4 ms·

Isn't that just Ubuntu?

• Perz1val 1y ago
  Yes, but ubuntu made stupid choices most developers don't agree with
  • whitepaint 1y ago
    Like what?
    • slipheen 1y ago
      The big one for me is moving packages to snap. You can work around it, but that defeats the whole “works out of the box” aspect
    • input_sh 1y ago
      Right now, snap (2016-present). Before that, Unity instead of GNOME (2011-2017), Mir instead of Wayland (2006-2015), Upstart instead of systemd (2013-2017). They always do something custom-made and not adopted by anyone else, only to completely backpedal and go with what everyone else has already been doing. So, even if you like their custom-made solution you'll eventually end up being disappointed. After that, it becomes like a relic that only some frustrated sysadmins like me will have to deal with whenever we interact with some legacy systems, which definitely doesn't help with Ubuntu's overall reputation.
• wyclif 1y ago
  Way, way better than Ubuntu. And it adheres to *NIX philosophy by making all the config editable via text files.
  • sleepybrett 1y ago
    having run ubuntu-server for awhile for my home server.. what config files do i need to edit without a text editor?
  • IshKebab 1y ago
    That sounds worse.
  • flexagoon 1y ago
    What exactly in the UNIX philosophy says configs should be editable via text files? It specifically talks about CLI tools using plaintext for their I/O to allow piping commands - not about configuration.
    • wyclif 1y ago
      It's called the "Rule of Textuality", a component of which is: "Store data in flat text files." This principle recognizes that text files are human-readable, easily editable with any text editor, version-controllable, and can be processed by standard UNIX tools.
• babypuncher 1y ago
  The "nice defaults" of Ubuntu and Omarchy cater to completely different audiences
  • efreak 1y ago
    Isn't that just tasksel and defaults? Iirc the various Ubuntu flavors each have a package for their default settings...