3 ms·
My 2cents: use Fedora. Or, if you're technically savvy, Arch. I slightly prefer Arch simply because: - Firefox is up to date (Fedora is often 2 weeks late on s
by christophilus 1y ago
My 2cents: use Fedora. Or, if you're technically savvy, Arch. I slightly prefer Arch simply because:
- Firefox is up to date (Fedora is often 2 weeks late on security patches)
- No upgrade cycle. Just `pacman -Syu` on a regular cadence, or whatever you're comfy with.
When you go with the vanilla install of a major distro, I find you simply run into fewer shenanigans.
- rodrigodlu 1y ago+1, more 2 cents: I have Fedora on my main work computer (Dell XPS) And I just got a Thinkpad E14 for CachyOS (arch based). It auto configured btrfs with snapper. Everything just worked fine so far (fingerprints, cameras, sleep, secure boot, sound, mics, etc) Fedora is still the king as the main workhorse, no headaches, every 6 months there's a reasonable upgrade. But I can't help myself going back to arch, it just feels snappier. So if you have a boring hardware like this thinkpad I got, everything just works, go for Arch. The main reason I went with Fedora on the XPS was some issues with hardware/wifi/bluetooth from time to time, usually an hour before an important meeting that made me chill, ask for a few minutes to rollback a btrfs snapshot, etc.
- account42 1y agoI strongly suggest considering a community-run distro instead of one mainly controlled by one corporation unless you desperately want to experience a Microsoft 2.0. IBM is not a charity, they will extract value from their investments.
- christophilus 1y agoYeah. This is another reason I like Arch. You do need to read the docs, though. Arch doesn't come with a firewall installed, etc out of the box. It really is a distro that is what you make of it.