Ubuntu1604 and Google Chrome

[FrankRamiro]

Hi guys i just installed Ubuntu 1604 on a spare extra HDD that i have,i installed Chrome and i have it in the task-bar but it doesn't open or show in the desktop,
is there anything i can do! thanks

 

[poison_511]

Ubuntu 16.04 has many problems I advise you to wait until the stable version releas

 

[FrankRamiro]

Ubuntu 16.04 has many problems I advise you to wait until the stable version releas

You're right bro; well i gave it a shot but I've had it with it,first i had hell to install it from CD all kind of crazy issues then Chrome wouldn't open from the launcher ,as happen the same to Synaptic package manager,also on some sites i couldn't get video to go full screen,so i'm back on 1404, which runs like clock work ,i wonder why Ubuntu is taking this road to make these later LTS versions of Ubuntu a hell for Ubuntu fan users,is Ubuntu trying to get rid of Ubuntu fan users?Ubuntu is supposed to built an easy Linux for all Hardware and not to make life hell,is Ubuntu trying to compete with Win 10?
hell no they should not,Linux should be different on all aspects from Win,but i guess they are taking the worse path,2 GB ram needed duo core CPU needed,this is crazy,i never thought Ubuntu would screw us,screw all those f***** APPS who the F****** need those on a PC.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Ubuntu is supposed to built an easy Linux for all Hardware and not to make life hell,is Ubuntu trying to compete with Win 10?

Standard Ubuntu is supposed to be bleeding edge, which means bugs and stability issues will be common. Ubuntu LTS is supposed to be more stable. If you want even more stable and less bleeding-edge from Ubuntu then you want Linux Mint.

 

[FrankRamiro]

Standard Ubuntu is supposed to be bleeding edge, which means bugs and stability issues will be common. Ubuntu LTS is supposed to be more stable. If you want even more stable and less bleeding-edge from Ubuntu then you want Linux Mint.

To tell you the truth i never liked Mint,i did run it,as so many others and always go back to Ubuntu , and Xubuntu on lower hardware machines,
as to make this statement true ,i just installed on another HDD this Chaletos OPS that was said to like or better then Xubuntu and wrong again so right back on Xubuntu,

 

[poison_511]

canonical does not care anymore
look at this guy what he said about ubuntu 16.04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Li052ZBN8

i don't agree with all what he said but in some point's he is right

 

[AnonymouseUser]

canonical does not care anymore
look at this guy what he said about ubuntu 16.04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Li052ZBN8

i don't agree with all what he said but in some point's he is right

I just realized 16.04 is an LTS release. Since it is an LTS release, this guy is spot on, otherwise I wouldn't have given two thoughts about those bugs/minor inconveniences. I have one machine on 15.10, and it looks like I'll be leaving it alone for a while.

 

[poison_511]

I just realized 16.04 is an LTS release. Since it is an LTS release, this guy is spot on, otherwise I wouldn't have given two thoughts about those bugs/minor inconveniences. I have one machine on 15.10, and it looks like I'll be leaving it alone for a while.

the best option is stick with Manjaro
its very stable distro that based on arch

 

[lxskllr]

the best option is stick with Manjaro
its very stable distro that based on arch

Arch, stable? :^D

You don't get bleeding edge software and stability. If you want stability, you run old well tested software. Debian, redhat, or a bsd. If your distro is hosting software that's a week older than upstream, you're playing Russian roulette. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't stable.

 

[poison_511]

Arch, stable? :^D

You don't get bleeding edge software and stability. If you want stability, you run old well tested software. Debian, redhat, or a bsd. If your distro is hosting software that's a week older than upstream, you're playing Russian roulette. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't stable.

you're right, but i didnt say arch is stable
i said Manjaro is stable, this distro based on arch but not using arch official packages
they have there own packages which is means more stability,
and if There is a program on Arch , the Manjaro team takes the program and testing it for a week at least


Unlike Arch packages, Arch down the package along without testing which is may result problems in one way or another.

you should run it :^D

 

[FrankRamiro]

I just realized 16.04 is an LTS release. Since it is an LTS release, this guy is spot on, otherwise I wouldn't have given two thoughts about those bugs/minor inconveniences. I have one machine on 15.10, and it looks like I'll be leaving it alone for a while.

Ubuntu 1510? still have headaches about that one, i tried 1510 on my I5 and it was even crappier by a long shot. Couldn't do basic tasks,
if this Ubuntu testers can't get a LTS release to work properly on basic stuff,like browsing streaming video, what's the purpose of putting it out,or are they testing it on their special PC? not the average user PC?

 

[FrankRamiro]

Standard Ubuntu is supposed to be bleeding edge, which means bugs and stability issues will be common. Ubuntu LTS is supposed to be more stable. If you want even more stable and less bleeding-edge from Ubuntu then you want Linux Mint.

No it does't have to be,Win 10 came out and there was some bugs also, but on the basic stuff it was spot on,i'm not very demanding all i want is my PC to browse right and stream right and that's not much to ask and i don't know how the bugs can effect that!,why the hell Ubuntu is in a Hurry to release a Distro that is not running right on most machines either old or new?
other previous versions of Ubuntu came out, of course with some bugs but nothing in this scale.

 

[Elixer]

I happen to install Ubuntu 16.04 after many years away from it, and the default desktop is still horrible.
It is made for tablets, not desktops.
Not being able to move the close/minimize/maximize from the left to the right is highly annoying, and frankly that alone irks me enough to install another desktop GUI.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I happen to install Ubuntu 16.04 after many years away from it, and the default desktop is still horrible.
It is made for tablets, not desktops.

Didn't Windows 8 get the same criticism? Ubuntu and Microsoft designed their UI to look and work the same regardless of device, and I don't think that's such a bad idea. Admittedly Unity does look cartoonish on the desktop, but I've gotten used to it.

Not being able to move the close/minimize/maximize from the left to the right is highly annoying, and frankly that alone irks me enough to install another desktop GUI.

Install the Unity Tweak Tool and fix it. Make some other highly recommended changes as well:

5. Window Controls

Window Control placement is a big one for many users. For years, people have gown accustomed to the minimize, close, maximize buttons being in the upper right corner of the window. Unity places those buttons in the upper left corner of the window. If you can't seem to get used to that placement, change it back to the standard like so:

1. Open the Unity Tweak Tool
2. Click on Window Controls
3. Select Right for the Alignment section (under Layout)

 

[Elixer]

Didn't Windows 8 get the same criticism? Ubuntu and Microsoft designed their UI to look and work the same regardless of device, and I don't think that's such a bad idea. Admittedly Unity does look cartoonish on the desktop, but I've gotten used to it.



Install the Unity Tweak Tool and fix it. Make some other highly recommended changes as well:

Ahh, thanks, that at least makes it a bit better to use, but this is still one irksome GUI.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't like Unity at all. I put it on my mother's machine cause it's pretty, but it irritates me every time I have to use it. She doesn't seem to care one way or the other, so I'm kinda sorry I didn't install xfce. It gives me a chance to see what it's about, and how it develops though.