Post Closed as "primarily opinion-based" by jasonwryan, rahmu, slm, jordanm, Anthon
3 improved formatting
source | link

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

E.g. argument would be: "Ubuntu starts services by default on apt-get install instead of allowing to you change their configs before boot""Ubuntu starts services by default on apt-get install instead of allowing to you change their configs before boot", which sometimes can be convenient when working with configuration management tools.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

E.g. argument would be: "Ubuntu starts services by default on apt-get install instead of allowing to you change their configs before boot", which sometimes can be convenient when working with configuration management tools.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

E.g. argument would be: "Ubuntu starts services by default on apt-get install instead of allowing to you change their configs before boot", which sometimes can be convenient when working with configuration management tools.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?

2 added 227 characters in body
source | link

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

E.g. argument would be: "Ubuntu starts services by default on apt-get install instead of allowing to you change their configs before boot", which sometimes can be convenient when working with configuration management tools.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

E.g. argument would be: "Ubuntu starts services by default on apt-get install instead of allowing to you change their configs before boot", which sometimes can be convenient when working with configuration management tools.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?

1
source | link

Arguments against Ubuntu?

As someone who's been using Ubuntu for a couple of years now both in production and at home, when seeking answers to certain administrative questions for my systems, I often hear the "that's what you get for being on [Ubuntu | Debian]" comment, seemingly indicating that there's something fundamentally ineffective about this specific distro that I'm using. Often you'll hear CentOS/RHEL/Fedora recommended instead.

Personally I don't care too much about any specific distro, but I do deeply care about productivity, simplicity, stability and availability of latest versions of critical packages.

Now, would anyone be so kind as to explain why Ubuntu tends to receive much criticism from the Linux community, and what my options are? What would be some of the gains if I were to switch to a different distro?