Corrections / Updates: 1.) Using sudo apt install {package.deb} will install with the dependencies, which dpkg does not check. 2.) Apparently the USB writer was as far back as 8.04...but has had a name change a few times. Not sure why I never saw that before, or even heard about it, as the inclusion of the tool in Linux Mint was always a selling point for me. Once again, STL is FAKE NEWS!!!
As for "not much happening" with Y2K -- it's possible that problems were avoided by all the effort to close Y2K bugs before Jan 1, 2000. I know that many companies were working on Y2K fixes during the 1990s, especially for places with lots of COBOL applications.
@@SwitchedtoLinux It's been there . I had problems with it some years ago , and used Unetbootin but for several years it has been trouble free and is what I use now
It was: " *The tool is included by default in all releases after Ubuntu 8.04* , and can be installed on Ubuntu 8.04. A KDE frontend was released for Ubuntu 8.10, and is currently included by default in Kubuntu installations. The KDE and Ubuntu frontend go under the names "usb-creator-kde" and "usb-creator-gtk", respectively."
This is good that the Linux Kernal is 6.8; so you can run this fine with your latest hardware. I think the latest Linux Kernal is 6.9. Thanks for the quick review/changes.
My friend was having problems getting Virtualbox to work on his new laptop correctly. I found the nightly version and installed it and it's worked for him ever since. It could definitely be an issue.
I've now jumped ship for my daily driver to Debian 12 (stable) and totally happy with it - no Snaps but using better versions of Flatpak such as FF and Betterbird (as opposed to Thunderbird) which has more useful features and are maintained by Mozilla. It was always the case in the past that the best plan was to wait until the first point release of Ubuntu a few months down the line so that ,many of the issues generated by the "rush to release" have at least a chance of being fixed.
I don't understand all this excitement over an installer. "Normal" people don't install the operating system every day, I install every 3/4 years but I use a rolling distribution, I only do it to clean up the system a bit, but even when I used Ubuntu I did it every 2 years, so whether it takes 10 minutes or 20 minutes doesn't really make any difference.
It's the first thing that a ton of people see, and unfortunately can turn a lot of people away, or at the very least influence their opinion of how well thought out the OS is overall. I agree that it's only a tiny fraction of actual user interaction, but imo it's one of the most important aspects to get right for a positive end-to-end experience.
@@Jantcu I wasn't referring to the installation program and how much nicer and simpler it is today, I was just referring to the duration of the installation. Whether it takes 10 minutes or 20 makes no difference, it's not something you do every day and usually when you do it, you take the time you need.
I agree with you that cloud computing is not a healthy direction. 30 minutes to install. Ouch! It took about 10 minutes to install 22.04 after I figured out that I accidentally didn't have my USB stick inserted all the way in. LOL Thanks for the review. I think I will stick to 22.04 for now.
Good afternoon!! Love your videos!! I just put the LTS Beta on a Virtual Box VM to test. I logged into my Microsoft account but only had the option to link Mail. Were you able to successfully access OneDrive files this way?
The name Startup disk creator reminds me of the good old windows 9x times where you needed a 3.5" startup disk when a faulty update destroyed your system.
I am fond of the days when we used floppy disks, in the days of yore, when men were men, and people enjoyed their second amendment as a civil right, and not that of a second class right.
When you said the 24.04 Beta part, I was hoping you'd cut in Jesse Lee Peterson yelling, "BETA!" That would be funny, albeit, perhaps a little too political. 🤣
anyone know if there is any point of waiting for main release date or just use the daily release ? i want to update... now =) anyone have any objections ? =) *edit* it was always native disk writing tools,, just not gui,, dd command in terminal.
I think its ok that ubuntu ships snaps out of the box. But what really scares me is, that it downloads the snap if you say that you want the deb version with apt. This is not transparent at all and ubuntu should immediately fix this. If i type apt install thunderbird i dont want snap install thunderbird.... We are Linux users, not mac users. We (mostly) know what we are doing and we know what we want. So give us what we want Canonical!!!
The fact that Ubuntu has *not* been including Gdebi and Synapatic for ages(last time was in the 16.04 version I think), I find unforgivable since Ubuntu is based on Debian. Love the installer, albeit a bit slow on bare metal for me. Stripping out these 2 applications from the installed OS is slimy in my mind. I know they can be easily installed, but this seedy push to Snaps leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. Good coverage on this beta, sire!
I can understand Canonical's desire for a streamlined, easy experience--and their desire for their own distinguishing characteristics. Really, the MBA side of me appreciates all that. ;-) As long as options are readily available, I'm not particularly concerned that snap is becoming default, rather than synaptic and .deb packages. And the nerd side of me appreciates THAT! ;-)
What is it about that "Snap" what is the reason for Ubuntu pushing snap so much ? What is the benefit ?? Maybe it is a topic what is worth making a video about ?
Snaps themselves arent bad. Its how Canonical handles them. If you do sudo apt install firefox in the terminal for example, it installs the snap version, not the .deb package, which is how it always been. Thats where the issue starts.
Nope. Just remember that this LTS is the first with the minimal as the default and some changes to how the verbage works. These are part of whats new in this release.
@@SwitchedtoLinux I'm not referring to whether the option is new by default, but how you say "feeding into that cultural zeitgeist of an online world, and I think we would benefit more from being less online and less perpetually connected to the internet". I don't necessarily disagree with that social take, but it does impose your own spin, which is definitely not behind the presence of this option or the new phrasing "offline-friendly". It's purpose driven, not a hook to make people use cloud services. Hand in hand with the automated installation option, it no longer assumes what the role of the machine will be or what tools will be needed. Same with the lack of dedicated deb installer (though the software center has, and should continue to perform that function if not for this being beta -- did you remember to use a nightly?). The idea is not to add bloat unless instructed.
