• Techognito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Compared to say arch, gentoo, lfs. ubuntu is easier to install, but I believe the point you wanted to make is that there are distros that are as easy if not easier to install than ubuntu

    edit: I see now that this might have sounded more condescending than I had intended, and for that I’m sorry.

    The point I wanted to make was that there are both better and worse installers out there. Which is something I enjoy about linux and the different distros. You have the option to install something easy and just use your computer as you see fit, or you can tinker and learn different ways your computer can be set up.

    • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is the most bad faith example you could have picked. You know I meant distros like Pop OS Fedora, Linux Mint, etc. You picked the uncommon outliers which are the most user unfriendly ones possible.

      • Techognito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My intentions were never to be condescending, and I feel bad for sounding that way. I edited my comment in hopes to clear things up.

    • butre@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you can’t convince me that anyone is actually using lfs in 2023. tinkering with it maybe, and I can see someone doing alfs for specialized shit, but there’s no way in hell anyone is actually using it as their regular daily driven os on their personal computer. it just doesn’t make sense.

      real people outside of the ubuntu space are using debian, fedora, manjaro, maybe something like pop os or mint. there’s no barrier to entry, performance difference is negligible if present at all, and you don’t have to spend a full day getting it ready

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only real difference I can think of is that Ubuntu’s installer is actually really nice and had the dual boot install option, which I don’t think any other distro has.

        • butre@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          most distros that aren’t like slackware/gentoo/arch/etc. install with calamares these days, it handles dual boot configs simply and without issue. even doing like debian netinst, I don’t remember it having any trouble

          • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In terms of ease of use, no. They’re capable, but in Ubuntu it’s literally as easy as choosing how much space do you want to leave for Windows and Ubuntu, then it handles all the partitioning for you.

            • butre@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              it’s been years since I bothered with windows I’ll admit, but I’m fairly certain calamares handles it all for you too

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      meh even arch has archinstall now. not as flashy as some others, but it will set you up with a fully functional desktop as well

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re comparing apples and reactors. Ubuntu is one of the easy to use distros by design. Distros like that try to keep config file changes and things like that from the user. When that fails, the falling height for users is higher, as they now have to deal with a complex problem. The other ones are designed to be simple and require you to handle potential breaking changes manually by default, which means you’re taught to do these things and won’t be clueless when things get hairy.

      You shouldn’t compare Ubuntu to Arch. Compare it to Mint, Fedora, Pop!_OS, …