Ubuntu Linux Reviews

We started with Ubuntu Linux as our initial path to start developing our own software. If a customer wants us to manage a different technology for them, we can do that. For now, for new projects that are made from scratch, we use our own technologies, and those are built over Linux.

We have been able to create different platforms as an MSP for our customers.

Here's what I like most about Ubuntu Linux: the support we get from the factory, from the vendor.

I also find value in being able to test things with the community and learning more about the solutions that have been proven, so we can start to elaborate more and be able to pass to production more reliable information.

In the last five years, open source was not known, or it wasn't trusted much, but the industry knows that open source is the way to go as long as you work with the right vendor. Open source is here to stay, but it would always be dependent on the right partner, because there is a lot of open source software, but if they are not maintained, secured, or controlled, they are just like a train without a driver.

Based on all these, we love Linux, especially because of what we have learned in the last two months: We started to migrate customers from Microsoft SQL from Windows to Linux because the performance you can get from Linux with SQL from Microsoft, it's unparalleled.

You have more advantage from the power of Linux and you can cut off the cost of an operating system by using Linux with Microsoft SQL. We are starting to do that in the enterprise market because we believe that is a great step for them to reduce costs and to start making more powerful ETLs and queries, and faster processes, at a better price, because Linux is much more affordable.

Even in the Cloud, you'll find that a Windows instance is $400, while a Linux instance running SQL is $100 a month. It's a good thing here in Latin America, where we are going to start doing this. We are also seeing that there is a great opportunity in other countries in Europe.

We provide support for Red Hat, CentOS, and other distributions, but we have a solid relationship with Ubuntu Linux, with Canonical. We are a partner. With this solution, we are able to do more. We are able to explore a lot.

With Linux from Red Hat, we have been asked to manage, because in Peru, there were not many companies that had the knowledge to manage the workloads, but we prefer to use Canonical.

If a customer comes and asks us to manage their Red Hat Linux servers, we can definitely think about it because we have the skill. In our team, we have LPIC-1 engineers specialized in Linux so we can run any workloads over Linux.

Ubuntu Linux is very good.

There is a big advantage in security when using Ubuntu Linux that you will not have in the Windows environments short-term. When you have this relationship with Linux and you start working with very secure environments, there's less possibility of being directly attacked by a group of hackers. You will lose less data and you will have a more reliable ecosystem.

What I'd like to see included in the next release of Ubuntu Linux is for the interfaces to become richer, so they'll have the capability to absorb traditional and normal technologies.

For example, Canonical makes such high-end technologies to run and manage several servers at the same time, but they couldn't succeed because they were focusing all their efforts on just Linux-based systems.

If someone starts by providing things to assess and migrate the workloads you have in a data center where you have 200 to 300 Windows instances, you can provide some studies to these executive directors and say: "Today you're spending this money on licensing and operations, and you're getting 40% of your operational performance. If you start running Linux and you move your workloads into Linux, you'll be able to cut costs, and you'll get more out of your operational performance which you can present and provide data to your end customers more quickly and safely."

What we need to have is more tools to access the Windows environment of Ubuntu Linux, so we'll be able to say: "These are opportunities for your operational expenditure and cost cutting. These can help make your company better and allow you to provide more data to your customers more quickly." 

Having more tools in the next release that can help provide information to executives: letting them know that there's money waiting in those opportunities for migration and change, is what I'd like to see.

We've been using Linux for more than 10 years.

Support for Ubuntu Linux is the reason I rated this solution a perfect score, because if you open a ticket, they will get to you quickly with the answers and information you need. For any subscription, it's good if you have a great SLA.

If you need a subscription and you need answers, go with Ubuntu Linux. If you have the right partner and you need an answer, your partner will always have it as well.

The support team always replies with the answers to your questions.

As an MSP, I reply within 10 minutes to my customers. I'm also basing this on other companies who are able to respond very fast to their customers' needs, so it depends on the kind of subscription and the SLA.

The price of Ubuntu Linux is more affordable.

We evaluated CentOS and Red Hat.

I have more than 20 years experience in providing MSP services for enterprises and the government.

We've been exploring the market. We are located in Peru, so we designed our own technology and we've been exploring a number of technologies from several providers. What we did was to create technology locally and based that technology on the best practices of several brands.

For example, we talked with Silver Peak, we talked with Fortinet and Juniper and other providers, because the major problem in the industry was the pricing and the licensing models. What we did was to create our own technology in Peru, then we provide this technology as a service, as a managed service provider. That's what we've been doing.

We provide the consultancy, then we provide the hardware, then we manage, but they don't need to buy it. They just need to rent it for the period of time stated on their contract, then we provide the full managed services for that.

We started as a hardware appliance on-premises, but the time and the conditions of the market forced us to start preparing a virtual cloud appliance because as Amazon, IBM, and other companies were using the Cloud, we started to make these laboratories to enable our device to pass through traffic over the Cloud, on any cloud. We started to use a virtual appliance. We started to use the Cloud.

Now, we have a hybrid model where some of our main devices are located in the Cloud, but we have a satellite and it's called a hub. This hub is installed on the local data center and its availability is found on several other providers. In this way, we can start and we can continue to monitor everything without experiencing loss, because sometimes data centers have this downtime.

We can keep working with other devices that are connected. We made a load balancing with DNS. We have a DNS solution that provides this, so it also responds to unavailability. If we have a problem, what we do is we keep tracking, monitoring, and providing KPIs for customers, and if something happens, we can respond within 10 to 15 minutes.

Many companies have a monitoring system. They can use PRTG. They can use free open source devices, but they don't have awareness. They have the monitoring systems, but they don't have time to remain seated to watch all those KPIs and sensors. What we did was to create an escalating model where the most valuable information our customer needs is the availability of their core systems.

We always take great care and we provide notifications not only about the downtime. It's not about the values because there is a big difference between a DDoS attack and just another load of our applications. We know those patterns. We're usually notified about anomalous patterns, security, etc. Today, in both the government and private sectors, attackers are scanning all the time. As we have an IDS solution, we are able to detect some anomalous patterns on the main sites and on the application.

In applications, we have developed IM (identity management) solutions. This software also tracks all the users getting into an application. When we notice that there is anomalous pattern, we're notified, so we block because we are using the zero-trust concept.

The zero-trust concept is a concept that makes us more reliable, because if you are a collaborator, or an employee, and you have a computer, a tablet, and a mobile phone, and you have access to our applications, we will know that you are not connected to your device trying to get into an application. We will ask you if you are the person trying to get in and we will authorize and permit you to get into an application through this identity access management solution that provides you access to the applications, but at the same time, we are providing you access to parts of the application you have permission to access.

This is a great accomplishment in Peru because we created something very competitive, in terms of Okta or AWS Cognito: it's their standard solution. We created that here in Peru, so we are trying to push this technology outside to make the people know about it. It's a mix of things because if you try to make just a firewall and start checking just the IDS and IPS, and you don't start checking the application itself, plus you don't start checking other patterns, you will have less information. What we are trying to do is to be more holistic on how a person works in the company to protect both their information and their access to the applications.

It's very holistic. We are mixing bare metal security. We are using a WAF (web application firewall) that we made here. It's a universal thing. At the same time, we are using the identity management platform. We made it for protection at that level. We are making several layers for the security, and also to provide the whole holistic pattern to our customers.

This is why our customers stay longer with us. Each customer we have today has been with us for more than five years, and they renew their contracts with us because they feel so comfortable with us, and we are well-trusted.

Customers just need to ask us if they can do something specific, if they can explore, because what we usually do and build for them are laboratories. We are making proof of concepts of new products because customers want to move forward and try new products. This is what enables us to keep the customers and have them renew their contracts, so they can move forward with new products. This is a good thing for us, and we are able to retain customers who have been with us in the last 10 years, for example.

We didn't experience many issues with Linux because we started using it early. The first solution I provided was 15 years ago, when we worked with a telco and this telco wanted to go to the enterprise market to sell IT services. What I proposed was to build a Platform as a Service to protect their information real-time. It's called continuous data protection. We installed all those in Linux.

We have extensive experience doing that and we started with data continuity for data centers. We started to replicate data a lot, even for a core bank located here in Peru. They were one of our first big customers and we had a five-year contract with them.

We didn't find many challenges at the beginning with Linux, because we started to build software over there, but then when we started to manage very big logs, we decided to build another software, in another instance, to start distributing the data and have more information and visibility for our customers.

We also developed a software over Linux to compress the traffic in transit. We made a lot of those. We didn't face any challenges because we have been working a lot with Linux.

We learned a lot. We learned how to build software over Linux and in several languages because we needed to build interfaces for end users. We also needed to build the backend. Our backend technology today has not yet been used a lot. We are using HTML technologies for the frontend. We have a team to do that. We also managed several, general things for any of our distributions. It depends on the function we would like to add to these appliances.

For example, for a network appliance, we are making our own distribution with Ubuntu Linux, but with some customizations to make it work lighter and easier on our dashboards. It's networking.

When we want to use Ubuntu Linux to develop software, we prepare those devices to run those workloads and make good backend servers and frontend servers. For example, for the IM (identity management) solution we made, we built it over Ubuntu Linux, but we are not yet using it at the backend. We are using the standard Open IDZ, but we made our own version for it to run effectively and be able to integrate this granular part of the permissions, because that is a simple way to make an identity management solution.

When you need to connect applications and provide granular permissions to the applications based on profiles and start from the FAP: If you have a new employee and this employee needs to have a lifecycle, plus permissions to applications, there is another integration we make with our software. We've been working a lot on that part to create this fully integrated software for identity management and application permission management. It's very nice.

The advice I would give to others who are looking into implementing Ubuntu Linux is that they need to start working with a partner. They need to start working with laboratories and start assessing. They need to start assessing what the company pain is because a few years ago we had been invited to talk for a country who was submerged in several taxes by paying Microsoft and some other companies with proprietary software. We saw that the companies in this country were spending a lot of money on Active Directory, SQL servers, and other technologies that the customers have been using for so many years. When we showed them how they can transform this into an open source technology package of assorted tools, and that they were easy to manage and to learn, they started to study it.

If a company wants to move forward with the world of Linux for improvements, savings, and start operating differently, they need to start working with a peer who has then done this for years, to make it aspirational, who would be able to tell them that they were using this technology, that they migrated their infrastructure and their solutions to open source, to Linux, because they needed to do that, and they succeed. They should start from there. They would want to start from laboratories and start passing to production the things that they can manage. First, with a partner, then they can run a team made up of people who can manage this new technology.

It's the right path. It's what they need to look at. If Microsoft didn't want to put SQL or Linux, they would be closing too many doors that they have today. Microsoft has grown bigger because they are open to the world of Linux. Microsoft has been saying that they are using Linux on the network and on other parts. It's the future. For example, we are using MongoDB. It's a great document database and doesn't have anything to do with SQL servers. They have no relation.

Companies need to explore. They need to start exploring new things and make these laboratories. If they start making these laboratories, they'll have opportunities to save money and make their operational performance better. They'll have a great migration to a new set of technologies.

Ratings for Ubuntu Linux will depend on the country and the culture. There are some companies who want to invest on the subscriptions. At the beginning, it would be best to invest on a partner instead of the subscription, because you'll really be able to take advantage of a subscription when you have an understanding of Linux. If you don't understand Linux yet, you should invest more in a partner who really knows about it, who can start traveling with you in this journey of migration.

Once you have everything up and running, that's the time you can select which subscriptions you need, but if you have a good partner, your partner will be able to give support about the subscription. Ubuntu Linux is the only one that doesn't need a subscription to work in an LTS version, unlike Red Hat and other distributions that where a subscription is mandatory. For Ubuntu Linux, you just need to buy a subscription on an LTS version in Canonical when you really need it.

I prioritized having a good partner first, then we went for a subscription to provide compliance to my operating systems that needed that compliance grade. You don't need to waste time and money in a subscription if you have the right partner on your side. There are two ways to look at this: the subscription cost and your partner who can manage everything properly.

Ubuntu Linux is a great solution, so if I'll rate it from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, it's a ten for me.

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. 

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.