I tried Ubuntu recently well, just part of the install really as it never completed. It was the latest version and having got as far as installing the base system packages it then failed on installing the kernel packages with some dependencies problems and wouldn't go any further. I tried twice with the same result :-( I'm still none the wiser about Ubuntu. Barry Samuels http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk The Unofficial Guide to Great Britain On 2004.12.02 09:39, Tim Green wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:24:14 +0000, BenEBoy <ben@psychoferret.co.uk> wrote:

Since Debian proper is going to Gnome 2.8 for the release of Sarge, the gap between them is narrowing again. Ubuntu have stated in their aims to feed their changes back to Debian and the original software maintainers, so the gap should never get too large and Debian can shake off the image of always being two years behind everyone else.

Tim.

On 2004.12.02 21:38, Wayne Stallwood wrote:

On Thursday 02 December 2004 8:25 pm, Barry Samuels wrote:

...

I'm still none the wiser about Ubuntu.

Currently downloading it, will post my findings once I have a Virtual machine running.

I'll be interested in your findings. Looking on usenet I see that some people have managed to install it. -- Barry Samuels http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk The Unofficial Guide to Great Britain

On Friday 03 December 2004 10:22 am, you wrote:

Is this VMWare virtual or some other?

I tried and failed to get it working under VMWare (didn't try very hard, just kicked off an install and it died part way through). So I'll be very interested to see how you get on.

Yes it's VMware workstation. The installation completed but currently video and network are broken. What version of VMware are you using, older versions had issues with some 2.6 series kernels. I know what's wrong with the video the installer has selected 24bit colour (which my VMware installation does not support) but I am surprised that network failed as VMware uses really generic (and very common) virtual network adapters. No time to play with it right at the mo, but I will be playing with it over the weekend at some point.

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:25:36PM +0000, Barry Samuels wrote:

I tried Ubuntu recently well, just part of the install really as it never completed. It was the latest version and having got as far as installing the base system packages it then failed on installing the kernel packages with some dependencies problems and wouldn't go any further. I tried twice with the same result :-(

I'm still none the wiser about Ubuntu.

Are you certain you have a working set of CD-Roms? (i.e. non-faulty?) or that you didn't download a beta version of the next release? I have certainly installed it on 4 machines here (2 of them weird and wonderful laptops) There are certainly many many people running it out there, so it would seem unlikely that it was a problem with the distro unless you have some weird and wonderful hardware (tell us more about it so we can help?) or double check that media that you are trying to install from. Oh, and FWIW Ubuntu is like Debian with bells on, much improved hardware support and gnome 2.8 and other shiny bits, and they have made a stable release that will have security updates for the next 18 months but they should be releasing a new stableversion every 6 months. So far I really like Ubuntu (as opposed to running Debian testing/unstable which can be a bit painful sometimes) It is certainly worth installing and running now. Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:39:31AM +0000, Barry Samuels wrote:

I'm not sure about weird and wonderful! All the following distributions are installed and working:

Debian Sarge - my normal operating system. All the others are for playing/curiosity :-)

Hmmmn, thats very odd then :( (especially given that much of Ubuntu Warty is sort of based on Debian Sarge) I can't think of any obvious reasons that you are getting this problem. All I can suggest now is asking on the Ubuntu user mailing lists and/or IRC channels. Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:50:54 +0000 Ian bell <ianbell@ukfsn.org> wrote:

BenEBoy wrote:

...

John Seago wrote:

...

For those unable to take up the offer of free Ubuntu CD's at next Sunday's, (28th) meeting, today I was given a two disk set at Ottakar's in Norwich, presumably they are available at all branches. > From the Computer books dept. one to a customer.

Really? Anyone know why they're giving away distros?

I've been having a look at Ubuntu tonight. From what I can tell, it's debian with more up to date packages. Is that a fair assessment?

beb

Except kde is not included.

In that case I may just give it a go ;-) I assume it goes straight in with Gnome in that case. Does anyone know if it is easy to choose another - I'd rather not put all the Gnome stuff on and then take it off again (may just as well stick with Debian unstable in that case). Although my main reason for trying it is to identify a recommended desktop distro for customers - my recent experience with Red Hat Enterprise Workstation leads me to consider Red Hat have pulled out of the Linux market altogether (unless you are at corporate level that is) - there is too much work to do on it to get a usable small business workstation, which makes a raw Debian install and easier proposition imho :-) Perhaps this is why people don't consider Linux ready for the desktop? Hypothesis: Red Hat = Linux Red Hat is not ready for the desktop therefore Linux is not ready for the desktop since the first of those is clearly incorrect (although often taken as true) the whole hypothesis falls apart ;-) /me dons flame retardant suite :-o (disclaimer - please don't take this too seriously. I personally don't like Red Hat or KDE, but this is for my usage and I don't assume that the same can be said for everyone!) -- Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com/