Ubuntu 6.06 'Dapper Drake' Beta Available

Beuno writes "Ubuntu 6.06, aka 'Dapper Drake' has just gone into a stable Beta phase after 5 very successful Alpha versions. There have been a ton of improvements ranging from a new spiffy graphical installation, Gnome 2.14.1, Kernel 2.6.15.6, X.org 7 and a new and improved caramel colored theme. The server version has had kernel tweaks and an easy LAMP installation. A full list of new features and screenshots and be found at the official site. Downloads at the usual place, just try to use torrents please."

Re:What does Ubuntu have...

[Simon (S2)]

What's in it for a the more experienced Linux user (but not a mad bash hacking pro)?

It Just Works©

Re:What does Ubuntu have...

[B5_geek]

Ubuntu is not _just_ for n00bs.

Does a 'n00b' system admin run Debian?
not usually.

Debian is preferred because
(a) "apt-get" makes life so blindingly simple that you don't need to worry about 90% of the hassels that come with other distros (rpm-hell anyone?)
(b) It's stable
(c) "It Just Works!" (tm)

Ubuntu is: ALL the best of Debain + Quicker updates.
How long did it take for Debain to support SATA in the stable release? Too damn long!

Ubuntu is not totally user friendly, ie it wasn't untill Dapper that there was a GUI for setting up a pppoe internet connection. (try telling Mom to: open a terminal, type pppoe-conf, and follow the prompts.)
Sounds great on paper.

My mom, Uncle x2, wife, Mother & Father in-laws, and CLIENTS all run Ubuntu because it is easier for me to manage/admin.
I'm not a n00b. I got desperately tired of waiting for Debian Stable. Now I have all the good of Debian + modern packages.

Re:What does Ubuntu have...

[baryon351]

What's in it for a the more experienced Linux user (but not a mad bash hacking pro)?

Only speaking for myself and others like me (which may not be much different to yourself judging by your description) ubuntu comes with a lot less fucking-about-with-inanities than other distros.

I like that I installed dapper and everything worked. I don't mean "it booted to a desktop and I needed minimal fiddling to get my camera working, oh and sometimes sound drops out but I got that fixed in half an hour... and I can't use my music player yet cos it won't mount", I mean I can install it and there's everything working and working well.

Don't get me wrong, I do like to jump down into the OS and screw about with things from time to time. I figure if I want to do things unique to myself that's what I'm going to have to do, and any linux distro will give me that. It's just the core simple things that I feel any OS should do well out of the box that many other distros have missed. They've come mighty close, but don't QUITE get there fully. Like installing SuSE and not having sound working like it should. Like installing debian and having an endless argument with fonts. Like installing fedora and finding it plays downloaded movies fine, but the ones from my camera are missing audio... even if they play audio fine on linspire but the video skips frames. It's those little core things that are so braindead simple they should always work first go, that when they don't they make me really feel like I'm working for the other distros when I have to screw around to get them working, instead of the distro working for me.

Recent Ubuntus have been the only ones that are fuss-free for what I consider those core elements of a desktop machine. Other people might have different core wants of course, and different hardware that other distros handle better - but meh, I'm not those other people. Works for me.

Alpha, Beta, or Final?

[HavokDevNull]

After reading the story yesterday on /. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/18/ 0047245 [slashdot.org] I downloaded the latest Alpha (/. says beta Ubuntu say Alpha) And for being Alpha it is very very stable. I got XGL working in less than 3 mins, all codecs, plugins, and java installed in 10 mins, and runs rings around Fedora Core 5. It's as responsive as my Gentoo install, seems to me anyway.

I'm very very impressed, IMHO Mark and the Ubuntu gang are going places in hurry if they keep this up. So the question that comes to my mind now is, would I install this on my mom's computer for her to use 24/7? My answer is I don't t think I would on this release (flight 6) but I will as soon as the final comes out in June, and that's

Eewy GUI

[BoredWolf]

When did techies decide that the GUI was the most important aspect of an OS? What keeps us from identifying the benefits of the 2.6.15-r6 kernel (such as SATA RAID support)? We need to stop identifying the pecking-order by how slick an interface looks. I'm sure some people are tingling with anticipation that they'll have "caramel colored theme", but it would be more useful to detail the benefits of switching. Even on the Ubuntu site, the seem to be more focused on a Graphical Shutdown for a "more professional and user friendly feel overall". If you're trying to reinvent Windows, go right ahead. If you want a streamlined, efficient, and powerful OS that will appeal to converts and linux zealots alike, start pushing something other than Gnome's 'Windows XP feel'. Those of us that know linux know there are many GUIs out there for our enjoyment, and regurgitating old news about an interface that is independent of your distro doesn't pique my interest. People need something to differentiate Ubuntu from every other distro out there. I can put Gnome on my linux box, but that doesn't make Gentoo into Ubuntu. Let people know why they should opt for Ubuntu instead of RedHat or YellowDog...

Re:What does Ubuntu have... n00bs are good stuff

[From A Far Away Land]

The thing that makes Ubuntu the distro to have is that it has a growing "n00b base". This benefits experienced Linux users, because if they are running the same distro as the people they will end up supporting, then the Linux community as a whole becomes stronger and easier for people to get into. Wouldn't it be nice to run the same system as everyone else you know, and still be using Linux?

See Debian.

[matt me]

To comparing Ubuntu to say Fedora Core, you have to look behind the sticky smiley usable faces and compare the old clockwork beneath of Debian against Red Hat. I think the biggest answers here are a) speed and b) .deb package management. I use Fedora Core, and it is officially a beast, and managing .rpm's through yum isn't perfect.

But the real differences aren't in the software. It's the attitude and community. Ubuntu loves you. Ubuntu is your friend. It smiles when you see it on the street. Those behind Ubuntu hav the right attitude, although sometimes a little patronising, it is one that *will* make *something* happen. This great, I think we can trust Ubuntu not to become hypocritically evangelical and sell out like Firefox.

AOB: Hell! My easter egg's dissapeared from within foil. Tell me I didn't just eat it...

Graphical Installer

[stu42j]

It looks like the "new spiffy graphical installation" only works under the LiveCD. Perhaps the Ubuntu folks should work with the Debian folks to finish the gtk frontend for d-i. That way they could have a "real" graphical installer.

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/GUI [debian.org]

Re:Eewy GUI

[nmos]

When did techies decide that the GUI was the most important aspect of an OS? What keeps us from identifying the benefits of the 2.6.15-r6 kernel (such as SATA RAID support)?

Probably because anyone who knows what a kernel is can install whatever one they want on any distro. A really pollished (not just pretty but actually works right) GUI is a lot harder to graft on to a distro that doesn't already have it.

Re:Eewy GUI

[mixmasta]

Because it is the only thing left to do on Linux.

Technically it is mostly finished, but lots of work still needs to be done to improve ease of use. Hence, that's where the excitement is.