# Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" released



## ToeClaws (Oct 12, 2010)

Canonical has released version 10.10 of Ubuntu, code-named Maverick Meerkat. You can download it (for free) from here:

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download

Along the top are links to the Netbook and Alternative installer versions as well as the Windows installer, known as Wubi. An overview of it's features can be found here: http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/features

Change log from the prior version is here: http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/maverick/ ... 20Maverick

For those of you with older PCs or have an older secondary PC laying around (IE, something less than 1.5GHz and less than 1G of RAM), you might want to consider Ubuntu's trimmed down brother Xubuntu, which uses the XFCE desktop environment:

http://www.xubuntu.com/getubuntu

This also means that Mint 10 will be around the corner (maybe a month or two away) for those of you that like the Mint tweak on things.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 12, 2010)

I want to try it, but so lazy...


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 13, 2010)

Oh snap. I finish putting Ubuntu 10.04.1 on my 4 year old laptop, and then this. 
*Walks off and smashes head against wall*


----------



## ilobmirt (Oct 13, 2010)

I notice no serious difference when I upgraded except for the ability to purchase software online.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Oct 13, 2010)

I once used Ubuntu and it could not be any easier to try it. It seems that Ubuntu download is also a Live CD, meaning the OS can run directly off of the CD, without effecting your OS. It seems the only effort you have to do is burn the CD.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 13, 2010)

yiffytimesnews said:


> I once used Ubuntu and it could not be any easier to try it. It seems that Ubuntu download is also a Live CD, meaning the OS can run directly off of the CD, without effecting your OS. It seems the only effort you have to do is burn the CD.


 
This is true of most Linux distributions, too.


----------



## Urbanwolf (Oct 13, 2010)

Runefox said:


> This is true of most Linux distributions, too.



having some trouble finding out how to burn it onto the CD...i have the program installer on my computer..just no idea how to burn it. (want to try it so if i don't like it then i'm not screwed with having to install windows.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 14, 2010)

It sounds a bit like a disappointment without much new. I wanted to see the new Gnome but that got delayed


----------



## LLiz (Oct 14, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> Oh snap. I finish putting Ubuntu 10.04.1 on my 4 year old laptop, and then this.
> *Walks off and smashes head against wall*



Oh dear... 

Ubuntu have a 6 monthly release cycle, and every year the release a LTS (Long Term Support) version that continues to receive updates for much longer than regular releases. 
10.04 is a LTS release, so people will be installing that version for at least 2 years and using it for at least 5 years. 

Of course if you want to keep up with the latest technology you need to use one of the regular 6 monthly releases.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 14, 2010)

LLiz said:


> Oh dear...
> 
> Ubuntu have a 6 monthly release cycle, and every year the release a LTS (Long Term Support) version that continues to receive updates for much longer than regular releases.
> 10.04 is a LTS release, so people will be installing that version for at least 2 years and using it for at least 5 years.
> ...


 
Yar, this.  You don't _have_ to switch to the latest one if you don't want to.  Running the LTS versions means you can space your upgrades years apart if you want to.  Linux and Unix, however, are also pretty easy to upgrade to new versions if you keep your /home directory in it's own drive partition.  Only takes me a few minutes to upgrade to a new version when they come out, so I usually do.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 14, 2010)

@LLiz & ToeClaws

After looking up reviews and new differences with the latest version, and my version it seams i'm not missing out on much at all. I will likely keep this on for about a year, and then see what later versions bring to the table before I upgrade.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 14, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> @LLiz & ToeClaws
> 
> After looking up reviews and new differences with the latest version, and my version it seams i'm not missing out on much at all. I will likely keep this on for about a year, and then see what later versions bring to the table before I upgrade.


 
Yeah, probably the best idea.  Like I said - there's no pressure to update.  I updated one of my Ubuntu systems at work just for the sake of seeing what the new one was like.  My other system will probably remain on LTS for a while for the sake of a more guaranteed-stable environment.  So far, apart from some of the software and their ease-of-use additions to the online services (which I care nothing for), I don't see much difference.  

Canonical always has a habit of over-hyping the 2nd yearly release of Ubuntu when it's usually the first one that has the most changes.


----------



## LLiz (Oct 14, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> @LLiz & ToeClaws
> 
> After looking up reviews and new differences with the latest version, and my version it seams i'm not missing out on much at all. I will likely keep this on for about a year, and then see what later versions bring to the table before I upgrade.


 
Yeah you'll be fine on 10.04 for quite a while.


----------



## Kivaari (Oct 15, 2010)

10.04 works fine for me, and I'm not sure I have a working CD/DVD burner anyways.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 15, 2010)

I've tried switching before.  I hate having to decide partitions, etc.  It also won't work with my school servers.  Installing software is also difficult, and I still can't figure that out.  Live CDs can make this simpler, can't it?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 15, 2010)

I upgraded now and think the new font is pretty cool. It looks a lot better than it did in 10.04.


----------



## Remy (Oct 15, 2010)

-cuddles her first shot at Ubuntu-
Yeah I'm total n00b to it, but with researching issues/questions, I'm getting my way around. Seem to be pretty happy with it for now.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 16, 2010)

I just switched.


----------



## ToeClaws (Oct 16, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> I've tried switching before.  I hate having to decide partitions, etc.  It also won't work with my school servers.  Installing software is also difficult, and I still can't figure that out.  Live CDs can make this simpler, can't it?


 
LiveCD's main advantage is that they allow you to boot the intended system up on the actual operating system to see how it works, and what it looks/feels like to use.  The installers though are very easy though - Ubuntu 10.10's is so far the best I've seen.  It can walk you through just about every aspect of installs.  For the drives and partitions on school machines... yeah, that may depend on what they do or don't allow you to do - you'd have to ask.  For home systems, you can do whatever you want (obviously).  

By default, Ubuntu (and most other Linux/Unix OS's) will co-exist with the current OS in the form of a dual boot, taking up some of the drive space.  If there's nothing on the drive, then they'll usually just put one partition on and install everything to it - that partition has the name "root", and is represented as "/" in Linux and Unix.  I personally like to manually partition the drive so that /home (where all users' info is stored) always gets it's own partition, and most of the space since that's where all your movies, music, pictures and so on go.  You can make other partitions as need be such as swap, boot, etc.  But like I said - only if you want to.

If you're curious, I do four partitions - root, home, boot and swap (represented as /, /home, /boot /swap) and make them all ext4 (the newest and most advanced journalling file system).  Root (/) doesn't need to be huge - the OS itself is only a bit more than 2 gigs, and then the rest will be whatever programs and stuff you install.  20 gigs is often way more than enough, but if you have a gigantic hard drive, you can give it more if you like.  Boot (/boot) doesn't have to be more than maybe 300 or 400 megs - it just stores the kernel that boots the OS.  In fact, you don't even have to make that a separate partition (it's just something I prefer to do, so it's personal preference really).  The home partition (/home) should be the bulk of the the drive because it will hold the most content.  The swap partition (/swap) is the only one that is not actually going to use/need a file system.  It should between 1 to 1.5 times the RAM on your system (though there is no harm in making it bigger if you wish). 

You could also just do even simpler - just make a /home and / partition. Or just go with automatic setup.   Sky's the limit.  The only reason I use partitions, as I said, is that it's super easy to upgrade to another version via fresh install when you have home in it's own partition where you can leave it unformatted while wiping everything else.  I would suggest reading the sticky Linux threads for more info and tips as well.


----------



## LLiz (Oct 16, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> I've tried switching before.  I hate having to decide partitions, etc.  It also won't work with my school servers.  Installing software is also difficult, and I still can't figure that out.  Live CDs can make this simpler, can't it?


 
Erm... if this is school equipment then are you actually allowed to install stuff on there?


----------

