6 ms·

Vanilla OS 2.0 Shifting from Ubuntu Base to Debian Sid

93 points by pndy 4y ago

unxdfa 4y ago
I am glad to hear this. The more things that are directly derived from Debian the better. It's one of the last respectable Linux distributions without vendor crapware and customisations stuffed in it by default.
- adql 4y ago
  I swear, every time some helpdesk Linux issue filters to us it ends up being "well, that worked fine in Debian, Ubuntu fucked something up"...
  - gjvc 4y ago
    If you are just starting out on your Linux journey, save yourself (possibly many) years of varying woe, and go straight to Debian.
    - KronisLV 4y ago
      > If you are just starting out on your Linux journey, save yourself (possibly many) years of varying woe, and go straight to Debian. Debian is a great OS and still runs on some of my servers! However, what about the release/EOL cycle, which might affect some people's reasoning? Along the lines of: "I'll set this up and I want to keep it running reasonably for X years with unattended-upgrades." Debian releases are supported for just a few years: https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/debian https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/debian In contrast, Ubuntu LTS releases are around for about 5 years or longer (HWE): https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/ubuntu https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/ubuntu Technically you do have Debian LTS, but it's never mentioned anywhere as prominently like Ubuntu LTS is, which feels a tad odd (because it works fine): https://www.debian.org/lts/ https://www.debian.org/lts/ Of course, many looked in the direction of something like CentOS for this, or RHEL, or Rocky Linux or Alma Linux etc., which are supported for around 10 years usually. In my experience, DEB distros play more nicely with most of the software that I want to personally run, though.
      - unxdfa 4y ago
        If you stick with Ubuntu LTS you have to put up with the bugs they never fix for longer!
      - gjvc 4y ago
        The main point I should have included above is that Debian's installation and deployment of any given upstream package is generally better than other distributions (my opinion only, YMMV), especially when there are lots of dependencies.
  - unxdfa 4y ago
    I had that a while ago. MySQL in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS was a complete fuck up with loads of upstream bugs that weren't patched out. Unfortunately company policy was only Ubuntu with system packages. Eventually I persuaded them to let me use CentOS 6. What they didn't know is they ended up running Debian stable for the next 7 years thanks to a pact with the other sysadmins. Eventually it all went to AWS and Amazon Linux which is basically a uniquely fucked up version of CentOS. Really I'd rather run FreeBSD but no one wants to pay me to do that.
- gabereiser 4y ago
  Have you used Arch? I agree with you that debian is great but Arch is pure.
  - jhoechtl 4y ago
    Sounds like a salesperson. What do you means with pure?
    - capableweb 4y ago
      A typical Arch installation has exactly what you've put into it, no more and no less, as the setup forces you to decide what you want to put into it. It's in no way a beginner distribution, but not every distribution has to cater to the same crowd, which Arch is not afraid of making a choice to who they rather cater to. As a professional, it's really simple (as in "not complex", not as in "easy to start using") and once you've understood your setup, troubleshooting becomes much easier if you have to do it.
    - gabereiser 4y ago
      Arch is free my friend.
  - hackeraccount 4y ago
    I'm using Arch on a couple of desktops and it's a rolling release with all the good and bad that comes from that. Based on my limited experience I'd say I like it as much as Debian. Lovely Debian. The one caveat I'd make is - Unless you start dipping heavily into the AUR. My guess - totally uninformed - is that's where most of people's problems with Arch start.
    - c-hendricks 4y ago
      I like Arch and use it everywhere, but avoid anything manual with the AUR (shoutout to chaotic-aur). It gets so much hype but feels like a step down from PPAs in practice.
  - unxdfa 4y ago
squarefoot 4y ago
Good. Debian is not perfect for sure, but it's not tied to the interests of a corporation. Also, Snap, which I find useful in a few cases, is entirely optional and not included by design.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  Flathub post (snap alternative): https://ramcq.net/2023/03/07/flathub-in-2023/ https://ramcq.net/2023/03/07/flathub-in-2023/
smallerfish 4y ago
I will give this a shot when it lands, though I wish they were using KDE rather than Gnome. I'm currently playing with Zorin, which I quite like.
- NayamAmarshe 4y ago
  I've been on Zorin for 2 years and I don't think any other distro has been able to convince me to switch yet. The stable and polished UI of Zorin is unmatched.
  - qup 4y ago
    I like it, but I think I'm going to have to figure out an Nvidia driver situation, and (maybe related) I can't use an external monitor, either. I like it, but it's not a huge improvement for me over Ubuntu. I may go back to my debian roots after reading some comments in this thread.
    - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
      > I like it, but I think I'm going to have to figure out an Nvidia driver situation, and (maybe related) I can't use an external monitor, either. Zorin is one of the few distros that boots on my laptop. The rest like Ubuntu aren't even able to reach the installer because they don't have Nvidia drivers. They just reboot. I haven't had any Nvidia issues ever on Zorin, it's pretty much perfect out of the box. The wine additions, flatpak integration, snap as a choice and not force, the super polished and modern UI, the stability and the focus on the user instead of enterprise is why I stick to Zorin. I see no reason to use Ubuntu anymore, Zorin is just that but better.
      - mgaller 4y ago
        Finally someone who has the same issue as me. May i ask, what specs you are running? PopOS also works for me, but not very smooth. Im downloading Zorin as im typing.
tlamponi 4y ago
I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. Debian Sid is the main initial entry point for new packages and so a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases. Compared to Arch Linux it has a few advantages, like e.g., it actually cares about recording exact and sane versioned break/depends/conflicts so upgrading a system after year(s) will work out just fine without getting ones hand dirty. Further they track and install the kernel under a correctly ABI versioned path, so you can pull an upgrade with a new kernel and then still load a module from the currently booted kernel just fine, no reboot required, same for libraries. I mean I like Arch Linux, don't get me wrong it's my second favorite distro for sure, but having to immediately reboot after most updates as otherwise half the programs or kernel functionality is unavailable is a bit of a nuisance.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  Eh. I used Debian Sid for a year, and regular updates broke it two times in that period. For regular users, that would be worse than the Windows 11 "telemetry".
  - mpol 4y ago
    Can confirm with my experience. I used it for three years, inbetween two stable releases during the switch from SysV init to systemd. It all fell apart quite bad with many things breaking. I switched to a different distro. I hope the people from Vanilla OS do some QA before pushing packages.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  If anything it's much less risky.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  > I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. I used to use debian stable, then testing, then sid, then migrated to Arch and Arch has been definitely more stable than testing and sid. I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB
pyrophane 4y ago
Will be really interested to see how they progress with this. I know Mint has also been exploring a Debian-based version of their distro, but they explain it more as something to have in their back pocket in case Ubuntu is no longer a viable option at some point in the future. I hear a lot that the work that Canonical puts into making Ubuntu a reliable, high quality desktop distro would be hard to replicate if distro builders were to move upstream, but I wonder if this is still as true in 2023. The world has enough Ubuntu-based distros at this point, I think, and many of them just feel like re-skins that don't do enough to differentiate themselves. Also, being based on Ubuntu means you are really trapped in their twice year release cycle, whereas building off of sid you could potentially do more frequent releases. I'm not personally a huge fan of rolling releases, but would love a distro that releases semi-frequently (2-3 months vs 6).
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Debian is already a reliable, high quality desktop distro. Ubuntu is just different. It's a customization.
- barnabee 4y ago
  For me, Debian (testing, at least) is already a more reliable, high quality desktop distro out of the box than any version of Ubuntu.
binkHN 4y ago
I can appreciate this—even the default Linux VM on ChromeOS is Debian.
NayamAmarshe 4y ago
I gave Vanilla OS an honest try last month, and my experience was nothing short of frustration. Both due to my inability to devote time to search through docs or issues and Vanilla OS' strange choices. Pros: - Probably the only Ubuntu based distro with vanilla Gnome. - Distrobox OOB, can use any package manager. Cons: - No Nvidia drivers, my laptop failed to even boot the installer. - Installing additional drivers is nothing but pain. - Too vanilla for my taste, requires a lot of configuration to get to usable state (that other distros provide out of the box). - Sandboxed apps provide more trouble than not. - apx is slow, I'd rather stick to apt. I then tried Manjaro Gnome which was a much, much better experience, everything just worked. Manjaro gets a lot of bad rep (I've been on the hate train too) but at least their defaults are sensible. I tried VanillaOS only because of the Ubuntu base, because Ubuntu guarantees a stable system at the very least. I don't think I'd be able to recommend it to anyone though, the distro is very well-made, but I just can't find a justification for it.
jacooper 4y ago
It shouldn't change much, since you barely interact with the main system. And only the main system is going to be using SID.
asddubs 4y ago
>Vanilla OS as an immutable and atomic version of Ubuntu Linux what does that mean? I checked their home page and FAQ as well, where they repeat it but also don't explain it. It makes me think of it installing itself on your hard drive, and then immediately marking it read-only, never to be changed again
- capableweb 4y ago
  Going to https://vanillaos.org/ https://vanillaos.org/ and scrolling down, I encounter a section with the title "Immutable.." which seems to be what you're looking for? > ..but also not. > Vanilla OS is an immutable operating system, core parts of the system are locked down to prevent unwanted changes and corruption from third-party applications or a faulty update. Some paths are still writable, such as the home and configurations directories, this allows the user to keep their files and ensure the normal functioning of applications. > Core components are only updated via controlled and atomic transactions, which are applied only on success and made available on reboot. > Need to install a component in the core system? No problem, you can open a transactional shell at any time, make your changes and let the system apply them automatically!
  - asddubs 4y ago
    My bad, I guess I didn't scroll down far enough. I got to the sea of app icons and gave up and checked the FAQ. Thanks.
wtcactus 4y ago
I'm having a hard time figuring out if I can simply install NVIDIA proprietary drivers and CUDA on Vanilla OS.
pxc 4y ago
From my experience with immutable Linux (NixOS), this is probably a safer decision than you might think. Atomic upgrades and rollbacks go a really long way to mitigating the annoyances of running a bleeding edge, rolling release distro.
stargrazer 4y ago
Quite a few comments pro and con for Debian Sid. My two cents worth: Sid aka Unstable for a reason. Some have said they have had unstable systems. The resolution to to this is that one should subscribe to IRC or some of the Debian mailing lists. There the developers publish the fact that major changes are hitting Unstable. If one stays away from Sid during those times, and perform an update once things have settled, a 'more stable' Unstable is realized. I don't use Unstable, but I do run Testing (currently AKA BookWorm), and I act in a similar manner. There are breaking changes sometimes. I perform no updates at those times. In addition, I have to check packages.debian.org sometimes as specific packages might be broken, and it will indicate what/when change may occur.

93 points by pndy 4y ago

I am glad to hear this. The more things that are directly derived from Debian the better. It's one of the last respectable Linux distributions without vendor crapware and customisations stuffed in it by default.

adql 4y ago
I swear, every time some helpdesk Linux issue filters to us it ends up being "well, that worked fine in Debian, Ubuntu fucked something up"...
- gjvc 4y ago
  If you are just starting out on your Linux journey, save yourself (possibly many) years of varying woe, and go straight to Debian.
  - KronisLV 4y ago
    > If you are just starting out on your Linux journey, save yourself (possibly many) years of varying woe, and go straight to Debian. Debian is a great OS and still runs on some of my servers! However, what about the release/EOL cycle, which might affect some people's reasoning? Along the lines of: "I'll set this up and I want to keep it running reasonably for X years with unattended-upgrades." Debian releases are supported for just a few years: https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/debian https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/debian In contrast, Ubuntu LTS releases are around for about 5 years or longer (HWE): https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/ubuntu https://endoflife.software/operating-systems/linux/ubuntu Technically you do have Debian LTS, but it's never mentioned anywhere as prominently like Ubuntu LTS is, which feels a tad odd (because it works fine): https://www.debian.org/lts/ https://www.debian.org/lts/ Of course, many looked in the direction of something like CentOS for this, or RHEL, or Rocky Linux or Alma Linux etc., which are supported for around 10 years usually. In my experience, DEB distros play more nicely with most of the software that I want to personally run, though.
    - unxdfa 4y ago
      If you stick with Ubuntu LTS you have to put up with the bugs they never fix for longer!
    - gjvc 4y ago
      The main point I should have included above is that Debian's installation and deployment of any given upstream package is generally better than other distributions (my opinion only, YMMV), especially when there are lots of dependencies.
- unxdfa 4y ago
  I had that a while ago. MySQL in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS was a complete fuck up with loads of upstream bugs that weren't patched out. Unfortunately company policy was only Ubuntu with system packages. Eventually I persuaded them to let me use CentOS 6. What they didn't know is they ended up running Debian stable for the next 7 years thanks to a pact with the other sysadmins. Eventually it all went to AWS and Amazon Linux which is basically a uniquely fucked up version of CentOS. Really I'd rather run FreeBSD but no one wants to pay me to do that.
gabereiser 4y ago
Have you used Arch? I agree with you that debian is great but Arch is pure.
- jhoechtl 4y ago
  Sounds like a salesperson. What do you means with pure?
  - capableweb 4y ago
    A typical Arch installation has exactly what you've put into it, no more and no less, as the setup forces you to decide what you want to put into it. It's in no way a beginner distribution, but not every distribution has to cater to the same crowd, which Arch is not afraid of making a choice to who they rather cater to. As a professional, it's really simple (as in "not complex", not as in "easy to start using") and once you've understood your setup, troubleshooting becomes much easier if you have to do it.
  - gabereiser 4y ago
    Arch is free my friend.
- hackeraccount 4y ago
  I'm using Arch on a couple of desktops and it's a rolling release with all the good and bad that comes from that. Based on my limited experience I'd say I like it as much as Debian. Lovely Debian. The one caveat I'd make is - Unless you start dipping heavily into the AUR. My guess - totally uninformed - is that's where most of people's problems with Arch start.
  - c-hendricks 4y ago
    I like Arch and use it everywhere, but avoid anything manual with the AUR (shoutout to chaotic-aur). It gets so much hype but feels like a step down from PPAs in practice.
- unxdfa 4y ago

squarefoot 4y ago

Good. Debian is not perfect for sure, but it's not tied to the interests of a corporation. Also, Snap, which I find useful in a few cases, is entirely optional and not included by design.

mistrial9 4y ago
Flathub post (snap alternative): https://ramcq.net/2023/03/07/flathub-in-2023/ https://ramcq.net/2023/03/07/flathub-in-2023/

smallerfish 4y ago

I will give this a shot when it lands, though I wish they were using KDE rather than Gnome. I'm currently playing with Zorin, which I quite like.

NayamAmarshe 4y ago
I've been on Zorin for 2 years and I don't think any other distro has been able to convince me to switch yet. The stable and polished UI of Zorin is unmatched.
- qup 4y ago
  I like it, but I think I'm going to have to figure out an Nvidia driver situation, and (maybe related) I can't use an external monitor, either. I like it, but it's not a huge improvement for me over Ubuntu. I may go back to my debian roots after reading some comments in this thread.
  - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
    > I like it, but I think I'm going to have to figure out an Nvidia driver situation, and (maybe related) I can't use an external monitor, either. Zorin is one of the few distros that boots on my laptop. The rest like Ubuntu aren't even able to reach the installer because they don't have Nvidia drivers. They just reboot. I haven't had any Nvidia issues ever on Zorin, it's pretty much perfect out of the box. The wine additions, flatpak integration, snap as a choice and not force, the super polished and modern UI, the stability and the focus on the user instead of enterprise is why I stick to Zorin. I see no reason to use Ubuntu anymore, Zorin is just that but better.
    - mgaller 4y ago
      Finally someone who has the same issue as me. May i ask, what specs you are running? PopOS also works for me, but not very smooth. Im downloading Zorin as im typing.

tlamponi 4y ago

I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. Debian Sid is the main initial entry point for new packages and so a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases. Compared to Arch Linux it has a few advantages, like e.g., it actually cares about recording exact and sane versioned break/depends/conflicts so upgrading a system after year(s) will work out just fine without getting ones hand dirty. Further they track and install the kernel under a correctly ABI versioned path, so you can pull an upgrade with a new kernel and then still load a module from the currently booted kernel just fine, no reboot required, same for libraries. I mean I like Arch Linux, don't get me wrong it's my second favorite distro for sure, but having to immediately reboot after most updates as otherwise half the programs or kernel functionality is unavailable is a bit of a nuisance.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
Eh. I used Debian Sid for a year, and regular updates broke it two times in that period. For regular users, that would be worse than the Windows 11 "telemetry".
- mpol 4y ago
  Can confirm with my experience. I used it for three years, inbetween two stable releases during the switch from SysV init to systemd. It all fell apart quite bad with many things breaking. I switched to a different distro. I hope the people from Vanilla OS do some QA before pushing packages.
goodpoint 4y ago
If anything it's much less risky.
jcelerier 4y ago
> I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. I used to use debian stable, then testing, then sid, then migrated to Arch and Arch has been definitely more stable than testing and sid. I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB

pyrophane 4y ago

Will be really interested to see how they progress with this. I know Mint has also been exploring a Debian-based version of their distro, but they explain it more as something to have in their back pocket in case Ubuntu is no longer a viable option at some point in the future. I hear a lot that the work that Canonical puts into making Ubuntu a reliable, high quality desktop distro would be hard to replicate if distro builders were to move upstream, but I wonder if this is still as true in 2023. The world has enough Ubuntu-based distros at this point, I think, and many of them just feel like re-skins that don't do enough to differentiate themselves. Also, being based on Ubuntu means you are really trapped in their twice year release cycle, whereas building off of sid you could potentially do more frequent releases. I'm not personally a huge fan of rolling releases, but would love a distro that releases semi-frequently (2-3 months vs 6).

pessimizer 4y ago
Debian is already a reliable, high quality desktop distro. Ubuntu is just different. It's a customization.
barnabee 4y ago
For me, Debian (testing, at least) is already a more reliable, high quality desktop distro out of the box than any version of Ubuntu.

binkHN 4y ago

I can appreciate this—even the default Linux VM on ChromeOS is Debian.

NayamAmarshe 4y ago

I gave Vanilla OS an honest try last month, and my experience was nothing short of frustration. Both due to my inability to devote time to search through docs or issues and Vanilla OS' strange choices. Pros: - Probably the only Ubuntu based distro with vanilla Gnome. - Distrobox OOB, can use any package manager. Cons: - No Nvidia drivers, my laptop failed to even boot the installer. - Installing additional drivers is nothing but pain. - Too vanilla for my taste, requires a lot of configuration to get to usable state (that other distros provide out of the box). - Sandboxed apps provide more trouble than not. - apx is slow, I'd rather stick to apt. I then tried Manjaro Gnome which was a much, much better experience, everything just worked. Manjaro gets a lot of bad rep (I've been on the hate train too) but at least their defaults are sensible. I tried VanillaOS only because of the Ubuntu base, because Ubuntu guarantees a stable system at the very least. I don't think I'd be able to recommend it to anyone though, the distro is very well-made, but I just can't find a justification for it.

jacooper 4y ago

It shouldn't change much, since you barely interact with the main system. And only the main system is going to be using SID.

asddubs 4y ago

>Vanilla OS as an immutable and atomic version of Ubuntu Linux what does that mean? I checked their home page and FAQ as well, where they repeat it but also don't explain it. It makes me think of it installing itself on your hard drive, and then immediately marking it read-only, never to be changed again

capableweb 4y ago
Going to https://vanillaos.org/ https://vanillaos.org/ and scrolling down, I encounter a section with the title "Immutable.." which seems to be what you're looking for? > ..but also not. > Vanilla OS is an immutable operating system, core parts of the system are locked down to prevent unwanted changes and corruption from third-party applications or a faulty update. Some paths are still writable, such as the home and configurations directories, this allows the user to keep their files and ensure the normal functioning of applications. > Core components are only updated via controlled and atomic transactions, which are applied only on success and made available on reboot. > Need to install a component in the core system? No problem, you can open a transactional shell at any time, make your changes and let the system apply them automatically!
- asddubs 4y ago
  My bad, I guess I didn't scroll down far enough. I got to the sea of app icons and gave up and checked the FAQ. Thanks.

wtcactus 4y ago

I'm having a hard time figuring out if I can simply install NVIDIA proprietary drivers and CUDA on Vanilla OS.

pxc 4y ago

From my experience with immutable Linux (NixOS), this is probably a safer decision than you might think. Atomic upgrades and rollbacks go a really long way to mitigating the annoyances of running a bleeding edge, rolling release distro.

stargrazer 4y ago

Quite a few comments pro and con for Debian Sid. My two cents worth: Sid aka Unstable for a reason. Some have said they have had unstable systems. The resolution to to this is that one should subscribe to IRC or some of the Debian mailing lists. There the developers publish the fact that major changes are hitting Unstable. If one stays away from Sid during those times, and perform an update once things have settled, a 'more stable' Unstable is realized. I don't use Unstable, but I do run Testing (currently AKA BookWorm), and I act in a similar manner. There are breaking changes sometimes. I perform no updates at those times. In addition, I have to check packages.debian.org sometimes as specific packages might be broken, and it will indicate what/when change may occur.