Ubuntu 25.04 'Plucky Puffin' Arrives With Linux 6.14, GNOME 48, and ARM64 Desktop ISO (canonical.com)
- Reference: 0177055073
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/04/17/1631222/ubuntu-2504-plucky-puffin-arrives-with-linux-614-gnome-48-and-arm64-desktop-iso
- Source link: https://canonical.com/blog/canonical-releases-ubuntu-25-04-plucky-puffin
For the first time, Ubuntu ships an official generic ARM64 desktop ISO targeting virtual machines and Snapdragon-based devices, with initial enablement for the Snapdragon X Elite platform. The release also adds full support for Intel Core Ultra Xe2 integrated graphics and "Battlemage" discrete GPUs, delivering improved ray tracing performance and hardware-accelerated video encoding.
Networking improvements include wpa-psk-sha256 Wi-Fi support and enhanced DNS resolution detection. The installer now better handles BitLocker-protected Windows partitions for dual-boot scenarios. Other notable changes include JPEG XL support by default, NVIDIA Dynamic Boost enabled on supported laptops, Papers replacing Evince as the default document viewer, and APT 3.0 becoming the standard package manager. Ubuntu 25.04 will receive nine months of support until January 2026.
[1] https://canonical.com/blog/canonical-releases-ubuntu-25-04-plucky-puffin
Snapdragon X-Elite Support? (Score:2)
I'm confused by the wording of the snapdragon support, so will it work on x-elite device out of the box or are they implying support is coming?
Already up to the PP release again. (Score:2)
I remember Precise Pangolin and the disaster that was Unity.
Re: (Score:2)
Unity--was one of the horseman of the Linux Desktop Apocalypse.
I am so old that I remember when Ubuntu was cool (Score:2)
In storage, I have an official Ubuntu install disk
Re: (Score:2)
> In storage, I have an official Ubuntu install disk
I was there when Ubuntu launched and never remember it being cool. It seemed from the start to be a dumbed down Linux for Windows transfer students. Not that there's anything wrong with that on the surface, it just wasn't the cool option for the uber-nerds that were already running Linux for years. I know when I first tried it I was immediately put off by the concept of having no actual root user. That seemed so outside the norm that it sent me into a "not standards compliant" tizzy that seemed rational at
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Oldhat and Fedora were, except for corporate out of the loop, by then.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, Oldhat and Fedora were, except for corporate out of the loop, by then.
I was a Debian / FreeBSD dude a the time Ubuntu came out, though still piddled around with SuSE too.
Re: I am so old that I remember when Ubuntu was co (Score:4, Interesting)
What was cool about Ubuntu was that you got everything working without dicking around because it provided binary drivers. It also NEVER had no real root user, EVER. I too have their original distributed install CD somewhere. You could always just give root a password and then log in as them.
Re: (Score:2)
> What was cool about Ubuntu was that you got everything working without dicking around because it provided binary drivers. It also NEVER had no real root user, EVER. I too have their original distributed install CD somewhere. You could always just give root a password and then log in as them.
The default setup didn't allow logging in as root, which irked me terribly on principal. I remember having to fight to get the root account to the point where I could actually use it.
Re: (Score:2)
> The default setup didn't allow logging in as root, which irked me terribly on principal. I remember having to fight to get the root account to the point where I could actually use it.
Do you mean remotely? I do think they had ssh configured to not allow root logins. For local logins it was just passwd root and go.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The default setup didn't allow logging in as root, which irked me terribly on principal. I remember having to fight to get the root account to the point where I could actually use it.
> Do you mean remotely? I do think they had ssh configured to not allow root logins. For local logins it was just passwd root and go.
No. I always just sudo or su for remote root access. I don't remember specifics, as I'm old enough to have been through the install routine too many times to remember every specific instance, I just remember being annoyed that root wasn't already set to go from install. It was the first distro I had ever run into where that was the case, and I was far more used to distros where root was the *ONLY* account set up by default, and you had to go out of your way to set up your user account.
Download servers are struggling - use bittorrent! (Score:2)
Looks like the servers which provide the Ubuntu downloads are struggling....
So... Use bittorrent instead if you can: [1]https://ubuntu.com/download/al... [ubuntu.com]
[1] https://ubuntu.com/download/alternative-downloads#bittorrent
Re: (Score:3)
Or wait a few days, it's not like your life depends on it.
it's really easy to build Linux on Debian (Score:2)
You unpack the kernel source package and run some scripts, and you get debs. I am running 6.14.2 on Devuan 5. The only problem was that I had to build a newer ZFS first since even the version in backports was too old, but that wasn't hard either.
Puffin??? (Score:2)
Erm... Plucky Penguin surely?
Snaps (Score:5, Insightful)
The next improvement I would suggest is to get rid of snaps. In my opinion, it has become a failed experiment that needs to be abandoned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should get rid of their telemetry, too.
Re: (Score:3)
I've yet to play with the new version but the telemetry is an option that you have to enable during the installation process.
I sort of wish we did have better telemetry so that we could more accurately know how many people are using desktop Linux and which distros they're using. Plus, if we know the hardware profile, we could tweak what's supported. I will say that volunteers, Ubuntu/Lubuntu members are not given access to any of that information.
There are also bug reports that can be automated. I'd not cal
Re: (Score:3)
> do not really care where my software comes from - so long as it works.
Isn't this very issue Linux so famously talked about in 2014? That just making the software easy to get regardless of the distro you are running is a key part of desktop Linux succeeding?
At least with Windows I get an exe or an msi and run it and it will install (usually), Linus even pointed out the guy who manages a windows version of his diving software has an easier time deploying it than he does.
Re: Snaps (Score:2)
Snaps don't work well at all, so by your own logic, you should care.
Re:Snaps (Score:4, Interesting)
> As for Snaps... Well, that's a touchy subject. I, as a person, do not really care where my software comes from - so long as it works. I don't use many AppImages but I do have a bunch of Flatpaks installed because that was the easiest way to get a bunch of emulators for old game consoles.
I'm somewhat concerned about the bloat issue - too many Snaps and you start duplicating stuff that should be there only once and shared as libraries. If you only have a few Snaps it isn't too bad; but if Ubuntu starts moving everything to Snaps, as I think they plan to, it could get out of hand.
Also, in my admittedly limited experience with Snaps, I can't hold updates on only one program. If I want to not update a Snap - and that's a common thing for me - I think my only option is to pause updates on ALL Snaps. That definitely won't work for me.
I have no problem with Flatpaks and Appimages, even though they still cause extra bloat. I think that's because I choose specific standalone executables for specific reasons. I may want two different versions of a program, or a program version that's not supported on my current distro version. I may just want to test-drive something without installing deps that don't always uninstall cleanly. The only practical solution there is standalone executables.
With Mint, I have the best of both worlds. If I need a Snap, I can install it. If I want to run a Flatpak or an Appimage, I can. And if I want to stick with tried-and-true Apt, I can do that too. Life is good - except for the latest version of Thunderbird, which sucks ass and for which I have yet to find a way to revert to 115.
Re: Snaps (Score:3)
Flatpaks are also not all monolithic. They have dependencies on other flatpaks and they get updated independently. That keeps down the bloat.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, also.
Re: (Score:3)
Apt and debs worked nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
They did until they didn't. If they were so nice there wouldn't be so many attempts at replacing them. Take off the rose coloured glasses, apt and deb are far from perfect.
Re: Snaps (Score:2)
Bullshit, as usual. It's essentially a proprietary extension meant to create user dependency. Page out of Microsoft EEE strategy, which was a page out of IBM's strategy. Create proprietary extensions which your users become dependent on. Apt and deb work fine, there is literally no need for Snap other than to create dependency.
Fortunately, it's so shitty even Ubuntu and GNOME kool aid drinkers hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
> The next improvement I would suggest is to get rid of snaps. In my opinion, it has become a failed experiment that needs to be abandoned.
Canonical seems committed to snaps. Their argument is that it saves time for maintainers (one build for many/most releases). And it also moves them into the store model where there is potential revenue upside for Canonical (Apple and Google, as obvious examples, make a lot of money from their stores). If I had to choose between the two reasons, I would say it is more about the money (it is always about the money).
Re: (Score:2)
They may be but I see people moving away from them because of it. It's not a good technology, it has all the problems of Flatpak but a few more because Canonical doesn't play nice with others.
And it only "saves time for maintainers" because maintainers have few packages to maintain, instead relying on devs to make their own snaps.
In addition to the inefficiencies, it's also inherently less secure than the regular apt-type packaging system, each package relying on the good will and hard work of a likely alre
Re:Snaps (Score:5, Interesting)
Last month I couldn't print anymore. On 4 laptops and 2 different networks and 5 or so printers. Jobs would just disappear as if printed. Printers would wake but never print anything. I spent hours on the problem before finding an obscure reddit answer about a duplicate cupsd service running in snap, in addition to the systemctl one. I removed it (and Chromium of which it was a dependency but which I never used) and lo and behold it started working again. So, yeah, fuck snap.