what you think of ubuntu 12.04

try Audacious.

very simple, has an EQ.
and it has 2 sound effects that are like gold: Crystalizer and Extra Stereo.

really makes the music come alive.
i disable "Enable Replay Gain" because i don't want any limiter or compressor modifying the music dynamics.

 

Another thing I'm using without difficulty in 12.04 is the "overlay scroll" thingy. (I had removed it in 11.04 and 11.10.)

But right now I'm trying to get my mouse arrow to look the same when in a window and on the desktop. I got a nice glassy red mouse arrow with a shadow but it turns boring shadowless white when it leaves the window.

 

one thing i like is the Auto-Hide function for the Unity taskbar.

it hides and doesn't collide with windows.
it actually behaves better than the Taskbar in Windows in this regard.

 

Got it sorted with the help of http://askubuntu.com/questions/126491/how-do-i-change-the-cursor-and-its-size and -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxfa2fXJ1Wc.

 

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Released - See What`s New [Screenshots, Video]


http://www.webupd8.org/2012/04/ubuntu-1204-lts-released-see-whats-new.html

 

Could someone inform me if 12.04 is sluggish or not considering 11.10? (If you had experienced sluggish 11.10)

 

here:

http://admin.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/04/ubuntu-12-04-released/

FWIW, it feels pretty snappy on my 5 years old computer.

 

I read it actually. Just want confirmation. Thanks. Is your system ATI/AMD?

 

its pretty fast here you can try live cd and see results on your own pc then decide if its for you or not

atleast you should have 1 gb or 1 gb+ ram for ubuntu then it work nice


if you want lighter due to ram you can try xubuntu

 

no, it's a NVIDIA PCI card on a Acer Intel mobo.

 

Ok just want to understand why Do linux Distros Get spit out Like one Distro in a year or two ?

other than Windows 3-4 year per Windows

 

well,

the last Ubuntu 12.04 has a LTS (Long Time Support) of 3 years.
which is on par with Windows.

 

after trying this for a few days i got some thoughts.

Ubuntu does not seem very customisable, even less than Windows.

the Unity taskbar is stuck on the left side, you can't change the look of the mouse cursor with the default install, etc...

which makes it very simple.
what is there is very nice and i am a man with simple needs.

i like to run naked through the forest at full moon, occasionally feeding on small farm animals...



where was i?
ah yes! Ubuntu!

i love Ubuntu.
the whole thing feels very polished and professional.
the lack of customization from the default install has its good and bad points.
it seems like the Ubuntu team knows exactly where they want to be heading.
for better or worse.

personally, i feel the positives far outweigh the negative.

 

can someone Plz tell me why Linux Distros in general tend to Be Released a lot



also How Do Linux Makers Make Money ??

 

they don't.

even Ubuntu, the most popular distro is still not profitable. yet.
although this could change soon i think.

i think Fedora (?) is profitable, but on the server market.

on the Linux Mint site, it says "Linux Mint is free of charge (thanks to your donations and adverts on the website) and we hope you'll enjoy it.".
not exactly a confidence builder if you ask me.

 

Fedora is the free version of RHEL, which is very profitable.

Ubuntu is not profitable yet. Generally when you give a program away for free you charge for support or for enterprise use of that program.

 

As suggested, it's better to try out the Live CD or USB on the machine in question for the actual answer. We've seen from comments @ Wilders on something as simple as a browser that experiences vary widely. Plus, there are things like sound. I understand that that's still a tricky issue for some:

http://www.datamation.com/feature/ubuntu-12.04-wins-me-back-1.html

 

Ubuntu is profitable. Plenty of companies have given monetary and code-based support to conical and other distros. Take a look at the partners page: http://www.ubuntu.com/partners. There are many Companies that donate tons of money to OpenSource projects, Linux, and distros. If Ubuntu wasn't making money, Conical would have closed doors long ago. They have to at least be sustaining employees and there costs of operation. Ubuntu is not as profitable as Linux Foundation or RHEL by any means though.

I have tried Ubuntu 12.04 - Runs great but I am sticking with Linux Mint 12 and Fedora 16 for now.

 

Ubuntu isn't a company. Canonical's finances are relevant, IMO.

 

Pretty sure it's not profiting yet.

 

AFAIK, that's true.

 

This guy (-http://www.youtube.com/user/quidsup-) has quite a few videos on Ubuntu but the accent takes some getting used to. Rule Britannia :cough:

 

No point in debating facts. Here's a fairly recent source that Canonical (the company that creates Ubuntu) is indeed NOT profitable.
http://articles.businessinsider.com...8039_1_red-hat-s-linux-software-red-hat-linux

Which interestingly led to this
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1072
which indicates there are more Ubuntu web servers than RHEL web server. I found that quite surprising.

 

We can't be sure. In this new interview Shuttleworth reiterates: "As a private company, we don't disclose revenue information."

 

What's the "resp."