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 512706
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The issue is Canonical's priorities
by kateline on Mon 2nd Apr 2012 02:56 UTC
Member since:

Many of the comments here miss Ms. Martin's main point. It's not that Ubuntu breaks or is bad, but that it could be way better if different decisions were made at the top. Canonical needs to prioritize differently, placing reliability and bug fixes above coming out with radically new features in every release (at the potential cost of quality of product).

Reply Score: 1