Hi, I'm looking for a distro for my laptop. My first distro was Pop!_OS, then I switched to Fedora, then Arch for a year and 2 months ago I switched to Fedora Silverblue, because I wanted to try immutable distro that relies on containers and flatpaks to be usefull. Silverblue is great but not so much for me, its not flexible enough.
I'm thinking of switching to Arch but maybe it's time for something else. Maybe NixOS or Void, Gentoo probably not, I don't have time for compiling everything. What do you recommend?
It must support full disk encryption, secure boot with signing with YOUR OWN KEYS, systemd (because of MullvadVPN), everything else I think can work on any distro (Gnome, podman, kvm, etc.).
I've been using Linux for 2 decades and I still use Debian for containers and servers and Pop_os for my desktop and laptop. If I was going to run a straight gaming machine I'd probably use something Arch based.
What kind of experience are you looking for? Something that's bleeding edge? Something that's going to give you 99.999% uptime with minimal hassle? Something to give you a hobby?
I'm sure many petrol heads enjoy fine tuning combustion and make sure the suspension is tailored 100% to their neighborhood roads and all... but sometimes they just need a car with which to pick up some groceries.
I’m thinking of switching to Arch but maybe it’s time for something else. Maybe NixOS or Void, Gentoo probably not, I don’t have time for compiling everything. What do you recommend?
I'm a bit biased of course but you sound like you'd enjoy NixOS.
Why does a VPN proxy software have any hard dependency on a process manager?
Probably because of killswitch. App installs a service that manages internet and vpn access, the app is just a GUI for communicating with that service.
OpenSuse is great except for one (imho) zypper. When I do updates zyper has this huge section which is labeled "will not be upgraded". For me it's really distracting and makes reading which packages will be upgraded harder to parse visually at a glance
@zelifcam@chevy9294 I’ve become a fan. I’m not a coder or anything, and I have been able to navigate its package management easily enough. The manual could be made a bit simpler/clearer, but the system itself is not hard to manage.
I’ve been meaning to figure out if I can set up the system and then generate a new configuration file based on what I installed using nix-env
You want immutable distros but Silverblue wasn't flexible enough? Why not try NixOS? It's really nice.
I've been using it for two years and I love being able to make changes to my config and having those changes apply to all my computers. It's also basically unbreakable, if my computer explodes I can just reinstall NixOS with my config files and it will instantly be set up exactly how I want it.
Plain old minimal arch to start is a great solution that's not too painful to manage IMO. That is where I landed after not wanting to figure out how to make full compiles palatable.
The one thing I’ve learned over the years is that the more experience you have with Linux, the less you rely on preconfigured distributions. Find a stable minimal install and build up your own set of base packages, DE, configs, etc.
Only you know your habits and needs and experience is how you narrow down the field.
For me personally, I have found my groove in a minimal Debian install with a first run setup script or two that is repeatable and automatable so I can start with a known quantity for any applicable need I have.
I prefer doing useful things with my workstation vs playing with the OS itself, so mint cinnamon is my recommendation. Servers are ansible-managed alma. Professionally I'm a Linux systems architect and devops engineer.
I learned that using nix on arch for the home directory in addition to pacman and the aur is quite an unbeatable combo that I prefer to having everything managed by nix. The problem with nix and nixos I see for one is that it leaves some performance on the table for reproducibility and that many packages are or cannot be packaged for nix. Additionally arch already is quite reproducible albeit not as much as nixos. Writing your own meta package with a simple pkgbuild to manage the system base seemed like a good substitute for me.
BSD sadly lacks a fair amount of support for things that Linux does. I gave FreeBSD a try a few years back and it annoyed me, especially coming from Arch. All the packages were so outdated and compiling updated versions from Ports took forever. Also the BSDs are just different enough from Linux to be annoying.
I'm a Linux System Engineer and at my former job we had a few thousand Linux hosts but a handful of Solaris 5 hosts. Shelling into one of those, expecting it to be Linux and then raging when something didn't work but then realizing it was Solaris and not Linux was always fun.
every distro is for experienced users, you can tranform arch in ubuntu and vice versa, but if you want sumething different try fedora silverblue, or other nonmutable distro, it's fun learning how to use it(it's what i'm doing with my laptop)
Arch is a good choice, Endeavour was my flavor of choice, but these days I use Linux Mint: Debian Edition, which works mostly fine for me (got one minor piece of software I can't get for it).
I use Arch (btw) because of the ArchWiki, and I'm totally comfortable configuring my system how I like it.
But I do appreciate Debian a lot. You can customize things to almost the same extent, but packages come preconfigured with great defaults and designed to better work together, unlike Arch which uses the upstream defaults almost universally.
Oh sorry that was badly written, I compile my own kernel and run lxc on top of that, with debian base userspace otherwise.
Then kvm on top for really different stuff.
For my server it's debian on the bottom with zfs file serving raidz2, and on top of that 1 kvm for debian docker containers, and 1 kvm for freebsd jails which actually hosts most of the services I care about, docker is fallback if they're a pain to set up.
I'd recommend go back to arch. I use arch myself and have decided to stop distro hopping. I always end up regretting and come back to arch. The arch install script is quite good now, spares me hours of hunting down what packages to install for a working desktop and configuring of bootloader, etc, that I had to do before for installing arch.
Last time I tried something else was fedora. I liked the seamless experience, but I was annoyed by the very slow updates (why does it take soo long to refresh the repos?), and I missed the awesome wiki and package availability on arch.
I'm a long time arch with plasma user and recently tried arch with gnome and couldn't get into it, so decided to try something new so I switched to Fedora Kinoite and yes, updates are incredibly slow. I mean it's ridiculous really when compared to arch, but the distro seems solid ( curious how long I'll last before inevitably going back to arch).
Gentoo probably not, I don't have time for compiling everything
Just wanted to say I use gentoo and was going to recommend it. Compile times really shouldn't impact you that much as they're running in background and can be configured to not impact other processes. And compiles are very fast for most applications, it's only the few heavy ones that aren't.
The secure boot implementations in Debian and Fedora trust kernel/modules with keys signed by Microsoft. Everything that you listed you want to do, you can do on Arch and with AUR you probably won't need to compile 99.9% of programs.
Vanilla OS 2 Orchid sounds very interesting, I think. It's in alpha now. Have a read about their package manager - it's kinda meta, allowing you to use other package managers in parallel.
Let me suggest: Fedora. It's a solid distro that makes some good decisions, doesn't require a huge amount of effort (unless an update bricks it but it's been a long time since that happened), and can be further customized if needed.
All distros are exactly the same. Theres no such thing as a "distro for experienced users". With that said, just do a minimal install of (pretty much anything you want).
Different distros have different limitations and advantages but there are usually good reasons for these things. For example, Debian strives for stability, but that also means fairly old packages. Some other distro might not have a very wide selection of apps in the repos, but it might have some other areas where it excels. As long as you agree with these sorts of design decisions, it should be a good distro for you.
You don't even have to like the default DE or any other package related decision that comes with the default image. Maybe there's a bare bones image that allows you to build your OS which ever way you like, and install only the packages you really need. in this regard, every distribution can be made more or less similar, but your decisions won't change what is or isn't in the repositories or how the devs make their decisions.
For a lot of people, the default image is the one they'll use. In that regard, every distribution is different, but can still be made similar if you put the time and effort into it. Some people prefer to have this and that preinstalled, while other people want something else to work out of the box. With these sorts of decisions in mind, there are huge differences between distros.
It takes very little effort to maintain a debian system with fresher packages. stable is not the only release nor the only mechanism for running newer versions of software.