Linux

5387 readers

138 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out [email protected]

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon

anzo

dwraf_of_ignorance

Am upgrading from thinkpad to framework 16 with amd. Looking for distro reccommendations. (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/linux

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I did the whole distro chooser quiz but didnt help much.

Heres the things id like to hit

avoid systemd
stable
Wayland support
Minimal packages
no immutable (seems like to much of a pain)
full disk encryption but thats pretty standard nowdays.

Was going to go with devuan but the debian flavours dont have a stable with wayland yet. I was considering going with a testing or unstable build but would like to avoid headaches on a daily driver. Is testing/unstable got wayland and are they reliable enough? If so what do I go with.

Also hows the hardware comparability with framework i assume it wont be too bad to get set up.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Am upgrading from thinkpad to framework 16 with amd. Looking for distro reccommendations.

I would start looking at what's supported to begin with.

I did the whole distro chooser quiz but didnt help much.

FYI, it isn't as helpful as you would hope and hasn't been updated in quite a while. Don't be too much bothered with the result. But thanks for sharing some tidbits from the quiz as it helps the community to better help you!

avoid systemd

Are you sure you want this?

stable

Does this refer to unchanging (for long periods of time except for security updates)? Or, instead, for being less inclined to break after an update?

Is testing/unstable got wayland?

I don't recommend going for (Debian's/Devuan's) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesn't receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.

are they reliable enough?

Depends on how reliable you want them to be. OOTB, their reliability definitely ain't great, though.

If so what do I go with.

Consider answering all questions found in this comment and we'll be better equipped to help you out with this.

Also hows the hardware comparability with framework i assume it wont be too bad to get set up.

Overall, it's pretty good; epecially so on the supported distros.

Btw, you strike me as a (relatively) new user that doesn't seem to have a good understanding on Linux yet. Is this correct?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

I looked at supported and they got ubuntu supported so i figured debian (and its clones) shouldnt be too bad to set up.

I like sysvinit

As long as i dont need to use a bootable usb to give it back its kernal after failing to update and doesnt randomly crash then id consider that stable enough.

I recon ill go with devuan unstable.

Ive been daily driving arch for about 2 years now (i fuckibg sick of fixing shit i want stability again) had mint prior to that and use debian on my servers.

[–] bitfucker 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If you've driven Arch before, have you looked at Artix?

Edit: Oh, you have trouble with stability then. So not artix

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I thought i was fine without stability but using a rock solid stable debian install as my server reminded me how much easyer my life could be. Its was fun tho.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)