What are the differences between the 'base' of various Linux distributions?
What are the differences between the 'base' of various Linux distributions?
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're viewing a single thread.
So, hey, can someone explain to me about Linux Mint, like since it is derivative of Ubuntu does that mean that the new system of having to pay for Ubuntu updates is inherited by Mint?
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.
Great info, but did this answer the question? Is Mint free of this model?
Yes it is
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.
I'm not a Mint user yet, which is why I'm interested in not requiring this model.
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.
Okay, that hits harder for some reason. How invasive is "upgrading OS"? Is it just "sudo apt full-upgrade"?
In my experience, it has been smooth in the past.