If some of you also use it, i will hear your meanings.
Ubuntu 9.10 AKA karmic koala
Ubuntu 9.10 AKA karmic koala
I just installed the new ubuntu, and i really like it
If some of you also use it, i will hear your meanings.
If some of you also use it, i will hear your meanings.
I had Easy Peasy based on Ubuntu 9.04 on my Eee 900. Upgrading to 9.10 turned my netbook into a Slimey Slug. The graphical interface was really slow to respond and programs took a long time to load.
I solved the problem by using xmonad instead of the regular gnome-y interface. I have no idea what went wrong, but I'm not looking back. Xmonad is awesome, and a great fit for netbooks.
I solved the problem by using xmonad instead of the regular gnome-y interface. I have no idea what went wrong, but I'm not looking back. Xmonad is awesome, and a great fit for netbooks.
Playing around in 9.10 at the moment, and I have to agree ... it's really slowleetnigga wrote:I had Easy Peasy based on Ubuntu 9.04 on my Eee 900. Upgrading to 9.10 turned my netbook into a Slimey Slug. The graphical interface was really slow to respond and programs took a long time to load.
"The best place to hide a tree, is in a forest"
I've been looking at Karmic Koala for a few days now trying to decide whether I should give it a shot on my netbook. I have an Eee PC 1000, and have been running Mandriva 2008.1 with KDE for a while without problems because it advertised a complete compatibility for the Asus EEE line.
We'll see this weekend, I'm reading a lot of good things about Ubuntu and have never tried it.
We'll see this weekend, I'm reading a lot of good things about Ubuntu and have never tried it.
I removed it from my netbook, running Debian there instead now.r1n0z33n wrote:can you share wut u like on ubuntu 9.10... i also used it, but only for my home server. not giving too much attention to her.
I have Ubuntu 9.10 on my stationary computer, simply because I think it's a comfortable Linux dist to use when I feel lazy and want to swap the mouse around the pretty looking interface.
I'm a sucker for design, and I like to play around with making the interface look nice and shiny, but in 9.10 they've already done a pretty good job with that, so not much that I want to change.
I am used to having CTRL+SUPER as my hotkey for bringing up the terminal, but for some reason I can't add it using the regular hotkey manager, so I have to add it elsewhere. Not much of a hassle, but it's annoying since I use this computer when I'm "relaxing" = everything has to work.
Even with the stationary computer, I feel that 9.10 is slower then the previous versions, but it might be that I notice it more because I have a new habit of using many virtual computers at once when I work.
Some good points
*It's very easy to use, even if you are not that used to using a Linux dist
*It looks nice
Some bad points
*It feels slower then previous version
*It has some seriously annoying system sounds that I have to remove every damn time I install it (I hate system sounds, stupid drums when you login etc .. bleh)
*They have Evolution and Empathy as default mail and im clients, they suck in my oh so humble opinion
To summarize it, it's a good distro, but they put too much work on the "The user is an idiot and doesn't know what he/she wants" part. If you are used to using Linux, well then I shouldn't have to tell you because you have already found the distro of your hearth, but personally I go for Debian usually, on servers and on the machines that I work on usually. This one is a good distro for daily entertainment and usage
"The best place to hide a tree, is in a forest"
i agree with this. that's why i didnt upgrade my laptop to 9.10. and at the boot section , it is slower than 10 seconds 9.04... i love jaunty morecats wrote:I have Ubuntu 9.10 on my stationary computer, simply because I think it's a comfortable Linux dist to use when I feel lazy and want to swap the mouse around the pretty looking interface.
What are you guys on about? "Ubuntu is really slow whilst running some program?" How does that make ubunut 9.10 bad? I hope you realize that Linux is as good as it is because it is so heavily customizable. Saying Ubuntu 9.10 is slower than the previous version that runs an older KDE/Gnome or something, is likes saying that Windows Vista SP1 running Call of Duty 4 1.5 is slower than Windows Vista running Call of Duty 1.0. There are two unknowns.
"Ubuntu" doesn't change. The software it comes bundled with changes, as well as the version of the kernel it comes with by default. It's pretty safe to say that the kernel version wouldn't be at all if it just 'sucked', because that's not how the kernel people operate. Using this logic, we can conclude that the most likely culprit is the newer version of the window manager that 9.10 runs.
That doesn't make 9.10 slow. It just means you install an older version or change VMs.
I don't understand why anyone actually uses KDE or Gnome anyway. Desktop icons are completely redundant with several desktops and terminals and a run dialog. I run fluxbox, without a desktop manager.
A lot of people make the mistake of talking about ubuntu and other linux distros in general as different operating systems. They have much more in comon than they don't. Again, the biggest differences will the kernels they come with and the package managers, but obviously, what kernel version you run is hardly set in stone. You don't have to keep the default software either.
"Ubuntu" doesn't change. The software it comes bundled with changes, as well as the version of the kernel it comes with by default. It's pretty safe to say that the kernel version wouldn't be at all if it just 'sucked', because that's not how the kernel people operate. Using this logic, we can conclude that the most likely culprit is the newer version of the window manager that 9.10 runs.
That doesn't make 9.10 slow. It just means you install an older version or change VMs.
I don't understand why anyone actually uses KDE or Gnome anyway. Desktop icons are completely redundant with several desktops and terminals and a run dialog. I run fluxbox, without a desktop manager.
A lot of people make the mistake of talking about ubuntu and other linux distros in general as different operating systems. They have much more in comon than they don't. Again, the biggest differences will the kernels they come with and the package managers, but obviously, what kernel version you run is hardly set in stone. You don't have to keep the default software either.
@icedance: Well we are discussing Ubuntu 9.10 as a version, with all that comes bundled with it per default, not "Ubuntu". Of course you can change it to make it work like you want to, slower or faster. But this is how I experienced Ubuntu 9.10, as it worked per default.
"The best place to hide a tree, is in a forest"
Yes, I understood that much, and that is why I replied. Discussing Linux "as default" makes very little sense. Like I said, Linux is as good as it is because it can be customized down to the kernel that you use.cats wrote:@icedance: Well we are discussing Ubuntu 9.10 as a version, with all that comes bundled with it per default, not "Ubuntu". Of course you can change it to make it work like you want to, slower or faster. But this is how I experienced Ubuntu 9.10, as it worked per default.
Obviously, it is good if Ubuntu 9.10 works out of the box for those who are trying to move to Linux that might not be especially computer literate, but I personally don't think those people should bother, as Linux is only free if your time has no value.
If something in Linux doesn't work as intended, you can always fix it. If the kernel is bad(Which it shouldn't be), or if it doesn't support your hardware, you recompile and it's fixed. If the window manager is slow, you reinstall a new version or you get another window manager.
I did a dist-upgrade to 9.10 not too long ago, and nothing broke. In fact, stuff worked better(Some sound annoyances went away).