Sources

Another pain in the neck was using a Kinect-like device with it. Every time I launched the application that used it, I’m pretty sure the computer would flip a coin to decide if it was going to crash or not. All in all, drivers for Ubuntu suck :( I totally agree ;) Seriously WTF!? WTF are you people whining about drivers, crashes.

In my personal opinion: 1- Snap packages. Dont like them for their closed source backend, dont lime them for how canonical has been sneaking then into the system of users who have been originally trying to install a deb. 2- Modern Ubuntu simply has no real benefit compared to other Distros. Nowadays it’s just another Gnome and Debian-based distro, I see no reason to use it over Debian itself, or Fedora, Solus, or any other Ubuntu derivative that simply does better than “vanilla” Ubuntu, such as Pop!_OS or Linux Mint. … ... *used to*be better than every other distro, because they incorporated patches on freetype that were legally ‘iffy’ as to whether they infringed on microsoft’s patents; later whatever exclusivity requirement that there was with those patents expired, and the patches got upstreamed in freetype itself. ... It’s been more than 15 years since I used Ubuntu but from that point I really could feel that what @[email protected] says is true - it no longer offered any real benefit compared to Fedora, Solus, Mint or whatever distro targeted at people getting into Linux. You won’t find many people saying that Ubuntu really stands out from their similars about something. … But as previously stated, my personal opinion is that modern Ubuntu adds nothing compared to other desktop distros, ot’s DE is just Gnome with extensions bult in. The Snap store is not very well optimized and there was no reason to have it as default over gnome-software, which is more feature-complete. Nowadays, for my use, I only see Ubuntu as Debian with a more modern installer. … I’m willing to admit this one does make sense, since their goal is to make an OS where everything except the kernel and the init system is a snap, something which you can’t do with flatpak. ... Thing is, even when Ubuntu’s software has been packaged outside Ubuntu, it’s so far failed to gain traction. Upstart and Unity were available from a Gentoo overlay at one point, but never achieved enough popularity for anyone to try to move them to the main tree. I seem to recall that Unity required a cartload of core system patches that were never upstreamed by Ubuntu to be able to work, which may have been a contributing factor. It’s possible that Ubuntu doesn’t … Another problem is the “not made here” mentality, which undermined Wayland for instance. Ultimately the problem is I guess, that Ubuntu is (was?) trying to make Ubuntu exclusive to Linux, with Canonical controlling key technologies. Seemingly an effort to reduce other Linux distros to second rate players. Another example of that (apart from dual license and Mir) is their new package system Snap, which is open source on the client side, but proprietary on the server side. … Snap. :) AusatKeyboardPremi@lemmy.world14·2 months ago Most of the criticism I have seen online stems from how Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) plays fast and loose with the FLOSS ethos. The earliest controversy I can recall was the inclusion of the ‘Amazon shopping lens’ in its Unity desktop environment. There may have been earlier issues, but this one made mainstream headlines in the early 2010s. More recently, the push for Snap (its application bundle format), which relies on proprietary server-side components, which invited criticism. … More serious problem was Mir. Mir was an alternative to Wayland, because Canonical was not happy with Wayland and they didn’t want to implement what Ubuntu tried to do on phones. But that meant the programs and protocols to support was now X11, Wayland and Mir. And related to it, the focus of mobile user interface on desktop (Mir+Unity) was something lot of desktop fans didn’t like at that time. Canonical gave up on Mir and Unity (and smartphones entirely).

**Apt installs with isolated environments** eliminate dependency hell: use `apt install package` with `--no-install-recommends` to keep setups minimal and predictable. For Python, pair `apt` with `venv` or `virtualenv` to sandbox updates and libraries, mitigating version conflicts across projects. … ... Opt for LTS (Long Term Support) releases such as 22.04 or 20.04 for maximum stability, five years of security updates, and predictable system behavior. ... Targeting Snap or Flatpak apps, always confirm runtime compatibility with your chosen base release, as runtimes often synch with LTS cycles. When deploying containers, match your OS image version with production to avoid library mismatches and deployment failures. ... For collaborative environments or onboarding team members, unify on a single release stream to avoid "works on my machine" scenarios stemming from glibc differences or outdated package versions. Most open source projects provide support information for recommended OS baselines in their documentation or CI configuration files. … `JAVA_HOME`, ... For JavaScript and modern web development, integrate Node.js via `nvm` and ensure that ESLint and Prettier extensions are installed. For Solidity or blockchain projects, check if a trusted nft developer for hire suggests custom plugins. Avoid installing from unofficial PPAs, as package conflicts are a frequent issue reported on AskUbuntu and Stack Overflow (over 350 threads discuss broken dependencies from unsupported repositories in 2024). Stick to Snap, Flatpak, or vendor sources for maximum reliability. … ## Troubleshooting Common Issues **Package installation fails:** Run *sudo apt update* before attempting *apt install*. Often, repository metadata is outdated, causing “package not found” errors. Verify internet connectivity if refreshing package lists returns errors. **Permission denied on build:** If encountering “Permission denied” during compilation or execution, inspect file permissions using *ls -l filename*. Change mode with *chmod +x filename* as needed. Avoid running development tools with *sudo* unless strictly necessary, as this risks altering configuration files’ ownership. … **Dependency errors:** Use *apt-cache policy packagename* to confirm available versions. Employ *apt-get install -f* to fix broken dependencies automatically. For pip modules, upgrade pip ( *pip install --upgrade pip*) and use *pip check* to spot broken requirements. **Problems with graphical interface:** Set *QT_QPA_PLATFORM=wayland* or *x11* in your terminal if graphical apps don’t launch. Check for missing libraries via *ldd /path/to/binary | grep "not found"* and install them accordingly. … For transitive library clashes, pin versions explicitly in the lock file and review release notes for backward-incompatible changes weekly. For teams managing authentication microservices, see "hire aws cognito developers" for specialized approaches avoiding identity-related library overlaps. Measure your dependency set’s health routinely with **depfu**, **renovate**, or **Snyk**–these platforms detect outdated libraries and raise alerts about newly discovered incompatibilities. Integrate checks in continuous integration pipelines, ensuring conflicts are identified before release.

Minor features are mostly not dealbreakers. This is about Ubuntu, an OS that was created for the 99% that are not experts and wouldn’t run Debian. I do like the Debian LTS idea, and with some struggle, could set it up to work for me. But I wouldn’t do it again (I discovered MX Linux, and Fedora) and wouldn’t recommend it to a noob. … 2. Curated repositories with maintainers that do rolling releases. Debian unstable and Gentoo do this. The versions aren’t locked into any release cycle and you get whatever the latest version that the maintainer thought should be included. For various reasons this can be different from the latest version. … I’ve used Ubuntu as my daily since…8.04 LTS? That feels about right. It was a struggle until about 14.04, but since then it’s been largely stable in daily use…and stability is what I’m after. I don’t care so much about having the latest and greatest on my desktop, but there’s also the side issue that a lot of the companies I’ve worked for also run Ubuntu Server on all their servers; running the same base system locally relative to the production environment removes mental translation steps when it comes to maintenance and bug-tracing. I’ve recently moved to grabbing non-LTS updates, but I’ve skipped 25.10 on the grounds that the Rust-based coreutils are fundamentally broken. 26.04 LTS is most likely going to be the decision point for me; if those coreutils are still crap, then I may well move to something else.

This item was probably where the least concrete progress was made, though I probably could have predicted that. Many of the processes in the Ubuntu project serve to ensure that we ship resilient software, and don’t break users - so changing them in a hurry is not generally a good idea. … ... `sudo` implementation on Ubuntu 25.10, and uutils’ `coreutils` has *mostly* replaced the GNU implementation, with a few exceptions, many of which will be resolved by releases in the coming weeks. ... `initramfs-tools` until remaining hooks are ported. For each of these changes ( `coreutils`, `sudo-rs` and `dracut`) the previous implementations will remain supported for now, with well-documented instructions on the reversion of each change for those who run into unavoidable issues - though we expect this to be a very small number of cases. ## What’s Next?

With Ubuntu, Canonical has had notable success in convincing people to switch from other platforms, but potential Ubuntu users are still running into trouble in several areas. Having spent some time on Canonical's forums, I've identified 10 points that seem to be common sticking points for new users -- that is, problems that have the potential to prevent a new user from adopting Ubuntu in the long term. These problems span the entire Ubuntu experience, but they all have two things in common: they are all serious enough to evoke the dreaded "I tried Linux but it didn't work" excuse, and they are all solvable. Ubuntu is still bad at properly detecting and setting up the display. Once it's gone wrong, there isn't much you can do from the GUI setup tool -- it either lies about your screen settings or offers inappropriate screen modes. Anyone for 640x480@52Hz on a 19-inch CRT? This is probably the most frequently reported complaint on the beginner forum. Other operating systems can set up the screen, so why can't Linux? From the user perspective, the solution involves some research and the editing of the xorg.conf config file. This is bad, because if the user makes a single mistake -- presuming the typical user is resourceful enough to make it this far -- it's all too easy to render the whole Ubuntu setup unusable. This problem is so widely acknowledged as a weakness of Ubuntu that I was surprised that Ubuntu 8.04 was still getting it wrong. ... Ubuntu is still bad at properly detecting and setting up the display. Once it's gone wrong, there isn't much you can do from the GUI setup tool -- it either lies about your screen settings or offers inappropriate screen modes. Anyone for 640x480@52Hz on a 19-inch CRT? This is probably the most frequently reported complaint on the beginner forum. Other operating systems can set up the screen, so why can't Linux? From the user perspective, the solution involves some research and the editing of the xorg.conf config file.

However, I have a few thoughts. Even though it is the most convenient, easiest to set up, easiest to use distribution I know of, Ubuntu’s patron company, Canonical, has made some decisions with which I am very disappointed. First of all, they’re completely focused on mobile, and it seems to be coming at the desktop’s expense. I’m not convinced there’s any better potential in the mobile market than the desktop market. The biggest problem Ubuntu has in this regard is that Linux has already taken over the mobile market through Android. Ubuntu will never unseat Android. … Another issue that is being caused by Ubuntu’s mobile aspirations is increased incompatibilities. They’re making quite a few changes to the underlying software that has traditionally been common between distributions. These changes won’t be made upstream (i.e. the official maintainer of the software) because they don’t make sense for anyone else’s purposes except Ubuntu’s. Although this freedom to change and fork code is one of the advertised advantages of open source software, the large amount of deviation in this case is going to make it more difficult for anyone to port their software to Linux. It’s already difficult enough with the variety of desktop environments and graphical toolkits. Now imagine adding completely different underlying display servers to that combination. Writing software for Linux could become a complete nightmare. But the mobile focus is not the only thing that disappoints me. What’s more disturbing to me is that Canonical has decided to put ads in the desktop search feature. Ads in a Linux distribution? Yep. They show me results from places like Amazon.com when I search my computer. Sure, I can turn it off, but it does it out of the box without my permission. This is decidedly against some of the core values of most other Linux distributions.

things like this it's not that it's not right I appreciate what Linux Ubuntu does I appreciate how it keeps things alive but at the same time it's not that it's behind where I because it's behind it's not exactly the most secure is the fastest it doesn't work as well with other software as we could

1. It's a very mediocre development platform. The tools are weak, the stack is fragmented, multifaceted, incompatible, and in many cases, broken (audio, video, UI, networking, printing. There isn't much left..). 2. Backward and forward compatibility are broken. Red Queen game. 3. Hardware support is either missing or incomplete (anecdote: non of my video cards are supported well. My dual-monitor nVidia setup is broken, my radeon r200 has extremely slow compared to XP, and my i945gse netbook is utterly broken. three out of three is impressive..). 4. Ubuntu is a closed product - it's a monolithic packages, that gets updated at once every 6 months - you're basically stuck with a rotating set of regression, whatever not in the repositories is problematic to install (either because it may break the current setup, future updates, or whatever). 5. Regressions, even critical ones, are common. It is not trustworthy, nor reliable. X crashes, stuff stops working, critical bugs are not fixed in a long time. 6. The base system UI is crude, the working experience isn't competitive. Metadata indexing is the standard for the last couple of years, while Ubuntu is yet to implement a working solution (Beagle is a slow resource hog, tracker is broken, neither are integrated with the base system). It's not about the theme - XP and Vista are both ugly, IMHO, it's about functionality - the UI isn't as functional as the competition.

### Common Challenges Faced by Ubuntu Developers **Dependency Conflict:**One of the most common challenges faced by Ubuntu developers is dependency conflicts. This occurs when multiple packages require different versions of the same library, leading to compatibility issues and potential errors in the software. Resolving dependency conflicts can be time-consuming and complex, requiring meticulous attention to detail. **Outdated Dependencies:**Another challenge is dealing with outdated dependencies. As software projects evolve over time, some libraries may become deprecated or obsolete, posing a risk to the overall stability and security of the application. Ubuntu developers must stay vigilant in updating dependencies to ensure the longevity of their projects. **Dependency Bloat:**Dependency bloat refers to the inclusion of unnecessary or redundant dependencies in a software project. This can lead to bloated codebases, increased resource consumption, and potential performance issues. Managing dependency bloat requires developers to perform regular audits and optimizations to streamline their projects. … **Automated Dependency Tracking:**Utilize tools like APT or Snapcraft to automate the tracking and installation of dependencies. ... ### Compatibility Issues with Hardware One of the main challenges faced by Ubuntu developers is the compatibility issues with hardware. Due to the diverse range of hardware configurations available in the market, ensuring that Ubuntu works seamlessly across all devices can be a daunting task. This can lead to issues such as driver compatibility, graphics card support, and connectivity problems. … ### Compatibility Issues with Software In addition to hardware compatibility issues, Ubuntu developers also face challenges with software compatibility. This includes issues with software dependencies, package management, and application compatibility. Ensuring that software runs smoothly on Ubuntu can be a complex task, especially when dealing with proprietary software. According to a report by Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, 42% of developers reported facing software compatibility issues when developing applications on Ubuntu. This underscores the need for developers to address this challenge to improve the efficiency and productivity of their development process. … ... ### Limited Support and Resources One of the major challenges faced by Ubuntu developers is the limited support and resources available for the platform. While Ubuntu has a large and active community of users and developers, it can be difficult to find professional support for more complex issues. This lack of dedicated support can lead to delays in troubleshooting and problem-solving, which can ultimately impact project timelines and deliverables. Additionally, the availability of resources such as documentation, tutorials, and libraries can also be limited for Ubuntu developers. This can make it challenging for developers to quickly find solutions to common problems or access the tools they need to build and deploy their applications. … ## Comments (24) Yo, one of the major challenges for Ubuntu developers is dealing with dependencies. It can be a real pain when you're trying to install a package and it's missing some key files or libraries. I totally agree with you, man. Dependency hell is no joke. I always end up spending hours trying to track down the right versions of libraries just to get my code running. One thing that really grinds my gears is compatibility issues across different Ubuntu versions. It's like I have to constantly test my code on multiple releases just to make sure it works everywhere. Oh yeah, compatibility can be a nightmare. I can't count how many times I've had to tweak my code just to get it working on the latest LTS release. … Yo, one major issue for Ubuntu developers is making sure their code is compatible across different versions of Ubuntu. What might work for one version, may not work for another. I've had issues with dependency management while developing for Ubuntu. Making sure all the necessary libraries and packages are present can be a pain sometimes. Ah man, debugging on Ubuntu can be a nightmare. Sometimes error messages are cryptic as hell and figuring out what went wrong can take ages. Have y'all ever run into issues with package conflicts on Ubuntu? Trying to resolve them without breaking everything can be tricky. I swear, setting up the development environment on Ubuntu can be a headache. Getting everything configured just right can be a time-consuming task. One challenge I often face is ensuring my code is secure on Ubuntu. I gotta constantly be on the lookout for vulnerabilities and keep my system up to date.

The main things that I don't like about Ubuntu these days are: - Firefox installed as a Snap by default. It seems to still to take longer to get going than either the Flatpak or deb version. Thankfully I'm able to remove the snap ( as well as snapd itself), and install the deb from the Mozilla Team PPA. - The fact that there no longer is a mini.iso (for 20.10 onwards) available if I wanted to totally customize my install after installing just the base system the way you're able to in Debian. I dislike that some applications can not be resized without changing the default resolution. As example: I like a low esrolution for running my VPN frontend app as it can not be changed within the app, but I like a higher resolution for running Excel thru wine. Is there a way to change the screen resolution as a function of the program being run? … I enjoy Gnome but along with above I dislike that not everything is consistent. But this is not limited to Ubuntu. The problem is on Debian as well as any other distro I imagine. I can't understand why there can't be a single gui toolkit that can inherit whatever theme is on the system or being used without looking like a cheap hack. The power and choice of linux leads to this situation though so it can't be helped. I dislike the snap concept in general. It's flawed. The flaw is that it gives up one of the biggest strengths of *nix stuff... shared libraries. Without that benefit while I'm no fan of Microsoft I have trouble seeing why one should deal with the limitations (depending on what you do with it) of linux rather than just accept Windows as is. That seems to be the direction, at least at the moment. It does not bode well as far as I am concerned. Why bend over backwards to make something work when I can get a more polished system with far more available software. Without shared libraries it's just not worth the effort for me. Outside of my server at least... … But again that is down the road. Snaps haven't taken over and they certainly aren't becoming main stream. But while I appreciate the purpose of universal packages they are a major threat to as I said before to possibly the *nix stuffs greatest strength in regards to security, efficiency, everything really. If I'm going to end up with a system with holes damn near everywhere why not take the easy road. Laziness will prevail in my case... lol

In my personal opinion: 1- Snap packages. Dont like them for their closed source backend, dont lime them for how canonical has been sneaking then into the system of users who have been originally trying to install a deb. 2- Modern Ubuntu simply has no real benefit compared to other Distros. Nowadays it’s just another Gnome and Debian-based distro, I see no reason to use it over Debian itself, or Fedora, Solus, or any other Ubuntu derivative that simply does better than “vanilla” Ubuntu, such as Pop!_OS or Linux Mint. … It’s been more than 15 years since I used Ubuntu but from that point I really could feel that what @merci3@lemmy.world says is true - it no longer offered any real benefit compared to Fedora, Solus, Mint or whatever distro targeted at people getting into Linux. You won’t find many people saying that Ubuntu really stands out from their similars about something. … But as previously stated, my personal opinion is that modern Ubuntu adds nothing compared to other desktop distros, ot’s DE is just Gnome with extensions bult in. The Snap store is not very well optimized and there was no reason to have it as default over gnome-software, which is more feature-complete. Nowadays, for my use, I only see Ubuntu as Debian with a more modern installer. … One of the real problem is their dual license policy for their open source projects, that grant Ubuntu full license and the power to close in an Open source Project if they want. This is decidedly against the GPL spirit, but can be done with dual licensing. Another problem is the “not made here” mentality, which undermined Wayland for instance. … JustVikEnglish19•8 months ago Snap. :) @AusatKeyboardPremi@lemmy.world14•8 months ago Most of the criticism I have seen online stems from how Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) plays fast and loose with the FLOSS ethos. The earliest controversy I can recall was the inclusion of the ‘Amazon shopping lens’ in its Unity desktop environment. There may have been earlier issues, but this one made mainstream headlines in the early 2010s. More recently, the push for Snap (its application bundle format), which relies on proprietary server-side components, which invited criticism. … More serious problem was Mir. Mir was an alternative to Wayland, because Canonical was not happy with Wayland and they didn’t want to implement what Ubuntu tried to do on phones. But that meant the programs and protocols to support was now X11, Wayland and Mir. And related to it, the focus of mobile user interface on desktop (Mir+Unity) was something lot of desktop fans didn’t like at that time.