Even if that's the case, it's telling of Linux' maturity.

By default, Fedora Atomic envisions the following in regards to installing packages/software:

• First, try the Flatpak.
• If that doesn't work, use Toolbx(/Distrobox).
• If all else fails, resort to rpm-ostree.

This works pretty fine, but isn't perfect:

• Flatpak has become pretty good for software with a GUI. However, while it can do CLI, it's underutilized.
• Toolbx/Distrobox has its merits, but not everyone enjoys consuming CLI through containers.
• Besides the fact that installing all your CLI tools through rpm-ostree will negatively impact how fast you can update your system, it also requires you to (soft-)reboot before you can access the newly installed package (unless you enjoy living on the edge with --apply-live). This can be pretty cumbersome, especially if you're in flow.

Thus, the situation around CLI on Fedora Atomic became a sore to the eyes. Within the community, there were multiple attempts to tackle this problem:

• Nix; For some time, this was the perfect solution. Unfortunately, in its current iteration, installing Nix on Fedora Atomic requires SELinux' enforcing mode to be turned off. As turning enforcing mode off is unacceptable for uBlue's maintainers, this was eventually dismissed.
• Better tooling around Toolbx/Distrobox; There have been made some efforts in this regard, perhaps most notably Ptyxis. But, we're not there yet. Though, some are hopeful of what podmansh will bring to the table.
• Homebrew; It behaves as any other package manager used for installing packages from the repository on any Linux distro out there. Except, in this case, it's exclusively utilized for CLI. Currently, it's simply the most straightforward in use. You just have to teach people to replace their apt/dnf/ pacman with flatpak (for GUI) and brew (for CLI). Furthermore, it comes with a big and healthy repository. Finally, it utilizes technologies related to the ones found on Fedora Atomic.
• systemd-sysext; This has only very recently been added to systemd. I wouldn't be surprised if this will play a prominent role going forward. Though, I'm unsure if CLI will benefit most of it.

Why does nobody here ever recommend Fedora to noobs?

It does happen. It's simply not the popular choice for the following reasons:

• Fedora and its predecessors were until relatively recently simply more cumbersome in use compared to Debian and Ubuntu;
  • There was a time (like at least over 10 years ago) in which package managers didn't necessarily know how to resolve dependencies. However, Debian's package manager at the time did it earlier than the package manager found on Fedora's predecessor. Hence, this was a clear reason to prefer Debian or Ubuntu over Fedora('s predecessor).
  • Freezing packages and offering stable releases with two years of support (like Debian does), has been and continues to be a very pleasant way to run your Linux OS. That's why, even in the past, Fedora's slower cousin (i.e. CentOS) was very popular (though being RHEL clone didn't hurt either). Fedora, on the other hand, offers a semi-rolling release cycle of 6 months with only 13 months of support since release. With semi-rolling release, I refer to the fact that some packages are frozen and some are not frozen. Hence, you should expect daily updates. Access to the latest and greatest software is great. However, every update is a possible cause/reason for something to bork/break on your system. It's therefore unsurprising that some prefer the predictability found on other distros. Though, for the sake of completeness, one has to mention that Fedora Atomic does a great job at tackling this problem; especially the uBlue projects.
  • A couple of years back, Fedora switched in quick succession to systemd, Wayland and GTK4. Thankfully, I didn't experience this for myself. But, from what I could gather, it was a mess. Users, perhaps rightfully so, questioned Fedora's decision-making. While Fedora wasn't particular loved, this didn't help to retain new users, nor did it help to cultivate a trusted environment.
• Due to the previous reason, Fedora has not particularly been a very popular distro. Hence, troubleshooting your issues through Google is less straightforward compared to Linux Mint or Ubuntu. Additionally, as Fedora's user base has primarily been more experienced users compared to the ones found on Linux Mint or Ubuntu, it's unsurprising to find less discussion on elementary stuff. Simply by virtue of Fedora's user base already being past that.
• Fedora, like Debian and openSUSE, offers a relatively bare bones experiences. It does make a lot of sane decisions for you. However, it doesn't focus on being particularly GUI-friendly or newbie-friendly. By contrast, distros like Bazzite, Linux Mint, Manjaro, MX Linux, Nobara, Pop!_OS and Zorin OS (amongst others), do put thought and effort into streamlining the experience as much as they can; especially for newer users.
• While Fedora is primarily community-driven, Red Hat's influence is undeniable. As such, people that hate corporate interest and/or Red Hat and/or IBM will favor the use of Arch and Debian.

Having said all of that, I've been using Fedora Atomic for over two years now. Heck, Silverblue was my first distro. And it has been excellent so far. Furthermore, with Bazzite (based on Fedora Atomic) and Nobara (based on Fedora) often mentioned in conversations regarding beginner friendly distros, even if Fedora itself isn't explicitly mentioned, the ecosystem is clearly healthy and will continue to flourish.

TLE did a performance test on this distro and it was pretty much the same in terms of FPS as other distros.

Without measuring any 1% lows or 0.1% lows.

I enjoy TLE's content, but that video is far from exhaustive on this.

Unless a better comparison comes out, we should reserve ourselves from making any judgements on this particular subject.

I can’t fully agree with you about the smooth user experience on this particular distro because it’s immutable

Could you elaborate on why you think this is the case? FYI, I've been using Fedora Atomic for over two years. So, please don't feel the need to explain me how it works*.

Thank you for the reply!

Inconvenient package management

Fair.

manual theme installation

I assume this is based on an experience with Kinoite? Am I right?

anything that involves changes to the system

I'd argue "anything" is too harsh. But yes, there are definitely edge cases that are either very/too cumbersome or outright impossible to achieve on Fedora Atomic.

However, I'd argue that while the associated paradigm shift and learning curve do require some commitment to adjust to, it is a more sane way of running a system for most people.

Unfortunate. However, one bad move doesn't justify dismissing systemd altogether.

Do I wish for s6 and dinit to be competitive with systemd? Absolutely. Do I wish for systemd what PipeWire has been for PulseAudio? Yes, please. Do I wish that distros/DEs would be less reliant on systemd? Hell yeah! (Can I please have an rpm-based distro without systemd?)

But, unfortunately, at least for now, systemd is the most robust and (somehow) most polished init we got. And I'm actually grateful for that.

Most exhaustive write-up on dual-booting Fedora Atomic and Windows 10 that I've found.

FWIW, I've done it and my system works as you'd expect.

I'm a big fan of Fedora Atomic. However, even I have to admit that knowing how to install packages through dnf is simply more convenient than knowing and understanding the nuances between rpm-ostree, Toolbx/Distrobox and flatpak. And I haven't even delved into ujust and brew that are found on uBlue images.

Furthermore, even if we would limit ourselves with what Fedora Atomic prescribes, we see the following inconveniences:

• rpm-ostree ; I know --apply-live exists and I know systemctl soft-reboot exists. But still, if you have to resort to rpm-ostree, then both the speed of update/installation as well as the need to reboot (or live on the edge with --apply-live) are inconvenient compared to dnf.
• flatpak ; It's inconvenient that I have to alias the installed package if I prefer sane naming conventions when accessing it through the terminal. Furthermore, stuff like the NativeMessaging portal not being available yet for sandboxed browsers and how that prevents any local password manager to interact with them (without hacking your way through; which, once again, is an inconvenience) is inconvenient.
• Toolbx/Distrobox ; the fact that you'd have to setup quadlets (or simply rely on uBlue images to do it for you) to keep them up to date, up and running is an inconvenience. The fact that distrobox-export has to be resorted to for accessing these directly from your 'App Drawer' is an inconvenience.

The fact that there's no centralized place for upgrading all of the above (unless you rely on an uBlue image) is an inconvenience.

I could go on and on, but these should satisfy in revealing some of the more obnoxious inconveniences.

How about

• SELinux that's pre-configured and on enforcing mode OOTB
• Its whole Atomic branch
• Being the first distro on which new technologies are introduced

All of which are unique.

To be frank, Fedora's unique selling points are very compelling. I wonder if you could name a distro with even more impressive USPs.

Nvidia can be a bitch. And it's unfortunate that Fedora isn't particularly well known for handling that graciously.

I’d recommend Linux Mint for beginners after my experiences.

Absolutely fair. FWIW, if you ever feel like giving Fedora another chance, consider doing it through its derivative (i.e. Bazzite).

Would you mind elaborating?

Hehe. I agree that the community on Lemmy gives off more mature vibes. I suppose one should at least credit them for being idealistic enough to be on Lemmy rather than Reddit.

Thank you for spreading the positivity 😄!

If I understand it correctly, layering an application is no more dangerous than a regular install on a non atomic os.

True~ish.

There's an important caveat though; for whatever reason, rpm-ostree can outright fail to upgrade (due to conflicts related to layered packages) while an issue like that is more rare on traditional Fedora and dnf. Thankfully, I've never had a problem that I couldn't solve with rpm-ostree reset run on a (previously) pinned deployment (through sudo ostree admin pin ). However, when used irresponsibly, this (i.e. layering) can outright destroy your otherwise very robust 'immutable' distro.

It's easier to teach people to be cautious than to teach how they should act accordingly. Hence, uBlue's documentation tends to be more conservative in order to protect (especially newer) users from shooting themselves in the foot.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Bazzite also includes an entry in their documentation in which they explain how theming on Bazzite works exactly.

ZSH through the excellent ZSH Quickstart Kit.

Thank you for sharing! If you remember, could you share your findings?

Can't agree more.

I believe Flatpak initially couldn't and/or didn't want to do CLI. At some point, it offered some basic functionality; I first noticed it on Bottles. But, it's pretty dire if no variation of top can be found as a Flatpak.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people are simply unaware that Flatpak can even do CLI. This inevitably also negatively affects its CLI ecosystem.

FWIW, by creating your own images (through BlueBuild or tooling offered by uBlue) you could bake themes directly into those folders.

However, I totally understand why you'd not feel compelled to do as such 😅. Especially if your current distro/system works splendidly.

Sometimes, placing it to ~/.local/share/themes works as well*.

Yup. Here's the post as found on Mastodon by the developer that works on Steam on Linux on behalf of Valve.

Several posters have argued that LMDE, like debian, is barebones, whereas LM is ideal for an end user with not much idea about linux

I believe I'm the only one in the previous post that used the term. But, I believe a misunderstanding has occurred. Debian, plain old Debian, is (relatively) bare-bones. And with this, I mean that extra tooling and what not is absent. Sure, these extra tooling etc come at the cost of what some might regard as bloat. But, ultimately, its absence should not affect performance in any significant way (so not positively, nor negatively). Thus, LMDE and Linux Mint are actually pretty close to one another. LMDE is basically just Linux Mint (Cinnamon edition) but with a Debian base instead of being based on Ubuntu.

I also want to future proof it as much as possible, which would mean using the OS/DE that uses less resources.

Excellent OP. Thank you for providing this insight on what's important for you. With this information we'll be able to offer better help. So, as you've excellently noticed already, Xfce is pretty good if you want a very functional machine that doesn't suck a lot of resources. So, I totally support your decision for Xfce over Cinnamon as Xfce is simply less resource intensive. However, 8 GB of RAM should be pretty fine. Even GNOME should run wonderfully on 8 GB of RAM, so Cinnamon should not cause any troubles. But, if you've still got concerns and if you're already on an SSD, then continue using Xfce as it's otherwise one of the better DEs out there. But, if you're not on an SSD yet, then consider slipping one inside; it will matter a lot.

Regarding your actual query, installing Xfce in retrospect to LMDE should work, but you might get yourself into more trouble than it's worth. Therefore, I'd advice you to simply get Linux Mint Xfce Edition and call it a day. Going for the Edge ISO (which by default comes with Cinnamon) for the latest (and greatest) kernel and retroactively trying to setup Xfce should (once again) cause you more troubles than it's worth it. So, in the end, I'd like to recommend you either Linux Mint Xfce Edition or MX Linux (which is based on Debian Stable (so not Ubuntu) and actually defaults to Xfce). Honestly, they're mostly two flavors/interpretations that try to accomplish very similar goals. So, you should be fine with either one of the two.

When the laptop is from Framework (like OP's laptop is) and is one of the 'supported' distros, and if said distro has a more robust update scheme (related to its immutability), then, quite frankly, its as close to "tailored to your hardware by a team of qualified and paid engineers" as it gets.

IIRC, any of the uBlue images offer to ship these by default. Hence, they might as well pick one of those instead.

I understand. And to be frank, I agree with you that perhaps it's too much focused on a particular set of things (i.e. gaming).

There's also Aurora and Bluefin (see uBlue's website) for those that seek a very similar experience but without the focused-on-gaming part. The reason I prefer Bazzite over those two is related to Waydroid (i.e. software to run Android (apps) on Linux). However, your mileage may vary.

Finally, uBlue used to dedicate resources and documentation on their base images; i.e. relatively not-opinionated images for Silverblue, Kinoite and Fedora Atomic with basically any desktop environment you could imagine plus hardware enablement. These are perhaps still worth considering. However, personally, I've been having a better time on Aurora/Bazzite/Bluefin.

What's with openSUSE Tumbleweed?

Do you think its USPs are more compelling? If so, consider naming those USPs in order for them to be evaluated.

OP, it seems as if the fear mongering and misinformation may have reached you through your cautious disposition.

I've gone through every single comment found below your post and at times I've been dumbfounded and/or astonished by the ludicrous claims that are spouted.

FFS, someone even expressed a problem found on imperative systems... While Fedora Atomic can be made (relatively) declarative (i.e. the exact opposite of imperative) for over a year now.

I will leave you with two videos in which the recent conference talks by the very same people that work on Fedora Atomic can be found. Consider watching these if you're interested to know what they're actually currently working on. If you pay attention, you will even notice how they mention common misconceptions that have also been brought up here...

First watch this one. Then, watch this.

The only fair criticism that I've found is the required investment and effort to adjust due to the associated paradigm shift and learning curve. However, this is peanuts compared to Guix System or NixOS.

Uses btrfs by default but comes with no snapshots or GUI manager pre-configured for system restore

False on Fedora Atomic.

Less software availability compared to Ubuntu or Mint

Distrobox and Nix exists.

More likely to break than Ubuntu or Mint

Mint, perhaps. For Ubuntu, this was only true in the past. And only if PPAs were used sparingly. But Snaps have been a disaster for them in this case. So much so, that even Valve told Ubuntu users to use the Flatpak for Steam instead of the Snap.

You're welcome 😊!

I agree that Bazzite is very very good. So much so, that it's the first distro I recommend in person.

Enjoy 😉!

Very informative. I appreciate it!

Hi. I'm not related to either of the two fighters. I do, however, admire your curiosity. Still, I feel a particular sentence made in this comment of yours has to be nuanced. If this endeavor of mine is not appreciated, then please feel free to notify me however you please.

So, without further a due.

If I were to go immutable there are some limits on what I can do

Strictly speaking, yes.

However, we can categorize these as follows:

• Absolutely impossible to accomplish on some 'immutable' distros
• Currently impossible to accomplish on some 'immutable' distros. However, it will be fixed eventually.
• Currently impossible to accomplish through conventional methods on some 'immutable' distros. However, some experimental features do allow these to be accomplished. But, you might have to learn how.

Furthermore, depending on your needs, you may not even have to deal with anything that's either not or less supported.

Finally, as the use of "some 'immutable' distros" suggests, not all immutable distros are created equally. Therefore, it's actually uninformed to lump all of them in the same category. True; they're referred to as 'immutable'. However, descriptions like atomic, reproducible and declarative are perhaps more useful when comparing one 'immutable' distro to the other.

I'm personally a big fan of 'immutable' distros. However, please don't feel compelled to delve into it as long as you're satisfied with your system.

My two cents. Enjoy!

Until now I used distrobox but I always wondered which distro/ package manager to use. What’s your experience with it?

The answers found below this post resonate with my own experiences.

I do have a question: When you run the sestatus command in the terminal, what string/description is found corresponding to "Current mode"?

Thanks!

It has been my pleasure 😊.

Is there anything to be expected when updating the system to a new version?

The write-up found above ensures that the two systems don't share any space within the same drive. Therefore, there's nothing to worry about.

For example, I've upgraded Fedora from 39 to 40 about two months ago without any troubles. Heck, I'm on Bluefin's :latest. So, the update to 40 happened automatically in the background without notifying me. So, with the very next reboot I suddenly found myself on 40 😅. I probably wouldn't even have noticed any difference were it not that some GNOME extensions didn't work right away. Otherwise, it was a perfectly smooth update.

But BSDs and Linux are very similar in design philosophy and are dependent on each other.

Interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the bold parts? Thank you in advance :D !

I'm not the one you asked your question, but I think I understood what they meant.

First of all, technically MicroOS is the non-desktop version of openSUSE's take on an atomic/immutable distro. The desktop variants are referred to as Aeon (for GNOME) and Kalpa (for KDE).

Secondly, while Aeon/Kalpa definitely is to openSUSE what Silverblue/Kinoite is to Fedora, there's a clear difference in vision and maturity.

Vision

Fedora Atomic is a very ambitious project; everything points toward it being Fedora's take on NixOS. But, unlike NixOS, it couldn't start from scratch nor did they intend to. Instead, it's the process of evolving their existing products into something special. As such, it has been over two years since Fedora has even explicitly stated that they intend for Fedora Atomic to become the default eventually (without saying anything about sunsetting the old). While, AFAIK, openSUSE has yet to make similar statements regarding Aeon/Kalpa.

Maturity

Everything points towards Fedora Atomic being more mature than openSUSE MicroOS; work on the project has started earlier, Fedora Atomic is almost done with their transition (from image-based) to OCI while I don't recall openSUSE mention anything regarding their transition (from 'snapshots') to image-based since they mentioned it briefly last year. Furthermore, Bazzite (based on Fedora Atomic) has become the face of Gaming Linux while openSUSE' MicroOS fails to deliver on anything but Aeon. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine. But not everyone is fan of GNOME.

So, use Tumbleweed if:

• You prefer the traditional model
• You like YaST
• You like the rolling release model and not being tied to GNOME

Use Aeon if:

• You like GNOME and an atomic distro on a rolling release distro
• You prefer the opinionated, hands off, little to no customization path that openSUSE has currently chosen for its Aeon
• You like a containerized future

Use Fedora Atomic if:

• You want an atomic distro, but don't like any of the decisions made for Aeon; i.e.
  • prefer to use KDE, Budgie or Sway (or any other desktop environment through uBlue)
  • aren't that big of a fan of container workloads
  • prefer having the choice of installing native packages
• Prefer atomic on top of a point release distro

Finally, regarding containers specifically; let's say you want to install package X.

• On Tumbleweed, you just do sudo zypper install X and you're done with it.
• On Aeon, if it's available as a Flatpak, you do flatpak install X. If there's no Flatpak of it, you install it within a container that you access through Distrobox. Within the container, use the package manager corresponding to the container. Technically, while inside the container, the environment is very similar to Tumbleweed. So, say you got a Tumbleweed container, then you can continue using sudo zypper install X.
• On Fedora Atomic, you can layer onto the system through rpm-ostree install X; this is very close to how installing packages work on Tumbleweed. And, you can continue using both Flatpak and Distrobox; like how it's done on Aeon. Note that Tumbleweed also allows access to Flatpak and Distrobox. So, Aeon is most restricted as it can't install packages onto the base system. Btw, Fedora Atomic accomplishes this through layers that can also be peeled off later on (through uninstalling for example). With this, the base system actually isn't affected, but the end user doesn't notice it.

Do you mean SecBSD?

Thank you for the answer and for your time! I wish you a nice day!

Solutions found on either of these wikis may work perfectly fine on other distros, but it's not a guarantee. 'Seasoned' users should be able to distinguish this.

You seem to be ignorant; the use of this word is not meant derogatory. In all fairness, it's perfectly fine; we all gotta start out somewhere. So, please allow me to elaborate.

Being the first distro on which new technologies are introduced

Consider checking up on where Wayland, systemd, PipeWire, PulseAudio etc first appeared; so on which particular distro.

Also atomic branch?

Fedora Atomic, i.e. the first attempt to Nix'ify an established distro. Most commonly known through Fedora Silverblue or Fedora Kinoite. Peeps formerly referred to these as immutable. However, atomic (i.e. updates either happen or don't; so no in-between state even with power outage) is more descriptive. It's also the most mature attempt. Derivatives like Bazzite are the product of this endeavour. From the OG distros, only openSUSE (with its Aeon) has released an attempt. However, it seems to be less ambitious in scope and vision. I wish it the best, but I find it hard to justify it over Fedora Atomic.

SELinux might be a fair point, but I doubt that ss unique to Fedora tbh.

OOTB, apart from Fedora (Atomic), it's only found on (some) Fedora derivatives and openSUSE Aeon (which forces you to use GNOME and Aeon's specific container-focused workflow). Arch, Gentoo and openSUSE (perhaps even Debian) do 'support' SELinux, but it can be a real hassle do deal with. And it's not OOTB.

If you make claims, you better substantiate it. I just did your homework 😂. Regardless, I'm still interested to hear a distro with more impressive USPs. Let me know 😉.

I'm not the one you posed your question towards, but it's related to Bazzite's relation to Fedora Atomic and uBlue.

To put it simply, dnf is the 'source of truth' when it comes to package management (i.e. finding, installing, updating, removing (etc) of packages) on (traditional/regular) Fedora. So, dnf is basically to Fedora what apt used to be to Ubuntu. Sure, you can use Flatpak or any other (additional) package manager. But, there's no need to unless the software you seek is not available for installation through dnf.

Bazzite, on the other hand, does not allow you to install any packages through dnf. Instead, rpm-ostree, flatpak, Toolbx/Distrobox and (exclusive to uBlue projects) brew (and ujust) are provided by default. But, you might have to learn when you'd have to use which and why.

To educate yourself on this, you should definitely consider reading up on the related entry within Bazzite's documentation. In general, there's a lot of very useful stuff in Bazzite's documentation. Therefore, if you intend to use Bazzite, you should definitely read through its documentation.

I started on NixOS, then tried Zorin, Mint, and now Bazzite.

I feel as if there's a story with you starting on NixOS and on how it went. I would love to hear about that!