C|Net Praises Jaunty Jackalope (Ubuntu 9.04)

[mkrishnan]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10226746-92.html?tag=pop

Here's what the official press release won't tell you about Ubuntu 9.04, which formally hit the streets overnight: its designers have polished the hell out of its user interface since the last release in October.

So much so, in fact, that I am starting to prefer using my Ubuntu "Jaunty Jackalope" desktop over the similarly slick Windows 7 beta (which I am currently running full-time on one desktop) and Mac OS X Leopard operating systems, which I also use regularly.

I haven't tried it yet. I guess the argument is that there's an intangible but obvious improvement in responsiveness in the latest Ubuntu. That is, the rust/orange "Human" interface that they use on Gnome hasn't changed much compared to the last few iterations in 2007-2008. However, the C|Net reviewers seem quite taken with the overall experience.

I'll be quite curious to try it -- perhaps it's time to put it back on my Eee.

 

[Cromulent]

I had a quick look on their website and while it does have a few decent new features I'm really not sure what there is to get all excited about at this present moment in time. I'm downloading it now and might stick it on my Linux box to test for a bit but with the new version of OpenBSD coming out very shortly it will have to be extremely good to make me install Ubuntu instead.

 

[mkrishnan]

I'm really not sure what there is to get all excited about at this present moment in time.

To me, Ubuntu is quite good (and Linux passable in general) in the webtop sort of arena of just handling basic web browsing. Firefox is an excellent browser, the better Linux distributions have adequate WiFi management, and Flash, if not nearly as good on Windows (this is probably the biggest flaw) is about as good as on OS X.

For more than that, I'm honestly less convinced. Talk of corporate closed ecosystems aside, I remain stubbornly happy with MS Office and with iTunes. I spent a year and then some, as an experiment, and I've used my Eee more than any of my other personal computers (that is, aside from ones at work) pretty much continuously since Nov 2008. Having done that now, meh, if I got another new netbook, I'd probably want XP on it, and otherwise perhaps a Macbook Air with Leopard or Snow Leopard....

 

[twoodcc]

is it just me, or does it look a lot like 8.10?

 

[mkrishnan]

is it just me, or does it look a lot like 8.10?

Yeah, that's the thing... it looks just like Intrepid and for that matter Hardy. But the author of the review used those versions, and he thinks it feels much more polished, so I'm really curious. I need to just d/l it and try....

 

[jaw04005]

"Here's what the official press release won't tell you about Ubuntu 9.04, which formally hit the streets overnight: its designers have polished the hell out of its user interface since the last release in October."

Other than the new log-in screen, it doesn't look much different to me.

I don't really have a use for Ubuntu, but I always download the latest version anyway and run it in Parallels on my Mac.

I hope it will get to the point someday where it's as easy to use as Mac or Windows for the average person. With each version, it gets better and better.

http://lifehacker.com/5224586/first-look-at-ubuntu-904-jaunty-jackalope

 

[VPrime]

it is still using gnome as the windows manager, why would you expect it to look different?

 

[Cromulent]

To me, Ubuntu is quite good (and Linux passable in general) in the webtop sort of arena of just handling basic web browsing. Firefox is an excellent browser, the better Linux distributions have adequate WiFi management, and Flash, if not nearly as good on Windows (this is probably the biggest flaw) is about as good as on OS X.

For more than that, I'm honestly less convinced. Talk of corporate closed ecosystems aside, I remain stubbornly happy with MS Office and with iTunes. I spent a year and then some, as an experiment, and I've used my Eee more than any of my other personal computers (that is, aside from ones at work) pretty much continuously since Nov 2008. Having done that now, meh, if I got another new netbook, I'd probably want XP on it, and otherwise perhaps a Macbook Air with Leopard or Snow Leopard....

I'm not really a Linux fan at all. Most distributions are filled with useless software that the majority of people never use. Which, as you could probably tell from my first post has made me a huge fan of BSD Unix which incidentally is what Mac OS X is based on.

Ubuntu is good for some things, but I really don't see much that sets it apart from other operating systems. Why should I use Ubuntu rather than Mac OS X (other than those ridiculous open source arguments that people seem to make)?

The GNU GPL is not even a particularly good open source license anyway; too restrictive for my tastes.

 

[belvdr]

I'm not really a Linux fan at all. Most distributions are filled with useless software that the majority of people never use. Which, as you could probably tell from my first post has made me a huge fan of BSD Unix which incidentally is what Mac OS X is based on.

Ubuntu is good for some things, but I really don't see much that sets it apart from other operating systems. Why should I use Ubuntu rather than Mac OS X (other than those ridiculous open source arguments that people seem to make)?

The GNU GPL is not even a particularly good open source license anyway; too restrictive for my tastes.

BSD includes a lot of the same programs as well. I have never heard anyone say that having all this extra software is a bad thing; on the contrary, having that much software available is an advantage. You may not use the ham radio utilities, but I use them quite frequently. I never use GIMP, but I'm sure there are those that do.

Why should you use BSD other than OS X as well? It seems like you're liking BSD based solely on OS X being based on it.

This latest version using ext4 as the filesystem is fairly quick.

EDIT: What is so restrictive to you about the GNU GPL that turns you away?

 

[Cromulent]

BSD includes a lot of the same programs as well. I have never heard anyone say that having all this extra software is a bad thing; on the contrary, having that much software available is an advantage. You may not use the ham radio utilities, but I use them quite frequently. I never use GIMP, but I'm sure there are those that do.

Not really. A base install of OpenBSD can be as small as 300 - 400MBs. A base install of Ubuntu is 1GB +. Having extra software available is fantastic, I agree. What I do not agree with is the huge default install of many Linux distributions where you have to go through the package manager and work out what you can remove and what you can't. Often you can't remove very much at all because it so entwined in the operating system, meaning you are lumbered with a rather large operating system.

Why should you use BSD other than OS X as well? It seems like you're liking BSD based solely on OS X being based on it.

That is what initially drew me to BSD Unix, yes. But now that I use I can see OpenBSD for what it is. An incredibly well documented, stable, secure operating system that puts Mac OS X to shame in many places.

This latest version using ext4 as the filesystem is fairly quick.

I wouldn't know, and my dislike for Linux is not really based on speed alone.

EDIT: What is so restrictive to you about the GNU GPL that turns you away?

The fact that all code based on it must also be released under the GPL. Also GPL developers regularly take code from BSD licensed products and then include it in GPL code without dual licensing it for the benefit of BSD license developers. This effectively shuts them out from any future developments of their code. Hardly open source is it?

I am aware that some GPL proponents are not fans of the fact that BSD licensed code can be used in closed source software, but I would rather companies use proven BSD licensed code rather than trying to hack their own untested and quite possibly insecure versions themselves.

 

[belvdr]

Not really. A base install of OpenBSD can be as small as 300 - 400MBs. A base install of Ubuntu is 1GB +. Having extra software available is fantastic, I agree. What I do not agree with is the huge default install of many Linux distributions where you have to go through the package manager and work out what you can remove and what you can't. Often you can't remove very much at all because it so entwined in the operating system, meaning you are lumbered with a rather large operating system.

The default CD's for Ubuntu contain a lot of extras for the average user. Those wanting to trim down and only install what is needed can use the alternate CD's. There, you only need 468MB for a graphical install (400MB for text only).

The fact that all code based on it must also be released under the GPL. Also GPL developers regularly take code from BSD licensed products and then include it in GPL code without dual licensing it for the benefit of BSD license developers. This effectively shuts them out from any future developments of their code. Hardly open source is it?

That is a developer fault, not a fault of the license spec.

I am aware that some GPL proponents are not fans of the fact that BSD licensed code can be used in closed source software, but I would rather companies use proven BSD licensed code rather than trying to hack their own untested and quite possibly insecure versions themselves.

Honestly, I just use the apps, I don't code. I've had great experiences with Linux from NAS devices to backup systems to Oracle RAC. The benefit of using Linux across an array of services like that makes it easier to maintain and keeps uptime at its best. Unfortunately, BSD isn't given that option (not sure why) otherwise I'd give it a shot.

 

[mkrishnan]

it is still using gnome as the windows manager, why would you expect it to look different?

For the same reason that the other major Gnome-based distributions don't look much like Ubuntu? Have you ever used Gnome? It's almost completely customizable. Ubuntu can do a visual refresh almost anytime they want.

 

[aquajet]

I agree that there isn't much difference in the interface between 8.04, 8.10 and 9.04. Not identical, but more alike than different for sure.

I think the big news though is Kubuntu 9.04, which uses version 4.2.2 of KDE. I remember trying Kubuntu 8.10 and almost immediately taking it off because it was just too buggy, too many things just not working the way they should.

KDE 4 has come a long way, and right now I've got Kubuntu installed next to Leopard on my MBP. The Kubuntu team are also apparently going to offer 9.04 with KDE 3.5 as a semi-official remix.

Not really. A base install of OpenBSD can be as small as 300 - 400MBs. A base install of Ubuntu is 1GB +. Having extra software available is fantastic, I agree. What I do not agree with is the huge default install of many Linux distributions where you have to go through the package manager and work out what you can remove and what you can't. Often you can't remove very much at all because it so entwined in the operating system, meaning you are lumbered with a rather large operating system.

I'm puzzled by your objection. The point of Ubuntu has always been to have a GNU/Linux distro which is easily accessible to the end user, which means having all those extras to give the user a mostly seamless, complete system after installation. Linux for human beings, so to speak. For those who know what they're doing. it's absolutely possible to delete the extras after installation, or use the alternate install CD to install a base system without the GUI and build it up however you wish. That's what I did with my iMac G3. Have you used it much?

 

[mkrishnan]

KDE 4 has come a long way, and right now I've got Kubuntu installed next to Leopard on my MBP. The Kubuntu team are also apparently going to offer 9.04 with KDE 3.5 as a semi-official remix.

Yes, the original KDE 4 was beautiful and almost completely useless. I've heard that KDE 4.2.x is pretty good, and that 4.3 is supposed to be quite good. I'm generally happy with Gnome, but also happy to see KDE continue to progress.

 

[Cromulent]

I'm puzzled by your objection. The point of Ubuntu has always been to have a GNU/Linux distro which is easily accessible to the end user, which means having all those extras to give the user a mostly seamless, complete system after installation. Linux for human beings, so to speak. For those who know what they're doing. it's absolutely possible to delete the extras after installation, or use the alternate install CD to install a base system without the GUI and build it up however you wish. That's what I did with my iMac G3. Have you used it much?

I certainly have not heard of this alternative CD before, it is true. I used it for a bit as I originally wanted to base my business on Linux and I considered Ubuntu a good choice because of the wide ranging community support. Unfortunately it did not fit the bill and I returned to Mac OS X.

The real question is if you are going to use the alternative install of Ubuntu, why bother in the first place? Why not use a better distribution from the get go such as Gentoo or Debian?

Ubuntu without the ease of use of the standard distribution seems rather pointless as the only reason to use Ubuntu over any of the others was the fact that it was an easy beginners distribution.

 

[mkrishnan]

The real question is if you are going to use the alternative install of Ubuntu, why bother in the first place? Why not use a better distribution from the get go such as Gentoo or Debian?

The alternate install disc does also let you do some other things that, while perhaps lacking the graphical installer of the Ubuntu Desktop disc, still end up being easier to use (for users, moreso than for developers or tweakers) once installed. For instance, Ubuntu's text-based alternate installer lets you configure full disk encryption without too much hassle -- probably the easiest implementation of this at install-time I've seen in Linux. In that case, once you finish the install, you still have all the Ubuntu-ness. (This might have migrated at some point to the Desktop install disc, but as of 2008 it required the Alt disc).

 

[VPrime]

For the same reason that the other major Gnome-based distributions don't look much like Ubuntu? Have you ever used Gnome? It's almost completely customizable. Ubuntu can do a visual refresh almost anytime they want.

I have used other Gnome based distros. And honestly they look very much the same. Sure sometimes they have a different theme/colour but overall it feels the same.
I know Gnome is completely customizable.. But a lot of times it is not on a base install.
For example. A base install of Ubuntu and a base install of Yellowdog (last 2 distros I used) have the OS looking exactly the same.. Except the colours in ubuntu are more brownish.

 

[mkrishnan]

I have used other Gnome based distros. And honestly they look very much the same.

You make a fair point that they often do, but they don't have to. Ubuntu, being one of the most forward groups in trying to give their Linux distribution a consistent look and feel, could be doing more, I guess. Although in general visual / industrial design is not a strong suit of the Linux community.

I just installed Jaunty Netbook Remix on my Eee. It required an extensive manual tweaking, following a thread on ubuntuforums, to get it working properly, as it appears to have some fairly serious bugs that cause graphics slowdown / stuttering on many computers with Intel graphics. Having done that, however, it's actually quite nice. I'll toy around with it for a while and see what I think.

EDIT: I think the biggest piece of new polish is the care taken to use notify-osd (like Growl in OS X). I was quite pleasantly surprised to find that Pidgin is integrated into it (with notify bubbles appearing for when people go on and offline), in addition to the system updates (volume, wifi), although for some reason, my Eee does not make notify-osd bubbles for screen brightness at all. The effect, nonetheless, is quite polished.