Item — HN Reader

I agree that the best new feature for most people is faster bootup time. I have a dual boot (Widows 7, Ubuntu) Toshiba U505 and the difference in bootup used to be huge (Widows 7 being a lot slower), now the difference is humongus!

Wifi support now supports my new laptop.

I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it.

3 comments

"I have been using Linux since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem (1991?) and have used most of the major distros over the years. For me, Ubuntu is the "get stuff done with minimal hassles" distro - love it."

Same here.

Same here. I love that philosophy, because as much as I like to tweak my distro, some times I just want it to work.

Using Ubuntu is much like the OS X experience: things just work, little wasted time. OS X wins a bit with apps like TexShop and OmniGraffle while Linux wins a bit with easier package maintenance.

I hate to admit this but I will: it took me about 20 hours to get Windows 7 set up with everything that I need for development and writing. Not bad once it is set up, but what a time-killing overhead expense. Now, I want to not drop my Windows/Ubuntu laptop: nice having a Windows machine available, but I hope to not have to spend the setup time again for many years.

Despite the fact that I call it "N00buntu" sometimes, I know a few advanced users who use stock Ubuntu and are perfectly happy with it.

With Synaptic, your development tools and apps are pretty much a click away if not already installed.

Me, I use Arch. I'm always tweaking shit and don't want the distro getting in my way, which Debian-based distros have a tendency to do.

The thing I like about ubuntu is that some things you don't really have to tweak to get right, like font rendering under X (such as having to go and use AUR to get ubuntu type rendering).

I liked arch for a little bit but just like ubuntu more, debian sadly is too dated for my hardware and I don't feel like using sid. If you do like arch for the fact that you can start from the ground up you should try doing an ubuntu minimal install (from here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD).

Not what I was looking for. That just snarfs packages from FTP rather than providing them on the CD.

I don't use Arch because I want the absolute bare minimum of functionality. I am just tired of seeing comments of the type:

# don't edit this file; use debian-specific-tool(8) instead to change it

in my /etc. I want to tweak e.g., resolv.conf my own damn self, without fearing that I'm interfering with the distro's way of doing things.

That's what I want from my Linux. Arch gets me most of the way there, has a kick-ass package system and rolling releases like Gentoo, but without the hassle of recompiling the freaking world when some critical library changes.

Last time I used a minimal install it was pretty small (it does grab packages from a cd but only a minimal installation of ubuntu).

It was more if you just like having the minimal system and choosing which software you wanted. Debian administration really isn't as bad as you seem to think but you're welcome to your opinions.

Personally I like BSD's (mostly freebsd) and am using ubuntu for matlab and an unsupported wireless card in bsd, but that just makes arch seem lacking when I use it

> debian sadly is too dated for my hardware and I don't feel like using sid

Did you try debian testing?

My experience with rolling release:

I tried Gentoo and then Arch, moving off both after they pushed updates which completely broke my system.

Gentoo has a disclaimer that you need to check each update individually, Arch was a little bit more realistic, but on the flip-side contradictory - some places they tell you to just update often, and others tell you to check packages for problems as with Gentoo.

If you do not intend to check each update for breakages (like me), then my advice is to not use Gentoo or Arch (but if you are willing to check all updates, then I'd recommend them).

Debian testing's been okay for me so far and I've got greater confidence that they a) won't be as likely to break my system, and b) will send an update to revert or fix in a reasonable time if they do.

If (or when?) this breaks, I'll go back to Ubuntu, full circle.

Widows? Seriously? I thought we're above juvenile name-calling here.

Also, startup time simply isn't a big deal. It's a big deal for people who dual-boot, but I think dual-booting is just stupid when virtualization is so easy.

I don't dual-boot, and boot-up time is still important to me. I don't want to leave my PC running when I'm not using it, but I do want it to be available as fast as possible when I turn it on.

Why don’t you want to leave your PC running? My sleeping MBP needs one Watt. That’s what, maybe the equivalent to one hot bath for a year worth of leaving your computer running? I can live with that. Being able to always pull that laptop out and have it running within two seconds is just damn cool.

Bootup time still matters, waiting forever until the system reboots after you installed that security update is still annoying. But it arguably matters less.

I have a desktop and don't want to leave it running all the time. Besides the power, the fact that the fan is running means that friction is slowly killing my moving parts. What's the point? I'll turn it on when I want to use it.

Hm, my MBP pretty much shuts down completely when sleeping. No running fans. If the fans kept on spinning I would probably turn off my computer, too.

You need sleep or hibernate. It'll be faster than any sort of bootup. My laptop wakes up from sleep in less than a second.