My bad, I meant “known major issues”. If minor issues are not fixed, they document it on release note. But, at no point any fixed release distro ever released breaking changes “knowingly”.

Are you familiar with the term “Regression testing”?

Bugs are of two types - known (found during testing by Distro maintainer) and unknown.

Fixed release fixes known bugs before pushing packages.

It is following the standard development life cycle.

Wayland or X11?

Just to reiterate the same point - in fixed release, a package version is not released until all known issues are resolved.

At no point, it is end user responsibility to bother checking anything before installing a new version.

taking any action required no matter the os

This is not really true for fixed release distros. I can’t remember when was the last time I had to read through the release note before Ubuntu version upgrade, or upgrading any package.

• The only reason the menace is can’t be weed out because both local politicians and cops get their cut from these type of Business. So, if you shut down one, 4 more open up next day.

• India has a huge pool of English speaking educated young people with no access to decent paying jobs after college. These scam centers offer them easy money.

Rule of Thumb: if your use case is not satisfied by your current Distro, then move to the one that does.

Arch or rolling release distros are great if you want latest version of software/packages as soon as possible. Downside is you need to put more effort/time to maintain it by yourself.

On the other hand, fixed release distros (e.g. Debian) doesn’t offer latest packages immediately. But, given that packages are tested for distro release, so you will have a more stable (in relative term) system for yourself with minimal effort.

I used to like rolling release distros on my college days as I had plenty of time back then. Now, I’m settled on fixed release ditro as it suits my current use case.

Ubuntu Core, to be specific.

Ubuntu.

Why? - I guess I’m too lazy for distro hopping now :(

Besides, this was the 1st Linux distro I tried back in 2005. After the usual ditro hopping phase was over, I settled on it; somehow (irrespective of snap and other controversies) I feel at home.

It’s an open source product, in case you have concern about possibility of malicious code embedded within it.

At least there is no such indication so far from Mozilla :(

Why not Traefik as reverse proxy?

For gaming on Linux, use latest release (e.g. v575) of Nvidia driver. And for everything else stick to production release (e.g. v570).

If you have read the article, then this is more akin to switching from using two condoms to just one.

While that’s true, but the main issue here is the unavailability of frequent security patches that Fedora now appears to be attempting to solve with X11Libre.

Nonetheless, Roussel confirmed to TechRadar that there has been significant push-back from political parties and Swiss companies.

Signs of hope, I guess.

Mint is based on Ubuntu which in turn based on Debian.

Mint is neither developing OS, or Linux kernel from scratch.

On the other hand, Mozilla is maintaining Firefox browser and most importantly Gecko JS engine all by itself.

Users are only shown Big Tech “3rd-party” options. Mozilla made this choice intentionally.

Well, how many users really have LLM local-hosted?

The built-in AI staff,you referred to, is nothing but an accelerator to integrate with 3rd-party or self-hosted LLMs. It’s quite similar to choosing a search engine in settings. This feature itself is lightweight and can be disabled in settings if not required.