ubuntu is a POS distribution

[flexy]

i know i will get **** from the linux people now left and right, i also complained on the ubuntu forums - although, i didn't use swear-words

Anyway i think its odd that this distribution has problems on my config, A64 w/ Radeon X850.

Got me the 64bit 6.06.1 ubuntu, burned on CD...and it cant even boot all the way thru because the X drivers flip out....some messed up ASCII graphics on the screen complaining about X not working etc.

This is weird BECAUSE i thought ubuntu was a mature and GOOD distribution (i read about it a while and people all like it)...but it doesnt even run with STANDARD hardware.

And...i really do NOT have the nerve BEFORE I EVEN GET THAT THING INSTALLED to go "in depth" now and config X and download/install this and this driver and edit configs...just to get it running and see how it compares to what i know from older SusE distribs or RedHat.

thumbs down

 

[RamIt]

I dont know about a pos os but give a few others a try instead.
I just had to learn a little linux to get a CS:S zombie server working, 71.198.91.116:27015 (does not work in windows) and had similar problems with my 9800 pro. seems to be an ati issue if you ask me.
Give Suse 10.1 a try. It worked out the box with a few updates.

 

[nweaver]

Sorry, but it works better for me then WindowXP out of box.

 

[nova2]

"don't have the nerve"
ok.

> use an nvidia video card or some other video card.
ATI's *nix drivers aren't all good. It seems that you clearly didn't know or expect such problems.

> try a different distro or the 32bit ver of ubuntu.

> many *nix distros are free, and if they don't work for you, big deal, try something else.

 

[unmerited]

Sounds like an ATI problem to me but, as others have said try another distribution. You're bound to find one that works.

unmerited

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: unmerited
Sounds like an ATI problem to me but, as others have said try another distribution. You're bound to find one that works.

unmerited

I donno. Maybe he is better off stopping now. Try again next year and it will probably just work.
Hopefully nobody wasted their time helping him on the Ubuntu forums. I am sure that all they would of gotten in return was complaints.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: flexy
i know i will get **** from the linux people now left and right, i also complained on the ubuntu forums - although, i didn't use swear-words

Anyway i think its odd that this distribution has problems on my config, A64 w/ Radeon X850.

Got me the 64bit 6.06.1 ubuntu, burned on CD...and it cant even boot all the way thru because the X drivers flip out....some messed up ASCII graphics on the screen complaining about X not working etc.

This is weird BECAUSE i thought ubuntu was a mature and GOOD distribution (i read about it a while and people all like it)...but it doesnt even run with STANDARD hardware.

And...i really do NOT have the nerve BEFORE I EVEN GET THAT THING INSTALLED to go "in depth" now and config X and download/install this and this driver and edit configs...just to get it running and see how it compares to what i know from older SusE distribs or RedHat.

thumbs down

Boot with "Safe Graphics Mode". Install. Reboot. Install proprietary ATi drivers.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Sorry, but it works better for me then WindowXP out of box.

lol, not to start a flame war, but I was discussing this very issue with a friend of mine the other day. I was over at his place hanging out and helping him with a clean install of XP on his GF's pc. When it finally booted to the desktop we realized that we had to download the NIC drivers. That being the only PC available, we repartitioned, installed ubuntu (in about 15 minutes virtually unattended) the NIC was of course automatically installed, so we browsed on over to the manufacturers web site and grabbed the XP drivers to a thumb drive. Linux helped us install windows

 

[Robor]

Ubuntu is a great distro and there's plenty of 'how to's' available on getting an ATI card working with it. Unlike in WinXP, everything on my Thinkpad was supported out of the box. The only time I've had an issue with Ubuntu and 'X' is when I muffed it up playing around.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Robor
Ubuntu is a great distro and there's plenty of 'how to's' available on getting an ATI card working with it. Unlike in WinXP, everything on my Thinkpad was supported out of the box. The only time I've had an issue with Ubuntu and 'X' is when I muffed it up playing around.

Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

 

[lxskllr]

I had the same issue due to a borked attempt at a Windows XP repair install. I tried to troubleshoot using a Ubuntu live cd and got the same error. I'd suggest formatting and trying again. It may be a problem with your harddrive.

Ubuntu has always worked well for me. The only reason I don't use it is because I game a lot. I've had issues with 56k modems and wireless adapters, otherwise my installs went flawlessly.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Robor
Ubuntu is a great distro and there's plenty of 'how to's' available on getting an ATI card working with it. Unlike in WinXP, everything on my Thinkpad was supported out of the box. The only time I've had an issue with Ubuntu and 'X' is when I muffed it up playing around.

Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

And your point is...? I'm talking about ease of install TODAY. And I know how to install drivers but it's a PITA when your wireless and wired adapters aren't recognized and the system doesn't come with a driver CD. Regarding the terminal... You sound like one of those 'elite' Linux users that can't stand Linux is becoming popular/mainstream among the 'common folks'. Sorry dude...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

So which Microsoft release should something like Ubuntu be compared to?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Robor
Ubuntu is a great distro and there's plenty of 'how to's' available on getting an ATI card working with it. Unlike in WinXP, everything on my Thinkpad was supported out of the box. The only time I've had an issue with Ubuntu and 'X' is when I muffed it up playing around.

Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

There's nothing wrong with those users who don't have the need for the command line. Ubuntu is "Linux for human beings" after all I do a lot of consulting as a linux sysadmin (debian mostly, some gentoo, and even fewer red hat boxes eck) and I had never even used X until probably 2-3 years ago, but I don't feel that it's necessary if all you are using the box for is basic desktop work (Org FF, and Thunderbird etc)

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

So which Microsoft release should something like Ubuntu be compared to?

Vista?

 

[Smilin]

[flamesuit = TRUE] Biased and generalizing observation that obviously doesn't apply to everyone but does often ring true ....

MS has problem X.
MS Guru reply: yeah, go do yada yada and it will fix X.

Linux has problem Y.
Linux Gury reply: you're f'n stupid. everyone knows you do yada yada instead. Hell MS can't even do X.



Oh, as for me:
Linux has problem Y.
MS Guru (me) reply: Yeah, dunno sorry man.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: nweaver
Sorry, but it works better for me then WindowXP out of box.

lol, not to start a flame war, but I was discussing this very issue with a friend of mine the other day. I was over at his place hanging out and helping him with a clean install of XP on his GF's pc. When it finally booted to the desktop we realized that we had to download the NIC drivers. That being the only PC available, we repartitioned, installed ubuntu (in about 15 minutes virtually unattended) the NIC was of course automatically installed, so we browsed on over to the manufacturers web site and grabbed the XP drivers to a thumb drive. Linux helped us install windows

You shoulda gotten the liveCD. Then you wouldn't have even had to install it.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Sorry, but it works better for me then WindowXP out of box.

Same here. Ubuntu was easier to install than even OS X.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Smilin

MS has problem X.
MS Guru reply: you're f'n stupid. everyone knows you do yada yada instead.
or MS Guru reply: That is how Windows is designed to work.

Linux has problem Y.
Linux Gury reply: you're f'n stupid. everyone knows you do yada yada instead. Hell MS can't even do X.

f1x0rd


edit: By the way, Smilin, can you cite a specific example in this thread where anyone even implies that the OP is stupid?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

So which Microsoft release should something like Ubuntu be compared to?

Vista?

Has that been released already? Everything I see keeps calling it a beta....

 

[spittledip]

Quite honestly, both are cake to install. My problem with Ubuntu is that (as another poster mentioned) I could not figure out how to work the command line. The directions provided for using the command line for installing drivers and some other things were very unclear and poorly written. In my experience with Ubuntu, that would be the major problem. Other than that, it was a nice fast install and a light and quick OS that ran very smoothly. It is just that XP is easier to figure out, even when it comes to command line stuff. I can do command line stuff in windows no problem.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Brazen
edit: By the way, Smilin, can you cite a specific example in this thread where anyone even implies that the OP is stupid?

Sure, no prob

"Linux Gury reply: you're f'n stupid."....

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.
I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

"everyone knows you do yada yada instead"...

You shoulda gotten the liveCD. Then you wouldn't have even had to install it.

"Hell MS can't even do X. "...

..helping him with a clean install of XP on his GF's pc. When it finally booted to the desktop we realized that we had to download the NIC drivers..

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Yeah, unlike xp, that came out in 2001, ubuntu is new...can you really compare it like that?

it is not that there's no drivers for hardvare, it is that OMG you have to install them.

I have feeling that most of you ubuntu users don't know even to utilize the terminal.

So which Microsoft release should something like Ubuntu be compared to?

Vista?

Has that been released already? Everything I see keeps calling it a beta....

Well there is Release Candidate, but it is more or less Beta too. Still, it has plenty of drivers, for example no motherboard drivers are need to be installed. And pretty much all Aero-capable video cards have included drivers.... Does Ubuntu comes with working XGL?

Also ubuntu doesn't provide most drivers- Linux kernel does.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Well there is Release Candidate, but it is more or less Beta too.

Comparing an unreleased OS with an already released OS is silly and pointless.

Still, it has plenty of drivers, for example no motherboard drivers are need to be installed. And pretty much all Aero-capable video cards have included drivers.... Does Ubuntu comes with working XGL?

No idea.

Also ubuntu doesn't provide most drivers- Linux kernel does.

Um, so?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Well there is Release Candidate, but it is more or less Beta too.

Comparing an unreleased OS with an already released OS is silly and pointless.

Still, it has plenty of drivers, for example no motherboard drivers are need to be installed. And pretty much all Aero-capable video cards have included drivers.... Does Ubuntu comes with working XGL?

No idea.

Also ubuntu doesn't provide most drivers- Linux kernel does.

Um, so?

Um, so, you don't have a single point. How OS is not releaased when everybody can downlaod and use it. No, it doesn't come with XGL cuz 3D accel doesn't work out-of the box.

And it seems that you don't get the point about kernel and drivers.

I'm not MS fanboy, just some of you ubuntu supporters know only how to change desktop background in Linux.