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 512630
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So tired of Ubuntu Bashing
by agb242 on Sun 1st Apr 2012 00:59 UTC
agb242
Member since:
2012-03-13

I have been using Linux as my desktop since January 2000. I have used many a distro. In the last few years I am amazed at all the Ubuntu and Canonical bashing. It really is bashing not just constructive criticism. It is really pathetic and makes the Linux world look terrible.

Ubuntu is a good distro, plain and simple. It works perfect 98% of the time just like all the other major distros out there. It is easy to install, devices work 98% of the time, and most importantly it is always evolving. Good or bad.

Ubuntu upgrades have been a pain at times for me. But so have other distributions as well. Just a nature of the beast with Linux. Sometimes wireless doesn't work out of the box and other crap like that. I fire up Google look up how to fix it. Half the time that doesn't work right away, so I gotta keep digging. Again nature of the beast with Linux.

It has gotta a lot better since 2000. First distro I bought; yes bought; Mandrake 6 or something. A box set at Target or Walmart. Then got an issue of Maximum Linux. Mandrake 7 something came with it. Then bought a box set SuSe, I can't remember. I think at Best Buy. Mandrake and Suse paved the way for user friendly installs and desktop for Linux. But they were a pain in the azz too!

In 2005 got a copy of Ubuntu what ever. It worked great. Even learned to install Debian from it. Well, I learned I could install Debian over the net with floppy disk. I didn't have a CD burner. I use Bodhi now.

Anyways what I am trying to say is all Linux distro f-up from time to time. In fact, they f-up a lot of the time. Again nature of the beast with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: So tired of Ubuntu Bashing
by ilovebeer on Sun 1st Apr 2012 05:24 in reply to "So tired of Ubuntu Bashing"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I have been using Linux as my desktop since January 2000. I have used many a distro. In the last few years I am amazed at all the Ubuntu and Canonical bashing. It really is bashing not just constructive criticism. It is really pathetic and makes the Linux world look terrible.

Considering all the problems people have/have had with ubuntu, I'm not surprised at all. Like it or not, the bashing has been earned, plain & simple.

What pathetic is not the fact that people express their views on their bad experiences, it's that some try to make excuses for ubuntu while trying to disregard others actual first-hand experiences.

Also, people don't make linux look bad, linux makes itself look bad. A rock-solid product can always stand on it's own two feet, regarding of whatever bashing some users do.

Ubuntu is a good distro, plain and simple. It works perfect 98% of the time just like all the other major distros out there. It is easy to install, devices work 98% of the time, and most importantly it is always evolving. Good or bad.

It's easy to make numbers up and pretend everything is fine because it's been fine for you, for the most part. But, reality disagrees -- hence all the complaints.

Ubuntu upgrades have been a pain at times for me. But so have other distributions as well. Just a nature of the beast with Linux.

I see no point in comparing ubuntu against other distros when you're having a conversation about ubuntu itself, and the problems it's riddled with. What it is or is not compared to some other distro has absolutely nothing to do with what ubuntu is or is not itself. These comparisons are just a cheap way to point out how it's less crap that something else.

It has gotta a lot better since 2000.

<...walk down memory lane...>

Anyways what I am trying to say is all Linux distro f-up from time to time. In fact, they f-up a lot of the time. Again nature of the beast with Linux.

You went from saying it works 98% of the time on 98% of all hardware, to acknowledging linux in general f's up "a lot of the time". That kind of says it all right there.

I do agree with another users post however where he recommended people use Debian if they want stability. Debian, for me, has been the most stable of the distros I've tried.

Reply Parent Score: 2

agb242 Member since:
2012-03-13

I feel Ubuntu gets more negative press than other distros because many people do not like Canonical or Shuttleworth. Ubuntu is stable. It is reliable; except wireless issues from time to time; but distros in general have a difficult time with wireless cards, graphics cards. The vibe I get is users do not like the direction Canonical is taking Ubuntu. So, we begin to see more negative press about Ubuntu. I feel it has been getting very nasty. Just my opinion.

I can compare Ubuntu to other distros because the question is "Ubuntu a poor standard bearer for Linux?" How else could you say it is or is not? Compare it to Windows, BSDs or OS X? You can only compare it do other distros.

98% is no worse than saying: every time users do an Ubuntu update it breaks; Ubuntu never works with my hardware; I switched to Fedora/Mint because it always works.

Walk down memory lane...I am proud that I have stuck with Linux from 2000 on and have never used Windows accept at work...what's wrong with that? I have seen a lot of progress with Linux Distros. Unless you were looking back at the crazy install fests, LUG meetings and floppy disk install.

You are correct Debian is very stable; it is meant to be. It can take years before a new stable release of Debian comes out.

I like Ubuntu. It works for me and what I need to do. If an issue comes up I can fix it.

I love Linux, and I want to see them all succeed. I can put up with a few issues from time to time. Because I love Linux. I don't care if a distro is owned by a company, community developed, or a one person show. But I sincerely feel Ubuntu gets more negative press now because people do not like Canonical or Shuttleworth. I do not have the ability to debate like a professional so I my initial comment and my rebuttal to your rebuttals might suck but oh well.

I like the way this person said it better "All of them"

Edited 2012-04-02 20:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1