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 512712
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Re:
by allanregistos on Mon 2nd Apr 2012 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
Member since:

Man it would be awesome if you could get a Linux distro with that kind of support, but until Torvalds quits fiddling with the kernel I just doubt you'll ever see support cycles that long.

Get Redhat Linux Desktop and you will get 10 years of support. Do not expect that from your average Linux distro.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Re:
by bassbeast on Tue 3rd Apr 2012 04:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
bassbeast Member since:

Which will cost you $4000! See why Linux doesn't work on the desktop? To get the same amount of support i get with an $89 copy of Windows home will cost me $400 a year or $4000, and for what? what advantage does paying TEN TIMES the amount of even the most expensive Windows get me?

Reply Parent Score: 1