- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ubuntu Users: Focused on the Wrong Market?
Sometimes I don’t see eye to eye with the Ubuntu user community. I think Ubuntu Server Edition should be Canonical’s top priority for 2009. But only 8 percent of Ubuntu users agree with me, according to a reader poll on WorksWithU, the independent guide to Ubuntu. Here’s why I’m right and 92 percent of Ubuntu users are wrong. Take a look. |
|
|
Comments (47)
27 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:With Debian being more stable for server use, Canonical gets competition not only from Red Hat and Suse, but from the very distribution that their product is derived from. Many may ask, "What's the point?"Debian more stable? Evidence?
Are you comparing debian stable to ubuntu non-LTS? Why not compare ubuntu LTS to debian unstable? Or we could just compare apples to apples.
At any rate, I find that ubuntu LTS is as stable as they come.
Quoting: Their server support offerings are priced substantially higher than Red Hat's or Suse's.Not really - especially when you consider that we can have 40 ubuntu servers doing generic unix services, 4 of them running mission critical DB2 databases, and canonical is fine with just getting support on the 4. Talk to red hat, and you need to get support for every single redhat box you have in order to be legal.
Quoting:And so far, Canonical has done little to differentiate itself or advertise why they are better.You seem to have completely missed ubuntu's meteoric rise in popularity over the past 2 years.
Quoting:Do you have some sort of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) for your statement?
I have experienced a high number of bugs on Ubuntu. Much more than on Debian. That's entirely anecdotal but for me it does validate Garymax's observation: 6 months isn't enough to stabilize Debian unstable and introduce a slew of new features. The last Ubuntu didn't suffer so much from this but I bet that a big reason for that is that Lenny was nearly done. Now we're getting Debian Squeeze and for the coming 6-10 months that is going to be highly volatile with many packages currently sitting in unstable and experimental all going into Squeeze at once. All containing many, many bugs. And the next Ubuntu is going to derive from Squeeze, so prepare yourself.
Quoting:Then there's the matter of GNOME's Nautilus being configured in Debian to open a new window every time you click on a directory (ugh!).
Debian doesn't set that configuration option. Gnome does that by default. Good luck trying to convince the Gnome people that Browser mode should be the default instead of Object mode. Many have tried but none have succeeded.
herzeleid,
I wrote "With Debian being reported to be more stable for server use"... I qualified this with "reported" and this has been the opinion of many in the community so I need not offer "facts" here.
You seem to have missed my point when I wrote:
That is the reason for Ubuntu's "meteoric" rise over the last 2 years. Not because it is more stable, necessarily. Canonical serves up a derivative based around apt-get that is easy to use with a new release occuring every 6 months--which is something that Debian could never do. But Canonical has failed to advertise their Unique Selling Proposition. So far, it has relied on the Ubuntu hype machine to get them to where they are. And it has taken them as far as it can. Now, Canonical has to show real value and display why it's better than Red Hat or Suse. And, yes, it has been shown that Canonical's pricing is higher per unit than Red Hat's or Suse's.
A specious argument and one of Ubuntu's downsides.
If Canonical wants to have "cutting-edge" releases then they should offer an unstable branch much like Debian. Why should the community have to wait 2 years between "stable" releases? Without a "testing" or "unstable" branch, Canonical should make every release "stable". As it is, whenever a release is buggy they use the same line of reasoning: "If you want stable then use the LTS release."
So, basically, every release from Canonical is non-stable with only the LTS release being [somewhat] guaranteed to be stable. No wonder there is so much regression.
I believe the time has arrived for Canonical to either show why it is a better value than, say, Red Hat or be prepared for a decline--after all, Mark isn't going to send free CDs around the planet forever. And, there are two very capable players in the Linux server space already.
I wrote "With Debian being reported to be more stable for server use"... I qualified this with "reported" and this has been the opinion of many in the community so I need not offer "facts" here.
Quoting: You seem to have completely missed ubuntu's meteoric rise in popularity over the past 2 years.
You seem to have missed my point when I wrote:
Quoting: Mark Shuttleworth may have conquered the desktop--Linux-wise. That was easy enough to do. Just make a distro that is easy to install and free. And mail free copies to anyone who requests them..
That is the reason for Ubuntu's "meteoric" rise over the last 2 years. Not because it is more stable, necessarily. Canonical serves up a derivative based around apt-get that is easy to use with a new release occuring every 6 months--which is something that Debian could never do. But Canonical has failed to advertise their Unique Selling Proposition. So far, it has relied on the Ubuntu hype machine to get them to where they are. And it has taken them as far as it can. Now, Canonical has to show real value and display why it's better than Red Hat or Suse. And, yes, it has been shown that Canonical's pricing is higher per unit than Red Hat's or Suse's.
Quoting: Are you comparing debian stable to Ubuntu non-LTS? Why not compare ubuntu LTS to debian unstable? Or we could just compare apples to apples.
A specious argument and one of Ubuntu's downsides.
If Canonical wants to have "cutting-edge" releases then they should offer an unstable branch much like Debian. Why should the community have to wait 2 years between "stable" releases? Without a "testing" or "unstable" branch, Canonical should make every release "stable". As it is, whenever a release is buggy they use the same line of reasoning: "If you want stable then use the LTS release."
So, basically, every release from Canonical is non-stable with only the LTS release being [somewhat] guaranteed to be stable. No wonder there is so much regression.
I believe the time has arrived for Canonical to either show why it is a better value than, say, Red Hat or be prepared for a decline--after all, Mark isn't going to send free CDs around the planet forever. And, there are two very capable players in the Linux server space already.
> Are you comparing debian stable to ubuntu non-LTS?
Even if I were to accept your claim that only LTS has to be stable, even though they are all releases, unlike Debian testing or unstable, are you seriously claiming that when Ubuntu 8.04 was released in April 2008 it was the same quality as Lenny is today? I've not heard anyone make such a claim. I had many, many problems with 8.04 in the weeks after release. It was a horrible distro. Almost a year later it has improved. Is there a 'release' and then a 'stable release'? So you should wait a year after release for it to be stable? I don't understand your comparison at all.
Even if I were to accept your claim that only LTS has to be stable, even though they are all releases, unlike Debian testing or unstable, are you seriously claiming that when Ubuntu 8.04 was released in April 2008 it was the same quality as Lenny is today? I've not heard anyone make such a claim. I had many, many problems with 8.04 in the weeks after release. It was a horrible distro. Almost a year later it has improved. Is there a 'release' and then a 'stable release'? So you should wait a year after release for it to be stable? I don't understand your comparison at all.
Quoting: Are you comparing debian stable to ubuntu non-LTS? Why not compare ubuntu LTS to debian unstable? Or we could just compare apples to apples.
Bigg, I think herzeleid was making a point that somehow I was not comparing apples to apples in my evaluation and comparison of Ubuntu to other distros.
Thank goodness I use Slackware...
> I think herzeleid was making a point that somehow I was not comparing apples to apples in my evaluation and comparison of Ubuntu to other distros.
True, but there's also an implicit claim in his response that (a) LTS is the only release that is claimed to be stable, and (b) Ubuntu 8.04 was the same quality on the day it was released as Debian Lenny on the day it was released.
True, but there's also an implicit claim in his response that (a) LTS is the only release that is claimed to be stable, and (b) Ubuntu 8.04 was the same quality on the day it was released as Debian Lenny on the day it was released.
bigg,
I recently experimented with Ubuntu 8.04.2 and found that after installation, the bugs increased and it became more unstable. Things which worked out of the box started failing.
I guess for the fanboys Ubuntu can do no wrong.
I think Canonical's aggressive 6-month release cycle, together with the use of the unstable Debian branch combines to make the releases very bug ridden. And my experience as well as the experience of others proves this.
I'm not saying that the distro has done nothing good--I got my father using it. But, there are many areas where it could improve and where quality suffers at the expense of hitting a deadline.
I recently experimented with Ubuntu 8.04.2 and found that after installation, the bugs increased and it became more unstable. Things which worked out of the box started failing.
I guess for the fanboys Ubuntu can do no wrong.
I think Canonical's aggressive 6-month release cycle, together with the use of the unstable Debian branch combines to make the releases very bug ridden. And my experience as well as the experience of others proves this.
I'm not saying that the distro has done nothing good--I got my father using it. But, there are many areas where it could improve and where quality suffers at the expense of hitting a deadline.
Quoting:One of the main reasons why Ubuntu has been so popular is that an entrepreneur decided to start his own distro for the masses and give it away for free. Give anything away for free and the majority will go for it whether it's the best or not. ("Free" is the best word in advertising).Ah! That explains why Linux dominates Windows.
Actually NoDough, it's the other way around because Windows has always been free. The entrepreneur(s) who own Windows realised a long time ago that giving away Windows was the best way to proliferate Windows, and that's what they do. Sometimes they give it away for $150 as a hidden cost in the purchase of a new computer, sometimes they give it away for less as a hidden cost. At other times they make sure they are looking the other way (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) while it gets pirated.
Quoting:I recently experimented with Ubuntu 8.04.2 and found that after installation, the bugs increased and it became more unstable. Things which worked out of the box started failing.That all sounds a bit vague, and very light on information and details.
Quoting:I guess for the fanboys Ubuntu can do no wrong.Sigh. Calling names isn't helping. You seem determined to label ubuntu as "unstable", so anybody who would like to see some evidence for that claim is automatically a fanboy?
herzeleid
No offense but what do you want, a signed affidavit? If I said I experienced bugs and instability after installing Ubuntu 8.04.2, why are you so determined to think that I didn't? I've been using Linux long enough to know instability and regression when I see it. And others have said the same thing. I have witnesses, I guess.
I used the term "fanboy" because any objective criticism of your distro of choice and you're ready to demand proof. What else do you want? Wait a minute...I know...just go to Launchpad.
After a fresh release of Ubuntu, Launchpad fills up fast. There's your "anecdotal" evidence.
Quoting:That all sounds a bit vague, and very light on information and details.
No offense but what do you want, a signed affidavit? If I said I experienced bugs and instability after installing Ubuntu 8.04.2, why are you so determined to think that I didn't? I've been using Linux long enough to know instability and regression when I see it. And others have said the same thing. I have witnesses, I guess.
I used the term "fanboy" because any objective criticism of your distro of choice and you're ready to demand proof. What else do you want? Wait a minute...I know...just go to Launchpad.
After a fresh release of Ubuntu, Launchpad fills up fast. There's your "anecdotal" evidence.
Herzeleid
I thought this quote from an article posted here on LXer would prove one of my points with which you seem to disagree concerning support costs being higher with Ubuntu.
According to the article by Ken Hess "Commercial Linux Distro Support Shootout," he made the following observation:
Now there's some anecdotal evidence for you.
I thought this quote from an article posted here on LXer would prove one of my points with which you seem to disagree concerning support costs being higher with Ubuntu.
According to the article by Ken Hess "Commercial Linux Distro Support Shootout," he made the following observation:
Quoting:Canonical's Standard support offering is 9x5 — covering your local business hours only — a deviation from the "norm" of 12x5 support from the other two companies. Its Priority support is far more expensive than the competition, which is sure to be a deterrent to many would-be Ubuntu users.
Now there's some anecdotal evidence for you.
garymax -
I've been using unix since the 80s, linux since 93, so I've been around the block with this stuff. I've used all the major distros, and I've found ubuntu to be a pleasant surprise. It's the only distro that works correctly on my laptop, sorry about that.
I recently moved my own servers from suse to ubuntu LTS because I wanted longer support - 5 years vs 2. I've got ubuntu running in the data center of a fortune 100 company and a small business. It's been solid, and the package management and selction is great.
So naturally, when someone comes along and says "hey, it's unstable, I tried it and it sucks" I am quite curious to know exactly how it's unstable. Who knows, I could be missing something. And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that!
You mentioned launchpad reports as a measure of quality - So, look at the bug reporting mechanism for any distro or any OS for that matter, and you'll get the impression that any of those OSes is a bug riddled mess.
OTOH, if you still think canonical support is too expensive, you can go to Hewlett-Packard for ubuntu support. Have you priced that option?
Quoting:I used the term "fanboy" because any objective criticism of your distro of choice and you're ready to demand proof. What else do you want? Wait a minute...I know...just go to Launchpad.What objective criticism? I didn't see any details, only vague complaints
I've been using unix since the 80s, linux since 93, so I've been around the block with this stuff. I've used all the major distros, and I've found ubuntu to be a pleasant surprise. It's the only distro that works correctly on my laptop, sorry about that.
I recently moved my own servers from suse to ubuntu LTS because I wanted longer support - 5 years vs 2. I've got ubuntu running in the data center of a fortune 100 company and a small business. It's been solid, and the package management and selction is great.
So naturally, when someone comes along and says "hey, it's unstable, I tried it and it sucks" I am quite curious to know exactly how it's unstable. Who knows, I could be missing something. And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that!
You mentioned launchpad reports as a measure of quality - So, look at the bug reporting mechanism for any distro or any OS for that matter, and you'll get the impression that any of those OSes is a bug riddled mess.
Quoting:I thought this quote from an article posted here on LXer would prove one of my points with which you seem to disagree concerning support costs being higher with Ubuntu.Yep, I've seen that, and I even explained to you a few posts up why that doesn't equate to higher support costs, since you can get selective support on ubuntu servers, putting your support dollars where they really matter. Not an option with RHEL or SLES.
OTOH, if you still think canonical support is too expensive, you can go to Hewlett-Packard for ubuntu support. Have you priced that option?
My hope is that Canonical will focus on stripping bugs out of the current LTS. I'm not in a position to know how that's going. I do have 8.04 on a couple of boxes, neither of which I'm really using at the moment.
One thing I can tell you -- Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM. I'm sure that's true of many distros, though. I'll have to pump some extra memory into one of my Ubuntu laptops and give it a couple weeks hard use.
One thing I can tell you -- Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM. I'm sure that's true of many distros, though. I'll have to pump some extra memory into one of my Ubuntu laptops and give it a couple weeks hard use.
herzeleid
No need to apologize. But there is a need to realize that others will have experiences that are different from yours and you need to respect that. There are too many complaints about Ubuntu to ignore that there is more work to be done.
If you read my comments carefully I never said that Ubuntu "sucks". If it did I would have never migrated my father to it. I pointed out that there are enough bugs and regression in the distro that made it untenable as a system for me.
Slackware. Very few bugs and hardly any patches to the upstream source.
Quoting:It's the only distro that works correctly on my laptop, sorry about that.
No need to apologize. But there is a need to realize that others will have experiences that are different from yours and you need to respect that. There are too many complaints about Ubuntu to ignore that there is more work to be done.
Quoting:So naturally, when someone comes along and says "hey, it's unstable, I tried it and it sucks"
If you read my comments carefully I never said that Ubuntu "sucks". If it did I would have never migrated my father to it. I pointed out that there are enough bugs and regression in the distro that made it untenable as a system for me.
Quoting:And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that!
Slackware. Very few bugs and hardly any patches to the upstream source.
> One thing I can tell you -- Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM.
I don't know why that is. Is it the kernel? Debian Lenny doesn't run well on my 250 MHz box with 384 MB of RAM. Etch was more than acceptable with fluxbox. I've tried Slackware, Absolute, Wolvix, and several non-Slackware derivatives, and only Puppy was fast.
I don't know why that is. Is it the kernel? Debian Lenny doesn't run well on my 250 MHz box with 384 MB of RAM. Etch was more than acceptable with fluxbox. I've tried Slackware, Absolute, Wolvix, and several non-Slackware derivatives, and only Puppy was fast.
RE: Ubuntu in 256 MB of RAM. It's GNOME. I know I shouldn't expect GNOME to play well in that environment, but I was shocked with how poorly it performed, the Ubuntu iteration anyway.
I'll probably try it with Xubuntu or Fluxbox, but I'll probably pump in a little extra RAM before that.
I can see the problem: a whole lot of swapping. I've done quite a few tests with 256 MB of RAM in the past (Ubuntu 6.06 seemed to do acceptably well, as did Debian Etch, Slackware 12.0 and Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0, and of course Puppy 2.x and Damn Small Linux 3.x and 4.x)
No surprise there, but it did slow things down considerably. I should probably pull some RAM on my 768 MB laptop and see how the current OSes (OpenBSD 4.4, Puppy 4.1.2, and maybe even Windows XP, which I've left on ...) run with 512 and 256 MB.
I'll probably try it with Xubuntu or Fluxbox, but I'll probably pump in a little extra RAM before that.
I can see the problem: a whole lot of swapping. I've done quite a few tests with 256 MB of RAM in the past (Ubuntu 6.06 seemed to do acceptably well, as did Debian Etch, Slackware 12.0 and Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0, and of course Puppy 2.x and Damn Small Linux 3.x and 4.x)
No surprise there, but it did slow things down considerably. I should probably pull some RAM on my 768 MB laptop and see how the current OSes (OpenBSD 4.4, Puppy 4.1.2, and maybe even Windows XP, which I've left on ...) run with 512 and 256 MB.
>> And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that!
> Slackware
Somehow I knew that was coming. :)
> Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM.
That's not really Ubuntu, that's more Gnome. Ah, I see you noted the same later on.
Somehow I knew that was coming. :)
> Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM.
That's not really Ubuntu, that's more Gnome. Ah, I see you noted the same later on.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Their aggressive 6-month, ready-or-not release cycle has many squashing bugs that should have been tended to in the beta and rc stages. In fact, some bugs exist to this day.
Their server support offerings are priced substantially higher than Red Hat's or Suse's.
Regression seems to strike every release so that things which worked yesterday don't after an update today.
With Debian being reported to be more stable for server use, Canonical gets competition not only from Red Hat and Suse, but from the very distribution that their product is derived from. Many may ask, "What's the point?"
A very untenable position to be in.
I think Canonical has done some good things. I was able to get my father off of Windows onto Kubuntu nearly 2 years ago. But I also see a lot of bugs and problems which could and should have been avoided.
Mark Shuttleworth may have conquered the desktop--Linux-wise. That was easy enough to do. Just make a distro that is easy to install and free. And mail free copies to anyone who requests them.
Shuttleworth has even supposedly said that making money on the desktop is a losing proposition. So, he is depending on server and support deals where two very big, and very well-heeled companies provide reputable products at a lower support cost.
If Canonical does not start to advertise their advantages beyond the simple fanboy flair-ups, Canonical and Ubuntu could be irrelevant in a few years time...unless a lot changes--and fast.
One of the main reasons why Ubuntu has been so popular is that an entrepreneur decided to start his own distro for the masses and give it away for free. Give anything away for free and the majority will go for it whether it's the best or not. ("Free" is the best word in advertising).
The hard part for Canonical is that it's seeking to make money in the very arena where there's the most competition. And so far, Canonical has done little to differentiate itself or advertise why they are better.