30% Ubuntu installs fail?

[viljun]

I've installed Ubuntu to many different computers with different hardware - new and old. Appr 30% of all Ubuntu installs have had some kind of problems with hardware. Sometimes I've not even been able to install the system at all or live cd just have got stuck. Sometimes tweaks have helped sometimes not.

What kind of approximations do you have? Is there any statistics?

[bufsabre666]

ive prolly installed differnt linux over 200 times, ubuntu is prolly half of those so 100, ive had one fail.... ever.... so that to me is 1% of installs fail

[Golem XIV]

Most of my Ubuntu installs required minor tweaks to get the system running fully, especially with Gutsy (I had suspend problems, an issue with the Intel PRO Wireless card and some others). 8.04 fixed virtually all of these - both my laptops work fine "out of the box", if you consider installing restricted nVidia drivers and bcm42xx firmware as such.

Compare this with just about every single Windows 2000/XP installation from standard installation media (boxed CDs, not system-specific "recovery" CD sets) that, once finished, require a lengthy cycle of driver installations and updates, followed by reboots in almost every instance.

Can't comment on the Vista installation because my only experience is with an HP recovery DVD set that takes approx. 3 hours to complete, followed by 2-3 days of trying to get the non-optional preinstalled garbage (Office 2007 preview, Norton and other assorted crap) off of my system.

[freebeer]

I've installed Ubuntu (different versions, etc.) on several different machines with just about every conceivable hardware configuration (mostly frankenboxes). I have yet to have Ubuntu fail to load on any of them. Sure, there was an occasional tweak here and there after the install, but none of them failed to install.

[FuturePilot]

Installed Ubuntu on 4 different computers. Never had a hardware problem. I can't say the same for Windows installs though.

[swoll1980]

I've installed Ubuntu on 4 computers. Pre Hardy Heron I had to reconfigure X on one of them other than that I had no problems. As far as the installation of windows on the same machines Xp wouldn't install on one, Vista wont run on the other, and all of them required tons of drivers to be downloaded to function properly.

[DigitalDuality]

d

[gn2]

I have installed X,K,Ubuntu on many different PC's and laptops and have never had a failure since I started installing from the Alternate CD instead of the Live CD.

[ghindo]

I've never had any problems with any of my Ubuntu installs. If you're burning your own Install CDs, you could always try burning them at a lower speed and see if that helps out at all.

[bufsabre666]

im not ganna vote cause i doubt its any where near 10%

[lisati]

I've installed and used Ubuntu on two different computers. Apart from a bad burn or two of a downloaded disk image (if you can call that a "hardware tweak") it's more usually been a software/configuration tweak to get the hardware working.....

[FuturePilot]

Yes, I can't vote because I've never had an install fail due to hardware incompatibility.

[viljun]

Yes, the scale should maybe have more numbers on the low end (on this forum...)

[macogw]

I've had maybe 2 times that I needed to use alternate because there wasn't enough memory for the live cd. Graphics have always *worked*...but I've had to tweak maybe 3 or 4 computers for more than a couple clicks to get dual-head with Compiz going. That's after 3 installfests and becoming the go-to girl on campus for Linux help.

I've had one total failure. You see, I only had install CDs, and the computer didn't have a CD drive, so installing wasn't going to happen.

[swoll1980]

im not ganna vote cause i doubt its any where near 10%

+1 if there was a < 10% I would have gone with that

[-grubby]

Somewhere around 20% of my Ubuntu installs have failed, probalby about 15% of those from a corrupted iso

[deadowl]

Problems I've had:
(Ubuntu)
1. Trying to install while resizing a heavily fragmented NTFS or FAT32 partition.
2. Needed to use 915resolution in 6.04
3. Needed to use ndiswrapper from 6.04-7.04
4. Video card not properly configured from 6.04-7.04
5. Had to configure mouse in xorg.conf file, mouse options didn't work with touchpad 6.04-7.04
6. Microphone input didn't work 6.04-7.04, haven't checked with Hardy.
7. Constant problems with any flash player in Firefox, often freezing, but the biggest problem is its tendency to render on top of other page elements 6.04-8.04
8. Constant problems with Eclipse crashing. Though I know its only community supported, but Ubuntu seriously needs to support a comprehensive IDE 6.04-8.04
9. (different computer) suggested NVIDIA restricted driver actually broke Compiz 8.04
10. (different computer) suggested ATI restricted driver actually broke Compiz 8.04
11. Java locks up for quite a few websites in firefox 3b5 8.04
12. It should install DVD decryption by default if my OEM is in such a partnership that they'd pay for it on all of their machines.

(Xubuntu on other computers)
13. Wouldn't render fonts the correct size without machine's native monitor 7.04
14. Wouldn't play audio CDs outside of SoundJuicer (not installed by default) on 1999 hardware 8.04... have only tried this with one other computer that installed Ubuntu, works on that.
15. Suggested NVIDIA restricted driver put the computer in low graphics mode 8.04
16. Seems hopeless to even try configuring the menu. (7.04-8.04)

(All)
17. Can't eject a disk drive without having a disk in it, which sucks for one machine with a broken CD ROM eject button.

Definitely evolving over time for the better, I must say, but there were some regressions in Hardy that disappointed me.

[Flying caveman]

probably < 10% for me, But its usually something i've done wrong, like try to use a live cd with not enough RAM, or have the wrong BIOS settings for the graphics, hard drive, or power settings. Actually, after I've figured out what I've done wrong, I've never NOT been able to install Ubuntu, That's 100% success.

I've built a few computers before I started using Ubuntu, So I have some experience diagnosing hardware problems. I'm not sure how many people installing Ubuntu for the first time have built their own computer or installed an operating system before.

[Polygon]

ive never had a install fail on me.

[Sephoroth]

Hmm, I've had only 1 install truly fail and that was because I had a broken CD/DVD burner. For the Hardy beta my video card did not work at all but a bit of CLI work fixed that and the error did not recur on the official release.

[Bubba64]

I've never had any problems with any of my Ubuntu installs. If you're burning your own Install CDs, you could always try burning them at a lower speed and see if that helps out at all.

Same here, same advice, if your having a 30% fail rate you may be doing something wrong. A Linux install is practically a hands off operation besides setting partitions if you want, a computer name, home file name and a password. It really sounds like your not checking your CDs for mistakes.

[Nessa]

I've never had an install fail on me. There are some cases where I had to redo it but it was more of pilot error than anything else.

[MaximB]

I vote for less then 10%.
I mean if there was such option ;)

[Toffeeapple]

I'd do less than 10% too if the option were there. Only hassle I've had was my old wifi cards from my windows days which I had to replace on the frontroom media pc and the kids room pc to Edimax ones.

Other than that it's been free of pain.

[jgrabham]

Burn your CDs at a lower speed?

A bit OT - but I installed PCBSD a couple of days ago, and it installed fine, reebooted, started x and then... nothing. Ctrl + alt + blackspace... nothing... reeboot again... nothing. The I remember there's an ATI card in this box; pull it out, shove teh VGA cable in the on-board intel chip, switch on and hey, works fine. (KDE still likes screwing up on me on that install, but it pretty much works - its great in fluxbox) so I'm STILL not convinced by AMDs/ATIs/Whatever it is nows kit - I shall continue to stick to Nvidia wherever possible.

[Eisenwinter]

I've never had a failed Ubuntu installation.

I've had failed installations of other distros, though.

[starcannon]

I've never had a failed install.

I don't count minor hardware tweaks as a fail, Operating System Installs of any sort will require hardware tweaks.

I have had hardware configurations that work better than others, but no out right failures, Ubuntu has installed on anything I throw at it, sometimes requires me to use the Alternate Install CD /shrug, there is a tool for everything I've run into, so no failures.

Operating System Installing is not something most people do, most people buy computers with an OS pre-installed, and if they ever have to "re-install" most use a restore disk or partition that came with the system. I think when many come to Linux of any flavor, they suddenly find that they have jumped into true OS installing, its not just put in a restore disk and let a script put it back to factory defaults.

I install many systems every year, more than I can count, and between windows and linux, I find the linux installs to be smoother and easier, I generally only have to download 1 or at most 2 driver binaries (I could use synaptic for those but I like the latest greatest). The rest of the hardware is already handled.

In Linux I do the initial install, about 45minutes, then I do the post install, depending on connection speed and server load 20 to 90 minutes for the updates, another 15 to 20 minutes to update or install any latest greatest drivers and I'm done. Total time on an average system using longest numbers 2 hours 35 minutes, most of which is spent with me removing virus's or spyware from a windows machine while I wait on the updates.

In I do a Windows initial install, about 45minutes to install windows, then I do the post install. I go to the Motherboard Chipset website and download drivers, I go to the Video Card website and download drivers, I go to the sound card website and download drivers, I go to the nic website and download drivers, I go to the wifi website and download drivers, I go to the monitors website and download drivers, I go to the printer website and download drivers, this takes anywhere from 45 to 60 minutes. I install the drivers, rebooting many many many times, another 60 minutes, I run the windows updates this can take up to 2 hours including downloads, installs, and reboots. I go get some antivirus and install that, I get some spyware removal and prevention tools and install that, I go get Firefox and Thunderbird and install that, there goes another 60 minutes. Finally I'm done with a base install of windows. Then I sit by the phone and wait for the happy customer to call me up when they get blitzed by a virus or loaded up with spyware.
Total time on average windows install using small numbers 5 hours.

Then there is the endless hours of upkeep on the windows system, I charge by the hour, so Windows users are my bread and butter, I don't hear from the linux users much, once its set up and pinned out they just don't have problems.

[samjh]

I've installed five different versions of Ubuntu on my computer in three different configurations, with only one failed version which was actually because the kernel did not support my new motherboard's HDD controller.

Therefore, failure rate = 20% but not really Ubuntu's fault. :)

[Lster]

I've installed Ubuntu quite a few times and its never failed at installation.

[Phenax]

In my experience, 20%. Mostly fails at the partitioning stage.

[viljun]

I've never had a failed install. I don't count minor hardware tweaks as a fail, Operating System Installs of any sort will require hardware tweaks.

I do. I just want it to get installed because I hate non-co-operating computers.

It's maybe not linux's fault but I don't care. Operating system installs require hw tweaks, but they shouldn't. Ubuntu is getting nearer and nearer to perfect world though.

[xpod]

I`ve probably installed Ubuntu on about a dozen different PC`s with
2 dozen different hardware configurations over the last couple of years and the only thing thats ever really failed has been MOI....

Apart from my occasional bloopers though i cant say i`ve ever had an Ubuntu install fail on me like so.

Just one of the lucky ones i guess:)

[rudihawk]

Ive installed Ubuntu on 3 different computers. Never failed once.

[Mikes80]

I've only ever had one fail and I suspect that was to do with the network or servers. I'd say that would make less than 10% of my installs failing.

[unisol]

i have installed it over 70 times and only 1 failure. due to faulty hardware that i replaced.

[viljun]

i have installed it over 70 times and only 1 failure. due to faulty hardware that i replaced.

This forum seems to be extremely biased. While I like Ubuntu I must admit it doesn't quite often just work perfectly. Isn't it better for the community if we are honest how things are and not try artificially to make ubuntu better than it really is. Isn't this forum just full of those problems ...

One failure in 70 installations is possible but sounds quite strange. Maybe all the machines were identical? There is no official declaration for a successful install but in this thread it meaned everything just works without tweaks - networking, printer, monitor, camera, etc.

[regomodo]

`

[macogw]

This forum seems to be extremely biased. While I like Ubuntu I must admit it doesn't quite often just work perfectly. Isn't it better for the community if we are honest how things are and not try artificially to make ubuntu better than it really is. Isn't this forum just full of those problems ...

One failure in 70 installations is possible but sounds quite strange. Maybe all the machines were identical? There is no official declaration for a successful install but in this thread it meaned everything just works without tweaks - networking, printer, monitor, camera, etc.

Well "failed" means "wouldn't install at all." That's what it means when you try to install Windows. If we're going to require that all hardware be supported *just* by what's on the install CD, Windows has a 0% success rate.

[SilverDragon]

My old computer required me type in nolapic or noapic as a special boot parameter when installing. Would that count?

My new computer installed perfectly with 8.04 64 bit.

My sister's computer also installed perfectly.

So 0% failure rate for me? :)

[capink]

Well "failed" means "wouldn't install at all." That's what it means when you try to install Windows. If we're going to require that all hardware be supported *just* by what's on the install CD, Windows has a 0% success rate.

How about installing successfully and not booting up, giving you those notorious cannot access tty error. This happened to me with different computers and different Ubuntu releases. It is quite common problem in Ubuntu and you can check the forums to see its magnitude. On the other hand, I have never had a windows install failing or not booting up. Ofcourse I have to install drivers for my hardware, but this is a lot easier than trying to troubleshoot bootup problem and wasting hours trying every possible solution without success.

[Canis familiaris]

Ubuntu install has failed for 5-10%. I would discount the cases where I manually cancelled installation, power outrages or interupptions.

[reyfer]

Installed on 37 PCs at a school near my home, only 3 had problems, and no, they were not all the same model, this are PCs that were donated by several individuals for a computers lab at the school, and I convinced the school authorities to give a try at Linux. So 3 "fails" out of 37 tries...that's less than 10%

[macogw]

How about installing successfully and not booting up, giving you those notorious cannot access tty error. This happened to me with different computers and different Ubuntu releases. It is quite common problem in Ubuntu and you can check the forums to see its magnitude. On the other hand, I have never had a windows install failing or not booting up. Ofcourse I have to install drivers for my hardware, but this is a lot easier than trying to troubleshoot bootup problem and wasting hours trying every possible solution without success.

O_o I've never actually seen that one. OK, yeah, that would count as failure.

[flytripper]

poor poll indeed. where is the 0% ? that is 0% for about 10-15 installations and no problems.. thankyou.

[noremac]

I have installed Ubuntu probably 5 times total is all on a few different machines. I had one single install fail one time. Thats when I installed eeeXubuntu on my Eee. Had an issue of some sort and simply tried it again and worked fine that time. Very well could have been user error :-/

-Cameron

[Midwest-Linux]

I have had a Ubuntu fail a few times. On the Power PC platform (Apple iMac G3). 7.10 PPC install ended up at busybox and could not resolve it. 8.04 PPC the install ended early for some reason and could not go further.

Solution was to go back to the 7.04 PPC alternate install version. If you are thinking of installing Ubuntu on a G3 mac/iMac, trust me. Use the 7.04 PPC alternate install version.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Using Wubi to install 8.04 on a Vista laptop. While Wubi installed Ubuntu, when it came up at boot there were a bunch of errors and could not proceed.

Solution, PARTITION the hard drive using the Vista shrink partition program. Then use the freed space to install Ubuntu, and you should be able to boot up just fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Failed attempt to install Ubuntu 7.04 on a old laptop with 256 MB Ram.

What happened, I was using a Live CD and the 256MB which was also shared with video was not enough to run it and install it using the Live disc.

Solution, used the alternate install version, since it is text based install. The install will go smoothly.

In fact I highly recommend using the alternate install CD version for any Ubuntu install....especially with older computers with less than 512MB of Ram....even if you have 256 MB it may not be enough to run...never mind install with a Live CD.

[Bubba64]

This is a ridiculous thread if your having a 30% failure rate you don't know what your doing!, and I smell a troll!, I don't believe you!. Even if your telling the truth, your experience is a anecdotal based opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally I have never had a faulty install from the very first one when I had no clue. [-X [-X [-X

[hellion0]

I've installed Ubuntu on several machines.

On one, I can say the install failed a few times. The final time, it took some tweaking, but the tweaked install survives even today.

I've also installed it on a pair of desktop machines. One was a supreme hassle to get the install to take. The other was flawless. It only took one try with the Xubuntu alternate disc, and I was off to the races.

It doesn't matter how many installs "fail," it's what ends up on the machine when the work is done.

[ChameleonDave]

It is ridiculous that "100%" is an option but not "0%".

It is also silly to come minor configuration tweaks as a failure. By those criteria you'd have to count essentially every manual OS installation as a failure.

My Ubuntu has always installed just fine. Of course I had to do some tweaks to get my graphics tablet working perfectly, because no official drivers are available.

[viljun]

This is a ridiculous thread if your having a 30% failure rate you don't know what your doing!, and I smell a troll!, I don't believe you!. Even if your telling the truth, your experience is a anecdotal based opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally I have never had a faulty install from the very first one when I had no clue. [-X [-X [-X


I'm not a troll.

People at this forum somehow can not accept things don't quite often just work when installing Ubuntu. I have used linux about 10 years and installed or tried to install it appr. 100 times including maybe 20 Ubuntu installations.

That's why I'm interested how others are doing. 20 times is not statistically very good count. Still I gives me the feeling the % not yet anywhere near 0. Maybe 8 of my 20 Ubuntu installs have failed - so I have even been kind with my 30% estimate. Usually minor tweaks have helped but maybe 3 times I have Fluxbuntu or some other distro.

According to what people have answered to this poll the final % is around 20%. So, you with your 0% seem to be about 10% troller than I am.

I think people don't just get that in this thread a failed installation means that something doesn't work out of the box. I think that's a good definition for a failure for for example a new linux user who just wants everything works - and don't we want these to start using Ubuntu? Or for me who hate tweaking. (Also I'm not saying Windows installs any better...)

[SarahKH]

To be honest I've installed everything from Slackware to Gentoo. Never really had an install fail. I've had boxes fall over because of cheep/shoddy hardware chipsets but they were slightly 'fun' in Windows regardless.

So, all things considered call it 100 installs over the years as far as home goes (I have faith in the update routines... really, I'm THAT masochistic) and 0 refusals to run.

Now, Windows. I've seen that OS's installer go pop plenty of times.

[ugm6hr]

It is also silly to come minor configuration tweaks as a failure. By those criteria you'd have to count essentially every manual OS installation as a failure.

This is a valid point, and makes the poll pointless.

In fact, if you did a similar poll for XP (probably the best supported generic OS), it would be much higher than your quoted average of 20%, since a significant majority of hardware requires manual installation of drivers (configuration tweaks).

A more representative poll would be one that excluded downloaded .iso's (to remove corrupted downloads as a cause), required an Alternate CD trial prior to declaration of failure, and success determined by a usable desktop.

Looking at "real-world" experiences is not very helpful, since success is largely determined by the installer's experience (and intellect).

But since you asked, I've installed (X)Ubuntu 7 times (excluding upgrades on the same machines), with 100% success (out-of-the-box LiveCD or AlternateCD dependent on RAM available).

[viljun]

> It is also silly to come minor configuration tweaks as a failure.

This is a valid point, and makes the poll pointless.


That's not the point of the poll. The point is the installation should work out of the box as intended. All hardware should work etc. It's like a brand new car without mirrors - the car manufacturing process has failed although you can drive it. If just the wheel is too high you may configure it lower - the car is not broken.

I made the poll too fast - I agree - so it doesn't have too much point. The scale is very bad for this forum and the declaration of a failure was too unclear. I think it still can tell you others are not doing as well as you are. If every installation would've gone all right the %'s would look very different. Or are you wearing some Ubuntu glasses?




In fact, if you did a similar poll for XP (probably the best supported generic OS), it would be much higher than your quoted average of 20%, since a significant majority of hardware requires manual installation of drivers (configuration tweaks).


I agree. This poll considers the OS broken if you need to install essential drivers to get your hardware or software to work. XP would get (almost) 100% failure at this poll but shouldn't we have higher aims with Ubuntu than what windows has?




Looking at "real-world" experiences is not very helpful, since success is largely determined by the installer's experience (and intellect).


What should we look then? Theoretical cases? The % would be zero for Ubuntu then. I was wandering what linux newbies with no linux intelligence or exp would face. So the success would be if she just put the cd in, clicked a few buttons and everything worked. And a failure would be if there would be no sound or printer doesn't work.

Isn't Ubuntu's main idea to be as easy to use as possible? Your thinking has a long way to go if you consider it's all right when after installation you should start to tweak to make your hardware or applications co-operate.

[Tux Aubrey]

I think you are setting an impossibly high bar for "success".

I'm sure Ubuntu (and evry other OS) "fails" for some percentage of users but your criteria would class as "failure":

Someone putting the CD in upside down;

Someone putting a 64bit CD in a 32 bit machine;

Someone putting the CD into a machine with hardware known not to be compatible with Linux.

User error and hardware incompatibility are not the software developer's fault.

I have never had a "failure" by my own standards - although I have removed and replaced hardware components that "failed" to recognise Ubuntu (D-Link wireless cards) and I have downloaded drivers for other hardware (nVidia graphics cards, Atheros wireless cards, Canon printers and a scanner).

Slightly off topic: I took a punt last week and ordered a cheap PCMCIA USB 2.0 card off the net hoping to be able to give an old laptop some new functionality as a music repository for my wife's i-river mp3 player (which can't recharge via USB 1.0). The box arrived with a driver CD and an an instruction booklet (all for Windows of course). I was a little nervous about finding drivers for Linux (the brand was unknown to me). I plugged it in, rebooted and everything just worked. This seems to happen more and more for me with all sorts of hardware. Even my Canon printer which required drivers for Dapper has been supported in the kernel since Feisty.

[kitili]

wait, where's the 0%?

[viljun]

I think you are setting an impossibly high bar for "success".


Yes, that's true for many configurations. Still 70% of installations I've made have been successful. There's so much stuff without decent linux drivers.

What kind of a poll would you like guys? How many %'s of Ubuntu installations work, almost work or work a little bit after serious professional hacking? Wouldn't the result be boring? No, you just want to see Ubuntu is perfect but unfortunately it's not yet the case.

[insane_alien]

i've installed on many a hardware configuration and none of them have needed anything done to get them running right. i would say less than 10% although you don't have that option.

[tmcmulli]

Never had a single problem until 8.04... I have two Dells that came with 7.04 originally, upgraded to 7.10. They both fail to boot after 8.04. All my other machines seem to love it, though... so I'll blame it on Dell, not Ubuntu :)

[viljun]

Never had a single problem until 8.04... I have two Dells that came with 7.04 originally, upgraded to 7.10. They both fail to boot after 8.04. All my other machines seem to love it, though... so I'll blame it on Dell, not Ubuntu :)

I also had a failed upgrade and my friend, too. He - new linux user - switched to Fedora after that. And that other machine has now Vista but I don't have anything to do with it.

I don't blame anything. That just happens with Ubuntu. The upgrade is like a miracle when it works. What a pity it's so unstable.

[grossaffe]

well I'm 3 for 3 with ubuntu installations so...

edit: why is there a poll option for the maximum extreme but none for the minimum extreme?

[frup]

I have personally installed ubuntu on over 9 different machines, each one at least twice, some over 10 times.

One machine has failed, kernel panic... Something is not supported and the CD can not get passed grub... I should point out I haven't tried that computer since 7.04 so it may work now.

One of the other computers is an Acer Aspire 5020, it used to have ACPI problems but not anymore... It did install 6.06 and 8.04 as well as 7.10 I believe.

[tmcmulli]

I also had a failed upgrade and my friend, too. He - new linux user - switched to Fedora after that. And that other machine has now Vista but I don't have anything to do with it.

I don't blame anything. That just happens with Ubuntu. The upgrade is like a miracle when it works. What a pity it's so unstable.

Now for the good news... I was able to get my Intel Quad box running Vista 64 to host WUBI quite nicely. While I'm missing .2 GB of RAM, Ubuntu only takes 378 Mb, so that's a serious improvement. I was also able to install WUBI my Dell D600 laptop, which I could never get working with Ubuntu installed natively... it's really nice being able to get to the Windows drivers from Linux :)

[HotShotDJ]

The point is the installation should work out of the box as intended. All hardware should work etc.Based on your definition of "failure," then 100% of my installations of EVERY operating system I've ever installed over the past 30 years have failed. (DOS, OS/2, Windows 98, 2000, Several flavors of Linux, etc.)

However, using a realistic rubric, then I've never experienced a failed Ubuntu installation. Keep in mind, I've always installed Linux on systems designed to run Linux.

[geogur]

works for me on old hardware. i`m no it, person but i do my own installs and hardware .i love to tinker . things seam to work out . support is there if you know how to ask for it, without upsetting the user who is trying to help you.

[viljun]

Based on your definition of "failure," then 100% of my installations of EVERY operating system I've ever installed over the past 30 years have failed. (DOS, OS/2, Windows 98, 2000, Several flavors of Linux, etc.)

However, using a realistic rubric, then I've never experienced a failed Ubuntu installation. Keep in mind, I've always installed Linux on systems designed to run Linux.

Usually Ubuntu has just got installed perfectly for me, too. That's why we are able to use different scale for Ubuntu than for other OS's.

Is it unrealisic to suppose all hardware just magically works after installation - without installing drivers etc? It is unrealistic for windows - but how about ubuntu?

[smoker]

kind of pointless poll, some numpty that can't place a cd in a drive the correct way, and give up, could basically vote 100% failure!

i haven't voted, never had a failed install in probably over 30 computers, maybe i'm lucky:-)

[Naiki Muliaina]

Cant vote, installed over 20 times (seperate machines), no failiures. Not a very accurate poll this one aye! ^^

[wolfen69]

i voted 10%, but would have said less. realistically, it's probably more like 1-2%.

[Jordanwb]

Around 60% for me. In a virtual machine the Ubuntu installer asked me to put the CD back in the "drive" even though the disk was mounted. I'd count that as a fail. I got about 10 fails when Ubuntu tried to install Grub to my laptop's hard drive because updates messed around with grub. Installing Kubuntu failed a whole bunch of times because the packages were corrupted - even though all the files passed the MD5 check.

I don't consider hardware tweaks as fails. There should be a 0 option.

[NilsHG]

i voted 10% but my personal experience it is less than that.
this question is not very well phrased. if you compare my ubuntu installs to how much i had to tinker with xp or vista i can say ubuntu has never failed me.

[fatality_uk]

Is it unrealisic to suppose all hardware just magically works after installation - without installing drivers etc? It is unrealistic for windows - but how about ubuntu?

That's the point. All of my 50+ installs (some corporate roll out test) bar one had worked without any need for anything.

I can't even describe the stupidity I felt after a recent XP install when I sat there for a minute trying to work out why my wireless connection wasn't working. Oh yeah, that's right, the OS hasn't found it.

I haven't voted. Poll is meaningless imo.

[Wiebelhaus]

ive prolly installed differnt linux over 200 times, ubuntu is prolly half of those so 100, ive had one fail.... ever.... so that to me is 1% of installs fail

Same here , but if this guy is trying to install on a old busted p3 with 256mb of ram of course it's going to "fail" because there's not enough to cut out for the RAM drive.

[mc4100]

For me, it's about 70%, but that's only because my DVD drive is flaky and never burns the iso write about 7 times out of 10 (lol, I made a joke), anyway, once I order a CD from canonical, installation works perfectly.