I wonder what percentage of desktop users still use Ubuntu nowadays. Seems like there’s no way to have a clear picture, besides DistroWatch which is more like “interest” and not actual usage?
At my work, Ubuntu was the only Linux distro that was used on the desktop.
Some of my relatives use Linux, all Ubuntu.
The only other person I know who uses something else is also a hardcore nerd and professional sysadmin. He uses OpenSUSE.Outside of the tech bubble, Ubuntu is still synonymous with Linux.
Everyone I know IRL who uses Linux uses Ubuntu. Sample size of 5.
The corpo I work for uses both Windows and Ubuntu for software development workstations. Lately a lot more Ubuntu than Windows. That’s a sample size of a thousand.
The official distro at my job is rhel.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the only other option for corpos.
Suse? No evil dipshits and on par with RHEL, at least how far i can see
deleted by creator
I don’t think the people excited about Linux are using or talking about Ubuntu, though, which probably skews people’s perceptions if they’re on Lemmy and Reddit a lot. Enthusiast spaces have all the “I run arch btw” people and even weirder and more obscure distros.
This is exactly the thing. 10 years ago when I was in college, everybody just used Ubuntu for laptops, and nowadays I don’t hear about it at all. I had the impression it kinda died, but seems like things are more or less the same.
I personally have Xubuntu on multiple machines (I think 3 currently?) And Ubuntu server with i3wm on a 4th.
I still use it. With all its faults, I still think it’s the best distro out there.
As a fellow Ubuntu user, I think there are distros that are technically superior. But at some point I just got tired of chasing the best option. I just want an operating system that works on all devices I install it to, and that listens to my commands. Ubuntu does that just fine. I love what they’ve done with GNOME, its ram usage is minimal (1.4GB), apps launch fast, snap is nicer to use than flatpak (which I can install with a single command), and if I wanted to I can stick to an LTS for up to 12 years.
I’m not a big fan of snaps myself. While it’s being used for desktop apps, it was originally intended for system or server apps. And I don’t like that it automatically updates applications. I’m sure there are scenarios where using snaps make sense, but I prefer to be in control of my servers and what’s running in them.
FlatpaksI think are more practical. It’s easier to install desktop apps with flatpaks. However there are some technical limitations apparently. You can lose some functionalities due to how it’s implemented.
But for everything else, yeah. Ubuntu works ootb with practically every hardware out there and there is a huge library and community of support.
Out of genuine curiosity, what makes you think so?
It’s just so easy to use. Supports many devices and has lots of documentation.
Whatever system I’ve found. Whatever the scenario. I install Ubuntu and it just works ootb. It supports practically all hardware with some rare exceptions. It has great documentation and a large community of users to help fix problems. And when problems happen it’s mostly because I fucked up doing something wrong.
And I like that is backed by a company that takes Linux seriously and works hard at making it an actual solution for both desktops and servers. Fedora would come as a very close second in my opinion.
Yeah ngl Ubuntu is so much easier to get up and running than other distros. It’s fast and reasonably up to date. I will say I’ve found the LTS version to be disappointingly buggy compared to other long term releases like Debian and Leap, but nothing that would motivate me to move to another distro. Just annoying audio related bugs that are easy to fix or get around.
Leap was so solid I wished I could’ve stayed with it, but I didn’t want to commit to a distro with an uncertain future.
It’s the universal operating system, with long term support (10 years 🤯) and a few quality of life improvements. It runs well on all my hardware, VMs and containers (that I build). It’s got perfect desktop defaults for me. It’s the defacto standard Linux OS. It’s supported by every software developer or vendor who supports Linux. The corpo behind it is not public (yet) and not hell bent on profit extraction. There’s an obvious migration path from it to the universal operating system (Debian), should something terrible happen.
I’m running 22.04.4 Server with kernel 6.5.0-27 and everything is rock solid.
Any reason I should upgrade when stable 24.04 releases? It doesn’t seem to me that there is, but I’m worried missing something.
Nah, if you’re on LTS, the recommended upgrade is at XX.04.1, which typically comes around July. And 22.04 doesn’t go end of life until April of 2027, so there’s no mad rush to upgrade if you’re happy.
Insightful. Your comment made me smile :)
If you don’t already see a reason, you probably don’t have one, especially for a server. Especially if you sign up for the Ubuntu Pro free tier, you have 10 years to come up with one. 😂
To be pedantic, you can’t upgrade to a new LTS the moment it releases (unless you force it). It’s offered to users running the old LTS after 6 months IIRC. It’s possible to start with 24.04 from scratch, but you can’t upgrade for a while.
Ah right. I didn’t know that - thank you. Only really got into self hosting in the last couple of year.
Maybe the newer kernel? But if you don’t think you need it you’re probably fine tbh
deleted by creator
Does it have the option of using TPM to unlock a LUKS2 encrypted partition like the previous betas? Or was that dropped?
deleted by creator
Yes, what’s strange? This is the beta release or release candidate or pre-release snapshot for a version that will enjoy long-term support.
I’d say “release candidate” is a much better name but probably they’re testing Ubuntu-specific features and those are in beta. Then it makes some sense
Those are different steps in the Ubuntu release process.
There’s also the issue of testing all the packages. They have to make sure all the versions frozen in the repository will work smoothly together.
Since the packages themselves are not beta, it’s more appropriate to call it a release candidate
The ‘release candidate’ comes later, after the ‘beta’ release, see the official schedule.
I’m not talking about the current release cycle. I’m just saying that “beta” is a bad name and it probably should be changed
Yes. Debian uses words like Milestone and freeze : https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html Ubuntu uses the word Beta.
24.04 is an LTS release.
This is a beta of 24.04.
The “name” of the release is “24.04 LTS” ( a perfectly reasonable name that communicates its intent ).
Therefore, this is the “24.04 LTS” beta.
Pretty clear to anybody familiar with the Ubuntu product line.
The release names get weirder every year.
They’re running out of names. I would not mind them using the Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warthog) name from 2004 for future releases.
Still, why not Noble Nighthawk?
Wrinkly Waterbear
I never understood the importance given to release names. It’s all fine and dandy to have internal project names, but it features on apt sources files and whatnot. It’s confusing for the user, especially since they have a great numerical scheme. Just refer to the version and be done with it.
Yeah I hate when I read some tutorial that says “tested on Grumpy Gremlin” and I have to google how old that is.
I totally agree. They have taken one of the best features of Ubuntu ( the meaningful and easy to understand versioning ) and thrown it in the garbage ).
I have no idea what the code name is for Ubuntu 18.04 or 26.04 but I can tell you when both of them were released.
Using the code names in sources.list is insanity.
…but that’s a good thing. IMO, at least
