Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: the-game.png (13KB, 200x200px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 200x200px
Is it just me or is Ubuntu 16.04 really unstable?
Story time
>I had for awhile been using Manjaro.
>I used it because I thought it was an interesting distro and I only ever stopped using it because it had shoddy printer support
>When I installed Ubuntu I upgraded from 14.04 to 16.04 for the sake of it
>Now running Ubuntu 16.04 I am able to install all my printers with relative ease but I found that web-browsing on Firefox was incredibly unstable. Firefox on Manjaro was somehow better configured.
>Then I found that upon installing xfce on Ubuntu that it was prone to glitchiness. That was odd, I thought. It worked but there would be some issues that I wouldn't have seen on Manjaro.
>I then decided to try KDE on Ubuntu, just to see what had changed. The install progress of KDE broke the package manager. I was not using third-party repositories and yet it was so unstable.
>Meanwhile on another computer I found that Lubuntu was both stable and able to work with deb files
Why is it that other distros seem to be more stable than Ubuntu?
>>
Why are you using the ancient version of Ubuntu?
The LTS version of Ubuntu is for running servers, not web browsing on Firefox or installing other DEs.
>>
>>57934654
Here's what I don't understand though: the latest version of Lubuntu is based on Ubuntu Xenial Xerus and is so much more stable than it. What gives?
>>
>>57934713
Ancient software is more stable.
>>
>>57934634
My thoughts on Ubuntu are as follows:
1) upgrading is risky, it may be the first source of instability, I prefer making the copy of /home directory on external hdd, then I erase the partition and install new release from scratch,
2) Firefox is a very touchy application, no matter what OS it is installed on, prone to crash not only itself but also a hosting OS, so I use it with caution, and it pays me back with superb web browsing experience.
>>
>>57934634
use 1404
the latest with ubuntu == pita
prefer the .3 .4 .5 releases
>>57934843
the esr is fine
>>
File: Q0n2AEG.png (26KB, 602x500px) Image search:
[Google]
26KB, 602x500px
>>57934634
Not just you. This is the worst LTS ever. I think i will go to debian or arch if they don't fix their shit.
>>
File: 1462477905086.png (39KB, 983x780px) Image search:
[Google]
39KB, 983x780px
I've had no problems with Mint, which is literally just 16.04 + some extra stuff, right?
>>
>>57934634
I've had pretty much the opposite experience
>Started out with installing 14.04
>Eventually ended up upgrading to 16.04
>Apart from some slightly annoying hassles due to it not having proper keyboard layouts for some non-english Mac keyboards (sue me) I've had zero issues whatsoever relating to the OS itself
>Only real problem is a black screen from suspend issue caused by Nvidia's drivers
Also, I'm just sharing my experiences so there's no need for people pointing out that "Works fine on my machine" isn't a real argument.
>>
>>57934760
True. That's why I stick to my Debian Woody.
>>
>>57934634
what do you mean by "able to work with deb files"?
>>
it gave me issues so i do 14 and it wont fresh install from disc like the prior one on my machine. i still think its pretty nifty version on the whole though im sure most would agree with it being best ubuntu.
>>
>>57936388
werks on MY machine :^)
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3