Two layers of “based on” in your OS is indeed a bit much.
Switching to something rolling release makes sense. My Arch setup (btw) has always felt much more stable than when I was using Ubuntu, because with Ubuntu I’d inevitatebly run into a bug, find out it was fixed months ago but won’t be backported, and then either live with it or try custom-installing the newer version of that thing. Or I’d install something manually that expected dependency X be the latest version, etc.
That’s going to be good for all Debian users
Many distros are now based on Debian Testing. I feel like they could come together and maintain a shared stable base, similar to what Ubuntu used to be for them. Kinda like the Open Gaming Collective guys did for their kernel development.
The first one to jump ship. Many more to come.
Natural selection.
Of course, this is why I’m using MX Linux, it’s Debian based. systemd optional, no snap, no flatpak, stable.
This is the first post/reply in the wild about someone who uses MX Linux. I’m searching you guys for years, even though this distribution was on the top of Distrowatch for years.
I saw someone else recently.
My guess is that AI was convinced by Distrowatch fuckery that it was #1, it recommended it to people, and then it actually started getting used by real people
I tried MX for a while. It was alright but not the distro for me beyond that short period of time. I’m glad it exists but a bit mystified at how it ended up topping the charts.
Distrowatch just lists the most popular pages that got the most clicks on Distrowatch itself. We (and I mean random few people on internet and YouTube and elsewhere) have theories it could be a few users or a bot who wants to see the distribution on top, doing the clicks. Or its legit clicks off course. In example if a distribution have a bad documentation or website, or its not that well known and people want learn more about it with detailed information, I mean Distrowatch is not a bad place to start looking.
Best distro ever, stable, Xfce4
Interesting. They are concerned about security updates delay, but then there is this: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-manual/ch10.en.html#security-support-testing
Basically, it says that testing gets security updates later than stable and unstable.
This seems like slop for all the Ubuntu haters, but i agree moving to testing isn’t a good sign.
TBH while I like the hardware of my laptop, I’ve been pretty unimpressed by the software that Tuxedo provide.
While i appreciate not having snaps by default, the control center they ship is an electron app that requires /tmp be executable out of the box, and talks to a backend daemon that wasn’t particularly secure by default, and both live in /opt despite coming from the distro itself, so I think it’s ironic when people engage in technical sneering while throwing stones from within their glasshouses.
Also boot security doesn’t seem to be a priority for them out of the box, this seems like what they should focus on IMO, instead of switching their base
✘ CET OS Support: Unknown ✘ Linux kernel lockdown: Disabled ✘ Linux kernel: Tainted ✘ UEFI secure boot: Disabled
That it’s good enough as a distro, although I’ll probably just switch to neon if Tuxedo move to a rolling release base.
The thing is Neon could die at any moment thanks to KDE Linux.
While I wouldn’t want my system to be Debian Testing, I’m pretty happy that more people are testing sid.
That’ll be good for all of us.
Don’t know about using a Debian Testing base, just because the word “testing” does not inspire confidence.
Ever heard of Sid from Toy Story?
Having btrfs+snapper set up by default sounds good. I wish Debian-based distros in general would finally make a move there. It’s a bit of a meme that folks laud Debian for its stability, but you can easily break it with one wrong command.
And who knows, maybe TuxedoOS adopting it can serve as a proof of concept and get Debian itself to adopt btrfs sooner.
laud Debian for its stability, but you can easily break it with one wrong command.
Well because that’s not the stability release schedules are talking about
Yeah, but that’s exactly the meme that I’m talking about.
It’s always ambiguous what is meant by stability. And as soon as you complain about Debian actually breaking very easily, folks will readily tell you about the technicality that it just means it doesn’t change very often.
It’s not really ambiguous at all.
A stable distro is one that doesn’t update packages except for security updates within the lifecycle of a release.
You can install debian 13 on release day in 2025 and when it gets deprecated in 2030 it will be functionally the same.
A byproduct of that is that apt updates are very unlikely to break anything.
None of that changes that you can run
sudo apt remove dpkgorrm -rf /ordd in=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1(this one might actually work).But for your average desktop users it means you don’t boot up your laptop and have to learn how to use libreoffice 26’s new UI on the day you need to finish an assignment.
Well, in hopes that you’re not just trolling, maybe you’ll believe a dictionary that “stable” is ambiguous in this context. Because this is one of the listed meanings:
(computing) Of software: established to be relatively free of bugs, as opposed to a beta version.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stable#Adjective
It also lists your meaning. I’m not saying that you’re wrong. I’m saying it’s ambiguous, i.e. there’s two meanings that could apply here.
Well, and personally, I do feel like more people will interpret “stable” to mean bug-free here, because Debian is a piece of software to them.
Good decision. Ubuntu is a highly complex and specific all-in-one distribution never meant for customization.
