I don't understand why Ubuntu is receiving so much bad comments from Linux community. Canonical is doing great job of putting, fairly reliable system on massive number of devices, something that other distributions can just dream about. In my opinion, currently, Ubuntu is the best general purpose Linux distribution for new and semi advance users.
I agree with you. I've been using Linux since the day Linus announced it on minix-list, and for the last 12 years Ubuntu has been my daily-driver system .. and it is amazing. I'm a musician, so when people see that I'm using Ubuntu Studio for my DAW, I usually hear a few chuckles .. until I fire up Ardour, show them my plugin list, the standard suite of synths and effects I use, and so on .. that usually shuts them up at least. But what gets them really curious is when I show them how easy it is to break out the source code for any of these powerful tools, make modifications, re-install and maintain my system with very, very powerful techniques.
There simply isn't any operating system as conducive to creative tinkering and progressive enhancement of key software as Ubuntu Studio. Its way, way ahead of the pack in this regard, and I think anyone who scoffs at the idea needs to be taught the lesson that Ubuntu - and of course, Linux and the ecosystem it promotes - is really worth the effort to know, learn and understand.
I think that the most charitable answer is that Ubuntu changed it's basic premise, and some people don't like the newer approach.
Back when Ubuntu started, it was explicitly a variation of Debian with a GNOME desktop, plus some custom parts to make a "Linux for Human Beings", such as an easy-to-use installation process. Mark Shuttleworth had been a Debian developer, Canonical hired it's technical people from Debian contributors, and everybody was sensitive to the need for Ubuntu to work with the upstream projects (and vice versa).
Linux is a complicated system of components, and desktops are far more complex than servers, so it's essential for developers with different employers to cooperate to get things done. Important decisions require developers from multiple organizations to reach a consensus. It can be a slow and frustrating process, and it's easy for awkward people to cause a lot of hassle for everyone else.
In practice, Canonical always struggled to work well with others, and eventually they switched to developing their own convergence stack (to span desktops, smart TVs and mobile) that happens to use Linux components but shares increasing less common ground with the rest of the community: using their own graphics systems, desktop environment, and their own software packaging systems. In other words, Ubuntu has been morphing from community-friendly Debian variant to an Android-style single-vendor system.
Google can do this with Android and not take the same level of flak because Android has always been a commercial product that happens to have FOSS components, and they seem to cooperate reasonably well with the rest of the community in areas of shared interest.
> I don't understand why Ubuntu is receiving so much bad comments from Linux community.
That's a complex topic, but over the years, a couple of reasons come to mind; Outdated packages and broken PPAs giving a bad impression to new users, slow and bloated in many respects, aggressive community behavior, CLAs, passive-aggressive blog posts and stances by the project leads towards alternative distros like Mint or any criticism whatsoever, Mir when everyone standardizes on Wayland, Unity is very hard to get working properly on non-Ubuntu distros, aggressive push for Snaps, reluctant to adopt systemd, not really part of the community, unless they want to push their own tech, (a bit like Apple), lack of kernel contributions compared to ie RedHat, distancing from the term Linux, using only Ubuntu as much as possible.
In my opinion, this falls under the old adage of "There are two kind of [Linux distros]: the ones everyone complains about, and the ones that nobody uses."
As someone who likes his free time for doing things other than fiddling with configuration files, Ubuntu is quite nice. It's not perfect, it's strayed from its original vision; but it's still my Linux desktop distro of choice.
First, ubuntu was initially seen as "noob's linux", debian users especially not taking the fork well, nor the fact that the numbers of linux users was raising in some kind of OS version of eternal september.
Then there was the fact that ubuntu was OK to mix up proprietary code in their repos, like proprietary drivers. It was (it is) a big fight for debian to sacrifice ease of use to enforce non-proprietary software.
Third, there was the massive success of ubuntu, making all other distros the challengers. This always tends to attract criticism.
And finally, there was the perception of canonical pushing their agenda on their users, leaving them no choice, like when ubuntu migrated to unity or with the whole amazon lens debate.
The mix of all of this makes this linux distro having the easiest setup and the more compatibility/support being looked at with disdain, which is a shame, really.
CLAs and a history of going their own way i suspect.
Then again the "majority" way is largely dictated by a few big projects in and around Fedora, with developers largely on Red Hat payroll.
And the shit slinging didn't really take off until they up and created Unity after a spat with Gnome over the latters future course (afaik). Closely followed with Canonical starting Mir after misrepresenting/misunderstanding where Wayland was going.
I agree with you that Ubuntu had a really positive impact on Linux adoption by providing a polished operating system.
That being said I think they somewhat deserve the bad opinion the Linux community has about them: Canonical decided to play solo on several critical subject instead of cooperating with others, in particular I'm thinking about upstart (a competitor for systemd) and Mir a competitor of wayland).
Their marketing is also pain point, because they brand everything as Ubuntu and don't refer to Linux at all in many of their statements (for instance, you cannot find a single occurance of the word «Linux» on their landing page[1]).
I think it's Ubuntu the corporation that gets criticized more than Ubuntu the OS.
They get compared to Red Hat, which from a hacker or open source point of view virtually always takes the high road and does the 'right thing'. They open source everything, they track down licenses, they sponsor the community, they insist on the purity of their own products, they're seen as being very co-operative when joining a project, et cetera. It's a high bar and Ubuntu doesn't quite reach it.
They're angels compared to pretty much any corporation but Red Hat, but it's Red Hat we compare them to.
Ubuntu is a distro I always know will just work for the most part on my system, I usually go for Kubuntu, though I may try Ubuntu Budgie once it's officially released alongside the other official flavors. The only other distro I have tried that I've enjoyed anywhere near Ubuntu was openSUSE, but I couldn't get my D compiler to cooperate for whatever reason.
I generally like Ubuntu, but it has its share of problems. For example, they will prefer to keep a package broken than fix it if fixing it means a version bump. This can be really frustrating for long term releases where things are broken in really obvious ways. An example includes gmplayer core dumps instantly in Ubuntu 14, with a known issue that requires the user to either hand tweak some files or just not use it. zsh users get no manual pages due to a slight flaw in the package, which won't be fixed.
Some other things are made much harder than they need to be. Back in the old days making a network bootable image involved compiling a custom kernel and setting up a DHCP server and NFS. These days it seems to require a flock of chickens to sacrifice. Hint: you need to pass a boot option that is entirely undocumented, except for down on page 15 of a discussion topic somewhere on the internet. The README is wrong/obsolete.
Other annoyances come from the system trying to be "smart", like when you try to dump a bootable image on a USB stick with dd, only to have the operation killed shortly after start because the OS detected a new bootable image on the stick and tried to mount it partway through the write, changing out the file descriptors from under DD.
Or when you're trying to diagnose a network problem by upping an interface and putting an IP on it, only to have NetworkManager go LOLNOPE and kick you straight in the balls.
Or when the system fails to boot because some message wasn't passed from some startup script somewhere and good luck tracking that down. That's nearly impossible to debug.
Heaven forbid you select the nVidia binary blob driver for your video card and then let Ubuntu install a new kernel. Ironically the only time the kernel upgrade goes smoothly is when I tell Ubuntu to leave it alone and install the driver directly from nVidia. This is extra fun when Ubuntu is deciding to upgrade the kernel twice a week. Even more fun when you've let it partition the disk for you and it creates a 256MB boot partition that fills up after 3 kernels.
Overall Ubuntu is easier to use than the old systems, but when it breaks it takes 10 times longer to fix it.
For servers, their choices are often bad. I recall how we had database failures in the middle of the night on the first of each month, until we figured out that a monthly chron was running slocate indexing all files and IO jumped to 100% under load. I have many anecdotes like this. Also they don't seem to understand that during the update, rebooting a server is the last resort, unlike a laptop. In the server distribution patch instructions, it often says "reboot your computer", whereas one can just restart the services like in the latest openssl security update.
I love ubuntu, but I always view an upgrade with extreme trepidation. v14 broke vmware, and it took so long to find a solution, that I removed it, and simply ran ubuntu from within a vm.
I'd love to try it again, I really would, as my host OS. But I just can't bring myself to do it again... yet.
My main problem is that ubuntu is not as reliable as it was few years before as a desktop distribution. I still use it but it has bugs, I would so love for them to just stick to gnome and focus efforts on that :(
A lot of it is historical. In the beginning, they ignored patented stuff compared to Fedora. Then they had various issues with their upstream at Debian. Then they used upstart in 14.04 at a time where it was clear this was a dead end and everyone was moving to systemd (as 16.04 did).
> Canonical is doing great job of putting, fairly reliable system on massive number of devices, something that other distributions can just dream about
[edit]
I'm getting lots of downvotes from people talking about off-the-shelf laptops and other generic x86-based projects. Lets be clear that the following post is in the context of other CPU architectures and other platforms a little more exotic than your typical PC or laptop.
[original post]
I'm not here to bash Ubuntu as I couldn't care less what platform people choose to run - even if that's Windows - just so long as I can run whatever I choose to run. However with that said, I still have to disagree with your statement above (re other distros only dream of supporting a massive number of devices). Ubuntu supports less hardware than their originating platform, Debian. Less than Suse, Redhat, and derivatives. Even Slackware and Arch support a considerable number of alternative architectures through 3rd party ports. And stepping away from GNU/Linux for a moment, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD all too official support more platforms than Ubuntu.
Support for multiple devices and architectures isn't something unique to Ubuntu - it's pretty typical in the FOSS community. In fact back in the 90s and early 00s there used to be a running joke about people installing Linux on a whole plethora of odd devices just for kicks; talking kettles, toasters, stuffed animals(!!!), all sorts of things (baring in mind this was before the IoT revolution).
1. If you are happy with how Ubuntu 16.04 works for you, you get to keep it and you receive support until 2021.
2. With Ubuntu 16.04.2, you get the option to switch to a new path of updated Linux kernels. If you do so, your Linux kernel will get updated every six months, until 2021.
For the first update with Ubuntu 16.04.2, you can enable to get the 4.8 kernel that was used/tested in development version of Ubuntu 16.10.
In the subsequent update with Ubuntu 16.04.3 (around July 2017), you will be updated to that Linux kernel that was used/tested in Ubuntu 17.04 (to be released in April 2017).
And so on.
The command to switch you to the new path of updated kernels (updated every six months), is
One key item to note is that switching to upgraded kernel path breaks live kernel patching at this time.
I was considering switching I saw this caveat...
"For clarity, the Canonical Livepatch Service is only available and supported against the generic and lowlatency GA kernel flavours for 64-bit Intel/AMD (aka, x86_64, amd64) builds of the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial) release. HWE kernels are not supported at this time."
Just to clarify, that is how Ubuntu's LTS [Long Term Support] releases are intended to work. The 'point one' release fixes bugs in the initial release and keeps the same kernel. It winds up being the actual release that is supported 'Long Term'. Releases 'point two' and later get updated kernels...and potentially new bugs to go with new features.
I won't say that the End of Life illustration is easy to interpret, but it shows how Ubuntu releases work:
Hey that's great. My biggest complaint from running 14.04 LTS for a couple years was the lack of kernel upgrades. Fortunately it's not that hard to install a kernel package from a more recent Ubuntu on it, but I had to find out how to do it and it's more manual than I was expecting for a LTS release.
Thank you for providing this summary. I assume this means that if one has a fleet of servers running 16.04 that one keeps up-to-date, but choose not to update to .02 - one would have to use install media for 16.04 (sans .02) when installing new/replacement servers to fit in with the existing fleet?
It's a little bit surprising coming from Debian stable releases, but makes sense.
1. if you are happy with the currently kernel in Ubuntu 16.04, then you can stay with this kernel (it's version 4.4) and it gets supported until 2021).
2. if you want to jump to the new supported and tested (tested in 16.10) 4.8 Linux kernel, then there is a command described in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack that helps you upgrade.
However, when you upgrade the kernel (and Xserver stack that are linked together), your Linux kernel will be upgraded every six months from now on, until 2021. The next kernel version update will be in July, and it will be whatever Linux kernel was released in Ubuntu 17.04.
Python 3: Python2 is not installed anymore by default on the server, cloud and the touch images, long live Python3! Python3 itself has been upgraded to the 3.5 series.
What that means is that all of the build scripts in Ubuntu 16.04 have been upgraded to Python 3 and building no longer has a dependency on Python 2. One way of looking at it is that Python 2 is not included with the current release of Ubuntu for the same reasons that MIT Scheme and PHP and Forth are not. The system does not require them.
Newbie Ubuntu user here. Currently I have the 16.04LTS (I don't know if mine is 16.04.1 but I downloaded and installed this version of mine the day 16.04LTS officialy released last April 2016). Should I upgrade to 16.04.2? If so, how? I mean, do I have to download the 16.04.2 installer or is there a update command?
I ran with BTRFS for a while. It was pretty nice overall, but you have to be aware of which features are production-ready and which ones aren't. And the wiki isn't up to date either. I had to ask questions in the IRC channel because I didn't feel like wading through mailing list archives which is apparently the only place up-to-date info gets written down.
Edit: This is new. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I was hoping that it would grow into a more stable, user-friendly project. But RAID1 was broken for months, it would let you create RAID5/6 volume even though the feature wasn't even finished yet, and I personally ended up with a filesystem that will crash the kernel when I try to read certain files. I recovered most of the data using a virtual machine that I could reboot quickly. Maybe I'll look at it again in a couple years, see if someone is taking the project seriously.
I've been using ZFS on all my desktops and my personal NAS for, I can't remember, probably 4-5 years.
Including ZFS root filesystem, and swap on a zvol.
I have to say, I really like it, and I'll use it again if I have to redo a machine.
Installing Ubuntu on a ZFS root filesystem is much more involved than merely running the installer. If you have never done it before, and are appropriately cautious, it'll take you half a day to follow the (very detailed and helpful) Wiki page. I can do it in less than an hour now.
-----
So far, only one problem (and not a bug, more of a misfeature): when one of the disks in the NAS died, I couldn't replace it with a new one, because the ZFS mirroring was using its default 2kb blocks (I forget the correct term). It can only do this on 2kb/sector HDDs. My new HDD had 4kb/sector.
I was forced to recreate the entire filesystem using a larger blocksize (ashift=12).
Luckily this worked without a hitch, thanks also to zfs send | zfs receive, but it still pissed me off.
I've been using btrfs in non-redundant and "raid1" (really just chunk duplication) setups for a while now. I've not had any major problems in managing the data pools or catastrophic data loss. In fact, btrfs checksums detected corruption that I isolated to a bad ram module on one of my machines that went undetected on ext4.
At this point I'm sticking with btrfs instead of going with zfs because of the flexibility for growing/shrinking volumes and adding/removing devices in a non-destructive manner.
I've been using ZFS on Linux for the past year on a home server. It has worked beautifully and is very simple to use. More importantly it is considered stable. I would certainly not trust btrfs with my data, it simply isn't finished and at this point may never be.
[+] [-] 8draco8|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmjaa|9 years ago|reply
There simply isn't any operating system as conducive to creative tinkering and progressive enhancement of key software as Ubuntu Studio. Its way, way ahead of the pack in this regard, and I think anyone who scoffs at the idea needs to be taught the lesson that Ubuntu - and of course, Linux and the ecosystem it promotes - is really worth the effort to know, learn and understand.
[+] [-] sjellis|9 years ago|reply
Back when Ubuntu started, it was explicitly a variation of Debian with a GNOME desktop, plus some custom parts to make a "Linux for Human Beings", such as an easy-to-use installation process. Mark Shuttleworth had been a Debian developer, Canonical hired it's technical people from Debian contributors, and everybody was sensitive to the need for Ubuntu to work with the upstream projects (and vice versa).
Linux is a complicated system of components, and desktops are far more complex than servers, so it's essential for developers with different employers to cooperate to get things done. Important decisions require developers from multiple organizations to reach a consensus. It can be a slow and frustrating process, and it's easy for awkward people to cause a lot of hassle for everyone else.
In practice, Canonical always struggled to work well with others, and eventually they switched to developing their own convergence stack (to span desktops, smart TVs and mobile) that happens to use Linux components but shares increasing less common ground with the rest of the community: using their own graphics systems, desktop environment, and their own software packaging systems. In other words, Ubuntu has been morphing from community-friendly Debian variant to an Android-style single-vendor system.
Google can do this with Android and not take the same level of flak because Android has always been a commercial product that happens to have FOSS components, and they seem to cooperate reasonably well with the rest of the community in areas of shared interest.
(All IMO).
[+] [-] AsyncAwait|9 years ago|reply
That's a complex topic, but over the years, a couple of reasons come to mind; Outdated packages and broken PPAs giving a bad impression to new users, slow and bloated in many respects, aggressive community behavior, CLAs, passive-aggressive blog posts and stances by the project leads towards alternative distros like Mint or any criticism whatsoever, Mir when everyone standardizes on Wayland, Unity is very hard to get working properly on non-Ubuntu distros, aggressive push for Snaps, reluctant to adopt systemd, not really part of the community, unless they want to push their own tech, (a bit like Apple), lack of kernel contributions compared to ie RedHat, distancing from the term Linux, using only Ubuntu as much as possible.
[+] [-] falcolas|9 years ago|reply
As someone who likes his free time for doing things other than fiddling with configuration files, Ubuntu is quite nice. It's not perfect, it's strayed from its original vision; but it's still my Linux desktop distro of choice.
[+] [-] oelmekki|9 years ago|reply
First, ubuntu was initially seen as "noob's linux", debian users especially not taking the fork well, nor the fact that the numbers of linux users was raising in some kind of OS version of eternal september.
Then there was the fact that ubuntu was OK to mix up proprietary code in their repos, like proprietary drivers. It was (it is) a big fight for debian to sacrifice ease of use to enforce non-proprietary software.
Third, there was the massive success of ubuntu, making all other distros the challengers. This always tends to attract criticism.
And finally, there was the perception of canonical pushing their agenda on their users, leaving them no choice, like when ubuntu migrated to unity or with the whole amazon lens debate.
The mix of all of this makes this linux distro having the easiest setup and the more compatibility/support being looked at with disdain, which is a shame, really.
[+] [-] johnfn|9 years ago|reply
no Linux distribution is popular
All Linux users: "everyone should be on Linux! Linux is amazing! Yay Linux!"
ubuntu becomes very popular
All Linux users: "everyone should be on Linux! Ehhh... but maybe not that Linux..."
[+] [-] digi_owl|9 years ago|reply
Then again the "majority" way is largely dictated by a few big projects in and around Fedora, with developers largely on Red Hat payroll.
And the shit slinging didn't really take off until they up and created Unity after a spat with Gnome over the latters future course (afaik). Closely followed with Canonical starting Mir after misrepresenting/misunderstanding where Wayland was going.
So who really knows whats going on...
[+] [-] stymaar|9 years ago|reply
That being said I think they somewhat deserve the bad opinion the Linux community has about them: Canonical decided to play solo on several critical subject instead of cooperating with others, in particular I'm thinking about upstart (a competitor for systemd) and Mir a competitor of wayland).
Their marketing is also pain point, because they brand everything as Ubuntu and don't refer to Linux at all in many of their statements (for instance, you cannot find a single occurance of the word «Linux» on their landing page[1]).
[1] https://www.ubuntu.com/
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|9 years ago|reply
They get compared to Red Hat, which from a hacker or open source point of view virtually always takes the high road and does the 'right thing'. They open source everything, they track down licenses, they sponsor the community, they insist on the purity of their own products, they're seen as being very co-operative when joining a project, et cetera. It's a high bar and Ubuntu doesn't quite reach it.
They're angels compared to pretty much any corporation but Red Hat, but it's Red Hat we compare them to.
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jandrese|9 years ago|reply
Some other things are made much harder than they need to be. Back in the old days making a network bootable image involved compiling a custom kernel and setting up a DHCP server and NFS. These days it seems to require a flock of chickens to sacrifice. Hint: you need to pass a boot option that is entirely undocumented, except for down on page 15 of a discussion topic somewhere on the internet. The README is wrong/obsolete.
Other annoyances come from the system trying to be "smart", like when you try to dump a bootable image on a USB stick with dd, only to have the operation killed shortly after start because the OS detected a new bootable image on the stick and tried to mount it partway through the write, changing out the file descriptors from under DD.
Or when you're trying to diagnose a network problem by upping an interface and putting an IP on it, only to have NetworkManager go LOLNOPE and kick you straight in the balls.
Or when the system fails to boot because some message wasn't passed from some startup script somewhere and good luck tracking that down. That's nearly impossible to debug.
Heaven forbid you select the nVidia binary blob driver for your video card and then let Ubuntu install a new kernel. Ironically the only time the kernel upgrade goes smoothly is when I tell Ubuntu to leave it alone and install the driver directly from nVidia. This is extra fun when Ubuntu is deciding to upgrade the kernel twice a week. Even more fun when you've let it partition the disk for you and it creates a 256MB boot partition that fills up after 3 kernels.
Overall Ubuntu is easier to use than the old systems, but when it breaks it takes 10 times longer to fix it.
[+] [-] cft|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VeejayRampay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|9 years ago|reply
My first UNIX was Xenix and I got introduced to GNU/Linux with Slackware 2.0.
Ubuntu is the only reason I still have a netbook with GNU/Linux. All other my computers at home run Windows nowadays.
At the office our computers are a mix of Windows and Mac OS X, GNU/Linux installations only exist as VM instances.
[+] [-] Frogolocalypse|9 years ago|reply
I'd love to try it again, I really would, as my host OS. But I just can't bring myself to do it again... yet.
[+] [-] ergo14|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rocky1138|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulddraper|9 years ago|reply
12.04: System V
14.04: Upstart
16.04: System D
18.04: ???
Gahh...stick with something. I'm tired of learning an entirely new init system every couple years.
To be fair, this is a problem with Linux stuff in general; I just wish Ubuntu could lead the pack in picking something and sticking to it.
[+] [-] laumars|9 years ago|reply
[edit]
I'm getting lots of downvotes from people talking about off-the-shelf laptops and other generic x86-based projects. Lets be clear that the following post is in the context of other CPU architectures and other platforms a little more exotic than your typical PC or laptop.
[original post]
I'm not here to bash Ubuntu as I couldn't care less what platform people choose to run - even if that's Windows - just so long as I can run whatever I choose to run. However with that said, I still have to disagree with your statement above (re other distros only dream of supporting a massive number of devices). Ubuntu supports less hardware than their originating platform, Debian. Less than Suse, Redhat, and derivatives. Even Slackware and Arch support a considerable number of alternative architectures through 3rd party ports. And stepping away from GNU/Linux for a moment, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD all too official support more platforms than Ubuntu.
Support for multiple devices and architectures isn't something unique to Ubuntu - it's pretty typical in the FOSS community. In fact back in the 90s and early 00s there used to be a running joke about people installing Linux on a whole plethora of odd devices just for kicks; talking kettles, toasters, stuffed animals(!!!), all sorts of things (baring in mind this was before the IoT revolution).
[+] [-] simosx|9 years ago|reply
1. If you are happy with how Ubuntu 16.04 works for you, you get to keep it and you receive support until 2021.
2. With Ubuntu 16.04.2, you get the option to switch to a new path of updated Linux kernels. If you do so, your Linux kernel will get updated every six months, until 2021.
For the first update with Ubuntu 16.04.2, you can enable to get the 4.8 kernel that was used/tested in development version of Ubuntu 16.10.
In the subsequent update with Ubuntu 16.04.3 (around July 2017), you will be updated to that Linux kernel that was used/tested in Ubuntu 17.04 (to be released in April 2017). And so on.
The command to switch you to the new path of updated kernels (updated every six months), is
sudo apt-get install --install-recommends xserver-xorg-hwe-16.04
[+] [-] newman314|9 years ago|reply
I was considering switching I saw this caveat...
"For clarity, the Canonical Livepatch Service is only available and supported against the generic and lowlatency GA kernel flavours for 64-bit Intel/AMD (aka, x86_64, amd64) builds of the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial) release. HWE kernels are not supported at this time."
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/RollingLTSEnablementStack
Also, it's not clear if there is a different kernel/command for upgraded kernels on a server.
EDIT: looks like it's going to be "linux-generic-hwe-16.04"
[+] [-] brudgers|9 years ago|reply
I won't say that the End of Life illustration is easy to interpret, but it shows how Ubuntu releases work:
https://www.ubuntu.com/info/release-end-of-life
[+] [-] sp332|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|9 years ago|reply
It's a little bit surprising coming from Debian stable releases, but makes sense.
[+] [-] hd4|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simosx|9 years ago|reply
In a nutshell,
1. if you are happy with the currently kernel in Ubuntu 16.04, then you can stay with this kernel (it's version 4.4) and it gets supported until 2021).
2. if you want to jump to the new supported and tested (tested in 16.10) 4.8 Linux kernel, then there is a command described in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack that helps you upgrade. However, when you upgrade the kernel (and Xserver stack that are linked together), your Linux kernel will be upgraded every six months from now on, until 2021. The next kernel version update will be in July, and it will be whatever Linux kernel was released in Ubuntu 17.04.
[+] [-] fsaintjacques|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kasabali|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] listic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|9 years ago|reply
Python 3: Python2 is not installed anymore by default on the server, cloud and the touch images, long live Python3! Python3 itself has been upgraded to the 3.5 series.
[+] [-] brudgers|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reefwalkcuts|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Siecje|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|9 years ago|reply
Edit: This is new. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I was hoping that it would grow into a more stable, user-friendly project. But RAID1 was broken for months, it would let you create RAID5/6 volume even though the feature wasn't even finished yet, and I personally ended up with a filesystem that will crash the kernel when I try to read certain files. I recovered most of the data using a virtual machine that I could reboot quickly. Maybe I'll look at it again in a couple years, see if someone is taking the project seriously.
[+] [-] luca_ing|9 years ago|reply
Including ZFS root filesystem, and swap on a zvol.
I have to say, I really like it, and I'll use it again if I have to redo a machine.
Installing Ubuntu on a ZFS root filesystem is much more involved than merely running the installer. If you have never done it before, and are appropriately cautious, it'll take you half a day to follow the (very detailed and helpful) Wiki page. I can do it in less than an hour now.
-----
So far, only one problem (and not a bug, more of a misfeature): when one of the disks in the NAS died, I couldn't replace it with a new one, because the ZFS mirroring was using its default 2kb blocks (I forget the correct term). It can only do this on 2kb/sector HDDs. My new HDD had 4kb/sector.
I was forced to recreate the entire filesystem using a larger blocksize (ashift=12).
Luckily this worked without a hitch, thanks also to zfs send | zfs receive, but it still pissed me off.
[+] [-] simosx|9 years ago|reply
I have be doing that, and did not notice any problems.
About LXD: https://stgraber.org/2016/03/11/lxd-2-0-blog-post-series-012...
[+] [-] alyandon|9 years ago|reply
At this point I'm sticking with btrfs instead of going with zfs because of the flexibility for growing/shrinking volumes and adding/removing devices in a non-destructive manner.
[+] [-] jlgaddis|9 years ago|reply
No major issues to report and no minor issues that I can recall.
[+] [-] willtim|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acranox|9 years ago|reply