Is Ubuntu getting a Windows Rep?

[threegremlins]

I've been using Linux now for sometime, first College Linux then Ubuntu and stopped using Windows except for apps I use for my job. I'm not highly skilled with the Linux command line, but I'm not terrified of using it and in some instances it's more convenient than the GUI. Getting deep into the system though can be frustrating and when I came across Ubuntu I was delighted a distro came out that was easy to use and setup. I've been using Ubuntu since Badger and one thing I've noticed is that with each new release, there have been more difficult configurations to perform. I have an older computer box and I just installed Hardy with some complications and a laptop that's fairly new and had other issues. I know Ubuntu comes out with a new short term release every six months and a LTS every three years or is good for three years, but I'm wondering if they are pushing it before the releases are ready. Neobuntu said something to the same effect in another thread only he said the release wasn't a beta until three months of testing, patches and upgrades had been passed or something like that. Sometimes when I've installed the new release I just want to scream at having to figure out a new way to get everything working properly again.
So after installing Mint on the laptop and leaving Hardy on the box but without the 3d apps running I need for some projects, Im kinda frustrated with the whole release thing. Listening to everyone down playing Vista makes me wonder if Ubuntu is accumulating the same rep as Windows/Vista. Ubuntu is under a self imposed pressure to have a new release every six months, Microsoft is under pressure to slog out a new release before it's ready for financial profit. Eventually Vista will turn out to be an excellent OS comparable to XP(or maybe not I still remember ME). Perhaps the Ubuntu Foundation should rethink their agenda and provide releases that are stable before releasing them, so that the people who they target in their mission statement or philosophy, who might be subjected to less than ideal resources, can actually find the release useful. They are already releasing candidates of the release before the actual release comes out, couldn't they for example, offer candidates for the next release for trial, then offer the release as an alpha for six months, then finally make the official release a beta? I know there are people out there who just love to get in and do the down and dirty work of problem solving, but then there are people like me who just need a reliable OS. Another approach they might consider and I don't know if this can be done, but they might stop making so many upgrades in each release to give themselves time to produce an efficient workable release.
This time when all the bugs are fixed in Hardy I'm going to stick with it for the full three years. After all I do have a life and I want to live it.
3g's

[StormPCs]

My Asus G1Sn-X1 Laptop runs flawlessly and Hardy 8.04 (64 bit) is the most stable OS I have ever run. I don't know if your experience is typical. It will be interesting to hear from others.

[p_quarles]

You're right that Ubuntu gets a lot of flack for adhering to the 6-month release cycle, but then again, Debian gets a lot of flack for adhering to no release cycle.

There are several Linux distros that specialize in being easy to install and use, and up-to-date. I don't see Ubuntu having a more critical bugs than, say, Fedora, OpenSUSE or Mandriva.

[neoAnderson]

My Asus G1Sn-X1 Laptop runs flawlessly and Hardy 8.04 (64 bit) is the most stable OS I have ever run. I don't know if your experience is typical. It will be interesting to hear from others.


Well if you look around the forum at least the consensus is that Hardy is not the best release so far and apparently half the people are having freeze-up problems with it, including me. As great as it is, if it keeps freezing randomly like that it is next to outright unusable, and not the best for the health of my hard disk either because of the number of times I have to hard boot.

[koenn]

You're right that Ubuntu gets a lot of flack for adhering to the 6-month release cycle, but then again, Debian gets a lot of flack for adhering to no release cycle.

There are several Linux distros that specialize in being easy to install and use, and up-to-date. I don't see Ubuntu having a more critical bugs than, say, Fedora, OpenSUSE or Mandriva.

It's not a matter of critical bugs, it's a matter of end-user experience and those nuisances such as stuff that used to work but doesn't work in a newer release, or things that need manual reconfiguration/tweaking every time they're installed/upgraded.

I know that at least some of those may be related to binary drivers that aren't upgradable, etc, but having to deal with that every 6 months is indeed less than pleasant, and is, in appearance, a lot like the sort of trouble you can run in to with Winodws Service Pack releases.

[starcannon]

I haven't had any viruses since I switched to Linux 5+ years ago... so as far as I'm concerned, no, its not getting a Windows Rep.

Just my 2cp

[speedwell68]

Hardy for me was a PITA when it first shipped. But now it is absolutely fawless, I did a complete reinstall the other week after a brief flirtation with OpenSuse. That was the only OS installation that I have ever done in a little over an hour. That was everything installed, updated and configured. It took a little longer to add all of my personal files.

[J.T.]

I have an old pc and a new laptop running Hardy, and I've only had the pc freeze once in the matrix screen saver. That's sooooo much better than Windows. Plus it boots up a lot faster. I still use Windows on my laptop for school. They're not Linux compatible yet, but they're working on it.

[Tatty]

Well if you look around the forum at least the consensus is that Hardy is not the best release so far and apparently half the people are having freeze-up problems with it, including me.

I disagree.

Every ubuntu release is always followed by lots of posts on the forums from people who are running into problems with it. These posts only represent the people who are having problems to the extent that they need/want to post about them, so to say "half the people" using it are having freeze-ups is not fair.

If anything I would say there appear to be less people complaining about Hardy then some previous releases. Edgy, for example, upset a lot of people.

Hardy is working really well for me, the only problem I have had is with the latest Nvidia driver, which I was able to fix by installing an older driver.


But to the original question by the OP. In many ways what he says makes sense, But on the other hand that is what the LTS editions are for. 8.04.1 is out soon, and the official recommendation is for people needing stable desktops to wait for that and stick to dapper for now.
No one should expect any OS to be stable as soon as it is released, it takes time for the bug reports to come in and for fixes to be applied.

[Murrquan]

There are several Linux distros that specialize in being easy to install and use, and up-to-date. I don't see Ubuntu having a more critical bugs than, say, Fedora, OpenSUSE or Mandriva.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

One thing that sometimes helps is to use a less up-to-date version. The latest, most cutting-edge release always has some teething problems. And since a new release (of Fedora or Ubuntu) comes out every six months, you don't have much time to play with a stable version of your OS. Of course, Ubuntu has the LTS versions, which should help to alleviate this problem!

[Redrazor39]

I think this should be solved by every early year release is a bug fix and stability release, while every end year release is one to add new features, and a ton of them.

I think that would be the best way. That way, people can just stay on the stable ones if they want, and check out the end year ones for testing and stuff.

[madjr]

I think this should be solved by every early year release is a bug fix and stability release, while every end year release is one to add new features, and a ton of them.

I think that would be the best way. That way, people can just stay on the stable ones if they want, and check out the end year ones for testing and stuff.

you mean that hardy would be the stable release and intrepid should be a rolling beta till 9.04 comes along?

you would need to state the pros and cons.

i think the distro competition is what drives ubuntu to release every 6 months. Also, they like the constant buzz

[macogw]

There are several Linux distros that specialize in being easy to install and use, and up-to-date. I don't see Ubuntu having a more critical bugs than, say, Fedora, OpenSUSE or Mandriva.

As Crimsun said yesterday:
Fedora has its video all jacked up but fine sound. Ubuntu has its sound all jacked up but fine video. OpenSuSE and Mandriva get both of those right then have other issues of their own.

Hardy's got full out-of-the-box support for all hardware on 2 of my laptops, and it had great power management improvements over previous releases. The newest laptop has a few pieces of incompatible hardware that weren't listed as existing since I bought it from a Linux pre-installer.