Linux

48256 readers

412 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

which distrobox image to chose? / which package manager? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by beta_tester@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The first obvious answer may be the one you are comfortable with but that may be none for a new computer/ linux user.

The one where those package are available. Or even multiple ones.

With atomic (immutable) distros this question will arise more often as the question of which image becomes more important than which distro to chose.

I use dnf but I could also use apt or pacman. What are the relevant advantages of the package managers? What's the reason to use apt over dnf? Nix? Simply package availability?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I use Fedora Atomic with Distrobox.

I asked the same question a while ago and decided to settle on Arch as container.

Why?

Pacman is extremely fast. I used a Fedora-container a while too and it was extremely slow compared to Arch
Simple syntax, especially with the Arch plugin for zsh.
Minimalist
Official packages are (almost) just as secure as from other distros
I get the newest stuff
Good documentation
The AUR. I rarely need to use it (pretty much never), but if I would need to, it's great I can.

I still rarely use it. I'm leaning more to the casual user side and use Flatpak 99% of the time. But for terminal use, I find the said container, with zsh + plugins great. There are some programs (Nextcloud client for example) that don't work 100% with Flatpaks, and for that, the Arch packages are actually pretty reliable and work almost every time (via distrobox-export).

I had a few doubts about Arch, and I personally still wouldn't use it as distro for everyday use, but at least as container, it's elegant and lovely. I could use Silverblue as unbreakable base and install everything with Arch, and nothing breaks.

[–] beta_tester@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Thx for sharing!