Is Linux really that stable?

[anon37206250]

@davidb_sk

shady practices with user data Ubuntu has tinkered with in the past.

Yeah I agree that the Vanilla Ubuntu is pretty untrustworthy. But derivatives like Zorin, KDE Neon, etc. have removed the telemetry implemented by Canonical. When I was making the switch to Linux, I was wary of the fact and particularly avoided Ubuntu. But I'd say that Ubuntu is also the most compatible. It has the most packages available and apps are mostly available for it and run fine. I think that's the redeeming quality of Ubuntu derivatives.
But as @tomscharbach mentioned, it also includes a whole lot of junk and bloat.

[anon37206250]

@tomscharbach

Ubuntu doesn't work nearly as well as a Linux desktop distro should work and requires too much maintenance for a desktop environment.

That is a very interesting insight and food for thought. Could you elaborate more on that?

[davidb_sk]

There's certainly a fine balancing act that takes place to provide flexibility, stability and security yet "easy" to use. So far, I feel that Zorin Lite is a nice compromise.

[zGnOmaha]

I have an 18 year old Laptop I recently took out of mothballs and Trinity seems to have improved this old best quite a bit. I will probably keep playing with it. Provides me a way to experiment with learning Linux without risking my spritely new machine which is 8 years old.

[davidb_sk]

Yeah, I like the Trinity desktop. It's fast on older systems but has a lot to offer in the way of functionality. They forked the project from KDE 3.5, after KDE went down the bloated Plasma path. I never really liked KDE after that... far too "heavy" and overly complicated for me.

[100WCharge]

Linux is DEFINITELY stable. I had windows, and it was a pain in the head. A little tweaking led to its breakdown. After which i had it reinstalled to make it working. My computer is hell slow and therefore Windows started lagging in it. But I had used Ubuntu for half an year, and it NEVER needed a reinstallation. I was attracted to Zorin OS and downloaded it, and as it is based on Ubuntu, it worked very smoothly. In Linux I get DAILY security updates, which Windows does not give. Windows is good for beginners, but Linux is good for Stablity and Security.

[Storm]

I don't mind (re)installing Linux, it take tops 20 min including updates. I don't have (and I will never have) Windows. But my mom got Windows and when I have to (re)installing it - it takes most of the day - it's updating system is so cumbersome. It's like navigating an elephant through a glass shop.

Is Linux that stable? Depending which distro you'll pick. If you pick bleeding edge distro be prepared to use some of the time to fix things when new upgrades arrive.

[100WCharge]

True. I will upgrade my laptop to prevent lagging but never have Windows instead.

[337harvey]

@davidb_sk

while you get your Linux bearings will server you well

I love your humor, even if it's unintentional

[davidb_sk]

LOL!! Oh my, that was a definite faux pas on my part and wasn't intentional! I'm not that clever when it comes to being witty.

I've since corrected it.

[anon37206250]

And which distro(s) meet your criteria? Does Solus meet the criteria?

[Aravisian]

@tomscharbach

is proof of the pudding.

I probably would not veer so far off topic, had it not been for the one above statement...

@tomscharbach

I note that Snaps and Flatpaks were developed precisely because Ubuntu and other all-in-one distros were in continuing danger of being overwhelmed by conflicting dependencies, differences in development cycles and so on. Snaps and Flatpaks were developed as a way to drag the Linux desktop out of a state of more-or-less constant instability risk.

Perhaps that was the inspiration, but Canonical saw an opportunity there and what came out of the inspiration was not something that resolves dependency conflicts.
Whether it is a .deb package, a snap or a flatpak, the dependencies must be listed by the author all the same. I know this because I have made Each of the Above.
I have not been using Linux as long as you have, by far. Yet, what I have observed as well as directly experienced is that the Vast Majority of Dependency (missing or conflicts) issues that home desktop users experience are due to them trying to install an outdated package they looked up on the internet. In fact, I mentioned this up above...

Linux dev is faster paced than Windows. Windows also standardizes, resulting in even old packages usually still being applicable. But in open source, a dev may up and quietly quit maintaining a project. Do a net search, and you will find that you can find dozens of "how To Install" guides on outdated, no longer maintained Linux software- from seemingly reliable Tech Articles. Those articles are not really unreliable - just outdated. And those guides do not have a Date Obviously Visible at the top.

And part of this is due to Canonical and Gnome deliberately breaking older packages in order to force users into using what Gnome or Canonical want them to use. Look at the gtk 3 - 3.11, 3.14, 3.16, 3.18 Major Fiasco.

Being on this help desk, I see users posting questions about dependency issues very Often. I go to pkgs.org, grab the current .deb, plop it into the thread and problem Solved.

When I was new to Linux, I fell into the Dependency Hole many times. yet, after a couple of months, I stopped falling into them. Because I stopped falling for Net Searched How To guides that are old. When I fell into dependency holes, it was almost always due to my lack of understanding and the need to learn.

When installing properly from the terminal, dependency issues are actually very rare.

I am not saying people should never use Snap or Flatpak. Hey, if it works and installing a package was particularly troublesome... Well, that's what it is there for.
I personally never have needed either and I avoid both. I can build from source even, I do not need a Snap Or a Flatpak and I fear that day that I do because if that day comes... It is because Canonical will have violated its sworn promise to never replace apt with Snap. Again.

I disagree with the ZorinGroups take on Flatpak and Snap. It's certainly not the only thing I disagree with them on... and I probably spend more time on their "kill it with fire" list than I do off of it.
There is a difference between making something easy and making a user proficient and adept.

There is an old saying... "give a man a fish..." You know the rest.
I have noticed in life that the easier one makes things on people, the more control they have over them.

[Aravisian]

@tomscharbach

The Ubuntu repository is huge, and far too many of the apps in the repository are half-baked at best. Ubuntu needs to do a better job curating its repository.

Please understand that I am rather a scientist (or wannabe scientist) by nature. I express doubt honestly, as I am a skeptic.
Can you provide examples of all these half-baked apps in the Ubuntu Repo that I can independently verify?

[Aravisian]

@tomscharbach

I hope that isn't a serious question

It was.

Certainly, we all have opinions, some of them objective, some opposing others. We have not yet had a good systemd debate between members on this forum and those can cover a lot of ground since systemd has its pros and its cons. I think that this is a fine thing, as in discussing them, we can examine our assumptions, test our ideas and hone in on Accuracy in those positions.
You made a very bold claim, there. My question was not lacking in seriousness to ask you to support it.
For example:

@tomscharbach

don't integrate well into the Zorin UI

For example, QT apps?

@tomscharbach

don't support major languages

In open source, it is true that finding willing volunteers to translate can be difficult.

@tomscharbach

are poorly designed

Only in Ubuntu Repo's? I have seen this complaint on dozens of boards discussing dozens of non-Ubuntu derived distros. As you said - Subjective.

But my point remains valid: Perhaps some distros do a better job of maintaining their repositories. And I am no fan of Canonical. But in the end, I think we would all be very hard pressed to objectively verify that the Universe Repository is filled with half-baked apps, considering that in order to be in a release repo, the .deb author Must actively signify and upload it for that repository. It's not like a bunch of left-over stuff from Bionic is floating free in Focal. It is not easy to get an 'outdated' app into the new repository without actively trying to do so. You must put the release in the control file when you dput to the repo..
The Main Universe Repo is an expression of Free Open Source, in spite of Canonical. And this comes with the possibility of Human Error. But this remains true for any Linux repository.
Given a lack of evidence, I stand by my position that installing from apt, Debian and Ubuntu Sources is generally as safe as installing from any other distros repository and will generally, yield little in the way of dependency errors for the average user.

[Aravisian]

@tomscharbach

This is a red herring.

It is not a red herring to compare against a common frame of reference. As you cannot really support the idea that Ubuntu is "especially" filled with "half-baked" software, comparing it against a common frame of reference is the only recourse.

@tomscharbach

How many times over the years have you installed an app and, after using it a bit, said "This isn't up to standard" to yourself and removed it?

Several. But that does not mean that "far too many apps are half-baked." I just have my own preferences, is all. For example, I never use EOG because I prefer GIMP. This does not make EOG half-baked; like Ristretto, I am sure it is perfectly good for a purpose of viewing only.

@tomscharbach

Of course other repositories have the problems because apps included in the repository, not the repository itself, are the problem. Apps, poorly design and executed or well designed and executed, tend to be included in numerous repositories.

This argument seems very circular. You complained that the Ubuntu repository is a problem because of it containing far too many half-baked apps, then say that other repositories have problems because poor apps are included in the repository, not because the repository is the problem. Which is it?

@tomscharbach

I am suggesting that the Ubuntu repository is not sufficiently curated, and as a result, "far too many" apps that aren't well designed, don't work well with the distro UI, and so on are included in the repository.

You are suggesting that it is special- more so than Other Distros. All I asked was that you give examples or support the statement. You refused and claimed Grumpy old man prerogative.

@tomscharbach

The idea that apps are of necessity well designed because "the .deb author Must actively signify and upload it for that repository" is almost laughable. All that it means is that the author is satisfied with it, which doesn't mean that the app isn't "half-baked".

You claimed too many outdated apps are in the Ubuntu repository. I refuted this by pointing out that the apps included in the repo must be signed for Bionic or for Focal.

@tomscharbach

But neither has anything to do with the question of whether or not the app is well designed, is compatible with the distro's UI, is fully functional and does what a reasonable user would expect the app to do.

Yet, you could not give even one example (though admittedly only one wouldn't do much).
It just doesn't seem like your Subjective Arguments really demonstrate some kind of problem with the Main U Repo. You didn't like some apps. There's thousands of apps that don't suit me - On Windows... on Android... on iPhone... on any device, any system.
There's a bunch of apps that you don't really like. That's totally understandable. I can assure you that you are not alone in that. Maybe you are correct that the Ubuntu Repo contains more fluff - You just have presented no evidence of it at all.
I think therefore, that it is a stretch for you to suggest above that somehow installing from repo on Ubuntu is a problem somehow or one well-avoided by using Flatpak or Snap when Flathub and Snap provide pretty much all the same stuff anyway, if the devs push it into those sources.

[Aravisian]

@tomscharbach

I have not made any suggestion "that somehow installing from repo on Ubuntu is a problem somehow

Let's look.

@tomscharbach

My "very bold claim" was this: "The Ubuntu repository is huge, and far too many of the apps in the repository are half-baked at best."

I don't think that's bold. It is almost self-evident.

@tomscharbach

The Ubuntu repository is huge, and far too many of the apps in the repository are half-baked at best. Ubuntu needs to do a better job curating its repository.

@tomscharbach

That is what attracted my interest in Solus in the first place, because I was dead tired of fighting with Ubuntu's unnecessary complexity, overhead and overload. Solus is also very stable as a result, because it doesn't fall over its own feet half the time.

@tomscharbach

Ubuntu and other all-in-one distros were in continuing danger of being overwhelmed by conflicting dependencies, differences in development cycles and so on. Snaps and Flatpaks were developed as a way to drag the Linux desktop out of a state of more-or-less constant instability risk.

Tomscharbach - These are your words, directly quoted from your posts.
These are the words that I am responding to. You said that you did not like Ubuntu and that is Fine. Neither do I. I do not like Canonical. I agree with you far more often than I disagree.
However, as you compared Ubuntu against Solus (which is a fine thing to do, compare against a frame of reference) you also claimed that Ubuntu Repos are cluttered, that they have too many half-baked apps and so on. I asked for you to support this.
Yes, I then asked to compare this against other non-Ubuntu derived distros - which is a proper thing to do. It cannot reasonably be assured to gain a statistic from One.

@tomscharbach

I have not focused on outdated apps.

@tomscharbach

(e.g. stubs and dead ends, outdated dependencies and so on)

I did not say you focused on them; You pointed out that Ubuntu repositories had too many "Outdated dependencies" and I addressed that. That is not improper - claims should always be verifiable and open for examination.

Taha_mcp quite rightly asked you what it was that you did not like about Ubuntu Derivatives. You answered with your opinions on the matter and your viewpoints.
I agreed with you far more often than not and clicked Like on several of your posts expressing that agreement.
However, this does not mean that I agree with every claim you make or every opinion. Sometimes people disagree on things. Disagreement is a great way to examine why we hold ideas and opinions close and to question their merit.

@tomscharbach

I don't know why you seem so determined to argue

Just because someone disagrees with you on a topic or even, that you must clarify your position or support your statements or claims does not mean that you are personally under attack. It does not mean that someone just wants to argue.
It means that they are discussing the topic and trying to Understand Your Claims and they even may ask you to Support them when you make them.

I apologize for misunderstanding your intent behind your statements - if that occurred. It's a text based medium and we can only read and respond as we understand things and misunderstandings can happen.
Given your words above, I got the impression that you point out your dislike of Ubuntu and the Ubuntu Main Universe repository because it is particularly too full of half-baked apps and improperly curated.
I quoted you above. I can understand that if a thread is moving fast and someone asks you about a comment that you made that you did not place as much importance on that they did- you may feel like you are being Personally Questioned or that they are picking at your words. But in a discussion, people often will focus on the points that matter to them. This is a normal thing.
Many readers of this thread may also get these same impressions. And on a forum with an audience, it is important to hash out details and improve understanding.
Now, I have been polite to you. You have been Less So to me. I asked you to support your statements and right away, you pulled the Grumpy Old Man card and refused. You called my words "laughable" and asked if I was "seriously asking" you for you to support your own words and statements.
You seemed offended at having been asked at all. About your own words.

@tomscharbach

and don't intended to get into that mess again.

You refused to even intend to support your own statements and provide examples of the Proof In The Pudding.
If you do not wish to discuss the matter, that is fine. We can consider Our Discussion within this thread closed.

But Please Do Not gaslight the thread and turn the discussion into Personal Attacks on my character. You responded in a rude manner and expressed discontent the very moment I expressed doubt or disagreement with your statements and asked you to provide evidence for why you thought Ubuntu Repos were problematic. Because you clearly expressed that you think the Ubuntu Repo IS problematic. And it is reasonable that other members would wish to know why and ask you to support your statements so we can examine them ourselves and decide for ourselves.