What Ubuntu Release Would You Recommend?

[IWantFroyo]

I noticed that with 11.04, a lot of users decided to use a derivative or an old version of Ubuntu.
What version/derivative of Ubuntu would you recommend to others?

Me personally: 10.04 :)

[Aeighty]

Same installed 11.04 used for a little while but went back to 10.04 LTS.
really don't like new interface wish there was a option during install to only install classic gnome. ( i know you can choose at login )

[trollolo]

Aeighty i'm sure if i wasn't such a skiddy i could tell you how to remove it, probably through synaptic or some such

i'm running XFCE on top of 10.04, seeing as unity is a wannabe Mac OS and KDE is cancer

[radar920]

I would probably go with 11.04 to remove the shock between the two DE's if they decide to stick with it.

[el_koraco]

None really. If somebody wants to go for something more recent, Gnome Shell kicks Unity to the ground. If they want something more familiar and stable, there are more stable distros, and more beginner friendly ones. I'd recommend any version of Kubuntu any day of the week though.

[KingYaba]

Like the first few, I'm sticking with 10.04 for now. Any updated software can be found at the Launchpad website. There's a Kernel PPA which is awesome.

I like XFCE but I wish I had a few more things. But I guess it would be Gnome, then, if it were implemented. :P

[XubuRoxMySox]

For new users I always recommend only the LTS releases. For Linux users with some experience and for use on machines that aren't "mission-critical," the in-between releases are fun.

I really wish Canonical would market Ubuntu that way. Debian does that. New Debian users are urged on their web site to install the current Stable release, while Testing and Sid (Unstable) are offered to experienced users.

Our LTS releases are built from Debian Testing. The Debian that our current LTS (Lucid) was built from has since been released as "Squeeze," which is now Debian Stable! And in Linux, it just doesn't get any more stable than Debian Stable. The other Ubuntu releases (non-LTS) are built from Debian Unstable. Really not for newbies IMO. And Ubuntu gets alot of grief about how "buggy and unstable" those regular releases are because they are not distinguished from the LTS releases as "better for beginners" and for "those who need a particularly stable OS on a mission-critical computer."

-Robin

[23dornot23d]

For new and production users 10.04 LTS is possibly easier to get used to and use ..... and stable.

For users that are confident in changing things and generally messing about with the desktop
and trying to get a customized look and a newer feel 11.04 with Gnome-Shell and Compiz plus
Cairo-Dock too ..... and Conky ....

For people that like playing russian roulette with their systems and do not use it as a production machine
and do not mind breaking things to find out what ticks ...... Oneiric 11.10 ..... :confused:

Something for everyone .....

Did I miss anything ..... ?

[BeRoot ReBoot]

I'm still on 10.04 here, but then again I've stayed on the previous LTS until that got released. I'm not really fond of installing/upgrading the OS too often or arguing about it on the internet, so I upgrade every LTS and let myself be surprised.

[JDShu]

At this particular moment, I'd recommend 10.10. 11.04 is currently buggy due to the move to Unity and 10.04 was a particularly unstable LTS. 10.10 was higher quality than the average ubuntu release imo.

[MG&TL]

The next LTS should be interesting to see whether the reliability is improved, and whether they're still with unity.

[YesWeCan]

10.10 because it has a little better hw support than 10.04 (it recognizes my webcam and Canon camera).

I've been playing with OpenSUSE 11.4 and Gnome Shell. Pretty slick. I wont be changing Ubuntu distro until one comes along that runs Gnome Shell and is reliable enough.

[Famicube64]

8.10. But only if it were still supported as the main release.

[Thewhistlingwind]

10.04

I'd feel very irresponsible recommending anything else to new users.

[Brushstroke]

The next LTS should be interesting to see whether the reliability is improved, and whether they're still with unity.
I certainly don't think they'll be sticking with Gnome 2 that far out. Unity will surely be developed enough by that time to be stable enough for an LTS release. If not, it'd be interesting to see an LTS release of Ubuntu with Gnome 3 as default! :D

And for the time being, I'd recommend 10.04 like a lot of others in this thread.

[Bandit]

I always recommend LTS versions, what ever is most recent. Slower system Xubuntu, everything else Ubuntu.

[KiwiNZ]

I do not recommend Operating Systems. If someone asks for advice I will assess their circumstances
and present to them a list of options and their appropriate pro's and cons.

It is then their prerogative to do what they will with that information.

[nd456]

10.04 LTS, Unity is ****

[Aretino]

Having revisited* Linux this May because Windows 7 became slower and slower with each automatic update, I tried several distros (OpenSUSE 11.4 with Gnome, OpenSUSE 11.4 with KDE, Fedora15 with Gnome 3, Debian 6.0 Squeeze and, finally, Ubuntu 11.04 and Ubuntu 10.10 with Gnome), I have to say that the one I ended up preferring - at least for myself - is Ubuntu 10.10 with Gnome. Granted, I haven't found the depth of desktop customization I encountered in KDE, but it works for me and it's fast. I found Unity to be a pain; even though my main computer is a laptop, I want to use it as a computer, not as an iPhone or an iPad. Not to mention I really don't get all the "when I grow up, I wanna be a Mac" themes on KDE-look & Gnome-look. I don't care that much for impressive and resource-hogging eye candy. I want an unobtrusive, fast, customizable desktop that blends in well with my workflow, doesn't get in the way when I'm in a hurry and doesn't require that I upgrade my machine. Unity and Gnome 3 do not satisfy any of my requirements, so they're both excluded. I can only work with Gnome 2 (thankfully, Ubuntu 10.10 has a reasonable arrangement) or KDE. No experience with XFCE or LXDE yet, but, like I said, Ubuntu 10.10 works for me. 11.04 doesn't and the single reason is Unity.

*My first experiments with Linux were in 1996 with Red Hat and Window Maker on a 133MHz Pentium machine with 64MB RAM and a Diamond Stealth video card with an S3 Vision968 chip. Despite the serious hardware support problems and almost arcane setup systems in those days, Linux was head and shoulders above Windows in terms of performance and, although I ended up having to revert to Windows to stay compatible with other co-workers, I always wanted to get back in the FOSS community.

[BrokenKingpin]

If I could include derivatives, Xubuntu 11.04 for sure. I wouldn't actually recommend a main Ubuntu release at this point because I dislike Unity and wouldn't want to recommend an older release. I do respect all the work that goes into Ubuntu, and without the derivatives wouldn't be possible... I just don't happen to like where they are going with the UI.

[Primefalcon]

10.04 of the average new user atm, if your a long time user, you'll know what you want

[Simian Man]

I do not recommend Operating Systems. If someone asks for advice I will assess their circumstances
and present to them a list of options and their appropriate pro's and cons.

It is then their prerogative to do what they will with that information.

Well said.

[Nightstrike2009]

Following a lot of distro experimenting Kubuntu 11.04, Xubuntu 11.04 and Linux Mint 11 all are good Os's and very capable but I have gone back to Ubuntu 10.04LTS (I intend to stay there until 12.04LTS now and hope it supports Gnome3.0 (If I have to switch i'd rather go to Gnome 3.0 personally) instead of unity or as well as unity).

10.04LTS it is IMO! :-)

PS: I've recently hear 11.10 will support Gnome 3.0 and Unity so least thats something to look forward too!