Ubuntu Linux Reviews

My primary use case is for office work and developing software. 

The most valuable feature is that it's developer-friendly and easily accessible. Like any other Linux operating system, you have access to open sources, all the necessary tooling, and anything that helps developers do their work. I'm no Linux guru, but Ubuntu offers packages that I find easy to use. There are other options for people who are very skilled with Linux, but this solution has the perfect balance of having enough technical requirements to meet your needs while still being usable. It doesn't require you to be so technically proficient that you need to recompile kernels or anything like that. It's a Linux operating system for normal people. 

The only improvement I would suggest is to switching back to Aptitude. They switched a lot of the packages that used to be running in Aptitude to Snap. I don't find them as usable when they are in Snap. The most obvious instance of this is that it's caused me to have issues with Chrome. Starting Chrome took a couple of seconds before it was up and running, which wasn't pleasant. Back when it used to run packaging in Aptitude, I didn't have this problem. I know they're familiar with these issues because a lot of other people have experienced them too. 

I have been using this solution for five years. 

This solution is stable. 

I have never contacted technical support, but I probably will in the future. They offer very good services. 

I use Windows 10 because I have to, due to the programs I have that came with it, but I use Ubuntu on top of that. 

The initial setup was very quick. It is easy to install. 

I implemented myself. 

I'm aware of the paid services that they offer and provide technical support for, which are very good. Down the road, I will use some of them, specifically the service that automatically patches the central core of the operating system because it seems useful. Another service they used to have is a paid networking service. The services they offer are useful, but they depend on your particular situation and requirements. I would consider paying for them when a situation calls for them, but I don't need them right now. 

You don't need to pay for licensing. 

Some of my colleagues use Mint, but it's a matter of preference and specific to each person. 

I recommend Ubuntu Linux, specifically for developers. 

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten. 

I'm not doing coding with Ubuntu or the whole shorthand thing. I use the browser and stuff like that. I use it the way it's intended. If I download an ISO or particular distro, I use it, and if I don't like it, I find another one.

Ubuntu doesn't use a lot of resources. So I think that's pretty cool. It's totally like Microsoft.

I started using Ubuntu this year, so not very long.

Ubuntu Linux is stable. It's now on the 16th edition I think, which just recently came out. I have a paid education license. 

Ubuntu might work for a bigger company, but I don't think so. Again, you would have to get the right people to do it. You need somebody technical. If you have a bunch of people who aren't technical, then it is just going to be a headache trying to get a feel for it or teach them. Microsoft is easier. You can do this, do that, implement, push it out, or whatever. 

I never had to reach out to tech support for anything. Usually, I can find what I need by Googling it and getting an answer from the online community.

I've used a few different Linux distributions, but I didn't like the look and feel. So I don't like the other version. I forget what the other version is. There are two other versions. X Force is the blank version. I don't like that version. And I don't really like Gnome, either. 

The initial setup is straightforward. You mount the ISO, download the ICE route, and run it on whatever you want to run it. If you want to try it out, you try it out. If you want to install it, you install it. Blow away your geo part chips, and that's it.

I rate Ubuntu Linux nine out of 10. I can't really say much about using it for server purposes, and I don't know anybody who would deploy Ubuntu in a user environment. Most people are not technical, so that's not something they want to deal with. 

We use the latest version of the solution.

It is useful for running our personal applications. 

The solution is not user-friendly in comparison with Windows. It should be more so. 

We used the technical support of Microsoft Windows, as Ubuntu does not offer any support of its own. It would be nice to see local support. 

We have been using Ubuntu Linux for eight years. 

The solution is stable. 

Ubuntu does not offer local tech support, thus necessitating that we take advantage of Microsoft Window's. 

The solution is easy to install.

The installation can be handled on one's own. 

Only a single person is required for the deployment. Specialized skills are not required. 

We do not incur a licensing fee for the solution, as we make use of the free version. 

Windows is a more user-friendly solution than Ubuntu Linux. 

I would not recommend the solution to others, but Windows instead. 

We only have 15 users making use of the solution in our organization.

I rate Ubuntu Linux as a seven out of ten. 

We are primarily using the solution for programming. 

The solution is very easy to use.

We find the solution quite stable. 

The solution is cheap and open-source. It's not expensive at all.

The initial setup is simple.

We'd like to have a bit more of a friendly user interface. 

They seem to put out new releases too often and the solution changes too quickly.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

The stability of the product has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is good. It doesn't crash or freeze on us. 

We have more than 100 users on this solution currently.

I've never contacted technical support. I just use the solution for personal tasks. I haven't had any issues that required me having to reach out to support for assistance. 

We found the initial setup to be very easy. We simply downloaded it from the internet.

I'm only part of a small department. Therefore, I'm not sure, company-wide, how many people are needed to perform maintenance, or if any maintenance is required. 

The solution is open-source. We don't have to pay in order to use it. I use it for personal use, and therefore it is free.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We're using the latest version of the solution. With Ubuntu, you need to configure and install some packages.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite happy with the solution's capabilities. 

Ubuntu is easy to use, and user-friendly. However, sometimes, it changes too quickly, and they release changes too quickly.

We are using Ubuntu Linux for running applications.

The most valuable features of Ubuntu Linux are it is user-friendly, has plenty of features that you can develop and builds your own code. Additionally, it is secure and easy to operate.

The solution could improve by having better integration.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for approximately five years.

The solution is bug-free and stable.

We have approximately 400 people using this solution in my organization.

The installation is easy and takes less than 20 minutes.

I can do the implementation myself. However, we have a five-person technical team of mostly engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

The solution is open source and we do not need to pay for a license.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Ubuntu Linux an eight out of ten.

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.