boredsquirrel

Which is an effect of trying to manage a chaotic system. NixOS solves this by having strict checks but giving users the ability to configure their system.

The system is very mutable but centrally controlled.

Windows has an idea how it wants to look like, but at the same time grants software all sorts of crazy permissions. Adobe software doesnt run when "storage protection mode against ransomware" is enabled for example.

The Windows store apps are better isolated, with permissions etc. But same as on Linux with Flatpak, Software vendors dont want to change their software to be less invasive.

I mean Windows pretty much thrives off the fact that you rely on random 3rd party software like drivers to be able to be installable externally and run with very high privileges. So they dont need to do the work.

the weird part being that windows is that stable even with the chaos it does in its system files

Microsoft is 1000 times the size if RedHat, Canonical or SUSE, if not more. They just throw lots of money at it.

Also it is mission critical, so you can kinda expect vendors to test their software better, a bit.

Not always (crowdstrike lol)

2

boredsquirrel @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

mint is supposed to undo shit decisions of ubuntu

Yes for sure. I just meant software compatibility, but I assume I made that up from the back of my head. I only had one Docker issue, thats it.

I don't get it either, LMDE is treated as a testing project by mint

No idea what is so hard about it, things like these just show how small this project is! It is literally an Ubuntu LTS downstream, nothing crazy. But 2/3 beginners use it, which is kinda insane.

distros should let the user be able to defer updates, but make them effortless to install.

Agreed. Though as said, a good software management concept with atomic updates and rollbacks, as well as tested software (and a damn longterm kernel, Fedora) doesnt need people wondering if they should update.

Unless you are a power-poweruser, not updating is a baseless gut decision. With a good system you dont need to do that.

people complain about forced windows updates all the time and for good reasons.

Because Windows updates take long and cause downtime. Also forcing reboots is not great (though I dont know if they just do that if there was a real vulnerability, that would be fine)

Windows updates are pretty damn fine. Overengineered, maybe? But the system is not immutable, so they do checksums everywhere, to validate the OS.

OSTree or NixOS do it better, but have way bigger downsides. Maybe not compared to Windows, they should just fix their stuff.

But I guess Windows updates are more stable than typical Linux updates, more tests etc.

did you see how kde plasma 6 does it nowadays? its on the shutdown button. that is the way.

That is fine, but only makes sense with package-based distros that have some kind of parallel miniature system running the updates.

Basically what Windows does, and Fedora now too.

Atomic updates are WAY better. No downtime and still more stable than running a very small live OS replacing itself. Maybe the live OS is in RAM, idk.

boredsquirrel @slrpnk.net 2mo ago

Uhm I think you mean Leap. Slowroll is really new and an amazing concept.

Semi-rolling with a few packports and a short feature delay of 3 months.

Fedora is fine, but they dont have the longterm kernel. You can stay on the older supported version for more stable software.

Fedora KDE broke for me once with very very nontrivially fixable DNF and RPM issues. Pretty insane. Fedora upgrades are messy and weird.

Fedora Atomic though is nearly unbreakable. Though, NixOS might be better as /etc (and with home-manager /home) are manages and dont accumulate garnage and state