The Nillabyte Perspective: Technology

Not surprising. Linux is pretty bad as far as stability goes. Anyone who uses it is too cheap to use Windows and deserve what they pay for. Although Ubuntu is the better of the Linux OS's, it still offers very little when compared to Windows.

And Windows 7 doesn't have any issues by itself. If people are experiencing bugs with Windows 7, they are caused by user error.

UBUNTU linux is a huge fail!

it is buggy, but it's still better than windows (security) or mac ($$$$)

The problem with Ubuntu is they stick to a 6 month release schedule no matter the bugs. Ubuntu LTS releases are good quality, and if Ubuntu was smart, they would insist that newbies and the general public download 8.04 and the geeks go with the later releases.

They should also re-number their releases. When the next LTS edition is ready, it should be Ubuntu 10.0... then releases inbetween the LTS should be 10.1 , 10.2 and then the next LTS should be 11.0

It's also unfair and unrealistic for any software vendor to support ANYTHING other than LTS releases.

Again, Ubuntu 8.04 is good. Stay away from 9.10 like the plague.

I am happy with Ubuntu and am sure it will only get better, that too every six months.

I am having some minor issues with 9.10, I would drive a buggy and work as a blacksmith before I would use any microsoft product. I probably had internet access before most of you were born. Someday you will see.

Will F. says: "Not surprising. Linux is pretty bad as far as stability goes."

I have been using Linux for over 5 years and stability was one of the major reasons. I got tired of the "blue screen of death" and the ever present threat of viruses and worms in Windows. I have used Mac OS, Windows, and both Fedora and Ubuntu. I have NEVER had stability problems with Ubuntu. I always "wait and see" when a new Ubuntu is released, and this is a good reason why.

Will F. says: "Anyone who uses it is too cheap to use Windows and deserve what they pay for."

Anyone who pays the outrageous fees that Microsoft demands, usually does NOT get what they pay for. Even on Windows forums people complain about the bad support for the average user. Of course you can PAY for more exclusive support.

Will F. says: "Although Ubuntu is the better of the Linux OS's, it still offers very little when compared to Windows."
It is FREE of cost and open source. Multiple desktops. That alone would convince me to switch. No restarts with updates. Boot time of between 30 and 45 seconds for my Dell laptop. Customized 3D or cube desktops, more?

Will F. says: "And Windows 7 doesn't have any issues by itself. If people are experiencing bugs with Windows 7, they are caused by user error."

I could parrot back to you, "And Ubuntu doesn't have any issues by itself. If people are experiencing bugs with Ubuntu, they are caused by user error.", but I won't.

I have installed Ubuntu 9.10 on 3 different systems. All were clean installs. All worked flawlessly.

I am very happy with 9.10. If you tried to do an upgrade instead of a clean install, that is a self-inflicted wound.

One system dual boots with XP, one with Vista, and my laptop triple boots with XP, Vista and Ubuntu.

Whenever you move to a new operating system, Windows, Ubuntu or anything else, ALWAYS do a clean install.

I installed 9.1 without any problems.

As far as ubuntu releases go, this is by far the most unstable I have experienced. I have been using ubuntu and since version 7.04 (so 2 and a half years) and although this by far has the prettiest looks, its the most unstable. My eee 901 regularly experiences kernel errors, that cause oddities when returning from suspend.

I think the devs took on way to much in this release.

I installed the latest Ubuntu over what was a rock solid Ubuntu 9.04. I have been using Ubuntu for several years now and I have had very few problems. However, I am disappointed with this installation. My sound is cracking an popping the video is jumpy, power management will not do as it is told and I just had a kernel panic.....(the Linux equivalent of a BSOD).

LOL at all those Ubuntu lovers who have ever claimed that Ubuntu or Linux in general is more stable and secure than Windows. LOL! Spend a bit of money, stop smoking pot, and get a real OS. W7 is solid, beautiful, and stable.

It's easy to pull a number from some random poll and strip down the context, then call it the absolute truth -> This poll was done on the ubuntu forum...usually where people go when they have problems.

That being said, my install has some quirks too.

In all due respects does the OS even matter anymore?

I've used windows for 12-13 years and I'm pretty sick of it. The idea is getting old.

I put ubuntu on a 5 year old pc and it works fine...I got tired of it on my laptop so I put it there too.

True there's a market for software that costs money but the fact of the matter is why pay if you don't have to?

Has Ubuntu crashed on me? Yes....infact there was a crash earlier today but guess what...I worked around it. alt control delete...went to reboot but since I had apps open it stopped that when it asked to save. Turns out it wasn't the OS but just one app.

Windows also doesn't tell me the same specific information I get with ubuntu. I get exist information. Also using the registry or command lines in windows gives me a heart attack. Using the terminal in ubuntu feels friendlier...like it's a C-64.

What do people want with computers? Well to go on the internet and desktop publish for the most part. Games are ok but to pay money for that just get a game system.

Also the number of viruses on windows is much more than that of ubuntu. I rather deal with something that has less viruses. If I'm on facebook no one knows I'm on ubuntu. If I save notes with open office (oxygen rules) then no one knows I'm on ubuntu...why should I get windows 7 ?

It is not difficult to understand why Ubuntu users defend it. I am referring to the spirit of community, the shared philosophy, openness and freedom. But why would someone who paid money for a commercial product also needs to defend it (and bash others) is beyond my comprehension.
As for the negative comments regarding Linux stability, I humbly ask those who posted them not to make fools of themselves.

I did a fresh install and had no issues on my desktop but had issues on my laptop when I did an upgrade.

I installed 9.10 32-bit on my dell inspiron 15n, dual boot with windows 7. Also installed 9.10 netbook remix on my eee pc 900a. no problems with either one. both were clean installs, not upgrades.

"As far as ubuntu releases go, this is by far the most unstable I have experienced. I have been using ubuntu and since version 7.04 (so 2 and a half years) and although this by far has the prettiest looks, its the most unstable. My eee 901 regularly experiences kernel errors, that cause oddities when returning from suspend."

I've been using Ubuntu on my eee 901 since I've had it and have installed every release since 8.04 without any problems. Nothing else I've tried has been able to beat it in terms of speed, reliability or easy of use.

I switched to Ubuntu 9.10 on day 1 and I had no issues with the operating system.

From what I've noticed, it's mainly those that have upgraded rather than "clean-installed) that are experiencing the bulk of the problems. It's probably due to the change in file system (previous Ubuntu's used ext3 by default while Karmic uses ext4) and bootloader (Grub 1 or 1.5 vs Grub 2).

I'm mostly a Debian user, but I did a clean install of Karmic on my mom's desktop the other day (she was using an old, non-updated, bloatware ridden WinXP install that had slowed down to a crawl).... installation was smooth and pain free, all hardware was detected... only thing I had to change was the default screen resolution. It also booted up pretty fast and was quite responsive, considering my mom's desktop is around 5 years old.

I'm never been a fan of Ubuntu (as a long time Linux user, I feel it dumbs down everything a tad too much for my liking), but I must say that I'm quite impressed with Karmic, so far.