- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ubuntu: Going from 256 MB to 512 MB means going from unusable to usable ... plus a Java rant
|
|
|
Comments (69)
Synaptic search
It does seem like the search could also search the description then if you did a simple "java" search it would turn up in the results.
This is why I use Vector Linux
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
> Any pet owner knows exactly what I mean.
I lost my little chihuahua baby in November, and I'm still missing her. I'd have sold my computers and mortgaged the house to the hilt, if it would have saved her. So, I know what you mean about priorities...
I lost my little chihuahua baby in November, and I'm still missing her. I'd have sold my computers and mortgaged the house to the hilt, if it would have saved her. So, I know what you mean about priorities...
>> In case you haven't noticed we're in a depression.
Well, although that may be correct in spirit, technically a depression is 2 or more years of negative GDP growth. We had positive GDP growth of 0.52% (squeaked it out) in 2008. So we couldn't possibly be in a depression until the end of 2010."
Edit: Check that. Should've said, "We couldn't possibly confirm that we are in a depression until the end of 2010.
Of course, telling someone who's lost their job that we aren't technically in a depression doesn't help them much.
Well, although that may be correct in spirit, technically a depression is 2 or more years of negative GDP growth. We had positive GDP growth of 0.52% (squeaked it out) in 2008. So we couldn't possibly be in a depression until the end of 2010."
Edit: Check that. Should've said, "We couldn't possibly confirm that we are in a depression until the end of 2010.
Of course, telling someone who's lost their job that we aren't technically in a depression doesn't help them much.
> I lost my little chihuahua baby in November, and I'm still missing her.
My wife and I lost our first cat almost a year and a half ago. I still miss him.
> So we couldn't possibly be in a depression until the end of 2010.
I don't think it has to go by calendar year. I think you can count by quarter, and I believe we'll find that the official recession started in the third quarter of 2008. So we should be able to tell by summer of 2010. Though I've never heard that definition before. Where did you find it?
> Of course, telling someone who's lost their job that we aren't technically in a depression doesn't help them much.
Classical definitions: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. :)
My wife and I lost our first cat almost a year and a half ago. I still miss him.
> So we couldn't possibly be in a depression until the end of 2010.
I don't think it has to go by calendar year. I think you can count by quarter, and I believe we'll find that the official recession started in the third quarter of 2008. So we should be able to tell by summer of 2010. Though I've never heard that definition before. Where did you find it?
> Of course, telling someone who's lost their job that we aren't technically in a depression doesn't help them much.
Classical definitions: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. :)
>> I don't think it has to go by calendar year. I think you can count by quarter, and I believe we'll find that the official recession started in the third quarter of 2008. So we should be able to tell by summer of 2010. Though I've never heard that definition before. Where did you find it?
Good point on the quarters.
I didn't find it. I've known it for years, not even sure when I learned it. This page seems to support it. http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Depress...
Good point on the quarters.
I didn't find it. I've known it for years, not even sure when I learned it. This page seems to support it. http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Depress...
Quoting:A depression is a severe economic downturn that lasts several years....and...
Quoting:The GDP growth rates were of a magnitude not seen since:
1. 1930 -8.6% 2. 1931 -6.4% 3. 1932 -13% 4. 1933 -1.3%.
@caitlin: Money means different things to different people. To each their own. I hope your pet does well.
Quoting:In case you haven't noticed we're in a depression.That seems to be the popular conception of those who watch (and believe) the media religiously, but like I said, the lines at Walmart are still long and rush-hour freeways are still packed. It's gonna take a lot more than a talking head and popular sentiment to convince me we are in anything like depression. The fact is our economy was on a wild binge that was unrealistic and now that the party's over everyone thinks it is gloom-and-doom when it is really just a hangover. This is a mindset that has been cultivated by the media for some time. If you didn't watch TV or read the news you would never notice anything had changed, really. Of course I don't live in the Rust Belt, but I do live in one of the most inflated housing markets in the country and there has certainly been a crash there...but it was completely unrealistic and only fools couldn't see that. People were milking it for all they could. I can tell you that the only people hurting around here are the Real Estate industry, which has been a windfall racket for quite some time so I don''t sympathize with them. Construction is also hit, but big builders slapping up disgusting track housing with immigrant labor don't really have my sympathy, either.
@tuxtom:
FWIW, I do live at the edge of the Rust Belt, and my county has the 4th highest unemployment in the state. Everyone here is affected by the unemployment rate; this Friday I'll be taking a "decorated" macaroni & cheese dish to my old boss for her last day on the job. Oh, and I might add, in January her husband was laid off as well, with zero advance notice.
People need to eat; people need to put clothes on their kids; people need to change the oil in their cars. But people don't need to buy wide-screen HDTV's. The lines at Wal-Mart aren't as long as they were, at least not here. Most of the store employees are now working only 32 hours or less per week, which took effect immediately after the New Year.
Yes, some people can afford to continue eating at Applebee's on a regular basis, but have you noticed that even Applebee's has cut their advertising budget? They're actively soliciting PR from their patrons, in the form of cell phone videos.
I hesitate to cross that line and call the current situation a "depression." But I don't find the idea as repugnant as I did six months ago.
FWIW, I do live at the edge of the Rust Belt, and my county has the 4th highest unemployment in the state. Everyone here is affected by the unemployment rate; this Friday I'll be taking a "decorated" macaroni & cheese dish to my old boss for her last day on the job. Oh, and I might add, in January her husband was laid off as well, with zero advance notice.
People need to eat; people need to put clothes on their kids; people need to change the oil in their cars. But people don't need to buy wide-screen HDTV's. The lines at Wal-Mart aren't as long as they were, at least not here. Most of the store employees are now working only 32 hours or less per week, which took effect immediately after the New Year.
Yes, some people can afford to continue eating at Applebee's on a regular basis, but have you noticed that even Applebee's has cut their advertising budget? They're actively soliciting PR from their patrons, in the form of cell phone videos.
I hesitate to cross that line and call the current situation a "depression." But I don't find the idea as repugnant as I did six months ago.
> I hesitate to cross that line and call the current situation a "depression."
The current downturn apparently started sometime in late 2007, though we didn't enter an official recession until sometime in 2008.. Since then, we've had a Bush tax rebate program, the Bush TARP program, and now the Obama stimulus package. None have had any significant long term effect. Unemployment is still accelerating, with over 4 million people out of work so far. If this is just a hangover, it's a doozy.
Even the official government figures indicate this is the worst recession since the great depression, and as far as I can tell, neither political party has any idea how to handle it. I believe most economists are still calling for a recovery later this year. I personally don't expect a turnaround until sometime in 2010, and possibly not until 2012.
I'd say calling it a depression may still be a bit early, but it's not completely unreasonable.
The current downturn apparently started sometime in late 2007, though we didn't enter an official recession until sometime in 2008.. Since then, we've had a Bush tax rebate program, the Bush TARP program, and now the Obama stimulus package. None have had any significant long term effect. Unemployment is still accelerating, with over 4 million people out of work so far. If this is just a hangover, it's a doozy.
Even the official government figures indicate this is the worst recession since the great depression, and as far as I can tell, neither political party has any idea how to handle it. I believe most economists are still calling for a recovery later this year. I personally don't expect a turnaround until sometime in 2010, and possibly not until 2012.
I'd say calling it a depression may still be a bit early, but it's not completely unreasonable.
JD: I agree with everything you said except..
>> None have had any significant long term effect.
They've had a quite noticeable effect on the stock markets.
>> None have had any significant long term effect.
They've had a quite noticeable effect on the stock markets.
@jdixon:
Long term effect is relative, also. What's it mean? I don't think there has been enough time passed to say Obama's stimulus plan had no long term effect.
Long term effect is relative, also. What's it mean? I don't think there has been enough time passed to say Obama's stimulus plan had no long term effect.
@jdixon & @NoDough: The two Bush administration economic measures you mentioned were not economic stimulus in any conventional sense. The Obama stimulus package was. Long term effect? None have been in place long enough to be considered long term. Heck, the stimulus package hasn't been in place long enough to have short term effects yet. Nothing happens overnight. If the number of job losses is still this high a year from now THEN I will agree with you about lack of long term effect.
Even the Obama stimulus plan was too long on things that don't really stimulate the economy effectively, mainly tax cuts. In difficult economic times people save the money rather than spend it. The people who have lost their jobs are paying few if any taxes in any case. The most stimulation comes from infrastructure projects and direct aid to those who have no choice but to spend the money: those who are really hurting financially.
If there was anything wrong with the stimulus bill is that it wasn't nearly large enough for an economy the size of the U.S. Even more importantly it wasn't targeted nearly narrowly enough at putting people back to work building and making things. That creates more demand for goods and services and allows those people who are employed by those projects to pay into the system to support those still out of work. We need new WPA and TVA type projects. We also need more oversight and regulation on the financial industry so that we stop throwing good money after bad into a bottomless pit. Can anyone tell me where the billions given to AIG have gone? How have they helped the economy? Taxpayers own 80% of the company now and yet the representatives of the taxpayers have little or no input on how it is run.
The national unemployment rate is 8.1%. In my state it's 9.7%. Those numbers only count people receiving unemployment benefits. It doesn't count those who have exhausted those benefits, who have given up even looking and perhaps are focusing on retraining, or those who are seriously underemployed. The real national unemployment rate was, according to a new government estimate, sitting at 14.8% last month. It's only getting worse.
If people can't work they can't pay their mortgages which deepens the housing crisis and they can't buy things which further reduces demand which further depresses the economy. Less demand equates to less need for workers which leads to yet more unemployment. It's a snowball effect. History teaches us the only way to slow that effect is to put people to work. If the private sector can't do it the public sector has to as it did during the New Deal. The depression of the 1930s didn't end until government hiring went way above even New Deal levels. Unfortunately those people had to be hired as soldiers and to support the military.
Even the Obama stimulus plan was too long on things that don't really stimulate the economy effectively, mainly tax cuts. In difficult economic times people save the money rather than spend it. The people who have lost their jobs are paying few if any taxes in any case. The most stimulation comes from infrastructure projects and direct aid to those who have no choice but to spend the money: those who are really hurting financially.
If there was anything wrong with the stimulus bill is that it wasn't nearly large enough for an economy the size of the U.S. Even more importantly it wasn't targeted nearly narrowly enough at putting people back to work building and making things. That creates more demand for goods and services and allows those people who are employed by those projects to pay into the system to support those still out of work. We need new WPA and TVA type projects. We also need more oversight and regulation on the financial industry so that we stop throwing good money after bad into a bottomless pit. Can anyone tell me where the billions given to AIG have gone? How have they helped the economy? Taxpayers own 80% of the company now and yet the representatives of the taxpayers have little or no input on how it is run.
The national unemployment rate is 8.1%. In my state it's 9.7%. Those numbers only count people receiving unemployment benefits. It doesn't count those who have exhausted those benefits, who have given up even looking and perhaps are focusing on retraining, or those who are seriously underemployed. The real national unemployment rate was, according to a new government estimate, sitting at 14.8% last month. It's only getting worse.
If people can't work they can't pay their mortgages which deepens the housing crisis and they can't buy things which further reduces demand which further depresses the economy. Less demand equates to less need for workers which leads to yet more unemployment. It's a snowball effect. History teaches us the only way to slow that effect is to put people to work. If the private sector can't do it the public sector has to as it did during the New Deal. The depression of the 1930s didn't end until government hiring went way above even New Deal levels. Unfortunately those people had to be hired as soldiers and to support the military.
Caitlyn,
You state several things categorically which are in dispute.
>> ...things that don't really stimulate the economy effectively, mainly tax cuts...
>> The most stimulation comes from infrastructure projects...
>> If there was anything wrong with the stimulus bill is that it wasn't nearly large enough for an economy the size of the U.S.
>> We need new WPA and TVA type projects.
An on it goes. These are all left-wing talking points which are disputed by right-wing talking points which are disputed by left-wing talking points, etc., etc. ad nauseum.
To me the Bailouts and Stimulus are all BS. But I can't tell you why without provoking political debate (as your post does.) So, I'm outa here.
You state several things categorically which are in dispute.
>> ...things that don't really stimulate the economy effectively, mainly tax cuts...
>> The most stimulation comes from infrastructure projects...
>> If there was anything wrong with the stimulus bill is that it wasn't nearly large enough for an economy the size of the U.S.
>> We need new WPA and TVA type projects.
An on it goes. These are all left-wing talking points which are disputed by right-wing talking points which are disputed by left-wing talking points, etc., etc. ad nauseum.
To me the Bailouts and Stimulus are all BS. But I can't tell you why without provoking political debate (as your post does.) So, I'm outa here.
I personally find history more instructive that political "talking points".
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Repeating the policies that Herbert Hoover's administration used in 1929-1932 is a great way to repeat the Great Depression. Is the tent city in Sacramento, CA the first new Hooverville in 70 years? Could be.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Repeating the policies that Herbert Hoover's administration used in 1929-1932 is a great way to repeat the Great Depression. Is the tent city in Sacramento, CA the first new Hooverville in 70 years? Could be.
Cheap shot. There are many, many unreliable historical sources out there. For every reference you find that says the New Deal saved us all, I can find one that says it did more damage than the depression itself. History means nothing when viewed through an ideological filter.
Not a cheap shot at all. There is one historical view of the Great Depression which is held by the vast majority of historians and economists and there is a relatively small minority view which you are espousing.
Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course.
I suspect there are points we could easily agree on, for example, that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a protectionist measure which sharply reduced international trade, made things worse. Yes, some of the hard left want a new protectionism. My quote applies equally to them as it does to those on the hard right. I don't think a purely left wing approach (which you have accused me of favoring) or a purely right wing approach can work.
My view of the causes of the Depression were originally expressed by Marriner Eccles who served as Federal Reserve Chairman during FDR's administration. I do think the that Irving Fisher also explained some of the causes though his explanation was focused on the failures of 1920s monetary policy and the financial markets. The greatest proponent of Fisher's ideas today is Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Bush appointee.
Yes, I do believe that, for the most part, FDR got it right when he followed the theories of John Maynard Keynes. That, today, is termed liberal. Interestingly enough Hoover's policies were termed "classical liberal" economics in their day.
The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now. I have a tendency, when I do wax political, to annoy both right wing and left wing ideologues. I'm very liberal on some issues and sharply conservative on others, notably foreign policy. tuxchick can attest to the latter from my days on the LinuxChix lists.
So... my point is NOT to spout "left wing talking points" as you called them. I would hope this discussion would encourage people to read historical sources on the Great Depression and make their own judgments.
ADDITION: If you have a chance read Marriner Eccles' testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1933. It is amazing how much of what he said then seems to apply equally well to where we are today: [url=http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/ecctes33.pdf#search='marriner eccles']http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/ecctes33.pdf#s...[/url]
Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course.
I suspect there are points we could easily agree on, for example, that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a protectionist measure which sharply reduced international trade, made things worse. Yes, some of the hard left want a new protectionism. My quote applies equally to them as it does to those on the hard right. I don't think a purely left wing approach (which you have accused me of favoring) or a purely right wing approach can work.
My view of the causes of the Depression were originally expressed by Marriner Eccles who served as Federal Reserve Chairman during FDR's administration. I do think the that Irving Fisher also explained some of the causes though his explanation was focused on the failures of 1920s monetary policy and the financial markets. The greatest proponent of Fisher's ideas today is Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Bush appointee.
Yes, I do believe that, for the most part, FDR got it right when he followed the theories of John Maynard Keynes. That, today, is termed liberal. Interestingly enough Hoover's policies were termed "classical liberal" economics in their day.
The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now. I have a tendency, when I do wax political, to annoy both right wing and left wing ideologues. I'm very liberal on some issues and sharply conservative on others, notably foreign policy. tuxchick can attest to the latter from my days on the LinuxChix lists.
So... my point is NOT to spout "left wing talking points" as you called them. I would hope this discussion would encourage people to read historical sources on the Great Depression and make their own judgments.
ADDITION: If you have a chance read Marriner Eccles' testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1933. It is amazing how much of what he said then seems to apply equally well to where we are today: [url=http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/ecctes33.pdf#search='marriner eccles']http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/MeltzerPDFs/ecctes33.pdf#s...[/url]
>> I don't thing a purely left wing approach (which you have accused me of favoring)...
I didn't use the term "purely", which changes meaning significantly. I did say, "all left-wing talking points". But the context clearly referred to the 4 lines quoted.
>> Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course.
Exactly!
>> My view of the causes of the Depression were originally expressed by Marriner Eccles who served as Federal Reserve Chairman during FDR's administration.
I don't trust authors. They nearly always have a revisionist agenda. I especially don't trust politician/authors. I trust historical archives and direct quotes.
>> Yes, I do believe that, for the most part, FDR got it right when he followed the theories of John Maynard Keynes. That, today, is termed liberal. Interestingly enough Hoover's policies were termed "classical liberal" economics in their day.
There's a reason they were both called liberal.
>> The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now.
No argument there.
I didn't use the term "purely", which changes meaning significantly. I did say, "all left-wing talking points". But the context clearly referred to the 4 lines quoted.
>> Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course.
Exactly!
>> My view of the causes of the Depression were originally expressed by Marriner Eccles who served as Federal Reserve Chairman during FDR's administration.
I don't trust authors. They nearly always have a revisionist agenda. I especially don't trust politician/authors. I trust historical archives and direct quotes.
>> Yes, I do believe that, for the most part, FDR got it right when he followed the theories of John Maynard Keynes. That, today, is termed liberal. Interestingly enough Hoover's policies were termed "classical liberal" economics in their day.
There's a reason they were both called liberal.
>> The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now.
No argument there.
I trust historical archives and direct quotes.
Hence my decision to link Eccles 1933 Senate testimony. There is no filter there. It's a transcript of what was said.
Hence my decision to link Eccles 1933 Senate testimony. There is no filter there. It's a transcript of what was said.
> There is one historical view of the Great Depression which is held by the vast majority of historians and economists and there is a relatively small minority view which you are espousing.
I don't believe that's true. From what I've seen it's closer to a 60/40 split. And both arguments are internally consistent. The question is which better matches reality. Without performing experiments, it's almost impossible to say. Unfortunately, we appear to be in the process of performing just such an experiment. :(
> Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course.
Agreed.
> I suspect there are points we could easily agree on...
Also agreed.
> The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now.
I doubt we agree there. It seems to me that they've both been doing their best to follow Keynesian theory. Bush merely chose tax cuts first, then reverted to government spending when that didn't work. Obama has started with government spending, then will probably move to tax cuts if that doesn't work. Both have been trying to stimulate their way out of the current recession/depression, unsuccessfully so far. So while I agree that neither is getting it right, that's because their method's haven't worked, not because they disagreed about the theory of what needed to be done.
> I would hope this discussion would encourage people to read historical sources on the Great Depression and make their own judgments.
Any economic period provides enough data that selective editing will allow you to reach the conclusions you want, so I recommend people read up on alternative viewpoints in addition to the default Keynesian ones, then make their best judgment as to which is correct. The primary economic schools of thought I know of are the Keynesian (emphasizing government stimulation of the economy to correct downturns), the Chicago school (money supply oriented), and the Austrian. Does anyone know of any others they would recommend?
There was a recent read through over on Vox Popoli (http://voxday.blogspot.com/) where they covered America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. The folks there highly recommend it for the Austrian perspective.
Oh, and this discussion will undoubtedly attract Bob's attention eventually. :)
I don't believe that's true. From what I've seen it's closer to a 60/40 split. And both arguments are internally consistent. The question is which better matches reality. Without performing experiments, it's almost impossible to say. Unfortunately, we appear to be in the process of performing just such an experiment. :(
> Who has an ideological filter here? Honest answer: everyone does, of course.
Agreed.
> I suspect there are points we could easily agree on...
Also agreed.
> The point is that I don't believe either major political party really gets it right in the U.S. right now.
I doubt we agree there. It seems to me that they've both been doing their best to follow Keynesian theory. Bush merely chose tax cuts first, then reverted to government spending when that didn't work. Obama has started with government spending, then will probably move to tax cuts if that doesn't work. Both have been trying to stimulate their way out of the current recession/depression, unsuccessfully so far. So while I agree that neither is getting it right, that's because their method's haven't worked, not because they disagreed about the theory of what needed to be done.
> I would hope this discussion would encourage people to read historical sources on the Great Depression and make their own judgments.
Any economic period provides enough data that selective editing will allow you to reach the conclusions you want, so I recommend people read up on alternative viewpoints in addition to the default Keynesian ones, then make their best judgment as to which is correct. The primary economic schools of thought I know of are the Keynesian (emphasizing government stimulation of the economy to correct downturns), the Chicago school (money supply oriented), and the Austrian. Does anyone know of any others they would recommend?
There was a recent read through over on Vox Popoli (http://voxday.blogspot.com/) where they covered America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard. The folks there highly recommend it for the Austrian perspective.
Oh, and this discussion will undoubtedly attract Bob's attention eventually. :)
> Oh, and this discussion will undoubtedly attract Bob's attention eventually. :)
I'm guessing he was so excited that he passed out at the keyboard. In a couple of hours we should hear from him.
I'm guessing he was so excited that he passed out at the keyboard. In a couple of hours we should hear from him.
The last line of jdixon's post and bigg's reply brought a certain movie to mind...
"..but what about Bob?"
Should I be worried? Is my future much like Richard Dreyfuss' character's in the film?
"..but what about Bob?"
Should I be worried? Is my future much like Richard Dreyfuss' character's in the film?
Caitlyn,
Didn't mean to abandon the thread. Just been really busy.
>> Hence my decision to link Eccles 1933 Senate testimony. There is no filter there. It's a transcript of what was said.
Sorry. Did not read. My mistake.
>> Should I be worried? Is my future much like Richard Dreyfuss' character's in the film?
Nah, I don't think so. Bob is probably tired of getting beat up for participating in this very type of thread. Kinda makes me feel bad.
Didn't mean to abandon the thread. Just been really busy.
>> Hence my decision to link Eccles 1933 Senate testimony. There is no filter there. It's a transcript of what was said.
Sorry. Did not read. My mistake.
>> Should I be worried? Is my future much like Richard Dreyfuss' character's in the film?
Nah, I don't think so. Bob is probably tired of getting beat up for participating in this very type of thread. Kinda makes me feel bad.
I'm really impressed with Ubuntu
7 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:1) Bugginess. The 6 month upgrade cycle means a lot of these do not get shaken out......
That would have to apply to any Distro that has a 6 month release cycle.. Mandriva, Fedora and open SuSE, for example, So either the Ubuntu Devs are not as good as others or we hear less complaints from the users of others. It seems pretty stable to me, so far, at least as stable as Mandriva 2008.1 (I can't compare it with the equivalent Mandriva version - 2009.0, as I won't use it)
Quoting:2) Remote developers:
I'm pretty sure I never actually spoke to any developers employed by Mandriva, with the exception of Adam and a the external contributors who took part in the Mandriva Forums, I'm pretty sure I never spoke to a developer.
Quoting:3) Obsession of Shuttleworth and others with bling.
That would be par for the course, the others also seem to spend a lot of time doing bling, I don't think Mandriva do it well... so much for the furfy that the French are great at design.
Quoting:4) Not enough put back into the kernel by the devs.
Probably fairly valid, but how much does Mandriva contribute back into the kernel, or any other desktop Linux. Canonical's defence was that they put back into desktop applications, I know that that would apply to Mandriva, as they put a lot into KDE (probably why they arrogantly forced KDE4.1 on us), and having looked around there does seem to me that there is a lot of Ubuntu input into the desktop.
SUSE has moved to an eight month release schedule.
I've actually had more problems with hardware detection in Ubuntu on older equipment than I've had with Slackware and derivatives. Clearly this is very much a matter of what hardware you have.
Just my .02... (in your currency of choice)
I've actually had more problems with hardware detection in Ubuntu on older equipment than I've had with Slackware and derivatives. Clearly this is very much a matter of what hardware you have.
Just my .02... (in your currency of choice)
I'll concur with caitlyn. Ubuntu since 6.04 has had very poor video detection on my older equipment.
Checking hardware, Asus K8V deluxe with nvdia geoforce fx5200 on two boxes here. slack derivatives work fine as does debian (haven't tried Lenny on the older hardware yet.
Checking hardware, Asus K8V deluxe with nvdia geoforce fx5200 on two boxes here. slack derivatives work fine as does debian (haven't tried Lenny on the older hardware yet.
Trace,
In response
1) Yeah I was comparing Ubuntu to Debian and Slackware primarily there. Also I did say if you wait a few weeks after the release of Ubuntu you will have a more stable platform. Your recent Intrepid experience is consistent with this since it was released last October.
2) I had a lot of positive interaction with Ubuntu developers early on in the project history (say three years ago). In the last year or so I (and others) have noticed a drop off in interaction which is a shame.
4) They do more for upstream than they used to but a lot of bugs I have had have been kernel bugs and the devs were pretty passive there. YMMV.
In response
1) Yeah I was comparing Ubuntu to Debian and Slackware primarily there. Also I did say if you wait a few weeks after the release of Ubuntu you will have a more stable platform. Your recent Intrepid experience is consistent with this since it was released last October.
2) I had a lot of positive interaction with Ubuntu developers early on in the project history (say three years ago). In the last year or so I (and others) have noticed a drop off in interaction which is a shame.
4) They do more for upstream than they used to but a lot of bugs I have had have been kernel bugs and the devs were pretty passive there. YMMV.
Caitlyn, thanks for the clarity on Wolvix. It really is a great distro with a great mix of apps in both the Cub and Hunter versions.
Quoting:I'll concur with caitlyn. Ubuntu since 6.04 has had very poor video detection on my older equipment.
This is one area where it doesn't seem as flexible as Mandriva (Mandriva will give me almost any aspect ratio, for example, which means it's often difficult to test Ubuntu properly in a VM), but it does seem to work fine with Intel video cards I'm running
I'm using Intel video chips as well, and Ubuntu consistently plays nicely with them.
Just put a different video card in my Ubuntu 8.10 box.
Worked. Auto selected the right restricted driver.
With in a few days my gig of ram will arrive for an old P4 and I will put Ubuntu on that one as well. Just too much information at hand to run anything else. And I am too old to learn how to run another package manager!
With in a few days my gig of ram will arrive for an old P4 and I will put Ubuntu on that one as well. Just too much information at hand to run anything else. And I am too old to learn how to run another package manager!
Max out the RAM -- best thing you could do.
@Steven: Have you looked at Wolvix 2.0.0 beta 1 yet? It looks very promising. There is no more Hunter or Cub, BTW. Just one 640MB iso.
@tracyanne: This netbook has an Intel chip and Ubuntu plays nicely with it as well.
My old hardware includes chipsets by Trident and NeoMagic. Ubuntu is decidedly unhappy with them: a black screen is all I get. The Trident works fine if the distro uses vconf (Zenwalk, Wolvix, AliXe) or vxconf (Vector, Supergamer) but stock Slackware doesn't work (itty bitty screen surrounded by lots of black). The NeoMagic chipset works fine with anything Slackware or related.
@tracyanne: This netbook has an Intel chip and Ubuntu plays nicely with it as well.
My old hardware includes chipsets by Trident and NeoMagic. Ubuntu is decidedly unhappy with them: a black screen is all I get. The Trident works fine if the distro uses vconf (Zenwalk, Wolvix, AliXe) or vxconf (Vector, Supergamer) but stock Slackware doesn't work (itty bitty screen surrounded by lots of black). The NeoMagic chipset works fine with anything Slackware or related.
@caitlyn, it sure does. the BENQ has intel, and it works really well.
Hey tracy you are in "august" company. Dvorak likes it too!
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342703,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342703,00.asp
What I'm not impressed with is that I can't suspend/Hibernate after using VLC, even with VLC shut down. When I attempt to suspend I get a warning that tells me I can't suspend becasue VLC is active or I'm currently doing updates.
I'm having trouble duplicating that behaviour this morning, but it happened to me on both the netbook and my main laptop yesterday, after demonstrating Video playing.
I'm having trouble duplicating that behaviour this morning, but it happened to me on both the netbook and my main laptop yesterday, after demonstrating Video playing.
Is there a stray process left over from VLC that's still running? It might be a good idea to do a before/during/after process tree snapshot, to see what's really going on in there.
Got another piece of old iron running Ubuntu 8.10
1.6GHz Intel CPU
1 G RAM
Old 128 Meg Nvidia card
So far everything I have tried has worked. So far.....
So far everything I have tried has worked. So far.....
You call that OLD?
Cue the "back in my day..." comments.
S_R I run as many as four 3D games at a time!
Plus watch a couple of movies and listen to music.
Then there is SETI and FOLDING.
/sarcasm.
This is just about the bottom if you want to watch movies, streaming movies. But I sure am not keeping up with the Joneses.
This is just about the bottom if you want to watch movies, streaming movies. But I sure am not keeping up with the Joneses.
Quoting:Is there a stray process left over from VLC that's still running?
I suppose that's possible, I haven't been able to duplicate it, but on both machines there was a video that failed to load.
The biggest problems I have had with suspend in the past have been to do with video driver so if vlc was playing a video this doesn't surprise. I find intel video drivers work the best. I have an X300 thinkpad with intel video driver which suspends flawlessly even with video streams running. Another laptop (T60) has much bigger problems with its ATI video card.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post