9.10 is a black eye for Ubuntu

Arthur Johnson arthur.johnson at gmail.com
Fri Nov 6 18:18:20 UTC 2009

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Rashkae <ubuntu at tigershaunt.com> wrote:
> thomas wrote:
>>  > It's the most stable it's been in 18 months, and it's
>>  > working for almost everybody.
>> You are not being trufull in this statement. Version 9.04,
>> which was the first that I used, was much better. There
>> are too many problems to go into details again since so
>> many people have mentioned them in their postings. I
>> agree with the statement.
> 9.04 was a disaster by comparison.  KDE updated to KDE4, before it was
> ready by far, Amarok destroyed, god help you if you had an Intel graphic
> chip and upgraded without taking the warning in release notes to heart..
> Early adopters of ext4 having config files truncated to 0 bytes,
> followed by a kernel that would lock up when you delete too many files
> that wouldn't get patched for months; I could go on.
> I love 9.04 personally, but subjectively, to say that 9.04 release was
> 'better' than 9.10 is a joke.

Indeed.  Every release is going to have their share of problems.  Not
every piece of hardware will be flawless.

Personally, I've never had any problems with Ubuntu since I started
using it back in 2007.  I have two machines on Ubuntu 9.10, and they
have run fairly well so far.  I had one issue with grub, but nothing I
couldn't handle.  That being said, all my hardware is three to five
years old, well supported to say the least.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list