Everyone's done with Ubuntu. It's just not good. Its got a stereotype at this point for being the easy noob distro but that's not even true. Its top to bottom awful and has been for many years.
Call me a noob if you like, but I don't like hunting down drivers. Tried to go to debian on my last dev machine upgrade, but reverted straight back to ubuntu. I may be lazy, but I really don't want to hunt down drivers. I'll try debian again next cycle.
I feel like hunting down drivers hasn't been an issue on Linux for any relatively modern machine I've run in over 10 years.
If it really is something that you have had problems with, maybe try PopOS instead of Debian. The restricting non-free repos by default out of principle with Debian can sometimes get annoying when you need to install certain non-free drivers (looking at you Nvidia), but PopOS is a really well-polished ootb experience that is trivial to install. Second to PopOS for a set it and forget it experience, OpenSUSE is a rock-solid distro that does not seem to get much praise.
>I feel like hunting down drivers hasn't been an issue on Linux for any relatively modern machine I've run in over 10 years.
Try installing any Debian flavor on an Intel Mac. Keyboard, mouse, bluetooth, wifi drivers all incredibly hard to get working. Need to perform some voodoo extracting the drivers from a MacOS image then making them available during boot.
That probably depends on what vintage machine you're trying to install it on. I'm typing this on a "late 2009" 27" iMac running just that, Debian. I did not have to hunt down any drivers or slaughter any black cockerels to get things working, the only "special" thing I did was install rEFInd [1] to deal with the EFI bootloader. That's it, nothing more. A simple network install later I had Debian running on the thing, sound and network and Bluetooth and wifi and accelerated graphics and all. The "iSight" camera works, the "remote control sensor" works, I can control the screen backlight, things... just work. With 16 GB of RAM and the standard 2TB hybrid drive the thing has years of life left in it as long as I can keep the graphics card running - it has been baked in the oven once to get it back to life, no complaints from me since I got the machine for free because of the broken graphics...
Or another recommendation. If you want all the drivers and you want to run Debian, use the non-free image which I believe they just decided to make it easier to find?
I've tried non-free KDebian last month. It still booted without wi-fi. But what's most frustrating - it didn't detect any partitions on my drive. The KDE installer I mean. lsblk showed everything just fine. Same with Neon live.
And guess what? It works in KUbuntu. But ubuntu is just SO slow now. ( And I couldn't install it of my current dual-boot anyway because it does NOT have option to NOT TO install new bootloader. :-/ I love Linux (lie).
Didn't know that was an option! Thank you! If I only had a time machine to 3 weeks ago. Oh well. Thanks anyways. I'll try that again in a couple of years.
I haven't had trouble with drivers using Fedora in years. RPM fusion handles Nvidia drivers just fine. It's a far cleaner and "noob friendly" distro in my opinion, so long as you're able to google "how to install nvidia drivers fedora"
This is mostly just a Debian problem, due to their "no non-free software" philosophy, which extends to device drivers. I have never in my days booted a Debian install that worked with wifi out of the box, and I suspect I never will, due to that philosophy.. For that reason, I've stopped trying and I default to Ubuntu (-based) distros instead. All it takes to get rid of snaps forever is `sudo apt purge snapd`.
Use the moment to replace ubuntu-server with Debian and you'll be glad you did when Canonical decides on its next move to ensnare users. Even when I used Ubuntu - back in the early brown-desktop days when they sent out free CD-ROMs to anyone who wanted one - I never felt tempted to use it on a server since it was never clear to me what it offered that Debian could not deliver while it was clear that keeping Debian up to date was (and is) far easier than doing the same with Ubuntu.
Ubuntu had its place in popularising Linux but they jumped the shark a long time ago, now they are just another player jostling for their own niche.
In the past you could use the images from here [0] to get installs with wifi firmware, but future versions will have it included in the official images. They've worked out of the box on almost all recent (last 5-10 years) systems I've tried it with.
I run Mint on my primary desktop and it's fantastic. What Ubuntu LTS would've become if it had continued to focus on a good desktop experience and pushed Flatpak instead of Snap
Ironically I was about to set up a new Linux Dev machine with Ubuntu and now I'm more inclined to go back to Mint since I never had a bad experience with it. I was fortunate to skip the Gnome 3 days and the Cinnamon and Xfce implementations have been very stable for a while now.
Give OpenSUSE Tumbleweed a shot. Better than Ubuntu (in my experience) when it comes to drivers. They have the MacBook Pro 2015 facetimehd webcam (which Ubuntu doesn't have) and my brand new Asus Zenbook S13 OLED was perfect right out of the box. It's a rolling release so you get extremely recent packages. And its KDE is amazing (I switched from XFCE, it was so good). I love it.
You know what distro I had the most experience of hunting down drivers? Ubuntu.
I've given-up on Debian-like systems on a laptop, because the drivers were never good, just decide one last try with bare Debian, and have everything work out of the box. In my experience, Ubuntu never works, and when you suddenly get most things to work, they break down again in a week or two.
This was my last straw. I installed some 6 month old LTS release, and it had to go through a 2-5 second timeout step on the initial lookup of each new dns name. Then, it would populate a local cache, and work well until the TTL expired or whatever.
Anyway, if you are looking for a noob distro, I recommend manjaro. (The AUR packages are extremely unstable, but other than that, it’s pretty competitive with what Ubuntu was 10-15 years ago.)
I personally have had them ship out WIP patches not meant for production, which has wasted a lot of my (volunteer) time chasing down phantom bugs in software I maintain. This has personally happened to me on at least four different occasions. A lot of other FOSS maintainers I know have similar stories.
Is Manjaro really that noob-friendly? All I know about Manjaro is that it's based on Arch, which I always understood as being the LEAST noob-friendly distro besides LFS.
Arch isn't really noob unfriendly, it just requires an intimidating procedure to begin setup, which manjaro used to just do automatically for you, that was basically it's selling point, "arch without manually installing all your software."
Now it's just adware and unstable crap, not near as bad as Ubuntu but I won't recommend Manjaro anymore.
There are several less noob friendly distributions than Arch, I'd say NixOS, Void and Alpine probably top that list. Theyre great distros but they deviate significantly from what you'd expect from mainstream Linux.
It's middle-of-the-road IME. Arch with good (but not amazing) defaults and a team that has had a number of controversies that kinda give them a shady vibe overall.
Canonical makes decisions based on their own self interest. Not for their users and not for the benefit of the greater community. That's what drove everyone away.
I have meager needs so I haven't run into (m)any of the issues here, but what's a deb based alternative that isn't meant for absolute stability at the expense of anything modern?
(I ask with actual curiosity; I'm ignorant to most distros.)
FWIW I’ve been using Linux Mint for years and have never had a major issue. Most minor issues are with out of date repository packages which can usually be installed by other means.
Not only does it include Flatpak support, but as of 21.1 it can even handle Flatpak updates through the GUI Update Manager alongside .deb packages from standard repos/PPAs.[1]
Ubuntu can be a bit easier to get a laptop running than Debian (although I personally use Debian).
But whenever I see someone running Ubuntu on a server I think that there is a very real competence issue. Ubuntu should be kept as far from the server room, data centre or cloud as possible.
yes, I tried Ubuntu briefly in 2006 before switching to the Fedora/EL ecosystem since then. Fedora seems to have won every "battle" so far (systemd vs upstart, gnome-shell vs. unity, etc.)
It is possible to get an apt package, you have to jump through a few hoops but it can be done; I do it every time I install Ubuntu (frequently) because I won't touch that snap shite again.
I can't move work off of Ubuntu; it's too embedded now, but I'm looking for something else for home. Switching distro-base isn't so easy when you've been using it for decades though; I tried NixOS but it wasn't comfortable (Nix is a steep learning curve), though their community is top notch, and everything I do is deb based.
Looking for a way to get a modern debian (something akin to non-LTS Ubuntu) or just go all out and switch to something Arch based like EndeavourOS.
> Looking for a way to get a modern debian (something akin to non-LTS Ubuntu)
Not exactly sure what you mean by modern, but I'd recommend debian "unstable" (also called "sid"). Despite its name it's pretty stable. Normal debian stable releases are LTS style, unstable is where newly built packages show up first—so it will generally have the latest version of stuff and not be stuck a year or 2 back. It's basically a rolling-release style thing—I put in a little cron-job that does `aptitude safe-upgrade -y` every night to keep me up-to-date.
You can also use debian "testing", which one step back from "unstable"—packages are promoted from "unstable" to "testing" when if they've gone 2 weeks without a bug report of some particular severity (that I can't remember off the top of my head).
What's nice is you can have both testing and unstable in your apt sources—on my machine I set the priority on my testing higher than unstable so I generally get the testing packages, but I can grab unstable if I need to. I've been running this way for about 20 years now, and it seems the right balance of new but consistent.
I don't want things breaking left, right and centre but I want access to later versions of tools and libraries I'm using.
For example, at work we were told to upgrade Wireshark and VirtualBox to major versions that aren't available in apt on 22.04 after an audit due to vulnerabilities in older versions.
What you're doing sounds like it'll work nicely for me, thanks.
I moved from Ubuntu to Fedora when Canonical started pushing snaps 4 years after the auto update debacle that's also mentioned elsewhere here. Couldn't be happier.
I've used fedora, I have no real issues with it, but I'm not sure if it's going to work for me. At work we target Debian/Ubuntu and I lead the backend team so I need to be on-point; that means not having to mentally switch "environment" all the time because I use something else at home.
Still undecided though; I'm too old (read; jaded) for distro hopping now, but maybe I'll try find a Debian setup as another commenter suggested that'll work.
Just be aware that Fedora's got a six-month release cycle rather than whatever Ubuntu's LTS lifetime is (4 years?), and Fedora only supports current release and one back. So realistically, you've got a year a month to upgrade your workstation.
I've had Fedora for over five years and I've never had my laptop get completely borked by an upgrade, but I've had just enough things break between releases in the past that I still get get the sweats every time I've gotta do the restart upgrade, whether it will come up completely and just work or whether my WiFi is now broken because resolve-d changed to systemd-resolved.
Actually regarding upgrades Fedora Silverblue - which I currently use - may be better.
Key benefits:
- Applications through flatpak don't depend explicitly on system libs so there's less chance of breakage.
- If upgrading to new fedora version breaks anything, switching back is just one command away (rpm-ostree rollback). I don't think going back is so easy on normal fedora.
Would you be interested in a session for me to better understand (and hopefully eventually fix) why Nix was not comfortable? Not looking to evangelize, but to learn about the experience from your perspective.
I really enjoyed the results of NixOS with flakes but a couple of things were a little more challenging than I have time for to switch it into my daily driver.
It was that steep curve that stopped me going back to date; I liked everything about it, the community was very welcoming and helpful, the declarative nature, and ability to define my machines' states in Git, the documentation, no complaints except the time I'd need to feel as proficient as I am elsewhere.
I ran Manjaro on my gaming desktop for a couple of years but I hated KDE, it felt so clunky, always misbehaving compared to Gnome where I've had relatively few issues.
You can choose the desktop before install time: Gnome, XFCE, and KDE have official support; just download the appropriate ISO from https://manjaro.org/download/
That sounds more like Canonical marketing-speak, than Mozilla. My guess would be that it is Canonical who approached Mozilla for snap support, and Mozilla said yes.
Meanwhile, Mozilla still maintains ppa (mozillateam) with apt version. There's also Flatpak version, which delivers what snap promised.
If someone (Ubuntu) wants to package and distribute free software (Firefox) in their own format (Snap), the upstream maintainers (Mozilla) shouldn't hinder it no matter how bad the format is - it's not their job.
People are free to distribute Firefox however they want... Without the logo and Firefox branding. If they want to distribute it _as_ Firefox they have to meet Mozilla's conditions
I had to do this, after an update installed the snap version. I had crashes, UI that wouldn't render, all sorts of deal breaking bugs. And I don't really care how I have to install something, as long as it's painless. No idea why the snap copy had those issues but 0 issues with the apt.
I can't recommend EndeavourOS enough. You get all the good parts of Arch with an easy to use graphical installer, XFCE or another DE + great Nvidia support out of the box.
It's not really what I would want on the desktop, but I did mess around with it a little and it's pretty interesting. Next time I need to set up a server for something I think I'll probably use it.
Guess what I got?
A freaking snap. Yes, try it.
I’m done with Ubuntu