Ubuntu 5.10 is out!

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: magomago
been running it since RC1 I like it a lot more than hoary. Certain things like gnome2.12 with flashing task bar are a HUGE welcome....

and they fixed gdesktlets as well...although i still think there is a problem. If I leave them open over night, and i wake up and check processes, it will have gdesklets using over 800 megs of ram so there is definitely soe kind of memory leak issue.

Otherwise its nicer, and i'm starting to boot into windows only to seed the ubuntu Cds (doing that right now ) sinec for some reason bitcomet is the only client that works

yep, I have to shut down gdesklets when I leave work. if I were to leave it over the weekend, my machine would be about dead. I left it overnight, and had 90% proc usage, 100% ram usage, and my swap was filling up fast.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Crusty
x.yy

x = year
yy = month

Kind of silly, but I guess it makes sense for businesses. Kind of like Solaris 8 (02/02).

 

[GML3G0]

Originally posted by: MBrown

Originally posted by: MBrown
is it better just to get the regular 32bit version?

Yes, you're going to have problems with incompatability and the lack of drivers and codecs, especially with multimedia. Also there is no 64-bit flash. stick with 32-bit. besides, at the moment many things are actually slower on 64-bit (like encoding) because they haven't been optimized for 64-bit and don't use the increased number of registers on the amd64. stay away for now until the bugs get sorted out. you'll just have quicker compile times. not worth the hassle yet.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, you're going to have problems with incompatability and the lack of drivers and codecs, especially with multimedia

In Linux most drivers work fine since Linux has been 64-bit clean and ported to non-x86 arches for a very long time. The only problematic drivers will be the ones that there is no source available and they should be avoided anyway. Codecs are the same way, the OSS ones will work fine but the w32codecs package won't work unless you have a 32-bit player to use them in.

Also there is no 64-bit flash

Which is generally a good thing.

besides, at the moment many things are actually slower on 64-bit (like encoding) because they haven't been optimized for 64-bit and don't use the increased number of registers on the amd64

Sure they do, any app compiled for AMD64 gets to use the extra registers with no tweaks. At worst they should be the same speed, I would be really surprised if any ran slower.

 

[GML3G0]

Someone a while back on the Gentoo forums benchmarked it, and I think LAME encoding turned out to be slower.

 

[Nothinman]

I would be extremely suspicious of that person's environment, especially considering that they're running Gentoo.

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: GML3G0
Someone a while back on the Gentoo forums benchmarked it, and I think LAME encoding turned out to be slower.

The thread on gentoo forums.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I would be extremely suspicious of that person's environment, especially considering that they're running Gentoo.

Suspicious, why?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: M00T

Originally posted by: GML3G0
Someone a while back on the Gentoo forums benchmarked it, and I think LAME encoding turned out to be slower.

The thread on gentoo forums.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I would be extremely suspicious of that person's environment, especially considering that they're running Gentoo.

Suspicious, why?

Gentoo's been known to be... Slow in some configurations.

 

[Nothinman]

Suspicious, why?

We already know that gcc isn't an optimizing compiler. I was designed with portability in mind first, optimizations come in a distant second. And Gentoo gives people a lot of control over how things are compiled with the USE flags, who knows what affects on speed changing some compiler options can have. And unless I missed something, that thread never mentions any of the compiler options for anything used in the test, so how the hell can you verify the results?

 

[shortylickens]

I should ask the question that may affect many of us but hasnt been asked yet.

I have and A64 and an ATI X800. Will the 64 bit version support my ATI card with no extra work? Or am I going to have to run compilers or something?

 

[Nothinman]

I have and A64 and an ATI X800. Will the 64 bit version support my ATI card with no extra work? Or am I going to have to run compilers or something?

First I would check and see if the Linux drivers released by ATI support your card, if so you should be able to use it but it won't be supported out of the box, at least accelerated 3D won't be.

 

[screw3d]

Sweet! Gotta make some room on the HDD to put this on

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Does Ubuntu include the acx111 driver? It'll be a bitch if I have to compile ndiswrapper/or the driver and download the kernel sources to compile my kernel just to get my wireless card working.

 

[Nothinman]

Does Ubuntu include the acx111 driver? It'll be a bitch if I have to compile ndiswrapper/or the driver and download the kernel sources to compile my kernel just to get my wireless card working.

Probably not, AFAIK they don't change their kernels too much from the Debian packages. But there is a acx100-source package in Debian sid so it might be in Ubuntu universe or multiverse, you should be able to install it pretty easily using module-assistant, you'll just have to get the firmware for the card on your own I believe.

 

[daniel49]

my first what the !! was where did the terminal go..not in system tools , not in the context menu anymore..finally put my glasses on and found it in accessories
also seems odd about ubuntu in general 1400 screensavers and 3 bun ugly wallpapers that all look the same???

nitpicky i know

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yes, you're going to have problems with incompatability and the lack of drivers and codecs, especially with multimedia

In Linux most drivers work fine since Linux has been 64-bit clean and ported to non-x86 arches for a very long time. The only problematic drivers will be the ones that there is no source available and they should be avoided anyway. Codecs are the same way, the OSS ones will work fine but the w32codecs package won't work unless you have a 32-bit player to use them in.

You're saying I should be able to get my ATI TV device to work even though it only did by default in 32-bit Fedora Core 2? I have 64-bit Fedora Core 4 now, and it was not automatically installed for me. The drivers did not come from ATI so I can compile those 32-bit drivers (they're probably OSS) and have them work on my 64-bit system?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I should ask the question that may affect many of us but hasnt been asked yet.

I have and A64 and an ATI X800. Will the 64 bit version support my ATI card with no extra work? Or am I going to have to run compilers or something?

I don't know...ATI's Linux drivers are crap. They crash on me constantly. No problem at all with NVIDIA though.

 

[Nothinman]

You're saying I should be able to get my ATI TV device to work even though it only did by default in 32-bit Fedora Core 2? I have 64-bit Fedora Core 4 now, and it was not automatically installed for me. The drivers did not come from ATI so I can compile those 32-bit drivers (they're probably OSS) and have them work on my 64-bit system?

If you have the source code it would definitely be possible, I don't know how much work, if any, would be required to make them compile properly though.

 

[Seeruk]

I been running a lot of the Betas and all of the RC's of breezy, and although it is my favourite of all the Linux distros it still won't see the light of day beyond my test box.

Reasons?

Well I still have wireless issues galore

I have every one of the bugs reported at Distrowatch http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-ubuntu

64 Bit fglrx is fubared worse than ever

All kinds of funky DNS problems going on that despite spending a full weekend figuring out and fixing, I did an update this morning and its all screwed again.


To me still just an OS for tinkering on.

 

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
I been running a lot of the Betas and all of the RC's of breezy, and although it is my favourite of all the Linux distros it still won't see the light of day beyond my test box.

Reasons?

Well I still have wireless issues galore

I have every one of the bugs reported at Distrowatch http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-ubuntu

64 Bit fglrx is fubared worse than ever

All kinds of funky DNS problems going on that despite spending a full weekend figuring out and fixing, I did an update this morning and its all screwed again.


To me still just an OS for tinkering on.

I like the improvements over hoary, but I think they may have rushed themselves a bit on this release. For now, I agree with you that it should be used as a test system, and not for anything mission critical.

Also, many people rely on ubuntuguide.org to provide some direction when a new release comes out. It seems that author has fallen off the face of the earth since they have had the last 6 months to work with the dev teams to figure out the quirks and differences from hoary.

This one seemed unprepared, and it doesn't send a good message, especially with it becoming such a popular distro.

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: rmrf
I like the improvements over hoary, but I think they may have rushed themselves a bit on this release. For now, I agree with you that it should be used as a test system, and not for anything mission critical.

Also, many people rely on ubuntuguide.org to provide some direction when a new release comes out. It seems that author has fallen off the face of the earth since they have had the last 6 months to work with the dev teams to figure out the quirks and differences from hoary.

This one seemed unprepared, and it doesn't send a good message, especially with it becoming such a popular distro.

Agree with you totally - I even made a post saying the same thing a few weeks ago on the breezy dev forum.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=66126

 

[Nothinman]

Well I still have wireless issues galore

What issues?

64 Bit fglrx is fubared worse than ever

You can thank ATI for that.

I have every one of the bugs reported at Distrowatch http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-ubuntu

What bugs? There are only 2 things on that page that could be considered bugs IMO, the Xemacs one is irrelevant because no one should use emacs. And the ATI driver one and I didn't think they were allowed to distribute the fglrx driver so it wouldn't really make sense to have the installer detect a driver that can't be included on the CD.

 

[Transition]

Does it actually support some diff wireless authentication protocols finally?

Huh?

I'm saying that i'm using WPA-PSK for my wireless. I do not see support for this within Ubuntu.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm saying that i'm using WPA-PSK for my wireless. I do not see support for this within Ubuntu.

Assuming that Ubuntu comes with wpa_supplicant (and since Debian does, it's a good bet Ubuntu does) you should be able to use WPA-PSK according to http://hostap.epitest.fi/wpa_supplicant/