Rocking the latest LTS here, and Ubuntu server on my homeserver. Wish them all the luck!
It's not entirely Canonical's fault. No one ever figured out how to make money off of desktop, consumer Linux. Mark was at least honest about it, they tried, it didn't work, server is a better way to make money, they aren't investing anymore.
But there is no one out there now who is investing in desktop Linux in order to win. Meanwhile Apple and Microsoft still invest in the desktop, but it seems like nowadays they invest to lose as neither of their desktop operating systems are really getting better. We live in interesting times.
The only thing I can think of is to replace the god awful default text editor. I noticed they changed it a while ago (from when it was called Gedit) but it's still garbage. Not that this really matters when we have Emacs...
As a user, I'm happy with ubuntu. Stability is important to me.
Steam and Proton work pretty well on it, too.
User edition
and
Developer Edition Git-Unstable64
You mean the distro that coudn't even play an mp3 out of the box? Jeez, I don't know how non-tech people could see this as more complicated...
ChromeOS is an ideal Linux for users like this. Keep updates atomic and the underlying system completely hidden.
I set apt-get upgrades to go every month or so automatically. Kernel upgrades happen on reboot. Doesn't even notice!
From experience, this is a terrible idea.
ChromeOS is the only one that I have never had issues with when it comes to silent updates. Windows (document deletion in RS3), MacOS (scanner issues in Sierra), Ubuntu (rsyslog errors preventing Bionic upgrades) have had various issues over the years that I would not impose upon non-technical users. Granted these were major releases, but silent updates are generally trouble.
I like the definition above; a non-technical user is one that does not know what a codec is.
> From experience, this is a terrible idea.
> ... Granted these were major releases, but silent updates are generally trouble.
Running major updates automatically doesn't seem like a good idea, no.
But I've had few problems with running security updates automatically.
Snap was here before flatpack, what should a company like Canonical do if they want to try something new? Use planted developers in GNOME or other projects to push projects as dependencies into all distributions?
If you do not like Canonical do not use their products, use other distro or BSD. Unity was a nice attempt to get a simple desktop that is not a slave of GNOME designers ideas, unfortunately it fails but I do not understand why people like you are against of options (only if the option is from Canonical) even if Canonical always tried to support all the DEs.
They shouldn't hardcode Snap to depend on snapcraft.io, its really that simple.
On the desktop I use Kubuntu LTS, snaps will allow me to test or run software that is not in the repo or it is an older but sable version in the repo, IMO snaps provides extra options so if you do not need it you should not use it.
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/9oddtb/flatpaks_sand...
Anyway I see some colaboration between the 2 projects so let's not create conflict between this 2 projects where there is none, snap covers more at this moment then flatpack
That said, i've found the long term stability of Fedora to be better than Ubuntu. The main reason I switched was I had a few instances where I upgraded, and several things on my system just broke. That hasn't happened to me with Fedora.
Pre-26 I'd agree with you.
When has Apple dropped the ball on support there? mac OS Mojave supports machines made in 2012...
And 6 years is typically the lifecycle of any laptop. By that point most people start looking for a new one.
Many of them are running Ubuntu on a laptop that would cover half the cost of a macbook. Not everyone can afford Jobs' prices.
Even if Apples were cheap, I consider Ubuntu a much better choice for an aspiring hacker / programmer.
I get it if you're trying to avoid the cost of an operating system, but that wasn't what you said or what I asked..
You typically have far more configuration levers, as well as deeper customization access. The stack is built entirely from open, accessible source, so you can ultimately customize every single part of it to your exact liking.
For example, KDE has an order of magnitude more levers than the OS X DE.
Not only is most of OS X closed source, it's also not particularly configurable.
It really is BSD, although the window manager isn't open source a lot of the rest is.
For non-technical people, I think there's not much difference between using a computer with Ubuntu, Mac or Windows, for regular tasks like browsing the internet, online shopping, sending email, doing stuff in spreadsheets, sharing photographs, etc. Software's mostly the same, in fact. And with this trend to make everything browser based, even more.
Of course things can go wrong, but it doesn't really matter which OS they're using. For example, should this last week botched Windows 10-HP upgrade happened to my father, there's nothing he could have done on his own to restore his computer.
Most people's computing needs would be adequately served by an iPad -- but those who aren't are typically doing more with their computers than can be met by any OS.
Once I show them Libre, they still want Office because Libre looks like it’s from Excel 2003 era and loses credibility in their eyes.
Then I show them Google Docs and Sheets and it looks nice. Literally all they need is something that looks modern. But in fact Google apps have actually been quite slick. Perfect amount of functionality at the moment. Google seems to follow keyboard behaviour and shortcuts for easy transition (especially Excel). Hope Google doesn’t bloat their apps over time.
Of course it still needs an opened mindset to use Linux but its disadvantages in some use cases.
She is using OpenSuse.