You must log in or # to comment.
Hannah Montana Linux in the far bottom right
My take
You can install Debian on your Chromebook like you would any app, which I feel makes it a bit less controlling since you have access to a complete Debian install and all the benefits that provides.
Windows also has WSL, which gives you Ubuntu, although that process isn’t quite as user friendly.
You can’t take out ChromeOS as you can Windows
I’d make it 4x4 rather than 6x6 or fill it out a bit more.
I’d put Haiku on the extreme top left corner (or in one of the two rows below that first column) since it’s based on BeOS - it’s a corporate OS wether it exits or not and it intends to replicate said corporate OS. In its place I’d put either TempleOS or Plan9.
TempleOS. Oh jeez it’s been awhile since I’ve heard that.
If you ask me, the top left corner belongs to IBM i.
How did you miss temple is in the uppermost Right?
?
How does TempleOS go there in this chart?
Because it was made as a religious/God inspired project and it’s funny.
linux mint, but Debian edition, i feel is left of the centre split, but only a bit.
Yeah I don’t get what corporate means here. Debian was basically the corporate standard for a long while. Ubuntu was personal use
Debian is also the opposite of corporate since it’s a community project where the community aspect is central with democratic voting and no corporate control.
So then why would Microsoft be lower than Chrome or Apple with corporate? I wouldn’t say Windows has more democratic voting and less corporate control than them
Also with 70% of computers running windows, the chart would be scaled terribly along the x axis. You would have to shift every Linux to box 1 with chrome, and put Mac in box 2/6
Ubuntu was devised pretty much as Linux for workstations, with Canonical selling support. Personal use was more of a side effect.
How is Windows less corporate than MacOS or ChromeOS?
Based on the image, it seems like the argument is that Windows can be installed on a larger variety of devices than the other two
but then it should be “restricted” at top, and not “corporate”?
Yeah, but Microsoft shouldn’t get credit for that. Windows only works with everything, because everything got built around it.
Drivers are needed for every little bit of hardware, Intel very well might not have become the dominant architecture if Microsoft hadn’t picked it in the 80s.
where mah nixos
How about above arch Linux? Or at least in that column. Maybe further down
CachyOS being the same level as mainstream as Mint and Ubuntu is copium.
And somehow more “independent” than arch, when it’s based on arch?
Cachy is growing in popularity a lot. Negative publicity around Ubuntu is driving people to alternatives, and I’ve heard a lot of people are trying cachy as their first Linux distro.
People are trying cachy as their first Linux distro.
To anyone reading and thinking of switching:
DO NOT use CachyOS as your first distro. You will not like the experience, it was not made with total newbies in mind. It is Arch with a few bells and whistles, and you are not prepared to properly handle Arch, yet. You will get there later, if you want to.
Ironically, I think Arch might be a better first time distro than CachyOS, because if you’re willing to go through the manual installation process and learn from all the fuckups you’ll make, you can come out of it with the knowledge necessary to manage your install. Though of course I would only recommend it with the warning that your system will be mostly broken for a while and you’d be constantly figuring out and fixing things, so not a good idea if you need your computer working.
But it does seem like a nice distro for if you already know what you’re doing and want to save time getting things set up (and maybe those performance improvements are significant enough, I’ve seen people give big figures)
Agreed! If you want to get into the backbone of Linux systems from the get-go and have some level of technical expertise, Arch is a brilliant learning experience.
And if you already have the experience with Arch and just want to make your life easier, CachyOS or EndeavourOS are good options.
If I am used to Ubuntu, would I ever want to be on a rolling release?
Depends on your personal preferences!
Rolling release typically delivers the latest and greatest of Linux, which is kinda cool. It also removes all the headache of upgrading to a newer version and the possible issues stemming from that. You get to see the gradual evolution of your system, one feature at a time, and you don’t have to wait a month after a new version is released, just because some program you need is not properly ported yet.
On the other end, any update of the rolling release system can end up being somewhat breaking, so if you prefer setting aside time for managing your system instead of having a nasty surprise at the worst possible moment and at the same time want to have your system secure and updated at all times, classic model will be superior.
In both cases, properly set snapshots save a lot of trouble.
I wish there were Debian with Cachy-gaming features. Wonder if I could just do that myself? 🤔
Debian is probably a poor fit for a gaming-oriented distro, since gaming is constantly evolving in terms of hardware and software features.
Even if you put as much as possible into a container or a Flatpak, your drivers will be old, which is critical even for older hardware, particularly in new games.
If you want stability AND modern gaming, maybe go for something like Bazzite? The system is very stable thanks to immutability and atomic updates, and at the same time you have all the modern gaming stack.
I’m not a fan of immutable distros, and always having the latest drivers has never been an issue for me. Having a system that’s less likely to break after an update is a bit more critical when it comes to actually being able to spend time playing games.
But what I meant is that Debian has tools I can use to recompile my packages. I’m not aware of any reasons why I wouldn’t be able to rebuild my system to replicate the unique features of CachyOS myself if I wanted to put in the work. And at that point I could always start with Sid as a base as well, which would be just as bleeding edge as any rolling release distro.
Or, there is always Siduction as well.
Looked into Siduction - seems to be a small project operating over Debian Sid, which I call a recipe for disaster when actually deployed as a home system. Sid is not meant to be stable, and you’re unlikely to get much support. And a small community project is unlikely to patch everything faster than Debian itself.
Debian Sid should not be seen the same way as Arch or other rolling release distros - the former is supposed to be broken, a bug here and there is a non-issue at this point of Debian development lifecycle. Arch and others are expected to actually be used as end products, so critical bugs are rare.
I had some counters in mind to the things you’re saying here. But I don’t feel like bothering. So I will just say the big problem with everything you’re saying, is that you’re arguing against using Debian.
Meanwhile just last night Elden Ring on my Trixie desktop went brrrr.
yeah, trendy distros come and go, i’d hesitate to call it mainstream, even if a handful of youtubers make a video about it.
Yeah, even Bazzite is less niche then CachyOS
It’s the most popular single distro on ProtonDB now, so that’s something
It’s in an extremely good spot right now imo. Just installed it yesterday on pretty new hardware (upper mid-range), flawless experience
What’s the selling point on CachyOS? I use Pop os right now but I’m looking to swap to something new and I was never all that fond of Pop os. Before that I used Fedora which had an awful time running stable on my machine. Mostly I’m considering Debian
Red Hat is based on Fedora, not the other way around.
From your own link, Fedora:
…is now the upstream source for CentOS Stream and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
So yes, I’m pretty sure.
I don’t think “upstream provider for newer packages” is the same as “based on”. Fedora was developed from Red Hat, the image is correct in that sense. You can quote that part of the link but I specifically pointed to " It was originally developed in 2003 as a continuation of the Red Hat Linux project." so based on Red Hat.
Okay buddy
Read the paragraph again. This time with your eyes.
It was originally developed in 2003 as a continuation of the Red Hat Linux project… It is now the upstream source for CentOS Stream and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Did you notice how it says “Red Hat Linux Project” and then goes on to say “Red Hat Enterprise Linux”?
This is because RHL != RHEL.
From the Hyperlink on the Wikipedia page for RHL:
Red Hat Linux was a widely used commercial open-source Linux distribution created by Red Hat until its discontinuation in 2004.
OP is correct. You are mistaken for thinking RHL was RHEL. It is not.
You are right, my mistake for mixing the two.
Yup, in fact the base of RHEL 10 and CentOS Stream 10 is Fedora 41. For RHEL 9 it was Fedora 34 if I remember correctly.
Add another square at the bottom left of the grid that breaks out of the grid on both directions and contains OpenBSD.
I came here to complain about the lack of OpenBSD
And slackware
Arch isn’t hard to install (anymore). It takes 5 minutes with archinstall.
btw
Helps if you know that command/setup thing/whatever you wanna call it. Otherwise, for someone who doesn’t know about it, the process can be pretty painful. Even with the wiki’s install instructions I have not been able to install arch the few times I tried in a VM over the past few months.
You call haiku old fashioned… Linux is based on os design from 30 years before that.
They probably mean in terms of GUI theme.
Linux is console first so still doesn’t make sense.
you’re the one comparing it to Linux
I think it’s a bit different since Haiku is kind of closer to BeOS as frozen in time around 2002, and there’s not a lot of new ground being broken there. Yes, Linux is based on UNIX but there’s been a lot of change since then.
Some people don’t like snaps
“Some people like snaps” would have been closer to the truth, but it would still be an exaggeration of their numbers.
I bet Mark Shuttleworth likes Snaps.
“A person likes snaps.”
There, all covered and more accurate than the original.
His mom probably likes them too.
His dad probably says “WTF is this Snap bullshit son? We didn’t raise you like that.”
Then his mom replies, “it’s just a phase, he needs our support, I’m sure you can make snaps happen, sweetie.”
You know what? I know they’re far from the ideal solution, but I have installed a few things with snaps … and it was fine. It worked seamlessly and painlessly (in some instances).
Generally, I’d prefer other ways to install, but snaps aren’t the end of the world.
(This concludes my hot take of the day.)
snaps aren’t the end of the world
System engineers all collectively shuddered at that thought. Then OS security nerds.
This is the “I tried heroin and it was good” story but for OSes
pretty soon we’ll need snaps in our snaps to make it easier for developers to create snaps with snap dependencies
And if I tried heroin and it was bad was also even more common.
It’s not a question whether they work or not. It’s whether you’re okay with an app distribution system that forces us to be dependent on one corporation. Snap’s backend effectively makes Ubuntu almost as bad as Android.
And seeing as there is no shortage of better options, why not choose those?
