I have tried Linux as a DD on and off for years but about a year ago I decided to commit to it no matter the cost. First with Mint, then Ubuntu and a few others sprinkled in briefly. Both are "mainstream" "beginner friendly" distros, right? I don't want anything too advanced, right?
Well, ubuntu recently updated and it broke my second monitor (Ubuntu detected it but the monitor had "no signal"). After trying to fix it for a week, I decided to wipe it and reinstall. No luck. I tried a few other distros that had the same issue and I started to wonder if it was a hardware issue but I tried a Windows PC and the monitor worked no problem.
Finally, just to see what would happen I tried a distro very very different than what I'm used to: Fedora (Kinoite). And not only did everything "just work" flawlessly, but it's so much faster and more polished than I ever knew Linux to be!
Credit where it's due, a lot of the polish is due to KDE plasma. I'd never strayed from Gnome because I'm not an expert and people recommend GNOME to Linux newbies because it's "simple" and "customizable" but WOW is KDE SO MUCH SIMPLER AND STILL CUSTOMIZEABLE. Gnome is only "simple" in that it doesn't allow you to do much via the GUI. With Fedora Kinode I think I needed to use the terminal maybe once during setup? With other distros I was constantly needed to use the terminal (yes its helped me learn Linux but that curve is STEEP).
The atomic updates are fantastic too. I have not crashed once in the two weeks of setup whereas before I would have a crash maybe 1-2 times per week.
I am FULLY prepared for the responses demanding to know what I did to make it crash and telling me how I was using it wrong blah blah blah but let me tell you, if you are experienced with Windows but want to learn Linux and getting frustrated by all the "beginner" distros that get recommended, do yourself a favor and try Fedora Kinoite!
edit: i am DYING at the number of "you're using it wrong" comments here. never change people.
Thank you for the reply!
I don't understand why this is relevant. But, to answer your question, a modern system should already be on systemd, Wayland and PipeWire unless one has (for some reason) ideological qualms with systemd or if the maturity of Wayland isn't quite ready for their specific needs.
The "should" used earlier isn't used as my personal bias or whatsoever. It's simply the default found on the upstreams projects. GNOME and KDE (the most popular DEs) default to Wayland. PipeWire has become default for at least GNOME (even on Debian). And systemd is the default on almost all Linux systems.
Furthermore, this set of software is not a random set for which Fedora happens to be the first to adopt. In fact, these are crucial parts of how we interact with Linux; these constitute the backbone if you will.
Firstly, no one refers to Fedora as Fedora OS. Secondly, Fedora's release cycle is often referred to as semi-rolling release. With that, it's meant that some packages arrive as they come (very close to how rolling release operates). However, other packages only arrive with the next point release. Though, Fedora has its Fedora Rawhide branch that operates as its rolling release branch.
However, the fact that you mention this, means that we have misunderstood eachother. I don't claim that new versions/updates arrive first on Fedora. I don't even claim this for any of the earlier mentioned packages. However, what I do mean is that Fedora is the first to adopt these technologies in the first place. So, the first release/version of systemd, PipeWire, Wayland etc was released on Fedora. Then, within months or years, it was adopted by other distros as well.
See previous paragraph. And, you don't need to fathom it; I'm just stating the facts. If you do seek a reason, it's related to Fedora's relation to Red Hat and how most of these technologies originate from efforts coming from either Red Hat employees or made possible through their funding. Then, when it comes to testing those things, Fedora acts as their guinea pig. That's why Fedora is sometimes referred to as Red Hat's testing bed distro. This doesn't only come with its positive side, because it may also come with a negative impact to its stability. However, if one is interested in what's next for Linux, then there's no alternative to Fedora.
Because OP actually was in praise of Fedora after using Fedora Kinoite (i.e. Fedora Atomic KDE). And then, you critiqued it (i.e. Fedora) for having no selling points. So, it was rather ambiguous.
Furthermore, Fedora has actually mentioned (for at least two and a half years now) that they intend for Fedora Atomic to be the future of Fedora. So, in a few years of time, what we'll refer to as Fedora will simply be Fedora Atomic of today. Take note that this doesn't mean that traditional Fedora will cease to exist. Rather, it will be referred by a different name (perhaps Fedora Classic (but I actually don't know)).
Alright, I made a couple of claims:
"It’s also the most mature attempt.";
First of all, we'd have to properly define what "Nix'ify" even means or what I used it for. So, in the simplest of terms, I meant it as "Taking design elements of NixOS and applying them to an existing product. And then publishing/releasing it as a new product."
So, basically every distro that's commonly referred to as 'immutable' and that's originated from or has loose relations to an existing distro applies. Therefore, something like Guix System does not apply; because it's an entirely new project with nothing that pre-existed it without its NixOS influences. On the other hand; Fedora Atomic, openSUSE MicroOS Desktop and the upcoming Ubuntu Core Desktop definitely do apply. (If the upcoming Serpent OS is "Solus v2" then we can also mention that one here). The addition/admission of distros like Arkane Linux, AstOS, blendOS, MocaccinoOS, Nitrux and Vanilla OS (to name a few) is murky, but (for the sake of argument) we'll not exclude these.
So, a proper study of their relative maturity would require a lot more effort than either of us is willing to put into. But, I made the claim based on the following (in alphabetical order):
(And finally) Rate of 'Nix'ification'; Atomic -> Reproducible -> Declarative. These stages are passed through by aspiring 'immutable' distros when Nix'ifying.
For example, from almost its inception, Fedora Atomic was atomic and had a healthy portion of reproducibility. With the relatively recent transition to OCI (for updating etc), it also became (somewhat) declarative and further improved its reproducibility.
Likewise, we see similar developments in other projects:
Fedora Atomic has (almost) completed/finished its "Nix'ification". While the same can be said about other projects, this does not apply to all of them. Hence, even if Fedora is not necessarily the best at this, it definitely finds itself amongst the frontrunners.
"Derivatives like Bazzite are the product of this endeavour."
This is simply a fact. Bazzite is only possible because of Fedora Atomic.
"From the OG distros, only openSUSE (with its Aeon) has released an attempt."
I define OG distros as the big, independent distros that will probably never lose their relevancy. Think of Arch, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, NixOS, openSUSE, Slackware, Solus OS, Void etc. For the sake of argument, we could include all independent distros. Out of these; Fedora, openSUSE, Solus and Ubuntu are the only ones for which we know their team/organization are actively working to erupt an 'immutable' distro while (originally) their distro followed a traditional model. Ubuntu Core Desktop has yet to release and the same applies to whatever Solus is cooking. From openSUSE, we have openSUSE Aeon (and Kalpa) and for Fedora we got its own 4 atomic spins. Furthermore, we got dozens of derivatives based on Fedora Atomic. So once more, this is just factual.
"However, it seems to be less ambitious in scope and vision."
This is definitely a loaded claim. I'll answer this in my next comment.
Exactly. But it's on merits. On the other hand, it seems as if you dislike Fedora for some reason. However, it's unclear to me as to why that is.
I can back up (almost) every claim I'm making (as you should have noticed by now). Not citing sources or whatsoever is due to laziness and because I don't think you'll check those sources anyway (like how you seemingly didn't check if the earlier mentioned software indeed were first adopted on Fedora and if so; why). However, if you want me to cite sources on statements I make, then please mention the exact statements I'm making and I will back those up with sources.
It's also peculiar that you make uninformed guesses or claims without backing them up yourself. Nor do you feel compelled to look up if the unsure statement/claim is even correct or not in the first place. Though, I should at least compliment you for being honest/transparent when making unsure claims/statements!
Yet, I'm still waiting for you to name a distro with more impressive unique selling points 😜.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I see where you are coming from but I for example never head about Fedora Atomic whilst I am familiar with OpenSUSE MicroOS, GUIX, NixOS. I noticed that MicroOS is the server oriented immutable whilst Aeon is the new orientation for Desktop... ANYWAY, all this immutable talk is anyway pointless, because I was talking about general distributions and not a discussion about immutable distros.
On the topic which distro adopted what first, my confusion did stem from by what context. As I tried to make clear with my confusion about fedora not being rolling release. To cut all this talk short here my answer to your question:
The default value of OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is pretty strong because
But this is just a general recommendation for "distros". If the requirements get more specific it makes much more sense to make proper recommendations.
Thank you for reading through that info dump and thank you for your reply!
Interesting. So, you never heard of Fedora CoreOS, Fedora Silverblue, Fedora Kinoite, uBlue, Aurora, Bazzite and Bluefin?
Thank you for clearing that up!
Finally 😜.
Thank you for your answer! First of all, regardless of which distro you would have chosen, I would have respected your answer. Though, depending on your answer, I could have definitely judged you for it 😂. Thankfully, however, you've shown to have great taste; openSUSE Tumbleweed is indeed a formidable distro. Unfortunately, I'd argue it's (somehow) underrated and underappreciated; which is really a pity for how excellent of a distro it is. I hope it will garner a bigger audience, because it simply deserves better. Regardless, openSUSE Tumbleweed is definitely a top contender for best traditional distro IMO and I might have been daily driving it were it not for 'immutable' distros.
Secondly, while I agree with you generally, I can't deny that the total package deal specifically is what makes openSUSE Tumbleweed special. So, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Rolling release distros aren't that rare by themselves. And, as even Arch is an independent distro with a rolling release cycle, it becomes very hard to regard this selling point as unique.
zypper's args/syntax don't seem very different fromdnfandaptin terms of saneness. But, if this is a selling point for you, what preventsdnf(which is found on Fedora) from being a selling point for you?Fedora also ships Btrfs by default, though TIL that Btrfs was first adopted by openSUSE. But, once again, this begs the question why this isn't a selling point (according to you) when it's found on Fedora?
Snapper also seems to be properly integrated on the derivatives of other distros; e.g. Garuda, Siduction and SpiralLinux to name a couple. So, again, this selling point doesn't seem unique.
Excellent. This is openSUSE Tumbleweed's USP (if it's combined with the fact that it's a well-funded independent distro, great security standards et cetera et cetera). And if this is precisely what you seek from your distro, then openSUSE Tumbleweed is what you rightfully should stick to.
Fair. I'm not necessarily opposed to it.
Interesting. Like, in which cases would you recommend something else for example?
Silverblue yes, rest no.
I have no clue how that is done on those distros, never tried any of those. I just know that it is even "hard" to replicate the configuration of snapper on a system like Void Linux. But that might also stem from my lack of knowledge. At least the guides I found didn't provide the same result.
I am glad you also think highly of Tumbelweed, but I think it has the disadvantage of not having such an amazing documentation as other distros. If you stumble upon something and are looking for a fix online, you won't find as much resources for it as there are for debian based distros for example.
All in all, I have to thank you for this amazing exchange. I think this is one of the most friendly and informative exchanges I had on lemmy so far. :)
Thank you, once again, for the reply!
Yeah lol 😅. It's definitely a blessing when it's setup by default. For example, while Fedora Atomic does come with a built-in rollback mechanism through
rpm-ostree, Fedora does actually not. Hence, Fedora users are often interested to set it up themselves. And then, they find this gargantuan guide 😂.To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if openSUSE Tumbleweed's implementation is simply better. At least, it would make sense if that were the case. So, I will give you that 😉.
Fair. Fedora's documentation isn't that great either 😅. Though, in that regard, I'd argue only Arch and Gentoo have excellent documentation. Granted, I suppose that's a prerequisite if the distro claims to be unopinionated; which both of them do while Fedora and openSUSE don't.
I agree. But, for Debian (and Ubuntu), I feel their documentation isn't necessarily better. Instead, their user base is simply more substantial. Hence, there's a pretty good chance that someone has experienced the same issues before you did. And thus, it's easier to find resources on the internet to help with troubleshooting.
I feel the same. Thank you! And I would also like to thank you for being patient with me 😅. I have got the tendency to write very long answers and not everyone appreciates those 😅. I even noticed how you weren't particularly appreciative in this interaction. So, to be honest, I was very happy when you messaged me back earlier today. I really appreciate you for that!
Thank you for being you! I am really grateful for these wholesome and sweet compliments!
Sometimes, I question if it's worth pursuing these conversations. But, thankfully, exchanges like these make it worthwhile. My fate in humanity has just been rekindled. From the bottom of my heart, thank you 😊!
(CONTINUED)
This second comment only exists because all I wanted to say didn't fit in the previous one.
So without further a due.
“However, it seems to be less ambitious in scope and vision.”
I will not commit to a rigorous comparison in which their respective PR talks or points related to ambition, scope and vision are mentioned. Instead, I'll put forward reasons for why I believe this to be the case.
rpm-ostree, for the container workflow Toolbx' inception is materialized. Reproducibility (to a very significant degree) is achieved. And, as mentioned earlier, it can even start boasting about being declarative (to a degree). By contrast, where does openSUSE Aeon stand? It's only achieved atomicity. That's it. No mention of reproducibility. No mention of the ambition to be declarative. Nothing. Their commitment to container workflows didn't even lead to building in-house tooling. Instead, they "outsourced' it by using an existing solution (first Toolbx and then Distrobox) that was derived (but ultimately became more of a superset) of Toolbx; i.e. Distrobox. Don't get me wrong; I have preferred Distrobox over Toolbx (and will probably continue to do so). However, isn't it painfully obvious that one is inferior (in ambition) when its has to rely on tooling provided by the other?bootchas been successfully created to tackle some problems. The ambition is clear. Meanwhile, I just don't see the same advancements for openSUSE MicroOS. Heck, even YaST, one of openSUSE's killer features is absent. Why? One of the reasons is because it allows for too much customization... Peculiar. Because I thought that openSUSE's reliance on btrfs snapshots would allow them to customize a lot more easily. But, unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case.The writing above was a lot more ramble-y and unorganized compared to what I write usually. Blame my aching wrist. Regardless, it should be more than enough. However, if you disagree or if I'm wrong, then I'd love to hear about it.
And, if you somehow believe that openSUSE Aeon is more ambitious than Fedora Atomic, then please feel free to state why you think that to be the case.
Edit: I just noticed how I missed a question:
So, it was meant for you to notice the trend of how new, (r)evolutionary and crucial tech (i.e. software) are first adopted on Fedora. For each one of them, if you look at their respective wiki page, you can check how it's adopted and from which distro it started out. This trend has been going on for quite some time and will continue to be the case.
Btw, I apologize for the insane info dump 😅.
Dear lord...I will try to read the rest but you are not off to a good start. What has modern to do with systemd?
Read the rest of the paragraph and also the next paragraph if you haven't yet.
If that didn't answer your query, do you oppose the following statement found on Gentoo's wiki:
"systemd is a modern SysV-style init and rc replacement for Linux systems."
And if so, why?