• AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Debian doesn’t make that distinction, but Ubuntu does. And even on the distros that don’t, you’d have to be an idioit to deny that the suite of applications desktop users use and the suite of applications you would ever, and I mean ever, deploy on a server have pretty close to zero overlap.

    • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s great you found a distribution that has two different images, one for desktop and and one for server. Does that mean that the desktop version of Ubuntu isn’t a “real” operating system as Polar says? Only the server distribution is a “real” operating system? That was the whole crux of the argument to begin with.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, it’s saying that your “proof” that Linux is a viable operating system in all spaces simply because it is the primary operating system in the server space is invalid.

        • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          This is not a very “real” response of you. Your response isn’t applicable to all problem domains. Let’s just keep moving the argument to whatever imaginary boundary fits your personal opinion.

          Edit: I’m just as big of an idiot for trying to argue with polar’s toothless and subjective “real” claim as I am with you about some pointless server shit. They all use the same packaged software anyways! 😂