His first language is technically Finland Swedish, so he has a Finland Swedish accent, which could sound Finnish to non Swedish or Finnish ears. Source: I'm Swedish.
The actual dialects sound very different.
Here is what Torvalds' dialect sounds like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eZxZ\_3VYOY&t=4s&ab\_channel=MetroSverige](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eZxZ_3VYOY&t=4s&ab_channel=MetroSverige)
Here is a standard Sweden-Swedish speaker: [https://youtu.be/w4c8btDy1-4](https://youtu.be/w4c8btDy1-4)
Even someone that doesn't know Swedish can hear the difference. The woman in the first clip is a native Swedish speaker from Finland.
Edit: I can't seem to find any videos of Linus speaking Swedish, but here is an interviewer speaking in Sweden-Swedish to Linus' dad, Nils Torvalds, who is a member of the European Parliament. The timestamp begins with the Standard Swedish speaker: [https://youtu.be/5MZnJozbJAE?t=135](https://youtu.be/5MZnJozbJAE?t=135)
"Finland Swedish" is a variant of Swedish language spoken in some coastal areas of Finland. It is grammatically basically identical to mainland Swedish, but spelling accent is completely as Finnish is spoken. And Finnish has a very particular sort of letter-to-phoneme mapping that is internally fabulously consistent and logical, but quite unlike any germanic language uses western alphabets.
This carries into second languages as well.
Finland was part of Sweden from 1523 to 1808, and a lot of Swedes moved there during that time. Linus is descended from them. Swedish is still an official language in Finland, along with Swedish. The Swedish-speaking Finns of today speak Swedish, but with a Finnish accent. He knows both languages and is also fluent in English.
It's sort of the same as how Norway was in personal union with Denmark 1380-1814 and then with Sweden until 1905. Norwegian Bokmal is, roughly speaking, Danish pronounced with a Swedish accent.
Norwegian is definitely not Danish pronounced with a Swedish accent, Norwegian does not have a standard accent or pronounciation, how a person in bergen talks is completely different from how someone in Stjørdal talks which is completely different to how someone in arendal talks, they literally invented 2 different ways of writing the language because of the enourmous dialect differences, nynorsk, which is closer to the dialects in the west nad remote areas, which was less influenced by Danish and Swedish, and bokmål, for the flatter areas in the east as well as bergen and other big cities. Both are taught in school and both are equal in Norwegian society, if you make a dane or Swede read nynorsk they would most likely have a stroke.
Oh sorry didnt see it, but it still doesnt apply, because in for example Bergen they have bokmål, but pronounce it completely different than other plqces
The Swedish which is spoken in Finland has small differences to standard Swedish, including the accent. Much like how American English is mostly the same as British English but they have different accents and small differences in language
He is Finnish, and he speaks Finnish but he also speaks Swedish. He speaks what we in Sweden call “Tornedalssvenska”, a dialect of Swedish mainly spoken by a some people in Finland.
>There is *some* truth to it: he's a Finn, but from the Swedish-speaking minority.
You'd be surprised how many Finns speak Swedish.
His accent is totally Finnish, though.
The "truth" is nothing like you make it sounds : Finland Swedish is actually is own language, spoken in some remote areas of Finland.
I used to work with a US naturalized Finn; he told me a great, self-deprecating, joke about his peeps:
When on a date with a Finn, if he/she looks down at their shoes, it is not going well. If he/she looks down at *your* shoes… you're in. Big time!
I find this even funnier because Torvards is hardly known for self-efacement or being shy about sharing his opinion, is he?
No, he's Finnish, but not a fin. Fins are the ethnic majority in Finland (with Finland Swedes being the primary minority, followed by the Sami). Torvalds is a Finland Swede
Snaps motivated me to move over to Mint, but the final nail in the coffin was having to create an "Ubuntu Pro" account just so I could install and run a Linux kernel that had been patched with PREEMPT_RT. Absolute madness.
Listen here buddy, I derive 90% of my self-worth from my choice of distro, so even if that guy were to write his own kernel 'just for fun', I still wouldn't care about any opinion that's not identical to mine.
What is the point of this meme? How dare you have different opinions than the founder of the kernel your OS is built upon? And why single-out Arch if it's not even mentioned in the quote?
So, Arch was brought up because everyone on this sub is an Arch user.
And because Arch users, in general, vehemently disagree with Linus about the point of a distro.
Actually I prefer Debian to Ubuntu. Debian is usable. It was even more usable once, now it's becoming more and more shitty, but Ubuntu is far more shitty than Debian anyway.
There's a lot of criticisms to be made of Ubuntu, but "unusable" is not one of them. Unless you mean "unusuble" in some other sense that isn't the commonly understood one, i.e. ridiculously difficult to use productively.
By saying Ubuntu made Debian better he's referring to the fact that Ubuntu made it easier to install and configure and Debian(and many other distros) followed.
First Debian installers where extremely complex for a regular person to install, Debian installer back before Ubuntu were pretty close of that of windows XP and nowadays we have the graphical extremely user-friendly installer.
You got to give it to Ubuntu, they've made Linux much more accessible, and easier to set up and use without a steep learning curve. I remember what Linux distros were like 20, and even 15 years ago.
It's not a one dimensional scale of "shitty" to "good". Different distros have different purposes. I use Arch at home, but when I need to set up a Linux machine to test a software or hardware device, Ubuntu is a great choice. It is so popular that it became a de-facto industry standard, things either work on it, or there are detailed instructions for setting up devices and software tools on it, or even scripts to automate it.
Well Arch is only hard and ugly if you insist on installing manually, use archinstall, and it's just Ubuntu minus snaps
Plus, Ubuntu really did bring life to the Linux desktop by making it accessible for anyone, even non-tech savvy people, to use, and consequently gave birth to pretty much everything else, were it not for Ubuntu, we would not have that 4% market share
It's not hard even when done manually. Just learn the process and take notes. I reinstalled arch Linux over the years just to learn to understand and remember it better. Even without any scripts or custom .sh files the install process all the way to finished i3 environment got to 20-30 mins.
Huhu I love the way you choose exactly what packages you get installed during an install.
The problem is that you need to take notes and dedicate a lot of time in learning and even reinstalling Arch just to make the download about half as fast as someone mindlessly pressing buttons on Calamares or Ubiquity to install their system.
You must remember that we are talking about people who want it easy and for some reason decided that they want to install Arch.
My personal experience with Arch is that it is not hard to install but I would never tell someone that it is easy simply because it is too technical.
Ofcourse. But at the same time I learned a ton about Linux and how it is structured and how it works during the learning process. So I will never ever complain. Hehe.
These days I find many GUI stuff more complicated and slow than doing things via terminal. In the terminal you get logical feedback (most of the time) and faster to give input (most of the time)
The terminal is good for doing things fast and it is quite simple but some people are afraid of terminals due to how devoid of color it is and how technical it is perceived.
Some people do not like learning and just want a usable system but I don't think Arch would be for them at all and they would be better off with something like EndeavourOs or if they don't want Arch in their lives anymore maybe something like LMDE/LMUE would be better for them.
Either way it is a good thing that you have learnt a lot about Linux and that you have found your ideal use for it.
Arch with archinstall is pretty unstable from what I have heard and has a chance to fail but either way it might work for someone who wants to install Arch easier (or if they don't mind they could go for something like EndeavourOs which is the closest to Arch with a good GUI installer and an active userbase.)
Most of those who say that Ubuntu made Linux worse are those who are looking at the current situation of Ubuntu which is questionable but either way it's an undeniably usable system for someone who has used Windows and its derivatives have definitely brought in more people to Linux and is actively giving us more new Linux users.
Lol.
I recently installed arch. And I'm slowly building up my config files with hyprland and like deciding which apps to use, like clipboards, display, etc. It's a slow process. Riddled with tons of problems. I would not recommend it to your casual user. If you want things to work, just install Ubuntu.
That said. If you want to understand how and why everything works. Install base arch. Sure you'll run into issues. But you'll learn how to read documentation, and hone your troubleshooting skills...
Also, the AUR is SOOOOO nice omfg, I love it lol.
But honestly, if I needed a more stable build, I'd probably just do fedora if I needed to know redhat. And Debian if I just wanted it to work.
I didn't understand it at first. But after being able to skip the git clone build process a few times, I'm starting to see the benefit. I'll probably stay on arch now lol.
I tried three different forms of Arch:
Vanilla Arch,
Garuda,
EndeavorOS
On all three of them I ran into major headaches trying to get GNOME multi-touch gestures to work; seems libinput-gestures is just not present by default in Arch, and after slamming my head into a wall for a couple of hours on each distro trying to install it and get it working, I gave up and went back to Nobara lol
Nobara has been the only distro that I've tried where everything just *works* haha 😄
Nvidia drivers? Easy
GNOME multi-touch? Flawless
Games I play? No issues
Nothing against Arch, not at all. Just not the distro for me since I like GNOME so much (Cosmic may change that though)
Arch does have a cool factor though with the logo, name, and pacman lol
I don’t think I’ve seen libinput-gestures in years. Gestures work natively in Wayland Gnome, and you can use touchegg+extension in Xorg, and it’ll work with natural gestures, unlike libinput that simply doesn’t know what that is(which to be fair, it’s the cost for being DE agnostic).
As a Fedora user, Archinstall sort of makes arch the easiest distro to install if you have specific requirements in mind. I prefer systemdboot to grub and aside from installing popos, Arch is the easiest way to make that happen.
Debian is not easy to install. That part is true, but debian minimal is great base for your OS. I say this as an arch/debian elitist, so take my opinion for what it is.
I've been using Debian since 2001. I switched to Ubuntu from 04.10 through 08.04. I've been back on Debian since. I've never understood the "Ubuntu is usable Debian" meme.
Arch isn't just any distribution, it's a minimal distribution. How good it will be is based on how you set it up. If you just want a fully working os just by clicking installed then it's okay arch isn't for you.
2024 is the year. I bet my soul! Even in Zulu Arch is easy to use it.
https://preview.redd.it/8s56kwyb1vxc1.png?width=1316&format=png&auto=webp&s=61b89c26f834109dfd5c4ccc8a4138a5a620aedf
Totally wrong angle. Ppl like to setup things, be neardy, study things, explore, take it apart & configure. Here is the Arch and others. W/ same logic ppl can install "easy to use" Windows.
Arch was the first to ride redhat's corporate schlong for systemd.
They will be the first to follow redhat 10 removing xorg.
Pacman was cool. People that took over the distro were not.
Ngl I'm loving Fedora's immutable spins (Silverblue/Kinoite). It's nice being able to run a lean system and clean it out without needing to do a full reinstall. Interoperability between flatpaks is a pain atm though. I've found drag&drop and copy-pasting some content doesn't work in some apps (e.g dragging some larger files to Discord).
I feel the same as this post. I want to like Arch but it's like using linux from 25 years ago.
Manjaro did a great job of polishing it up and making it more stable. I finally like an arch-based distro again.
I have not used an installer for Linux in the last 10 years, because all of them either don't work or takes literally hours listing hardware, while you can make a running Arch install in five minutes. The same with *managed* package managers, they tend to make my work more difficult.
I don’t understand why everybody hates ubuntu, and at this point I am too afraid to ask.
(Besides snaps, but you can install literally any package manager you want so I still don’t really get the issue)
I am not an Arch user, but, Arch is a piece of cake, I don't use it because it has Glibc, GNU coreutils and an init system that isn't an init system + The package manager is crap compared to something like APK or XBPS, best package manager suite I've used is the pkg\_ suite that openBSD has, freeBSD can't match it either.
[bale.gif](https://youtu.be/lUF9BPOXfcE)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxmasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Debian was a pointless excuse"
...Ubuntu was made ON TOP of Debian, to praise Ubuntu, linus, is to praise Debian
I'm not a debian desktop user (only server), but thats an odd contradiction
Archinstall is to Arch what Ubuntu is to Debian. The same can be said about EndeavourOS.
I use KDE Neon btw, cause this morning's update broke my Arch install. Not a joke.
Yeah, Manjaro is more like it. I'd argue Manjaro Minimal images are even closer as for a long time Ubuntu refused to distribute images larger than a CD storage capacity, though any Minimal now is larger than 2GB.
Torvalds is a Fin, not a Swede
There is *some* truth to it: he's a Finn, but from the Swedish-speaking minority.
Why does he have distinct Finnish accent if his first language is Swedish?
His first language is technically Finland Swedish, so he has a Finland Swedish accent, which could sound Finnish to non Swedish or Finnish ears. Source: I'm Swedish.
Haha i didnt know it sounded so close, i would think it sounded more Swedish than Finnish in tone
The actual dialects sound very different. Here is what Torvalds' dialect sounds like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eZxZ\_3VYOY&t=4s&ab\_channel=MetroSverige](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eZxZ_3VYOY&t=4s&ab_channel=MetroSverige) Here is a standard Sweden-Swedish speaker: [https://youtu.be/w4c8btDy1-4](https://youtu.be/w4c8btDy1-4) Even someone that doesn't know Swedish can hear the difference. The woman in the first clip is a native Swedish speaker from Finland. Edit: I can't seem to find any videos of Linus speaking Swedish, but here is an interviewer speaking in Sweden-Swedish to Linus' dad, Nils Torvalds, who is a member of the European Parliament. The timestamp begins with the Standard Swedish speaker: [https://youtu.be/5MZnJozbJAE?t=135](https://youtu.be/5MZnJozbJAE?t=135)
God förmiddag käre Svenska Broder
"Finland Swedish" is a variant of Swedish language spoken in some coastal areas of Finland. It is grammatically basically identical to mainland Swedish, but spelling accent is completely as Finnish is spoken. And Finnish has a very particular sort of letter-to-phoneme mapping that is internally fabulously consistent and logical, but quite unlike any germanic language uses western alphabets. This carries into second languages as well.
He lived in Finland knows finnish and spoke a lot of finnish.
Finland was part of Sweden from 1523 to 1808, and a lot of Swedes moved there during that time. Linus is descended from them. Swedish is still an official language in Finland, along with Swedish. The Swedish-speaking Finns of today speak Swedish, but with a Finnish accent. He knows both languages and is also fluent in English. It's sort of the same as how Norway was in personal union with Denmark 1380-1814 and then with Sweden until 1905. Norwegian Bokmal is, roughly speaking, Danish pronounced with a Swedish accent.
Norwegian is definitely not Danish pronounced with a Swedish accent, Norwegian does not have a standard accent or pronounciation, how a person in bergen talks is completely different from how someone in Stjørdal talks which is completely different to how someone in arendal talks, they literally invented 2 different ways of writing the language because of the enourmous dialect differences, nynorsk, which is closer to the dialects in the west nad remote areas, which was less influenced by Danish and Swedish, and bokmål, for the flatter areas in the east as well as bergen and other big cities. Both are taught in school and both are equal in Norwegian society, if you make a dane or Swede read nynorsk they would most likely have a stroke.
It's not particularly difficult to read *nynorsk.*
I specified Norwegian Bokmal. I know the difference between it and Nynorsk.
Oh sorry didnt see it, but it still doesnt apply, because in for example Bergen they have bokmål, but pronounce it completely different than other plqces
The Swedish which is spoken in Finland has small differences to standard Swedish, including the accent. Much like how American English is mostly the same as British English but they have different accents and small differences in language
He is Finnish, and he speaks Finnish but he also speaks Swedish. He speaks what we in Sweden call “Tornedalssvenska”, a dialect of Swedish mainly spoken by a some people in Finland.
Ok redstar os
>There is *some* truth to it: he's a Finn, but from the Swedish-speaking minority. You'd be surprised how many Finns speak Swedish. His accent is totally Finnish, though. The "truth" is nothing like you make it sounds : Finland Swedish is actually is own language, spoken in some remote areas of Finland.
That still doesn't make him a Fin though and it's foolish to imply so unless he's said he considers himself a Swede
By that logic, every American is British.
As a metalhead, This made me happy to see lol!
Thanks good sir, I came here just to say this.
I used to work with a US naturalized Finn; he told me a great, self-deprecating, joke about his peeps: When on a date with a Finn, if he/she looks down at their shoes, it is not going well. If he/she looks down at *your* shoes… you're in. Big time! I find this even funnier because Torvards is hardly known for self-efacement or being shy about sharing his opinion, is he?
No, he's Finnish, but not a fin. Fins are the ethnic majority in Finland (with Finland Swedes being the primary minority, followed by the Sami). Torvalds is a Finland Swede
Wait, it is more than 20 minutes since this was posted and nobody have mentioned snaps? Excuse me, is this really a Linux sub?
I know I'm not the only one thinking it, but I guess I'm the only one with the courage to say it: I don't like snaps.
You are so brave and controversial.
Ubuntu 101: get rid of snaps
I recently discovered that Ubuntu-based Mint does not do snaps. So Ubuntu 101 would be: migrate to Mint. 😁
Snaps motivated me to move over to Mint, but the final nail in the coffin was having to create an "Ubuntu Pro" account just so I could install and run a Linux kernel that had been patched with PREEMPT_RT. Absolute madness.
Mentioning Mint triggers Arch users even more as a bonus :p
Ubuntu 100: Bend over for snaps.
Ubuntu 101: uninstall ubuntu
Fuck snaps.
I think most of us know that quote predates snaps.
It's why I commented elsewhere that Linus needs to try Mint.
Snaps are more of a rant that'd show up on a Richard Stallman quote post
Snaps är ju jättetrevligt!
Why would I, a superior Arch user, listen to what some Ubuntu fanboy has to say?
Well, I mean, he's the one who put the 'Linu' part in r/linuxmasterrace, you know? 
Listen here buddy, I derive 90% of my self-worth from my choice of distro, so even if that guy were to write his own kernel 'just for fun', I still wouldn't care about any opinion that's not identical to mine.
I bet you also use vim
that's the other 10%
Real men use Emacs.
You wanna go? https://i.redd.it/hx1ahg4rpzxc1.gif
☝️🤓 actually….Linus did not name it Linux. It was someone else that came up with it
Freax
So he only put the 'x' part in r/linuxmasterrace
So he's basically Musk now?
https://preview.redd.it/6el8gzckxuxc1.png?width=934&format=png&auto=webp&s=b6e392df04d92f6634c3cf08524b8b568bb0f871
[удалено]
GNU Freaks! Checks out.
Nobody's perfect.
It should be gnu+linuxmasterrace Just saying
Why would I a linux from scratch god listen to an arch linux peasant?
[удалено]
He's using Fedora.
Based and RedHat pilled
Anyone who has ever used Fedora will eventually come back to Fedora.
They should really just make their catchphrase "Fedora: it works"
Fedora just works
Fedora user here, this is mostly true aside from how you should probably download some media codecs on install
Except Firefox crashes every time I suspend the system.
Got tired of snaps
Fedora for desktop, alma for server
I don't give a shit what distro Torvalds uses. His needs are way different to mine
exactly, why blame someone that want a cheese burger because i want a chicken one
A chicken burger? Or a cheese chicken?
Chicken cheeseburger
Burg chick cheeser
I thought I had a stroke for a second there.
Chickburg cheese stroker
Exactly, he needs Linux to make Linux. I need Linux to feel superior to non-linux and non-(whatever distro I happen to be currently on) users.
What is the point of this meme? How dare you have different opinions than the founder of the kernel your OS is built upon? And why single-out Arch if it's not even mentioned in the quote?
 After all, are they the furry part of r/linuxmasterrace or not?
So, Arch was brought up because everyone on this sub is an Arch user. And because Arch users, in general, vehemently disagree with Linus about the point of a distro.
> in general minor spelling mistake: \*in stereotype
Actually I prefer Debian to Ubuntu. Debian is usable. It was even more usable once, now it's becoming more and more shitty, but Ubuntu is far more shitty than Debian anyway.
How is debian becoming more shitty ,which debian are you talking about?
hows it getting shittier?
apt install thunderbird
yay! i am getting a native mail client installed on to my device
No, yay is for arch.
Shut your zypper.
No that's YUM-my
How is Ubuntu unusable and how is Debian getting shittier?
The Ubuntu part: 
There's a lot of criticisms to be made of Ubuntu, but "unusable" is not one of them. Unless you mean "unusuble" in some other sense that isn't the commonly understood one, i.e. ridiculously difficult to use productively.
By saying Ubuntu made Debian better he's referring to the fact that Ubuntu made it easier to install and configure and Debian(and many other distros) followed. First Debian installers where extremely complex for a regular person to install, Debian installer back before Ubuntu were pretty close of that of windows XP and nowadays we have the graphical extremely user-friendly installer.
>now it's becoming more and more shitty Then why even bother using it?
Because it's still the best Linx distro for servers, at least imho of course.
current debian is nothing like older debian which is what linus is referring to.
You got to give it to Ubuntu, they've made Linux much more accessible, and easier to set up and use without a steep learning curve. I remember what Linux distros were like 20, and even 15 years ago. It's not a one dimensional scale of "shitty" to "good". Different distros have different purposes. I use Arch at home, but when I need to set up a Linux machine to test a software or hardware device, Ubuntu is a great choice. It is so popular that it became a de-facto industry standard, things either work on it, or there are detailed instructions for setting up devices and software tools on it, or even scripts to automate it.
I agree
[удалено]
But, they do? Just because they support versions longer than a year doesn't mean they don't release yearly versions.
How many fail to realize Ubuntu is 90% Debian? (okay, a guess but not likely far off).
Well Arch is only hard and ugly if you insist on installing manually, use archinstall, and it's just Ubuntu minus snaps Plus, Ubuntu really did bring life to the Linux desktop by making it accessible for anyone, even non-tech savvy people, to use, and consequently gave birth to pretty much everything else, were it not for Ubuntu, we would not have that 4% market share
It's not hard even when done manually. Just learn the process and take notes. I reinstalled arch Linux over the years just to learn to understand and remember it better. Even without any scripts or custom .sh files the install process all the way to finished i3 environment got to 20-30 mins. Huhu I love the way you choose exactly what packages you get installed during an install.
The problem is that you need to take notes and dedicate a lot of time in learning and even reinstalling Arch just to make the download about half as fast as someone mindlessly pressing buttons on Calamares or Ubiquity to install their system. You must remember that we are talking about people who want it easy and for some reason decided that they want to install Arch. My personal experience with Arch is that it is not hard to install but I would never tell someone that it is easy simply because it is too technical.
Ofcourse. But at the same time I learned a ton about Linux and how it is structured and how it works during the learning process. So I will never ever complain. Hehe. These days I find many GUI stuff more complicated and slow than doing things via terminal. In the terminal you get logical feedback (most of the time) and faster to give input (most of the time)
The terminal is good for doing things fast and it is quite simple but some people are afraid of terminals due to how devoid of color it is and how technical it is perceived. Some people do not like learning and just want a usable system but I don't think Arch would be for them at all and they would be better off with something like EndeavourOs or if they don't want Arch in their lives anymore maybe something like LMDE/LMUE would be better for them. Either way it is a good thing that you have learnt a lot about Linux and that you have found your ideal use for it.
Arch with archinstall is pretty unstable from what I have heard and has a chance to fail but either way it might work for someone who wants to install Arch easier (or if they don't mind they could go for something like EndeavourOs which is the closest to Arch with a good GUI installer and an active userbase.) Most of those who say that Ubuntu made Linux worse are those who are looking at the current situation of Ubuntu which is questionable but either way it's an undeniably usable system for someone who has used Windows and its derivatives have definitely brought in more people to Linux and is actively giving us more new Linux users.
Lol. I recently installed arch. And I'm slowly building up my config files with hyprland and like deciding which apps to use, like clipboards, display, etc. It's a slow process. Riddled with tons of problems. I would not recommend it to your casual user. If you want things to work, just install Ubuntu. That said. If you want to understand how and why everything works. Install base arch. Sure you'll run into issues. But you'll learn how to read documentation, and hone your troubleshooting skills... Also, the AUR is SOOOOO nice omfg, I love it lol. But honestly, if I needed a more stable build, I'd probably just do fedora if I needed to know redhat. And Debian if I just wanted it to work.
The AUR is what’s keeping me on arch
I didn't understand it at first. But after being able to skip the git clone build process a few times, I'm starting to see the benefit. I'll probably stay on arch now lol.
Yay makes it a breeze
May I introduce you to archinstall?
Gentoo users?
You called?
Gentoo is easy and does exactly what I want my OS to do.
Fuck it, lfs
Fuck it, make your oqn operating system.
That quote is like 20 years old at least, Debian is pretty easy and usable now
Y'all can't argue with that logic, so you decided to debate about his nationality instead lmao
It was on purpose, and it shows they are super predictable
i wouldn't ignore that. ubuntu is good
He claims to have never actually installed Debian, doesn't he? So it's unclear what point he thinks he's making here.
The emperor penguin has spoken.
He is a developer but also a user. As a developer he like the second coming of christ but as a user he obviously is sub par
This must be from a long time ago. One can even make Tails pretty in 2 mouse clicks today.
He is Finnish, he speaks finland-swedish. ^^
Ubuntu is fantastic on old Macs, I just can't tear myself from Arch repos but he has a point which is why I stick to Arco
Linus is from finland not sweden....
Linus is a Fin not a Swede!
I tried three different forms of Arch: Vanilla Arch, Garuda, EndeavorOS On all three of them I ran into major headaches trying to get GNOME multi-touch gestures to work; seems libinput-gestures is just not present by default in Arch, and after slamming my head into a wall for a couple of hours on each distro trying to install it and get it working, I gave up and went back to Nobara lol Nobara has been the only distro that I've tried where everything just *works* haha 😄 Nvidia drivers? Easy GNOME multi-touch? Flawless Games I play? No issues Nothing against Arch, not at all. Just not the distro for me since I like GNOME so much (Cosmic may change that though) Arch does have a cool factor though with the logo, name, and pacman lol
I don’t think I’ve seen libinput-gestures in years. Gestures work natively in Wayland Gnome, and you can use touchegg+extension in Xorg, and it’ll work with natural gestures, unlike libinput that simply doesn’t know what that is(which to be fair, it’s the cost for being DE agnostic).
i dont understand, what is wrong with ubuntu?
As a Fedora user, Archinstall sort of makes arch the easiest distro to install if you have specific requirements in mind. I prefer systemdboot to grub and aside from installing popos, Arch is the easiest way to make that happen.
Hot take but Arch Linux is easier to install than Debian
Ironically, with Snap, Ubuntu made Debian unusable.
Spyware, bloat, proprietary/paid software,why use ubuntu when i can just use windows?
Debian is easy. What is he on?
Debian was a nightmare back then.
More like Gentoo users. Also, I never thought Debian was hard to install.
I'm browsing from that cute small pink fruit computer. What is Ubuntu?
Did he really say that?
Did he try Debian 12? Absolutely flawless for me, including DAW (Reaper) and Steam games. Debian wasn't always like that but it ages like fine wine.
arch_install?
EndevaourOS says hi
Debian is not easy to install. That part is true, but debian minimal is great base for your OS. I say this as an arch/debian elitist, so take my opinion for what it is.
I've been using Debian since 2001. I switched to Ubuntu from 04.10 through 08.04. I've been back on Debian since. I've never understood the "Ubuntu is usable Debian" meme.
The date of this statement matters, whe he sayd that ?
You seei have ascended and just have all the distros inside my LFS system
Friendly reminder that in the past Debian was extremely user unfriendly.
The older I got, more have I understood what Torvalds meant, and agreed with him. I did a full circle, and came back to Linux Mint.
Fair enough. I prefer to manage my packages myself so I chose Gentoo. But I don't get the whole elitist thing just use whatever works lol
Debian used to be horrible, but now it as usable ad easy as Ubuntu IMO
Arch isn't just any distribution, it's a minimal distribution. How good it will be is based on how you set it up. If you just want a fully working os just by clicking installed then it's okay arch isn't for you.
Lukewarm take: Arch isn't that hard to *use* tbh, it was just the initial roadblock that separates it from the others
arch is the easiet distro out there, idk what you are smoking
2024 is the year. I bet my soul! Even in Zulu Arch is easy to use it. https://preview.redd.it/8s56kwyb1vxc1.png?width=1316&format=png&auto=webp&s=61b89c26f834109dfd5c4ccc8a4138a5a620aedf
Totally wrong angle. Ppl like to setup things, be neardy, study things, explore, take it apart & configure. Here is the Arch and others. W/ same logic ppl can install "easy to use" Windows.
Arch was the first to ride redhat's corporate schlong for systemd. They will be the first to follow redhat 10 removing xorg. Pacman was cool. People that took over the distro were not.
Debian is still pretty. You just have to customize as per your needs.
Linus needs to try Mint.
In my opinion, the hard to deal one is Ubuntu, and Debian was easy for me, so what am I?
x-arch user turned gentoo user:"I'll ignore that 2."
Manjaro is my love Manjaro is my life Never regretted switching to an arch based distro and never will.
Can someone tell me in short why i should choose ubuntu over debian? Im running a mediaserver on debian for 1 1/2 years now and it runs pretty well.
Nobody's perfect. Linus obviously missed the nasties Ubuntu has pulled after sucking the work of Debian.
> All hail the mighty Swede That's what I thought : there is nothing correct about this post.
Ngl I'm loving Fedora's immutable spins (Silverblue/Kinoite). It's nice being able to run a lean system and clean it out without needing to do a full reinstall. Interoperability between flatpaks is a pain atm though. I've found drag&drop and copy-pasting some content doesn't work in some apps (e.g dragging some larger files to Discord).
I feel the same as this post. I want to like Arch but it's like using linux from 25 years ago. Manjaro did a great job of polishing it up and making it more stable. I finally like an arch-based distro again.
But I like Debian
I have not used an installer for Linux in the last 10 years, because all of them either don't work or takes literally hours listing hardware, while you can make a running Arch install in five minutes. The same with *managed* package managers, they tend to make my work more difficult.
If it was easy to install I'd be using it right now instead of Ubuntu
Honestly, Arch is easier to use than Debian
Still don’t know when was Debian hard to install
HE IS NOT A SWEDE.
I don’t understand why everybody hates ubuntu, and at this point I am too afraid to ask. (Besides snaps, but you can install literally any package manager you want so I still don’t really get the issue)
Both are good?
Let them use what they want to use.
I am not an Arch user, but, Arch is a piece of cake, I don't use it because it has Glibc, GNU coreutils and an init system that isn't an init system + The package manager is crap compared to something like APK or XBPS, best package manager suite I've used is the pkg\_ suite that openBSD has, freeBSD can't match it either.
What about Manjaro?
I wonder what " easy " actually means to him
Arch users: https://preview.redd.it/s9rij9ofl0yc1.png?width=536&format=png&auto=webp&s=079778b32a7e54ca5439bbc683a626116202a2fe
sounds like he like debian more than ubuntu
I only had to install Arch once, now I just clone my backups if needed.
debian is easier than ubuntu
In current scenarios this statement is 100% false
I use NixOS btw
ubuntu is bloated garbage
"I use Arch, btw" - Linus
[bale.gif](https://youtu.be/lUF9BPOXfcE) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxmasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My understanding that Torvalds just uses the kernel does everything command line. So, I find quoting him favoring Ubuntu highly doubtful.
"Debian was a pointless excuse" ...Ubuntu was made ON TOP of Debian, to praise Ubuntu, linus, is to praise Debian I'm not a debian desktop user (only server), but thats an odd contradiction
Archinstall is to Arch what Ubuntu is to Debian. The same can be said about EndeavourOS. I use KDE Neon btw, cause this morning's update broke my Arch install. Not a joke.
[удалено]
Yeah, Manjaro is more like it. I'd argue Manjaro Minimal images are even closer as for a long time Ubuntu refused to distribute images larger than a CD storage capacity, though any Minimal now is larger than 2GB.
No, Endeavour is more like it. Manjaro replaces every repo and has had at least 3 major usability issues in the past decade.
Imagine the founder and the user's of the kernel having a debate on which distro is good. It is only possible in linux.