"Hate" is a strong word. I don't hate Ubuntu. It's just irrelevant.
It's not alone anymore in the realm of "easy to install and use", and ongoing enshittification nagging you to upgrade to Pro™️ makes it an objectively worse product than its direct competitors.
I think Ubuntu was relevant 15 years ago, when Linux was scary. Nowadays, it's neither easier to install nor to use than, say, Fedora for example. I'd even say any current distro with a live CD and a graphical installer is easier to install than Ubuntu 15 years ago.
The fact that Canonical has successfully commercialised Linux doesn't always sit well with some people in the spirit of FOSS Linux, but they have also done a great deal to widen the distribution and appeal of Linux.
I agree with the second part but not the first. Linux would be nowhere near what it is today without some serious corporate investments, so commercial Linux is a good thing (or a necessary evil depending on your POV). The largest kernel contributors are large IT and hardware companies, after all.
What's bad about Ubuntu is that the "free" version is an inferior product, like a shareware of old. The biggest commercial competitors like SLES or RHEL are downstream from excellent community distros (OpenSuse and Fedora, respectively).
The community support, forums and official documentation are most useful. I don't currently use Ubuntu, but use their resources frequently.
Fortunately that knowledge can be used downstream and often upstream too. After all, most Ubuntu issues are Debian Sid issues.
This is REAL Linux, done by REAL Linuxians.
"Hello I would like sudo pacman -Syyu apples please"
They have played us for absolute fools.
Haha got it thanks 🙏
Will report :D
The only thing that scares me a bit is that not only he's a newbie, he also actively refuses to understand how computers work ^^;
There is something going on with mentions, but otherwise awesome work!
Fuck I wasted 30000 characters when I should've posted this instead :D
FWIW I ran my gaming rig on Manjaro for a couple of years.
It doesn't need constant maintenance, and it doesn't break. The whole point of it is to be a stable variation of Arch.
It does need regular maintenance, as highlighted in every single stable update announcement. It doesn't break if you follow these maintenance steps when relevant to your install. It is absolutely not stable (as in Debian Stable or RHEL or SLES stable) as things are moving quickly. It might be "stable" as in "crash-free", but it is not "stable" stable. And as I said, after running it for 2 years, I'm not convinced it's that crash-free either. I remember an era (I think 5.9-ish kernel series) that crashed all the time.
It doesn't have a highly irregular update schedule, it's quite regular — every two weeks
Okay, almost-semi-regular then.
AUR doesn't "expect" anything, it's a dumping ground where anybody can put anything.
True, AUR is not sentient. AUR creators, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly Arch users who builds their scripts targeting an up-to-date Arch system.
I'm doing an experiment right now. I'm giving my previous laptop to my dad to replace his very old, very close to death MacBook Air. I've installed Bluefin, rebased to the Stable branch and keeping everything else stock.
We'll see how it goes :D
Electronic music pioneer and fuckin LEGEND Wendy Carlos, thank you very much.