Lots depends on the kernel for recognition of hardware. Distros which do not
keep up with kernel changes do not have the capability to recognize the latest
hardware. This makes them stable but crippled in some respects. When you use a
distro you have to buy into their philosophy and as long as you do then you are
usually happy with it.
People who crave stability forgo being up to date with the newest, latest and
greatest. Being too much on the bleeding edge causes the opposite. This is where
the experimental release of Ubuntu is located. You are advised not to use it as
your every day OS. Crashes and the like are to be expected. Ubuntu's stable
release tries to iron out the bugs and then give a fairly up-to-date and stable
OS.
Ubuntu is based on Sid, the unstable branch of Debian with backports filling in
some gaps. Debian itself is based on Etch (formerly Sarge) which is the latest
stable version of Debian, soon to be Lenny (September, 2008 ?). All Debian names
are from Toy Story, just as Ubuntu's are from the animal kingdom.
So everyone has to consider what they personally want. As with everything one
must make compromises on way or another. There is no perfect OS. Ubuntu tries to
walk several lines, between stability and innovation and another between free
and proprietary. Some people appreciate what they are trying to do while purists
greet it with derision and those who just want it to work can't see why they
don't include flash and codecs by default. As I said, it is a philosophical
difference. The same can be said with the rolling release concept of Debian and
the six month release cycle of Ubuntu. You either buy into it or look elsewhere.
Which brings up the single best thing about Linux. We have choice and nobody
wants it any other way. There is a place for every distro, including MEPIS and
SUSE. There are users who like the small hand crafted, slow growing approach,
while others like the glitz and power of a big corporation like Novell. There is
a niche for just about every possible use of Linux and users are free to go
where they feel best served.
Again Ubuntu is somewhere in the middle. It was once small, but now it is huge
compared to its humble beginnings. Canonical is a company, but they are not even
breaking even. They do not complain. They keep building on their vision of Linux
for everyone and hope that ordinary users and business will respond. To date,
they have, but there is a long way to go before Ubuntu or any Linux distro can
go head-to-head with the big players, like Microsoft or Apple.
That is why it is unfair to compare Canonical to those companies or their
products, or even Novell, because they have established records and product
recognition. They also have a large say in what OEMS do. Which is the primary
reason why we don't have drivers (lack of OEM cooperation, either because the
market is small or they do not want to PO M$ and spoil their preferred status).
Despite all of Ubuntu's apparent success. Linux has an estimated 2 % of the desktop market and Ubuntu has only about a half of that. In servers, Linux is better developed, but Canonical has made little penetration there. This is why I hate it when Linux users cut up other distros (not here, but elsewhere), everyone is trying their best against great odds of ever achieving success.