I'm testing UNR of Jaunty right now
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Apr 17, 2009 11:00 PM EDT |
It's looking very nice. they seem to have managed get it right, this time. the Remix of 8.10 is good, but just a little rough around the edges. This version of the remix seems to have fixed that, it feels much more integrated, I'm actual. ly using it on the Netbook right now. |
| herzeleid Apr 18, 2009 1:26 AM EDT |
Good to hear - I'm torrenting the rc now, to install on the lappy in the morning. |
| tracyanne Apr 18, 2009 3:37 AM EDT |
Yes there are some nice touches, like fullscreen windows integrating into the panel at the top so that the window decoration doesb't take up space. The bottom panel is no longer there by default, instead the open applications have only the small buttons on the left of the top panel, and the menu option is gone. The whole thing just works better, and has a better feel to it. |
| caitlyn Apr 18, 2009 8:37 PM EDT |
I'm waitIing for the final release before I try it. Ubuntu always has some interesting bugs (at least so far) and I'd like as many ironed out as possible. I have UNR 8.04 on my netbook and I almost certainly will do the upgrade to 9.04. |
| number6x Apr 20, 2009 10:23 AM EDT |
I just upgraded from 8.04 to 8.10.
I'll probably stay on 8.10 for a few months.
They just put in a fix for suspend resume on my laptop in 8.10. Waiting has its benefits. I keep trying the live cd's until any fixes I need are all in, then I upgrade. |
| tracyanne Apr 20, 2009 4:17 PM EDT |
I did notice a problem with the Release candidate of Jaunty UNR, when I changed the desktop layout from Easy to standard and back again the panel didn't refresh back to the UNR easy panel properly, in fact when I tried it several times the panel simply disappeared after switching back to the UNR Easy desktop layout. |
| number6x Apr 20, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
tracyanne, any interesting log messages? (/var/log/Xorg.0.log) |
| tracyanne Apr 20, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
The machine actually locked up after a few more switches, and I put it down to the fact that I had ext4 as the fielsystem. I reinstalled with ext3 and I can't get it to exhibit that behaviour again. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 21, 2009 2:39 PM EDT |
I have a couple of machines on 8.04 right now. I'll have to look into which Wi-Fi adapters have been added to the kernel in order to determine whether or not an upgrade is worthwhile for me. |
| herzeleid Apr 21, 2009 5:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:The machine actually locked up after a few more switches, and I put it down to the fact that I had ext4 as the fielsystem. I reinstalled with ext3 and I can't get it to exhibit that behaviour again.Hardware issues being exposed by ext4 code paths? My ext4 jaunty experiment has been solid so far, but then again it's a normal desktop machine. |
| azerthoth Apr 21, 2009 5:22 PM EDT |
I have one laptop running ext4, so far no issues, however I am far from ready to make the change over wholesale. There are just some things I am an old stick in the mud about and I'm not one to 'go afixin what taint broke' so I tend to stick with ext3 as it's a good generic all purpose stable file system. my .02 your milage may vary. |
| herzeleid Apr 21, 2009 6:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:There are just some things I am an old stick in the mud about and I'm not one to 'go afixin what taint broke' so I tend to stick with ext3 as it's a good generic all purpose stable file system.Absolutely horrified by the performance, I switched away from ext3 to reiser years ago, and have been using it everywhere, desktop, laptop, server room. It's been the default filesystem in suse enterprise for ages. My recent testing of ext4 marks the first filesystem I've ever benchmarked beating reiser consistently. |
| gus3 Apr 21, 2009 6:24 PM EDT |
The elevator choice can have a dramatic effect on filesystem I/O performance. On my desktop with relatively low system load, XFS and the noop or deadline elevator give a very good show. |
| azerthoth Apr 21, 2009 10:22 PM EDT |
While its true that you can see differences between fs a and b, the differences truly are in hardware write limitations. Modern SATAII drives can read at 300Mb a sec, however they still have the ~30Mb/s write bottleneck. SSD's are making headway in that department and are now running write speeds 3x that of SATA. So in the grand scheme of things the 4 bits per second difference your going to see with one over the other fs is picayune. Crash stable and recoverable, thats my mantra. |
| gus3 Apr 21, 2009 10:29 PM EDT |
Agreed az, I'm just saying that filesystem choice isn't the only knob to turn when evaluating performance. If anyone is interested in running some tests, I have scripts and instructions available. Just check my submitted story archive. |
| montezuma Apr 21, 2009 11:02 PM EDT |
I have upgraded 4 boxes to 9.04 so far and *nearly* everything was painless and the desktops feel subjectively faster than intrepid. The painful glaring exception has been graphics drivers. Watch out if you have intel graphics cards. 9.04 uses xorg 1.6 and the intel drivers for this have some issues (to put it mildly). I ended up reverting to the xserver-xorg-intel-2.4 (from the 2.6 in jaunty) and that solved the problem. Also had a similar issue with an ati card laptop (X1300) and had to force the radeon driver to use xaa acceleration to get decent performance. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!