pheusie

Sorry to say, but there’s a lot questionable stuff found within your comment. But I will try to limit the discussion around some of the more egriogous ones. Hate to keep litigating this around here, but the shift alone is enough. Explaining to people WTF an immutable filesystem is, is a sure way to frustrate them into giving up, despite whatever comms finesse you might THINK you have. I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about (some) core system files being read-only, i.e. you can’t change/modify it. Can you help me understand why that would cause so much frustration? Counterpoint: STOP SUGGESTING IMMUTABLE DISTROS TO NEW USERS Countering the counterpoint with an anecdote: I cold turkey switched from Windows to Fedora Silverblue almost 4 years ago. Bazzite (or other uBlue images) weren’t even around back then. And, somehow, I managed. And there are many other testimonials that point out something similar. Are you ignoring this empirical evidence? If so, on what basis? there is ZERO benefit Come on, you know that’s not true. Perhaps the following formulation could be true: “I suppose there is ZERO benefit to me (and others like me)”.

I agree with this generally. But, I’d like to add that well-supported hardware (like a ThinkPad) may do equally well on Linux and perhaps even better.

It’s a great piece of software. As such, I wouldn’t want to harm them. Hence, I won’t give you any pointers. Sorry not sorry.

I’m obviously not an expert. But, from what I can tell, the scene seems quite healthy. And I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t thrive further. Especially as the Linux market share is in the lift. Anti-cheat shenanigans are a lot more concerning. Though, I’m optimistic that Valve is actively making progress on that front. Btw, just as an FYI: I know people that were more interested in software piracy. But I digress…

Vague statement. Please, fam; either be more explicit from the get-go. Or, engage with the comment section. I suppose you meant the piracy that involves games and/or software. FWIW, I’d be more than happy to specify if you could clarify/elaborate.

Ah…, the conundrums of subjective morality.

programs Consider being more explicit about what you want/need. Some programs work great with wine and others have never.

Thanks for the quick rely! Maybe this is relevant for some That is very tangible, indeed. And kudos for providing the only browser that aced the ‘test’! Also, pull requests attempting to improve the documentation are very much welcome. Would be great to get more contributors involved and one doesn’t have to be deeply technical to write good docs. Hehe 😜. I do admire your work, but don’t get your hopes up 😅. Anyhow, I will add it to the list of Firefox(-based) browsers worth looking into. To be clear, I’m not a primary consumer of the product category. I would install it on my system if I were*.

In the now up-to-date README.md we find the following line: A couple of privacy-related patches not built elsewhere Cool. But…, could you name those explicitly? Mullvad Browser is also based on Firefox ESR and is the product of a joint development involving both Mullvad and the Tor Project. Could you please explain why anyone should consider Konform Browser over it?

Yup. After reading a ton of discussions and inevitably trying out many interesting text editors (including niche ones like Leo and Sam, I just had to give it to Doom Emacs. Been very happy with it ever since.

My priorities: Secure. Unlike popular belief, the fact that the worlds infrastructure basically runs on Linux does not imply that your average Desktop Linux distro enjoys the same level of scrutiny when it comes to its security. Hence, the security-conscious should carefully pick a distro that can handle their threat model. Or, at least harden it to their liking. Stateless. Conventionally, you will be met with a (relatively) minimal system after installation. After which you’re expected to configure it to your liking and go smooth sailing afterwards. Occasionally, you might (un)install stuff and/or modify settings; but nothing out of the ordinary, really. While applying some of these changes might seem trivial, they (kinda) lead your system to accumulate cruft. This cruft might seem innocuous, but it’s exactly why your system seems so fresh after a reinstall. Foregoing this altogether is referred to as going stateless. This is done by declaring a desired state and ‘flushing’ all changes that have not been declared. Many other benefits are associated with this, but I digress… The above^[So, without even going into release cadence etc.] already dictates the use of NixOS with the impermanence and nix-mineral modules.

I was actually seriously considering to just write “Freedom” and call it a day. Apologies for making it more wordy than it has to be.

They do not have centralized configuration as far as I am aware so they do not go as far as Nix. Which is why it’s (only) their ambition 😜. But thanks for prompting me to clarify! Furthermore, their wording would suggest that configuration is not part of what’s declared. Which -at best- would make it relatively light on how declarative it is.

Domain-Specific Language. In the context of NixOS, that would be the Nix language.

Freedom, it’s that simple. Everything else is a derivative.

The article unfortunately does a horrendous job at highlighting AerynOS’ unique features by only giving vague descriptions without going into any technicality that matters. FWIW, my two cents on AerynOS: It offers (yet) a(nother) novel approach to atomic distros. The gist for its ambition (or, at least, my understanding of it) would be NixOS, but with FHS intact and without a DSL.

Not the one you asked, but here’s my two cents. Arch, by virtue of its DIY nature, has little to no defaults. As such, common security measures are not pre-configured either. Thankfully, it makes up for that with its excellent wiki entry on security. Unfortunately, I don’t think most users ever seriously implement what’s found within. As for Debian, it actually does come with plenty of relatively sane defaults, including security. And Debian has shown to take security rather seriously. However, (most) Debian repositories are not great at providing up-to-date versions of the software they package: The stable branch has outdated packages for the sake of providing a ‘boring’ (but reliable) experience. While security updates are backported, it is not the preferred way of keeping software safe and secure. The testing branch is in a disturbing condition in which it holds software that is a bit more stable than the unstable branch. However, it does not enjoy the security updates backported to the stable branch. Nor does it immediately receive the security updates as they come to the unstable branch. A rather unsettling middle ground, if you will. Definitely not recommended for the security-conscious. Finally, the unstable branch. Intuitively, this should provide the fix for the above problems. It should provide current software, which should mean that it receives updates as they’re released, security included. But, anecdotally, the likes of Arch, Fedora and openSUSE seem to be doing a better job at offering a (semi-)rolling release distro. But, please be my guest, and prove them wrong.