ubuntu --> windows

[NightwishFan]

Packages go through all sorts of testing before being updated or released. Software under 'Main' in Ubuntu is the most tested. If you are using a development version of Ubuntu such as a Beta, it is designed only for early previews and bug testing.

If you are concerned about stability the current LTS (Long Term) version of Ubuntu, 10.04, is already on its first bug fix release and should be free of many issues.

[jeight]

Linux runs differently than Windows. In windows each application is a standalone program that uses all of it's own files to run. Linux software on the other hand will use libraries from other applications that is already installed. Because of this there is less chance that software will conflict. Linux normally already knows which lib files don't work together and will warn you if something might run funky. Windows on the other hand never knows. That is why windows computers tend to start running slower over time. There are too many independent programs trying to take charge.

Chances are you will never run into an issue using Linux and if you do you were probably warned on installation that something wasn't right.

[Brunellus]

There is a continuum between stability and progress. If you install an LTS release of Ubuntu, it should be fairly "stable," since, after a certain point, only security fixes will be released for that software (no new features will be added). Of course, if you ONLY install LTS versions, you'll have a three-year release cycle to reckon with.

On the other extreme would be debian-unstable, where the packages are new every day. You'll get the newest, shiniest everything--but you won't be sure that a new update doesn't hose you completely.

Most things in Ubuntu are still configurable on the command-line, or by messing with the necessary text config files--so in terms of obscuring the system, Ubuntu is nowhere near as obscure as Windows.

Otherwise, I can identify a few other concerns:

"interact in the wrong way." This is actually taken care of by the deb/apt package management system. Synaptic (the GUI package manager) or aptitude or even apt-get (these two are command-line) will solve dependency problems like this automatically. It is very easy to take this for granted--if you want a taste of how it used to be, install Slackware (that's another Linux distro--arguably the oldest currently-maintained one) without a package manager, and figure out your dependencies by hand.

"unique names" I don't understand this. Programs are named by their developers for a number of reasons. But if you're looking for names that copy the names of analogous proprietary software (so, "Excel" in Linux, for instance) you're out of luck because that name is trademarked. The devs couldnt use it even if they wanted to, since the trademark owner would sue them for trademark infringement.

Indeed, software naming in general is far from logical. It's not obvious that "firefox" is a web browser, that "thunderbird" handles e-mail, or that "Excel" (to use that example, again) is a spreadsheet program that allows me to do mathematics; nor is it obvious that "outlook" is an e-mail/calendar/scheduling/behemoth, nor that "Quarx" is a desktop-publishing suite, nor that "Avast" has anything to do with malware.

[cariboo]

Looking at the op's posting history, most of his problems are of his own making, and as he stated in this post that he no longer uses Ubuntu, there is no use in continuing this discussion. Thread closed.