Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 30th Mar 2012 20:33 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Two years ago, Linux guru Caitlyn Martin argued that "Ubuntu is a Poor Standard Bearer for Linux" due to reliability issues. She said that "Other distributions have problematic releases but other major distributions do not have significant problems in nearly every release. Ubuntu does." In her follow-up piece "How Canonical Can Do Ubuntu Right: It Isn't a Technical Problem," she explained how "...the problem I am describing is probably rooted in policy or business decisions that have been made..." and she offered specific ideas on how Canoncial could address the situation. Are these criticisms valid today? Does Ubuntu offer good reliability? Does it deserve its mindshare as the representative of PC Linux?
Permalink for comment 512561
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ubuntu works great for me
by weland on Sat 31st Mar 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu works great for me"
Member since:

Making Linux more popular should be their greater goal.

Don't get me wrong, I do wish Linux was more popular, but I prefer that to happen by adoption due to technical merits like reliability, stability and speed, not just by being a system that's about as good as others, only cheaper.

I do think Ubuntu has a problem in terms of reliability, or at least it does now. I've been watching (and sporadically using it) since version 4.10, and in the first two years or so, each release was mostly "better" than the other one -- in that things that didn't work in a previous version worked in the new one, and none of the things that worked in the previous one were broken.

This really isn't the case anymore, and unfortunately some of the bugs that slip in are very disturbing. The latest no-sound bug (which basically resulted in the system becoming entirely mute, at random) is like we're back to the early versions of aRts.

What I do like about them is that they are actually very keen on innovating. Even Unity is a good thing -- I don't use it (it's like a poor clone of WindowMaker to me) but it's one of the first Linux desktop projects in a long time that actually tried to explore some new UI solutions. What is definitely wrong about it is that, while being in testing, is pushed as the Ubuntu desktop.

IMO, I think they need a model where they can provide stable distributions that don't break anything from the previous one, while still having good vehicles for testing. Perhaps something like Debian's model would begin to work better now.

Reply Parent Score: 2