poki

Do you mean SecBSD?

But BSDs and Linux are very similar in design philosophy and are dependent on each other.

Interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the bold parts? Thank you in advance :D !

Can't agree more.

I believe Flatpak initially couldn't and/or didn't want to do CLI. At some point, it offered some basic functionality; I first noticed it on Bottles. But, it's pretty dire if no variation of top can be found as a Flatpak.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people are simply unaware that Flatpak can even do CLI. This inevitably also negatively affects its CLI ecosystem.

By default, Fedora Atomic envisions the following in regards to installing packages/software:

• First, try the Flatpak.
• If that doesn't work, use Toolbx(/Distrobox).
• If all else fails, resort to rpm-ostree.

This works pretty fine, but isn't perfect:

• Flatpak has become pretty good for software with a GUI. However, while it can do CLI, it's underutilized.
• Toolbx/Distrobox has its merits, but not everyone enjoys consuming CLI through containers.
• Besides the fact that installing all your CLI tools through rpm-ostree will negatively impact how fast you can update your system, it also requires you to (soft-)reboot before you can access the newly installed package (unless you enjoy living on the edge with --apply-live). This can be pretty cumbersome, especially if you're in flow.

Thus, the situation around CLI on Fedora Atomic became a sore to the eyes. Within the community, there were multiple attempts to tackle this problem:

• Nix; For some time, this was the perfect solution. Unfortunately, in its current iteration, installing Nix on Fedora Atomic requires SELinux' enforcing mode to be turned off. As turning enforcing mode off is unacceptable for uBlue's maintainers, this was eventually dismissed.
• Better tooling around Toolbx/Distrobox; There have been made some efforts in this regard, perhaps most notably Ptyxis. But, we're not there yet. Though, some are hopeful of what podmansh will bring to the table.
• Homebrew; It behaves as any other package manager used for installing packages from the repository on any Linux distro out there. Except, in this case, it's exclusively utilized for CLI. Currently, it's simply the most straightforward in use. You just have to teach people to replace their apt/dnf/ pacman with flatpak (for GUI) and brew (for CLI). Furthermore, it comes with a big and healthy repository. Finally, it utilizes technologies related to the ones found on Fedora Atomic.
• systemd-sysext; This has only very recently been added to systemd. I wouldn't be surprised if this will play a prominent role going forward. Though, I'm unsure if CLI will benefit most of it.

Thanks!

It has been my pleasure 😊.

Is there anything to be expected when updating the system to a new version?

The write-up found above ensures that the two systems don't share any space within the same drive. Therefore, there's nothing to worry about.

For example, I've upgraded Fedora from 39 to 40 about two months ago without any troubles. Heck, I'm on Bluefin's :latest. So, the update to 40 happened automatically in the background without notifying me. So, with the very next reboot I suddenly found myself on 40 😅. I probably wouldn't even have noticed any difference were it not that some GNOME extensions didn't work right away. Otherwise, it was a perfectly smooth update.

Most exhaustive write-up on dual-booting Fedora Atomic and Windows 10 that I've found.

FWIW, I've done it and my system works as you'd expect.

I just was curious what other people are using in this community.

I'm on Fedora Silverblue. Well..., actually, to be more precise; secureblue with the bluefin-dx-main-userns-hardened image 😅. I will elaborate on this in the answer of your next question.

was also wondering what made you fall on your current one.

For my system, I require the following (in alphabetical order):

• Atomic updates; an update either occurs or doesn't. Not even a power outage in the middle of an update can disturb this. This is one of the basic requirements for a well-defined system.
• Built-in rollback functionality; this allows me to get right back to a fully functioning system if my most recent update happens to cause some issues.
• Declarative system configuration. Most of us own multiple devices. Wouldn't it be nice if changes applied to one get carried over to all others (without necessarily foregoing system-specific changes)? This also comes with the added benefit that all changes are being tracked. Carrying over all of this to a new device also becomes a breeze with this. Especially useful for the tweakers amongst us.
• Excellent security standards. Desktop Linux, contrary to its sibling on servers, can't be complimented for its security. For over a decade it has been established how keystrokes can be sniffed due to X11. Yet, only relatively recently did we actually receive a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on cyber security. Therefore, I will rely on the heavy lifting provided by the distro maintainer(s). So, a distro with a focus on hardening is required.
• Reproducibility; a well-defined system can also be reproduced i.e. rebuilding the system from scratch should return nothing else but the same system from before the rebuild. Useful for many reasons, but perhaps most importantly; polish well beyond what's customary otherwise. This is related to the fact that the one(s) maintaining the distro can reproduce my environment with ease. Hence, bugs, issues, troubles and what not can be tackled a lot more efficiently.

Together, they enable my system to be up to date, rock solid and receive automatic updates in the background without fearing breakage. Furthermore, it minimizes all kinds of issues related to or caused by bit rot, configuration drift and hidden/unknown states.

With the above, I've basically defined a declarative distro with an extra emphasis towards security. Which is best represented by the distro called Spectrum. Unfortunately, Spectrum is still under heavy development. Then, there is Qubes OS, but it wreaks havoc on system requirements. Besides, Qubes OS isn't declarative anyways. Thus, I'd have to resort to the next^[1]^ best thing: Fedora Atomic. I prefer GNOME, therefore Fedora Silverblue is picked.

Finally, secureblue is a project and distro that provides hardened images. Its relation to Fedora Silverblue is explained in short as follows: Fedora's atomic images enter the pipeline of uBlue. There, it receives packages related to hardware enablement, video acceleration, codecs etc that Fedora is not able to provide you directly due to being restricted by law; you'd want to receive/install these anyways. The uBlue pipeline spits out these images after applying their changes. Then, the Silverblue image spat from uBlue enters the pipeline of Bluefin and gets a wonderful glow-up by a team of expert veterans to provide their vision of the best workstation for development (and more). This image is spit out as Bluefin-DX. Finally, this image enters the pipeline of secureblue and receives some proper hardening by a team of security experts. After that image is spit out, I receive it with my very next update. This process repeats every day. So daily, I receive an image that Fedora had spit out within the last 24 hours, but has since been through multiple pipelines and has received all kinds of lovely goodies to provide me the best experience I could have wished for. The aforementioned pipelines are btw automated*. There's also the aspect of 'managed' system, but I'll leave it at that.

what are some distros you’ve tried but didn’t like?

I've tried a bunch of traditional distros like Arch, EndeavourOS, openSUSE Tumbleweed, Nobara and Zorin OS Lite. Unfortunately, their (traditional) model feels outdated at this point... All but openSUSE Tumbleweed and Zorin OS Lite eventually borked... This is just anecdotal, but stability can be a serious concern on traditional distros. While Zorin OS Lite is still going strong, I simply prefer GNOME over Xfce. As for openSUSE Tumbleweed, it was actually pretty cool. Unfortunately it's not atomic, declarative nor reproducible. Therefore it didn't satisfy my requirements. Though I'm looking forward to revisit it through its atomic sibling in Aeon after it has had more time to mature.

what about a distro you want to try eventually?

In alphabetical order:

• Gentoo: Freedom on Gentoo is simply unparalleled. Gotta satiate the desire to experiment with it somehow. Furthermore, it can actually be setup to have pretty good security standards. So there will definitely be a thing or two that I will learn through it.
• Guix System: Perhaps NixOS done right? Unfortunately, the user base is pretty small by comparison. At least its organizational structure is a lot more robust.
• NixOS: The OG declarative distro. Spectrum is heavily inspired by it and Qubes OS. Hence, becoming more accustomed to it will benefit me in the long run. It also has some very interesting perks by which even Gentoo would blush. Will probably rely on it and Fedora for my VMs in Qubes OS (and eventually Spectrum).
• OpenBSD: Not a Linux distro. Excellent networking standards. Is often used for the network facing VM in Qubes OS.
• Qubes OS: Technically not a Linux distro. The most secure general use Desktop operating system we currently have. I'll probably install it eventually on a Qubes OS certified device and use it sparingly for specific purposes; at least, until Spectrum has matured.
• Spectrum: In an ideal world, this is probably the perfect distro for me. Unfortunately, it's not ready yet.

1. Technically, one should at least mention the likes of Guix System and NixOS. While both of these definitely score better in the declarative department, security does leave some to be desired compared to Fedora Atomic. As Fedora Silverblue is the first distro I started using, I desired for something that was relatively easy for a new user. And in that department, Fedora Atomic simply scores better than Guix System and NixOS. Though, at this point, I would actually consider switching to NixOS if its 'secureblue' would exist.

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.

Several posters have argued that LMDE, like debian, is barebones, whereas LM is ideal for an end user with not much idea about linux

I believe I'm the only one in the previous post that used the term. But, I believe a misunderstanding has occurred. Debian, plain old Debian, is (relatively) bare-bones. And with this, I mean that extra tooling and what not is absent. Sure, these extra tooling etc come at the cost of what some might regard as bloat. But, ultimately, its absence should not affect performance in any significant way (so not positively, nor negatively). Thus, LMDE and Linux Mint are actually pretty close to one another. LMDE is basically just Linux Mint (Cinnamon edition) but with a Debian base instead of being based on Ubuntu.

I also want to future proof it as much as possible, which would mean using the OS/DE that uses less resources.

Excellent OP. Thank you for providing this insight on what's important for you. With this information we'll be able to offer better help. So, as you've excellently noticed already, Xfce is pretty good if you want a very functional machine that doesn't suck a lot of resources. So, I totally support your decision for Xfce over Cinnamon as Xfce is simply less resource intensive. However, 8 GB of RAM should be pretty fine. Even GNOME should run wonderfully on 8 GB of RAM, so Cinnamon should not cause any troubles. But, if you've still got concerns and if you're already on an SSD, then continue using Xfce as it's otherwise one of the better DEs out there. But, if you're not on an SSD yet, then consider slipping one inside; it will matter a lot.

Regarding your actual query, installing Xfce in retrospect to LMDE should work, but you might get yourself into more trouble than it's worth. Therefore, I'd advice you to simply get Linux Mint Xfce Edition and call it a day. Going for the Edge ISO (which by default comes with Cinnamon) for the latest (and greatest) kernel and retroactively trying to setup Xfce should (once again) cause you more troubles than it's worth it. So, in the end, I'd like to recommend you either Linux Mint Xfce Edition or MX Linux (which is based on Debian Stable (so not Ubuntu) and actually defaults to Xfce). Honestly, they're mostly two flavors/interpretations that try to accomplish very similar goals. So, you should be fine with either one of the two.

Thank you for the response!

the wikipedia linux article with the linux development tree

Aight. Understood. Therefore your interest is still pretty juvenile. Thus, I recommend you to either install FreeBSD on a device to revert right away or dismiss the thought of FreeBSD for the foreseeable future.

I have no idea

Aight. It will be (on average) (a bit) more troublesome until you're past the learning curve. Which is steeper and broader than the one found on Debian/Mint/Ubuntu.

So, all in all, I would forego going for FreeBSD for the time being. Thank me later.

what linux OS should I install on a backup notebook if my main one is debian?

It depends:

• If your backup notebook will only rarely be used, then just make it Debian as well. I can't think of a reason why you'd make it harder on yourself for those spare times you'd have to rely on the backup notebook. (As a side note, if your main system was on a rolling release (like e.g. Arch), then there would be merit in going for a different (i.e. more stable^[1]^) distro (like e.g. Debian Stable) on the rarely used backup. This is tied to the fact that rolling release distros somewhat require you to update every so often for proper functioning. This hassle is simply absent on distros like Debian Stable etc.)
• However, if the backup notebook will be used as a second system of sorts for all kinds of needs and does not have to be reliable per say, then please be my guest and quench your distrohopping thirst to your hearts content.

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"?

1. The term "stable" is used here to mean slow cadence of change which manifests most commonly as little to no updates in-between point releases. These point-releases occur annually/biennially and come with big updates/changes. As you might expect, a distro with a release cycle as such comes with the added benefit that (little to) no breakage should occur until the next point release. Hence, these distros are (rightfully) associated with providing reliable and robust experiences. Though, this does not mean that they have a monopoly on this. When used responsibly, all (if not most) mainstream/popular distros are able to provide reliability and robustness.--