Announcement

**flarson** · Apr 16, 2009, 10:17 AM

Re: What version to install?

I would recommend downloading a new daily snapshot. There have been so many changes since Alpha 6 that in some cases it may be like going up 2 releases and things will fail. Even the day after 6 came out about 50% was replaced with an upgrade. The changes are getting fewer now as we get closer to release.

**dibl** · Apr 16, 2009, 10:20 AM

Re: What version to install?

Originally posted by Oceanwatcher

I ususally need about 20 hours to download a full CD.

Wow. I would agree with mando except for this problem with your connection.

#18 in the "Top 20" link in my signature has a good link to "32 vs. 64" discussion. I use 64-bit. There's no difference in power consumption. Until more native 64-bit applications are available, there's little practical difference for typical use of the computer. I wouldn't wait 20 hours just to get a 64-bit ISO image.

**GreyGeek** · Apr 16, 2009, 11:55 AM

Re: What version to install?

To add to what Dibl said...

The 64bit version will see ALL of your 4GB of RAM (if you have 4GB) but the normally used 32-bit version will see only 3GB of RAM, leaving the other 1GB unused.

A friend of mine has an HP 64bit laptop and he ran the 64bit LiveDVD (IIRC) on it. Comparing it with my INSTALLED 32-bit version his was FASTER when an app was running by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times! It was only a little slower when it was loading an app off the DVD. I bought my 32 bit Sony VAIO 9 months ago. In hindsight I should have purchased a Four Quad 64 bit machine.

EDIT:
When I posted that comment I "thought" my Sonly VAIO VGN-FW140E/H was a 32 bit notebook because, IIRC, that was the impression the sales person gave me. I ignored the "Centrino2" sticker (being blind is easy) but when someone mentioned that all recently manufactured desktops, laptops and notebooks were 64 bit I did some research and discovered that my notebook was indeed a 64bit machine.

Well, I opened a 40Gb partition and put the 64bit Kubuntu 9.10 Karmic on it when it was alpha4. The improved performance is so much better than running the 32bit Kubntu 9.04 Jaunty on the other partition that I rarely run the Juanty any more.

However, there are some 32 bit apps which do not work well with the ia32 libraries used to run 32 bit apps under a 64but system. The problem is related to how the xserver-xorg-video-intel driver works with the ia32 library. As of 10/13/09 (today) I am using the .90 Intel driver and HAL is selecting the i915 driver for the GM45 chip in this box. Stellarium won't give a legible F2 config screen but the star navagation works fine. SecondLive won't run at all.

**sithlord48** · May 04, 2009, 09:10 AM

Re: What version to install?

if you have a 64-bit processor use a 64-bit os you have nothing to loose. with the added bounus of being able to see more then 4GB of ram as GreyGeek pointed out.

**JonPiper** · Oct 13, 2009, 09:50 AM

Re: What version to install?

Run 64 AMD. Much faster on the same computer. I have been running 64 AMD since ver 7.04 and haven't any issues except for the lack of Flash player; that problem is history now so don't be concerned. I have four 64 bit machines; they all work great using Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, SUSE, FreeBSD. One of the laptops is an Intel and run 8.04 amd64 and Windoz Vista 32 bit; it runs 3 hrs 45 min on Kubuntu and 1 hr 30 min on Vista -- go figure -- it will run 8.04 until the support runs out - I detest Kubuntu 9.04 & 9.10.

Here is a hint about installation:
Install from Ubuntu iso rather then Kubuntu iso because for some reason not known to me, you cannot add programs. The install program in Kubuntu is broken and has been since ver 9.04 at least and continues to be in ver 9.10 as of 10/10. Of course 9.10 is a moving target since it is beta.

**sithlord48** · Oct 14, 2009, 09:22 PM

Re: What version to install?

Originally posted by JonPiper

Here is a hint about installation:
Install from Ubuntu iso rather then Kubuntu iso because for some reason not known to me, you cannot add programs. The install program in Kubuntu is broken and has been since ver 9.04 at least and continues to be in ver 9.10 as of 10/10. Of course 9.10 is a moving target since it is beta.

although kubuntu and ubuntu are very similar unless you want to use the Gnome Desktop (by default). you should not install from the ubuntu disk unless for some reason the kubuntu installer will not run on your machine.

as for package management you can simply install synaptic (same package manager used in ubuntu) after you install kubuntu. by just running this command from your konsole (if you didn't know you can find it in your k-menu)

Code:

sudo apt-get install synaptic

it will also ask you to install packages some other packages that it needs to run.
after you install it you will be able to find it in your K-menu

i can't vouch for the add/remove programs app(as i have never used it) but kpackagekit is rather broken right now, i would recommend the use of syanptic for any one who does not want to install programs from the konsole

**JonPiper** · Oct 15, 2009, 08:46 AM

Re: What version to install?

Re: What version to install?

The reason I did not use "apt", is that in version 9.04 and 9.10 it was not installed. My installer of choice is "Synaptic" for multiple programs and "apt " for single packages when I can find the package name. The Kubuntu installer is for the birds beginning with 8.10. Ver 9.10 also provided no way to access the internet so I couldn't have used "apt" if it had been there. Also "adept" was not installed; "adept" is my second choice for installing packages. What I am saying, these two installations were messed up.

There is another reason I install Ubuntu and then use "Synaptic" to install Kubuntu, is that it provide access to more applications - particularly, programming tools because I am a software developer. I can do without all of games, Edubuntu, and other fu-fu; in fact is resent my disk space being taken up with stuff I will never use in a million years. I don't ever use Ubuntu for anything more than installing Kubuntu. If I didn't have to use KDE 4 library files, I would never use any system that uses KDE 4; I use it to run the KBasic development system - that is all. I think they should dump KDE 4 and go back to KDE 3.5; I have never seen a system harder to configure and less intuitive to use (have been a programmer for over 30 years and believe me I have seen a lot of systems.) After spending many hours, I haven't been able to configure 9.04 or 9.10 to my satisfaction; I can configure KDE 3.5 in 30 minutes. Nuf complaining.

Jon Piper

**sithlord48** · Oct 15, 2009, 10:08 AM

Re: What version to install?

Originally posted by JonPiper

The reason I did not use "apt", is that in version 9.04 and 9.10 it was not installed.

the command is apt-get, hope that helps.

**GreyGeek** · Oct 15, 2009, 11:24 AM

Re: What version to install?

Originally posted by JonPiper

Re: What version to install?

The reason I did not use "apt", is that in version 9.04 and 9.10 it was not installed. My installer of choice is "Synaptic" for multiple programs and "apt " for single packages when I can find the package name. The Kubuntu installer is for the birds beginning with 8.10. Ver 9.10 also provided no way to access the internet so I couldn't have used "apt" if it had been there. Also "adept" was not installed; "adept" is my second choice for installing packages. What I am saying, these two installations were messed up.

Synaptic is my favorite too, but the more I use apt the more I like it.

I cannot run Ubuntu as a LiveCD unless I have a wired Internet connection because Ubuntu's HAL won't recognize/configure the Intel 1500 wireless chip in my Sony VAIO, so none of the network tools will configure it and ndiswrapper isn't on the LiveCD. In fact, ANY Broadcom 43xx wireless is not recognized by the Ubuntu installer or HAL. One must use a wired connection and then install the b43-fwcutter application from the repository in order to pull the firmware out of the BIOS of the chip to enable HAL to detect it.

Kubuntu, on the other hand does recognize my wireless and allows me to make an Internet connection without the use of a cat5 from the back of my wireless router or ndiswrapper. Also, until 9.10 Ubuntu would not recognize my GM45 video chip, but Kubuntu never had a problem with it. The installers for both the 9.04 and 9.10 versions of Kubuntu worked well for me but, as you found out, one's mileage may vary with the make & model of the target machine. It's a mystery to me why Kubuntu, basded on Ubuntu, will recognize my wireless but Ubuntu won't.

Another mystery is why Kubuntu recognizes my GM45 chipe in accelerated 3D but Ubuntu does not. In fact, until 9.10, Ubuntu would only give me a nonfunctional light gray display with the desktop and sound playing invisibly in the background. Since HAL detects and configures the xserver automatically there is no longer an xorg.conf file to tweak in order to create a workking desktop when HAL fails to create one. dpkg --reconfigure phigh xserver-.... no longer works because "phigh" is ignored.

In fact, I had been running Mandriva 2009 PWP on this notebook since I purchased it a year ago August. Mandriva would only configure my GM45 as VESA. I submitted a bug report to xorg and watched for several months as work progressed on making the Intel driver work. Last Feburary, at the same time, a fix was found by xorg AND Kubuntu 9.04 alpha was released. Mandriva was running KDE 4.2.1 and Kubuntu 9.04 featured KDE 4.2.2, which Mandriva wasn't going to run till June. I booted the LiveCD of Kubuntu 9.04 and was stunned to see my display come up in accelerated 3D automatically. I switched to Kubuntu immediately and have not been disappointed. This notebook is currently running both 9.04 and 9.10, but I spend 99% of my time in 9.10 with the KDE 4.3.2 desktop.

There is another reason I install Ubuntu and then use "Synaptic" to install Kubuntu, is that it provide access to more applications - particularly, programming tools because I am a software developer. I can do without all of games, Edubuntu, and other fu-fu; in fact is resent my disk space being taken up with stuff I will never use in a million years. I don't ever use Ubuntu for anything more than installing Kubuntu. If I didn't have to use KDE 4 library files, I would never use any system that uses KDE 4; I use it to run the KBasic development system - that is all. I think they should dump KDE 4 and go back to KDE 3.5; I have never seen a system harder to configure and less intuitive to use (have been a programmer for over 30 years and believe me I have seen a lot of systems.) After spending many hours, I haven't been able to configure 9.04 or 9.10 to my satisfaction; I can configure KDE 3.5 in 30 minutes. Nuf complaining.

Ya, I never install apps or games I don't use either. As far as "dumping" KDE4 and "going back" to KDE3.5.x it isn't going to happen. Trolltech, the creators of Qt, were at a crossroads. Their current version of Qt, 3, was long in the tooth and they had to decide if they wanted to what Microsoft did, continually add code to the same base and create a bloated, buggy kludge of a widget set, or start from scratch, the way Linus did with the kernel when he went to modules which could be added or removed from a running kernel. KDE3.5.10, on the other hand, is currently a dead end desktop. NO NEW applications are being made for it. It would be like making an application specifically for Windows 95. Updates and security patches to existing applications will continue to be released as long as the dev crews for the various distros support them. Kubuntu's dev crew, for example, does not have the people or resources to take up the development of the Qt3.x widget set in addition to the 3.5 applications AND do Qt4 application work at the same time. So, KDE 3.5.10 will probably be the last version of that desktop unless a group undertakes the support of BOTH the Qt3.x widget set AND the Qt3.5 applications. THAT would be a HUGE, of not prohibitive, support task.

A little over a year ago I retired from a 40 year career of programming and teaching. My last five years of programming was with Qt3 and Qt4. I was faced with the task of converting my Qt3 based apps to Qt4. It was NOT easy. The conversion program worked only for simple programs, and when it did work it produced such a kludge I felt it was better to re-write my Qt3 apps from scratch using Qt4. That is a step, in hind sight, that I am thankful I took. Programming with Qt3 involved using the Qt3-designer and working your apps around its restraints and limitations. With Qt4 that paradigm changed to a more standard programming model in which Qt-designer is just gui form designer and one can use any editors and dev tools they wish. Qt3 coders could too, but it involved writing xml files by hand to create gui forms and dialogs and other skills which limited Qt3 programming to the top 10% of all coders. With Qt4 my favorite editor was Kate. Then Troilltech was sold to Nioka and shortly after that QtCreator was released. IT is an AWESOME Qt4 dev tool. It brings a dev tool of the caliber of MSVC++ to Qt/Linux coding, or even better. You should try it. It is in the repository as "qtcreator". Installl Kdbg too.

I began using KDE in September of 1998, when it was beta-1.0. I had to relearn how to manage KDE when the 2.0 version was released and there was a REAL relearning curve when KDE 3.0 was released. When I first tried using KDE4 I was hampered by the fact that few of my KDE3.5 techniques for desktop management would work. I had to re-educate myself. The task was made more difficult because feedback caused the KDE4 dev crew to modify how one would manage a KDE4 desktop between 4.1 and 4.2, and then again some small changes were made with the release of KDE 4.3.x But, for the last several months how one manages the KDE4 desktop hasn't changed much at all. Even with KDE 3.5.10 there was always something new to learn in how to manage it. The same is true with KDE 4.3.x. I have no trouble setting up KDE4.3 to look and run exactly how I want it to look and run and I am constantly learning new things.

**JonPiper** · Oct 15, 2009, 03:40 PM

Re: What version to install?

What version to install?

You are right about every installation's mileage will vary. All of our machines are 64 bit. We have two laptops-both 64 bit; one amd and one Intel - both run 8.04 amd 64 like a champ. The wireless switch on both broke; one runs only ethernet, the other runs both ethernet and wireless in Linux and only wireless on Vista - the switch is broken on the on position whereas the other is broken on the off position. I have installed it on dozens of others and rarely have a problem except for AMD machines running wireless. The desktop that runs Kubuntu 9.04 (I dumped 9.10 after I had to reinstall it three times and it deleted my desktop and two other directories.) also had Debian, SUSE and FreeBSD. The last time I installed 9.04 I used 32 bit version because KBasic only comes in 32 bit.

I never have used QT for programming except for KBasic which I use on Windoz and for quick and dirty programs. For Linux and BSD, I use C, C++, Perl, and Haskell with wxWidgets which is easy to use and works great. It is a real pain converting programs to another system. I developed an accounting system that started out on CPM then TRS-80, then moved to MS-DOS then to IBM OS/2, and now to Linux since 1997 with KDE 0.1( I think). After the first conversion, I just started over only carrying my libraries to the new system - I had to learn the hard way.

Most of my quarel with KDE 4 is the panel -- It is Black and I can't read it easily and there is also no menu editor. The menu is slow as molasses in December and takes at least three clicks to select anything. As I said before: nuf complaining.

Blessing,

Jon Piper

**askrieger** · Nov 22, 2009, 09:56 PM

Re: What version to install?

Most of my quarel with KDE 4 is the panel -- It is Black and I can't read it easily

The color of the panel depends on the theme that you are using. Right-click on the desktop. Select "Appearnce Settings". Make sure that the top selection box "Type" is set to "Desktop". Then, under "Desktop Theme", open the selection box "Theme". Try a few. Most of the themes have black panels, but "Aya", for example, has a grey panel. In addition, by changing the desktop background, you can increase (or decrease) the contrast between the panel and the rest of the desktop.

Explore. KDE4 (at least as shipped in Jaunty and Karmic) is almost as tweakable as KDE3. I presume it will be even more tweakable in Lucid. Moreover, it seems to be the way that KDE is going for the foreseeable future.

Announcement

What version to install?

What version to install?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment