What did you do with your configuration?

My Wacom Graphire is not working after the upgrade to 8.04, until I disconnect and then reconnect it.

After switching to tty1 and back to tty7 I have to do that again, after logging off and logging on I have to do that again. This is very annoying.

And when the Graphire is working (after the reconnect), the pen loses its absolute positioning setting, and the mouse pointer moves to the uppper left corner of the screen whenever the pen is not over the tablet's drawing area. This is making it very difficult to work with it.

In past releases of Linux distrobutions Wacom tablets were only recognized at boot time. I don't know if this has been changed with the kernel used by 8.04. To have the Wacom fuuly functional in Gimp you need change "Preferences"-> "Input Devices"-> "Configure Extended Input Devices..."-> "Device:(pad, eraser, cursor & stlus) to "Mode:Screen/Window". Then click the "Save Input Device Settings Now" button.

As to xorg I added the following 4 sections:

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "stylus"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Stylus2" "3" # set button to right click
Option "Type" "stylus"
Option "USB" "on"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "eraser"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Type" "eraser"
Option "USB" "on"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "cursor"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Type" "cursor"
Option "USB" "on"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Driver "wacom"
Identifier "pad"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/wacom"
Option "Type" "pad"
Option "USB" "on"
EndSection

And in Section "ServerLayout" I added the following 4 lines.

InputDevice "stylus" "SendCoreEvents"
InputDevice "cursor" "SendCoreEvents"
InputDevice "eraser" "SendCoreEvents"
InputDevice "pad"

I'll add my experiences to the ones above.

Actually I installed this version when it was still "unstable" (a good while ago), and didn't have much trouble - actually the only big problem at first was that Gnome panels died if I tried to open the clock/calendar, but it was quickly fixed. There were occasional freezes of X, but those disappeared well before the official release; now that it's out, I can look back and say that in addition to the installer being as fast and easy (non-disturbing; I don't care answering stupid questions with this OS :) I can deal with them later, or just use Slackware) as before the actual system runs smoothly. Including nVidia proprietary graphics card drivers and all.

Note that I did the installation by burning a setup disc and doing a "clean" install, formatting root partition during the setup - very probably the network upgrade would have worked, but it's all the same to me, because downloading and writing the setup disc and installing off it takes about the same time as using apt-get and I don't lose anything because I use a good old cd-rw. Downloading wasn't slow, perhaps due to me using torrent to get the disc image.

All in all, this seems to be a good release. Not nearly as much problems even in the beginning (first official release, before "first official release updates") that I expected based on other operating systems/distributions/versions I've used this far..remains to be seen if it's just first impressions or if it's simply true.

Absolutely! I still need to figure out the font issue with FF2, but right now I'm using Konqueror with 8.04, and everything's working just fine.

Cheers

I'm glad that it works for you.I want be using it much,because I'm a slacker now,though I have much to learn about Slackware,but I will be testing other distros from time to time.

....and...dragonslayer....really...there is nothing like fishing! :)

Thank you. FWIW, I skipped over trying to fix the fonts in FF2 and installed FF3. Much better, indeed! I'll most likely be reinstalling Hardy as a stand-alone OS rather than a dual-boot soon.

Absolutely!

Cheers

This is an old argument. The Debian developers heard this complaint loud and clear, and are making every effort to rectify it. Lenny is still on schedule to be released in September, making it one year after Etch. The Debian developers will never commit to a hard date, and I agree with their reason, that it will only be released when it is ready. So far, it's looking pretty good they will make the goal release date, or close to it.

Debian of late has come a long way. The rock solid reliability of the TESTING branch (currently Lenny) IMHO is much more stable than Ubuntu. It installs without problems, even on our laptops. It is stable enough to use in our business environment.

This argument is totally illogical. Frustrating for a "commercial" company that prefers buggy software released on time, vs stable software that is only released when stable... what kind of business would want that?

And far more recent? I don't agree. One or two minor versions is nothing. My business computers don't need the latest bleeding edge version of something that's still untested and bug-ridden. When the bleeding edge versions get fixed enough to progress from experimental, to unstable, to testing, well, by then, I'm confident it will work great in a professional environment. As an IT professional, I'd rather spend my time focusing on business related issues, then holding users hands and fixing computers over and over every six months, because they want the "bleeding edge" versions. Good grief, who needs that. I'd quit that job.

This doesn't make any sense to me. You would rather change distributions, then to take a few minutes to google for the wireless fix, and fix it? What happens when the next release of Ubuntu no longer works with your wireless... are you going to switch to OpenSUSE? Mandriva? Vista? Too lazy to fix it? That's like trading in your new car for a new car, because you are too lazy to take it in for an oil change.

I don't mean to be mean, but your argument for Ubuntu in a business environment because it steadily releases buggy software on schedule just blows my mind. I have switched all of our servers to Debian Etch, and workstations to Debian Lenny, because Debian is reliable first, and bleeding edge secondary. Lenny is plenty up-to-date for our purposes. I don't cringe when a new Debian release comes out, I already know it's been thoroughly tested, and sleep well the night before an upgrade, and the night after...

It's not a complaint, or at least it's not a complaint coming from ME. I like Debian Stable, and I'd rather wait until it's ready.
Canonical, Novell, Mandriva...
For my old laptop, which is basically a glorified web browser? Yes, actually. It's a throw-around web browser, so I really don't mind installing a fresh OS. I'll learn how to troubleshoot wireless hardware when I feel like it.
You have seriously misunderstood what I was saying.

I'm not arguing for Ubuntu in a business environment. I think it's stupid, compared to Debian Stable. The commercial company I am talking about is Canonical--a commercial supplier of a linux distribution, who wants to distinguish themselves and make money.

We definitely agree here.

I wonder about the future of Canonical. Now that Debian is enjoying faster improvements, intends to release in a more timely manner, and provides a more solid linux, I don't see any real use for Ubuntu. Ubuntu won't really have anything to offer, other than some neat GUI apps that appeal to green linux users. Personally, I think OpenSUSE and Mandriva are better than Ubuntu, as far as "noobs" go. And once they get a year or so experience, the serious users will most likely migrate to Debian.

I've been in software development since 1964. When an engineer tells me it will be ready when it's done I don't get a warm fealing. That statement shows a lack of planning, team work, commitment and project management. It says nobody is in charge. In business, things must work and they have to be complete on schedule. Granted open source is a labor of love and developers have to find a way to eat and pay bills. This doesn't mean a schedule can't be made and managed. A project balances resources and their ability to perform against tasks that come together for a planned result. This isn't to say that Debian is a poor or flawed product. It is however an unpredictable product. With Ubuntu I see predictability, commitment and excellent project management. I also see Mark Shuttleworth taking ownership of a positive outcome and doing what's necessary to promote Ubuntu and get it into the marketplace. I get that warm feeling.

That is one way to look at the Debian project. Debian was once like every other Linux distribution, headed by a central "benevolent dictator". But in recent years, it has become more "democratic".

Now, if you compare any democracy to a dictatorship, it looks like chaotic "mob rule" in comparison. It's not that far off, really. The interesting question about democracy is whether or not it is sustainable in the long run. Back when we had the American Civil War, this was a serious question. Had democracy proven itself unsustainable by collapsing in on itself back then, it's possible it would never have recovered.

We have a similar question of sustainability in the Debian project. The stakes are much lower, of course, but the fundamental questions are similar. That questions are, "Is a benevolent dictator a requirement for a successful OS? Is it possible for a Free OS project to thrive and succeed when it's only held together by ideals, rather than a person?"

The fundamental problem with the "benevolent dictator" model is that even if someone is the perfect benevolent dictator, no one lives forever. The Debian project is trying to create something that will survive the loss of any benevolent dictator. That includes our favorite benevolent dictator, which is why we have Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD as well as Debian GNU/Linux. Freedom is nothing more than an illusion if you have no real alternative choices.

Will the Debian project succeed? No one knows. If Debian fails, though, it could mean we're stuck with the benevolent dictator model.

I actually don't care that much about Debian's specific ideals. I personally like BSD ideals more than GNU. But I admire the basic idea of building a long term sustainable project around sustainable ideals rather than a personality.
This is the big advantage of the benevolent dictator. An all-powerful central leader can push an agenda and get things done more quickly when required.

But alternatively, the big disadvantage of the benevolent dictator is that it only takes one person to go astray or make mistakes to cause the whole thing to falter.

You're geezing more than me :) I hated COBOL. A 100 line "Hello World" program LOL I remember those days.

I agree Mark Shuttleworth is doing wonders for promoting linux in the world. I think that is great for linux. I also agree a project manager's job is to be on schedule, under budget, and meet the minimal quality control requirements. However, I would rather he postpone a release if it's still buggy. A business using linux was in business before the release, and will still be in business after the release. No real-world business model would rely on the dates of software releases from external companies.

Microsoft recently canceled the release of the XP service pack 3 at the last minute, because it was buggy. They will release it when it's ready. I would rather they delay and fix it, then knowingly release it "on time" ready or not, just to meet a schedule. The same goes with my linux servers and desktops. I get a warm feeling knowing any release is tested and ready.

Debian has long intended to release in a more timely manner. Will it do so? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I LIKE the leisurely cycle of Debian Stable. Frankly, I don't want to be upgrading my OS more than once every three years.
I don't see things going in that direction. Ubuntu is a serious threat to Debian. It's less of an immediate catastrophic threat than it was before the release of Debian 4.0, but it's still there.

When Mepis went to an Ubuntu base, that was big. That was a big wakeup call that Debian was in serious danger of being outmoded.

When Mepis switched back to a Debian base, thanks to Debian 4.0 belatedly mostly catching up, that was also big. It more or less signaled that the threat was over--for now. For now, it's a matter of coexistence, and that could become the long term status quo. But Ubuntu remains popular and well funded, and offers what users want rather than what fits in with long term sustainable ideals.

Threat? What threat? Are you kidding yourself? Curious viewpoint... Ubuntu people honestly believe that? How so? I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I see it as ZERO threat. Debian doesn't need Ubuntu. Not at all. Debian is Debian, has a solid plan and structured organization, maybe not perfect, but Debian developers and users are very happy with it, and are moving forward regardless. Debian "don't need no stinkin badges!"

Ubuntu is based on Debian. Ubuntu needs Debian. Not the other way around. If Ubuntu wants to switch and base off of some other distro, or create their own, Debian couldn't care less. It wouldn't change a thing. Debian doesn't need Ubuntu. There is no threat. Debian will continue on regardless. Ubuntu fans believe they are making a better product out of Debian? Debian fans laugh at that. They really do. They just don't see it that way at all. Quite the opposite, honestly.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud what Canonical is doing to promote linux. I don't see them competing with Debian, just a benefactor of Debian.

I have no idea what Ubuntu people believe. I'm not an Ubuntu person, and none of my friends are either. I'm a Debian user, and like most Debian users I was initially upset and alarmed at this upstart fork apparently pulling away developers.
The Debian project has never been just one big happy family, and never will be. You'd have to have had your head stuck in the sand to not notice developer mindshare shifting from Debian to Ubuntu. While Debian was having intense internal debates about whether or not it's okay to pay Debian developers, Shuttleworth was pouring money into the pockets of developers.
If Ubuntu switched to base off of some other distro, then that would more or less force all of the package managers who currently support both Ubuntu and Debian to choose a side. That's not going to be an immediately fatal blow, but it would hurt. And while the Debian project wrings hands over how to attract developers, Shuttleworth has deep pockets and no qualms with using them.

It's simply not the case that Ubuntu NEEDs Debian. But it is the case that breaking off entirely from Debian would cost a heck of a lot more, and the bottom line for Canonical is that it's not financially worth it.
The current status quo is peaceful coexistence, but Ubuntu holds a distinct edge in attracting new developers into its community and keeping them happy (happier, at least).