Last evening, I almost broke the good advice that has been given in this and probably other LQ forums. It was about upgrading to the 8.04 version of Ubuntu,Kubuntu,XUbuntu,etc. That is I almost performed an upgrade, but was saved by the amount of time it was going to take.

This was at work where we have a nice, fast connection, and when the 3+ hour upgrade time came back, I dropped back and punted until another time, maybe a month from now.

What was I thinking? My Thinkpad T61 is working, and working well I might add. I did not need to upgrade, but did remember to preserve my /etc directory where I've put in special configs to make sound work, network, special daemons for Informix and so on.

So, I am going to be patient, let the dust settle, and wait for the first round of fixes to take place.

Fresh install with alternate CD:

1. Usual problem with software installation aborting after 6 % (and yes, CD was checked before installation). This finally did go through after 5 or 6 attempts.
2. CPU is working at 100%. As a result, my computer is slow. This is a new problem that I have not had with previous versions.
3. Nvidia driver components loaded, but driver is not in use. Xorg.conf that I used in 7.10 does not work with 8.04. Well, I think, I will figure it out later.
4. Alt-Fn or Ctrl-Alt-Fn keys do not work anymore.

My opinion is that they broke things that worked reasonably well in 7.10. I do not think that I will install 8.04 on my main computer for a while.

I'm doing what I usually do with Ubuntu. I'm downloading Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, desktop, alternate, and dvd (except not the dvd for Xubuntu). I'll be burning them, and then checking them all out Live to see the new stuff.

I'm on about a year and 3/4's of Linux on my home PC. All the time I see Ubuntu all over the net in popularity and those huge forums they have. But never have I ever, after looking logically at my choices, installed the thing.

I've used (installed) OpenSUSE 10.2 and 10.3, Mandriva 2008, and Debian Lenny. All those distros release in a nearly completely stable state with minor bugs that have known before release work arounds for them, and in Debian's case it is testing and so always in a Release Candidate state and fully stable. Now it actually has a great deal less bugs against it than Debian Etch (their official stable release) does.

What do I see, for an example of why Ubuntu hasn't ever even gotten installed on my PC? Their Release Notes suggest that users of the previous LTS version should wait until the 8.04.1 point release sometime in September before upgrading! Their forums are filled with pages and pages of, not minor problems regarding not knowing how to do things or minor tweaks that work around some bugs, but serious defects in use of not just the proprietary videocard drivers but the free open source xorg drivers as well! Major problems with hardware detection, freezing installations, booting into nothing, etc etc. Many complain that vital hardware that worked fine with a fully updated previous version now is broken whether upgrading or fresh installing 8.04.

Why does this not surprise me? Because the exact same situation exists every single time Ubuntu releases a new version of their distro.

Why does it happen? Because for reasons I cannot fathom Ubuntu, and distros that take Ubuntu as its base as well, choose to start off with the Unstable distribution of Debian as a base and fix and build from that point. Even Debian NEVER does that after accepting a version of testing as a new stable distribution. It copies THAT repo and duplicates it as the new testing. NOT the unstable Sid repo that it will never base ANYTHING upon since it is direct from upstream, untested, buggy software. Yet all these derivatives take a snapshot of Sid, fix as many bugs as they can, add some nice GUI administrative tools, and release it as a stable distribution. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for it to be a fully functioning release using this philosophy. What are these developers thinking?

A proper mass distributed Debian based distro would take a snapshot of TESTING, add the missing pieces from unstable and bug fix their way of getting those parts to fit (Debian does that but is in no hurry as they can wait until all parts get upgraded naturally and the patches are applied in time). Testing at all times remains a mostly stable Linux distribution. Unstable is at RARE times a stable distribution. Most stuff works, sure, as the software is released by upstream and as far as upstream knows it works okay. But all installable, not breaking other things or itself, and patched up to get around found bugs? NEVER. And that's what Ubuntu bases their new distro release on? It's CRAZY!

And by the time Ubuntu IS fixed so it works properly, Debian testing is WAY ahead of it in software versions of things that DO work.

Honestly, I want to join the crowd and enjoy the most popular distribution, or at least check it out installed on more than a virtual machine or Live mode. But at no point can I logically justify pulling any other distro off my computer and entrusting it when it is released, or justify installing it after it is fixed when OpenSUSE (with backports from Build Service), Debian testing, and Mandriva (with its backports)are way ahead of it in features and new version fixes that come with the much newer software versions they have available by then.

So, when can anyone justify installing Ubuntu with these other choices available? I haven't been able to figure out a time when it is a better choice than the others that I use. And that's why I just never can try it. It's kind of frustrating.

Maybe I'll throw caution to the wind and use the emotional side of my brain at some point. The same sort of reasoning has always prevented me from installing Fedora.

I'm thankful for the way that somehow Ubuntu has been a magnet for reviewers and users to check out Linux and free software. That's the frustrating thing for me though. I'd love to join the wave! Everyone loves a winner! I just can't logically see why it is so popular when comparing it to the fully functioning with minor bugs other choices out there. And none of those, SUSE, Debian, Mandriva, are difficult for a new Linux user. That's right, Debian being difficult may have been true in the past but nothing I've experienced with it since Etch was released supports that viewpoint nowadays. So why the fascination with bug infested Ubuntu? I'm at a loss to explain it.

If Ubuntu were to base itself off of Debian Testing, then there would be more or less no point to it existing. Ubuntu's reason for being is Mark Shuttleworth's desire for something less leisurely released than Debian. In order for Canonical to have a product that could seriously compete with the big boys like Red Hat, they needed an operating system with a consistent release schedule and which wouldn't lag years behind other operating systems. Other companies with shallower pockets, like Lindows and Mepis and Xandros, didn't have the resources to create a whole new Debian fork...so they made do with Debian, despite its shortcomings.

But Mark Shuttleworth had deep enough pockets and enough guts to fork Debian. This was a controversial decision, and remains so, but it makes a lot of sense. Shuttleworth gets to be the "benevolent dictator" of a Debian fork, while Debian gets to remain the unique "dictator-less" distribution driven by ideals rather than personality (for better or worse).

Sarge was great, but we had to wait years for it. Etch was great, but we had to wait years for it. I fully expect Lenny will be great, but we're going to have waited years for it. That's fine, but it can be frustrating for a commercial company to be dependent on such an uncertain release schedule and to try and compete with products with far more recent versions of software. Even Debian Testing lags behind the other guys.

Me? I'm patient enough for Debian Stable, but as soon as I need something that doesn't work out-of-box in Debian Testing but DOES work out-of-box in Ubuntu, I'll seriously consider using Ubuntu. For now, that means wireless because I'm a total novice at wireless hardware. I have a second hand Belkin wireless USB which works out-of-box with Gutsy but not with Lenny...so guess what, my laptop has Gutsy on it.

I just installed 8.04 and everything went well. IMHO the main reason people have trouble is they insist on installing the way they had to years ago. Everything you need is in the Ubuntu repositories. Don't compile the latest Nvidia driver -- run restricted drivers and it will install for you. I see a lot questionable advice in forums. Don't use it if you don't understand what it's doing. The only configuration edits I had to do with 8.04 was xorg.conf for my Wacom Graphire and /etc/bluetooth/rfcomm.conf to see my Palm E2 (same file as 7.10).

I completely agree w/ the above. I rarely, if ever, compile anything, don't download the latest greatest drivers, etc.. Only xorg.conf mods I make, is disabling my touchpad on my laptop.. Dont mess w/ the one on my PC's.

IGF

I can understand questions regarding things like configuring wireless requiring studying compiling and configuration files when there isn't an easy module assistant way or something that's included in the Kernel. Probably can be done but if a distro offers a GUI that'll fetch what you need and configure it, yeah I see that point.

The Lenny being behind, in most cases, I don't concede. Lenny is already ahead in the majority of software when compared to the just released Ubuntu. Perhaps a few things may still be in Sid, but when that's the case there's usually a good reason it's still in there.

In most cases I wait a few weeks (10 days to, well, up to years if the software really doesn't cut the mustard) for stuff to get from Sid to Lenny. Tell you what, if it doesn't work properly I don't want it. Mandriva just came out too and we're already newer in most stuff in Lenny than their new release.

Problem is, it's a rolling distro so for vital installations a more stable, less constantly upgrading distro is better for the kind of use you're talking about. However, there's a heck of a lot in backports.org available for the current Etch distribution. Kernels, software of many types, late model desktop environment upgrades, non-free drivers, etc. It's not as old once one checks out what's available there, and all is security fix supported. Not sure about preferring Ubuntu to even Etch when those available upgrades are taken into account. Stuff will work, REALLY stable like. Get that with Ubuntu? I don't see it.

I do think it's nice that alternatives are available. All the work involved just leads to further improvement for everyone. And exploring the various choices benefits users as well. It's just that when I go exploring and look deeply enough into what's out there I find myself astonished at the popularity of one that starts out buggy and by the time it's fixed it's gotten old fast. Debian, from what I've experienced, offers better quality and more choice from the get go.

I concede the preference for those GUI administrative tools and attention given to some of the commercial software that Debian wouldn't touch. Possible to get into a working Debian setup, but the hoops to jump through do present challenges, I admit. But if the effort were taken, the result would, from what I can see, prove fruitful as if it can be installed in Ubuntu it can be installed into Debian. And most on the GUI side would have to concede that it's easier for a GUI setup to break down or mess up a configuration than easy scripts all kept in the /etc folder.

All my problems with Ubuntu 8.04 have been resolved except not working Alt-Fn or Ctrl-Alt-Fn keys. OS looks pretty good.

I think the basic issue is that most people would rather have the latest regardless of whether it is working properly. Why? I don't know, but for some reason people actually LIKE being de facto beta testers, whether it's for the latest version from Microsoft or KDE or compiz or whoever else.

I use Debian Stable because I'd rather have working software than the latest and "greatest". But rather than look down upon all those voluntary de facto beta testers out there, I instead thank them for marching through the bug-laden minefield so I don't have to.

Try removing the "quiet splash" options from /boot/grub/menu.lst. I don't know if this is related to your problem, but it solved a similar problem I've had with Gutsy.

That actually sounds like a hardware issue. Are you sure that those buttons are recognized?

Personally, I am very impressed with this release. I installed all the stuff I had on Gutsy and for some reason it is nearly 2.5GB smaller (huh?). Not to mention that it is noticeably faster. Firefox 3 is a great improvement. I was a bit puzzled, though, when I tried installing some icon themes and they all came out totally messed up - until I realized that Hardy has moved on to Gnome 2.22 and that my themes were for 2.20...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I am using the new Ubuntu 8.04 and my CTRL+ALT+FN key works fine.

I don't like Ubuntu, but I don't hate it. Just giving it a try.

Like to see distro's working, so that's good!

Although for me Debian is the logical choice I never say never. Since I enjoy different distros and setups, one day I just may give Ubuntu a whirl just for the experience. No being set in stone here.

I agree that Ubuntu is problematic on laptops. I have installed it on older and pretty new non-laptop hardware, and have never had a problem.

Everything works.
Installation was smooth.All other OSes have been recognized and added to menu.lst.It looks and feels stable.Lots of improvments.Best release so far.