Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

blog.system76.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#41

Post by Daegalus »

lproven wrote: post #39
Daegalus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, 4.10. it's been a while and I forget which month Warty was. For me, Ubuntu has too many old packages, so it's too unchanging. The 6 month span is plenty for stability for me. To me stability revolves around stuff breaking between updates, or installing packages causing incompatibilities that eventually degrade the system. I had a lot of that with Manjaro. While Ubuntu has little of that, it's also to…

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the info! I write about this stuff for a living these days, so I am trying to widen the range of distros that I try, that I use, and to learn more about why people choose particular ones.

Also, I just realized who I'm talking with, loved your article/presentation on "Starting Over".

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#42

Post by MonaroVXR »

tmd83 wrote: post #37

What are the top choices everyone would suggest in terms of Linux OS for reasonably upgraded packages, package availability in terms of dev/tech person and perhaps most importantly a sane and reasonably pain free upgrade path (no reinstall every year or something).

Yeah, difficult to answer, Pop! Is the answer, I'm a RHEL person, so I stay faithful, but Pop! is really nice with all those small changes.

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#43

Post by MonaroVXR »

Daegalus wrote: post #14
4oo4 wrote: post #5

Does anyone else recommend this to people first trying out Linux? I have been mentioning this and Mint (though I use Debian PopOS! seems like the better of the two), and I'm curious which of them (or any other distro) helps convert more Windows users. I stopped recommending Ubuntu a few years ago because of snaps, they're such an Ubuntu specific thing in practice that I think it's harmful for people learning Linux.

I've honestly started suggesting Fedora over anything Debian/Ubuntu based. Ubuntu stability has gotten worse and worse over time, and their approach to software package management has gotten kind of crazy with Snaps. I usually recommend Fedora for stability and up to date packages. And this is someone that has used Ubuntu since 4.04 and recently a ton of Arch/Manjaro usage. I have personally switched to Fedora with h…

I don't suggest Fedora, since it's more advanced. (I might get shot saying this...) Difficult where I need to start.

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#45

Post by lproven »

Daegalus wrote: post #41
lproven wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the info! I write about this stuff for a living these days, so I am trying to widen the range of distros that I try, that I use, and to learn more about why people choose particular ones.

Also, I just realized who I'm talking with, loved your article/presentation on "Starting Over".

:-D Thank you very much!

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#46

Post by POPOSYS »

panick21_ wrote: post #35
POPOSYS wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another good example for what I described in my other comment - they only care for their very special setup but break the underlying distro in many ways. PopOS devs take the work of Ubuntu, add their 0.1% but break a lot of things that work good in [X|K]Ubuntu - that is not helpful for the OS ecosystem. They distribute a broken distro that only works within a very narrow default configuration. Not OK.

Very much disagree. They actually do more work then you suggest they do. And they upstream that work quite often, and its open source. Second, if you want X/K then why would you care about Pop? How is PopOS existing bad for you?

It is bad because of the reasons I explained in my other comment.

They pretend to release a whole distro while in fact they are only caring for a narrow set of packages and break other functionality of the same underlying distro. This is bad.

If you distribute a whole distro it is expected that everything works, like it is the case with Debian or Ubuntu. It might produce a bad image of Linux as perceived by new users when they realize that many things of this distro do not work at all. This is not the quality delivered by other Linux distros, so it is doing a bad job in representing Linux.

At least they should explain that on their website, e.g. "We deliver something we call a distro but this is not the same thing as you get from other people that deliver distros, we are only actively supporting one special desktop environment, but other things might not work as experienced with other distributions. We decided anyway to pretend we are releasing a whole Linux distro because..." (reason should be explained.)

I hope this was better explained. I still totally respect the work they put into it and I am thankful that a company is doing this at all, but they are distributing their software in a bad way.

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#47

Post by smackeyacky »

tmd83 wrote: post #37

What are the top choices everyone would suggest in terms of Linux OS for reasonably upgraded packages, package availability in terms of dev/tech person and perhaps most importantly a sane and reasonably pain free upgrade path (no reinstall every year or something).

Server, workstation, gaming or casual use?

I like plain old debian for servers. If you don't need new hardware support its bombproof and really well supported.

For laptops...Mint or Pop. Pop seems better to me than Ubuntu as its pretty slimmed down but most of the debian recipes work on it and it works with Nvidia laptops really well (as does Mint).

I can't really recommend Ubuntu any more. The snap thing is just not cool.

CentOS seemed cool when I ran it up in a VM recently, but since my server stuff is debian, I stick with debian variants.

Re: Pop _OS 22.04 LTS has landed

#48

Post by dTal »

aborsy wrote: post #44

ZFS is great for laptops. Automatic snapshots, error detection (the hardware is mishandled), encrypted backup, compression for limited space, etc. Why removing it?

ZFS was designed for spinning disks - what is the performance meant to be like on modern NVMe SSDs? I have ZFS on my laptop and do not see very good numbers, but it's possible I misconfigured something.
Post reply on HN