End of Ubuntu Netbook Edition | Hacker News Reader

End of Ubuntu Netbook Edition

blog.canonical.com

92 pointsmnnttl31 comments

The title given by OP is misleading. The title of the actual blog post is: "Ubuntu Netbook Edition folded into Ubuntu for next release"

According to the blog post: "To be clear, this is the opposite of us withdrawing from the netbook market. ... The introduction of the new shell for Ubuntu means that we have a user interface that works equally well whatever the form factor of the PC."

I apologize, didn't actually want it to mean that way :)

Its time to start working on Ubuntu Tablet Edition, isn't it? What with the Xoom having an unlockable bootloader, and the whole rash of honeycomb tablets expected this year, maybe its time for the traditional Linux stack to arrive at the next frontier.

Isn't that MeeGo? It allows millions of desktop GNOME (er, GNOME-Qt hybrid) developers to reuse their skills to develop phone and tablet apps. Oh wait.

I'm trying to understand this comment. Are you mocking open source platforms?

He's mocking Meego. Just as they're seeing traction with something, they make a huge change so all their devs have to scramble to keep up.

Switching from GTK to Qt for instance.

The Ubuntu naming landscape is currently confusing.

I particularly dislike the names Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu and would like to see them all go.

I picked the netbook edition for a laptop - thinking it might be optimised for long battery life as well as a small display.

My concern would be that a vanilla Ubuntu wouldn't be tailored in the same way.

Could you not split Ubuntu into a core (which you call Ubuntu) - with the option of adding flavours (version types/add on packs)? These could be downloaded at installation time or possibly in advance for those with network issues.

So when installing Ubuntu the user is presented with a list of addons/versions to choose from - Education (schools and colleges), Server (For servers) etc. How about calling it the: Ubuntu Tailor (suits you sir) TM ?

> I picked the netbook edition for a laptop - thinking it might be optimised for long battery life as well as a small display.

I really doubt that.

There is no real difference between the various flavor except in the packages that are installed by default. It's pretty much like you suggested :)

You can get a normal (desktop edition) ubuntu and turn it into a server by just installing packages from the package manager. I personally don't know exactly which packages are installed by default on the server edition, but the point is that the "Server Edition" is not really that special.

Same applies to flavors like Xubuntu and Kubuntu. You can always install xfce and/or kde from apt-get. You can get Xubuntu then install gnome on it.

>> I picked the netbook edition for a laptop - thinking it might be optimised for long battery life as well as a small display.

> I really doubt that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that has historically been the case. The netbook edition contained some kernel tweaks to make it run better on Atom processors, and also used an interface optimized for smaller screens; most recently Unity.

Correct and correct. I've been running it on my Eee PC 1000HE for the past year, it runs beautifully, noticeably more efficiently than the Windows XP that came with it.

You are correct in that all of the distributions only vary by the set of packages installed by default. The server edition, however, is designed to run headless and is thus very functionally different (i.e. X is not running by default, there are no window managers installed, etc). Converting the "Desktop Edition" to the "Server Edition" is just as much about removing packages as it is about adding them.

I could be mistaken as I'm not a ubuntu user, but I think the whole ubuntu vs. kubuntu vs. xubuntu thing is about available space on the media. Canonical seems to want to keep their distribution on a CD size disk and not go to dvd (for the common path at least). All of the distros that support x, kde and gnome on one disc seem to do it with a dvd. When they ship live cd sized discs they seem to have to pick only one of the three.

Mind you, I think in todays big bandwidth world I'd go with a single DVD, but I am sure there are decent reasons not to. If nothing else, it seems like Canonical really just wants to concentrate on gnome.

> I particularly dislike the names Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu and would like to see them all go.

Most of the *buntu projects aren't Canonical projects. They are independent spins, tailored for a specific user base. The tools to do this are readily available, and you could make your own Bilbanubuntu distro, and it would be just as official as many of the others.

Nice. Just "Ubuntu", wherever you install it.

Except on servers.

Which I guess is due to install disk space issues...?

More likely it has to do with the GUI stuff that you wouldn't want on a server.

No sense in wasting resources on a desktop you'll never see.

I was assuming that different sets of packages would be installed depending on a choice presented during installation.

luckily, my windows 2008 r2 server does not have graphical... eh... nevermind.

It would be nice if they rolled server install into the same disc, because really all Ubuntu Server is is a different base set of packages from the exact same repositories.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at (most Linux distros used to work this way "back in the day").

Not really because the comparative sizes of the install disks are substantially different due to the fact that none of the X windows environment or any X apps need to be shipped on server.

Only problem with that is that it's really not true.

ubuntu-10.10-desktop-amd64.iso: 695M

ubuntu-10.10-server-amd64.iso: 642M

natty-desktop-amd64.iso: 681M

natty-server-amd64.iso: 653M

Not sure I would call that "substantially different". Every Ubuntu ISO is a full CD's size, give or take.

Your reasoning for the difference isn't true either. X and X apps are most certainly included in the server ISO. Certainly, there's probably a few more packing the desktop ISO that aren't on the server one, but we're talking very little difference here.

Server edition is significantly different from all other editions. It uses different kernel settings (tick level and scheduler), and there is a large delta in the packages used.

I tried Netbook edition on my original Acer Aspire One and found it be slow and clunky - worse than plain Ubuntu. Not a good thing for something supposed to be for netbooks.

Have now settled on plain Ubuntu 10.10 with the top task bar moved to the left side, and the bottom one removed completely.

'using netbook remix right now'

I like the UI re-hash, it really is the easiest thing to use on the tinier screen. As long as it they keep that usability they can call it anything they want :)

I liked 10.04 better than 10.10. The new side menu doesn't really do it for me. I ended up switching to standard Gnome on 10.04, whereas UNR was fine previously.

But at home I have Windows Super Extended Profesional Ultimate Ribbed for your Pleasure edition - that must be better!

Otherwise - very good

That edition sounds great. You shouldn't have to worry about virus anymore, just trojans.

Oh well, I at least appreciated the humour.

I'm fond of Vista Smoky Bacon edition myself: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/2/2/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com