fedora atomic desktops (silverblue, kinoite, and derivatives like bluefin etc) are really great. They are as up-to-date as fedora, with an additional layer of stability provided by its atomic and image based nature.
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
102 points (97.2% liked)
Linux
48400 readers
703 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Debian with Flatpak and a Distrobox container running Arch is pretty good if you want a stable desktop with rolling packages.
I have a gentoo desktop but for a convenient middle ground just put Debian on my laptop. It’s stable, things just work out of the box, maintainers/devs are competent, they haven’t drunk the snap/flatpack kool-aid…
Switching to Testing is always an option but I’ve not found the need to do that yet when I can install programs from a deb package or just compile from source and install it in ~/.bin in my home directory.
I'd say Fedora is the middle-ground. You get up-to-date software in a stable distribution with daily security updates, and fixed OS upgrades each year.
I'm sure I'll get shouted down for this suggestion by the haters, but I'm going to make it anyway because it's actually really good:
Use an Ubuntu LTS flavour like Kubuntu. Then, add flatpak and for apps you want to keep up to date, install either the flatpak or the snap, depending on the particular app. In my personal experience, sometimes the flatpak is better and sometimes the snap is better. (I would add Nix to the mix, but I wouldn't call it particularly easy for beginners.)
This gets you:
- A reliable Debian-like base that you only have to upgrade to new releases every 2 years
- Up-to-date apps, including confinement for those apps
- New kernels every 6 months (if you choose - you don't have to, though)
Ubuntu not only lacks some basic packages but they make apt install them with snap instead.
I would go Debian testing as it has a huge selection of apps and has good support for Flatpak (like pretty much all Linux as Flatpak is build on standard kernel components)
From anecdotal experience I can only tell you that not once have I witnessed a showstopper bug on Arch. I recommend using btrfs and snapshots to really make sure however.
Arch pushes updates as they come with not much testing. This means you need to read before updating as it can break things. Pacman is also very fast at the cost of stability and ease of fixing
And yet I never do and it hardly ever does. And if it does, it's more often than not application specific and fixed by loading a snapshot and updating again after a week or so, which is next to 0 effort.
That takes my time which is valuable. I want it to work and stay up to date.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Opensuse tumbleweed. The packages go through a testing process unlike Fedora AFAIK.
Several months ago I installed Tumbleweed on a VM just for kicks and giggles. A week later it refused to install updates at all due to some weird conflict, even though the system was vanilla to the goddamn wallpaper. In a week I try upgrading and magically the conflict is gone. I'll be honest, this was my only experience with Tumbleweed and it managed to have its update system broken in the meantime. I've never had anything close to this on Debian Unstable lol.
Not hating on Tumbleweed, on the contrary - I have been testing it for quite a while to see if it's as good as they say. But it doesn't look like a middle ground between Arch and Debian. At least in my short experience.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I've been using Arch for a year and nothing has broken. Did have to "fix" a lot of stuff after install because it was my first time using Arch and didn't realize all the other stuff I had to install... Mainly to get my Nvidia GPU to work. But a few hours later and it's been rock solid since.
Debian Testing.
IMO Debian is already pretty far middle-ground. The packages are new enough for my personal usage.
My recommendation would be Debian + Flatpak & Appimages (or + Snaps if you're the devil). Super stable, but also access to the latest.
Fedora is also a middle ground too, but they're pushing flatpaks heavily so it might not matter anyway since Fedora + flatpak and Debian + flatpak are about the same.
Garuda. It's an Arch derivative that creates a snapshot of your system every time you update. That way, if the update breaks something, you can just roll your system back to the last working snapshot.
Fedora, Ubuntu etc. use up to date packages if you're using flatpaks and snaps. Nix I suppose fits the bill better but it's a harder distro to "learn" than arch imo
How about Rhino? Rolling release of Debian Sid iirc
Void linux
Fedora is pretty good there, but I wouldnt use the DNF variants.
The atomic variants though totally rock. Atomic Desktops, IoT, etc.
The atomic model deals with all the troubles you would have with so new packages.
OpenSUSE slowroll would be a better middle-ground, but I have had strange broken packages and they dont have a useful atomic model, as it is not image-based.
load more comments
(6 replies)