Ubuntu Linux Reviews

The use case for Ubuntu is not the information system production environment for the operating system. It is used to run applications.

We are not utilizing Ubuntu in critical applications.

Ubuntu Linux is developer-oriented.

Similar to Windows 10, I would like the ability to manage it on Azure or integrate it with Azure.

We have been using Ubuntu Linux for 10 years.

Ubuntu Linux is a stable solution.

It's a scalable product, but not the best. We have 2,000 systems. 

We have not contacted technical support.

With an expert, the installation was easy. We had no issues with the installation.

We completed the installation ourselves.

Ubuntu Linux is free, but you can pay for a supported version that is better.

I would recommend Ubuntu for development and to run applications that are non-information system critical.

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a ten out of ten.

I don't use Ubuntu very much, but I have been testing it for approximately ten years. 

There are some that are running their data centers off of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu Linux can be used for anything. Anything that you can do on Windows, you can do in Ubuntu. For example Microsoft Office, Microsoft is really famous for, their Windows platforms, and Office suite. 

In the past, the open-source community had alternative software such as Open Office or even another project called Libre Office. These open-source solutions provided an office suite similar to Microsoft Office. However, with the new Office 365, you don't need Windows to work on Office these days. Outlook, PowerPoint, Excel are all web-based. You can run Ubuntu and open your Firefox browser and use it.

The best way and the easiest way to get into Linux is with Ubuntu because they provide lots of hardware support out of the box.

You don't have to go into the deep parts with Ubuntu to install and configure it. There are many, ready-made guides online for Ubuntu, which is good. 

The Linux distribution is the best for laptops. If you are using laptops, you don't want to be running Oracle Linux there or Red Hat. It's going to be Ubuntu.

I like the easiness of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a great product. It's awesome.

Canonical as a company, who is responsible for Ubuntu, is doing a great job at making Ubuntu very easy, plug and play, and they are good at porting applications to Ubuntu. If you're talking about Linux, the easiest Linux distribution you can encounter is Ubuntu.

The distribution with the most packages available to it is Ubuntu.

In terms of user-friendliness, Ubuntu is the best it can get in the Linux world. To say that it could be improved would be unfair. They are the ones bridging the user-friendliness gap in the Linux world.

The main distinguishing feature between Ubuntu and other Linux distribution is that Ubuntu has excelled at user-friendliness. It's very easy to use.

Ubuntu, as a distribution itself, is filled up with a lot of bloated software. That is the main reason why enterprise companies, mainly in the US, prefer to go with Red Hat, and SUSE is preferred mainly in Europe. 

Red Hat and SUSE provide less bloat on their OS.

Ubuntu is based on Debian, which is the first Linux distribution to ever come into existence, or the first mainstream Linux distribution. Debian also is bloated with a lot of software and sometimes some of the software is old. 

I would love to see Ubuntu strip down. They have a server edition that is stripped down.

Instead of having a billion different distributions, why can't there just be one? This would improve Linux and I would love to see this happen.

One of the reasons people don't use Ubuntu on servers is because they are not as secure as Red Hat. They could be more secure, but for them to be more secure, you need to strip the bloatware. Bloatware is when you have several applications that are not needed and already installed in the operating system. They have a server edition and that comes stripped of the bloatware.

I have been working with Ubuntu Linux for more than ten years.

I have used the latest edition of Ubuntu Linux. If I am not mistaken, the latest release is 20.04 LTS.

Stability is a broad topic. Ubuntu is stable. 

Scalability? It Depends. It's Linux, you can do anything with it. 

It depends on what you mean by scalability. You have to be very precise. If you're talking about data center and scalability, then, yes, it's scalable. 

There are open-source projects that are being used, whether it be with Ubuntu or with Red Hat or with SUSE, to scale data centers, or to establish a scale-out architecture. It is possible to achieve scalability with Ubuntu, depending on the scenario. 

With any other Linux distribution, you can achieve quite the same.

There is a large community online.

I'm using something called Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian Linux.

I have used many operating systems. I have used Debian, CentOS, Fedora, Red Hat, and SUSE.

I have also used distributions that have very weird names as well.

Linux has always been a technology for technical people. Ubuntu bridges that gap. With Ubuntu, you don't need to know the technical parts of it very well to install it on a laptop and you can use Ubuntu without having any Linux knowledge.

It is very straightforward and can be installed anywhere. That's the convenience of it. 

For example, if tomorrow you face an issue and you Google it online, you will find many people who face the same issue and will provide workarounds or resolutions for the problem.

It is very easy to install.

The time it takes to deploy depends on the hardware you are installing it on, but normally it is 20 to 30 minutes to install onto a laptop or a server.

You can install it yourself. It is similar to installing Windows. There is no difference. You burn the ISO image to the USB, boot the server or the laptop and follow the instructions. You click the "next" button until it is complete and you are good to go. You give it your password, the settings that you would like, and that's it.

Ubuntu is a free product. 

If I am not mistaken, you can purchase support contracts that are available from Ubuntu.

You can always purchase Ubuntu, use it as often as you would like, and you can get enterprise support. 

Canonical has its licensing scheme, but I think the product is free to use. 

It has a GPL license, (General Public License). This license is always and will always be free to use. 

I am not familiar with the prices because I never had to contact Canonical for support and inquired about how much it would cost for their support. 

In general, you can always download their software and install it at any time for free and use it for free, according to the GPL license.

I am mainly a free VM Linux advocate. I love open-source products in general. 

At home, I have a server I'm running Linux on. I'm a Linux open-source enthusiast with more than 10 years of experience with multiple Linux distributions as a hobby. 

In my line of business, I interact with Linux environments a lot and Unix space environments in general.

I would recommend Ubuntu for anyone who's trying to learn Linux. 

For anyone who is not technical but wants a free operating system on their computer, I would definitely recommend Ubuntu.

I think there's something that needs to be clarified; Ubuntu shouldn't be compared to other distributions. These are just distributions. In the end, they share the same kernel. That is the thing with Linux. Linux is not a complete operating system. I will take the kernel, I will bundle it with a bunch of applications and then I will release it to the public and say that this is a distribution, which is not an operating system. 

I would recommend that it be compared based on the kernel, not on distribution to distribution. Ubuntu was made for something. It was made to be user-friendly, it was made for laptops. It is doing a great job on that. 

No other Linux distribution is doing as good of a job on that. For example, Red Hat or Oracle Linux, are not good on laptops, but they are good for servers. Red Hat is really good on enterprise servers.

If you are going to run any data centers that are all based on Linux, it should be based on Red Hat or SUSE. If you are running any Oracle databases or Oracle applications, it would be better to run them on Oracle Linux, even though Oracle Linux and Red Hat share the same binaries. 

There is no difference between the commands in Red Hat and Oracle Linux.

Linux is a messed up world. Everybody has their own agenda, their own thing and it's basically the same. If you go to Ubuntu with Oracle Linux in the back end, it's the exact same. 

This is the biggest nightmare with the Linux industry or the Linux world, that every day there is a new Linux distribution.

It's great. I would rate Ubuntu Linux and eight out of 10. 

It's a great product, very easy to install. It provides an alternative for Windows. 

Some people don't want to pay Microsoft or can't afford Microsoft, they want to have their own operating system solo on their hardware. Ubuntu provides that and gives you the option to give you support for it.

We primarily use the solution for data storage. 

The data storage capabilities are great.

We love the fact that this solution is open-source. It's free to use.

The product can scale.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is easy to install.

I can't really speak to any missing features.

There are some costs on offer that could be lower.

The learning curve is quite high for non-technical users. Therefore, it's not a suitable solution for a general office environment.

I've been using the solution for five years. It's been a while, although I don't use it too much.

The stability is very good. We have found that there aren't any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is quite scalable. If you need to expand it, you can do so as a company. 

It's the base of our data platform. 70,000 people are using it. The IT team alone is 5,000 to 6,000 people. 

I've never dealt with technical support directly. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are, as I have never called them for assistance.

We have two major operating systems: Microsoft and Linux. 

The solution is quite straightforward and easy to install. It's not too complex or difficult. However, I cannot speak to how long it takes to deploy.

The solution is open-source. I'm not sure if we pay for any licensing or services and if we do, I am not sure of the exact costs. It's not a part of my responsibilities.  

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment methods. 

I'm not sure which specific versions we are using and if they are the latest or not. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite satisfied with the product so far. It's been great.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. I wouldn't recommend it if you were deploying it as an office environment, however, for the data platform, it's perfect.

It is mainly a LAMP server with Apache, MySQL, PHP, and other things for the students to do their web development stuff. It's all done up with LDAP capabilities of getting into it. The web server side is open to the internet, so they can sit at home, VPN in, and do all their work. They can actually see what the public-facing side ends up looking like. Then we've got our main learning management system because we do our own self-hosted Moodle instance kind of thing. It's all running on a Linux server and doing well. Our DNS servers and things like that are all separate. Two of them are internet-facing, and one of them is internal.

I am very close to its latest version. I try and stick to using the long-term release versions, like every second year when they release the new long-term release one. So, I have some servers that are actually on 20.04, but I've got a web server at home that's on 16.04. I've got Nextcloud and things like that on that server, so I'm afraid to do a full load upgrade on it because I don't want to break anything. That's why I wish I had it set up as a virtual machine that I could take a snapshot of and blow it up and go, "Oh, okay. I'll revert." We can't do that with the hardware box.

In terms of its deployment, at work, I do everything on-premises in VMware vSphere itself. I work with the IT program at the university. It is an Applied Systems one, so it is a two-year diploma program. I've got a whole bunch of different servers set up for them, and it is a mix. Our domain itself is with Active Directory, and everything is Windows, and then just about everything else is running on Linux servers. Our VPN is also Windows because it makes it simpler for users to connect easily. You don't have to download keys and install them and then be able to talk to OpenVPN properly.

I like the fact that I can make it very secure with my own knowledge, which makes it different from Windows that does things in the background by magic, and you hope that it's secure. I like the availability of starting with Linux with totally minimal permissions for anybody and then increasing it on an as-needed basis. This is probably the most important to me. That's where I also love CentOS for Linux because you do a minimal install, and then there is a whole bunch of stuff you can't do without installing packages, which is quite nice in some ways and painful in other ways.

I like the versatility of it. When I first started here, which was like eight years ago, we were running some stuff as virtual machines inside a Linux host instead of doing it with VMware. Then we finally got VMware licensing, but before that, we were doing some virtual machines within Linux itself, and it was working quite well.

The biggest improvement, which is also applicable to Linux in general, with Ubuntu Linux is getting things standardized as to where you're going to put your configuration files and how they're going to work. Package names also need to be improved so that the package name doesn't have any match with configuration file systems and things like that. Ubuntu is still better than some of the others, such as Red Hat Linux or CentOS. For example, in your named server, the package itself will be BIND 9, but then the configuration files are in etc/named, and the service is called named. Why isn't the package name matching up? Little things like that prevent it from getting more mainstream use from everyday users. They should standardize things between different distributions and even inside the single distributions. You can't expect people to adopt it as your desktop system if you do weird things. It is great for us Linux nerds, and we can deal with it, but you can't expect your general public to just be able to jump in and say, "Oh, it's like this here, but it's not like it there."

I've been using it for probably 10 years.

Its stability is great. You turn it on, and it runs. I do have a couple of these that do automatic updates for the important stuff. I just get an email telling me that this is being updated so that I can check and make sure everything is okay, which is always the case, but it is worth checking anyway. You can back out of the updates fairly easily, unlike Windows that magically does things. I don't mind that in general, but you never really know what it is doing. It just says, "Oh, here are your updates. You've got these six things." You can't pick just one to update. You've just got to say, "Yeah, go ahead and update," and then hope it doesn't blow up in the meantime.

I've never really scaled things up much. Usually, I pick a system and make it a certain size and availability. I've done it with virtual machines where I've increased drive space and things, but I've never really done the scalability side to where it can boost up another server to take a load off. I'd love to try it, but I've never had a situation where I really needed it.

In general, we have probably about 50 users at a time. It is not a huge number, but in terms of usage, it is extensively used. Ubuntu is just about everything other than the basic Windows domain stuff. Domain controllers and VPN are all we've got on Windows currently. 

Our situation right now is just right. I've got Jitsi Meet, which is a video conferencing type server, and I might increase capabilities there. In general, I don't think we're really going to expand much, but you never know in this day and age how much things change in IT. At one time, we were doing OpenStack ourselves, and I told people, "Yeah, we're competing with Amazon Web Services, but only at this little level." Finally, it got changed out anyway because they kept changing it so much.

I've never dealt with their tech support.

I personally used CentOS Linux quite a bit during most of our learning years in the IT program. Red Hat was kind of your big standard out there at the time. When I came into this job, because there were only a few things, what we had was really just Ubuntu Server. As we did bigger upgrades, I eventually started changing them and replaced the CentOS ones with Ubuntu ones just to standardize. They were kind of bouncing around at the time, and I don't like bouncing around too much.

I'm just about to do a project and try and switch that over to Windows. There is some stuff that I like with the Linux one, but I'd much rather manage it in Windows because it is much easier where you just say, "Add this host," and it's done. It is magic. It happens and updates everything and stuff. I don't have to go and remember to change the serial number. My biggest problem is that I'll make changes and save them, but nothing happens, and I go, "Why?"

The installation is very straightforward for the desktop and the server. It comes up with that nice setup. I love the fact that you can take it off a USB stick as a live distribution, and then do your install and actually click the stuff that you would like it to install automatically, or you can wait until it's done as long as you know what you want to install. I do find it quite good.

For its maintenance, one person is required. I do it all. It's funny when we get our IT section to come down and give a briefing on how our whole IT department for the university works, and they talk about server group, networking group, project management group, etc. When they're finished, I go to the students, and I say, "So for the ITAS program itself, see all that on the board? That's me."

It is 100% free.

I love using it. I'm strictly on the server-side. I've got a laptop with Ubuntu Desktop on it because we teach it here, so I might as well make sure I'm still playing with that a little bit once in a while, but I'm mainly on the server-side.

It is the best-supported one by the community. I still recommend it to anybody who asks me, "What should I do here?" It's nothing about our current CentOS turning into rolling releases, which has 14 million people in an uproar because they think, "Well, it has always been so stable without rolling releases. Why would you change it?" That doesn't bother me at all. I just look at that community being out there, whether it's Stack Overflow, Ubuntu forums or web pages, etc. There is just 10 times more information available for Ubuntu, which sometimes is harder to filter through. You'll get somebody's answer, but it's from a five-year-old distribution that isn't supported anymore, and it doesn't work that way anymore, but I do think the community itself is great.

I'm going to give Ubuntu Server a 10 out of 10 because it is so stable. I never had any issues with it in terms of stability. Even when I've done big upgrades where you got lots of stuff on an individual server and lots of different things going on, and you say, "Okay, do this distribution upgrade because it should be stable," it always works out. I've got one at home that I'm kind of scared to upgrade. I don't think I'll have a problem with it, but I'm kind of scared to do it anyway, just in case.

I'm using it for a file server and for MySQL servers. Those are my primary uses.

The solution is easy to install and easy to update.

You can scale the solution quite well.

The solution has a bit of a learning curve. It's not too high, however, you do need to understand the solution to deploy it and work with it effectively.

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it extensively in the last 12 months at least, and over the last two years in general.

The stability is mostly pretty good. The only issue with stability was with power knocking out, and therefore I put a UPS on it. That seemed to solve any issues going forward. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's quite good now.

Linux offers very good scalability potential. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

I just use the solution for personal use. I don't have a big team using it.

I've never used technical support in the past. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

While I've been a Mac person since the Mac first came out in 1984, I've added Linux for my server items. I didn't really switch to anything else; I've just added onto what I already do.

It's an operating system and when you install an operating system new, there are all sorts of things you have to go do and go read up on such as how do I do this and how do I do this? For me, it went very, very well, however, it's not something I can do in an afternoon. It took several days to get everything proper. However, it went well so there are no complaints at all in terms of the initial setup.

I can't speak to Unbuntu versus Red Hat or other Linux solutions, however, I am aware that some people use them.

I'm using the solution more for myself. I'm just an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with Linux.

I'm using the latest stable version. If they publish a stable version and then they publish an experimental option, I won't use it. I'll stick with the stable option. 

It's not something that you run on the cloud. It's what's behind cloud services. I've got an Ubuntu machine at home that I use regularly, but it is also my MySQL server and a file server, all in one box.

FileMaker, I know very well and MySQL, I'm learning quickly. Linux, I'm a beginner admin on it. I'm not in a position to make any comments pro or con enough, as I don't know enough about it to make a valid comment.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I've been very happy with it.

I use Ubuntu Linux for server administration and to manage network traffic. I set up a Linux server and router with all traffic through ease. I could limit the band rate limits of users in university. These are the main use cases. I also used Ubuntu with ZoneMinder Software. It's open-source software and we use about 700 CCTV cameras, which are IP-based. We deployed this on our servers for use on our own two operating systems. Other use cases include using it with the base cloud. I set up an openness patch on the Ubuntu Operating System. I'm familiar with Bash Scripting, Python Scripting, and the system programming in C and C++, but C and C++ programming languages are not my recent activities. Most of my working system is Linux Scripting or with Python. Actually, I'm recently working with Ansible to automate my jobs and my Linux experiences. Ubuntu provides for all of these activities. I also used it for OpenStack.We are hosting providers and a service company. Half of our services are based on CentOS, but they are going to migrate to Ubuntu as they are using services that Ubuntu provides. We are going to use Ansible to manage Ubuntu servers using the provided automation. We have been deploying OpenStack in an industrial IT company in Iran and now we are going to add special storage as a block device for our private cloud in Iran.

Many years ago, I used to compile Linux Kernels and operating systems. In those days, I had a lot of problems with compiling from scratch and it was so time-consuming. When I got a job in the industry, I faced new problems. So I found that may be using a new operating system may be a way forward, and that is how I came to start using Ubuntu. Performance, security and manageability are my main reasons for choosing Ubuntu. For performance, I can tune as needed. The security aspect has good features and support. There is a free security bug system. This is really good and helpful for the organization, to identify any security issues in the system. We have about 20 to 200 users in our company. Most of them use Ubuntu as a base system and all of, or may actually half of our servers are Ubuntu based. We use OpenStack code, and we have a data centre with about 150 servers of DL306 HP and set up Ubuntu on them.

There are many good automation features in Ubuntu. For example, there is a new version of Netplan Fortune which is a network manager and it is very good at managing a network of virtual machines. Ubuntu is optimized, which makes it really nice, as we can optimize Ubuntu as much as we want. For example, I had a good experience in traffic management, as I could optimize the system and Linux to make it efficient. Ubuntu is easy to obtain information for because there is a lot of documentation, and there is also a large community where you can have questions answered. Linux systems like Ubuntu and Centos enable you to work quickly, and easily. This includes installing a lot of programs, easily, as and when you need them. For example, when we are deploying the OpenStack operating system, we can use many sources, such as Galera Cluster. All of these packages are pre-compiled and pre-deployed on operating systems like Ubuntu.

The new releases of OpenStack are much faster than Ubuntu. However, the commitment of the OpenStack project is not supported in Ubuntu in the first instance. If the Ubuntu community can package and manage new releases of OpenStack packages, it will be really good. Management monitoring and interface could be better. I also feel it could be improved overall in terms of the dashboard, technical support, pricing, stability, scalability, and performance. They could try to package more new releases of OpenStack, and that would be much better.

Personally, I have been working 15 years in Linux including a role as a Linux System Administrator. I have experience in Linux concepts including system programming and cloud computing recently. I also know about storage systems. OpenStack is the last thing I have been working on, deploying to the cloud about 5 years ago. It is the main product I've been working with. I do not have experience in Red Hat Operating System, but Debian, Ubuntu, Census are the main operating systems I have been working with.

The stability of Ubuntu is good. The most important aspect is that you can use the LTS versions of Ubuntu. We can have upgrades of software for many years and obtain support from Ubuntu. Stability is important for a Linux administrator In general Ubuntu or even CentOS does not have any problems with stability and you can use it for many years. I have used it for 3 or 4 years continuously and I did not encounter a serious issue at that time.

I have set up and deployed Ubuntu with Ubuntu MAAS installation. This was a very useful service that Ubuntu offered to us. I deployed my server with my coworkers and we set up many operating systems at the data centres within a few minutes. Scalability in terms of a service layer is really good. You can install and deploy on many different types of hardware. Most of my experiences are setting and deploying Ubuntu on HP generation of 7, 8 and 9 servers, from the DL38 server, HP DL38 to DL36, 316 servers. We use it as much as we want. Regarding the scalability of Ubuntu, most of our coworkers are using Ubuntu as client servers. They are based in Iran. Ubuntu-based operating systems are really popular in Iran.

As we are in Iran and because of sanctions, we don't have a support opportunity. So we try to use it to learn what we can and consult the documentation. We don't have technical support here and we have to support it ourselves. I'm using most of my time to read the documentation and fix problems. We don't have technical support in Iran because of sanctions.

I have previously been involved with Centos. My most experience is in private clouds, and I've been deploying Ubuntu Linux and OpenStack. I set this up at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad for high-performance computing. However, that was about five years ago. Last year in my new company, I deployed OpenStack for a public cloud. And we are going to use it for some of our customers.

Also, partitioning and deploying Ubuntu in the cloud is really simple and easy. We create a base image of Ubuntu or maybe use a pre-built image built in Asia from ubuntu.com to our cloud. I have a lot of experience from many years ago installing Ubuntu and partitioning using LVM partitioning. For example, Ubuntu supports several files systems for use with products such as Excel. These are the main file systems I use in Ubuntu and LVM management in Ubuntu is really simple. Ubuntu installation is really simple, even for newbie users. The installation of drivers can sometimes be difficult, but otherwise, it is an easy setup.

I prefer to use an open-source license rather than proprietary licenses. Ubuntu is very well documented. It is also manageable and financially affordable.

We previously evaluated Centos and OpenStack.

Ubuntu has improved driver support and the installation of Ubuntu is really fast and easy. I recommend it to everyone. I would recommend Ubuntu over any other operating system. Ubuntu is useful for a variety of challenges, and issues. I would rate Ubuntu as 9 out of 10. It has good support and can be deployed on a cloud such as OpenStack. Ubuntu thinks about its customers and really helps them to achieve what they want. The freely available support resources of Ubuntu are really good. The good use of documentation and community forums are the major things that Ubuntu has succeeded. Ubuntu has done a good job of supporting their releases of lifetime services. I think it's a little bit better than CentOS.

The solution provides digital use for end users. I'm the director of the company and we are customers of Ubuntu. 

Ubuntu has better security and better production in comparison to Microsoft Windows and the hardware performance is better than Microsoft. The best feature of the solution is the auto upgrade operating system we get as a support from Ubuntu. The solution is good on the support level in several aspects; the web server, database management, security management, and viral management. Ubuntu is great on all of these.

The product currently lacks interoperability with other operating systems like Windows. This means that it's not possible to integrate with some of the popular Windows applications  such as accounting, tax, financial accounting and bracket improvement. I'd also like to see a lighter version of this solution. 

I've been using this solution for 15 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. We are a 15-person team using the product but we have deployed for organizations which have 100+ users. We use a three or four person engineering team for deployment. We plan to increase usage of this product. 

We have hardly needed to contact technical support. The solution has good documentation and a community forum for support.

I've been using Red Hat and CentOS but I'm not comfortable with the operating system. With Ubuntu it was a lot quicker to get better security features or updated versions. 

Initial setup is very straightforward. It takes maybe 10-15 minutes. I carried out the deployment myself. 

We haven't gone for a support subscription. Ubuntu is very reasonably priced for anyone looking to use it. 

I would recommend Ubuntu in preference to Red Hat which has shifted to a very advanced engineering team. Ubuntu is for anyone who wants to start out. It's best to use it on the desktop and server. It's one of the reasons providers like Google and Amazon are giving reviews based on Ubuntu.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

I use Ubuntu Linux as a workstation to check my emails, to connect to people, to use Teams, to send mails, and to browse everything, similar to how we use Windows.

I use Ubuntu Linux as a replacement for Windows for everything. I use Teams, emails, Zoom, AnyDesk, and UltraViewer on it.

For system administration, I find it useful to connect to my Linux servers directly from the command line, and I create my virtual machines using VMware Workstation.

In terms of security, I am satisfied with Ubuntu Linux and I can rely on its security features more than I can with Windows.

There might be some features or limitations I would want to see improved, but I cannot think of any specific ones right now. It is easy to use.

The booting of Ubuntu Linux should be faster because I only have two minutes when I have calls, so it should complete more quickly.

I have been working with Ubuntu Linux for four years.

I have not faced any challenges with Ubuntu Linux such as integration or any other challenges.

I have not faced any challenges with Ubuntu Linux such as integration or any other challenges.

I have not faced any challenges with Ubuntu Linux such as integration or any other challenges.

I have not used Ubuntu Linux for AI as yet. My total rating for Ubuntu Linux is 9.

We use the product for end-user applications and site management across workstations and servers within our environment.

Ubuntu Linux's most valuable feature is its open-source nature.

There is room for improvement, particularly in the GUI aspect of the product. We encounter issues while accessing GUI compared to Red Hat or CentOS. The simulation tools could be easy to use and facilitate efficient integration with remediation tools similar to Duo on CentOs.

We have been using Ubuntu Linux for six or seven years.

The stability is better than that of other open-source platforms.

We used Red Hat before.

The initial setup is easy.

I recommend user-friendly options like Ubuntu or CentOS for those venturing into Linux for the first time. They provide easier configurations as well. They should also explore Rocky Linux, a free and open-source distribution similar to CentOS. They have a good open-source community. However, sometimes, it isn't easy to find resolutions. This particular area needs improvement.

I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We are using Ubuntu Linux for testing some VMs.

I'm satisfied with Ubuntu Linux, but it's always good to improve on the performance of any product, including this one.

I've been using Ubuntu Linux for two years now.

Ubuntu Linux is a stable system.

Ubuntu Linux is a scalable solution.

The initial setup for this solution took two days, and it is something that can be done by yourself.

I'm not paying anything for the use of Ubuntu Linux.

I've evaluated Red Hat and Windows 10. I'm still using Windows 10, e.g. I'm using it in parallel with Ubuntu Linux.

I'm using the latest version of Ubuntu Linux. I'm satisfied with this operating system.

We have four to five users of this solution within our organization.

I have not contacted the technical support for Ubuntu Linux yet, because I currently don't have any technical issues.

I'm rating Ubuntu Linux seven out of ten.