Ubuntu 10.04 64 bit

Finally upgraded to this and I can honestly say I like it better than the previous three releases. I ran into some issues upon install though. First issue was my sound not working correctly (or at all most of the time) with my only way of tweaking volume being through ALSA Mixer in the terminal. That was caused by Pulse Audio being fully integrated now but being completely absent on my system due to earlier removal of it when I was running 9.04. Fortunately they took some major anti-suck to the "software that currently breaks your audio" and it now works beautifully WITHOUT LAG (HOLY SHIT!) completely detecting my system's 7.1 capabilities on top of it. The second issue was the window controls being moved to the left side (WTF WERE THEY THINKING!) that was fixed by changing the theme and then changing it back. The other annoyance I had was that I had to upgrade to 9.10 before I upgraded to 10.04 (though you can upgrade from 8.04, weird). Other than that, this seems to be a lot smoother than the previous three versions I've used making it the best version I used since 7.10.

I use Ubuntu 10.04 server and desktop, and I can also agree that this has been one of the best in terms of stability. I feel like Canonical, however, is really trying to turn Ubuntu into some kind of Mac OS-esque (pun, lawl) with the window controls being moved over to the left, which I'm not too happy about. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, but I also love what Ubuntu is supposed to be.

Really? I preferred the other releases to this one. It seems that's always how it works out - I upgrade, then find out I should not have done that. This time the issue was my bluetooth mouse and keyboard not working properly. Why? Because ubuntu got too involved in bluetooth for its own good. I ended up commenting out some lines in a file and it worked.

I agree with cheschire cat, ubuntu is definitely changing (they will start selling software with the new software center at some point), and I'm afraid it will become too much of a noob distro. However, I have a contingency plan: Crunchbang or debian.

I use Ubuntu 10.04 server and desktop, and I can also agree that this has been one of the best in terms of stability. I feel like Canonical, however, is really trying to turn Ubuntu into some kind of Mac OS-esque (pun, lawl) with the window controls being moved over to the left, which I'm not too happy about. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, but I also love what Ubuntu is supposed to be.

That seems to be my major gripe as well. I like the theme, but it simply isn't Ubuntu. I think something like what we have now (except window controls on right side) with a heavy dose of what 7.10 looked like would be pretty cool. 7.10 had one of the best wallpapers period.

You can move the controls back

The second issue was the window controls being moved to the left side (WTF WERE THEY THINKING!)

I feel like Canonical, however, is really trying to turn Ubuntu into some kind of Mac OS-esque (pun, lawl) with the window controls being moved over to the left, which I'm not too happy about. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, but I also love what Ubuntu is supposed to be.

I agree with cheschire cat, ubuntu is definitely changing (they will start selling software with the new software center at some point), and I'm afraid it will become too much of a noob distro. However, I have a contingency plan: Crunchbang or debian.

Ubuntu is on its way to become a noob distro - install and everything works, no need to open the terminal whatsoever - but I'm okay with it, as long as they don't package it with some commercial sh*t that is the music store.

The change of the theme was almost needed - it's the easy way for a newb to be recognizable, and to think «damn! This is not windows, of course my exe don't work, let's click of the software center to see what's there!»

Other than that I'm running on 10.04 32bit, should I upgrade to 64bit? What programs will I miss?

Oh, and crunchbang would be great, but it's stalled on Ubuntu 9.04 right now :\

You should not "upgrade" to 64bit, as that would likely break stuff If you have a 32bit machine, stick with 32 bit.

Sorry for my poorly phrased sentence. I'm on a 64bit machine already, just preferred the 32bit version of Ubuntu the time I installed it, because some programs I need weren't available for the x86 version.

Some project with exams forced me to install older libraries or deprecated versions of things, so on August I am definitely formatting everything to reinstall a "clean" Ubuntu, just can't remember what is not available on the 64bit platform...

I've used both 32 and 64 bit, haven't noticed any issues or programs that I miss...

Same here. I can also confirm I don't have any issues with Lucid x86-64. The only issue I've been having on SOME machines is that I can't get the Grub2 screen to start up, so when I boot up Ubuntu, I see a black screen with the blinking cursor (the underscore), and then my screen's resolution changes and Lucid continues to load up like normal. It doesn't bother me though, as it doesn't affect my computer's usability, and everything else seems rock solid in terms of stability.

By the way, I've found Lucid, both 32 and 64-bit, to be much faster than previous releases when booting up/shutting down. What are your opinions?

Start up times vastly improved a version or two ago, that was a great change. Shutting down is really quick too.

Yeah, I know. However, since Ubuntu Hardy (8.04) came out, I wasn't able to build up enough courage to upgrade again until Karmic (9.10) was released.

Sorry if I'm getting this thread too off topic here.

The only issue I've been having on SOME machines is that I can't get the Grub2 screen to start up, so when I boot up Ubuntu, I see a black screen with the blinking cursor (the underscore), and then my screen's resolution changes and Lucid continues to load up like normal. It doesn't bother me though, as it doesn't affect my computer's usability, and everything else seems rock solid in terms of stability.

Grub is hidden by default:

Hold down SHIFT to display the menu during boot (formerly ESC in GRUB legacy).

And thanks for the infos, I'll switch to 64bit then

Grub is hidden by default:

Ah, that explains it! I didn't know that!

By the way, BURG! It's a secsy grub2 interface (with graphics, etc.)