From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
The data Ubuntu "steals" is missing the forest for the trees. Signing into Windows or onto your Macbook hands over more data than Canonical will get from you in years.
Unless you've been daily driving Tails for the past decade, you're looking for the wrong battle.
"Look, these people over there killed millions, so isn't it OK to kill a couple of people?"
"Hey we can either support the group that killed millions, or support the group that killed a couple people. Or we can go live in a cave in the mountains, realize our beliefs are too difficult, then go back to the group that killed millions."
OP already runs Linux so that's fine, but people constantly push the most insane privacy beliefs to newcomers and they end up giving up and going back to Windows. Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good - Canonical has done significantly more for privacy ("to stop killing people", in your analogy) than any of us shitposters.
Ubuntu ist awesome. I run arch btw
What has Ubuntu done for privacy?
Gave an easy to use desktop for those fleeing Windows?
Running a quick git shortlog -se on the Linux kernel source also shows they've made thousands of upstream patches, and that's ignoring the work they've done for projects like Gnome which even the top privacy distrobutions like Tails depend on.
I see... we're either with you, or with the terrorists? :)
I strongly disagree with your last statement indeed. It's assuming all people here are shitposters and never done anything for privacy, and also assuming Ubuntu did anything for privacy at all, with a commercial model that inevitably slid down the road of sacrificing people's privacy and the ethos of free/libre software for profit, and normalizing such behaviour. (you are the example of the latter, finding justifications for the unjustifiable...)
If your personal conclusion is "trust company XX for defending privacy" you may end up grossly disappointed (unless you have a vested interest in that company,m in which case it is "just" marketing...)
creates analogy with 3 parties in it
I see… we’re either with you, or with the terrorists? :)
Reading comprehension is hard, yeah?
It’s assuming all people here are shitposters and never done anything for privacy
I develop FOSS applications. You may have used things I contributed to. But unless you're the alt of Torvalds himself, I doubt you've done more than the entirety of Canonical, who has made huge waves of impact throughout the FOSS (and privacy) communities.
Given that you misunderstood every point I made in this thread so far, it's understandable the rest of your comment misses the mark.
How can you compare an individual person to some corporation or whatever canonical is
Because that was my original point that Joe Bidet wanted to debate. If Joe Bidet replied saying "How can you compare an individual person to some corporation", that might be a good point, but he doubled down instead
So mint is the cave in the mountains? If it is possible for someone to use a better system than Ubuntu that runs just fine, that's suddenly a problem?
Good point. I understand you're saying it's better to use Ubuntu than more locked-down and less libre alternatives. Fortunately, I daily-drive a GNU/Linux distro that I believe is less invasive than other alternatives.
Ubuntu is not that bad, but vanilla Debian got better, so no real reason to use Ubuntu anymore.
Ubuntu is not bad, but there are better options. It's unstable, a little slow, and I don't much like their take on GNOME. Plus, they are attempting to replace many of the system apps with Snap packages, which are slower and worse in general.
PopOS is pretty great. The Cosmic desktop is super nice, and it seems to be pretty stable. It's got a lot of hardware support and is very beginner friendly.
Linux Mint is probably your best bet. It's extremely stable, simple, and functional. Cinnamon is an amazing desktop environment, and their takes on XFCE & Mate are good too. Plus, they've got a version based directly on Debian.
Linux Mint Debian Edition is really good. Solid, clean, everything works for me.
TIL there's a Debian edition for mint. Thanks for the info!
Linux Mint has been my daily driver for the last 4 years when I got tired of Windows bullshit. It has proven to be stable, regularly updated and secure. It does absolutely everything that I need it to (yes, including gaming), and I've never felt compelled to try anything else.
My employer uses ubuntu for operations, and so I have experience using it in that settings. My thoughts:
For desktop, I like Arch too much to use Ubuntu or any other fixed-release distro.
Even if Ubuntu doesn't spy you, they used to ship proprietary software that have a reputation of it, like the amazon web app. So, they propagate this pratice. I'm a Debian user, btw
I've been daily driving pop os for over a year now and I love it.
No need to reinvent the wheel: just use Debian, either Stable or Unstable.
I'd go with elementary OS but because of an aesthetical decision, plus I think it has some good UX decisions.
PopOS eeks me for some reason. I like Debian.
for personal computing if you want something clean you can install Ubuntu server distribution, then just install what you want just like Arch Linux. If you just want the out of the box experience, but is afraid, fire up wireshark and look what is going on. Otherwise, go with ZorinOS, Fedora, EndeavorOS. When I used to use Mint, I did not really like its user interface.
if servers, then ubuntu is one of best if you want a traditional distribution (it is the 1st in market share for servers); long term support, better supported, ...
MX Linux is pretty good and pure Debian derived. Yes Ubuntu is trash. Derivatives are usually ok but still it's trash underneath in some regards.
Ubuntu always felt kinda corporate and rubbed me the wrong way. Never really been a fan.
I gave Ubuntu MATE a go on my GPD Win 2 since it was the only officially supported distro available. All the weird little software bugs and issues, plus them discontinuing support for some of GPDs devices, did little to make me like it more over time.
I discard any distro that does not define itself as GNU/Linux and that has difficulties to use the term free as in freedom. Ubuntu and Linux Mint are some of those.
Ubuntu: Ubuntu has always been free to download, use and share. We believe in the power of open source software; Ubuntu could not exist without its worldwide community of voluntary developers.
Linux Mint: It is completely free of cost and almost all of its components are Open Source. Linux Mint stands on the shoulder of giants, it is based on Debian and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu keeps trying to reinvent the wheel, usually with triangles. It is unstable in a strange way, not because of the latest software but because of how they tweak everything. I always suspect it includes spyware. I moved to Fedora, which is just as avantguardia, but stable. If you like Debian based stuff, go with Debian Testing, and install the desktop and software of your choice.