Quick Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn Herd 5 gallery

Quick Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn Herd 5 gallery

Summary: One of the most promising open source projects has to be Ubuntu. In a poll I put up a few days ago Ubuntu was the clear favorite, and the more I look at it and use it, the more I see why.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Open Source
51

One of the most promising open source projects has to be Ubuntu.  In a poll I put up a few days ago Ubuntu was the clear favorite, and the more I look at it and use it, the more I see why.

I've been watching development of Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn with interest and with each alpha release I'm seeing a platform that's getting faster, becoming more stable, smoother and easier to use.  I'm finding myself saying things like "yeah, I can see ways to make use of this."

Ubuntu Feisty Fawn Herd 5

Here's a quick gallery I've put together which looks at Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn Herd 5, the latest alpha.  I'm really looking forward to this hitting beta and then final release - it's got huge potential.

I'll have more to say about Feisty Fawn soon.

Topic: Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

51 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Let me know how the network applet works for you

    because on 7.04h5 it makes a botch of it and I end up using ifconfig to get it working.
    Scrat
    • Was it a wireless connection?

      If it was wireless, then that's most likely the problem. If your connection is wired, then chalk it up to it's alpha behavior. It should be fixed in the beta release.
      Tony Agudo
    • Works for me

      I've been using the network manager applet for all of my connections since 6.06. I fresh-installed 7.04 at Herd 2 and the updates brought in the network manager automatically. Everything has worked automagically since then. Check out your /etc/networking/interfaces. Everything but lo should be commented out.
      macoafi
  • Biggest hurdles

    Linux, IMO, has two big hurdles to over come, one technical, and the other
    ideological.

    The technical hurdle is to make the folder structure and package installation more
    Windows or OS X -like, where you can pop in a CD, or download an installer and
    go, without having to depend on internet repositories or figuring out apt-get.

    The ideological hurdle is to get rid of the OSS zealotry. Quit eviscerating
    companies that want to release binary-only drivers or programs for Linux. Quit
    giving kernel corruption messages. Quit forking distributions or projects that
    don't conform to some asinine commie-utopian view of open source nirvana.

    Folks, there's a reason Apple picked BSD for it's UNIX foundation.

    Unfortunately, I see the techincal issue addressed long before the ideological one.
    frgough
    • Sorry

      One more issue. Drop the arrogance.
      frgough
      • You forgot the winky!!

        You must have been teasing when you, an Apple zealot, advised anyone to "drop the arrogance". In the future, when you are making funny remarks, you should include the ;) so people know you made a funny. Um... you weren't actually serious, were you? Oh dear.
        NonZealot
        • Look to yourself

          Your posts would be more meaningful if you would drop the incessant zealot name-calling. It seems you are almost unable to actually post without referring to someone else as a zealot.

          For someone who calls themselves non-zealot, I find that pretty ridiculous.
          mosborne
          • You can judge a man...

            ...to a great degree by the type of people who hate him. I consider it an honor to be
            on NonZealot's enemies list.
            frgough
          • Enemies list?

            Whoa, you taking this whole ZDNet talkback thing a little too seriously, don't you think? I don't know you anywhere near well enough to hate you and if your worst personality traits are that you enjoy overpaying for hardware and you are a bit fanatical about your OS, well, there are far worse things in this world to be. :)
            NonZealot
          • I am on the list too!

            You can tell by the meaningless rants he spews at you when you say anything that challenges his "world view" and that he simply MUST reply to every post that you make whether he's in the thread or not.
            jacarter3
    • Not the way I see it

      I see the way package-management is done in GNU/Linux-distros as a great strength. It does exist projects that aims to create what you want (such as klik), but I don't have much faith in them.

      To me the idea of Free Software (free as in freedom) is very important, why shouldn't we be idealistic? I use and promote Free Software because I consider it to be the ethical thing to do. But there is nothing standing in the way for someone to release non-free drivers or applications for GNU/Linux, so what are you complaining about?

      Apple decided to make a proprietary operating system, so they couldn't have used the Linux kernel. Which means that the GPL-license works as it should.
      Transformation
      • The Apple Kernel is based on an open source project...

        Darwin and you can get the source. The c/c++ compiler is gcc, lots of the Unix stuff is from BSD. So I would say Appler is more open than you think.
        mrlinux
        • Link to my previous post

          http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/thegnudarwindistribution.html
          mrlinux
        • Not quite.

          While it is based in large part on open source software, it's a non-open fork, which violates at least the spirit of the FOSS community. The BSD license is not nearly as restrictive as the GPL, and this allows for Apple to do pretty much whatever they want. In their own way, Apple is every bit as closed-source as Microsoft.
          MageOfChaos
    • None zealot response

      [b]The Ideological Hurdle[/b]

      People tend to get a little passionate about their freedom. Open source software gives people freedom (liberty). The "Boston Tea Party" and the "American Revolution" was a little zealous too. Demanding companies to provide open source drivers is no more zealous then demanding better roads, sportier cars, lower gas prices, ect. You rarely (only those profiting) hear people begging for higher gas prices.

      It doesn't matter if a project forks based on ideology. If people can't work together well because of ideological differences then they need to move on. Forking the project will more likely speed the development back up because you don't have head bashing and power struggles slowing you down.

      [b]The Technical Hurdle[/b]
      The folder structure and package installation is more Windows and OSX like on many distros. Ubuntu, RedHat, Mandrake, and many others have a very simple and user friendly installation package. For users that don't want Windows or OSX like installs their are choices for them as well. You can download many of these on multiple disk sets or DVD to illuminate the repositories problems. However, downloading 14 Debian CDs is a bit much in my opinion. I think I would rather download one 800MB CD and use the repository for the software that isn't on that CD. Unless I am rolling out hundreds of machines I would save bandwidth.

      One big technical hurdle for Linux is driver support. That is a hurdle. You have to research for scanners, cameras, and other peripherals to use with Linux. Hence, the invitation from the Linux community to write free drivers for companies if they will just pass on the specs.

      Another hurdle is you can't just walk into a store and pickup software to run on Linux.

      [b]Apple picks BSD[/b]

      If they chose GNU they would have to make their source code available. Apple is a closed source company much like Microsoft. They only want their OS running on their hardware. If they had to make their source code public they would have people running a forked OSX on pc hardware.

      BSD was also a good choice because it is a good operating system. Open BSD could arguably be one of the most secure operating systems available.
      dragosani
      • Apple...

        Apple can use some software thats open source, GPL, and it doesnt require all
        software to be open source.

        Apple has a GNU - Darwin release, they keep all of darwin open source.
        http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/
        thegnudarwindistribution.html
        doh123
    • folder structure and package installation

      [i]The technical hurdle is to make the folder structure and package installation more
      Windows or OS X -like, where you can pop in a CD, or download an installer and
      go, without having to depend on internet repositories or figuring out apt-get.[/i]

      When you suggest making the folder structure more Windows or OSX-like, you seem to be implying that there is no consistent file structure. Obviously you haven't heard of FHS(http://www.pathname.com/fhs/), which is the definitive reference on *nix filesystem structure. You'll find that *nix file structure is no less or more organized than Windows or OSX.

      And you don't have to use apt-get to manage your packages. All distros have an easy GUI package manager that merely requires a few clicks, such as Synaptic, gnome-app-install(the "Add/Remove.." menu entry found [url="http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12554_22-58586-2.html"]here[/url]), Suse's Yast, etc. Without Internet repositories and package managers, imagine how difficult it would be to install/update your software, regardless of operating system. Doing a few clicks in one program is a lot easier than having to go out and downloading updates by hand.
      Tony Agudo
      • oops, link was messed up

        http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12554_22-58586.html

        there, fixed.
        Tony Agudo
      • No, I was implying...

        ...that the folder structure is confusing, inconistently followed and needlessly
        complicated.
        frgough
        • What is complicated?

          Home = My Documents

          If you are looking outside of there you are obviously trying to tweak or change some sort of configuration in which case you look to /etc. In most distributions if not all these days a Graphical front end is available for the majority of configurations. If you are looking for an executable you look to /usr/bin.

          What is complicated about that? For the rare configuration or tweak there should barely be a time you look outside the home folder. All settings for the user applications are also contained there as hidden files.

          I agree that different distributions may use different locations for various things and some sort of consistency could be better applied. But how often is it you will encounter a problem because of this?
          XJRider