I’ve been using linux desktop for a year or so now. One noteable thing i keep seeing is that one person will say I dont like XYZ distrobution because of its base. But I am still a little unsure what is meant by it. I am assuming the main difference between each base is the choice of package management(?). But what other factors/aspects that are important for the average user to know about each ‘base’? This is probably quite a broad question to a rather technical answer, but appriciate any answers, and i’ll try my best to understand and read up :)
I think the average Mint user is not a wealthy enterprise with tons of systems they don’t want to upgrade so they don’t need to consider this, whether it’s available for their distro or not.
I’m not a Mint user yet, which is why I’m interested in not requiring this model.
Ubuntu does not require the model either. It’s an optional service that Canonical offers. They just market it in a weird way (inside the package manager)
I’ve been trying to explain that choosing to pay for this “extended security service” this is completely unnecessary if you just upgrade your OS every few years.
Okay, that hits harder for some reason. How invasive is “upgrading OS”? Is it just “sudo apt full-upgrade”?
In my experience, it has been smooth in the past.