Ubuntu Linux Reviews

My primary use case is for office work and developing software. 

The most valuable feature is that it's developer-friendly and easily accessible. Like any other Linux operating system, you have access to open sources, all the necessary tooling, and anything that helps developers do their work. I'm no Linux guru, but Ubuntu offers packages that I find easy to use. There are other options for people who are very skilled with Linux, but this solution has the perfect balance of having enough technical requirements to meet your needs while still being usable. It doesn't require you to be so technically proficient that you need to recompile kernels or anything like that. It's a Linux operating system for normal people. 

The only improvement I would suggest is to switching back to Aptitude. They switched a lot of the packages that used to be running in Aptitude to Snap. I don't find them as usable when they are in Snap. The most obvious instance of this is that it's caused me to have issues with Chrome. Starting Chrome took a couple of seconds before it was up and running, which wasn't pleasant. Back when it used to run packaging in Aptitude, I didn't have this problem. I know they're familiar with these issues because a lot of other people have experienced them too. 

I have been using this solution for five years. 

This solution is stable. 

I have never contacted technical support, but I probably will in the future. They offer very good services. 

I use Windows 10 because I have to, due to the programs I have that came with it, but I use Ubuntu on top of that. 

The initial setup was very quick. It is easy to install. 

I implemented myself. 

I'm aware of the paid services that they offer and provide technical support for, which are very good. Down the road, I will use some of them, specifically the service that automatically patches the central core of the operating system because it seems useful. Another service they used to have is a paid networking service. The services they offer are useful, but they depend on your particular situation and requirements. I would consider paying for them when a situation calls for them, but I don't need them right now. 

You don't need to pay for licensing. 

Some of my colleagues use Mint, but it's a matter of preference and specific to each person. 

I recommend Ubuntu Linux, specifically for developers. 

I would 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. 

I primarily used Ubuntu Linux as a DNS server. I was running other types of servers, as well.

What I like best is the way in which packages are managed.

I don't like the graphical interface in Ubuntu and it should be better.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for more than 15 years.

All Linux systems, including Ubuntu, are stable.

This is a scalable product. We have more than 100 Linux users.

The support available for Ubuntu is okay.

Prior to Ubuntu, I worked with Sun Unix for servers.

I have made the switch to using CentOS primarily because of the interface. It is more lightweight than Ubuntu.

The initial setup and installation are easy, and not difficult to complete. It should not take more than 15 minutes to deploy.

Our in-house team of two engineers is responsible for deployment and maintenance.

Ubuntu Linux is open-source and available to use free of charge.

Overall, this is a good operating system and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The package manager is easy to use & the OS supports a lot of hardware that enabled us to bring back to life old equipment and do more with less. Its ability to manage thousands of servers seamlessly using Landscape reduces the TCO by a huge margin.

We have developed an internal Document Management System around Ubuntu and MySQL, which came at no extra cost and our efficiency has improved dramatically. We now scan and save all our documents and correspondence.

As a product, I can't think of anything much because we are yet to fully utilize the product and it has met all our expectations. The technical training is the one that needs to be updated regularly and also engagement of more technical training partners.

No.

No.

The Ubuntu paid support is probably second to none because we have never needed it. The community support is so engaging and world class such that we have never really needed any enterprise support.

Yes. We had RHEL servers and we took all of them out because of the TCO and the package manager which was a nightmare. A standard Ubuntu server is three times or more faster than RHEL server in booting up.

The initial setup was smooth and self explanatory with an option to go through a standard setup or an advanced one.

Ubuntu Enterprise solution is the best route to pursue for SME. We recommend the standard SLA for 10*5 phone.

RHEL and SUSE Linux.

If you are going to implement this platform then you must run a new installation rather than upgrade any other distro's. This is to avoid garbage in and garbage out.

Ubuntu MATE provides me with a complete OS experience, so I don't have to switch between multiple OS for my work; I can do my development, usual browsing and accessing tools on the same machine.

I mostly use the OS for development purposes by running IDE like PyCharm. I also use the OS to connect to other machines in our development environment.

We moved from Ubuntu 12 to Ubuntu 16 recently, owing to the various new fixes that were shipped with its new version.

Ubuntu is the standard deviation OS in our environment and we have built our own image that the developers can just download and begin using it.

Stability is a big issue in my opinion. I have found version 12 to be more stable. I have tried various desktop environments and MATE seemed most stable to me.

I have been using it for the last four months. Before this, I was using Ubuntu 12.

We have encountered stability issues. I find it less stable when I am using Ubuntu as a virtual machine.

There were no major issues with its scalability.

We have never used technical support.

We were using Ubuntu 12 and we switched to Ubuntu 16, so as to solve the performance issues and version upgrade for development purposes.

The setup was straightforward. We found it easy to set up version 16 compared to version 12.

MATE Desktop is most suited if you want to run Ubuntu 16 in a virtual environment.

We configured it as a third-party log collector, receiving Postfix gateway logs. Additionally, we removed the on-site and electric agents. I use it for a unified firewall solution and have installed an identification package and other similar tools.

The solution's stability could be improved.

I have been using Ubuntu Linux for three months.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

We never had issues with support.

I have used Kali Linux before.

The initial setup is easy and takes an hour to complete. To deploy, download the ISO file and put it in a firmware and configuration server.

I deploy the solution by myself.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The use case for Ubuntu is not the information system production environment for the operating system. It is used to run applications.

We are not utilizing Ubuntu in critical applications.

Ubuntu Linux is developer-oriented.

Similar to Windows 10, I would like the ability to manage it on Azure or integrate it with Azure.

We have been using Ubuntu Linux for 10 years.

Ubuntu Linux is a stable solution.

It's a scalable product, but not the best. We have 2,000 systems. 

We have not contacted technical support.

With an expert, the installation was easy. We had no issues with the installation.

We completed the installation ourselves.

Ubuntu Linux is free, but you can pay for a supported version that is better.

I would recommend Ubuntu for development and to run applications that are non-information system critical.

I would rate Ubuntu Linux a ten out of ten.

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.