Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

[dibl]

The Ubuntu users are all in a panic over a new Gnome-disk-utility that gives false "disk failing" messages:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1237899

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1237810

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1241457

[kbunt]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

You go to download the latest Kubuntu Karmic version 9.10 but it's actually Ubuntu 9.10. It seems Kubuntu (and KDE) continues to be an afterthought for Ubuntu so there's nothing to be proud about, I think.

I assume you are expected to just install KDE and then you have it? Or, alternatively, they just have the link go to the 'Ubuntu' download.

Btw, *Ubuntu* Karmic (and thus, Kubuntu, I guess) LiveCD doesn't work on my Thinkpad since it eventually freezes the entire notebook and I have to reset/turn on the computer. I know it's Alpha (5) but c'mon! :-(

[dibl]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

You go to download the latest Kubuntu Karmic version 9.10 but it's actually Ubuntu 9.10.

No, it is not, not if you get it here:

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/daily-live/current/

[Snowhog]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

No, it isn't Ubuntu Karmic 9.10, at least, if you start at:
www.kubuntu.org
then clicking on
Dowload
and then on
Download now
selecting either Standard personal computer or 64bit AMD, choosing a location to download from, and clicking the Start Download button.

Yes, you are taken to Get Ubuntu, but the pop-up download notification clearly shows that you will be downloading: http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/j...sktop-i386.iso

[kbunt]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

Okay, they just use the same name of the file, it looks like. Ubuntu's is a little bigger (696MB v.s. 656MB). I'll download the Kubuntu one as I'm curious how it will run on my Thinkpad (yeah, I know it's in Alpha 5, too).

I upgraded the disk drive and now am searching for a distro to put on it. I am not sure whether KDE4 will be more resource-heavy or not. Many users claim it isn't but we shall see. I am not sure whether a Gnome desktop would be lighter or not but I want to stick with one of the two. I was hoping at up-to-date distro would be sufficient and not too problematic since the hardware is relatively common (and old, I guess). ;-)

[olembe]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

If it helps, I'm running Kubuntu Alpha 5 on a Thinkpad X200s without any real problems. And the Intel graphics are running much better than with Jaunty.

Remember: ThinkWiki is your friend...

[kbunt]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

If it helps, I'm running Kubuntu Alpha 5 on a Thinkpad X200s without any real problems. And the Intel graphics are running much better than with Jaunty.

Remember: ThinkWiki is your friend...

That's true......

[GreyGeek]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

You go to download the latest Kubuntu Karmic version 9.10 but it's actually Ubuntu 9.10.
...

I made that mistake a couple weeks ago when a friend brought his laptop to my home so I could install Kubuntu on it. In preparation for his visit I did a quick download of "Karmic" (thinking it was Kubuntu Karmic and forgetting that Canonical calls both Ubuntu and Kubuntu "Karmic" releases) and when I booted the LiveCD I was suprised to see the Ubuntu desktop. Fortunately I have a 12 Mb/s bandwidth connection and I quickly went to the dailies and downloaded and burned that ISO of Kubuntu Karmic.

I met him in SL last night, he was running the latest SL beta for Linux on his Kubuntu desktop. I asked him why he wasn't using his laptop running VISTA? --- "It's too slow and it hangs all the time. Linux is better." His 64bit VISTA HP is just over a year old. The Gateway m675prr that he installed Kubuntu Karmic on, and from which he runs SL, is over 5 years old.


P.S. -- I just wrote a comparison between VISTA and Kubuntu Karmic while running Second Life. I would tell Microsoft to just sue me, but I do not have Windows installed and I haven't clicked through that EULA which forbids me from writing such comparisons with Microsoft's permission, so it would be false bravado. However, my friend could not write this posting without risking a lawsuit from Microsoft, despite First Amendment rights. Don't you just love it when corporations nullify the Constitution. (He didn't have to install VISTA, you say? Well, how many Joe and Sally sixpacks KNOW THAT before they complete the partially PRE-INSTALLED OS on their new laptop?)

[kbunt]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

The LiveCD worked well but I have one complaint. It's more of a general complaint on software and package managers, though. I don't like any of them except for Synaptic. I am not sure why K/Ubuntu finds it necessary to use the other ones as default but that is a BIG negative against them.

There are obstacles to installing software as their 'how-to's' for it restrict to outdated or previous versions. I could not find even one karmic repository or mention of one on any ubuntu or kubuntu site. So, how do you install anything that is in a non-default repository? Non-free? Hello

This is a rather large knock against them as I am so mad about it, I'm looking if OpenSUSE or Fedora makes it as hard.

Edit: Nevermind, I found some (i.e. a list). I had to modify my Google search terms and it's an archive but I have a sources list that provides what I'm looking for. But, why so hard to find?!?

One last concern: Grub 2. I have XP installed and although I am going to re-install a new, fresh copy of XP (the laptop was bought with a bloated XP with extra drivers for other Thinkpad models and other unnecessary files/programs) the Grub 2 part is a concern. Do I have anything to worry about there? I have read of some users saying Grub 2 is not optimized yet or that it isn't as good as Grub yet. But, maybe that is because they are having issues or?

Other than that, I was satisfied with the Kubuntu Karmic LiveCD on my Thinkpad so far except for being frustrated trying to find a sources list/repositories for karmic.

[Snowhog]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

...that EULA which forbids me from writing such comparisons with[out](sic) Microsoft's permission,...

Is that really true!? The purchaser of Vista isn't permitted by the EULA to publically critisize, through comparison, it to other OS's? Man, if that is true, wow. M$ sure has a set on them, don't they. I'd be suprised if they would be able to substantiate that 'right' in court.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

Restrictions on publishing bench mark comparisons by Microsoft were established years ago, when Linux users began publishing reports comparing server uptimes, load stability, etc.... Microsoft was forced to modify SOME of its EULAs because of the following court case:
http://www.sdtimes.com/SearchResult/27465

Just like public pressure forced them, in 2006, to begin allowing an individual to reinstall their VISTA on another machine if they took it off the first. Before, that was not allowed:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/02/m...irates-still-s


But, since then, probably because of MONO, I see that they have been pressured to modify their .NET benchmark rules:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973265.aspx
Which, being on the internet, can be changed without notice, and MS reserves that right.
Which they do:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms994344.aspx
(get the feeling you are trying to pin a tail on the donkey?)

You may conduct internal benchmark testing of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components (“.NET Component”). You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Component, provided that you comply with the following terms: (1) you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests, including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s); (2) you must disclose the date(s) that you conducted the benchmark tests, along with specific version information for all Microsoft software products tested, including the .NET Component; (3) your benchmark testing was performed using all performance tuning and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on Microsoft’s support web sites, and uses the latest updates, patches and fixes available for the .NET Component and the relevant Microsoft operating system; (4) it shall be sufficient if you make the disclosures provided for above at a publicly available location such as a website, so long as every public disclosure of the results of your benchmark test expressly identifies the public site containing all required disclosures; and (5) nothing in this provision shall be deemed to waive any other right that you may have to conduct benchmark testing. The foregoing obligations shall not apply to your disclosure of the results of any customized benchmark test of the .NET Component, whereby such disclosure is made under confidentiality in conjunction with a bid request by a prospective customer, such customer’s application(s) are specifically tested and the results are only disclosed to such specific customer. Notwithstanding any other agreement you may have with Microsoft, if you disclose such benchmark test results, Microsoft shall have the right to disclose the results of benchmark tests it conducts of your products that compete with the .NET Component, provided it complies with the same conditions above.

.NET rules have been relaxes because MONO doesn't measure up to .NET yet, if it ever will.

There are still surprises in Microsoft's EULAs:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/420

and some products STILL forbid publishing benchmark results without Microsoft's written prior approval, like SQL Server, or Visual Studio 2008 C++, for example:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6301673/eula1033 (page 3)

• disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software to any third party without Microsoft’s prior written approval;

There are many other, product specific examples.





So, unless outright forbidden, you must include so much detail that it makes publishing a general summary report or your results impractical.

[Snowhog]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

Holy c$!p! If I read the EULA correctly, it seems like M$ is saying "You can benchmark our ".NET Component" so long as you provide us with every detail in what you used, how you used it, to include the source code used." Geez, talk about an end run to get their hands on the tools used to 'challenge' their own results, so as to then, possibly, modify their own testing tools to bolster their own claims.

My dad has always believed that M$ was 'evil.'

[dibl]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

Microsoft's aggressive behavior, regarding their original Win XP license, is why I use Linux today. I'm not sure it is still the case today, but in the '05 - '06 timeframe, and probably earlier, they enforced a "two hard drive" limit on their desktop OS license. I broke my RAID 1 installation in early 2006, and had to call MS tech support to re-activate my Win XP license. I was appalled when they asked me how many hard drives were in my computer. I truthfully answered "two", upon which I was informed that if I ever wanted to add a third hard drive, I would have to buy a server license. I was beyond offended -- I resolved to find another way to get my computing done.

I continue to think they need a stiff dose of competition ... which is why there have been 8,000 attempts to help other people here.

[kbunt]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

I wasn't aware of those issues. Interesting. To try and control benchmarks....MS can't be greedy enough.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Reason for Kubuntu users to be smug

... but in the '05 - '06 timeframe, and probably earlier,....

I was running OS/2, which had the ability to run Windows within it, much like running Windows as a guest os now, except that OS/2 made Windows more stable and somewhat faster. Microsoft kept tweaking Windows so it would not install into OS/2, and even a simple tweak would take IBM engineers much MORE time to reverse engineer than it would take MS to make tweaks. IBM eventually dropped support for Windows, so I switched to Windows because I liked the GUI.

While running Windows I read a Dr Dobbs Journal article about how Microsoft tweaked Windows so that it would refused to install on top of DRDOS4, claiming it would only run on MSDOS. The editors edited the Win binary and NOP'd the parts detecting DRDOS and then did a perfect install. In fact, they reported, Windows ran better on DRDO4S than on MSDOS.

Combining those two pieces of info led me to believe that Microsoft was less than ethical and was being run by a kid whose trashing of an Albuquerque motel room was indicative of things to come. Time has born my suspicions out. In the annals of corporate skulduggery, Microsoft is ranked #1. Microsoft makes Standard Oil or Bernie Madoff look like rank amateurs.