Every few years or so, I come over all magnanimous and take the view that I really should try Linux again. After all, I am old and befuddled and it probably isn't as bad as I remember it being the last time I tried it. Wrong.
Several years and two houses ago, I tried some flavour of Ubuntu with a silly name. Constipated Chicken, I think it was. It was crap and refused to talk to my Windows (XP in those days) boxes on the LAN, so I gave up with it. On a whim this afternoon, I downloaded the latest RC version of Ubuntu with another silly name - Wonky Wombat or something. Version 9.10 is due for unleashment in a couple of days and it's, err, just as crap as the last version I tried.
This machine has a Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM and three SATA hard disks. The C: drive has a copy of Win7 RC on it; the D: drive has all the data on it; and the E: drive has Win7 RTM build 7600.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2lvddhf.jpg)
Downloading the ISO image for the great new OS, I burned it to CD with no problem using the idiot-proof ISO burn feature available on a right click in Win7. A quick reboot from CD asked me if I wanted to just try the thing or install. As I have no intention of ever using the RC version of Win 7 on the C: drive again, I chose install, expecting to be presented with a screen showing me the disks, partitions and installed operating systems already in place.
Was I so wrong as to expect this?
Ubuntu then went away for about five minutes and eventually returned telling me that there were no operating systems on my machine and showing only the two terabyte D: drive (SATA 1) which indeed has no OS on it. There was no sign of the C: drive that I wanted to use (the one with the boot sector on it), or the E: drive which contains my production OS.
At this point the alarm bells began to ring and I decided that discretion was the better part of valor and told Ubuntu to push off. But instead of having the decency to do what it was told, it then loaded some ghastly looking desktop. I took the disc out of the DVD drive and pushed reset.
Perhaps in another three or four years, I may try Linux again (assuming it's still around). I'm pretty certain it will still be what we techies - who started on mainframes in 1972 - refer to as 'shit'.
Honestly. If what claims to be a state of the art rival for Windows 7 can't even spot three hard disks on a machine and also fails to notice two pre-existing OS installs, what sort of confidence is that expected to inspire in non-techy users? It certainly scared the crap out of me.
Linux is like a really ugly baby: only its mother could possibly love it. So, yet again, it's a case of not even close and definitely no cigar.
source:tgdaily
Dear, oh dear. Nothing quite as bitter as a Linux fanboy scorned, is there?
When we wrote yesterday about trying - and failing - to install Ubuntu 9.10, we thought we had made it clear that the installer failed to recognize two of the three installed SATA drives in our test machine. Despite this, we were exposed to a torrent of spittle-flecked invective suggesting we were variously too old, too young, too stupid, in the pay of Microsoft or simply just an asshole.
We were particularly taken with the number of Linux supporters apparently suffering from Tourette's Syndrome and especially the ones who hoped our families got cancer. It's always refreshing to receive good objective criticism.
Luckily, some readers managed to stay calm and pointed out that there is indeed a critical bug in the 64 bit RC version of Ubuntu 9.10 which fails to recognize multiple hard drives, so, sadly, the failure of the OS to install was down to coding errors rather than user incompetence.
As one reader said:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/np2wcm.jpg)
"The Ubuntu 9.10 RC installer has a rather surprising bug dealing with multiple disk drives; see #459054 at bugs.launchpad.net. It's already fixed in the daily builds, so I expect the final release will probably not have it. In the meantime, if you seriously want to try Ubuntu, either use a 9.04 CD or wait until the 9.10 actual release.
"If you are feeling conservative, wait until December and then try it, after the teething problems shake out. I like Ubuntu, but I won't pretend to anyone that it's ready for naive use until 3-5 weeks post-release. Us bleeding edge types start running new versions and/or upgrading around alpha-6, but we also file bug reports and cope with the odd spot of breakage."
Checking out bugs.launchpad.net as suggested, we found that this was indeed the case. In a post dated 26 October, Jim Leinweber wrote:
"The 9.10RC Karmic Koala ubiquity disk partitioning steps (#4, #5 in the installation screens) seem to have regressions when booting the AMD64 ubuntu live desktop CD on systems with multiple disks.
"On one system, the "side by side" radio button only showed sdc."Erase" would allow choosing sda, sdb, or sdc. The "manual" partitioning option showed all partitions on all three drives and seemed normal.
"On another system, recently loaded with windows 7 professional on a 250 GB sda, the "side by side" radio button line was missing entirely, and the manual option didn't show either the sda or the sdb SATA disk drives (intel chipset). It looked normal on a system with only 1 SATA drive."
So there we have it. Not my fault at all. Sorry about that. I will, however, be trying Karmic Koala again, but not until December, as suggested. I'll be sure to let you know how I get on.
And here's a question for you: How on earth is a potential Linux user to know they should check out launchpad.net, or similar sites to discover why things don't work? If Linux is to succeed as a mass-market OS, it must move away from the realm of the hobbyist and into the mainstream.
This is in reference to Ubuntu is still rubbish
source:tgdaily