Dump Ubuntu and get Xubuntu
Yellow Cat
Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
Get Xubuntu instead.
Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while
conserving system resources."
I can testify to that being absolutely true.
They also say that it "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more
performance out of their hardware."
To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like
to sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple
operation.
http://magikomputer.blogspot.com/2007/08/dump-ubuntu-and-get-xubuntu.html
andrew
> Ubuntu sucks.
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
> Get Xubuntu instead.
You are being a little harsh on Ubuntu + Gnome (is this what you
mean?). If your Acer had reasonable specs, and by this I guess ram
would be the most important in a modern machine, it should run Gnome
or KDE fairly well.
> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
Can't argue there, I use xfce myself and it runs like greased
lightning. I guess one trade-off that you must be aware of is that
xfce is certainly less feature-rich than either Gnome or KDE. I don't
find this a problem but I guess some might.
> The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
> which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
> lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
> productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while
> conserving system resources."
> I can testify to that being absolutely true.
> They also say that it "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
> thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more
> performance out of their hardware."
I think there is also a significant number of people who think some of
the newer versions of KDE in particular are starting to look very
windows-like. And huge installations required. I installed kde with
slackware 12 not too long ago: it is beautiful but it is huge and
incredibly complex. But I guess this is a _choice_ that all linux
users can make.
> To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like
> to sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple
> operation.
Can't agree with you there though. Decent computing power should run
kde or gnome with no great drama.
Andrew
--
Among the tales of sorrow and of ruin that come down to us
from the darkness of those days there are yet some in which
amid weeping there is joy and under the shadow of death light
endures ...
Christopher Hunter
> Ubuntu sucks.
Not on reasonably specified machines.
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop.
That suggests that either your hardware is faulty or has insufficient RAM.
> Get Xubuntu instead.
Not a bad suggestion - xfce is /really/ quick, but lacks many of the
features of kde or Gnome.
C.
J.O. Aho
> Ubuntu sucks.
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
> Get Xubuntu instead.
>
>
> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
> The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
If you uninstall xfce and install ctwm, you get even less CPU demanding
desktop that is less bloated.
--
//Aho
Yellow Cat
That's the point I am trying to make. That there are many users that
don't want to "make choices".
And the System is unbelievably complex, with far too many redundant
options, specially for beginners.
80% of those beginners don't give a damn about fancy icons and stuff
like that.
They don't like overcrowded menus full of options they don't
understand.
They just want a System that is simple to use, fast and that gets
things done, without any need for them to be tweaking any unknown
feature.
The ones I know are very happy with Xubuntu, none with Ubuntu.
And yes, GNOME and KDE are starting to look very much like Windows.
And no, Windows is not friendly either.
As for more advanced users, please explain in which way "xfce is
certainly less feature-rich than either Gnome or KDE"
Rephrasing the question:
What can KDE or GNOME do that xfce can't, given the same level of
expertise?
Thank you.
"Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."
Login: yes
Password: i don't have one
"password is incorrect"
Login: yes
Password: incorrect
Ottavio Caruso
> Ubuntu sucks.
Ok
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
Ok
> Get Xubuntu instead.
Get Linux instead.
Slackware, Red Hat, Suse, Debian have been there for 15 years.
Canonical, a bunch of uneducated but arrogant amateurs, have been
there for 3 years and they have already created amok in the Debian
community, reinvented the wheel (badly), dumbed down the user
interface, given Linux a bad name.
The best comment I have ever read about Ubuntu:
>From: Niki Kovacs <mic...@mouse.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
>Subject: Re: Slackware versus Ubuntu, nice article with valid arguments
>
>And another thing, I always ended up really and truly *hating* the
>Ubuntus. Sometimes you tend to think: they took a working Debian
>release, added tons of bugs and put a shitty brown coating around it to
>attract people like flies.
Chris Cox
...
> Get Linux instead.
>
> Slackware, Red Hat, Suse, Debian have been there for 15 years.
> Canonical, a bunch of uneducated but arrogant amateurs, have been
> there for 3 years and they have already created amok in the Debian
> community, reinvented the wheel (badly), dumbed down the user
> interface, given Linux a bad name.
Ouch. Pretty strong words.
I think Ubuntu (in particular) is one of the best communities around
Linux ever. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But you know, so does
Red Hat. I don't think your statements are warranted at all.
I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does, but they have put together
quite a distribution over the years. And they are working to make
it better and better (not unlike the other distributions).
Have they really cause that many problems for Debian? Shoot,
if anything, it's helped but a Debian derived distribution in
the hands of many people who could only spell r -- p -- m in the
past. I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> The best comment I have ever read about Ubuntu:
>
>> From: Niki Kovacs <mic...@mouse.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
>> Subject: Re: Slackware versus Ubuntu, nice article with valid arguments
>>
>> And another thing, I always ended up really and truly *hating* the
>> Ubuntus. Sometimes you tend to think: they took a working Debian
>> release, added tons of bugs and put a shitty brown coating around it to
>> attract people like flies.
Some of the bugs are caused by introducing newer versions of software
and trying to introduce new ideas into the distro. Yes... sometimes
that doesn't work out totally, but it does help evolve Linux as a whole.
Getting a Linux distro (any distro) into as many hands as possible helps
with the shaking out of problems across the board.
I think your assessment was over exaggerated.
Chris
Yellow Cat
Are you using CTWM?
I've just visited their official website and it doesn't look very
inspiring, to tell you the truth ..
http://ctwm.free.lp.se/
But I don't really care about how "cool" it looks, but rather about
speed and functionality.
The current release is a Tar-ball with CTWM 3.8a (721K).
That's slim ...
xubunt6
> On 17 oct, 06:43, "J.O. Aho" <u...@example.net> wrote:
>> Yellow Cat wrote:
>>> Ubuntu sucks.
>>> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
>>> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
>>> Get Xubuntu instead.
>>> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
>>> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>>> The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
>> If you uninstall xfce and install ctwm, you get even less CPU demanding
>> desktop that is less bloated.
Yee, another (forced) xubuntu fan???
I went there voluntarily ... ;-)
--
Xubunt6
"Xubuntu 6 just installed ..."
AHappyCamper
the games...
I run http://www.mepis.org because:
A. it has access to the Debian, Ubuntu, and the Mepis repositories.
B. I can have identical 32 and 64 bit versions on my computers.
C. it runs on hardware that chokes the _ _ _ buntu distros.
D. there are communities of forums, for different levels of users
E. it got better reviews from many experienced GNU/Linux experts.
I maintain an academy and it runs Fedora Core 7, on 48 nodes, and IPcop
on two boxes, plus, the quad server runs a Red Hat Server Linux.
No problems since install in 2006, with FC6. For added fun, DSL 3.3 and
3.4 suffice, as does Frenzy. All the teachers and students love KDE.
But, the great thing about Open Source is that you don't have to use it!
It is free choice! But, it is appreciated when an itemized and detailed
critique is made of any program or application.
J.O. Aho
> On 17 oct, 06:43, "J.O. Aho" <u...@example.net> wrote:
>> Yellow Cat wrote:
>>> Ubuntu sucks.
>>> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
>>> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
>>> Get Xubuntu instead.
>>> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
>>> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>>> The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
>> If you uninstall xfce and install ctwm, you get even less CPU demanding
>> desktop that is less bloated.
Yes, I do use it on those computers with less RAM and CPU power.
> I've just visited their official website and it doesn't look very
> inspiring, to tell you the truth ..
I can agree that those "themes" don't look that nice, but it's quite simple to
make your own nice looking using images.
> http://ctwm.free.lp.se/
> But I don't really care about how "cool" it looks, but rather about
> speed and functionality.
IMHO it has all you need and a bit more too, myself I use less than half the
functionality in my ctwm installs.
--
//Aho
spi...@freenet.co.uk
Personally, I'd go with blackbox.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
measekite
Chris Cox wrote:
Ottavio Caruso wrote: ...Get Linux instead. Slackware, Red Hat, Suse, Debian have been there for 15 years. Canonical, a bunch of uneducated but arrogant amateurs, have been there for 3 years and they have already created amok in the Debian community, reinvented the wheel (badly), dumbed down the user interface, given Linux a bad name.Ouch. Pretty strong words. I think Ubuntu (in particular) is one of the best communities around Linux ever. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But you know, so does Red Hat. I don't think your statements are warranted at all. I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does, but they have put together quite a distribution over the years. And they are working to make it better and better (not unlike the other distributions).
SelfSearcher
> Ubuntu sucks.
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
Ubuntu? I mean: XUbuntu is Ubuntu wih XFCE.
> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>
And what about a decent computer? Maybe your computer is simply not able
to run KDE or even GNOME decently. So please stop saying Ubutnu sucks.
It is only your fault if you can use XFCE only.
P.S: In Gutsy, Network Manager sucks. LOL
SelfS.
xubunt6
> Yellow Cat ha scritto:
>> Ubuntu sucks.
>> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> If you think that Ubuntu is not functional, why should you use...
> Ubuntu? I mean: XUbuntu is Ubuntu wih XFCE.
> And what about a decent computer? Maybe your computer is simply not able
> to run KDE or even GNOME decently. So please stop saying Ubutnu sucks.
> It is only your fault if you can use XFCE only.
>
on an amd 2100, 1,25 GB ram, xu 6 lts flies like a rocket ...
i wanted a rocket ...
SelfSearcher
> on an amd 2100, 1,25 GB ram, xu 6 lts flies like a rocket ...
> i wanted a rocket ...
I wanted a rocket too. My only choice was Gentoo with everything
(hopefully) working, compiled for my Ahtlon64. It worked fine but I had
to recompile every new version of everything so I got bored.
Your choice is correct but in the end you are using Ubuntu, not a distro
optimized for your PC (with only the stuff you need).
SelfS.
xubunt6
> xubunt6 ha scritto:
>> on an amd 2100, 1,25 GB ram, xu 6 lts flies like a rocket ...
>> i wanted a rocket ...
>
>
> optimized for your PC (with only the stuff you need).
>
> SelfS.
On red hat, ubuntu (and winxp) i got buried under the (application) icons.
xubuntu solves that too ... ;-)
1001 Webs
> Yellow Cat wrote:
> > Ubuntu sucks.
> > Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> > At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
> > Get Xubuntu instead.
>
> > Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> > requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>
> > The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
> > which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
> > lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
> > productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while
> > conserving system resources."
> > I can testify to that being absolutely true.
> > They also say that it "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
> > thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more
> > performance out of their hardware."
> > To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like
> > to sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple
> > operation.
>
>
> I do enjoy KDE, and XFCE, both. For the 'children', it is KDE and all
> the games...
>
> I run http://www.mepis.orgbecause:
> A. it has access to the Debian, Ubuntu, and the Mepis repositories.
> B. I can have identical 32 and 64 bit versions on my computers.
> C. it runs on hardware that chokes the _ _ _ buntu distros.
> D. there are communities of forums, for different levels of users
> E. it got better reviews from many experienced GNU/Linux experts.
>
> I maintain an academy and it runs Fedora Core 7, on 48 nodes, and IPcop
> on two boxes, plus, the quad server runs a Red Hat Server Linux.
>
> No problems since install in 2006, with FC6. For added fun, DSL 3.3 and
> 3.4 suffice, as does Frenzy. All the teachers and students love KDE.
>
> But, the great thing about Open Source is that you don't have to use it!
> It is free choice! But, it is appreciated when an itemized and detailed
> critique is made of any program or application.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't like KDE, I find GNOME passable and
love Xfce.
I am a person that loves the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach,
whether be it in Design or Computing.
And when you have that Simple Base implanted and working well in a
different number of environments, then you can begin expanding and
ornamenting, if that's your desire.
I think there should be different options available BEFORE you install
any OS.
Do you want a fully functional Multimedia Station or are you going to
use the computer to just write e-mails and surf the Internet?
etc,etc,etc.
I like Xubuntu because I can't catch up with it (it is faster than me)
and I don't have to wait for some process to complete.
An it's got everything I need. The only software I miss is a decent
mp3 Player.
1001 Webs
I have an old PC which is a perfect candidate for ctwm.
I love resurrecting things.
1001 Webs
> J.O. Aho <u...@example.net> did eloquently scribble:
That one looks much nicer.
But Latest release: 0.70.1
Published on Nov 3rd, 2005
http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net/
Well, if it ain't broke why fix it?
1001 Webs
> Yellow Cat ha scritto:> Ubuntu sucks.
> > Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
>
> If you think that Ubuntu is not functional, why should you use...
> Ubuntu? I mean: XUbuntu is Ubuntu wih XFCE.
>
> > Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> > requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>
> And what about a decent computer? Maybe your computer is simply not able
> to run KDE or even GNOME decently. So please stop saying Ubutnu sucks.
just kidding ...
> It is only your fault if you can use XFCE only.
Xfce ROCKS, Xfce ROCKS, Xfce ROCKS, Xfce ROCKS, Xfce ROCKS,
> P.S: In Gutsy, Network Manager sucks. LOL
Gutsy Gibbon ain't cool, Gutsy Gibbon ain't cool, Gutsy Gibbon ain't
cool, Gutsy Gibbon ain't cool, Gutsy Gibbon ain't cool,
Mark South
> An it's got everything I need. The only software I miss is a decent
> mp3 Player.
XMMS plays nicely with Xubuntu.
Mark South
Don't give up your day jobs until your band gets a new lyricist :-)
xubunt6
> On Oct 19, 2:59 am, AHappyCamper <@thelandfill.com> wrote:
>> Yellow Cat wrote:
>>> Ubuntu sucks.
>>> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
>>> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
>>> Get Xubuntu instead.
> love Xfce.
<cut>
> I like Xubuntu because I can't catch up with it (it is faster than me)
> and I don't have to wait for some process to complete.
> An it's got everything I need. The only software I miss is a decent
> mp3 Player.
mp3 player?
my audio / video installation manual plays mp3, dvd, etc.
below what i added to xu 6 lts, concerning sound & video:
Audio and video: (ubuntu) libxine1c2
Audio and video: (ubuntu) not needed: libxine-dev
required: libxine-extracodecs
Audio and video: (ubuntu) xine-ui
Audio and video for Firefox: (ubuntu) totem-xine-firefox-plugin
required: (ubuntu) totem-xine
DVD: (ubuntu) dvdrtools
DVD / CD: (ubuntu) graveman: Graphical tool to burn dvd and cdi, made
with gtk.
required: (ubuntu) dvd+rw-tools
VCD: (ubuntu) vcdtools: VideoCD menu.
VCD: (ubuntu) vcdimager: VideoCD image mastering and ripping tool.???
required: libvcdinfo0
--
Xubunt6
"Xubuntu 6 just installed ..."
Less gui, less icons, less trouble?
Sir Robin
wrote:
>Ubuntu sucks.
>Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
>At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
>Get Xubuntu instead.
*snip*
>The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
>which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
>lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
>productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while
>conserving system resources."
>I can testify to that being absolutely true.
>They also say that it "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
>thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more
>performance out of their hardware."
>To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like
>to sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple
>operation.
If you really want a lightweight desktop linux for low-end machines,
not just one that claims to be one, try Damn Small Linux. Light enough
to power a 486 with 16Mb RAM, yet very usefull and can be installed as
a debian compliant system. By default uses fluxbox as window manager.
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: s...@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku|*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis.
Ian Smith
> Ubuntu sucks.
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
> Get Xubuntu instead.
>
>
> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>
> The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
> which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
> lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
> productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while
> conserving system resources."
> I can testify to that being absolutely true.
> They also say that it "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
> thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more
> performance out of their hardware."
> To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like
> to sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple
> operation.
>
> http://magikomputer.blogspot.com/2007/08/dump-ubuntu-and-get-xubuntu.html
Well, I just moved from Xubuntu 7.04 to Ubuntu 7.10 on my 4-year-old
machine, and it works better, with fewer glitches, and similar speed, so
far. Unless my Xubuntu setup was less than optimal in the first place.
1001 Webs
Thanks for graveman.
I couldn't get Xfburn to work.
Update:
(graveman:6536): GLib-CRITICAL **: unquote_string_inplace: assertion
`err == NULL || *err == NULL' failed
As for mp3 Player I'm using rythmbox
I'll give totem a try
1001 Webs
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:49:06 -0000, Yellow Cat <1001w...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ubuntu sucks.
> >Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional.
> >At least version 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop
> >Get Xubuntu instead.
>
> *snip*
>
> >The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
> >which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
> >lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
> >productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while
> >conserving system resources."
> >I can testify to that being absolutely true.
> >They also say that it "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines,
> >thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more
> >performance out of their hardware."
> >To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like
> >to sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple
> >operation.
>
> If you really want a lightweight desktop linux for low-end machines,
> not just one that claims to be one, try Damn Small Linux. Light enough
> to power a 486 with 16Mb RAM, yet very usefull and can be installed as
> a debian compliant system. By default uses fluxbox as window manager.
And it can be booted from a USB PenDrive
This is the Featured Desktop applications used in Damn Small Linux:
http://damnsmalllinux.org/applications.html
Pity it doesn't include a mp3 player ...
1001 Webs
I think I know what's happening.
In graveman I get:
"Communication error with cdrecord
Check that you have access to cdrecord 2.0"
And Synaptic Package Manager says that cdrecord installed is:
"This is a dummy package to ease the transition to wodim, the fork of
cdrecord.
It provides a cdrecord symlink to wodim for compatibility purposes.
Please use wodim instead of cdrecord."
Anyone knows how to fix this?
Mark South
> This is the Featured Desktop applications used in Damn Small Linux:
> http://damnsmalllinux.org/applications.html
>
> Pity it doesn't include a mp3 player ...
Last time I booted DSL, it had XMMS included.
Admittedly, that was v2.something and 4.0 came out yesterday....
Pete LaGrange
>> I couldn't get Xfburn to work.
>> Update:
>> (graveman:6536): GLib-CRITICAL **: unquote_string_inplace: assertion
>> `err == NULL || *err == NULL' failed
>
> I think I know what's happening.
>
> In graveman I get:
> "Communication error with cdrecord
> Check that you have access to cdrecord 2.0"
>
> And Synaptic Package Manager says that cdrecord installed is:
> "This is a dummy package to ease the transition to wodim, the fork of
> cdrecord.
> It provides a cdrecord symlink to wodim for compatibility purposes.
> Please use wodim instead of cdrecord."
>
> Anyone knows how to fix this?
Had a similar problem with cdrecord, wodim and xcdroast. Was solved with
an update of xcdroast.
--
Pete LaGrange
loyalty above all, save honor
<http://68.197.144.194:7776/index.html>
Florian Diesch
audacious <http://www.audacious-media-player.org/> is a XMMS clone based
on Gtk2 (instead of the old Gtk1 that XMMS is based on)
Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
xubunt6
Yes, as it says:
use = install wodim. (an commandline cd write tool too?)
cdrecord is followed up by wodim, as it looks. I use xu 606, my dapper
repository still shows cdrecord, not wodim.
--
Xubunt6
"Xubuntu 6 just installed ..."
Less gui, less icons, more speed ... :-)
SINNER
Then go with Fluxbox
http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/
or Openbox
http://icculus.org/openbox/index.php/Main_Page
--
David
Joerg Schilling
xubunt6 <xub...@none-mail.nl> wrote:
>> In graveman I get:
>> "Communication error with cdrecord
>> Check that you have access to cdrecord 2.0"
>>
>> And Synaptic Package Manager says that cdrecord installed is:
>> "This is a dummy package to ease the transition to wodim, the fork of
>> cdrecord.
>> It provides a cdrecord symlink to wodim for compatibility purposes.
>> Please use wodim instead of cdrecord."
>>
>> Anyone knows how to fix this?
>>
>
>Yes, as it says:
>
>use = install wodim. (an commandline cd write tool too?)
>
>cdrecord is followed up by wodim, as it looks. I use xu 606, my dapper
>repository still shows cdrecord, not wodim.
This is not true: wodim is a dead fork from cdrecord.
It first appeared in September 2006, published some releases to create the
impresssion of an active development and finally died on May 5th 2007.
wodim never did offer any feature not found in cdrecord for a long time
and wodim is full of bugs compared to cdrecord.
Ubuntu gives you the ability to install the real cdrecord, it is your choice.
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schi...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
1001 Webs
> In article <4720f09b$0$24395$5fc3...@news.tiscali.nl>,
>
>
>
> xubunt6 <xubu...@none-mail.nl> wrote:
> >> In graveman I get:
> >> "Communication error with cdrecord
> >> Check that you have access to cdrecord 2.0"
>
> >> And Synaptic Package Manager says that cdrecord installed is:
> >> "This is a dummy package to ease the transition to wodim, the fork of
> >> cdrecord.
> >> It provides a cdrecord symlink to wodim for compatibility purposes.
> >> Please use wodim instead of cdrecord."
>
> >> Anyone knows how to fix this?
>
> >Yes, as it says:
>
> >use = install wodim. (an commandline cd write tool too?)
>
> >cdrecord is followed up by wodim, as it looks. I use xu 606, my dapper
> >repository still shows cdrecord, not wodim.
>
> This is not true: wodim is a dead fork from cdrecord.
>
> It first appeared in September 2006, published some releases to create the
> impresssion of an active development and finally died on May 5th 2007.
>
> wodim never did offer any feature not found in cdrecord for a long time
> and wodim is full of bugs compared to cdrecord.
>
> Ubuntu gives you the ability to install the real cdrecord, it is your choice.
But Synaptic Package Manager lists it as installed.
This is the message displayed:
"Dummy transition package for wodim
This is a dummy package to ease the transition to wodim, the fork of
cdrecord. It provides a cdrecord symlink to wodim for compatibility
purposes. Please use wodim instead of cdrecord."
> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/
I understand now.
"In autumn 2005 and early spring 2006, a group of Debian maintainers
started to attack the cdrtools project.
On May 15th 2006, most projects from the cdrtools project bundle have
been relicensed under CDDL (giving more freedom to users than the GPL
does). At the same time, an important amount of additional code (DVD
support code from Jörg Schilling and a Reed Solomon decoder from Heiko
Eißfeldt) has been added to the freely published sources.
In summer 2006, the attacks from the group of Debian maintainers
escalated and in September 2006, these people created something they
call a fork from cdrtools. They soon added a lot of bugs and this way
turned the "fork" into a questionable experiment. The last work on
this "fork" has been done eight months later on May 6th 2007, then the
leader of the attacks stopped his efforts.
Although there is no "project" activity on the "fork" anymore, there
are still people who spread incorrect claims on both the original
project and the fork. Please help the free original project by
correcting these incorrect claims.
Many Linux distributions now come with broken variants of cdrtools
If you are on Debian, RedHat, SuSE and some other Linux
distributions, you need to take extreme care as these distributions
recently started to replace cdrtools by a fork that is based on an
outdated version of cdrtools. This fork did not fix bugs but rather
introduced new bugs that never have been in the original software.
For other Linux distributions, I suggest to have a look at /usr/bin/
cdrecord and check whether this is a link to another program or
whether there is an original program file. Also call "cdrecord -
version" to check what version you are using. The affected
distributions replaced all programs from cdrtools (cdrecord, cdda2wav,
readcd, mkisofs, ...) by programs from the fork."
"How do I find out whether I am running a recent original version of
cdrtools?
Call "cdrecord -version" and check the output. If you see something
like:
Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01a32 (i386-pc-linux) Copyright (C)
1995-2007 Jörg Schilling
If you are running the original software, also check the other
programs to have the same version number in order to be 100% sure. If
you see version numbers below 2.01.01a09 (including 2.01), you are
running outdated software that needs an update if you are running
Linux-2.6.8.1 or newer.
Starting with 2.01.01a32, all original programs contain the year 2007
and Jörg Schilling in the first line of the -version output. As an
Example, "mkisofs -version" outputs:
mkisofs 2.01.01a32 (i386-pc-linux) Copyright (C) 1993-1997 Eric
Youngdale (C) 1997-2007 Jörg Schilling "
So I have called "cdrecord -version" and I get:
"cdrecord -version
Cdrecord-yelling-line-to-tell-frontends-to-use-it-like-version
2.01.01a03-dvd
Wodim 1.1.2
Copyright (C) 2006 Cdrkit suite contributors
Based on works from Joerg Schilling, Copyright (C) 1995-2006, J.
Schilling"
I then tried to download from:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/
and it does not work.
"The connection has timed out
The server at ftp.berlios.de is taking too long to respond."
Dead end?
Man, this is just plain absurd.
All I want to do is burn a CD...
> --
> EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
> j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
> schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
jonbey
is very fast. However, I did also install it on a 2nd HDD of a P4 pc,
and it was slow. No idea why, maybe issues with it being on a slave
HDD. Hardware could be an issue, maybe some laptops are not ideal for
Ubuntu. Don't blame the OS until you are sure that your hardware is
compatible,
Cheers
Jon.
http://www.webologist.co.uk/
1001 Webs
Update:
I have upgraded Xubuntu to Gusty 7.1 and it comes with several DVD
burning programs included:
Brasero and Graveman as far as I can see in the menu,
1001 Webs
> I am running ubuntu 7.04 on an old Athlon 1ghz pc, with 756RAM, and it
> is very fast. However, I did also install it on a 2nd HDD of a P4 pc,
> and it was slow. No idea why, maybe issues with it being on a slave
> HDD. Hardware could be an issue, maybe some laptops are not ideal for
> Ubuntu. Don't blame the OS until you are sure that your hardware is
> compatible,
My hardware is an Acer TravelMate standard laptop,
It looks like compatible to me.
Darren Salt
> On Oct 30, 11:15 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 12:55 pm, j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
[snip]
>> But Synaptic Package Manager lists it as installed.
>> This is the message displayed:
>> "Dummy transition package for wodim
>> This is a dummy package to ease the transition to wodim, the fork of
>> cdrecord. It provides a cdrecord symlink to wodim for compatibility
>> purposes. Please use wodim instead of cdrecord."
>>> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/
>> I understand now.
>> "In autumn 2005 and early spring 2006, a group of Debian maintainers
>> started to attack the cdrtools project.
[snip]
>> Although there is no "project" activity on the "fork" anymore, there are
>> still people who spread incorrect claims on both the original project and
>> the fork. Please help the free original project by correcting these
>> incorrect claims.
That'd be ones such as "cdrecord is redistributable"... when I last looked at
cdrecord, it was still unredistributable due to licence conflicts within the
tarball.
(We've had this flame war before. Responses from a certain person will be
ignored...)
[snip Schilling FUD]
[snip]
> I have upgraded Xubuntu to Gusty 7.1 and it comes with several DVD
> burning programs included:
> Brasero and Graveman as far as I can see in the menu,
Well... let's just say that I used wodim 1.1.6 a few days ago without any
problems :-)
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Output less CO2 => avoid boiling weather. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.
I'd like to, but there are important world issues that need worrying about.
Joerg Schilling
1001 Webs <1001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I then tried to download from:
>ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/
>and it does not work.
>
>"The connection has timed out
>The server at ftp.berlios.de is taking too long to respond."
>
>Dead end?
No, you seem to have a defective firewall.
The server works just fine.
If you cannot get your sysadmin to fix your firewall, try to
run ftp in passive mode.....
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schi...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
Joerg Schilling
Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote:
>>> "In autumn 2005 and early spring 2006, a group of Debian maintainers
>>> started to attack the cdrtools project.
>[snip]
>>> Although there is no "project" activity on the "fork" anymore, there are
>>> still people who spread incorrect claims on both the original project and
>>> the fork. Please help the free original project by correcting these
>>> incorrect claims.
>
>That'd be ones such as "cdrecord is redistributable"... when I last looked at
>cdrecord, it was still unredistributable due to licence conflicts within the
>tarball.
What do you expect from spreading this lie?
The official cdrtools source is really free and open and fully redistributable.
There is no license conflict in the tarball!
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schi...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
LittleGorm
> Ubuntu sucks.
> Yes, it does. It is slow, buggy and not functional. At least version
> 7.04, running on a 2-years-old Acer laptop Get Xubuntu instead.
>
>
> Although Xubuntu is based on Ubuntu, it is much lighter on system
> requirements and far more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE.
>
> The reason for that is that Xubuntu uses the Xfce Desktop environment,
> which, according to Olivier Fourdan, creator of Xfce, "Xfce is a
> lightweight desktop environment for various *NIX systems. Designed for
> productivity, it loads and executes applications fast, while conserving
> system resources."
> I can testify to that being absolutely true. They also say that it
> "makes it ideal for old or low-end machines, thin-client networks, or
> for those who would like to get more performance out of their hardware."
> To which I would add that it is also ideal for those that don't like to
> sit in front of a computer waiting for it to perform a simple operation.
>
> http://magikomputer.blogspot.com/2007/08/dump-ubuntu-and-get-
xubuntu.html
Well I don't know about that. I am running Ubuntu 7.1 on a Dell Dimension
4100 with a 900Mhz pentium and 256Mb mem. It is perfectly adequate for
all the things that I want to do, ie. surf, email,download music, play
DVDs and MP3s, etc. I doubt that I could edit a movie but then I couldn't
do that in Windows either. I have no need for super 3D art, but my
limitation there is the cheap video card I put in when my old original
crapped out. Now running a $90 nVidia CompUSA card. I am running Ubuntu
gnome and it seems to be doing fine.
Eventually I suppose I will build another computer with more horsepower
and I intend to put linux on that. I am moving away from Windows.