Ubuntu Linux Reviews

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.

We primarily use it for our personal applications. We use it in our day-to-day work. 

It's easy to deploy.  We can deploy it whenever we want. 

It's great to use with the Linux system. They work well together. 

If you know what you want to program, they make it very easy to do so. 

The solution is very stable. It's great for security and it is very safe.

The installation process is simple.

We don't have enough information about this system. When we run into problems, we'd like for it to be more clear what a valid solution might be. For example, if I try to deploy a certain technology, I have to look all over the internet to figure out how to accomplish this. There aren't enough experts in my country to be able to help troubleshoot or to post answers to problems. I'm not sure if there are enough domestic or regional experts who know enough about the solution.

The interface could be better.

I have used this solution for quite a long time. It's been more than five years.

The solution is quite stable. Its performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

I'm not sure if the product is scalable. I haven't attempted to scale it and therefore could not accurately comment on that aspect.

We have the solution in different departments and on different servers. In our department, maybe five or six people use it. 

We don't get technical support from people. If we need an answer to a problem, we need to seek it out online. 

I have found that the solution is

That said, it depends on the type of server that you are using. You need to ensure it has enough resources. The deployment is quick and we were able to do it in 30 minutes or so.  

While we have a technical team of about 15 people in our department that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks, there are other departments and other people on different teams that can as well.

I'm quite comfortable with the solution. I can handle the implementation process myself. I did not need the help of any integrators or consultants. 

The solution is free to use and free to explore. People can go ahead and discover it and experiment with it. 

I would recommend the product to other users and other companies. It's a good solution in general. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

What makes Ubuntu easy to use is the large set of applications and the interface. The graphical interface is user friendly.

When installing software, an online interface has to be used and commands written to run the installation. The solution could be improved if it was possible to click twice in an icon for the installation process to begin. 

In the next release, I would like to be able to use Microsoft Office within Linux. 

.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

It's very helpful for development. I'm a software developer. Linux is very easy to install a couple of things from the terminal. We can do most of the things from the terminal. It's very useful, in terms of their application in the cloud server. We can install it in the server, in our community server. If I do something in my local machine in the terminal, I can do the same thing in the cloud server. That's why I'm using Linux Ubuntu.

A few years ago, maybe two years ago, we were affected by some kind of encryption virus, a malware virus. It affected most of the Windows system due to the fact that our system was connected with some LAN connection. However, the Linux-based systems were not affected as it's a different OS. In our office, we just removed the Windows thing and put everything over on the Linux OS. 

It's stable.

The solution is free to use and open-source. There is no license needed, which is actually better, even though I like Windows. 

Our cloud server's a Linux-based operating system. I need to deploy my software on our cloud server. I just use Linux on my local server. Whatever I do for my software in my local server, the same needs to happen in the cloud server. That part is easy. I can replicate that software in my cloud server. If I do it in Microsoft Windows in that local development, that is totally different from our cloud server. It will cause issues in our cloud server. That's why I am using Linux in my system.

Linux is virus-free. 

The GUI in relation to the initial setup is very simple. 

If you are in the middle of an update, and things are disrupted, it can cause issues. You need to wait for the update to complete before doing anything. 

Windows we can handle by ourselves when it comes to troubleshooting, however, Ubuntu is a bit difficult. We need some other technical person to troubleshoot things for us. It's kind of difficult to maintain as compared to Windows.

In general, Windows is easier to use and friendlier to deal with than Ubuntu.

We've been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable and does not get infected with viruses. It's very resilient and the performance is good. I haven't dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

We have about 150 people using the tool.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

Ubuntu has some community over the internet. There is an Ask Ubuntu community online. Whenever I have some problems, I can check through the website and get some solutions. Sometimes it can take a little longer to resolve things if the question doesn't have an answer online.

I'm also familiar with Windows. In many ways it is easier to use, however, it is more prone to viruses and malware, which can be an issue.

This is an open tool. It's easy to install. From the GUI, we can just click next, next, next, and then install.

The process is very simple. It's not overly difficult.

In terms of maintenance and troubleshooting, we do require a more technical person.

I can handle the initial setup myself. I do not need the assistance of any integrators or consultants. 

The solution is open-source. It doesn't cost anything to actually use it. You just download it from their website and you can start using it. 

Currently, I'm using Ubuntu 20 LTS, 20.04 long-term support.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I tend to prefer Windows and would recommend it over Unbuntu.

We are using Ubuntu Linux for running applications.

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

The solution could improve by having better integration.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for approximately five years.

The solution is bug-free and stable.

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

The installation is easy and takes less than 20 minutes.

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

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

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Ubuntu Linux an eight out of ten.

It can be used to write an application that is for all kinds of users to operate as an independent application.

Ubuntu Linux is flexible because it has a lot of new features, so you can use it without any problems.

It is a stable, open source solution as well.

You have to do a lot of configurations yourself. It is not very user friendly, but if you wanted to be a technical person, you may use it. However, you may still have a lot of difficulty with the configuration.

They could make more automations for the average user.

I've been using it for 6 months.

I have never had problems with stability.

The installation is straightforward, but you have to study beforehand. It isn't as straightforward as Windows is. You have to know some things you have to do.

It took about two hours, but it could be higher than that because we had to check for things. We didn't need a lot of reboots as compared with Windows, but I had to decide a lot of technical things during the installation.

It's an open source solution, but you can make donations if you'd like to.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Ubuntu Linux at eight and would recommend it to those would like to implement it.

For average users, I would recommend Windows because it's the system most people use. If they are gamers, they will not find any game applications, as Ubuntu Linux is mostly for developers.

We're using Ubuntu in a number of different ways and I even have a server for the main controller that's running Ubuntu so that people can authenticate and do various other things internally. I started using Linux a very long time ago and it wasn't Ubuntu. Ubuntu just happened to be the friendliest, nicest solution out there. It is also the easiest to sell to other people. 

One of the things I like about this solution is that you can leave it without having to boot into a rescue mode at one of your servers. You don't have to change permissions or go through nightmarish scenarios to solve technical issues. 

The most valuable features of this solution are standardization, visualization, and package management. I also like their videos. 

Ubuntu is following mainline Linux, and what Ubuntu really does well is packaging it well so that you've got a really turnkey desktop or service solution. Their stuff is pretty good as far as it goes. I've enjoyed using the product because of those things. 

I would love to see more, open documentation and a bigger ecosystem. I think Ubuntu's main strength, as opposed to using the other Linuxes, has been its ability to encourage user feedback. I think that's something that can always be improved. So it's just about keeping that open and increasing the certainty in IT because IT needs to know what we're going to stick with. When you decide to make an architectural change, it may be better to get community feedback first, and maybe then announce it in a different way. I don't think it's very technical and the community feedback route should be looked at or be improved. 
They might also add additional features, like something to tweak the home desktop a little bit for new users. 

The solution is very stable and the long term support releases have been great. It is always a very good idea to read what's happening and not to switch over too quick. We have products that we put out that we build, so we also have to make sure that all the libraries around that product are going to be working the same before we even start to use it. So the stability is fantastic. We've been very happy about the long term support release and we've hardly had any problems at all.

Ubuntu Linux is built to scale well. We are currently running our entire infrastructure on it. So we've got virtual machine servers, word servers, and version control for code. And I've got an office with at least ten people using the desktop version.

I'm hoping that our software service will grow and then we will have much more server usage. We are part of a much bigger corporation with more than 20,000 employees in the active directory. So, we used to previously push Ubuntu much harder, but these days we just like to let people choose whether they want to use it. And we buy Ubuntu certified laptops for the people who want to use Ubuntu for enterprise. Linux is still a bit of a second class citizen on enterprise desktop, because of active directory dominance.

Up to now we solved our own technical issues, like normal de-bugging. Other issues I like to solve by using different technologies. But not without having to go through a very diverse ecosystem where there's a lot of solutions in place.

I used Linux a few years back and then I moved from Linux onto Ubuntu in 2006. I liked the way Ubuntu community marketed itself. I like to use friendly solutions, and not solutions where elitist techno people make other people feel inferior.

My advice to others would be to know what you really want. Ubuntu can be customized to exactly those functions. Depending on how you want to scale, for example, you might want to look at microservers, architecture, and how to connect it all up. And have your Ubuntu servers as small nodes or even containers. The solution offers many options, so if you're starting with Linux or Ubuntu, I would start with playing around in virtual machine space, seeing how the package management works, write some scripts, getting to know a little Bash. The solution is very secure and there is a lot of documentation available already. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

• Surprised with the better use of resources for old machines.
• The GUI is easy and friendly.
• The environment was a test machine with Intel i586 (recommended).

Improved on the recycling of old computers, but most users ask for a solution for new equipment. 

Use of the tools for systems and software to test functionalities. The integration with other applications, like Chrome or Firefox, works excellent for users navigating and test browsing.

Developing more applications for businesses could work better, but that is not part of the OS piece. Let the developers work on other apps, therefore the needs for consuming less memory do not affect the performance of this OS version.

Old equipment works for at least two or three years more, which means a significant savings.