• 1 Post
  • 75 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 22nd, 2024

help-circle
  • I think we’re misunderstanding eachother. So perhaps consider to outline if you agree with the following:

    • uBlue has some systems in place that enable it to detect some breakages.
    • uBlue’s pipeline is such to not ship you the detected breakages.
    • After a method has been found to fix a breakage (or other issues), uBlue’s maintainers implement these fixes and then, the very next update, the users will receive an image that contains both the updated package and the fixes required for it to not cause problems. Heck, the user didn’t know anything was up in the first place. They didn’t notice a thing*.
    • uBlue’s issue/problem detect systems are not absolute; things might slip through.
    • However, Nvidia drivers will not cause breakage that will make you shiver in fear.
    • uBlue does not fix it on your device. They fix the image and that fixed image will deliver you the fix built-in; so manual intervention are a thing of the past (except for edge cases).
    • Their pipeline does not require nor does it detect (through telemetry or whatsoever) the breakage on the device of the user. Heck, as implied earlier, most breakages are detected, prevented from shipping broken, fixed, ship the fixed one before any end user is disturbed by it.
    • uBlue is not a Stable system (i.e. it does not freeze packages (apart from security updates) until the next major release). So yes, you receive updates all the time.
    • Not being tied to legal restrictions is cool. However, a lot of derivatives do this. So this can’t be its unique selling point.
    • uBlue is not entirely free. Its maintainers do pay money for providing some of their services (as has been mentioned by Jorge).
    • Some of their images do have testing branch; even Bazzite has.


  • But they rely on rpmfusion, an external repo packaging the proprietary NVIDIA stuff for Fedora. The repo is not supported by Fedora, and the drivers cannot be fixed by anyone.

    Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Would you mind elaborating? FWIW, Bazzite’s model (by default) allows automatic fixes to be applied to a broken driver without requiring any manual intervention from its user.


  • In your case it’s still an excellent choice.

    Though, other opinionated images by uBlue (like e.g. Aurora and Bluefin) do deserve a mention. I’m on Bluefin (through secureblue to be more precise) as I desired more hardening than what Fedora offers by default.

    The excellent part is also that it’s possible to rebase to another branch without reinstalling. So, let’s say you’re actually interested in experiencing these different images without going through the installation process over and over again. Then, you simple enter the following command:

    rpm-ostree rebase ...

    With ... being replaced by whatever is required for the image and/or branch you’re interested in. Then, simply reboot, (pro-tip: make a new user account and through the new user account) experience the other image. Rinse and repeat to your heart’s content.



  • I just wanted to offer some nuance to the table. After everything has been learned, enabling some (otherwise complex and obscure) features can be accomplished by a single line in your NixOS config. Like, this efficiency can not and should not be ignored.

    You can find some of my thoughts on Fedora Atomic in another comment found under this post. Spoiler alert; for a lot of people, it’s what they seek from NixOS but (by contrast) with excellent delivery. I won’t ignore that it doesn’t have some of the more insane/interesting functionalities that NixOS provides. But, some just want atomicity, reproducibility and (some) declarativity; and Fedora Atomic does deliver on those without requiring you to go into the deep and learn an entire new language that’s only used for managing your distro 😅.


  • I would argue that NixOS absolutely is the OS you get if your time is worthless

    Hard disagree. Does it require you to climb through heaps of trash documentation? Absolutely. But, if you persevere, you got yourself a rock solid system that will even make Debian Stable jealous; all while requiring no maintenance.


    1. Better documentation has been made available since relatively recently.


  • Fam, with all due respect, reconsider how you go about interacting with the community for support.

    We love to help, so don’t get me wrong. But you have to allow us to help you. Paramount with this is communication; so consider responding to questions asked by those who reach out to help.

    Like, I’m not exaggerating when I say that your issues would have already been resolved if you had been (more) responsive.







  • Would you mind elaborating?

    I’m aware that MX works on a lot of excellent GUI tools that are shipped with it. Which is great, but perhaps necessary; because they ship a systemd-less distro. Which, in the end, might cause more work than it should. (I’m aware this is in part caused by software just assuming that systemd is installed by default.) And while I think it’s a noble endeavour to maintain a relatively easy systemd-less distro, I don’t think it’s enough to justify a recommendation to a relatively new Linux user. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on this?