Ubuntu Linux Reviews

Some of my customers use Red Hat, some of them use Debian, and some of them use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is popular for ordinary customers and some of our clients use Ubuntu. I have experience with most main distributions, such as SUSE, Ubuntu, Red Hat, CentOS, and Debian. 

A Majority of my customers would rather be Using CentOS, RHEL, and OLE but also some are looking for easier interface and simplicity. it suitable for newcomers and desktop users. What appeals to me about it is that you wouldn't have trouble with your drivers.

Ubuntu has a good interface, it is easier to use than other distribution such as CentOS or Red Hat. It's suitable for beginners who want to start learning Linux. It has a simple interface and it's easy to use. Ubuntu is suitable for someone looking for a desktop Linux.

I prefer to use Debian instead of Ubuntu because Debian is the main distributor. Debian is more stable than Ubuntu. In some projects, I have had some problems with Ubuntu Linux. I finally figured out the root cause. It goes back to repositories. On Ubuntu, you can use main repositories and the source of a package that you install from. If you change repositories, you will get trouble and have difficulties with Ubuntu.

Ubuntu should create some specific features, like Red Hat. Red Hat has provided many features for open-source, like FreeIPA. I can centralize the management and policy management. It's very good, like Microsoft. That has an active directory, a special directory service for the customers. 

I'm looking for enterprise features. I'm looking for specific features in the storage area, in the file system area. I'm looking for management solutions, integration solutions, like SUSE and Red Hat.

Because of some cutting edge packages, I think stability is good. Sometimes you need software that is not in the main repositories. Ubuntu tries to involve new software in their repositories.

I think there isn't a difference between Ubuntu and other distributors. If you have enough experience in Linux, you can implement most solutions, and there aren't any specific features between most of the major Linux. 

I have been working with several companies that use Linux in their office but they use Linux servers and most of them use Oracle Linux or CentOS and some of them use Debian. Some employers in these companies use Ubuntu so there are not very many users. 

I haven't used Ubuntu's support up until now. In most situations, my colleagues and I can resolve problems based on our experience, internet forums, and many papers that you can find everywhere about Linux.

The problems we would encounter would depend on the service we're working on. I implemented FreeIPA for some of my customers and I had some problems with the installation process. The main Ubuntu documents couldn't help me anymore. I had to look for extra documents on the net. I can resolve it from Red Hat or even Debian documents. It takes a reasonable amount of time to find a solution. 

Don't change main repository of Ubuntu otherwise, you will get trouble.

The initial setup is very simple but not as simple as Mint. In the desktop area, Mint Linux is easier than Ubuntu Linux. Statistics show that Mint is more popular than Ubuntu but the setup is not difficult compared with Red Hat or another distributor. 

All of my projects have been done by the internal team. 

It is not easy to find out ROI for such a solution but you don't have to pay for buying and most of the time for support.

All of them are free most of the time if you have good Linux admins.

I have been working on many Linux Distro till now. I evaluate the new release of the main distros to find out new features.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

It's a very stable and very popular solution.

If I run an application, I need it to show up in Microsoft, so Microsoft can run in Ubuntu. It needs to connect better with Microsoft products.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable. We have 10 users at the moment. We plan to increase usage.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I have experience with Linux, so I am okay.

We've only ever used Microsoft products. But Microsoft is very expensive, and the system is complicated.

The initial setup is simple.

We had a consultant assist in the implementation. We need 15 people for deployment and maintenance.

I would advise using the solution because it's a very stable system and very fast and you are charged no money for using them.

My number one choice, for the work I do, is Red Hat, but it's very expensive. Number two is Ubuntu, which works for small systems and has good value.

I think that Ubuntu offers more than Microsoft. Microsoft is no good. There are lots of versions of Windows, but many errors and there's no stable system.

I would rate this solution 2 out of 10.

There are many features I like about this solution, but one that stands out is that it allows me to easily install new packages and to have recent packages available. 

I am really very satisfied with this solution. However, one thing that I would like to see improve, is to have better support for multiple screens with multiple resolutions. For me, that is the most important feature.

Ubuntu Linus has always been very stable for us.

This solution is very scalable on the server with some add-ons like like containers, Docker containers and kubernetes. We are a relatively small development company with only three staff members. But I've installed this for customers with hundreds of users supported by the Ubuntu server. 

I've never had to use their technical support, so that just shows how good the product is. 

I used Debian before, but newer versions and solutions are out there and we've decided to start using Ubuntu Linux instead. 

When I first installed it, it was fairly easy. But when I installed it onto my new laptop, it was rather complex because it involved adding all the drivers. 

I use the free version, so I don't have any license fees.

I will give this solution a ten out of ten.

We're using Ubuntu in a number of different ways and I even have a server for the main controller that's running Ubuntu so that people can authenticate and do various other things internally. I started using Linux a very long time ago and it wasn't Ubuntu. Ubuntu just happened to be the friendliest, nicest solution out there. It is also the easiest to sell to other people. 

One of the things I like about this solution is that you can leave it without having to boot into a rescue mode at one of your servers. You don't have to change permissions or go through nightmarish scenarios to solve technical issues. 

The most valuable features of this solution are standardization, visualization, and package management. I also like their videos. 

Ubuntu is following mainline Linux, and what Ubuntu really does well is packaging it well so that you've got a really turnkey desktop or service solution. Their stuff is pretty good as far as it goes. I've enjoyed using the product because of those things. 

I would love to see more, open documentation and a bigger ecosystem. I think Ubuntu's main strength, as opposed to using the other Linuxes, has been its ability to encourage user feedback. I think that's something that can always be improved. So it's just about keeping that open and increasing the certainty in IT because IT needs to know what we're going to stick with. When you decide to make an architectural change, it may be better to get community feedback first, and maybe then announce it in a different way. I don't think it's very technical and the community feedback route should be looked at or be improved. 
They might also add additional features, like something to tweak the home desktop a little bit for new users. 

The solution is very stable and the long term support releases have been great. It is always a very good idea to read what's happening and not to switch over too quick. We have products that we put out that we build, so we also have to make sure that all the libraries around that product are going to be working the same before we even start to use it. So the stability is fantastic. We've been very happy about the long term support release and we've hardly had any problems at all.

Ubuntu Linux is built to scale well. We are currently running our entire infrastructure on it. So we've got virtual machine servers, word servers, and version control for code. And I've got an office with at least ten people using the desktop version.

I'm hoping that our software service will grow and then we will have much more server usage. We are part of a much bigger corporation with more than 20,000 employees in the active directory. So, we used to previously push Ubuntu much harder, but these days we just like to let people choose whether they want to use it. And we buy Ubuntu certified laptops for the people who want to use Ubuntu for enterprise. Linux is still a bit of a second class citizen on enterprise desktop, because of active directory dominance.

Up to now we solved our own technical issues, like normal de-bugging. Other issues I like to solve by using different technologies. But not without having to go through a very diverse ecosystem where there's a lot of solutions in place.

I used Linux a few years back and then I moved from Linux onto Ubuntu in 2006. I liked the way Ubuntu community marketed itself. I like to use friendly solutions, and not solutions where elitist techno people make other people feel inferior.

My advice to others would be to know what you really want. Ubuntu can be customized to exactly those functions. Depending on how you want to scale, for example, you might want to look at microservers, architecture, and how to connect it all up. And have your Ubuntu servers as small nodes or even containers. The solution offers many options, so if you're starting with Linux or Ubuntu, I would start with playing around in virtual machine space, seeing how the package management works, write some scripts, getting to know a little Bash. The solution is very secure and there is a lot of documentation available already. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use this solution on my desktop.

The most valuable feature is the user interface. The user experience is really good.

On the gaming side, things are happening but there are some games that should be ported to Ubuntu. Gamers generally don't adopt Linux, and the choice is normally Windows.

The stability of this solution is ok. The previous version of this solution had some glitches. When I locked the system, I would come back and it would not unlock. I had to remotely log in and kill something before it would unlock. After the update it was ok.

I haven't used Ubuntu as a server operating system. Obviously, Linux is scalable because we have been using Red Hat and other distributions, but with respect to Ubuntu, I haven't used it on the server side very much.

I have never contacted technical support.

We do not use Ubuntu Linux in our production environment. For production, we use Red Hat and similar ones, such as Oracle Enterprise Linux. On the server-side, we haven't introduced Ubuntu yet.

With Ubuntu, I think the recent versions have pretty much everything in place. Some other operating systems may not take all of the hardware devices and drivers, but here it picks up most of the things, so I don't see anything wrong in there. The user experience is good, the interface is good. It's all good.

Being a desktop user, I can say that using this solution on a desktop is a very good choice. Ubuntu also supports a cloud-based installation, so it should be a good choice there as well.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I find the stability of the solution the most valuable aspect. It's also easier software than Microsoft Windows.

The portal for the active directory needs to be improved. I cannot include my work station as I want to the active directory to the Microsoft domain. 

The solution could be better integrated with Microsoft.

The solution is stable. 

I cannot answer this question. I haven't tried to scale the solution. Directory as a workstation is used by a few hundred, but all servers are for Oracle databases. And that users work on Windows work stations, but with Oracle client issues, databases on the servers. But we don't plan to scale.

We don't deal with technical support. If we need answers, we usually use the internet.

We previously used 3BD and Oracle Linux. We switched because this solution is more user-friendly.

The initial setup was pretty easy.

We did not evaluate other options.

I would rate this solution at 8 out of 10. 

For me, its different user interfaces is not a good idea because sometimes it's hard to find the best interface. It's better to have one, but an excellent one. I think the stability is very good.

I find the Linux community very valuable and the fact it is open source. So it's free and I use it without any problems.

I'd like their updates to be better and some other official programs, as well as the user interface. They aren't as user-friendly as Microsoft. The solution can use a better UI.

I find the solution stable.

For me, the solution is scalable.

I prefer to use the community, rather than technical support. I'm able to solve my problems using the community. It's easy to find answers to my questions.

We use Covernity for cloud infrastructure, but for disk management, I use Unbuntu.

I would advise those thinking about using Ubuntu to be patient and don't switch to Windows.

I would rate the solution as 7 out of 10, because some platforms aren't as easy for users.

I used it before on my laptop, and I was quite happy with it. I had to change back to Windows 8 when we got a new product which is not supported by Linux. To show our product to our customers, I had to go back to Windows. 

I still have an older laptop which is using the Ubuntu version on it. I am still quite happy with it. I have not had so many compatibility problems between Ubuntu and Windows as I have had with Mac.

Our biggest issue is cybersecurity. In 2013, we decided to protect our network with a Linux server. If there is a virus going into the network, it has to pass through an Ubuntu server, which can't be infected by the virus. So, there are less viruses on our systems.

Linux is more stable than Windows. 

An easier to configure firewall would be a good add-on. 

I would like some antiviruses, since what you get on the market is not much. However, if you want to protect your network, there should be an easier way to configure security software since sometimes it can be very difficult.

It is very stable. Previously, I never had a problem. 

Though, I have a problem now. I tried to install Microsoft SQL Server on a new Ubuntu machine, and it is not working at 100 percent. This is following Microsoft's install instructions, not Ubuntu's.

I had a customer who was using NGINX running on Ubuntu servers in three different data centers. After getting more servers behind these NGINX Ubuntu servers, we had to resize everything. This was easily done in a very short amount of time, and we were able to expand the capacity too.

I have never used the technical support.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. Sometimes, I have to read a little bit. I have quite a big eBook with how to's, which I wrote myself. 

It is very cheap. It didn't cost anything to download a Ubuntu server version and install it on an already existing Dell server.

Cisco or Juniper.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: sales support.