bsergay @ bsergay @discuss.online

Posts

9

Comments

136

Joined

1 yr. ago

Thanks for clarifying!

Why PCLinuxOS?

I'm genuinely curious.

Yup. That's basically it. AppArmor isn't a slouch either, but SELinux works well and is well-tested on Fedora. It's a pity. I do think that SELinux > AppArmor, so if security is a serious concern of yours, then it's worth considering Bazzite over Nobara. If, however, security is a top priority of yours, you might even consider secureblue. It's not great for gaming though 😅. At some point, hardening clashes with performance gains...

like not being able to put icons on the desktop with Steam due to it being Flatpak and Valve not having enabled that specific option)

Interesting. Bazzite has (for some time now) been shipping the native Steam package; so not the Flatpak one.

Can I bother you to share any resources on the differences between the atomicity between fedora and open suse?

It's genuinely hard to point towards an exhaustive source on the matter. Perhaps related to the fact that there are continuous advancements and developments going on that make it hard for something to not feel outdated very quickly. But, basically, Fedora Atomic heavily relies on OSTree/libostree for accomplishing its 'immutability'/atomicity. While, on the other hand, openSUSE MicroOS utilizes Btrfs snapshots (primarily) instead. Some implications are:

• Fedora Atomic is able to track changes. openSUSE MicroOS currently does not. Though, this feature is planned.
• Fedora Atomic is (pretty) reproducible; even if after dozens of transactions one returns back to an earlier state without tracing back. This is possible through the use of layers instead of directly changing the base system. This is something Btrfs snapshots can't do currently. Therefore, there's nothing that indicates that openSUSE MicroOS is able to do the same. Though it can be reproducible in its own way.
• Git-like features of OSTree/libostree allows branching (and other git-like features) when managing deployments. Concept of branching is alien for Btrfs Snapshots.
• Fedora Atomic basically offers built-in factory reset. For openSUSE MictroOS, this is planned.
• Like git, Fedora Atomic can rebase. In practice, this allows it to change drastically through a single reboot without actually reinstalling. This is used to rebase to a new major version (from Fedora 39 to Fedora 40), but even more impressive is to change from Silverblue (GNOME) to Kinoite (KDE Plasma) to Sway to Budgie etc. And all of this, without (most of) the cruft associated with these changes. Heck, you could even rebase to uBlue images or any others you fancy. This concept of rebasing is not found on openSUSE MicroOS.
• In theory, Btrfs snapshots should be more flexible in regards to applying changes we may find on traditional distros. But, unfortunately, because Fedora Atomic is further along its development, we don't actually notice this. (The upcoming update related to bootable containers for Fedora Atomic doesn't make it any easier for openSUSE MicrOS to be more flexible anyways.)
• The upcoming update related to bootable containers also allows Fedora Atomic to be (relatively) declarative and hence; less state. This concept is also currently absent on openSUSE MicroOS.

Ongoing developments may alter the above list significantly. It's even entirely possible that all features mentioned above will be found on both distros in the upcoming years. However, vision and scope are perhaps decisive when it comes to making any predictions regarding the future. We haven't gone over those yet... Going over those is out of scope for what this comment intends :P .

Search engines suck these days

Can't agree more.

You're welcome!

xD, it's done by typing three times "-" or "*" next to each other with nothing else on the line itself and the lines before and after. So to illustrate it with quotation marks:

"(Empty)"

"---" (or "***")

"(Empty)"

Note that in the above example, i had to leave another empty line in between the lines. So it's not exactly correct. Unfortunately, without a break line, I can't even illustrate it. So, this is done from necessity. Though, it means that technically, the stars below were one "/" removed from becoming a line.

/***

The existence of both is justified for their unique merits. However, I'd argue that the 'immutable'/atomic model makes more sense for a system that's dedicated towards gaming.

For a general daily driver, it all comes down to your specific needs. If Bazzite satisfies those, I'd argue it's the safer pick. However, if (for some reason) Bazzite falls short^[1], then go for Nobara instead.

There's a lot more to it than this, but I kept it short for the sake of brevity.

1. Honestly, there's only very little that Bazzite actually can't do. Though its unique workflow might require some adjusting. Regardless, if you go for Bazzite, ensure to take a proper look at its documentation.

Thanks!

It has been my pleasure.

Well I think that the atomic distros, especially desktops, have a big future

So do I. Though, I think they'll have a big future across the board.

I hope openSUSE gets to keep working on those.

Yup, me too. I trust that at least openSUSE Aeon will thrive (through Richard Brown). And hopefully that will eventually result into a healthy ecosystem in which more 'immutable'/atomic spins (with other desktop environments) will follow.

I might try Kalpa actually. Seems like the openSUSE version of Fedora Kinoite?

Technically, it's indeed openSUSE's take on an 'immutable'/atomic distro with KDE Plasma. However, there's a big difference in how much development it enjoins.

• For Fedora Atomic, all the spins are equal~ish in regards to their development. Like, it's not possible to point to a difference that goes beyond polish.
• On the other hand, openSUSE Aeon is in RC3 while openSUSE Kalpa hasn't left Alpha. This is not surprising when considering that multiple people work on openSUSE Aeon and only a single developer works on openSUSE Kalpa.

There's also a difference in how 'immutability'/atomicity works on Fedora Atomic vs openSUSE MicroOS. Without even going over the implications thereof. But that's out of scope for what's intended for this comment.

Does Gentoo still have use flags?

AFAIK, it still does. Though I wonder if it still comes with a lot of added complexity that you note. I've yet to give Gentoo a good try. Therefore, you could be totally right with the following:

I’d be surprised if gentoo was considered stable, if you make heavy use of use-flag

Regardless, it was an informative talk. Thank you for that! Have a nice day 😊!

As expected. At this point, consider following a video tutorial if you haven't yet.

At some point, the installation should ask you the driver on which it should be installed and also how the driver should be interacted with; i.e full wipe and then installation or only specified partitions. You specified elsewhere that you don't intend to dual-boot. Hence, selecting the correct drive and following the instructions for full wipe + installation (which should be regular/default installation) should have been sufficient.

phew long answer.

Yeah, lol. My apologies 😅. Thank for reading through all of that 😊!

I just wrote from my limited experience. I never had something break on Fedora. I just updated a system from 35 to 41. The stuff that broke was something I compiled against old dependencies. (That’s why I didn’t update so long)

Interesting. Within the last two years, we had issues with mesa and codecs; some devices couldn't even boot up. I'm glad to hear you haven't had any issues though. BTW, for the sake of completeness, I've been daily driving Fedora Silverblue for over two years now*.

I just updated a system from 35 to 41.

LOL, my first version was version 35; which is a curious coincidence. With 41, do you mean Rawhide?

My Gentoo experience is >15y old.

15 years is a long time 😅. Do you recall if Gentoo had dependency resolution back then?

Together with all the other information you've shared, it's not entirely clear why it has failed; at least to me.

If you're not married/tied to the installation of Debian, may I suggest installing Linux Mint, Pop!_OS, Tuxedo OS or Zorin OS instead?

There are of course many other distros you could choose, but the earlier mentioned ones are 'stable' like Debian is. I thought that perhaps it was what attracted you towards Debian in the first place.

Could you describe what has transpired before? Have you actually installed Debian? Are you still trying to boot into the install medium?

Perhaps sharing device specs might be helpful.

Gentoo is considered stable

Honestly, I'm too unfamiliar with Gentoo to make a proper assessment on this. Though, even my (simple) understanding allows me to understand it as follows:

• Gentoo is not a point-release distro. Hence, by definition, it satisfies the definition of a rolling-release distro.
• Furthermore, regarding Portage's branches, this page suggests only two branches; Stable and Testing. With Stable being set as the default one. Furthermore, AFAIK, tests occur for over a month over at the Testing branch before updates enter the Stable branch. Hence, more time is taken compared to other rolling-release distros.

Which, I believe is what's alluded to here: "The update philosophy of a distro is generally not related to its release cadence, as you can have rolling release distros that are relatively stable (for example, Gentoo) and point release distros that are relatively bleeding edge (for example, Fedora)."

Is there any reason why you would deem Gentoo as not stable? If so, what?

but fedora “leaning unstable”?

For the sake of completeness, proper quotation would have been "leans bleeding"

I'll give you that the article is definitely not exhaustive and/or properly clarified. Perhaps for the sake of brevity, idk. Hence, I believe that this confusion is justified. However, again, I think the raised point is justifiable based on the following:

• Fedora is known to push new tech first. Heck, it even adopts it first; e.g. PulseAudio, systemd, GTK4, Wayland, PipeWire etc. Hence, this causes Fedora to feel bleeding edge; i.e. because its users are literally the first to test it en masse.

May I ask why you think Fedora does not lean towards unstable?

Anyway what is that whole un/stable supposed to mean anyway?

I agree it causes more confusion/conflation that it has any right to.

All non-rolling distros try to be stable.

It depends on the used definition of "stable" 😅.

• If "stable" is used here in the context of name for used branch (of the repository). Then yes, but this also satisfies rolling-release distros; as they, by default, ship software with their own designation of "Stable" (even Arch). (For the sake of completeness, I'm aware that some distros default to testing/unstable branches.) Hence, using this definition of "stable" is not very productive.
• If, instead, "stable" is used in the context of stability. Then, also yes. And, yet again, this also satisfies rolling-release distros. It's not like any reasonable distro is out there to deliver software that's known to cause issues and whatnot. The distros only differ in how exhaustive their testing is. Which gets us to...
• If, finally, "stable" is used in the context of how well-tested the distro is. This also ties in to the earlier presented definition for name of the used branch (of the repository). Because we all know that Arch's Stable repository is wildly different from Debian's Stable repository. And here, unsurprisingly, we find wild differences that are also actually helpful in a productive conversation.
• (Surprise,) tied to the previous point, "stable" could also refer to how often the distro requires you to update. With "stable" being used to indicate that updates are only required between (infrequent) point-releases. However, non-intrusive security updates should be able to get through regardless.

What can break are third party repos and stuff you compiled yourself.

Sorry, I can't agree with you on this. Even if this is said in the context of non-rolling distros, my experiences with Fedora suggest otherwise. Granted, Fedora is sometimes referred to as semi-rolling release distro. So, perhaps it (and direct derivatives) are the exception.

With fedora that can “break” twice a year.

Agreed (with earlier mentioned caveat*).

With a rolling distro that can “break” on every updates

Agreed.

• Aeon
• Argon and Krypton
• Kalpa
• Leap Micro

Laptop

I'm personally a fan of NovaCustom; not as upgradable as Framework, however 7 years of parts are definitely nice to have. They also offer video tutorials on how to replace parts. Good stuff.

But, like any vendor targeting Linux, its devices can be more expensive than what you'd expect from Asus, Lenovo etc.

Perhaps the most important questions that need answering are the following:

• How much computation power is required? I.e. do 10th generation Intel chips suffice or not?
• Are you okay with buying devices second hand?
• How much explicit Linux support do you require from the vendor?
• Do you live in Europe or in USA (or close enough) to buy from Linux-first vendors and not be deprived from sending and receiving the devices (for reparations and what not) due to associated costs and time?

Distro

As for distro, it all comes down to personal taste.

• Linux Mint Cinnamon Edition if you require a popular, reliable and beginner-friendly base.
• If you don't like how Cinnamon (the Desktop Environment) looks and/or feels, perhaps consider Pop!_OS, Tuxedo OS or Zorin OS instead.
• However, if you prefer minimalism, then the likes of Debian and openSUSE Leap have to be mentioned.

All of the previously mentioned distros are known to ship older versions of software. This is excellent if you require stability above all, but what if you want a distro built on more up to date software? Well, consider the following then:

• Fedora; software found here is at max six months old. Relatively minimal. However, it may require you to fiddle with codecs and what not on first boot. Thankfully, there's a lot of documentation out there to help you with this. Just ensure that the documentation is written relatively recently.
• If you like what you see from Fedora, but would rather prefer a distro that's properly setup right from the get-go; then perhaps consider one of uBlue's images instead. These are known to provide the most stability out of the (relatively) up to date distros. Please ensure to thoroughly read through its documentation, though. The uBlue images are excellent, but their inner workings can be different from other distros. Hence, you should rely on its own documentation first. And only after you've determined that it's not found within should you consider consulting other sources.

Perhaps, you might prefer software updates as soon as they're available. Hence, Fedora (and derivatives) didn't quite cut it. Then, you should consider so-called rolling release distros. However, take note; every update comes with the risk of potentially breakage; i.e. something will misbehave that didn't before. The chance of this is relatively small; probs in the order of 1%. This chance persists; regardless of the chosen distro. Hence, with distros that update more often, it's more likely that some breakage will occur at some point.

With that out of the way, we should mention noteworthy rolling release distros:

• openSUSE Tumbleweed is for those that absolutely require a rolling release, but desire as much stability as possible. Both openSUSE's testing as well as built-in Btrfs + Snapper work hard to ensure a smooth ride.
• EndeavourOS or Garuda Linux are the entries from the lineage of the (in)famous Arch (btw). EndeavourOS is primarily known for its easy installation towards a minimal Arch system. Garuda Linux, on the other hand, is more opinionated and therefore comes with all the bells and whistles you'd expect from a distro oriented towards gamers. Still, it comes with Btrfs + Snapper built-in. Which is exactly why it's mentioned here. Note that you can setup Btrfs + Snapper yourself on EndeavourOS.

Thanks for reading through it and giving your thoughts!

Could you elaborate on the mistakes/oversights found in the "Stable vs bleeding edge" section?

Running software you know you can’t trust is idiotic no matter how well you sandbox it.

Qubes OS disagrees.

Thank you for your honesty! I only intend for the truth to prevail and/or to reach mutual understanding. So please don't feel attacked. If somehow I came off as such, my apologies; that has never been my intent.