Ubuntu is better then Debian. Change my mind

that's just like, your opinion, man.

> if you run akward hardware use ubuntu.
> if you run non-free software use ubuntu.

btw i use arch

if anything debian has gained share over time and had ubuntu grow with it

>Proprietary software installed by default.
>Amazon
>Snap /bloat/
>Regular /bloat/
>Inconsistent direction, i.e. Unity.
>Will probably be owned by Microsoft next year.

Attached: touch_gf.png (866x635, 236K)

Depends what you want. Hand holding window clone? Sure. Minimal install you actually have control over? You can do that Ubuntu, but you'll be fighting it along every step of the way. Makes no sense not to just install Debian without any DE's and go from there.
Debian is also better if you want stability without using an explicitly 'server' distro, while also giving you the option of a basically stable Testing branch, or even a more bleeding-edge than Arch unstable. Ubuntu doesn't have that same level of choice.

>what is ubuntu minimal

>proprietary software avaible through official repos
>snap /bloat/
>regular metapackage /bloat/
>inconsistent directon i.e. supporting all DEs
>creator kys himself and it's probably nsa backdoored
see i can say stupid things too

i don't see the point of linux if you aren't going to customise it and maintain privacy.

also it uses gnome, which is enough reason to avoid it on its own.

ubuntu is bad on both fronts and mint serves as a better "babby's first distro".

>you can't customize ubuntu

Attached: a523c90df954c60bb327dfac20b65022.jpg (754x721, 61K)

much easier to customise debian though.

ubuntu is already a finished, one-size-fits-all package

Devuan is better than both.

...

>hurr customizing bad

Blows my mind that we are almost into 2019 and people still arent running Mojave.

tpbp

that's not how you do that

>rockbian good
>oohbango bad

rekt

Attached: Selection_025.png (576x407, 9K)

GuixSD exists.
Nothing else matters or is relevant anymore.
Step up to the bright beautiful future of package management, the GNU operating system, and free software in general.

Attached: installguixsd1524415298200.jpg (2160x2160, 2.73M)

debian+xfce is still the best i've found for my t60. quick install, not a whole lot of extra config fuckery, reasonable default software, pretty low memory use, boots in under 20 seconds

the fuck is guixsd? old Jow Forums fag here

>muh gahnoo operative system
Never going to happen. It still uses Loonix because Hurd isn’t even finished and is already obsolete.

Not him, but I use GuixSD. It uses the best package manager, GNU Guix, and Shepherd for init. It is pretty much all written in Guile, which is nice. Oh, and it is pronounced "geeks".

It uses Linux-libre and has planned support for Hurd in the future. It's also just extremely good as a GNU/Linux distro in general. Stateless, functional package management, free, no systemd, guile (scheme/lisp) config lang, reproducible builds...

Fuck off, dumb attention whore.

Some guys working on Nix decided they wanted to start fresh and fix some deep lower level things they didn't like, the most obvious and important userside improvement being that everything is configured and done with normal lisp[Guile].
The result was the functional package manager Guix.
And as with Nix and NixOS, when your package manager is done right, the whole operating system just sort of falls into place out of it - A System Distribution built around/on/with Guix.
Main highlights of GuixSD are:
Functional package management and things like rollbacks all the way up - It's near impossible to break, and if somehow you ever do (or maybe you just don't like a change) your previous full operating system configurations can just be selected in GRUB.
No Systemd - Uses the beautiful based Shepherd.
Everything (package definitions, services, etc.) is done with normal Guile Scheme Lisp - Your entire OS is just a normal simple lisp declaration and can be changed and rebuilt at any time.
And best of all, it's endorsed by the FSF and officially GNU sponsored.
It can do a lot and the way in which it gives you humane control over everything is absolutely beautiful and glorious, BUT if you just want a normal desktop you don't have to learn or know anything more than you would for any other distro.
I've been using it for a couple years now, and it's been more solid/stable for me than post Systemd Debian was (Debian falling apart was actually the reason I started trying other things and discovered GuixSD).
The install is the slickest shit too.
I can't recommend it more highly, especially to a fellow old fa/g/ot.

Attached: GuixSD.png (200x200, 8K)

is install guixsd the new install gentoo?

Attached: installgentoo1438658852168.gif (640x360, 2.99M)

Hurd should’ve been aborted decades ago.

Why?

You’re wrong but your opinion is your opinion. Why should I care if you change it or not?

Pretty much every othet distribution is better than Debian.

Install Gentoo.

Attached: archlinux.webm (558x300, 935K)

It’s based on Mach which was flawed from the beginning, and there are better implementations of microkernels like L4.

I started using GuixSD shortly after it was released, I've never used a better distribution, the quality of life changes that come with the Guix package manager, having an OS built around it, is just too good.

Gahnoo’s attempt to finish what they started.

Ubuntu for x86 desktops, Debian for everything else.

Attached: 1468693470093.png (400x236, 78K)

Retard.
KYS.

Okay, so what is growing, onions fag?

Botnet.

Attached: 1544971127609.png (720x765, 159K)

>tfw no qt desktop computer using gf

but gentoo is better than arch

Attached: b4cdbff7.jpg (725x772, 57K)

Debian was developed by... Did you just say change my mind?

fukken saved. turning off geoip didnt work yet tho, idk what im doing wrong. Also, I dont have a folder called remote-login service.conf in etc. Infographic might need an update

When I gsettings list-schemas I dont see any geoip. Perhaps they stopped installing it by default.

does it allow non-free software? or does it use the same type of software as other distros? Linux n00b btw
how is the support for GPUs? support for Ryzen APUs? how is the installation different from say Arch or Gentoo?

A command line interface only install of Ubuntu uses 100MB RAM
Debian *with* a GUI only uses 40MB RAM

Debian + bloat = Ubuntu
even a CLI install of Ubuntu is bloat

Damn Gentoo, I am impressed

yeah I can't believe it beats Fedora, Suse and scientific Linux, so that you know there's a lot of old autists that used gentoo back in the time when it was the best option

>scientific
thats basically gentoo tho, right?

no, you're thinking of Calculate

its literally the same

So I'm using Ubuntu but I pretty much stripped everything away and just use i3 without a dm now.

Is there a reason not to switch to Arch?
I heard that updating it regularly fucks your system and that doesn't really sound like it's worth having less bloat.

no, is a fork of red hat. It differs from CentOS though, it's what I read. Centos is literally unchanged. There was a time scientific was used by CERN and that's why it was used, but then Centos rose up and RH adopted it

Can I purge ubuntu-report or will it fuck my system.

Arch is unironically more bloated than Ubuntu for the way they package their shit.
If there aren't any important auto deletions then it doesn't matter. I don't use Ubuntu though

USE THE DISTRO YOU LIKE.
I, FOR ONE, DO NOT CARE.

Well even after deleting pretty much everything I could find scrolling through the packages my Ubuntu is still at 1500 packages while arch installs seem to have way below 1000.

YES YOU DO

>choice is a bad thing
proof that ubuntufags are fucking retarded

think, that just means a package in arch has more than on Ubuntu. Same functionality on both Ubuntu/Debian and Arch means more space on Arch. They don't separate and share some packages between binaries because it's made to be simple, not efficient or light.
That can be a good thing in theory, but overall Arch is not even reliable or bug free since all is upstream with almost no patches. I mean you could think having a simple system to maintain they would actually give a fuck, truth is they don't, all updates are basically playing Russian roulette even if you read release notes, which is almost impossible to keep up reading given how much a
things are updated. Overall Arch is not worth using on bare metal, I'd rather use fedora because they patch for bugs the software in release. Rolling releases are just broken

Thank you.

ubuntoddlers BTFO
you're worse than macfags and winjeets put together

Highlund coo