From OpenSUSE there’s also leap micro. Never used it, but maybe worth looking at.
If you don’t like fedora it might still be worth trying one of the fedora atomics, depending on what you didn’t like. For instance, I could never get used to dnf, but it’s largely irrelevant on an atomic distro anyways.
I would love to see a true atomic Debian-based distro, but I think that’s a long way from maturity.
Edit: opensuse aeon will also be released soon, but at least the comments on this post seem to think that there’s some important things missing from Suse atomic.
What started as openSUSE Micro Desktop is now openSUSE Aeon. It’s still RC2, and RC3 will probably be easier to do a clean install since it will add full disk encryption, but if you want to check it out now it’s reliable and works well.
Ahhh gotcha. The websites don’t give a good indication of that, unfortunately. Trying to find the differences between OpenSUSE flavors was surprisingly hard. Thanks for the info!
Honestly I tried Silverblue, and had a much better time after I rebased to Bluefin. I would recommend going for Aurora over Kinoite. Of course, you can always rebase.
I’m surprised to hear you don’t like Fedora. I recently tried Kinode and I wish I’d discovered it sooner. I’ve never had a Linux distro that felt so detail-oriented and complete. I’d be curious to hear your reasoning!
Last time I used it, Fedora’s updates were too unstable. I twice got updates breaking my system setup. For example, with openSUSE it happened only once (recent broken Mesa update). Also openSUSE updates surprisingly feel more stable than Fedora ones.
I don’t like Red Hat. Even though I understand that open-source projects are complex and I should separate developers from their software, that doesn’t change my opinion on Red Hat.
This problem stems from the previous ones. Using Fedora I feel like a beta-tester for future Red Hat projects and especially RHEL.
Keep in mind, that I last used Fedora on versions 37–38 and things might have changed since.
OP, I don’t intend to convince you otherwise. I merely intend to share my own takes on this. So, without further a due.
Last time I used it, Fedora’s updates were too unstable. I twice got updates breaking my system setup.
So, first of all, you seem to think that Fedora’s updates are equally “unstable” compared to those found on Fedora Atomic. But this is simply categorically wrong due to Fedora Atomic being (as it’s name applies) an atomic distro. And hence has far superior updates (in terms of ‘stability’).
Secondly, I recall this period quite vividly, and I actually agree with you that Fedora’s handling was a mess. And, unfortunately, this mess also affected Fedora Atomic. Thankfully, uBlue’s team ensured that the issues were not felt on any of its images. So, even if, at times, issues spill over to Fedora Atomic, users of uBlue images will not have to face those. Heck, history has recorded that the uBlue images have consistently prevented those issues to spill over to its images. Thus, while this may (perhaps rightfully so) make one question if they should use Fedora Atomic or not; this, however, does not represent the situation over at uBlue images. Hence, one could rely on those without fearing issues related to ‘stability’.
I don’t like Red Hat. Even though I understand that open-source projects are complex and I should separate decelopers from their software, that doesn’t change my opinion on Red Hat.
Fair. What makes you hate Red Hat? I know often cited reasons for why people hate Red Hat. But what are your reasons*?
This problem stems from the previous ones. Using Fedora I feel like a beta-tester for future Red Hat projects and especially RHEL.
Is this specifically a problem because you hate Red Hat? Because, quite frankly, the same somewhat applies to openSUSE and SLE. But this doesn’t seem to bother you.
Keep in mind, that I last used Fedora on versions 37–38 and things might have changed since.
Excellent point. Since that ‘double trouble’, it has been relatively stable. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Fedora would act similarly if a new issue arises.
@JustMarkov@OneRedFox it’s against GNU recommendations, but the nature of open source is about modifications, adaptations, improvements and sharing… and so there is the non-gnu channel.
While true, there is the nonguix repository that packages both the proprietary Nvidia driver and Steam. Otherwise, you’re probably better off going back to regular distributions based on the others that you’ve ruled out thus far.
Try Puppy Linux on it. It runs with meager resources - ~100MB RAM, 250MB storage (only if you want to install it to disk). Everything runs in RAM and is blazing fast. It is a God send for older computers
Do read up about the philosophy of puppy Linux. They are based on different distributions like Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc. Puppy Linux aims to make these small and efficient with some minor utilities thrown in. So, for actual support, you can rely on those distributions as such. Any updates, software installation, etc can be had from the base distro itself.
Except the installer requires one specific repo mirror to be up, which can’t be customized, which has been down for weeks and the dev isn’t very interested in providing any fix or workaround so a lot of people literally can’t install it.
It’s a bad suggestion, it’s a beta product not fit for end user consumption yet.
This should add the flathub remote to the system and then install all the existing user packages into the system level. Then removes all the user level packages.
Do you have any other hardware between computer & monitor? (Ie a KVM Switch?)
The other post about display ID jogged my memory that KVMs (etc) don’t pass through the data (sometimes?), so just wondering whether there’s another factor here…
Not sure how it would only trigger this on updates, but just building a complete picture of the issue.
nothing in between the computer and monitor - it’s just plugged straight in. my current guess is that some step of pacman’s install/update process changes something that also gets changed by something else (DE, config file, idk) after the boot.
IMO you should use LVM2 or one of the high level filesystems that have similar features, and then dynamically create partitions and mount them as needed. E.g. Suddenly need 50G for a new VM image? Make a partition and mount it where you need the space.
You are correct, LVM combines 1 or more disks into 1 or more storage pools that can then be allocated out to logical volumes as needed.
If you just up and pull a disk from a pool (volume group), you’re gonna have a bad time. You can, however, migrate the “extents” allocated to that physical disk to another in order to replace the disk, and your logical volumes can be set up with RAID-like redundancy. There’s a lot of options on how to manage it.
No problem! To expand further, I am 99% certain it would be perfectly viable to have a single disk volume group and just take advantage of LVM’s ability to create, resize and delete virtual partitions on the fly. I think you could also put all your disks into a single volume group, then ask it to not spread your logical volumes across multiple disks, if you wanted to. Could get a bit fiddly though.
Highly recommend Guix, been using it as my daily driver for years now.
System Crafters has a really nice series on getting it setup the way you want it. I think it’s fixed a lot of stuff that is a little wonky with Nix – proper separation of config-time things and build-time things with g-exps, no putzing with bash scripts, grafting so you can reuse builds even when dependencies get updated, and just general good documentation and hackable culture with a pretty active IRC. They’ve recently added support for also managing your dotfiles the same way you do packages and system config (Guix Home). They’ve also pushed the boundaries of bootstrappability/reproducible builds so far that bitcoin-core is now building on Guix for security.
The system is pretty well thought through, and has saved me a few times where I would’ve bricked my machine on a mutable distro – now, I can just boot to a previous version of the system from the bootloader whenever my lastest changes are messed up.
It’s finally an opinionated distro I agree with. Of course you can get anything to look like anything but I just like how they picked a path and went so far down it to make their own unique out-of-the-box experience.
I don’t like some of the other decisions in Garuda, but it’s become hard to get away from it when even regular non-technical people who see it are like “Whoa, what is all that” and you literally just finished installing it and didn’t even change the wallpaper. It’s a very different feeling from what I’m used to with Linux and I’m into it.
The distribution doesn’t to too much, its mostly the desktop environment. I like the look of KDE Plasma the most. But usually I craft my own look after a while.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had plenty of fun customizing DEs but I don’t really need that on my daily driver. I also have more of a terminal based workflow so perhaps shell customization scratches that itch for me.
The thing I’ve learned in the many years of watching this fight is that the things Gnome people (of which I am one, though I have immense respect and appreciation for the KDE project) don’t like about KDE tend to be the things KDE people like about KDE and vice versa.
It seems to still be strongly gnome-adjacent, which fits with the softer, “calmer” aesthetic Pop has, but with functional tweaks that are more aligned with Win11/KDE (absolutely intended as a positive statement, as far as moving the ball forward on UX design). I worry that team KDE won’t like the “sane defaults” simplicity that it appears to have inherited from the gnome days, but that might just be the part of me that experiences terminal choice paralysis every time I fire up KDE. :)
These projects are almost diametrically opposite. GNOME tries to provide a very simple, solid but not very configurable desktop with good accessibility and stability while KDE tries to make a very configurable and powerful environment that can be customized to anyone’s needs. I don’t like KDE because it’s unstable, way too powerful for my personal needs (their “simple by default; powerful when needed” concept doesn’t really work) and I just don’t like the UI. Though KDE’s better performance is an objective advantage.
I tend to agree. I mean, the gnome workflow is more appealing to me (though I have since moved to a WM), but my dislike of KDE comes down to (a) too many options everywhere and (b) it looks too “sharp”. If KDE had an “I’m done fiddling” mode that hid most of the options and I found a softer theme, I’d probably like it fine.
Absolutely nothing I just said should take away from others’ preference for KDE. I’m glad we can like what we like.
Agreed. I think it’s not about distros we should have pay attention, but desktop environments.
And about “most appealing” DE I think it’s subjective. Surely KDE has the most flexible structure and may be exactly what you want, but Gnome is also appealing for some people (myself included).
Again, there is no right or wrong, just personal preferences
Can’t. feddit.de can’t upload images and in browser i suddenly get a server error(?) with my lemmy.ml account.
Well uh, left bar with virtual desktop overview bottom, window buttons top, autoexpand
right bar with network and systemload bars top, sensor numbers bottom, fixed size
top bar Android style with left hand clock and date, whiskermenu (symbol view) as the empty space in the center (title only and whitespaces as title), right hand systray with mail and connman-gtk, pulseaudio plugin. Bars are on intelligently autohide, theme is Adapta.
This is on my notebook with touchscreen.
Nice thing is, XFCE can pin bars to specific displays or main display. Meaning, if i plug my ultrawide in, the top bar stays on notebook while left and right bar switch to the ultrawide, a center bar with Wiskermrmu with list view for desktop usage appears.
Somebody needs to tell me what they’re doing to Plasma to make them like it so much because when I install it with Breeze it just looks like Windows 2000.
I don’t really care how it looks precisely, so long as its semi-professional and consistent in its style.
Like, I change the font to Fira Sans, because Noto Sans gives me depression, but the rest of my customizations are all just to carve out my ideal workflow.
I took it as a question of which distro looks nicest out of the box (like, which distro manager has made real effort to make something particularly nice looking).
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.