I wonder if this will cause much strife. I run ArchLinux, for which the default /usr/bin/python is Python 3. Often I run into issues with (admittedly software not from the repos) which uses the
#!/usr/bin/python
shebang, and expects it to reference Python 2, thus causing breakage.
Ubuntu won't be changing that - /usr/bin/python will still mean Python 2. It just won't be installed by default (if they meet their goal, which looks doubtful for this cycle).
Interesting, that's not recommended by python devs. Ubuntu follows the guideline of keeping /usr/bin/python as Python 2 (which will not be installed by default), and /usr/bin/python3 as Python 3.
Exactly. Whenever a script is made, it should have #!/usr/bin/env interpreter# as the first line.
#!/usr/bin/env python2
#!/usr/bin/env python3
Explicitly declaring the required version fixes that problem. In arch, most of the PKGBUILDs will have a line to sed the explicit line into the file in place of the generic python line.
Oh, sure, that wasn't intended as a dig on Django. My point was just the fact that you couldn't run it under Python3 was likely a factor in the slow adoption.
Let me expand: we didn't make it to have python3 be the only shipped python in 12.10 because of several major dependencies. The stumbling blocks (as far as I know---when the rubber hits the road other things might pop up) were twisted, protobuf, and xapian. We have contracted out the work of porting the first two (the results of these efforts will be shipped in 12.10, in universe), and are moving away from the third one.
you mean that it uses python 3 for the system, i assume? surely python 2 will be installable from the software centre, just like python3 can be installed now?
First sentence is false, second is true (by itself).
Python 3 isn't becoming `/usr/bin/python` - it will be `/usr/bin/python3` and the Python programs that are shipped on the CD will use that. If you thought Python 3 was going to become `/usr/bin/python`, then yes, that would cause backwards compatibility issues.
What the heck is that? A pig looking at the golden gate bridge? What does it mean?
I wonder how many people were still using the CD sized image. I'm guessing not very many, and with the size constraints, Canonical were probably itching to get rid of it.
Back when I did some small scale sysadmin work, I found that our CD/DVD burners were a lot more reliable as CD burners than as DVD burners. This seemed to be true both of the older Dell ones we had and the newer generic-brand ones. I had much better luck using CDs for basic installs and then fetching additional stuff from the net than trying to use DVDs.
- I also remember the CD burners to be more reliably, but that is my memory from maybe 5 years ago, I almost always use USB sticks these days.
- For local deployments (or even repeated installs due to tinkering-reasons), the best thing to have is a local http/ftp proxy (apt-get install squid).
I can't remember the last time I saw a CD, let alone touched one. There isn't a single computer in my house with a CD-ROM/RW drive, and even the ones with DVD drives don't have OSes installed with a DVD.
If you have internet access, Canonical have always provided a minimal CD installer (about 30Mb) that grabs packages over the internet. See :
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD
12.04 is on there, and I haven't seen any announcement indicating 12.10 won't be.
Not idea for every application (e.g. where you're installing onto multiple machines, will use a lot of bandwidth), but for 1 or 2 machines certainly an option.
Also users who previously installed using LVM or full-disk encryption via the alternate CD will find that these installation targets are supported by the consolidated image in 12.10. Finally! It was about time to offer what Red Hat/Fedora have been offering for ages.
I really think it's time Ubuntu ditches the bizarre animal names. This one is going to be barely pronounceable for most of the world. 12.10 would suffice
In my 7+ years as an Ubuntu developer, I have yet to see a news article or forum post about a release that didn't somewhere spawn a discussion about adjective animal names.
Frankly, I think it generates considerable free buzz. Everyone's always talking about shuttleworthian adjectives and obscure animals.
My one point of contention, and I've brought this up with Mark personally, is that he needs to announce the name of the next release sooner. Or at least the adjective code name, as it's relevant for things like scripts and other tools, and once we start to freeze things we need to retarget stuff to the next (+1) release.
It's quite silly for any of that work to delay for a reason as lame as wanting to unveil the adjective in a future quirky blog post. Would you believe we actually had to build an abstraction layer in launchpad for release names so we can have things like the "R release" rather than just using the adjective directly?
12.10 is the official name for the actually released OS. The animal name is the code word for the thing that will become 12.10 when it's done. Things get a little confused sometimes in e.g. apt repositories but the official stuff is all quite clear on the distinction.
Pronounceable correctly, maybe. ("Quantal" is easy, but the first time I read it I pronounced "quetzal" like "pretzel" with a 'qw' instead of 'pr' and I will likely continue to do so even though it's technically wrong.)
YMMV I guess. I just hooked a new monitor up to my laptop running 12.04 last night. I had to manually install the ATI drivers, then change the settings in Catalyst. I was required to reboot after each change. Then, I had to change the display settings in system settings. It took about 2 hours to get right and was a huge pain.
I have a dual monitor set up at work on 12.04 and it works flawlessly & smoothly. It is absolutely hit-or-miss. There are driver issues on Ubuntu for dual monitors.
