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?
Thread beginning with comment 512584
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by foobaz on Sat 31st Mar 2012 13:20 UTC
Member since:

I use Fedora 16 KDE and it is by far the most reliable Linux OS I've used. OpenSUSE is also excellent. I never had as much luck with Ubuntu. I actually prefer deb/apt to rpm/yum but unfortunately the best distros are all rpm based.

Reply Score: 1