I personally consider Ubuntu an irresponsible choice. They hold back security updates unless you subscribe to Ubuntu Pro with the 'esm-apps'. I'd rather use a distro that doesn't apply a ransom to security updates.
This is what I don't understand, I have 24.04 LTS and yet it still holds back gstreamer for example, and other security patches. I just don't get it, and it brings it up with a list every time I update. It's mid-cycle, shouldn't it have those updates included automatically without any intervention on my part?
Ubuntu is surely controversial but no, security updates aren't paid. ;) Well, unless you need an LTS that cannot be updated for whatever reasons for 10 years. Or for people that need an extra FIPS approval.
sound like FUD, ubuntu don't hold back security updates for their LTS distro , move to newer LTS one if you wanna secure your system, same goes to Debian or RedHat or Windows , who wanna maintain older Debian 9 security or Windows 7 secuity update.
Yes this FUD, EOL-ed LTS support individually same goes to older debian , older redhat or older EOL-ed windows , better you migrate to supported LTS-one , like move from EOL-ed debian to stable Debian one
Is X11 no longer in the repos? It's not mentioned in the release notes. I thought it was still there as an option, but GNOME dropped X support so it can't be the default anymore (and isn't on most other distros either like Fedora)
I left ubuntu back during the unity desktop days. It was a great desktop for beginners, but not my cup of tea. Since then they put ads in their operating system and embraced these nonsensical snap packages, so I'll never go back to ubuntu.
Instead, I'll probably move everything over to Void next.
Im on Void Linux and using X11 too. While i do a lot of my config using an LLM these days, i do find the system simple again. No SystemD, no wayland etc (This works. great for me as im on a desktop with a AMD GPU and well supported HW. If i was on a laptop i would use Wayland probably).
I still remember when I found out about Ubuntu 100 years ago.
It's clear to me that Ubuntu is no longer in fashion. So what is popular these days? From what I heard, I think it's Fedora or Arch (such as Omarchy), but only with some slick UI stuff like Hyprland and Caelestia.
I recently revived my old gaming PC from 2015 and I wanted to install Pop!_OS cause that was the cool new-ish one everyone's been talking about. But I straight up could not get it to install on my hardware (I think my GTX 970 is too old for official support)
The popular OS is more likely to be either directly tested by people writing software, or already have bugs filed/fixed for edge cases because more people are using it.
I'm still using Ubuntu at the moment. But at least curious about what's popular tiday. There are usually at least minor technical rationales. But also it's like anything else to a certain degree, fashion is dumb, but you still don't want to be obviously out of touch.
Ubuntu is like the Windows Vista of Linux. Bloated, loaded with a bunch of questionable software, some mystery-box proprietary duds like Snap, and sometimes ads and bad behavior by the parent org. Also hit-or-miss performance.
I've been A/B testing the desktop side of this. If the person doesn't mind reading a wiki page every now and then and has a few hours to set up the OS on the first day, Arch (without `archinstall`) works better for "wants something working."
The reason is that, people eventually need proprietary / old / unsupported software, and AUR often has it out of the box, and when it doesn't, at least the dependencies are already there. On the other hand, beginners (even some experienced but busy guys) might agree with a problematic `apt` plan and uninstall the desktop, and it goes downhill from there (can't repair the system because they never built it in the first place, or cannot go back to the original configurations, etc). For instance this can happen because the user tried to install a `deb` package for an older release.
That being said I can't remember seeing fedora fail this way, though the user might have to manually clone / build a dozen more git repositories to install the same unsupported software. This was a deal breaker two years ago (lack of AI help), but now it's just time consuming.
This is the conventional wisdom, but there are some new distros that shake things up imo. For people who are migrating from Windows to Linux Desktop, I'd recommend the following:
* Low maintenance + most familiar to Windows Users => Linux Mint
* You want the ability to install or customize whatever you want => Arch Linux
Maybe there's a middle ground between the low maintenance distros and Arch Linux, but for me I'd rather go all in on low maintenance or all in on customizability.
I've settled on NixOS for things I manage - servers, VPCs, laptops/pcs. Not gonna rehash its pros/cons, but it really clicks with me. Also, very useful for project dependencies and things that doesn't need to be installed just because are used once a month.
I'm still on Ubuntu and I'm not sure I'm dedicated enough to bother with Debian (especially on a niche laptop, I run Debian on servers), but everything I'm seeing about the new Ubuntu releases makes me want to switch to Mint once 23 (26.04 base) comes out.
I was an Ubuntu member for years; got a certificate from
Mark Shuttleworth, a cool @ubuntu.com email and IRC cloak, contributed to Ubuntu a ton, gave public talks around Brazil in schools and events like Latinoware, ran a pretty successful blog about the distro here in Brazil, was co-leader of the LoCo team in my state. You could say I was very invested in Ubuntu.
Still, I can't recognize the distro anymore. We got ads, things being pushed down the community's throats, the insane hiring process, and so much more. I have very fond memories of my time as an Ubuntu member, and I wouldn't be where I'm today if it wasn't for what I did as a member, but I left years ago when all of this started.
Been using openSUSE ever since. I don't contribute to openSUSE as I did Ubuntu, as I don't have the time anymore, but the decisions are sound, the system works incredibly well and stable[1], and the voice of the community is heard by leadership. I'm pretty happy with the choice.
[1]: Heck, it works so well that I even run Tumbleweed, a rolling release distribution, on servers.
CachyOS is probably the new hip one (Arch-based). The new "I use x, btw" would be nixOS. Arguably, the distro matters a lot less if you use containers or flatpaks for most things (which I'd recommend). So there's nothing standing against using just boring Debian stable these days, or Fedora if you want to be more up to date. If you like fancy UI, check out the COSMIC desktop environment, should work on all mentioned.
Arch is great, but stick with stock or go for CachyOS, which prioritizes modern compiler optimizations and speed. Omarchy is DHH's vibecoded slop and I'd stay all clear of it.
While not necessarily indicative of the Linux world as a whole, the Distrowatch page hit ranking is pretty useful to see what people are looking up over there. Mint and MX Linux have been at or near the top for a while while CachyOS shot up a lot recently.
You think that the Distrowatch.com-published ranking of page hits per day on Distrowatch.com is not useful for seeing what visitors to Distrowatch.com are looking up on Distrowatch.com? Fascinating.
Linux Mint is the go-to distro. It’s default branch is Ubuntu based but they also have a “Debian Edition” which IMO works fantastic as Debian with a great UI.
I don't like Ubuntu. It was born with the intent of making Linux more user friendly, it changed policy wanting to become the Microsoft of the linux world: Snap, Mir. And then why use a derivative if I can stay on the original? I love debian: stable, it creates the right environment to feel at ease without the fear that every update can break something. Old software? flatpak and appimage solve the problem comfortably. The distro is slow? It's not true, maybe many don't know the magic of debootstrap. Many say that arch is fast, but the base rootfs weighs double that of debian and the speeds are comparable
Questions like this are easier to answer if you specify which problems you refer to. They have fixed a ton of issues since it was added to 22.04. If the issues you complain of is fixed or not, that is impossible to answer without more information.
My biggest issue is that I cannot start a snap program, e.g. firefox, and allow it to access different mount points than the one used for snap.
I know there have been partial fixes and workarounds, but if they change what it means to run a program in Linux and unexpected things happen, then I consider that broken.
Also, when I use VNC and xeyes works, then I expect any X11 program to work. Except, this does not always hold for snap based programs somehow.
These two points together make snap unworkable for me.
There is a flag to install a snap in classic mode, which I think would allow it more access, but I've not seen more fine-grained control than that. Perhaps it exists, I have not had a reason to look.
As for X11, I'm on Wayland and wouldn't expect xeyes to work. What X11 programs still is used seems to work fine in Xwayland, but I don't use VNC so I don't know how they interact.
So I don't know if these are solved, sorry. I suppose I have simpler needs.
Part of that is much of the point behind snaps (and just as true of flatpack for that matter) - once applications are put into sandboxes many things break. And while it is often easy to erect walls against unwanted use it takes a lot of thought building abstractions that let people do what they need in a controlled way that don't leave the system as open when compromised.
But yes I agree, it is definitely a big change compared to how things traditionally have worked. The question is if it is a necessary direction.
Well, if access to my filesystem stops working as expected, then I'm sure many people would agree that is not a desired direction ...
Linux has traditionally used the model of: users are suspect, applications are trusted; of course you can ask questions about that, but don't flip it upside down while breaking stuff. For example, I would probably be OK with it if they added a popup asking me to set permissions. But instead, it just breaks.
I searched around when ubuntu did that 'unity' switch a LONG time ago, found Mint, and have been on it all this time. The team has repeatedly showed themselves to be calm, sober, sensible decision makers - I still use mint the same way I started. They are not prone to fits of 'redo everything', force this, snappify everything, simplify everything so that nothing can be done. Version to version, things just keep getting better, slightly, improving upon the previous version, without breaking what was working fine.
Linux has been daily driver for ever, I have never, in my 30+ years run windows as my main desktop (went from DOS directly to linux, slackware at that time). I hate things being forced on me, changing out from under - its very disruptive.
Linux Mint - just works. And has been for a long long time. Thanks to a small, brilliant, sensible, stable team.
74 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 13.1 ms ] threadThat's well spelled out here: https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle
You can also just upgrade your LTS and continue to get support for free.
Ubuntu Pro is an additional stream of security updates and packages that meet compliance requirements such as FIPS or HIPAA, on top of an Ubuntu LTS.
---
There are additional patches they are releasing that aren't contributed upstream for either security or compliance features.
... unless you're a Ubuntu Pro subscriber
> Free, personal subscription for 5 machines for you or any business you own, or 50 machines for active Ubuntu Community members.
(I'm fine with Wayland for those who want it but it still breaks things I've used)
Instead, I'll probably move everything over to Void next.
It's clear to me that Ubuntu is no longer in fashion. So what is popular these days? From what I heard, I think it's Fedora or Arch (such as Omarchy), but only with some slick UI stuff like Hyprland and Caelestia.
Ubuntu used to be the Debian that just worked without tweaking.
Today I find Debian to be the one which’s works without tweaking, and Ubuntu the one where one has to undo/disable lots of Ubuntuisms.
So for me: Server is Debian. Laptop is Arch.
I ended up installing Mint and it's Good Enough™
If the person can put in the work and doesn't need bleeding edge software: Debian Stable.
If the person can put in the work, the machine is in a secure environment, not going to serve anything and is a desktop system: Debian Testing.
If the person can't put the work and wants something working: Fedora.
If the person wants to dive deeper: Arch, Gentoo, LFS.
The reason is that, people eventually need proprietary / old / unsupported software, and AUR often has it out of the box, and when it doesn't, at least the dependencies are already there. On the other hand, beginners (even some experienced but busy guys) might agree with a problematic `apt` plan and uninstall the desktop, and it goes downhill from there (can't repair the system because they never built it in the first place, or cannot go back to the original configurations, etc). For instance this can happen because the user tried to install a `deb` package for an older release.
That being said I can't remember seeing fedora fail this way, though the user might have to manually clone / build a dozen more git repositories to install the same unsupported software. This was a deal breaker two years ago (lack of AI help), but now it's just time consuming.
* Low maintenance + most familiar to Windows Users => Linux Mint
* Low maintenance + don't want custom packages => Aurora (or any immutable distro)
* Low maintenance + gaming => Bazzite
* You want the ability to install or customize whatever you want => Arch Linux
Maybe there's a middle ground between the low maintenance distros and Arch Linux, but for me I'd rather go all in on low maintenance or all in on customizability.
Familiar to Windows users of 2010.
But of course feel free to distro hop yourself.
- in the server
- desktop ui
- NAS
- ci
- dotfiles
- ultra compact docker image
- microvms
- development environments
- SmartTV? NixOS
- build your docs? NixOS
- wanna control a fleet? NixOS
- build ISOs?
- wanna control brew declaratively? NixOS
- secure environment? NixOS
Still, I can't recognize the distro anymore. We got ads, things being pushed down the community's throats, the insane hiring process, and so much more. I have very fond memories of my time as an Ubuntu member, and I wouldn't be where I'm today if it wasn't for what I did as a member, but I left years ago when all of this started.
Been using openSUSE ever since. I don't contribute to openSUSE as I did Ubuntu, as I don't have the time anymore, but the decisions are sound, the system works incredibly well and stable[1], and the voice of the community is heard by leadership. I'm pretty happy with the choice.
[1]: Heck, it works so well that I even run Tumbleweed, a rolling release distribution, on servers.
1 - https://packages.cachyos.org/package/cachyos-extra-v3/x86_64...
For years I ran on Mint, and I still adore it. But on my daily driver I switched to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and I am really enjoying it so far.
https://distrowatch.com/ and look at the side bar on the right.
No it is not.
Previous releases was MIR, Upstart, Snapd… This release it’s no X11 and GNU Coreutils replaced by buggy Rust rewrites.
Debian feels more like pure FOSS and in general just better. None of that icky flavour in the back of your mouth.
* https://packages.ubuntu.com/stonking/coreutils
See "Ubuntu 26.10 completes transition to Rust-based coreutils" from last month:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49696697
I know there have been partial fixes and workarounds, but if they change what it means to run a program in Linux and unexpected things happen, then I consider that broken.
Also, when I use VNC and xeyes works, then I expect any X11 program to work. Except, this does not always hold for snap based programs somehow.
These two points together make snap unworkable for me.
As for X11, I'm on Wayland and wouldn't expect xeyes to work. What X11 programs still is used seems to work fine in Xwayland, but I don't use VNC so I don't know how they interact.
So I don't know if these are solved, sorry. I suppose I have simpler needs.
But yes I agree, it is definitely a big change compared to how things traditionally have worked. The question is if it is a necessary direction.
Linux has traditionally used the model of: users are suspect, applications are trusted; of course you can ask questions about that, but don't flip it upside down while breaking stuff. For example, I would probably be OK with it if they added a popup asking me to set permissions. But instead, it just breaks.
If you use the words like "still" and "at least", there is little enthusiasm. But that's how a long-term relationship looks like I guess.
Linux has been daily driver for ever, I have never, in my 30+ years run windows as my main desktop (went from DOS directly to linux, slackware at that time). I hate things being forced on me, changing out from under - its very disruptive.
Linux Mint - just works. And has been for a long long time. Thanks to a small, brilliant, sensible, stable team.