5 ms·

Are you conflating Ubuntu with Unity? Unity's kind of hit-or-miss, but Ubuntu as a distro has always been fine for me.

by cheald 13y ago

eksith 13y ago
I agree. It seems the biggest gripe with Ubuntu is Unity (and some of Gnome 3, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). I've been on Linux Mint - Ubuntu / Debian based - and it's closer to Windows 7 than Ubuntu's Vista.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  but there's xubuntu, lubuntu, ubuntu studio, kubuntu ...
hrkristian 13y ago
That's a fair question, and the answer is no. Unity was an instant turn-off the minute I upgraded, yes, but pulling down another DE isn't exactly hard. The whole OS has just never worked out in the long run, and has always felt bloated and sluggish. A myriad of odd patches and poorly implemented automation made even the simplest problem solving a major gripe. I just couldn't stand it. This is all anecdotal of course, you obviously have a completely different experience.
- michaelmior 13y ago
  You can also just select GNOME Classic for example on login without having to install anything.
mitchty 13y ago
I've only had issues with version upgrades. It might be easy, but upgrading is anything but seamless. Past that unity fits in here where things change drastically between releases.
- MacsHeadroom 13y ago
  You should only be upgrading every four years, between Long Term Support releases. Non LTS releases are more for Linux developers and power-users. Upgrading between non LTS releases is not meant to be seamless. To make it so would take a lot of unnecessary effort. There are LTS releases for a reason. You don't see Microsoft coming out with a new OS every 6 months.
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    With a Microsoft OS you're not pegged to versions of 3rd party software for the duration of the support life. Using the LTS version of Ubuntu on a daily use desktop/laptop would leave you with a very frustrating application availability experience.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    > There are LTS releases for a reason. Yes, and the reason is servers. On a computer you use, you generally want the new functionality (like, for example, the ability to read and write to a nexus 4). I've upgraded ubuntu a few times, including once from LTS to LTS. It ranged from unpleasant to awful ("why has everything been uninstalled?") each time.
    - yulaow 13y ago
      It is strange. I often upgrade my distros or those of my other not-informatized friends and I never had a single problem. Writing now from a ubuntu 13.10 upgraded since 11.04
  - mitchty 13y ago
    Microsoft no, but I do see Apple doing new osx releases every 1-2 years. Upgrade only every 4 years? Surely you're joking, LTS is for servers not desktops.

Are you conflating Ubuntu with Unity? Unity's kind of hit-or-miss, but Ubuntu as a distro has always been fine for me.

by cheald 13y ago

Are you conflating Ubuntu with Unity? Unity's kind of hit-or-miss, but Ubuntu as a distro has always been fine for me.

I agree. It seems the biggest gripe with Ubuntu is Unity (and some of Gnome 3, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). I've been on Linux Mint - Ubuntu / Debian based - and it's closer to Windows 7 than Ubuntu's Vista.

tripzilch 13y ago
but there's xubuntu, lubuntu, ubuntu studio, kubuntu ...

hrkristian 13y ago

That's a fair question, and the answer is no. Unity was an instant turn-off the minute I upgraded, yes, but pulling down another DE isn't exactly hard. The whole OS has just never worked out in the long run, and has always felt bloated and sluggish. A myriad of odd patches and poorly implemented automation made even the simplest problem solving a major gripe. I just couldn't stand it. This is all anecdotal of course, you obviously have a completely different experience.

michaelmior 13y ago
You can also just select GNOME Classic for example on login without having to install anything.

mitchty 13y ago

I've only had issues with version upgrades. It might be easy, but upgrading is anything but seamless. Past that unity fits in here where things change drastically between releases.

MacsHeadroom 13y ago
You should only be upgrading every four years, between Long Term Support releases. Non LTS releases are more for Linux developers and power-users. Upgrading between non LTS releases is not meant to be seamless. To make it so would take a lot of unnecessary effort. There are LTS releases for a reason. You don't see Microsoft coming out with a new OS every 6 months.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  With a Microsoft OS you're not pegged to versions of 3rd party software for the duration of the support life. Using the LTS version of Ubuntu on a daily use desktop/laptop would leave you with a very frustrating application availability experience.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  > There are LTS releases for a reason. Yes, and the reason is servers. On a computer you use, you generally want the new functionality (like, for example, the ability to read and write to a nexus 4). I've upgraded ubuntu a few times, including once from LTS to LTS. It ranged from unpleasant to awful ("why has everything been uninstalled?") each time.
  - yulaow 13y ago
    It is strange. I often upgrade my distros or those of my other not-informatized friends and I never had a single problem. Writing now from a ubuntu 13.10 upgraded since 11.04
- mitchty 13y ago
  Microsoft no, but I do see Apple doing new osx releases every 1-2 years. Upgrade only every 4 years? Surely you're joking, LTS is for servers not desktops.