throwawayish @ throwawayish @lemmy.ml

Posts

6

Comments

220

Joined

2 yr. ago

The GUI elements missing in Arch are missing in Mint and Ubuntu, Fedora, PopOS, all of them.

I would agree that they're roughly in the same ballpark as long as you had picked KDE Plasma on Arch. Though I would argue that Mint and PopOS have a noticeable lead, though I don't think that point deserves more discussion. However, none of them come close to something like openSUSE's YaST or MX' Tools. That's why I deliberately mentioned them. Perhaps worth a watch for those wondering how Windows compares to different Linux distros GUI-wise.

I happen to be struggling through an audio issue right now. Can you find an OS that lets you change the Audio sample and bit rates without messing with config files ? This is basic function, and the PulseAudio and Pipewire have been around long enough for a GUI to have been created, but no, it doesn’t exist.

I'm unfortunately unaware of any solution for that. Wish you good luck!

I agree that having better GUI is a generally good thing and that most of us would benefit from it. However it's false to state or believe that Linux in its totality is bereft of this. Distros like openSUSE, MX Linux and Garuda Linux have put in considerable effort into offering tools that enable one to config a lot of stuff through a GUI. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about the lack of GUIs if you (or whosoever for that matter) don't use one of these distros. Arch has minimalism as one of its design goals, so you either have to find the binaries/apps/packages (or whatsoever) that allow you to config through a GUI or you're out of luck.

First of all: thank you! The necessary info is there and it's written splendid. I think it or a future iteration should definitely be considered as a sticky post in the long run.

A few nitpicks which you may or may not agree with:

• In the section in which you talk about update frequency, you end the paragraph with something along the lines of "new and stable". While this is correct technically, you should define what you mean with 'stable' here. Because there exist two (somewhat related) definitions for 'stable':
  1. "(Certain) resistance to breaking" - which is used in the context of "stable rolling release" when one refers to something like openSUSE Tumbleweed. This definition does not necessarily oppose new.
  2. "Release model in which packages are frozen over a long(er) period of time and primarily only continue to receive security updates" - which is e.g. used in the name of the "Debian Stable" distro. This definition does oppose new.
• In the section about desktop environments you mentioned something along the lines that Fedora defaults to GNOME. This applies only to their Workstation and Silverblue distros. For which both other "Spins" exist, which happens to be the recommended method of installing another desktop environment on Fedora; similar to how "Flavors" work for something like Ubuntu. While one can technically install it like how you've mentioned it, I wouldn't recommend it to a newer user.

The very same ones when one compares Fedora Workstation to Fedora Silverblue. Which mostly come down to Bazzite offering more stability, improved security, reproducibility, atomic updates and a pinch of declarativity^[1] at the expense of relearning a thing or two and actually being limited in some (rather niche) actions that are currently not supported on Silverblue (and thus -by extension- Bazzite). Chances are rather slim that the average Nobara-user would delve into any of those unsupported actions. So if you ever happen to stumble upon something you're not able to do/perfom on Silverblue/Bazzite/uBlue then it's safe to assume that you're not approaching it correctly and that a different approach would have resulted in the desired outcome.

1. Regular Silverblue is not very declarative, if at all. However, the toolkit that uBlue offers -and which is used by Bazzite to create its image- enables one to have some degree of declarativity. It's by no means comparable to the likes of NixOS or Guix, but it's only going to get better from here.

has anyone here used this who can comment on it?

I've been on uBlue since a couple of months. Initially, I just rebased to their silverblue-main image because it offered a more sane image to build upon as all of their images have already applied every relevant step everyone does to their 'Silverblue-systems' anyways; codecs, enabling hardware-acceleration, support for nvidia + secureboot when applicable etc. But recently I've started building my 'own' image using their toolkit and it has been a blast. I'm a huge fan of what NixOS and Guix do in the space of declarative distros. However, unfortunately, I had my reasons to not go down that route. The toolkit offered by uBlue enables me to have (pretty much) a declarative system on a more traditional -albeit 'immutable'- distro. If one desires reproducibility, atomic updates, very high security-standards and a pinch of declarativity to eliminate bitrot, configuration drift, unknown states etc; then one simply can't ignore uBlue's offerings as one of if not the best solution out there.

i see a lot of recommendations for nobara, but this seems to do a similar thing in a more convenient and reversible way

Nobara is great and does indeed have similar design goals; namely improving the stock experience. To put it bluntly; Nobara is to Fedora Workstation what uBlue (thus including Bazzite) is to Fedora Silverblue. To be clear; uBlue offers a fleet of different (base-)images; thus enabling everyone to use their favorite desktop environment on their 'Immutable' Desktop; even those beyond GNOME, KDE and Sway that Fedora itself supports on their 'Immutable Desktops'. So in that sense -perhaps paradoxically- Nobara is more rigid on install than uBlue, while the latter is the one referred to as 'immutable'. It's perhaps important to note that uBlue is not a distro; at least not in the traditional sense:

"This isn't a distribution, you can always rebase back to Fedora without reinstalling. This is a unique relationship between an upstream and downstream that is popular in cloud, but still new to the Linux desktop. "Custom images" seems to be a decent place to start since that's what people call them in cloud."

Linux is a platform that allows you the freedom to acquire the perfect OS for your needs; Linux Mint for your elderly mother, ChimeraOS for the Steam Deck of your son, Debian for your server, Ubuntu on your laptop you use for work and we can't forget your fully customized Arch/Gentoo on your self-built PC that has been optimized to perfection for your workflow. Whatever problem/use-case/need you might have for your device, Linux offers solutions that are quite possibly the best there is; your mileage may vary depending on your knowledge and experience*.

In the past year or so, literally everybody and their mother, decided to join the immutable bandwagon that has been going strong for quite some time. About half of these rely on Distrobox (or very similar solutions) to ensure the desired feature set functions properly. Unsurprisingly, it has also been featured on conferences.

Furthermore, Distrobox itself has been featured in some capacity in a lot of different Linux-related news outlets. And I haven't even mentioned how many times Linux content creators on YouTube have featured it in their videos.

It would be awesome if people that are still bereft of the features that are provided through Distrobox would somehow get to learn about it. Today has been 'your awakening', so feel free to spread the good word and perhaps others will follow suit.

I wouldn't call a project with over 6k upvotes (and counting) on Github underappreciated. Perhaps what you tried to convey is that -surprisingly enough- the community is split on how they view Distrobox within the grand scheme of things. I simply can't fathom anyone to be unappreciative of what it achieves and how. However, there are those that might regard it as one of the rising stars that represent a big upcoming change that might even be -in their eyes- an existential threat to Linux. They fear that containers, immutable distros and all of that 'mumbo jumbo' will threaten the freedom in which they interact with their systems. They don't see them as (potential) solutions to long-held problems, but instead they are viewed as invasive to Linux and an attempt to <insert proprietary OS>-ify Linux and thus as an assault to Linux' uniquely strong qualities. I wonder if if this might be somehow philosophically rooted in how some people lean towards conservatism, while others lean towards progressivism instead.

But yeah, Distrobox is excellent.

I just started using Linux

Welcome!

I have not tried running WINE yet but I plan on doing so soon.

Don't feel pressured in any way to use Wine. Sure; if you're in need of certain software that's only available on Windows, then feel free to engage with Wine to get said software working on your system. However, note that a lot of alternatives exist, so make sure to check them out through something like alternativeto.net before getting involved with Wine.

What are some really important basic commands I can use to start branching out into Terminal command structures and learning more about how I can edit and customize my computer?

Broad question; arguably it makes sense to start out with something like linuxjourney.com if you haven't yet. After which, you might proceed to plunge deeper into some of the subjects that have been introduced through more expansive resources. Assuming that you might prefer something like a video guide of sorts; it's worth pointing out that the videos made by the Learn Linux TV channel on YouTube are excellent. One might argue that the ArcoLinux distro might be worth exploring as a platform to learn Linux on; it's literally one of its design goals. Though, once again, you shouldn't feel pressured in any way to use a certain distro to learn Linux on. We'll delve into distros later on.

And if Cinnamon has shortfalls or weaknesses that I may run into eventually, what are some good alternative distros that I could leapfrog to eventually?

Cinnamon is just a Desktop Environment, and it happens to look and function close to how Windows does, which is one of the main reasons it is often recommended to newer users that seek a familiar experience. There's nothing necessarily wrong with Cinnamon, really. Though, it's worth pointing out that it's not one of the top dogs in the realm of Desktop Environments; those would be GNOME and KDE. Those two have put in considerable work and effort to have proper Wayland support, which we'll call the 'successor' of X11; this is a very oversimplified description and thus somewhat false, but it would be out of scope for this comment to delve deeper into this. What's worth pointing out is that Cinnamon -due to its reliance on X11- is (very likely) to be deprived of features like HDR support and superior security standards as long as they don't put in the necessary time and effort to get proper Wayland support for themselves.

In case your question was meant to ask if Ubuntu LTS is the best platform/distro to learn Linux on, then the only correct answer would be that it depends on your needs. Ubuntu is definitely a decent choice, but you're not protected from unintentionally borking your system when you try to install Steam. Jokes aside, even though Pop!_OS is only based on Ubuntu and thus I don't know for 100% sure if said bug stems from Ubuntu or Pop!_OS, it's still worth pointing out that this is not necessarily a very bad showing for Ubuntu or Pop!_OS. Unfortunately bugs happen, though it's great to have a system that might be better protected..., though unfortunately nothing comes without a cost... compromises... compromises...; moving on.

In case you're interested to explore other distros, perhaps take a look at distrochooser.de. It's not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but it's decent as a first orientation. If you share your result, then we might even give our opinion on the matter based on said results. If you do end up sharing the result, consider answering the following questions as well (feel free to give non-binary answers):

• Sane defaults or Blank slate?
• Full control or Little to no control?
• Secure or Convenient?
• Tool to get work done or Tool to explore/play around?

any great tips?

You might come across a piece of software that's not available within the repo of your distro. However, if you know that it's available in another distro's repo, then perhaps you should use Distrobox (or similar container-solutions) to access said software. Refer to videos on YouTube if you're interested to know how it works, though its documentation is quite excellent as well.

So, initially I stuck to bash and tried to get improved functionality through ble.sh etc. However, for reasons unknown to me, it always seemed to be a buggy mess that was prone to break. Eventually I switched after breaking one last time, where I only had installed ble.sh on a fresh/stock bash; which was the primary contributor that made bash bearable. So if I couldn't use ble.sh, I had no reason to stick to it.

When faced with the choice of where to go next, I quickly dismissed fish for not being POSIX-compliant. Furthermore, as bash is standard on Linux, so too is zsh standard on macOS. And that enables it to have legs beyond fish. However I also kept fish in mind as somewhat of a last resort if all else failed.

So I began venturing into zsh and was obviously overwhelmed by the myriad of plugins and plugin-managers. People generally go out and somehow stick to ohmyzsh, however it was clearly poorly managed and couldn't quite deal with the feature-creep in an elegant way.

Many plugin-managers have come out over the years as alternatives that promised to resolve those issues. However, while some of them succeeded initially, they weren't able to keep that up throughout their lifespan.

When I almost lost hope and had started to gravitate towards learning how I should manage my plugins on my own without any plugin-managers I stumbled upon ZSH Quickstart Kit. Which is a project that's clearly well-maintained and offered must-have functionality like automatically updating the the plugin-manager, plugins and more while still trying to maintain a high standard of reliability, performance, customization and minimalism. So obviously I had been sold on it and the rest has been history.

Ultimately it's for you to decide whichever one of the two suits you best. But if you gave zsh a try and wasn't quite sold on ohmyzsh or any of the other plugin-managers out there, then perhaps consider ZSH Quickstart Kit.

Get your priorities straight. Picking a distro to stick with becomes a lot easier that way.

To give an example of how I dealt with this myself in the past.

Number 1 priority for me was and still is security. I'm willing to give up performance and convenience for the sake of security. A shortlist of distros that in some capacity suffice: Fedora, openSUSE, Gentoo, Arch(/Artix), Alpine, Void, Spectrum OS, Qubes OS, Kicksecure, Whonix, Tails.

However...:

• Whonix and Tails fall off for not being a daily driver.
• My laptop can't handle Qubes OS.
• Spectrum OS is still WIP.
• Gentoo, Void and Arch(/Artix) require the user to set it all up themselves, but as a newbie I needed a distro that would do the heavy-lifting for me.
• Alpine seemed cool, but I wasn't able to deal with issues related to musl.

So Fedora, Kicksecure and openSUSE remain. While Kicksecure (arguably) has superior defaults (when it comes to security), it is still a relatively small project compared to juggernauts like Fedora and openSUSE, so I was inclined to dismiss it unless Fedora and openSUSE weren't able to keep up. Then I learned about how both Fedora and openSUSE had so-called immutable variants, so I got interested in those and what they had to offer. And even though they were still a bit crude, unpolished and kinda finicky to work with; the promise and potential was clearly there. I was especially amused by how Fedora's rpm-ostree enabled one to forego unknown states, bitrot, configuration drift etc and was a very serious step-up compared to all the other options. Soon after I realized that I had found the distro and the rest is history... Since, I've obviously found other distros that had some interesting things going on, however none of them (besides the promise of Vanilla OS' 2.0) has been able to deliver in terms of security and reproducibility. So for me it's still rather clear cut.

In your case, to me at least, it seems you're inherently attracted towards stable distros (like Debian) but lust after rolling release due to the newer packages they offer. So in your case I'd actually recommend the following:

• Main system: Debian(/Devuan)
• Install Nix and access Nix packages through there.
• Finally, install packages you still need but can't find elsewhere through the AUR but within a container. I would recommend Distrobox as it makes this go rather easy and painless.

(Manjaro keeps breaking itself for a laugth)

Are you perhaps using the AUR more than you should on a Manjaro installation? Just for your information; because Manjaro holds back packages for a couple of weeks, any package from the AUR might conflict with those 'outdated' packages and thus cause some breakage. If you really need those packages, then you should consider container solutions like Distrobox to resolve this. Note that trying things like installing a custom kernel won't work through Distrobox.

So the main options probably consist of:

• Just plain Arch; archinstall has made it a lot easier to install. Furthermore, after everything is set and done, it can literally be Manjaro without outdated packages and less bugs etc, or actually whatever you would like your Linux installation to be. Setting up is the most daunting part though. Fortunately, the Arch Wiki does an excellent job in providing a resource at every set of the journey. Recommended if you're not scared of setting up your system from a blank slate.
• Any other Arch-based distro, really. There are a ton of recommendations found in the other comments and there's even more if you check out Distrowatch for Arch-based distros. If you kinda know what you'd want from a future system, but can't be bothered with setting it up directly from Arch, then this might be recommended based on the specifics of your demands and to what degree existing distros align to that. For whatever it's worth, I think Garuda Linux is an interesting option for those that want to move on from Manjaro. Similary to Manjaro, it's opinionated on how your system is/should be configured. That's why it's also one of the few Arch-based distros (like Manjaro) that offers -out of the box- the means to rollback to a working system whenever anything unfortunate befalls your system, Garuda achieves this through coming pre-configured with Btrfs+Snapper. It should be noted, though, that Garuda is considered bloated by some. However only you can decide for yourself if their offering is bloated to you or not. So check out its Xfce edition -or any that sound interesting to you- for yourself, if you're interested. If you think it's interesting, but are still too much bothered by the bloat, then perhaps their Lite versions are more to your liking.

There are a lot of options beyond Arch-based distros. However, as I don't know what made you gravitate towards Manjaro in the first place and what you've come to (dis)like since, it's hard to pinpoint what exactly you'd like. If the AUR has been your main reason for using Manjaro in the first place, then it's important to note that Distrobox also grants access to the AUR from any of the other popular distros out there. So you're not confined to just using Arch(-based distros) unless you really need some custom kernel that is somehow only available in the AUR.

• If you checked out Manjaro for its unsuccessful attempt at providing a stable rolling release, then you should check out the most successful attempt with openSUSE Tumbleweed. It has a respectable amount of packages and enables users through OBS (OpenSUSE Build Service) to extend this significantly. Its installer offers the option to go for a minimal installation.
• If rolling release has scarred you, but you still want up-to-date packages, then consider Fedora. Huge community, AUR-like repo in COPR and once again a very respectable amount of packages make it definitely worth a mention. It offers the so-called Fedora Everything ISO (Network Installer) that acts as the installer for minimal systems.

First of all, I think it's important to state that the 'default' settings that distros ship with and thus you're met with right after a fresh installation try to target a sweet spot in which a lot more besides performance is considered; reliability, security, stability etc. However, depending on your workload and your hardware configuration, it's possible to have it more optimized towards performance through 'tinkering-means'.

However workload, metrics, system and hardware configuration provide so much variability that an exhaustive comparison between distros is just hard to do right. It's possible to find some on Phoronix (and Reddit), but testing it yourself on your own hardware is a lot more valuable.

Still, it's possible to draw some basic conclusions based on the available data and common sense:

• Newer versions of the kernel generally have optimizations related to performance, especially for newer hardware. So -for performance sake- it makes sense to pick a distro that always tries to stay as close as possible to the latest kernel release.
• Overhead is in almost all cases detrimental to performance, so more minimal systems seem to score better. A lot of distros offer an ISO that's meant for minimal installations, so those are perhaps worth checking out.
• Compiling yourself (with performance optimizations) or using packages that have been compiled with performance optimizations in mind provide significant improvements that might be worth your time.

Beyond these three it becomes very murky, real quick. I guess (custom) kernel patches/optimizations are worth a mention, but you would have to benchmark it yourself on your own hardware to see if they're even worth the hassle (spoiler alert: some of them should, but it's best to stay objective and without any expectations regarding them).

I'd like to end this with naming some distros that might be worth mentioning in this discussion: Arch, CachyOS, Clear Linux, Garuda, Gentoo, Nobara and PikaOS.

Thank you!

I’m just starting to spread my wings outside of Ubuntu right and see what’s out there.

As you must have been aware of by now; there are hundreds of distros out there. Which obviously makes it a daunting task to find your distro with that overwhelming amount of distros to potentially choose from. However, quite fortunately, the vast majority is actually not even worth considering as a daily driver. Arguably only the popular independent distros (Arch, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, openSUSE, Slackware and Ubuntu^[1] etc^[2]) are noteworthy, unless you've got very specific wants and/or needs that are only easily accessible through a derivative of theirs. Out of these, Gentoo is perhaps too much of a deep dive at this point in your Linux journey. Slackware ain't bad, but as you've already had some experience with modern Linux distros, I find it rather unlikely that you would enjoy using it; though, perhaps, you might one day (read: decades down the line). So..., only five distros remain... On that note, for whatever it's worth, openSUSE Tumbleweed definitely stands out positively among these IMO (though perhaps another one might be shining even brighter (obviously biased 😜)).

The UI looks real neat as well.

Interesting. Are you referring to the desktop environment? Which -actually- should be reproducible on most other distros*. Or perhaps you're actually referring to YaST? Which is openSUSE's excellent configuration tool; perhaps closest thing that Linux has to Windows' Control Panel. Some even regard it as openSUSE's killer-feature, especially because most other distros (aside from MX Linux) only come with relatively basic configuration tools by comparison. In retrospect, I probably should have mentioned it in my earlier comment 😅.

I’m not really looking for a gaming focused distro right now.

I'm actually glad you aren't; they generally tend to miss out on polish. If you do end up looking into one, then I'd argue it's better to run a dedicated distro as such -perhaps as a dual boot- for all your gaming needs instead of trying to game heavily on your daily driver, unless you find that too cumbersome and/or fear for issues related to storage. I'm aware that this is probably an unpopular take*.

Just something that I can daily drive and occasionally play games with.

Aight, got ya. Well, in that case, openSUSE Tumbleweed is definitely worth considering.

1. I am very aware that Ubuntu is technically not quite as independent as the others are.
2. I felt the likes of Alpine, Guix, NixOS, Puppy, Solus and Void are at least worth mentioning as independent distros.

Thanks for the detailed reply!

Thank you for being appreciative!

Though, I couldn't help but wonder the motivation behind your inquiry. Are you just exploring the waters beyond Ubuntu? Are you interested in rolling release and got curious when you learned what openSUSE Tumbleweed had to offer in that space? Were you perhaps looking for a distro well-suited for gaming and did you perhaps come across someone mentioning openSUSE Tumbleweed which subsequently peaked your interest? Are you perhaps unhappy for some reason with Ubuntu and looking for something to replace it with?

Lots of questions, of which I don't expect you to answer more than a couple (if at all). I would already be more than happy if you could provide us a bit more insight regarding the motivation behind your inquiry.

I would like to ask if openSuse Tumbleweed is a good option for daily driving ang gaming.

Definitely! Depending on your hardware configuration and the games you play, it might even give you a significant performance boost. For completeness' sake, it's important to note that most of the (potential) gains in performance are related to having a more recently released kernel. So similar gains would have been had simply by using something like Arch or Fedora. Furthermore, other factors -like scheduler, custom kernel patches for additional performance and how the packages have been compiled etc- are perhaps also avenues worth exploring in that regard. However that's a potential can of worms I would rather keep closed in this discussion.

Furthermore, openSUSE Tumbleweed comes with great defaults, which is in clear contrast to Arch that comes with (little to) no defaults. This makes it significantly easier to just install and get on with business, something which you might be already familiar with if you've used Linux Mint and Ubuntu. However, compared to those, openSUSE Tumbleweed might require you to perform some additional steps related to codecs and whatnot. This is nothing out of the ordinary as Fedora would have required it as well. Out of 'the big bois', only Ubuntu has been able to solve this through a single-click during installation. Note; this is not a technical matter but a legal one. Thankfully, openSUSE offers great documentation to solve this as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that openSUSE Tumbleweed, contrary to all the other distros that have been mentioned, is configured with Snapper+Btrfs out of the box. This is IMO a must-have on any reliable system as it allows one to rollback to a working system whenever your system seems to have been borked somehow. The other distros allow you to set this (or similar solutions) up yourself, however openSUSE is the only one that does this for you. Furthermore, if security is of any concern to you, but you're not that knowledgeable on the subject, thus requiring your distro to do the heavy-lifting, then once again openSUSE Tumbleweed (together with Fedora) performs best out of 'the big bois'.

After mentioning such praise one might ask "What's the catch?", because -somehow- openSUSE Tumbleweed isn't as represented in the online discourse compared to Arch, Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora. And honestly, I don't know why it is so criminally underrated. So in that regard, it's quite unfortunate that it can't quite reap the benefits of having a huge involved community like the others have. And perhaps that's where the catch is...; it doesn't have as big of a user base -> limited user base isn't able to contribute to it so that it becomes as 'competitive' as the more popular distros -> potential new users don't pick or stick to openSUSE because package/function X (or whatever) is absent -> it doesn't have as big of a user base... To give an example; I really like to have a secure system. And while openSUSE is one of the best to offer that out of the box, it unfortunately doesn't allow me to further harden it by installing a hardened kernel without myself becoming the maintainer of said package. This is in clear contrast to Arch, Debian and Fedora that offer access to repos that contain a hardened kernel; be it through the AUR, COPR or the repo maintained by the folks over at Kicksecure.

The graphics card I have is Nvidia if its any relevant.

Perhaps openSUSE Tumbleweed will require you to put in more effort -compared to Ubuntu- to make sure this works as intended. However, thankfully, the documentation has got you covered.

The author of the blog post likes X, that's why distro A is might be the perfect distro for them. While I like Y, which is why distro B is the perfect distro for me etc. What makes Linux -in a sense as a platform- perfect great is that it allows one to either find/install/build/configure the perfect system for them^[1]. Some prefer to be in full control from start to finish, while others just like sane defaults. The fact that Linux allows for such diversity is almost mind-blowing.

The degree of that diversity will only increase as time goes on and very likely at some point (purely as a side-effect of further diversification) very 'dumped down' versions of Linux might -and perhaps already have- arise. This is inevitable and -perhaps to a degree- essential. And no matter how 'dumped down' some Linux distros would have become by then, you can still bet your money that distros like Gentoo and Slackware will continue to do what they always have. So that everybody and their mom, but also the tinker-loving you, will be able to have their perfect distro.

Therefore I don't see any merit/benefit in contributing to gatekeeping, elitism or whatever this is supposed to be. Instead, we should contribute in more meaningful ways; e.g. like by maintaining some packages you need in your perfect distro. And perhaps those changes will actually contribute to it becoming the perfect distro for others...

1. I'd argue Linux isn't quite there yet, unfortunately. As some highly specialized systems just don't exist yet... Regardless, l would reckon it allows one to get the closest to such systems.

Hard-reboots are no longer required on Silverblue when installing or upgrading packages (besides kernel) through rpm-ostree. Arguably one should only sparingly rely on rpm-ostree for installing packages. But it's great to have access to soft-reboot when setting up a new system.

Not sure if one would call this support, but technically Davinci Resolve can be installed as a flatpak.

I prefer Flatpaks by a wide margin. This presentation by openSUSE's Richard Brown is a great watch for those looking for a thorough comparison.