Has anyone tried Fedora Silverblue? Is it actually good?
I've been using Windows after years of Linux because I got tired of it being unreliable, but Silverblue sounds like a Linux system that could maybe finally be dependable. I don't see any real downsides, but am I missing something?
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
frick off back to plebbit Black person
Samegayging this hard.
Linux fricking sucks. It's unstable outdated garbage. Y'all can't even keep up to date with current versions of your own fricking software. The absolute state...
yeah, but i am
and
>sucks
user error
>unstable
anything but this, it is literally the most stable operating system available
>outdated
kek
modern distros are very fresh
it is windows that still uses code from 1997 as base outdated
dumb Black person, go back to pleddit
>anything but this, it is literally the most stable operating system available
You don't have anything to back this up, you just say it because everyone else says it
>it is windows that still uses code from 1997 as base outdated
Unix ,which Linux is based on, is literally from the 70's
>You don't have anything to back this up, you just say it because everyone else says it
>
no, i say it because it works for me and never failed, unlike alternative systems like windows, macos, freebsd
>Unix ,which Linux is based on, is literally from the 70's
linux is not based on unix moron
>no, i say it because it works for me and never failed, unlike alternative systems like windows, macos, freebsd
Funny, because I've never seen Windows break in the ways that Linux does
Silverblue is a step in the right direction. The root filesystem being breakable is a misfeature
>linux is not based on unix moron
It's not build on the same codebase but largely follows the same principles. Windows NT is actually newer and it isn't even based on DOS like freetards always claim
>Funny, because I've never seen Windows break in the ways that Linux does
in what way does linux break for you? like arch deletes your xorg.conf if you misconfigure it?
the way windows breaks in is just straight up refusing to work, having unusual glitches, explorer crashes, broken features as when the updater doesn't work no matter what
>Silverblue is a step in the right direction. The root filesystem being breakable is a misfeature
breakable filesystem? what?
>It's not build on the same codebase but largely follows the same principles. Windows NT is actually newer and it isn't even based on DOS like freetards always claim
using the same principles doesn't mean anything, linux code is modern while nt literally forces the user to interact with untouched code from 2001
also nobody claims nt is based on dos, take your meds
The only reason why Microsoft doesn't publish a Xenix-based OS is because they're too moronic to maintain it and had to resort to NIH. And even then, the only way to make Windows remotely usable is with MSYS, WSL, Docker or some other (lower-case) unix or linux compatibility layer.
>~~*y'all*~~
of course OP is a nignog.
i tried, i couldn't install anything besides flatpaks
there is no reason to use that
dropped
>couldn't install anything besides flatpaks
User error
>linux
>unreliable
oh yes back to rebbit you go
Not bad but you need to reboot your system everytime when you install a package through rpm-ostree.
There're no reason to avoid silverblue if you are not hate redhat, systemd, flatpak and bloated things.
But I will choose fedora workstation though
>Fedora
G'evening m'lady
i've installed fedora and KDE on my laptop, it just werks and it's easy to use. so i guess silverblue is the same but way more idiot-proof and easy to use.
I used Fedora Workstation for years and it just works until it suddenly doesn't
I'm just thinking about Silverblue, because I actually want a system that's idiot proof but I don't really like Microsoft. With traditional Linux systems it feels like you're always one mistake away from breaking. With modern day Windows you need to go out your way to seriously break it.
I tried it a few days ago hopped because of flatpaks slowness
>I don't see any real downsides
True but you have to consider these first:
Do you like the idea of having your software primarily from flatpaks.
Do you mind using toolbox for everything CLI
(keep in mind that base silverblue is just fedora workstation without many desktop apps, so you are going to have the default set of CLI programs)
you can also add programs to the base with rpm-ostree
Fedora Silverblue would be perfect if It shipped with proprietary codecs (like h264), drivers (nvidia) and flathub (instead of the shitty ass fedora flatpak repo). also I wish flatpak could install cli software.
I tought microsoft got rid of silverblue because no one uses flash anymore
I went down a rabbit hole these past few months, trying out all of the meme "unbreakable" distros. Silverblue was a pain in the ass, frankly. I don't know how anybody uses flatpaks on a regular basis, they're an absolute pain to integrate properly with the desktop and have a myriad of other annoying little issues. Silverblue expects you to drop into a containerized shell to do all of your CLI work, which I found to be very awkward and slow. And, some COPR repos didn't work properly with Silverblue at all. As a whole, the experience didn't feel smooth or polished at all.
Frankly, if you want something that's actually reasonable to use, I'd say your absolute best bet is still just to stick with the classic option of something like Debian stable w/ backports. If you want rollback functionality akin to what Silverblue has, format your drive for BTRFS, set up a root subvolume, and set up auto snapshots for updates and grub-btrfs.
Maybe I'll just install Debian. It generally doesn't break unless you do something retarted