this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
245 points (98.4% liked)
Linux
48711 readers
1017 users here now
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.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
you're right, but the issues with ubuntu crop up later, when you have to update or after you install enough incompatible stuff that it breaks your system. which is a shame bc ubuntu is the most user friendly distro there is imo
I don't recognize this myself. I've never had trouble with incompatibilities or degradation etc.,
Especially these days my OS can remain very vanilla, as many complex things can be containerized. E.g. I run syncthing and an nfs server and sometimes torrenting over vpn, through docker-compose; I'd never install all that on the host with all the extensive dependencies. Same with some heavyweight apps like darktable - spin them up from Flatpak.
Ubuntu does it very well with minimal fuss. I see little to dislike.
my last personal anectode with ubuntu is this: my company decided to setup our office as a remote-onsite hybrid workplace, so our working machines were moved to a rack elsewhere to be accessed remotely and the local machines were supposed to act as basically dumb terminals that can be used interchangeably by us
we develop on rhel, but since the local machines are just to access our dev machines remotely, support decided to install ubuntu because it "just works". turns out, since ubuntu does a lot of stuff its own way for no good reason, it broke under our network configuration (it's complicated) and no snap application could run -- so, no slack or firefox. not a great scenario for a workplace. in the end we decided to replace ubuntu by rhel and no longer had any issues
you're right that ubuntu might work flawlessly for you and that it might never break. but, it also might break in unexpected ways. i cannot reliably recommend ubuntu to a beginner because this risk might forever put someone off of linux
is it user friendly if it's so prone to breakage?
Is it though? I've found it rock solid for years on end - been using it for 14 years, and Debian before that.
i mean idk, i was just asking about what that other poster was saying. i fuckin' hate ubuntu for other reasons and i generally don't speak on it in the negative or positive in threads like this. i only chimed in because what was being said struck me as odd. "it's the most user friendly distro there is, it just breaks a lot"
it made me wonder what user friendly meant to this other user. i wanted to hear their perspective because i thought i could learn something, especially as i help my mom, an inexperienced linux user, use linux on an old laptop for the first time
i mean... when it doesn't break, it works better than anything else. 5-minute installs, supports a ton of configurations and peripherals out of the box, makes gnome a little more usable, etc, etc
...but it breaks, eventually