No, they’re discussing the way forward and what they think makes sense. In fact, they’re even clearly stating that there will be pain, because Wayland intentionally does less than X11. And they’re encouraging people with unsolved pain points to speak up.
I also use Fedora Wayland but on a HP Spectre X360 from like 2013 or something, touch screen works fine and overall runs a lot better then win 10 was prior.
One of the specific issues from those who've worked with Wayland and is echoed here in Nate's other post that you mentioned.
Wayland has not been without its problems, it’s true. Because it was invented by shell-shocked X developers, in my opinion it went too far in the other direction.
I tend to disagree. Had say the XDG stuff been specified in protocol, implementation of handlers for some of that XDG stuff would have been required in things that honestly wouldn't have needed them. I don't think infotainment systems need a concept of copy/paste but having to write:
Is really missing the point of starting fresh, is bytes in the binary that didn't need to be there, and while my example is pretty minimal for shits and giggles IRL would have been a great way to introduce "randomness" and "breakage" for those just wanting to ignore this entire aspect.
But one of those agree to disagree. I think the level of hands off Wayland went was the correct amount. And now that we have things like wlroots even better, because if want to start there you can now start there and add what you need. XDG is XDG and if that's what you want, you can have it. But if you want your own way (because eff working nicely with GNOME and KDE, if that's your cup of tea) you've got all the rope in the world you will ever need.
I get what Nate is saying, but things like XDG are just what happened with ICCCM. And when Wayland came in super lightweight, it allowed the inevitably of XDG to have lots of room to specify. ICCCM had to contort to fit around X. I don't know, but the way I like to think about it is like unsalted butter. Yes, my potato is likely going to need salt and butter. But I like unsalted butter because then if I want a pretty light salt potato, I'm not stuck with starting from salted butter's level of salt.
I don’t think infotainment systems need a concept of copy/paste but having to write:
Having lived through the whole “phones don’t need copy and paste debate”, which fortunately got solved by now having it everywhere I’m in the camp “just stick that everywhere, just in case somebody might use it one day”
IDK , Nobara is really stable. The main difference for me was that it comes with all the AV codecs you could need, and a few tweaks for gaming. Saved me a lot of time in the end.
Errrm, could they please leave some memory to other processes? KDE already takes about 1.5GB of VRAM on my RX7600 8GB just running a desktop (dual head 4k + 1440p displays). Yes, things can get swapped out to main memory, but that becomes choppy. I’d rather run single buffered, get the odd screen tear, and have the VRAM back for real work.
It says in the article that triple buffering only activates if your GPU struggles to render the desktop. That means old and weak iGPUs are getting this. For your desktop card nothing should change.
Ubuntu. I hated not being able to customize certain things and it had some interesting bugs on my hardware. Switching to a different distro solved those issues
Manjaro - used to love it. Now the only distro I actively advise against
Garuda - just too much ( I prefer Arch / EndeavourOS )
Elementary - wanted to love it - just too limited
Gentoo - realized I just don’t want to build everything
RHEL Workstation - everything too old
Bhodi - honestly do not remember - long ago
Ubuntu - ok, let’s expand…
These days, I dislike Snaps. Ubuntu just never hit the sweet spot for me though. I was already an experienced Linux user when it appeared and preferred RPM based distros at the tome. Ubuntu always seemed slow and fragile to me. Setting things up, like Apache with Mono back in the day, was “different” on Ubuntu and that annoyed me. For most of its history, it is what I would recommend to new users but I just never liked it myself.
Debian Stable - ok, let’s expand
I really like Debian. It was also a little “alien” when I was using Fedora / Mandrake and the like but it never bothered me like Ubuntu. I ran RHEL / Centos as servers so I did not need Debian stability. As a desktop, Debian packages were always just a little too old ( especially for dev ). The lack of non-free firmware made it a pain.
These days though, Debian has been growing on me. The move to include non-free firmware has made it much more practical. With Flatpaks and Distrobox, aging packages is much less of a problem too. I could see myself using Debian. I am strongly considering moving to VanillaOS ( immutable Debian ).
I basically do not run any RHEL servers anymore. At home, I have a fair bit running Debian already ( Proxmox, PiHole, PiVPN, and a Minecraft server ).
EndeavourOS is my primary desktop these days ( and I love it ) but it is mostly for the AUR. A Debian base with an Arch Distrobox might be perfect. Void seems quite nice as well.
I have been an Open Source advocate forever ( and used to say Free Software and FLOSS ). I have used Linux daily since the 0.99 kernels and I even installed 386BSD back in the day. Despite that, the biggest “not for me” distros right now are anything too closely associated with the politics of the GNU project. It has almost made me want to leave Linux and I have considered moving to FreeBSD. I would love to use Haiku. OCI containers and the huge software ecosystem keep me on Linux though.
The distribution that intrigues me the most right now is Chimera Linux. I run it with an Arch distrobox and it may become my daily driver. The pragmatism of projects like SerenityOS really attracts me. Who knows it may be what finally pulls me away after 30+ years of Linux.
Apparently there’s a lot of hate for the devs/packaging team, people say updates break their systems all the time. I’ve used it on and off for a while years ago, personally and have had no issues. I put it on my parent’s computer over two years ago and they haven’t had any issues either.
Yep there seems to be a lot of hate for stupid reasons (“omg they forgot to renew the SSL cert of the archived forum”). I’ve been using it for 4+ years now and had zero major problems. I have even installed some exotic software from the AUR and am using them without any issues.
Because app manager doesn’t work well. And there are the feedback on terminal that tell you about missing dependencies or broken packages…The fact you get those verbose log help for doing web research and solve lot problems. On GUI installing app isn’t well done : it’s slow, they don’t tell you what they are doing nor why it fail.
The only limitation of terminal is when you want to work with file system. I need to see the tree and typing ls -a everytime isn’t efficient. Example, i’m doing a git clone on a server throught ssh. But i have no way to know its structure and check if i downloaded it in the correct directory. I need a visual that tell me this folder is here, has those writing permission, is a tar archive… So i use both : filezilla and terminal, gui and cli. In fact, they are both very useful, so there no point comparing gui and cli, they both serve well their purpose.
I’m using CLI and GUI. For example, if i want to chose the correct keyboard and check its mapping : gui. If i want to add sources and its gpg key : app manager gui. There is no way i would enjoy typing this huge command line with flags from my mind, and i do lot mistype. Or installing the stack lamp ? on windows it was amazing and faster than linux. next, next, done.
For filesystems I have another gripe: if I move a file to another directory and I want to swap to the directory I just copied the stuff to I have to enter the whole path again…
Honestly, I don’t know. Though, I’d reckon there would be any significant difference between distros.
stability
Depends on what you mean with stability. If you meant it like how “stable” is used in “Debian stable”, then it would be any distro with a release cycle that chooses to not continuously deliver packages; but instead chooses to freeze packages and hold off updates (besides those related to security) for the sake of offering a relatively polished experience in which the behavior of the distro is relatively predictable. Some distros that score good on this would be Debian stable and openSUSE Leap. It’s worth noting that Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix allow one to have newer packages on these systems if desired.
If, instead, you meant that the distro is less likely to break upon an update, then it’s important to note the following:
While you shouldn’t expect breakage to happen in the first place, unfortunately it’s realistic to expect it every so often (read: 0-2 times a year on non-stable distros).
If you have a lot of packages, then it’s more likely that at least one of them causes some breakage.
Technically, every update is a potential ‘breakage-moment’.
Packages that haven’t been installed through the official/native repos are more likely to cause breakage.
Relying on Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix for (at least some of) your packages should benefit the stability of your base system.
(GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper allows one to create snapshots one can easily rollback to in case of breakage. Therefore it’s worth seeking out a distro that configures this by default or set it up yourself on whichever distro you end up using (if it isn’t included by default).
So-called ‘atomic’^[1]^ distros are (generally speaking) more resistant to breakage, but (arguably) they’re less straightforward compared to traditional distros. It’s still worth considering if you’re adventurous or if your setup is relatively simple and you don’t really feel the need to tinker a lot. Don’t get me wrong; these atomic distros should be able to satiate ones customization needs, it’s just that it might not be as straightforward to accomplish this. Which, at times, might merely be blamed on lackluster documentation more than anything else.^[2]^
As for recommendations you shouldn’t look beyond unadulterated distros like (Arch^[3]^), Debian, Fedora, openSUSE (and Ubuntu^[4]^). These are (in almost all cases^[5]^) more polished than their respective derivatives.
speed
Most of the distros mentioned in this comment should perform close enough to one another that it shouldn’t matter in most cases.
If you’re still lost, then just pick Linux Mint and call it a day.
More commonly referred to as ‘immutable’. Atomic, however, is in most cases a better name.
If you’re still interested, I’d recommend Fedora Silverblue for newcomers and NixOS for those that actually know what they’re getting into.
I believe that one should be able to engage with Arch as long as they educate themselves on the excellent ArchWiki. It might not be for everyone, though. Furthermore, its installation (even with archinstall) might be too much for a complete newbie if they haven’t seen a video guide on it.
Ubuntu is interesting. It has some strange quirks due to its over-reliance on Snap. But it’s worth mentioning, if you don’t feel like tinkering.
With Linux Mint (and Pop!_OS) being the clear exception(s).
I use my Sony WH-1000XM3 headphones through Bluetooth I have a little Bluetooth dongle plugged into my PC’s USB port. I’m on Ubuntu 20.04. I’ve had no issues.
Debian => stale packages (Really solid distro though but dated version of Gnome)
Did you try using the testing or unstable versions of Debian? Testing is still more stable than some other distros. Packages need to be in unstable with no major bug reports for 10 days before they migrate to testing.
Try Debian sid (unstable), from my experience it’s actually more stable than testing because it gets updates even more often.
And ditch Gnome. There is no way to be happy with it as it craps out very often and is a maintenance burden for maintainers, therefore the quality differs so much.
you have to spend an insane amount of time updating
How slow is your internet connection?
or it will reach EOL in no time
Sure you don’t confuse Fedora with non-LTS Ubuntu releases? According to docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/lifecycle/ each release is supported for 13 months which isn’t 10 years of LTS but hardly “in no time” either.
I don’t mean downloading updates I mean manually updating your configuration to adapt to new versions of the software. That’s what takes time. I know 13 months is already quite high but it feels too low for me. I’m running servers over longer periods than that
Fedora annoys me (even though I’ve been using it for like 2.5 years on my work laptop) because a lot of packages that would be in extra in something like the Ubuntu (and it’s derivatives) or Arch (and it’s derivatives) is in a separate repository that you have to add.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.