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 512572
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by kurkosdr on Sat 31st Mar 2012 12:37 UTC
Member since:

BTW, this is why people keep buying Windows, despite the fact it ships with only two good bundled apps (Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center). It's because it provides a stable platform to run third party apps on, at least for six years. Microsoft doesn't care if users hate MS Paint or Windows Movie Maker. They know you will buy Windows because of the third party apps you can run on it (Pinnacle Studio, Photoshop etc). Even open source stuff like VLC or Firefox runs better on Windows, because there aren't any the PulseAudio and hardware accelaration pains.

Same for OS X. People buy it (and even moved from Windows for it, so much for "Microsoft has the market locked in") because it provides a stable platform to run apps on. But unlike Windows, it also ships with good bundled apps.

Now add to the fact MS and Apple make good SDKs that entice proprietary devs to code for their platform, and none of those devs touches Linux.

Edited 2012-03-31 12:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2