3 ms·
I do agree with you on the well-supported and well-integrated part. Ubuntu has the polish and ease of use of OS X with the great hardware support of (nearly) W
by kunai 14y ago
I do agree with you on the well-supported and well-integrated part. Ubuntu has the polish and ease of use of OS X with the great hardware support of (nearly) Windows, with the solidity of a steadfast GNU/Linux foundation. But whenever I hear about a new development in the Canonical world, it's always about something that appeases consumers rather than power users (which Ubuntu has been targeted at). For developers who constantly need to dive down into the OS, something like Sabayon or Fedora seems to fit better with their endless modularity. Besides, it would be nice to try a non-Debian distribution for a change.
- chao- 14y agoAs a power user, I don't really feel I have particular unfilled needs in any Linux environment. Most of what I need, development-wise, I already have. All that requires is a shell and the ability to configure my apt sources. That said, I don't do much OS-level anything. For that, you will probably always need a distro that assumes less about your graphical environment. What I do miss from other OSes/environments is that sense of a tighter integration. I spent many years not missing it, having originally gotten into GNU/Linux by cobbling together my own crummy environment in Gentoo (on which Sabayon is based). It wasn't really until I first tried Windows 7 a few years back that I realized that if I actually wanted to use the latest this-or-that application in a seamless (dare I say enjoyable?) manner I needed to stop clinging to my obscure WMs. And yet, to this day, I'm actually still clinging.