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.
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.
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, …
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.
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
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.
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
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.
How is it easier then any other distro
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.
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.
What about compared to Linux Mint or Pop!_OS?
Pops is my daily driver now. It's great.
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, …
Honestly I think they can and should be compared, they're both distros after all.
They're targeting completely different demographics though, at least compare between distros that actually have the same goals.
I guess you could compare Honda Civic with Lamborighini Aventador, but would there be a point?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
it's been years since I bothered with windows I'll admit, but I'm fairly certain calamares handles it all for you too
Strawman