this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
143 points (91.3% liked)

Linux

56269 readers
869 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

Related Communities

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

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Also why does everyone seem to hate on Ubuntu?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I've started with ubuntu/mint and it was always a matter of time before something broke then i tried everything from then all the major distros and found that I loved being on a rolling release with openSUSE Tubleweed (gaming and most new software works better) and BTRFS on Fedora (BTRFS let's you have boot time snapshots you can go back to if anything breaks).

After some research I found I can get both with arch so installed arch as a learning process via the outstanding wiki and have never looked back. Nowadays I just install endevourOS because it's just an arch distro with easy BTRFS setup and easy gui installer was almost exactly like my custom arch cofigs and it uses official arch repos so you update just like arch (unlike manjaro). It's been more stable than windows 10 for me.

Tldr: arch let's you pick exactly what you want in a distro and is updated with the latest software something important if you game with nvidia GPU for example.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

In my experience the Arch people are the sane ones and thr NixOS people are the young cult evangelists nowadays. I use Arch btw

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Nix is great but not the saving grace I thought it would be. I daily it. Like it. Run cinnamon coming from Mint. But to be fair. It takes real effort and time to setup your config file, comment it thoroughly and then master the system. Once it's fully automated backups and all you can hop machine to machine and it's like you never left your OG machine. There's pros and cons for sure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

There are a lot of different reasons that people hate Ubuntu. Most of them Not great reasons.

Ubuntu became popular by making desktop Linux approachable to normal people. Some of the abnormal people already using Linux hated this.

In November 2010, Ubuntu switched from GNOME as their default desktop to Unity. This made many users furious.

Then in 2017, Ubuntu switched from Unity to Gnome. This made many users furious.

There's also a graveyard of products and services that infuriated users when canonical started them, then infuriated users when they discontinued them.

And the Amazon "scandal".

And then there's the telemetry stuff.

Meanwhile. Arch has always been the bad boy that dares you to love him... unapproachable and edgy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Because there are still people who have not yet seen the light. Once everyone has joined the fold they will not be able to remember why anyone resisted in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No idea, but ArchWiki has some of the best linux documentation around.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago

I'm not sure either. I think arch used to be one of the less popular distros (because of the more involved install process, solved now by the arch-based distros with friendly installers), despite having some of the best features, so it required more "evangelism", that's unecessary now. Arch-based distros are now some of the most popular ones, so its not necessary.

Others have commented on why its so great, but the AUR + Rolling releases + stability means that arch is one of the "stable end states". You might hop around a lot, but its one of the ones you end up landing on, and have no reason to change from.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

People making the things they consume their whole personality, not a rare thing tbh.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

I think Arch is so popular because its considered a middle of the road distro. Even if not exactly true, Ubuntu is seen as more of a pre-packaged distro. Arch would be more al a carte with what you are actually running. I started with Slackware back in the day when everything was a lot more complicated to get setup, and there was even then this notation that ease of access and customization were separate and you can't have both. Either the OS controls everything and its easy or you control everything and its hard. To some extent that's always going to be true, but there's no reason you can't or shouldn't try to strike a balance between the two. I think Arch fits nicely into that space.

I also wouldn't use the term "cultists" as much as "aholes". If you've ever been on the Arch forums you know what I'm talking about. There is a certain kind of dickish behavior that occurs there, but it somewhat is understandable. A lot of problems are vaguely posted (several times over) with no backing logs or info to determine anything. Just "Something just happened. Tell me how to fix it?". And on top of that, those asking for help refuse to read the wiki or participate in the problem solving. They just want an online PC repair shop basically.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

IMO Despite some unjustified rumors Arch is a very stable distro. For me it feels the same as Debian stability wise while still being on the cutting edge side. The Arch wiki is the second most important reason.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Personally for me Arch on my system has been more stable & faster than both Debian & Fedora....

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I installed arch before there was the official install script. It's not that is was THAT difficult, but it does provide a great sense of accomplishment, you learn a lot, customize everything, and you literally only install things you know you want. (Fun story: I had to start over twice: the first time I forgot to install sudo, the second I forgot to install the package needed to have an internet connection)

All of this combined mean that the users have a sense of pride for being an arch user so they talk about it more that the rest. There is no pride in clicking your way though an installer that makes all the choices for you

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago

I left Ubuntu for Arch because I got sick of Arch having everything I wanted and Ubuntu taking ages to finally get it. I was tired of compiling shit all the time just to keep up to date.

Honestly glad I made the change, too. Arch has been so much better all around. Less bloat and far fewer problems.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago

"I run Arch btw" became a meme because until install scripts became commonplace you had to have a reasonable understanding of the terminal and ability to read and follow instructions to install Arch Linux to a usable state. "Look at my l33t skills."

Dislike of Ubuntu comes from Canonical...well...petting the cat backwards. They go against the grain a lot. They're increasingly corporate, they did a sketchy sponsorship thing with Amazon at one point, around ten years ago they were in the midst of this whole "Not Invented Here" thing; all tech had to be invented in-house, instead of systemd they made and abandoned Upstart, instead of working on Wayland they pissed away time on Mir, instead of Gnome or KDE they made Unity, and instead of APT they decided to build Snap. Which is the one they're still clinging to.

For desktop users there are a lot better distros than Ubuntu these days.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Arch is better because...

  • pacman, seriously, I don't hear enough of how great pacman is.
    Being able to search easily for files within a package is a godsend when some app refuses to work giving you an error message "lib_obscure.so.1 cannot be found".
    I haven't had such issues in a long time, but when I do, I don't have to worry about doing a ten hour search, if I'm lucky, for where this obscure library file is supposed to be located and in what package it should be part of.
  • rolling release. Non-rolling Ubuntu half-year releases have broken my OS in the past around 33% of the time. And lots of apps in the past had essential updates I needed, but required me to wait 5 months for the OS to catch up.
  • AUR. Some apps can't be found anywhere but AUR.
  • Their wiki is the best of all Linuxes

The "cult" is mostly gushing over AUR.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hmm, finding what package a file is in is absolutely possible on Ubuntu/Debian too. You can use the online Ubuntu/Debian packages search, or use apt-file.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

because they used to be special. "I run linux", matrix text on boot, typing shit in the terminal, "I'm in", awe-inspiring shit to an onlooker...

but nowadays, anyone can run ubuntu or mint or whatevs and our hero ain't special no more. so here comes the ultimate delimiter.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Arch Hits the great spot

It has:

  • a great wiki
  • many packages, enough for anything you want to do
  • its the only distros that is beetween everything done for you and gentoo-like fuck you.
  • and the Memes.
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›