FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-23-2011, 01:14 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 23 September 2011 14:03, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 23/09/11 19:52, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>> Am Freitag, den 23.09.2011, 09:57 +0100 schrieb Alan Pope:
>>>
>>> On 23 September 2011 09:37, Colin Law<clanlaw@googlemail.com> *wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also at http://releases.ubuntu.com/oneiric/
>>>> Not sure why it is in so many places, a bit odd. *I hope they are all
>>>> pointing to the same image
>>>
>>> /oneiric and /11.10 point to the same place (symlinks I believe) but
>>> cdimage is a separate server.
>>
>> releases.u.c carries all average images, it gets regulary mirrored all
>> over the world. to limit the load and disk usage on the often voluntary
>> driven mirrors there is the cdimage server. cdimage.u.c does not get
>> mirrored and carries the rather uncommon images (special architectures,
>> exotic image types etc) that dont see as many downloads.
>>
>> during development a release is only called by its release name
>> ("oneiric" in the current cycle) from release date on the name changes
>> to the actual version (you will notice that all the official docs on
>> ubuntu.com only use release numbers (with the release name in brackets
>> sometimes)). this renaming is the reason for having the symlinks ...
>>
>> ciao
>> * * * *oli
>
> Would someone be in a position to translate this into something
> understandable, please?

I see no problems.

"releases.u.c" means http://releases.ubuntu.com and so on.

All the adjective+animal-name designations are codenames. Alpha and
beta test versions are not called Ubuntu (version whatever); they are
just known by the codename, typically the bare adjective. E.g. the
forthcoming release it is just "oneiric" until release time, at which
point it is officially named Ubuntu 11.10.

--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-23-2011, 01:15 PM
J
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:03, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 23/09/11 19:52, Oliver Grawert wrote:

>> releases.u.c carries all average images, it gets regulary mirrored all
>> over the world. to limit the load and disk usage on the often voluntary
>> driven mirrors there is the cdimage server. cdimage.u.c does not get
>> mirrored and carries the rather uncommon images (special architectures,
>> exotic image types etc) that dont see as many downloads.
>>
>> during development a release is only called by its release name
>> ("oneiric" in the current cycle) from release date on the name changes
>> to the actual version (you will notice that all the official docs on
>> ubuntu.com only use release numbers (with the release name in brackets
>> sometimes)). this renaming is the reason for having the symlinks ...
>>
>> ciao
>> * * * *oli
>
> Would someone be in a position to translate this into something
> understandable, please?

releases.ubuntu.com carries the most commonly downloaded images and is
mirrored all around the world.

cdimages.ubuntu.com carries everything (basically) including special
images that aren't downloaded often (netboot, ARM, etc)

During development, the release is referred to by its name (Oneiric,
Natty, Maverick) and after release it's referred to by its number
(11.10, 11,04, 10.10, 10.04 LTS). The ISOs are named accordingly,
thus in development, Oneiric images are named things like:
oneiric-desktop-*.iso and after the final release, they will be
renamed accordingly to ubuntu-11.10-*.

That being said, I just noticed that releases has a natty directory
that has ubuntu-11.10-beta2-* images in it... never noticed that
before, so I don't know if that's new as of Beta2 or not...

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-23-2011, 02:02 PM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 23/09/11 23:15, J wrote:

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:03, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:

On 23/09/11 19:52, Oliver Grawert wrote:

releases.u.c carries all average images, it gets regulary mirrored all
over the world. to limit the load and disk usage on the often voluntary
driven mirrors there is the cdimage server. cdimage.u.c does not get
mirrored and carries the rather uncommon images (special architectures,
exotic image types etc) that dont see as many downloads.

during development a release is only called by its release name
("oneiric" in the current cycle) from release date on the name changes
to the actual version (you will notice that all the official docs on
ubuntu.com only use release numbers (with the release name in brackets
sometimes)). this renaming is the reason for having the symlinks ...

ciao
oli

Would someone be in a position to translate this into something
understandable, please?

releases.ubuntu.com carries the most commonly downloaded images and is
mirrored all around the world.

cdimages.ubuntu.com carries everything (basically) including special
images that aren't downloaded often (netboot, ARM, etc)

During development, the release is referred to by its name (Oneiric,
Natty, Maverick) and after release it's referred to by its number
(11.10, 11,04, 10.10, 10.04 LTS). The ISOs are named accordingly,
thus in development, Oneiric images are named things like:
oneiric-desktop-*.iso and after the final release, they will be
renamed accordingly to ubuntu-11.10-*.

That being said, I just noticed that releases has a natty directory
that has ubuntu-11.10-beta2-* images in it... never noticed that
before, so I don't know if that's new as of Beta2 or not...


Things are getting clearer and clearer....... :-( .

And thanks for your explanation.

BC

--
Talk is cheap - until you hire a lawyer.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-23-2011, 02:44 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Alan Pope <alan@popey.com> wrote:
> On 23 September 2011 05:27, Ioannis Vranos <ioannis.vranos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> However as I can see, all Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 CD/DVD images, that were
>> available for download, have been withdrawn, like those here:
>>
>
> What makes you think they have been withdrawn. They're still available
> in both official locations.
>
> http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/11.10/beta-2/ - "Ubuntu 11.10
> (Oneiric Ocelot) Beta 2"
> http://releases.ubuntu.com/11.10/ - "Ubuntu 11.10 (Oneiric Ocelot) Beta 2"
>
> All still there.


The images had disappeared, but as I see they reappeared.


Anyway, my review still applies:

https://plus.google.com/107565911763363688537/posts/ZANsn9L7Nru



--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-23-2011, 05:43 PM
Avi Greenbury
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

Basil Chupin wrote:

> (BTW, was that the 32- or the 64-bit version you were trialling?)

I'm intrigued - is there really that much difference generally between
the two?

--
Avi

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 05:13 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 24/09/11 03:43, Avi Greenbury wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:


(BTW, was that the 32- or the 64-bit version you were trialling?)

I'm intrigued - is there really that much difference generally between
the two?


I believe so but as I have never used the 64-bit I really do not know.
From what I have been reading, the 64-bit sometimes has bigger hassles
than the 32-bit - eg, flash was/(?)still is unavailable in the 64-bit
version.


However, I am not an authority on this so someone else would be able to
answer your question. Alternatively, as a starter, have a look at the
wikipedia entry.


BC

--
Talk is cheap - until you hire a lawyer.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 05:29 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 24/09/11 15:13, Basil Chupin wrote:

On 24/09/11 03:43, Avi Greenbury wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:


(BTW, was that the 32- or the 64-bit version you were trialling?)

I'm intrigued - is there really that much difference generally between
the two?


I believe so but as I have never used the 64-bit I really do not know.
From what I have been reading, the 64-bit sometimes has bigger hassles
than the 32-bit - eg, flash was/(?)still is unavailable in the 64-bit
version.


However, I am not an authority on this so someone else would be able
to answer your question. Alternatively, as a starter, have a look at
the wikipedia entry.


BC


Oh! I just realised that I should have qualified what I wrote by stating
that the differences I was referring to were aimed at performance and
not at the actual features of the 32-/64-bit versions. What you get is
the same in both versions, but how they perform may be different (eg the
32-bit version can only operate with a max of 4GB of RAM while the
64-bit version can handle quite a bit more). Hasve a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit.


BC

--
Talk is cheap - until you hire a lawyer.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 07:08 AM
Alan Pope
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 24 Sep 2011, at 06:29, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> (eg the 32-bit version can only operate with a max of 4GB of RAM while the 64-bit version can handle quite a bit more).

That's not strictly true, and hasn't been for some time now. Ubuntu 32bit on machines with more than 4GB RAM can address that memory just fine, so long as the chipset supports it. Most do.

Al.
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 07:29 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 24/09/11 17:08, Alan Pope wrote:


On 24 Sep 2011, at 06:29, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:


(eg the 32-bit version can only operate with a max of 4GB of RAM while the 64-bit version can handle quite a bit more).

That's not strictly true, and hasn't been for some time now. Ubuntu 32bit on machines with more than 4GB RAM can address that memory just fine, so long as the chipset supports it. Most do.

Al.
Yep, but one doesn't go into minute details when giving a broad-based
answer :-) .


In another place a person asked a question which contained several
questions. Each question required someone writing a short essay as an
answer. My private response to that person was just this: search the
internet for the information - eg, the information re each question is
fully available on wikipedia - and then ask on the list for anything not
fully understood.


BC

--
Talk is cheap - until you hire a lawyer.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 08:35 AM
Koh Choon Lin
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

Hi

>> (eg the 32-bit version can only operate with a max of 4GB of RAM while the 64-bit version can handle quite a bit more).
>
> That's not strictly true, and hasn't been for some time now. Ubuntu 32bit on machines with more than 4GB RAM can address that memory just fine, so long as the chipset supports it. Most do.
>

On 32b with > 4GiB RAM, I found that PCs on Microsoft products are
unstable. Unix is working normally AFAIK.



--
Regards
Koh Choon Lin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org