
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS: Why you should not use it, at all - chli
https://tim.siosm.fr/blog/2014/04/25/why-not-ubuntu-14.04-lts/
======
kijin
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.

~~~
slinkyavenger
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
emsy
One thing that Arch does well is that it makes you understand the OS and that
you have full control over what you'll actually install. I liked that very
much. For me, the problem is how poorly some updates were handled.

The knowledge that you have to look at the newspage to avoid system outages
only comes to you after you experienced such an outage. After getting mocked
in the forums you'll surely learn that lesson.

But even then I had updates that broke my system because dependencies had been
broken or the configurations weren't properly updated. And at that point you
need to be an expert at every single software component you use. That is
unfeasible for me.

Have a look at unthorty's reply. I would say that at least some of those
errors could've happened to an experienced user.

~~~
pritambaral
I only agree about the "knowledge of newspage" part because I have seen many
others go through said ordeal.

I distinctly remember not having looked at the newspage before I began the
systemd-move update. My system wasn't rendered unbootable; I monitored the
update process, and was clearly notified of the things that needed to be done
in the update output. Same with the /usr/bin-move.

In unthorty's enumeration, yes, all those errors could've happened to an
experienced user, but the three points other than linux-ck seem like bugs due
to lack of testing. In other words, perils of bleeding-edge. And linux-ck is a
third-party kernel.

------
doublerebel
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.

------
michaelmior
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.

------
otterley
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.)

------
voidr
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.

------
zimbatm
tldr; the author wants systemd

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

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

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

