Ubuntu Linux Reviews

Although Ubuntu is based on Debian Linux, it ships with (more or less) current software. In addition, there a are a lot of community-based repositories which can easily be added.

Since Ubuntu provides LTS releases with 5 years of support, you can have longer server lifecycles without having to worry about security patches.

One of the greatest things about Ubuntu is the possibility of upgrading to the newer release on the fly - no reinstallation is needed.

Other great things/features include: Great AppArmor support, huge official package repository from Canonical and the community, decent hardware support.

Ubuntu powers many servers in most of the companies I worked for. Maintaining them was - in most cases - easy and painless.

The rpm-based distributions (such as Suse, Red Hat, CentOS, Fedora) ship with support for awesome system management software (Spacewalk, just to name one example). Ubuntu often provides *some* support for these tools, but it is very rarely supported a 100%. Canonical has Landscape and some other stuff; however, this is not sufficient. Canonical clearly should provide more system management tools which integrate into enterprise environments. Red Hat, CentOS and Suse clearly have more advantages here.

Furthermore, the Unity desktop and the advertisment integration of third parties are horrible.

I have been working with Ubuntu since 2010.

Deployment was always straight-forward; however, upgrading to latest releases (e.g. from 12.04 to 14.04) could mean that you have to adapt your system management tools since some package names can change.

Not with Ubuntu itself, but some software being packaged by the community for Ubuntu is not built with optimum parameters. E.g. I had many struggles with the libvirt/KVM builds for Ubuntu.

Before using Ubuntu, I was used to Debian and their concept of having rock-solid (but also very old) software in their repositories. Ubuntu, however, is not so extreme in this point: It is stable, but the provided software is not thaaaat old. In addition, Ubuntu/Canonical are eager to provide at least some management tools.

The initial setup of Ubuntu is very easy.

I also like Red Hat, CentOS and Fedora; however, upgrading to latest releases without reinstalling the complete OS seems only to be painless with Ubuntu (please correct me if I am wrong, maybe it always went well for you?).

Try Ubuntu. Seriously. If you are looking for a good Linux distribution with a large community and lots of packages, Ubuntu is the way to go. However, if you need management tools (e.g. for automated installation, patch management etc.) you might have to invest some time in getting open-source projects involved or by writing your own solutions (if you don't want to use Landscape).

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. 

We use this solution for testing virtual servers and kernel-based programming.

The most valuable features are the pseudo-terminal and it is the most open-sourced operating system that can be used.

There is not a lot of support for applications in Ubuntu Linux. In the industry, most of the applications work for Windows and Mac. There should be better integration with applications in the future.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution is highly scalable. We can use any virtual hardware that we can think of, there are no boundaries with scalability.

We have five engineers that use this solution in my organization and we plan to increase usage.

I have previously used Microsoft Windows 10 and I am still using this solution for personal use.

We have five engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

This is a free solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is to have as an operating system, to install some applications.

The most valuable features are stability and updates. We are not using the interface, the interface of the OS, we are using it as the server. We actually sync it through SSH and we deploy our application, so we don't have access to do it. The updates are very helpful and the way they update their OS is very helpful.

I think the operating system is very stable and this is a major advantage.

We don't have any kind of support. We have our own skills here at the university and it's enough.

The ZFS needs improvement. They do an implementation of the ZFS storage that needs improvement. 

I have a few years of experience with Ubuntu Linux.

It depends more on the hardware layer, not on the operating system. If it can grow on the hardware, CPU memories, then we can put more stress on it. But usually, when we configure it, we configure it on the VM machine and then I start the OS and the application. When we want to expand, we create a new VM, and we start a new Ubuntu OS and we deploy another application. This is how we expand.

We have around 500 to 600 users. We are a university and we have a lot of staff here. 

We don't use any external support. 

The documentation is very useful with any kind of issues and we easily find a solution on the net variety suite. That is why also we choose Ubuntu. Because any kind of problem or any kind of implementation issue, we have a solution, we are able to find a solution on the net.

We usually acquire a solution application and then we deploy it. It is a matter of one hour or two.

I would recommend Ubuntu Linux. 

I would rate it 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.

My primary use case is for office work and developing software. 

The most valuable feature is that it's developer-friendly and easily accessible. Like any other Linux operating system, you have access to open sources, all the necessary tooling, and anything that helps developers do their work. I'm no Linux guru, but Ubuntu offers packages that I find easy to use. There are other options for people who are very skilled with Linux, but this solution has the perfect balance of having enough technical requirements to meet your needs while still being usable. It doesn't require you to be so technically proficient that you need to recompile kernels or anything like that. It's a Linux operating system for normal people. 

The only improvement I would suggest is to switching back to Aptitude. They switched a lot of the packages that used to be running in Aptitude to Snap. I don't find them as usable when they are in Snap. The most obvious instance of this is that it's caused me to have issues with Chrome. Starting Chrome took a couple of seconds before it was up and running, which wasn't pleasant. Back when it used to run packaging in Aptitude, I didn't have this problem. I know they're familiar with these issues because a lot of other people have experienced them too. 

I have been using this solution for five years. 

This solution is stable. 

I have never contacted technical support, but I probably will in the future. They offer very good services. 

I use Windows 10 because I have to, due to the programs I have that came with it, but I use Ubuntu on top of that. 

The initial setup was very quick. It is easy to install. 

I implemented myself. 

I'm aware of the paid services that they offer and provide technical support for, which are very good. Down the road, I will use some of them, specifically the service that automatically patches the central core of the operating system because it seems useful. Another service they used to have is a paid networking service. The services they offer are useful, but they depend on your particular situation and requirements. I would consider paying for them when a situation calls for them, but I don't need them right now. 

You don't need to pay for licensing. 

Some of my colleagues use Mint, but it's a matter of preference and specific to each person. 

I recommend Ubuntu Linux, specifically for developers. 

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten. 

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.

We use this solution for our NFS environment. I'm a system administrator and we're customers of Ubuntu Linux. 

Compared to other solutions on the market, this is a relatively suitable and good product which is stable and easy to use. Ubuntu currently serves our OpenShift environment.

The product could be better. It lacks the ability for disk expansion and is not very suitable for our needs. I also think support could be improved thereby simplifying installation. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

If I need to increase the disk on Ubuntu it's just hard for us to increase in the environment so scalability is not so easy. 

We don't pay for technical support so we can't use it in Turkey. 

I've used Red Hat Enterprise and I prefer working in that enterprise environment so I prefer that solution. 

If you have two different versions, one version can't be installed on the VMware environment. It is not suitable. I carried out the deployment myself and it took quite some time and a while to understand the program. We have an admin person and an engineer dealing with Ubuntu. 

Red Hat Enterprise is very widespread in Turkey and very few use Ubuntu. I work in an enterprise environment and I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we can easily get support. Red Hat is very widespread and Red Hat support is very responsive. I don't think I would recommend Ubuntu for anyone working in an enterprise environment. I think we'll be shifting to Red Hat at some point. 

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a six out of 10.