Debian does also, which is a far better choice than Ubuntu TBH. Ubuntu/Canonical is also a business, and their LTS versions are only supported for 5 years, at which point if you want extended support then you have to pay them. Assuming they don’t drop hardware support from the kernel, then you’ll be fine using Ubuntu. But due to the fact Ubuntu forces other stuff on the system hoping to get you to subscribe to Ubuntu Pro/Advantage or whatever puts me off from using it. Debian in this case doesn’t do this and therefore a far better option.
Well if you pay Microsoft, they will give you extended support. They won’t do it for free, why would they?
I started to research this: “In the USA (where I’m a citizen), are companies responsible for the waste their business generates”. Honestly, it’s a huge topic and I don’t have the determination to follow though on this for the next month. The short answer to your question is that Microsoft is a very successful, $3 trillion company. They made a business decision that overnight obsoleted hundreds of millions of computers. They didn’t have to choose this course; Linux has demonstrated that older hardware can be supported without overbearing expense. So, Microsoft could have easily maintained a “legacy” Windows version in parallel with their newer product. Eventually (10-15 years), this legacy hardware would wear out and Microsoft could then discontinue the legacy line.
This issue is not unique to the tech industry. If Monsanto produces mass pollution while making a consumer product, they are held accountable for cleaning it up.
BTW, you’ve got me curious. I adopted Ubuntu many years ago when installing Linux was a challenge. I’m going to try Debian in a VM. Thanks.
Then you vote with your money and don’t buy Microsoft products, it’s simple . I don’t use Windows for 20+ years now
Ubuntu is based on Debian, so the way I see it, best use the original. It also doesn’t have the annoying snap/snapd packages installed by default like Ubuntu has - which incidently I find causes high CPU utilisation every so often and thus are the first packages I remove if I have to use Ubuntu somewhere. But I try and steer whoever it is away from Ubuntu purely for similar reasons why I don’t use Microsoft Windows.
I still use Debian, as well as Rocky and some other distros too.
Thanks, your comments prompted me to take another look at Debian 13 with MATE in a VM. Looks exactly like MATE in Ubuntu, which is probably expected.
I originally went with Ubuntu probably 10 years ago. I tried Debian at the time, but at that point at least Ubuntu was better about fit and finish on desktop distros. I share your frustration with Ubuntu’s recent preference for snaps and flatpaks. But because I have it installed on multiple systems and I’m used to it, I’ll stick with it for now. Good to know if Canonical makes further decisions that compromise desktop usability that Debian is a viable alternative.
If Ubuntu is essentially Debian with something and you know how to manage Ubuntu, then the ability to manage Debian ought to be there, unless you depend on the something. (I merely assume – too focused on RPM-based distros.)
There are now something called “configuration management systems”. Examples: Ansible, Chef, Puppet. One creates (more abstract) definition of config – “playbook”, “recipe”, and whatnot – and the tool deploys and or ensures that the managed systems have the desired packages and config.
These ease the management, particularly reinstalls. Since I started to use Ansible – included in Rocky, should handle Debian and Ubuntu too – I have reinstalled quite many systems (for various embarrassing reasons).
I worked as a software engineer, now retired. We used Chef and Puppet to manage our company installations, so I’m familiar with the products. I’m satisfied doing the few installs I need to do manually. Thanks for the suggestion!
. I don’t use Windows for 20+ years now