Ubuntu Linux Reviews

We use the solution as a backend production server. We run our Docker containers on Ubuntu. We mainly use it for automotive charging software.

The product is easy to use. I like the tool’s performance and availability.

The product must provide integrated security solutions. I use third-party security solutions now.

I have been using the solution for two to four years.

Currently, we are trying to implement our solution with the Kubernetes environment. We need horizontal scalability, not vertical. When we need more capacity, we add another server and distribute the load onto the new server.

We do not use support because the answers in the community forums are enough for us. If we gain more customers in the future, we might need support.

We were using Windows before. I like Ubuntu’s performance compared to Windows.

The setup is really straightforward. It is not complex. We develop DevOps scripts to deploy it. It takes only one or two hours. If the hardware is available, then it will take only one hour. We prepare the hardware environment and deploy the solution. After that, we deploy the Docker container environment. Then, we run the whole software. The product is deployed on-premises because we are still in the testing phase. We have a small number of customers. In the future, we will try to migrate to the cloud.

The product is cheap compared to Windows. We pay a yearly license fee. I rate the pricing a four out of ten.

I do my job directly on the terminal server. Ubuntu is a good choice. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

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.

The product serves as an essential operating system for starting a PC. Once the system is up, users can install applications, browse the internet, and perform various tasks. It serves as the foundation for daily computing activities.

The primary benefits of using Ubuntu include its reliability, security, and cost-effectiveness. It provides a robust operating system foundation for various computing tasks, making it an invaluable tool for both personal and professional use.

Apart from a subscription based pricing, the product's free version is highly useful, offering multiple graphical user interface (desktop environments) options. Ubuntu can be installed on server (server verion), workstation & standard PC, also it is available as  Ubuntu terminal environment on Windows with Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). This caters to a wide range of system and user needs. Its Linux-based nature makes it preferred among technical professionals, including developers and network administrators. 

The main challenge is restoring the system from a crashed state, which can be complicated for non-technical users. However, with experience, this becomes more manageable.

I have been working with Ubuntu for around six to seven years.

The platform is stable.

The platform is scalable. It is used by all users in my organization, totaling around 200 executives who use Ubuntu for learning. Developers primarily use it daily for various tasks.

The setup process for the product is straightforward, offering both graphical and non-graphical installation options. Improvements could include bug fixes, enhancements, and upgrades, which are typically addressed in future releases.

Implementing Ubuntu is easy and can be done in-house without the need for external support. Creating a bootable USB installer and following the installation process is typically all that's required.

Since Ubuntu is freely available for download and use, there is virtually no investment required, resulting in a high ROI.

Ubuntu is essentially free to download and use, making it accessible to anyone without the need for licensing costs.

The highly secure and customizable product makes it a preferred choice for regular users and hackers. Its open-source nature allows for extensive customization, while its robust security features protect against various threats.

Its reliability makes it suitable for both personal and enterprise use.

The product is excellent for individuals or organizations seeking a free and reliable operating system. It is well-suited for technical users, developers, and those working in data centers or network environments.

I rate the product a nine out of ten for its overall performance and reliability.

I have used the solution for creating databases. 

It has a good support system for loading databases. 

The support can be improved. 

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for a year. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

The solution is an Android service package.

Firstly, the attack surface is a lot smaller. There are fewer vulnerabilities. If you look at a list of CVEs, you will see that while many systems are targeted, fewer attacks focus on Ubuntu than other operating systems because Ubuntu is highly customizable. You can configure it exactly how you want, secure it thoroughly, and turn off unnecessary services, yet it will still function properly. Unlike a Windows machine with numerous dependencies, Ubuntu can operate efficiently with only the essential components enabled.

The stability could be improved.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for four years.

The product is stable. It depends on the use case. If you try to use it as a multifunction server—such as a file, print, and logging server all at once—it may not perform optimally. However, if you use it for a single dedicated function, it is one of the best options available. I rate it a nine out of ten.

There are effective ways to manage large amounts of Linux devices remotely, but it requires knowledgeable personnel. While business tools exist for managing Linux, it's more complex than using Windows, which level one or two technicians can manage. For Linux, you often need specialists. However, Ubuntu Linux's free licensing and open-source nature can reduce overall costs despite the need for skilled administrators.

There are enough forums and other means of support for Ubuntu Linux that you don't need official group support.

The initial setup will be easy. Once you start using it, you will manage the rest of it. Although it can become quite technical, a lot of support is available. You can disable any services you don't need, ensuring no unnecessary ports are open. Unlike Windows, which allows everything by default until specifically restricted, Linux keeps everything closed and only opens what is necessary.

You've got thirty steps and multiple other forums anyway.

We are using Ubuntu Linux for a specific task. Based on our experience, it is very efficient. Instead of using a Windows server for easy access, we have set up a new server tailored for manual users. Despite this, some users still rely on a Windows server. However, when I use a Linux cluster, it works very well. All my users interact with it seamlessly.

Play it first to get the skills before diving into anything complex. Start with simple tasks, like setting up an email server. Once you have those basics working, you can move on to more advanced tasks. We often find that Windows users tend to set things up in a certain way because they are familiar with Windows. Therefore, it's important to understand what you are doing from the start. Once you have a good foundation, it will be smooth sailing.

We have tried various approaches from a Linux point of view. We still support those, and I have a specialist tool that can efficiently support them.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Ubuntu Linux in development environments, specifically for testing purposes, as it can be a versatile alternative to Windows in various scenarios.

The platform is easy to use compared to Windows.

The product could be compatible with Microsoft.

I rate the platform's stability a ten out of ten.

We used SUSE Linux a long time ago.

The initial setup process is simple and takes a few minutes to complete.

We can implement the product in-house.

Ubuntu Linux is an open-source product that is free to use.

I recommend Ubuntu Linux to others and rate it a ten out of ten. It has a nice user interface and provides frequent updates. I advise others to install and try using it.

The tool's valuable feature is its pro security features. I also like the way it serves the infrastructure. The main thing is that each new update or version ensures it comes out with zero vulnerabilities—no high, medium, or low vulnerabilities.

Ubuntu Linux's main benefits are its ease of use and the large number of available packages. Additionally, it benefits from regular patching.

I want more insights and security features in the pro version, specifically activities and vulnerabilities. When releasing a new version, it's crucial to ensure no vulnerabilities. Sometimes, a new version may have minor vulnerabilities, like one medium and one low. These typically take about two weeks to resolve. More regular patching, especially addressing security vulnerabilities, is essential to improve.

I have been using the solution for many years. 

I rate Ubuntu Linux's deployment an eight out of ten. We encountered some version issues. 

I am quite happy with the tool's scalability. My company has 50 users who use it regularly. 

The support has been good overall. We haven't needed it often, only raising a few support tickets in two years, and they were all resolved within two days. So, I'm quite happy with them.

We work with Alpine Linux and offer them to enterprises as well. Compared to other operating systems, Ubuntu Linux is easier to use and has more up-to-date packages. It also has more packages in the repository. However, Ubuntu Linux sometimes bundles many unnecessary packages, making it difficult to strip down the OS to make it more secure.

Ubuntu Linux's deployment is easy. We usually spin it up with scripts. We have many scripts for various tasks, including updates and backups, and it didn't take much to put them together. We spend less than half an hour to get a basic setup, and then we can deploy within minutes. We have about two employees handling maintenance and patching on a yearly basis for many applications. That's more than sufficient. 

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. I would recommend it to other companies and users. It's a very good OS, although it sometimes requires some effort to deploy applications.

I built some application servers on it, like Wi-Fi. I also use it for configurations of servers. 

I like that it is free. 

There's ample documentation available for most features, and I find it straightforward to use.

Stability could be improved.

I have been using it for several years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I don't need the scalability aspect. 

There are around 10 end users using this product in our company. There are around 40 servers of Ubuntu servers in my company.

We don't need the support. We can easily find answers on the internet. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

I usually can do it by myself. For the deployment process, I created some virtual machines because I usually use some virtual machines for my servers. After that, I downloaded the appropriate image of Ubuntu and deployed it.

It's free. I haven't paid for a license. And we can manage all our servers by ourselves.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. I would recommend using the product.