Again an association is made between butt plugs and Arch users. I wonder if moving forward showing a collection of butt plugs will become the next “I use Arch, btw”.

Thanks a lot for this excellent write-up! I believe it has successfully fulfilled its purpose.

To make myself absolutely clear: I believe that we agree on our general sentiment towards systemd; I don’t like how it has almost ostracized other inits, nor do I like how ever-impactful it has become across the board so much so that even the most established DE (read: GNOME) has had hard dependencies to systemd in the past^[1].

And this is where i think you’ve contradicted yourself. IMO, the only reason opponents use it is not because it’s so great but because it’s so entrenched in whichever distro they’re using.

Got it! I see now why you might have perceived that as a contradiction. And honestly, you might be correct! I assumed that systemd is used for how it might enable the full system AppArmor policy^[2] and other features that Kicksecure has become known for. Honestly, I’m not an expert on Kicksecure myself. I just like the project and even try to import some of their systemd-related features and/or configs on my daily driver.

Based on past readings, the idea that systemd was (ironically) still preferred on Kicksecure for security-related features stuck with me. But, honestly, it could have been my misunderstanding and instead they might have chosen to make the best out of it as not using systemd would have increased the maintenance burden tremendously.

This conversation has opened the possibility to me that Kicksecure’s maintainers might have stuck to systemd for non-security reasons. Ultimately, your contribution by addressing that point has been immense. Thank you so much for the insight and for being patient with me 😊!

1. I believe this has since been resolved.
2. Based on the following statement: “AppArmor can do this by loading a profile for systemd in the initramfs.” found here

Thanks for the answer! I got some pointers 😉.

the best os-design there is: the unix-like system.

Couple of questions:

1. Is there even any scientific basis to this statement?
   • If yes, would you be so kind to cite sources as I got trouble finding peer-reviewed articles on the matter.
   • If not, would you be able to make a logically sound argument on why that is the case?
2. Why Unix-like and not Unix? Wouldn’t Unix be the actual “original vision”?

In case you’re bored enough to read my ramblings and/or interested in what I understood and how, then consider reading the spoiler below.

If not 😜; did I understand you correctly in that the mere existence of Devuan is the supposed contradiction?

I mostly want to discourage distro hopping with the belief that they’re missing out on a program or desktop, only to end up on windows because they’re tired of reinstalling everything.

Thank you for being thoughtful! I just wanted to add some nuance with my previous comment.

One important thing you need to know about distros: they’re all the same under the hood.

This is true for the traditional model in which the package manager is the main differentiator between distros. Therefore Arch, Debian, Fedora, openSUSE etc and their derivatives (which make up about 90% of the distros found on DistroWatch) are indeed mostly the same.

But the likes of Gentoo and NixOS etc don’t quite fit the bill. Granted, a new user should only very rarely (if ever) start their Linux journeys on any of these advanced distros.

How so? I literally don’t see it. My apologies if I come across as obnoxious, but I simply don’t understand how I might have contradicted myself. I never explicitly mentioned Debian anyways, so why did you feel the need to mention that as somehow being related to a supposed contradiction.

is there any reason why I should even care about the freedom of init system?

Freedom of choice! It’s troublesome if distros and/or DEs rely so heavily on systemd to do their bidding. So much so, that some combinations of distro + DE don’t allow any differentiation in init or make it very cumbersome and unwieldy at best. I’m not interested in making systemd a necessary part of Linux. Therefore other inits not only have to exist, but should be ‘competitive’ as well. Which, to be frank, is currently not the case.

Another concern is that systemd is by no means a minimalist approach. Which beyond bloat, also has security implications. More information can be found in this (infamous) guide by Madaidan; security researcher on multiple distros known for taking security and privacy very seriously like e.g. Kicksecure and Whonix. Interestingly, while Madaidan discourages the use of systemd in that guide, it’s still heavily relied on in Kicksecure; one of the distros he works on. I think this is a perfect illustration of how systemd has become so good that even opponents can’t deny its merits and continue to make use of it for the time being out of necessity.

Lots of great answers here already so I will only address a couple of things that haven’t been mentioned:

Regarding Fedora Silverblue:

• Currently, Fedora Atomic Desktops are in a major shift to accept OCI container images for delivery of packages. This means that the built image becomes one compliant to OCI and that we boot into an OCI container as our system. As OCI images are relatively declarative (not to the extent that NixOS does (yet)), it becomes possible to have a set of config files (most importantly, the so-called Containerfile) in which your system is ‘declared’/‘configd’. In case you’re interested into how this looks/works, consider taking a look at uBlue’s startingpoint or if you’re more interested in the scope of configuration into Bazzite and/or Bluefin.
• apx is available as a COPR on Fedora Atomic Desktops.
• Nix can be installed on Fedora Atomic Desktops using Determinate Systems’ installer.

Regarding Vanilla OS:

• They’re also moving to a model that’s very close to where Fedora Atomic Desktops is heading towards. So, expect a similar way to config/‘declare’ your system.

What are your thoughts on the three four distros mentioned above?

It’s a question of polish if you’d ask me. With Fedora Atomic Desktops and NixOS being advantageous due to being more established and better funded. I wouldn’t write off Vanilla OS yet as they seem to know what they’re doing. Though, I wouldn’t keep my hopes up for blendOS as its main developer was unaware of which MAC was configured by default on blendOS (spoiler alert: none, at least at the time).

Furthermore, NixOS is literally its own thing and unfortunately infamous for its steep learning curve. If you can afford to learn and conquer NixOS, then NixOS should be the recommendation; unless (like me) you seek SELinux on your systems.

Between Fedora Atomic Desktops and Vanilla OS; Vanilla OS is still in its major rewrite/revamp. The alpha builds are there, but I wouldn’t recommend using those on production machines. Fedora Atomic Desktops, on the other hand, has been going strong for a while now and the uBlue-team has even succeeded in making the OCI-stuff accessible for the general (Linux) public. So if you want to switch now and NixOS is/seems too hard; then Fedora Atomic Desktops it is. On that note, I recommend to check out the uBlue project.

Which ones are the most interesting, and for what reasons?

Honestly, all of them are really interesting, but NixOS does the most unique stuff; with only Guix doing something similar within the Linux landscape. To give you a taste of some of the wild stuff found on NixOS; there’s the so-called Impermanence module which -to my knowledge- happens to be the closest thing to a usable stateless system we’ve got; period. Consider reading this excellent blog post in case you’re interested to know what this entails.

Thanks for pointing that out! It has since been fixed.

What is a reliable yet affordable option to get started?

Unfortunately, good affordable hardware on which Linux is properly supported is hard to get by. I’m personally fond of vendors like (in alphabetical order) Framework, NovaCustom, Star Labs, System76, Tuxedo. But other vendors like ASUS, Dell, HP and Lenovo are known to sell devices that do a considerable job at supporting Linux; consider to check the compatibility/support for their devices through resources like linux-hardware.org.

Are my concerns based in reality or is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues?

Regarding video types; I don’t think you should have any problems regarding those; on some distros it might not be supported by default, but that should be solvable with a single command. Relying on flatpaks^[1] instead is another viable solution and is enabled by default on a lot of distros. Moving on to word document templates; I suppose the suite of cloud-based services found in Microsoft 365 should work regardless. As for the question if the templates would work on LibreOffice, ONLYOFFICE and the like; I simply don’t know. On to familiarity of OS and using it for business purposes; most distros that are friendlier towards newer users have been setup with sane defaults. Therefore, I don’t think there’s a lot that could go wrong as long as you’re interacting with a GUI. When interacting with a command-line interface, note that information found on the internet is often times outdated. Therefore, if you’re hesitant or unsure; consider interacting with the community for some help. We’re all in this together!

is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues?

You should be totally fine aside from some software that’s known to not support Linux at all.

What else might I need to know to use Linux comfortably from the get go?

Ask yourself the following questions:

• To what degree are you interested to learn how it all works and to experience what Linux offers?
  • If you see it primarily as a means to an end, then pick a distro that does an excellent job at accommodating your workflow without requiring you to relearn more than necessary.
  • If instead, interest in Linux itself is the main driving force behind the switch, then please be mindful that the Linux rabbit hole is very real.

Is it going to take a lot of time and effort to get Linux running how I need it to?

Somewhat related to the previous question*. Like, there are distros out there that I can install for my grandfather and he wouldn’t even notice the difference. But even some (relatively) mainstream-distros can be daunting for so-called power users of Windows. E.g. I would argue I was your average Windows-user; play games, browse the internet, email, write documents, video-editing, run software required for my studies etc. It took me about two weeks before I was ‘comfortable’ on Linux. And even then, some of the software I used for e.g. video-editing just didn’t want to play nice^[2].

So, yeah, sell me on Linux, please.

If you want freedom and control over your devices, there’s simply no viable alternative.

1. Software management on Linux -at least on the surface- is closer to Android/iOS than to Windows. You should rarely (if at all) feel the need to find software through your browser. Instead, you should interact with so-called package managers. This can be achieved through either a command-line interface or a storefront with a GUI that behaves like those found on Android/iOS etc. Coming back to Flatpak; this is an (upcoming) universal (read: (mostly) distro-agnostic) package manager that tries to solve a lot of problems that traditional package managers have had. There’s still a lot of ongoing work for it to achieve its design-goals to the fullest, but even in its current iteration it works excellent and therefore it’s unsurprising to find it enabled by default on a significant chunk of the Linux landscape. Software that are packaged using this technology are referred to as flatpaks (or flatpak if singular).

2. In retrospect, this seems to be primarily rooted in the fact that my machine isn’t that powerful in the first place. On Windows, it managed because it was better optimized for it. Unfortunately, on Linux, this was not the case.

A lot of programs I work with very often are Windows-exclusive, and alternatives supporting Linux are rare.

Consider mentioning the programs you work with. On a general note, Wine can be used to make Windows-software work on Linux. Bottles can be used to that effect as a front-end. Furthermore, for a more sophisticated solution; consider taking a look at CodeWeavers.

Thanks everyone for your replies, I’m really interested in KDE Plasma now.

I agree that KDE Plasma should satiate your desire for customizing the look and feel of your system. But, note that KDE Plasma isn’t properly supported on Linux Mint. Therefore, consider switching to a Distro in which it is; e.g. the KDE Flavors/Spins of Fedora, openSUSE or Ubuntu.

I don’t know if it even works, but have you considered relying on their Stealth protocol? While its absence on Linux _{(and Windows)} means that you might not even be able to make use of it in the first place, I’m still interested to know if it makes any difference.

I don’t even think it should be avoided at all times. Just approach it through an Arch-container, Distrobox can streamline that process, and everything should be gucci.

I looked into distrobox and checks all the boxes but there is the issue of my lack of storage space(currently only 130 GB left out of 240)

It can definitely fill up space if you’re not careful. Just ensure that the minimal amount of containers and their respective images are on the system.

I would assume one container each for Ubuntu and Arch should suffice for most people. Sure; this will likely take up to 10 GB of extra storage in total (eventually), but foregoing this solution means that you’d likely have to settle for Arch (because of the AUR) or something like Gentoo (because no other distro does compiling and building from source like Gentoo does).

If you feel particularly adventurous, you could also consider Nix and/or NixOS; though you’d have to ensure that said packages are available as a nixpkg. Nix can also be installed on Fedora; consider Determinate Systems’ installer for that*.

Thank you for responding!

I need a distro which is package-agnostic since i use a lot of old ooen source academic software and they alternate between being only supported on RHEL or Ubuntu

Perhaps you should look into container solutions like e.g. Distrobox. You can basically install/run any package; just ensure usage of the correct container environment.

Fedora 39 is great except when i need to build the above mentioned software from source and i spend 2 hrs failing to match the dependencies from Ubuntu

If you’re otherwise content with Fedora, then perhaps consider installing the aforementioned Distrobox; which happens to be found within Fedora’s repos and thus one sudo dnf install distrobox away from being installed on your machine.

Also want to improvey laptop’s battery life, but i think i can’t get it much better than in Fedora

I’d argue that Fedora is not best for battery life, though. Minimalist distros tend to be a lot better at this. Installing auto-cpufreq in Fedora Silverblue on my AMD-powered laptop did come with significant improvements, so perhaps you could prolong your battery life by utilizing it or similar programs; think of TLP, thermald etc to name a few.

Manjaro’s advertising as compatible with mainline AUR

I’ve honestly never used Manjaro nor do I ever intend to, however this page suggests otherwise. Would you be so kind to point me out where I can find said advertising?

I’m saddened by how the once great Elementary OS has fallen from grace. I hope they will be able to bounce back to former glory and beyond, but I’m skeptical at best…