2024 is the Year of Linux on the Desktop, at least for my boyfriend. He’s running Windows 7 right now, so I’ll be switching him to Ubuntu in a few days. Ubuntu was chosen because Proton is officially supported in Ubuntu.

  • Fal@yiffit.netEnglish
    228·
    1 year ago

    All of those are still ancient systems. Arch or opensuse tumbleweed are the only systems that are reasonable for a desktop because they’re rolling releases

    • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
      10·
      1 year ago

      Fedora is still pretty frequently and recently up to date with respect to packages and kernel, not sure you’d be losing much over arch.

      But the debate to me is also not that important, I’ve been running fedora and have at some few occasions gotten some instabilities due to updates (mostly Nvidia with Wayland) so I can totally understand someone wanting stability and reliability over bleeding edge).

      • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Someone who reviewed Nobara a while back said it best: Arch is bleeding edge while Fedora is cutting edge. Both embrace new things in the Linux world like systemd, Btrfs and PipeWire, but Fedora tries to keep things stable.

        I might hop back onto it if my Arch install cakes it.

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      31·
      1 year ago

      This is totally wrong. Having the latest software is overrated for gaming. I think most users would rather have a reliable system.

      • cannache@slrpnk.net
        2·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. If you’re sticking to a few games and you’re mostly a hobby gamer then yeah, but I can totally see more hardcore types, pro streamers etc looking at getting rolling release systems simply for the experience especially if they’ve got the money lying around

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        1·
        1 year ago

        The thing that rolling release distros are good for is sanitising upstream when it comes to version compatibility. Gentoo was infamous for that, sooo many things back then were bug-compatible with each other because all other distros would lock versions down and only care about their one particular combination.

      • Fal@yiffit.netEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        But that’s not really true. You get temporary stability, and then have to do a massive update which is guaranteed to break shit. Do you have a staging server for your desktop? If not, you’re not actually getting any benefit from waiting to update.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          I’d rather do some maintenance every two years than once a month. I just don’t have time or willpower to deal with it because I already have a technical job with computers at work.

          Also, last time I did a full upgrade on debian it didn’t break anything. Some distros just do a much better job of testing. Rolling releases have always broken something for me after a while.

    • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know about vanilla Arch, but on Manjaro each update breaks at least one thing. I never had issues with Mint. I wonder if I’d still get more stability from Mint if I installed Plasma on it. Anyway, I already got used to AUR and not having to deal with version upgrades. But I still wouldn’t recommend Arch-based distros when stability is needed.

      • Fal@yiffit.netEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        This hasn’t really been true with arch for years. As long as you update reasonably frequently. I haven’t had a breaking issue in ages.

        What were the issues you had that broke things?

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      11·
      1 year ago

      Yeah dude I totally need those new flags the latest less implements.