Ubuntu 9.10 Beta released

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Some software upgrades way too fast for that to be a reasonable time scale.

The last LTS was still on Firefox 1.x! And openoffice gets some pretty significant upgrades on a rapid basis. It wouldn't be such a problem if apps were allowed to update themselves, but since everything upgrades together, apps that need to be updated more frequently get left behind. Granted, you could always add the PPA source for any specific apps you want updated faster, but that's lame.

Personally, I feel most releases to be nice updates. Except 8.04, that was such a crappy release for a LTS.

Oh, and I have 9.10 running in both virtualbox and on real hardware without problems.

8.04 is the sweet spot for me now (for work/development). The newer versions upgraded some development packages that I use and don't offer the older version. ruby >= 1.8.7 is on 8.10 and above. java 1.6 is on 9.10. I wouldn't mind ruby 1.9.1 on Ubuntu 9.10, but then only java 1.6 is on it and android development needs 1.5

Virtualbox does seem to have some problems (at least last year when I last tried). At one point it would just crash my system upon starting a virtual machine.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey


Virtualbox doesn't properly emulate an x86 PC and is full of bugs making it unable to run certain OSes at all (apparently the VT-X or whatever options help). It's trash, not worth the effort.

Which OS does it not run at all ? VT-X is very important for people that use emulation software. It allows the guest OS to use the cpu directly without the host OS getting in the way.

Saying it is trash and not worth the effort is about the stupidest comment I have heard when discussing the program.

I just tried it again for S&G, OpenBSD still gets a bunch of segmentation faults during install without vt-x. And it is painfully slow. I did not see the errors with vt-x enabled, but that doesn't help me much at home. Virtualbox is buggy. I try to avoid software that is that buggy.

but i am glad it works for you. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Virtualbox does play some tricks for speed (offering near native performance even without virtualization extensions), but I haven't heard of them causing any problems.
Either way, on VT-X enabled cpus I'd think the hardware virtualization features would be used instead of their code patching techniques.

Besides, virtualbox is an awesome virtualization program. It's free, and for a single user is one of the best performing apps around. Vmware and parallels aren't free (and can be quite slow), and microsoft's virtualpc is quite simply the worst of the bunch.

Id rather have something that works. Vmware works.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Virtualbox does play some tricks for speed (offering near native performance even without virtualization extensions), but I haven't heard of them causing any problems.
Either way, on VT-X enabled cpus I'd think the hardware virtualization features would be used instead of their code patching techniques.

Besides, virtualbox is an awesome virtualization program. It's free, and for a single user is one of the best performing apps around. Vmware and parallels aren't free (and can be quite slow), and microsoft's virtualpc is quite simply the worst of the bunch.

Id rather have something that works. Vmware works.

Still seems like a hardware issue to me. You shouldn't be expecting serious virtualization without hardware virtualization support (or a patched kernel).

And aceO07, if you need certain dev package versions for work, why not install them manually? Even if they're not in the repositories anymore (which they may be, I've had multiple versions of the same library installed in ubuntu before), you can manually download and use them.

 

[Nothinman]

You shouldn't be expecting serious virtualization without hardware virtualization support

Why not? That's how it all started, VMware was putting out virtualization software way before Intel and AMD came up with their hardware extensions.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

You shouldn't be expecting serious virtualization without hardware virtualization support

Why not? That's how it all started, VMware was putting out virtualization software way before Intel and AMD came up with their hardware extensions.

Ahh the memories.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm going to wipe Vista from my Studio 14 and test this beta out, see how things run.

Edit- Fails to boot into Gnome or a shell. Disappointing.

Edit 2- Okay, that was bizarre. Did a hard power off and it came right up.