Were you pretty familiar with the terminal beforehand or just jumping in?
Yes, I did have some familiarity with the terminal.
I’m chronically unable to finish projects but with such a fantastic tool maybe this one is the one?
I hope it will work out for ya!
I’ll try follow up if get something going.
Thank you for your consideration 😊!
You're welcome!
FWIW, last year, through what became BlueBuild eventually, I had my own image with all kinds of modifications within a weekend. And, perhaps most curiously, I was a total noob when it comes to containerfiles, github, git etcetera. So, if I somehow managed, then you should definitely be fine.
Wish ya good luck! Consider reporting back 😉.
Probably explains why sudo dnf update/upgrade wasn’t quite doing what I expected in my Bazzite install.
Exactly.
Force of habit since I’ve used Fedora and Debian based systems in the past.
Understandable.
I’ve found it fine after an adaption phase
Though credit where credit is due. At this point, so well-beyond the adaption phase, I simply don't see myself use anything else. This is my home. Though I have to admit my serious interest in QubesOS (and the upcoming Spectrum OS).
Hard agree on knowing the nuances being problematic, clarity and accessible education is sorely missing, certainly the steepest part of the learning curve.
Agree. I'm at least thankful that it's a lot better than it used to be. Like two years ago, when as a total noob to Linux, I decided to cold turkey quit Windows and installed Fedora Silverblue on my machine. Well..., those first two weeks were pretty traumatic 😂. And, back then, there was not a lot out there. Luckily, I found this article that helped me to grasp the basics. And it has been smooth sailing ever since.
I just run ‘distrobox upgrade -all’ in my Daily.service
That's pretty cool (and straightforward). Why didn't I think of that 😂? But yeah, quadlets FTW.
Fair.
Btw, was I correct on the following?
I assume this is based on an experience with Kinoite? Am I right?
So..., you don't think it will make a difference. However, you do affirm that whatever CachyOS does is noticably better than the rest.
Perhaps more importantly, have you actually measured 1% lows or 0.1% lows on games. And did you compare how different distros fared in this regard?
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?
Thank you for the reply!
Are you referring to use those packages as default?
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.
Afaik Fedora OS is not even rolling release
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.
so I cannot fathom how it has packages earlier than the typical bleeding-edge candidates.
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.
Why are you mixing Fedora Atomic with the regular Fedora Distro?
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)).
...how is something like this objectively valid?
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.
I understand you like Fedora
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.
but you make claims without any proof or just pure opinion based.
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 😜.
model is a MacBook Pro, Intel Core i5-4278U @ 2.60GHz, model A1502 (EMC 2875), Retina Mid-2014 13" with an embedded SSD
Unfortunately, I don't have any first-hand experience with this device. But, I do own the following potato; an Acer laptop with Intel Celeron, 2GB of RAM and no SSD from 2014-2016. And while the experience is pretty bad (on Zorin OS lite), it does its job as a backup laptop every once in a while. Compared to this potato, your device should be a lot more capable. So, either your expectations are off. Or, there's something legitimately wrong with the hardware found on the device. Have you done any benchmarks to see if they work as expected?
Some mac OS users mean this company deliberately slows down old computers so users feel compelled to buy something newer. Can it be that’s why this notebook is so slow?
Slowing down of devices is AFAIK done (un)intentionally through updates. In a lot of cases either some functionality is removed post release for security reasons or (through technological advancements) more is expected from your average device and hence older devices fail to compete. I don't think you should suspect anything else. Nonetheless, as previously alluded to, maybe some hardware failure is the cause.
I didn’t do anything fancy to install xubuntu, just used the whole space to install from a usb stick so I wonder if some residual software is still present.
This description of the installation seems fine. If it makes you feel better, you could consider deleting all partitions through something like GParted. But, usually, no residual software should be left behind.
Out of curiosity, what’s the issue with installing a different DE?
There doesn't necessarily have to be an issue. Heck, this simple operation (i.e. installing an additional DE on an existing system) works pretty fine on Arch/Debian etc.
However, as Linux Mint (and its family/brand of related distros) are designed/setup/opinionated in a certain way with a specific scope/vision, just installing Xfce on top of Linux Mint (proper/regular) doesn't just give you Linux Mint Xfce Edition; you can try this out for yourself if you'd want to. Instead, you get something that looks more akin to Ubuntu with Xfce installed and some Linux Mint tools. Similarly, installing Xfce on top of LMDE doesn't give you a proper LMDE Xfce edition. Which, to be fair, isn't the worst thing out there and I'm pretty sure that someone out there will be pretty happy with it. But, one might also argue (as I certainly am) that, instead of that amalgamation (read: FrankenDebian), one would simply be better off with the Linux Mint Xfce Edition for which the ISO can be acquired directly from the Linux Mint team.
what linux OS should I install on a backup notebook if my main one is debian?
It depends:
Install linux mint, so I get ubuntu but without them throwing their subscription services down my throat.
Linux Mint does indeed provide you some Ubuntu goodies without its associated negatives. But, perhaps it's worth mentioning LMDE; i.e. Linux Mint Debian Edition.
I’m unsure about other advantages
Linux Mint does a lot of heavy lifting to provide a seamless and polished experience. This does come with being more opinionated than either Debian or Ubuntu is. However, one might argue that they're just offering the bare minimum that your average Linux user would want on their systems anyway. Hence, it's unsurprising that Linux Mint has become the go-to distro for many newbie and veteran Linux users alike. You don't know what you're missing if you're unsure of other advantages...
maybe the more frequent program updates? Kernels are also updated more often than with debian as far as I know.
FWIW, Debian also has its testing and unstable releases.
Do you know of other advantages?
As has been previously alluded, Debian is pretty bare-bones compared to Linux Mint. So, if you're mostly interested in setting up things exactly as you'd want to, then you should go for Debian and build it up as you go. However, if you're more in favor of sane and opinionated (albeit bloated to some) defaults, then Linux Mint takes the cake. Ultimately, you'd have to experience it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Go for FreeBSD
😅
this might require a learning curve, because this is an OS I’ve never used.
Yup.
Are commands that different from debian?
Debian (and its commands) are more similar to Arch, Fedora or any Linux distro for that matter than it is to FreeBSD. Like, it's a pretty significant departure. And one, I'd argue, you're simply not equipped for (yet).
Overall, I think making the move to FreeBSD doesn't seem like the logical next move for ya. Its ecosystem (unfortunately) is a lot less developed compared to Linux. And while there are definitely some pros and cons to it, I just can't fathom why your average user would use it without properly knowing what they're getting into and why they're deliberately and consciously making that choice. If you allow me, may I ask you where this interest to FreeBSD stems from?
other more niche linux OSs seem too much a hassle and I guess won’t be as supported as the main ones.
Do Arch, Fedora or openSUSE (to name a few) fall under "other more niche linux OSs"? Furthermore, do you think that FreeBSD will be less of a hassle compared to "other more niche linux OSs"?
Consider deleting this one if you will ;) .