5 ms·

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS: Why you should not use it, at all

20 points by chli 12y ago

kijin 12y ago
1. Kernel: Ever heard of LTS enablement stacks? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack 2. Upstart: Works for me. I like systemd too, but I'm not going to switch distros to get it. 3. Auto-restart: As you said, it's a Debian thing. If you really don't like it, look into /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d 4. MySQL: sudo apt-get install mariadb-server (yeah, it's in the official repo) 5. Pollinate & AppArmor: If you don't want them, disable them. 6. Compiz & Mir: Use another desktop environment. Also, in case you missed the news, Mir has been postponed indefinitely.
- ciferkey 12y ago
  Could you clarify what you mean in point six about mir?
  - michaelmior 12y ago
    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntus-controversial-mir-window-system-wont-ship-with-13-10-desktop/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu...
- slinkyavenger 12y ago
  Regarding #6: please cite your sources on Mir being postponed indefinitely. I can't find anything except that it's now scheduled for 16.04. Furthermore, Ubuntu mobile will have Mir as part of its stack, so I can't see why they'd postpone it.
  - kijin 12y ago
    For a distro that moves as quickly as Ubuntu does, a two-year delay is about as good as indefinite postponement. In effect, they're saying "We'll watch how the Wayland vs. Mir competition goes." It's just like what happened with Upstart vs. systemd. Just because Canonical has a horse in the race doesn't mean that they won't switch to a different horse when everyone else does.
emsy 12y ago
The author suggests Arch Linux for Desktop use. I used Arch for 2 years and liked it. It still runs on my raspberry. I wouldn't recommend it for any serious work where downtime costs you money though. There are just too many occasions where Arch renders your Desktop unusable because of an upgrade. You have to pay close attention to the news on the homepage for any system breaking changes (which is kind of ridiculous). And even then a system may occasionally render your system unbootable just because.
- pritambaral 12y ago
  > on the homepage for any system breaking changes (which is kind of ridiculous). It is not ridiculous. It is as-expected. Arch is not for ease-of-use to non-Linux-experts. I use Arch for its no-nonsense, simple attitude towards users who know what they're doing. I'd expect Ubuntu (or Mac OS X) to sugar-coat and abstract and hide away internal changes, I'd most certainly not accept Arch doing things that way. Arch is also a rolling-release, which means there isn't any nuance of "release" to migrate to a new configuration or software-architecture. You have SysV today, you have systemd tomorrow. You have /{s,}bin today, you have symlinks to /usr/bin tomorrow. Coming from an Arch user for more than 2 years (on a single installation that too), both those migrations were huge and both were handled by Arch well. Where it would take Ubuntu or Fedora a proper release to do either, it took me on Arch just a few minutes. > And even then a system may occasionally render your system unbootable just because. This sounds more like flame and less like substance. Not in the least because I fail to understand the "a system <verb> your system" grammar. I have also never faced this problem, and it is suspicious such a thing would happen without explicitly making a change to the system configuration. I have maintained 4 DE configurations side-by-side, one of which is custom-rolled (compiz-as-a-DE + bash-script-as-a-session-manager), and never had a scenario where one boot was working and the next boot failed when I had made no changes at all, and most certainly never "just because". Arch works for me, because I know how to work Arch. If Arch seems inexplicable to you (evidenced by your use of the phrase "just because"), perhaps you should be using a distro where understanding your OS internals is not a prerequisite. That said, I agree that Arch is not suited for use cases where downtime would cost heavily, not because there is a propensity of the OS to fail (there isn't), but because there is a propensity of the OS admin to stumble, and the need for a more qualified OS admin than would be required to run Ubuntu et al. I have used Arch in production servers without issue, but I would not dare to do so in cases where there are other admins involved, precisely because I don't expect them to know Arch.
zimbatm 12y ago
tldr; the author wants systemd
- gankgu 12y ago
  tldr; the author just don't want you to use ubuntu at all. ^_^
serverascode 12y ago
I do wonder a bit about the pollen service. Seems to have it's positives and negatives.
doublerebel 12y ago
Ubuntu is entrenched, there is no equivalent distro that combines the ease of use of a desktop system with the package support for dev and server. Better to use it and change the parts we don't like until the changes become the norm -- ubuntu's strength is in its community. Linux infighting and fracturing over pedantic differences is what keeps it from becoming a first-class desktop OS for the common user.
otterley 12y ago
The best reason of all has nothing to do with any of this: most Tier-1 hardware and software vendors don't support Ubuntu. For those of us who actually run server farms, Ubuntu is simply not a long-term viable option. (And yes, Upstart is a steaming pile of technology.)
bradhe 12y ago
tl;dr you shouldn't use ubuntu because centos.
michaelmior 12y ago
My biggest disappointment was that I now have to choose between the ability to adjust my screen brightness and the ability for my screen not to stay black after suspend (forcing me to reboot my machine). While I'm sure this will be fixed, I was surprised the release went out like this since based on the bug report, several other users are experiencing the same issue.
voidr 12y ago
You can come up with similar "reasons"(read: bullshit) for any distro(or Operating System). In terms of cloud, Ubuntu is popular, if I look at the desktop I get the same result. So apparently they are doing something right. If we want to judge Linux distro releases we should judge them by facts that matter to real users, not made up ones. Also we can't really talk about Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Desktop in the same thread, even though a lot of the base system is the same, these areas have radically different requirements.

20 points by chli 12y ago

kijin 12y ago

1. Kernel: Ever heard of LTS enablement stacks? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack 2. Upstart: Works for me. I like systemd too, but I'm not going to switch distros to get it. 3. Auto-restart: As you said, it's a Debian thing. If you really don't like it, look into /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d 4. MySQL: sudo apt-get install mariadb-server (yeah, it's in the official repo) 5. Pollinate & AppArmor: If you don't want them, disable them. 6. Compiz & Mir: Use another desktop environment. Also, in case you missed the news, Mir has been postponed indefinitely.

ciferkey 12y ago
Could you clarify what you mean in point six about mir?
- michaelmior 12y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntus-controversial-mir-window-system-wont-ship-with-13-10-desktop/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu...
slinkyavenger 12y ago
Regarding #6: please cite your sources on Mir being postponed indefinitely. I can't find anything except that it's now scheduled for 16.04. Furthermore, Ubuntu mobile will have Mir as part of its stack, so I can't see why they'd postpone it.
- kijin 12y ago
  For a distro that moves as quickly as Ubuntu does, a two-year delay is about as good as indefinite postponement. In effect, they're saying "We'll watch how the Wayland vs. Mir competition goes." It's just like what happened with Upstart vs. systemd. Just because Canonical has a horse in the race doesn't mean that they won't switch to a different horse when everyone else does.

emsy 12y ago

The author suggests Arch Linux for Desktop use. I used Arch for 2 years and liked it. It still runs on my raspberry. I wouldn't recommend it for any serious work where downtime costs you money though. There are just too many occasions where Arch renders your Desktop unusable because of an upgrade. You have to pay close attention to the news on the homepage for any system breaking changes (which is kind of ridiculous). And even then a system may occasionally render your system unbootable just because.

pritambaral 12y ago
> on the homepage for any system breaking changes (which is kind of ridiculous). It is not ridiculous. It is as-expected. Arch is not for ease-of-use to non-Linux-experts. I use Arch for its no-nonsense, simple attitude towards users who know what they're doing. I'd expect Ubuntu (or Mac OS X) to sugar-coat and abstract and hide away internal changes, I'd most certainly not accept Arch doing things that way. Arch is also a rolling-release, which means there isn't any nuance of "release" to migrate to a new configuration or software-architecture. You have SysV today, you have systemd tomorrow. You have /{s,}bin today, you have symlinks to /usr/bin tomorrow. Coming from an Arch user for more than 2 years (on a single installation that too), both those migrations were huge and both were handled by Arch well. Where it would take Ubuntu or Fedora a proper release to do either, it took me on Arch just a few minutes. > And even then a system may occasionally render your system unbootable just because. This sounds more like flame and less like substance. Not in the least because I fail to understand the "a system <verb> your system" grammar. I have also never faced this problem, and it is suspicious such a thing would happen without explicitly making a change to the system configuration. I have maintained 4 DE configurations side-by-side, one of which is custom-rolled (compiz-as-a-DE + bash-script-as-a-session-manager), and never had a scenario where one boot was working and the next boot failed when I had made no changes at all, and most certainly never "just because". Arch works for me, because I know how to work Arch. If Arch seems inexplicable to you (evidenced by your use of the phrase "just because"), perhaps you should be using a distro where understanding your OS internals is not a prerequisite. That said, I agree that Arch is not suited for use cases where downtime would cost heavily, not because there is a propensity of the OS to fail (there isn't), but because there is a propensity of the OS admin to stumble, and the need for a more qualified OS admin than would be required to run Ubuntu et al. I have used Arch in production servers without issue, but I would not dare to do so in cases where there are other admins involved, precisely because I don't expect them to know Arch.

zimbatm 12y ago

tldr; the author wants systemd

gankgu 12y ago
tldr; the author just don't want you to use ubuntu at all. ^_^

serverascode 12y ago

I do wonder a bit about the pollen service. Seems to have it's positives and negatives.

doublerebel 12y ago

Ubuntu is entrenched, there is no equivalent distro that combines the ease of use of a desktop system with the package support for dev and server. Better to use it and change the parts we don't like until the changes become the norm -- ubuntu's strength is in its community. Linux infighting and fracturing over pedantic differences is what keeps it from becoming a first-class desktop OS for the common user.

otterley 12y ago

The best reason of all has nothing to do with any of this: most Tier-1 hardware and software vendors don't support Ubuntu. For those of us who actually run server farms, Ubuntu is simply not a long-term viable option. (And yes, Upstart is a steaming pile of technology.)

bradhe 12y ago

tl;dr you shouldn't use ubuntu because centos.

michaelmior 12y ago

My biggest disappointment was that I now have to choose between the ability to adjust my screen brightness and the ability for my screen not to stay black after suspend (forcing me to reboot my machine). While I'm sure this will be fixed, I was surprised the release went out like this since based on the bug report, several other users are experiencing the same issue.

voidr 12y ago

You can come up with similar "reasons"(read: bullshit) for any distro(or Operating System). In terms of cloud, Ubuntu is popular, if I look at the desktop I get the same result. So apparently they are doing something right. If we want to judge Linux distro releases we should judge them by facts that matter to real users, not made up ones. Also we can't really talk about Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Desktop in the same thread, even though a lot of the base system is the same, these areas have radically different requirements.