, you need a lot.

Of course, on the positive side, Windows is still running...so you have access to whatever you need there (e.g., Outlook, games, whatever). You can also run in reverse, and run VMWare on Linux and install Windows in a VM, but I dare say that most of us are in a situation that requires (or prefers) the VMWare on Windows approach.

I assume that Windows is not running in the WUBI option and that Ubuntu is running right on the metal (not virtualized), with full access to the real hardware architecture and all of the memory. Putting the HD in a Windows file must have some performance impact, but most likely far less than the entire OS in a VM (which also uses the Windows file approach for the HD). Does anyone have anecdotal performance impressions for WUBI? It sounds very cool and a great option for someone who is not yet committed...but I will say that I am not much of a fan of modifying the boot loader, but perhaps I am just being overly skittish.

Steve

No ntfs-3g? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 6 years ago | (#22820396)

By your comment about performance being "slightly" slower, and that you "won't notice if you're running on modern hardware", I take it that this is the pseudo read/write mode provided by the kernel NTFS drivers -- that is, you can only read/write to a file, but you can't change any of its attributes, including size, and you can't create or destroy files.

In other words, it's a mode that's really only useful for creating disk images, for things like a Linux filesystem, or swap. Not really like umsdos at all.

I don't actually know this to be true, but I do know that ntfs-3g (which provides full read/write access) is slow enough that I think I would notice the difference if my root filesystem was mounted loopback off of it.

Re:WUBI? (1)

vil3nr0b (930195) | about 6 years ago | (#22819000)

I "must" run windows as well at work. I installed Fedora Core 8 on the company provided Dell laptop. I did the ole skool Partition Magic to create two 50 gb partitions. With Fedora Core Live CD it took care of the rest. I was also able to verify the OS picked up the drivers for the laptop before deciding to actually put it on the system. I am a linux noob, but love Fedora and the ease of the dual boot option.

Re:WUBI? (5, Interesting)

SpydeZ (1196075) | about 6 years ago | (#22819090)

If you *must* run windows for company apps, then Wubi probably isn't for you. It's more of a dual-boot type thing, cept it uses a file on your windows partition as it's 'hard drive'.

You might want to try out andLinux [andlinux.org]. It's a full on linux that integrates seamlessly inside of windows.

Personally, dual-booting is kind of a drag because of the constant reboots to get into Windows to do that one Windows-only thing, so I like cygwin or andLinux over Wubi.

Re:WUBI? (5, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | about 6 years ago | (#22819346)

You could also look at innotek's VirtualBox. It's pretty fast if you've got an Intel or AMD CPU with the virtualization instructions, and there's a GPL version that lacks a few features like letting the VM see USB drives.

Another free option is Qemu Manager, which is a free Windows frontend to the free QEMU. Not as fast as VirtualBox on a virtualization-enabled PC, but not bad if you enable the KQEMU dynamic recompiler. There's also MS's Virtual PC, but IME QEMU and VirtualBox work a little better with Linux. And lastly, of course, there's VMWare Server, although IME it's a little harder to set up.

Re:WUBI? (1)

Angry Toad (314562) | about 6 years ago | (#22819406)

I wish I had some mod points right now for this - I'm currently in a similar situation where I'm locked down in to Windows for 80% of everything I do and my laptop is too mission-critical to even think about messing with the partitions. VirtualBox has been a godsend, even though it seems slightly blasphemous to be virtualizing linux under Windows.

Re:WUBI? (4, Insightful)

strabes (1075839) | about 6 years ago | (#22819304)

My advice is to wait for the final release of hardy, which should be rock solid stable. It is still decently buggy at this point.

Re:WUBI? (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | about 6 years ago | (#22819376)

I use vmware which works great if you have 2GB of memory or so. (You can run it on a lot less, but I find 2GB is enough to mean that I don't have to worry about it running, and can just leave it always on)

Alternative : LiveUSB (4, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | about 6 years ago | (#22819616)

In addition to what other /.ers said about WUBI, there's also the possibility to use Live USB distribution.
PenDrive Linux [pendrivelinux.com] has a lot of resources about this kind of distributions.
I've been using their Quick and easy Pendrivelinux [pendrivelinux.com] for quite some time.
You can buy commercial preinstalled ones from companies like Mandriva Flash [mandriva.com].

It works to a very similar way to WUBI, but on a flash drive.
Essentially it puts 2* big files that contain the file system on the USB drive, and make the USB stick bootable using "syslinux". You start it by hitting F12 when the BIOS starts and choose to boot on the USB drive instead of your hard drive.
(whereas WUBI puts a big file with the partition /on the windows drive/ and adds a new entry to the Windows boot loader to make the system. So you boot you hard drive normally and then use Windows XP's boot menu to select Linux instead of WinXP).

So in that solution, your hard drive is virtually untouched (not that creating a file and adding an entry are *that* much big change) so it may please more the paranoid admins at your company.

Last-but-not-least there's also the running-Linux-inside-Virtualbox [virtualbox.org] (or some other virtual machines that have native-speed performance) solution. It's a bit complicated, but has the benefit of letting you run your Linux apps along side the Windows desktop (with possibilities for native integration, either using a X-Window server for Win32, or using the virtual machine's client tools).

* - most Live USB solutions tend to use 2 files : one is a big read-only file containing the live system, the other is read-writeable and used to store and remember modification (newly installed software, upgrades, user settings, user's home, etc.) between session.
This is because most Live USB distribution are descendant of Live CD distribution (where the CD-Rom is read only and holds the live distro and a RAM-disk holds the modification, using a UNIONFS to bridge the 2 together).
The big advantage of this system is that in case of a big fuckup, you can still reboot using only the original live system (just like a LiveCD) and fix/rebuild/create a new read-write big file.
Of course there are also other solutions for partitioning and installing linux on a USB stick the same way you install it on a harddrive.

Re:WUBI? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819640)

A working Linux system requires at least 3 parts:
1) a root filesystem, where the bulk of the files that comprises the system reside
2) a kernel which understands your hardware (or at least the disk hardware and filesystem format and of the root filesystem, other parts can all be loaded as modules later on)
3) a boot loader, which is executed by the BIOS, and knows where to locate and execute the kernel

In most common Linux installs, the root filesystem resides on a dedicated partition on the first hard disk, usually in the ext3 format. The kernel is often a also in this partition, but can be in a seperate /boot partition. Its location is unimportant as long as the bootloader know where to find it: you could put it on a FAT partition and use a DOS based bootloader like loadlin if you want. Nowadays the standard Linux bootloader is Grub, which understands many common Linux filesystems like ext3, jfs, reiserfs, so if you put you kernel on one if those filesystems it can boot.

Wubi makes use of the fact that the Linux kernel can mount single files as if they were disks/partitions. This is called loopback mounting a file, and many users have already used it at some point when mounting .iso files. But that file must still reside on some other partition/filesystem that has already been mounted. So what Wubi does is, it installs the normal Ubuntu root filesystem in a single file, and puts that on your NTFS formatted Windows partition, along with the kernel (which can mount NTFS partitions read-write these days thanks to ntfs-3g), and the grub4dos bootloader. Grub4dos is a modified version of Grub, which can locate the kernel on NTFS disks, and can be chainloaded from the Windows NT bootloader (meaning, the NT bootloader can boot grub4dos which in turn boots the Linux kernel). Wubi packages all this in a user-friendly Windows installer. Note that although you can add and remove Ubuntu like other Windows apps, you cannot run it alongside them. This is _not_ emulation or virtualization, it's still dual booting, with the only twist that it leaves your existing Windows partitions untouched.

To recap:

Normal Ubuntu startup
1) BIOS loads Grub
2) Grub loads the kernel from an ext3 partition (which also conains the root filesystem)
3) the kernel mounts the designated ext3 partition and uses that as the root filesystem (actually it starts off with initramfs, which is a root filesystem in memory that is swapped with the on-disk "real" root filesystem later in the boot process)

Wubi startup
1) BIOS loads the Windows bootloader NTLDR
2) when selected from the menu, NTLDR loads grub4dos
3) grub4dos loads the Linux kernel from the Windows partition
4) the kernel mounts the Windows partition, then mounts the file on that Windows partition where Ubuntu was installed in and uses that as the root filesystem

Re:WUBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819920)

Just load up ubuntu, reinstall windows as a guest os inside of vmware-server. It's great! All of my work windows apps work seamlessly inside of their vm guest os jail cell.

Re:WUBI? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 6 years ago | (#22820048)

You, sir, are ignorant. In a corporate-type environment, it's probable that his laptop is set up on Active Directory, he's got an AD account, and so on. That kind of thing needs an IT tech to set back up after he's blasted away his Windows partition, and even if the tech is cool with the idea of him doing this, he probably won't appreciate the user creating work for him and basically attempting to bypass security & other settings.

Re:WUBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22820080)

and you're assuming he isn't a domain admin?
lots of converts these days.

Re:WUBI? (1)

DeeQ (1194763) | about 6 years ago | (#22820098)

The only experience I have of WUBI is a bad one. Granted the install of it went very well and worked. However since its on the same Partition as windows there will be some issues if ubuntu gets messed up.

I dont know if Im an only person this has happened to but this is my case.

I was doing updates when my PC lost power. For whatever god given reason it messed up the boot loader. So i figured okay no problem Ill just use Grub or something. However even when using grub It would no longer boot my windows partition. It was giving me errors because of the ubuntu install. Granted I was also doing this on Vista so XP might be different. But just sharing my story.

Re:WUBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22820120)

Have a look at andLinux or other coLinux distributions.

Bah (5, Funny)

Garrick68 (1165999) | about 6 years ago | (#22818930)

I am waiting for the Hungry Hippo version of Ubuntu...

+1 Informative, indeed! (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | about 6 years ago | (#22819114)

I am waiting for the Hungry Hippo version of Ubuntu...
I believe that's going to be after the "Fat Ferret" release, IIRC.

Re:+1 Informative, indeed! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 6 years ago | (#22819130)

Anyone up for "Portly Pelican", "Blubbery Bison" or "Wobble-bottom Weasel"?

Re:+1 Informative, indeed! (1)

Garrick68 (1165999) | about 6 years ago | (#22819384)

And then there is the porno version - Biggus Dickus... wait.. umm no..

Re:+1 Informative, indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819496)

The release candidate will be codenamed Hairy Hardon.

Re:+1 Informative, indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819966)

Watch out for the companion release, Incontinentia Buttocks. Could be messy.

Re:Bah (5, Funny)

BrentH (1154987) | about 6 years ago | (#22819728)

It appears Hateful Hillary is postponed in favor of Ostentatious Obama. What happened to Mediocre McCain, I don't know.

wubi ? (5, Funny)

bibel (1072798) | about 6 years ago | (#22818938)

To ease the transition of Windows users, it includes Wubi, which allows users to install and uninstall Ubuntu like any other Windows application.
That's just great ... Ubuntu like any other Windows application. I am losing faith in humanity

Re:wubi ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819472)

The concept of running linux on a loopback file system is older than dirt (zipslack used a loopback swapfile and Basic Linux ran in a loopback on a dos or fat32 partition), but setting it up and installing it on an NTFS partition with wubi is truly idiot proof. This, in the end, absolutely will help Linux.

I tried Gnome a very, very long time ago and didn't like it, but I decided to stop "fighting the power" and gave plain old Ubunutu 7.04 a try (instead of Slackware or Kubuntu or DSL or Gentoo or Fedora or ...) and I found that it is more polished than Kubuntu. Honestly, it's the most sesnible Linux distro I have used since I started using GNU/Linux in 1998.

It may seem odd to install Linux as Windows application on the Windows partition, but truly it's a sensible concept now that NTFS write support is reliable. In all my years using NT the only time I have lost a partition was when I accidently deleted it, becuase it was 3am (or so) and I was far too sleepy for computing (got the files back with R-Studio). Patition table hacking and bugging is absolutely not OS specific, so apart from losing a small amount of speed by using the loopback file system for Linux installing Ubuntu using Wubi just makes sense.

Since Vista SP1 was released the other day, I decided to format my laptop and put home basic back on to see if it's any better (and with the latest AMD video drivers, it is actually able to play WoW now...). For the sake of ease, I also did a wubi install of Ubuntu 7.04 and it seems to work just the same as it did when installed on its own partition. However, partitioning was one less thing to muck around with, which was nice even for an old time Linux user.

Re:wubi ? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 years ago | (#22820106)

Why? It seems like a good thing to me, just as long as there is an option to install it the old fasion way, if you don't have Windows. But the problem with Linux adoption is the fear of replacing Windows with Linux is a one for all problem even if you do a parition it is getting complex because there is a chance that you may damage your primary OS. This is a safer way to experience Linux. New if you fear that Windows would lure people away from using Linux because of all its great features and interface, then I would sugest going and trying to make it better. Then trying to bring down windows, on some quazy political rant.

Check out Gladex (-1, Offtopic)

charlie763 (529636) | about 6 years ago | (#22818962)

I know this is kind of off topic, but we've been working really hard to get our project included in Ubuntu universe, so I thought I would mention it. If you are into Python and Glade you should checkout Gladex [launchpad.net]. We're even a Featured Project [launchpad.net] on Launchpad.net! Gladex isn't in the Ubuntu or Debian repositories yet, but we do have a PPA [launchpad.net] going of an alpha release. Alternatively, you can download [launchpad.net] the stable packages directly.

Gladex is a Python application which takes a .glade file created in the Glade User Interface Builder and generates code in Perl, Python, or Ruby. The generated code uses libglade to draw a GUI and is not raw pygtk code (support via a plugin is in development). Support for additional languages can be added through the plugin API.

Slashdot !! Something from IRAQ for Youz !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22818978)



Eat my RPG soiled shorts !!

Still free? (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 years ago | (#22818998)

I saw on the Kubuntu pages the other day they are forking into 2 versions, one free ( 'with limited functionality') and a commercial version with 8.04. Is the parent Ubuntu heading that way too? If so, what does it mean long term for KDE support in general for them? ( and if so, what ever happened to their promise to always be free? )

And no, I'm not wanting to start some flame ware on the merits of either choice or licensing. Personally i use FreeBSD and will never have these issues or have to wonder about the future, but i often give out Kubuntu CD's to non techies to get their feet wet in the 'free world' and show them they really do have a choice.

Re:Still free? (2, Insightful)

Computershack (1143409) | about 6 years ago | (#22819038)

I saw on the Kubuntu pages the other day they are forking into 2 versions, one free ( 'with limited functionality') and a commercial version with 8.04. Is the parent Ubuntu heading that way too?
It was certainly how Mandrake and Redhat went. Sucker people in for a couple of years with free versions then release payware ones with all the stuff you want on whilst releasing stripped out crippleware free versions.

Re:Still free? (3, Insightful)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | about 6 years ago | (#22819106)

During the time that RH and Mandrake didn't do this, weren't THEY suckers too for thinking you could run a business without charging for ... well anything?

Re:Still free? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 years ago | (#22819330)

Charging for support/consulting is something that money can be made on. You don't have to cripple your product in the process.

Re:Still free? (1)

tolan-b (230077) | about 6 years ago | (#22819878)

RHEL is just a more conservative package set than Fedora, there's not much difference in functionality, and you can always just use CentOS anyway.

Personally I use Ubuntu but I'm sick of all the regressions so I'm off to Debian.

Re:Still free? (5, Informative)

cbart387 (1192883) | about 6 years ago | (#22819494)

Please explain your redhat comment please.
  1. There's Fedora (which Redhat supports) which has the bleeding edge stuff that other distributions get the benefit of. PulseAudio is enabled in Hardy Heron which Fedora 8 currently has it. BTW Fedora 9 is being released around the same time as Hardy Heron
  2. There's CentOS which quoting them "... is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. ". That Linux vendor is redhat.
What you're paying for Redhat is the support which makes sense for business to have a safety net. There's nothing different software-wise (as far as I know) except that you have someone to call when some UH-OH happens.

Re:Still free? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819086)

Still free, but one version is not supported. Because of the current transition to KDE 4, the KDE 3.5 Kubuntu is the officially supported distro, while the KDE 4 distro is community maintained.

No limited functionality. Still free. (4, Informative)

Svenne (117693) | about 6 years ago | (#22819142)

'with limited functionality'

Where did you read that? If you look at the official page https://wiki.kubuntu.org/HardyHeron/Beta/Kubuntu [kubuntu.org] you'll see that the difference is the commercial support available. Since KDE 4 is not intended to be used by the general public just yet, there will be one version of Kubuntu 8.04 with KDE 3.5 that is supported, and one with 4.0 that isn't.

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 years ago | (#22819382)

"Kubuntu-KDE4 Hardy Alpha is here. There will be two editions of Kubuntu with the 8.04 release, a commercially supported KDE 3 edition and a community supported KDE 4 edition. We recommend the KDE 4 edition to those who want to try this exciting new desktop version and can put up with some missing features."

( https://wiki.kubuntu.org/HardyHeron/Alpha5/KubuntuKDE4 [kubuntu.org] )

I fully admit might be misunderstanding what they meant by that comment, but it looks like a lesser featured free version and a full featured commercial version.

I've not seen the same statement for Ubuntu, which is what prompted my question. And i hope i did misunderstand their future direction.

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 6 years ago | (#22819518)

My reading of that is that the KDE 4 version is new and in development, so a) not all features in the KDE 3 version are necessarily present or working yet b) they're not offering commercial support for it yet.

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (2, Informative)

Svenne (117693) | about 6 years ago | (#22819532)

I still don't see how you get to that conclusion. The difference between them is the availability of commercial support for the KDE 3 edition, while there is no support (or, community support only) for the KDE 4 edition.

Both of them will still be free. I think it's quite clear.

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (1)

richlv (778496) | about 6 years ago | (#22819556)

i would expect a response from somebody from ubuntu here, but my guess - they are referring to features missing in kde4 compared to kde 3 :)
at least i hope it's that way.

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (4, Informative)

Falstius (963333) | about 6 years ago | (#22819624)

You're misunderstanding what they mean by that comment.

Since 8.04 is a long term support (LTS) release which will be supported for years, they don't want to include the still incomplete KDE4. So the only version you can choose to buy commercial support for will use KDE 3. And since a lot of their users don't care about commercial support, there is still the unsupportable KDE4 option.

In short, Kubutu with KDE 4 is missing features because KDE 4 is missing features, not so that Canonical can make money. Both versions are available for free (without paid support).

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (1)

AgentPaper (968688) | about 6 years ago | (#22819698)

I took that statement to mean that since KDE 4.0 is still a very new thing and still has a few bugs that haven't yet been shaken out, Canonical isn't supporting it just yet. Once they get it playing nicely with everything else that comes in a typical Kubuntu distribution, they'll rejoin the two fork paths, but for now they're pushing KDE 4.0 support out to the Kubuntu community.

For my $.02, that's probably a smart move, as I played around with the Kubuntu 7.10/KDE 4.0 community release and it's definitely not ready for prime time. Looks beautiful, but the wheels start falling off once you try to do something with it. KDE 3.5 programs break their KDE 4.0 counterparts and vice versa, laptop support is... well, let's call it "less than optimal," installing and uninstalling from the repositories is an exercise in masochism, and God help you if you try to install or use a GNOME-optimized program. I'm sure it will be spectacular once they get the worst of the bugs out, but for now, if I were a tech manager at Canonical, I wouldn't support it either.

Re:No limited functionality. Still free. (1)

MrFlannel (762587) | about 6 years ago | (#22819592)

BOTH versions will be supported.

However, neither will be an LTS, but they will support upgrading from 6.06 (Dapper).

LTS is the 3 year desktop support bit. Instead, Kubuntu 8.04 will be supported for 18 months, just like all non-LTS releases.

Re:Still free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819146)

Seeing as how they are parts of the same project, this seems a little odd to me. Do you have a link?

Re:Still free? (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | about 6 years ago | (#22819166)

I saw on the Kubuntu pages the other day they are forking into 2 versions, one free ( 'with limited functionality') and a commercial version
Can you provide a link? Seriously, I haven't heard anything of the sort, and can't find any corroboration on the Kubuntu site [kubuntu.org].

Perhaps you're referring to the fact that although Ubuntu 8.04 will be considered "Long-Term Support" (LTS), the corresponding Kubuntu 8.04 will not be LTS (it will still be supported, just not for as long). The reason for this decision being that KDE 4.0 is still "too fresh" for Canonical to guarantee that it will be stable-enough (and unchanging-enough) to warrant the LTS label. However Kubuntu will still be available, will still receive consistent patches and updates, and will still be Free and free.

Or perhaps you're referring to the effort to get Linspire's "Click 'n' Run [wikipedia.org]" to work on Ubuntu, which would allow users to install commercial/proprietary software from repositories?

In any case, I think you're mis-remembering what you've read. As far as I know, Kubuntu and Ubuntu will remain Free and free.

Re:Still free? Addendum (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | about 6 years ago | (#22819314)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I think the GP was mis-interpreting this page [kubuntu.org]:

Kubuntu
  • Rock solid KDE 3
  • Commercial support provided by Canonical [canonical.com] for a term of 18 months
  • Release available through ShipIt for everybody as well as downloading

Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix
  • Cutting edge KDE 4.0
  • Support provided by the Kubuntu community via Ubuntu Forums [ubuntuforums.org], Kubuntu Forums [kubuntuforums.net], IRC [kubuntu.org], and the Kubuntu Users Mailing List [ubuntu.com].
  • Release available through CDs for groups who need it (ie. LoCo teams, conference teams, etc.) as well as downloading
So, basically, the "fully supported" version of Kubuntu 8.04 will use KDE 3.5. You will be able to purchase commercial support from Canonical if you like, but in any case can always download and use it for free. Or, you can use the more experimental Kubuntu 8.04 Remix, which uses KDE 4.0. In this case you will receive the usual community updates and community support.

Both versions are free, but if you use the more stable version that includes KDE 3.5, you have the option of paying Canonical for commercial support, just like every other official Ubuntu and Kubuntu version. You don't have to pay Canonical to get updates or unlock features or anything... but for businesses who want support contracts the option is there.

And, as I said before, Canonical is opting not to consider Kubuntu 8.04 as an "LTS" release... which means that they will officially provide updates to it for "only" 18 months.

Re:Still free? Addendum (1)

sricetx (806767) | about 6 years ago | (#22820338)

Will the non-KDE packages in Kubuntu 8.04 receive long-term support, i.e., the rest of the distro will have long term support, but the KDE packages will only have 18 month support? Or will the whole thing only have 18 month support (no updated kernel packages, etc, after 18 months)?

Re:Still free? (4, Informative)

cerelib (903469) | about 6 years ago | (#22819172)

Kubuntu

            Rock solid KDE 3

            Commercial support provided by [WWW] Canonical for a term of 18 months

            Release available through ShipIt for everybody as well as downloading

Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix

            Cutting edge KDE 4.0

            Support provided by the Kubuntu community via [WWW] Ubuntu Forums, [WWW] Kubuntu Forums, IRC, and the [WWW] Kubuntu Users Mailing List.

            Release available through CDs for groups who need it (ie. LoCo teams, conference teams, etc.) as well as downloading


As I understand it, there will be 2 versions Kubuntu 8.04 and Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix 8.04. The vanilla version has the standard support lifetime with updates and you can purchase support from Canonical, basically the way it has always been. The Remix version includes KDE 4 and is a bit less stable. Therefore, the Remix version does not offer official support and you need to go to the forums. I am not sure what the security or bug update procedure is, that is, whether or not packages found only in Remix will receive security and bug updates. So the "commercially" supported version is the same Kubuntu as usual, but Remix is for all of those people screaming about KDE 4.

Re:Still free? (2, Informative)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 6 years ago | (#22819680)

I am not sure what the security or bug update procedure is, that is, whether or not packages found only in Remix will receive security and bug updates. So the "commercially" supported version is the same Kubuntu as usual, but Remix is for all of those people screaming about KDE 4.
The KDE4 version will use the same repositories, so there won't be any packages found in only one version. KDE4 will be in the standard repositories (not sure if it'll be in main or universe), so you can install it from the KDE3 version of 8.04. The only difference between the two versions is which version of KDE is installed initially.

Re:Still free? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 6 years ago | (#22819186)

Any link for that?

I did here that there would be two versions of KDE shipping, but I don't see how they can charge for Kubuntu while keeping Ubuntu free, since they basically run the same software and can use the same repositories.

Re:Still free? (5, Informative)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | about 6 years ago | (#22819248)

I think you're confused. Canonical splitting any of their official distros into a limited free version and a fully-functional paid version would violate their own promise [ubuntu.com] that Ubuntu will always be free of charge. Even if they wiggled out of that on a technicality, Ubuntu lives purely on the strength of its community. Canonical know that and would be insane to risk losing them through such a move.

The actual situation is that Kubuntu will be splitting into two versions, both of them free in all senses of the word, for the 8.04 release. One (using KDE 3.5.9) will be officially supported for 18 months (it won't be a Long Term Support release, since KDE 3 likely won't be supported in three years, though it will still support upgrading directly from 6.06) while the other (using KDE 4.0.2) will be community supported. This is probably because (like me) they think that KDE 4 really isn't ready yet as it hasn't had much time to mature and many of the Extragear application (some of which come with Kubuntu) haven't been updated yet, the most notable for me being Amarok.

My understanding is that Kubuntu will only do this split release system for the 8.04 release, with the 8.10 release likely to use KDE 4.0.x officially.

Re:Still free? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 years ago | (#22819652)

That promise was my point exactly, so i do hope i just misunderstood the wording in their news blurb and nothing really has changed. On the risk of losing their base due to dumb stunts: RH went thru the same thing, so it IS possible.

Re:Still free? (1)

jZnat (793348) | about 6 years ago | (#22820154)

Where does it say this on their site? I only see two different versions: the KDE 3.5 version (which is commercially supported just like all previous releases) and the KDE 4.0 version (which is a community-supported version; like a spin-off version). You may have confused this with them charging for Ubuntu/Kubuntu; however, this is how it has always been.

Sweet Stuff (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819072)

Just installed the amd64 version on my quad core box. I am really liking the goodies -

Startup is quicker than previous version on the same hardware. Filesystems are now mounted with 'realtime' flag out-of-box - yay for even more speed!
I was able to install it inside of Windows (Vista x64) without any performance loss using the Wubi installer - Ubuntu entry appeared in Windows boot loader and I did not had to partition my NTFS formatted disks - you can try and see how it works without losing data or even disk space when you am done trying it. Cool.

Firefox 3 - my favorite browser is bundled and integrated - can't ask for more!

Got to try KVM /virtio - KVM is something that never worked well for me.

Slow.... (1)

vandit2k6 (848077) | about 6 years ago | (#22819138)

What is this a slow news day or something. I saw this at least 3 hours ago.

Re:Slow.... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | about 6 years ago | (#22820276)

It must be... you posted a comment that it's a slow news day on the article that you believe proves it's a slow news day. If there was something else interesting/important going on, you would have commented on that article and not this one.

ubuntu a windows application (4, Insightful)

dspolleke (1139333) | about 6 years ago | (#22819150)

which allows users to install and uninstall Ubuntu like any other Windows application.
Since when is Ubuntu a windows application? It isn't even an application.. It is a Linux distribution. If Wubi get's out into the world as "the way to install Ubuntu" noob users will assume they need Windows to install a Linux distro.. why is no one creating an app to turn it around? You can convert your Windows partition to a VMware disk and save it to an USB disk or network store.. Install a Linux distro, install a Virtual Machine player (Innotek virtualbox, VMware) put the disk back and load windows from within Linux.. And install and uninstall windows like any other Linux distribution software package

Re:ubuntu a windows application (1)

kaos07 (1113443) | about 6 years ago | (#22819334)

Yeah, except the point is to make it easy for Windows users to install Ubuntu so as to drag them away from this DRM infested and buggy hell and into the wonderful paradise of Linux.

Typo - Ubuntu community members attention! (2, Funny)

sundarvenkata (1214396) | about 6 years ago | (#22819168)

Can somebody change the typo "relatime" to "realtime" in this page: http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/hardy/beta [ubuntu.com] Thanks, Sundar

Not a typo (4, Informative)

GerbilSoft (761537) | about 6 years ago | (#22819240)

The "relatime" mount option tells the filesystem to update atime only when it is older than mtime or ctime. This is better than turning off atime entirely, but doesn't have the performance issues of the older atime functionality.

New x.org config? (1)

kaos07 (1113443) | about 6 years ago | (#22819228)

I remember hearing about this in past updates, but no info in the summary. I've tried to install Ubuntu a number of times on my PC and laptop but I always ending up having graphics card errors and the fixes I've tried either failed, were too convoluted and time consuming or just way above my depth of knowledge. I've heard that that 8.04 will solve a lot of these issues as well as making Ubuntu even more painless to install.

Anyone have any more info on this?

torrent? (1)

qw0ntum (831414) | about 6 years ago | (#22819242)

Looks like the update servers are being hit pretty hard. Does anyone have a link to the torrent?

Re:torrent? (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | about 6 years ago | (#22819436)

"The" torrent--I'd post a link for you, but there are, like, 50 different torrents depending on which one you're looking for. Just scroll down to the mirrors, and pick a local mirror. I had no problem using one of the US mirrors--the main downloads page wasn't working, but the mirror worked immediately.

Promising beta: performance and very few bugs (2, Informative)

zborro (591127) | about 6 years ago | (#22819256)

I am using the Ubuntu beta since the early Alpha versions and I should admit that everything is going into place very well. Actually using it, you'd never say it's a beta given how polished and smooth the user experience is. A little bloating on the other hand is pervading the desktop setup and maybe too many services are active by default. With 512mb RAM you will need to disable something to have a better experience but compared to some competing OS the situation is really good.
Comparing the Ubuntu 8.04 beta to my other Debian Lenny box with comparable hardware (laptops with 1gb ram and centrino 1.8GHz) Ubuntu feels much faster doing everything. I don't know if it's the kernel 2.6.24 with CFS or some optimization of the libc or something else but the difference is night and day. Debian should care a bit more about performance if it wants to stay the UNIVERSAL OS...

So, up to now: really good and two thumbs up for this "beta" (just a bit different from the stability of KDE 4 beta!....)

Happy dowloading!
marco

The Crushing Truth: Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22819394)

Althouth I really like Linux and the free software, I think that we all have to accept the crushing truth.

In these times it really doesn't matter if is launched KDE 35.0 or Gnome Vista, because while both environments (and others with less weight as IceWM) were worrying in confusing the user with a completely different aspect, Microsoft was consolidating his position as leader in the field of the operating systems of office, first with the operating system Windows XP (that have approximately 90% of the client operating system market) and with its advanced successor, the recently Windows Vista, that offers a new form to interact with its PC. Is faster, friendlier, and more secure.

The reality is that Linux has little to offer to the inexperienced user. The same novice that is seen disconcerted by the impossibility to do a simple one copy-paste between QT and GTK applications. Go out and ask to the people how they install a program that does NOT have packages for its distribucción (because each one has its own packege system, completely incompatible with the others and that requires the use of complicated commands). Still the packages of the same format as RPM, they cannot be installed equally in Mandriva or Suse.

Then what we suggest to this user (that is just beginning in the Unix Word) is that he need to download the source code, go to the console, decompress it and compile it. How many they managed to do this? One of each a million, I have to say. We persist in THAT is the normal thing. ..nothing more further from the reality.

Explain him why in his Ubuntu, Kubuntu or Fedora cannot see many web pages: he must download the Flash and the Java plugin, in order then to install them with complicated commands. Also make him know that he won't be able to listen its MP3, WMA and WMV files. Tell to the flaming buyer of a new AMD64 how he can play flash games.A shit.

And the gamers? Obviously they'll return to windows, because even God can't use the hardware acceleration of the most modern graphics cards (besides, the drivers don't come in the distributions. ..becuase of the fucking freedom) and that games...just a few ones. By each Linux videogame we have 500 that run on Windows. And the few ones that run on Linux...Oh! Surprise!...Just Windows binaries on the CD, and you have to download the Linux version from a website. Finally the user return to the best option, the OS most used on home (all we know what OS is).

The proof of the free software failure is seen also in the professional world, either in areas like electronic design (doesn't exist anything similar to Protel), architecture (the standard CAD -all we know wich one-only works on Windows), web design (something similar to Dreamweaver? Don't mention something like NVU, that not only is full of bugs, but also just have the 5% of the Dreamweaver features. Neither Bluefish, Quanta or similars...no one would face a complex project with such a primitive tools). DTP? Scribus is a good try (very immature) but Quark or InDesign are far batter. Flash content creation (A standard, and a flash player installed in the 99% of PCs)? It cannot be done on Linux.

In the software development industry there's not a single decent RAD tool. Gambas seems to promise but for now is shit, Eclipse is a RAM eater (thanks Java) that only can be used with 2GB RAM, Kylix promised give the potential of Delphi to Linux, but it was discontinued because the developers hate to pay for licenses and they prefer to use a primitive tool, like KDevelop. And now that we talk about Borland tools, is not rare that programming gurus like Ian Marteens abandoned Delphi and C++ Builder and now prefer the most powerful system for software development: Microsoft Visual Studio.NET.

A computer game developer would never develop free (as in free spech) games, because they have to eat and there's not a business model compatible with free software. The Linux users don't want free (as in free spech) games, they just want commercial quality without pay a single buck.

Administritive management? In Linux? There's not software in this area. The businessman wants to have something standard, something friendly, something mature. He doesn't want to be fighting with a console, compiling sources for in the end (if he finally get it compile) obtain a half-finished application.

If Linux is free (in both senses)...Why the high computers-makers don't preinstall it (just a 1% make that)? Or at least dual-boot? Others, in other hand, opt for FreeDOS.

The PC Battle is loss...because it never exist. Linux with it's chaotic development (instead of boost existing applications or create new ones to supply the lacks, we have thousand clones of each one but without finish or that directly just make us laugh) just has dug it's own tomb. The user don't want a degree in Computer Science: He wants to insert the Game CD, make a few clicks and have all installed and running. He doesn't want headaches. He wants visit XXX sites and watch the video correctly. He wants to install his webcam without recompiling the kernel.

Keep defending the console. Keep defending LaTeX as if it was something that a secretary or a lawyer have to use with the same simplicity of Microsoft Office. Keep defending Vi as the best tool for software developmnet a web site design.Keep believing that new users need to get close to Debian or Gentoo, taking days to configure a USB modem. Keep insulting distributions like Ubuntu or SuSE because are trying to be friendly. Keep just like this and in the end there will be just three frikis using Linux, while the rest of the world will be using what is already mature and functional: Windows.

And You? Where do you want to go today?

Thanks for you attention.

Maybe my girlfriend can actually install Linux... (1)

Jax Omen (1248086) | about 6 years ago | (#22819410)

For some reason, the traditional dual-boot WinXP and Ubuntu does not work for her. 7.10 works great as a LiveCD, installs just fine on her second HDD, but REFUSES to boot from GRUB, no matter what we've tried. MAYBE Wubi would fix that...

Re:Maybe my girlfriend can actually install Linux. (2, Informative)

Neodudeman (1259256) | about 6 years ago | (#22819498)

Did you try installing it to your master drive instead of a slave drive?

Re:Maybe my girlfriend can actually install Linux. (1)

Raineer (1002750) | about 6 years ago | (#22819646)

Seconded, I've always had trouble with multi-drive multi-boot setups and Windows. Win just doesn't play nicely with GRUB. As far as WUBI goes, I'm surprised to read so many comments like it's a new thing. It's essentially a dual-boot setup which doesn't require its own partition, it worked plenty well on 7.04 and I would expect the same thing for 8.04 (which I have installed now, and it looks nice but there are some polishings that need to occur.) Just don't forget folks, this is an Alpha release which is usually intended for developers only. Don't start selling Grandma on 8.04 just yet!

Grub and Windows (1)

kcdoodle (754976) | about 6 years ago | (#22819884)

I have only been able to get windows to run when Grub is physically on the same drive as Windows. This makes me put Windows on the first drive, and Linux on any other drive (including the first). As long as Windows and Grub are on the first drive (and the /boot/menu.lst is visible), Windows boots fine from Grub.

Another note, when booting from Bios (not using Grub), Windows can be on any drive, even if it was installed differently. In other words, if I install Windows to the first drive (/dev/hda) I can later move it to another position in the computer (via cables and/or jumpers) to (/dev/hdb or /dev/hdc) and still successfully boot Windows from Bios. This same thing DOES NOT work in Linux. When installed, Linux knows which drive it was installed on and ALWAYS needs to be on that drive. Look at /etc/fstab and think about it.

Years ago, I had a Tekram HD controller that would let me change the logical locations of the drives in my computer WITHOUT moving wires or jumpers. I could even tell the system that a connected drive was not connected. SWEET. I could boot from ANY drive and set the drive location all through the Tekram Bios. I have not seen a product like this since.

Re:Grub and Windows (1)

Jax Omen (1248086) | about 6 years ago | (#22820398)

Oh, Windows booted fine from GRUB. No problems whatsoever. Ubuntu refused to boot. She never, EVER got to a HDD-booted Ubuntu. Which is sad, because she loved the LiveCD.

Upgrade from 7.10 (1)

amirl (813941) | about 6 years ago | (#22819492)

Anyone managed to upgrade? My last attempt to upgrade (alpha 5) was disaster and broke my machine completely.

PulseAudio (3, Interesting)

quanticle (843097) | about 6 years ago | (#22819578)

How's the PulseAudio decision working out so far? I've run into lots of PulseAudio problems in Fedora (which enabled it by default in Fedora 8), so its a little bit surprising that Ubuntu has decided to enable PulseAudio by default. Personally, I don't think PulseAudio is yet ready for mainstream use, so I'm wondering what the justification for this decision was.

Re:PulseAudio (0, Offtopic)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | about 6 years ago | (#22819706)

I can't comment about Ubuntu and PulseAudio, but Fedora 8 has never given me an ounce of trouble.

ymmv

Re:PulseAudio (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | about 6 years ago | (#22820076)

How's the PulseAudio decision working out so far? I've run into lots of PulseAudio problems in Fedora (which enabled it by default in Fedora 8), so its a little bit surprising that Ubuntu has decided to enable PulseAudio by default. Personally, I don't think PulseAudio is yet ready for mainstream use, so I'm wondering what the justification for this decision was.

Indeed there are problems with PulseAudio, and I agree, this was a risky choice for an LTS release.

Here is one example bug: audible stuttering, pops [launchpad.net]. It appears to be primarily a PulseAudio matter, in that sound breaks up under CPU load: even alt-tab to another app like Firefox that renders at 100% CPU for a fraction of a second. However it may also be related to the new scheduler (CFS), since desktop responsiveness in Hardy seems poor compared to previous Ubuntu releases, particularly on low-end hardware. But it's a beta, so perhaps it'll be fixed.

Re:PulseAudio (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22820144)

I was using the 8.04 Alpha 6 for the past few days on a T60, and so far I am pleased with the new audio system. It sounds as good as it ever has (I would say slightly better in a couple of cases, but that is a bit subjective). I have had no errors so far, and it automatically handles the connection and removal of a USB sound device very smoothly.

I am exactly a power user as far as audio systems go, but music and videos, along with application sounds, have all been working great. I know I heard of some problems with Skype, but that seems to mainly apply to poor coding on Skype itself, and I have not tried it personally.

Forcing App Support (2, Informative)

chunk08 (1229574) | about 6 years ago | (#22820218)

I partially agree, however, pulseaudio is a full-featured, low-latency audio server. What's missing is app support. While I don't entirely agree with it, this seems to be a move to force applications to support pulseaudio. The Ubuntu developers will probably be writing patches for a number of libraries and applications and sending them upstream. For legacy ALSA and OSS applications, there is pasuspender (pause pulseaudio and give a single app direct ALSA access) and padsp (emulate an OSS device for an application, send its audio to a pulseaudio output). Hopefully we will soon see pulseaudio support in the major audio libraries (PortAudio etc.) ALSA already includes a compatibility drive where you can create a virtual "pulse" device to send output to pulseaudio.

BTW about latency, I tested JACK running on top of PulseAudio on my system with a generic integrated soundcard, and got <2ms without hardware monitoring. <flamebait>Try that under any Windows soundserver.</flamebait>

Re:PulseAudio (1)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#22820260)

I'm guessing the Fedora and upstream got a large amount of the bugs out, so Ubuntu is ready to use it.

Re:PulseAudio (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | about 6 years ago | (#22820302)

What sort of problems though? Your post is too vague to comment on. I'm running a version of PulseAudio now on Hardy Heron and I'm not having any issues.

Re:PulseAudio (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 6 years ago | (#22820340)

It's been working fairly well for me (I have been using since way too long ago, and must in the future remember to at least wait for Beta).

I have had very few audio problems.

I did have Amarock stop making sound at one point, and had to configure it to use pulsaudio (by default I think it was auto-detecting?)

Currently (noticed last night) vlc is making no noise, and I have been using Movie Player (Xine) instead. I would guess it is a similar problem.

Audio does seem more prone to skipping than it should (but I have no comparison, and it reall just be my hitting the disk really hard causing it).

The most useful thing in the new version for me has been .docx support. The compositing gnome window manager is nice though, and the new way it displays copying files is fantastic. Shelf in Compiz is really great too, and one of the few flashy things I find useful.

There was recently a problem with updates that caused an un-bootable system, which I don't hold against them, and I still updated another computer to 8.04 after it (a week ago), but it is a fair waring about using pre-release software.

What's new (5, Informative)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | about 6 years ago | (#22819848)

Here's what's I think is important (and new) Ubuntu 8.04 Beta, with my comments. There are more new things, but I don't care about them.

Xorg 7.3 - the main advantage should be easier configuration, especially in multi-monitor setups. I haven't tried it yet, so I can't say. But it can only be better than what we have now.

Linux kernel 2.6.24 - The new & neat things here are dynticks for amd64 (power savings), the new CFS scheduler (you should experience less lags when your system is loaded). I'm mostly interested in the dynticks part.

PulseAudio - this is supposed to clean up the linux audio mess. I say wait and see.

Firefox 3 Beta 4 - I tried Beta 3 and it's *really* an advance over Firefox 2. I can't say that I personally witnessed any real speedups, but the new location bar is really cool. It takes a day or two to get used to it, but it really changes the way you surf.

Transmission - a new Bittorrent client. I'm using it regularly since months, and it *rules*. It's exactly the way a bittorrent client should be.

Brasero - a new CD/DVD burning program. I have never used it, but I can only hope that it is the way Nero 5 was.

World clock for the clock applet - that's really handy. Never type "what's the time in california" into google again!

Virtualization - it's supposed to be some super-easy and clicky integration of virtualization. I'm looking forward to it.

KDE4 (2, Interesting)

spikenerd (642677) | about 6 years ago | (#22820108)

I installed Kubuntu beta with KDE4. Almost everything just worked.

Had a tiny issue with KNetworkManager. It only wanted to recognize one network card at a time. I had to manually edit /etc/network/interfaces to fix it. That's the only old-style hackery I had to do. Did everything else via the GUI.

Now it's functioning as a gateway, interfaces with Windows machines on my home network via samba, set up apache and all that stuff. KDE4 is a bit tough to customize. The features are pretty sparse. I can't tell my clock to display seconds, it's really inconvenient to move icons around on the taskbar--gotta go through many menues, etc., but I suppose this will get better with time.

Summary: KDE4 isn't done, but it looks like it will be nice. Almost everything just works.
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...