Snaps are the worst, but there are relatively easy ways to rip that shit out
Having said that, for the rest I like Ubuntu reasonably okay. Going to try KDE neon which should be a bit newer
@phoenixz @liop7k , I hated snaps on the desktop, but I find myself loving them for my server. On desktop, yeah the orchestra of protocols and desktop intercommunication suffered a lot when I used snaps. But on a server, seems to allow me to be the laziest administrator I have ever been, only needing to update my ultra minimal Ubuntu OS.
Apt lays allowed me to be lazy, never had an issue with -by now- thousands of servers over 20 years
For me: not Gentoo.
Generally I recommend OpenSUSE Thumbleweed or Slowroll.
I've used ubuntu on and off for years. They have a history of questionable choices. Like making users opt out of Amazon searches. Or using unity. or abandoning unity. The most recent thing that made me switch was forcing snap packages on me, which would then be annoying with updates. I switched to debian stable with gnome and flatpak, and haven't missed anything about ubuntu since.
It's still a fine distro. The Amazon thing was the only egregious problem IMO
To me, it's just death by a thousand papercuts. It doesn't have any unique selling points that I'm aware of, and it's slightly worse than my preferred distro in every way that the two differ, at least as far as I can think of.
It uses gnome. That's why I use Kubuntu instead.
Other people have issues with snap packages, however I'm quite the opposite and actually tend to prefer snaps over other means of getting apps.
As well as what has already been mentioned, when I used it, it crashed a lot.
Apparently I have fewer problems with it than some. It's snap. Maybe I could come up with some other minor complaints, but nothing big really. It's mostly just snap. That is what prevents me using or recommending Ubuntu any more.
there's nothing majorly wrong with it from my POV (except snap), but it's hard to ignore that Fedora is basically better in every way (again, subjective, my POV)
Does it have problems? I mean, some may prefer other distros to Ubuntu or may not like some stuff that come with Ubuntu, that doesn't mean Ubuntu has any issue ;)
I don't like bananas, no issue at all with bananas. I prefer Debian (on which is based Ubuntu) and I prefer Mint (based on... ubuntu) because they suit me much better, that's all. At least for me. edit: one thing I don't like for example are snaps, me not liking them does not mean they're necessarily bad.
I guess it is different reasons for different people. But for me, I started using ubuntu in 2005. When I was learning linux, it was just not complete enough. You install another DE/WM, to try it out, and stuff started to break. So I switched pretty quickly. I tried to return every now and then, because it had an environment of newer packages which I waned/needed. But it was never worth it, this or that always broke when you tried to do something peculiar. I use ubuntu every now and then, but it is mostly no good. The issue is really just snap. Snap firefox on rpi, which is the default, is just trash and unusable. It is crazy that they made it the default. I have also had servers where snap-services just eats too much cpu and first thing I have to do is to purge it. So, in summary, I don't really trust them to provide a reliable system, and I am sceptical of their direction.
it has a gui installer (i use arch btw)
I use it, and I like it. As a casual computer user, it suits every need.
It also feels a lot more stable thanks to being maintained by a professional corporation, rather than some neckbeard in a basement.
Those "neckbeards in the basement" created the very thing Canonical is trying to make its own. It's just another corporation trying to profit off the back of FOSS developer labor.
Maybe have a bit more respect for hardworking programmers that are keeping the world spinning, with many doing it for no compensation.
Canonical's initial hiring strategy was "hey, you maintain Debian packages. Wanna get paid for that?"
They still employ quite a few Debian maintainers, and I don't think it's at all a stretch to say that Debian wouldn't be as good as it is today if Canonical weren't paying a bunch of people in part to do Debian develops. Their employee roll includes one of the developers of apt, amongst other people.
I'm also talking about people like this that almost never get recognition until something huge we all depend on becomes a huge problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor
That's kind of a non sequitur. Canonical hires a lot of community members to maintain stuff for the community. They also have roughly 1000 employees according to Wikipedia. SUSE also depends on things like xz and has twice as many employees. Red Hat has 19,000 employees. Google depends on xz and has over 180,000 employees.
So if you're blaming Canonical for not hiring the maintainers of under recognised community projects that don't have corporate backing, then surely SUSE gets twice the blame, Red Hat gets 19 times the blame and Google gets 180 times the blame? (Not to mention Amazon, Meta, NVIDIA, etc.)
surely SUSE gets twice the blame, Red Hat gets 19 times the blame and Google gets 180 times the blame? (Not to mention Amazon, Meta, NVIDIA, etc.
Well...yeah?
And how do you quantify their reduced blame for hiring community members already? As I've already pointed out, Canonical has many Debian developers and maintainers on their payroll. While we're unlikely to ever get real numbers for it, if it turned out that Canonical had a bigger portion of their payrolls devoted to ensuring that community developers got paid than the other companies mentioned, wouldn't that say that they're even less to blame?
The name. Sounds dumb.
I use arch, btw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0