They say debian is free and has its promise, but Arch has like 2-4 maintainers?

    • Digit@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Your logic seems sound, yup.

      Though broader than the issue you’re responding to, the bigger quality of note in Ubuntu, is not that it’s slow (nor larger), but instead, the most issue of ubuntu, is that they’re very very silly. More marketing silly than sensible development.

      Better Ubuntu be slow than fast anyway. See what they do when they try go fast? Like replacing the userland with rust…

      That’s beyond just “ready or not, here it comes” release model madness.

      It’s silly.

    • stuner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 days ago

      No, Debian is typically quite a bit older than even the Ubuntu LTS. E.g. they currently still don’t ship a Nvidia driver that supports the 50 series GPUs.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 days ago

      Slower on updates, not slow to run. Slower on updates is referring to how it takes longer for new features / software to be shipped out for you to download. Debian usually prioritizes machines that chug along for a long time without anything breaking, rather than adding new stuff

      You’re right that it’s not slow to run. It is small and fast

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Performance differences between distros tend to be negligible. Unless you have a specific use case and a distro specifically tuned for that, you will hardly notice any difference.

      • Digit@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        you will hardly notice any difference

        until you leave linux, to assembly operating systems, like kolibrios.