Those who don’t have the time or appetite to tweak/modify/troubleshoot their computers: What is your setup for a reliable and low-maintenance system?
Context:
I switched to Linux a couple of years ago (Debian 11/12). It took me a little while to learn new software and get things set up how I wanted, which I did and was fine.
I’ve had to replace my laptop though and install a distro (Fedora 41) with a newer kernel to make it work but even so, have had to fix a number of issues. This has also coincided with me having a lot less free time and being less interested in crafting my system and more interested in using it efficiently for tasks and creativity. I believe Debian 13 will have a new enough kernel to support my hardware out of the box and although it will still be a hassle for me to reinstall my OS again, I like the idea of getting it over with, starting again with something thoroughly tested and then not having to really touch anything for a couple of years. I don’t need the latest software at all times.
I know there are others here who have similar priorities, whether due to time constraints, age etc.
Do you have any other recommendations?
This is the way. The uBlue derivatives benefit from the most shared knowledge and problem-solving skills being delivered directly to users.
Between that, and using a decorative distrobox config, I get an actually reliable system with packages from any distro I want.
Yeah, sure. I was running Bluefin-DX. One day image maintainers decided to replace something and things break. UBlue is an amazing project. Team is trying hard but it’s definitely not zero mainainace. I fear they are chasing so many UBlue flavours, recently an LTS one based on CoreOS, spreading thin.
If you depend on third party modules you’ll end up with third party maintenance - we didn’t purposely decide to break this we don’t work at Nvidia.
Jorge, OP asked about “not having to really touch anything for a couple of years”. I am just sharing my experience. Big fan of containers and really appreciate your efforts of pulling containers tech into Linux desktop. Thank you!
I don’t understand the answer though. Maybe I am missing something here. There’s an official Bluefin-DX-Nvidia iso. Nvidia-containers-toolkit was part of that iso.
On a separate note, I liked the idea of GTS edition. Since few weeks ago iso became unavailable pending some fix. At the same time I see loads of new LTS edition buzz. It’s still in Alpha though. I feel confused.
I don’t understand the answer though.
The answer is if you’re depending on software that is closed and out of your control (aka. you have an Nvidia card) then you should have support expectations around that hardware and linux.
There are no GTS ISOs because we don’t have a reliable way to make ISOs (the ones we have now are workarounds) but that should be finished soon.
Thanks for clarifying, Jorge. I wish I lived in a perfect world where all hardware and software follow FOSS principles. Until then I will have to rely on the other distros that embrace an imperfect reality. I cannot reconcile how Bluefin targets developers and NVidia, unfortunately is not something many of those developers can afford to ignore. Good luck with your project!
I cannot reconcile
It’s like a saving throw in a video game, most times you can make it, but every once in a while you don’t lol.
🤷 I’ve been running Aurora and uCore for over a year and have yet to do any maintenance.
You can roll back to the previous working build by simply restarting, it’s pretty much the easiest fix ever and still zero maintenance (since you didn’t have to reconfigure or troubleshoot anything, just restart).
I’ve been distro hopping for decades. I got exhausted with things constantly breaking. I’ve been using mint for the past six months with zero issues. It’s so refreshing that everything just works.
I second Mint. I’ve installed it on my laptop with zero issues, although that thing is pretty old so your mileage may vary on newer hardware. But mint comes with pretty up to date kernels these days so it’s definitely worth a try.
Same here. I got to a point I wanted to use the OS rather than play with and fix it. Went back to Mint and stayed there.
If you like debian and just need a newer kernel you could just add backports to your debian install then install the kernel during the install process.
fedora has been this for myself. maybe tweaking every now and then to fix whatever edge cases I’ve run into but it’s the least painful distro I’ve used so far
The thing with Debian is that yes, it’s the most stable distro family, but stable != “just works”, especially when talking about a PC and not a server (as a PC is more likely to need additional hardware drivers). Furthermore, when the time comes that you DO want to upgrade Debian to a newer version, it’s one of the more painful distros to do so.
I think fedora is a good compromise there. It’s unstable compared to RHEL, but it’s generally well-vetted and won’t cause a serious headache once every few years like Debian.
What makes Debian 12 a painful distro to upgrade?
I don’t understand that comment either. I’ve been using Debian for years on my server, and it just keeps up with the times (well with Debian times, not necessarily current times).
It’s way easier than Kubuntu was for me, for example, which required reinstalling practically every time I wanted to upgrade. A few times the upgrade actually worked, but most of the time I had to reinstall.
Debian as a server is fine and probably the best ! However as a daily drive OS I don’t think it’s the best choice.
I have always seen Debian as server distro and that’s probably what they meant ?
I have debian as my server distro since the beginning of my Linux journey (NEVER failed me !) However I can’t see how Debian as daily drive is a good idea. Sure they try to catch up with testing repo for those who wan’t a more up to date distro, but it’s seems harder to keep up when something breaks along the way.
That’s where Arch and derivatives shine, if something goes wrong it’s fixed in a few days.
I’ve been daily driving it on my desktop and laptop for several months now, seems fine. But I don’t need the bleeding edge either.
But that’s not what the comment was about… The top level comment said Debian was hard to upgrade, and I have not had that experience.
Specifically upgrading major versions. See the official documentation for upgrading Debian 11 to 12. It’s far more involved than minor version upgrades.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.html
This is what I’ve always done. It has worked fine for me every time.
Even then, there’s a warning that the upgrade process can take several hours. Even if it’s largely hands off, that’s not exactly my image of an easy upgrade.
The problem is when it comes time for a major version upgrade. Debian 12.10.0 to 12.11.0 probably won’t be a big deal. But upgrading from Debian 11 to 12 was a pain. Debian 12 to 13 will probably be a pain as well.
In what way? I haven’t upgraded between major releases on Debian before.
Here’s the official documentation for upgrading from Debian 11 to 12. The TL;DR is that it takes 8 chapters to describe the process.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.html
Ubuntu. It’s boring but it all works.
Ubuntu is literally just Debian unstable with a bunch of patches. Literally every time I’ve been forced to use it, it’s been broken in at least a few obvious places.
So, you are saying Debian is the better choice, right?
Absolutely. I’ve been running Debian for literally decades both personally & professionally (on servers) and it’s rock-solid.
On the desktop, it’s also very stable, but holy-fuck is it old. I’m happy to accept the occasionally bug in exchange for modern software though, so I use Arch (btw) on the desktop.
Ubuntu comes with non-free drivers which can make it easier to set up and use. I use Debian on my server and Ubuntu on my laptops. They have both been pretty reliable for me. LTS versions of Ubuntu are pretty bug free but have older versions of software. I’d guess that Daniel was using a non-LTS release which are a bit more bleeding edge. The LTS ones strike a good balance between modernity and stability.
I am currently using an recent version of Ubuntu live USB for backups and a “serious” error window pops up every time I boot it. Same experience with Ubuntu installations. For me at least, Ubuntu isn’t anything close to stable.
My desktop has been running debian for 5 years no problem including 2 major debian version upgrades, and a new(er) GPU.
I had an old laptop that ran the same debian install for 8 years. All upgrades in place, no reinstalls.
boring, and works. Stable + backports should cover the majority of people with new hardware support needs.
fedora with gnome for me.
The fact that you’re even saying such things as “time constraints” or “to learn new software” suggests an attitude to computing shared by about 0.01% of the population. It cannot be re-stressed enough to the (sadly shrinking) bubble that frequents this community: the vast majority of people in the world have never touched a laptop let alone a desktop computer. Literally everything now happens on mobile, where FOSS is vanishingly insignificant, and soon AI is going to add a whole new layer of dystopia. But that is slightly offtopic.
It’s a good question IMO. Choosing software freedom - to the small extent that you still can - should not just be about the freedom to tinker, it should also just be easy.
The answer is Ubuntu or Mint or Fedora.
You simply don’t do any maintenance whatsoever.
t. Got a arch linux install that I (rarely) perform “sudo pacman -Syu --noconfirm” and it works like a champ.
Debian stable is as hassle-free as you’ll get.
It sounds like your issue is more with having to migrate to a new laptop. Firstly - buy laptops that are more linux compatible and you’ll have fewer niggles like with sound, suspend and drivers.
Secondly - use “dpkg --get-selections” and “–set-selections” to transfer your list of installed software across to your new laptop. Combined with transferring your /home directory, user migration can be speeded up.
Firstly - buy laptops that are more linux compatible
This is the thing: The laptop is from Starlabs, supposedly made for Linux…
Xubuntu LTS. I’ve been meaning to switch to Debian Stable when something breaks, but it’s my third LTS on the desktop and 5th on the laptop and there was just no opportunity. I also learned to avoid PPAs and other 3rd party repos, and just use appimages when possible.
You can have a kernel from Testing or even Sid, I believe, but yeah, it’s what we want to avoid - tweaking.
LTS is released every 2 years, for reference.
Debian
Use timeshift, It saved my ass like 3 times
I’ve posted something similar a couple of days ago after my Endeavour OS took a dump to no return and I needed a reinstall. I, too, want a system where I set it and forget it. I’ve researched so much and now I have two things I’m experimenting with. I’m currently running Nobara OS (because I play games here and there) as an experiment to see how long it lasts without breaking. I have backed up everything.
Its users swore up and down that it never breaks if you’re not a “tinkerer”. Even its creator said that the distro isn’t for those who like to tinker. His goal was to have a distro that is as stable as an immutable, but not immutable itself.
So far, I like how it tries so hard to keep you away from the terminal. There is a GUI app for everything. Even their updating process is different than Fedora (which is what it’s based on). The developers are even planning on making something for upgrading between major releases that is a press of a button like they do with their updates through an app. So far so good.
My next experiment after this (if it fails) will be to run an immutable distro. Most likely Bazzite. They’re not my cup of tea, but I’ll sacrifice that for my sanity and for the sake of getting shit done.
