So if i liked #Linux for a while, was off because of games, and try to return...
Tell me true: Am i an Idiot if i take a notebook preinstalled with Ubuntu? (for work)
Really split on this, re-invigorate my love for linux on desktop, or cultivate my hate for windows-adjacent distributions?
Had bad things with real Linux, had bad things happen with Ubuntu, somehow i feel like i should install an Arch by myself. But then i feel like i should not pour my lifetime into a work laptop either.
@DopeGhoti Well, the real question is how much do i want to invest. Ubuntu takes that away, and Arch forces it. I love arch for that, but at the same time it is work and i don't know if i want to commit here.
Should i accept less control?
Thx for rubber ducking, i should. If i used windows, i woudl have all the trouble and no control.
@admitsWrongIfProven You don't get any more nor less control with arch or ubuntu.
The main difference is the updates: arch has the latest versions of software while ubuntu does not.
Unless you like to experiment all new features of stuff, you don't need arch and I'd rather stay away since often these can misbehave being less tested.
When you install Arch you're forced to set up a system since very little comes pre installed. It really doesn't take more time than installing a list of packages you wish.
When you install ubuntu you have a good ecosystem of packages preinstalled, but nothing prevents you from removing them and installing what you'd have installed on Arch.
Me, I prefer debian to ubuntu; frankly I see little added value on ubuntu now.
Arch will force you to learn some things. If you're in for a learning experience, that may be interesting. It doesn't necessarily require a lot of time, I guess you could probably just search for a list of things to install on the internet and choose from there.
All in all, it really doesn't matter all that much which linux distribution you decide to use.
@rastinza Wait, what? That does not check out. Arch does not enable any daemon unless i say so - that is control.
Debian, i have used for some time, but it seems it is too far off the real world - if you want any video en/decoders of this century, you need to subvert it. Arch just tells you "Do it yourself: here you go". That's fine.
But still, any work towards work equip is too much work. By definition. I guess i just want to shove off from the real world and build a system in peace. ^^
@admitsWrongIfProven As far as I remember Arch comes with systemd and indeed it does start services; you wouldn't expect internet connectivity otherwise.
Anyways, you have the same amount of control in ubuntu: you can remove stuff and you can disable services. The difference is pretty much in the package repositories.
Don't know exactly about the video encoders, but packages are more or less the same as the ones in ubuntu. Probably you have to enable non free software packages.
Arch has non free software packages by default.
If I must say, the biggest advantage of Arch is the availability of the AUR, which makes niche software easier to install.
If this is a computer you need to work on, I strongly advise any Linux distribution but Arch. Troubles sometimes arise with Arch, and you don't want to be troubleshooting for a couple of hours on a friday afternoon because you have to complete a presentation.
@rastinza Hm yeah, work to do work is wrong on a fundamental level. But i somehow still shiver in fear of the graphics driver desaster of ubuntu "yeah we will do that" day when i only saw dancing pixels...
Try Elementary or PopOS
Look on Distrowatch.org
@professorsevier Ok, i need context - did you find my questions about linux distros or is this unrelated?
In general, my options are to take ubuntu or install everything manually. And since it is for work, no labor of love will go into it... so what to do, with my limited resources?
In any case, my new employer has proposed linux, for which i love him. The case that remains is if ubuntu is worthy. I had my doubts, but no recent history/experience.
@admitsWrongIfProven
Linux
I've tried more distros than I should admit to.
If you have a software repository you feel safe with then Ubuntu is ok.
I personally partition my harddrive into two or three then install a workhorse on one, a gaming edition on another and then have a third one to try out new stuff.
On another comp I use virtual machines and have about 6 machines I can call on at anytime.
@admitsWrongIfProven
Presuming all the hardware has kernel support, Ubuntu is in my experience nicely low-maintenance. I get strong Gentoo vibes from Arch: great for tinkerers who want to be elbows-deep in tweaking the system more than actually using it (and I say this as a Gentoo fan who used it as a daily driver for years).