www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
Ubuntu 17.10: return of the GNOME
By special contributor Moochman on 2017-12-02 00:06:57

Ars Technica once again provides us with an in-depth Ubuntu review:

If you've been following the Linux world at all, you know this has been an entire year for spring cleaning. Early in 2017, Canonical stopped work on its homegrown Unity desktop, Mir display server, and its larger vision of 'convergence' - a unified interface for Ubuntu for phones, tablets, and desktops.

And now almost exactly six years after Ubuntu first switched from GNOME 2 to the Unity desktop, that has been dropped, too. The distro is back to GNOME, and Canonical recently released Ubuntu 17.10, a major update with some significant changes coming to the popular Ubuntu Linux operating system.

In light of the GNOME switch, this release seems like more of a homecoming than an entirely new voyage. But that said, Ubuntu 17.10 simultaneously feels very much like the start of a new voyage for Ubuntu.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-60 -- 61-68
.
RE[2]: No difference
By zima on 2017-12-05 00:28:37
And it can be irritating for everybody. I still haven't quite gotten used to the moved refresh button in new Firefox... :P
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[5]: No difference
By zima on 2017-12-05 00:29:36
I quite succesfully used a 192 MiB XP machine for browsing, ~office tasks and games...
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[6]: No difference
By Morgan on 2017-12-05 01:00:35
Same, I have a Dell Latitude CPx with 512MB PC133 on a Pentium III 500MHz. It is amazingly fast with XP (originally came with Windows 2000), and purrs like a kitten with Slackware, OpenBSD, and BeOS (not Haiku, BeOS Pro 5.0 from the original disc).

I just bought a battery for it this year, and it has CardBus cards for USB 2.0, WiFi (one for XP, another for the other OSes) and 10/100 Ethernet. No Intel ME, no UEFI, no ultra-widescreen, no chiclet keyboard. Just pure Y2K era mobile computing at its finest! ;-)
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[3]: No difference
By Alfman on 2017-12-05 01:58:57
zima,

> And it can be irritating for everybody. I still haven't quite gotten used to the moved refresh button in new Firefox...

You are not the only one. I'll have to get used to it, but logically it made more sense where it was. When you type an address you still get the "enter" arrow to fetch the page, refresh serves almost the same function and IMHO it should have stayed where it was.

Anyone else having trouble with dropdown boxes in the new version? Maybe 5% of the time I run firefox, the dropdown boxes just stop working until I restart firefox. Weird :(
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[6]: No difference
By ThomasFuhringer on 2017-12-05 09:09:48
If you ask me, Qt is not much better when it comes to bloat. Qt tries to make up for what is wrong with C++ through its object framework, at a heavy expense on performance. On top of that they came up with Qt Quick/QML which is Java Script but not quite Java Script - a mess that is only barely surpassed by GTK 3, if at all.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[15]: No difference
By kwan_e on 2017-12-05 09:19:44
> Obviously you don't follow the topic, I pointed the two bugs here : http://www.osnews.com/thread?651...

Obviously, you don't even read the links you posted:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show...

Dated 20170725:
> Marek Polacek has been posting patches to the gcc-patches mailing list towards solving this

Does that sound like "no one's working on this we're all just sitting around doing nothing"?

> latest message in the chain was:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patche...

So you keep proving my point. You have a presupposed conclusion that you'll push and push and have no interest in being proven wrong because you have already decided on a conviction.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[16]: No difference
By Kochise on 2017-12-05 12:31:31
Dated '20170725' but still missing from the latests releases as the 'const' bug remains. It's not like no one worked on it, but the effect of any correction so far remains to be seen IRL.

Btw, Microsoft received a bug report in an obscure office component relating to formula edition and corrected it in 10 days, binary patching a 17 yo software they obviously lost the source.

Not same priorities, not same effectiveness.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[4]: No difference
By Morgan on 2017-12-05 12:44:31
My biggest gripe with the new Firefox is that, with the 57.0.1 update, it silently changes your search provider to Google. I spoke with a Mozilla dev about it and their not-so-friendly response was "LOL don't use a spyware search provider, use Google". Thanks, but I use Startpage because I don't want Google spying on me. Startpage isn't spyware and is one of the safer search engines.

Another dev pointed me to the bug entry for the "feature", which says any search provider not using HTTPS will silently change to Google. Startpage uses HTTPS only, so that's also not true. It's a blatant attempt by Mozilla to sweeten their new deal with Google, and it's disgusting.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: No difference
By Alfman on 2017-12-05 14:46:03
Morgan,

> My biggest gripe with the new Firefox is that, with the 57.0.1 update, it silently changes your search provider to Google. I spoke with a Mozilla dev about it and their not-so-friendly response was "LOL don't use a spyware search provider, use Google". Thanks, but I use Startpage because I don't want Google spying on me. Startpage isn't spyware and is one of the safer search engines.

Another dev pointed me to the bug entry for the "feature", which says any search provider not using HTTPS will silently change to Google. Startpage uses HTTPS only, so that's also not true. It's a blatant attempt by Mozilla to sweeten their new deal with Google, and it's disgusting.


I've noticed things like this too, such as my search engine and "tab page" preferences being overwritten by firefox updates. While I do consider this unethical, I understand that accepting money from advertisers including google is mozilla's primary source of revenue. Therefor I'm at a loss to suggest what they should do here. By refusing to go along with unethical advertiser demands, mozilla faces a serious existential crisis due to lack of funding.

Hypothetically users could start paying for firefox themselves. This would require changes at mozilla because right now they have a bit of "our way or the highway" attitude towards users, which would have to be reversed in the event that users were paying. However users have an expectation that browsers are free and ultimately I'm highly skeptical that they would pay for firefox when other browsers are free. So I don't know what choice mozilla has other than to shed its paid staff or get in bed with advertisers?

Steve balmer was wrong, linux isn't cancer, advertisers are, ha! After all, nobody is forced to use linux, but advertisers are invading all aspects of our lives.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[6]: No difference
By Morgan on 2017-12-05 15:13:51
I agree, it's a sticky situation for Mozilla. I just think if they're going to say "we're bastions of Internet freedom and we fight for your right to a free and open Internet", they should rethink their overall approach to their user base. Silently changing user's custom settings and lying about the reason behind it (claiming non-Google search providers don't use HTTPS when they clearly do is dishonest at best) is user-hostile and runs the risk of turning away those very eyeballs Google just tried to buy.

Not to mention, people like me who have tried to excise Google from their lives now have to weigh whether the Google/Mozilla deal impacts that decision in other ways. After all, the only real cross-platform alternative to a Mozilla based browser is a Chrome based browser. Edge is nice but it's Windows only.
Permalink - Score: 2

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-60 -- 61-68

There are 2 comment(s) below your current score threshold.

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?