Linux Is Best on Nostr: The problem with Pop_Is, is the same problem with Linux Mint, and other Ubuntu ...
The problem with Pop_Is, is the same problem with Linux Mint, and other Ubuntu soft-forks. You are dealing with a copy of a copy, meaning too many upstream developments directly impacting the development. It starts with Debian, which is then forked to Ubuntu, and then forked to Pop_Is (or alike). Since these are soft-forks every change or issues in Debain can impact Ubuntu, and whatever new issues are introduced, then impacts Pop_OS. So now you could have problems from Debain or Ubuntu or Pop_Is, or a mix of one or both.
There is a reason why most Ubuntu forks, after a while, realized making to many changes proves problematic, and stick to minor modifications.
To their credit, Pop_Is and Mint, are two developments that have insisted to continue making waves, but they certainly are not without their issues. Those issues can sometimes be significant.
It would have been OK if they hard-forked Ubuntu and gone independent, which would give them better control over development and certainty improve quality control. But maintaining an independent distribution is a lot of time, effort, and resources (man power and money). It is the same reason most web browsers are soft-forks of either Gecko or Blink (Firefox or Chromium). A single layer soft-fork which follows the development, means someone else had done much of the heaviy lifting. But if you stuble upon a double soft-fork (which is rare, and usually people learn not to do), the experience becomes uncertain and often introduces issues. That's just a browser, while this is an entire operating system.
There is a reason why most Ubuntu forks, after a while, realized making to many changes proves problematic, and stick to minor modifications.
To their credit, Pop_Is and Mint, are two developments that have insisted to continue making waves, but they certainly are not without their issues. Those issues can sometimes be significant.
It would have been OK if they hard-forked Ubuntu and gone independent, which would give them better control over development and certainty improve quality control. But maintaining an independent distribution is a lot of time, effort, and resources (man power and money). It is the same reason most web browsers are soft-forks of either Gecko or Blink (Firefox or Chromium). A single layer soft-fork which follows the development, means someone else had done much of the heaviy lifting. But if you stuble upon a double soft-fork (which is rare, and usually people learn not to do), the experience becomes uncertain and often introduces issues. That's just a browser, while this is an entire operating system.