edel comments on Why choice of Linux distribution matters

Why choice of Linux distribution matters (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by thingsiplay@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn't matter. One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that. If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions? I always said, if distros don't matter...

... why distro hop?
... why don't you use Ubuntu then?
... why don't you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
... why don't you use Kali Linux as a server?
... why don't you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
... why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)

I don't think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.

[–] edel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

This is actually critically! I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would. Many here we are anti-AI but FOSS could benefit a lot from it... it can automatized checking for malware on peanuts. DistroWatch, Flatpak store, Debian backports, etc should be using AI already across the board to check for malware and that would level dramatically the plain field for all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would.

Don't forget their ability to patch critical security issues in a timely manner.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Well, Void is not that large, but they quickly patch security issues, especially due to being a rolling release. OpenBSD, not Linux or rolling release though, is not a huge OS either, but they are patching - if there is a security issue - quickly. Similarly Slackware - if we want to come back again to a Linux distro.

In other words: No, the size of its dev team does not necessarily mean that they are behind with patching security issues. it depends on the commitment and skills of devs, and the community.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Being a "rolling release" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They still need to update their repositories and add patches to it.

No, the size of its dev team does not necessarily mean that they are behind with patching security issues. it depends on the commitment and skills of devs, and the community.

Sure - a one-man-band supported distro could do all that. But a larger distro with a dedicated security team will definitely do it better.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

With a dedicated security team

Where is the difference between „dedicated“ and „commitment paired with skills“???

Being a „rolling release“ has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Sure, Debian and alike are up-to-date as are ArchLinux or Void. Oh, boy!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Where is the difference between „dedicated“ and „commitment paired with skills“???

One are paid to do the job, the others are assumed to be doing the job.

Sure, Debian and alike are up-to-date as are ArchLinux or Void. Oh, boy!

You're mistaking "up-to-date" with "patched in a timely manner." The two are not the same. But you're an Arch derivative user (btw) so I have low expectations. Suffice it to say that Ubuntu / RedHat / etc. back-port security patches to the packages they manage. They don't need to be running the latest version to be patched.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments