If you really need a newer kernel there is no problem to install one, but a lot of users don't need and don't care as long as the system runs fine. 25.04 is 4 months old on kernel 6.14 which is not that old. Of course LTS versions have older kernels, but that's what LTS distros are about, stable software, not bleeding edge updates.

Ubuntu was stupid to push snap on everyone. Flatpaks are much better.

Please explain why that is with credible up-to-date sources for you claim. I never had big issues and use both. And both can deliver buggy software, that's for sure.

But it’s meh for laptops.

Some laptops, yes, but it's always a bit of gamble. If the laptop is generally well supported like ThinkPads, System76, Tuxedo or Framework you will have much less or no issues compared to other manufacturers.
But i won't generalize it. I used a Dell, then a Acer Aspire R 13 and now a Framework and never had issues. Even the convertible touch display of the Acer worked as intended by the manufacturer.

[–] herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I literally switched from Ubuntu to Arch because the Ubuntu LTS distro at the time (20.04) shipped a kernel too old to boot the new laptop I just bought. This is typical for Ubuntu. You get old software. Which is ok if you want to use it as a cloud VM distro, but not ok if you are a home user.

[–] GodIsNull@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The problem here is not Ubuntu in itself. If you use a kernel version that does not have the drivers for your new on the market device no distro would work properly, even Arch.

[–] herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago

And Ubuntu ships ancient kernels. Arch ships the latest. That is exactly why I left Ubuntu for EndavourOS at the time.

Likewise the version on wine on Ubuntu LTS was ancient at the time. Bugs that were fixed ages ago were still predent in Ubuntu.