There’s no real reason to use it over Arch/EndeavourOS
Their holding back of updates for 2 weeks is stupid and can cause breakage/dependency issues when you also have stuff installed via AUR (which doesn’t get held back for 2 weeks)
They hold back packages for 2 weeks, citing stability and that they can check for issues then patch before they push, but then they just… don’t do that. Known issues still get pushed.
Manjaro repos have had issues with malware in the past
Manjaro has on multiple occasions had their SSL certificates expire, with their advertised “fix” being to roll your system time back. This is a job that can be automated, or at the very least should have a reminder for someone in Manjaro to sort out. The fact it happened once is an embarrassment, but the fact it’s happened more times is absolutely inexcusable.
Once, I listened what some people said on the Internet, and I tried Arch. I came back to Manjaro, but I learned a lot so I’m not unhappy with the experience.
However, to say that there’s no reason to use it over Arch (I don’t know about Endeavour, I never actually used it) is just wrong. Maybe you don’t like the differences, but they are important and useful for someone like me. When I installed Arch, I needed to tinker it for hours before having something usable. I don’t want to tinker, I want my OS to work, even if it means other people made choices for me, as long as I can revert them; that’s what Manjaro offers. For example, I love GNOME, but only with some plugins, like dash to dock. When I installed Arch, GNOME made an update which broke a lot of plugins, included dash to dock; while Manjaro waited for dash to dock to work to push the new GNOME. Some issues may be pushed, but a lot of others aren’t. I prefer to have one big update twice a month instead of having to update and tinker again my OS possibly every day.
Manjaro is far from perfect, no distro is, but for people like me, it works very well, and better than Arch.
I run Hyprland on Arch. It seems most of the people who run window managers instead of full fledged desktop environments prefer the minimalism of Arch.
Any DE that looks remotely like Windows. My journey to Linux began with a seething hatred of the way Microsoft does pretty much anything. Including the Win10 UI. So when I jumped ship I wanted something completely different. I tried Gnome on a couple distros but ultimately landed on Pop!_OS and really like it!
I agree with this the most. People obsess over the start menu paradigm simply because they like it in Windows. I desire more open mindedness when it comes to looking into alternative ways to interact with your computer, so I align with GNOME.
It’s Arch and Arch-derivatives. And I’m saying it as an Arch user, btw, and I actually love it.
Between the Big Three (Fedora, Debian, Arch), it is the least likely to have an official package for somewhat niche applications. If something is not available as a flatpak or appimage, I have to compile it from source or an AUR PKGBUILD, but we all know the dangers of doing that. Some software will just assume that it’s running on a particular disribution, usually Ubuntu. Some software will detect the distribution and straight-up refuse to work on Arch.
That being said, it would take a lot to make me switch to a stable point-release distribution. Arch’s advantages more than make up for the sub-par software support.
(actually, I lied. Fuck Canonical and *Ubuntu. And IBM.)
For me personally: Something like Arch. I want to spend as little time as possible on installation and configuration, and I don’t want to have to read update notes or break my system. But I get that it’s great for some people, and their wiki is just next level!
In general: Ubuntu. It feels like I read something about Canonical causing trouble every other week, and don’t even get me started on snaps!
Just to share my experience, I used the archinstall script so I have btrfs snapshots and didnt have to put together everything myself. I almost update every day because it gives me a dopamine hit and nothing has broken in the last year and a half since I switched off Windows. I’ve had fewer issues than when I tried to Fedora with the Nvidia card I already owned. It could definitely be a case of ‘works on my machine’ but I think reports of Arch breakages are overblown.
I had to hold off on updating my Debian 12 server due to a severe bug just a month or two ago.
Ubuntu GNU/Linux is not entirely FOSS, as it ships with non-free software by default. If you’re committed to FOSS principles, I would recommend Debian GNU/Linux instead.
However, it’s important to note that Debian GNU/Linux is not recognized by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a completely FOSS distribution. This is because Debian includes non-free firmware packages for those who need them.
From a security perspective, this is acceptable, as the Linux kernel won’t load these packages unless the corresponding hardware is available. Debian ships with Free Software by default, and I would suggest giving it a try if possible!
It’s essentially the same as Ubuntu, but more freedom-respecting.
Completely FOSS isn’t completely self-sustainable either in the real world - you’d need to be using something like RISC-V with coreboot and a completely open hardware stack with zero proprietary firmware blobs in the mix + not to mention running a fully self-hosted email/cloud stack. And if you’re using a mobile phone - even a dumb one or a pinephone - then you’re not fully FOSS. I’m not aware of anyone who’s fully FOSS out there, except maybe RMS?
TBH, once stop running Windows, everything gets easier. And if your running Ubuntu or Mint, it’s not even that painful to start and hardware more or less just works.
Debian is nice for servers, but it’s a little out of date for desktop. YMMV, welcome to the club and ignore the snobs ❤️
I was referring to the spectrum computer, which can’t run Linux. It wasn’t about people on the Spectrum, which are probably all of us, in some fashion?
The problem is that 3rd parties are doing the packaging both on Snap and Flatpak whereas if they had followed proper security practice ONLY THE REAL DEV should ever be allowed to package their app as a Flatpak or Snap.
This would ensure security, as well as a proper functioning flatpak/snap and also all feedback would be directed to the Dev.
I’ve never liked the fact that Canonical and whoever can make Snaps and Flatpaks of other people’s software. There is zero security guarantee, zero guarantee they’ll update it and zero guarantee it will work.
Just because Snap and Flatpak exist doesn’t mean just anyone should be able to just make them.
If Valve only chooses to make a deb then so be it! It’s their product!
The problem is that 3rd parties are doing the packaging both on Snap and Flatpak whereas if they had followed proper security practice ONLY THE REAL DEV should ever be allowed to package their app as a Flatpak or Snap.
Says who? If it were the case, Linux would either be a nightmare of fragmentation or become centralised on one distribution. Distros need to be able to package their own software, and these are kind of like distributions. Also since we’re talking about proprietary software here, is it really any better security practice if the “real dev” packages it or somebody else, they both could contain malicious code.
Valve are not going to put malicious code on their app. Neither is VLC or any other FOSS developer.
The distros should stick to packaging their repo apps and leave the Snap/FlatPak tech as an alternative to the original dev if they decide they want to use that.
We can’t have Bob from nowhere packaging Valve, then not updating it or patching it because he doesn’t have time. Or 5 Bob’s all doing the same thing with 5 copies of Valve on the Store.
It’s crazy. This is what causes fragmentation. Flathub should vet every app and if you are not the dev of the app, you may not host it on Flathub. You’re still welcome to make a Flatpak for home use on your own pc but not for wide distribution.
Valve are not going to put malicious code on their app. Neither is VLC or any other FOSS developer.
How would you know that? It’s not like it’s something that doesn’t happen.
Or 5 Bob’s all doing the same thing with 5 copies of Valve on the Store.
It’s crazy. This is what causes fragmentation.
I don’t know what snaps are like but that’s clearly a non-existent problem on Flathub.
Flathub should vet every app and if you are not the dev of the app, you may not host it on Flathub. You’re still welcome to make a Flatpak for home use on your own pc but not for wide distribution.
I don’t know why you feel like there’s permission involved. You don’t have to use Flathub, therefore Flathub can have what ever policies it likes. Users can set up a different flatpak repo if there’s a need.
That’s not my point. I use Flathub but I try to only use verified apps which were packaged by the actual dev.
I’d rather get a deb from the official dev than a flatpak from flathub packaged by someone who is essentially anonymous and could easily inject malicious code.
If you think the dev himself could inject malicious code in the official app, then you should be super aware that an anonymous Joe can too, and is far more likely to.
Anyway flatpak ideally was supposed to save Devs the work of packaging for every distro so it makes sense that the real actual verified dev of the app would package the flatpak/snap himself
The official Developer of the app. E.g. the official dev of Blender is blender.org. The flatpak people give them a line of code to embed in their website and they use that to verify that the dev really is blender.org and not a malicious actor.
How so? How does ensuring they only the real dev of the app is also the only one allowed to package it hurt desktop adoption.
It’s very easy to enforce. Flathub need to verify the identity of the person submitting the Flatpak to make sure it’s the app’s dev uploading it and not Joe Smith or nsa.gov…
I’m going to be on an AMD CPU and didn’t opt for the discrete GPU at this time, nor will I be purchasing an Nvidia device until they start being consistently FOSS-friendly.
There’s not really anything specific but it’ll be the first time I experience a full plasma upgrade since I started using Linux in 2022. From what I’ve seen of it, the interface is going to be a lot cleaner though so I guess I’m looking forward to that.
I know it’s probably an odd choice, but ChromeOS. It has the potential to be not just a good starting point for new Linux users but also a distro that could allow Linux to be a lot more accessible to people who aren’t as technologically capable. The main problem is that, similar to android, Google prevents ChromeOS from being used as a proper Linux distro. Right now, it might be a good alternative to Windows and MacOS but as a Linux distro, it’s just not worth using. Especially considering that Linux already has some options available for running android apps, such as Waydroid, that work pretty well.
I really think Google has no idea what it wants ChromeOS to be anymore, they’re just kinda shoving in shoddy solutions to its problems so they can say “hey we can do that too!”
soon they’re gonna introduce Steam and I look forward to that being a big shitshow lol
Have they ever? ChromeOS’s original “app store” was just Chrome’s extension store. It’s been awhile since I’ve checked but Google doesn’t (or at least didn’t) officially support running android apps in ChromeOS Flex. Instead of focusing on getting more apps running on ChromeOS, they’re actively working on Google Play Games for Windows (which also hurts android). For which I think I saw that there are games that work in Google Play Games but they don’t work in ChromeOS for some reason. I’d imagine that there are a lot of other weird things but it’s been a while since I’ve actually used it.
It’s just one of those things where, ChromeOS has the potential to be a good competitor to Windows and MacOS (and maybe even a good Linux distro) but for some reason Google does nothing with it to make it worth using and actually seems to be actively harming it.
I don’t pretend to be an expert in this, and I also have no idea what the state machine looks like for unauthenticated WiFi, but my thinking on the call stack is either you were authenticated and the association with the AP dropped while sending a frame and puked, or it kicked it while attempting to authenticate to an AP, and I have no idea why a mutex would be taken, or to what, but it timed out apparently.
So why would this happen after a rebuild?
freak accident/timing thing.
I see multiple mt## modules loaded, and I’m suspecting while not looking it up that they are operating a MediaTek chip in that dongle, and are potentially conflicting.
lots of wifi devices I’ve seen recently have loaded firmware separately from driver from /use/lib(or lib64)/firmware and the version changed from before, and maybe needs updating now or you did it before or whatever.
I agree with others - I’d give you a fiver if it happens again without the adapter connected.
I think You’re right, it is a mediatek chip and I used to add the USB device id manually to load the module, but with nixos 23.11 it started working automatically. I’m also running a preemptable kernel… Probably related now that I think about it :P
I should track down the firmware, that was one of the things I was looking into when setting up the device id hack.
I think this happened once before after uptime of about a week… But I didn’t get any information from that crash. Also, I’m remembering that some configurations were failing to see this wifi device and falling back to wired so maybe this has been a hidden problem since the new nixos release…
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts, it’s very helpful.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.