Linux

48144 readers

717 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

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What are the differences between the 'base' of various Linux distributions? (slrpnk.net)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been using linux desktop for a year or so now. One noteable thing i keep seeing is that one person will say I dont like XYZ distrobution because of its base. But I am still a little unsure what is meant by it. I am assuming the main difference between each base is the choice of package management(?). But what other factors/aspects that are important for the average user to know about each 'base'? This is probably quite a broad question to a rather technical answer, but appriciate any answers, and i'll try my best to understand and read up :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

IIRC, Canonical is using Ubuntu to push an "extended security maintenance" program or something like that.

These kinds of services are all the same. RedHat does it, Microsoft does it, many others too probably.

The idea is: (stop reading if any of these don't apply)

You are a huge enterprise with lots of money
You have a lot of computers with a lot of complex, (manually tested and badly designed) programs/systems that are strongly coupled to and dependent on the specific configuration of those computers.
Thus, you HATE upgrading all these computers to new OS versions
You would love to pay a company to give you a sense of security by providing monthly security patches so you can keep using your old OS
You don't really mind that this is fundamentally flawed and insecure because the cost of upgrading to a new OS version is too great for you to pay: you'd rather take a subscription for shitty bandaid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Great info, but did this answer the question? Is Mint free of this model?

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

Yes it is

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the average Mint user is not a wealthy enterprise with tons of systems they don't want to upgrade so they don't need to consider this, whether it's available for their distro or not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a Mint user yet, which is why I'm interested in not requiring this model.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Ubuntu does not require the model either. It's an optional service that Canonical offers. They just market it in a weird way (inside the package manager)

I've been trying to explain that choosing to pay for this "extended security service" this is completely unnecessary if you just upgrade your OS every few years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Okay, that hits harder for some reason. How invasive is "upgrading OS"? Is it just "sudo apt full-upgrade"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

In my experience, it has been smooth in the past.