[minusfive]

> "I wasn't even sure whether it was Linux or BSD based or something else until halfway down the front page, and had to check the Developers section to find out it's based on Ubuntu."

Really? Are those really worth complaining about? If anything, successful OSes (based on user base) have taught us that marketing should focus on user-centric features first, technical ones second.

[handelaar]

Package managers are user-centric features and I'd certainly never install a Linux distro that doesn't use apt. It's fairly important information.

[dkuntz2]

You'd never install a non-apt system? You should try a pacman based system, I find it to be nicer, because it embodies the Arch philosophy of keeping things simple.

[SkyMarshal]

So simple it didn't even have package signing until a year or two ago. No thanks.

[dkuntz2]

And ... ?

It currently has package signing, right? What's the problem? I'm confused at how a historical problem that has been fixed even matters when discussing why or why not to use it. It's like saying you wouldn't use OS X because 10.1 didn't support Intel processors.

[voltagex_]

And SecureApt [1] didn't exist until 2003.

[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt

[SkyMarshal]

You must be new to Linux. Knowing which distro and version it is built on immediately tells you a great deal about what "user-centric features" are available in it, without having to list and explain them all.

And this is HN, man. For the average poster here, "technical" features and "user-centric features" are one and the same.