Bell curve of Linux distributions

Oh snap

Yeah but at this point you're fighting against the OS, might as well switch to a distro that already works the way you want.

Ah yes, vendor lock-in in desktop linux.

I don't get why anyone thinks this is acceptable in any way.

Or just use Waterfox or LibreWolf?

Man, why do people hate apt so much? Maybe because I'm a filthy casual but I never really had any big problems with apt.

Correct, apt is awful, apt-get, that's what you need. ;) You really need to tell apt not to install junk:

 undefined

    
$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00NoJunk 
APT::Install-Recommends "0";
APT::Install-Suggests "0";

  

I hate yum with a passion, but still wouldn't touch dnf when I have an alternative. As it earns my keep (alas, no deb based distro at work... yet), I've managed to hide all that perfectly in scripting/config management setups.

Yea it sorta just works and has a lot of community support. Imo the easiest of the distros which is not a bad thing. Turn off snaps and it basically is golden. Never needed backups in like 10 years because I know how to fix everything. The only thing that fucks up at this point is Nvidia but same thing has happened to me on Fedora.

Distros based on Ubuntu are better than ever. Ubuntu isn't the move tho

Oh yeah, Debian is such a poser distro that people only use to sound smart. I brag about how I managed to pull off a full Debian installation all the time. Memes can never, ever under any circumstances end up out of date or anything.

Edit in response to your edit: Canonical has been neglecting the desktop version of Ubuntu for years now. They've pulled in some improvements from other distros, so technically it is better, but the only thing they've contributed to themselves are snaps, and even that's just hand-me-downs from server and IoT. The rest of the desktop Linux world has moved on. The things Ubuntu did better than anyone else ten years ago just aren't special anymore. You can like what you like, but Ubuntu is no longer the undisputed king of straightforward, user-friendly, and low maintenance.

There was just a new release, so nothing that old for now, but by the time the next release comes around this one will be getting long in the tooth, no doubt. Debian isn't for everyone, but if you need the latest version as a native app then you're not any better off with Ubuntu at this point. Debian is stable and secure and you can use flatpaks, appimages, or even snaps if you're feeling nasty to get any apps that you really need to be up to date. That's not what everyone wants, but for those people I'd recommend something like Arch, Fedora, or OpenSUSE, not Ubuntu. Ubuntu has just been neglecting the desktop for a while now, and it shows. They were the best once. Now everyone has passed them.

Debian and Ubuntu LTS are both ~2 year cycles, but Debian has traditionally been better than Ubuntu at picking up security fixes

If you sign up for Ubuntu Pro, they might be as good as Debian, now, but I haven’t checked

If you want faster than that, something other than Debian makes sense

There's also "testing" in between. It's not as stable as - well - "stable", but I didn't have trouble with it.

I don't actually think there is literally no scenario where Ubuntu makes sense, especially if someone else is limiting your options. For the record though, I think Fedora has gotten to be a better Ubuntu then Ubuntu, and it works with secure boot out of the box.

How often does that happen to you? Im almost 20 years on Linux full time and it hasnt to me once. I had a wifi driver go out after an update once and Nvida drivers twice. Ive had to roll back a kernal upgrade exactly one time. Those are the only problems and each one took like ten minutes to troubleshoot and fix.

No seriously I always install Ubuntu on work machines and they got more breakage in the past couple of years than my arch machine.

You're in the middle of the 2000s.

Debian based? So just Debian then

glory to the CPP, I love Winnie the Pooh

You represent the meme so well. Eventually checking Arch news for a manual intervention, using pacman properly, and making sure your system is properly maintained on a regular basis can be a bit of a hassle, which is why sooner or later you'll choose something like KDE Neon or Mint or something similar.

This. I still daily drive arch, and, even though I've rarely had any breaking updates, it's always feels like a gamble. Have to keep a mental note of which critical packages are being updated, just in case I have to rollback the package. Always carrying an install medium with an arch iso when taking my laptop out.

On the flip side, it's a rolling-release distro, so you don't have to play a game of "what broke?" whenever you do a major version upgrade or do a clean install to avoid it, because there are no major version updates. And the AUR is pretty much the reason to use Arch outside of being at the cutting edge (which is mainly useful for using brand new hardware that hasn't got the best support in the more conventional distros yet, like a new laptop).

Time to go to Linux Mint

Yeah, I feel that too. I have wanted to try a immutable distro, is nix any good? Are there any better alternatives?

OpenSUSE Tumbleweed

German engineering, y'all.

Seems to be an underrated choice. How's it going so far, using Tumbleweed?

What and what? Sorry I've only been using Fedora for years

Ack, my deleted comment is visible somehow!

...Anyway, I agree. I wasn't saying it's necessarily bad, just that there seemed to be an influx of new posts that sound like they came from Linux virgins.

Mint has always been my go-to grandma-friendly system. I remember using it when I was in my single-digit years. Most intuitive operating system ever. :)

I tried vanilla Arch once as a VM and got stuck.

I might try it again one day. For now, EndeavourOS is a good middle ground between Arch itself and Manjaro.

Right, that makes sense!

Hahaha that’s ok. I’ve tried them all except Slackware. Even gave LFS a go. But Void is home for me.