I’ve had a look, but couldn’t find a specific answer to my question (I apologize if it has been answered elsewhere but I just didn’t find it).
I would really like to run MX Linux on my Framework 13 when it arrives. I am just wondering how hard a task it will be to keep it running smoothly since it is not officially supported? I have dabbled a bit in the terminal, but would I be in there a lot trying to figure out why things aren’t working until MX is better supported?
I would like to really get to know Linux a lot better, but I like the thought of doing that with a system that is already working. I suppose one could argue having to jump in at the deep end would be a good way to learn, it just seems like that could be a rather frustrating way about things. And if I really need to get something done, having a broken system would get annoying pretty quickly I would think.
Would I be better suited to go for Fedora in the meantime? To be honest, I would rather run LMDE or Manjaro over Fedora, but I see that Fedora and Ubuntu are the only two distros listed as being officially supported for the AMD 7040 series right now.
Don’t know mx enough to tell, if it gives you a more recent kernel it may have a better chance.
This has less to do with being “supported” and more with the hardware being very new, so you need a relatively new kernel for the hardware support. Debian stable tends to lag behind on kernel versions because testing and vetting for stability takes time.
Bleeding edge hardware and “stable” software don’t really go together.
This is truth. If you want a good experience at this time go with Fedora, Archlinux, or Opensuse Tumbleweed (yes I know some people run into issues with Archlinux or Tumbleweed but they do tend to resolve rather quickly). Maybe even Ubuntu 23.04. The issue will be 1) making sure you have the latest available kernel and no Debian Sid is usually not new enough. 2) making sure you have the latest graphics drivers. 3) if the hardware has been out for a year or more that is when it starts to become safe to use older/slow to update distros.
Personally I run Fedora and have been for the last five years exclusively, outside of vm’s. It has been a painless experience.
Ok, please forgive my noobness haha. I just really like the distro and how it works. I’ve not tried too many others though to be honest. So maybe I should do a bit more distro hopping before I settle down!
In that case why not just give fedora a shot and see how you like it, I think it comes in different “spins” with different desktop environments so you can take your pick.
I still say NixOS since you can do everything that Fedora does since it infinitely customizable, you could choose to be ‘bleeding-edge’ with the nixos-unstable branch or just use nixos-23.11 which is the current stable branch.
NixOS is great but there is a rather large learning curve and no it does not do SELinux even close to as well as Fedora. I don’t think the OP based on their comments is even close to ready to dive into that documentation.
One of the things I like so much about MX is it’s stability, so probably wouldn’t be going for the unstable branch to be honest. I definitely might have a look at the stable branch at some point though. Thanks for the suggestion!
You are correct. I’m not scared to rtfm, but I don’t want to jump into the deep part of the deep end just yet!
Plus, all my experience has been on Debian based distros so far, and from what I’ve read Fedora works quite differently being downstream of RHEL. So, half thinking I should maybe try Ubuntu in stead. Having said that, I wouldn’t mind trying Manjaro at some point as an introduction to Arch.
Quite like the idea of running MX as my default, and trying a few different distros in a vm. Fingers crossed MX ahs works!
Re Manjaro/Arch/Endeavor, I recently moved from Manjaro to Arch, mostly to see if I could do it and to be able to control things and try to saver power a bit more. I will give Manjaro credit for making the basic setup extremely straightforward. Doing so in Arch took a fair amount of trial and error, and at some point I need to reinstall my primary machine because I find timeshift and grub more in line with my thinking than systemd-boot and snapper. The archinstall script didn’t cover how I wanted to set things up, so I had to do it manually. I understand it better now, but Manjaro did all of those things for me without the hassle of line by line setup in the shell. My experience in Manjaro was positive, and I fortunately did not run into any of the issues with things being held back. So I can’t knock it as much as others do, and would recommend it to anyone interested in delving into the arch side of the world without wanting to be shell driven like Endeavor or taken to an extreme (my opinion) like Garuda.
Ah ok, I thought it was the other way round. My mistake. Is Fedora the farthest upstream, or is there something farther?
So would you say Endeavour is more of a ‘stable’ distro, and Manjaro ‘unstable’, or at least less ‘stable’? Are they both similar in terms of setup? Or would you say one is more labor intensive than the other?
Hi lbkNhubert, thanks for the input. Would you say using Manjaro first gave you a better understanding when you eventually moved to Arch? Or do you think Arch would be a big learning curve no matter what? Definitely think I’ll set up Arch in a vm one of these days. Would no doubt be one of the best ways to really get to know Linux.
Could anybody please tell me how transferable the methods of doing things in Arch are to Debian based distros by any chance? I know they use different programs for different tasks, but how fundamentally different/the same are they?
So I guess now I am wondering, would a good way to go about things be getting to grips with Debian and Arch*, since they could no doubt be customized to my hearts content? And in the process I’d properly get to know how Linux really works.
*still planning on using MX as my default. But who knows, maybe I’ll jump ship after trying Arch and never look back haha