Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr) Final Beta released

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr) Final Beta released.

-- Tom

 

I'm impressed with it so far. If I were to use something that wasn't Windows, this would be it.

 

If they clean up the final real good, then I might try it. 13.10 was a total bugfest...

 

13.10 was bad. I've been running the 14.04 daily build for a while and they seem pretty solid. Best build for me since 12.04.

 

Really? I haven't tried it. Kubuntu 13.10 is good.

 

Yeah, unfortunately that was my impression after trying it multiple times. Just little oddities and glitches here and there, for example, my audio speakers would not stay turned on in the audio settings after a reboot, even after trying many times to fix it. Other odd things at boot time. Maybe it was just my laptop, but for Ubuntu, it did seem quite rough around the edges... I think the LTS versions are generally much cleaner.

 

That's the problem with Ubuntu releases, you never know how they'll come out. It's similar to this:

* Good;
* Stable;
* WTF?;
* Meh;
* Kind of stable?
* Dear god! This is horrible!
* Stable
* Meh;

Meanwhile, the Debian guys get:

* Stable. Diamond solid;
* Stable. Diamond solid;
* Stable. Diamond solid;
* Stable. Diamond solid;
* Stable. Diamond solid;
* Stable. Diamond solid;

Mint is a better option than Ubuntu IMO. A way better one. openSUSE beats the crap out of Ubuntu and Mint altogether in many occasions, except when you put multimedia codecs on the table, because your repos will be messed up.

 

I've been waiting for this. I just setup 13.10 with the intention of upgrading when 14.04 got released. I'll likely wait a week or so to watch the reviews. 14.04 is supposed to be a seamless upgrade from a current 13.10 system. I guess I'll find out.

Any of you guys running VirtualBox in 14.04? That is my main use for the host OS in my box.

 

Pretty much have to agree there.. Just installed Linux Mint Debian 201403 and am blown away at how nice it is. I was using Debian 7 up till now, but always liked Mint and Cinnamon. Now, if this holds up well, I seem to have the best of both worlds.

Not to sidetrack the thread or anything. I'll give Ubuntu LTS upcoming a try when it hits the streets too....

 

What do you expect?

Ubuntu is best for its newer tech, features and usability; Debian is best for its stability and is known for using old packages. This is what the respective OS is being built for. They never claimed to be best for all aspects. If you like newer features and better hardware support, go for Ubuntu; if you prefer stability and don't mind using outdated packages, go for Debian.

There is no PROBLEM with Ubuntu releases. It's they way they are designed for.

If you designate stability as the basis to judge a distro has problem or not, I can designate using old packages as the basis to judge a distro. In the end, it's all about what you really care, but there is no problems here.

 

I expect Ubuntu to be as stable as Windows 7 or more stable. Instead it crashes and the software on it crashes.
I found openSUSE to be much more stable and also up to date. It is a huge upgrade from Ubuntu when it comes to stability and features. But of course it's not as user friendly.
Debian is even better but it was designed for stability and also harder to use. I still can't figure out how to set up VPN on it....

 

I've always recommended sticking to LTS, looking forward to 14.04.

 

If we're only talking about Debian Stable, it is true that it has outdated packages. But backports are available and then there's Testing and Unstable. Testing, which is the base for Ubuntu LTS, is way more stable then it's "son".

Ubuntu is mostly known for it's buggy releases, Canonical's poor decisions and lack of good packages. Hell, even the Kernel updates used to break my system at times. Even a simple video driver install would render my reboot to a tty1 login screen. I don't know what "newb friendly" means to Ubuntu and it's users, but certainly it's far from it. A newbie friendly distro would never miss to install the kernel headers when the video drivers were upgraded.

Even better: Go for Debian Testing and mix with Unstable. Ubuntu is the road I take when I want problems. The good thing is that I left Ubuntu more then a year ago.

But then some people say: "Well Debian Unstable/Testing is not stable". It is. Testing is way more stable then Ubuntu LTS, there's not even a comparison. Unstable breaks more often but it's fixes come quick, and that's why a mix of Testing/Unstable is the perfect solution for someone who wants to get away from Canonical's poor decision making/package handling.

But still I find better to use Arch. I had less problems in 6+ months on Arch than a week on the so called "stable" branch of Ubuntu, and Arch uses the newest software as when available as possible.

So they're designed to break?

You know, Canonical should throw off this release cycle date thing. WHY release a new version every 6 months? That's stupid. Not even 14.04 will be ready when it comes out, but then they're almost at 14.10 release, which will probably make it come out as I pointed out: There's no guarantee whatsoever that it will be even usable, except for people who only browse the web and edit text files.

There is a problem. Your comparison makes no sense. Ubuntu too has a "Stable release" which has outdated software. The difference relies in two aspects:

1) Ubuntu "stable" is no way near as stable as Debian Testing (Ubuntu's LTS "base", let's call it that) and I can't even imagine comparing Ubuntu LTS to Debian Stable, even though both have a 2 year release cycle.

2) Debian has one single release: Stable, which has outdated software, but with back-ports too. But Debian doesn't relase Testing nor Sid because they KNOW they will have problems and their packages are not well tested. Debian releases only what's known to be safe and stable, and Canonical should do this too: Release only LTS releases, but still make available to people to use non-LTS.

 

openSUSE is freaking awesome! It's only problem is the repositories, they're all messy. Besides that, I find it way more friendly than Ubuntu.

 

May I ask why you feel Mint is better then Ubuntu?

Thankyou.

 

Because they do a good job fixing Ubuntu's problems

 

Thankyou, can you please tell me the problems they fix? Im using Mint Maya Ubuntu Precise, can you please tell me what improvements Mint has made over Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. I do not know anything much about Linux so Im trying to learn,

thankyou.

 

interface of mint over ubuntu is user friendly pretty much like windows

also the main advantage is mint comes with preinstalled selective software like Vlc flashplayer..............etc and some tweaks over ubuntu.

 

Hello All

Downloaded and installed Ubuntu Gnome 14.04 LTS beta 2 on my test laptop (X200s Thinkpad core duo 2 with Intel chipset) as I wanted to look at Gnome 3.12 when the ppa is ready (default is Gnome 3.10). I have been testing RHEL7 beta on the same laptop (Gnome 3.8 or KDE installer choice. If you install Gnome, defaults to Classic on log-in ).

I was able to install the system, update, and then install a large selection of software including the restricted-extras package (flash, mp3 and video codecs &c) using GUI tools entirely. Default choices are sensible. Results look shiny.

No problems as yet. I just wish there was some way they could get the spell check working out of the box on a live session or fresh install!

PS: I stopped using Unity as it fails to support mnemonics / Alt- style shortcuts in menus. I use those a lot (e.g. Alt-F-A brings up Save As dialogue box).

 

It comes with VLC instead of Totem/Rhythmbox? I never understood the reason for bundling these and their stupid browser plugins instead of VLC. The first thing I do on a fresh install after changing the privacy options is purge Totem and Rhythmbox and install VLC. Using a browser on Ubuntu has a greater attack surface than default Windows due to all the plugins, really sad.

 

I don't know much about Ubuntu 12.04. I used it for a few weeks before trying another distro (I used to hop from distro to distro when Steam for Linux Beta came out).
The example I have is when I tried 12.10. I installed the graphics driver via Jockey and I got presented with a tty1 after reboot because Ubuntu's devs forgot to make the Kernel headers install by default. And this issue persisted till the end of it's life time.
On Mint 14 (derivative from 12.10) this never happened.

 

And they introduce new ones or, at least, make questionable decisions.


And regarding your other ranting ...

... I cannot confirm that, at least not for Kubuntu which I've been using for many years (and which I also installed on my wife's and my daughter's computers). On the contrary, stability has become definitely better compared to some years ago. And the last time that a kernel update broke my system must be ages ago.

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion but your badmouthing of Ubuntu is grossly overstated, IMHO.

 

Agreed with tlu.
I have never been a fan of Linux Mint. All the media capacities of Linux mint can be installed in Ubuntu by a single click of "ubuntu restricted extras". If you don't like Unity, there are many other flavors of desktop envrionment of Ubuntu you can choose.
Mint introduced many other bugs and security flaws, which partially defeated the purpose of using Linux. Ubuntu, on the other hand, if one of the safest distros in the market.
The LTS releases of Ubuntu are stable enough for everyday work. Yeah, its stability is not teh best, but it's best balance between security, stability, features and usability.

 

As usual, everyone has different experiences, what else is new? I find the LTS releases the best of Ubuntu also. Personally, I stick with Debian as I like the stability and find it relatively bug free compared to the rest. But others feel differently. Whatever works I guess...

 

It really really is...

...as in my experience Debian is a buggy PoS On two separate laptops it totally failed. On one it just wouldn't detect the WiFi chip, on the other it failed to even install, producing "an error" with no way to access what that error is.

I'm not sure what Debian is doing so wrong that Ubuntu is doing so right, but I've never installed Ubuntu and had something not working. Newer kernel? Better compilation flags? Not sure. I wish I knew, as SteamOS experiences the exact same issues (Debian fork).