Sunday, March 10, 2013

Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Daily-build Review: With latest apps and a better looking Unity

With every progressing release, Unity desktop is getting significantly better. In Natty and Oneiric, I actually hated Unity for it's inefficiency and decided to stick to Linux Mint and Sabayon for the time being. However, with Ubuntu Precise 2nd update (12.04.2), my opinion on Unity actually changed. Though still not customizable but efficiency has increased, apps stopped crashing in the background, annoying pop-ups are gone and Unity has now become far more responsive than where it was in the beginning. Also, after using Gnome 3 in Fedora and OpenSUSE, I now understand why Ubuntu stayed away from the default Gnome 3 DE and leaned towards Unity. Agree, the strip hogs a bit of space on the left hand side but you can actually make it thinner and hide while using applications.
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
My sole purpose of downloading the daily build of Ubuntu Raring Ringtail and using it for a week, was to assess what incremental changes to expect in Unity for the April release. I downloaded the 816 MB ISO from here and did an installation on my Asus K54C laptop with 2.2 Ghz Core i3 processor and 2 GB RAM.


Ubuntu 13.04 has Linux kernel 3.8.0 and Gnome shell is 3.6. Like all Gnome 3.6 distros, Files 3.6.3 is the default file manager. Also, Ubuntu has done away with System information tab in System monitor and no longer you can see the Gnome shell version there.

 Installation
Installation is pretty much the same as in Precise or Quantal - no changes or surprises there. While installation, I opted for downloading 3rd party proprietary softwares like Adobe flashplugin, multimedia codecs, etc. and installation took about 30 minutes of time.

 Post installation almost daily there were some updates and I kept installing them till today (10th March).

Privacy - Most importantly
After the privacy fiasco with Ubuntu 12.10, in the 13.04 release, Ubuntu now gives a lengthy legal notice that user data are being collected by Canonical. 

From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
Anyway, I don't care much about that legal notice but what I care is that Ubuntu now has an option of not sharing your private content with Canonical. It is a great relief to Ubuntu users, no doubt!
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
Further, the scopes, as promised in 13.04, are still not part of Unity dash. I guess, it will be good to get all contents from IMDB, Ebay, Amazon, etc. at a single location but these things may become a bit overwhelming to begin with and will take some time to get used to it. Users like me are quite comfortable in searching content on Google or Yahoo! in Firefox.

Unity - coming to age
Unity is almost similar in design (dash icon is a bit different and looks great) with Ubuntu Quantal. Desktop is very simplistic in design with the same wallpaper and I like the simplicity that Ubuntu offers. Though still Unity in 13.04 is still not customizable.
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
Functionalities like web apps, photo lens, music lens, video lens, integration with Amazon, etc. continue as in Ubuntu Quantal. I added web apps for Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to the dash. And from dash I could search my friends facebook posts, favorite music and videos!

From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in

 Unity is much more responsive than what I noted for Ubuntu 12.10 without compromising much of the functionalities. Unity is truly coming to age now and after working for a week, I could see it's intuitive appeal. Earlier, instead of searching through the menu, I used to have a docky and pin my favorite applications there. Now Unity strip has replaced the need for docky, at least for the moment.

 However, still applications take a bit of time to open from the strip. Hopefully it will come down in future releases.

 Applications
Applications are more or less the same with updated version of LibreOffice (4.0.0.0) and GIMP (I downloaded 2.8.2). Most of the commonly used applications are present in Ubuntu (as expected) and additional applications can be downloaded from Ubuntu Software Center. Default web browser is Firefox and chat client is empathy. Flashplugin and multimedia codecs were downloaded at the time of installation and I could see my favorite youtube channels or videos right after installation without requiring to download any additional app/codec.

From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
Integration with leading social networks is the same as in Quantal. It is quite helpful as once you input your facebook, twitter, google, flickr, etc. account details there, social networking applications like Gwibber, empathy, shotwell, etc. gets automatically configured.
 
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in
From Ubuntu 13.04 http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in

 Performance
Ubuntu 13.04 (though in beta stage) showed a bit of higher RAM and CPU consumption to load desktop with task manager running, than Ubuntu Precise. But, it is lower than Ubuntu Quantal. Also, except for the slow response in opening applications from the strip, rest of the experience was pretty smooth. I didn't encounter any instability in my usage (except for hanging at times while using LibreOffice Calc). Pretty smooth experience for a beta distro, undoubtedly.


Parameters Size of ISO Base Desktop Linux kernel CPU Usage (post installation) RAM usage (post installation)
Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS 693 MB Ubuntu Unity with Gnome 3.4 3.5.0 1-10% 230 MB
Ubuntu 13.04RC 816 MB Ubuntu Unity with Gnome 3.6 3.8.0 1-10% 325 MB
Ubuntu 12.10 790 MB Ubuntu Unity with Gnome 3.6 3.5.0 1-10% 412 MB

Overall
I am quite happy with what I saw in Ubuntu Raring  Ringtail beta. Unity works pretty decent and doesn't hog much resources now. Resource usage is at par with any other KDE distro I h ave seen. Unity strip and dashboard have definite utilities and makes life a lot simpler than using Gnome 3 default desktop and menu.

 I am sure by the time 13.04 is released, a few more incremental features (like scopes, etc.) will be added to it. As of now, it is honestly an improved version of Ubuntu 12.10 without any additional "Raring" features, except a lengthy legal notice and privacy option. I end with a note of expectation both in terms of performance and functionality from the Raring release. Hopefully, it is on track for the April release.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

10 comments:

  1. taoufiqMarch 11, 2013 at 5:32 AM

    Xubuntu as well as Lubuntu
    are beter than ubuntu i hate ubuntu unity
    http://thefreshgeek.blogspot.com/2013/03/lubuntu-vs-xubuntu.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arindam SenMarch 11, 2013 at 8:54 AM

      Ubuntu brings in certain innovations that neither Xubuntu nor Lubuntu can match like photo, video & music lens, HUD, etc. to name a few. It is very important for Linux that Ubuntu gets the Unity thing right. Even I used to hate Unity but, of late Unity has matured and is coming to age.

      Gnome as a DE offers a lot more flexibility than either XFCE or LXDE. Gnome 2 was perhaps the best DE I have ever used but Gnome 3 screwed everything up! It is not intuitive like other DEs I have used. Ubuntu is perhaps right in moving away from the default Gnome 3 DE to Unity. At least Unity is intuitive. In 12.04.2, Unity actually gives me better performance than KDE.

      So, the bottom-line is we can expect a lot of development as far as Unity is concerned in forthcoming releases - it is going to go better.

      Thanks,
      Arindam

      Delete
    2. taoufiqMarch 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM

      not for me i like xubuntu and gnome 3
      arindm can you give me your facebook account i want to talk with you

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 9, 2013 at 11:14 PM

      The thing is as a new user, you have no clue what Unity can do, except as a start menu. There are no tutorials, no popups to integrate with social services and etc, and potential gets wasted away and frankly only adds something that does the same as older gnome interface.

      When the system becomes "smart" and starts interacting with you into integration, it will become great.

      Delete
    4. Arindam SenApril 9, 2013 at 11:17 PM

      I agree with you completely. Unity has a lot of potential and multi-usage. I recently started Unity and still exploring it's features and not an expert in the subject to make a document. Definitely Ubuntu should come up with some guide sort of thing explaining each and every feature of Unity interface.

      Delete
  2. smartcatxxxMarch 13, 2013 at 4:45 PM

    Hi Arindam,

    Thank you for taking the time to test all those distros and post the results and your comments. Very interesting, informative and very enjoyable. However, I would like to debate some of your methods and conclusions in general.

    First of all, I have tested some dozens of distros over the last several months (I am a windows user fed up with M$FT and trying to find the best linux distro that suits my work style). The lowest resources hog I could find so far is Sonwlinux. Starts at 115 processes and 494 MB RAM, and after 15 minutes of idle goes down to 109 processes and 491 MB RAM. Not sure how you measured all those wonderful distros that take up less than 100 MB RAM. Myself I am getting those numbers by running top from console. Right now I am on the latest Crunchbang with OpenBox and Cairo dock, with 3 consoles, one remmina session and one iceweasel with 3 tabs open, it takes up 1.9 GB out of the 2 GB installed on my antiquated Pentium 4 machine (which by the way also runs windows 2003 server just fine). Those are more like windows numbers to me :) I do have an old laptop, runs Windows XP SP3 on it quite well and it takes only 300 MB at idle. It is the same as with Linux: if you know how to get rid of the crap and tweak it well, you can squeeze quite a bit of performance out of it.

    Secondly, lower resources do not necessarily mean higher performance. For example Ubuntu may be a memory hog however it runs better video compared to most other distros. On my old desktop it is using the native NVidia video driver, as opposed to the generic one. Various distros have various versions of drivers and applications which may load faster or slower and could perform faster or slower or crappier just because of that, thus yielding the impression that the OS is more or less performant/responsive than others. Also, as a general rule of thumb, although on file operations it seems that any Linux distro beats Windows, when it comes to video the situation is reversed (OpenGL is still a long road for linux). In the end, one has to test with the programs he’s using on a regular basis, and with the work style that suits him best. For example, Enlightenment is something that works against my style, although many others seem to like it. I’d rather use windows 95 :))

    Thirdly, the issues start to surface only after you use a distro for a while. For example the Crunchbang I’m using now is visibly slower than what it was when I started on it about a week ago. And I didn’t run any updates yet, so it’s the same version as when I started. It now takes 8 seconds to open up a new terminal window!?! Yup 8 seconds. Various WM/DEs also seem to make quite a bit of difference, probably more than the sheer CPU%/memory usage numbers. To me XFCE seems to be the best compromise (I need a computer to do development work on, not to spend time constantly tinkering with the OS itself), seems quite stable over a long period of time, and a good compromise between functionality, looks and resources consumption.

    Forthly, I am looking forward for your next reviews! On my plate next: ArchBang.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arindam SenMarch 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM

      Hi,

      Agree with a lot of your points. Ubuntu is definitely a resource hog but is extremely functional. The widest variety of applications are in fact available in Ubuntu platform among all the Linux distros. Secondly, having used almost all desktop versions, viz. e17, XFCE, LXDE, Gnome, KDE, etc. my preference too is for XFCE as it blends perfectly low resource usage with functionality. And you can, in fact, make XFCE look amazingly stunning with a docky, compiz effects and transparent panels. Similar thoughts go for LXDE as well.

      I reviewed quite a few Snowlinux versions and they are pretty good and stable. Especially the Debian based versions are a whole lot stable than Ubuntu based versions. Please check my reviews on Snowlinux in Distrowatch.com.

      On Archbang, I am using it on a P4 HP PC with 1 GB RAM. At idle state it consumes about 1% CPU & 60 MB RAM and runs blazing fast. I have been using it for a year or so and always keep it updated. I can guarantee for Archbang - it would never become slow! However, I haven't used crunchbang on a continuous basis and can't tell why it became slow. Openbox distros are normally minimalistic and runs very fast. On Archbang, I am using docky along with changed theme & wallpapers. You can read my review here: http://mylinuxexplore.blogspot.in/2012/12/archbang-201212-review-simple-light-and.html

      Thanks,
      Arindam

      Delete
    2. UnknownMarch 31, 2013 at 11:40 AM

      You can't really compare memory comsumption just by running some top, or free or smth like that. And that because there are different memory allocation / freeing policies, which depend a lot on what users in different times, ages, hardware eras can afford.
      Lots of people compared how much memory would Windows XP vs Windows Vista at that time (and Win 7 later) took and how much was "free". Windows XP was like 200 MB (could run in less), while Vista would take whatever memory you had in your computer (all of it). And this is where caching comes in play. Nowadays, when there are tons of ram in any computer, it's more efficent for a computer to just allocate some memory, and let it sit there allocated even after the program exited, if there are no stringent needs for new memory. This makes a Firefox start in 20 seconds on Windows XP and 2 seconds on Windows 7. The same kind of strategies applies to Linux too. So what you'd have to compare is the real memory usage, extracting all caching type of allocation made. And that's difficult to do, because many times there are shared areas of memory, bufferes, caches, etc.

      Delete
    3. Arindam SenApril 9, 2013 at 11:19 PM

      One aspect here: top will give you both used and buffer resources. Hence, you see 490 MB, etc. It includes the buffer as well. Please check with htop / system monitor/task manager to get the accurate estimates.

      Delete
  3. smartcatxxxMarch 31, 2013 at 8:52 PM

    Eduard,
    I've seen many benchmarks, and all boil down to the fact that nowadays all modern OS'es run pretty much as fast as the hardware can. That with the exception of games using OpenGL (where Linux is still trailing Mac and Windows), or some less mainstream video cards (where Linux is again behind). Old XP and W2003 would take twice as long as Linux to boot or shut down. However, once loaded and up to speed (and once you remove all garbage the computer manufacturers install on them), xp or w2003 are as fast as LXDE or XFCE distros, and faster than GNOME or KDE, even though an LXDE distro may "use" 150 MB of RAM (which is not actually true, they take a lot more if you take into account other things like caching). There are 2 distinct things: opening and closing many windows running different programs, and actually having those programs running. First one depends on the WM. The more visual candy the slower. Once the program window popped up, it's pretty much how good the program is written. I have measured FF on windows and linux, to have a common measurement unit. windows beats linux by a small edge, except LXDE. But then FF version makes a much bigger difference. E.g. FF19 runs some tests almost twice as fast as FF 16 on both windows and linux. That is where the real performance comes from. Memory consumption does make less of a difference, and anyways it does not seem to be measured correctly by the linux posters.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)