Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Wants Your Feedback To Help Prepare Ubuntu 20.04 LTS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by muncrief View Post

    I think we may be talking about two different things here. I'm talking about cloning the latest Torvald's git and compiling the kernel, not installing prepackaged Ubuntu kernels. And of course applying custom patches would be critical, as that's why most people would need to compile the kernel.

    Or am I misunderstanding, and the packages you reference are ones you compiled yourself?
    Well, you wrote "sometimes with no patches". What's the point of compiling the kernel instead of using (as much up to date) prepackaged Ubuntu kernels if you don't modify it?

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Mez' View Post

      Well, you wrote "sometimes with no patches". What's the point of compiling the kernel instead of using (as much up to date) prepackaged Ubuntu kernels if you don't modify it?
      I said "sometimes with no patches other than for something I'm specifically trying to fix"

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by muncrief View Post

        Well, I was never able to apply the plethora of patches, known as Ubuntu Sauce, to a kernel from mainline git. And I tried running straight mainline kernels to no avail. But this was years ago, and I probably only gave it an earnest try 5 or 6 times. So as I said things may have changed.

        However I regularly run mainline kernels on Manjaro, sometimes with no patches other than for something I'm specifically trying to fix. For example I'm running 5.4.2 straight from Torvald's git, with the NVME temperature sensor patch, right now.

        Could I do that with Ubuntu now?
        It most definitely worked fine on 16.04LTS for me. I just downloaded the vanilla kernels from kernel.org, compiled and run with it. I think that they included much more patched back in the day than what they do now.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

          It most definitely worked fine on 16.04LTS for me. I just downloaded the vanilla kernels from kernel.org, compiled and run with it. I think that they included much more patched back in the day than what they do now.
          Oh wow, that's great news! I think I'll install Ubuntu on a VM over the next few weeks and check it out again. Thank you for the information.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by johan.ehnberg View Post
            For LTS server, my wishlist is...
            • WireGuard
              ...
            Wireguard should come with kernel 5.6 if you don't like the DKMS-way. Maybe look into HWE after 20.04 release to get the 5.6 sooner.

            In general it seems like wishes fairly easy done with Ansible or whatever CMS

            Comment


            • #46
              My wish would be that they would have a look at their own bug tracker and start fixing the thousands of open bugs.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                I want good out-of-the-box support for Flatpak so it just works without me first having to install Flatpak.
                I could agree on that... but... I wish somebody else said that.
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                As for Snap, it might be great, I don't know. But don't push it on me when it leads to a worse experience, such as for GNOME Calculator that takes a long time to start.
                No, thanks. Snap is a problem.

                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                It sucks to have to wait for updates to outdated software. Sometimes it feels like Windows is the best platform for open source software, when you're on Ubuntu with old versions of software.
                The reason is because Ubuntu isn't a rolling-release distro. Rolling-release distros break faster, and more so if user apps are part of the system (in most cases they are). I wish it was like this:

                - System layer that is a bit outdated but stable
                - User layer that consists of Flatpaks or something else (and can remain up-to-date)

                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                We don't have any Photoshop, or other software, all we got is GIMP, so I would love for it to see more development and be improved.
                GIMP is Photoshop 20 years ago. I would prefer to use Krita instead.

                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                I miss some software such as GitHub Desktop. We have Visual Studio Code which is awesome, but it still not Visual Studio though.
                I don't understand why couldn't they compile it for Linux. Come on. Almost everyone using GitHub uses Linux, but they only focus on themselves which probably use macOS to look "cool".

                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                I wish the dash animation in GNOME was like the one on Android instead of the folding one we have now.
                I wish there was a setting for that so users could choose.
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                I also wish GNOME Shell was more stable, maybe written in Rust.
                ...and running on your $35 RISC-V board with 64GB RAM that outperforms a Threadripper and is 100% open hardware.

                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                I wish the web browser, the email client, the PDF viewer, and the media player were sandboxed so malicious files and scripts cant hack the computer.
                I wish we could sandbox a sandbox and put it into a virtual machine that is into another virtual machine so they really cant hack the computer.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Mario Junior View Post
                  Appimage >>>>> abism >>>>>>>> snap and flatpak
                  abism? What is that?....

                  Also, nope. AppImage means:
                  - "making it executable" like, expect Average Joe to know how to make something executable.
                  - Duplication of every single library, causing AppImages to be much bigger than their Windows/macOS counterparts.
                  - No Qt skinning. Boring Plastik theme.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X