Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick final released

ISOs available at http://releases.ubuntu.com/maverick/

 

I knew this Sunday was going to be a tad more special, or is it not?

 

I managed to get the isos downloaded before site was updated.
I'm seeding the 32bit/64bit desktop and also the netbook torrents for next 5 hours (before I update myself).
I've heard download server is already slowing down.

Cheers, Nick

 

Good to keep an eye on this thread. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1588889 Known Maverick Meerkat issues/bugs with workarounds.
The first one is for adding Vbox guest additions.

 

Downloading now

 

Thanks Eice for update. Downloading right now...

 

Thanks, Ocky.
I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

 

Ubuntu looks more and more like Firefox OS, a little more orange sneaked into the wallpaper of 10.10.
And download speed for updates is currently pretty limited.

Cheers

 

Yes, thanks. I grabbed a few versions to use as Live CD's.

 

Just upgraded to ubuntu 10.10 so far look ok........it just disabled my third party ppa's just checking it out

it took me 4 hours 42 min to download and upgrade but at end experience so far ok

 

Smoothest install to date. Wiped Karmic on my 2nd hdd so it was a clean install.
(See sshot thread for pic).

Only one thing was strange. It didn't want to chainload from my Lucid grub2 menu.
'Invalid Signature, Press any key to continue' I don't know why - surely not due to the OS title description still being Karmic 9.10, as it is still (hd1,1), mind you now grub2 for Maverick shows it as (hd1,msdos1). Something new I suppose.

The problem was easily solved by creating a symlink custom boot entry in Lucid's
40_custom file.

 

so far sound problem sound is not clear its same problem i guss i face when ubuntu 9.04 or 9.10 come dont remember now

is any one else also facing sound problem with 10.10

 

A few things after using the live cd (had to go through the mirror list because the one that was suggested to me was down )
New font looks like gimmick (think comic sans), droid sans for example looks a lot more professional and is easier on the eyes.
In some apps the lower bottom corner resize area is very tiny (I think there's just 1 px around the window) and disk utility used to resize itself automatically.
No problem for me, I use alt+righ mouse but when I think of the target demography of Ubuntu Desktop, poor design choice, especially since it's inconsistent, some software still has the large resize handler.
The new theme is improved, cleaner window buttons, separation between menubar and window title is back (but I still think the proper way to do it is to unify them and allow double click to maximize in the empty menu bar area as well just like OS X Leopard and below if you know what I mean). I think the highlighting of the gnome menu is too dark (the selection of software/places/system). Default wallpaper, better than the one in beta but still meh.
Missing software repo entry in the system menu, I first have to open synaptic/software center. But what if I use apt-get/aptitude and still want fast access to those options instead of manually editing sources.list?

Anyway that's it for my very random feedback on an OS I won't use. Seriously how can anyone stand that "gnomination" Metacity got to be the most primitive window manager out there, yet it's the most used (I know devils pie, it's a dirty hack and doesn't work like it should).
/rant mode off

 

I just upgraded to Maverick from Lucid, so I don't see as many changes as people who did fresh installs (most of my settings were retained, fonts included). Everything seems to work fine though.

 

I installed the RC last night as I had not tested out the betas.
Elementary theme, nautilus elementary and droid sans are my must haves.

I've had no problems with 10.10 other than some ppa's not up to date with Maverick.

 

there are not much changes the rhythmbox icon on sound can be get by adding more info in rhythmbox and installing Upnp plugin i do face sound problem Maverick sound is not as clear as at used to be in lucid

 

Edit:-
Did I overlook something while installing ? Grub2 is a newer version 1.98+20100804-5ubuntu3 (Lucid = 1.98-1ubuntu7) but what is this (hd1,msdos1) which designates where I installed Grub viz. to the root partition of the second hdd. Why the msdos1 instead of just 1 as before ?

=> Grub 2 is installed in the MBR of /dev/sda and looks on the same drive in
partition #1 for /boot/grub.
=> Grub 2 is installed in the MBR of /dev/sdb and looks on the same drive in
partition #1 for (,msdos1)/boot/grub.

I suppose this would have caused the error mentioned above when initially trying to chainload from Lucid on the first hdd. ?
I see there is now an additional custom_41 file in grud.d what is it's pupose ?

 

Too many grub changes. It's annoying.
Mrk

 

Looks like panels of the new theme are optimized for default size and position only.



Cheers

 

Just out of curiosity, why is the download so large? Some years ago, it was ~700 MB.

Couldn't they have a "basic" release with just the essentials and a browser and then let people download (from the approved sites) whatever else they want: Office suite, music players, etc.?

The other thing that doesn't seem to have caught on, is what Google is doing with Chrome --- incremental, and therefore relatively small, differential upgrades:
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/software-updates-courgette

 

It's still ~700 MB. I think the mirrors were just slowing down from all the downloads worldwide.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

 

Righto!

 

sorry vasa if i scared you

upgrade was 767 MB

it took me around 3 hours 40 mins something for download and one hour for upgrade approx

sorry i forgot to mention my connection is pretty slow

Only 384k DSL Connection

i cannot blame the mirrors as my download speed is 60-65KB so for me its still full speed

 

Not to worry! My download speed is half yours. So there's no chance of even dreaming of downloading the full version. That's why I asked about a no-frills version and Eice obliged.

 

I can't find the swftools package.