Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
mariaclara
Posts: 4186
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: Sulu Sea

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by mariaclara » Sun May 02, 2010 1:49 pm

As long as no one is forcing you to use LInus, just go your own way.

:roll: :wink:

playjunior wrote:................................................................................................
.
.

................. Mu Shin ..........................

Tord Romstad
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by Tord Romstad » Sun May 02, 2010 6:26 pm

ilari wrote:As a counter anecdote, here's my experience with Ubuntu 10.04:
- Installed in 15 minutes without any problems.
- Recognized all my hardware: sound, 3D accelerated graphics, two screens, wifi, webcam, Wacom tablet, etc.
- Boots in 20 seconds.
- So far I've needed only 1 reboot because I enabled a proprietary NVIDIA driver.
As a counter-counter anecdote, here's my experience with 10.4:

I'm running Ubuntu on a virtual machine running under VirtualBox in Mac OS X. Ubuntu 9.10 worked great, but 10.4 somehow breaks the graphics: When I boot the virtual machine, I get a little dialog box with the following text:
Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode

Your screen, graphics card, and input device settings could not be detected correctly. You will need to configure these yourself.
When I press OK, the system asks what I want to do. The options are "Run Ubuntu in low-graphics mode for just one session", "Reconfigure graphics", "Troubleshoot the error", "Exit to console login", and "Restart X". The most promising of these seems to be "Reconfigure graphics", but this just brings up a new menu where none of the options have any effect whatsoever. In the end, I have no other choice than selecting "Run Ubuntu in low-graphics mode for just one session". It turns out that "low-graphics mode" means 800x600, which looks kind of silly on my 2560x1440 monitor.

I suppose I'll eventually manage to solve the problem by manually editing config files, but it's not fun. Problems like this are the main reason why I'm using Mac OS X instead of Linux. I love the idea of free software, and I really, really hate Apple, but unfortunately they are currently the only ones who make hardware and software I'm able to use comfortably.

User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6395
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by michiguel » Sun May 02, 2010 7:28 pm

Tord Romstad wrote:
ilari wrote:As a counter anecdote, here's my experience with Ubuntu 10.04:
- Installed in 15 minutes without any problems.
- Recognized all my hardware: sound, 3D accelerated graphics, two screens, wifi, webcam, Wacom tablet, etc.
- Boots in 20 seconds.
- So far I've needed only 1 reboot because I enabled a proprietary NVIDIA driver.
As a counter-counter anecdote, here's my experience with 10.4:

I'm running Ubuntu on a virtual machine running under VirtualBox in Mac OS X. Ubuntu 9.10 worked great, but 10.4 somehow breaks the graphics: When I boot the virtual machine, I get a little dialog box with the following text:
Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode

Your screen, graphics card, and input device settings could not be detected correctly. You will need to configure these yourself.
When I press OK, the system asks what I want to do. The options are "Run Ubuntu in low-graphics mode for just one session", "Reconfigure graphics", "Troubleshoot the error", "Exit to console login", and "Restart X". The most promising of these seems to be "Reconfigure graphics", but this just brings up a new menu where none of the options have any effect whatsoever. In the end, I have no other choice than selecting "Run Ubuntu in low-graphics mode for just one session". It turns out that "low-graphics mode" means 800x600, which looks kind of silly on my 2560x1440 monitor.

I suppose I'll eventually manage to solve the problem by manually editing config files, but it's not fun. Problems like this are the main reason why I'm using Mac OS X instead of Linux. I love the idea of free software, and I really, really hate Apple, but unfortunately they are currently the only ones who make hardware and software I'm able to use comfortably.
That is an unfair comparison because Mac OS X runs on machines built by the same company that sells it. A more fair comparison would be with a machine sold already as Linux in which the components where carefully chosen for it.

Miguel

alpha123
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:13 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by alpha123 » Sun May 02, 2010 7:54 pm

playjunior wrote:Linux sucks. I use Ubuntu, and it's one of the better and most praised ones, but my God it sucks.

Every time a new distribution comes, and you are suggested to upgrade, it is a nightmare. People complain about Windows update, but this...this is something different. I upgraded from Jaunty Jackalope to Karmic Koala or whatever and it stopped working. Sound was gone, and it was as slow as my friend's Pentium 133 Mhz with Windows 2000 on it.

Reinstalled.

It does not work with my 2 monitors. I use laptop screen + one big monitor at home and I have two monitors + docking tower at office. Couldn't set it up for the 2 monitors at the office. And yeah, even with the laptop it got screen resolution wrong and I had to get into console read a bunch of instructions just to set up correct screen resolution.

Now this new version came, I installed it. It screwed up everything again, including the GRUB (boot loader) and screen resolution.

I am a Linux noob but an Operating system which self-destroys every time you update it and which cannot get your screen resolution right is like...meh. Frankly I don't understand people who say "it is easy and as good and Windows". It is free, and if you are a pro who does not have a problem with hand-repairing sound drivers after an OS update, give it a go. If not, and you want very, very basic things like screen resolution and double monitors to work without you reading 3 pages about how to set it up, pay that damn 50$ and get a Windows. It is the best value for your money.
Sorry you had a bad experience with Linux. I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 9.10 in under half an hour (using Wubi). The only crash I've had was when I was messing around trying to get it to connect to a wireless network with my wireless card. After that it would never finish logging me in on a restart :(. Reinstalling was a breeze.

Anyway, in starts up in ~20-30 seconds and I don't have to wait a while after that to actually DO anything.... unlike some other operating systems....

The desktop effects are positively awesome, and multiple desktops at once are extremely handy 8-).

Oh and WINE makes it as easy to run Windows programs on Linux as it is to run Windows programs on Windows.... sometimes easier.... :)

Peter

royb
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:53 pm

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by royb » Sun May 02, 2010 9:07 pm

Tord Romstad wrote:
ilari wrote:As a counter anecdote, here's my experience with Ubuntu 10.04:
- Installed in 15 minutes without any problems.
- Recognized all my hardware: sound, 3D accelerated graphics, two screens, wifi, webcam, Wacom tablet, etc.
- Boots in 20 seconds.
- So far I've needed only 1 reboot because I enabled a proprietary NVIDIA driver.
As a counter-counter anecdote, here's my experience with 10.4:

I'm running Ubuntu on a virtual machine running under VirtualBox in Mac OS X. Ubuntu 9.10 worked great, but 10.4 somehow breaks the graphics: When I boot the virtual machine, I get a little dialog box with the following text:
Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode

Your screen, graphics card, and input device settings could not be detected correctly. You will need to configure these yourself.
When I press OK, the system asks what I want to do. The options are "Run Ubuntu in low-graphics mode for just one session", "Reconfigure graphics", "Troubleshoot the error", "Exit to console login", and "Restart X". The most promising of these seems to be "Reconfigure graphics", but this just brings up a new menu where none of the options have any effect whatsoever. In the end, I have no other choice than selecting "Run Ubuntu in low-graphics mode for just one session". It turns out that "low-graphics mode" means 800x600, which looks kind of silly on my 2560x1440 monitor.

I suppose I'll eventually manage to solve the problem by manually editing config files, but it's not fun. Problems like this are the main reason why I'm using Mac OS X instead of Linux. I love the idea of free software, and I really, really hate Apple, but unfortunately they are currently the only ones who make hardware and software I'm able to use comfortably.
Tord,

It's been a while since I saw this while running a Ubuntu 10.04 beta, but if I remember correctly, the problem has to do with the newer kernel that 10.04 runs and the VirtualBox additions. There is a fix for it if you google it you should be able to find it.

Roy

User avatar
ilari
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by ilari » Sun May 02, 2010 9:26 pm

Tord Romstad wrote:I'm running Ubuntu on a virtual machine running under VirtualBox in Mac OS X. Ubuntu 9.10 worked great, but 10.4 somehow breaks the graphics
Are you sure it's not a VirtualBox bug, or that your version of VirtualBox even officially supports Ubuntu 10.04's kernel (2.6.32)? What's your VirtualBox version?

playjunior
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by playjunior » Sun May 02, 2010 9:52 pm

Volker Pittlik wrote:
playjunior wrote:Linux sucks. ...
I am a ... noob .
You agree that someone may detect a corellation between these two sentences, don't you? ;-)
No, I don't. Sound and screen resolution are most basic things and should work regardless of whether the user is advanced or not.

User avatar
ilari
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by ilari » Sun May 02, 2010 10:33 pm

playjunior wrote:
Volker Pittlik wrote:
playjunior wrote:Linux sucks. ...
I am a ... noob .
You agree that someone may detect a corellation between these two sentences, don't you? ;-)
No, I don't. Sound and screen resolution are most basic things and should work regardless of whether the user is advanced or not.
No one is disputing that. But it is true that noobs often fail to see where the problem is, so they put the blame on Linux when the culprit is actually a 3rd party (hardware manufacturer, 3rd party software, US patent system, etc.).

playjunior
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by playjunior » Mon May 03, 2010 9:33 am

ilari wrote:
playjunior wrote:
Volker Pittlik wrote:
playjunior wrote:Linux sucks. ...
I am a ... noob .
You agree that someone may detect a corellation between these two sentences, don't you? ;-)
No, I don't. Sound and screen resolution are most basic things and should work regardless of whether the user is advanced or not.
No one is disputing that. But it is true that noobs often fail to see where the problem is, so they put the blame on Linux when the culprit is actually a 3rd party (hardware manufacturer, 3rd party software, US patent system, etc.).
So you argue that the fact that I had to read pages of documentation to "add" the correct screen mode is because hardware, 3rd party software or patent laws? I had just installed the OS, and Windows does detect the resolution without any divine intervention, for the same hardware.

alpha123
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:13 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS

Post by alpha123 » Mon May 03, 2010 2:46 pm

playjunior wrote:
ilari wrote:
playjunior wrote:
Volker Pittlik wrote:
playjunior wrote:Linux sucks. ...
I am a ... noob .
You agree that someone may detect a corellation between these two sentences, don't you? ;-)
No, I don't. Sound and screen resolution are most basic things and should work regardless of whether the user is advanced or not.
No one is disputing that. But it is true that noobs often fail to see where the problem is, so they put the blame on Linux when the culprit is actually a 3rd party (hardware manufacturer, 3rd party software, US patent system, etc.).
So you argue that the fact that I had to read pages of documentation to "add" the correct screen mode is because hardware, 3rd party software or patent laws? I had just installed the OS, and Windows does detect the resolution without any divine intervention, for the same hardware.
The machine was built for Windows, correct?

Now install Windows on a Mac OS X machine, or a netbook or something that had Linux on it from the start. Good luck getting the same result.....

Peter

Post Reply