Linux

65927 readers

566 users here now

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.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

Why choice of Linux distribution matters (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by thingsiplay@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn't matter. One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that. If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions? I always said, if distros don't matter...

... why distro hop?
... why don't you use Ubuntu then?
... why don't you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
... why don't you use Kali Linux as a server?
... why don't you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
... why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)

I don't think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Being a "rolling release" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They still need to update their repositories and add patches to it.

No, the size of its dev team does not necessarily mean that they are behind with patching security issues. it depends on the commitment and skills of devs, and the community.

Sure - a one-man-band supported distro could do all that. But a larger distro with a dedicated security team will definitely do it better.

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

With a dedicated security team

Where is the difference between „dedicated“ and „commitment paired with skills“???

Being a „rolling release“ has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Sure, Debian and alike are up-to-date as are ArchLinux or Void. Oh, boy!

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Where is the difference between „dedicated“ and „commitment paired with skills“???

One are paid to do the job, the others are assumed to be doing the job.

Sure, Debian and alike are up-to-date as are ArchLinux or Void. Oh, boy!

You're mistaking "up-to-date" with "patched in a timely manner." The two are not the same. But you're an Arch derivative user (btw) so I have low expectations. Suffice it to say that Ubuntu / RedHat / etc. back-port security patches to the packages they manage. They don't need to be running the latest version to be patched.

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

One are paid to do the job …

I suggest you better stay then with Microsoft or Apple. Suits more your ideology.

But you‘re an Arch derivative user

Wrong, but keep guessing.

Suffice it to say that Ubuntu / RedHat / etc …

Oh, I see, you like being hold by your hands 😂🤣

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Okay I'm done with you.

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

$ sudo userdel atzanteol >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo „Bye, bye!“