Ubuntu Linux Reviews

I don't use Ubuntu very much, but I have been testing it for approximately ten years. 

There are some that are running their data centers off of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu Linux can be used for anything. Anything that you can do on Windows, you can do in Ubuntu. For example Microsoft Office, Microsoft is really famous for, their Windows platforms, and Office suite. 

In the past, the open-source community had alternative software such as Open Office or even another project called Libre Office. These open-source solutions provided an office suite similar to Microsoft Office. However, with the new Office 365, you don't need Windows to work on Office these days. Outlook, PowerPoint, Excel are all web-based. You can run Ubuntu and open your Firefox browser and use it.

The best way and the easiest way to get into Linux is with Ubuntu because they provide lots of hardware support out of the box.

You don't have to go into the deep parts with Ubuntu to install and configure it. There are many, ready-made guides online for Ubuntu, which is good. 

The Linux distribution is the best for laptops. If you are using laptops, you don't want to be running Oracle Linux there or Red Hat. It's going to be Ubuntu.

I like the easiness of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a great product. It's awesome.

Canonical as a company, who is responsible for Ubuntu, is doing a great job at making Ubuntu very easy, plug and play, and they are good at porting applications to Ubuntu. If you're talking about Linux, the easiest Linux distribution you can encounter is Ubuntu.

The distribution with the most packages available to it is Ubuntu.

In terms of user-friendliness, Ubuntu is the best it can get in the Linux world. To say that it could be improved would be unfair. They are the ones bridging the user-friendliness gap in the Linux world.

The main distinguishing feature between Ubuntu and other Linux distribution is that Ubuntu has excelled at user-friendliness. It's very easy to use.

Ubuntu, as a distribution itself, is filled up with a lot of bloated software. That is the main reason why enterprise companies, mainly in the US, prefer to go with Red Hat, and SUSE is preferred mainly in Europe. 

Red Hat and SUSE provide less bloat on their OS.

Ubuntu is based on Debian, which is the first Linux distribution to ever come into existence, or the first mainstream Linux distribution. Debian also is bloated with a lot of software and sometimes some of the software is old. 

I would love to see Ubuntu strip down. They have a server edition that is stripped down.

Instead of having a billion different distributions, why can't there just be one? This would improve Linux and I would love to see this happen.

One of the reasons people don't use Ubuntu on servers is because they are not as secure as Red Hat. They could be more secure, but for them to be more secure, you need to strip the bloatware. Bloatware is when you have several applications that are not needed and already installed in the operating system. They have a server edition and that comes stripped of the bloatware.

I have been working with Ubuntu Linux for more than ten years.

I have used the latest edition of Ubuntu Linux. If I am not mistaken, the latest release is 20.04 LTS.

Stability is a broad topic. Ubuntu is stable. 

Scalability? It Depends. It's Linux, you can do anything with it. 

It depends on what you mean by scalability. You have to be very precise. If you're talking about data center and scalability, then, yes, it's scalable. 

There are open-source projects that are being used, whether it be with Ubuntu or with Red Hat or with SUSE, to scale data centers, or to establish a scale-out architecture. It is possible to achieve scalability with Ubuntu, depending on the scenario. 

With any other Linux distribution, you can achieve quite the same.

There is a large community online.

I'm using something called Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian Linux.

I have used many operating systems. I have used Debian, CentOS, Fedora, Red Hat, and SUSE.

I have also used distributions that have very weird names as well.

Linux has always been a technology for technical people. Ubuntu bridges that gap. With Ubuntu, you don't need to know the technical parts of it very well to install it on a laptop and you can use Ubuntu without having any Linux knowledge.

It is very straightforward and can be installed anywhere. That's the convenience of it. 

For example, if tomorrow you face an issue and you Google it online, you will find many people who face the same issue and will provide workarounds or resolutions for the problem.

It is very easy to install.

The time it takes to deploy depends on the hardware you are installing it on, but normally it is 20 to 30 minutes to install onto a laptop or a server.

You can install it yourself. It is similar to installing Windows. There is no difference. You burn the ISO image to the USB, boot the server or the laptop and follow the instructions. You click the "next" button until it is complete and you are good to go. You give it your password, the settings that you would like, and that's it.

Ubuntu is a free product. 

If I am not mistaken, you can purchase support contracts that are available from Ubuntu.

You can always purchase Ubuntu, use it as often as you would like, and you can get enterprise support. 

Canonical has its licensing scheme, but I think the product is free to use. 

It has a GPL license, (General Public License). This license is always and will always be free to use. 

I am not familiar with the prices because I never had to contact Canonical for support and inquired about how much it would cost for their support. 

In general, you can always download their software and install it at any time for free and use it for free, according to the GPL license.

I am mainly a free VM Linux advocate. I love open-source products in general. 

At home, I have a server I'm running Linux on. I'm a Linux open-source enthusiast with more than 10 years of experience with multiple Linux distributions as a hobby. 

In my line of business, I interact with Linux environments a lot and Unix space environments in general.

I would recommend Ubuntu for anyone who's trying to learn Linux. 

For anyone who is not technical but wants a free operating system on their computer, I would definitely recommend Ubuntu.

I think there's something that needs to be clarified; Ubuntu shouldn't be compared to other distributions. These are just distributions. In the end, they share the same kernel. That is the thing with Linux. Linux is not a complete operating system. I will take the kernel, I will bundle it with a bunch of applications and then I will release it to the public and say that this is a distribution, which is not an operating system. 

I would recommend that it be compared based on the kernel, not on distribution to distribution. Ubuntu was made for something. It was made to be user-friendly, it was made for laptops. It is doing a great job on that. 

No other Linux distribution is doing as good of a job on that. For example, Red Hat or Oracle Linux, are not good on laptops, but they are good for servers. Red Hat is really good on enterprise servers.

If you are going to run any data centers that are all based on Linux, it should be based on Red Hat or SUSE. If you are running any Oracle databases or Oracle applications, it would be better to run them on Oracle Linux, even though Oracle Linux and Red Hat share the same binaries. 

There is no difference between the commands in Red Hat and Oracle Linux.

Linux is a messed up world. Everybody has their own agenda, their own thing and it's basically the same. If you go to Ubuntu with Oracle Linux in the back end, it's the exact same. 

This is the biggest nightmare with the Linux industry or the Linux world, that every day there is a new Linux distribution.

It's great. I would rate Ubuntu Linux and eight out of 10. 

It's a great product, very easy to install. It provides an alternative for Windows. 

Some people don't want to pay Microsoft or can't afford Microsoft, they want to have their own operating system solo on their hardware. Ubuntu provides that and gives you the option to give you support for it.

We primarily use the solution for data storage. 

The data storage capabilities are great.

We love the fact that this solution is open-source. It's free to use.

The product can scale.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is easy to install.

I can't really speak to any missing features.

There are some costs on offer that could be lower.

The learning curve is quite high for non-technical users. Therefore, it's not a suitable solution for a general office environment.

I've been using the solution for five years. It's been a while, although I don't use it too much.

The stability is very good. We have found that there aren't any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is quite scalable. If you need to expand it, you can do so as a company. 

It's the base of our data platform. 70,000 people are using it. The IT team alone is 5,000 to 6,000 people. 

I've never dealt with technical support directly. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are, as I have never called them for assistance.

We have two major operating systems: Microsoft and Linux. 

The solution is quite straightforward and easy to install. It's not too complex or difficult. However, I cannot speak to how long it takes to deploy.

The solution is open-source. I'm not sure if we pay for any licensing or services and if we do, I am not sure of the exact costs. It's not a part of my responsibilities.  

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment methods. 

I'm not sure which specific versions we are using and if they are the latest or not. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite satisfied with the product so far. It's been great.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. I wouldn't recommend it if you were deploying it as an office environment, however, for the data platform, it's perfect.

It can be used to write an application that is for all kinds of users to operate as an independent application.

Ubuntu Linux is flexible because it has a lot of new features, so you can use it without any problems.

It is a stable, open source solution as well.

You have to do a lot of configurations yourself. It is not very user friendly, but if you wanted to be a technical person, you may use it. However, you may still have a lot of difficulty with the configuration.

They could make more automations for the average user.

I've been using it for 6 months.

I have never had problems with stability.

The installation is straightforward, but you have to study beforehand. It isn't as straightforward as Windows is. You have to know some things you have to do.

It took about two hours, but it could be higher than that because we had to check for things. We didn't need a lot of reboots as compared with Windows, but I had to decide a lot of technical things during the installation.

It's an open source solution, but you can make donations if you'd like to.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Ubuntu Linux at eight and would recommend it to those would like to implement it.

For average users, I would recommend Windows because it's the system most people use. If they are gamers, they will not find any game applications, as Ubuntu Linux is mostly for developers.

We use the solution for our Linux servers. 

We use it for file transfer and remote desktop connections.

The solution is very simple.

I like that it doesn't get corrupted as easily as Windows. When it comes to viruses, it's more secure.

Especially on laptops, it doesn't drain much battery.

The solution is straightforward to set up.

It's faster than Windows.

When you talk of some of the flexibility, like you want to install from scratch, Windows is more user-friendly compared to Linux. Linux is more for the more techie people. You have to go through a terminal, a prompt to do some setup, and other things. Windows offers more help for you when you install it.

I've been using the solution for more than five years at this point. 

I haven't gone through scalability. It's more for an individual setup in my case. However, they're supposed to be much faster than Windows.

We only have a couple of people using it in our organization, as most actually use Windows. 

We don't use technical support. We have our own team and we learn as we go on our own.

I've also used Windows. I prefer Linux over Windows. We're doing some testing where we hope that we can put some applications in Linux eventually. We're testing Docker and similar solutions.

It's very similar to Windows 10 in terms of installation. If you're using a desktop, then more or less you can find those commands in Windows Servers as well. However, for Linux, it's a bit more in its own process. Linux is good on its own. The difference with Windows is Windows would require a lot of licensing, and their applications slow down.

When you install it, it's easy. However, there are some applications for which you have to look for help online. There are commands that you can use to be able to install them.

If you compare it to Windows, Windows is basically straightforward. It's easier to install Windows than Unbuntu Linux. When you talk servers, when you talk of workstations, Windows is a bit faster. The way I see it, we do have to do some settings, however, when you're able to run the installation properly, Linux ends up being much faster to run as the boot time is a few seconds faster, and shutdown time is much, much faster.  

Unlike Windows, which you have to pay for, this solution is free for the most part. We don't use it too much and therefore do not incur much of a cost.

Licensing is basically just for some applications. You get licenses if you want them to support you for Linux. For Ubuntu, you don't pay licenses. You pay for the support if you want them to support you.

We may have evaluated other options, however, it was a long time ago. 

For Linux, we're using Ubuntu. We have set up everything using Ubuntu. We do have some servers with Oracle Enterprise Linux. Those are running inside our HP DL380 servers. And then I do have Linux Mint and Elementary OS on my laptop and in my desktop at home.

I use multiple versions of the solution, including 20.04, 18.04, and 16.04.

We do have so many players in the Linux field. You do have Canonical, and they have their own Linux. Then, you have others that are based on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is based on the Debian model. You also have, on the other side, Red Hat and the SUSE Linux, which is IBM Linux. There are different providers, however, the core is almost the same. It's more of the setup that is available for you.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We mostly use the Ubuntu 14 version, although this varies from one customer to the next. We always utilize the latest stable version when embarking on a new project. 

We use the solution for application development and integration. We employ it as an e-commerce solution or when writing a connector between two systems, such as for website development. 

The trifecta comprising the solution's most valuable features consists of its stability, security and performance.

A problem we have encountered when installing the package is that certain packages are not available, which requires downloading of them on our part. As such, the solution should have a better repository of packages. Otherwise, one must download them from a third party slide. However, as I am not involved in the monitoring aspects, DevOps or Linux, I am probably not the best person to comment on this. 

From an end-user perspective it would also be nice to see better support and guidance when concerning the installation process, better training facilities when it comes to the solution's use. 

There is also a need to rely on third party websites for information which concerns the setup and it would be good if it were synthesized in such a way that the user could comfortably learn it autonomously. 

I have been using Linux for nearly 15 years, since around 2005. I am accustomed to its use, as would most people who have familiarity with Kibana Linux. At this level it is of no consequence. We get the installation package and this should be readily available. 

The solution is stable. Windows crashes all the time. Ubuntu Linux is definitely stable by comparison. 

While I cannot comment on the ability to scale the solution on-premises, I can say that this is very easy to accomplish on-cloud. It is now much easier than it used to be. 

I have not had much contact with technical support, not recently at any rate. I now work as an architect and don't come in contact with the support team. I work mostly with our team when it comes to assisting with the setup of Linux. 

The initial setup of the solution is a bit complex when compared with Windows, but there is a learning curve involved. Nobody can start using Linux straight off the bat, as a certain amount of expertise or skill is required. This said, if one has the right people for the job, ones who are acquainted with the solution, then this shouldn't pose a challenge. Docker now makes it easier than ever to deploy anything one wishes on Linux, particularly when it comes to Kubernetes. 

While I cannot state definitively how long the deployment takes, as I have not done it in a while, by and large I would say that this is not a time consuming process. Installation should range from a half-a-day to one day. If the main application on one's Docker is up and running, this process can be completed very quickly. So, the initial time-consuming step would involve creating the Docker file. 

Once installed, the product does need some monitoring and there are five CPUs involved in this process. In terms of Linux and cloud, there is also a need to keep track of the cost. These are the security and performance aspects which require monitoring. 

I am not in a position to comment on the licensing, as we mostly make use of the free version. 

Our company has over 14,000 employees and this makes it difficult for me to give a hard and fast number of how many use the solution, although I would estimate that 70 percent do so for development purposes. 90 percent of our employees use Windows 10 on their personal computers. 

I would recommend this solution for development and production purposes for the simple reasons that it is free, stable, secure and shows good performance. These are the four things that I am looking for. 

I rate Ubuntu Linux as a seven out of ten. 

The solution is very lightweight and extremely powerful. You can do almost anything you want to do with these systems. You don't have any limitations. For example, for Windows, there's a limitation where you can't run microservices with Docker.

Docker only runs on Linux as it is actually using the Linux channel. If Microsoft can make the Linux Subsystem for Windows run Docker it would be good. Docker and microservices are the future of everything we are doing. Using Docker and microservices is the best - and it works well on Ubuntu.

For the moment, Ubuntu actually it's installing its own philosophy which according to me is so good.

The solution is always adding more features. 

The solution has great functionality and it's easier to use than Oracle or Windows.

Occasionally, we have problems with stability. They prefer functionalities over stability sometimes compared to Debian. For Debian, they prefer stability over functionalities - they don't make a run on new technologies. They stabilize, they implement the most stable versions that they can. 

Depending on the stability you require on your server, you might prefer going for Debian over Ubuntu. If it is implemented in servers where stability is not really a big deal then you go with Ubuntu as you likely need new features. 

We find that the stability isn't that great. They have opted to keep adding new features and functionalities, and due to the fact that it's always evolving, it's not as stable as a solution that is pretty static.

I use Debian as well. I prefer Debian, however, I also like Ubuntu. Ubuntu is like Debian. Ubuntu is from Debian. I'm also familiar with the Windows Server, and I find that Unbuntu is more flexible and has more potential in terms of how we need to use it. 

We currently use the open-source version of the product.

We do a lot of configurations for the community. We don't have a partnership with Canonical. We use the open-source solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very satisfied with the solution's capabilities. Compared to Windows, it's very good.

We are using this solution in my organization as a software development platform.

Ubuntu Linux is a very good platform for software development. If you want to deploy dependencies for a particular software on Ubuntu it is probably the easiest. If you compared it to Red Hat or any other distribution of Linux, getting the dependencies and other configurations in place is quite a hassle. We have saved time by using this solution.

Ubuntu Linux is very easy to learn, manage, and keep updated.

The solution is a little complicated to customize and could be made easier.

In a future release, the implementation of lightweight desktops and remote access for server platforms could be improved.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

Ubuntu Linux is scalable. However, there could be better documentation to assist in scalability in many areas, such as PCP scanning.

We have approximately 40 people using the solution in my organization. We have plans to increase usage in the future.

It is not very difficult for us to find support for Ubuntu Linux by ourselves since we have already been using it for many years. We generally do not need support from anywhere.

The installation is easier than any other solution.

We did the implementation ourselves.

The solution is free.

I have evaluated other distributions of Linux, such as Red Hat.

I would recommend this solution to others. For those thinking about whether they should try out the solution, I would advise them to go ahead and give it it try.

I rate Ubuntu Linux a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for our NFS environment. I'm a system administrator and we're customers of Ubuntu Linux. 

Compared to other solutions on the market, this is a relatively suitable and good product which is stable and easy to use. Ubuntu currently serves our OpenShift environment.

The product could be better. It lacks the ability for disk expansion and is not very suitable for our needs. I also think support could be improved thereby simplifying installation. 

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

If I need to increase the disk on Ubuntu it's just hard for us to increase in the environment so scalability is not so easy. 

We don't pay for technical support so we can't use it in Turkey. 

I've used Red Hat Enterprise and I prefer working in that enterprise environment so I prefer that solution. 

If you have two different versions, one version can't be installed on the VMware environment. It is not suitable. I carried out the deployment myself and it took quite some time and a while to understand the program. We have an admin person and an engineer dealing with Ubuntu. 

Red Hat Enterprise is very widespread in Turkey and very few use Ubuntu. I work in an enterprise environment and I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we can easily get support. Red Hat is very widespread and Red Hat support is very responsive. I don't think I would recommend Ubuntu for anyone working in an enterprise environment. I think we'll be shifting to Red Hat at some point. 

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a six out of 10. 

Ubuntu is a Linux operating system and one of the applications that it hosts is my SQL database.

Ubuntu Linux is very useful as an operating system.

It has got longer support than some Linux distributions for each version that comes out, so it's good for enterprise-level organizations.

Ubuntu is very easy to use and you can manage it on your own. Compared to other Linux distributions, it is more user-friendly.

If the user interface were further improved then it would be better because more people would be able to use it.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for approximately five years.

Ubuntu provides quite a stable environment.

Ubuntu is scalable and we have approximately 10 users in our organization. It is very easy to scale up and there are no licenses involved. It is just a matter of upgrading your own hardware.

We have not had any technical support issues.

We have multiple versions of Linux distributions. The suitability for each, or which one we use, depends on the demand from the vendors and developers.

It is very easy to install, and it will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

I have done some installations myself, although most of the setup was completed by our system administrator.

It comes as free software, where there is an option for you to buy support licenses.

Overall, I think that Ubuntu Linux is quite good. It is meeting our expectations and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I'm using it for a file server and for MySQL servers. Those are my primary uses.

The solution is easy to install and easy to update.

You can scale the solution quite well.

The solution has a bit of a learning curve. It's not too high, however, you do need to understand the solution to deploy it and work with it effectively.

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it extensively in the last 12 months at least, and over the last two years in general.

The stability is mostly pretty good. The only issue with stability was with power knocking out, and therefore I put a UPS on it. That seemed to solve any issues going forward. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's quite good now.

Linux offers very good scalability potential. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

I just use the solution for personal use. I don't have a big team using it.

I've never used technical support in the past. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

While I've been a Mac person since the Mac first came out in 1984, I've added Linux for my server items. I didn't really switch to anything else; I've just added onto what I already do.

It's an operating system and when you install an operating system new, there are all sorts of things you have to go do and go read up on such as how do I do this and how do I do this? For me, it went very, very well, however, it's not something I can do in an afternoon. It took several days to get everything proper. However, it went well so there are no complaints at all in terms of the initial setup.

I can't speak to Unbuntu versus Red Hat or other Linux solutions, however, I am aware that some people use them.

I'm using the solution more for myself. I'm just an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with Linux.

I'm using the latest stable version. If they publish a stable version and then they publish an experimental option, I won't use it. I'll stick with the stable option. 

It's not something that you run on the cloud. It's what's behind cloud services. I've got an Ubuntu machine at home that I use regularly, but it is also my MySQL server and a file server, all in one box.

FileMaker, I know very well and MySQL, I'm learning quickly. Linux, I'm a beginner admin on it. I'm not in a position to make any comments pro or con enough, as I don't know enough about it to make a valid comment.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I've been very happy with it.