Hello, i am currently looking for a Linux distribution with these criteria:
-it should be more or less stable, comparable to Ubuntu with or without LTS // -it should not be related to IBM to any way (so no fedora/redhat) // -it should not feature snaps (no Ubuntu or KDE neon) // -KDE plasma should be installable manually (best case even installed by default) // -no DIY Distros //
I’ve been thinking about using an immutable distro, but if anyone can recommend something to me, I’d be very grateful //
Edit: I’m sorry for the bad formatting, for some reason it doesn’t register spaces
Debian
Yeah go straight to the source.
Or LMDE for a mix of stable foundation and some ease of life tweaks.
Can you please like write the points in a list and not with these weird // in between? Lemmy uses markdown
- this (that space between line and text is important) - is - a list * this * too * forwhateverreason``` before and after something : codeblock
*italic*
**bold**
***both***
Sounds like Debian is your answer.
Just to clarity the relationship between Red Hat, IBM, and Fedora, Fedora is only sponsored by Red Hat. They make all their own decisions, and while they receive financial support from Red Hat and Red Hat owns the Fedora trademark, their decisions and development are independent of Red Hat (and by extension IBM), with the single exception that they cannot risk violating the law (i.e. copyright infringement), else it risks Red Hat legal trouble (and Fedora would risk losing their sponsorship as a result). Red Hat benefits from Fedora’s development by the community, given that Fedora is RHEL’s upstream, hence why it continues to sponsor Fedora. But it isn’t Red Hat that is in charge of Fedora’s development, it’s FESCo, which is entirely community elected, and does not stand for the interests of Red Hat, but rather for the interests of the community.
Eliminating Fedora from contention in that regard is essentially like eliminating Debian because you don’t like Canonical, who makes Ubuntu, a downstream of Debian.
Add on top of that the fact that IBM and Red Hat are major contributors to the Linux kernel, and you absolutely cannot avoid connections to them while using Linux. I mean, that’s quite frankly a ridiculous exclusion criteria in the context of Linux. If you’re looking to avoid an operating system OWNED by Red Hat or IBM, then Fedora should not be included in that list. Neither of them have any say or pull in the development of Fedora, which is a completely community-driven project (no, owning the trademark doesn’t change that fact; if Red Hat tried to take over, the Fedora community would simply fork the project, rebrand, and continue on their own). Besides, Red Hat has no interest in controlling Fedora, because it doesn’t benefit them. Their only interest is in enterprise applications, which is not a good use case for Fedora. The only operating systems Red Hat actually has any control over are RHEL, CentOS, and any derivatives of those operating systems like Rocky Linux, Oracle Linux, and such (though Red Hat’s control over derivatives was only the result of those projects being downstream, not actual ownership).
So with that in mind, I’d recommend the Fedora KDE spin if you want a normal, stable, snap-free, no DIY required distro with KDE, or if you want the immutable version, Fedora Kinoite is what you’d be looking for. And Fedora has the major advantage over Debian-based distros of actually receiving package and kernel updates regularly, so you can stay up to date and enjoy new features, all while maintaining stability.
Fedora Kinoite is absolutely the best immutable distro fitting your criteria. Anything else will have a much smaller community and less support as a result. rpm-ostree has great documentation, and all of the Fedora Atomic Spins have a huge userbase available in case you ever have questions.
Second that.
No matter if atomic or regular, Fedora has a good automatically preset rollback mechanism for when an update breaks something.
They also have good Wayland support, awesome new packages, BTRFS and more.
This is a great comment because I didn’t know this distinction. You’ve OKed Fedora for me when I thought I needed to boycott them because of RHEL’s shenanigans.
Opensuse Tumbleweed is pretty stable, even though it’s a rolling release
I second opensuse, there is also a non-rolling release option, i think.
My tumbleweed has been exceptionally stable, updates without problem.
Getting the arch experience in software support (has a “community repo” as well) but in a stable way and there is never the need to use the terminal, if you don’t want)
Love it, recommend it.
For more stableness check out the slow rolling version or the immutable versions (both in “beta” state)
Slowroll. You change to it from Tumbleweed and its not completely finished but should already just work.
Tumbleweed is stable enough
Is is as testing as Fedora Rawhide? I just cant imagine it can be that stable, because Rawhide is a mess. But maybe they do way better testing.
I don’t really know how stable Fedora Rawhide is, because I only used it once. But OpenSuse does a whole lot of testing before shipping any update. From their website:
Why should you consider openSUSE Tumbleweed over other distributions? The answer lies in its rigorous testing and stability emphasis. OpenSUSE is the base for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, meaning it’s secure, stable, and provides most of the software and tools you may need. While some rolling release distributions may offer the latest software packages, openSUSE Tumbleweed couples this with a strong emphasis on ensuring these updates won’t destabilize your system. Every Tumbleweed snapshot undergoes rigorous automated testing via openQA, openSUSE’s comprehensive testing tool, before its release. This process prevents critical bugs from reaching your system, providing an unexpected level of stability for a rolling release.
Hm, this should be the case for rawhide too. But tbh rawhide has other problems like rpmfusion not being updated so there is no openh264 and stuff like that.
Stable as in reliable and not as in unchanging
I’ve been running Linux Mint Cinnamon for years. It’s the stablest, most dependable distro I’ve ever run. I’ve installed it, updated it and major-version-upgraded it many times on many machines and it never broke.
It’s basically Ubuntu with the features that make Ubuntu shite removed (basically Unity and snaps) and a no-nonsense, GTK-based Win95-like desktop environment tacked on.
I’ve been on mint for ages but when I updated my RAID this year it originally wouldn’t recognize it. I eventually got it recognized but it capped the 16TB drives at 999GB for some reason. For fun, I went up the chain to Ubuntu… Same thing
In frustration I went to Grandma’s house with Debian and it worked perfect out of the box. I’d spent hours researching it but the best I found was a potential RAID related bug (lvm, specifically, I think) introduced in Ubuntu that, of course, filtered into Mint. Even fdisk reported the physical drives as 999GB in Mint/Ubuntu.
I still don’t know the exact cause but I got it up and running so I’m a Debian guy now, I guess.
Granted, my use case isn’t super normal since I’m using a BIOS RAID1 (and we all know how fun BIOS RAID can be) with full disk encryption.
Worked out in the end but it made me sad to ditch Mint
can be a bug in your bios too
Yep, that’s why I made sure to include that “we all know how fun BIOS RAID is” bit.
It was fine with the previous 2TB RAID1, but that doesn’t mean anything.
Mint with KDE? this makes no sense. This would be Ubuntu, maybe with Kubuntu Backports. You should be able to remove ubuntu-specific stuff like snaps easily.
Came here to say this
-it should be more or less stable, comparable to Ubuntu with or without LTS
Ubuntu was based on Debian, which touts its stability
-it should not be related to IBM to any way (so no fedora/redhat)
Debian has no afiliation to IBM, they’re not even loosely part of each others’ “partners” programs
-it should not feature snaps (no Ubuntu or KDE neon)
Debian doesn’t use snaps (welcome to the greener side of the fence btw, fuck snaps)
-KDE plasma should be installable manually (best case even installed by default)
Debian uses KDE as one of it’s default install options when installing the OS, and it can be installed later with
tasksel(or by just getting all the packages if you want to do it the hard way)-no DIY Distros
Debian has a barebones headless option, but the installer defaults (which come with the whole DE and oyher convenienve packages) are pretty user-friendly
In summary, I have no fucking clue what OS you should use.
P.S. newlines on lemmy are either done by using two spaces at the end of a line
and then pressing enter
(make sure your phone doesn’t autocorrect/one of the spaces away like mine does) or by pressingEnter twice (without the double spaces), so there’s a
blank line in between
Debian is the GOAT
Definitely Debian. Or Mint if you also like the cinnamon desktop (which is similar to KDE’s in terms of default look).
Cinnamon has no real Wayland support, along with all the fancy stuff like perfect fractional scaling, multi refresh rates, HDR support, and whatnot. At least Wayland support is important
They didn’t specify that requirement. For instance, I have zero need for any of that and therefore can keep on trucking on Xorg until Wayland reaches my DE of choice in a stable form.
I imagine installing KDE on Mint is not a good experience. You would need to remove the entire desktop, all the iconsets etc. and then install KDE.
Lets see which X.org desktop wins the race for 3rd place with real Wayland support! I sure hope for the best.
I have yet to find an actual description of said difficulties. I’ve used Debian based distros for over 20 years, with a recent hiatus of some 3 years recently when I simply stopped using PCs at home. A different DE was always just an apt-get away, then select which of the N installed DEs you wanted to try at the login screen.
- setup autoupdates
- setup virt-manager
- install flatpak apps
This is for sure different on GNOME than on KDE, my reference is GNOME and its horrible packagenames make debloating a pain.
What part of that is related to installing a DE side by side another? I’m genuinely asking. Never had to do any of that. Why are you doing it?
Ok saw it
You can’t avoid IBM/RedHat - they contribute to the kernel and many, many other parts of Linux eg systemd. I have no idea what you mean by DIY distros, what a peculiar adjective in this context. Linux itself is DIY. Life is DIY.
That said, voidlinux is an independent distro without systemd or snaps based on runit for init and xbps for package management. It’s also a STABLE rolling release.
I have no idea what you mean by DIY distros, what a peculiar adjective in this context. Linux itself is DIY. Life is DIY.
Pretty sure what they meant is no distros where you have to manually curate and possibly even build every sodding package, like Linux From Scratch, Gentoo, and maybe to an extent Arch. I presume they want a disto that flashes to a live USB, walks through a wizard, and boots up out of the box fully functional in minutes, no fuss required.
> You can’t avoid IBM/RedHat
Let’s just leave it at that, we can’t avoid code published by them, it is everywhere. Both of those are subject and clear collaborators with agencies of the state that protects their existence.
It is 100s of times better than MS, ok, yes, it is. Still, “we” have a long way to go, away from “them”.
Opensuse. It comes in different flavors including tumbleweed (rolling but tested), slowroll (slower rolling), leap (stable), and micro / leap micro (immutable). It is not owned or funded by redhat although it does use rpm. Its installer is the best I have ever seen for managing software before installation and will let you select KDE.
Of course debian.
However pure debian needs some love before you can use it.
If you want to use steam. Enable 32 bit arch.
If you want to use flatpak. You need to install it and add the default repo.
To install kde plasma you need only a single apt command.
I personally run debian-testing/Trixie.
I dont get Debian. It is so manual, everything needs to be done manually. They default to ext4 which is old as balls, their updates are not automatic (and apt-automatic is painfully complicated to configure) even though on a stable distro you can easily differentiate between security and feature updates.
Everything that might be nicely preconfigured on Opensuse or Fedora is manual on Debian.
And… you get years old packages, without any of the fixes the developers added in the past.
As a semi-rolling Distro Opensuse Slowroll sounds nice. I think it already works, you change repos in Tumbleweed and thats it.
The testing branch is at most 3 weeks old. I get new software, not the newest. Kde plasma has a auto update function that works on bootup. (though I usually go into sleep mode and therefore update often by hand.)
Yes debian is pretty plain and empty but once configured it works. Sure I would recommend Mint to people who don’t like to configure. However the Mint(debian) version is lacking a lot and there is no testing branch you can safely run of.
Never tried Debian Testing. Is probably nice.
Sure I would recommend Mint to people who don’t like to configure.
MX > Mint
MX is a traditional derivative Distro afaik, often behind on Updates.
MX is preconfigured Debian with extra tools to help manage the system.
We’re living in the age of flatpak and nix. There are plenty of options to install fresh and bleeding edge packages, while still having your system boot every time.
I loved LSD conky lol.
Never could get that to work and now on Wayland the whole concept would need to be rewritten to be a part of the desktop containmenr.
I’m guessing you replied to the wrong person.
Can’t you make the same thing in eww and have it work on Wayland?
Linux Mint is hands down the most stable linux distro out there and has been for years. zero tinkering needed. everything just runs no questions asked.
My only grief with Mint is the most recent update where they changed the software centee and now it’s slowed to a crawl. Why they would do this is anyones guess.
I’m recommending MX until such time that Mint sort their crap out - unfortunately I doubt they will, seeing as this change of software center was to resolve some other issues they (but not is end users) though they had.
MX is basically debian but with a lot of improvements. Sure it might have a bit of a learning curve for those primarily used to Ubuntu based systems, but it beats running any of the other Ubuntu distros by miles since they all struggle with the crap Ubuntu puts on top of Debian.
Manjaro is another great option if you don’t want to deal with debian based stuff, and KDE is the default DE with most stuff under reasonable control. You can also use all the Arch resources if you ever run into trouble so it’s a lot less of a headache than what I’ve experienced running OpenSUSE (i want to love OpenSUSE but I just can’t).
Linux mint is just Ubuntu with opinionated Ubuntu crap removed. Is there Linux Mint with KDE?
not at all. mint offers a bunch of features ‘exclusive’ to mint as an integration with their system. of course it’s all open source and you could install it on any other system. but the key important factor with mint is that everything ‘just works’ with a fresh install, no customization necessary - which is something that can’t be said about any other distro, including Ubuntu. it is the only distro i recommend for non-pc users as there is no chance they will brick it.
regardless, KDE is just a DE. you won’t get the same mint experience of course, since it isn’t officially supported (and indeed, only cinnamon offers the complete mint experience), but installing KDE on mint is easy enough if you insist on using it.
Get a Debian and break it a leg.
I think you should go with OpenSuse
I never understood the IBM/Redhat hate being directed at Fedora. Imagine being against using Debian because of the Ubuntu Amazon fiasco that happened years back.
Probably because of what happened to CentOS. Who owns the Fedora trademark? How independent is Fedora really?
I am not saying anyone should avoid Fedora, I can just understand why someone would.
Just to clarify, I’m not trying to stand up for Red Hat in any of the following, just explaining the relationship between Red Hat, CentOS, and Fedora. My stance on Red Hat has historically been neutral, but recently is erring towards negative after the IBM aquisition. My stance on Fedora has always been positive.
Probably because of what happened to CentOS.
Red Hat bought out CentOS in 2014. They took over their trademark, hired their development team, and placed Red Hat developers on the CentOS team. CentOS was downstream of RHEL, so Red Hat had an invested interest in it, since it actually resembles RHEL.
That’s an important distinction: CentOS was downstream of RHEL, and could be used to replace it in enterprise applications. Fedora is upstream of RHEL, and not suitable for enterprise applications (too many package and kernel updates, everything changes frequently, short term release lifetime, etc.). When CentOS was discontinued in favor of CentOS Stream, it no longer had the same value in enterprise use as RHEL, and its competition to RHEL was mostly eliminated. Again, the most important distinction there is that CentOS competed with RHEL, which is why Red Hat took it over and killed it.
Fedora is entirely community managed and developed, with FESCo being community-elected and making decisions in the interest of the community, not in the interest of Red Hat. Red Hat sponsors Fedora, but that relationship is merely financial. It provides money to the Fedora Project because RHEL is downstream of Fedora, and benefits from its continual development. Fedora does not compete with RHEL, so Red Hat has no interest in controlling Fedora, nor could they if they wanted to with the way the project is managed.
Who owns the Fedora trademark?
Red Hat, of course. But again, Red Hat does not have the means to control the development of Fedora, and they would get nothing but backlash from trying, and gain nothing from it. If Red Hat tried to take over Fedora and were somehow successful, the project could easily be forked and rebranded, with the community currently managing it taking over the new fork and developing from there. Fedora would become stale, and Red Hat would have to manage it entirely, which they clearly don’t want to do in the first place. The only significant difference would be that the new Fedora fork would not be sponsored by Red Hat, and development would slow down as a result. But again, this has nothing but disadvantages for Red Hat. Red Hat benefits from the Fedora Project’s active development, and since it doesn’t compete in their market, they get nothing from destroying it.
How independent is Fedora really?
That depends on what aspect of independence you question. Red Hat has no control over the development of Fedora, as that is managed by FESCo. So in that way, Fedora is completely independent. FESCo and the Fedora Project don’t develop for the sole interests of Red Hat; they develop for the community. Of course, Red Hat still benefits from that development regardless, but RHEL specific development is handled by Red Hat, not the Fedora Project, and changes to Fedora from Red Hat developers that would stains against the interests of the community would not be approved. The members of FESCo were elected because the community trusts them to make decisions the benefit everyone.
Financially, the Fedora Project is quite dependent on Red Hat. That’s where the vast majority of their funding comes from. That funding is given to the Fedora Project because its development is mutually beneficial for both the Fedora community and Red Hat. That fact won’t change anytime soon. The testing, bug fixes, security patches, and feature upgrades from the Fedora community are incredibly valuable for Red Hat, and without a consumer desktop platform to test those changes, Red Hat would be greatly disadvantaged.
I am not saying anyone should avoid Fedora, I can just understand why someone would.
Personally, I can’t. At least I certainly can’t understand if their reasoning had anything to do with Red Hat or IBM. The Fedora Project is independently developed, and does not seek to satisfy the interests of either of those companies. I can understand someone not liking how frequently the kernel is updated, but then again, you don’t have to update immediately if you don’t want to. I can understand someone being apprehensive because there is some software available on Ubuntu or Debian, but it isn’t released for Fedora. I can understand someone not liking the dnf package manager; it is quite slow. I can understand someone not liking the folder structure of Fedora over Debian based operating systems. But I cannot understand someone disliking Fedora because they hate Red Hat or IBM. As fas as the end user is concerned, Fedora might as well have nothing to do with Red Hat or IBM. Yes, RHEL is downstream of Fedora, but that doesn’t affect Fedora in any way, it’s downstream, not upstream. Fedora is, always has been, and always will be a community driven project that primarily has the interests of the community in mind. The Fedora Project doesn’t care about what Red Hat wants or does with RHEL, as it doesn’t affect Fedora in the slightest. CentOS was destroyed because it competed with RHEL (or at least Red Hat believed that it did), and Fedora does not. If you don’t like Red Hat then don’t use RHEL, CentOS, or any of their downstreams, but don’t falsely associate the development of Fedora as being at risk of damage by Red Hat.
Anyone who avoids Fedora because they dislike Red Hat or believe it is at risk from Red Hat is misinformed at best.
