Sean Middleditch

How exactly does one have 20 years experience in Java or PHP?

I’m hoping the intermediary just got the quote wrong, because the alternative would be that our new hire is from the future, and I’m just not prepared to accept such a possibility.

Burgundavia: yeah, adding a new package management front-end would be a nightmare change in an LTS release. That would be like completely changing the installer in an LTS release, and surely Ubuntu wouldn’t ever… oh, wait.

So my roommate, who is setting up a Linux computer for a family member (their kids keep screwing up the Windows install by downloading tons of adware/spyware/virus crap), is using Ubuntu. After finally getting it installed, I commented to him that KDE is more configurable and a little closer to Windows. We converted the install to Kubuntu with a quick apt-get install kbuntu-desktop and a few other startup changes, and away he went.

So he comments to me this morning, “I think I’m going to install GNOME back as the default desktop. It’s easier to configure.”

I had a bit of a time trying to figure out what the heck he meant. GNOME’s lack of configurability is, of course, KDE fans’ most favorite design principle to flame.

“What do you mean?” I ask him.

“I can’t figure out how the hell to set things up,” he replies with an ashamed look. “I’m new to Linux.”

I nod. “KDE is vastly more configurable than GNOME, though. You can get it to look and work however you think is best for your family there.”

A quick laugh, followed by, “sure, if I could figure out where the hell the right settings are. There’s too much crap in KDE to sort through! I know the setting is there, somewhere, but I don’t have a clue where! GNOME is easier to configure.”

Even being a GNOME user, I found that rather surprising. Of all the reasons I’d expect someone to prefer GNOME over KDE, I never expected that one. Goes to show that the “less is more” approach is as valid as the GNOME developers expect it to be.

Another rant. I must be extra cranky lately or something.

This time, Ubuntu’s installer is under fire. Several releases back, Ubuntu switched to using a LiveCD as both their demo platform and as their primary installation platform.

What a fucking disaster.

LiveCD’s in general take a while to boot. They’ve got a huge OS to load, a ton of applications which aren’t even that useful on a LiveCD (the amount of configuration a heavyweight mail client like Evolution needs is just ridiculous in a LiveCD environment), CD drives aren’t particularly fast, and RAM is often a lot tighter than than most people would prefer even when the filesystem isn’t copied into it. Even on a nice dual-core machine with 2GB of RAM, the LiveCD can take a while to boot. A painfully long while On an old Pentium II with 256MB of RAM? You’re going to be waiting a good long while. I’ve downloaded and installed FreeBSD on a weaker machine in less time than it’s taking Ubuntu’s LiveCD to finish booting on some not-too-old machines, and booting is just the first step of many to get a usable system actually installed.

If you’re lucky enough for the damn thing to ever finish booting at all.

It has gotten down to the point where the LiveCD installer is useless to me. I can’t get Ubuntu to install on the vast majority of machines I have access to using the LiveCD. It takes forever to boot, it locks during booting, it locks after booting, it locks during installation, it takes forever for installation to finish, or some other problem or issue pops up that didn’t exist in the old installer or the current “alternative installer.” The alternative installer has its own set of issues, though, which may be due to the less extensive testing it receives during development periods. I’m staring at a lockup on one machine right now from the alternative installer, and I’ve seen similar lockups on completely different machines installed from completely different CDs burned from independently downloaded ISOs from at least the last two releases.

Ubuntu is a nice OS, once you get it going. The major fuckup of switching to a slow, flaky, and mostly pointless LiveCD installer is killing any love I had for the distribution very quickly, and the pathetic state of the actual usable (when it doesn’t lock) alternative installer is making it difficult for me to even TRY to love Ubuntu, since I can’t get the damned thing installed on half the machines I’ve try to put it on.

What is the point of the LiveCD installer? It’s a neat toy, and that’s about it. I haven’t once ever had a need to use the LiveCD to actually do anything useful (a text-mode rescue CD on the other hand is an invaluable tool that nobody should be without… those usually have more of the actual tools you need than the Ubuntu LiveCD, and they don’t take 3 minutes to boot on a several-year-old hardware), and I’ve never found a need to wow and impress friends or family with a running Linux desktop on a LiveCD. If anything, I’d be embarrased to show them a LiveCD, since it’s just going to make them think Linux is slow and buggy.

I see LiveCDs as a fad, and not one of the more useful kinds. They are not useful to most people, they certainly aren’t ideal installer platforms, and yet they’re everywhere these days.

Let the madness end! Please ship the next version of Ubuntu with an installer that actually bloody works… please!

/me goes to reboot a machine that locked up 85% into the Ubuntu install process.