At the time, canonical was throwing its weight around and essentially bullying Debian upstream repos. Around this time, there was a mass exodus of the Debian leadership over this kind of thing.
The old guard of Debian wasn’t as… enthusiastic about systemd either, but look what they use now.
I switched from Ubuntu to Debian, and it’s basically the same thing, just faster since it uses native packages instead of Snaps. Ubuntu might as well run all it’s apps in Docker containers.
You could rebrand Debian to Ubuntu and most users wouldn’t even notice.
The shortest answer -
Arch has really good documentation and a release style that works for a lot of people.
Ubuntu is coorporitized and less reliable Debian with features that many people dont need or want.
Can you elaborate a bit on don’t need or want software?
like forcing snap or amazon search ads back in the day
Or mir, or pulseaudio before it was ready, or deprecating ffmpeg for half a year… Etc etc
wut
It’s true, and it was a huge pain in the ass:
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/223855
Interesting read. It sounds like that issue came upstream from Debian not Ubuntu though.
At the time, canonical was throwing its weight around and essentially bullying Debian upstream repos. Around this time, there was a mass exodus of the Debian leadership over this kind of thing.
The old guard of Debian wasn’t as… enthusiastic about systemd either, but look what they use now.
In some release they removed gdebi package installer so it made unavailable to install deb files with gui
“Bloat” the less system there is (while still working as a modern system) the better. If i need something i can install it myself.
The biggest one: Snaps.
I switched from Ubuntu to Debian, and it’s basically the same thing, just faster since it uses native packages instead of Snaps. Ubuntu might as well run all it’s apps in Docker containers.
You could rebrand Debian to Ubuntu and most users wouldn’t even notice.