[HN Gopher] Ask HN: What Next After Ubuntu?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: What Next After Ubuntu?
I have been running Ubuntu on servers and desktops for around
twenty years, but ongoing changes to their platform have shaken my
faith in its future. The first serious breach of trust was forcing
their users to use their untrustable snaps (e.g. Firefox on 22.04),
but the last straw for me has been breaking apt upgrades on 20.04
LTS in order to push their Pro agenda. I am looking to replace
Ubuntu with something that will be stable and supported for the
next twenty years, without being ruined by corporate interests.
What are my best options?
Author : voakbasda
Score : 160 points
Date : 2023-01-29 17:01 UTC (6 hours ago)
| djfobbz wrote:
| I moved to Debian after getting fed up with the fact that I had
| to upgrade the server on almost daily/weekly basis. Couldn't be
| happier!
| bayindirh wrote:
| Debian Stable is your best bet here. It's run by community,
| evolves slowly and with a consensus (somewhat), and you can be
| involved in the process if you have the desire and patience.
|
| I'm using it since 3.0 both on my desktop and infrastructure, and
| I'm pretty happy.
|
| I once _lost_ a Debian server in our system room. When we
| remembered that we have such machine, I just logged in and it
| installed all updates in between and was working without any
| problems. Just rebooted to get the new kernel, that 's all.
| k__ wrote:
| I always had bad experiences with Ubuntu upgrades to the next
| major version.
|
| Distros with rolling releases seem to do much better.
| blackflame7000 wrote:
| Major Kernel upgrades occur in major versions
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Kubuntu.
| mkl wrote:
| I've used Kubuntu for years and really like KDE, but Kubuntu
| has the same frustrating snap issues so is not a solution here.
| protoman3000 wrote:
| It's unclear to me what's exactly wrong with Ubuntu. Can you
| please give some more explanations on what you mean with "ruined
| by corporate interests" or "snap"?
|
| Why do people say it's not pure? How does it affect me? So far
| everything seems nicely enough documented and works mostly
| conveniently out of the box.
| twosdai wrote:
| To add to the noise: I like pop os. It's been a great desktop
| distro
| irusensei wrote:
| Using Nobara (AKA a copy of glorious eggroll's hard disk - jk!)
| which is Fedora based with tons of kernel patches and packages
| for the new gaming and video editing stuff. Really good stuff.
| Things like steam being able to use rumble on xone which never
| worked to me basically works out of the box.
|
| On my servers I use manjaro, not a personal choice but because
| those are Pine based hardware and it seems manjaro-arm has been
| very well maintained. The actual software is being run from LXC
| containers which are mostly alpine and ubuntu.
| ww520 wrote:
| Red Hat for production. Centos for personal. Actually also
| install Snapd for those few sod apps that need frequent updates.
| disordinary wrote:
| I've used Fedora for years as my desktop linux distro on my
| laptops and CentOS or RHEL for servers.
|
| Fedora is the desktop focussed project which is upstream from the
| commercial RedHat Enterprise Linux, CentOS is the community
| distribution of RedHat Enterprise Linux.
|
| This is a great, stable, and feature rich ecosystem that
| contributes a lot to opensource and upstream back to Linux and
| has a long track record stretching back more than 20 years.
| nazgulnarsil wrote:
| Valve's reliance on arch means I think it will continue to see
| interest and active development
| lambdaxymox wrote:
| For end user workstations, my favorite Linux distros have
| converged on either Pop!_OS or Arch Linux (and Manjaro).
|
| Pop!_OS is a remarkably stable and usable Linux distro. At least
| from a UX and aesthetics standpoint I find it competitive with
| macOS (I am also a longtime mac user, though macOS has lost its
| edge in recent years on the UX front). Overall I would say it's
| my favorite Linux distro these days. I am a big fan of the Debian
| family of distros in general. I used Arch Linux for almost ten
| years before switching fully to Pop!_OS and I never had an update
| go pear-shaped. Rolling release with pacman is amazingly robust
| indeed. I would say it's my number two.
|
| I was an Ubuntu user from version 7 to version 16. Two things did
| it in for me. The first one was when Canonical submarined Amazon
| search queries into the OS's search feature somewhere around
| version 12 or 13. The second problem I had was major version
| upgrades reliably crashed my workstations. Every single major
| version upgrade meant a Busybox prompt after rebooting. After a
| few too many of those headaches (frustrations with apt upgrades
| causing trouble aside), it got to the point where I'd just do a
| nuke and boot to upgrade major versions instead of doing it in
| situ. After that happened for the last time sometime around
| Ubuntu 16.10 I said enough and dropped it going fully over to
| Arch Linux until around 2020, when I switched to Pop!_OS for a
| change of pace. Pop!_OS major version transitions have never
| caused problems for me. Arch Linux obviously doesn't have a
| notion of versions to begin with being rolling release.
| thehappypm wrote:
| ChromeOS is the future of general purpose computers IMO. Browsers
| only get more capable, other OS's continue to bloat, and it's
| fundamentally easier to run securely.
| ergonaught wrote:
| > stable and supported for the next twenty years, without being
| ruined by corporate interests
|
| That exists only in your imagination, so, imagine whatever you
| like.
|
| Sounds like you want Debian, but you might want to explore the
| disgruntled CentOS forks/replacements if you want the appearance
| of an enterprise distribution (that's what "stable and supported
| for the next twenty years" means) without the pesky problem of
| having to be aware that there is an enterprise driving it.
|
| May as well look at FreeBSD while you're here, though.
|
| I switched mostly to Manjaro a long time ago and I've only had a
| couple of issues with it, for whatever that's worth.
| lucideer wrote:
| I switched to Debian on servers & was impressed enough (previous
| experience with Ubuntu & RHEL) that I even went ahead & installed
| it on desktop. That was a mistake for a few reasons so I quickly
| switched away* on desktop but it's still my choice on servers,
| with a few caveats...
|
| 1. Snaps are infecting all distros, not just Ubuntu. This affects
| desktop more than servers, though LetsEncrypt/Certbot are major
| culprits on servers. I have managed to work around this on my
| debian servers with a combination of podman & certbot's dockerhub
| images but it's a sad state of affairs that such fuckery is
| needed.
|
| 2. Hardware support is the perennial issue on desktop & I was
| still getting hit by this in 2022 on Debian with AMD drivers &
| multi monitor/KVM support. This obviously isn't a worry on
| servers.
|
| ---
|
| * fwiw I switched away from Debian on desktop to Gentoo, which I
| used to use years ago before getting a little fed up with compile
| times. Have found compile times to be absolutely miniscule on
| modern hw compared to what I remembered, & binary ebuilds much
| more plentiful than in the past too. Had always found it the most
| sane, stable & up-to-date distro in the past, with compile times
| really being the only downside, so would recommend for anyone
| looking to try out something new. Unlike Arch, Gentoo does a lot
| for you: it's really just the initial install that's a pain.
| timbit42 wrote:
| I'd recommend you look at Linux Mint as a desktop replacement
| for Ubuntu.
| lucideer wrote:
| Have used mint on the desktop in the past. I'm Irish so I
| took interest fairly early on due to its provenance.
|
| It's cool if you like it's default DE setup, but I don't see
| any real advantage over Debian, & unless you're using LMDE,
| it's gonna suffer from all the disadvantages of modern
| Ubuntu. It's been hit just as hard by snaps - Debian is being
| hit too but not as hard as Mint or Ubuntu.
| bradwood wrote:
| Personal machines (workstations or servers) are very different to
| those you'd use in industry. I'll only comment on personal
| machines.
|
| For home workstations, as an ex Ubuntu user, I like Manjaro (and
| the whole Arch ecosystem) _A LOT_. Fedora is pretty nice as a dev
| workstation also.
| rjh29 wrote:
| Manjaro is maybe not the best if OP is looking specifically for
| stable + supported for 20 years. Given that it's a community
| distribution and stays fairly close to the newest versions of
| everything.
|
| But it's still my favourite. All the power of Arch with none of
| the hassle.
| disordinary wrote:
| I've used Fedora for years as my desktop linux distro on my
| laptops and CentOS or RHEL for servers.
|
| Fedora is the desktop focussed project which is upstream from the
| commercial RedHat Enterprise Linux, CentOS is the community
| distribution of RedHat Enterprise Linux.
|
| This is a great, stable, and feature rich ecosystem that
| contributes a lot of innovation to opensource projects and
| upstream back to Linux, it has a strong community and has a long
| track record stretching back more than 20 years.
| BirAdam wrote:
| I have been using Linux since the late 90s, and honestly, there's
| no correct answer. I use AlmaLinux for serious stuff. I use
| Intel's Clear Linux on my workstation. I use Slackware for
| hobbyist stuff.
|
| In your case, I would suggest taking a serious look at Debian
| since you're already using it via Ubuntu. While I do not care for
| rule by committee, Debian has a rather good track record. You may
| also want to look at Pop! OS
|
| https://pop.system76.com/
|
| Beyond Debian and Pop!, Arch is quite common. I never cared for
| it personally, but many people (and many whom I respect) love it.
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| You could give Linux Mint a try for desktop. With the regular
| edition you should get pretty much what Ubuntu offers, with fewer
| "anti-features".
|
| There is also a Debian-based Linux Mint (LMDE) which might be
| preferred to regular Debian for desktop use.
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Debian. It's always been Debian.
| nickjj wrote:
| I've been running Debian stable on servers for like 8 years now.
|
| Up until recently I had a server running Debian Jessie with 1,802
| days of uptime. It served a decent amount of traffic. Services on
| there ran unattended for literally years and it was rock solid. I
| ended up decommissioning the server because for the same price I
| could get better hardware specs so I made a new server and put on
| Debian Bullseye (the latest stable release as of mid-2021).
|
| With Docker being a thing now, Debian's older but more stable
| package versions for app level things (programming runtimes,
| databases, etc.) is less of an issue because you can run them in
| Docker. However you can get stable core system packages with
| Debian's impeccable track record. IMO I wouldn't run anything
| other than Debian on a server (including base Docker images).
|
| For a personal distro, I think it gets more complicated. It's
| personal preference based on what you value. Using Debian's
| unstable channel could be an option for having the latest
| releases on things while still being stable even though it's
| labelled "unstable". Arch is another choice. There's many others.
| 404mm wrote:
| What do you do for kernel updates?
| nickjj wrote:
| I auto-updated everything regularly except for kernel
| updates. I replied to another comment that has more details.
| SteveNuts wrote:
| You didn't patch in almost 5 years?
| number6 wrote:
| At least not the kernel.
| nickjj wrote:
| > You didn't patch in almost 5 years?
|
| For that machine I configured
| https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades to auto-patch
| packages with auto-reboots disabled.
|
| That specific server wasn't running Docker so there was less
| to worry about from an attack surface level.
|
| Debian stable releases get 3 years of official support and
| then an extra 2 years of security maintenance. Running a
| specific release for 5 years isn't unheard of if the workload
| you're running is ok with not being updated for that long.
|
| Ideally I aim to create new servers when a new stable release
| is available or at least before the official 3 year time span
| is over.
| 0xEFF wrote:
| For production servers, the trade offs Debian makes are better
| than the trade offs Ubuntu makes.
|
| This has held consistently true for as long as Ubuntu has
| existed.
|
| In recent years this is also true on the desktop.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I do not know what a "Pro agenda means", but you looking for a
| Linux ? To me the kernel itself is highly "corporatized".
|
| So, I would try OpenBSD or maybe FreeBSD. Note, for OpenBSD,
| Nvidia Graphics are a no-go.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| If you are comfortable with Ubuntu then perhaps Debian [1], the
| OS that Ubuntu was forked from would feel natural?
|
| [1] - https://www.debian.org/
| simfree wrote:
| After switching from Ubuntu to Debian, it feels like Ubuntu is
| just a frankenDebian where packages of different versions are
| mixed haphazardly resulting in many minor but annoying issues.
| steelframe wrote:
| For me Debian has really been "the girl next door" of Linux
| distros over the past 20 years. I've been momentarily pulled
| away by "the new hotness" like Gentoo, Ubuntu, Arch, or
| Flatcar. But I just keep going back to Debian.
|
| With a recent price drop I decided to upgrade the storage on my
| Thinkpad T480s, so I had occasion to reinstall the OS. I went
| with Debian Bullseye. Choosing all the default settings with
| LightDM and XFCE, everything except wireless "just worked."
| Understandably, I had to enable non-free for the Intel wireless
| firmware, but a simple apt install had that working flawlessly.
|
| Everything about my base system is perfect for me. Booting is
| quick. Power management is great, with the battery (now at 90%
| of its original capacity) easily lasting all day. Full volume
| encryption setup was effortless. I even got Secure Boot running
| after following some steps (more or less copy-and-paste) from
| the Debian wiki. When the time comes to upgrade the laptop
| wholesale to something with a more recent CPU, I half expect
| that simply moving the M.2 SSD from my current laptop to the
| new laptop will just work, or at least will require minimal
| tweaking.
|
| I've tried using snap to get more recent versions of things,
| but that ended up being more trouble than it's worth. Now I
| just build my own containers, running them with UID/GID
| mapping, giving access to X11, and bind mounting a dedicated
| home directory for the app. Sort of like a poor man's snap or
| Flatcar Linux, but it's easy enough to figure out, I get more
| customization, and I get to keep my old familiar Debian
| environment.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Wow, if there's one thing open source projects are known for,
| it's dated websites
| vorticalbox wrote:
| > isn't broken don't fix it
|
| Though in this case it's likely to keep it accessible to
| people we slow internet connections.
| hanniabu wrote:
| It's 1.4mb for an incredibly simple page, and a modern
| design doesn't mean it needs to be some bloated webapp
| tmtvl wrote:
| 1.4 MB? WTH, Debian's current page is 14 KB, that is
| 0.014 MB. 1.4 MB, good grief, that is larger than
| Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment.
| cesarb wrote:
| > 1.4 MB? WTH, Debian's current page is 14 KB, that is
| 0.014 MB.
|
| It depends on whether you're looking at just the HTML or
| at the page as a whole. The HTML is that small, but there
| are a couple of JPEG photos on the home page, each
| weighing on the order of hundreds of kilobytes; the total
| including these photos is around 1.4 MB.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Debian's website isn't dated, it's constantly updated and a
| wonderful, comprehensive resource. Unless you're bikeshedding
| about rounded corners or something.
| hanniabu wrote:
| You can have a constantly updated grate resource that's
| still dated. Dated is in reference to the UI.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Could you be more specific? What exactly should Debian's
| website offer that it currently isn't?
| philwelch wrote:
| Half a gig of Javascript and a GDPR popup.
| hanniabu wrote:
| More pleasing to the eyes and not from the 90s. A more
| attractive site wouldn't turn people off as soon as they
| visit it and would yield more users and support. Ubuntu's
| site for example looks nicer and only 0.1mb larger.
| steelframe wrote:
| Are you volunteering to redo debian.org? Because that's
| how this works.
| tapoxi wrote:
| For a desktop, I've had a wonderful experience with Fedora
| Workstation. They're up-to-date while remaining stable, have a
| policy of working with upstream, and don't do any real
| customization to KDE/GNOME.
|
| I am mildly peeved at the whole CentOS debacle but wouldn't mind
| running Fedora on a personal server.
| cmdlinecowboy wrote:
| Just use Rocky Linux or Alma Linux it's basically what Cent
| was. Unless you're running anything super insanely mission
| critical CentOS stream would still be fine for your uses, and
| if you need something THAT highly available support might be
| worth while anyways in an enterprise environment.
| tapoxi wrote:
| Yeah if you're using it for a real server then
| Rocky/Alma/Stream/RHEL. For a personal server I find Fedora
| fine, since my local packages will match my server's.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >For a personal server I find Fedora fine, since my local
| packages will match my server's.
|
| Absolutely. I _also_ use Squid[0] as a proxy for updates[1]
| which, after initial download for one of the dozens of my
| Fedora boxes, caches the updates, reducing bandwidth usage
| and (more importantly) speeding up updates significantly.
|
| [0] https://serverfault.com/questions/837291/squid-and-
| caching-o...
|
| [1] https://linuxiac.com/how-to-use-yum-dnf-command-with-a-
| proxy...
| eximius wrote:
| Linux Mint is the next easiest step from Ubuntu.
|
| Then Debian.
|
| If you want to learn more, try Arch.
|
| If you want to try something avant garde, maybe Guix or NixOS.
| butz wrote:
| Keep running Ubuntu for servers, even consider using Pro if
| pricing is suitable for your use case. 10 years of support is
| pretty good these days. As for desktop: Arch Linux if you like
| tinkering and need "bleeding edge" software; use Fedora Linux, if
| you want to be on "leading edge", and want system that you
| install and it just works; Debian for something more stable.
| Linux Mint is decent too, but their plan for Wayland is not known
| yet, if that's something that important for you.
| ossusermivami wrote:
| Red Hat for work debian for my rpi and personal cloud services
| znpy wrote:
| I just recently decided I'll be switching all my desktop
| computing to fedora.
|
| The xfce spin is okay, everything i need is in the repo and for
| everything else there's flatpak.
|
| F@@k snap.
| jrockway wrote:
| Debian.
|
| Anything that's not up to date enough, I install with Homebrew. I
| did not follow the drama but I know that there was a time when
| even Unstable was missing a recent version of Emacs. Homebrew has
| it on release day. With the combination of Debian stable and
| Homebrew, you get a stable core and the bleeding edge for the 3
| pieces of software you actually care about. Perfect.
| tkuraku wrote:
| RHEL/Rocky for server / Enterprise.
|
| Debian is another option that I also use for my personal
| workstation. Debian is nice in that there won't be any crazy
| profit driven decisions. It is super stable. I think it is a much
| saner option than Ubuntu.
| cmdlinecowboy wrote:
| Hannah Montana Linux
| codetrotter wrote:
| On my servers I run FreeBSD. It's stable and it will most likely
| continue to exist for decades to come unaffected by corporate
| interests, just like it has for ages so far.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Arch, Gentoo
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| I have anecdotal evidence that many people moved from Debian to
| ArchLinix over the last 5..10 years.
|
| ArchLinux is the unassuming kind of distro that gives way to
| upstream.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| One such user. Switched to Arch almost a decade ago (from
| Ubuntu->Mint->PopOS), and now on Asahi Linux (which is just
| ArchARM with a small overlay of 15-20 driver/kernel packages).
| xmonkee wrote:
| I have a M1 mac. How frustrating is Asahi compared to macos?
| I love me some linux but hate the driver fiddling
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Here's an draft of my upcoming review:
| https://hackmd.io/@captn3m0/ByWpMgZho.
|
| tl;dr: Asahi works great on Apple Silicon. There's a small
| collection of software (like Widevine/Zig) that isn't
| available on Asahi/ARM64, and some important features that
| are still in progress (Speakers/Webcam/Mic/External
| Monitors). GPU and Sleep support is still experimental, but
| the device is usable enough for me (No critical
| showstoppers so far).
| aquova wrote:
| Steam's platform survey would agree with you. Ubuntu share has
| been decreasing steadily over the years while Arch/Manjaro has
| gone up (not even counting Steam Deck)
|
| I am one of them, having switched from Ubuntu to Arch two or so
| years ago due to frustrations with the platform. Arch is a bit
| more hands on, especially at first install, but it has solved
| all my complaints from Ubuntu. If OP is interested, I would
| recommend looking at EndeavourOS, which is probably the most
| friendly way to get into the Arch ecosystem, without it getting
| in the way.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| Meh. I'm going back to bsd. Though I have to admit, the ease of
| configuring 3rd party proprietary drivers has sort of delayed my
| departure from ubuntu.
|
| I'm real close to throwing out my Intel NUC + Ubuntu and starting
| from scratch. It's just too unstable. I tried going back to SuSE,
| but alas, it's everything I don't care for in ubuntu, only with
| different minor nits. Maybe RYO leenucks where I build all my
| tools from scratch.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| Gentoo, no I'm serious.
| Darmody wrote:
| I think Pop_OS! is also a good choice if you want it only the the
| desktop and not servers.
|
| They are doing a great work with their shell on top of Gnome and
| their own DE is on the way. Even though they are a company, they
| take the community seriously.
|
| I can't wait to have a DE with screen independent workspaces.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Debian was always a solid choice I ultimately ended up with in
| the last two decades.
| bmitc wrote:
| What about Linux Mint?
| atdrummond wrote:
| I run my personal servers on Debian and OpenBSD. My OpenBSD
| machine just hit 12 years of uptime.
| peoplearepeople wrote:
| NixOS
| blippage wrote:
| I used to like Ubuntu, but gave up on it for similar reasons. I
| have an old machine, so I find Ubuntu too bloated. I've been on
| Debian Stable for a few years now, using MATE. It's fuss-free. I
| don't find the software too old, but I use a few bits that I've
| compiled myself. Linux Mint has a good reputation, so I would
| consider that if I was thinking of moving away from Debian.
| 404mm wrote:
| I dislike Ubuntu for the same reasons and I can recommend two
| paths:
|
| For environments where you expect and appreciate stability-
| Debian. Hands down. Your initial feel is going to be like a
| leaner Ubuntu with a few extra steps (non free drivers or
| software). Very low learning curve.
|
| If you don't mind "staying on top of your OS and packages", then
| I'd recommend Arch Linux for desktop (not server). There is never
| "end of support of any release" because it's a rolling release
| distro. Do your updates regularly and you'll be good to go. They
| have one of the best wiki in the Linux world and it's a low
| maintenance distro once you set it all up. A bit steep learning
| curve at first but I'd argue that this learning is beneficial to
| general understanding of Linux.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Why not server? Because of stability?
|
| I use Arch as my main server for 5 years or so and never had
| any issues. I just update when I think about it.
| hiq wrote:
| > I just update when I think about it.
|
| What about security vulnerabilities?
| 404mm wrote:
| Stability is great, never had any issues either. Really it's
| the frequent package updates. Instead of applying security
| updates as needed, you are constantly updating all packages
| as they are released.
|
| Depending on what your server does, this may be less than
| ideal.
| sombragris wrote:
| Slackware 14.0 was released in 2012.
|
| Last update was on January 19, 2023, a security update on sudo.
| Check for yourself:
|
| http://slackware.uk/slackware/slackware-14.0/ChangeLog.txt
| cesarb wrote:
| > I have been running Ubuntu on servers and desktops for around
| twenty years
|
| If you have been running Ubuntu for that long, and don't have
| much experience with other distributions, the stable distribution
| you will probably feel the most comfortable with will be Debian.
| From an administration point of view, they are very similar; not
| only do both use dpkg and apt for package management, but also
| small things like details of the structure of the configuration
| in /etc are very similar. This is because Ubuntu started as, and
| still is, a derivative of the much older Debian distribution. The
| only thing you might miss would be Ubuntu-specific stuff like
| snaps; and you might also get a bit annoyed by Debian stable
| having older versions of packages than you might be used to (it's
| a slow-moving distribution, more similar to enterprise
| distributions like RHEL in that aspect).
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Distrowatch carries on after all these years, and (at the least)
| gives a fairly good catalogue of Linux and BSD distro
| capabilities in textual and tabular format.
|
| https://distrowatch.com/
|
| Try some out as VMs before comitting to bare metal installs.
|
| EDIT: I see that MX Linux continues to reside as the "top" distro
| according to that site's methodology. MX has been on top there
| for a very long time.
| timbit42 wrote:
| It's methodology is page hits so it can be manipulated pretty
| easily. I see MX Linux at the top but I never see people
| talking about it on social media so it makes me wonder how it
| got to the top of the list.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| This is surprising for me, too. OTOH I'm using it right now.
| Maybe it's up there because it just works without much
| hassle? By that I mean not having to go into any configs, and
| editing them by hand? They have graphical config tools which
| did anything I needed to, click, click, clickety click. Chic!
| Furthermore they support the usecase of installing it to
| livemedia like USB-sticks, external HDD/SSD via USB, or even
| booting into RAM, and running from there. Even on older
| systems, rock stable. All in all very impressive. Like their
| cousin AntiX, too. No wonder, they are using the same
| toolsets running atop Debian.
|
| Very pragmatic mindset towards daily driver on
| whatever(common) hardware under whichever circumstances.
|
| Maybe that motivated users to rank it up there? (I didn't,
| btw.)
| Sunspark wrote:
| Distrowatch rankings are based on clicks. If someone wanted
| Hannah Montana Linux to be #1 in the ranking, it could be done.
| squarefoot wrote:
| You seem to want the real thing, that is, Debian.
|
| However, if you need something really small and fast, mostly for
| VMs or servers, although it can also be turned int a full
| fledged, still very resource efficient desktop, take also a look
| at Alpine Linux. Musl makes all the difference there.
|
| Then, should someone with no prior Linux experience ask you to
| install a desktop for them, I would go with Manjaro, which to me
| is the most straightforward, while still not bloated, for new
| users.
| pestatije wrote:
| > breaking apt upgrades on 20.04 LTS
|
| Could you be more specific? I upgraded from 20.04 to 22.04
| without any issues.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Attempts to apt upgrade on my 20.04 workstation is met with a
| notice that certain security updates require a Pro subscription
| with "esm-apps" enabled. My desktop has been nagging me with
| notifications -- daily -- that 20.04 will no longer be
| supported this year. This despite 20.04 being an LTS release
| that should provide security updates for another couple of
| years.
|
| Sure, this might be a simple bug in their apt implementation,
| but it's been present for weeks now. It's a sign of corporate-
| driven rot, and my 30 years experience in the industry tells me
| that this is the tip of an iceberg that could sink their
| Titanic. I want off the boat before it sinks.
| lazide wrote:
| Not the original poster, but I just had issues where normal
| operations of Ubuntu desktop (literally just installing updates
| after installing a new distribution) completely broke the OS -
| something crashed during apt update/upgrade and it nuked
| /var/lib/dpkg and all it's data, which broke everything in a
| non recoverable way.
|
| It did it twice, but I couldn't figure out why.
| jodoherty wrote:
| I live in a region with a lot of government contracting
| businesses, so Red Hat Enterprise Linux is something I have to
| maintain a working familiarity with.
|
| However, I use Debian for all of my personal projects and
| infrastructure.
|
| The reason? There's no for-profit corporate interest directly
| controlling the project. The project's organizational structure
| resembles a constitutional democracy:
|
| https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
|
| There is an incorporated entity in the United States to handle a
| number of intellectual property and financial concerns:
|
| https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/
|
| However, it exists as a non-profit with a very narrowly defined,
| specific set of purposes:
|
| https://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/certificate-of-incorporati...
|
| Because of this, I feel like the Debian project has a good
| combination of people and resources, making it easy to rely on
| long-term, but without the for-profit corporate interests that
| may conflict with my own in the future.
| loxias wrote:
| I've used exclusively Debian on all my servers and laptops for
| the last 20ish years.
|
| Can confirm, it will continue to keep working, however there
| might be some things that piss one off in a similar manner as
| Ubuntu's snaps. I hate systemd for example, but grudgingly
| accept it.
| bleuuuu wrote:
| why the aversion to systemd?
| volkadav wrote:
| There's been gigabytes of text spilled in flames back and
| forth about systemd over the last ... decade? The first
| google completion suggestion for "is system" is "bad" and
| that'll lead you to plenty of criticism about it, lol.
|
| For myself, eh. I find it a little annoying but basically
| tolerable, sort of like a reinvention of SMF from solaris.
| Linux system config / init has gotten a hell of a lot more
| complex since I first touched it in the mid-90s, sometimes
| we get more functionality for that and other times the
| grognard in me wants to bin it all and retreat to Slackware
| or something. What was the old joke, Microsoft admins have
| solitare.exe and Linux admins have "fiddling with text
| files"? :)
| bayindirh wrote:
| In short, developers' attitude towards critics and initial
| design decisions.
|
| Now it's better, not but perfect, and a lead dev working
| for Microsoft doesn't inspire confidence about its long
| term agenda.
|
| I can post links to comments of mine if you're interested
| further.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| You might find this interesting: https://nosystemd.org/
| janmarsal wrote:
| [flagged]
| loxias wrote:
| I don't like the design at a fundamental level. It feels
| brittle, bloated, and not very unixy. I'd rather have my
| init system be a handful of microscopic executables, using
| text files or symlinks for configuration and text files for
| logging.
|
| I don't like everything depending on systemd it feels like
| too much complexity at the wrong part of the stack. It
| doesn't jive with my sense of architecture, it's not well
| _designed_ software.
| derefr wrote:
| Systemd _does_ use "text files or symlinks for
| configuration" -- those being the unit files in
| /lib/systemd and /etc/systemd. `systemctl enable` just
| makes a symlink from /lib/systemd into /etc/systemd,
| even. What would you point to to claim that it does
| otherwise?
|
| > text files for logging
|
| ...just sucks, on both embedded systems and production
| servers. (I.e. anywhere where you aren't debugging the
| machine _on_ the machine, but rather from another
| machine.)
|
| Either the program just writes to a plain text file
| forever -- and so fills up your disk the first time it
| goes haywire (so now you have _two_ critical runtime
| problems!); or it implements its own log rotation and
| compression (as must every other daemon -- not very
| unixy!); or it must be specifically wired to work with
| syslog APIs in order to use rsyslog (which, by the way,
| uses binary wire protocols as well; logging at scale hasn
| 't been text-based in a long time.)
|
| Journald, meanwhile, just sits on the other side of the
| pipe from any systemd service-unit's stdout + stderr;
| manages log rotation + compression in a centralized way
| (which also means you get cross-unit log compression for
| free); and offers CLI tooling to pipe the multiplexed log
| stream back into anything that wants to read from it, in
| whatever _format_ those things want to read from it (i.e.
| tools that want JSON Lines, get JSON Lines; tools that
| want plaintext, get plaintext; tools that want a binary
| record stream, get a binary record stream.)
|
| Is this a Unixy approach? Well, it's pretty much the same
| one taken by the extremely venerable Unix/Linux line-
| printer (lp) subsystem -- CLI commands, with textual
| config files, for interacting with a system daemon (lpd)
| that manages and manipulates binary _state_ files, within
| daemon-owned directories. Would you complain that the
| contents of /var/spool/lpd aren't human-readable?
| amluto wrote:
| Systemd had no shortage of issues, but:
|
| > text files or symlinks for configuration and text files
| for logging.
|
| Systemd gets this right and arguably pushed the whole
| ecosystem in this direction. The old rc scripts could
| barely be considered a text file and symlink
| configuration system -- they were a pile of text files
| containing a miserable combination of code and
| configuration mixed together, along with a very simple
| configuration (this service is enabled in these
| runlevels, more or less) that got translated, hopefully
| correctly, into symlinks. Of course, nothing really kept
| the symlink farm consistent with itself or anything else
| except a pile of additional scripts associated with
| packages that tried and usually succeeded.
| loxias wrote:
| I agree with (basically) all of this, the larger point.
| I'll note that I said "or"... ;-) (CYA)
|
| I'm not sure what the "right" solution looks like,
| perhaps a directory of TOML or JSON files. Perhaps the
| aforementioned + executable shell scripts with
| predictable naming? _handwave handwave_ as long as it 's
| "UNIXy". (consist of easy to edit text & not invent a new
| anything & be composed of pieces which do one thing well)
| paulddraper wrote:
| > text files or symlinks for configuration
|
| Like...Systemd?
| hyperpl wrote:
| Do you think we'll get lucky with a systemd replacement
| similar to how pulseaudio has been deprecated by a much
| more reasonable implementation Pipewire?
| amluto wrote:
| In my copious free time, I have a vague idea of designing
| and implementing a mechanism called kpid1.
|
| Basically, a task running as pid 1 (including in a
| container) could call a new kpid1() syscall, which would
| cause the kernel to completely take it over. The kernel
| would take care of all the usual init work, and it would
| expose the minimal API (presumably using a new kind of
| fd) to allow a different task to give it instructions and
| manage zombies as needed. And that's it.
|
| It's worth noting that the entire concept of pid 1 is
| very unixy, but not in a good way. Reasonable modern
| designs (e.g. all the Windows variants) don't have any
| real equivalent.
| zh3 wrote:
| Bugs and complexity is the usual reason. It seems to be a
| competence thing - experienced admins find it harder to
| debug and fix systemd issues, while regular users care less
| about being able to pop the hood and fix things themself.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| Which issues? The last time I ran into a systemd issue
| was in 2016.
| cramjabsyn wrote:
| It breaks the philosophy of doing one thing well, has an
| awkward and esoteric config language and keeps growing in
| scope.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| If you don't like systemd why don't you run Devuan? It's just
| Debian without systemd. I'm running it in a VM now to try it
| out and it's been great, so far. I like having everything
| back to being plain text that I can monitor and manipulate as
| I like. Rather than logs being weird binaries that need their
| own special tools to access.
| txutxu wrote:
| Fortunately, we can still use Debian without systemd. I'm
| forced to use systemd in many places, but for example this
| laptop were I'm writing runs Debian without systemd.
|
| For me it's more to worry about: the influence that paid
| Ubuntu developers gain, year after year, inside Debian. Or
| the presence of ubuntu/canonical changes inside Debian
| packages.
|
| Regarding Ubuntu... I'm forced to use it at work, and we use
| to "debianize" ubuntu servers... this is: remove snaps and
| snapd, remove netplan (for ifupdown), remove lot of
| dependencies that come with the minimal install (used only
| for their paid services), remove many services/packages
| (cloudinit, multipathd, polkit, motd-news, lxd, apport,
| etc)...
|
| And the recommends of the recommends of the recommends of the
| recommends of all that.
|
| In the last LTS, we we're forced to build our own installer
| at the end: a minimal live system + debootstrap + a couple of
| scripts (parted/mkfs/grub-install).
|
| With the previous debian-based installer, we were able to fix
| most of the Canonical decisions via preseed... with the last
| version it was a pain until I did our own installer.
|
| Still, for many people, being driven by ubuntu, is perfectly
| fine. They use to hate forced UI changes (i.e. my mum), but
| everything else is fine for them while "it works".
|
| It's maybe just more technical people who are bothered by the
| underlying changes.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > I hate systemd for example
|
| Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but everytime I hear
| this, I have difficulty listening to the rest.
|
| Systemd is 10x easier and more manageable than every
| alternative.
| bsg75 wrote:
| Can you provide example of what makes it easier than
| alternatives?
| bayindirh wrote:
| No.
|
| (As a sysadmin of 15 years, I can clearly say all of them
| have their advantages and disadvantages, but being easy and
| manageable is not an advantage of systemd, but a property
| of _all of them_ )
| yobbo wrote:
| Debian now works fine without systemd. The alternatives are
| sysvinit, openrc and runit. I've removed systemd from many
| working installations. The problem is rather the many random
| dependencies.
|
| _(Block systemd in a preference file with priority -1. apt
| install openrc (for example). Read the warnings. Reboot. apt
| purge systemd. Freedom.)_
| fragmede wrote:
| Comes full circle as Ubuntu is derived from Debian
| nine_k wrote:
| As somebody said, "Ubuntu is Debian-based the same way milk
| is grass-based".
| a-dub wrote:
| ubuntu started out as "debian, but with more up to date
| packages and some light polish."
|
| as a long time debian user in the 90s, ubuntu was an
| exciting new step for debian based distros.
| every wrote:
| The Gray Lady of distros...
| ungawatkt wrote:
| Yeah, I just set up a new personal server, and after
| experimenting with Linux Mint a bit, decided that mint wanted
| to be a desktop with a gui more than a server (which is totally
| fine!) and ended up at Debian, after years of defaulting to
| Ubuntu. Debian feels more or less the same once I gave myself
| the option of installing unstable packages (which I probably
| wouldn't do for a professional server, but seems fine for a
| personal one).
| fbouvier wrote:
| 75 6 de j'y
| mvanbaak wrote:
| Have a look at FreeBSD. The documentation and the fact userland
| and kernel are developed and released together changed my whole
| admin experience.
| lucabs wrote:
| [dead]
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I have been liking Pop[1] on desktop, it's pretty functional out
| of the box, doesn't stuff snaps down your throat (but makes them,
| and Flatpak, possible if that's your thing). On servers Debian is
| familiar-feeling but more straightforward for me.
|
| 1: https://pop.system76.com/
| agilob wrote:
| If you want control and trust into the system, you're choosing
| between Arch and Nix
| noloblo wrote:
| fedora/centos
| sdumi wrote:
| Void linux. For personal use, I switched to it couple of years
| ago after I had some weird issues on Ubuntu. Very stable,
| everything works as expected: the OS is just there in the
| background, almost unnoticed, as an OS should be.
| konart wrote:
| Fedora - stable and predictable. A perfect distro for home\work
| PC.
| js8 wrote:
| I also had issues with Ubuntu's snap Firefox. And I am also
| considering leaving (after almost 20 years).
|
| My biggest issue was snaps taking huge amohnt of disk space. My
| 30GB system partition was running out of space. What I usually do
| is to move the big stuff to another disk and symlink to it.
| Moving snap directory this way caused mounting issues, Firefox
| was unable to download anything.
|
| I switched to normal Firefox from apt (non-snap) and it works. I
| am considering Debian.
|
| I think Ubuntu (like Mozilla) needs to realize who is their user
| base - increasingly conservative, occasionally tinkering, users.
| They need to be more careful with sweeping changes.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Ubuntu gave up on the desktop user experience when they dropped
| Unity. Linux Mint has the best desktop user experience now and
| no Snaps. For servers I would recommend Debian stable.
| jm4 wrote:
| A lot of people mentioning Debian. Great distro. If you're
| comfortable with Debian, you might as well check out Arch too.
| Can't go wrong with either one.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I use Debian for my personal workstation. I can't get basic shit
| like Bluetooth to work but that's all right lol.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| After a major Ubuntu version upgrade completely broke
| virtualization, I switched to OpenSUSE. It has a very
| professional feel and YaST is a great tool for (re)configuring
| the system without having to look up commandline specifics for
| every one-off action I wanted to perform. I use Leap for my work
| laptop and Tumbleweed for my home PC. Both are very stable.
|
| I also use Manjaro on the side but for a rolling release it lags
| slightly behind OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. AUR provides a good
| supplement of software but more are providing alternatives via
| Flatpak nowadays. Fedora is a good choice too. I recommend trying
| all of these before making a decision.
| hamilyon2 wrote:
| OpenSUSE has it's quirks, but I have been happy user for 7
| years. Tumbleweed saves me headache of upgrading every n years
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| I've literally never had a positive experience doing major
| version upgrades in Ubuntu during ~5 years of usage. I only
| broke some minor things once on Tumbleweed and it was fixed
| via a Snapper rollback within minutes.
| beebmam wrote:
| Try building a Linux system from scratch! It won't be as
| functional immediately, but you'll learn a lot.
| pt_PT_guy wrote:
| OpenSuse Leap
| cmdlinecowboy wrote:
| Red Hat for enterprise use, Fedora for personal desktop use. One
| of the largest communities you'll find. If you want Debian based
| maybe just straight Debian.
|
| The centos debacle was poorly handled but I think what red hat
| was /trying/ to do made sense. The community just wasn't there to
| sustain it. Red Hat was paying to give away free RHEL basically
| lol. CentOS Stream should have just been called RHEL Stream. It's
| basically RHEL minus minor bugs that would only effect small
| pools of people.
|
| I'm glad Rocky and Alma sprung up and have budding communities
| though.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Fedora should not be recommended anymore for personal desktop
| use for the simple reason that they removed hardware
| accelerated video decoding and encoding support. Must all run
| on the CPU now.
| jacooper wrote:
| You can enable it manually, like almost every other non-
| beginner friendly fedora quirk
|
| https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/proprietary-video-codecs-
| are...
| Delk wrote:
| It's a bit more nuanced than that. Fedora disabled hardware
| video decoding support in their _Mesa_ builds, which mostly
| affects AMD GPUs. Intel has hardware video decoding in the
| GPU driver (or in the firmware or wherever), and it 's not
| dependent on Mesa having it enabled. NVidia of course does
| its own thing.
|
| It's still a shame for AMD GPU users, of course, although
| understandable from the point of view of legal risk
| management.
| Lucasoato wrote:
| Is there any specific reason to choose them over Linux Mint?
| I'm genuinely asking, I've never tried Red Hat or Fedora.
| exegete wrote:
| Here's why not Linux Mint. It's a few years old so I'm not
| sure if these issues are solved but I've never heard of
| Debian or Fedora having these issues:
| https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/
| danieldk wrote:
| Fedora is much more secure (a strong focus on SELinux, secure
| boot, etc.). Fedora has more cutting edge software (latest
| GNOME, gcc, etc.) while still being very stable.
|
| A large chunk of the gcc/glibc/GNOME/Wayland/... developers
| are employed by Red Hat and Fedora shows that, it's where the
| Linux workstation is going and has an amazingly good of
| integration of new tech. Most other mainstream distributions
| trail by several years.
| timbit42 wrote:
| I would recommend Linux Mint for desktops and Debian stable
| for servers.
| kleiba wrote:
| OP wants to get away from Ubuntu, but Linux Mint is based on
| Ubuntu. Maybe that would be reason for OP to disprefer Mint?
| tmtvl wrote:
| What about LMDE?
| exegete wrote:
| OP mentioned stability and long-term supported as what
| he's looking for. The Linux Mint team have stated LMDE is
| more for themselves to gather info and not a priority. So
| I would stay away if looking for stability and long-term
| support.
|
| "We work on LMDE primarily for us, to get that
| information. It is not a priority, certainly not compared
| to Linux Mint itself..."
| https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=4276
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's barely even a real distribution; it's an escape
| plan for Mint to leave Ubuntu if necessary. This is not a
| serious suggestion.
| tejtm wrote:
| Mint so far has avoided forcing snaps, I will jump ship too
| if they do.
| EFreethought wrote:
| One of OP's issues is Ubuntu forcing snaps. I think Mint
| disables snap by default:
|
| https://linuxmint-user-
| guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/snap.h...
|
| Another Ubuntu derivative that does not use snaps is
| System76's Pop!_OS
| criddell wrote:
| Isn't one of the purposes of snaps to allow finer grained
| permissions? In non-snap systems, how do you prevent that
| weather app you just installed from accessing your camera
| and microphone?
| eVeechu7 wrote:
| It runs as a user without the necessary permissions to
| access those devices?
| dotancohen wrote:
| So one should configure an alternative user for each
| group of permissions that any arbitrary app might need?
| Then what happens the day that I do decide that my
| weather app should access e.g. my location? Now I should
| move all its data and update my launch scripts to the new
| user?
|
| I happen to dislike snaps as well. The hard coded install
| directory is a passion point for me. But at least the
| permissions issue they are getting right.
|
| I wish that desktop distros would adopt the Android
| permissions paradigm.
| maxk42 wrote:
| Unfortunately Fedora has been making a lot of similar decisions
| to Ubuntu lately, although it's still better IMO. I'd say
| coming from Ubuntu, Mint is probably a lower learning curve
| anyway.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Could you please give some examples of those similar
| decisions? I'm eager to find any evidence of the Fedora
| admins as bad actors.
| prophesi wrote:
| My only complaint is that the switch to Wireplumber caused
| a lot of audio issues on my machine until I reverted back
| to PulseAudio.
|
| I could also see people not wanting Wayland by default,
| though that has been working fine for me and the software I
| use.
|
| I've only been using Fedora for 2 years, but apart from
| those two decisions, it's been a lot more stable than my
| time with Ubuntu.
| gtirloni wrote:
| _> I could also see people not wanting Wayland by
| default_
|
| It takes a single line change in /etc/gdm/custom.conf to
| disable it.
| johnny22 wrote:
| I haven't seen a decision made in the past that would be
| relevant, but there is one for future fedora releases
| https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/269 about
| installing certain apps as flatpaks rather than rpms by
| default. These would be fedora based flatpaks rather than
| from flathub.
|
| It does not actually say how it interacts with existing
| rpms or whether said rpms will continue to exist or be
| maintained in the future.
|
| I would say it's too early to get up in arms about just
| yet.
|
| Me personally, I agree with this approach, but a lot of
| other people clearly won't.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| What decisions? Fedora is my daily driver and I follow Fedora
| dev pretty closely, so far they haven't done anything like
| Ubuntu. Maybe the custom Flathub repo? But that's a
| requirement for them since they can't host proprietary
| software for legal reasons.
| danieldk wrote:
| As far as I understand, the next Fedora release will stop
| masking most of Flathub by default.
| jacooper wrote:
| My main gripe with RHEL based distros is the lack of support
| for in-place upgrades. I know you shouldn't do it, etc but for
| small servers that can benefit from newer kernel versions, its
| annoying.
|
| Also dnf-autoupdate doesn't support auto restarts to update the
| kernel.
| fweimer wrote:
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports in-place upgrades:
| https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
| us/red_hat_enterp...
| https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
| us/red_hat_enterp...
|
| Here "supports" means "does not result in itself in a loss of
| support coverage". It's been possible to do it in an
| unsupported fashion before.
| kjellsbells wrote:
| I just moved over from Ubuntu to Fedora as I felt I was
| starting to lose my edge: apt is so easy you forget that the
| other half of the universe thinks in dnf and I need to keep my
| skills sharp. Its been a good decision.
|
| A bad decision was to use a Fedora mix with KDE. It works very
| well, but I think its rough edges would simply not be there if
| I'd chosen the GNOME path. You get the sense that the RH team
| default to GNOME and KDE is an afterthought. Which is fine by
| me, but its a bit of a shame, cos I much prefer it.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >A bad decision was to use a Fedora mix with KDE. It works
| very well, but I think its rough edges would simply not be
| there if I'd chosen the GNOME path.
|
| I've been using Fedora as a desktop for many years and agree
| that KDE is annoying. That said, I understand your point of
| view, but I find Gnome to be _even more_ so.
|
| Which is why I use XFCE[0] instead. It generally works pretty
| well, although I don't push it all that hard. Perhaps it
| might be a good desktop for you too?
|
| [0] https://techviewleo.com/install-xfce-desktop-environment-
| on-...
| dotancohen wrote:
| KDE user here who has been installing Debian derived distros
| for about a decade, Fedora Core before that. I often
| reconsider Fedora. What KDE specific issues should I know
| about before giving serious consideration to moving back?
| kissgyorgy wrote:
| NixOS is by far the best choice if you want an os to learn for
| the next 20 years.
| danieldk wrote:
| I love NixOS and was a nixpkgs committer. I think a lot of
| ideas from Nix will get adopted by the wider Linux ecosystem.
| But I think it is far more likely that immutable systems based
| on OSTree, like Silverblue and Fedora CoreOS will become the OS
| for the next 20 years. It is much more familiar to most people
| and provides many of the same benefits. Especially now OSTree
| is adopting Docker/OCI images as a transport [1], the line
| between building systems and building containers is blurring. A
| lot of organizations have plenty of institutional knowledge in
| building Docker containers and OSTree with containers makes
| system building pretty much the same.
|
| [1] https://coreos.github.io/rpm-ostree/container/
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" something that will be stable and supported for the next
| twenty years"_
|
| Then the safest bet is to choose something that was popular and
| stable twenty years ago.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect ( _"...the longer a
| period something has survived to exist or be used in the present,
| the longer its remaining life expectancy "_)
|
| You *probably* just want Debian. There's many reasonable options
| but that one's the Schelling point for this question (I think).
|
| edit: Here's the list of Slashdot linux threads from 2003. I
| think anything flamed in there that's still around is a Lindy
| candidate.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=site:linux.slashdot.org/stor...
| ploum wrote:
| I want to highlight this answer.
|
| Ubuntu is completely based upon Debian. Going back to Debian
| ensure familiarity with tools (like apt). Also, the longer
| release cycle is perfectly adapted for people using only Ubuntu
| LTS (which, in itself, is quite awkward as Ubuntu was created
| to allow short release cycle for desktop users).
|
| There's also multiple companies offering Debian support if
| needed.
|
| And it can safely be assumed that Debian is probably one of the
| 10 operating systems with the most probability of still being
| supported in 20 years.
|
| On the downsides, you may end using some experimental/external
| repositories to have some bleeding edges applications and those
| make dist-upgrade often problematic (not that it is better with
| Ubuntu). You may also lose some automatic configuration at
| install time. I've one laptop which, for example, does not have
| middle-click working out-of-the box (it is just one apt-get
| away but you have to know what you want).
|
| So, yeah, Debian should be one of the first to consider.
| chubot wrote:
| Honest question: how is Debian's hardware compatibility
| compared to Ubuntu?
|
| My impression is that Ubuntu had people testing it on modern
| hardware, either on the Canonical side, or perhaps on the
| Dell side (even though I don't own any Dell now)
|
| About 10 years ago I installed Debian on a desktop, and I
| remember having graphics issues that I didn't have with
| Ubuntu.
|
| I guess I needed the proprietary driver that Ubuntu offered?
| I don't remember exactly. Probably some nvidia crap
|
| But either way, I just want to buy some hardware and have the
| graphics and sound work.
|
| Is Ubuntu currently any better than Debian in that regard? Do
| they have more testing, or are they the same now?
| gen220 wrote:
| Any solution that work with Ubuntu should theoretically
| work with Debian. You'll just need to cobble it together
| more manually, I imagine.
|
| The good news is that Debian is a very popular distro.
| You'll be able to find copious amount of information online
| to guide you to relevant hardware support [1].
|
| It's not at all a "it just works" situation. But if you're
| comfortable with getting your hands a bit dirty, and you're
| not using any super exotic hardware, it's not at all bad.
|
| [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers
| barnabee wrote:
| A few years ago I used to install Ubuntu because it just
| handled hardware out of the box that Debian didn't, or
| needed a lot of effort to get working.
|
| Now Debian seems to run on everything I throw it at. YMMV
| of course.
| jrm4 wrote:
| For what it's worth, I was expecting this to be mostly about
| desktops. Presently I'll throw some love to MX Linux, which
| appears to be a good example for "Just works."
|
| Broadly, this is feeling more and more like a cycle that one can
| figure out how to "ride?" As, before for me it has been e.g.
| Lubuntu, Xubuntu, LXLE, etc. Basically something like "find
| something Debian-ish" that there's a little bit of, but not TOO
| much, new energy by people who just want something simple.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Nitpicking: Not for 20 years, but for 18.5 years at most - Warty
| Warthog, 4.10, came out in October 2004.
| rwky wrote:
| I'm going to throw my hat in the Debian ring like a lot of other
| comments. The whole snap thing annoyed me too. I use Debian
| solely on Desktops now I do have some Ubuntu servers but slowly
| moving what I can to Debian.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| > without being ruined by corporate interests
|
| I cannot begin to address the issue of "agendae" of various Linux
| and BSD distro builders, as any number of disagreements have
| arisen about almost any of them for many reasons (i.e. systemd,
| dbus, proprietary software, personality differences, etc. etc.)
|
| I'll just add that if you have time, set up several Linux and/or
| BSD OSes in VMs and take them each for a spin to find what suits
| you.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > ... breaking apt upgrades on 20.04 LTS in order to push their
| Pro agenda
|
| I'm running 20.04, and this is news to me. What is the nature of
| the breakage?
| dandanua wrote:
| You could try NixOS if stability is that important. It requires
| time investment, but it saves time too.
| geocrasher wrote:
| Another vote for Debian. Depending on the workload, FreeBSD is
| excellent as well.
| cookiengineer wrote:
| I had a similar problem back around 2015 when I could not dist
| upgrade the UbuntuGNOME I was using. Switched to Arch, which was
| painful to install (remember LFS?) but never regretted switching
| to it.
|
| For customers I still recommend going for RedHat or Debian
| though, because the LTS support is great and the distros keeps
| working and is really low in maintenance overhead.
|
| Whereas on Arch you always can fix it, but when it breaks you
| can't do that on a server without a terminal/monitor/keyboard, so
| I wouldn't recommend running it on server infrastructure if it's
| the host system.
| Keyframe wrote:
| As personal/work OS, I ran Fedora for eons and then I moved to
| Pop which was great. However, while waiting for next iteration
| (22.10 omitted), I briefly distro hopper again. Fedora, fine but
| I had various dmaller issues that I knew I wouldn't on
| debian/pop. Tried Alma, but same thing. In the end I defaulted to
| Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + Lambda Stack. So far so good, albeit a bit
| boring which is fine in my book. I'll see where Pop and Alma go
| next. Watching those two basically, until then - Ubuntu+Lambda.
| spudlyo wrote:
| I don't know if either Nix or Guix will be stable and supported
| for the next twenty years, but they probably won't be ruined by
| corporate interests. I've personally quite enjoyed learning about
| functional package management, where a package is seen as a pure
| function whose arguments are all its dependencies, the source,
| and the build tools. The output of the function are the binary
| artifacts.
|
| It's a good idea, and if you like the idea of setting up your
| computers by programming in Scheme, Guix will be right up your
| alley.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I think Debian/Fedora(or RedHat if you're willing to pay) are
| fine on the enterprise side.
|
| For personal use... I fell in love with Arch. Between the Arch
| User Repository (AUR) and the quick upgrades, I really struggle
| to use anything else these days.
|
| Arch takes a bit more work to get online than some of the other
| distros, but I've been amazingly happy running it across all my
| personal machines (from desktops to laptops to servers to media
| machines) - It's a fantastic engine to build a machine around,
| but you will have to do a bit of building.
| codemac wrote:
| Arch isn't too difficult, but I've been using it since ~2005 or
| so.
|
| Something that is hard to quantify - arch uses vanilla
| software, almost entirely. Very very few patches/configurations
| are deployed. This means you're actually learning about the
| upstream software, not the distro.
|
| What you learn on Arch, generally applies to other distros as
| you know something about the upstream software. I don't know a
| thing about debian, but I can generally figure things out.
| notorandit wrote:
| For me it was Archlinux. Listen Ubuntu. You rely on third party
| packages and don't really mind to fix them, just bounce users
| upstream. Yes, you are based upon Debian. You cannot fix "their"
| bugs. You should, instead, because those are your users'.
|
| Archlinux is far from perfect, but nearer than you, Ubuntu.
| FpUser wrote:
| I have about the same feeling. Leaning towards Debian. My infra
| allows automatic build / deploy on dedicated servers and I made
| sure that it works on Ubuntu, Debian, Arch and Mint. Not looking
| forward to Arch for production obviously.
| kkfx wrote:
| NixOS. Declarative config, so easy to reproduce, very easy to
| create a custom iso, nothing like preseed/kickstart nightmare.
|
| Nix language is as (in)digestible as haskell, Guix System so
| might be a wiser choice, but unfortunately it's development is
| too steered toward HPC/academic usages that miss some things to
| be ready IMO for servers and desktops in a generic computing
| environment, unfortunately.
|
| In 2023 NO CLASSIC distro or OS is wise IMVHO.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Stable? Debian or Fedora.
|
| For an end-user machine, I've found that rolling release is much
| better than point release (much newer, _less buggy /crashy_ --
| paradoxically -- versions of software and GPU drivers).
| (Although, surprisingly, Fedora seems to have very fast package
| updates despite being a point release.) For rolling, Manjaro is
| my top pick. Arch is a close second, assuming you've mastered the
| arcane art of its installation.
|
| You might be thinking, "But a fringe, rolling release
| distribution can't be as stable as Ubuntu, the de facto default
| point release distro that ostensibly claims 99% of Linux
| marketshare." You would be insane to _not_ be thinking that. But
| I guess companies ' potential for incompetence is even more
| insane since that's been the opposite of my experience. I've had
| less installation issues and crashes during daily use of Manjaro
| than on Ubuntu over the last few years, which really surprised
| me. It's like Ubuntu is decaying. Or maybe I just got bad RNG. Or
| maybe it's that program and DE devs are always working on the
| latest version of their software while older versions are an
| afterthought, so rolling distributions that keep you up to date
| with the latest versions seem stabler. :p
| b1ue64 wrote:
| > assuming you've mastered the arcane art of its installation.
|
| Archinstall [1] exists, so there isn't much reason to use
| Manjaro anymore (which has a lot of its own issues anyways [2])
|
| [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Archinstall
|
| [2] https://manjarno.snorlax.sh/
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| I'm going to bet that whatever you choose, you'll be using Ubuntu
| in six month's time.
| gaganyaan wrote:
| I'm liking NixOS thus far. I've got it installed on my personal
| laptop. It's got some rough edges, but the benefits for me
| outweigh the downsides. I really like affordances like "nix-shell
| -p foo" to just run a shell with the "foo" command in it for one-
| off usages, instead of slowly accumulating installed apt packages
| that I forgot why I installed them.
|
| Similarly, having any custom configuration inside of
| "configuration.nix" is way nicer to use than manually editing
| /etc/whatever.conf. I can have one place to store any custom
| hacks, with a nice comment as to why + git history.
| jegp wrote:
| This. And it's completely reproducible. IMO this is the best
| bet for stability + long-term survivability.
| 8jy89hui wrote:
| > It's got some rough edges
|
| I've recently been looking really hard at NixOS as a possible
| next-step. (I use Manjaro and am particularly interested in
| ways to keep my Laptop and Desktop in sync)
|
| I've heard that the documentation can be pretty lackluster at
| times. Are there any other rough edges I should know about?
| gaganyaan wrote:
| I'd say it's really about the documentation, including
| "unofficial" documentation like bug reports and SO questions.
| Part of why Ubuntu is so popular is because there's enough of
| a community that whatever issue you hit, someone's probably
| already hit it before and asked about it on SO, where it has
| a highly upvoted answer that fixes the issue and explains it.
| That's also why NixOS seemed like a better choice than Guix
| to me.
|
| One thing I ran into was setting up a Python project using
| poetry2nix. Mostly works great, but then you sometimes get
| inscrutable error messages. I had to copy this into a
| shell.nix file for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me
| (and I had to hunt it down from
| https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs myself instead of finding
| docs or a bug report): astunparse =
| super.astunparse.overridePythonAttrs (old: {
| buildInputs = old.buildInputs ++ [ self.wheel ]; });
|
| One non-documentation issue I've hit is that even when using
| the stable channel, you live much closer to the bleeding edge
| than a distro like Ubuntu. I updated my system to the latest
| packages, and then my wifi wouldn't work after waking up from
| sleep. Turned out to be a kernel regression that was fixed a
| few days later in a patch update. Everything was fine again,
| but it's not something you'd run into with a more
| conservative distro. Similar issue with the latest Gnome
| breaking extensions for a while before they got updated.
| ac130kz wrote:
| NixOS stable or good ol Debian stable. Both are smooth, but NixOS
| is just such a joy to configure with generic hardware and
| software configurations, yet you don't get the feel that
| everything has to be manual like on Gentoo or Arch.
| johnklos wrote:
| Honestly, if you want steady progress and consistency, if you
| want changes that are thought out, well reasoned, discussed and
| sensibly implemented, you should consider the BSDs.
|
| Even ignoring the systemd stuff separating Linux from the rest of
| the world, there are just so many ways all these Linux distros
| are trying, often gratuitously, to differentiate themselves from
| each other. Often it's sloppy, and the end result is that it
| affects upgraders (long time users) much more than new people,
| because they're so focused on attracting new people and therefore
| test new installs so much.
|
| A Linux admin from the '90s would be lost on a modern Linux
| distro. A BSD admin from the '90s would have plenty to learn, but
| most of it would still be quite usable.
| dgacmu wrote:
| I just had the interesting experience of upgrading a FreeBSD
| box from 9.x (2012) to 13.1 (2023). It had been turned off for
| a few years while I was off playing with industry.
|
| The process was shockingly smooth. The conf files are mostly in
| the same places. It was... nice. At the same time I took my
| desktop from Ubuntu 14 (2014) to 22 and ended up giving up and
| reinstalling. That was more expected. I was shocked that the
| FreeBSD upgrade just worked.
| closetometal wrote:
| My experience with Linux enterprise deployments is not as
| thorough as using it for desktop & debug environments (every
| Linux is pretty much same for debug environment if you can handle
| package update nightmare), I use Arch btw :-)
|
| For production, take a look at SUSE (3 production servers with no
| hiccups, good support and no particular weird design decisions),
| CentOS stream after RHEL debacle (have 1 deployment on client
| request, no complaints or production issues so far), and of
| course the good old Debian if you want familiar things with
| Ubuntu
| aborsy wrote:
| It seems most people agree that the snap is a good idea, but not
| well implemented. I for one use snap packages when they are
| available for better security, because, if there is a
| vulnerability, say in Firefox, the malware will be jailed in its
| container. That's one more layer. Sandboxing is desperately
| needed in desktop operating systems.
|
| Another advantage that is portability. Snap export nextcloud and
| import somewhere else!
|
| Sure, snaps are slower, and take some space, but with todays CPUs
| and storage, that's not a dealbreaker. BTW, if you don't like
| snap, you just remove it. What else would be the problem?
|
| Check out also Pop!_OS based upon Ubuntu. Ubuntu itself has
| excellent hardware support.
| akvadrako wrote:
| Flatpak is just the better snap. The only reason Ubuntu doesn't
| use it is that it isn't controlled by them.
| aborsy wrote:
| Flatpak is probably better overall. It loads faster, and not
| controlled by a company, although it takes more space and is
| less supported on servers.
| [deleted]
| jayski wrote:
| I've been running FreeBSD for all my production stuff for 20+
| years. Works great, stable, consistent, reliable. Give it a try.
| lockhouse wrote:
| The BSDs are criminally underrated operating systems. Another
| great thing about FreeBSD is that there is robust support for
| compiling from source (the ports system) or using binary
| packages. It also fully supports ZFS out of the box.
|
| I also highly recommend FreeBSD's cousin OpenBSD if you have
| supported hardware. It's default out of the box configuration
| is extremely secure and bloat-free.
| tigrezno wrote:
| I don't see the problem with snaps. They just work for me.
| Firefox snap is very fast and don't have issues.
| joshxyz wrote:
| Same here. Chromium, firefox, beekeeper studio, they are okay.
|
| There was a bug in nodejs snap though involving the vm module,
| but seems pretty edge case to me.
|
| On most normal user use cases it is more useful and not
| cumbersome
| rbanffy wrote:
| I've been an Ubuntu user for a long time, but I'm moving to
| Fedora for my laptops and CentOS Stream for my servers. Canonical
| was great and added a lot of nice things to Ubuntu and
| contributes a lot with upstream Debian, but my patience with
| things like snaps has limits.
| danieldk wrote:
| Mainstream: Fedora. It has been rock solid for me, while at the
| same time adopting the cutting edge of the Linux ecosystem
| (latest gcc, latest security stuff, etc.). Also a lot of exciting
| things happening, like Silverblue, CoreOS, OSTree, etc. For stuff
| that needs to be really stable, you can use RHEL or a derivative.
|
| If you are willing to do something more alien: NixOS. But be
| aware that it can be a deep rabbit hole and time sink.
| akvadrako wrote:
| Silverblue looks great; I'll be moving from Ubuntu to that for
| my next install.
|
| My experience with OSTree in flatpak has been pretty positive
| and I really like the idea of a immutable base image.
| discreditable wrote:
| Look no further than Debian. After switching from Ubuntu I
| started to understand why people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| > people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty
|
| Look even further at Devuan, made by people who conder Debian
| as a bit dirty. (I use both as needed, I'm just riffing on your
| comment)
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Personally - I think the step away from systemd is a fairly
| huge mistake.
|
| I understand that legacy users and orgs may have vested
| interests in sticking with older init systems, but personally
| I think systemd solves a challenging problem space in a very
| easy to use manner.
|
| I much prefer writing a systemd unit file than having to wade
| into sysvinit or runit.
|
| Politics aside - I just find systemd far easier to work with.
| super256 wrote:
| > I use both as needed
|
| In what case do you need to opt for a different init system
| than systemd? Genuinely curious, as I've been using debian
| with systemd for almost a decade now and haven't run into any
| issues regarding it.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Asking why/why not to use systemd is covering very old
| territory here at HN and not the point of my earlier
| comment - I was riffing on someone using the term ''a bit
| dirty'' in regards to a Linux distro.
| super256 wrote:
| I understand the point of your comment, and that why/why
| not is mostly a philosophical/political/whatever
| question.
|
| But really, the "I use both as needed" is the statement
| which pokes my interest. When do you _need_ something
| else than systemd? What is the actual work which doesn 't
| run with that particular init system? I'm honestly unsure
| if you were just joking or if there's really something
| more to it.^^'
| greyw wrote:
| I consider Devuan just under maintained Debian without
| systemd (I personally consider that a drawback but for some
| that is a big selling point).
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| [dead]
| shzhdbi09gv8ioi wrote:
| Where Debian is a reputable distribution with a clear goal,
| the Devuan crew is solving a non-issue by means of almost
| religious levels of resistance toward systemd.
|
| If you want technological merit, chose Debian. If you want to
| join the conservatives of Linux, you should go for Devuan.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You're using language and innuendo instead of argument to
| imply that the maintainers and users of Devuan are
| irrational. The objections to systemd were almost
| completely about the technical merits, with a side order of
| being annoyed that Red Hat was again being allowed to
| dictate the standard Linux stack by inserting another
| impenetrable monolith.
|
| I know it's weird for me to object to your comment without
| implying that you're insane. It's alright to feel like
| using systemd after a tangle of init scripts was a breath
| of fresh air. I understand that point of view. I don't
| understand the invective against people who put their money
| where their mouths were.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Even during Debian's systemd adoption wars I'd never seen
| any argument calling into question Devuan as
| ''disreputable''. After all, it was a group of experienced
| Debian folks that made a systemd-less version of Debian
| that compares almost exactly with Debian's status and
| capabilities. I hope in your case you have not been forced
| to use Devuan.
| shzhdbi09gv8ioi wrote:
| Hit me up when you finally notice that enterprise and
| seniors embraced systemd years ago while you kept
| avoiding change.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| You implied that Devuan is disreputable.
| codetrotter wrote:
| I don't think that's what they are saying.
|
| Debian is reputable because it is widely widely used for
| ages.
|
| Devuan is not disreputable. It is simply a fringe variant
| of Debian that has much fewer users and no obvious reason
| to adopt for most people.
|
| Debian has a good reputation.
|
| Devuan does not have much of a reputation at all, because
| most people that might use it have no problem with using
| Debian and systemd.
| zh3 wrote:
| It's still pretty easy to replace systemd in Debian with
| sysvinit (we do it at moderate scale). Devuan works very well
| though, basically there's little difference between Devuan
| and Debian without systemd (all the packages are identical,
| except where a package has decided to _require_ systemd in
| which case the Devuan version will just have the dependency
| removed).
|
| Long term though there's a query over support for anything
| other than systemd in Debian, hence the move towards Devuan.
| morsch wrote:
| Ok, but which release channel? And can I convert an Ubuntu into
| a Debian by reinstalling it while keeping my home directory?
| [deleted]
| hiq wrote:
| I just pin to a specific code name (version) instead of a
| state (such as testing), e.g. right now I'm using bookworm
| which happens to be testing, and I'll still be using it for a
| while once it's been declared stable. If I feel like I'd want
| to upgrade some packages that are available in the next
| testing, or I can't install some specific package from
| unstable because it requires an update for a big library
| (often libc6), I update to the next testing.
|
| I think it's better to avoid pinning to testing since it gets
| a lot of updates right after a stable promotion (after the
| package unfreeze), which you probably don't want.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Ok, but which release channel?
|
| For home use, Debian testing is usually a good balance
| between things not breaking and things not being ancient.
|
| For servers, Debian stable is probably a better choice.
| stack_underflow wrote:
| I think anyone who suggests daily driving Debian testing
| should also mention the fact that packages can disappear
| from testing for weeks/months at a time (and reappear
| later). It's recommended to configure `unstable` in your
| sources as well but set up apt pinning so that those
| packages are only pulled in if they're missing in testing.
| See: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting "Best practices
| for Testing users"
|
| In practice this means adding something like this to
| /etc/apt/preferences (along with adding entries for
| `unstable` in /etc/apt/sources.list) #
| use `n=` when referencing codename (i.e.
| buster/bullseye/...) Package: * Pin:
| release n=bookworm Pin-Priority: 550 #
| use `a=` when referencing archive (i.e.
| stable/testing/unstable) Package: * Pin:
| release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 520
|
| That way apt will pull in any packages missing in testing
| from unstable, and once the package is reintroduced to
| testing, will prefer that version rather than continue to
| track unstable.
|
| Maybe I've been lucky but I've been running testing on my
| non-server desktops and laptops for 13 years now and have
| only rendered my system unbootable once (required having to
| boot up a live CD to reinstall an older working version of
| some bad libpcre update that had been rolled out).
| 404mm wrote:
| I've been bitten quite a few times by Testing so I run
| stable now.
|
| Even the current stable is fairly "new" so I don't even
| mind.
| justanotherbody wrote:
| For a long while I ran testing and had zero issues.
|
| Warning: if you're used to PPA life in Ubuntu Debian doesn't
| offer an equivalent that I'm aware of. EDIT sibling comments
| indicate home brew might solve this.
|
| The problem with Debian is you can't usually pick "a thing"
| from another channel, you mostly have to fully commit.
| Testing is great until it isn't and anecdotally sid/unstable
| never fixed that for me - I just had to learn to build the
| occasional package from source
|
| Ultimately I'm a lot happier having gone on that journey but
| it can feel very arduous the first few times apt doesn't have
| a recent enough version of something available
| pessimizer wrote:
| > And can I convert an Ubuntu into a Debian by reinstalling
| it while keeping my home directory?
|
| You can do that with any distribution, unless you expect your
| configs to line up exactly.
|
| If you don't keep your /home on a separate partition, back it
| up. Install Debian, making sure to separate /home and root
| into different partitions this time. Go through your
| ~/.configs, find the ones you've changed (most of this will
| probably be browser shit) and put copies aside. Then take all
| of the configs out of your home directory backup (including
| the originals of your changed configs) and put those aside in
| a different place, deleting them from the backup of your home
| directory. Backup the virgin ~/.configs from your new install
| (do not delete them from the new home directory.) Then copy
| your old home directory files (sans configs) over your new
| ones using rsync. Compare your manually changed files to the
| virgin files from the install - has the format changed, will
| they still work? Are they located in the same directory in
| Debian as in your previous distro? If it looks fine, copy
| them in. See if they work. If they don't, look up why not.
| They probably will.
|
| If you keep your home on a different partition, then install
| as if you don't, and let Debian create a home in the same
| partition as the new OS. Do the same config dance as above
| (annihilating your old configs other than the customized
| ones), and switch your /home to be mounted from your old home
| partition.
|
| Or at least this is what I do. On your desktop, you probably
| want to install testing, on your servers stable.
| eternityforest wrote:
| Linux Mint has a good level of insulation from nonsense like
| Snaps while preserving compatibility.
|
| Fedora seems to be gaining ground, and also all the innovation in
| Linux is pushed by the Red Hat people, and Fedora gets it way
| sooner. Although Ubuntu derivatives still seem to be the standard
| for home users who don't do Arch.
| mherrmann wrote:
| Debian. It's what Ubuntu uses under the hood (as you very likely
| know) so the transition will be smooth. For the GUI, my absolute
| favorite is i3wm. But LXDE is more user-friendly.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| I switched to Fedora once the snap-pushing started getting too
| annoying. It works well, packages are up to date and not modified
| from upstream.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| I remember when I had fun using Ubuntu. My main concern (and joy)
| back then was enabling wobbly windows.
|
| What about now? The commercialization leaks through more and more
| every year. The Ubuntu logo is becoming as misleading as the
| OpenAI name, instead of the Kumbaya i thought it to represent,
| it's quickly becoming just another piece of spyware.
|
| There is no way to create an empty file with a right click
| without googling and going through some bullshit first. I can't
| even drag and drop files and directories from the desktop
| straight to the file explorer. Who the hell thought that
| _downgrading_ functionality was a good idea?
|
| The "touchpadization" of the UI sucks. There is no way to
| configure how background images are displayed. Too much more
| bullshit every time that I have postponed the next upgrade out of
| fear it'll become even worse. So yes, I'm ready to change to
| something better too.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-29 23:01 UTC)