yala

Windows ->

Fedora Kinoite: A relatively mature atomic/immutable distro combined with excellent security standards and that resembles Windows' workflow. Unfortunately, it broke almost immediately. Though, to be fair, it was a known issue with the ISO back then. As a newb, however, I couldn't be bothered with it. ->

Fedora Silverblue: Well..., I didn't have much of a choice 😜. Or I had to forego Fedora Atomic altogether. However, I actually really enjoyed GNOME's workflow. I used this as my main system for about year. Until I found a related project... ->

Arch: The memes got me 😅. In all honesty, though, it was mostly curiosity. Still, I didn't intend to throw away my working Silverblue installation for the sake of quenching my thirst for experiencing Arch. So, as dual boot, I tried to install it. This was pre archinstall, so it took a couple of tries before I booted into GNOME. However, I guess I did mess up something as I don't recall ever booting back into that system 😅. So, what if I want Arch, but don't want to spend more time with the installation... ->

EndeavourOS: Yup. I actually enjoyed it. I also took the opportunity to install another DE; KDE. Tried out the hardened kernel. Was able to make Davinci Resolve work, which just caused a lot of trouble on Silverblue. Access to AUR. It was cool, really. And, for some time, I was actually pondering to dismiss Silverblue altogether in favor of EndeavourOS. But, I started to miss the 'stability' that I was used to from Silverblue. Though, I don't exactly recall if it was the fault of being based on Arch, or rather linked/attributed to KDE instead. Regardless, I noticed that (over time) I spend more and more time on Silverblue. At some point, booting into EndeavourOS didn't work any more. It had broken. I did engage in some troubleshooting efforts, but to no avail... ->

Zorin OS lite: On backup laptop; the poor thing couldn't run Windows but (even today) it's still kicking on Linux ->

Nobara: So, I guess I did miss some of the functionality provided by EndeavourOS; running Davinci Resolve being the primary one. But, I didn't want to pass out of the opportunity to try something else. Back then, Nobara was released relatively recently and was received very positively by the community. And had even a special guide/tutorial to make Davinci Resolve work on AMD devices. Nobara was cool. But, it didn't feel very special. I actually enjoyed EndeavourOS a lot more. It was mostly utilized for Davinci Resolve and for gaming if Silverblue wasn't fit for the job (for whatever reason). Unfortunately, even this one broke at some point 😅. I could still boot into it. But, the system just didn't do what it's supposed to do. I tried troubleshooting. But, once again, to no avail. ->

uBlue; Silverblue image: Through all that was previously mentioned, I had stability in Fedora Silverblue. It was reliable. I could trust it. Well..., most of the time 😅. Decisions related to mesa or video acceleration in browsers definitely felt more like misses rather than hits. I can't blame Fedora as they're legally restricted. But, shouldn't we be able to do better? Enter uBlue. It seemed like some black magic shenanigans. The earlier issues would have never occurred (nor did they occur) on uBlue. This 'managed' aspect of uBlue was clearly, at least for me, the reason to consider it over regular Silverblue. And so, I parted with regular Silverblue and started using the Silverblue image provided by uBlue. Not long after, I even had my own (hardened) custom image. But, eventually (to be more precise; about half a year after switching to uBlue), keeping up with hardening took up too much effort for me to bear. But, thankfully, I had already found the perfect solution... ->

secureblue (based on the Silverblue image): This was Silverblue hardened by someone that actually knows their shit. And, thankfully, I didn't have to maintain this myself. I used this for a couple of months until the next best thing... ->

secureblue (based on the Bluefin image): Currently on this for I think half a year now. It has just been a lovely experience through and through. Everything I could have asked is provided.

Update 2: After trying out EOS, Arch, Manjaro, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and Universal Blue, among many other options, I’ve come to the decision that I’m okay with sticking to Mint for now on my main desktop and setting up UBlue Aurora on my work laptop, but might consider switching to Kubuntu or Fedora if I want something similar at work and at home (one of my main draws away from Mint was that it didn’t offer a KDE option), or to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed if I must have a rolling distro for some reason. Thank you all for your guidance, and happy distro hopping!

Thank you for the update!

Could you elaborate upon your decision-making?

You can divide distros into two categories:

• Independent distros; these are not forks of other projects (at least not in their current iterations). We may also refer to these as upstream-projects.
• Derivative distros; these are forks from the earlier mentioned projects. We may also refer to these as downstream-projects.

E.g. Zorin OS is a derivative of Ubuntu, which itself is a derivative of Debian. After the gargantuan effort it takes to make Debian possible, Ubuntu's maintainers 'grab' Debian, apply a set of changes and ship it as Ubuntu. After which, Zorin OS' maintainers grab Ubuntu, also apply a set of changes and ship it as Zorin OS.

Of course, not all derivatives are created equal; sometimes a single change is applied that by itself constitutes the fork. And other times, the changes are so massive that they blur the lines between independent and derivative; Ubuntu's changes to Debian is a good example of this.

Derivative distros can't simply change everything as they see fit; some things are simply essential parts. In most cases, these include:

• the release cycle of the base; rolling-release vs point-release, but also LTS vs bleeding edge and everything in between
• the (base) packages of the base

But what other factors/aspects that are important for the average user to know about each ‘base’?

I was about to write a long ass dissertation, but it became very unwieldy. Consider asking for specific bases and perhaps I will respond for those.

On a final note, it's worth mentioning that differences between different distros have never been as blurry as they're today. With e.g. Distrobox, one can install whatever package from whichever distro they want. Thus, we aren't as tied to the packages provided by the base distro as we were used to. Furthermore, most distros have different 'variants' that allow access to different channels or release cycles. E.g. for those who want Debian packages but bleeding-edge; there's Debian Sid etc.

Sure, a lot more can be said; like how corporate interest plays into all of this. But what has been mentioned above should suffice for now.

ChatGPT gave the following. Follow at your own risk. Most important is to check if the file locations are compatible with Fedora.

To automate running the update-grub command after each kernel update, you can create a script and set it up to run automatically. Here's a more direct approach:

1. Open a text editor and create a new script file. For example, you can name it "update_grub.sh".

2. In the script file, add the following lines:

   #!/bin/bash
   /usr/sbin/update-grub
   

3. Save the script file in a location where it can be easily accessed, such as your home directory.

4. Make the script executable by running the following command in the terminal:

   chmod +x /path/to/update_grub.sh
   

5. Next, you can set up a cron job to run this script automatically. Open your crontab file by running:

   crontab -e
   

6. Add a new line at the end of the crontab file to schedule the script to run after each kernel update. For example:

   @reboot /path/to/update_grub.sh
   

7. Save and exit the crontab file.

With these steps, the update-grub command will be executed automatically after each kernel update, ensuring that the new kernel version boots successfully.

If it is the default on the distro they intend to use, then, by all means, they should definitely go with it. Btrfs has been really stable for a pretty long time anyways. Just don't use it for RAID 5/6 and you'd be absolutely fine.

Fedora and opensuse are copying from the commercial distros

How are they copying if Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed are upstream to RHEL and SLE respectively?

Btw, I don't understand what your comment was set out to do. Could you elaborate?

But have been wondering why I haven’t heard of any immutable distros from arch based distros yet.

If your question is "Why doesn't Arch have its own atomic/immutable spin/flavor like Fedora and openSUSE have in their Silverblue/Kinoite and Aeon/Kalpa respectively?", then the answer simply lies in the fact that Fedora and openSUSE have a lot more incentive for venturing the unexplored waters of atomicity/immutability as their enterprise counterparts exist and will benefit majorly from it. And I haven't even mentioned how most of the new stuff first appear on Fedora (systemd, PipeWire, Wayland etc) before they're adopted on other distros.

The enterprise counterparts also allow funding that is essential for erecting this from the ground. But, even then, the shift towards atomic/immutable is a difficult one with a lot of hardships and complexity. From the ones that have developed their atomic/immutable projects retroactively (so GuixSD and NixOS don't count as they've been atomic/immutable (and declarative) from inception), only Fedora's (I'd argue) have matured sufficiently. But Fedora has been at it since at least 2017, so they've had a head start compared to the others.

In contrast to Debian (through Canonical), Fedora (through Red Hat) and openSUSE (through SuSE), Arch has literally no (in)direct ties to enterprise. Hence, it will only adopt an atomic/immutable variant if the incentive is high from the community or if it's very easy and only comes with major benefits. But, as even openSUSE is currently struggling with their atomic/immutable variants, it has a long road ahead before it becomes something that can be easily adopted by Arch. Hence, don't expect Arch's atomic/immutable variant any time soon.

However, if any derivative suffices, then at least the likes of blendOS, ChimeraOS and even SteamOS are worth mentioning here.

Consider making another post after everything has been done in which you note down your expectations, experiences etc.

Excellent choice! I'm sure you'll manage 😉 (right after you've found yourself a USB drive).

So..., what will it be 😜?

Yup, as time went on, I simply felt less need to have proprietary software on my system. Steam remains as an exception; simply by virtue of having no F(L)OSS alternative (AFAIK).