I know I know, another "help me choose a distro" thread

I’m wondering if a distro like the one I’m looking for even exists:

  • simple as in KISS and vanilla. This excludes Debian where the package manager is too complex and packages deviate from upstream too much, as well as OpenSUSE, where systems administration relies on GUI tools too much and the package manager is even more complex.
  • fixed release (excludes everything Arch-based)

So from the major distros, only Fedora is left as an option, where I really don’t know enough about it. Is it possible to do a minimal install of it? Is it built around a GUI app store? Does it rely on Flatpak like Ubuntu does with Snap?

Or are there other distros out there that I’m not aware of? Basically everything from the past 5 years I have no experience with. I’ve heard good things about NixOS, but it sounds weird as a daily driver.

ultra,

NixOS as a daily driver is really good

PseudoSpock,
@PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Debian apt repositories is too complex?!?

Andy,
@Andy@programming.dev avatar

Alpine Linux!

Dotdev,

Void linux with its xbps package manager might match with your requirements.

Then solus with its eopkg package manager which I might wait like next year to try it.

HumanPerson, (edited )

Have you tried macos? Seriously though, in Debian you just type ‘sudo apt install program,’ that is about as simple as it gets. Also opensuse allows you to not install yast with like 2 clicks in the installer, and all the GUI tools are just wrappers for terminal tools that they also include. I am not saying this to be insulting, but I honestly don’t think you know enough about Linux to know what you are looking for. If you do want to try Linux, just try a beginner distro like mint.

Edit: upon reading some comments, I see that you mean apt is complicated under the hood, not difficult to use. You could try gentoo if you don’t mind long installs. It compiles from source so that is about as simple as package management gets.

KISSmyOS,

Seriously though, in Debian you just type ‘sudo apt install program,’ that is about as simple as it gets.

I know apt is easy to use, but it definitely isn’t SIMPLE.

It has apt, apt-get, aptitude, synaptic and an app store as frontends, and some of them handle dependencies differently or work differently in scripts, so you need to know which to use and avoid mixing them. It has recommended and suggested dependencies. It has meta-packages, virtual packages, package groups, different repo branches seperated into categories. It has blacklisting, apt-pinning, holding back packages. You can set how aggressively it should resolve dependencies and it allows mixing releases.
I know I can do the most basic stuff with “apt update” etc. but try creating a package with dependencies for it and then maintain it across releases.

HumanPerson,

Good point with the various frontends, but please refer to my edit.

BigBlackCockroach,
@BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world avatar

I am 100% serious when I say pick one off of this list: www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

PerogiBoi,
@PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca avatar

Mac OSX

TCB13,
@TCB13@lemmy.world avatar

This excludes Debian where the package manager is too complex and packages deviate from upstream too much

This isn’t even remotely true.

Also going with Debian + GNOME Software + Flatpak isn’t a bad ideia at all. Unlike Snaps, Flatpaks are fast you won’t notice delays and waste 10GB of RAM for each application you want to use. And at the end of the day you get rock solid Debian + the latest and greatest software as Flatpaks without “deviation from upstream” and you also keep a clean system.

LainOfTheWired,
@LainOfTheWired@lemy.lol avatar

It doesn’t quite fit your fixed release requirement, but have you checked out void? It’s like arch, but has no systemd and it’s more stable then arch

Nibodhika,

How is apt too complex? And which is simple then?

KISSmyOS,

It has recommended and suggested dependencies, meta-packages and virtual packages, installing a package and then removing it again often leaves your system in a different state than before, it has 7 different default front-ends that can break your system if you switch which one you use, …

Pacman and Slackpkg are examples of simple package managers.

Nibodhika,

Pacman has all of those as well.

pastermil,

If apt is too complex for you, I don’t know what to tell you…

KISSmyOS,

I feel like you’re confusing “hard to use” with “complex”.
Apt is extremely complex under the hood, which shows when you try to build a package for it, or install a package with many dependencies then remove it again, leaving traces behind, or when you break your system by using different front-ends (apt, apt-get, aptitude, synaptic) which are all included in the default installation, but handle dependencies differently.

pastermil,

Most modern package managers have that level of complexity tho… That dependency tracking can take a lot of computation.

Maybe a notable exception would be Slackware package manager, but you won’t find what you’d expect from modern package manager (e.g. dependency resolving, autoremove package).

I find building packages with Gentoo to be much simpler than with Debian. Probably this is due to the fact that Gentoo users would regularly build their packages, unlike Debian.

I also learned Debian automatically generate dependency list by scanning the binaries of each package to see what dynamic libs it links. Bet that does add to the complexity by much.

cybersandwich, (edited )

What on God’s green flat earth are these requirements??

What about apt do you find too complex? I guess what are you defining as 'complex"?

I’m terms of package management you’ll be hard pressed to find anything that requires less work that apt, yum, zypper or their various GUIs.

Debian is the most vanilla distro you can get and you are excluding it out of the gate because of apt. So it would be helpful for all of us to understand your complexity issues with apt (and zypper).

It was my first distro and I miss it a lot. Simplicity and stability are main selling points

wgs,
@wgs@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Talking for myself and not OP: What’s complex about apt and yum is the package format per se. The cli is very straightforward and “just works”, but whenever you want something that’s not packaged and need to package it yourself, you gotta fasten your seatbelt and prepare for the complex task of creating an RPM or a DEB package.

I know there are tools to help with that, but I’ve created packages for many distros (Debian, CentOS, Alpine, Arch, Void and Crux), and rpm/deb are just way more complex to create than the alternatives.

KISSmyOS,

This guy gets it.

cybersandwich,

How often does that happen–where you need to package your own deb or it leaving orphan meta-packages that it doesn’t remove? Or is this more of a ‘curiosity’ than hard requirement because I think ultimately the short answer to your question is: I dont think it exists as you’ve described it.

Fedora Silverblue seems like it might get close. It’s immutable OS with flatpaks that sit on top. At least that’s my understanding of it since I haven’t used it myself. I have NixOS in a VM so I could learn it and NixOS is similar in that its immutable, but its definitely complex. Its also hard to use–which is a distinction you are making in this thread as well. So I am not sure its ‘better’ than any of those others in the grand scheme of things. In my limited experience with it as a pretty advanced linux user, it would probably be a solid daily driver after you spent 2 years tuning your config to your liking. But simple things will have your tripping over yourself.

It has the learning curve of vim and the expression language is a bit annoying since its a special unique thing you have to learn. Its not exactly hard but its not intuitive either and the documentation isn’t super approachable even if everyone says its great.

One of those immutable OS’s with flatpak on top would probably be the closet I think you can get to what you are asking.

wgs,
@wgs@lemmy.sdf.org avatar 

<span style="color:#323232;">% pm -i | wc -l
</span><span style="color:#323232;">55
</span>

That’s how many software I packaged myself. They are installed to /usr/local using an alternative package manager because I couldn’t be bothered with making an appropriate .deb.

And as to explain how this alternate workflow is less complex, here’s how I go about installing a program:


<span style="color:#323232;">% git clone git://git.z3bra.org/human ~/code/human
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Cloning into '/home/z3bra/code/human'...
</span><span style="color:#323232;">remote: Enumerating objects: 53, done.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">remote: Counting objects: 100% (53/53), done.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">remote: Compressing objects: 100% (53/53), done.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">remote: Total 53 (delta 28), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Receiving objects: 100% (53/53), 9.35 KiB | 195.00 KiB/s, done.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Resolving deltas: 100% (28/28), done.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">% cd $_
</span><span style="color:#323232;">% pack
</span><span style="color:#323232;">CC human.c
</span><span style="color:#323232;">LD human
</span><span style="color:#323232;">install -D -m 0755 human /tmp/tmp.rfnbLyIQOz/usr/local/bin/human
</span><span style="color:#323232;">install -D -m 0644 human.1 /tmp/tmp.rfnbLyIQOz/usr/local/man/man1/human.1
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">        > /tmp/[email protected]
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">installed human (0.3)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">% pm -i human
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/local/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/local/bin/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/local/bin/human
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/local/man/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/local/man/man1/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">usr/local/man/man1/human.1
</span>
KISSmyOS,

What about apt do you find too complex? I guess what’s re you defining as 'complex"?

The fact that it has recommended and suggested dependencies, meta-packages and virtual packages, that installing a package ad then removing it again often leaves your system in a different state than before, that it has 7 different default front-ends for different tasks, …

Debian is the most vanilla distro you can get

Debian packages often deviate significantly from upstream.

PseudoSpock,
@PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Preach!

doomkernel,

What’s the complex part about “apt” or “zypper”?

KISSmyOS,

Taking apt as an example: The fact that it has recommended and suggested dependencies, meta-packages and virtual packages, that installing a package and then removing it again often leaves your system in a different state than before, that it has 7 different default front-ends for different tasks, (don’t mix them!), apt-pinning, blacklists, 5 different repository branches, …

monobot,

Slackware is obvious choice, exactly what you are looking for.

It was my first distro and I miss it a lot. Simplicity and stability are main selling points.

flying_gel,

After a hiatus in Mac and windows land, I came back into Linux a with similar wishlist.

It’s quite a diversion, but I actually went with FreeBSD. Now it’s not Linux but with the separation of base system and packages, you get a stable base that is released at a pretty fixed consistent schedule.

For packages you can pick from quarterly or weekly update schedule, so you can have a stable base OS with bleeding edge software. The binary package manager is easy to use, but if you want more control you can opt for building from source as well.

The init system is BSD based so all main config goes into a single rc.conf file, very easy to understand and work with.

Most mainstream applications such as Firefox, postgresql, nginx etc are just a pkg install away and it natively supports zfs (even as root fs) which was one of the reasons I got really interested in it 10 years ago.

Of course, there is software, especially some younger projects that don’t support FreeBSD. So while there are thousands of packages available, some Linux only applications won’t work.

Personally, I would pick FreeBSD any time that the software I require supports it. I only run Linux (settled on pop is for now) if the software I need requires it.

KISSmyOS,

Thank you for one of the few helpful answers in this thread.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • [email protected]
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • oklahoma
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •