“We like #Ubuntu LTS / #Debian stable because they make your system stable, predictable and easy to maintain, while #Arch and friends make it too easy to break”.
If I had a penny every time I heard this argument, I’d probably be a millionaire by now.
In the meantime, I’ve been forced to migrate from Arch to Ubuntu LTS on my work laptop because the Palo Alto endpoint security crapware (calling it a piece of software would be an offense to anyone who takes software development seriously) is only compatible with Ubuntu LTS. And, without that endpoint security crapware, you are not compliant™.
My Arch system worked flawlessly. Some stuff installed via pacman, some installed via AUR, one system upgrade a week, and everything worked well together.
A few months into my adventure with Ubuntu LTS, and I feel already like it’s a castle of matchsticks just one step away from crumbling.
The packages on apt are ancient because the distro is ancient (almost two years old). Want to get reasonably recent versions of Neovim, Node.js, Docker, Firefox or Wayland? Well, are you ok with just forgetting about it?
So I’ve already ended up with a mix of apt, PPAs, backports, Snaps, and just compiling a lot of software from source because (like in the case of Neovim, foot or i3) all the solutions currently supported on Ubuntu LTS are either outdated, broken or incompatible with the rest of the system.
To be clear, I can’t recall the last time that I had to build some popular piece of software from sources on Arch because I was provided with no alternative.
Do people really use this crap and convince themselves that it’s easier than Arch?
Fabio Manganiello /
npub13u…dpvgs
2024-03-19 08:21:02
Author Public Key
npub13uunvh7djw9ep54nswkuxlneyee7ehcpc7e53t68krykrdeg6j4qrdpvgsSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2024-03-19 08:21:02Event JSON
{
"id": "76fc3099748515371277404e416265460abef54f6390273498fd564989a4a4f6",
"pubkey": "8f39365fcd938b90d2b383adc37e792673ecdf01c7b348af47b0c961b728d4aa",
"created_at": 1710836462,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"arch"
],
[
"t",
"debian"
],
[
"t",
"ubuntu"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://manganiello.social/objects/febd8c99-b19c-4bf2-b8df-b2958fa7421b",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "“We like #Ubuntu LTS / #Debian stable because they make your system stable, predictable and easy to maintain, while #Arch and friends make it too easy to break”.\n\nIf I had a penny every time I heard this argument, I’d probably be a millionaire by now.\n\nIn the meantime, I’ve been forced to migrate from Arch to Ubuntu LTS on my work laptop because the Palo Alto endpoint security crapware (calling it a piece of software would be an offense to anyone who takes software development seriously) is only compatible with Ubuntu LTS. And, without that endpoint security crapware, you are not compliant™.\n\nMy Arch system worked flawlessly. Some stuff installed via pacman, some installed via AUR, one system upgrade a week, and everything worked well together.\n\nA few months into my adventure with Ubuntu LTS, and I feel already like it’s a castle of matchsticks just one step away from crumbling.\n\nThe packages on apt are ancient because the distro is ancient (almost two years old). Want to get reasonably recent versions of Neovim, Node.js, Docker, Firefox or Wayland? Well, are you ok with just forgetting about it?\n\nSo I’ve already ended up with a mix of apt, PPAs, backports, Snaps, and just compiling a lot of software from source because (like in the case of Neovim, foot or i3) all the solutions currently supported on Ubuntu LTS are either outdated, broken or incompatible with the rest of the system.\n\nTo be clear, I can’t recall the last time that I had to build some popular piece of software from sources on Arch because I was provided with no alternative.\n\nDo people really use this crap and convince themselves that it’s easier than Arch?",
"sig": "8c9d5dd074853dac6656987924e95d6b577cb39ce61f477e8a12c9d68d92fb233182896921ef03fb7b2457b52c7f7fe39b6d2d95d2466dab6e7b010dcfd5eccd"
}