Been on Ubuntu for years. Only use it for general computer work. Works just fine.
Am I stupid?
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo
in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
Been on Ubuntu for years. Only use it for general computer work. Works just fine.
Am I stupid?
Nah. Ubuntu gets hate for some good reasons, but it's still a fine distro, especially if you're happy with it.
Nah, it's pretty great
Not as polished as Pop I think, but good and getting better
In terms of polish Ubuntu is excellent. Problem is their policies and stupid decisions over the years, resulting in really unnecessary tech problems for anyone who wants more than just install apps via their App Store. Not to mention the inbuilt ads for Amazon, like, 10 years ago⦠or them recently deciding that it would be a good idea to alias some apt commands, so if you're a power user and try to install f.e. Firefox with your CLI it would instead execute the command to install it as snap. Shit like that is just outright disrespectful to the user.
Firefox with your CLI it would instead execute the command to install it as snap. Shit like that is just outright disrespectful to the user.
I get it and, at the same time, I get it.
Ubuntu needs to be able to deliver with some level of guarantee for its corporate clients, which means testing. A browser like Firefox has a lot of dynamically linked libraries. How do ensure that it works with all reasonable combinations? 10 libraries with 2 supported versions each is 1024 combinations. A browser will have more libraries and more compatible versions of each, which leads to a massive number of combinations. Nothing like having a support customer with issues because a very specific patch version doesn't work with another very specific patch version.
Compare that to snap. 1 artifact that contains all dynamically linked libraries. 1 artifact to test and support.
So, now Canonical has a tested and supported snap for a security sensitive application, whose method of delivery also isolates it from the host it runs on. Should they point users to that? Or some upstream binary that may have the above compatibility issues and lacks isolation, and wasn't tested by them.
Short of it is that DLLs made a lot more sense when storage was expensive and programs were smaller. Now, they are problematic. Containers are a way to address that without having to update a ton of software, and they also improve security. If they hadn't done it, the community would have torn them a new one for keeping the good stuff for their corporate clients.
That said, there have been a lot of missteps. The inability to have a self-hosted store of snaps (this may have changed since I last checked) and improper packaging of apps like Steam are good examples of this. On the other hand, PCSX2's 32-bit version ran just fine long after Ubuntu went 64-bit-only.
That's a good argument for Snaps & Flatpaks, not for putting an alias in place so "apt install Firefox" gets translated to "snap install org.mozilla.firefox" (or whatever the exact app name is). Corporate clients manage their systems as a fleet anyway, if the IT department sets it up a certain way their employees don't fiddle with this stuff. There's no good argument to redirect a users' CLI commands to whatever Canonical believes is better.
That's a good point. I think Canonical offers some services where they will actively support your system, so it makes economic sense for them to make choices that limit transparency a bit for stability and predictability.
I think the dislike comes from the fact that Ubuntu was and still is many people's intro to Debian based OSes, and it's just not as user-centric as it used to be. Thankfully alternatives like Mint exist to bring it back a little bit for people who care.
Ubuntu minus the binary-blobs and corpo-junk = the good distro of Trisquel
That sounds like Debian with extra steps (and a fancy kernel).
Ubuntu, but good? Itβs called Debian.
Pop!_OS.
So Kubuntu then?
Itβs Ubuntu Touch π
Just switched to Fedora, bit having used Ubuntu before... yeah, never again lmao.
Mint?
Definitely Mint.
Defimintly.
Ubuntu minus snaps plus a better DE? Mint.
Yes, Mint with Pantheon. As the founding fathers intended.
So unsnapped ElementaryOS?
Yep with a better upgrading path, unless they fixed the whole "nuke your OS to upgrade" thing.
Debian is a decent Ubuntu based OS π«³π€
You just killed 7 senior citizens
Help, I've dist-upgraded and i can't [symbol 'grub_calloc' not found]
Debian is a better version of Ubuntu.
Hannah Montana Linux?
HML was last updated in 2009, I'd recommend Justin Bieber Linux instead.
No need to update when you've reached perfection
Mint, Debian
I don't mind LMDE, but opensuse really has came into its own with kde6
How would you convince me to use opensuse, what makes it so nice?
Hopefully someone more technical can pitch it, but it did feel very easy to set up and use. The utilities that it comes with just feel very well designed and thought out. If Debian was gone tomorrow, I'd probably try openSUSE again.
Snapper. But you also install Snapper on other distros.
Not my problem what you use.
Try it or don't
Okay, thanks for your effort
Kubuntu isn't too bad
I moved off of Nobara to Kubuntu LTS. Tried out Mint and Ubuntu before hand and gotta say, I am loving Kubuntu. I am hoping it is the last time I have to distro hop