Do you mean "Debian Lenny Community", right?
mudamuda
joined 2 years ago
BTW I use GNOME without any extensions.
First of all, I think an idea of package management separated from a system environment is generally good for desktop usage. And don't like and the idea to place all existing application software in distro repositories. But implementations are far from ideal. So I list those bellow from worse to better.
-
AppImage. It highly relies on the environment doesn't have native sandboxing, and promotes bad practices like building apps with old libraries.
-
Snap. Snap is mostly fine but relies only on AppArmor for confinement, has performance issues for a long time without significant progress. It promotes a proprietary app store. Relies on Ubuntu infrastructure. Good: snap store support signed packages and more friendly to developers.
-
Flatpak. App start time is near to native. It has stronger sanboxing but with many holes for compatibility. It true distro-independent as well as popular runtimes are also distro-independent. Bad: Flathub doesn't support signed applications. Sandboxing and permissions rely on hacks and tricks which are far from good design. Development is slow but it is true for the mentioned above as well.
With that, I am more open to new alternatives, especially if started from a system point of view rather than from a position of distro-independent package managers like Google did with Android. For example, sandboxing can rely on users separation and work on various operating systems not only with Linux kernel.
A good part of the fedora immutable spins that they are just base systems for running flatpak apps and if you use apps as flatpaks what distro to use as a base system doesn't matter much. Even immutability is not such a big deal as the separation between the base system and the applications. It is less about tech and more about usage habits.
As a flatpak user I can call myself a distro nomad. I've switched from Silverblue to Debian now. If you use Kinoite you can try KDE Neon + flatpaks or openSUSE Kalpa (their immutable variant with KDE).
To go x86_64-only was a mistake for Arch. Distros like Fedora or Debian, or openSUSE have universal building systems and infrastructure for building packages for different architectures. Arch just creates unnecessary fragmentation for the GNU/Linux landscape: software need to be packaged for the distro and for the same time PKGBUILDs cannot be reused in general for anything to go full Arch Linux. Not for other architectures, not for servers or LTS. Only for a x86_64 desktop niche. Arch Linux doesn't scale.