Ubuntu Linux Reviews

I have used versions 16, 18 and 20, mainly the first two. 

We mostly use the solution for development purposes and also test it on products before and after their release. 

The solution has a unique flavor. It is difficult to hack. It has good security features and, from a developer's point of view, provides greater control, including in respect of the processes, internals, networking and IO and voice usage, everything really. 

While there are not many features which need to be added, we sometimes are forced to resort to Google Drive sync or OneDrive sync, owing to the lack of availability of certain Microsoft solutions. The team is disparately comprised nowadays, some of whom may be using Microsoft. This would, in turn, require one to use Microsoft himself and there is some compatibility which is simply lacking. Generally speaking, it's okay. Nowadays, everything is moving to the cloud, making browser-based usage easy. 

It would be nice to see more compatibility with certain Microsoft solutions, such as OneDrive. One would want to sync OneDrive, in which case, when the client makes the data available there, we would have easy access to it. These kind of syncing features are not fast. 

We have been using Ubuntu Linux for more than three or four years. I have been using it for 20. 

When it comes to the stability of Ubuntu Linux versus that of Windows, the former, in respect of developer machines, is less energy consuming, which translates into a longer shelf life. 

The stability is one of the reasons that we use the solution. 

The solution is scalable and easy when it comes to the storage RAM. There is no need to do anything extra. 

One of the reasons we use the solution is for its scalability. 

We have not required canonical support. There is a good online community for support issues which may arise and, as things are easy and straightforward, I generally rely on Google. 

In the past we used RHC Fuse, SUSE and Unix, as Ubuntu was not an option. 

Nowadays, SUSE is considered antiquaited and Linux Ubuntu new. 

The initial setup is straightforward and very quick. 

I do not believe we have required any staff for the deployment and maintenance as of yet. So far, everything has been straightforward and easy. 

The main advantage of Unix is that it's free. 

Windows Unix and Ubuntu provide a free license and one need just pay for the hardware. Mac is costly. Ubuntu provides a cheaper and better option. 

There are those who prefer Windows for its UI features, but I am not one of them. 

When it comes to the stability of Ubuntu Linux versus that of Windows, the former, in respect of developer machines, is less energy consuming, which translates into a longer shelf life. 

We prefer both Mac and Unix. 

The main advantage of Unix is that it's free. 

Windows Unix and Ubuntu provide a free license and one need just pay for the hardware. Mac is costly. Ubuntu provides a cheaper and better option. 

However, the price criteria is not why we use Ubuntu Linux, but because it is scalable, stable and developer-friendly. 

Around 50 to 70 percent of our staff make use of Unix and Mac, because we are all developers and like these solutions. 

The salespeople make use of Recruitment HR. They use Windows, as do some of the junior staff. However, most of the developers and all of the senior ones use Unix, Ubuntu and Linux. 

I cannot think of any particular advice I would impart to others looking into implementing the solution. 

As I cannot think of any issues I have with Ubuntu Linux, I rate it as a ten 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 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.

I support a group that works with artificial intelligence. I install the machines for them and they do the customization. Some use Python, some use Java, some use other languages. They install their own IDs, their own products, their own systems and I deal with the operating system and support it. I'm a lead Linux administrator.

This is an excellent solution, it's stable, fast and free. From an admin perspective, we don't have issues. The solution is complete. 

For the beginner who might not be very comfortable with the tool, it can be frustrating. Like with any new solution, it's complex in the beginning. The solution has limited application support compared with Windows and MacOS. It's not an issue with the system itself, it's the choice of the company that makes the software. It's a marketing decision made by the manufacturer. Most games I run are designed to be run for Microsoft Windows. It doesn't run many softwares that we have online. You don't have many games on Linux, but Linux is not the problem, it's a choice the developer has made. 

I've been using this solution for 16 years. 

The solution is stable, no bugs or glitches. 

The scalability is pretty good. I have around 50 users for the team that I help and have no complaints.

Ubuntu has a lot of resources, either online or books, and there's a huge community that helps users to get through most of the problems they're going to come across. It's hard to find anything negative about this product.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. You download the software, copy to a USB flash drive, install, finish and that's it.

If it's something that people are thinking about using, it's pretty straightforward. You don't have to worry about anything. If you're transitioning from something, run a lab, have a proof of concept.

 I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

I use the solution because my Sophos Anti-Virus is installed in it.

I like the stability of the solution. The resources are not huge compared to Windows. The solution is user-friendly.

The product should provide more automation. If automation is available, we wouldn’t have to do manual configurations and setups.

I have been using the solution for one year. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

I'm using the solution for demonstration purposes for my customer. They have 500 workstations.

I deployed the product myself.

I use Windows, too.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes about 30 minutes. The deployment process is similar to Windows.

I refer to Google and other forums to find solutions to my problems. If someone is using Linux servers, they can use Ubuntu. Overall, I rate the tool a ten 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.

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.