Canonical has today released Ubuntu 23.04, their latest short-term new-feature release (it's not an LTS) that will be supported until January 2024.
One of the big user-facing additions is the new installer that they say offers a "streamlined and more intuitive user experience". While it offers up a refreshed look the code behind the scenes is the biggest change - since it now shares the code-base with Ubuntu Server so they can give a more consistent experience.
This release also has GNOME 44, so you get all the latest enhancements there but Canonical also updated Ubuntu font, and they mentioned some big Snap update behaviour changes too. Instead of notifying you an update for a Snap was available and then making you go somewhere to update it, you will now get a background download and then it will be applied when the app is closed. You can also now pause Snap updates for as long as you want.
There's plenty more like their Snap of Steam being promoted to stable. Canonical said over 150,000 people downloaded the preview version, so there was plenty of interest in it. This Snap bundles a bunch of dependencies needed allowing you to run new and old titles without messing with PPAs.
On top of that Ubuntu Cinnamon and a resurrected Edubuntu join as official flavours.
Canonical also did a video about their new installer:
Direct Link
See the release announcement for more.
You can download it here.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Last edited by 1xok on 20 April 2023 at 8:47 pm UTC
Ari El Uno Apr 21, 2023
mr-victory Apr 21, 2023
https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2304-laptops
Performance isn't looking good. There are regressioms within OpenGL benchmarks and severe performance losses on Intel gen12.
https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2304-laptops
Such a frustrating article - I knew there was a reason I stopped reading Phoronix! To see such massive drops in framerate and other areas, but then cite "a lack of time" to understand why is just half-assed. Particularly when there's at least one report on Ubuntu's discourse that they're seeing an increase!
Of course, I'm not suggesting that one rumoured increase on Nvidia contradicts over 60 benchmarks - Larabel knows his stuff and his article shows that surely something is negatively affecting performance. But to publish this with only a vague "maybe it's a kernel, or perhaps it's gnome/mutter" comment feels pretty disingenuous.
At least one of his audience has commented that the missing performance re-appears under OpenBox, so Larabel's hunch that it's gnome/mutter might be borne out. But the damage is done, I suspect.
It's not his job to say why the regression happened, or rather it is only if he decides it is. It’s Canonical’s job to keep their system in shape, or put pressure on Gnome to fix their shit if the problem is on their side and can’t be fixed by others.Well, technically it's not his job to even provide benchmarks unless he decides it is. But it certainly would be quite nice if he proposes a hypothesis he'd at least take a moment to test it, considering he'd realistically only need one of the systems switched over to a small WM or something and one test to verify it. It's hard to believe the article had to come out so quickly that there wasn't any time to set that up.
He works almost round the clock on articles and benchmarks to make ends meet and this unfortunately reflects on the quality of the articles.
He used to have time to even do bissections and notify devs of the exact commit that caused an issue, but it's been a few years since I last read an article where he mentions doing so.
It's unfortunate, but he's only human and very tired (measurable by how well or poorly structured his phrasing is at each article, and trending down).
I'd cut him some slack or find him some professional money backing for his work (which everyone benefits off, by the way, because performance regressions aren't that easy to spot without his approach).
Last edited by Marlock on 21 April 2023 at 6:47 pm UTC
He used to have time to even do bissections and notify devs of the exact commit that caused an issue, but it's been a few years since I last read an article where he mentions doing so.I wonder if ad revenue for independent websites has gotten skimpier--is Google siphoning off more of the cash than it used to?
It's unfortunate, but he's only human and very tired (measurable by how well or poorly structured his phrasing is at each article, and trending down).
I wonder if ad revenue for independent websites has gotten skimpier--is Google siphoning off more of the cash than it used to?Maybe, but IIRC word from Michael himself is that adblocks trending up was a major factor and his premium subscriber audience didn't increase enough to make up for it.
Also there has been a baby involved, which is great news in itself but also means no sleep has been had and all that.
This has been ongoing for a couple years, not something that happened these last few months.
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me