Ubuntu Linux Reviews

We used this solution to do an integration between one of our PMS, property management systems. We integrated Opera and a cloud-based system. We use it as an interface between the Opera system, which is on a Windows server, and cloud bases system.

There should be more integration with other operating systems applications. It would be beneficial if there was a way to install Mac OS software on Linux. They could create a software patch to be able to have most of the unique Mac OS applications run on it, not Windows applications. They need to create something more user-friendly. 

Additionally, there is a lack of functionality compared to other operating systems.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable and performing very well. When we an issue once and there was no need to restart it completely, you just needed to log in, see the log file, and fix the issue, it is very simple. It is more scalable than Windows systems. With Windows systems, most of the time you need to restart the whole computer, or the whole server, to fix the issue. With this solution, you do not.

The solution is very scalable.

The technical support has been very responsive. Additionally, they have forums and chats as alternatives.

I used Windows and Mac OS.

The installation was very fast.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

There is not a license needed for the solution. You only have to pay for technical support.

I plan to keep using this solution in the future as long as it is still compatible with my PMS interface. 

I would not recommend this solution to others because there is not enough support available. Most of my colleagues in my company are using software that does not support this solution. The majority of professional software packages are not supported on Linux. They need to find a solution to this problem. 

I rate Ubuntu Linux a ten out of ten.

Ubuntu is a Linux operating system and one of the applications that it hosts is my SQL database.

Ubuntu Linux is very useful as an operating system.

It has got longer support than some Linux distributions for each version that comes out, so it's good for enterprise-level organizations.

Ubuntu is very easy to use and you can manage it on your own. Compared to other Linux distributions, it is more user-friendly.

If the user interface were further improved then it would be better because more people would be able to use it.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for approximately five years.

Ubuntu provides quite a stable environment.

Ubuntu is scalable and we have approximately 10 users in our organization. It is very easy to scale up and there are no licenses involved. It is just a matter of upgrading your own hardware.

We have not had any technical support issues.

We have multiple versions of Linux distributions. The suitability for each, or which one we use, depends on the demand from the vendors and developers.

It is very easy to install, and it will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

I have done some installations myself, although most of the setup was completed by our system administrator.

It comes as free software, where there is an option for you to buy support licenses.

Overall, I think that Ubuntu Linux is quite good. It is meeting our expectations and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use it for everything. I literally use it for any activity that I would do on a computer. I use it for writing code, browsing the web, shopping, and streaming videos and music. I also use it for graphics editing and testing.

It has definitely improved the way I do things. There are so many people who are paying for products that they could use for free. In addition, there are bugs and issues that I hear about from other companies. With this solution, you can reduce the amount you spend in general on technology. Because Linux runs really well, your tech issues are also minimal, and you have to spend less on tech support. 

There is a lot of freedom and flexibility to install it really quickly. It is just very powerful in the sense that it doesn't take up as many resources to run as some of the other operating systems. It is open source, so it is free. There is no licensing fee. 

There is flexibility and freedom to do whatever you need to do. If you are familiar with the command line, you can jump on the command line and configure almost any part of the operating system that you want. If you are not comfortable with the command line, the graphical user interface has really improved ever since I started using Linux back in high school. It is really very simple to manage your settings and other things.

You can also try out multiple desktop environments. As a matter of fact, on one of my laptops, I have installed five different desktop environments, and I can switch between them. If you don't like one, you can easily just install another one with a few commands, and you have got a whole new desktop right there, whereas, in Microsoft Windows or a Mac, you are just stuck with whatever they give you, and you have to wait until they sell you something else.

Like most Linux systems, they can just keep increasing support in Ubuntu for hardware systems. They can increase the number of drivers so that Ubuntu can work on more hardware. They have been improving greatly, but they can definitely keep doing that.

I have been using this solution for at least four years. I use it every day.

It seems to be really stable for me. The cool thing is that it is a journaled system versus Windows in which a lot of things are written into memory. They've improved on this quite a bit. If your computer crashes in the middle of updates or something like that, you can still easily access and go back to maybe what it was before you tried the update. Another thing that is really cool is that you can upgrade an entire distribution version. You can upgrade from version 18.04 to 20.04.

A lot of web servers are probably running on some version of Linux, such as CentOS, and these web servers sometimes can go on for years without the need to be restarted. They are very resilient.

I am not really sure of a use case for scaling in Ubuntu. It is just an operating system. It is not like adding a server or something like that.

I haven't used technical support at all. I have always used stack overflow.

I was using Windows. I switched to Ubuntu because I was getting more into programming and I wanted something flexible.

With Windows, everything is loaded into memory when the operating system is started. Linux is a journaled system, which means that you actually have all of that RAM available to process applications and run your applications rather than just running the operating system. There are various things that I like about Linux in that regard. If the computer crashes, I literally can recover the documents. I know that this is now happening in Windows systems, but I used to see that a lot more in Linux.

The initial setup was very straightforward. If you have it set up on a bootable USB drive, you just put it in the USB drive and then you can just watch for a few steps. You don't even have to be very tech-savvy in order to install it and set it up. It doesn't take a lot of know-how.

It is open source, so it is free. There is no licensing fee.

I would recommend this solution if you want a good resilient system, flexibility, and control over your operating system. You can upgrade without having to pay or even turning off the computer. You don't need to shut it down and install upgrades. You can literally upgrade to a newer distribution while using the computer for the most part.

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten because there is always room for growth. 

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 use the solution for our Linux servers. 

We use it for file transfer and remote desktop connections.

The solution is very simple.

I like that it doesn't get corrupted as easily as Windows. When it comes to viruses, it's more secure.

Especially on laptops, it doesn't drain much battery.

The solution is straightforward to set up.

It's faster than Windows.

When you talk of some of the flexibility, like you want to install from scratch, Windows is more user-friendly compared to Linux. Linux is more for the more techie people. You have to go through a terminal, a prompt to do some setup, and other things. Windows offers more help for you when you install it.

I've been using the solution for more than five years at this point. 

I haven't gone through scalability. It's more for an individual setup in my case. However, they're supposed to be much faster than Windows.

We only have a couple of people using it in our organization, as most actually use Windows. 

We don't use technical support. We have our own team and we learn as we go on our own.

I've also used Windows. I prefer Linux over Windows. We're doing some testing where we hope that we can put some applications in Linux eventually. We're testing Docker and similar solutions.

It's very similar to Windows 10 in terms of installation. If you're using a desktop, then more or less you can find those commands in Windows Servers as well. However, for Linux, it's a bit more in its own process. Linux is good on its own. The difference with Windows is Windows would require a lot of licensing, and their applications slow down.

When you install it, it's easy. However, there are some applications for which you have to look for help online. There are commands that you can use to be able to install them.

If you compare it to Windows, Windows is basically straightforward. It's easier to install Windows than Unbuntu Linux. When you talk servers, when you talk of workstations, Windows is a bit faster. The way I see it, we do have to do some settings, however, when you're able to run the installation properly, Linux ends up being much faster to run as the boot time is a few seconds faster, and shutdown time is much, much faster.  

Unlike Windows, which you have to pay for, this solution is free for the most part. We don't use it too much and therefore do not incur much of a cost.

Licensing is basically just for some applications. You get licenses if you want them to support you for Linux. For Ubuntu, you don't pay licenses. You pay for the support if you want them to support you.

We may have evaluated other options, however, it was a long time ago. 

For Linux, we're using Ubuntu. We have set up everything using Ubuntu. We do have some servers with Oracle Enterprise Linux. Those are running inside our HP DL380 servers. And then I do have Linux Mint and Elementary OS on my laptop and in my desktop at home.

I use multiple versions of the solution, including 20.04, 18.04, and 16.04.

We do have so many players in the Linux field. You do have Canonical, and they have their own Linux. Then, you have others that are based on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is based on the Debian model. You also have, on the other side, Red Hat and the SUSE Linux, which is IBM Linux. There are different providers, however, the core is almost the same. It's more of the setup that is available for you.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are using this solution in my organization as a software development platform.

Ubuntu Linux is a very good platform for software development. If you want to deploy dependencies for a particular software on Ubuntu it is probably the easiest. If you compared it to Red Hat or any other distribution of Linux, getting the dependencies and other configurations in place is quite a hassle. We have saved time by using this solution.

Ubuntu Linux is very easy to learn, manage, and keep updated.

The solution is a little complicated to customize and could be made easier.

In a future release, the implementation of lightweight desktops and remote access for server platforms could be improved.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

Ubuntu Linux is scalable. However, there could be better documentation to assist in scalability in many areas, such as PCP scanning.

We have approximately 40 people using the solution in my organization. We have plans to increase usage in the future.

It is not very difficult for us to find support for Ubuntu Linux by ourselves since we have already been using it for many years. We generally do not need support from anywhere.

The installation is easier than any other solution.

We did the implementation ourselves.

The solution is free.

I have evaluated other distributions of Linux, such as Red Hat.

I would recommend this solution to others. For those thinking about whether they should try out the solution, I would advise them to go ahead and give it it try.

I rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten.

It's a free and open source software-defined storage (SDS) that runs on various platforms such as Ubuntu, CentOS, RHEL, IBM Z, among others.

It can be used for a bulk object including as an alternative to OpenStack Swift, Swiftstack, and others. Can also be configured for the block as well as the file.

Hmmmm…….Good question.

Ease of use, ease of management, ease of deployment, ease of troubleshooting, resiliency, automation, and performance.

I have used various versions of Ceph off and on at different times, going back several years.

Yes, on the other hand, deploy in a controlled environment, stay within the “box”, and it works well.

For my use, I did not scale it very large, as was concerned with doing so and with not having enough hardware to maintain performance.

In other words, depending on what you are looking to do, while being SDS, Ceph is also hardware dependent, as is all SDS.

However, it also needs CPU, memory and fast storage for OSDs as you scale activity.

N/A, relied on various forums and Ceph site (looked at Red Hat site info, however, found ceph and other sites more useful).

I have used and do use various others, including services such as AWS S3 /EBS /EFS /EC2 instance, as well as Azure Files/Blobs/etc, GCS.

Also on-prem software, including Microsoft S2D, VMware vSAN, OpenStack/Swift among others.

Depends on your experience, and what you are trying to do, there are some useful scripts floating around, or you can get a turnkey kit solution from vendors such as Fujitsu, SUSE, Red Hat, and many others.

Look beyond the initial cost, for example, free if open source version, or price for a kit from Fujitsu, SUSE, RHEL among others.

Look at ongoing costs for maintenance. This is particularly important if you are going the free route as you will end up paying regarding allocating or using more of your staffs time to support, maintain, upgrade and enhance.

VMware vSAN (still have), Microsoft Windows Storage Spaces Direct/S2D (still have), Dell EMC ECS/Atmos (still have), OpenStack Swift (still have), AWS S3 (still have), Azure (still have), Datacore (did a trial), and many others.

Some others to look at and consider include Dell EMC ScaleIO, Elastifile, Hedvig, HDS HCP, NetApp StorageGrid, Nexenta, Noobaa, Rozo, Starwind, Storpool, Virtuozzo, and WekaIO, among others.

Do a proof of concept (POC), scaling as large as you can as close to your intended production environment.

If needed, use Google, AWS, Azure or some other cloud to do the POC in.

Look for several things in your POC including what are the hardware performance and resource (CPU, memory, I/O, SSD) dependencies, how easy to manage, tune, troubleshoot along with resiliency.

For example, fail nodes and see how system recovers as well as what you need to do to support the environment. Don’t be scared of Ceph, be prepared and informed, use it where it makes sense and is capable of meeting your needs. Make sure that you can get ceph to work for you, vs. you having to go to work for ceph.