Is Ubuntu the ONLY Linux distro that doesn't have major bugs, require hours to setup, or poor hardware compatibility?

Is Ubuntu the ONLY Linux distro that doesn't have major bugs, require hours to setup, or poor hardware compatibility?

Other urls found in this thread:

cvedetails.com/top-50-vendors.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

install gentoo

It's weird because mint is based on Ubuntu but is way buggier than Ubuntu

It also looks worse.

>that doesn't have major bugs
A distro is nothing but a compilation of packages on a linux kernel and somtimes a package management system. A distro cannot have bugs. The packages/kernel can.

>require hours to setup
With basic competence in how a computer BIOS and storage partitions work, you can set up just about any distro within 30 minutes.

>or poor hardware compatibility
Again, not a distro issue. And the latest Linux Kernels have tons of hardware support. You can even run modern Linux distibutions on laptops from the 90s now. If you are having hardware incombatibilities, then you should stop using your chink ripoff.

Please do some research before you start complaining about things you don't know. You sound like a Grandma damning a company to hell because they shipped somethign that was DOA. Shit happens.

You forgetting a distro that starts with a "g"?

Only if you're autistic. Normal competent people can comprehend the difference between somebody mentioning a GNU/Linux distro, and the Linux kernel. You don't have to say GNU/Linux unless you're speaking with autistic retards.

HE MEANT GENTOO YOU NEWFRIEND (FAG)

Linux was always dead on arrival and still is.

>you can setup any distro within 30 min
And then spend days building drivers and installing window managers and shit so its actually usable as a desktop.

Even Arch which everyone bitches about being too hard to set up only takes like an hour if you know what you're doing and have an idea of how you want to set up the desktop

YES

the rest are good for servers, learning, and autists.

Ubtuntu 16 is pretty buggy

Ubuntu 16.04 broke the power management feature, it doesn't even start so I have to use caffeine-indicator

Also virt-manager crashes regularly

Stay away from all Linux distros.

That's a stupid chart. Linux and Mac OS X each have a category but Windows versions get separate categories.

If you add XP and Vista together they become the top category.

>linux has the lowest weighted average
Nice

LMAO nice try
cvedetails.com/top-50-vendors.php

Its funny how apple has so many

...

Most hardware are supported. You rarely have problems with drivers nowadays. It was a problem a few years ago.
You don't need to install additional window managers. Install Xubuntu and you are done.

Why would apple have so many vulnerabilities if it's a part of the UNIX family. Wouldn't that mean that they fucked up something that was already ok?

I was wondering same thing, since they had solid foundation. They probably spend most of their times on UI and connectivity instead of security

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

fuck off

Ubuntu has been unstable on all sorts of hardware for me ever since they switched to Unity. Ubuntu Gnome has been pretty stable though.

says the prebuilt user
.

>And then spend days building drivers
All necessary drivers come preinstalled. There isn't a single piece of hardware I had problems with. And to "make it usable" by average standard you won't need to spend more than an hour.

They leave backdoors

>A distro cannot have bugs.
oh kid... ubuntu is the best example here, they had a shitton of bugs because they just copy the debian repo and apply their own patches without knowing what debian actually was doing.
and it seems like they still have the same issue

because they can't just copy packages from upstream, but have to patch them. thats where they fuck up.

>Ubuntu
>doesn't have major bugs
stop lying. When I installed the latest LTS I had a dozen of bugs. One that forbid me login on my system. This distro is trash

No, try Fedora.

>Ubuntu
>no bugs
The software center is broken in the latest version.

>it's easy as long as you know how
Yeah, building a nuclear bomb from scratch is also easy if you know exactly what you are doing...

...

Nah. Ubuntu is utter trash. Use Solus instead if you're looking for the qualities you've listed.

>Is Ubuntu the ONLY Linux distro that doesn't have major bugs, require hours to setup, or poor hardware compatibility?
Ubuntu must've changed since I last used it, because it used to be buggy as hell.

But to answer your question, no.

Die of cancer

Kali

Nope. It has all those issues and some of its own.
If you'd ever used it you'd know this.

>use solus instead
lol

This, don't even have to install drivers other than dedicated GPU one

Pretty much, It's the only distro that just works out of the box without configuring shit and manually installing drivers and shit.

It really is the best distro contrary to what the memesters on here might tell you.

No, it has major bugs as well.

like?

>Ubuntu
Think more along the lines of Xu, Ku, and Lubuntu and you're right.

>Ku
Kubuntu is nice, but KDE Plasma is buggy as shit. At least the version that comes preinstalled. Maybe the current version is better.

Kubuntu has no reason to exist, KDE Neon is better in pretty much every way

What's better?

I like xubuntu desu.

...

You get updates to all KDE and QT packages way before Kubuntu users from the Neon repo, so if there's a bug you won't be waiting ages for it to get fixed

There is also slightly less bloat imo, Neon gives you a pretty minimal install as far as KDE goes while Kubuntu has a lot of apps installed by default that you might not want

I switched to it about a week ago and it has been way more stable than Kubuntu ever was for my hardware

Meanwhile you install windows with the help of a step by step guide snd when itd installed you can use it instantly, no need to fuck around

Thanks, I'll check it out.

>doesn't have ... poor hardware compatibility
16.04 literally doesn't even boot after I upgraded to GTX 1080s

This

Ubuntu definitely has bugs. Idk what "major" bugs means but there are definitely problems I've had to search for how to fix. Is it usable? Yes. Does Windows have bugs? Yes. Also I'm not like the majority of computer users who just stops when anything goes wrong.

(Continued) I realize that I'm sounding apologetic for Ubuntu in that post, which is not what I meant. Ubuntu should have fewer bugs.

check .xsession-errors and see how good ubuntu really is

(Continued) 14.04 had fewer bugs than 16.04. The quality has gone down hill.

>roommate wants to install linux on his laptop after frustration with windows
>help him out, mostly answering any questions and keeping an eye on him to make sure he doesn't do anything wrong
>have a separate partition ready to install to so it'd be easy to go back to windows if he needs to
>get to partition format step, am very careful to make sure to not touch any other partitions
>ubuntu installs
>wipes other partitions in the process
this was 2 years ago, I believe at this point even debian had sorted out the major bugs in their installer. what the fuck ubuntu?

>linux has 100 vulnerabilities per product
>``more secure''

Most of those vulnerabilities are trivial DDOS shit

That would be RHEL/CentOS. Ubuntu is one of the buggiest distributions out there.

I tend to use ubuntu but still run into problems from time to time. Hell I have to do a complete reinstall today because the ststem refuses to update anything through the package manager. It just hangs with explanation whatsoever. It also started having "system errors" but gives no other details.

I tried installing Fedora several times but it hasn't worked

Mint, Ubuntu and Debian-testing all work fine for me.

Then again I have a well/paying job and hardware from after 2002, so I understand why the many NEETs and poorfags of Sup Forums have hardware problems

Look at the weighed average dumbshit frog poster

yes, and then you get tons of viruses because you're too computer illiterate to know what an .exe file is(hide file extensions by default LOL)
computers take a basic amount of knowledge to use, they were never trivial(altough they seem trivial to us regular users).

>install gentoo

It never gets old. Literally, unironically.

>Wireshark
>356

So capturing traffic is a security risk in itself?

/thread

Mint is better
Ubuntu STILL doesn't have a fucking mouse acceleration slider

>HP
>1979 products
> Debian
>87 products
>Wireshark
>1 product
>PHP
>18 products
>whoever has the most """"products """"obviously wins in Vulnerabilites/Product
nice statistic faggot

>an hour
Too long.

From my perspective it could be true, since mint and lubuntu are the only ones I've installed succesfully. Debian and Arch were like reading James Joyce. I'm sure it's worth it. I'll give it another try sometime.

So back in the late 90's we used to have to write our own drivers and we all used Slackware.

ANYONE who brags about using Linux but can't write a USB driver is fucking pathetic and might as well be using Windows.

I always loved RedHat but I stay away from Fedora because of "Muh, freedom" and not having all drivers out of the box - in contrast to Ububtu. It just werks.

Quite the contrary.

Ubuntu is the ONLY distro where I've had trouble getting shit to work out of the box.

>software updates fail and leave apt in an unusable state
>keeps choosing software rendering drivers, even though I SPECIFICALLY whitelisted nvidia drivers
>shoves non-functioning pulseaudio in my face, when plain alsa would work just fine
>has weird network management software that i don't want to use, and have to spend a lot of time removing all of it to just install wicd

Now, I just use Debian testing, and install from the netinst ISO.

It's not ready out of the box, but it's the most streamlined linux setup ever.

>install debian
>install xorg, x-server-input drivers, x-server-video drivers
>install alsa
>install DE of my choice
>install browser and mail client

Piss easy, compared to the Ubuntu shitfest.

Not if you're using it as a server OS, it's a pretty damn good server OS. It "just werks", is well supported by server vendors except you don't need to pay for it like with RHEL/Suse, and the devs actually will fix bugs if you report them.

Pic related: My Ubuntu server.

>no office suite
>no real browser (Edge/IE don't count)
>no torrent client
>no fucking nothing

>still using 15GB+ :^)

yeah tell me again how you don't need to spend hours on Windows to make it useable.

frog posters, everyone.