Early Boot Speed Results For Ubuntu 12.10

[ssam]

I won't even pretend I was paying any attention. But boy I'd be in trouble if I waited for clients to raise all bugs on my behalf...

but you might not be happy if your clients complained about your product on public web forums, before letting you know about the issue.
(unless of course you only release perfect bug free and feature complete software that has been fully tested for every possible use case (No opensource projects claim anything close to this, maybe with the exception of TeX))

[lasermike026]

I don't care! Next question, does it boot correctly?

[JanC]

Most likely you did not notice that ubuntu devs usually do not fix things which are not in launchpad. Because that way they can say they fixed bug x or y for the money they get.

Lots of Ubuntu devs aren't paid, but still they do fix bugs.

OTOH, fixing bugs that they don't know about is very unlikely to happen of course...

[halfmanhalfamazing]

It's an obvious issue. Bugs are meant for other reasons, not for broken/slow stuff from the get go.

Not everything is so obvious. It could be a hardware issue on your end, or something else software-wise they aren't subject to.

And yes, bugs are meant for everything that's a bug. The price of free software is that we do more testing on our own and report the results. They won't fix issues they don't know are issues in the first place.

I really hate having to log into a million platforms for each bug I stumble upon. I would love to report stuff, but if developers really want my reports, they should make tools that log in as bots and complete the report.

Such a software package exists. It's called ABRT. I don't know what distro you use, but perhaps it's time you switched to Fedora. ABRT rocks. It does all the work. I've only had to file one manual bug report since ABRT "took over".

[BO$$]

Damn I thought those seconds for grub to display was by design...Now I realize they just suck and haven't fixed this in a really long time.(I don't boot that often so I don't really care about this issue).

[kokoko3k]

...why boot speed is so important for some people?
I think that man power should go to suspend 2 disk instead.
If hibernation works for you, you can have an instant boot, really, a matter of 2 or 3 seconds, by reducing the maximum image size.
That way you'll have a system as just booted.
Or, if you choose to have a larger image and can wait 20 seconds for the system to boot, you'll have an incredibly responsive system too.

But we need hibernation to work on every system, right now i'd say a good 10% isn't covered

[Tundra]

You know what? You're a helpful guy, so don't take this as an attack to your person. But I really hate having to log into a million platforms for each bug I stumble upon. I would love to report stuff, but if developers really want my reports, they should make tools that log in as bots and complete the report. Having to install debug packages is annoyance enough. So there, if anyone thought Linux is lagging on the desktop because of video drivers or lack of games, there's an additional problem for you.

On your ubuntu system, lauch this and fill the form with the requested details: ubuntu-bug grub2

If you ever want to report against a graphical program, "ubuntu-bug -w" and then click on the window of that program or "ubuntu-bug $PID" with $PID being the process ID of a running program.

This is so complicated that a 2 years old kid could to it. Now what new excuse do you have?

[ciplogic]

[QUOTE=kokoko3k;289432]...why boot speed is so important for some people? (...)/QUOTE]
The jump from 7 to 9 seconds is significant, at least on an SSD. Because the machine was an x8 core machine (8 integer cores at least, which matter on boot) is the best case scenario. Windows 7 seems to boot into 18-20 seconds on another SSD (and the same Bulldozer CPU).
Also Windows 8, seems to boot as fast as the latest Ubuntu, even with a lower end CPU.
So at the end is all about impression: an OS that works is always better than the one that doesn't, but the one that works, is always better if it finish to boot shorter.

[mercutio]

[QUOTE=ciplogic;289471]

...why boot speed is so important for some people? (...)/QUOTE]
The jump from 7 to 9 seconds is significant, at least on an SSD. Because the machine was an x8 core machine (8 integer cores at least, which matter on boot) is the best case scenario. Windows 7 seems to boot into 18-20 seconds on another SSD (and the same Bulldozer CPU).
Also Windows 8, seems to boot as fast as the latest Ubuntu, even with a lower end CPU.
So at the end is all about impression: an OS that works is always better than the one that doesn't, but the one that works, is always better if it finish to boot shorter.

Windows 8 boots faster than Ubuntu for me. But it's the BIOS I really wish would be sped up, as you have to wait for that while you select which OS to boot.

[boast]

dang, so much faster than KDE