In-case you didn’t know, Linus Sebastian of LTT media made a video with Linus Torvalds. If you watched the video, what are your thoughts?
BTW, he uses Fedora.
In-case you didn’t know, Linus Sebastian of LTT media made a video with Linus Torvalds. If you watched the video, what are your thoughts?
BTW, he uses Fedora.
Is this enough to update the Fedora Linux wikipedia page, or is it still just “the distribution used by Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel (as of May 2020)”? It isn’t exactly confirmed but … like what else is he gonna use. I don’t know if he’d be caught dead using Debian or Arch, and OpenSUSE would be too wild a choice.
People in here like to hate, but there’s a damn good reason. The majority of the people who are vocal about distribution choice aren’t contributors, long-time users, or experts in the field. A lot of us who are just want a simple, quick installing, porting, “out of the way” (no heavy customizations) and functional distro with a large user base, and a solid team behind it. This means it’s not going to immutable, and it’s not going to to be by Canonical.
A lot of us use Fedora for this exact reason.
Or Mint. I use Mint because it works with minimal hassle.
Mint doesn’t use Gnome or KDE, which is why devs generally steer clear. It’s best to be coding and running the thing the most number of users will be experiencing.
I’m considering distro-hopping from Kubuntu to Fedora Kinoite. I just am trying to figure out how it fairs in terms of application sandboxing, what they’re doing on supply chain security (re: XZ Utils) and whether I might want to give GNOME another shake.
I mean, I feel like he outright confirms it in the video. It’s his distro of choice since it allows him to easily use his own compiled kernels in testing. Anything else is an inconvenience to his work.
Why would Debian be unacceptable?
Cause Debian is an out of date rock.
If you need a rock it’s good
But it’s still a rock for better or worse and rocks are a pain in the ass to do anything with that isn’t just having it sit there.
Because holding back updates makes the system insecure and unstable.
Are you really saying that Debian is an unstable distro? Regarding security, can you name one security update Debian did ever fail to apply on time? Because it’s pointless to compare feature updates and security updates.
The reason Debian is known to be “outdated” regarding features only is exactly why it’s considered one of the most, even if not the most, stable distro. Because it’s long time tested between upgrades.
Debian is a stable server distro, but in the desktop space users expect everything to just work and while Fedora is usually backwards compatible, Debian isn’t always forwards compatible.
As for security updates, IDK.
I’m operating mostly of second-hand information I vaguely remember, I’m not an expert on these things so I’m not really the person to be discussing this with. There’s surely a reason Linus uses Fedora over Debian though.
My subjective opinion: he uses it because of bleeding edge kernel version. And it is surely, for him more than anyone else, an important point. But it doesn’t mean older kernels are not secure, they can be patched when needed. And the “needed” varies, for some distro it means it’s just not the last one, for others that additionnal and interesting features are added. For Debian, it means patching vulnerabilities if there are, or take the required time to offer a tested and coherent pack of updates. Because otherwise there is for now, no need. Testing is a specific point that no other distro has ever did better than Debian, but the same reason why it feels old to many and not enough up to date, regarding features.
I’m obviously a Debian advocate, but I’m not saying it’s in general the best distro, there are none. Only best for some usage, and not for others.
But it doesn’t make it unsecure (that’s partly why it’s one of the most used server side) and “holding back” updates. :)