Canonical just can’t stop showing their ass. Do many people even use Ubuntu anymore? I feel like most have jumped ship to Linux Mint at this point. Either way, this in addition to all of Canonical’s previous blunders should tell people to gtfo of their environment.
ubuntu is really useful as an enterprise/just spin something up quick kind of OS. really useful for virtualization, default OS in WSL, lots of stuff is built for ubuntu toolchain wise in industry, etc
my boss had a conversation w a guy who was using arch in WSL and fighting with configs and setting things up every step of the way because everyone else in our office used ubuntu in WSL for development.
yeah, unfortunately much like windows it’s somewhat of a industry standard for a lot of things cries in robotics
I still do but it’s been my distro for ages. When I finally upgrade my old thinkpad I’ll be free of canonical. Still don’t know if I’m going to Debian or fedora or something immutable 😵💫
Come to the immutable/atomic side, best experience I’ve ever had on Linux
I’ve never been able to understand what an “immutable” distro is for or how it would change my life.
Atomic updates with the ability to roll back to a previous state without much fuss would be the one main advantage that comes to mind
Mainly stability for me. I don’t have to worry about my system breaking because I can easily rollback to a previous version on the grub menu, then I can pin a working image and/or rollback to multiple versions behind if I need it for whatever reason. I also don’t need to worry about updating because Bazzite just updates in the background and applies it on reboot/shutdown.
I guess I’m leaving ubuntu then. Too bad, it’s been my daily driver for nearly 16 years now.
What’s the next best alternative? I just want a stable and secure distro that won’t get abandoned in six months because the dev team consists of a single basement dweller and his cat.
I mean you can go straight Debian. There is a Debian-based Linux Mint that seems to have been around a long time, but I’ve never used it.
Fedora is owned by evil shits, but is also a stable and secure distro, and it is what Linus uses FWIW. So it’s a choice if you’re okay with never contributing to it at all…
If you want stable, you can’t do better than Debian. If you want a good balance of stable and up-to-date, Fedora is good, and the immutable variants are interesting. Debian stable doesn’t get as out of date as it used to, either.
It is worth adding that using Debian stable comes with the price of being several versions behind on most software packages. It rarely matters, but it’s a pain in the ass for the times that it does.
This is true, but less so than a decade ago.
You can get some newer stuff (a newer kernel for one) from the (unofficial) repository on backports.debian.org
Oh that is quite useful. Thanks for the resource. If I ever find myself back on Debian, I will keep this in mind. Unfortunately, it doesn’t carry any updated packages for the issues I was experiencing.
Releases are every 2 years, roughly. Not really that bad / old. And for major gui apps where it does matter, like a browser, flatpaks (or similar) are the way to go, generally means it comes straight from the devs when they release.
My issues that I’ve run into sat in the UXes and in drivers. Not the easiest fixes to work around for most. But yes, the packages you mention are indeed fairly simple to workaround if necessary thanks to robust, external package managers.
are there good alternatives to Ubuntu Server? I run all my docker containers on headless US cuz I don’t know any better. Maybe this thing is a non-issue but still curious what else is out there. Maybe Debian would serve just as well?
If you’re using Docker, Debian should be fine. The containers include their own runtimes and make the software running on the host mostly irrelevant. For what its worth, I run matapacos.dog on Debian (without Docker). You couldn’t ask for a better server OS in my opinion.
You seem to be a knowledged linuxer, do you know how to make docker compose containers start on boot. Last I used it I think I had to log on and run
docker compose up -devery time.Edit: I should have just asked the search engine which leads me to stackoverflow. See also dockers own docs on restart
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
There’s also the Podman way of doing things which involve using Podman Quadlets/Pods to group containers together and to start them as a rootless systemd user service (using loginctl’s
enable-lingertoggle to allow services to be started without the user being logged in.I was looking at podman. And I was interested in it, though I wasn’t certain if I wanted to use it since I was going to be doing docker compose stuff. Is there more you could tell me about it?
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Certainly. Podman is essentially a daemonless re-implementation of docker that integrates better with GNU/Linux systems. It uses the same Open Containers Initiative (OCI) framework and can be used a drop-in replacement to docker.
The benefit of using podman is that it doesn’t require a daemon by default which makes it more resilient than docker and simpler to set up. You can migrate any docker-compose setup to podman via the
podman-composeplugin but you can also use pods (Kubernetes-speak) to deploy connected services.For example, you can use
podman-composeto generate a systemd unit file or use--in-podto create a pod from a compose file.
I actually have very little practical experience with Docker beyond a high level understanding of how it works. In my experience, activating the docker systems unit was sufficient.
Thanks, makes perfect sense. Think my brain was trying to save itself from pondering the work involved in moving the containers over. My oldest ones I set up before I really knew what I was doing so I’m expecting it to be a chore to backup, migrate, and adopt them into the management container I’m using now (Arcane). Would make a nice weekend project if I had one to spare, hehe
You said it yourself. If you’re just running everything in docker containers, the base os doesn’t really matter as much. You could probably just run Debian. Or many other distros for that matter.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Many thanks, sounds like worth doing if I can get over the inertia
While Ubuntu and stupid decisions go together like peanut butter and jelly, the headline is misleading at Ubuntu’s AI usage. Here is their own article about it.
the headline is misleading at Ubuntu’s AI usage
I mean, is it? Headline says the Ubuntu is embracing it. According to your linked article, that’s correct. They say it needs “utmost caution”, but also imply they’d even allow non-local AI processing if they "need"ed to, which is pretty wild.
The headline implies Ubuntu is using AI for development, which is not the case
The word “Ubuntu” means “Can’t configure Debian.”
There is nothing to configure about Debian.
This critical piece of info is missing from the article:
The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):
- Debian source packages
- Official Debian project software, such as lintian
- Debian web resources
- Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors
- Official communication from Debian
It does not include:
- Upstream projects using LLMs for development
- AI-related software
- Upstream patches/security fixes etc.
It would be nearly impossible to forbid AI upstream, since it’s in the Linux kernel.
Yeah, Mr. Linux himself has already said he is fine with AI I thought.
I think today’s they day the Debian devs vote! I hope the full ban will pass.
How would this ban even work? Didn’t Torvalds say AI code in the kernel is fine in principle given it’s reviewed properly etc.?
They could’ve accepted upstream code using AI. This was the proposal:
Choice 1: No LLM contributions to Debian via Social Contract Preamble
This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools.
The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):
Debian source packages Official Debian project software, such as lintian Debian web resources Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors Official communication from DebianIt does not include:
Upstream projects using LLMs for development AI-related software Upstream patches/security fixes etcHowever, the result’s arrived. The accepted proposal is the fifth :
Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.
Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools in the development, maintenance, or documentation of software, packaging, documentation, and other media published within the Debian Project. We recognize that such tools can substantially improve the productivity of contributors when used responsibly, allowing volunteers to spend more of their limited time on work that requires technical expertise, judgment, review, and collaboration.
The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor’s responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian’s established development practices. We enourage our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not require them to do so.
Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright, authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training material. The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part, copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works.
Instead, Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to exercise appropriate care when using generative AI tools, to consider the provenance and licensing implications of material they contribute, and to avoid introducing content whose legal status they cannot reasonably justify. Existing Debian policies governing licensing, copyright, software freedom, and the acceptance of contributions continue to apply irrespective of the tools used to produce those contributions.
Contributors are expected to exercise appropriate care when designing and implementing workflows that incorporate generative AI tools. In particular, they should ensure that confidential information, private communications, security-sensitive information (such as embargoed information about security bugs that is not yet public), cryptographic keys, credentials, and other non-public material relating to the Debian Project, its infrastructure, or its community are not disclosed to third-party AI services unless such disclosure has been explicitly authorized and is consistent with Debian’s security and privacy requirements.
The use of generative AI does not alter Debian’s established expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions. Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact, such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. Any such automated process should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior and output.
This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian.
I guess that sounds reasonable. I just don’t see how a strict no AI policy can be reasonably enforced, if somebody is hell bent on shoving AI slop into your codebase they’re gonna find a way, it’s not like it’s particularly hard to make it look like you actually wrote the code instead of the AI.
the “cannot be enforced” argument always felt like concern tolling to me. for things like licences, anyone can just copy code from other incompatible projects and claim it’s theirs. every policy can be abused and i don’t see why this is different.
if someone is hell bent on adding ai code (or any other code, like incompatible licenced code or even backdoors) they will have to make signifficant effort to mask the signals to bypass the review. for everything else it will be a good guideline on how to act when that situation happens instead of depending on the individual maintainers opinion
they will have to make signifficant effort to mask the signals to bypass the review.
I guess it depends how significant the effort will be, obviously if somebody just shits out out a 50k line diff with an AI it’s gonna be really suspicious right off the bat but a smaller, more contained diff isn’t going to immediately raise any flags. Eventually somebody is going to make it really easy to make the AI not sound like an AI at least not as obviously as it does now.
I think eventually maintainers of high profile open source projects are just gonna have to whitelist contributors and just reject contributions from the general public, I wouldn’t be surprised if we started seeing interview processes being set up for open source contributions.
I use Ubuntu Studio because the kernel is compiled for realtime processing and it comes packed with a bunch of creative software that I use. Are there any similar non-Debian alternatives?
Why not Debian with the rt kernel and then install the software from the repos / flatpaks?
Mostly because I’m lazy. But maybe that’s what I’ll have to do.
I reinstall pretty often because all my important persisted data is on a separate drive and it’s often faster than troubleshooting whatever bullshit is currently happening. Maybe I should look into NixOS and just have a config with everything I need on it.
You might be able to get pretty far with just backups of your home dir and package lists.
