FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Ubuntu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





uuuuuu
The next version of Ubuntu Linux, Gutsy Gibbon, 7.10, is going to be released in two weeks.
Who else is excited?
Am I the only Ubuntu fanboy?
Who loves compiz?
I have run some kind of linux distro on and off for a dozen years or so, but Ubuntu is the first that I've ever run on my primary machine. I don't miss windows too much, although I have to admit I've still got a system running XP for applications that I can't run in Wine.

Go Ubuntu!

Love,

Uwe
RiCtee
I'll have to wait till the free ship-it CD arrives to try it out. Very Happy I agree Ubuntu is my favourite Linux distro.
mehulved
uuuuuu wrote:
The next version of Ubuntu Linux, Gutsy Gibbon, 7.10, is going to be released in two weeks.
Who else is excited?
Am I the only Ubuntu fanboy?

Somehow I am starting to feel wary of non-LTS releases of Ubuntu. Couple of things here and there seem to be badly broken. Not that it's an annoyance for majority of users and I do understand that all distros have some such bugs.
But, still they are doing a good job of bringing in newbie friendly(some even idiot friendly) features.
mystzero
Speaking of gutsy gibbon, is it better to do a clean installation or to perform an upgrade from the previous version, feisty?
Arno v. Lumig
I don't like Ubuntu. It is slower then Vista, even with Fluxbox and the like. I don't know why that is, I just know that I can't appreciate that.
desertwind
Ubuntu is a pretty good distro for beginners. But still will go with my pretty old stable Debian (on which Ubuntu is based on).
LostOverThere
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I don't like Ubuntu. It is slower then Vista, even with Fluxbox and the like. I don't know why that is, I just know that I can't appreciate that.


That's not normal. You've got to have some major problem somewhere because to me Ubuntu runs at least twice as fast as Windows XP and uses 4% of my RAM with Firefox, Pidgin, File Manager, and EOG open as well as 5% of my CPU. Just shows how fast it works on my end. Confused
mehulved
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I don't like Ubuntu. It is slower then Vista, even with Fluxbox and the like. I don't know why that is, I just know that I can't appreciate that.

Unless you're exaggerating, you should be checking top to know what's causing this. Ubuntu is nowhere near the lightest around but it surely isn't that bad.
LostOverThere
mehulved wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I don't like Ubuntu. It is slower then Vista, even with Fluxbox and the like. I don't know why that is, I just know that I can't appreciate that.

Unless you're exaggerating, you should be checking top to know what's causing this. Ubuntu is nowhere near the lightest around but it surely isn't that bad.


My friend runs it on 192mb of RAM and it is still very fast, and smooth.
Arno v. Lumig
mehulved wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I don't like Ubuntu. It is slower then Vista, even with Fluxbox and the like. I don't know why that is, I just know that I can't appreciate that.

Unless you're exaggerating, you should be checking top to know what's causing this. Ubuntu is nowhere near the lightest around but it surely isn't that bad.


I did that, and the idle CPU usage was around 3%, and it didn't get much higher, even when opening applications. I never managed to get it even near 100% by starting an application. Only video encoding could get my CPU up to 100%. Loading Firefox took around 6 seconds and 20% CPU usage. This happened on 4 totally difference computers, so I don't think it's my fault. I also tested it with several versions (6.06 (dapper), 6.10 (edgy), 7.04(feisty)) and the problem remained.

I now use Debian and FreeBSD, which are a lot faster Smile. (and actually use 100% when opening applications, for about 2 seconds Smile
LostOverThere
Weird, probably some issue that your computer is trying and when fails it reverts back to a different way to do something.

Example, my boot up used to take up to 3 minutes (no joke) all I had to do was edit it and add "irqpoll" to the end of the bootagzors.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
Weird, probably some issue that your computer is trying and when fails it reverts back to a different way to do something.

Example, my boot up used to take up to 3 minutes (no joke) all I had to do was edit it and add "irqpoll" to the end of the bootagzors.


If 5 out of the 5 computers I have used Ubuntu on are very slow compared to Windows, doesn't that mean that Ubuntu is doing something wrong? It might be coincidence, but I doubt it.
djclue917
desertwind wrote:
Ubuntu is a pretty good distro for beginners. But still will go with my pretty old stable Debian (on which Ubuntu is based on).


Actually, Ubuntu is based on the unstable branch of Debian, not on the current stable branch. Or maybe I just misunderstood your statement....
djclue917
LostOverThere wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I don't like Ubuntu. It is slower then Vista, even with Fluxbox and the like. I don't know why that is, I just know that I can't appreciate that.


That's not normal. You've got to have some major problem somewhere because to me Ubuntu runs at least twice as fast as Windows XP and uses 4% of my RAM with Firefox, Pidgin, File Manager, and EOG open as well as 5% of my CPU. Just shows how fast it works on my end. Confused


How much RAM does your system have? Even with 4GB of RAM, 4% of it (or 163.84 MB) is just too little. The "default" behaviour of Linux, as far as I know, is to use as much RAM as it can (because unused RAM is actually useless RAM).

I don't think that Firefox + Pidgin + Nautilus (file manager) + Eye of GNOME (EOG) (+ GNOME of course) = _just_ 4% of your RAM.
qscomputing
djclue917 wrote:
Actually, Ubuntu is based on the unstable branch of Debian, not on the current stable branch. Or maybe I just misunderstood your statement....

That's only because Debian's idea of "stable" is most people's idea of "out of date" - the software in Ubuntu gets a pretty good balance between stability and up-to-date-ness.
mehulved
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I did that, and the idle CPU usage was around 3%, and it didn't get much higher, even when opening applications. I never managed to get it even near 100% by starting an application. Only video encoding could get my CPU up to 100%. Loading Firefox took around 6 seconds and 20% CPU usage. This happened on 4 totally difference computers, so I don't think it's my fault. I also tested it with several versions (6.06 (dapper), 6.10 (edgy), 7.04(feisty)) and the problem remained.

That is really weird. Do you use NIS/NFS?
Try running a strace and see what's causing this.
I have run ubuntu on different PC's which are average P4 machines, without any real speed problems. I do find things getting a bit more resource hungry these days. But, that's the same in most of these distros like OpenSUSE, FC, Ubuntu, etc.
Studio Madcrow
qscomputing wrote:
djclue917 wrote:
Actually, Ubuntu is based on the unstable branch of Debian, not on the current stable branch. Or maybe I just misunderstood your statement....

That's only because Debian's idea of "stable" is most people's idea of "out of date" - the software in Ubuntu gets a pretty good balance between stability and up-to-date-ness.

That's sort of true but not really. Debian's idea of stable is more "stable enough to run a big huge corporate server with close to 100% uptime on". The fact that this can sometimes look like being outdated to a desktop user is more in indication of how relatively unimportant rock-solid stability is to desktop usage.
Arno v. Lumig
mehulved wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
I did that, and the idle CPU usage was around 3%, and it didn't get much higher, even when opening applications. I never managed to get it even near 100% by starting an application. Only video encoding could get my CPU up to 100%. Loading Firefox took around 6 seconds and 20% CPU usage. This happened on 4 totally difference computers, so I don't think it's my fault. I also tested it with several versions (6.06 (dapper), 6.10 (edgy), 7.04(feisty)) and the problem remained.

That is really weird. Do you use NIS/NFS?
Try running a strace and see what's causing this.
I have run ubuntu on different PC's which are average P4 machines, without any real speed problems. I do find things getting a bit more resource hungry these days. But, that's the same in most of these distros like OpenSUSE, FC, Ubuntu, etc.


I don't run Ubuntu anymore, of course... But tell me, how long does it take to start up the file manager (nautilus!), the browser (Firefox) and the email client (Evolution)? I bet each of these actions takes more then 5 seconds.

On Debian however, each of these actions take around 1 or 2 seconds, and on Windows XP it's even less.
qscomputing
Studio Madcrow wrote:
That's sort of true but not really. Debian's idea of stable is more "stable enough to run a big huge corporate server with close to 100% uptime on". The fact that this can sometimes look like being outdated to a desktop user is more in indication of how relatively unimportant rock-solid stability is to desktop usage.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say but you put it much better than I did.
mehulved
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
But tell me, how long does it take to start up the file manager (nautilus!), the browser (Firefox) and the email client (Evolution)? I bet each of these actions takes more then 5 seconds.

On Debian however, each of these actions take around 1 or 2 seconds, and on Windows XP it's even less.

I don't know really but I will give it a try. Will open it with time command and see what is the exact time it takes.
ThePolemistis
Arno v. Lumig wrote:

I don't run Ubuntu anymore, of course... But tell me, how long does it take to start up the file manager (nautilus!), the browser (Firefox) and the email client (Evolution)? I bet each of these actions takes more then 5 seconds.

On Debian however, each of these actions take around 1 or 2 seconds, and on Windows XP it's even less.


You are right. Ubuntu is slow compared to other operating systems. However, for beginners, Ubuntu is the best linux distro there is.
Arno v. Lumig
mehulved wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
But tell me, how long does it take to start up the file manager (nautilus!), the browser (Firefox) and the email client (Evolution)? I bet each of these actions takes more then 5 seconds.

On Debian however, each of these actions take around 1 or 2 seconds, and on Windows XP it's even less.

I don't know really but I will give it a try. Will open it with time command and see what is the exact time it takes.


That won't work. Just use a stopwatch, it's precise enough to give an indication.
kiranaghor
Well I like Ubuntu and i am eagarly waiting for 7.10 to come out. I have heard that it have 3D features. I am even ready to upgrade my ram from 512 mb to 2 GB if ubuntu 3D gives me kick ass interface.
LostOverThere
kiranaghor wrote:
Well I like Ubuntu and i am eagarly waiting for 7.10 to come out. I have heard that it have 3D features. I am even ready to upgrade my ram from 512 mb to 2 GB if ubuntu 3D gives me kick ass interface.


You can try the effects for yourself already. Just download and install Compiz and there we have it, sexy effects! As for me though, I'll just stick to the basic Ubuntu Desktop Effects.
Loghete
The graphics card on the computer which I run Ubuntu on sucks, it doesn't even support OpenGL. So I'm yet to try out the built-in desktop effects or Compiz's. I should install Ubuntu on my main computer sometime just to check out how nice I can get it Smile
kuhdorf
i think that i try to use it next time i want to learn something about that OS but i dunno how i can install it^^ because i no free hdd space xD and i need my 600 GB all the time Razz
mehulved
mehulved wrote:

I don't know really but I will give it a try. Will open it with time command and see what is the exact time it takes.

Three of us sat next to each other and tried opening firefox and oo.org. All of the three machine are totally identical, one running ubuntu 7.04 with gnome, another XP SP2 and the last one on debian etch with gnome. Debian was the fastest to open both. Firefox almost took the same time on both ubuntu and xp(the difference could well have been due to slower reaction time or maybe not). And oo.org did open a tad bit faster on ubuntu. So, your statement stands somewhat true.
simplyw00x
Quote:
You are right. Ubuntu is slow compared to other operating systems. However, for beginners, Ubuntu is the best linux distro there is.

It's not. That's just tripe. If you run big, slow programs then the opening times will be slow. THere's no way of getting around that.

Quote:
On Debian however, each of these actions take around 1 or 2 seconds, and on Windows XP it's even less.

Hur hur. No. Opening Firefox on XP takes forever.
killer911pt
im running feisty waiting for my update cd in the mail!!
Arno v. Lumig
simplyw00x wrote:
Quote:
You are right. Ubuntu is slow compared to other operating systems. However, for beginners, Ubuntu is the best linux distro there is.

It's not. That's just tripe. If you run big, slow programs then the opening times will be slow. THere's no way of getting around that.

Quote:
On Debian however, each of these actions take around 1 or 2 seconds, and on Windows XP it's even less.

Hur hur. No. Opening Firefox on XP takes forever.


Did you actually TEST these statements? I know I did, and I know what the results were. mehulved tested it aswell, and he somewhat agrees with me. Ask anyone who has done a fair performance comparison, and they'll probably all agree: Windows XP is faster then Ubuntu Linux.
LostOverThere
It really depends. Honestly, Firefox takes about 20 seconds to open up on Windows (not exaggerating either) and about 3 seconds on Ubuntu.
Arnie
Firefox takes ages to start anywhere, except you use some preloader (just like MS Office does!) or other tricks.

Check out my comparisons between Xubuntu 7.04 and Win98SE on a Celeron 500 with 64MB here. (Because of the old hardware, the differences are more easily seen because everything takes longer, so you don't have to measure milliseconds.)

N.B. Xubuntu is the light version of Ubuntu.
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
It really depends. Honestly, Firefox takes about 20 seconds to open up on Windows (not exaggerating either) and about 3 seconds on Ubuntu.


In that case you messed up your Windows installation, just like I messed up my Linux installation so many times.

Arnie: The difference on a slow machine may not be representative to the difference on a fast machine, because there are different optimizations etc.
LostOverThere
I'm just saying, Firefox doesn't always startup faster on Windoh's then Ubuntu
Arno v. Lumig
LostOverThere wrote:
I'm just saying, Firefox doesn't always startup faster on Windoh's then Ubuntu


No, but it would if you would be comparing installations that are not messed up.
I can easily mess up my Ubuntu installation and I'm sure Firefox would take more then 3 minutes to start up if I did that... The point is that I'm not doing that, and that means that Windows still beats Ubuntu.
Arnie
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Arnie: The difference on a slow machine may not be representative to the difference on a fast machine, because there are different optimizations etc.
It's not 100% representative, but when you get differences as large as I got, that doesn't matter. Besides, no comparison is 100% respresentative except for the specific machine it's performed on.
Arno v. Lumig
Arnie wrote:
Arno v. Lumig wrote:
Arnie: The difference on a slow machine may not be representative to the difference on a fast machine, because there are different optimizations etc.
It's not 100% representative, but when you get differences as large as I got, that doesn't matter. Besides, no comparison is 100% respresentative except for the specific machine it's performed on.


Yes, you're right, but the performance differences I got with Windows XP vs Ubuntu Linux are around 20-50%, while your differences are lots higher (or is the difference we get the difference between XP and 98SE?)
Arnie
That would be subject of another comparison (preferably on a Pentium III-like because of driver support), but I think XP could well be slower indeed. Vista certainly is Wink
simplyw00x
I have indeed run both windows (XP and vista) and various versions of linux on several computers, and on the same computer windows is most definitely not faster. Firefox itself is basically the same on any OS (slow) and hence i don't use it, but this 3s -> 20s comparison is ludicrous and clear evidence that you have something mis-configured.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.