There is a new kid on the Linux distribution block, namely Ubuntu. I downloaded a demo live CD yesterday to try it out.
So, I booted up from the CD. Some live CDs suffer from being slow to load applications, because they’re loading files off the CD rather than the hard disk, so when I saw the boot option “copy contents into RAM before booting”, I picked that. My machine has 1GB RAM and would have no trouble holding the contents in RAM. This took several minutes to boot, of course, during which time I nipped off to make a cup of tea, but after that everything loaded up on demand very quickly.
First impressions: looks very clean, which is probably the result of the Gnome desktop. I usually prefer KDE, and this experiment with Ubuntu probably won’t change that, but I was happy to test it out. All my hardware appeared to be detected properly, but as I didn’t have much time to test everything, that may not have been the case. One thing I did notice was that the screen appeared flickery, like it does when the refresh rate is set too low. The System Tools option said that it was running at a resolution of 1024×768 (lower than my usual, but still quite reasonable) at a refresh rate of 101Hz. I couldn’t change the refresh rate through this interface, but in any case, 101Hz should have been fine.
Tested out all the obvious applications: Firefox, X-IRC, Evolution, Gaim etc. All good, although a surprising lack of choice, especially when compared to other live CDs such as Knoppix. The Ubuntu live CD runs to 650MB and I find it hard to figure out where all the space went. Of course, with a proper installation rather than a Live CD, you can install as much as you want. Maybe the lack of choice is a deliberate Ubuntu design decision.
I think I’m in the “I don’t quite ‘get’ Ubuntu” camp at the moment. It is based on Debian, which is good, but I don’t understand why the work involved in producing Ubuntu can’t be used to improve Debian instead. Well, maybe it is to some extent. I guess that perhaps Ubuntu serves those users who want to use Debian on their desktop, but dislike the long time between releases. The choice of Gnome for window manager will annoy some (the KDE users) and endear others, as with any application holy war.
I think that Ubuntu exists for a couple of reasons:
1. It is desktop focused, whereas Debian isn’t.
2. It is focused on a much smaller set of architectures, which will likely mean that some technology that will find it hard to get into Debian (because it, say, only works on x86) will make it into Ubuntu.
They probably chose GNOME realising that GNOME was, for the most part, the ‘official’ DE of Debian for a while, mainly because of the initial ‘unfree’ nature of the QT Libraries. Additionally, they do seem to have included much of the Project Utopia-type software, which seems to be advancing on GNOME but not KDE at the moment.
Just my £0.02
PermalinkWhat mrben said, plus…
The LiveCD mimics the default application set of the install cd. The size of the CD can be explained by the fact the Windows versions of OOo, Firefox etc are on there as well (use it in a windows box to see the installer).
PermalinkHello
I’d like to know where you have seen the boot option “copy contents into RAM before booting” ?? I can’t find it…
ty
Laurent
PermalinkOh, I can’t remember now. I’m not sure I’ve got that live CD any more. The options were listed in the boot help screens somewhere, though …
PermalinkThe initial restriction of choice was deliberate and is very good IMHO. There is very little point inhaving more than one programme of every kind, particularly if the chosen programme is good.
The result is a very clean installation and very clean menus. Knoppix’s and Suse’s menus are rotten and overflowing with stuff in comparison.
It is very easy to change these preferences – e.g. I usually get rid of OOo in no time and use Abiword, gnumeric and lyx, but in teh end will also only have one of everything rather than the three or four choices others like to install.
Permalink