Hi Neville, 
thanks for your feedback,
I´m glad you could sort it out.
The solution will surely prove to be valuable to other members as well.
Cheer from Rosika 
As an ardent Linux Mint user , what are 2 bugs you refer to ?
Frank in County Wicklow -Ireland
I’ve mentioned the bugs somewhere else on this ecosystem.
With certain video cards, the ubuntu libpciaccess update bug shut down the screen shortly after boot, leaving a none-geek user with no way of finding out what to do about it. I’ve pointed out that a particularity of most Linux machines is that you can’t take them back to the shop. According to the complicated Ubuntu reporting system this has been fixed, but I’m not sure whether the information has filtered down to people I term “Ordinary users” for want of a better expression. Perhaps It’s FOSS could document this sort of thing, summarily and in ordinary language.
This bug raises the much debated question of whether “Ordinary users” should be advised to set updates to automatic (if they can find how to do/disable that 
).
The second bug, computer hanging when copying big sets of files, is long-standing and has been discussed here:
https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=443071
It worries me particularly, because it might affect an “Ordinary user” unfamiliar with a new machine, who is likely to begin by copying a huge and precious collection of personal photos, videos and so on from various media. When the computer stops dead in mid copy it can be difficult even for an experienced user to rescue the situation, even if a USB drive (for example) can be restarted.
I haven’t read of a fix, and have proposed that a useful modification to any OS including Windoze would be for the routine file/directory copy function to copy data in reasonably small chunks, and write to a logfile after checking each chunk. After all, everyday management of hundreds or thousands of gigabytes is a fairly recent requirement and it’s time for OS to catch up.
Yes that is the technique. Any computer without ECC memory can suffer a random memory glich or a cosmic ray hit.
Sensible programs like ftp , which was developed when network copying was slow and unreliable, send data in chunks and have a restart mechanism for dropouts that avoids having to the whole thing again.
Are you suggesting cp should do that? It would impact efficiency. Maybe it could do it only for large jobs.
I am not sure about rsync? So I asked
" Yes, rsync can handle connection failures and resume transfers, similar to how FTP clients recover from interruptions. It achieves this using options like --partial to keep partially transferred files, which allows the transfer to be resumed from where it left off by rerunning the rsync command. "
So sensible copy strategies exist. It is a matter of user education.
I would put a ‘stopper’ in cp , preventing people from attempting huge copies, and redirecting them to rsync.
Cp does not even checksum. It can lose bytes and you may never know.. It assumes that the hardware works reliably. Rsync can checksum if you set an option.
As with all things, it is a matter of users having a full grasp of the choices Linux offers.
That can be tough for a new user, I agree, but choices is what Linux is about.
I imagine Windows and Mac would have all these same problems, but users would never notice tiny data corruptions on copies.
Your ‘copy bug’ is not a software bug, it is a misuse of hardware and software.
There is a misconception that home PC’s are perfect machine… they are not. If we insist on every copy being perfect we should use enterprise grade hardware and checksum every file operation.
I got involved in this and some other threads in the context of initiatives, particularly in Europe, to set up an independent computing ecosystem that ensures, above all, the protection of private, commercial and public service data. At least one of these implementations must be suitable for normal people at home, who don’t know and don’t want to know very much about their computer, let alone about running ftp, cp or rsync. As with Windows, the terminal should usually be reserved for the repair shop. Presently, not many walk-in repair shops do Linux, though things are gradually getting better.
I haven’t much experience of Mac OS, except for emergency backups and similar repairs. I’m told that ChromBooks can’t do much when not connected to the Internet. Like those two, Windows is inextricably tied to what’s called in France GAFAM. That’s why all eyes are on a set of user-friendly implementations of Linux that have desktops that are, if possible, not too different between work (at least office) and home environments.
I have vague memories of Kermit and the French Minitel you could have (free!) to go with your telephone, when warp speed was 1200 baud. However, it isn’t my job to discuss modern protocols suitable for a safe replacement for the current GUI copy function; this should usually be invisible to the user. Windows does need some attention in this respect, because a long copy can sometimes take till after bedtime or till the next electrical storm arrives if, so I have read, one of the disks has limited contiguous space.
Concerning copying algorithms, inspired or not by ancient techniques, what protocol to adopt for a given job could surely be decided automatically by fairly simple calculation. Nowadays, I guess someone looking for something useful to do with AI could find a way of making it more complicated.
I have no idea what happens with copying done from a FileManager. … ie whether there are checks and if it can recover from a glich. I bet it just does a ‘cp’ under the hood.
Ideally , it should all be correctly done behind your back, but I doubt it. Most GUI programs are not even documented, so there are no specs on what they do. Windows is just as bad .
With MS-DOS we did have a /verify option. As you say, we can’t easily find whether that’s now the default with OS. Now, we want in addition automatic means of getting out of the usual kinds of trouble (such as power loss), as well as a user-transparent means of safely handling huge data sets.
Someone, I think on another forum, proposed that we could simply use existing backup & restore software when in doubt (some applications are free). However, I don’t think all users would be willing or able the handle the additional complexity for this very basic OS function. Ideally the improved GUI facility for simply copying should require no change in our habits.
It seems reasonable to suppose that improved GUI and terminal copying functions could be developed without too much trouble, because much of the functionality exists, and the developers would inevitably be testing it extensively through their own routine use.
I doubt if any OS can perfect that. Losing control means exactly that. Most users know to reboot when in trouble. Some reboots fsck the root filesystem every boot, some do it occasionally. No reboot I know of offers the choice.
Agree. The commands exist, but FileManagers dont offer them
There is FileZilla… I tried it once and was not impressed. It is a nonstandard messy install.
90% of what you are asking could be met by someone developing a decent FileManager… forget the fancy features, get the basics right
How big are you thinking? Do you mean databases or just lots of files?
My biggest transfer would be when I use Clonezilla to backup. Never had it fail.
Are you running this in a VirtualBox VM?
Here is an interesting and short video talking about Ubuntu. Some pros and some cons.
Perhaps the issue could be based on ignorance of the holding company
Adds to the story on the video
" It’s Canonical who calls the shots for Ubuntu, so Canonical’s decisions can have huge ripple effects in the Linux world."
That came from the above link.
I dont see any issue with the Company, or with the decisions it has made.
There may be questions about the quality of software.
There may be disappointment about some things they have not done… eg alternate init systems.
There may be ingrained feelings about Company produced software
but
In general Ubuntu ranks quite high as a distro.
I dont think bias is unreasonable… there are reasons.
Ubuntu has been my OS of choice for the last 5 years, and much of the time before that. What occurs to me is that this OS was given a well-intentioned, but awkward name. I’ve never been quite sure how to pronounce it, but I love the meaning of the word. I wonder if the usage would be wider if it were “Gold OS”.
”I recommend Gold Linux. To install it, first install Ubuntu, and then press the space bar three times, and reboot. That’s it! “
To answer the question
About the Ubuntu project | Ubuntu '.
For me and many here gold would not be the correct name for it, and you would get some interesting comments about a more suitable name.
Did you try other linux versions ?
Which desktop are you now using ?
I could cope with mate or lubuntu but find the défaut desktop not to my liking, too restrictive.
To be honest I don’t know what is the big problem with Ubuntu.
Perhaps a new thread should be created as:
- What do you not like Ubuntu? (list each “bad” experience)
Same question should be created for other distros …
Therefore each member of this forum is free to share the personal experience
In my case the performance required and applied as Java/Spring developer with Ubuntu is perfect. Same as Debian (expect for a situation with a Wifi Driver) and Fedora.
Therefore I am assuming that for other roles (such as graphic designer) Ubuntu is not suitable …
Personally I think it would be fine and no big difference to any linux system from the debian group. The thing for me is unity desktop
I could not get my head around so was glad a mate version came along. Lubuntu again I find frustrating to install apps or modify the menu button again its the limits of the xfce desktop.
I am sure others will disagree and have their own prefered layout.
Hello Paul
Personally I think it would be fine and no big difference to any linux system from the debian group. The thing for me is unity desktop
Do you mean about https://unity.com/download?
I could not get my head around so was glad a mate version came along. Lubuntu again I find frustrating to install apps or modify the menu button again its the limits of the xfce desktop.
Interesting your experience …in your case is mostly according the kind of Desktop Environment …
I am sure others will disagree and have their own prefered layout.
I always have used GNome. perhaps one time KDE in the university long time ago. In Peppermint is used xfce due hardware limitations.
The point is, if a linux distribution covers in a 100% all the kinds of users about their requirements
Perhaps the “problem” is all in our minds.
Ubuntu developers have taken a few controversial steps … like snaps, rolling release … and new things sometimes get released too early and have teething problems.
Perhaps it is the steps they have not taken… like init diversity, immutable, … there are some things I like that Ubuntu does not offer, and I think everyone would say the same.
Then there is the corporate image… some people think large corporate bodies are
proďucers of devious exploitative software
There are some who prefer a Linux with problems… so they can have fun fixing it.
All mental stuff… Ubuntu linux is a fine piece of software
How do you figure that? I get a very recent version of InkScape 1.2.2 by default on Ubuntu 24.04… Same goes for GIMP… There’s also “Ubuntu Studio” - I tried it once - ~10 years ago? It was using XFCE - I think they’ve adopted another DE / WM now… I personally don’t see the point… Never found any Linux graphics software that didn’t run well on Ubuntu LTS. I’m not a professional graphic designer - but - I’ve been a hobbyist…
A HUGE number of Linux desktop users jumped ship from Ubuntu when they implemented Unity (and that’s when MINT started ranking high on DistroWatch - circa 2012?). I wasn’t one of them - and - was disappointed when they dropped Unity from Ubuntu 18 onwards… I’ve distrohopped away from Ubuntu (like using Pop!_OS 22.04 for nearly 3 years) - but always end up back at “vanilla” Ubuntu LTS…
No major complaints from me… I do miss Unity - but - I’m not going to try one of the Ubuntu “re-spins” that do Unity…
As for how you pronounce it? Who cares? Some people say “lie-nucks”, some people say “linn-ucks” - New Zealanders say “l’nix” 
…
Me - I say Ubuntu like “you-bunt-oo” - I sometimes hear North Americans say “oo-boon-too”… Who cares? What annoys the crap out of me is people canvassing online for help with Ubuntu and they can’t even spell the distro name correctly - what hope is there for them?
Ubuntu does seem to attract first timers.