Ubuntu is Debian based yes. Not all ubuntu-based comes with snap (for example Mint). Sometimes I think “why are there so many different distros? We only need like five of them”, but then, sometimes I think it’s a strength, each distro exploring a new direction to see what works.
Back in the day, ubuntu used to be the most user friendly distro. Linux for humans. It has a faster release cycle by not following stable debian releases. It had hardware support that you had to jump through hoops in debian to get. A great community. It made sense to base mint on ubuntu.
That’s about where things were when I started using Mint about 11 years ago. Ubuntu has kind of strayed from that obvious choice to hand to newbies. Mint has been sitting around saying “No, we’re not doing that, because it’s user hostile” on anything from Gnome to Snap.
Well, for the sake of clarity, lets separate stability and reliability? Stability means unchanging. Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways.
If you have a better word for the concept of unchanging functionality and interfaces, I’m open to using that in this context. In describing distros, I’ve only come across the word stable for this. Reliable is a wider concept to me, and also includes being relatively free of bugs. A stable distro can still be buggy, if it’s the same bugs tomorrow as yesterday.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong here but Ubuntu is based off of Debian, therefore Ubuntu based distros are actually Debian based?
Or do they all have the same snap integration like Ubuntu does?
Ubuntu is Debian based yes. Not all ubuntu-based comes with snap (for example Mint). Sometimes I think “why are there so many different distros? We only need like five of them”, but then, sometimes I think it’s a strength, each distro exploring a new direction to see what works.
To follow up, how come e.g. mint decides to base their distro on Ubuntu rather than Debian?
https://www.linuxmint.com/rel_gigi.php
“LMDE 7 is based on Debian 13 Trixie. Make sure to read the Debian release notes.”
Back in the day, ubuntu used to be the most user friendly distro. Linux for humans. It has a faster release cycle by not following stable debian releases. It had hardware support that you had to jump through hoops in debian to get. A great community. It made sense to base mint on ubuntu.
That’s about where things were when I started using Mint about 11 years ago. Ubuntu has kind of strayed from that obvious choice to hand to newbies. Mint has been sitting around saying “No, we’re not doing that, because it’s user hostile” on anything from Gnome to Snap.
We only need one. And that’s Arch.
Do you think you would have that opinion if you ran arch on mission critical production servers for a couple of years?
Well it was a joke, but it is a myth that Arch is unstable.
Well, for the sake of clarity, lets separate stability and reliability? Stability means unchanging. Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways.
And how do you propose we do that? Is reliability not dependent on stability?
No, it means how stable something is. Literally.
Funny, that’s how most folks around here describe stability.
You’re just using words to be honest.
If you have a better word for the concept of unchanging functionality and interfaces, I’m open to using that in this context. In describing distros, I’ve only come across the word stable for this. Reliable is a wider concept to me, and also includes being relatively free of bugs. A stable distro can still be buggy, if it’s the same bugs tomorrow as yesterday.
Now you’re just using more words, which means you’re either a bot or you’ve lost your train of thought. You’re rambling.
What is your actual point here?