Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[dupe] Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (ubuntu.com)
271 points by jacklight on Apr 18, 2014 | hide | past | web | favorite | 160 comments

Well, that was fun. The upgrade crashed halfway through. I rebooted in recovery mode, finished the upgrade using the dpkg repair option, and then restarted a few times and found that it still wasn't working. Looked like a video problem, so I checked /etc/X11 and found the xorg.conf files had been backed up and not replaced. A comment in the last one inspired me to run nvidia-xconfig and it worked fine. Pretty typical when you use Nvidia drivers, and still a lot less painful than upgrading Windows XP to 7.

Did you install the nvidia drivers using a binary or from the repositories ? If you have installed drivers using a binary installer, it is pretty much a given that you will break things during upgrade. This is because the system has no idea that you installed software from outside its repository.

> still a lot less painful than upgrading Windows XP to 7.

how do you figure that?

Not the OP, but I just happened to upgrade from Linux Mint 15 to 16 yesterday (which is not officially supported). Also had some trouble that I needed to solve from the command line (or a live boot), but the upgrade was done in about 50 minutes, everything included.

98% of all configuration is retained, applications do not need to be reinstalled, all your files are where they belong, and it's overall very pain-free if you are tech-savvy enough to do the command line part.

So yes, I would totally rate this as better than upgrading between Windows versions. Even compatible ones like Vista and 7 required much more configuration work afterwards and took longer. Less technical skill required though, but users could just pay someone to do it for them on Linux.

Not sure what it's like to upgrade Mac OS X, I would actually expect the ease of Windows and compatibility like Linux there. I'm kind of curious now.

What issues did you experience going from XP to 7? Did it happen to involve network drivers?

I can't speak for them, but I think a lot of people upgrading from XP to 7 are going to have to upgrade hardware for it to even be worth it unless you were already on a fairly high end XP box. I think 7 can be optimized to run on lower end hardware, but it takes a lot of work.

The main beef I have with upgrading Windows though is the time it takes to do so. A while ago I updated someones PC from XP to 7 and when it restarted after the upgrade it just ran like complete crap. Took at least 3 minutes for the desktop to come to a usable state after it had appeared to be fully loaded. This is an experience I find all to often on windows but almost never on Linux. After installing about 8 hours (yes 8 hours) of updates including quite a few .NET frameworks and restarting multiple times, the computer was finally in a state that I considered "acceptable". Started up fast and was responsive within a few seconds of the desktop loading. I was missing a lot of drivers, but I had the driver disc, they were pretty painless for the most part. The resolution still looked a little funky and I found out I had to install the nvidia driver from the website. Was a pretty decent experience after a pretty awful ordeal.

Ohhh!!! I din't even know you could upgrade XP to 7!

Regarding the time it takes to upgrade windows, Ubuntu too takes the same time for me. I have a fairly good 12mbps connection but still I have never been able to do an upgrade in less than 6hrs.

Did you start with the latest service pack? It sounds like you started from a virgin disk which can take a while after years of update releases.

I haven't used upgrades in a while. Preserve your package list, reinstall / leaving /home untouched and it usually ends up better once you clean up package changes.

I had a problem upgrading to the beta a few weeks ago. I had some conflicting/broken packages and the installation couldn't finish. It seems the WM crashed and I was unable to access a terminal until I remembered I could switch to a tty. Ran `apt-get -f install` and fixed everything. Haven't had an issue on the official release yet though.

I know upgrades are supposed to work, but they almost never go 100% percent right.

Use dpkg/synaptic to backup your installed packages and backup your /home...then commit to the time to going fresh install. If you use LTS releases, you'll only be doing it at most every other year.

IMHO, it is worth the time.

I've had very good luck lately simply adjusting my sources file and typing apt-get dist-upgrade lately - though this is using Mint as the base distro (which in turn uses Ubuntu too).

For an additional data point: The upgrade refused to run until I disabled some crufty PPA files I had lying around.

The upgrade itself completed successfully after I disabled them though.

The first comment I saw said it was impressive. The second said I should use Gnome instead of Unity. The third said I should try something called localepurge for a leaner install. The fourth said KDE was better than Gnome and Unity. The fifth recommended Xubuntu over Gnome.

This is the sort of fragmentation that makes popular adoption difficult, but is also what makes Linux awesome.

Most HN readers are developers (who all have unique and specific tastes in their machine setup), and have enough experience with Linux to find it easy to install alternative window managers.

For "popular adoption", I'm sure the completely standard Ubuntu install is just fine.

I sometimes feel like I'm the only developer who doesn't want to spend all his free time fiddling around with his operating system.

To me, that's not developing. It's just extra work that's completely orthagonal to building cool software.

Yeah. I used to screw around with that quite a bit. At the time it was fun. Now I'm all about minimum time to productivity.

Turns out there are technical terms for the behavior. For OSes, you and I are satisficers: we just want it to be good enough. I used to be a maximizer, where I wanted it to be perfect.

Learning to choose which approach to take in a situation has been really great. For example, restaurant menus. I used to be a maximizer, trying to pick the best thing. Eventually I decided agonizing over my choice was a fair bit of stress for little or no gain; it was easy to finish my meal and think, "Damn, maybe I should have gotten that other thing." Now I just skim the menu and go with the first thing that looks good to me.

Customizing your OS to your needs might not be "developing", but it comes from the same place of dissatisfaction with the status quo that is the reason we all develop the things we do. It's just a matter of where that dissatisfaction is, and to what degree it bothers you.


Usually I just copy my configs over to a next box / laptop that happens to become my workstation, and continue nearly where I left. It worked more or less smoothly for last 7 years.

Yes, sometimes I do fiddle with my settings to make my experience more comfortable and thus my work more productive. I don't think that spending 5-10 minutes a month on it is such a waste.

No, there's plenty of us who feel that way: I (and most of the people I work with) just use OS X on the desktop, and Linux on servers. This way you get the perfect desktop environment that "just works". The linux boxes never have a window manager installed in the first place.

How is OS X more "just works" than a clean Ubuntu install? And both are far from perfect.

Yeah, I really don't understand why this OSX monopoly on "just works" still persists. A plain old Ubuntu install just works, lots of Linux distros do, but if you want the additional customisation, it's there.

Except when you have some graphics card on dual monitors. Or you want your laptop to sleep and wake up. Or when you have some funky WLAN card.

What has this to do with the desktop environment.

You can install and configure a suitable operating system in like 4 hours, that's not a lot of time.

I hate when people say you "should do X". It'd be a whole lot nicer if they de-compiled their opinion and stated something more like "Doing X gives you Y benefits". I ignore the "shoulds" as noise and seek the pro/con breakdown.

I don't think those that would contribute to "popular adoption" are reading HN comment threads. They would also probably not be able to download, burn, and boot an ISO live disc either, which is the principle issue with adoption - it needs to be default.

I was once a big fan of KDE. Of late, it has started becoming fancier and fancier and I got fed up of the fanciness. On the other hand I used to hate unity when it came out but go so much used to the unified menu bar that I have never been able to use anything else.

So far the only other serious contender seems to be elementary OS, it is the BEST looking linux distro.

Ubuntu is still the best looking distro to me, particularly after a bit of customisation. Elementary just looks like a cheap OSX skin for Linux.

What parts do you think contribute to looking nice? (I am more interested in things that look nice before customization).

Is this a case of better defaults? Or is it just as simple as different themes and window managers?

Personally, I don't think Windows 8, OSX, or Ubuntu look nice out the box. They're all pretty average, but I think Ubuntu defaults with the overall look and feel is the most pleasant. The Unity sidebar and blurred glass search background is much better looking than the boring startmenu/metro or tacky faux 3d launcher and grey gradients all over the place. Granted, it's been a while since I have seen the default.

"This is the sort of fragmentation that makes popular adoption difficult, but is also what makes Linux awesome."

I agree with this in principle, but it confuses me as to why FreeBSD is not, then, much more popular...

We use FreeBSD exclusively at rsync.net, and I used FreeBSD as my personal workstation from 2000 - 2007. Perhaps all the other FreeBSD people just switched to OSX, like I did.

I have hardly had any problems with installing alternative window managers on Ubuntu 12.04. For me, I don't see the need for installing leaner Ubuntu variants as long as the laptop/desktop I'm using is 4 years or younger.

I really recommend trying out the Ubuntu Gnome flavor [1] - I really like it as being more usable than Unity.

Plus https://extensions.gnome.org/ is incredible.

P.S. - [2] this is my personal optimization script for a lean and developer friendly Gnome Ubuntu 14.04 install. YMMV.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGNOME/GetUbuntuGNOME

[2] https://gist.github.com/sandys/6030823#file-lean_install_ubu...

As a data point for a bystander: I much prefer Unity over Gnome 3. Here's the quick list of things that prevent me from taking Gnome 3 seriously:

Alt+Tab is completely broken: it gathers windows from all virtual desktops, ruining the very purpose of virtual desktops. There are plug-ins that help, but they keep breaking after version updates and they don't function as sleek as Unity's built-in default window switcher.

Gnome's "workspaces" are not as powerful as traditional virtual desktops. The biggest problem is that they're dynamic: for example Gnome won't let you have an empty workspace - it will kill it and re-arrange apps from adjacent workspaces to fill the space.

Last, but not least, Gnome's way of launching apps gives me nausea: it insists on animating every pixel on my 30" desktop every time I want to launch an application.

Finally, Unity is much more responsive and less buggy, at least on my (modest) hardware: 2 year old i5 with Intel graphics.

1. Alt+Tab is completely broken - in fact you have a choice on how you want the alt-tab to work: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/15/alternatetab/ or https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/38/windows-alt-tab/ or https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/97/coverflow-alt-tab/ or https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/310/alt-tab-workspace...

2. static workspace - this is actually fixed in 3.10 (part of 14.04) now. Enabled by the Gnome Tweak tool

3. slow animation - https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/277/impatience/

Gnome 3.10 is really good and incredibly good slick alternative to Mac - without being a clone. 3.12 is likely to be better.

I've been using 3.12 with 14.04 beta2(using the gnome staging ppa). I can't say it's very different from 3.10, but it feels a bit faster, and they fixed a few UX problems in the settings menus etc. Most extensions I wanted work with it. There are a few bugs that are probably due to working with an unstable distro with an unstable gnome ppa, but overall it's nice.

>Alt+Tab is completely broken

This is kind of an opinion. There is no rule book that says it needs to behave a certain way. I prefer this.

>ruining the very purpose of virtual desktops

I use virtual desktops to separate windows in overview mode so when they're presented for picking they aren't really small. And also for organization.

>Gnome's "workspaces" are not as powerful as traditional virtual desktops. The biggest problem is that they're dynamic: for example Gnome won't let you have an empty workspace - it will kill it and re-arrange apps from adjacent workspaces to fill the space.

Why would you need an empty workspace (except at the end, which gnome provides)? Seems to make since to me. It doesn't really "re-arrange apps" it just moves the work spaces to fill in the empty gap.

>Last, but not least, Gnome's way of launching apps gives me nausea: it insists on animating every pixel on my 30" desktop every time I want to launch an application.

Eh.. Animations aren't for everyone. They have not bothered me though, and I think for most users it provides a better experience than just having things "happen".

>Finally, Unity is much more responsive and less buggy

I'm running gnome 3.11 on an i5 with intel graphics also, and it seems pretty snappy, after all, it's just javascript. I have not experienced any bugs outside of experimental software I installed. To be honest, I have never experienced a snappier desktop than gnome 3.

  Why would you need an empty workspace (except at the end, 
  which gnome provides)? Seems to make since to me. 
  It doesn't really "re-arrange apps" it just moves 
  the work spaces to fill in the empty gap.
To each their own, I guess, but I think it's related to how we mentally map our workspace. For example, I know that my code editor and shell are on workspace 2, and my time tracker and music player are on workspace 4, so it's two keystrokes to get between them. If workspace 3 were munched due to being empty (I normally use it for Github and code review), it would be __very__ jarring to be in the wrong workspace when I switched workspaces twice to the left from my last workspace.

In practice, that's not likely to happen to me often, since I leave all of my workspaces open and populated nearly all the time, but it's still an option that I would turn off if I could.

> This is kind of an opinion. There is no rule book that says it needs to behave a certain way. I prefer this.

In case you wanted more proof of this I think both of these are wrong and it should be by window not application. Thankfully MATE does this and is coincidentally available now in Ubuntu 14.04.

Alt+` does this, right next to Alt+Tab, within a single application. So if you wanted to pick a particular window, and you have five apps with three windows each open, instead of pressing Alt+Tab ceil~14 times, you press Alt+Tab until you have the app you want (possibly zero times) then Alt+`, potentially saving 12 or more keypresses.

Or, sometimes even better, press Alt-Tab once, then hold Alt and use your mouse to select which app then which window you want.

> MATE does this

That's also the default on Xfce.

Every point you make except, to my knowledge, the last, is easily fixable via the gnome tweak tool or extensions. I found the same things to be frustrating when I switched to gnome, but I've been able to tweak it to the point that I now find it to be a productive work environment. That said, I've used gnome, unity, cinammon, xfce, mate and KDE, and have found each to be good in its own way and frustrating in others.

I love the fact that I can choose between many great options.

"...tweak tool or extensions."

To me, this is the problem. I don't want to rely on extensions that will potentially break when Gnome updates or be abandoned when their developers move on to other things. I also don't want to be forced to spend hours fiddling with settings in order to get something that isn't completely broken. I just want my stuff to work.

I also find the graphical nonsense in Gnome 3 and KDE 4 nauseating. They make for some sexy Youtube videos (like Compiz when it first came out) but for day-to-day use I find them awful (and shockingly buggy, but that's another debate).

actually the extensions system in gnome is kind of magical. You go to extensions.gnome.org using Firefox and click a button and suddenly your alt-tab behavior has changed. It is awesome - I think the phrase "extensions" has come to connote "complications" ... but is not the case in Gnome.

I'm actually impressed at how they built a javascript API to be able to mess with core UX !

It took me all of 10 minutes to get it working the way I like. And the extensions are simple javascript....easy to hack if you need to. I get what you're saying, but I think you're overstating things a bit...probably because you just haven't tried it.

I'm a Unity & Xface (short time) user and honestly I find the latest Unity version to be well suited for my needs&habits but your recommendation made me curios but not curios enough to wipe out my current (fresh) Unity install in order to try out Gnome. I think I checked Gnome some time in the past and it didn't convince me to stay with it. If you would like to enumerate some of the (newer?) differences and strong points of Gnome over Unity it will be appreciated. Thanks.

I don't like Unity animations and I want to change it. The only way to do that is to change compiz plugins. However, they always break. Gnome extensions are way easier to install, and even you can code them because it is JS/CSS, for that reason there are so many extensions in extensions.gnome.org .

For me the Unity animations are the perfect balance between the elegance I notice and appreciate when I'm in "relax" mode and the usability and snappiness I need when I'm in "work" mode shifting between many windows and workspaces. 14.04 snappiness improved noticeably and that's great !

You don't need to wipe anything. Just install ubuntu-gnome-desktop and select gnome 3 on login.

I tried that some time ago with 13.10 & xface-desktop and I ended up with some weird mix of the two (randomly some parts from unity and some fonts and menus + shutdwon splash screen definitely from xface). And I was not able to totally remove the xface packages from unity again. So I'm quite reluctant now :).

Granted, that concern is valid. Just let me note that it is normally not that difficult to reconfigure unity to use its own designs everywhere, but I think as well that it is not particularly nice that this is necessary.

it's mostly the UX - I really like the way Gnome gets out of your way and still is very, very slick.

Plus, if you dont like certain things - you can customize it within seconds using extensions.gnome.org (for example - https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/15/alternatetab/ )

I think all the design decision by Unity are a bit jarring for me - including all the left-window-close-maximize things. BTW, if you follow my script, Unity is not really wiped out, but certain heavy applications (like Nautilus/Gedit) are replaced by lightweight alternatives (like Nemo/Geany).

P.S. were you not surprised by the weird way Nautilus groups icons now ?

I noticed Nautilus moved a menu I rarely used from toolbar into the main menu but that does not bother me much (actually "Show hidden files" is more accessible now) and they added back "backspace = up directory" feature which for me is great. I think we are lucky to have so many GUI alternatives while still being able to reuse the best tools GNU/Linux can offer. And what's great is they are evolving even if slowly and backtracking (like backspace in Nautilus :)).

I'm totally with you on most of your post... But how is Gedit "heavy"?

I'm not sure what was happening, but I used to have many gedit processes running in the background. Geany is much, much lighter for me.

Same with Nautilus.

On my atom n280 geany is really snappy while gedit is slow when moving around and bringing out menus.

Agreed. It gets out of your way and looks good.

Giving it a try now, but I have to say the amount of space wasted by the header bar of each window really bothers me.

Example: http://i.imgur.com/bKGyEo3.png

This is a great resource: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GNOME

See: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GNOME#Reduce_title_bar_...

But the tweak tool lets you change the font size which was enough for me. I also installed htitle to firefox to hide the title bar when full screen.

Thank you! I will give it a go.

Keep in mind a few of the commands only relate to arch linux, but I think if you're comfortable using the terminal you should be able to figure things out.

The header bars finally see more use in 3.12; for Firefox, I'd recommend something like HTile, which removes the header when it's maximized.

I've been a staunch Xubuntu user for the past couple of years and I'm completely pleased with my setup, but I'm interested in giving Gnome a try.

The main thing that's holding me back is that my machines aren't massively powerful - do you know if Gnome is as resource-hungry as Unity?

Both have gotten much better in this department than they used to be. I would say they're about equivalent.

Nowadays, GNOME and Xfce consume about the same amount of resources by default.

The only difference is that GNOME makes more serious use of your graphics card.

KDE with lots of effects >> Unity ~= KDE with fewer effects > GNOME ~= Xfce >> LXDE

GNOME seems to be a little snappier than Unity to me, But I have not yet installed the latest Unity.

FWIW: Gnome on wheezy is way snappier than unity (12.04 with or without unity-2d and 13.10 14.04 with unity) on my old and trusty eee-pc (n280+gma950).

You should install http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/localepurge for a leaner install.

How much does that really save? A base install of Ubuntu is only around 6-7GB anyway. Very surprised to see it didn't even take up half of the 16GB on an Acer C720 Chromebook.

my recipe for leaner is more about CPU and RAM and less about diskstorage.

One of the first things I recommend is aptitude over apt-get and that manages your stale packages much better. (for e.g. aptitude will offer to remove unused packages each time you remove an installed package, whereas apt-get will only do that if explicitly asked to with apt-get autoremove.)

I just took XUbuntu for a spin. It's just as great as the 13.10 release. If you're a GNOME refugee and looking for an excellent desktop then I can't recommend XUbuntu enough.

I recently moved to xfce on Ubuntu as well. I felt like it's much more "by hackers for hackers" than the Ubuntu or Gnome UI stuff. For instance, I can have my 10 virtual workspaces, and focus follows mouse and all the other things I've gotten used to having over the past 15+ years.

I've used it across 2 different desktops during the nightlies, and the xfce text keeps bugging when editing a panel, but only there.

That is the only weird issue I've had, apart from that 14.04 is a very solid release.

And XUbuntu is using almost half of the memory Ubuntu is using.

Xubuntu is the simpliest,light-weight choice that still has a lot of functionality available if you want to turn it on.

I am grateful for this choice.

I'm having weird issues with Gnome-Do, sometimes it just won't show up. It will run, but it won't show up, and killing it and relaunching it doesn't do anything. I think the hotkey just bugs out sometimes, and I have to relog for it to work. Weird.

Alternatives: kupfer (in the repositories) or synapse (ppa:synapse-core/testing ppa has a trusty build). I moved from gnome-do to synapse a while ago just because it feels faster.

Sadly, synapse is orphaned, Kupfer hasn't had a commit in over a year and GNOME-Do is going nowhere since GNOME Shell does the same thing by itself. One thing that's kept me from more minimal environments than those with their own launcher is that's there's just no really good standalone launcher.

Synapse may not have an active upstream any more, but, well, the Ubuntu package is still well-maintained (in the synapse-core/testing ppa), and it does everything I need it to.

An aversion to orphaned software is clearly good for things at a security boundary (web browsers, sshd, etc), but is it really an issue for a launcher? In 3-5 years it may not be good enough, but shrug, if that's the case I'll have another look around then. It's not like launchers have lock-in.

This is my attitude as well pretty much.

If synapse ever stops doing what I want I'll probably take a stab at writing one.

As someone who just installed the beta 2 on my laptop a few days ago, I have to say I'm impressed.

This thing cold boots on my non-UEFI laptop in 4-5 seconds. That's at the same level as Windows 8.1, which also impressed me greatly.

Now if they can only get systemd and the "online in 50ms" updates implemented, this thing will be super-sweet.

BTW I wonder why cold-boot time is so important. All my machines go back from hibernation pretty fast (in under a second), and I only cold-boot if I update something major, like the kernel or the hardware itself.

What's the point to shut down your machine, and either lose your session or wait considerable time while it restores?

Cold boot is not really that important in itself, but it's a good measure of how much needless cruft is being loaded on your system. If it boots almost instantly, you can be certain you don't have a million unneeded processes draining your battery life.

If it spends 30 seconds before you get to the login screen on good hardware, there's no telling how much things are going on and how it will affect your battery life.

A fast boot process is also telling about good engineering in general, as it implies more things are decoupled and can be loaded independently, instead of being queued in a one-by-one sequence.

So in itself, a fast boot is not that important, but when they manage to cut it in two compared to what I'm used to, that gives me confidence they are doing the right things in general.

The biggest speed-up to my cold-boot time was when I switched to SSD - time from grub to login screen is now just a few seconds. Interestingly, that changed my usage habits; I started shutting down my laptop more often and therefore had fewer problems with peripherals not initialising properly after waking from hibernate (eg sometimes my touchpad would move the mouse pointer rotated at 90 degrees), but mostly I started booting into my Windows partition more often instead of using Wine etc to try to run programs. A faster boot time made it more trivial to switch between boot options, which I see as a good thing.

I really recommend trying out the Ubuntu KDE flavour (KUbuntu). I really like it as being more usable and configurable than Unity and Gnome.

I was on Kubuntu when it shifted from 3.5 to 4.0. Gods, what a mess that was! I presume it's had time to settle down now; is it back to being as reliable as 3.5 was? Or do people with long memories still have to grit their teeth at all the missing features?

KDE 4.0 was released on January 2008. KDE has improved since then.

Has it? I've tried two recent versions of Kubuntu (14.04 being the most recent) and found both of them so buggy and unpolished as to be practically unusable. I want to love KDE so badly because I love so much about it (the apps are powerful, you can actually configure things, it uses Qt) but the target audience appears, to me, to be people who make Youtube videos demonstrating KDE, not people who actually want to use it to do work. YMMV, as always :)

Eh.. I think it's only more usable if you're coming from and are used to a traditional desktop like Windows. If you were introducing someone to a computer for the first time, GNOME 3 is by far the most simple and easiest to use desktop on the market right now. Yes even more usable than windows 8 for someone who has never used an OS before.

As for configurability KDE has quite a few more years under it's belt, so it's not a surprise, but GNOME 3 is all JS and CSS so I would say it's pretty configurable and the number of extensions is only going to increase. I think extensions will become much more stable around GNOME 4.0, when they come out with a full OS [1]


But how many people have never used an OS before? Very few in my opinion, and majority have already seen other OS in action already

The first GUI I used was Intuition (AmigaOS). What would you recommend?

Unity, definitely. Having window menus appear / disappear right in the top bar, much like the beloved, glorious Amiga did in the golden days of computing :) makes it probably the closest you can get - that is, without turning on your old Amiga or installing AROS :) I don't use Unity though - KDE suits my taste better. But that's the beauty of Linux, you get to choose whatever desktop you prefer.

I think I was still pooping my britches when you were using that, so I haven't had much experience with it, but KDE is probably more similar to it than GNOME. I would recommend you use what ever you feel most comfortable with. Of course if you have any experience with mobile OS's like iOS or android, GNOME shouldn't be too hard for you to pick up.

I completely agree with you on this. The level of customization that can be done with KDE is unparalleled. Every bit of it is hackable

GNOME is extremely customizable too if you know JavaScript and CSS, plus you get the advantage of a much lighter interface. It does lack some of the features of KDE though, but I don't spend much time outside of a terminal, text editor, browser, and pdf reader.

KDE has to many buttons for me :)

I think it's more of a desktop for people who are use to using a lot of advanced features on Windows, because they're used to and enjoy the idea of having a button for this and a window and sub-menu for that. GNOME is more for people who either don't use advanced features, or use the terminal for advanced features.

Personally I'm over the traditional desktop.

I really don't get the intention with the default visual style Ubuntu has settled on. I'm sure a lot of work has gone into it but it's just not attractive.

I previously thought it was growing pains and they would eventually land on a great style that was still "theirs", but at this point it feels like a lost cause. Personally I've stopped recommending Ubuntu on the desktop because I already know what the initial reaction to a fresh install is going to be.

I have found the best way to deal with this, is to just deal with it. Don't tweak it, don't customize it. Treat it like Mac OS where you can't. Just get to work with what you're going to do.

I could sit and tweak a Linux install for hours, kind of like an old car. But of course I never get any work done that way.

You give zero arguments for what you consider wrong with the visual style of Ubuntu. I'm sure there are flaws that graphic designers and other people trained in the topic can point out, but until you do it's just... yeah, well, like... your opinion man.

And the lack of a flat UI does not count as an argument - that's just a fashion trend.

Also, my own anecdotal experience does not match yours. I often get surprised (as in "wow, that looks nice!") questions of "That's not Windows/OSX? What is that?" from people when I show something on my laptop.

Interestingly though, it seems perfectly acceptable on here to express positive feelings about style and esthetics. No one gets downvoted several points below zero for not providing "arguments" for such opinions. It's simply accepted as a matter of taste.

Good point. I think it is because positive opinions without good reasons are perceived as encouragement ("I like what you do, keep going!") instead of criticism, while negative opinions are criticism. The latter requires arguments to be useful as feedback. Of course, saying why you do like something would also make those remarks more valuable as criticism - you got a good point there.

(Note that I'm not saying Nathan Osullivan is necessarily wrong in his judgement - I might disagree with it but he can still have valid reasons for disliking it. It's just that it's pretty a useless remark if he gives no arguments why he has that opinion)

When someone is agreeing you already know what they are looking for as they've expressed it in their agreement. When someone says something is ugly you don't know what they think is ugly about the design so it doesn't provide any thing but a comment.

No, I often don't know what it is that makes people gush about the beauty of multi faceted things like operating systems, gadgets or APIs.

But be that as it may, I doubt this is what causes the downvoting. I'm pretty sure a statement like "colors and icons are ugly" would have provoked a similar reaction.

Saying "X is pretty" is not much use, but it is not mean.

Saying "X is ugly" is not much use and is mean, thus more likely to attract downvotes.

Saying "I think X is ugly. Here's why {list of subjective reasoning}" may be useful and is not as mean.

Because that's still not telling us what the problems are, just where to look for them.

Stating something like "X is inconsistent with Y making the whole thing restless and messy, and if they did the font alignment like this the whole thing would have a more orderly clean look" wouldn't have.

That's probably because negativity is not something that should be encouraged. If you want to be negative, then that's fine - but you really need to explain why you are being negative.

Negative energy is quite unproductive.

They went from a brownish theme that people complained about for years to now a blackish purple that is equally gaudy. I don't understand why they can't go with a color scheme that isn't so dark and depressing.

Then there are the multi-colored icon boxes (why do the icons need boxes around them at all?) that all clash with each other and clash with the (ugly) purplish theme, and clashes against the gradient black top toolbar (which has virtually no padding by the way).

It doesn't take a great designer to notice these things, god knows I'm not one. But I've worked with designers at every company I've worked for, small or big, and all of them would have done a (much) better job than Unity. Which tells me either no designers were involved or they were outvoted at every decision.

Not to mention the font. I manage to ignore the wonky color themes (I picture a kid with a box of crayons having designed it), but the font is something that I desperately need consistency and beauty in, as I'm constantly reading and writing.

The default Ubuntu font is just not consistent and readable enough for a UI. They need to find something like Segoe UI, that gets out of the way and is easy to read.

I really do agree with the gp and your opinions regarding the design. It is important, and I do think Ubuntu should get some outside opinions for the next LTS and revamp their design based on some of the fundamental practices.

Fonts are easy to tweak though...

I do enjoy tweaking the fonts until it pleases my eyes most. I've been using Source Code Pro as the monospace font for quite a while now. Currently trying out Alegreya Sans and its variants for the regular system font - kind of controversial among my designer friends: some of them consider it too "serify".

This time, they are supporting a lot of different "flavours". In my case, I will for example use an Ubuntu "Gnome" flavour or maybe XFCE. They are reintroducing long term support of the diversity, which is really nice.

And I love it, and think it looks fantastic. So, yeah, different strokes?

I actually like it

Wouldn't submitting a link to release notes than the desktop download page be better?


I love how the rounded window corners are now (finally!) properly anti-aliased [1].


Ubuntu had been collecting anonymized data and sending it off to Amazon* since 12.10? According to the this article* it is not included in 14.04.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.html

[2] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2337185/ubuntu-to-d...

I've installed it today with full disk encryption option, but my keyboard wouldn't work on the password screen... It looks like this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1309246

Just upgraded from 12.04 LTS to 14.04 . already liking the locally integrated menus.

The click vs drag detection is sublime. It sounds like something that would be fiddly and annoying but it doesn't get in the way at all.

I would recommend against this for anyone on an older computer. I had been on Lubuntu 12.04, then went through phases where I had various versions Xubuntu and Mint XCFE and ended up back at Lubuntu 12.04 because it is still the fastest drop-in recent distro.

Ok, but what about Lubuntu 14.04 compared to Lubuntu 12.04?

Your comment is only comparing LXDE with other desktop managers, instead of comparing different versions of Lubuntu.

EDIT: It occurs to me you may have mistaken "LTS" for the desktop manager name (LXDE) when you replied. LTS means "Long Term Support".

Sorry late on the reply. I didn't mix it up. I was commenting that in my past recent experience, upgrading resulted in a slower system. I was just warning others not to do that. I'm not upgrading to 14.04 because I don't want a longer boot.

LXLE? Disclaimer: haven't tried this one out myself, just had a look at it and think of trying to revive an old laptop of mine with it:


Might try that out thanks

Any tips on how to make the update from beta 2 to final easy?

I want to keep all my apps, aliases, .bashrc edits, etc. Thankfully, I don't do this often enough that I remember the process at 7 am?s

You should just be able to sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade. The release has newer packages than the betas & dailys, but they all point at the same repos.

It seems may use this opportunity to recommend an Ubuntu derivative. I'm very happy with Netrunner-OS[1]. It come with KDE and gets "sane defaults" right. AdBlocker, YT-downloaders, codecs, etc. -- all pre-installed.

And they also gave it some thought to make sure it looks good out of the box.

All Unity-refuge-seeking, but otherwise Ubuntu (Debian++) lovers should have a look at it. :)

1: http://www.netrunner-os.com/

#57 today on: http://distrowatch.com/ and stable/not moving up in popularity. Plenty of good other distros to try? If you like KDE, maybe Kubuntu 14.04? The problem with random distros is that unless you are the maintainer, they may not stay up-to-date. How many people are maintaining it and how up-to-speed are they in the overall community to stay atop security?

Coming from Kubuntu; and waaaaay better then that. Differences:

* most sane defaults ever found on a distro * installs load of extra privacy/ convenience plugins in Firefox by default * got all codecs build in from installation

This distro just feels a lot more solid then Kubu ever did to me.

The first thing you have to do after you install Ubuntu 14.04 is Goto Software & Updates then choose drop down Download From: Other then on new window click "Select best server" , You will have a speedier installation of rest of softwares. I am sure you gonna do this for future releases once you compare the speed of suggested server (usually country specific)and best server :)

Failed to install here on my 13.10 (French) version because of an error related to an invalid ASCII code. I'll wait before trying again.

Droplets on DigitalOcean are already available with 14.04 LTS. Now I only need time to upgrade our servers...

I just upgraded my personal server from 13.10 and it was pretty painless. Although many third party repos are not yet ready for Trusty.

nvidia and linux just don't seem to work together. I've been on 13.10 and looking forward to an upgrade in the hope that it might fix the problem where compiz freezes up the window manager for minutes on end. Linux with nvidia is about as unreliable as using windows which is very frustrating.

Anyone know if 14.10 works better with nvidia cards?

NVIDIA actually does a great job with their binary blob drivers and they are much more reliable than the AMD Catalyst drivers for Linux. It sounds like your problem lies with compiz/ubuntu. Maybe try a different window manager/distro?

I beg to differ, my experience with the nvidia drivers is quite different to yours. Whenever they upgrade them its a nightmare and generally results in the driver crashing the kernel. Letting a video driver bring down the kernel is inexcusable.

I have been using Linux for a solid few years. I stopped using Ubuntu because I wanted more control and I like new technology. Now I am learning Android Development. I have less time, patience and require stability. I am thinking about switching from Fedora 20 to Kubuntu 14.04 for sake of stability.

Will it save me time and headache, it involves in getting things fixed on cutting-edge Linux and getting them to work, if I switch to Kubuntu?

so have they put back the key bits of xwindows they removed in a provious LTS - I was not happy after setting up my small hadoop home lab to find that some idiot PFY had removed teh fuctionaly that made remote login possible!

Meh, after struggling with linux for years, I finally swallowed my pride and paid a hefty price for a Macbook Air.

Best decision I ever made. OS X hasn't disappointed me yet. I don't have to worry about driver/sound problems or incompatible libraries every other week.

Meh, after using linux for years, I have yet to see all of the trouble that many folks keep referring to in getting it to work. Different strokes...

Just take a look at the top post in this thread.

You haven't seen any of those problems, good for you. But the fact is that a lot of people do see them, which is the reason people give out for Linux being hard to use. I mean, Ubuntu is supposed to represent Linux for the average user, and look at the state of Unity, Gnome2/3 divide, Pulseaudio or Alsa? So on and so fourth...

I used to be one of those guys who made faces at OS X being all expensive and why would I use that when I can get the same thing to work with Linux. But the fact of the matter is, it does make a difference. A LOT of difference. I can still drop into Linux. I don't regret moving away from it one bit.

I ended with "different strokes" to mean that I am explicitly not discrediting those that have issues. Just saying that there is also a population that doesn't have them. I don't know how large we are, but I do like seeing us represented a bit more. Especially when the other viewpoints are a lot more polarized.

For the problems, it sounds like I've been ok by avoiding nVidia for these years. I did the upgrade over the weekend and it went smoothly. I'm even finding a few things to like about it. (For the most part, I wouldn't even notice I have upgraded.)

Contrast that with my trying to use the work issued Macbook. I pretty much hate it. Has a nice screen, though. I could probably get to like the touchpad.

My wife's Windows computer is similar in my not liking it. Even she has complained about some of the UI choices, lately. Though, she can get what she wants done and doesn't necessarily see a reason to change.

I got fed off and stopped using Ubuntu 5 years ago, I see that our have not changed. I don't think Ubuntu is a good representation of Linux. I personally like OpenSuSE.

Driver support is no doubt better on a Mac. The problem is that Macs do not have a native package management system. Now it is mostly resolved with people basically doing that work for them for free with Homebrew and Ports.

This has been my experience with Linux as well. Not to mention every upgrade of Ubuntu seems to try some wacky new interface paradigm that makes it harder or just plain weird to use.

Anyone has a guess of when there'll be an official image on aws?

Cloud images are always published directly as part of the release. You can find the list here for reference: http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/trusty/current/

Those are daily builds. Releases are here: http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/releases/14.04/release/

But I'm actually not sure which is better? I'm guessing dailies are the same as releases, but with updates already applied? If so, dailies are probably better.

And then there's and AMI locator: http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/locator/ec2/

Why are people running OS upgrades on live production servers the day after release? Who does that? It's defiantly not people who care about stability. If you run into issues HN is probably not the right place to share them...

Why is the download so slow? Why not add a torrent link?

There are torrent links on the Alternative Downloads page: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/alternative-downloads

Use a local mirror, there's plenty out there. Here in Australia, quota-free downloads from the ISP's mirrors is really convenient.


Ubuntu is more popular than you would think :). I used torrents to download it and it went quite fast (huge numbers of seeders). Here you can find torrent links: reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/239wbp/1404_is_live/

I was able to basically saturate my connection downloading the torrent, 10.3mb/s. 10 hours later I'm still at a ratio of 0.038. Kind of surprising how many folks are seeding.

Yes, everyone tries to contribute with bandwidth :D. On reddit/ubuntu they advised us to do it in order to relieve some of the strain on Canonical servers and it was funny how many people were literally waiting & refreshing the page for the torrents to be available.

Downloading at 2mb p/s here - if you want I can mirror it for you on a gigabit connection?

I just upgraded on of my servers and it became unresponsive after the reboot :(

I am able to ping it but every port look like closed. Anyone have had a similar experience so far?

Painless upgrade with no problems.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact