I have since booted the 2007 Dell XPS 400 with Xubuntu 14.04 and that worked a lot better. I will compare this with Mint 17 XFCE when it comes out and then decide which one to use.
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS just went "live"
- Thread starter uc50ic4more
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ClutchDisc
I read somewhere (I think it was on the Ubuntu forums) that the option to update to 14.04 won't show up in the update manager until they come out with 14.04.1 in August? Does that sound right?
I don't know if it's true or not, but speaking as a durn-fool who has already burned himself on 14.04, I think it's a pretty swell idea. Another couple of months should (hopefully) be enough to iron the dragons out of Trusty.
I read somewhere (I think it was on the Ubuntu forums) that the option to update to 14.04 won't show up in the update manager until they come out with 14.04.1 in August? Does that sound right?
I don't know if it's true or not, but speaking as a durn-fool who has already burned himself on 14.04, I think it's a pretty swell idea. Another couple of months should (hopefully) be enough to iron the dragons out of Trusty.
Originally Posted By: yonyon
I don't know if it's true or not, but speaking as a durn-fool who has already burned himself on 14.04, I think it's a pretty swell idea. Another couple of months should (hopefully) be enough to iron the dragons out of Trusty.
How did you "get burned"?! Did you ask anyone for help?
According to this page: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade your Update Manager should be alerting you to the new update. I suppose some mirrors (that you may be using due to your location) may not be fully up-to-date yet but I think anyone running anything prior to 14.04 should have been alerted to 14.04 by now.
I don't know if it's true or not, but speaking as a durn-fool who has already burned himself on 14.04, I think it's a pretty swell idea. Another couple of months should (hopefully) be enough to iron the dragons out of Trusty.
How did you "get burned"?! Did you ask anyone for help?
According to this page: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade your Update Manager should be alerting you to the new update. I suppose some mirrors (that you may be using due to your location) may not be fully up-to-date yet but I think anyone running anything prior to 14.04 should have been alerted to 14.04 by now.
I run lubuntu 13.10 and was alerted this afternoon. kicked off the update before coming to work. hopefully it'll be done when i get home tomorrow morning.
Thanks for the heads up UC! I downloaded it and updated my USB booter. Browsed around a few minutes on the Dell B130. Seemed to load faster than 12.xxx and shut down faster as well. Still going back & forth between Ubuntu and Mint.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
How did you "get burned"?! Did you ask anyone for help?
The upgrade was a total mess. It decided to reboot the computer after removing old packages but before installing new ones. Upon reboot I had:
-no desktop environment
-no network connectivity (eth0 is missing)
-apt-get refusing to do anything because of unresolvable dependencies
I had to sit in front of aptitude and type 'GG' repeatedly to convince it to complete the upgrade. This got me a mostly working XFCE desktop (window decorations are missing) and a working apt-get and synaptic but still no network.
lspci reports eth0 exists, but ifconfig insists there is no eth0. I have no idea how to fix that so I added an extra ethernet card. It's a bad solution, but it's workable and with network back online I was able to install Gnome.
This was definitely not a smooth upgrade. Maybe next weekend I'll ask on the Ubuntu forum for help getting eth0 back online.
How did you "get burned"?! Did you ask anyone for help?
The upgrade was a total mess. It decided to reboot the computer after removing old packages but before installing new ones. Upon reboot I had:
-no desktop environment
-no network connectivity (eth0 is missing)
-apt-get refusing to do anything because of unresolvable dependencies
I had to sit in front of aptitude and type 'GG' repeatedly to convince it to complete the upgrade. This got me a mostly working XFCE desktop (window decorations are missing) and a working apt-get and synaptic but still no network.
lspci reports eth0 exists, but ifconfig insists there is no eth0. I have no idea how to fix that so I added an extra ethernet card. It's a bad solution, but it's workable and with network back online I was able to install Gnome.
This was definitely not a smooth upgrade. Maybe next weekend I'll ask on the Ubuntu forum for help getting eth0 back online.
Last edited:
This is a bit odd. For whatever reason, the integrated ethernet is now eth3. I can use it, but it isn't automatic. The upgrade didn't completely break it, but I have to wait for the computer to decide eth0 isn't working and boot up, then I can tell it to use eth3.
yonyon, you might consider just installing 14.04 fresh from new media...especially if you have data on a separate "/home" volume.
did an xubuntu upgrade on a p4 3.6Gz; it went flawlessly.
I can see using this machine for years.
I can see using this machine for years.
Just did the upgrade to 14.04... I like it a lot. Had to turn off the annoying online search results though.
Looks like Ubuntu is the Linux distro to run on Intel NUC. I was initially considering installing Mint, but it appears Mint has some graphics incompatibility issues which result in choppy video performance on the NUC.
Anyway, haven't bought the NUC yet, so this is just forward thinking on my part...
Anyway, haven't bought the NUC yet, so this is just forward thinking on my part...
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Looks like Ubuntu is the Linux distro to run on Intel NUC. I was initially considering installing Mint, but it appears Mint has some graphics incompatibility issues which result in choppy video performance on the NUC.
Anyway, haven't bought the NUC yet, so this is just forward thinking on my part...
I am not understanding how anything that'd work in Ubuntu would not somehow work in Mint: Mint is Ubuntu, using almost all of the exact same packages (taken directly from Ubuntu's repositories, in fact). They'd be using the exact same graphics drivers, too.
I know manufacturers and OEM's will very, very, very rarely choose Mint over Ubuntu simly because Mint is a volunteer community that does not sell or provide official support. If Clement ever decides he does not have time to keep maintaining Mint and the community directs it's efforts elsewhere, there is no more Mint all of a sudden. Also, Mint's legal footing is dubious *at best* - they, being based in Ireland, redistribute codecs and other non-free ("free" as in "freedom") software without worry of being crushed by corporations or police states. They also directly use Ubuntu's repositories; and if Canonical ever decided they can no longer do that, Mint is done.
Canonical, on the other hand, is forging business and legal relationships with OEM's and governments more and more each day; and they provide commercial support and are in sound financial shape. They, unlike Mint, provide technologies that are geared for servers, tablets, even phones. Mint is a desktop-only distro for the most part.
Looks like Ubuntu is the Linux distro to run on Intel NUC. I was initially considering installing Mint, but it appears Mint has some graphics incompatibility issues which result in choppy video performance on the NUC.
Anyway, haven't bought the NUC yet, so this is just forward thinking on my part...
I am not understanding how anything that'd work in Ubuntu would not somehow work in Mint: Mint is Ubuntu, using almost all of the exact same packages (taken directly from Ubuntu's repositories, in fact). They'd be using the exact same graphics drivers, too.
I know manufacturers and OEM's will very, very, very rarely choose Mint over Ubuntu simly because Mint is a volunteer community that does not sell or provide official support. If Clement ever decides he does not have time to keep maintaining Mint and the community directs it's efforts elsewhere, there is no more Mint all of a sudden. Also, Mint's legal footing is dubious *at best* - they, being based in Ireland, redistribute codecs and other non-free ("free" as in "freedom") software without worry of being crushed by corporations or police states. They also directly use Ubuntu's repositories; and if Canonical ever decided they can no longer do that, Mint is done.
Canonical, on the other hand, is forging business and legal relationships with OEM's and governments more and more each day; and they provide commercial support and are in sound financial shape. They, unlike Mint, provide technologies that are geared for servers, tablets, even phones. Mint is a desktop-only distro for the most part.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
I am not understanding how anything that'd work in Ubuntu would not somehow work in Mint: Mint is Ubuntu, using almost all of the exact same packages (taken directly from Ubuntu's repositories, in fact). They'd be using the exact same graphics drivers, too.
Not sure either, but do a google search - there's plenty evidence on this particular subject.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/l...steamos-beta/2/
Quote:
Haswell’s integrated GPU was another story. Using the default graphics drivers caused serious rendering problems for some games installed from Steam for Linux. Portal, for example, launches and runs but is missing most of its textures, making it unplayable. There’s also noticeable tearing when playing videos from Hulu and YouTube, though the problems are less noticeable. If you aren’t gaming, it’s possible that you won’t notice or care about the GPU’s anomalies. While our observations are based on the version of the graphics driver included with Mint by default, it’s possible that installing a newer or different driver could clear these problems up. However, Intel's graphics driver installer for Linux supports only Ubuntu and Fedora and not distributions based on those distributions. While it's theoretically possible to get an updated driver working anyway, there's not much guidance out there for it right now.
Alas, this was with Mint 16. I haven't been able to verify if Mint 17 fixed it.
I am not understanding how anything that'd work in Ubuntu would not somehow work in Mint: Mint is Ubuntu, using almost all of the exact same packages (taken directly from Ubuntu's repositories, in fact). They'd be using the exact same graphics drivers, too.
Not sure either, but do a google search - there's plenty evidence on this particular subject.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/l...steamos-beta/2/
Quote:
Haswell’s integrated GPU was another story. Using the default graphics drivers caused serious rendering problems for some games installed from Steam for Linux. Portal, for example, launches and runs but is missing most of its textures, making it unplayable. There’s also noticeable tearing when playing videos from Hulu and YouTube, though the problems are less noticeable. If you aren’t gaming, it’s possible that you won’t notice or care about the GPU’s anomalies. While our observations are based on the version of the graphics driver included with Mint by default, it’s possible that installing a newer or different driver could clear these problems up. However, Intel's graphics driver installer for Linux supports only Ubuntu and Fedora and not distributions based on those distributions. While it's theoretically possible to get an updated driver working anyway, there's not much guidance out there for it right now.
Alas, this was with Mint 16. I haven't been able to verify if Mint 17 fixed it.
- Status
Similar threads
