In the year ~2017.6, what non-meme reason is there to run a non-Ubuntu distro?

In the year ~2017.6, what non-meme reason is there to run a non-Ubuntu distro?

Arch, Gentoo and such get a pass because they're minimalist, DIY-type distros but otherwise I question why you would go to the trouble.

Other distros:
> (almost always) fewer packages available
> People don't make things with not Ubuntu in mind
> 90% of all problems/solutions on the web are Ubuntu-focused
> Really very little difference, day-to-day (package manager commands is the biggest difference)

Ubuntu:
> Chose your own desktop/level of bloat or build from the ground up
> Good balance of stability and freshness of packages
> Everything made with it in mind
> Search for “blah blah problem Linux” and solutions are almost guaranteed to work
> LTS has longest support period of any distro

Also r8 my OC

Other urls found in this thread:

qubes-os.org/),
kali.org/)
scientificlinux.org/).
packages.linuxmint.com/).
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>noobuntu

nice effort on the OC

>non-meme reason

hey OP,
you're right.
went with xubuntu after having shit months with antergos and manjapoo, arch is for people without jobs.
i have intel everything and shit still had graphics problems

Because I had some issues with LTS 16.04.2 on my ryzen PC.
And arch just worked for me.
inb4
>Arch is waste of time! Only ricers use arch!!!!
Well, Summer, I wasted few hours on arch because I was new to it (didn't even knew how to install or search software with pacman) and had shit internet to download all needed sw.
Yeah, I wasted even more time configuring vim, emacs and i3wm, but I did it once, copied configs from my laptop to desktop.

But you took the DIY route for which Arch is better. What I'm asking is what actual, meaningful advantage is there to Debian, Bedora:D, etc?

>Summer
no u

>i have extra chromosomes and shit still had graphics problems

FTFY

With Debian you get """stability"""

i want stability
ubuntu lts kernel was too old for my hardware so i installed debian stable instead

Ryzen?

i dont like to suck the shuttlecock

no wifi chip

Qubes OS for security reasons (qubes-os.org/), Tails for privacy.
For companies, the support of Red Hat can be the reason to choose that.
There are distro's that are more focussed for sprecific tasks (yes, they can be done on other distro's as well, but these are specifically made for that purpose). Think about Kali (kali.org/) or Scientific Linux (scientificlinux.org/).
Android and dd-wrt for obvious reasons. Maybe you can add stuff like Raspbian into the same category.
SteamOS for gamers that don't want to put in the time to install the OS themselves (you can easily find a computer with SteamOS preinstalled).
I can't think of any others right now, but there ought to be some others that have good reasons to use.

And I do have one question: Why Ubuntu and not another Linux? What makes Ubuntu better than Debian or Mint (for example)?

I prefer Arch due to how it's much more community driven.

lol just build your own kernel derp.
You are like those people that switch distro to try different DE.

>>Why Ubuntu and not another Linux? What makes Ubuntu better than Debian or Mint (for example)?
>Debian
Older packages. Brings ““stability”” but Ubuntu is not unstable and old packages are a drag
>Mint
Basically Ubuntu with a different desktop. Yeah, they're technically a fork but I really don't see how Mint is much more different to Ubuntu than all the *buntu spins.

Use openSUSE
>it just werks®
>real engineering
>no fagotry

>no fagotry
good mem made me uninstalled umbongo

And actual security updates for everything.

>>Debian
>Older packages. Brings ““stability”” but Ubuntu is not unstable and old packages are a drag
Depends on your use-case. If you just want a stable working system, it doesn't have to be a downside. If you want to stay completely up to date, Ubuntu might be better then indeed (or add some repo's). Security updates are mostly pushed faster, so it doesn't increase the risk (imo).

>>Mint
>Basically Ubuntu with a different desktop. Yeah, they're technically a fork but I really don't see how Mint is much more different to Ubuntu than all the *buntu spins.
I do not agree with you on this. There are some things that are really changed in Linux Mint (most notably the desktop indeed).
Why is Mint only "technically a fork" of Ubuntu and Ubuntu a real fork of Debian in that logic?

Well Ubuntu has a completely different set of repos to Debian. It also has features that Debian does not (e.g. PPAs, flatpa(c?)k) and a large company behind it. It's been some years since I seriously looked at Mint, so I could be talking shit about it but I don't believe there are any under-the-desktop differences like this with Mint.

I use Arch because I like edge packages and logo.
Also the Arch wiki is incredibly well documented.

Mint does have it's own repos (packages.linuxmint.com/). And while it doesn't have a large company behind it, it is still maintained by an active community (last release was the 2nd of July).
I don't know much about Mint either (nor about Ubuntu by the way), so I don't know if there any other under-the-desktop differences.

But I do understand now why the relation between Debian and Ubuntu is seen as different to the relation between Ubuntu and Mint. Thanks for that :)

>>centos

Ubuntu doesn't respect your feedom.

Ubuntu provides specific repositories of nonfree software, and Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree software under the Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels. Ubuntu offers the option to install only free packages, which means it also offers the option to install nonfree packages too. In addition, the version of Linux, the kernel, included in Ubuntu contains firmware blobs.

The “Ubuntu Software Center” lists proprietary programs and free programs jumbled together. It is hard to tell which ones are free since proprietary programs for download at no charge are labelled “free”.

Ubuntu appears to permit commercial redistribution of exact copies with the trademarks; removal of the trademarks is required only for modified versions. That is an acceptable policy for trademarks. The same page, further down, makes a vague and ominous statement about “Ubuntu patents,” without giving enough details to show whether that constitutes aggression or not.

That page spreads confusion by using the misleading term “intellectual property rights”, which falsely presumes that trademark law and patent law and several other laws belong in one single conceptual framework. Use of that term is harmful, without exception, so after making a reference to someone else's use of the term, we should always reject it. However, that is not a substantive issue about Ubuntu as a GNU/Linux distribution.

Fedora
>dnf is superior
>lots of software
>lots of support
>not ubuntu

sage for shill thread

>dnf is superior
In what way?

>lots of software
A lot less than Ubuntu

>lots of support
Same as above

>not ubuntu
Well tipped friend

>>dnf is superior
>In what way?

Not that user, but apt still doesn't support transaction history, which is hugely important for sysadmin type work. I love Debian but yum/dnf has always been better than apt.

>Or build from the ground up
Explain hos

> Install minimal ISO
> Install only packages you need
> Have apt and related systems auto configure things and autostart services
> Have things work as soon as installed instead of nigging around in /etc for a while

It's like Arch on easy mode

kali got my dumb ass some free wifi.

>Also r8 my OC
One flipper, one hand. Wtf?

>tfw too tired to fdisk so i gave up on arch install

give it back jamal

>implying tyrone and friends can follow instructions on the internet
ya almost got me

And you don'yt have to -syu every time you start the system. Rolling release for anyone but developers is a meme.

Kill yourself.

>tripfag
>lol
>derp
utterly disregarded

Ubuntu went to shit after 10.x

Debian Stable is objectively superior to Ubuntu LTS now that both are using GNOME.
>better release engineering
>broader security support
>bigger repos
>saner installer
>ZFS in debian-contrib
>flatpak, Steam, and docker exist for both
>Ubuntu has no equivalent of Debian's Backports
If you're following the latest Ubuntu release every six months it's probably better than Debian Testing or Unstable.

>better release engineering
>broader security support
Explain?

>bigger repos
Just checked. Literally the opposite is true.

>saner installer
Subjective

>ZFS in debian-contrib
>flatpak, Steam, and docker exist for both
>Ubuntu has no equivalent of Debian's Backports
That's fair

Also
> using le objective meme to describe your opinion
You almost had a decent post

No Mint has a small own repo for things like Cinnamon or very relevant software like Firefox, but most of the packages come directly from Ubuntu servers.

>release engineering
Not being able to cleanly dist upgrade from one Debian stable to the next is considered a blocking bug. Even Wheezy to Jessie with the systemd swit h was a clean dist-upgrade. Ubuntu's philosophy is "just reinstall lol".
>security
Ubuntu doesn't support universe or multiverse with patches. Debian does security patching for everything that makes it into a release. That's why they dropped node.js and point people to an upstream apt repo, to avoid shipping insecure software in stable.
>repo size
Last I checked Debian had the edge by over a thousand packages.

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that. That will probably also mean that there are no big under-the-desktop changes then.

None