Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

[dibl]

Just got notified that an upgrade for my 64-bit Kubuntu was available -- turns out it is a new kernel.

dibl@gutsy:~$ uname -r
2.6.22-11-generic

Nice! And here it is Saturday evening in the U.S.A. -- either I'm more delayed than I thought, or our friends at Canonical are burning the midnight oil!

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Ah dibl perhaps you have inadvertently explained my latest ?? Updated this morning as usual, then later when I booted up noted that I now seem to have two seperate installs of Kubuntu GG, one is 2-6-22-10 (plus recover) and the new one is 2-6-22-11 plus recover So has the update installed the 64 version on my comp? (Its a AMD64) I am sure that it wasn't there yesterday, but I can't swear to it (the old fuddled brain you know)

TG

[dibl]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Hopefully it updated the kernel version that you chose to install the first time. It's not supposed to switch you from 32-bit to 64-bit -- that would put a whole lot of people out of business!


Yes, it upgraded from -10 to -11. I have not researched to find out what is different about -11.

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Exactly when did the update come down dibl? And as far as I know I had the 32 bt installed and not the 64 but as always can't be sure! I certainly didn't istall another version so you are probably right as always, so I can now choose two versions (although they seem the same) I haven't a clue how to uninstall the 10 one so I will leave well alone, as I have everything working hunky dory at the mo and don't want to u;pset this.

Thanks for the info dibl TG

[dibl]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

The option to upgrade appeared yesterday evening (U.S. Eastern time) -- so it obviously was put in the repository some time before that. I'm on 64-bit, so it tends to be the last one to be put in the repo. If you're on 32-bit, it probably was made available yesterday afternoon some time.

If you enter

uname -a

in the console, it will tell you exactly which kernel you are running. For my 64-bit system, I get "Linux gutsy 2.6.22-11-generic #1 SMP Fri Sep 7 04:31:16 GMT 2007 x86_64 GNU/Linux".

[dibl]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

I was browsing down the change log for the new kernel here and noticed this section:

925 * [ALSA] HDA: Add support for Gateway NX860
926 * [ALSA] HDA: Add more systems to Sigmatel codec
927 * [ALSA] HDA: Fix headphone mute issue on non-eapd Conexant systems
928 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Add support for ASUS A8J modem
929 * [ALSA] ali5451 - Fix possible NULL dereference
930 * [ALSA] hda-intel: fix ASUS M2V detection
931 * [ALSA] Fix ASoC s3c24xx-pcm spinlock bug
932 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Add quirk for MSI S420
933 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Add quirk for Supermicro PDSBA to alc883_cfg_tbl[]
934 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Add support for MSI K9N Ultra
935 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Fix pin configs for Gateway MX6453
936 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Fix input with STAC92xx
937 * [ALSA] hda-codec - Fix STAC922x capture boost level

This should improve life for a lot of folks, me included (I have the STAC92xx chip).

[Snowhog]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

TG's comment as to now having two installations isn't exactly correct, at least as I interpret the comment.

What did happen, is the download of updated kernel's, which results in the change to Grub that TG is seeing. If the 32-bit kernel is what was originally installed, then updates to the 32-bit kernel is what would be downloaded. Ditto if it was the 64-bit. As dibl said, if it was other than this, there would be hell to pay.

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Well snowhog then I must have installed the 64bit. Doesn't the live cd contain both? Which is why I wasn't certain.

TG

[dibl]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Doesn't the live cd contain both? Which is why I wasn't certain.

Nope. They are different CDs.

But, is there a particular objection to running the 64-bit? What horror stories have you heard? I'm running 64-bit Gutsy, so maybe I can either confirm or refute your concerns.

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

No objection at all dibl, just shows my ignorance when I don't know whether I have the 86 or the 64 installed doesn't it? But usually when installing the live cd's they are 32/64 or the other one, and I usually when trying distro's out choose the 86 one. I don't remember being given any choice when istalling but it seems that I have the 64 bit or why has the 2-6-22-11 kernel been installed? Anyways its all working okay and thats the main thing.

TG

[dibl]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Anyways its all working okay and thats the main thing.

Yes, there's a lot to be said for that!

When you choose a *buntu ISO to download, you pick "PC Intel x86" or "AMD64". It is less than obvious that "AMD64" = "64-bit for 64-bit AMD and Intel CPUs".

The primary issue with 64-bit Gutsy, at the moment, is that the nspluginwrapper that puts flash and Java into your 32-bit Firefox/Iceweasel/Swiftfox browser isn't working. So we're stuck for the moment using a 64-bit browser with no flash or Java. It's a non-fatal condition, and temporary.

Compiz-fusion isn't working yet, either. That's actually the bigger annoyance for me, as I was very comfortable with Beryl on my Feisty Kubuntu system, and it actually made it more usable for multi-tasking for me. But again, it's a temporary situation.

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

dibl just a suggestion but have you tried uninstalling Firefox and then installing Gran Paradiso? Its the beta version of what will eventually be Firefox 3, but as far as my usage goes it seems to already include any flash (not had problems with loading any flash content anyways) it is fast, and is already available to install, but you must disable or uninstall Forefox first, you can't run them together. It is fine on my set up anyways, so what have you got to loose? If it doesn't work or you still have probs then you can always uninstall and wait for Firefox to be sorted.

TG Since I posted this, installed gran paradiso myself, and then had a major prob so hang fire on that suggestion dibl, as it could have been gran paradiso that was the culprit, although it ran okay,but then had major boot probs after, with get apt, apt not installed on boot up etc, so please ignore this post!!

TG

[dibl]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

TG, do have any idea whether gran paradiso will import bookmarks exported from Firefox? I'm willing to give it a shot, but it would be easier if I could save my bookmarks.

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

Note my warning dibl about what happened when I installed gran Paradiso yesterday (now 8.30 tues morn here in GB) had to do a complete re-install as when I tried to boot in it wouldn't and I had to blame Gran paradiso as that was the last program that I installled (although it may not have been that!) Of course, I know that you are more knowledgeable than myself on these matters and could in all probabilty get yourself out of it) and as for the import your bookmarks dibl, I can't honestly remember sorry. The beauty of it is it comes with flash already on board, so no messing around, and when I have been running it, seems pretty stable to say that it is in beta. I don't load up any themes for it or add on's mind you just so not to upset it, and at the mo, Real Player does not seem to work in it, but that could be me who doesn't know how to get it working.

Sorry I can't be much help for you dibl.

TG

[technogran]

Re: Wow -- the boys at Canonical must be working overtime!

TG's comment as to now having two installations isn't exactly correct, at least as I interpret the comment.

What did happen, is the download of updated kernel's, which results in the change to Grub that TG is seeing. If the 32-bit kernel is what was originally installed, then updates to the 32-bit kernel is what would be downloaded. Ditto if it was the 64-bit. As dibl said, if it was other than this, there would be hell to pay.

Right snowhog and dibl, I want to get to the bottom of this, has there also been an update to the kernel for 32bt systems and installs? Because I am sure that I installed the 86 version of tribe 5. How do I find out which version I did install? Of course this is all irrelevant if there has also been an update to the kernel for the 86 version as well. In other words has everyone now got two versions in the boot up menu?