Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)YA
Posts
1
Comments
112
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Traditionally; definitely. But if the purpose of package managers is to acquire packages fit for use with the distro, then the position of alt packaging formats (e.g. Nix) and/or solutions that make use of container technology (e.g. Distrobox) at least provide some food for thought.

    Like, if I choose to install Debian (Stable) and openSUSE Leap and then proceed to install all my packages through distro-agnostic ways accessible on both distros (e.g. Flatpak, Brew, Nix etc.), then wouldn't you agree that these systems become remarkably close to one another?

  • Unfortunately, perhaps understandably so, popularity is very hard to measure on Linux. Though, while far from representative, ProtonDB's measurements do exist and provide us some insights. As for the distros found on the chart:

    • Arch (base):
      • Endeavour
      • Garuda[1]
      • Manjaro
    • Debian (base):
      • Ubuntu
        • Linux Mint[2]
        • Pop_OS!
    • Fedora (base):
      • Nobara
    • NixOS
    • openSUSE

    Note that Flatpak is not a distribution, but a packaging format.

    BoilingSteam's article in which their thoughts and reflections are written can be found here.


    1. While it's technically not labeled, the blue-colored columns found right below openSUSE belong to Garuda; as can be seen here (from an earlier iteration of the graph).
    2. Technically, Linux Mint also has their Debian Edition. But, the vast majority of its users should be using the one based directly on Ubuntu.
  • Update 2: After trying out EOS, Arch, Manjaro, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and Universal Blue, among many other options, I’ve come to the decision that I’m okay with sticking to Mint for now on my main desktop and setting up UBlue Aurora on my work laptop, but might consider switching to Kubuntu or Fedora if I want something similar at work and at home (one of my main draws away from Mint was that it didn’t offer a KDE option), or to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed if I must have a rolling distro for some reason. Thank you all for your guidance, and happy distro hopping!

    Thank you for the update!

    Could you elaborate upon your decision-making?

  • You can divide distros into two categories:

    • Independent distros; these are not forks of other projects (at least not in their current iterations). We may also refer to these as upstream-projects.
    • Derivative distros; these are forks from the earlier mentioned projects. We may also refer to these as downstream-projects.

    E.g. Zorin OS is a derivative of Ubuntu, which itself is a derivative of Debian. After the gargantuan effort it takes to make Debian possible, Ubuntu's maintainers 'grab' Debian, apply a set of changes and ship it as Ubuntu. After which, Zorin OS' maintainers grab Ubuntu, also apply a set of changes and ship it as Zorin OS.

    Of course, not all derivatives are created equal; sometimes a single change is applied that by itself constitutes the fork. And other times, the changes are so massive that they blur the lines between independent and derivative; Ubuntu's changes to Debian is a good example of this.

    Derivative distros can't simply change everything as they see fit; some things are simply essential parts. In most cases, these include:

    • the release cycle of the base; rolling-release vs point-release, but also LTS vs bleeding edge and everything in between
    • the (base) packages of the base

    But what other factors/aspects that are important for the average user to know about each ‘base’?

    I was about to write a long ass dissertation, but it became very unwieldy. Consider asking for specific bases and perhaps I will respond for those.

    On a final note, it's worth mentioning that differences between different distros have never been as blurry as they're today. With e.g. Distrobox, one can install whatever package from whichever distro they want. Thus, we aren't as tied to the packages provided by the base distro as we were used to. Furthermore, most distros have different 'variants' that allow access to different channels or release cycles. E.g. for those who want Debian packages but bleeding-edge; there's Debian Sid etc.

    Sure, a lot more can be said; like how corporate interest plays into all of this. But what has been mentioned above should suffice for now.

  • Fam, with all due respect, reconsider how you go about interacting with the community for support.

    We love to help, so don't get me wrong. But you have to allow us to help you. Paramount with this is communication; so consider responding to questions asked by those who reach out to help.

    Like, I'm not exaggerating when I say that your issues would have already been resolved if you had been (more) responsive.

  • There's also the herd mentality; i.e. peeps like to up vote something that has already been up voted and down vote something that has already been down voted. I was the first to up vote; with my vote it became +2 -7. So, since then, it has received 4 up votes and 6 down votes. Which is at least an improvement.

    The point I wanted to make is that there's more to it. I wouldn't simply refer to it as symptom of toxicity and call it a day.

  • If it is the default on the distro they intend to use, then, by all means, they should definitely go with it. Btrfs has been really stable for a pretty long time anyways. Just don't use it for RAID 5/6 and you'd be absolutely fine.

  • Would you mind elaborating?

    I'm aware that MX works on a lot of excellent GUI tools that are shipped with it. Which is great, but perhaps necessary; because they ship a systemd-less distro. Which, in the end, might cause more work than it should. (I'm aware this is in part caused by software just assuming that systemd is installed by default.) And while I think it's a noble endeavour to maintain a relatively easy systemd-less distro, I don't think it's enough to justify a recommendation to a relatively new Linux user. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on this?

  • Question: Do you intend to play games with high-fidelity?

    Like, the latest gen iGPUs from both AMD and Intel are capable for light gaming (as can be seen on the many pc-handhelds). But, is that sufficient for you? Or, do you need more raw power on your device?

  • Thank you for some much needed background information (and perhaps even some of Ubuntu's justification)!

    There is literally not a single useful comment here.

    That's a bit harsh 😜. Though, I agree the 'f*ck-Ubuntu'-circlejerk is very present.

    It is an optional service, they warn you that you use outdated packages, and offer a solution.

    I guess it's wishful thinking to argue that they should have included the security patches from the get-go.

  • Thank you for clarifying.

    I'm not very familiar with how stuff works over at (open)SuSE. However, for Fedora, we know that they've gone against Red Hat's policy more than once. At the end of the day, it is (at the very least in name) a community distro.

    But, I think we can at least agree on the fact that Canonical's influence on Debian is definitely less than Red Hat's influence on Fedora or SuSE's influence on openSUSE.

    Btw, consider conveying this better next time 😅. I think most others, like me, misunderstood you 😜.

    Have a nice day!