It seems to me that Ubuntu Studio has quite a low rating in this community - why do you think it is so?
A couple of examples:
- When (the very good) Libre Music Production recommends Audio oriented distros, they mention KXStudio and AVLinux. Not Ubuntu Studio, which would be a natural suggestion (http://libremusicproduction.com/article ... stribution)
- Comments like this
seem to be fairly common here (this is not meant as a confrontation, just an example).English Guy wrote:I recently put Ubuntu Studio on a friends laptop and found it unusable for several reasons (. . . )
The reason I ask:
I used to think Ubuntu Studio was too big, bloated, slow and so on some years ago. I set up my up distros, tweaked them like I wanted to.
Then I started working with sound and music for a living. Every day. So I needed something stable.
The result is that I have trusted Ubuntu Studio with additional KXStudio repos for my daily work the last 3 years. And it's been extremely stable, very customizable, it just works damn good for me, and I also think it's easy to make really beautiful (with some xfce tweaks). And on a modern powerful computer, like many of us have, it is even the quickest distro I have ever been using. I had to eat my prejudices one by one.
So I am a bit sad to see they are struggling to survive (as they write in the release notes for 16.10), and that they seem to lack support among us audio focused users.
So why do you think it is like this?
Is it Ubuntu being the big commercial player with Canonical and all?
Why does it feel a bit embarrassing to even say or write here that "Yes, I do actually use Ubuntu Studio. Just because it works so good for me."?