• pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

      • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          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.

      • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Do you think you would have that opinion if you ran arch on mission critical production servers for a couple of years?

          • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            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.

            • jobbies@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              lets separate stability and reliability

              And how do you propose we do that? Is reliability not dependent on stability?

              Stability means unchanging

              No, it means how stable something is. Literally.

              Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways

              Funny, that’s how most folks around here describe stability.

              You’re just using words to be honest.

              • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                22 hours ago

                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.

                • jobbies@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  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?

                  • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    22 hours ago

                    You wrote “It is a myth that arch is unstable”. Arch, being rolling release, is by definition changing. This is, imho, the opposite of stable. This is why it’s important to use precise words. I have no interest in continuing this discussion since you don’t seem to argue in good faith.