Am upgrading from thinkpad to framework 16 with amd. Looking for distro reccommendations.
Am upgrading from thinkpad to framework 16 with amd. Looking for distro reccommendations.
I did the whole distro chooser quiz but didnt help much.
Heres the things id like to hit
- avoid systemd
- stable
- Wayland support
- Minimal packages
- no immutable (seems like to much of a pain)
- full disk encryption but thats pretty standard nowdays.
Was going to go with devuan but the debian flavours dont have a stable with wayland yet. I was considering going with a testing or unstable build but would like to avoid headaches on a daily driver. Is testing/unstable got wayland and are they reliable enough? If so what do I go with.
Also hows the hardware comparability with framework i assume it wont be too bad to get set up.
You're viewing a single thread.
Am upgrading from thinkpad to framework 16 with amd. Looking for distro reccommendations.
I would start looking at what's supported to begin with.
I did the whole distro chooser quiz but didnt help much.
FYI, it isn't as helpful as you would hope and hasn't been updated in quite a while. Don't be too much bothered with the result. But thanks for sharing some tidbits from the quiz as it helps the community to better help you!
avoid systemd
Are you sure you want this?
stable
Does this refer to unchanging (for long periods of time except for security updates)? Or, instead, for being less inclined to break after an update?
Is testing/unstable got wayland?
I don't recommend going for (Debian's/Devuan's) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesn't receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.
are they reliable enough?
Depends on how reliable you want them to be. OOTB, their reliability definitely ain't great, though.
If so what do I go with.
Consider answering all questions found in this comment and we'll be better equipped to help you out with this.
Also hows the hardware comparability with framework i assume it wont be too bad to get set up.
Overall, it's pretty good; epecially so on the supported distros.
Btw, you strike me as a (relatively) new user that doesn't seem to have a good understanding on Linux yet. Is this correct?
I looked at supported and they got ubuntu supported so i figured debian (and its clones) shouldnt be too bad to set up.
I like sysvinit
As long as i dont need to use a bootable usb to give it back its kernal after failing to update and doesnt randomly crash then id consider that stable enough.
I recon ill go with devuan unstable.
Ive been daily driving arch for about 2 years now (i fuckibg sick of fixing shit i want stability again) had mint prior to that and use debian on my servers.
Ubuntu and Debian are very different.
But good luck! I would miss the reset capability of Fedora Atomic. Be sure to configure automatic BTRFS snapshots on updates.
Thanks for the reply!
Devuan Ceres probably makes the most sense indeed. Wish ya good luck with it!
FWIW, while it defaults to runit instead, I still felt the need to mention Void Linux.
If you've driven Arch before, have you looked at Artix?
Edit: Oh, you have trouble with stability then. So not artix
I thought i was fine without stability but using a rock solid stable debian install as my server reminded me how much easyer my life could be. Its was fun tho.
I donβt recommend going for (Debianβs/Devuanβs) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesnβt receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.
From https://backports.debian.org/ :
Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable
So by definition, security backports in stable are present in Testing in the form of regular packages, right?
Found on the same page you cited from (even same paragraph):
"Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable. Because the package is also present in the next Debian release, you can easily upgrade your stable+backports system once the next Debian release comes out. (In a few cases, usually for security updates, backports are also created from the Debian unstable distribution.)"
Sure, but even in those "few cases" Testing will get them soon.
I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.
Sure, but even in those βfew casesβ Testing will get them soon.
Didn't I allude to that with:
"it doesnβt receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does.
Though I do notice that the above sentence contains an error that is perhaps misleading. By definition, Unstable/Sid doesn't receive security backports. Instead, the updates related to security are (usually) first received in Unstable/Sid. So, the above sentence tried to portray the following picture related to security:
Unstable/Sid ~ Stable >> Testing
I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.
That's basically the point I've been making π.
I think the only remaining point of contention is the degree by which Stable does receive security backports right after Unstable/Sid does while Testing only receives it later.
Honestly, I don't know the specifics. But Debian Testing's wiki entry notes security concerns multiple times. And it's all related to the fact that they don't receive the security backports as soon as Stable receives them. The explanation related to security updates concerning the three distinct branches is covered in even more detail over here.
Basically, after I've read all of that, it's clear as day that security is not a priority on Testing. And while band-aid solutions do exist, it's simply not designed to be secure.
Ok, I understand what you meant, thanks.
Basically, after Iβve read all of that, itβs clear as day that security is not a priority on Testing. And while band-aid solutions do exist, itβs simply not designed to be secure.
Yeah, I wouldn't run it in a production environment.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity for a refresh π. And thank you for the very civilized conversation. I wish you a great day!