X-Post from /c/linux@programming.dev
The author raises some good questions about the licensing of the core utils. Why the MIT license? Why not stick to GNU GPL?
X-Post from /c/linux@programming.dev
The author raises some good questions about the licensing of the core utils. Why the MIT license? Why not stick to GNU GPL?
That they are doing it doesn’t mean they want it this way. Ubuntu calls its half yearly releases unstable (or used to), which scares users off. Upgrading is also hard on ubuntu (compared to arch, where the set of installed packages stays (apart from renaming and similar) the same). And for the software where they need it, the users already use ppas, probably. And then there are the users who almost only use a browser. And there are enterprise users who don’t upgrade because not all of their software works on new ubuntu.
There’s a Linux Discord server I go to for tech support questions when I need to, and they won’t even give you the time of day if you’re not using an LTS release. That alone scared me away from other versions.