• Barttier@feddit.de
    82·
    1 year ago

    First I wanted to contradict and say that I like arch linux because it feels good… So yes: I see your point

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    80·
    1 year ago

    Hmm, the Arch one seems to be incorrect. People who wear a buttplug won’t randomly announce that they’re wearing buttplug.

  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7515·
    1 year ago

    The swiss army knife should not be Ubuntu lol. Ubuntu would be like the dollar store knockoff that falls apart with use.

    • Pirasp@lemmy.world
      12·
      1 year ago

      You mean to say the version where the Victorinox logo is replaced with the Ubuntu one?

      Looks half way convincing but is shit in reality?

      • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        258·
        1 year ago

        Used it for 2 years on desktop and server.

        Documentation is always outdated and useless. GNOME is crap. apt has a dependency issue every week. Repos have software ranging from bleeding edge to horrendously outdated. Netplan is next level stupid and also decides to break for no reason. Systemd waits for network to boot by default because reasons. Versioning and LTS adds more magic fun to doing anything because of the aforementioned documentation. Last time I used it, still had crap interoperability when switching DEs for some weird reason. Canonical is the big dumb dumb. All the downstreams inherit the same problems like PopOS and elementary.

        I took all of that experience and thought it was the default linux expectations until I got to try Debian for server and Fedora for desktop.

        Unfortunately, people make the same mistake as me and then assume broken Ubuntu is just how linux is.

        Credit though, it did get to teach me the general ins and outs of linux because I needed to fix or change something every other week.

          • Zangoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            1 year ago

            Not OP, I like gnome and all but I Ubuntu’s extensions/custom version of gnome is awful and makes trying to change settings so much worse because the gnome documentation doesn’t always match with all of the changes Ubuntu adds on top. Maybe they’re talking about that?

            • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
              2·
              1 year ago

              Can’t you just use another desktop environment if you don’t like the pre-packaged gnome? I just see Ubuntu as a flavor of Debian made for ease of use.

              • Zangoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                That’s true, but installing a whole new desktop environment also kind of goes against the whole “ease of use” part. If someone’s going to go to a whole different flavor they might as well just use something like Mint or Mint DE unless they specifically need Ubuntu for a dev environment or program/driver compatibility. That way they can still get the ease of use benefit but without dealing with all of the weird oddities that Ubuntu can introduce.

                • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah I just find for newer users the amount of Ubuntu support has always been a huge plus if you’re just getting in to messing with Linux. It’s a lot better now but it used to be things like “how to do x on Ubuntu,” there would always be some super easy to follow tutorial. My personal preference is just a Debian install but the more catered experiences like Mint and Ubuntu do a great job at presenting Debian to daily users without any hassle.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        42·
        1 year ago

        Ubuntu LTS is the least stable LTS Linux distro I’ve ever used. There’s why I avoid Ubuntu. It isn’t about normies it’s about avoiding Canonical.

      • Aganim@lemmy.world
        24·
        1 year ago

        It most certainly does. It’s the only distro that I do not trust anymore to do a proper job of automatically partitioning your drive during setup, after getting complaints from my parents that Ubuntu refused to install updates. Turned out it had created a rediciously small boot partition and was now complaining that it had not enough space left to install new kernel versions as they kept around all old ones. “Because users might want to use those”, according to their documentation. Bitch, you market yourself as the distro suitable for absolute beginners, but you not only expect them to know what a kernel is, but also that they clean them up their selves? What an absolutely moronic decision.

        I’ve had broken installations after upgrades to a major version in the past and I’ve seen a number of colleagues switch to plain Debian or Arch derivatives after Ubuntu decided to crap out after a major upgrade.

        I’ve seen Ubuntu systems not being able to upgrade due to circular dependencies that couldn’t be resolved by Apt, package Foo requires Bar, Bar requires Baz, Baz requires Foo. Or even packages from their own repository that couldn’t be upgraded because some dependency wasn’t available anymore.

        Just a handful of the issues I’ve encountered with Ubuntu. Personally I’m done with that distro. If it works for you, by all means use it. But I don’t help friends and colleagues (we all get to choose our own distro fortunately, but also have to fix issues ourselves) anymore when they decide to go Ubuntu. Use a proper distro if you want my help, not that Fisher-Price ‘My First Linux’ crap.

    • HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee
      31·
      1 year ago

      Its pretty apt because while you can technically use it to do a variety of things its almost always outclassed in any particular use

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          81·
          1 year ago

          But, good enough for just about anything most people need to do on a daily basis. For anything else there’s specialized tools.

            • EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world
              5·
              1 year ago

              I’d love to agree but unfortunately with them pushing snaps I can’t. When I used snaps I found them to be extremely buggy and if I didn’t already know there were other distributions with other better package managers I would’ve straight up assumed it was a Linux problem and I’d just have gone back to windows. If there was no other Noob-friendly distro out there I could say “sure it’s an ok distro” but there are better alternatives that don’t do the same shitty decisions as canonical (like Linux Mint which is the one I recommend to every noob coming from windows or Pop_OS! for those who want something similiar to MacOS).

            • swab148@startrek.website
              2·
              1 year ago

              Just because it’s Lemmy, I’m gonna share my “shitty Ubuntu” story, which is less about Ubuntu being shitty and more about me being a noob.

              I had a 2004 MacBook that my grandmother gave me for college when she upgraded. I didn’t hate it, but this being my first experience with a laptop, when the bottom 2/3 of the screen started blinking in and out, I thought maybe it was a software problem, so with the help of an SD card and my buddy’s old CRT setup I downloaded Ubuntu onto a thumb drive. When I went back to my parents’ place I decided that that was the moment to install, because my dad was really into jailbreaking his iPhone at the time, so I thought it’d be cool if we did kinda similar things together. Unfortunately because I couldn’t see the bottom of the screen, I had no idea about the progress of the install, got impatient, and just decided to turn the thing off. This had the effect of deleting the partition tables, and it would have been like $200 to get a new hard drive. I would have paid it, but before I could, the guy I had helping me fix the thing moved away and took my lappy with him.

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      13·
      1 year ago

      I’d have gone with a spork. Not particularly good at anything it was built to do, but functional enough to get the job done, and pretty straight forward to use.

      • autokludge@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Any wet meal you would have previously used a fork a spork/splade works better. It is the apex of TV dinner eating implements after hands only. 😉

    • _cnt0@sh.itjust.worksOP
      65·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know why, but it really is. You’d be surprised to see how many servers in the wild run ubuntu and how many docker images are based on ubuntu.

      • dan@upvote.au
        81·
        1 year ago

        Docker images should really be distroless most of the time. There’s way too much junk in the majority of Docker images when in most cases, you really just need your app and whatever dynamic libraries or runtimes it requires (if you can’t statically compile it). You don’t need an OS in there!

        Also there’d be way more servers running Debian compared to Ubuntu.

        • _cnt0@sh.itjust.worksOP
          3·
          1 year ago

          You often (if not most of the time) need some infrastructure in OCI containers (while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the misnomer Docker image). And that’s going to be some subset of a distribution hand-crafted for that purpose. Most of the time, that should be Alpine, because they provide the slimmest base image.

          • dan@upvote.au
            31·
            1 year ago

            Most of the time, that should be Alpine, because they provide the slimmest base image.

            Distroless containers (e.g. https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/distroless, Chiselled Ubuntu, etc) are often smaller than Alpine ones. Google’s smallest Debian-based one is around 2MB.

            I have a Dockerized C# app… I’m going to try .NET Native AOT (which was improved a lot in .NET 8, released today) to compile it into a self-contained binary, and see how well it works with a distroless base container.

            • _cnt0@sh.itjust.worksOP
              3·
              1 year ago

              I’m curious to hear how that works out. I’m a big fan of C#; not so much the Microsoft ecosystem. I’d say for maximum scalability you’d want languages which compile to small binaries. So, Go, Rust, C++, C, and theoretically some others. The approach with Java and C# to bundle the framework, JIT, etc, and then try to shave off as much as you can get away with feels kind of backwards. And I get the excitement of the Java folks when they manage to create a self-contained binary with GraalVM and co of 12mb. Like, that’s impressive, but had you developed the same thing with Go it would be .5mb. Curious to see how .NET fares in that comparison to Java.

          • dan@upvote.au
            1·
            1 year ago

            Google’s distroless base images are based on Debian and are smaller than Alpine images.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          24·
          1 year ago

          Debian isn’t really an option if you want paid support. You really only have Red Hat, SUSE, and Canonical. Of course, there are a lot of Ubuntu servers out there.

  • Pharmacokinetics@lemmy.world
    232·
    1 year ago

    If linux distros were WW2 tanks.

    Linux Mint - M4 Sherman
    Sturdy, reliable, easy to build and maintain

    Ubuntu - T-34
    Easy to build, does what you want it to but terribly unreliable and tends to break down after a while

    Arch - Tiger

    Hard to build and takes too long, works great in design but in practice it just breaks down, over riced causing it to be unstable

    Debian - Challenger

    The best, usable in any situation, fairly easy to build and mighty reliable.

    Linux Lite - M24 Chaffee

    Fast, small, easy to build and unusually reliable for a light distro.

    CentOS - Char B1

    Outdated but still a beast of a distro.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      34·
      1 year ago

      I thought that would be Hanna Montana Linux.

      Why are you booing? She’s legal now.

  • LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
    224·
    1 year ago

    Arch should be a megaphone so they can broadcast “I use Arch BTW” to all.