Can Ubuntu ever be as stable as hardware tailored OS:s?

[worldsayshi]

Not so long ago I bought an Aspire Timeline and installed Ubuntu alongside Windows. With some effort. Still, almost a year later there are some (non-critical) glitches. Additionally, updating the system can once in a while cause unstable behavior.

The other day I took a small media computer with Ubuntu Server that I haven't really put to use to my brother so he could use it with his tv. Went on installing the gui etc. The Os was a couple of releases old, so I ran a sequence of upgrades. Ended up with Ubuntu not being bootable except for in terminal mode. I can probably solve it given some time that I don't have. Meanwhile I have to justify why I don't just put Windows on it (It would put me off using it as a server if nothing else).

Such glitches I've come to tolerate somewhat. I can see how it puts off newcomers. I think they are if not _the_ reason for (ordinary) people not choosing Ubuntu at least in top five.

The overall reason for these glitches as I understand it: Hardware diversity and Ubuntu having to fit inside everything, while competitors have the advantage of tailoring the OS as it is deployed. I wonder if Ubuntu will ever be 'competitive' in the 'one size fits all' - business? I'm not saying that you can't have both worlds but if Ubuntu is to 'compete' doesn't tailored devices have to become flagships? Can non-tailored ever be as stable as tailored?

[grahammechanical]

Perhaps you remember when Microsoft brought out its media center edition of Windows and it refused to allow it to be sold over the counter. You could only obtain it pre-installed on a machine. For the same reasons as you mention.

In the past I read time and again that Linux was difficult to install, that a person needed some experience to get the system up and running. Canonical has tried to remove that difficulty. I think that it is doing well in this regard. I see Unity as another step along the road. From the help requests I see on these forums, I conclude that a lot if problems are caused by people trying to do something that they do not fully understand or with hardware that is not capable. So, I am happy that in Unity it is no possible to remove the notification area even though this makes it difficult to add user chosen notifications.

I agree that ordinary people want a device that works and I agree that having the OS pre-installed by the supplier is the best way of meeting the needs of ordinary people.

Regards.

[3Miro]

heck put System76. Ubuntu comes pre-installed and 100% working. When a new version comes out, they (syy76 staff) test new version and tell you when and how to upgrade and/or what bugs/issues you can experience.

So yes, Ubuntu can be as stable as hardware tailored OS.

[disabledaccount]

Ubuntu or linux in general is just operating system. Hardware problems are driver-related - that's completely diffrent thing. Secondary, I can say that Apple OS is perfectly suited for their harware - all other PC operating systems have and will have HW problems. If You think that Windows have no problems with HW then You're just wrong - milions of problems are reported.

And finally: not everyone have to be computer specialist - many peoples have problems because they just don't know PC technology, software etc - they should just ask for support (possibly paid service).

[NormanFLinux]

I haven't had a problem installing Ubuntu. In fact, I prefer to install my own OS. It gives me freedom from Microsoft and being locked into Windows.

Ubuntu users think Canonical is repeating Microsoft's mistake by forcing them to use Unity beginning with Oneiric Ocelot, whether they want it or not. I can understand a take or leave it interface; that's what Windows comes with and so does Apple with Mac OSX but to Ubuntu users it comes as a completely new experience.

[Oxwivi]

Ubuntu or linux in general is just operating system. Hardware problems are driver-related - [...]
I'd disagree there. Gentoo for example is compiled to work on a specific set of hardware - there's more to hardware than just generic drivers and prepackaged kernels to run on them.

Ubuntu mostly installs generic packages like any other regular operating systems. To make it truly stable on the hardware it's running on, it should be compiled from source like Gentoo is or Canonical providing customized bits for every hardware, which is pretty much impossible given the diversity.

[iponeverything]

Not so long ago I bought an Aspire Timeline and installed Ubuntu alongside Windows. With some effort. Still, almost a year later there are some (non-critical) glitches. Additionally, updating the system can once in a while cause unstable behavior.

The other day I took a small media computer with Ubuntu Server that I haven't really put to use to my brother so he could use it with his tv. Went on installing the gui etc. The Os was a couple of releases old, so I ran a sequence of upgrades. Ended up with Ubuntu not being bootable except for in terminal mode. I can probably solve it given some time that I don't have. Meanwhile I have to justify why I don't just put Windows on it (It would put me off using it as a server if nothing else).

Such glitches I've come to tolerate somewhat. I can see how it puts off newcomers. I think they are if not _the_ reason for (ordinary) people not choosing Ubuntu at least in top five.

The overall reason for these glitches as I understand it: Hardware diversity and Ubuntu having to fit inside everything, while competitors have the advantage of tailoring the OS as it is deployed. I wonder if Ubuntu will ever be 'competitive' in the 'one size fits all' - business? I'm not saying that you can't have both worlds but if Ubuntu is to 'compete' doesn't tailored devices have to become flagships? Can non-tailored ever be as stable as tailored?

a better question might be:

"is a os that is never upgraded be as one that is constantly upgraded"

I have been running the same mythbox now for 6 years.. I don't upgrade it, I don't need to.. it just works.

[3Miro]

.
Ubuntu users think Canonical is repeating Microsoft's mistake by forcing them to use Unity beginning with Oneiric Ocelot, whether they want it or not. I can understand a take or leave it interface; that's what Windows comes with and so does Apple with Mac OSX but to Ubuntu users it comes as a completely new experience.


sudo apt-get install gnome-shell
sudo apt-get install xfce4
sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

Ubuntu is so damned restrictive ...

....

An upgrade of windows cause a lot of problems. Remember that windows doesn't come with drivers, you rely on the manufacturer to supply new drivers for the new version. One of the main problems with Vista was that manufacturers refused to make drivers for hardware that they no longer sell, so if you wanted a stable Vista, you probably had to buy a new machine.

If you want good hardware support for Linux, you have to either do a lot of research before buying or get a machine from someone like System76 or ZaReason.

[walt.smith1960]

Given the level of hardware vendor support compared to MS windows, I think the Linux devs do a remarkable job of providing a stable operating system.

[snowpine]

Believe it or not, some users find Windows incredibly unstable.

I agree that the "progress" releases of Ubuntu (like 11.04) can be a little unpolished. I recommend 10.04 Long-Term-Support if you are a stability-minded individual. Especially for a server; there is not much reason to have the "latest and greatest" in that case. :)

[wojox]

You had an older Server Edition installed. Then installed a GUI on top of it. Followed by multiple release-upgrades. I don't think it's your hardware. I just think your doing it wrong. :P

[worldsayshi]

You had an older Server Edition installed. Then installed a GUI on top of it. Followed by multiple release-upgrades. I don't think it's your hardware. I just think your doing it wrong. :P

Seems a bit drastic perhaps but I can't see any principal error? Are there some kind of accumulation of error for each upgrade :S ? How should I be doing it? Install all over?

[worldsayshi]

Believe it or not, some users find Windows incredibly unstable.

I agree that the "progress" releases of Ubuntu (like 11.04) can be a little unpolished. I recommend 10.04 Long-Term-Support if you are a stability-minded individual. Especially for a server; there is not much reason to have the "latest and greatest" in that case. :)

Yes, I have certainly been pushed towards the stability inclination lately.

[Lateralis]

Given the level of hardware vendor support compared to MS windows, I think the Linux devs do a remarkable job of providing a stable operating system.

I couldn't agree more. I frequently bemoan the decisions which lead up to the Unity and Gnome 3 DEs, but there is choice in that regard which pleases me greatly. You don't have that with Windows - you install Win Vista or 7 and you get Aero whether you like it or not. In Linux I can name off the top of my head four different DEs that I can install whenever I like. And there are plenty more out there too, each tailored to a different user base.

As for creating a stable OS, I will always be in awe of the literally countless people who contribute daily, in order for people like me to be able to use a powerful and flexible OS that comes entirely free of charge.

[athenroy]

If you think Ubuntu is bad, you should have been around in the earlier days! I had 2 Red Hat versions, when it was still free, in the late 90s. It was a hassle to even get a Sound Blaster clone sound card working! All RPMs had to be installed from terminal, no GUIs at all.

As mentioned, even on Windows and Mac it is the hardware manufactured responsibility to provide drivers and until the Linux users make enough noise to force them to include Linux drivers, they won't. Same with software, Windows and Mac version, nothing for Linux.

I think Linux has always been considered the "operating system of geeks", if I can use that phrase, however, with the increasing ease of installation and increasing amount of users, perhaps one day the industry will wake up.

Every time you run into a problem, be sure and complain to the hardware or software company and maybe they will "sit up and take notice"!

[snowpine]

Yes, I have certainly been pushed towards the stability inclination lately.

You might also take a look at Debian (this is what I run on my work computer). Debian is Ubuntu's "parent" distro and while it lacks some of Ubuntu's "pizazz" it is extremely stable.

The non-LTS Ubuntu release (such as 11.04, which introduced Unity) are used to test new technologies and some users (including myself) consider them "public betas" for the LTS releases.

[Bapun007]

You might also take a look at Debian (this is what I run on my work computer). Debian is Ubuntu's "parent" distro and while it lacks some of Ubuntu's "pizazz" it is extremely stable.


+1 if you want a os more stable then ubuntu then use debian or slackware .

[wolfen69]

+1 if you want a os more stable then ubuntu then use debian or slackware .

Or basically any distro that has been out for 6 months or more. Just do updates immediately.

[wojox]

Seems a bit drastic perhaps but I can't see any principal error? Are there some kind of accumulation of error for each upgrade :S ? How should I be doing it? Install all over?

What release did you start with and end up with?

I would have backed up my important files and done a fresh install of 10.04 Desktop if your brother needs a GUI. Booting into a live environment before installing to test it out a bit.

[Gelatinous Yam]

Believe it or not, some users find Windows incredibly unstable.
That's why I'm switching to ubuntu (as soon as I can back my computer up, my dad made me promise).

[worldsayshi]

As mentioned, even on Windows and Mac it is the hardware manufactured responsibility to provide drivers and until the Linux users make enough noise to force them to include Linux drivers, they won't. Same with software, Windows and Mac version, nothing for Linux.

Heh. I expect hardware vendors to pick up on linux drivers about when malware makers will begin seriously picking up on linux malware. Neither will start supporting it until there are enough financial motivation given by critical mass of users. One bad for another.


You might also take a look at Debian (this is what I run on my work computer). Debian is Ubuntu's "parent" distro and while it lacks some of Ubuntu's "pizazz" it is extremely stable.
Yup aware of it. Although I admit. I'm also a sucker for fancy pants new and shiny. Just getting a bit whiny when the cost of it blows up in my face. :)



The non-LTS Ubuntu release (such as 11.04, which introduced Unity) are used to test new technologies and some users (including myself) consider them "public betas" for the LTS releases.
Hmm, not so surprising. Nice to know. Yes, I will go for LTS for the server then.


I believe the point I was looking for was:
Can Canonical as business venture and brand (rather than Ubuntu as a project) hope to compete with the big brands by trying to accomplish original design or will it bring a stability cost (that is(?) hard to avoid when going by the "one size" model) that will counter the positive "brand"-effect given by that design? That all depends on the stability they actually can muster in the end I guess. In the end there is always a trade-off between stability and originality (if nothing else). Don't you think? As a background, I think that Ubuntu is closer than ever to being truly competitive. That makes such a trade-off idea more interesting.

[snowpine]

Ubuntu is the most successful desktop Linux distro despite being (arguably) one of the least stable. That tends to undermine your "stability is the key to Ubuntu's success" argument.

For that matter, the most popular operating system of all time (Windows XP) is extremely unstable for a lot of users. Frankly I think the biggest deciding factors for most people are popularity and familiarity; if Average Joe's friends/family/coworkers/classmates use Windows, he will use Windows without questioning; if they use Mac, he will choose Mac, etc.