The great debate

openSUSE > all

>fedora is a derivative of CentOS
ok

excuse me

Attached: gentoo.png (836x368, 103K)

Shit like Gentoo and Source Mage don't count

Fedora because there's more money in knowing Red Hat

All have nonfree packages, so none of them.

Puppy
Tiny Core
Gentoo
Alpine
Void
Crux

die late, freetranny

All three of them are great for their own reasons. Stop being gay

Pick according to political compass test results

>Arch
Neutral Center

>Debian
Libertarian Left

>Fedora
Authoritarian Right

its the other way around, both in real life and in his post

>memes need not apply
>put fedora in the OP
what mean?

are you retarded or just pretending?
Fedora was a repo for Red Hat, but then they turned into a distribution based on Red Hat, Red Hat Linux stopped being maintained and RHEL was created. Fedora kept being what Red Hat Linux was.
Red Hat Linux -> Fedora
Fedora -> Red Hat Enterprise Linux -> CentOS

what distro is libertarian right?

Slackware

Right, I couldn't stand Debian because it felt lefty.
I'm on fedora now. No diversity bullshit in the blogs

Somebody make this infographic.

>Red Hat
user, I...

redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-directors

>Red Hat urges the FSF board to seize the opportunity during its current leadership succession by appointing a president and members of its board that are more diverse, including from a national, racial and gender perspective.

>>Red Hat
You quoted Red Hat but nowhere in my post is the phrase "Red Hat"

>he doesn't know

Attached: Screenshot_20190921_215239.png (606x115, 12K)

>OMG BUT FEDORA IS LITERALLY RED HAT
Red Hat is sponsored by Red Hat. What is your point? Yeah, niggerm, Red Hat has developers in Fedora, they pay developers in Fedora.
Developers don't give a shit about those trannies with social studies writing blogs because they have no power, they don't know how to write a simple hello world program.
They are included so SJWs like medium bloggers and twitter fags don't come and kill Red Hat like they did with Stallman and GNU.
redhat.com/en/about/company/leadership
docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/fpl/
Yes, there is a CoC. But you care because you are a nigger. It has no impact on code.
Meanwhile, Debian has tranny mutts with administrative rights who will remove packages like weboob or ban maintainers based on how they interact with them on mailing lists.
Fedora doesn't have any of that. Nigger.

What is the appeal of Debian exactly? The software on Debian is so fucking out of date that its ridiculous. It literally doesnt even have normal Firefox, just "Firefox ESR"

pacman jus werks
other package managers need not apply

Imagine being this retarded. When RHEL is released they literally state what version of Fedora it was branched from. RHEL 8 is based on Fedora 28 and 7 is based on Fedora 19.

does debian still offer anything of value in current year besides being the base of ubuntu?

Well it’s unstable version is more up to date than Ubuntu

the value is that its Ubuntu without all the Ubuntu bullshit that Canonical slathers all over everything.

>It literally doesnt even have normal Firefox, just "Firefox ESR"
that's not a bug, that's a feature.

Arch solely for AUR. Otherwise Fedora for noobs, Debian for others.

some statistics say debian has the most packages of any distro, is it actually true? or is arch+aur bigger?

based, i feel the same, though at least adding nonfree is simply an option

Void, and fuck Luke for turning Void into the new meme.

wel...stable debian has less than most other distros.

unstable? who the fuck knows, but unbutnu is based off unstable, so might as well just get that

Well the "comparison with other distros" page on the Arch wiki describes Debian as having the largest repos, so I think its safe to say that they're larger than Arch's. Though you can only say that in the very roughest sense because, as is often pointed out in screenfetch threads, numbers of packages aren't really comparable between distros. Debian splits up a lot of things that Arch will put into one package.

I use Debian, but the arch wiki is my first go-to when I need to configure some new shit.

what's wrong with IBM

Attached: sdgsgergm.jpg (300x294, 18K)

What is the appeal of Debian with it’s outdated aoftware?

It's a necessary compromise for stability

Ok...but you won’t even get software from the past, like 5 years? What’s the point?

Avoiding the hassle and bother of being on an upgrade treadmill. You install it, set it up, and then it stays as it is, and you don't need to spend time fucking with it.

in any case there's an awful lot of software these days that's pretty much feature-complete and that you don't care about having the very latest version of. I run it on my main desktop and I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything. What's in those bleeding-edge versions that I care about?

Are you fucking retarded? What about Slackware, gentoo und void for an Example?

This. It just werks

Fedora is literally beta-tester for RHEL and CentOS...
Just like openSUSE Tumbleweed and SLED.

>the value is that its Ubuntu without all the Ubuntu bullshit that Canonical slathers all over everything
like nonfree firmware in official ISO images and security patches?

Winderps.

Debian >= Arch > Fedora

>security patches
What are you babbling about? Debian stable gets these all the time.

i like arch, its easy to install things from aur and its not that hard to configure if you just use gnome shit which may be kind of a bloated meme but idk it works ok

Ubuntu, is like Debian, but with even more support.