Its going to be difficult for a review to cover every aspect of a distro. Different reviewers will focus on their different areas of interest.

Negative comments really put me off. I'm not saying we shouldn't be objective but I honestly believe that before you criticize a "very good work" like this, you should be able to point us to a better work (review) you've done. A good comment should add value to and improve the quality of a review.
I also think that reviews (free as you can see) are also ways of contributing in this world of free software.

I was a Ubuntu user. It was the best. Tried karmic, and didnt liked. Why? -the boot shows 2 logos (2!!!) then old software is not avaiable through repos, and the ram usage start very light, but seems like a trick, because opening some programs ram soon goes from 200megas to 300. I miss 8.04 - the problem is that I dont know a better linux/windows present (I have the intel gfx card...) - About your review, I completely agree when you say that they cant make Ubuntu to greeks and troyks. I think the ppl if wants windows: go for windows! But thats not whats happening with Ubuntu :( Whats next? -gnome looks like kde???

Here's a few things that I didn't see mentioned in the article:

* You do know there's a DVD available as well as CD?

* Also, you complain about http/ftp being bogged down, but fail to mention there's official torrents available (though these are ludicrously buried IMHO - they should be as prominently posted as any http/ftp downloads are).

* Ubuntu fails to install ntpd by default, which I find somewhat incredible since it's not a large package and, er, keeps your machine's clock accurate (surely important?).

* Ubuntu doesn't install sshd by default, which I think it should - a *lot* of people have a second machine and would like to remotely access their Ubuntu install.

* Ubuntu sets a random root password by default, which is simply crazy, especially when you have to power cycle, boot and then get told to "type root's password for maintenance" before you can fsck - whoops!

* User authentication of privileged operations on the desktop is a total disaster - it prompts you for *your* unprivileged password to do a privileged operation - horrendous! What's worse is that if you "sudo passwd root" to set a known root password (it's the first thing I always do on an Ubuntu install), you *can't* use that root password for that user auth prompt - arrgh!

The lack of choice of packages during the Ubuntu install is, to be frank, a total joke. At the very least, top-level categories should be choosable if nothing else. In fact, in the old days, some distros used to ask the type of install (desktop, laptop, server, X terminal etc.) and it would be nice for Ubuntu to bring back that idea as a bare minimum.

The distro that gets things right? None other than Fedora (which *does* have an install disk integrity check feature in it and has had it for years - c'mon, reviewer, how could you have missed that?) - version 12 is out in a few weeks and I hope the INQ will do a review of it too when it comes out.

For all those complaining this is the worst review ever, loosen up.

It's actually fair and reasonable.

And this chap is no Andrew Thomas :)

Egan actually installed the product.

Worst. Review. Ever.

Well, I guess every linux review is just a synopsis of the installer.

XCDroast?? Seriously? What year is this? 1997? You actually *prefer* xcdroast to K3B or Brassero?

I am having a hard time taking this reviewer seriously, sorry.

Pretty nice review, except for one mistake. You stated that a firewall was not installed by default. This is not true. Iptables are always there and working.

A firewall front end GUI is not installed by default. As regrettable as this is, it is simply inaccurate to state that a firewall is not installed.

I hope you will take the time to correct this mistake, it would be a shame if people were to get the impression that Ubuntu is not as secure as some other OS when it fact it is more secure than most.

well im really new in linux world...just few days ago installing this karmic koala thinggy and yeah the interface look nice..but one thing pissed me off is i couldn't connect to the internet with my adsl...seems the got bugs around there...i've read on the forum they're fixing it rite now..hopefully it works or i will stick with microsuck for a while...lol

That was the lamest review ever. You clearly have done no research or its a slow news day in the office.

Also no one cares about the installer...it works end of story.

Next time actually try review the OS, you might be pleasantly surprised.

"This option to check the install disc integrity is a great feature of Ubuntu. I wish other Linux distributions had this and hope they will adopt it."

The Anaconda Installer used in Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a media integrity checker available during install since Red Hat 7.3, which released in 2002.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MediaCheck

I think this may be the first time I've EVER read a review where the reviewer says the Distro is NOT complicated enough. This is not Slackware, Ubuntu is supposed to be for beginners, NOT experts. If you want complicated install Arch or Slack and stay away from Ubuntu. Its exactly how its SUPPOSED to be.

Here’s a partition scheme I recommend for someone wanting to learn about Linux:

• one swap partition, roughly the size of your RAM.
• one OS partition (to be mounted as /), say 20GB.
• another partition the same size as the OS partition, left unused for now.
• the rest of the disk becomes your /home partition for user files.

The unused partition can be used when some new future OS comes along that you want to try without affecting your existing installation; by having it share your existing /home partition, all your user files remain accessible without having to make another copy of them.

As for the rsync issue, look at the --one-file-system and --exclude options for controlling which directories it looks at.

...is called 'Ubuntu Server'. This installs the most basic version of Ubuntu (command line only) and then it's up to you to add what you need, package by package. Distros like CrunchBang use Ubuntu Server plus scripts to achieve a very customised distro.

Basically, using Ubuntu Server is like using Debian - full control, though it's a little bit more noob friendly than Debian.

When can I read a review of Ubuntu 9.10 as opposed to the Ubuntu 9.10 installation process?

Seriously, it's 2009. I am tired of reading about how super easy it is to install Linux. Boy howdy, that partitioning sure was easy! And look at how nicely DHCP brought up the network and offered me installation sources.

Really, we're still talking about that? Now? In 2009? Here's a tip: I DON'T CARE.

Review the OS, not the installer. Or is the OS really that dull?

I really do find it surprising so many people don't like mono. There's lots of .net programmers, this gives them a way to get started with linux. Microsoft has said they aren't going to sue people for using mono or moonlight. If they were to try to go back on that, it would be the worst pr move in the history of computing.

I write software for linux and windows, so I use c/c++,php,and c# (.net) all for different tasks. Mono runs what I need it to when I need it to, and does so easier than cross-compiling c apps (which I do as well). Java and .net are very similiar, but if your starting code base is all .net then why not use .net?

Still otherwise, I'm definately going to download 9.10 and try it out, I tried 9.04 and had a few glitches and regressions versus 8.04/8.10 that kept me from upgrading.

Evolution does not use Mono. There's an optional evolution-mono bit which lets you use Evolution plugins written in Mono, if you like, but nothing that's part of Evolution proper uses Mono at all. I don't have Mono (or libmono) installed on my system (Fedora 12), and Evolution works just fine.

I suppose Ubuntu could be building Evolution with the Mono-plugin-supporting bit built in to the main package and hence introducing an unbreakable Mono dependency that way, but that'd be an issue with Ubuntu's build, not Evolution itself.

Ubuntu 9.10 does come with Ufw (Uncomplicated Firewall) but is not set up by default. There is a GUI for it but it is not installed by default - http://www.ubuntugeek.com/gufw-simple-gui-for-ufw-uncomplicated-firewall.html

There was an excellent Firewall tool called Firestarter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestarter_(firewall) but unfortunately it has been discontinued.

Non-techie users do need simple GUIs for firewall, SAMBA configuration, backup

I agree wholeheartedly with the article. The first thing I do is to remove Mono and all dependencies and install gThumb, gNote and Thunderbird to replace F-Spot, Tomboy and Evolution. If they did this on the install CD there would be plenty of room for other goodies such as Gufw, the audio/video (telepathy) add-ons for Empathy and extra drivers (such as the Epson drivers which are GPL licensed).

I agree with Rob, the first part of this review is over-complicated with all the CD burning/checking diversion. An easier way (if you've got a half-decent PC):

1. Download the Ubuntu ISO.
2. Download and install the free VirtualBox (www.virtualbox.org)
3. Install Ubuntu (and almost anything else apart for Mac OS X) on VirtualBox.
4. Play!

No need to partition, no need for dual/multiple booting. On my copy of VirtualBox I've got Windows 3.1, 95, 95, NT4, 2000, XP, Win7 RC1 and Win7 RTM; Ubuntu 9.04, 9.10; Mandriva 2009, Kubuntu, Linux Mint, Haiku, OpenSolaris and AROS.

I have been running Ubuntu for about 6 months. Before that I mostly used Mandriva.I found Ubuntu a little easier to use but thats what I like about Linux, you can pick your flavor. I have found it very stable and no problems in adding packages and then having conflicts which I seemed to have in Mandriva.
The apps in Linux are generally better that in windows without the bloat and advertising.They just just work. Its to bad more people dont try the live cds.
The fact is they cant even run windows and think Linux is for geeks, not so anymore.I think I would have to give it a 9 out of 10. Maybe a 10 out of 10 Since I cant find any real problems or anything that I really dont like, and if I did its easy to change.

There is good reason ubuntu doesnt come with a firewall, it doesnt need one. You only need a firewall if you want to set up different rules for local networks vs the internet.

"By default, Ubuntu ships with no open ports on public interfaces. In other words, a "port scan" would show all closed ports, nothing open. As a result, putting up a firewall would provide no more security than not putting one up. Remember that open ports provide services that hackers can connect to, and only if they can connect to these services can they be potentially abused and exploited. "

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security#firewallantivirus

It's great to see a review of Ubuntu 9.10 on The Inquirer but I can't help but think that you over complicated it somewhat which will add fuel to the Windows fanboys arguments about Linux being hard to install.

I dare say most people dual booting alongside Windows would be better off not messing about with partitioning first (unless they really want to) and use the option to resize an existing partition. The Ubuntu installer uses gparted (or at least parted) to resize any existing Windows partitions to create enough space for Ubuntu alongside Windows so all the end user has to do is specify how much space they want to give to Ubuntu, it will then calculate how much to allocate for the operating system itself and how much to allocate for the swap partition (equivalent of Swap/Paging files for Windows folks).

Personally I wouldn't bother with separate partitions for var, root, home etc. Personally on my system I've opted for 20GB for the root partition (basically where the OS and programs are installed) and the rest of my hard drive for home (think Documents and Settings on XP or Users on Vista/Windows 7) and the swap partition.

One thing I would recommend though is making sure you backup anything important before embarking with an install. I've never had any data loss problems installing Ubuntu but it's not to say that it doesn't happen. Remember, backup just in case you have a lapse of concentration and accidentally delete the wrong thing!

Overall though, not a bad review. I just wonder how exactly it's aimed at.

Rob