Hmm… If that’s the case, that’s news to me. I’ll admit I don’t do much with Fedora, I’ll have to take a closer look at them.

Fedora is not rolling at all, it just has a fast release cycle

And I don’t care, so whatever

I mean, that’s definitely a downside to long term stable distros. So, basically, the choice is between that and a rolling release which has the downside of the possibility of things breaking on update and never really having an easily reproducible build

Climate scientists: “do these things to fix climate change”
Everyone: “but that’s HAAARD and I don’t wanna!”
AI developers: create AI
Climate scientists: “AI is drawing massive power accelerating climate change, we need to stop that”
Everyone: “but it can tell us how to fix climate change so it’s going to be okay!”
AI climate model: “do these same things to fix climate change”
Everyone: “but that’s HAAARD and I don’t wanna!”

Yeah, I can’t see any way this could possibly fail…

It is not randomly frozen as Mint does follow Ubuntu’s LTS releases, every new version they put out is based on whatever the current Ubuntu LTS is. Their release cadence isn’t linked that closely as a new LTS usually takes a few months to spawn a new Mint release based on it, but they aren’t just freezing some arbitrary point in time of development.

If you mean Ubuntu is randomly frozen, it isn’t either. It follows a release schedule, determines a roadmap, and at a certain predetermined point in developing a new release, they do freeze for new versions so they can complete testing and ensure everything works together in time to release on schedule. It’s certainly not “random”.

And that’s also not what stability means. Stability means functionality doesn’t change, so an up to date Mint 21.3 installed on release is going to be the same as one installed and updated now, functionally speaking. This is accomplished by only backporting important security patches and bug fixes to the version of the software that’s used by the system rather than getting it with new versions where there are new features and changes to existing functionality that can break things based on the previous version. This does not mean it gets all fixes, just the ones they deem worth the effort of backporting.

But it’s not randomly frozen, it’s tied to Ubuntu’s LTS builds. And they didn’t say “stable” is the same as “works well”, they said Mint is both (which is true from my experience at least)

If you need newer packages with Mint, Flatpak is a good way to go (yes it has its own issues, but they do work well for a lot of people)

I mean, you should be careful with destructive changes and commands whether the interface names can change or not… And since they won’t change outside of a reboot, I’ve yet to run into a scenario where that becomes a problem as I’m looking at and making sure I’m talking to the correct device before starting anyway

You know Linux isn’t just used by enterprise sysadmins, right?

And even speaking as an enterprise sysadmin myself, I’ve not had need or use for deterministic interface naming once in my career. I have no clue how common that is, but most of the servers, both physical and virtual, that I’ve worked on only had one Ethernet port connected.

I see the purpose of this, but don’t see a reason why it should be the default, or why it couldn’t have been implemented like HHD/SSD UUIDs where the old dev names were left intact for easy use outside of fstab and the like where consistency could become a problem

ETA: you also seemed to miss the part of my initial reply to you about it being something that can be enabled by those who need it… And if you’re going to say that the enterprise professionals who need it shouldn’t have to turn it on every time they spin up a system, I’ll remind you that enterprise admins working at that level where they’re setting up enough servers for that to be a hassle are probably using orchestration like Ansible, Chef, or Puppet, and can just add that into their configs once

Considering how much systemd breaks the concept of “everything is a file”, this would not surprise me in the least

But the SSD/HDD solution doesn’t replace /dev/[s|h]da# entirely, just adds a consistent way to set them in configs like fstab. You can still use the old device names so working with them at the command line is still easy for the most part.

Yes, because everyone has need of this solution, and wants to have to copy and paste interface names every time they need to touch them, rather than having deterministic naming be an option to enable for those who actually need it…

Couldn’t they be configured to always set each interface to a particular name? I’d think that would be the better solution anyway…

And exactly where do you propose they talk about it and actually have people see it?

I’m pretty sure their ad revenue from their own pages is a tiny fraction of their overall advertising revenue… They basically own the advertising market online, almost anywhere you see ads googie is getting a cut

Microsoft at least isn’t trying to be a walked garden (at least, they didn’t used to)

It’s not much, but the bar to be “better than Apple” from that perspective ain’t exactly high

(Also, since they didn’t mention Microsoft at all or make some statement about how Apple was the worst, I don’t see how it even implies that… If you inferred that, I think that’s on you)

When I rebuilt mine a few months back, I got two drives so I could put windows on one of them, and mounted my old drives for the same reason… I’ve barely touched the old data and the second SSD has not even been formatted yet, and when I do it’ll probably be to give my current system more space

Depending on use case, virtualization can actually be way easier

Give it a go, it was surprisingly not as big an issue as I thought it would be, even for gaming (though not perfect for gaming, I’ve been able to get things working without too much headache at least)

So you want to throw a brick through OneDrive’s Windows?