Linux
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
After migrating from Solus a while ago I tried Manjaro, but quickly decided Endeavour OS seemed better. I mostly wanted Arch with some sane defaults so I think it was a better fit for me. However, I think plain Arch is also a strong contender despite IMO more annoying setup. I have had some issues with keys not syncing properly from the EOS repository.
EndeavourOS hands down. Manjaro has/had a bunch of issues and EOS is basically vanilla Arch with a graphical installer, helper scripts, and AUR set up out of the box. It's been really smooth so far.
I switched from Manjaro over one year ago and there's no reason to pick it over EOS or Arch IMO.
Now between EOS and Arch, some people will say to go straight with Arch, and if you're comfortable with that I'd agree. But the installer made me choose EOS. I'm a heavy CLI user, but I don't want to use the command line to re-partition my disk, even using archinstaller. EOS gives me a better off-the-shelf installation and that's a good enough reason to choose it for me.
Endeavor seems like a better option. The majaro devs don't seem particularly trustworthy as OS devs, mainly because they hold back security updates as a policy and have allowed things like ssl certs to lapse multiple times. Endeavor gets you the benefits Manjaro provides without the nonsense.
EndeavourOS is my preference. I appreciate that they don’t really modify the Arch experience in any annoying way. Manjaro seems to always break shit. Plus the EOS forums are amazing.
Nobody has mentioned the guided installer that now ships with the vanilla Arch iso: archinstall
I've done the Arch installation from scratch a few times to add some inches to my e-peen, but the CLI installer does everything so nicely that I haven't bothered with a manual install for a while now.
I generally choose gnome (wayland), and add pamac-nosnap from the AUR, and it's a super user friendly experience. Especially if you choose to use BTRFS during the install and then setup timeshift and add the timeshift-autosnap package once you are in the DE. For the handful of times I've ever had an issue with a package update, I just roll back to a previous snapshot and I'm back in action.
I used manjaro first but after hearing about the incompatance of the devs I made the switch to endeavor.
To justify, they've ddosed the aur accidentally twice, their lead arm dev pushed a commit to the asahi kernal that broke half of the users installs, they tried shipping that kernal while it was very much in development with a broken kernal which couldn't actually run while pretending that "manjaro runs on the m1 macbook" (this could have broken users hardware), and they don't properly tell users the dangers of the aur like the time a guy put two calls to an IP logger beside a list of people who can fuck themselves or an on init fork bomb. This should not be a toggle directly next to snaps and flat packs, which are safer than a normal package.
they don't properly tell users the dangers of the aur like the time a guy put two calls to an IP logger beside a list of people who can fuck themselves or an on init fork bomb. This should not be a toggle directly next to snaps and flat packs, which are safer than a normal package.
Flatpaks or snaps are not safer at all, as the package maintainer decides how much sandboxing, if any, is applied by default. Manjaro also very much does have a warning in the settings page for the AUR...
@Zamundaaa Flatpaks are not installed with sudo rights. That's a huge difference.
It does not make a real difference in practice. Outside of the server space, the most important thing a user has is not access to their root filesystem but access to their home folder - to their data and fun things like .bashrc and .profile that allow to hijack pretty much everything the user runs
Not safer than the aur? Where you run a random script from some random guy who is likely unassociated with the project which has very little chance of being audited?
Or a normal package? Which has no sandboxing at all. In that case, yes, one could have a poorly sandboxes app, but the vast majority have some to a larger amount of sandboxing. On top of that, they come from a much more heavily audited place than the aur. It is, on average, safer than the average normally packaged package. Some sandboxing is better than no sandboxing
And no, their warning is not nearly enough. They should state that a person needs to read any package build script before installation and its diff while updating unless they verify the packager is the project maintainer for the application they use
Where you run a random script from some random guy who is likely unassociated with the project which has very little chance of being audited?
Until recently, most Flatpaks were also published by random people and you had no easy way of verifying who they were.
In that case, yes, one could have a poorly sandboxes app, but the vast majority have some to a larger amount of sandboxing
That is not a usable argument for security. The app developer sets how much sandboxing their app gets, so if they want your data, they can get it.
And sure, you can restrict permissions yourself if you want, but that's not what any normal user does.