I enjoy creating conflict

sending user keystrokes to Amazon

That's a very serious allegation to make without citing any source.

Still collects some user data

Someone has already pointed out, no data is collected unless the user opts in. But, my question is what's wrong with collecting anonyomized telemetry about most used hardware and most used/unused software features? It helps developers make better decisions.

False (except for less packages, that's true), false, the amazon incident was a honest mistake and only applied to the search bar in unity (even more specifically the amazon lense), and no data is being collected unless you enable it during the install. https://youtu.be/rdPt8WB1lZw

Also are you serious? A rolling release distro with automated package builds being more secure? Last time I checked Tumbleweed got affected by the XZ exploit.

I hate GNOME lol, I wouldn't be using Linux today if I had stuck with Ubuntu. If you like it, that's cool. I respect it, I just can't stand using it myself.

... And Canonical...

It is indeed a good distro and one of the main distros that brings innovation to the Linux world. If it works for you, then keep using it.

It's sad because it's a genuinely good distro. Linux wouldn't be anywhere without it yet all I hear is people parroting the same misinformation they heard.

I've been curious as to what makes Manjaro better than something like EndeavourOS or just straight up Arch?

Proprietary Nvidia drivers are seen as a necessity, not a "good thing", which is why Nvidia was repeatedly pressured to give up the code. Open-source Nvidia drivers suck in all applications, and if you don't need anything demanding, you probably wouldn't have a solid Nvidia card in the first place.

Gnu side of Linux tries to change the practices used by said businesses, and the more people embrace it, the more pressured companies become to be compliant.

Any sane copyleft activist (of which there are many in the Linux world) sees this change as a betrayal; security experts and enthusiasts are also not happy about a program doing something unknown sitting on their system.

snaps bad because slow

I don't like snaps because it's just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.

On the other hand, you have snaps, which is being controlled by Canonical as the server component is l non-public. The packages sometimes work worse than normal debs and the flatpak version (steam being a notable example IIRC).

There is 0 motivation for me as a user to look into that. They have solved the problem in one of the worst ways possible. Even Mint, which is Ubuntu's biggest downstream, has opted against including it by default.

In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.

So you have a system that is

• proprietary
• worse than the alternatives
• pushed on users even through unexpected channels

Ubuntu's mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn't.

Which bridge did they build with snaps?

It's a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros

Which in turn have removed snaps by default and replaced the affected packages with native ones because it often didn't "just work"

The only reason I don't like snap is because useful mount information gets buried in 5 million "loop" mounts.

Rant, but not at you.

Well I would use Debian, but the last two systems I tried to install it on hung at some point in the install process. I tried multiple times, multiple downloads, multiple versions (across multiple months!), and these are two separate machines from two different vendors.

Debian is fine on my server boxes, but fuck me it's dogshit in a consumer environment. One of those laptops has - and is an absolute necessity to have working - WWAN. I tried over a dozen distros, from 'easy and popular' to 'obscure and edge-case'. Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu, I like KDE) was literally the only distro to 1) boot, 2) install, and 3) have working WWAN (after fucking with the fcc-unlock shit and filling my carrier details). Nothing, literally nothing else could do this simple task.

Linux is great, they say. It's easy. It's simple to install and use. It puts you in control. These are ideas that the Linux community wants to believe, that I want to believe, but it's just not. Given the right circumstances, with the right hardware, and the right use-case, it's good. Stray anywhere off the beaten path and unless you're a veteran *nix sysadmin who values their time as $0, sometimes you're just fucked. I would know, I've been using various distros on and off for 20 years. It's still bad. I don't understand how, but here we are.

I don't like Ubuntu for a few reasons, but in my experience, the situation sucks the least when you use it. Sometimes - see above WWAN bullshit - it's the only thing that works.

And that's fucking bullshit, but it's a fact. And even interested users, who like to tinker, have a limit to what they will put up with before throwing in the towel and using what works.

Because it's a popular distro. Because when you look for “how to X in linux”, there's a 90% chance the response will be about Ubuntu. Because your workplace said so. The list goes on.

Because you don't have to know what to do already if you start with Ubuntu. You have to know your way around the Linux world more if you use Debian

I don't get why anyone uses windows 7,8,8.1,11, use Linux mint (windows 10 is replaced with a distro that uses kde plasma)

*laugh track*

The cool thing about Arch is that with some learning, time and effort, you can make it function just like Ubuntu

❤️

Best answer I've seen so far about this!

Damn, that amounts to corporate disparagement...

may I introduce you to ubuntu pro spamming your apt-get these days? You're welcome

As you should be.

false dichotomy. Sometimes people justifiably dislike something for reasons beyond elitism (e.g. Canonical is a for-profit corporation that muddies the waters of FOSS), but it's also not just playful bants.

Also, as with every opinionated topic: do your own research and think critically. Don't hate Ubuntu until you have tried it and have investigated those who maintain it. Don't praise it until you do so either.

I don't care if you come to a different conclusion than me, as long as you didn't just function on the "wisdom of the crowd"

Like most things in life, it's somewhere in the middle. Some of the criticism is factual and valid. Some, a matter of taste (mostly relating to GNOME). Some arises from negative personal experience. Some is just elitist bluster.

The best thing to do is to be rational and critical. Never dismiss an opinion outright without separating the truth from the bullshit.

I think it's just elitism. The worst example is Chris Titus making a video where he explains why you shouldn't use Ubuntu. And then proceeds to make video explaining how it's not actually that bad and he uses it with a different DE.

But now 300K people saw that Ubuntu bad for stupid reasons, from a "reputable" source.