Why do you use the distro you use?
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Mint CE for my desktop (might distro hop soon for multiple curiosity based reasons, all my data is on non-os drives anyway) - easiest to just get working when fast-swapping, IMO
Debian for my server - it's the flavor of Linux I'm most familiar with over the years & for my server I dont need any of the shit Ubuntu does
STEAM OS for my Steam Deck (I use it as a TV PC so desktop mode is common with it), because it's really good for that purpose
-
What was you 1st distro back in last millenium?
slackware followed by red hat mothers day 2.0 also used LMDE for several years
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I jumped from Ubuntu over to Arch because I was getting fed up with all the things I wanted to do being unavailable in Ubuntu, but all in the Arch repo or AUR.
I've been using Debian-based distros for like 25 years, so it was definitely a bit of a change, but it didn't take long to adjust. I'm glad I made the change.
-
The only reason my last machine didn't get more than 10 years worth of in-place upgrades was because I decommissioned it as a desktop and turned it into a server, so I wiped it at that point.
For me its because something new broke the upgrade feature.
Its always something different and I am unsure if its a me issue. It rarely worked but sometimes it did.
As soon as you change something on your Ubuntu by a little or lot, the upgrade is not possible. I feel forced to use rolling release because of my behaviour
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
A bunch of nerds on lemmy suggested it and I haven't found any problems with it that make me want to go for another. I use Fedora KDE
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I was given a CD set for SUSE 8.2, then bought the 9.0 book set from a book store because I liked it but wanted the hard copy to reference when I was messing things up. I've tried a ton of other distros, but keep going back to Suse because I'm used to it.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I'm an IT professional, I use what I support. RHEL based OS's, Rocky for servers, Fedora for workstations. That said I still love Debian and use them most often for container images when I dont have a reason to use something else.
-
Flatpaks are the preferred option followed by the Fedora toolbox container. Then you can make a distrobox container if what you want can't be satisfied by the first two. You can also layer packages with rpm-ostree but this should only be as a last resort.
There is a bit of a learning curve with regards to how you should approach package installs, but once you learn it and get comfortable with the container options it's pretty smooth sailing.
Can you explain layering packages in the ostree? Say if I know that im always going to want something like vencord installed then can I add it to the ostree and it functions as if I used dnf?
-
Can you explain layering packages in the ostree? Say if I know that im always going to want something like vencord installed then can I add it to the ostree and it functions as if I used dnf?
It's basically a drop in replacement for dnf.
As simple as sudo rpm-ostree install vencord. Then you reboot and it's there.
That's assuming it's already in the repos. If not, I'd recommend you look into distrobox. It allows you to install apps from any other distro in Silverblue. You can add them to your menu and have them behave as native apps. -
I have Debian on a laptop that I don't use that much, and I use Nix package manager for managing the apps I use.
Running Arch was a nightmare, as I was updating once every 1-2 months and I was getting lots of conflicts.
I update daily and never had issues with packages.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I'm relatively new to Linux, so I'm testing a few distros via VMs right now. My main desktop runs OpenSUSE Leap with KDE Plasma and I love it so far. I'm also trying Fedora 42 with GNOME, but I'm realizing I don't like GNOME. I'm running Linux Mint Cinnamon on a 2016 MacBook Pro, which is pretty nice too. I also ran Debian stable for a bit. OpenSUSE is my favorite of the ones I've tried.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Debian stable:
- Works on all of my devices, none of which are newer than 2019
- Compatibility with all of the software that I use day to day
- I like my system set up in a very particular way and the stability makes upkeep simple
- I was a holdout on older Windows versions before I moved to Linux, so getting new features at all is already exciting
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Arch has a combination of great documentation and great packaging. I use Debian on a server but for daily use, everything I need is on Arch.
-
It's basically a drop in replacement for dnf.
As simple as sudo rpm-ostree install vencord. Then you reboot and it's there.
That's assuming it's already in the repos. If not, I'd recommend you look into distrobox. It allows you to install apps from any other distro in Silverblue. You can add them to your menu and have them behave as native apps.a drop in replacement for dnf is exactly what I was hoping for. Having to restart kinda sucks but shouldnt matter since im going to setup the box once and then it be done.
-
Fyi you can put cachyos repos on top of regular Arch
Yeah, I did that a while back on endeavourOS. That's how I first learned about Cachy OS. I decided it's not worth the extra time spent troubleshooting for me.
-
I've been using Mint for a year now and I just got a second laptop and the first thing I did was Wipe Windows 11 off of it and install Mint.
It does everything I need it too.
honestly mint really a very easy distro, I enjoyed using it too. Fedora and other distros also seem pretty cool
-
I update daily and never had issues with packages.
I mostly use it for accessing my servers when I leave home. So, no need for constantly updating it. I prefer to install the OS and forget about maintaining it on that device.
-
Some answers to your first question you can find here: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/guides/linux-hardening.html
For the second question about in what ways Secureblue do mitigate that you can find more here:
https://secureblue.dev/featuresThe last question about usability, is very usable. If you use Bazzite you may have a similar experience. It is not like QubesOS that isolate all processes making it even not able to use a GPU.
Thanks! That first link is an excellent resource for a security tool I'm working on. Specifically, gVisor, which I hadn't heard of, but looks like an excellent way to harden containers.
I may rebase to secureblue from Bluefin at some point to give it a try.
-
Perhaps, but when I accidentally nuked my system by dd'ing to one of the hard drives, being able to install the exact same system back into it by pointing the installer to my git repository was an excellent experience.
Is the restoration method mentioned here really only achievable via nixos? How can you be so confident that you are truly reobtaining an "exact same system"?
Nixos consistently intrigues me because of what it seems to be accomplishing but I can never dive in because there seems to also be many warnings about the investment required and the potential for other more complicated and really nuanced drawbacks to arise.
Give it to me straight--is it offering a new approach of stability with the emphasis on reproducibility? If I'm a gentoo enjoyer hardset in my ways, what could I stand to gain in the nixos/guix realm?
-
I've found it can be easier to manage what you have installed, since you can just look at that list and go "oh, why do I still have xyz installed, idek what that does anymore"
While it sounds sexy and attractive... Not sure the amount of time needed to configure your NixOS is worthwhile. (Except if you have time to spare and want that learning experience !)
Just put everyhting In your personal notes and you have a similar "feature"?
The configuration of nix is not the time consuming part, most of the time it's faster than other distro if you are a developer.
The time consuming part is having an issue with a niche package, the only doc you have is the code and random github issue from 3 years ago that don't mirror your config, and the nix evaluation doesn't tell you which part of the config is the problem.
