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 512714
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Re:
by allanregistos on Mon 2nd Apr 2012 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
allanregistos
Member since:
2011-02-10

"(answer to the article's question): Yes, it is .

-Releases that break stuff like wifi or sound every six months, even if the computer is Ubuntu-certified? Check. (i never understood why they certify laptops that don't have all-open source drivers anyway, given Linux's unstable ABI)


Opps, stop right there, have you gone to LKML to complain for that unstable ABI?
I hope you do before barking this type of ignorance in the public.
"
My apology... Just ignore this comment.

Reply Parent Score: 1