Have you nothing informative or reasonable to say about any other technology besides what comes out of Redmond?

Not much of a review. Do you give up on everything so easily? Checksums are there for a reason. They help ensure that you go a good copy which it seems you did not. You can't blame Ubuntu for that.

Installing Ubuntu is dead simple these days. It even installs from inside Windows.

The only reason why many Windows users can use Windows at all is because they do not have to install it. It comes pre-installed. If people lack computer skills it does not matter what the OS is. Lots of Windows users cannot even troubleshoot or maintain their own computers. The fact is that computers are a long way from being appliances. They take some work to use them.

A fully installed Linux box will have fewer problems and be easier to maintain. There are virtually no viruses, malware, or trojans. Security is far better in Linux than XP or even Vista and OS/X. You do not need to defragment the hard drive or worry about corrupting the registry and you almost never need to re-boot.

If you are going to draw comparisons to Windows then you need to get beyond superficial and unsupported time-worn put downs. Or perhaps you should stick to science.

Sorry LinuxCanuck, it isn't a corrupted image. Fewer problems and easier to maintain? Yeah right don't make me laugh, I suppose you dismiss all problems as corrupted images. I *work* with Linux and Windows machines every day, the Windows ones can be left alone, the Linux machines require a far greater number of patches and have higher down time. Malware? Pft, my Windows boxes have no anti-virus software and don't get any malware, and Linux has plenty of trojans so don't skim over the facts to make a point.

Seriously, the checksum just means the image on the disc was corrupted. Did you check the download against its posted checksum? Perhaps you're burning discs too fast - if the download checksum matches and you're getting this error, then you just aren't burning the iso correctly. Did you check the burned disc against the checksum-checked iso after burning?

You know hundreds of thousands of other people don't have this checksum problem, right? And you know what a checksum is?

On top of that, I don't know what windows boxes you're using. We support a few hundred, *with* antivirus software, and one will still get compromised every few months.

Paul, come on. This is pretty weak. Do you really think anyone's going to take this post seriously?

Guys, the checksum matches. The image wasn't corrupted as I had previously said, nor was it burned to a CD. Sorry Mr Archeihn, this post was just something I threw up after wasting an hour last night playing around with it, I'm not going to go into detail at 2 in the morning. Frankly I don't care to waste any more time on Ubuntu, I'll go back to Linux distros that actually work. I thought the Linux fanboys would like some anecdotal experiences, the same ones they parroted around after the Windows Vista launch. How about offering some advice to resolve the issue? Oh wait, the Linux fanboys don't have any advise other than their party line, one of misinformation and over-generalisations.

yup u are damn right,stay away from any fanboy ,go to a true fan or satisfied user,the ones that first ask you what your problem is ,instead of blaming you ,they start looking for a solution,real user are people who do care,lame user just don,t help....

Ubuntu 8.04 is a disaster, especially taking into account that it's supposed to be LTS.

I've been using ubuntu since its first release. On its second release I decided to use it as the base OS of my business, combined with a virtualized version of Windows XP.

Yesterday I made a clean 8.04 hardy heron install and found out that:

1. The great KVM does not seem to work (there's a registered bug showing that virt-manager cannot install XP as it cannot read CD-ROM - which it asks for during the installation even if started from a HD iso file -).

2. Virtualbox - which I used in the latest releases of Ubuntu - doesn't work either as it doesn't capture the mouse

3. The great UFW firewall is only shell-based, no GUI, and in addition Hardy poses problems for configuring Firestarter.

4. Hardy is slower than previous versions and doesn't seem to be as stable as they were.

In other words, Ubuntu is becoming closer and closer to Windows.....but on the bad part.

If it is full of bugs and many programs are not compatible (that's why I always need virtualization), the only reason form remaining is just price.

I suggest Ubuntu guys take care with what they're doing, placing quality before meeting release dates or they will get into trouble.

Just in case, I'll be moving back to 7.10 as everything worked fine there, despite it was not an LTS.

I find this a somewhat brief article to be rather lacking to say the least.
Which is the opposite of what I have found with the latest release from Canonical, that is Hardy Heron.

To say the least I did two upgrades online, the first via the online upgrade which was initially from the release candidate and then subsequent updates and this worked to perfection with not one problem.

The second machine was upgraded via a downloaded DVD iso and online updates which has also worked to perfection.

The third PC was a brand new lower specs laptop, which was a clean install via Wubi and likewise works to perfection. To say the least it runs much faster than Vista which came preinstalled.

So from my perspective I have found it to be an overall great experience.

So I guess its a matter of perspective, in my opinion it looks like just another Ubuntu bash. I personally think if you are going to put forward criticism put it forward in a positive fashion and submit them on the correct forum if you are concerned about a progressive approach.

Hope I don't sound too negative but I can only be positive about my experience

I assume you were trying to install via virtual PC since you mentioned adjusting the ram and hardware acceleration... That's not quite a valid test since that's Microsoft emulating hardware, and not actual hardware. Additionally, Virtual PC doesn't support Ubuntu... In theory though, you can make it work it just takes some effort.

If however, you were to install it on an actual PC, you may not have these problems, since they are VPC specific... It's not fair to blame Ubuntu for Microsoft's non-standard hardware emulation.