What exactly in the UNIX philosophy says configs should be editable via text files? It specifically talks about CLI tools using plaintext for their I/O to allow piping commands - not about configuration.
It's called the "Rule of Textuality", a component of which is: "Store data in flat text files." This principle recognizes that text files are human-readable, easily editable with any text editor, version-controllable, and can be processed by standard UNIX tools.
Right now, snap (2016-present). Before that, Unity instead of GNOME (2011-2017), Mir instead of Wayland (2006-2015), Upstart instead of systemd (2013-2017).
They always do something custom-made and not adopted by anyone else, only to completely backpedal and go with what everyone else has already been doing. So, even if you like their custom-made solution you'll eventually end up being disappointed. After that, it becomes like a relic that only some frustrated sysadmins like me will have to deal with whenever we interact with some legacy systems, which definitely doesn't help with Ubuntu's overall reputation.
The "nice defaults" of Ubuntu and Omarchy cater to completely different audiences
Isn't that just tasksel and defaults? Iirc the various Ubuntu flavors each have a package for their default settings...
Way, way better than Ubuntu. And it adheres to *NIX philosophy by making all the config editable via text files.
having run ubuntu-server for awhile for my home server.. what config files do i need to edit without a text editor?
What exactly in the UNIX philosophy says configs should be editable via text files? It specifically talks about CLI tools using plaintext for their I/O to allow piping commands - not about configuration.
It's called the "Rule of Textuality", a component of which is: "Store data in flat text files." This principle recognizes that text files are human-readable, easily editable with any text editor, version-controllable, and can be processed by standard UNIX tools.
That sounds worse.
Yes, but ubuntu made stupid choices most developers don't agree with
Like what?
Right now, snap (2016-present). Before that, Unity instead of GNOME (2011-2017), Mir instead of Wayland (2006-2015), Upstart instead of systemd (2013-2017).
They always do something custom-made and not adopted by anyone else, only to completely backpedal and go with what everyone else has already been doing. So, even if you like their custom-made solution you'll eventually end up being disappointed. After that, it becomes like a relic that only some frustrated sysadmins like me will have to deal with whenever we interact with some legacy systems, which definitely doesn't help with Ubuntu's overall reputation.
The big one for me is moving packages to snap. You can work around it, but that defeats the whole “works out of the box” aspect