Your daily Operating System

[molly]

I would like to know what your daily Operating System (PC not phone) is and why you like it.
Also what is your favorite OS if this is different to your daily driver.

When choosing your OS do you search for the best to fit you device so you will get the smoothest experience and compatibility or just grab the most secure and anonymous and tweak from there?

In order to help others please list your device and model, your OS and the positives and negatives with the paring.

[digdeeper]

Slackware. No big reason other than I'm using it for a very long time, it mostly does what I want, and I know nothing else and can't be bothered to learn. I know it's not the "best" option.

Positives include no systemd (but has elogind), doesn't cuck to age verification. Negatives - little focus on security by default, very bloated by default (but some application sets can be disabled in the installer).

If you use Slackware the way it is "intended" (everything installed and unmodified from the official repos), stuff will just work. But it's not the way I do it, obviously.

Slackware 15 also lacks some software, many versions are old, etc. Yet, it also still officially supports things other OSes gave up on, like python2. You can always upgrade to slackware-current, which then becomes more like Arch.

As I said, for me it is just mostly inertia and not being violating enough that it forces me to switch. I know little about other distros in the first place, so I don't really know what I'm missing. I would like to have some more shiny stuff like what's available on NixOS, or OpenBSD security focus. But for now this does the job.

[molly]

I would say a lot of people are on an OS because it is what they know. This was me coming from windows; Linux was scary, and I am still learning, but I am so glad I put in the effort to change. It can take a long time to get used to a new environment.

[qualia]

Artix (non-systemd Arch, still depends on elogind unfortunately).
Pros:
- customizability
- rolling release model
- no soystemd
- no bloat in default setup
- AUR (as someone who uses some obscure software which tends to not be packaged in official repos this is important)

Cons are the standard ones that come with Arch-based distros. Stability issues, broken packages etc. I haven't ran into anything that would be a dealbreaker considering the advantages.

[molly]

I was thinking about trying Kali Linux, any love or hate for it out there?

[qualia]

I was thinking about trying Kali Linux, any love or hate for it out there?

Depends on what are you trying to do. First of all, Kali Linux is typically ran from a live USB or VM rather than as a standard daily-driver OS. It's possible to use it as a daily-driver but it's not recommended (even by the devs themselves). Also, Kali is an offensive security-focused distro, it's not more secure or private for you as the user, it just comes with a bunch of hacking tools preinstalled.

If you want an offensive security distro more suitable for daily use you could try ParrotOS. If you want a system that's more focused on your own security/privacy you can try something like QubesOS, Whonix or Kicksecure (none of which I have admittedly any experience with) or use a regular distro with a hardened setup.

[BVLL]

I was thinking about trying Kali Linux, any love or hate for it out there?

Its a specialized OS not meant for regular usage, not worth using just to pose as a 1337 H4XXOR

[BVLL]

Good ol' Debian, though I would use 100% either parabola or hyperbola if my pc was OSH

[malformed_jill]

This was me coming from windows; Linux was scary, and I am still learning

i'll be honest, when i was on The Burning Train in my first few months there, i was still using windows 10. it took me briefly using tails for live privacy stuff and some virtualization tests (just seeing what i liked, void and arch didn't do much for me apparently) and then i got another laptop which i got OpenBSD on to test and act like a hipster (on top of the already unconventional choice of me getting a Toughbook). i particularly liked its simplicity and the terminal, after i switched to a better window manager.
its small size and simplicity lead me to picking Alpine Linux as my choice for movement due to its similarities, and after i reached a breaking point with windows (with much sacrifices, though i've ended up realizing i didn't need much of what i had before). it's a lot more faster (to boot, mainly) than OBSD (probably because this other laptop has an SSD and more ram) and it does what i want without any baggage.
personally, as long as it just stays out of my way (rolling releases are out) and goes smoothly, there's not much for me to modify. i've tweaked my alpine much less than the slightly more exotic OBSD since it gives me a bunch of vital choices from the installation (latter supports less drivers, therefore worse battery life than linux (optimization needed), some broken packages, still makes me feel pretty cool), though the former is used more for online bullshit and for the few games i haven't dropped, latter is mostly offline. the switch from musl certainly threw me for a loop when some things couldn't compile or be executed properly, though i only realized i needed a compatibility layer later.

[moeloli]

Artix (non-systemd Arch, still depends on elogind unfortunately).
Pros:
- customizability
- rolling release model
- no soystemd
- no bloat in default setup
- AUR (as someone who uses some obscure software which tends to not be packaged in official repos this is important)

Cons are the standard ones that come with Arch-based distros. Stability issues, broken packages etc. I haven't ran into anything that would be a dealbreaker considering the advantages.

I have been using normal systemdicked Arch Linux, and yes, I know...... it's just that I've been using this system for years and never felt motivated enough to switch to a systemd-less distro until the news of the agecucking, and I simply stopped updating and installing things since then until I actually switch to a different distro.

That is to say that I've grown critical of Arch's philosophy and its supposed "advantages", and even before the age verification arc I already kind of wanted to switch to something else that's not Arch-based (but again, not motivated enough), and the age verification thing will be the final push.

As for the "customizability" and "no bloat in default setup" parts, any Linux distro (if you exclude locked down abominations that freetards' precious GPL couldn't prevent like ChromeOS and Android) can theoretically be customized and de-bloated as you wish.
And the "no bloat in default setup" part is also a double edged sword because that makes the OS internet-dependent at least right after installing it, so an Arch/Artix ISO would be a digital paperweight in a scenario where you don't have access to the internet or the repos.

As for the "rolling release model" part... I don't want to be "that guy" who always has to be right, so I'd say that whether you like updooting is a bit subjective and comes down to personal preference (but am I now being the opposite kind of "that guy", who says that everything is heccin subjective?), but it is the main selling point of Arch and derivatives.
You did list the cons that anyone can agree on, namely stability issues and broken packages, but at a more personal level, over the years of using Arch, I stopped seeing the appeal of updooting, and when I said "even before the age verification arc I already kind of wanted to switch to something else that's not Arch-based", I meant Debian or Devuan (can't be Debian now because of the age verification shit).

As for the AUR part, I think it's just funny because the AUR is this big selling point for Arch and derivatives, but in actuality, it's just a "cope" for having relatively deficient official repos, and instead of doing their job as distro maintainers adding more packages, the Arch "maintainers" tell you to fuck off and install script kiddy trojans from the trust-me-bro community repo.
I'd rather get binaries (if they work) or compile stuff from Github for stuff that's not in the official "repos".

That is all to say that I will move to some distro that's neither Arch-based nor systemdicked, such as Devuan or Void (Void is still an updooter brainrot distro but it's not as extreme as Arch), when I feel the need to install some new software (which would require updating this system, and thus also updating to the agecucked version of systemdick, unless I want to break my system with partial upgrades). But I could also temporarily migrate to Artix as a middle ground before committing to fully installing a new distro.
But who knows, one day I could also leave to BSD land if Linux keeps getting even more pozzed.

I was thinking about trying Kali Linux, any love or hate for it out there?

As everyone else already said, that's really not a distro for daily use, it's just for LARPing as a script kiddie. And even then, actual h4x0rs, I assume, probably don't use any "hacker"-targeted distro and have some generic OS with h4x0r1ng tools they installed themselves.

When choosing your OS do you search for the best to fit you device so you will get the smoothest experience and compatibility or just grab the most secure and anonymous and tweak from there?

By the way, I could also tell from the wording of this line in the OP post that you're fairly new to Linux and tech privacy stuff (before seeing your following posts).
Something about "the most secure and anonymous and tweak" just sounds...... well, it's something someone new to this stuff would say, or something you'd see in a mainstream Reddit guide like PrivacyTools or a channel like Linus Tech Tips.
That's not to deride you, but to give you a word of advice that most of the "privacy"/"security" stuff out there are scams or honeypots or just placebos/memes.
Stuff like mainstream VPNs, services like ProtonMail, browsers like Firefox and Brave, "apps" like Signal, distros like Tails or Qubes... I guess this Dig Deeper article may be good to read, but it doesn't cover this phenomenon in its entirety.

[molly]

Thanks for the feedback, I will avoid Kali. I am currently using Linux Mint, I know that for most of you more experienced users it's probably basic and windows like. I do like that it has the nicest graphic desktop I have seen for Linux. The webpage blocks TOR because they were targeted and the iso was compromised in the past - great response fools. So I am not in love with it, I mostly still have it from habit.

I am using a Thinkpad T14 Gen 5 AMD and from reading it is suggested to look to Ubuntu, Debian, and openSUSE to keep comparability at its best and more documentation for troubleshooting.

I have been considering ageless Linux https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux
For me I want something that won't be too stressful.

I looked into OpenBSD with cinnamon desktop awhile back but never made the leap. I also do not like that BSD permits proprietary modifications without mandatory source code release, this put me off the most and kept me with Linux. It makes me associate BSD with big business using it to make money.

[qualia]

As for the "customizability" and "no bloat in default setup" parts, any Linux distro (if you exclude locked down abominations that freetards' precious GPL couldn't prevent like ChromeOS and Android) can theoretically be customized and de-bloated as you wish.

I suppose so, but "can theoretically be customized as you wish" is different from being specifically designed to allow the level of customization Arch/Artix do.

And the "no bloat in default setup" part is also a double edged sword because that makes the OS internet-dependent at least right after installing it, so an Arch/Artix ISO would be a digital paperweight in a scenario where you don't have access to the internet or the repos.

I wasn't expecting anyone to mention this but it's true. I keep Live USBs of other distros just in case for this specific scenario. However, for daily use, when I have access to the Internet (which is the norm for me), I prefer a system with no bloat rather than one which includes bloat I have to remove.


I won't argue with the rolling-release part, it's your personal preference.

As for the AUR part, I think it's just funny because the AUR is this big selling point for Arch and derivatives, but in actuality, it's just a "cope" for having relatively deficient official repos, and instead of doing their job as distro maintainers adding more packages, the Arch "maintainers" tell you to fuck off and install script kiddy trojans from the trust-me-bro community repo.
I'd rather get binaries (if they work) or compile stuff from Github for stuff that's not in the official "repos".

Perhaps I haven't made it clear in the original post. The AUR is specifically important for me because I use programs which tend to be obscure enough to not get packaged in repositories of other popular distros, not just Arch. The AUR streamlines installing and maintaining said software. If someone manages to install malware from the AUR then this person is simply a retard. I don't know what to say besides "read the PKGBUILD" which everyone encourages arch users to do anyway.

Stuff like mainstream VPNs, services like ProtonMail, browsers like Firefox and Brave, "apps" like Signal, distros like Tails or Qubes... I guess this Dig Deeper article may be good to read, but it doesn't cover this phenomenon in its entirety.

Genuine question, not arguing here. What is the issue with Tails and Qubes? I've mentioned them in my original response to molly but as I said I have zero experience with them and I have heard positive things about said distros.

[moeloli]

I have been considering ageless Linux https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux
For me I want something that won't be too stressful.

In my mind Ageless Linux was more of a statement than a real thing for people to use, but looking into it again, it seems that it's a script that modifies a systemdicked Linux system, but they also provide a Debian ISO patched with their script. So, it should be an "easy" enough "distro", especially if you just run the script on your Linux Mint system.

I looked into OpenBSD with cinnamon desktop awhile back but never made the leap.

I never properly used a BSD but I assume they're much less "just werks" and they're "harder" than Linux if you don't know your way around Unix, so if I were you I'd first get more used to Linux and the command line/Unix stuff first - but maybe some BSD user here can clarify this.

I also do not like that BSD permits proprietary modifications without mandatory source code release, this put me off the most and kept me with Linux. It makes me associate BSD with big business using it to make money.

This.... really does not matter for the end user. To put it bluntly, only some freetard zealot would be bothered enough by this to not use the OS (which even then, factually is Free Software) instead of looking at the technical aspects.
To quote a copypasta,

The license cucks the developer, not the user. A cuck would have to search linuxforums and stack overflow for information that should be in a manual. A cuck sweats whether pacman -Syu is going to make his system unusable. A cuck sits and watches "A stop job is running ( 0 min 31 sec / 10 min) [***]". A cuck desperately types apt-get -f install to revive his frankenstein system. A cuck consciously uses a distribution marked "unstable". A cuck can't do anything but watch as GTK and Qt battle on his computer. A cuck has to solve the mysteries of boot log by wrangling with binary files. A cuck doesn't use software with a particular license because of some fat American [1] autist who eats toe jam

[1] Jewish*

And hey, Linux and GPL software make even more big bucks for corpos than BSDs - most servers in the world run on Linux, and most of these little locked-down satanic tracking devices run a bastardized version of Linux by Google.

Genuine question, not arguing here. What is the issue with Tails and Qubes? I've mentioned them in my original response to molly but as I said I have zero experience with them and I have heard positive things about said distros.

They're systemdicked, for starters. That's a no-no for a distro claiming to be privacy-maxed.
Qubes' VM model is also a double-edged sword in that it requires you to have a beefy PC, so, you can't use it with an old un-backdoored CPU.
Otherwise I don't know enough about them to surely say that they're controlled-op, but their semi-corporate vibe makes me instinctively suspicious.
Privacy and all that aside, they also just don't seem too usable as general daily drivers, especially Tails.

[Aenoth]

Daily driver is just plain ol' Debian, but I have a few different setups depending on what's needed.

For a while I was really into Whonix, but then I figured out you could route to tor via pf4.

I also have live USBs of Tails, and Kali on my keychan. Kali is mostly used for work, but I've always had a Tails USB since I was an edgy teenager and read Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" for the first time.

[molly]

Appreciate you all sharing your thoughts on the Operating Systems. Thanks in particular to qualia and moeloli for mentioning Artix and Devuan. I have done some reading on them and both look interesting. I plan to test the following 3 out with cinnamon desktop, which is familiar to me. In this order=
1. Devuan
2. Artix
3. OpenBSD

This.... really does not matter for the end user. To put it bluntly, only some freetard zealot would be bothered enough by this to not use the OS (which even then, factually is Free Software) instead of looking at the technical aspects….And hey, Linux and GPL software make even more big bucks for corpos than BSDs - most servers in the world run on Linux, and most of these little locked-down satanic tracking devices run a bastardized version of Linux by Google.

I get what you are saying but every time I see the name BSD I associate it with Apple, this kinda makes me throw up a little. It may just be guilt by association but the amount of money that Apple made from BSD can be matched by none.

[qualia]

Appreciate you all sharing your thoughts on the Operating Systems. Thanks in particular to qualia and moeloli for mentioning Artix and Devuan. I have done some reading on them and both look interesting. I plan to test the following 3 out with cinnamon desktop, which is familiar to me. In this order=
1. Devuan
2. Artix
3. OpenBSD

Coming from Mint, Devuan is probably your best option here.

[Theundercoverman_]

I use Debian stable since I don't feel like fixing shit anymore and I'm not interested in trying operating systems anymore. I've used Arch, Artix, Devuan, and Void (which I can't recommend at all anymore) in the past as well, and I tested Alpine and Fedora years ago in VMs.

Coming from Mint, Devuan would be easier to transition to than Artix since it's the same base and package manager.

[molly]

Yes I have my hopes set on Devuan, fingers crossed there is not to may problems. From the comments above I see Artix has some issues even though others have said that Arch has faster updates and Debian's are slow.
Although I think the yanks new federal bill will not pass or even work if it does, it is good to learn these alternatives in preparation for other underground OS's of the future.
A lot of the problems seem to be comparability with the hardware you are using. Hopefully because it's Debian based Devuan will work.

[strawberry9]

I used Qubes for about a year it was stable and bug free but works best on old hardware. Using Qubes the way it is intended will not get you away from both Fedora and Debian though. Fedora has good default security (SELinux profiles, firewalld, etc..) but has "anonymous" telemetry in the workstation version. The OS will also ping back to their servers to check for captive portals.

Right now I use Alpine Linux mostly because it was easy to set up and has by far the best package manager compared to anything else I've tried. You can use Alpine linux "live" kind of like Tails which is cool. Theoretically alpine linux also has a reduced attack surface compared to other distros.

[mia]

I use NetBSD.

It just works on 'outdated' hardware (my 1156 gigabyte rig); I actually find it easier than any Linux distro I used and NetBSD is almost what I always wanted from a eUnuchs-like OS (although NetBSD is sadly becoming more and more bloated everyday)

The most minimal and simple OS that is actually usable (unlike Plan9/front & AROS) is NetBSD.

[GenericKeyboard]

I've been using Linux Mint for a decade now and I appreciate the compatibility it has due to being Debian-based, I tried Arch recently but I still need to get over the learning curve.

[molly]

I've been using Linux Mint for a decade now and I appreciate the compatibility it has due to being Debian-based, I tried Arch recently but I still need to get over the learning curve.

Try Devuan (Cinnamon desktop) I have just started using it and only a few things extra to learn. Looks and feels like Linux Mint but better (in my opinion).

[malformed_jill]

It just works on 'outdated' hardware (my 1156 gigabyte rig); I actually find it easier than any Linux distro I used and NetBSD is almost what I always wanted from a eUnuchs-like OS (although NetBSD is sadly becoming more and more bloated everyday)

i've kinda been thinking of switching to another BSD like Net or Dragonfly (or gentoo) recently since OpenBSD sucks at performance (speed, battery life, certain drivers (i'm using a 2-in-1 laptop)) in exchange for security.
how's the package manager and file system? OBSD apparently fucks up a lot of data if an install is lost. also bloated how so?