• Kevin@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Community support is great. I can search up any problem and instantly find good results, which is not always true for other distros. I use it mostly at work and I want to minimize the time I spend fixing things. Plus, most programs will have out-of-box support (binaries, tests, install instructions, etc) for Ubuntu.

    • Techognito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Compared to say arch, gentoo, lfs. ubuntu is easier to install, but I believe the point you wanted to make is that there are distros that are as easy if not easier to install than ubuntu

      edit: I see now that this might have sounded more condescending than I had intended, and for that I'm sorry.

      The point I wanted to make was that there are both better and worse installers out there. Which is something I enjoy about linux and the different distros. You have the option to install something easy and just use your computer as you see fit, or you can tinker and learn different ways your computer can be set up.

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You're comparing apples and reactors. Ubuntu is one of the easy to use distros by design. Distros like that try to keep config file changes and things like that from the user. When that fails, the falling height for users is higher, as they now have to deal with a complex problem. The other ones are designed to be simple and require you to handle potential breaking changes manually by default, which means you're taught to do these things and won't be clueless when things get hairy.

        You shouldn't compare Ubuntu to Arch. Compare it to Mint, Fedora, Pop!_OS, …

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is the most bad faith example you could have picked. You know I meant distros like Pop OS Fedora, Linux Mint, etc. You picked the uncommon outliers which are the most user unfriendly ones possible.

        • Techognito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My intentions were never to be condescending, and I feel bad for sounding that way. I edited my comment in hopes to clear things up.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        meh even arch has archinstall now. not as flashy as some others, but it will set you up with a fully functional desktop as well

      • butre@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        you can't convince me that anyone is actually using lfs in 2023. tinkering with it maybe, and I can see someone doing alfs for specialized shit, but there's no way in hell anyone is actually using it as their regular daily driven os on their personal computer. it just doesn't make sense.

        real people outside of the ubuntu space are using debian, fedora, manjaro, maybe something like pop os or mint. there's no barrier to entry, performance difference is negligible if present at all, and you don't have to spend a full day getting it ready

        • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only real difference I can think of is that Ubuntu's installer is actually really nice and had the dual boot install option, which I don't think any other distro has.

          • butre@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            most distros that aren't like slackware/gentoo/arch/etc. install with calamares these days, it handles dual boot configs simply and without issue. even doing like debian netinst, I don't remember it having any trouble

            • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In terms of ease of use, no. They're capable, but in Ubuntu it's literally as easy as choosing how much space do you want to leave for Windows and Ubuntu, then it handles all the partitioning for you.

              • butre@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                it's been years since I bothered with windows I'll admit, but I'm fairly certain calamares handles it all for you too