Having misgivings after 'upgrading' from Lubuntu 18.04 LTS to 20.04 LTS

[mikeymikec]

I took advice from the ubuntu forums that due to some fairly major changes between the two versions, it's not a great idea to try and do an in-place upgrade so I backed up my personal data and told it to wipe the main partition and start afresh.

What really gets my goat though are things that really seem 'beta' state that were working stably in the previous version. Such as:

1 - the printer management UI worked absolutely fine in 18.04 LTS. In 20.04 though, it routinely hangs if I try to change the driver for my printer. I ended up doing it through the web-based admin system.
2 - The Disks utility (which worked fine on 18.04) was replaced with KDE Partition Manager, which doesn't work properly. For example, I wanted it to automount my data NTFS partition on another drive, it asked me if I wanted to commit the changes to fstab, sure, but no changes to fstab occurred. The Disks utility also isn't stable (hangs).
3 - The previous login/lock screen looked minimal but still reasonably professional. The new lock screen looks fresh from 1993:

The login screen doesn't look great either:

Is it common that one version of a Linux distro is OK and the next isn't?

With some battles I've made it usable. I've got one outstanding issue whereby if my hi-fi isn't switched on before booting the computer then Lubuntu 20.04 (18.04 didn't do this) defaults to HDMI audio which is quite irritating. When this happens, Pulse audio volume control only lists the HDMI audio, not the Realtek onboard audio.

Things that I've liked about Lubuntu (this version included) is that Windows+E invokes the file manager, +R invokes the run prompt, the UI lacks eyecandy, the file manager doesn't have a lot of clutter (though 20.04 is a step back IMO), and the start menu is minimal. I'm considering trading up for a distro with a bit more consistency/stability. I've even given Windows 10 some consideration but since I'm not particularly keen on spinning the wheel of fortune every 3 years on a new OS version, Win10's "do et naow!" mandatory OS upgrade every six months is not something I appreciate for a workhorse PC.

 

[mv2devnull]

Is it common that one version of a Linux distro is OK and the next isn't?

Can't speak of ubuntu -- have dwelled in Ret Hat Linux, Fedora Core, CentOS Linux. The latter was really "LTS"; 10 years of support for major releases. With major releases several years apart each major release is a huge step. Furthermore, "Enterprise Linux" tends to be barren; third party repositories supply additional packages if and when. Even with presumed quality, each new major version has had issues at start that couple first point releases tend to fix (so within a year or two from release). With long support one can usually continue with previous major releases until the next does get its act together.

If you have a distro that gets frequently small updates, then a larger component change (implied by the recomendation to reinstall) must feel drastic.

Ubuntu has "sub-distros" with different (default) package selection? lubuntu, kubuntu, ... ?
CentOS Linux has only one distro and you install the packages that you need. For example the DE: Gnome (default), KDE, XFCE, MATE, ...
Granted, the selection can be lacking, but it is possible to replace the DE without reinstall.
I wonder whether you have access to any alternatives within lubuntu?


Overall, reinstall from scratch is a usefull skill to master. Clean install, no legacy cruft.
You have three entities: OS, how to config it, and your data.
OS comes from install media. Config you have to adapt to current OS. Your data you migrate.


PS. CentOS is "shifting focus", so it is not something to consider. Some clones/forks might show up though. Besides, as RPM-based distro it is quite different from ubuntu.

 

[lxskllr]

Lubuntu had a fairly major change between the two versions you used. It was based on lxde, and is now based on lxqt, which is a major refactoring of the "lx" environment. It might not be what you want anymore. I tried it briefly on the boss' computer, and I thought it felt "heavy" for a lightweight desktop. Two alternatives are xubuntu for a gtk based desktop, and kubuntu for a plasma desktop.

 

[mikeymikec]

Lubuntu had a fairly major change between the two versions you used. It was based on lxde, and is now based on lxqt, which is a major refactoring of the "lx" environment. It might not be what you want anymore. I tried it briefly on the boss' computer, and I thought it felt "heavy" for a lightweight desktop. Two alternatives are xubuntu for a gtk based desktop, and kubuntu for a plasma desktop.

Yup, I've started playing around with xubuntu in a VM because its UI is closer to what I want than kubuntu. The main thing I find weird though is how not-at-all ready for release it feels compared to 18.04.

So is this what people running Linux tend to do, stick with a distro and then change up if the next version is a bit titsup?

Overall, reinstall from scratch is a usefull skill to master. Clean install, no legacy cruft.
You have three entities: OS, how to config it, and your data.
OS comes from install media. Config you have to adapt to current OS. Your data you migrate.

I agree, though I found what you said funny is that the same applies with Windows, then after mastering the reinstall, the next step is mastering Windows without needing a reinstall

 

[mv2devnull]

I agree, though I found what you said funny is that the same applies with Windows, then after mastering the reinstall, the next step is mastering Windows without needing a reinstall

Now that you mention that unspeakable, yes an OS is an OS. I was thinking cloud though. If you need to spawn ten or hundred VM's for a job, you want them have appropriate, up to date config with minimal fuss. Yes, you could make one "right" and clone the rest. However, if you need to change them during the task, then you either "erase all but one, update the one, and clone again", or have a maintenance method that can (re)apply changes to all machines, including during the initial setup.

 

[lxskllr]

So is this what people running Linux tend to do, stick with a distro and then change up if the next version is a bit titsup?

Kind of I guess. I use debian, so it's more or less generic, and there aren't any large changes to the core release to release. You're still at the mercy of your desktop environment though, and changes always happen. Sometimes you like them, other times not. You still have the ability to fix it, pay someone else to fix it, or change environments. I've been digging plasma lately. I use that at work, and have xfce at home, which I've used for many years. I like both a lot.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm considering xubuntu, but especially after today I'm going to be extra careful in testing out every last thing I can think of before switching again!

I discovered today on Lubuntu 20.04 that LibreOffice prints garbage every time I print (worked fine on 18.04, naturally), whereas printing from other apps works fine. xubuntu can handle my printer, and I tried the same install routine on a spare Lubuntu 20.04 VM and I get the same problem.

 

[mikeymikec]

The solution for the printing/export to PDF functions from LibreOffice is described right at the end of this post:

Cannot print anything, exporting to PDF produces blank PDF (Lubuntu 20.04)

I am using Lubuntu 20.04 and cannot get LibreOffice to print anything at all correctly. Either it prints blank pages, or some garbage (random [?] characters). Exporting to PDF usually the same; some PDF reader programs show errors. When opening the PDF document in a text editor, I found the...

ask.libreoffice.org

It turns out that LO in kubuntu and lubuntu 20.04 has tonnes of problems printing and exporting to PDF, not just my system. I'm amazed such a problem could still exist nearly a year on from release.

 

[manly]

I'm still on Ubuntu 18.04, and I may end up switching to a different distro?
Long-time users are pretty turned off by forced adoption of snap apps:

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS’ snap obsession has snapped me off of it | Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

 

[mikeymikec]

Kind of I guess. I use debian, so it's more or less generic, and there aren't any large changes to the core release to release. You're still at the mercy of your desktop environment though, and changes always happen. Sometimes you like them, other times not. You still have the ability to fix it, pay someone else to fix it, or change environments. I've been digging plasma lately. I use that at work, and have xfce at home, which I've used for many years. I like both a lot.

So you've stuck with debian for many years I assume? What kind of update issues have you had over the years?

I inwardly cringe at the idea that I'm apparently the kind of person who doesn't like auto-updating (it reminds me of some of my customers who resist updates but not for evidence-based reasons), but I suppose that's what it fundamentally comes down to with me regarding Windows 10: Forced OS upgrades means that I have to immediately respond to what I strongly suspect Microsoft's future moves with Windows will be (e.g. forced MS account login, Windows paid subscription), and also the possibility that their update schedule will break my workhorse PC usage resulting in work downtime.

The update system of software only concerns me when the person behind the wheel concerns me; Microsoft concerns me because I'm pretty sure (based on what they've done with Win10 so far) that their goals aren't compatible with my priorities. My mind is boggled at how the maintainers of Lubuntu 20.04 LTS managed to even release it let alone the LO printing bug being there for nearly a year and requiring the user to fix it, but at least encountering that bug wasn't completely forced upon me (ie. automatic OS update). The idea that I'd have to so thoroughly test a new OS version with that level of granularity scares me a bit though.

 

[lxskllr]

I've stuck with debian stable the last bunch of years, but I ran testing for awhile. Testing can break your system if you don't carefully watch what updates are being offered. Testing isn't considered an "official" release. It's meant for testing, but it can be run as a primary system if due diligence is used keeping up the system.

Stable in debian means "doesn't change". The system doesn't change after install. You only get security fixes until the next major update. That means your software is kinda stale. It's old, but well tested. Updates to the next version have been flawless for me. They do a pretty good job making sure everything works.

Debian requires more setup on initial install. They don't install the kitchen sink and preconfigure it on a new system. It isn't anything hard to handle for someone with some past ubuntu experience, but it might be too much for someone without gnu/linux experience, since they don't know what to look for when something like a printing system isn't on the system. It's worth a try, especially if you're starting with a blank(ish) slate right now. Nothing much to lose aside from a little time.

 

[mikeymikec]

So if I went with debian, would I have to configure X, amdgpu driver, install say xfce? What about app support, say if I install Firefox and Handbrake, what do I do about updating?

apt is a debian/ubuntu thing, isn't it?

- edit - I've answered some of my own questions (fired up a debian VM), though amdgpu and updating stuff I'm not sure about yet.

 

[lxskllr]

Debian is pretty much just like ubuntu, only less setup and polished. As I'm sure you've found, it isn't as involved as setting up X, but you have to pick a desktop in some way(there's a couple). Updates are handled through the package manager, or apt(that originated with debian, and is used on debian based systems). Firefox for example tracks the esr release(currently 78.7.0). You won't get a new firefox til the next esr is released. There's ways around that if you really need a newer firefox, or whatever software, but the more you stray from vanilla, the more chances there are to run into problems.

If older software is a problem, perhaps debian isn't for you. It might be better to stay with downstreams like the *buntus. The other option is running testing or unstable debian, but I wouldn't advise it in a production system. It isn't rocket surgery, but you really do have to pay attention to what updates you're getting, and what the proposed changes are. apt-listbugs can help keeping an eye on things, and you may have to defer package upgrades til all the right bits are in place. You can end up having your whole desktop eaten if there's a version conflict with a package, and apt removes the older stuff that's conflicting. It'll be reconciled eventually, but you have to be aware of it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah, I was surprised by Firefox ESR, but version 78 shouldn't be an issue I guess (I've been reading up on how to run a newer version of FF... they don't make it easy!). On Lubuntu 18.04 I had been making do with LibreOffice 6.0 and Debian 10 has LO 6.1, but I am surprised that running newer software isn't easier.

On Lubuntu if I theoretically wanted to install the latest release of LO I'd just add the correct ppa repository for that version and install it.

My run-in with sudo on Debian was truly bizarre though, 'mike isn't in the sudoers list', I tried reading up about it but the suggested entry was already in the config file. Another suggestion involved the command 'adduser' which didn't exist on Debian. I ended up using su root. I can't remember the ins and outs of sudo vs su

 

[lxskllr]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell you the difference, but this is my take; sudo is the 'acting as' command. It's typically used to act as root, but you can act as any other user on the system also. It's not something I've ever had to consider cause I'm almost always the sole user of the system, and have ultimate control, but it might be more interesting in a multi user setup. You also get the rights you already had with the addition of the rights you claimed with sudo.

With su, you're logging in as root. You get the rights of the root user, and no one else. Now you can have two terminals open, and operate as mike in one, and root in the other, but your root window can't do mike stuff if it's unique, and your mike window can't do root stuff.

Debian defaults to using a login as root setup, and I never bothered to change it, so I couldn't tell you exactly how, but it can be done. If you stick with using a root login, make sure you close out your root session when finished. It's good to practice "cleanliness", and it'll help prevent mistakes where you grab a terminal window, and start typing stuff that shouldn't be typed as root. If your location isn't 100% secure, someone could also dick with your system. Either maliciously when out and about, or a kid messing around at home.

 

[manly]

So is this what people running Linux tend to do, stick with a distro and then change up if the next version is a bit titsup?



I agree, though I found what you said funny is that the same applies with Windows, then after mastering the reinstall, the next step is mastering Windows without needing a reinstall

I've used Linux for a long time, but modern desktop Ubuntu since 17.04 (modern implying that things just work, rather than the olden days when desktop Linux was a chore). My philosophy is to stick with Ubuntu LTS releases because the interim releases are supported for only 9 months. So once you use a non-LTS release, you're forced to continuously upgrade your OS at least annually.

This isn't difficult, but using the "latest and greatest" isn't something I embrace anymore. Debian & Ubuntu make in-place upgrades easy. Having said that, one reason I'm still on 18.04 is that Unity DE is now deprecated, so I'd be forced to use GNOME 3 if I upgrade.

My run-in with sudo on Debian was truly bizarre though, 'mike isn't in the sudoers list', I tried reading up about it but the suggested entry was already in the config file. Another suggestion involved the command 'adduser' which didn't exist on Debian. I ended up using su root. I can't remember the ins and outs of sudo vs su

It doesn't matter much in a desktop environment, but on a server with multiple administrators, sudo is a more sensible option. You aren't sharing the actual root account password, and you're better able to control and monitor elevated privileges. With sudo, account mike needs to be configured in the sudoers file and elevated privileges are granted with mike's password. On a default install, the root account on Debian/Ubuntu is locked (password-less) so using sudo is encouraged.

You have the adduser command (from the adduser package), but /usr/sbin wasn't in your PATH.

 

[mikeymikec]

I've used Linux for a long time, but modern desktop Ubuntu since 17.04 (modern implying that things just work, rather than the olden days when desktop Linux was a chore). My philosophy is to stick with Ubuntu LTS releases because the interim releases are supported for only 9 months. So once you use a non-LTS release, you're forced to continuously upgrade your OS at least annually.

This isn't difficult, but using the "latest and greatest" isn't something I embrace anymore. Debian & Ubuntu make in-place upgrades easy. Having said that, one reason I'm still on 18.04 is that Unity DE is now deprecated, so I'd be forced to use GNOME 3 if I upgrade.

Yeah, I liked the sound of three years' support which is why I went for LTS releases. The latest bug I've encountered though is another "known but we haven't bothered to fix it for nearly a year" one: With Ubuntu 20.04, VLC often leaves a zombie process behind after video playback requiring kill -9. That's a real PITA for me, and their workaround (changing VLC video output to xvideo) I'm fairly sure results in no hardware acceleration and so some tearing is occurring. I'm not sure how long I can stay on Lubuntu with a bug like that and so my choices are to jump in at the deep end with Debian (I'm not sure I'm ready for that yet), and doing a turn on Windows 10 as my primary OS which might actually be good for me despite my dislike of it. I've also considered going back to 18.04 or even Windows 7 by that seems like running back to what's familiar rather than a moving forward choice.

 

[manly]

Yeah, I liked the sound of three years' support which is why I went for LTS releases. The latest bug I've encountered though is another "known but we haven't bothered to fix it for nearly a year" one: With Ubuntu 20.04, VLC often leaves a zombie process behind after video playback requiring kill -9. That's a real PITA for me, and their workaround (changing VLC video output to xvideo) I'm fairly sure results in no hardware acceleration and so some tearing is occurring. I'm not sure how long I can stay on Lubuntu with a bug like that and so my choices are to jump in at the deep end with Debian (I'm not sure I'm ready for that yet), and doing a turn on Windows 10 as my primary OS which might actually be good for me despite my dislike of it. I've also considered going back to 18.04 or even Windows 7 by that seems like running back to what's familiar rather than a moving forward choice.

Reminds me of how much effort running desktop Linux used to take, before I switched to Mac OS in 2006. Are these bugs specific to Lubuntu? I hadn't read of quality or stability issues pertaining to Ubuntu 20.04. Are you running on particularly limited hardware, or is it decent enough to try Ubuntu MATE? If it's reasonable hardware (CPU/RAM/SSD) from 2012+, you could even run regular Ubuntu LTS and have 5 years of support?

Lubuntu 18.04 updates end next month? So personally I'd rule out "downgrading" to that or Windows 7 (which is already EOL).

 

[mikeymikec]

The VLC one affects all Ubuntu 20.04 variants AFAIK. It's certainly been reported for Ubuntu.

I'm running a i5-4690k, 12GB RAM, R9 380X, SSD. I didn't like Ubuntu's UI that much the last time I looked at it.

I found this workaround which appears to be working:

Comment #8 : Bug #1871949 : Bugs : vlc package : Ubuntu

This issue only happens with some of my video files and the issue seems to be with VLC's "Hardware-acclerated decoding" setting. When that is set to either Automatic or VDPAU, those files always cause VLC to need to be killed. When set to Disabled or either of the VAAPI, VLC behaves correctly...

bugs.launchpad.net

 

[ultimatebob]

Wow, that new UI sucks.

I would switch to Rocky Linux once it ships, if for no other reason than to annoy IBM and it's plan to kill CentOS

 

[manly]

The VLC one affects all Ubuntu 20.04 variants AFAIK. It's certainly been reported for Ubuntu.

I'm running a i5-4690k, 12GB RAM, R9 380X, SSD. I didn't like Ubuntu's UI that much the last time I looked at it.

I found this workaround which appears to be working:

Comment #8 : Bug #1871949 : Bugs : vlc package : Ubuntu

This issue only happens with some of my video files and the issue seems to be with VLC's "Hardware-acclerated decoding" setting. When that is set to either Automatic or VDPAU, those files always cause VLC to need to be killed. When set to Disabled or either of the VAAPI, VLC behaves correctly...

bugs.launchpad.net

That's plenty of hardware to try out some Live DVDs or VMs with. The main advantages of CentOS and Ubuntu/Debian are broad industry support. Otherwise, you have hundreds of distros to choose from and tinker.

 

[PingSpike]

I'm sure there are other options but I recently setup Timeshift on mint. It backs up a snapshot of the important bits of the install to a USB stick I have. After installing a bunch of updates the GPU drivers were hosed (nvidia or kernel upgrade) and I ended up booting with an old kernel and rolling everything back. Its a nice feature but it seems like its weakness is restoring if the system can't boot being cumbersome or maybe impossible (?).

I share your misgivings about updates and upgrades. I fled Windows (after being more or less happy with it since 95) for this reason so its annoying its present in my escape as well. But I can control the backups, timing and have granular control of individual components updating so I at least don't have things blowing up on me at random.