Thread

Upgrade your desktop: Ubuntu 26.04.1 LTS is now available

80 points · 103 comments · d99kris

pluc · 1790778435 · focus · HN ↗
I'm curious what the audience is for Ubuntu nowadays? If you use it - why Ubuntu over another distro? Is it still largely a beginner-friendly stepping stone?
1. locknitpicker · 1790778703 · focus · HN ↗
  > I'm curious what the audience is for Ubuntu nowadays? If you use it - why Ubuntu over another distro?
  I would frame this the other way around. Why would anyone pick any other distro over Debian or Ubuntu?
  1. esseph · 1790800930 · focus · HN ↗
    > Debian
    Release cycle extremely slow, unstable and testing don't really fix the problem, and insert their own issues. Still near and dear to my heart and if I need something pretty light, stable, but can get by with older software, it's still a solid choice for headless servers.
    > Ubuntu
    Ubuntu was for "noobs" probably 10-15yr after my Linux journey started. I watched them inject ads into the desktop and cli. I would use it from time to time on certain things and it would often break during upgrades. This was a consistent problem for over a decade, but it has gotten better. Now they're rewriting coreutils in rust and breaking compatibility along the way. And snap? Snap is an abomination. It is a limited ecosystem and the daemon itself is a damn attack vector.
    > Fedora
    Massive open source community and tons of money behind it, as it is the feeder distro of RHEL, which has been used at pretty much every company I've worked at. In fact if you use RHEL, you'll often be able to see many new features just be running Fedora somewhere else. Also one of the primary adopters and users of Gnome if you're okay with that, and I'd note of course they have a release for other WM/UI if you're into whatever. Also always seems to be a software release for it (Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu seem to be the most common big 3 for support). It uses flatpaks instead of snap, which gives you sandboxing and user-level package updates allowing your base OS to stay a bit cleaner if you want, or you can just use system packages (yum/dnf). Good on desktop and server.
    > Arch
    If the only person you have to support is you and you want the latest and greatest, and it has amazing community docs. Better than Debian by far, which wasn't always the case. The Debian handbooks were pretty legendary for a long time. Can be very fast and very light. Solid system.
    > Alpine
    You need/want MUSL and aren't using distroless container images for whatever reason.
    This is just my opinion from an old grump that has a history of managing decent sized fleets of both pets and cattle and runs it at home on desktops and laptops.
2. Retr0id · 1790778733 · focus · HN ↗
  It used to be my "it just works" distro for systems I didn't want to spend time configuring, but they managed to make me feel like a second-class citizen as a not-enterprise-customer (not really anything specific, just a lot of small cuts).
  I appreciate that they're running a business, but the Fedora/RHEL split feels much cleaner, and Fedora is my current go-to in instances where I used to reach for Ubuntu. (Or I use Debian, for headless/server setups)
3. anon7725 · 1790778743 · focus · HN ↗
  I use it because I like how it looks, it has sane defaults and is reliable. I am an "LTS to LTS" type person. My desktop pretty much looks like the default screenshots. Most of my customization comes through scripts and tools that I can install quickly after a reimage. Not a beginner.
4. jacquesm · 1790778786 · focus · HN ↗
  Hardware support.
  1. screamingninja · 1790781814 · focus · HN ↗
    Where do you not get hardware support? Many, many distros work out of box nearly everywhere.
5. blakesterz · 1790778793 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm mostly a MacOS user now, but my Linux box is Ubuntu because that's just what I've been using. It's what I know, it's stable and just does what I want.
6. tokai · 1790778841 · focus · HN ↗
  The audience is people that haven't realized that Ubuntu lost its way +10 years ago.
  1. fhdkweig · 1790779357 · focus · HN ↗
    Where did everyone else go?
    voakbasda · 1790781075 · focus · HN ↗
    Back to Debian. It caught up where it matters.
7. emig647 · 1790778860 · focus · HN ↗
  Personally because DGX OS is forked from it and DGX Software Stack is supported out of the box. This is a dual 6000 Blackwell machine.
  Other machines in the house are Mint.
8. BadBadJellyBean · 1790778952 · focus · HN ↗
  I use it because I am very happy with the release schedule and the maturity. I don't want to use the latest greatest. I want something that works and has some manpower (and maybe money) behind it. I am not the biggest fan of snap but I know how to get around it.
  1. theandrewbailey · 1790781076 · focus · HN ↗
    May I suggest Debian? It's 90+% the same as Ubuntu, and is updated about as often as Ubuntu LTS, but no snaps.
    pluc · 1790781775 · focus · HN ↗
    This is genuinely what I'd answer to almost every comment in this thread.
    For parent: Debian's release cycle is great, on top of letting you choose a degree of stability with one word: <a href="https://www.debian.org/releases/" rel="nofollow">https://www.debian.org/releases/
    theandrewbailey · 1790782389 · focus · HN ↗
    > letting you choose a degree of stability with one word
    Debian Sid: the original rolling release distro.
    ASalazarMX · 1790792572 · focus · HN ↗
    I tried Debian before, but settled for Ubuntu LTS for their predictable release cycle and LTS support, combined with Debian's disadvantages of slow and irregular, and needing more tinkering to support my hardware.
    Checking out Debian's release cycle, it seems like things have changed a lot. I need to give it another try.
    BadBadJellyBean · 1790782499 · focus · HN ↗
    I usually don't use LTS. Debian release cycle is too long for me.
    ASalazarMX · 1790793025 · focus · HN ↗
    In my case I won't notice a difference. I use Ubuntu LTS for the stability and LTS, and it seems Debian release cycle is also every two years.
    Ubuntu LTS comes out every two years, and the x.1 release after the first six months is the point where it's as rock solid as it will be for the rest of the support cycle. Interim releases gave me too much trouble, because there's no stable x.1 for them, only a new release with new potential surprises.
    IMO Ubuntu interim releases are the equivalent of Debian Testing, testing grounds to prepare for the next real^w stable release.
    aragilar · 1790842840 · focus · HN ↗
    Unless you only use what's in the "main" section (which is surprising small, far more things are in "universe" than you'd expect), then you are getting the same software (or sometimes even older) than Debian.
  2. screamingninja · 1790781711 · focus · HN ↗
    Considered any alternatives? Like atomic OS images, e.g. Fedora derivatives?
    BadBadJellyBean · 1790782651 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't like immutable distros. I play around too much. I tried normal Fedora but an update broke my graphics stack and I didn't like that. Other than that I am used to Deb and it just works.
  3. [deleted] · 1790800030 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
9. fhdkweig · 1790779006 · focus · HN ↗
  I first touched it around 2010 and didn't like the desktop environment. Someone showed me the different flavors and I settled on XFCE (Xubuntu). I'm still using an Ubuntu flavor just for its APT repository. I'm of the unsubstantiated belief that if a distro has a large userbase, it will have a better maintained repository, so I will probably never leave.
  1. theandrewbailey · 1790780543 · focus · HN ↗
    I had a programming class just as Ubuntu was getting started, and the instructor gave us live CDs. I toyed with it for a few months, but went back to Windows.
    A few years later (2008-ish), my college issued everybody Thinkpads. The default solution to nearly every problem was "re-image". Strangely, the images they used still had the 4-ish GB OEM recovery partition. I had enough insight to know they didn't use it. After searching for a user-friendly distro that could fit in 4GB, I settled on Xubuntu. I've since moved away from it (and Ubuntu in general), but not XFCE.
10. jeffbee · 1790779066 · focus · HN ↗
  I like multipass.
11. ajd555 · 1790779355 · focus · HN ↗
  I used to run Arch out of engineering school (that's what we used there), and loved it. But as I started working on my business, I started having less time to simply configure my OS and fight it on a few things. The breaking point for me, when I switched to Ubuntu Desktop, was not being able to connect to my two monitors via a dock (2 display ports). It simply took too much of my time to figure out all the nuances of evdi between my Thinkpad and my Dell monitors - Ubuntu just...worked (I could have spent more time understanding the issue, but I just needed it to work) But as I get older and am starting to rethink my tech stack, I'm strongly considering going back to my dear Arch
12. dist-epoch · 1790779505 · focus · HN ↗
  For engineering, most cloud VMs run Ubuntu/Debian.
  Having it also on the desktop makes things, less compatibility issues.
13. hn_submit · 1790779521 · focus · HN ↗
  Clueless companies with clueless IT departments that want someone to call when things break.
  For the rest Ubuntu's only reason for being is that it's the basis of many good distros like Linux Mint.
14. eldgfipo · 1790779697 · focus · HN ↗
  i run it in wsl, main appeal is that I mostly run things on debian servers at work so I always feel at home when developing stuff
15. simion314 · 1790779719 · focus · HN ↗
  I used lots of distros including Debian Sid, Arch, SUSE but Kubuntu was my first love and eventually I ended up with Kubuntu LTS , i no longer enjoy optimzing my kernel, bootspeed or other stuff, I hate GNOME philosophy so KDE was always my love. I run LTS since I do not want to run the latest bugs.
16. rurban · 1790779837 · focus · HN ↗
  Has the most packages, with the least quality of packaging.
17. jeroenhd · 1790779855 · focus · HN ↗
  Ubuntu Just Works and makes you update your OS once every five years if you use the free plan, ten years if you're not a business and use a free account, and even longer if you're a company. Not even Microsoft offers that.
  It's also the reference OS for tons of free software out there.
18. e_l · 1790779870 · focus · HN ↗
  Like most things, I imagine there are multiple audiences for Ubuntu. But for me:
  - Inertia, I've used it for a long time.
  - It's based on Debian. I like Debian and use it on servers.
  - I chose it originally because it had better desktop support than Debian. It's possible that Debian is now also good, but see above...inertia.
  - It (mostly) just works on a wide range of hardware, whilst remaining up-to-date with the latest Linux developments.
  - I like the release cycles. Debian stable is too stable. Arch/Fedora/Debian-testing are too volatile. Ubuntu allows me to choose whether to follow the 9-month support window of a normal release; or the 5-year window of the LTS.
  Everything above is highly subjective and by no means are other preferences invalid. All Linux distros are awesome in their own unique way.
19. amelius · 1790780587 · focus · HN ↗
  If you are on nvidia Jetson, Ubuntu is basically a necessity.
  1. screamingninja · 1790781773 · focus · HN ↗
    Fedora IoT seems to advertise support for it. Have not tested it yet but I am very tempted.
20. GeoAtreides · 1790780731 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm using lubuntu, but it just works, stable, solid, widespread support. no notes, no complaints
21. ErroneousBosh · 1790780844 · focus · HN ↗
  Ubuntu is basically a distro for very very experienced Linux users. It's simple to install and then everything just works, so you don't waste time pissing about typing in things from outdated wikis that might have been correct five years ago.
  1. ErroneousBosh · 1790851111 · focus · HN ↗
    Hahaha, the "omg n00buntu is for n00bs" cretins have started brigading I see.
    Comment, don't vote.
22. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790781137 · focus · HN ↗
  At some point you just want something that works and is somewhat familiar, so sticking with a distro makes sense even when it becomes somewhat annoying.
  I remember the early days of Linux when I'd be using a dial-up modem to overnight download Linus' hot-off-the-press kernel tarballs to build myself and update my system ... nowadays I just want a working computer with minimum fuss, and cost (else a MacBook might make more sense).
23. benrutter · 1790781479 · focus · HN ↗
  From my experience it feels like the "de facto" server choice for CICD jobs that can specify. I don't know why that is, possibly just that it's widely available.
  Ubuntu do a lot of work bundling proprietary drivers I think- probably the reason a bunch of popular distros are built on top of it (pop-os, elementary, mint)
24. 62951413 · 1790782720 · focus · HN ↗
  Ubuntu for experimentation with Robotics/ROS2. Windows for experimentation with FPGA/Vivado. A dual-boot 14" Lenovo E14 to host the festivities.
25. runarberg · 1790785342 · focus · HN ↗
  For me it is inertia. I started using Ubuntu back in 2010. It works well enough that I haven‘t bothered to switch. I may finally switch if decide to fill to distro with AI crap.
26. ndsipa_pomu · 1790786529 · focus · HN ↗
  I use it for work (and a homelab). For me, it's got more up-to-date versions of software than Debian and it's easy to search for solutions to issues as it's got a large user base.
  I'm not a fan of the various redhat/centos distros as I've had issues in the past with RPM based distributions. It's possible to have problems with DEB based systems, but in my experience it's a lot easier to fix DEB systems than RPM ones.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.