- Friday, 27 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire - Winston Churchill
Ubuntu 9.10 test drive
UBUNTU LINUX 9.10 was released last Thursday. Codenamed 'Karmic Koala', it has been anticipated for months by the distribution's many fans. Out of curiosity, the INQUIRER installed it and played around with it to assess how it measures up.
Getting the Live CD
Last Thursday afternoon I set my ncftp client to my favourite ftp mirror in the hope of avoiding the http download crush at Ubuntu's website.
I downloaded the 32-bit ISO file, plus the MD5SUM and MD5SUM.gpg files, and soon found that my clever strategy hadn't worked. The ftp mirror site was so mobbed that the download took longer than usual.
To check everything was in order, I used gpg to check the MD5SUM file's cryptographic signature, ran md5sum against the ISO file, checked the md5sum output string against the hash in the MD5SUM file and burned the ISO file to a CD-R disc. To make sure that the CD I'd burned was an exact copy of the ISO file, I ran verifycd against it.
If you fully trust the download source, you may skip confirming the signature, but performing the other two steps can save you from trying to install from a bad CD.
If you'd like to try out Linux starting from a PC running Windows, md5 utilities are available for all versions of the Vole's operating system. Verifying that a CD is an exact copy of an ISO file can be a problem under Windows, but Ubuntu can help.
Installation
For this review, I decided to install Ubuntu 9.10 on one of the two small SCSI hard drives that I keep as backup disks in my desktop system. That has an Antec 650W PSU, an Asus Crosshair mainboard, a dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600 CPU running at 2.8GHz, 2GB of Crucial Ballistix DDR2 PC6400 memory, an ATI Radeon HD3850 video card, a Seagate 80GB SATA2 hard drive, an Adaptec AHA-29160 SCSI disk controller, two Quantum Atlas II 10,000RPM 9GB SCSI hard drives, a Lite-On 24X DVD/CD writer, and an Hitachi CM751 19-inch CRT monitor.
I changed my desktop system's boot device sequence in the BIOS to boot first from the DVD/CD drive, then booted it from the CD.
The Ubuntu Linux 9.10 Live CD menu showed five options:
- Try Ubuntu without making any change to your computer
- Install Ubuntu
- Check disc for defects
- Test memory
- Boot from the first hard disk.
If you download and burn the Ubuntu Live CD under Windows, you should verify that the CD is good. Run the memory check through one entire pass, then select the check disc option. If both checks complete with no errors, then you have a good CD.
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.
At this point you can check out Ubuntu by running it from the Live CD, which won't make any changes to your system. Not only is this a good introduction to Linux for new users, but it will also test whether Ubuntu recognises and works well with all the devices on your system, and will let you set up networking, configure the desktop and services, surf the web and try out applications. All your changes to Ubuntu vanish after you reboot, however.
If you're running one of the Vole's lesser operating systems and decide to try out Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution, you'll need to set aside some space on your hard disk before installing it. To do that, you can use either gparted, which is Free Software, or Partition Magic, which is available from various sources.
Should you choose to do this, you'll want to backup all your important data before starting the process. These disk partitioning utilities have been used successfully by many people, but there's a chance that a power outage could cause trouble. It should all go well of course, but you have been warned.
I used all the default installation settings, except for disk partitioning, and I would recommend taking the defaults unless one has a good reason, as I did, or encounters problems. Ubuntu's install process is simple and very straightforward. Select your language, time zone and keyboard, decide where to let Ubuntu install itself or set up disk partitions manually if you so desire, enter your initial userid, password and host name, migrate any user account data into your home directory, then choose where to put the boot loader if necessary. Once I clicked on the last Continue button, installing Ubuntu took about 15 minutes on my system. Your mileage may vary.
Apparently Ubuntu searches for hard disks that have enough free space available. It selected the big 80GB SATA2 hard disk and offered to add a partition there. The other alternatives were to erase and use the entire disk or specify partitioning manually. Since I didn't want to install Ubuntu on that particular hard disk, I selected the third option.
Ubuntu's partitioning program scanned my hard disks and displayed them. I chose my second SCSI disk, set the partitions to use the ext4 filesystem, assigned mount points for /boot, / (the root partition), /home, /var, /usr, and /data, with a swap partition between /home and /var, and marked all of the partitions to be formatted.
Some people simply allocate one large disk partition for a Linux system, while others set up two, three or more partitions. The layout I chose just reflects those on my other hard disks, which makes rsync backups easy.
There's an Advanced button on the install confirmation screen that lets you select where Ubuntu will place its boot loader. There I selected the master boot record of the same hard disk where I installed Ubuntu, leaving the existing boot loader on my first hard disk intact. I'd recommend that anyone who has multiple operating systems on more than one hard disk do that, because Ubuntu's boot loader installation appears to need more work. If you have only one hard disk in your system it should work, but I like the boot loader installation utility in Mandriva Linux better.
A set of Ubuntu 9.10 Release Candidate installation screenshots is available at the Ubuntu tutorials website. They're fairly accurate.
Since I put Ubuntu's boot loader on my second hard disk, I set that to be the first hard disk in the system BIOS. When I get around to it I'll add an entry for Ubuntu to the boot menu on my first hard disk, but doing this let me boot Ubuntu right away.
Post Installation Setup
Ubuntu booted in about 40 seconds to login prompt on my system. After logging in, the Gnome desktop came up in about 20 seconds on my system. My monitor was properly configured at 1600x1200, an improvement over my experience the last time that I'd tried Ubuntu.
Ubuntu's initial desktop has taskbar panels on both the top and bottom of the screen. It was easy to reconfigure the top panel to the bottom of the screen. The Gnome desktop in Ubuntu looks and works much the same as it does in most other Linux distributions.
The installation process defaulted to dynamic network configuration using DHCP but my ISP doesn't use DHCP, so the Network Manager applet on the taskbar showed that my network connection was down. I right-clicked on that and edited my network interfaces to add their addresses and my ISP's DNS server addresses and search domain, and then my network interfaces came up. This was an improvement over Ubuntu 9.04, where I simply couldn't get the network interfaces to work after an install direct from CD.
Under System Administration, Software Sources offered to find the best available Ubuntu software repository for me. After testing about 325 mirror sites it set one up that's at a university in another state, but I'm not telling which one it is, because it's very fast and I'd like to keep it that way.
Using Ubuntu's Synaptic Package Manager, I was able to download recent updates to software packages, including Firefox 3.5.4 and few others. I was also able to start the process of customising the system by removing packages I don't want, like the Evolution email client (because it uses Miguel de Icaza's Microsoft .NET clone Mono because it's complex, heavyweight and I've found it a bit buggy) and adding packages I do use, such as Bluefish, cdrskin, Dovecot, Enigmail, Gkrellm, ncftp, SSH, Thunderbird, xcdroast, xinetd and so on. Synaptic works well and is fast.
System administration tools seem to be more or less adequate, including printer configuration management and what appears to be a handy network tools application. However, Ubuntu doesn't install a firewall by default, which is a glaring omission disappointing.
I haven't had time yet to finish customising Ubuntu to work the way I prefer, which will mean setting up my iptables firewall, turning off stuff like network hotplugging, and generally configuring services and tweaking the system, but all of that appears to be possible with a little work. I'll leave Ubuntu on that hard disk and see what I can do with it.
In Short
Ubuntu has improved since I last tried it. It is steadily becoming more polished and user friendly for non-technical users, though this comes at a price for those who are already familiar with Linux.
Its installation process is emblematic of this. Although it's quick and very easy, the install sequence doesn't include some steps and options that enable a knowledgeable user to configure a Linux distribution right from the start. These include some disk partitioning options, setting up networking interfaces, marking services active or inactive, specifying boot loader configuration options and setting up security controls and monitoring. Adding some optional installation steps to let experienced users make such configuration adjustments would be an improvement, I believe.
Overall, although Ubuntu appears well polished on the surface, it doesn't have the solid feel, depth of integration and finesse that one can discern in some other Linux distributions such as Mandriva, with which I'm more familiar. Perhaps my opinion might change after I get more used to working with Ubuntu, but for now I still like Mandriva better.
Update - A couple of readers made valid points in comments, so I have updated this review to reflect those. Since the Evolution email client doesn't itself use Mono, I've stricken that reference. I still don't care for Evolution though, so it would be a good idea if Ubuntu gave users a choice of email clients - and other applications too, for that matter. Also, it's true that Ubuntu doesn't really need a firewall in its default configuration. However, I believe that installing one would be a prudent thing to do, so users can see one is available and think to use it if they install any services that might be exploitable. I appreciate the helpful comments. µ
The Good:
Attractive and polished look,
Very easy and quick to install,
Synaptic Package Manager is excellent,
Mostly adequate system administration tools,
Free Software with non-free software available.
The Bad:
The boot loader install utility needs more work,
Lacks some installation configuration - and system administration - options for disk partitioning, networking, controlling services, installing the boot loader, setting up security, and so on.
The Ugly:
Doesn't install a firewall by default,
Installs network hotplugging by default.
Installs the Evolution email client by default.
Bartender's Report:
8/10
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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.
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.
Well, I guess every linux review is just a synopsis of the installer.
Worst. Review. Ever.
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.
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.
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???
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.