←back to thread

243 points aquova | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | source
1. jillesvangurp ◴[] No.41900283[source]
I've used Ubuntu on servers for probably the last twelve or so years. Mostly the reason is that it's the path of the least resistance. Most software that has installation documentation for Linux will document Ubuntu first. Maybe Red Hat and then you are on your own. So, getting stuff running on it tends to be well documented, well supported, etc.

For personal use, I've moved away from it. I've had a Manjaro laptop for a few years now for some light gaming on Steam, which works great. I picked an Arch based distro because that's what Steam uses for the Steam Deck.

IMHO, Ubuntu should move to rolling releases if they want to stay relevant. It doesn't make sense to run years out of date kernels and software packages these days. Especially if you want to run e.g. games and benefit from driver upgrades. And the bi-annual upgrade cycle just creates a lot of hassle for users. I know lots of Ubuntu users that routinely wipe their laptop because it's just easier than upgrading. Not a thing with Manjaro. I installed it nearly three years ago and it's fully up to date. And there seems to be a steady flow of kernel work that has gradually improved support for the hardware I have. I wouldn't want to miss out on that.

Now that Arch has a more usable installer, I might move over to that but I'm not in a hurry. Three years ago installing Arch was a 50 step process that was a bit challenging as it involved fiddling with boot loaders and what not just to get it to boot to a cli with a working network connection (which requires the right kernel modules to be there). Manjaro has a nice live CD that sort of makes that a whole lot easier. That sort of makes it the Ubuntu equivalent for Arch, I guess.