I used Debian for a bit many years ago. It was great for all the reasons you are tired of Arch (I had tried Gentoo before Debian). When Ubuntu came out, I was quite happy with it. It had the stability of Debian, but was a bit more polished and had better support for new stuff without sacrificing stability.
I’m moving on from Ubuntu at this point, and have tried Mint, but not Mint Debian. It’s nice enough. I’m curious what Debian is like these days though. I haven’t used it in a decade at least.
Snaps are ways to ship software where everything is bundled together and the developer doesn’t need to sort out dependencies on the distribution. This often makes the package bloated. It has no direct benefits for users, but it makes life easier for developers. This, indirectly, users might get access to some software they would otherwise need to compile if no one’s got it readily available for the user’s distribution. Ubuntu appears mostly to be using it because they don’t want to bother sorting out dependcies. On Ubuntu, and only on Ubuntu as fast as I know, some packages in apt will install the snap version silently, which, I think rightfully, annoys a lot of users.
There are similar alternatives, like flatpak, which also bundle dependencies. Some aspects of snap are proprietary to Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, so you’ll find people who are ok with the somewhat bloated software if it makes software more widely available, but aren’t happy with a proprietary format in what is largely an open community.
I believe snaps are only installed by default on Ubuntu at this point. Debian has apt and I don’t think it installs a snap version unless you asked for that.
It’s mostly a clean installation. You can copy the contents of your home directory, which is where personal configuration files are stored, in the hopes that some stuff will transfer, but surely that won’t be complete.
You could also try dual booting, installing two OSes and you’d choose which to run at start up. You can configure these so that files on one are accessible from the other. This is pretty easy to do if you’re even slightly tech savvy.
I’ve found that the shiney new features are usually buggy. If you’re into helping improve things, using and fixing the new stuff is a great way to contribute. If you’re reasonably tech savvy, you’re going to be able to figure out any distribution. With few exceptions, they’re all easy enough to use. I even doubt the portrayal of Arch in this comic. If you’re not into developing stuff or just want to get your feet wet before diving in more, starting with Mint is easy. And it’s also easy enough to switch or expand if you decide to try something different later. There’s not a lot of lock in with Linux stuff.
Mint is a based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian, so the guy on the left. The comic implies that it’s easy but not quite as easy as Fedora. I would say that it is easier to use than Fedora.
Setup is simple and unless you’ve got something unusual going on on your computer, then everything will just work. Since it’s based on Ubuntu, most Ubuntu information will also apply to Mint, and that’s nice because there is a lot of information about Ubuntu.
Not everyone would care about this, but I personally don’t like chasing updates and constantly installing the latest versions of things. All Debian distributions favor stability over cutting edge features, whereas some distributions are set up to try to get the latest changes quickly. Ubuntu leans very slightly toward cutting edge compared to stock Debian, but Ununtu has Long Term Support (LTS) releases which are supported for, I think, 5 years. Ubuntu also have other releases with shorter support times. If you’re using Ubuntu and favor stability, you need to pay a little attention to what you’re installing. Mint is based only on Ubuntu LTS releases, so Mint favors stability.
How much did your friend pay for Debian?
If you are part of two organizations you can’t log into both at once, and switch between them. You need to log out and log back in. The way you test your mic and speakers is incredibly stupid and slow. It’s also a disorganized mess.
Could you elaborate on this? Is this new community restricting specifically mentions of Musk, or is there a broader difference? In particular, there are a lot of people claiming that Twitter is a tech company and that it belongs in tech news. Is that also the view of this new community or do you consider Twitter a social media company, with only tangential and generally not newsworthy actions related to technology?
It’s odd that you’re saying you shouldn’t consider the specific cases where C excels and then narrowing down things to the Web, where languages like php excel. So now you probably have some idea why your experience is so narrow. There’s a lot more to programming than the Web, and there’s always going to be.
“The software development market evolved from C to very high language languages such as Javascript/Typescript and the majority of stuff developed is done or will be done in those languages thus the CPU architecture becomes irrelevant.”
I saw someone else make a similar comment about C. People track these things, and C has been in the top 2 most widely used languages for more than 2 decades. Not knowing this should probably make you wonder why your background has resulted in such a narrow experience.
They also left out the fact that this was not the first injury nor the first complaint and that McDonald’s knew their coffee was inappropriately hot. The majority of damages weren’t to because of medical costs, but we’re punative as punishment for knowingly serving a dangerous product. It was intended to make them change their practices. That didn’t happen though. McDonald’s had the amount reduced in appeals and continues to serve coffee that is hotter than almost anyone wants.
It is made by Red Hat, and they went with the hat theme. I used a few distributions, and RedHat was one of the worst. I don’t know why it’s popular.
There’s still a big difference between what can collected from an app vs a Web site.
Their definitions are no longer related, but their sizes are still roughly the same relative to each other. I mean that the unit for amount of substance is based on 12 grams of C, instead of 12 kg of C, despite the kilogram being the unit for mass. Some fields used to use that unit and called it a kg-mole, but that notation would be pretty confusing and you would want to have a different name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)
I think the 2019 redefinition is really neat. They changed the system so that constants are defined instead of measured, in a way that makes estimates more precise. It’s worth reading about if you’re interested in the stuff.
I see what you mean. That is just as arbitrary as using the Earth’s size or any other reference. There’s nothing special about a year.
It’s already defined that way - from Wikipedia "From 1983 until 2019, the metre was formally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. After the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units, this definition was rephrased to include the definition of a second in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs. "
The mole is defined based on the gram and not the kilogram, even though the kilogram is the coherent unit of mass. I don’t have an example, but it probably results in a bit of extra math somewhere. Again, who knows why. Apparently the mole has had conflicting definitions in the past, and one of them was based on the kilogram, so it seems like this would have been easy to do. Again, the gram is involved - maybe the two things are related?
There are no longer any base units as of the 2019 SI redefinition, but prior to that the second was the base unit for time. Hour and minute we’re defined based on that. And now even though a second isn’t a base unit, hour and minute are still defined based on the second, not the other way around. It’s been that way for several decades now. Maybe you’re thinking of some no-longer-used system.
This is one of two “warts” that I know of in SI. They wanted a coherent set of units, coherent meaning that no nuisance constants are required to convert between dimensions in the set. The system at the time was gram-centimeter-second. To expand things to all dimensions I suppose it was simpler to use the larger units, like J = kg m^2 / s^2 rather than trying to make a new unit for energy, etc. You’d think they’d have just come up with a new name for mass units and defined it as 1 kg, something like 1 prot = 1 kg, then all of the coherent units would be ones without prefixes. Someone must have really being going to bat for the word “gram” though, because now we have this pretty stupid rule that the coherent units are all of the ones without prefixes, except mass, which has the coherent unit of kg. And then also, prefixes are used to scale the coherent units by appending the appropriate letter to the coherent unit symbol, except for mass, for which g is treated as the coherent unit, even though it’s not.
It’s not the worst thing, but it’s pretty stupid to explain.
All airplanes are jetliners.