VMware
You Only NEED 3 Linux Distributions
You Only NEED 3 Linux Distributions
#Linux #Distributions
“Titus Tech Talk”
These three distributions are the only ones you need.
source
To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below |
![[WatchParty] Reckoning Vs Revenant || OMEN/NODWIN](https://i0.wp.com/res.cloudinary.com/glide/image/fetch/https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Ff-5pvJmmakE%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg?w=390&resize=390,220&ssl=1 "[WatchParty] Reckoning Vs Revenant || OMEN/NODWIN")
After all the Redhat drama… I'd revise this clip – "You Only need 2 Distros"
1. Debian for stable environments
2. Arch for cutting edge
I need void
I've been running GENTOO since 2004! Couldn't be happier:)
So, if I understand you correctly, Debian could do everything MX allows us to do? All we need to know is how to modify it.
Then you could show us how to install the MX tools so that they can do exactly what the Mx distribution lets us do.
Otherwise Mx isn't just another one of those distributions and your public conclusion would become invalid. 99.9% of us are not c++ programmers.
Unless you're getting paid to use or develop a user only needs the distro which best serves their use case. Nearly everyone distro-hops but nowadays VMs make hosting any or many OS trivially easy while keeping a stable boring reliable host.
Chris, have you decided to write an alternate history of Linux?))))))))
My first distro was Kubuntu for like 3 months back in 2005, then i switched to VectorLinux and i been using primarily Slackware based distros since then.
What about Zorin Pro OS ?
This is so spot on!
yeach you're f… right ;-))))
I disagree. Debian great. Don't get me wrong, if you have an older machine that is. Buy anything new forget about it.. Arch is great if you don't mind not having a installer like modern operating systems tend to do. And don't even get me started on Fedora, an OS so afraid of some proprietary code that I have to do a day's worth of prep just to get it to be usable for gaming and internet.. Most of these forks fix these distros dude. They're improvements
you only need 1 linux distro
amog os
try chimmera or alpine
100% agree. Another thing that cooks my noodle is reinventing the wheel. Forever developing new installers and package managers. There are many other areas to push our community forward.
Do all Linux users just hate razors? Or does Linux promote facial hair growth?
Just about all Linux channels I watch have facial hair aka beards.
My guess is too busy futzing on a command line installing packages to shave…
Even for gaming you can choose Debian. Either you go with SID or Testing for newer packages. Or you can use Debian Stable as the base, backports for an advanced kernel, and Flatpak for up-to-date apps. Love Debian.
the future: an online mirror with all the current releases ready to be used in-browser and interconnected, THEN a customization tool to create a stand-alone version picking every preferred feature from each one and putting it toghether in a downloadable and ready to use iso
I want no systemd
Dear Titus: It seems everyone says that Debian based distros have old packages. This is true when it comes to Debian stable. However, do you think that you could do a legit comparison between ARCH and a Debian version that is more in alignment with ARCH (i.e. ??Debian Experimental, Debian Unstable, Debian Testing or Siduction). It gets a little old when the ARCH fanboys crap on the granddaddy of them all: DEBIAN. BTW thanks for having the stones to speak your opinion – I really enjoy the channel – and most of the time I agree with you.
By that logic, LFS is the only distro that matters.
Following your videos – I tried Qubes, but gave u after realizing that this is NOT a usable daily. As I currently understand it, it allows for limited apps to run for specific tasks and then die. No real customization possible As far as Debian 12 a least is concerned – I tried it GNOME (which I absolutely HATE), XCFE which is fine but not great, and Wayland at which point I just gave up and deleted it.- I tried originally for a minimalist Debian (minimal amount of apps), and SELinux on it, enforced when possible (trying to emulate MLS model, but trying for an Android-like user experience, where it will ask you for permissions for each new software run by you, and let you review these permissions and change them. -Your advice will be appreciated.
Titus is objectively wrong about this, if these distros didn't have use cases they wouldn't exist. And the fact that people use them means that they would notice if they disappeared.
Titus doesn't really understand Kali.
The point is that when you're on a pentest or something like that there are numerous reasons that it's not ideal to start downloading a bunch of tools.( time, footprint, etc)
You want your pentesting setup to be ready to go.
It's just not for the same purpose as these daily drivers he's talking about so comparing them doesn't make sense.
Im a slackware fan
I feel like you’re not wrong, but you’re missing something fundamental about human nature in this. Yes, distros are just decisions made for the user, but there is value in that. The ability to make those decisions is rooted in time and a deeper understanding of Linux than most users have, or have the time to learn. For instance, I run Garuda. Yes, I could run Arch, and I know enough about Linux now to install Arch on my own if I wanted to, but I never would have known about the Fish shell if it weren’t for Garuda, for instance. I love their implementation of the Fish shell but I wouldn’t want to go learn how to set it up that way myself. As humans we frequently outsource the decisions on specific areas to people more knowledgeable than ourselves, and there is value in not having to take that on ourselves. This is the value that these fork distros provide. The fact that there is demand for them proves this value out.
I daily drove slackware for a couple of years, and quite liked it. I've been away from linux for a few years now though.
Debian or Devuan (OpenRC version), Arch or Artix (OpenRC version), Alpine Linux. The three distro anyone needs.
I've said for a while that Linux Distros are like different trim levels in cars. Most of them use the same base (Debian, Arch, Fedora), but then the included options and stylings are different.
For most users, the GUI is the OS. They have no idea. I understand your frustration.
Linux Distros are not the same. You are saying that they share components and that makes them the same but that is very far off. Yes they share the same kernel but even different versions of the Linux kernel makes a vastly different experience. Which package managers are used is a big difference but are many more differences between distros. Fedora had Pipewire long before any other distro. Wayland is used by default in some distros, whereas others use Xorg. There are many more differences that cause a different experience. I think it is possibly dangerous for users to be told it is all the same because if it is all the same, why do users have different experiences between distros? The point is, just because Linux distros have similarities and share components does not make it all the same thing. A Linux distro should be looked at as a single product not a sum of parts.
Side note: Why are you promoting Debian & Arch as options for new users? Neither of those are good for new users, for vastly different reasons.
Say you have Linux Mint Cinnamon. All set up and nice. And you want to try another desktop environment, say Wayland. Do you have to reinstall everything or can you install an environment and use it with all your software/apps/and accounts still being there?
Another Ah-Ha Moment… You only need 1 distribution.
Coming from window 10 , i have tried Debian and it was the most logical choice for me. Music production and Video edit are my mainpoint , so i need stability in my main desktop. Ubuntu Studio LTS is so great!.
I agree with this. It's also important to spread this message because it is confusing for those who are new to linux. Seems like there is an insurmountable amount of choses you have to make.
If I understand it right though there is some distributions that actually does something different like fedora silverblue and vanilla os.
Arch is cutting edge; not bleeding edge. Further; there's an LTS kernel in their repositories.
Three? Try Slackware, Debian, RedHat, Gentoo, LFS and Arch.
fedora with distrobox, god duo
The only significant difference between distros is the package manager, of which there are only actually a few "grandfather" distros that all others inherit from. Everything else is universal.
EndeavourOS btw. For the easy button.
I mostly agree with video, however would add Nix, Guix and Gentoo to the list, so more like 6 of them.
My homelab runs Debian and I daily drive Arch btw
There can be only one, Slackware (I kid, I kid) but it was the first distro I ran for any time back in the early 2000's.