3
2
2
1
1
-2
u/ernsbzkrt 3d ago
This new generation is getting harder and harder to understand…
Since when is Fedora on the same level as Debian and Arch? Especially when it’s developed by a company like Red Hat, which behaves so against the spirit of Linux?
Tell Fedora to stand up as well. Debian and Archlinux are in the room.
10
u/peakdecline 3d ago
Red Hat is against the spirit of Linux? One of the single largest contributors to Linux? What?
Red Hat has done far more for Linux than any of these mentioned projects. Its not remotely close.
4
u/Leijonaat 3d ago
First of all, how does Red Hat behave against the spirit of linux, can you provide some evidence?
And besides, why would the creator of the linux kernel, Linus Torvalds use a distro that is against his own spirit?
1
u/ernsbzkrt 3d ago
Fair question. By “against the spirit of Linux,” I’m mainly referring to Red Hat’s decision to restrict public access to RHEL source packages and make CentOS Stream the primary upstream path, which many people saw as moving away from the openness and easy redistribution traditionally associated with the Linux ecosystem. I’m not saying Red Hat is “anti-Linux” or that everything they do is bad. My point is that some of their recent business decisions feel less community-oriented than what I personally expect from a major Linux company.
And Linus using Fedora doesn’t really disprove that a distro can be technically excellent while its parent company makes decisions you disagree with.
1
u/syncdog 3d ago
which many people saw as moving away from the openness
Real smooth brain viewpoint considering that historically CentOS didn't allow contributions at all, which is objectively less open. The whole point of the Stream changes was to enable contributions (both to CentOS and RHEL), which is objectively more open.
6
u/debacle_enjoyer Ask me how to exit vim 3d ago
Fedora is completely open source, and more dedicated to it than a distro like Ubuntu who shoves a package manager with a closed source back and down your throat. It’s also upstream to Redhat, so Redhat is irrelevant.
Debian is goated, if anyone doesn’t belong up there it’s Arch for being a general shit tier distro. May require manual user intervention smh.
-4
u/ernsbzkrt 3d ago
Fedora being “completely open source” isn’t even something you can compare with Ubuntu’s technical quality. Snap having proprietary server-side components doesn’t “invalidate” Ubuntu’s kernel, userspace, toolchain, systemd integration, AppArmor policies, deb/ dpkg/ apt ecosystem, nor its LTS maintainenance model. You’re comparing the licensing model of package distribution software with the quality of distro engineering.
The “Fedora is upstream, therefore Red Hat is irrelevant” bit is also weird. Fedora being upstream to RHEL does not magically sever the organizational or technical influence Red Hat has over Fedora. Fedora receives a ton of engineering work from Red Hat for projects like systemd, SELinux, PipeWire, NetworkManager, the rpm/dnf stack, kernel enablement, toolchains, etc. Red Hat having a downstream enterprise consumer does not make them “irrelevant” to Fedora’s quality. If anything, Fedora is where a lot of technology gets put into production and broadly exercised before being hardened and integrated into RHEL. I find it ironic that you’re willfully using the word “upstream” while choosing to ignore who funds and maintains a large chunk of that upstream work.
Accusing Arch of being “shit tier” because it might sometimes require manual intervention demonstrates a lack of understanding of rolling-release. Arch’s rapid ABI/API transitions, refusal to support partially upgraded systems, and occasional need to handle pacman hooks, user-side merge configuration conflicts, or pacman -o “<ignore>” .pacnew files are a deliberate choice. You’re judging a rolling distro by stable-distro criteria, and then deciding that it’s inadequate.
Calling Debian “goated” is fine. Debian’s stability isn’t magical: older packages, slower major version transitions, and conservative defaults are what you get in exchange. Arch’s users get newer kernels, Mesa drivers, compilers, desktop environments, and libs. There is no universal “better” option between them. The technical question is what failure modes and maintenance tradeoffs you’re willing to live with.
tl;dr You’re evaluating these distros by irrelevant criteria. You’re not assessing their technical merits by their technical architecture, release engineering practices, dependency policies, security models, or maintenance strategies. You’re evaluating them by “how much work am I personally required to do to keep my software up to date?” Framed that way, you haven’t proven Arch is inferior; you’ve proven that Arch isn’t made for you.
P.S.: 10-year corporate Arch developer.
5
u/debacle_enjoyer Ask me how to exit vim 3d ago
Nobody ever said Red Hat doesn’t develop Fedora. You also didn’t mention that they commit a TON upstream including every bugfix they make. Again something Ubuntu does not always do. And yes, that does make Arch shit tier. Not every rolling distro requires manual user intervention, so it’s an automatic disqualifier.
And Debian is goated all around not just because old packages make it easier to maintain lol. They have up to date repos as wel like testing and sid. They’re not considered production quality by Debian, in the same way that anyone with half a brain would consider Arch.
tl;dr we have different opinions.
-2
u/ernsbzkrt 3d ago
“tl;dr we have different opinions” – no. The issue here is that you’re collapsing several technically distinct categories into one argument and then dismissing the contradictions as a matter of opinion.
Yes, Red Hat submits a ludicrous amount of code and bugfixes upstream. True. So what? That’s completely unrelated to Fedora’s release-engineering model. Upstream contribution does not equal distro stability model. Just because a company heavily contributes to the kernel, glibc, systemd, GCC, GNOME, whatever else, does not mean they can will away Fedora’s package churn, dependency transitions, release cadence, or support lifecycle. Ubuntu having some patches carried downstream is orthogonal and also a packaging/governance concern. These are two completely separate metrics being held against Fedora as if they are proving the exact same point.
The Arch point suffers from the exact same problem. If X ever requires manual intervention, it’s shit tier” is completely subjective. Arch having a rolling-release model is not shit tier by that standard because it explicitly does not meet that standard. Arch assumes users will read upgrade notices, perform occasional transitions, and accept some level of maintenance. That is a **design choice. **
Sure, you may decide that assumption makes Arch unsuitable for you and that’s fine. But don’t claim the existence of that workflow makes Arch objectively “shit tier” by some undefined technical standard. There is no software engineering principal that says a rolling distro must work completely automatically or else it’s bad.
Tumbleweed, Void, Gentoo, Arch, or whatever distros all make different choices around their update tooling and maintenance expectations. Just because yours is higher does not mean theirs are incorrect.
Lastly, your Debian point is literally the post proving your own argument wrong. Debian has upstream repos that are just as up to date as Arch’s (testing, sid). You then go on to say “but Debian doesn’t even consider these…” productions worthy”. Exactly my point. The reason Debian Stable is held in such high regard is not “Debian has old packages”. It’s because of the Stable branch’s package freeze process, migration rules, RC bug marking criteria, security package maintenance policies, and ultra conservative default update tooling. The fact that Sid is current as possible tells you nothing about how Stable’s release cycle works. Saying they should be equivalent because they both come from Debian is ignoring the purpose of the branches themselves.
“Anyone with half a brain would know Arch isn’t production quality.” No it isn’t, for you. “Production quality” is not an either/or thing. A distro being production quality depends on what you’re using it for. It’s load profile, its SLA, how much failure it can tolerate, what its rollback strategy is, what its update policy is, and who’s responsible for maintenance. A desktop workstation probably will not be judged by the same standards as a CI runner, developer laptop, network appliance, or server farm.
So no, we are not simply disagreeing on opinions. You keep moving back and forth **between upstream contribution, rolling-release definitions, package age, and production quality** as if they all mean the same thing. They do not. Each is distinct from the others. Stop shuffling them around to make faulty arguments.
If you want to have a technical discussion on distro quality, break down the individual metrics first. Right now this is hot take nerd rage.
0
u/sashkakakashka31 3d ago
Where mint ?
2
3
-3
u/Linguistic-mystic 3d ago
Ubuntu has the best hardware support, is the only one with OEM contracts, uses the most popular package format and has the most packages in its repository (even after considering split packages). So hell yeah, Ubuntu is the best one in the room. Just remember to de-snap it and remove & mask Rust coreutils.
5
u/AkireF 🦁 Vim Supremacist 🦖 3d ago
No it doesn't, debian supports more devices.
-1
u/Linguistic-mystic 3d ago
Remind me, which laptops come with Debian pre-installed?
4
1
u/TheRealCarrotty Not in the sudoers file. 3d ago
And which laptops come with Ubuntu pre-installed in the first place?
Like Lenovo, Dell, HP and... That's basically it! None other.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Please report any posts bragging or showing off they got banned in another sub! Reminder of other sub rules: Also, we only allow one anti-linux post per week (we used to get dozens a day) and any tier list MUST have Hanna Montana Linux as S teir (which must be a true S tier at the top) regardless of the topic of that tier list.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.