You know what? I know they're far from the ideal solution, but I have installed a few things with snaps ... and it was fine. It worked seamlessly and painlessly (in some instances).
Generally, I'd prefer other ways to install, but snaps aren't the end of the world.
It's not a question whether they work or not. It's whether you're okay with an app distribution system that forces us to be dependent on one corporation. Snap's backend effectively makes Ubuntu almost as bad as Android.
And seeing as there is no shortage of better options, why not choose those?
What's the selling point on CachyOS? I use Pop os right now but I'm looking to swap to something new and I was never all that fond of Pop os. Before that I used Fedora which had an awful time running stable on my machine. Mostly I'm considering Debian
Cachy is growing in popularity a lot. Negative publicity around Ubuntu is driving people to alternatives, and I've heard a lot of people are trying cachy as their first Linux distro.
People are trying cachy as their first Linux distro.
To anyone reading and thinking of switching:
DO NOT use CachyOS as your first distro. You will not like the experience, it was not made with total newbies in mind. It is Arch with a few bells and whistles, and you are not prepared to properly handle Arch, yet. You will get there later, if you want to.
Rolling release typically delivers the latest and greatest of Linux, which is kinda cool. It also removes all the headache of upgrading to a newer version and the possible issues stemming from that. You get to see the gradual evolution of your system, one feature at a time, and you don't have to wait a month after a new version is released, just because some program you need is not properly ported yet.
On the other end, any update of the rolling release system can end up being somewhat breaking, so if you prefer setting aside time for managing your system instead of having a nasty surprise at the worst possible moment and at the same time want to have your system secure and updated at all times, classic model will be superior.
In both cases, properly set snapshots save a lot of trouble.
Ironically, I think Arch might be a better first time distro than CachyOS, because if you're willing to go through the manual installation process and learn from all the fuckups you'll make, you can come out of it with the knowledge necessary to manage your install. Though of course I would only recommend it with the warning that your system will be mostly broken for a while and you'd be constantly figuring out and fixing things, so not a good idea if you need your computer working.
But it does seem like a nice distro for if you already know what you're doing and want to save time getting things set up (and maybe those performance improvements are significant enough, I've seen people give big figures)
Agreed! If you want to get into the backbone of Linux systems from the get-go and have some level of technical expertise, Arch is a brilliant learning experience.
And if you already have the experience with Arch and just want to make your life easier, CachyOS or EndeavourOS are good options.
Debian is probably a poor fit for a gaming-oriented distro, since gaming is constantly evolving in terms of hardware and software features.
Even if you put as much as possible into a container or a Flatpak, your drivers will be old, which is critical even for older hardware, particularly in new games.
If you want stability AND modern gaming, maybe go for something like Bazzite? The system is very stable thanks to immutability and atomic updates, and at the same time you have all the modern gaming stack.
I'm not a fan of immutable distros, and always having the latest drivers has never been an issue for me. Having a system that's less likely to break after an update is a bit more critical when it comes to actually being able to spend time playing games.
But what I meant is that Debian has tools I can use to recompile my packages. I'm not aware of any reasons why I wouldn't be able to rebuild my system to replicate the unique features of CachyOS myself if I wanted to put in the work. And at that point I could always start with Sid as a base as well, which would be just as bleeding edge as any rolling release distro.
Looked into Siduction - seems to be a small project operating over Debian Sid, which I call a recipe for disaster when actually deployed as a home system. Sid is not meant to be stable, and you're unlikely to get much support. And a small community project is unlikely to patch everything faster than Debian itself.
Debian Sid should not be seen the same way as Arch or other rolling release distros - the former is supposed to be broken, a bug here and there is a non-issue at this point of Debian development lifecycle. Arch and others are expected to actually be used as end products, so critical bugs are rare.
I had some counters in mind to the things you're saying here. But I don't feel like bothering. So I will just say the big problem with everything you're saying, is that you're arguing against using Debian.
Meanwhile just last night Elden Ring on my Trixie desktop went brrrr.
Yeah, but Microsoft shouldn't get credit for that. Windows only works with everything, because everything got built around it.
Drivers are needed for every little bit of hardware, Intel very well might not have become the dominant architecture if Microsoft hadn't picked it in the 80s.
Okay, but MacOS doesn't work on everything because Apple doesn't want it to. They want you to only use their devices, and only run their systems on them.
I think the "independent" label might be more about the decision making being dependent on an organization?
This is also a meme community and those charts are never that serious, and considering people will disagree about the placements anyways, trying to have more precision might be pointless.
It still a walled garden in the sense that Apple is the only one that can code sign and certify software for the MacOS. So every dev that wants to release software on MacOS still needs to pay for membership of Apple’s developer program even if they don’t distribute trough the App Store. Unless they want their user to disable a security feature on MacOS and ignore the warnings.
That’s not exactly true. Users don’t have to “disable” anything. They just have to click a button that says they understand the risk of running unsigned software. You can run anything you want on MacOS.
Well you might also need to run some arcane incantation to remove quarantine bits, too. And it'll only work if it's actually been ported to the m-series chips, of course. And sometimes you just need to compile the whole god damn app yourself anyway. But sure, caveats side, you can run anything you want on macos that runs on macos. As long as you're not using a company-issued device and are forbidden.
I've got the hot take of wondering if Windows is less corporate than ChromeOS. I'm sure there's some open sourcing going on from Windows but ChromiumOS (which I assume has major issues, AOSP certainly does) exists, and someone could build something cool with it.
MacOS is a bit more of a closed system because of their hardware control than Windows I think. But I tend to think of both as equals when it comes to being a crappy OS
But on the other hand, all the reasons that people hate corporate OSes apply much more to Microsoft than Apple. Microsoft is the company that puts ads in their OS and is built entirely out of proprietary tech, and has been more vocal about shoehorning AI into everything.
I don't think "upstream provider for newer packages" is the same as "based on". Fedora was developed from Red Hat, the image is correct in that sense. You can quote that part of the link but I specifically pointed to " It was originally developed in 2003 as a continuation of the Red Hat Linux project." so based on Red Hat.
Read the paragraph again. This time with your eyes.
It was originally developed in 2003 as a continuation of the Red Hat Linux project... It is now the upstream source for CentOS Stream and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Did you notice how it says "Red Hat Linux Project" and then goes on to say "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"?
This is because RHL != RHEL.
From the Hyperlink on the Wikipedia page for RHL:
Red Hat Linux was a widely used commercial open-source Linux distribution created by Red Hat until its discontinuation in 2004.
OP is correct. You are mistaken for thinking RHL was RHEL. It is not.
Helps if you know that command/setup thing/whatever you wanna call it. Otherwise, for someone who doesn't know about it, the process can be pretty painful. Even with the wiki's install instructions I have not been able to install arch the few times I tried in a VM over the past few months.
if you live antwhere but the USA and Canada, MacOS is a niche, absolutely not mainstream at all, I see more linux users than MacBook users here in Brazil
I mean...it was invented there. And it is the third most populous country in the world. So, for a long time the Internet was USA. It's not anymore but change can take a while to sink in.
Do they not advertise in Brazil? Cuz if y'all can go a day without seeing an ad of a floating laptop doing pirouettes in an endless white void to an overproduced pop song masquerading as indie, I might be down to move.
as someone who has lived 20 years in brazil, (since brith and has yet to venture outside) I have seen one apple ad in my whole life, and zero apple apple stores, the few times I decided to look up some of them because of memes I was genuinely disgusted by them
It's more like "Arch Linux breaks if you don't update for too long, then try to naively update without knowing what you're doing and without checking the arch news for breaking changes". Which is more breakage during updates than stable distros, but absolutely manageable.
I'd put Haiku on the extreme top left corner (or in one of the two rows below that first column) since it's based on BeOS - it's a corporate OS wether it exits or not and it intends to replicate said corporate OS. In its place I'd put either TempleOS or Plan9.
I had the same reaction to the Microslop vs Apple corporateness at first. But they kinda have a point as in that Apple controls the entire stack from hardware to os, while windows is just the os
If this was the usual political compass and was about the creators, yes, it would be.
But TempleOS is so niche that I wonder if anyone actually daily drives it, open source, and was made by one person with zero corporate involvement. So yeah, it's definitely bottom left here.
Fedora isn't based ln RHEL, it was before, but now it's in fact the opposite. As far as I know, RHEL 10 is based on CentOS Stream 10, which in turn is based on Fedora 41.
Debian had corporate funding, even if they those corporations don't have any ibfluence. It being one of the oldest and mostly widely used Linux distributions means that by the virtue of it being an enterprise-level system it is somewhat more corporate. Debian can neatly fit into most corporate and enterprise systems and probably is somewhere in almost everyone's stack. That's not bad and doesn't make it a corpo distro, but it definitely is more "corporate" than something like Arch which it is rightfully juxtaposed against
Arch only breaks if you don't read the wiki.
Update the repo's gpg keys, read the Arch news, do what manual steps they mention and you can update it after a year and it won't break.
To be fair, the arch wiki is very good. I use it quite often despite not using arch. Quite a few things are valid on other distros, or you can get hints on how to fix it, like where to start looking.
Except, if any random program that you want to install requires a new version of a low-level library, you're gonna have to do full system update today and not when upgrading the major version of the distro.
This is all entirely theoretical. In practice, yes, it's easier if you don't go too long between updates on Arch.
But "not to long" means once a month, not every day. And you should really not go more than a month between updates on any distro.
If you mean the system being screwed over by a dependency on a newer lib version, I've had that exact scenario triggered multiple times in Debian testing. (And in other distros too, really.)
FancyApp depends on libbutt >= 1.1. You have 1.0 installed.
libbutt 1.1 was compiled against glibc 2.43 and lists it as a dependency. You have 2.42.
Upgrading glibc triggers reinstalling half of the system, including low-level components, which in turn pull in updates of other low-level components that don't themselves depend on glibc. Including the kernel.
But at least, with Ubuntu or whatever, this shouldn't change the general workings of the system that would require manual adjustments from me.
agreed. thats where I went wrong with my poor ee-pc. I went 3 years without updating it and it worked like a charm, then decided to try and update it. every source was dead, including the keyring. Manually fixed the ring, half the packages failed to update even with valid sources. Had to disable all package verification.
I then made the mistake of "Well surly a fresh install will be easier than trying to fix this broken mess".... I have not had a functional wifi management service since. None of them support the system anymore as the arch was discontinued officially a few years ago, and the only way I can connect to wifi now is via command line without network memory or saving.
the only way I can connect to wifi now is via command line
On the plus side, you'll look like a super-leet haxor to your friends when you do this in front of them. Be sure to say, "Okay, I'm in" once it connects.
I Actually had attempted to do that via a service, It didn't work. And at that point, I had spent a few hours trying to get it connected to the internet alone so I was already frustrated and was happy enough that it was able to at least connect again. Telling myself I'll go back to it later. Guess what never happend 🦊
When I bother testing it again, I will attempt to fix the service for it. Although in a perfect world it would be nice to have it remember passwords that way the startup is just having it connect to the already saved network, but I don't believe that's going to get fixed any time soon.
You might be right and binding it to a key binding may end up being the easier route.
The service probably either starts too early, or doesn't have access to the desktop session (idk if the latter would be necessary for the script). You can try putting the script into autostarting applications for the user's session, typically via a .desktop file in ~/.config/autostart — e.g. by copying a file from /usr/share/applications and adjusting it.
I have been really trying to avoid implementing it into the user session, it requires superuser to run the commands and I don't like the concept of hardcoding sudo paths using nopasswd
But I probably will end up having to do something similar in the user environment.
edit: Now that I think about it, I could probably just make the command path to the network command be authorized as no password on any user as I don't really see a situation where the user logged in shouldn't be able to manipulate the network it's connected to.
TL;DR: Winzozz is more corporate than Mac N' Cheese OS
Windows is so corporate, it actually succeeds in being the unquestionable lowest common denominator corpos love so much.
Not that MacOS is the champion and savior of FOSS, but as far as I know, Windows is much more hellbent on backwards compatibility and simply being available on as many types of devices as possible, while Apple at the very least pretends to focus on innovation rather than exponentially increasing profits and universal availability, with Apple products being status symbols and all.
NixOS is definitely not as corporate as MacOS or ChromeOS. It's also not as mainstream as RHEL. I'd say RHEL should be one square to the right, NixOS should go where RHEL is now, and Guix should share the square with Gentoo.
I think it’s a bit different since Haiku is kind of closer to BeOS as frozen in time around 2002, and there’s not a lot of new ground being broken there. Yes, Linux is based on UNIX but there’s been a lot of change since then.
The "never breaks" under debian is such a bold and false claim lol.
Try to run a modern high dpi laptop with a debian; you ll quickly find yourself installing from "testing" instead of "stable", otherwise it wont even start X11. Oh, i see you mixed up some packages from "stable" into your "testing"? Shame, have fun reinstalling your OS
Sure "skill issue". But Debian was the only distro I was able to break. Twice. Because first time I didnt understand what happened
Red Hat is their biggest sponsors, and uses their releases to bugfix and create their new releases. But just because Red Hat uses it this way, ofc doesn't mean Fedora isnt independent, it just means they are very influenced by a HUGE donor!
Are there specific choices made by fedora that would have should have been done differently but were pushed by the large donor?
Just asking because I'm on fedora but wasn't aware of that relationship but this description hasn't yet convinced me that the relationship is toxic for users, but my mind is open enough to believe it with specific examples.
The thing is, we don't really know really. The only thing we know for certain is that Fedoras rollouts is basicly a testtube for Red Hat. I think Red Hat or Fedora was pretty open about this.
It might seem "negative" but I just think it adds an extra layer of caution. I don't think Fedora is interested in becoming buggy in any way, or irrelevant for that matter. Bazzite for instance also run on Fedora, so that would be crazy. But I also think that they just might implement things IBMs red hat tells them too, if they wanna keep getting those huge donations. Donations at an open source market still benefits the doner in this way. It's a fastlane ticket to features after doners desire. So Fedora users might just get the rollouts before Red Hat users, and get it with the bugs it might have at early stages, before Red Hat implements it.
But I am not in any shape or forme in knowledge of the Fedora team and I don't know how the relationship works. I just don't buy the fact that IBM gives millions to the Fedora team without using it for their own advantage as well. Who wouldn't?
Debian is also the opposite of corporate since it's a community project where the community aspect is central with democratic voting and no corporate control.
So then why would Microsoft be lower than Chrome or Apple with corporate? I wouldn't say Windows has more democratic voting and less corporate control than them
Also with 70% of computers running windows, the chart would be scaled terribly along the x axis. You would have to shift every Linux to box 1 with chrome, and put Mac in box 2/6
Developed for, maybe. But that's like saying AI was built to better enhance art. Ubuntu did nothing that Debian couldn't do stable as a server. Ubuntu in 2008, was Mint today.
(Not saying that's when they came out, just that the acknowledgement and use them, is very similar now)
Edit: or one could say.. PopOS and Mint, are the Ubuntu of yesteryear. They are the corporate mocks that many like, and I've used both. They have their purpose. But that doesn't mean they unseated Debian in anything but giving users familiarity. Unless Debian took a spike downward.
I would replace the political compass colour scheme to avoid confusion. mint , ubuntu and cachy should be the furtherst right. debian should be where mint is, or with fedora one step to the right. windows should be top right.
Add some of the newer distros like steamOs, void linux, etc
i think an OS can be made entirely by a corporation, or entirely by one hobbyist with no funding. something like fedora is made by volunteers with corporate funding, whereas something like Arch is made by volunteers with donations, some of which might be coming from corporate representatives
Hm, yes I suppose you can see it that way. Personally, I'm mostly interested in if it's a community thing or not, but I suppose corpo donations can be found all over these as well.
A lot of FreeBSD development is done by companies like Netflix, who use FreeBSD for their edge catching due to its performance and simplicity advantage over Linux
I would flip the whole chart diagonally so it lines up better with the political compass. I'd equate "corporate" with "right" instead of "authoritarian," and "niche" with "libertarian" instead of "left." Also, I would replace "independent" with "community/nonprofit."
You can install Debian on your Chromebook like you would any app, which I feel makes it a bit less controlling since you have access to a complete Debian install and all the benefits that provides.
Windows also has WSL, which gives you Ubuntu, although that process isn't quite as user friendly.
Haiku is what grew out of the ashes of BeOS. And if you've never heard of that, you're no worse off. It was another Unix-alike that was neither Linux nor BSD which showed early promise but didn't gain enough traction.
The BeOS command line command set were all borrowed from or based upon Unix and/or Linux (IIRC many were straight from GNU), which is the basis for my comparison.
The kernel and graphics were all from-scratch and radically different from Linux, sure, but the same could be said of Linux when compared to the original Unix, or any of the BSDs.
When was þe last time you installed Arch? It's not harder to install þan most of þese options.
Even Artix isn't hard, and it's more like what Arch used to be. Arch has menu driven installers. Þe only hard þing about Arch þese days is þat it requires more regular maintenance and config conflict resolution is still a PITA.
"Some people like snaps" would have been closer to the truth, but it would still be an exaggeration of their numbers.
I bet Mark Shuttleworth likes Snaps.
"A person likes snaps."
There, all covered and more accurate than the original.
His mom probably likes them too.
His dad probably says “WTF is this Snap bullshit son? We didn’t raise you like that.”
Then his mom replies, “it’s just a phase, he needs our support, I’m sure you can make snaps happen, sweetie.”
You know what? I know they're far from the ideal solution, but I have installed a few things with snaps ... and it was fine. It worked seamlessly and painlessly (in some instances).
Generally, I'd prefer other ways to install, but snaps aren't the end of the world.
(This concludes my hot take of the day.)
System engineers all collectively shuddered at that thought. Then OS security nerds.
This is the "I tried heroin and it was good" story but for OSes
pretty soon we'll need snaps in our snaps to make it easier for developers to create snaps with snap dependencies
Snap maintainer here - this makes no sense whatsoever.
And if I tried heroin and it was bad was also even more common.
It's not a question whether they work or not. It's whether you're okay with an app distribution system that forces us to be dependent on one corporation. Snap's backend effectively makes Ubuntu almost as bad as Android.
And seeing as there is no shortage of better options, why not choose those?
What about flatpack?
Yeah those fights are like the nerds dying for Arch. Probably a good thing so that things move forward but utterly useless for lambda users.
Hot Take Day!
CachyOS being the same level as mainstream as Mint and Ubuntu is copium.
It’s the most popular single distro on ProtonDB now, so that’s something
It's in an extremely good spot right now imo. Just installed it yesterday on pretty new hardware (upper mid-range), flawless experience
What's the selling point on CachyOS? I use Pop os right now but I'm looking to swap to something new and I was never all that fond of Pop os. Before that I used Fedora which had an awful time running stable on my machine. Mostly I'm considering Debian
Supposedly slight performance improvements with gaming, due to an optimized kernel and using zram for swap.
Cachy is growing in popularity a lot. Negative publicity around Ubuntu is driving people to alternatives, and I've heard a lot of people are trying cachy as their first Linux distro.
To anyone reading and thinking of switching:
DO NOT use CachyOS as your first distro. You will not like the experience, it was not made with total newbies in mind. It is Arch with a few bells and whistles, and you are not prepared to properly handle Arch, yet. You will get there later, if you want to.
If I am used to Ubuntu, would I ever want to be on a rolling release?
Depends on your personal preferences!
Rolling release typically delivers the latest and greatest of Linux, which is kinda cool. It also removes all the headache of upgrading to a newer version and the possible issues stemming from that. You get to see the gradual evolution of your system, one feature at a time, and you don't have to wait a month after a new version is released, just because some program you need is not properly ported yet.
On the other end, any update of the rolling release system can end up being somewhat breaking, so if you prefer setting aside time for managing your system instead of having a nasty surprise at the worst possible moment and at the same time want to have your system secure and updated at all times, classic model will be superior.
In both cases, properly set snapshots save a lot of trouble.
Ironically, I think Arch might be a better first time distro than CachyOS, because if you're willing to go through the manual installation process and learn from all the fuckups you'll make, you can come out of it with the knowledge necessary to manage your install. Though of course I would only recommend it with the warning that your system will be mostly broken for a while and you'd be constantly figuring out and fixing things, so not a good idea if you need your computer working.
But it does seem like a nice distro for if you already know what you're doing and want to save time getting things set up (and maybe those performance improvements are significant enough, I've seen people give big figures)
Agreed! If you want to get into the backbone of Linux systems from the get-go and have some level of technical expertise, Arch is a brilliant learning experience.
And if you already have the experience with Arch and just want to make your life easier, CachyOS or EndeavourOS are good options.
I wish there were Debian with Cachy-gaming features. Wonder if I could just do that myself? 🤔
Debian is probably a poor fit for a gaming-oriented distro, since gaming is constantly evolving in terms of hardware and software features.
Even if you put as much as possible into a container or a Flatpak, your drivers will be old, which is critical even for older hardware, particularly in new games.
If you want stability AND modern gaming, maybe go for something like Bazzite? The system is very stable thanks to immutability and atomic updates, and at the same time you have all the modern gaming stack.
I'm not a fan of immutable distros, and always having the latest drivers has never been an issue for me. Having a system that's less likely to break after an update is a bit more critical when it comes to actually being able to spend time playing games.
But what I meant is that Debian has tools I can use to recompile my packages. I'm not aware of any reasons why I wouldn't be able to rebuild my system to replicate the unique features of CachyOS myself if I wanted to put in the work. And at that point I could always start with Sid as a base as well, which would be just as bleeding edge as any rolling release distro.
Or, there is always Siduction as well.
Looked into Siduction - seems to be a small project operating over Debian Sid, which I call a recipe for disaster when actually deployed as a home system. Sid is not meant to be stable, and you're unlikely to get much support. And a small community project is unlikely to patch everything faster than Debian itself.
Debian Sid should not be seen the same way as Arch or other rolling release distros - the former is supposed to be broken, a bug here and there is a non-issue at this point of Debian development lifecycle. Arch and others are expected to actually be used as end products, so critical bugs are rare.
I had some counters in mind to the things you're saying here. But I don't feel like bothering. So I will just say the big problem with everything you're saying, is that you're arguing against using Debian.
Meanwhile just last night Elden Ring on my Trixie desktop went brrrr.
Yeah, even Bazzite is less niche then CachyOS
yeah, trendy distros come and go, i'd hesitate to call it mainstream, even if a handful of youtubers make a video about it.
And somehow more "independent" than arch, when it's based on arch?
How is Windows less corporate than MacOS or ChromeOS?
Based on the image, it seems like the argument is that Windows can be installed on a larger variety of devices than the other two
but then it should be "restricted" at top, and not "corporate"?
Yeah, but Microsoft shouldn't get credit for that. Windows only works with everything, because everything got built around it.
Drivers are needed for every little bit of hardware, Intel very well might not have become the dominant architecture if Microsoft hadn't picked it in the 80s.
Okay, but MacOS doesn't work on everything because Apple doesn't want it to. They want you to only use their devices, and only run their systems on them.
I mean, I didn't make the chart, I'm just speaking on what the creator's reasoning might be
Lots of things wrong with this but one I haven't seen yet is that CachyOS literally depends on ArchLinux, yet is more "independent" than it?
These are terrible axis to try and plot operating systems, and limiting yourself to such low resolution with no overlap doesn't help.
I think the "independent" label might be more about the decision making being dependent on an organization?
This is also a meme community and those charts are never that serious, and considering people will disagree about the placements anyways, trying to have more precision might be pointless.
Windows is less corporate than MacOS?
If we're talking hardware restrictions, sure I get it from the walled garden.
Mac OS isn't iOS, there is no walled garden.
It still a walled garden in the sense that Apple is the only one that can code sign and certify software for the MacOS. So every dev that wants to release software on MacOS still needs to pay for membership of Apple’s developer program even if they don’t distribute trough the App Store. Unless they want their user to disable a security feature on MacOS and ignore the warnings.
That’s not exactly true. Users don’t have to “disable” anything. They just have to click a button that says they understand the risk of running unsigned software. You can run anything you want on MacOS.
Well you might also need to run some arcane incantation to remove quarantine bits, too. And it'll only work if it's actually been ported to the m-series chips, of course. And sometimes you just need to compile the whole god damn app yourself anyway. But sure, caveats side, you can run anything you want on macos that runs on macos. As long as you're not using a company-issued device and are forbidden.
Right but you can still install any app regardless.
I've got the hot take of wondering if Windows is less corporate than ChromeOS. I'm sure there's some open sourcing going on from Windows but ChromiumOS (which I assume has major issues, AOSP certainly does) exists, and someone could build something cool with it.
Sadly we'll never have an open source Windows XP.
Isnt reactos pretty close to open source xp?
MacOS is a bit more of a closed system because of their hardware control than Windows I think. But I tend to think of both as equals when it comes to being a crappy OS
LOL at Windows being marked as less corporate than MacOS. They should absolutely be at least tied.
Literal megacorporations have run purely on Windows since the 90s and it’s not S-tier corporate? lol
Windows is not at the top of corporate possibly because it can be installed on non-homologated PCs.
But on the other hand, all the reasons that people hate corporate OSes apply much more to Microsoft than Apple. Microsoft is the company that puts ads in their OS and is built entirely out of proprietary tech, and has been more vocal about shoehorning AI into everything.
Red Hat is based on Fedora, not the other way around.
You sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_Linux#%3A%7E%3Atext=It+was+originally+developed+in+2003+as+a+continuation+of+the+Red+Hat+Linux+project.
From your own link, Fedora:
So yes, I'm pretty sure.
I don't think "upstream provider for newer packages" is the same as "based on". Fedora was developed from Red Hat, the image is correct in that sense. You can quote that part of the link but I specifically pointed to " It was originally developed in 2003 as a continuation of the Red Hat Linux project." so based on Red Hat.
Read the paragraph again. This time with your eyes.
Did you notice how it says "Red Hat Linux Project" and then goes on to say "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"?
This is because RHL != RHEL.
From the Hyperlink on the Wikipedia page for RHL:
OP is correct. You are mistaken for thinking RHL was RHEL. It is not.
You are right, my mistake for mixing the two.
Yup, in fact the base of RHEL 10 and CentOS Stream 10 is Fedora 41. For RHEL 9 it was Fedora 34 if I remember correctly.
Okay buddy
Windows is more corporate than that Ubuntu is more corporate and mainstream than that.
Arch isn't hard to install (anymore). It takes 5 minutes with archinstall.
btw
Helps if you know that command/setup thing/whatever you wanna call it. Otherwise, for someone who doesn't know about it, the process can be pretty painful. Even with the wiki's install instructions I have not been able to install arch the few times I tried in a VM over the past few months.
How is Debian More niche than cachy?
if you live antwhere but the USA and Canada, MacOS is a niche, absolutely not mainstream at all, I see more linux users than MacBook users here in Brazil
macs are so rare that someone once screenshared and i was almost asking if that was gnome
Lmao. In Europe Mac is mainstream and most people think I have MacOS installed when it's in fact gnome
Oh, didn't you know? "The World" is just "USA" on the Internet.
I mean...it was invented there. And it is the third most populous country in the world. So, for a long time the Internet was USA. It's not anymore but change can take a while to sink in.
Just my 2 cents.
Do they not advertise in Brazil? Cuz if y'all can go a day without seeing an ad of a floating laptop doing pirouettes in an endless white void to an overproduced pop song masquerading as indie, I might be down to move.
as someone who has lived 20 years in brazil, (since brith and has yet to venture outside) I have seen one apple ad in my whole life, and zero apple apple stores, the few times I decided to look up some of them because of memes I was genuinely disgusted by them
You forgot SuSE, as usual.
SuSE too niche to even show up on this chart.
I'll fight you in a ditch.
I'll cheer you on.
I've worked on suse as part of Unitedlinux.
No, I'd say it's not forgotten. Just repressed.
SuSE can hang out with New Zealand and Gen X
It's really that easy
It's more like "Arch Linux breaks if you don't update for too long, then try to naively update without knowing what you're doing and without checking the arch news for breaking changes". Which is more breakage during updates than stable distros, but absolutely manageable.
I'd put Haiku on the extreme top left corner (or in one of the two rows below that first column) since it's based on BeOS - it's a corporate OS wether it exits or not and it intends to replicate said corporate OS. In its place I'd put either TempleOS or Plan9.
TempleOS. Oh jeez it's been awhile since I've heard that.
If you ask me, the top left corner belongs to IBM i.
Replace Haiku with TempleOS
EDIT: Also, put Windows in the top right corner to avoid the "is Microslop or Apple more corporate" discussion.
I had the same reaction to the Microslop vs Apple corporateness at first. But they kinda have a point as in that Apple controls the entire stack from hardware to os, while windows is just the os
They so very want to be just like apple in that reguard.
but they aren't yet
Wouldn't TempleOS be more up and to the right a bit... ?
Just thinking about Terry's political philosophy as advised by his theocratic religious leanings.
If this was the usual political compass and was about the creators, yes, it would be.
But TempleOS is so niche that I wonder if anyone actually daily drives it, open source, and was made by one person with zero corporate involvement. So yeah, it's definitely bottom left here.
Fedora isn't based ln RHEL, it was before, but now it's in fact the opposite. As far as I know, RHEL 10 is based on CentOS Stream 10, which in turn is based on Fedora 41.
That's correct. The community threw a fit when CentOS moved into that Stream position. Despite it being ABI compatible with RHEL.
I didn't throw a fit I just replaced it within two months with debian and life goes on.
Congrats? Enjoy your totally different ecosystem and lack of SELinux.
Somehow I've managed to get through okay. It might have something to do with competence.
Weird choice of OS in that case. One the preconfigures many packages for you. You do you.
What is corporate about Debian?
It's used by companies for its rock-solid stability in long up times.
Why is "used by companies" criteria for being corporate?
Companies use doors. Are doors "corporate" now?
Debian had corporate funding, even if they those corporations don't have any ibfluence. It being one of the oldest and mostly widely used Linux distributions means that by the virtue of it being an enterprise-level system it is somewhat more corporate. Debian can neatly fit into most corporate and enterprise systems and probably is somewhere in almost everyone's stack. That's not bad and doesn't make it a corpo distro, but it definitely is more "corporate" than something like Arch which it is rightfully juxtaposed against
That makes sense, "used by" doesn't.
Well if among 30 doors, 2 specifically are used; then yes
more people working on it, maybe? i'm not sure, but it's the same situation for arch
I could think of a couple votes.
I'd make it 4x4 rather than 6x6 or fill it out a bit more.
And then some. [See my list in other reply.]
Arch only breaks if you don't read the wiki.
Update the repo's gpg keys, read the Arch news, do what manual steps they mention and you can update it after a year and it won't break.
Finally found the ultimate reason why I'm not gonna use Arch.
To be fair, the arch wiki is very good. I use it quite often despite not using arch. Quite a few things are valid on other distros, or you can get hints on how to fix it, like where to start looking.
Best stay away from Gentoo, Exherbo, Bedrock, NixOS and GuixSD too then.
with all due respect to the arch project and all, but I don't wanna do all that just to update my PC
It's not more hassle than updating other distros after one year, cause they'll throw a whole new major version at you. Here's Debian's upgrade instructions for a comparison:
https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/upgrading.en.html
What I wrote fits in a 6 line bash script, and there are much more sophisticated ready-made updaters available, too.
Except, if any random program that you want to install requires a new version of a low-level library, you're gonna have to do full system update today and not when upgrading the major version of the distro.
This is why I use Nixos.
It can update single apps independently.
In theory you could update single kernel modules, but that obviously makes the shit unstable.
This is all entirely theoretical. In practice, yes, it's easier if you don't go too long between updates on Arch.
But "not to long" means once a month, not every day. And you should really not go more than a month between updates on any distro.
If you mean the system being screwed over by a dependency on a newer lib version, I've had that exact scenario triggered multiple times in Debian testing. (And in other distros too, really.)
FancyApp depends on libbutt >= 1.1. You have 1.0 installed.
libbutt 1.1 was compiled against glibc 2.43 and lists it as a dependency. You have 2.42.
Upgrading glibc triggers reinstalling half of the system, including low-level components, which in turn pull in updates of other low-level components that don't themselves depend on glibc. Including the kernel.
But at least, with Ubuntu or whatever, this shouldn't change the general workings of the system that would require manual adjustments from me.
Joke's on you, Pop hasn't had a major update in years!
they released 24 last month
Well I haven't updated yet, so still true for me :3
My Arch install yesterday:
It somehow deleted the old kernel image from the boot partition but failed to write the new one (and I didn't notice before rebooting).
I needed to rebuild the kernel via chroot from a live USB.
Technically, if you stop updating arch when it's in a functional state it'll never break.
agreed. thats where I went wrong with my poor ee-pc. I went 3 years without updating it and it worked like a charm, then decided to try and update it. every source was dead, including the keyring. Manually fixed the ring, half the packages failed to update even with valid sources. Had to disable all package verification.
I then made the mistake of "Well surly a fresh install will be easier than trying to fix this broken mess".... I have not had a functional wifi management service since. None of them support the system anymore as the arch was discontinued officially a few years ago, and the only way I can connect to wifi now is via command line without network memory or saving.
On the plus side, you'll look like a super-leet haxor to your friends when you do this in front of them. Be sure to say, "Okay, I'm in" once it connects.
agreed! I just wish that I didn't need to do 6 commands to actually connect to wifi!
I mean, you can put them in a script and bind it to a hotkey, no?
That's...a very Arch approach
Presumably they can also make it run at startup.
But I'm just suggesting a solution for the existing situation, not saying that the distro should work this way.
Sure thing, I was just joking around. This should solve the issue. Although it's still weird that this issue exists in the first place.
I Actually had attempted to do that via a service, It didn't work. And at that point, I had spent a few hours trying to get it connected to the internet alone so I was already frustrated and was happy enough that it was able to at least connect again. Telling myself I'll go back to it later. Guess what never happend 🦊
When I bother testing it again, I will attempt to fix the service for it. Although in a perfect world it would be nice to have it remember passwords that way the startup is just having it connect to the already saved network, but I don't believe that's going to get fixed any time soon.
You might be right and binding it to a key binding may end up being the easier route.
The service probably either starts too early, or doesn't have access to the desktop session (idk if the latter would be necessary for the script). You can try putting the script into autostarting applications for the user's session, typically via a .desktop file in ~/.config/autostart — e.g. by copying a file from /usr/share/applications and adjusting it.
I have been really trying to avoid implementing it into the user session, it requires superuser to run the commands and I don't like the concept of hardcoding sudo paths using nopasswd
But I probably will end up having to do something similar in the user environment.
edit: Now that I think about it, I could probably just make the command path to the network command be authorized as no password on any user as I don't really see a situation where the user logged in shouldn't be able to manipulate the network it's connected to.
Why is Cachy more independent than Arch?
where mah nixos
How about above arch Linux? Or at least in that column. Maybe further down
Where's Hannah Montana Linux?
I miss RedStarOS, Suicide Linux (OK, not a distro) and TempleOS here as well.
Biebian, too.
Oh damn, I forgot to add HML to my list.
CachyOS a bit to the left. It is not at all mainstream in my bubble.
NixOS on the niche and corporate quadrant.
TL;DR: Winzozz is more corporate than Mac N' Cheese OS
Windows is so corporate, it actually succeeds in being the unquestionable lowest common denominator corpos love so much.
Not that MacOS is the champion and savior of FOSS, but as far as I know, Windows is much more hellbent on backwards compatibility and simply being available on as many types of devices as possible, while Apple at the very least pretends to focus on innovation rather than exponentially increasing profits and universal availability, with Apple products being status symbols and all.
Its right beside it you goofy goober. :3
Of all the problems, this bothered me the most.
I mean, I think the spot each is in is okay, its more that line. The opposite would be macos or windows 11, methinks.
I wouldn't play the game. Just eat your flavor of ice cream.
I think you're missing quite a few like:
GUIX top left
nixOS top right
context 1
context 2
Edit: Ah I missed the axes are not labeled like the common political compass. Nvm then. Put NixOS above RHEL and guix above arch.
NixOS is definitely not as corporate as MacOS or ChromeOS. It's also not as mainstream as RHEL. I'd say RHEL should be one square to the right, NixOS should go where RHEL is now, and Guix should share the square with Gentoo.
You call haiku old fashioned.... Linux is based on os design from 30 years before that.
I think it’s a bit different since Haiku is kind of closer to BeOS as frozen in time around 2002, and there’s not a lot of new ground being broken there. Yes, Linux is based on UNIX but there’s been a lot of change since then.
They probably mean in terms of GUI theme.
Linux is console first so still doesn't make sense.
you're the one comparing it to Linux
The "never breaks" under debian is such a bold and false claim lol.
Try to run a modern high dpi laptop with a debian; you ll quickly find yourself installing from "testing" instead of "stable", otherwise it wont even start X11. Oh, i see you mixed up some packages from "stable" into your "testing"? Shame, have fun reinstalling your OS
Sure "skill issue". But Debian was the only distro I was able to break. Twice. Because first time I didnt understand what happened
Windows 11 should be up one more with windows 10 in its place
SUSE just one down from RedHat
Not to be confused with openSUSE though, even if there is some overlap. Maybe that one is down another step.
Fedora is basically a testing ground for the next RHEL release.
RedHat: noooo, fedora's definitely for sure independent. you're not just doing free labor for IBM
Red Hat is their biggest sponsors, and uses their releases to bugfix and create their new releases. But just because Red Hat uses it this way, ofc doesn't mean Fedora isnt independent, it just means they are very influenced by a HUGE donor!
Are there specific choices made by fedora that would have should have been done differently but were pushed by the large donor?
Just asking because I'm on fedora but wasn't aware of that relationship but this description hasn't yet convinced me that the relationship is toxic for users, but my mind is open enough to believe it with specific examples.
The thing is, we don't really know really. The only thing we know for certain is that Fedoras rollouts is basicly a testtube for Red Hat. I think Red Hat or Fedora was pretty open about this. It might seem "negative" but I just think it adds an extra layer of caution. I don't think Fedora is interested in becoming buggy in any way, or irrelevant for that matter. Bazzite for instance also run on Fedora, so that would be crazy. But I also think that they just might implement things IBMs red hat tells them too, if they wanna keep getting those huge donations. Donations at an open source market still benefits the doner in this way. It's a fastlane ticket to features after doners desire. So Fedora users might just get the rollouts before Red Hat users, and get it with the bugs it might have at early stages, before Red Hat implements it. But I am not in any shape or forme in knowledge of the Fedora team and I don't know how the relationship works. I just don't buy the fact that IBM gives millions to the Fedora team without using it for their own advantage as well. Who wouldn't?
linux mint, but Debian edition, i feel is left of the centre split, but only a bit.
Yeah I don't get what corporate means here. Debian was basically the corporate standard for a long while. Ubuntu was personal use
Debian is also the opposite of corporate since it's a community project where the community aspect is central with democratic voting and no corporate control.
So then why would Microsoft be lower than Chrome or Apple with corporate? I wouldn't say Windows has more democratic voting and less corporate control than them
Also with 70% of computers running windows, the chart would be scaled terribly along the x axis. You would have to shift every Linux to box 1 with chrome, and put Mac in box 2/6
Ubuntu was devised pretty much as Linux for workstations, with Canonical selling support. Personal use was more of a side effect.
Developed for, maybe. But that's like saying AI was built to better enhance art. Ubuntu did nothing that Debian couldn't do stable as a server. Ubuntu in 2008, was Mint today.
(Not saying that's when they came out, just that the acknowledgement and use them, is very similar now)
Edit: or one could say.. PopOS and Mint, are the Ubuntu of yesteryear. They are the corporate mocks that many like, and I've used both. They have their purpose. But that doesn't mean they unseated Debian in anything but giving users familiarity. Unless Debian took a spike downward.
Why isn't openSUSE included in that table?
Hahaha it's a noob bait
hasn't been the easiest in about 7 years haha
I would replace the political compass colour scheme to avoid confusion. mint , ubuntu and cachy should be the furtherst right. debian should be where mint is, or with fedora one step to the right. windows should be top right.
Add some of the newer distros like steamOs, void linux, etc
Also move upbuntu north one square
What is this horseshoe theory doing in my linux funny?
Nixos?
Maybe at the place of Gentoo? But I'd think it's more popular
Put it below Debian/right of Gentoo.
Hmm, I don't see how Corporate can be on a scale though. Either the distro is run by a corporation, or it's not.
i think an OS can be made entirely by a corporation, or entirely by one hobbyist with no funding. something like fedora is made by volunteers with corporate funding, whereas something like Arch is made by volunteers with donations, some of which might be coming from corporate representatives
Hm, yes I suppose you can see it that way. Personally, I'm mostly interested in if it's a community thing or not, but I suppose corpo donations can be found all over these as well.
macos is very controlled. windows is closed source but an open system. runs on many devices.
Where does PopOS go?
niche but slightly corporate?
Almost all of it
A lot of FreeBSD development is done by companies like Netflix, who use FreeBSD for their edge catching due to its performance and simplicity advantage over Linux
Add another square at the bottom left of the grid that breaks out of the grid on both directions and contains OpenBSD.
I came here to complain about the lack of OpenBSD
And slackware
How did you miss temple is in the uppermost Right?
?
How does TempleOS go there in this chart?
Because it was made as a religious/God inspired project and it's funny.
Where do we put QubesOS
My take
Add snakes. Like a lot of snakes. Like spaghetti. Sssssssssssssss
Seconded.
Needs more snakes.
I love where mint is and i love that I'm there with it.
Might try cachy someday
Was bazzite on here? Did i just not see it?
I would flip the whole chart diagonally so it lines up better with the political compass. I'd equate "corporate" with "right" instead of "authoritarian," and "niche" with "libertarian" instead of "left." Also, I would replace "independent" with "community/nonprofit."
Yus. Or just PoliticalCompassize it true.
RHEL is based on Fedora. Same with SLES with OpenSUSE and others
And Ubuntu isnt really easy
And Gentoo has binary packages
The column where you have Debian, should all 6 cells be filled with Debian
Bazzite right of Cachy.
Windows top right
PikaOS right under debian
Hannah Montana Linux in the far bottom right
You can install Debian on your Chromebook like you would any app, which I feel makes it a bit less controlling since you have access to a complete Debian install and all the benefits that provides.
Windows also has WSL, which gives you Ubuntu, although that process isn't quite as user friendly.
You can't take out ChromeOS as you can Windows
Rhel is corporate, doesn't belong in authleft.
The axis are redefined here
I missed that
NP, just helping you and others enjoy the meme.
So did I. Made similar comment. Easy to miss, so accustomed to seeing the political compass.
I am not sure I understand your logic behind Cachy and Gentoo. Cachy is actually quite mainstream now and Gentoo is... less so.
I think there's just not enough tiles here. FreeBSD is definitely more mainstream than Haiku, but less so than Gentoo, let alone Arch.
Put NixOS below RHEL
Arch also sometimes breaks when you update it.
My proof was dual monitors not working off and on around October last year.
Where would the Bazzite operating system fit in?
RedHat's a corporation, and so move it to the right a couple squares, above Ubuntu. And move Windows up one.
And I'd add:
[PS, Sorry, I got carried away... ' Originally intended to mention less than a couple dozen. LOL. Oops.]
Though I'm not sure where they'd all go. And many of these would have to double up in lib-left. And/or split up the chart into more squares.
And I'd cross-post to a political compass lemmy community. ;)
Perhaps a bloat to frugal axis and niche to mainstream axis?
Granted, I don't know what Haiku is, but surely it can't be more independent and niche than TempleOS?
Haiku is what grew out of the ashes of BeOS. And if you've never heard of that, you're no worse off. It was another Unix-alike that was neither Linux nor BSD which showed early promise but didn't gain enough traction.
?
When was BeOS and Haiku UNIX-alike?
Very different beast, as far as I understand.
The BeOS command line command set were all borrowed from or based upon Unix and/or Linux (IIRC many were straight from GNU), which is the basis for my comparison.
The kernel and graphics were all from-scratch and radically different from Linux, sure, but the same could be said of Linux when compared to the original Unix, or any of the BSDs.
TempleOS is unusable and mostly ran for fun or respect to its creator.
Haiku can work for your regular browsing/document work, although the question of "why?" remains.
omarchy to the left of red hat.
not sure if omarchy goes in the middle green one.
edit: mabye next to cachy os.
When was þe last time you installed Arch? It's not harder to install þan most of þese options.
Even Artix isn't hard, and it's more like what Arch used to be. Arch has menu driven installers. Þe only hard þing about Arch þese days is þat it requires more regular maintenance and config conflict resolution is still a PITA.