Linux

48165 readers

1132 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

Arch or NixOS? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 11 months ago by CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/linux@lemmy.ml

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been here a week ago already asking if Arch would be fine for a laptop used for university, as stability is a notable factor in that and I'm already using EndeavourOS at home, but now I'm curious about something else too - what about Arch vs NixOS?

I heard that NixOS is pretty solid, as due to the one file for your entire system format you can both copy and restore your system easily whenever, apart from your normal files and application configurations of course.

Are there any major downsides to NixOS compared to Arch apart from the Arch Wiki being a bit less relevant? I'd also lose access to the AUR, but admittedly I don't think I've ever actually needed it for anything, it's just nice to have. Also, since NixOS has both rolling release and static release and you can mix and match if you wanna get packages from unstable or not, I'm not losing Arch's bleeding edge, which is nice.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Neither, rock solid Debian + flatpak for the latest software.

[–] CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've already considered Debian, but... I dunno, this isn't what I'd call the most logical reason, but I just kinda don't like it as my desktop OS. I'd use Debian over basically anything else for a server, but as a desktop OS I don't like the vibe.

Keep in mind, I started using Linux this summer and in a few years I'll probably look back at this wondering why I was such an idiot, but I gotta fall and get a bloody nose first to notice ;3

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’ve already considered Debian, but… I dunno, this isn’t what I’d call the most logical reason, but I just kinda don’t like it as my desktop OS. I’d use Debian over basically anything else for a server, but as a desktop OS I don’t like the vibe.

I was on the same boat as you are, flatpak essentially made it all perfect.

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For me, the issue with Debian stable currently isn't the applications, but the DE. Wayland support and UX gets better with every update of Gnome/KDE, and that isn't something you can install via flatpak.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Fair enough.