I'm in full agreement that Ubuntu updates suck, and snap sucks, but Fedora? Why would I want to run an unstable-by-design distro, produced by a company that restricts access to their GPL'ed Linux updates? (Note: I did not say they deny access.)
Having gone through update hell just a few months ago when I tried to go from 23.10 to 24.04, and eventually giving up after spending way too much time on it, I'll probably just stick with fresh installs from now on. You may blame me for running a non-LTS release, but at the time, it was the only thing that would run on my new Lenovo Thinkpad.
Snaps are horrible, but I understand that Canonical needs some things to distinguish itself. If I cannot find a repo or a deb file, I would rather install from source than use a snap.
I like Debian, and I like that Ubuntu is Debian based. Setting up a modern dev environemnt on RedHat or Fedora will not give you the latest stable tools. Ubuntu will at least give you some stable tools that were released within the past year or two.
Having gone through update hell just a few months ago when I tried to go from 23.10 to 24.04, and eventually giving up after spending way too much time on it, I'll probably just stick with fresh installs from now on. You may blame me for running a non-LTS release, but at the time, it was the only thing that would run on my new Lenovo Thinkpad.
Snaps are horrible, but I understand that Canonical needs some things to distinguish itself. If I cannot find a repo or a deb file, I would rather install from source than use a snap.
I like Debian, and I like that Ubuntu is Debian based. Setting up a modern dev environemnt on RedHat or Fedora will not give you the latest stable tools. Ubuntu will at least give you some stable tools that were released within the past year or two.