- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx Beta 1 Released [Screenshots Tour]
|
|
|
Comments (45)
25 earlier comments in the full thread.
Well I know Fedora and Debian does show the GRUB screen. So *Ubuntu have the habit of hiding it.
Grub2 tip: To stop the invisible boot screen in Ubuntu Lucid (or any distro with invisible Grub2 boot screen), hold down the shift key. I'll be trying it soon.
Brilliant, hide the boot screen behind a sekkrit keypress. What next, blanking the login screen?
Supposedly it's only invisible if you have a single-boot system. Dual-booters get a visible Grub2 menu.
Quoting:I'm back to distro-hopping. (Long story, short version is dist-upgrade from Debian Lenny to Squeeze was less than seamless.)
That's the risk you take. Squeeze isn't stable yet. A few weeks ago something broke in Grub2 and I couldn't safely reboot. I still can't safely upgrade all my Python packages because that will blow away my CalendarServer.
But once Squeeze is stable, upgrading from Lenny to Squeeze should be relatively pain-free.
Sander: How's that, different packages depending on different Python versions or something like that? You can't install multiple python versions?
I remember upgrading Python and sometimes running multiple versions simultaneously, and using the python-updater tool. Sometimes things get messy indeed, sometimes even FUBAR, especially when you 'mix distro versions' or use a rolling-release distro.
I remember upgrading Python and sometimes running multiple versions simultaneously, and using the python-updater tool. Sometimes things get messy indeed, sometimes even FUBAR, especially when you 'mix distro versions' or use a rolling-release distro.
Funny, but Karmic worked out of the box on all my systems. I couldn't say that about a number of previous Ubuntu releases but the last one was really slick. Installing codecs and anything else you need is easy enough as well. Is it my favorite distro? No, not at present, but it sure isn't bad either.
Some people seem to have a need to bash Ubuntu continuously. That's what I don't get.
Some people seem to have a need to bash Ubuntu continuously. That's what I don't get.
Quoting:Some people seem to have a need to bash Ubuntu continuously. That's what I don't get.Why not? It's just another shell script ... or is it sed or awk running?
YBT
I still think it's dumb to hide the boot menu. Even on a single-OS system there are multiple boot options, like rescue mode and multiple kernels, and how are users supposed to learn anything when crucial screens are hidden? It doesn't boot any faster for being hidden.
Quoting:I still think it's dumb to hide the boot menu. Even on a single-OS system there are multiple boot options, like rescue mode and multiple kernels, and how are users supposed to learn anything when crucial screens are hidden? It doesn't boot any faster for being hidden.Maybe they do it to make it more like Windows?
On my Debian lenny updated to Debian squeeze grub 2 generates the menu with all available kernels and doesn't hide.
It generates a normal and rescue mode entry for each kernel.
And that was before I had it setup to scan and find the Windows install as well.
ComputerBob, now there is a Linux for the masses: as dopey and non-functional as Windows, but it looks just like Mac OS X. A surefire winner!
> Some people seem to have a need to bash Ubuntu continuously. That's what I don't get.
Before Ubuntu it was Red Hat. There are always those who like to attack the most popular thing, no matter the category. Sometimes they're even right (see Kansas vs. Northern Iowa for one recent example).
Before Ubuntu it was Red Hat. There are always those who like to attack the most popular thing, no matter the category. Sometimes they're even right (see Kansas vs. Northern Iowa for one recent example).
TC, I've noticed that several of the liveCD distributions hide the boot behind various options, and I am certain that they do it to prevent people from being "confused" by the complexity.
So yeah, making it look more like Windows.
So yeah, making it look more like Windows.
Quoting:Sander: How's that, different packages depending on different Python versions or something like that? You can't install multiple python versions?
For example. Debian has always supported multiple Python installations. Squeeze currently supports Python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 3.0. All of Debian's python packages are configured and built in such a way to deal with most, if not all these versions.
I've upgraded boxes from Sarge to Etch to Squeeze without much of an issue. Just make sure you do pay attention to whatever changes aptitude warns you about. Debian packages rarely push upgrade notes in your face during installation, but if they do it's with good reason.
My Debian Squeeze Grub2 menu was great. I had no problem with the transition from Grub1 to Grub2. I thought the Debian devs handled that very well.
I'm sure Ubuntu hides the boot menu because there's no boot menu in Windows or Mac unless you hold down whatever magic keys those OSes have set up for single-user mode, CD booting, etc.
I'm not sure I'm exactly a Ubuntu basher, although I do use the bash shell a bit. Most of my complaints are with upstream, specifically Xorg and the kernel and both projects' habits of orphaning hardware before its time and unleashing show-stopping regressions.
It's funny - I had automatic fan control on my Gateway Solo 1450 laptop in the 2.6.18 kernel, and it quickly dropped out of the kernel. I've been using scripts to invoke it since then. Now in 2.6.32 it's back. So something that dropped out of the kernel came back 14 versions later. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have it back, but sheesh!
Where Xorg made its fatal error was retiring the i810 driver and pushing everybody into the Intel driver. If they had kept i810 or i915 for the "legacy" Intel video and created a new driver for the "modern" Intel video chips, I'd be the happiest of campers. The way things are now, all of the Xorg development since at least 2008 has caused nothing but trouble for users of older Intel chips. INTEL ... not something obscure.
So I don't blame any Linux distro or BSD project for my video trouble; they're just using what Xorg created upstream.
I do feel sorry especially for the Ubuntu developers who have to deal with the flood of bug reports for Xorg.
I'm sure Ubuntu hides the boot menu because there's no boot menu in Windows or Mac unless you hold down whatever magic keys those OSes have set up for single-user mode, CD booting, etc.
I'm not sure I'm exactly a Ubuntu basher, although I do use the bash shell a bit. Most of my complaints are with upstream, specifically Xorg and the kernel and both projects' habits of orphaning hardware before its time and unleashing show-stopping regressions.
It's funny - I had automatic fan control on my Gateway Solo 1450 laptop in the 2.6.18 kernel, and it quickly dropped out of the kernel. I've been using scripts to invoke it since then. Now in 2.6.32 it's back. So something that dropped out of the kernel came back 14 versions later. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have it back, but sheesh!
Where Xorg made its fatal error was retiring the i810 driver and pushing everybody into the Intel driver. If they had kept i810 or i915 for the "legacy" Intel video and created a new driver for the "modern" Intel video chips, I'd be the happiest of campers. The way things are now, all of the Xorg development since at least 2008 has caused nothing but trouble for users of older Intel chips. INTEL ... not something obscure.
So I don't blame any Linux distro or BSD project for my video trouble; they're just using what Xorg created upstream.
I do feel sorry especially for the Ubuntu developers who have to deal with the flood of bug reports for Xorg.
I kept hearing that apt was better for dist-upgrades than Aptitude ... and now it's the opposite. Oh well, you live, you learn.
Some of us just live. OK I learned beer, isn't that enough?
I guess a boot menu comes with a certain time-out, hence why Syslinux doesn't display it by default... Unless you press a magic key!
Now, everyone knows 'embedded' (what Syslinux is used for very often) boots fast, so if you want to make Ubuntu fast, I guess getting rid of the boot menu is a good thing.
Now, everyone knows 'embedded' (what Syslinux is used for very often) boots fast, so if you want to make Ubuntu fast, I guess getting rid of the boot menu is a good thing.
Quoting:I kept hearing that apt was better for dist-upgrades than Aptitude ... and now it's the opposite. Oh well, you live, you learn.
It doesn't really matter anymore. Personally I prefer aptitude because it has an ncurses gui. When I don't like what aptitude is going to do (e.g. when I dist-upgrade my Squeeze it tries to remove CalendarServer) I can really easily drop into that gui and undo that change while keeping the rest of aptitude's suggestions.
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