@discuss.online
Looking at their page the prces look a bit steep for me.
I understand where this is coming from. Buying a spec-wise similar device from say Lenovo would definitely be cheaper. Unfortunately, whether it is System76, TUXEDO or NovaCustom, we pay a premium for the fact that they're Linux-first.
Yeah, it seems that they even acknowledge that Tor and Mullvad are better for extreme threat models.
"The only browsers that can provide sophisticated fingerprinting protection against advanced scripts are Tor Browser & Mullvad Browser.
If you have an extreme threat model (Ex. Political dissident, journalist, or if you are in some other kind of high risk situation), please use one of those browsers."
I suppose we'd have to commend them for being fair.
As such, this distribution would need to be able to handle running for weeks on end without a reboot.
So, it has to be something stable (i.e. receive little to no updates) that's capable of updating without requiring a reboot. That makes any stable distro a candidate. As such, choose either:
I mean, like… To which Manjaro fuckup are they referring?
Obviously, I'm not the author. But if I'd have to guess, their answer would likely be "Yes.".
I didn't downvote myself, but did consider it.
For one, it felt a bit out of place; Fedora isn't defined by systemd, nor Red Hat or IBM. One clear example would be how Fedora has chosen to stick with Btrfs; contrary to Red Hat's demands. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny any partnership or whatsoever. But it's not like Fedora's community has no agency.
Secondly, corsicanguppy's comment seems to imply that Fedora only sticks to systemd out of some obligation towards IBM/RedHat or something. As if the overwhelming majority of distros don't default to systemd.
Thirdly, Poettering works for M$ now. Sure. But systemd remains a Linux project. And quite a good one at that. Even if the likes of dinit and s6 are starting to offer some healthy competition, it's undeniable that systemd continues to have the advantage in terms of received man-hours (in development) and adoption. I hope that Fedora eventually gives others the chance to shine. But outright ditching systemd without a perfect replacement is just foolish.
Systemd is bloated
The bloat argument has absolutely no weight as long it's not properly defined. One's bloat is the other's sane default and vice versa. Please, if you're engaging in good faith, come up with a definition by which the likes of dinit and/or s6 are not bloated while systemd is. Please be complete and rigorous in your assessment.
and known to present security risks.
If you're referring to what's addressed in Madaidan's article, you should not forget that Whonix -the very distro Madaidan used to be a security researcher at- employed systemd to enhance security. And while one might say a lot about Poettering, one simply can't deny that they've got a sound understanding of good security standards and how to implement them. It's therefore unsurprising that both Kicksecure and secureblue (i.e. Linux' finest when it comes to hardened distros) heavily rely on systemd for their bidding.
Don’t see why looking at alternatives wouldn’t be seen as positive growth.
At least we can agree on this 😉.
Didn’t know Flatpak was a distro though
Author's disclaimer:
"Flatpak is NOT a distro, but that’s what Steam reports when it’s running on Flatpak, and Flatpak being distro independent we report it as a separate environment, if that makes sense. Feel free to ignore it if you wish."
You may find (most of it) in the description; I'll paste that below together with the ones he left out so that we have a complete list:
Does anybody in this sub using Fedora Secureblue?
I do. And have done so for almost a year now.
What is your opinion?
It's pretty neat. Though, don't expect to roll your way in without any troubles if you don't take the effort to read its documentation. Fedora Atomic already does things its own way. However, secureblue, by virtue of its superior security standard, adds its own set of 'rules' that one should abide. Personally, I absolutely love how this is enforced. But I can understand why it might be a bit overwhelming for those new on the block. But I have personally helped introduce relative newbs to secureblue and they managed (with some help). So you should be fine; their community on Discord also has been pretty helpful in my experience.
So, if your first priority for your desktop operating system is for it to be Linux-based and your second priority is that it's properly hardened, then you simply can't go wrong with secureblue.
I was about to write a long piece comparing different security-focused systems, but I retracted for the sake of brevity. Please feel free to ask a specific comparison if you will.
what does the community think of it?
It's important to note how the Linux community interacts with change. In the past, whenever a change has been significant enough to influence individual workflows, it often provoked strong reactions. This was evident when systemd was introduced and adopted by distros like Arch and Debian. Even though systemd was arguably superior in essential aspects for most users, it failed to meet the needs of at least a vocal minority. Consequently, community endeavors were set up to enable the use of Debian or Arch without systemd.
Similarly, the introduction of immutable distributions seems to upset some people, though (at least to me) it's unjustified. Immutable distributions don't necessarily alter the traditional model. For instance, the existence of Fedora Silverblue doesn't impose changes on traditional Fedora; let alone Arch or Debian.
But, overall, most Linux users aren't bothered by it. Though, they often don't see a use for themselves. Personally, I attribute this at least in part to existing misconceptions and misinformation on the subject matter. Though, still, a minority^[1]^ (at best ~10%) actually prefers and uses 'immutable' distros.
Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?
Depends entirely on what you want out of your system. For me, they absolutely do. But it's important to note that the most important thing they impose on the user is the paradigm shift that comes with going 'immutable'. And this is actually what traditional Linux users are most bothered by. But if you're unfamiliar with Linux conventions, then you probably won't even notice.
As a side note, it's perhaps important to note that the similarities between traditional distros are greater than the similarities between immutable distros. Also, Fedora Atomic is much more like traditional Fedora than it is similar to, say, openSUSE Aeon or Vanilla OS. Grouping them together as if they are a cohesive group with very similar attributes is misleading. Of course, they share a few traits, but overall, the differences are far more pronounced.
Therefore, it is a false dichotomy to simply label them as traditional distros versus immutable distros. Beyond these names, which we have assigned to them, these labels don't actually adequately explain how these systems work, how they interact, how their immutability is achieved (if at all), what underlying technologies they use, or how they manage user interactions. The implications of the above. Etc.
Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?
The success of the Steam Deck and its SteamOS are the most striking and clear proof of this. So, yes. Absolutely.
I, like many I'm sure, am taking Microsoft's discontinuation of Windows 10 support as an opportunity so switch over to Linux.
Welcome on board!
Does the distro I pick matter?
In short: Yes.
There seems to be a lot of debate around which distro is best
TL;DR: There's no distro that is best for everyone. Each individual has their own best. You just gotta find what suits you best.
but a lot of the discussion I've seen breaks down to what each distro comes packaged with
This is a thing of the past. With the excellent Distrobox, you can install any package from any distro on whatever distro you're running.
This confuses me as if a distro doesn't come prepackaged with something can you not just install it?
Even if we would disregard Distrobox, you should be able to install software that's not packaged. So, you're intuition is right.
Or is there some advantage to preinstalled packages other than mild convenience? Are some components difficult to integrate into your local environment?
Exactly. Managing software that's not packaged in any way comes with its own set of jank. So, new users are definitely discouraged. However, as mentioned previously, this whole issue is solved with Distrobox. And if you don't like CLI, BoxBuddy provides an excellent GUI and more. Again, this is mostly a solved problem.
One of the more salient differences I've seen between distros has been what the various companies and teams include aside from installed packages (such as snap and rolling out amazon search as a defult search), and the data they choose to retain/sell. Part of the reason I'm switching is due to Microsoft's forcing in of unwanted features and advertising. Is the company that owns whatever distro I choose likely to be a problem in the future? Are there particular ones to avoid/ones to keep an eye on?
So, what you're referring to is mostly a Ubuntu problem. They've made a couple of bad decisions in the past. Other than them, this is mostly non-existent.
Some peeps got question marks regarding distros like deepin, but I don't know if there's anything conclusive on this.
Lastly, some distros and/or (so-called) desktop environments might collect telemetry to improve themselves. But this is done in a way that suits free and open source software. Thankfully, if you've got problems with this, you can always turn it off.
I am the sort of person who does like to tinker with things from time to time but I do also want to use my computer most of the time so I'd like to end up using a mature distro.
So, all distros allow you to tinker. My question is: What is it you're tinkering with?
I have identified a few frontrunners in my search but I have seen conflicting information on which of them is "mature" (sufficiently stable so I spend less time fighting my computer than I do using it as well as having a large enough community and resources to help me remedy issues I might come across). Do any of these seem like they wouldn't fit that bill? The frontrunners are: fedora, kubuntu, mint, pop and tuxedo.
Does linux have issues interfacing with multiple monitors?
Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with multiple monitors. The few times I did need it, which was on Fedora with GNOME, it did work well. I suppose it should be fine.
Does it handle HDR okay?
On KDE Plasma, yes. On GNOME, from what I could gather, it should work starting from GNOME 48. Which is a couple of months away. Though, IIRC, some 'GNOME-powered' distros may have tried to support HDR in its experimental stage already. On Cinnamon, what we find on Linux Mint's flagship distro, AFAIK it's not great (yet) 😅.
In terms of UI and workflow I really don't mind putting in some time tinkering with the DE, exploring it and getting it how I like. It seems Plasma KDE might be good for this? Please let me know if this is an incorrect assessment. If it is, does it matter what DE I choose? If so, is there something you could recommend for my use case.
You hit the nail on the coffin. KDE Plasma would probably serve you best, yes. Eventually, you may want to explore Window Managers for how they could further enhance your workflow. But, let's take it easy :P . One step at a time. Start with KDE Plasma. Get comfortable with Linux and the whole ecosystem. And if it so happens that you're not satiated with KDE Plasma's workflow options and you'd like to explore other possibilities, then looking into WMs is definitely a worthwhile endeavor.
I have a Nvidea build (RTX 2080). I have heard this can be an issue with Linux.
Yup. It has been better lately, but thank you for bringing this up.
I also have intermediate experience with linux through university and my job (with servers) as well as tinkering with SteamOS.
Things I use/do on my PC (roughly ordered in terms of priority):
- Gaming including emulation
Have you considered Bazzite?
Photoshop cs6
Out of everything, this could be a slight concern. You could make it work through Wine, and it seems to have decent results. If you're not opposed to using Photoshop CC 2021, there's this GitHub repo worth looking at as well.
davinci resolve
This is notoriously difficult to install. Thankfully, the excellent davincibox comes to the rescue. Furthermore, it's also found in the AUR and nixpkgs. Note that the Nix package manager can be installed on (almost) any distro, though it's relatively advanced.
Misc "Tinkering" (Handbrake, dvd burners/rippers, Really any weird thing I come across that I want to tinker with)
Assuming this "Tinkering" is the same as the one I asked you to elaborate/clarify before, then I can inform you that most distros handle it pretty well.
Alrighty, I think you've clearly demonstrated to have done your research. Thank you for that!
FWIW, assuming that KDE Plasma is your DE of choice (at least for now) for both its (relatively mature) HDR support and tinker-friendliness, then -out of your selected distros- only Fedora and Tuxedo OS remain to be considered.
Is this a good list?
The link definitely provides some good info. It's better than nothing. However, it may or may not fall short based on how secure you'd like to make your system.
Anything else I should do to secure a Mint install?
What is it you're trying to protect and from whom? Whenever the topic of security comes up, one simply can't engage meaningfully without mentioning a threat model.
In this case, I'll assume you're just your average Joe. And, depending on how you engage with your system, Linux Mint might be fit from the get-go. However, if you actively engage in downloading random jank from the internet and have 'survived' with the help of Microsoft Defender Antivirus, then you should know that a safety net as such doesn't exist over on this side. Sure, security through obscurity might save your ass a couple of times. But it's inevitably a losing battle.
So, without knowing your threat model, note the following important advice that the article somehow hasn't touched upon:
If you don't want to stray away from Debian, then I don't think there's anything better than PikaOS. It's like Nobara but based on Debian instead.
It's a relatively small distro, community-wise. But it has been around for some time, so I trust its longevity.
Other than that, as some other have mentioned, could be Pop!_OS.
If you're willing to stray away from Debian, then a lot of other options become available. But I digress.
Consider taking a look at this criminally underrated Linux-first vendor: NovaCustom. Prices aren't cheap, unfortunate. But it boasts hardware from about a year ago. Furthermore, NovaCustom takes Libre very seriously: from supporting coreboot to offering blob-free WiFi-cards.
They claim to have a lot of features.
What features are you referring to?
As I understand it, it's basically trying to answer the following question: What if we could start over and use existing building blocks to make a simple yet complete system using the Linux kernel? All changes have been made in accordance to that basic premise. From replacing GNU in GNU/Linux with BSD, to choosing dinit over systemd as init system.
I hope they succeed (as long as it’s not immutable)
Are you one of those with a raging hateboner towards everything immutable? I ask this as I don't see any reason to bring this up in the first place.
FWIW, I absolutely hope for it to succeed as well. Innovation (of any kind) pushes the industry forward. When people oppose innovation for whatever reason, it always reminds me of Henry Ford's famous quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
To add onto what N.E.P.T.R said, it is technically possible to make a custom amalgamation of Bazzite with secureblue's hardening. However, it would be neither here or there. Some discussion of it can be found here. IIRC, it was ultimately deemed counter-intuitive as a gaming-distro inherently conflicts with a hardened one.
Finally, we shouldn't disregard the technical part of this; it's IIRC one of the reasons why the Bluefin-variants of secureblue were eventually disbanded. It frequently had a lot of interesting bugs that were simply not present on other secureblue-images. This isn't on Bluefin either, as the non-hardened edition worked as you'd expect.
I believe your confusion comes from the following line: "secureblue does not claim to be the most secure option available on the desktop."
Which is simply their acknowledgement that more secure options like Qubes OS exist. Note, however, that Qubes OS is not based on Linux, but instead on Xen.
So, the basic premise of the impermanence module is to flush all state on (re)boot. By default, NixOS is already capable of rebuilding your entire system from the config file(s). The impermanence module simply aids in achieving the desired system workflow for no state without reinventing the wheel. In effect, It's as if you've just done a reinstall and setup everything as you like. But you get to experience this on every reboot. For someone that's perpetually disturbed by state, which has been the case since my Windows-days*, this would finally grant me a peace of mind that I've been yearning for years. So, to answer your question, it would help me get (at least one step) closer to stateless Fedora Atomic without giving up general usability.
Nixos tends to lean on the term reproducible instead of immutable, because you can have settings (e.g files in /etc & ~/.config) changed outside of nix's purview, it just won't be reproducible and may be overwritten by nix.
Interesting. If possible, could you more explicitly draw comparisons on how this isn't quite the same over on say Fedora Atomic? Like, sure changes of /etc are (at least by default) being kept track of. But you indeed can change it. libostree doesn't even care what you do in your home folder. Thus, changes to e.g. ~/.config (and everything else in /var^[1]^) are kept nowhere else by default.
/opt are actually found here as well.Yes and no.
Has it got its own set of rules you'd have to learn and thus an accompanying learning curve bump? Sure. Which, in actuality is mostly just knowing that Flatseal is your go-to whenever a flatpak causes issues.
Is it a surefire method after you've become accustomed with it? Absolutely. All kinds of jankiness can prevent any piece of software from working on your system. With Flatpak, especially on distros that enable it by default, you at least know that your system isn't the culprit.
Besides, Flatpak is enabled by default on Linux Mint. The PCSX2 flatpak is even verified. So no additional setting up or whatsoever is required.
What makes you weary besides what's already stated above?
Not OP. But, FWIW, I've been daily driving secureblue for over a year now. And it has been wonderful experience.
Note that, by virtue of its superior security model, preconceived knowledge may not translate well. However, if you read its documentation and FAQ, then I'm pretty confident that you should be fine. Thankfully, if something's not clear or if you're facing issues, then you're in good hands through their Discord.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...