From the perspective of a desktop user they are phoning it in. Gnome is upgraded to the latest release and they made some theme tweaks. The desktop feature list is humiliatingly short.

It's not entirely Canonical's fault. No one ever figured out how to make money off of desktop, consumer Linux. Mark was at least honest about it, they tried, it didn't work, server is a better way to make money, they aren't investing anymore.

But there is no one out there now who is investing in desktop Linux in order to win. Meanwhile Apple and Microsoft still invest in the desktop, but it seems like nowadays they invest to lose as neither of their desktop operating systems are really getting better. We live in interesting times.

I get the feeling that Ubuntu is basically a finished product. What major changes would you have expected to see if Canonical had more money?

The only thing I can think of is to replace the god awful default text editor. I noticed they changed it a while ago (from when it was called Gedit) but it's still garbage. Not that this really matters when we have Emacs...

As a user, I'm happy with ubuntu. Stability is important to me.

I had been running Ubuntu but I recently switched to Fedora as a desktop OS. I've found it a much more pleasant experience. Ubuntu is by no means bad but their changes from upstream seem to cause friction.

Been using Fedora as a daily driver since '09. Generally liked it more, and I do CentOS/Red Hat all day at work so I'm a little more familiar with the internals.

Steam and Proton work pretty well on it, too.

Using Ubuntu in our development and production environment. It's rock solid. However might switch to Kubuntu as it appears to have better HiDPI support through plasma compared to gnome.

You should also consider KDE Neon, an 18.04 base but KDE/Plasma directly from the devs. If you use Snaps for your useland tools you have very stable base and a super up-to-date userland. I'm very happy with it.

Just wanted to add my support for KDE neon. I used kubuntu back in 16.04 and switched to neon instead.of the next LTS kubuntu and I haven't regretted it. Plasma feels a lot more stable and up to date than it did with kubuntu and I haven't had any problems since switching.

Isn't Neon the bleeding edge release for plasma though? Or would you just call it 1st party supported

It's what the plasma devs (supposedly) run. It feels very stable. Plasma/KDE/QT are of course pretty mature and stable.

They have two editions:

User edition

and

Developer Edition Git-Unstable64

I don't see how Ubuntu is any less complicated than say, Fedora. I also really don't like their use of CLAs and their attempt to use their desktop presence to push Ubuntu-specific technologies like Mir, Unity, and Snap.

> their attempt to use their desktop presence to push Ubuntu-specific technologies like Mir, Unity, and Snap.

Snap was here before flatpack, what should a company like Canonical do if they want to try something new? Use planted developers in GNOME or other projects to push projects as dependencies into all distributions?

If you do not like Canonical do not use their products, use other distro or BSD. Unity was a nice attempt to get a simple desktop that is not a slave of GNOME designers ideas, unfortunately it fails but I do not understand why people like you are against of options (only if the option is from Canonical) even if Canonical always tried to support all the DEs.

> Snap was here before flatpack, what should a company like Canonical do if they want to try something new? Use planted developers in GNOME or other projects to push projects as dependencies into all distributions?

They shouldn't hardcode Snap to depend on snapcraft.io, its really that simple.

I understand that, maybe they will do it in future or someone will fork it to change the store url,,, but do we want each distro to create it's own snaps, we get back to duplicated efforts in packaging and review(snap team reviews apps that ask for elevated permissions)

Not every distro but different stores with different policies for including snaps. I personally am completely uninterested in using any of the security and usability disasters that are the new universal package types but that would definitely make sense.

Snaps could work great on servers, at work we have a CentOS server (via hosting is not our own), I am a developer not a sysadmin and I don't want to mess with the package manager and break something on this server(it is running a bunch of stuff)...anyway today I had to download and run a linux binary , it was a .tar.xz and it worked, would have been even better if I could be sure this binary was sandboxed.

On the desktop I use Kubuntu LTS, snaps will allow me to test or run software that is not in the repo or it is an older but sable version in the repo, IMO snaps provides extra options so if you do not need it you should not use it.

> Snap was here before flatpack

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/9oddtb/flatpaks_sand...

Dude Canonical had a package manager similar to snap for mobile, snap is inspired from that. Plus flatpack is a side project of a RedHat dev, this explains why it moves slow, also flatpack is desktop based where snap works with servers and IOT

Anyway I see some colaboration between the 2 projects so let's not create conflict between this 2 projects where there is none, snap covers more at this moment then flatpack

>I don't see how Ubuntu is any less complicated than say, Fedora.

You mean the distro that coudn't even play an mp3 out of the box? Jeez, I don't know how non-tech people could see this as more complicated...

But now it can play MP3s out of the box. Not that I'd ever suggest Linux to someone who doesn't know what a codec is anyway. Fresh installs with friends/family are always fine, but its after an major version upgrade (or many years of version upgrades) that the system will eventually get into a state where Dad can't debug it. I stopped this recommendation after a family friend (who bought a laptop with Ubuntu) had a system update that overwrote xorg.conf, leaving them completely without a GUI.

ChromeOS is an ideal Linux for users like this. Keep updates atomic and the underlying system completely hidden.

I disagree I have some friends and family who rarely use a computer and I installed Ubuntu because they didn't want to buy a new one and Vista simply sucked. As long as you dont dist-upgrade everything is rock stable.

I set apt-get upgrades to go every month or so automatically. Kernel upgrades happen on reboot. Doesn't even notice!

> I set apt-get upgrades to go every month or so automatically. Kernel upgrades happen on reboot. Doesn't even notice!

From experience, this is a terrible idea.

ChromeOS is the only one that I have never had issues with when it comes to silent updates. Windows (document deletion in RS3), MacOS (scanner issues in Sierra), Ubuntu (rsyslog errors preventing Bionic upgrades) have had various issues over the years that I would not impose upon non-technical users. Granted these were major releases, but silent updates are generally trouble.

I like the definition above; a non-technical user is one that does not know what a codec is.

>> I set apt-get upgrades to go every month or so automatically. Kernel upgrades happen on reboot. Doesn't even notice!

> From experience, this is a terrible idea.

> ... Granted these were major releases, but silent updates are generally trouble.

Running major updates automatically doesn't seem like a good idea, no.

But I've had few problems with running security updates automatically.

How long ago that `xorg.conf` update was?

What I don't like about Fedora is its release cycle, forcing you to upgrade every year or so. With Ubuntu I can still be getting updates for a sytem installed four years ago now. I also don't like the lack of many packages inside the official repositories, compared to Canonical's. And lastly, well, I feel a little bit uncomfortable when using their specific tools like, for example, dnf, or their configuration conventions, which differ from that of Debian based distributions. This is a matter of taste, though.

Would RHEL/CentOS not serve a similar purpose to the Ubuntu LTS releases, if a little less suitable for workstation use?

I guess so. I've never used CentOS but it may be somewhat similar, despite being considered more of a server distribution.

CentOS would be more similar to Debian stable

As a Fedora user, I'd be one of the first to admit that Ubuntu is more user friendly. The installation of the graphics drivers for example was a HUGE pain on Fedora. Getting everything in gnome setup was quite a chore. Printer setup was a pain

That said, i've found the long term stability of Fedora to be better than Ubuntu. The main reason I switched was I had a few instances where I upgraded, and several things on my system just broke. That hasn't happened to me with Fedora.

I've found that, at least with Fedora 28, Nouveau is sufficient, surprisingly even for a modern GTX 1070. Of course I'm missing out on much of what it is capable of however for a standard desktop experience it's fine. I still use Windows for any games. If you wanted CUDA on Linux then I suppose it might be better to stick to the beaten path.

From Fedora 26-on Drivers have been pretty good. Nvidia card works great with the binary-blob from the RPMfusion repo, and no issues with using the Brother network printer.

Pre-26 I'd agree with you.

to be fair, snap is the only technology that canonical got right from the start and is actually really good, even on other distributions.

Fedora is a community distro.

Honestly though, how many non- technical people do you know who run any form of Linux? Steve Jobs came along and gobbled up that market 15 years ago.

My dad! :-P

For non-technical people, I think there's not much difference between using a computer with Ubuntu, Mac or Windows, for regular tasks like browsing the internet, online shopping, sending email, doing stuff in spreadsheets, sharing photographs, etc. Software's mostly the same, in fact. And with this trend to make everything browser based, even more.

Of course things can go wrong, but it doesn't really matter which OS they're using. For example, should this last week botched Windows 10-HP upgrade happened to my father, there's nothing he could have done on his own to restore his computer.

That's true only so far as using MS Office is not needed...

Most people's computing needs would be adequately served by an iPad -- but those who aren't are typically doing more with their computers than can be met by any OS.

Right. While Office has still some unpaired features, it's also true that not everybody using Office needs Office, specially the home users who need only daily finance, writting letters, etc.

The non-technical people in my life did not realize you don’t need Office to open Office documents. This important when they interact with accountants, lawyers and such.

Once I show them Libre, they still want Office because Libre looks like it’s from Excel 2003 era and loses credibility in their eyes.

Then I show them Google Docs and Sheets and it looks nice. Literally all they need is something that looks modern. But in fact Google apps have actually been quite slick. Perfect amount of functionality at the moment. Google seems to follow keyboard behaviour and shortcuts for easy transition (especially Excel). Hope Google doesn’t bloat their apps over time.

All of those applications are ok if you don't actually need to produce commercial documents. Libreoffice and Google Docs aren't good enough, and if you're doing anything other than basic data presentation with Excel it's not compatible with any of them.

Google sheets isn't the only option available though. You can even use Microsoft's own online implementation if you want compatibility to excel (without vba)

https://office.live.com/start/Excel.aspx

Those are limited subsets of functionality, and vba isn't all that's not there.

That's true -- and most of those customers could just as easily use an ipad (or equivalent, it doesn't really matter at that point and I think they all run some subset of Office applications). The age of the personal computer is almost over, unfortunately. Those of us who still use them do expect more out of them though.

Not sure what the definition of "non-technical" is but I'm finding that among friends who've never heard, say, of emacs, they're increasingly getting tired of how corporate macOS feels, and they feel cheated into having to buy new hardware when apple has dropped support for theirs. I think the question of linux adoption is more just about spreading the word and supporting people to migrate, rather than advocacy of the need.

> and they feel cheated into having to buy new hardware when apple has dropped support for theirs

When has Apple dropped the ball on support there? mac OS Mojave supports machines made in 2012...

Wow, a whole 6 years?

Thats officially supported. I have personally run stuff a year or two older than official support multiple times with 0 issues.

And 6 years is typically the lifecycle of any laptop. By that point most people start looking for a new one.

My 2011 mbp is doing very well with a new battery, ssd and some extra RAM. I will still receive security updates for years if I'm correct but no more mayor updates indeed.

Man I love my 2012 rMBP. I recently left it on a flight and was devastated. Got it back, luckily. Greatest laptop ever made. I'm taking that thing to the grave...

I converted several of my non-technical friends to Ubuntu, including various other people I know.

Many of them are running Ubuntu on a laptop that would cover half the cost of a macbook. Not everyone can afford Jobs' prices.

Even if Apples were cheap, I consider Ubuntu a much better choice for an aspiring hacker / programmer.

What does a Linux machine do better than a Mac, if price were not a factor?

Your typical Linux stack is far more configurable and customizable than the Mac stack.

You typically have far more configuration levers, as well as deeper customization access. The stack is built entirely from open, accessible source, so you can ultimately customize every single part of it to your exact liking.

For example, KDE has an order of magnitude more levers than the OS X DE.

You realize OSX is BSD, right? Just because they didn't build you a configuration button for everything doesn't mean it's not configurable.

Uhm, no. Somewhere at the core it's BSD, but can I patch and recompile the DE?

Not only is most of OS X closed source, it's also not particularly configurable.

What, specifically, are you trying to configure that you can't?

It really is BSD, although the window manager isn't open source a lot of the rest is.

Support machines older than 6 years. Got a ThinkPad from 2008 that's still kicking, rocking the latest Fedora release.

That's not really a feature, if cost isn't an issue you can run OSX on a new Mac.

I get it if you're trying to avoid the cost of an operating system, but that wasn't what you said or what I asked..

my father (61 yo) uses xubuntu daily. I installed it for him years ago instead of Windows 7 and he loves it. He doesn't need to pay for an antivirus anymore and from his prospective it's much faster.

My best friend. She saw me being happy to use Linux and that I do everything on it she did on Windows before.

Of course it still needs an opened mindset to use Linux but its disadvantages in some use cases.

She is using OpenSuse.

Literally anyone with an Android or Chrome OS device. Granted, they didn't download and install it themselves, but I don't think that invalidates the point.

The parents and girlfriends of technical people (like mine).

Yep. Siblings, wife, and in-laws here.