Thank you!

Pop!_OS is definitely worth considering as it’s one of the few distros that goes as far as providing a recovery partition and offers one of the best experiences for those with Nvidia GPUs. Furthermore, Pop!_OS’ maintainers (read: System76) are actually financially incentivized to make their distro very polished and newbie-friendly as their distro is used on the hardware they sell.

On the flip side, Pop!_OS is currently in a major overhaul to replace GNOME with COSMIC; their own homebuilt Desktop Environment. As the Desktop Environment is arguably the most important contributor to how one experiences their Linux system, the eventual change might disrupt your workflow and you might even be too accustomed to GNOME to consider COSMIC at that point. The ongoing work on COSMIC has even meant that Pop!_OS has missed three major releases and are still clinging on their release from April 2022; thankfully it’s based on Ubuntu’s LTS (read: Long Term Support) release, so they aren’t particularly in rush to get a new release out and can rely on Ubuntu for security updates.

Regardless, COSMIC’s unsure future does leave a lot to be desired and does pose the question if perhaps other options should be considered more seriously instead.

Therefore, my personal recommendation would be either one of the following:

• If you just really like what you see from Pop!_OS, then just install its 22.04 release and you should be good until April 2027. As time goes on, you might be deprived from new developments and features; but at least updates etc will not be able to (potentially) corrupt/break your system in the meantime.
• Wait until April next year; when they’re supposed to release a new version. If you like what you see and the update and the changes are well-received by the community, then consider installing that one instead. It should be supported for 5 years, which is plenty to not worry about your system in the mean time.
• Go look elsewhere. There are hundreds of actively maintained distros out there. While not all of them are worth considering, there are at least a dozen of them that are worthy contenders. In case you’re interested to get the community’s help in finding a distro, consider answering the following questions:
  • Do you use an Nvidia GPU?
  • How would you rate your tech savviness on other operating systems?
  • How eager are you to learn and/or invest time to use your Linux system?
  • Do you prefer to have up-to-date software at all times even if that means daily/weekly updates that might potentially break some functionality?
  • Security or convenience?
  • Opinionated or blank slate?

A shortlist of distros worth considering for a beginner (from easiest to hardest): Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Debian/Fedora/openSUSE and Arch.

installing Chromium

This wouldn’t sit well with most privacy conscious folk out there. Though, I can understand it from a security point of view. Especially, when one notices that Chromium isn’t installed from Fedora’s repos, but instead the RPM is built to offer a more up-to-date version that should provide improved security compared to the stable version.

removing Flatpak

Probs for the sake of disabling unprivileged user namespaces; as you might have correctly alluded to.

even software stores

I imagine for the sake of minimizing attack surface.

So how am I gonna install software now, layering?

The Nix package manager is installable on Fedora’s atomic distros, so perhaps that route is worth exploring.

to my knowledge flatpaks are more secure than RPMs

To my knowledge, Flatpak’s sandbox indeed isn’t achievable by default with RPMs; unless one knows how to properly utilize SELinux to that effect.

Very interesting indeed! And thank you for raising awareness!

There’s another similar project that’s still WIP and that hasn’t received a lot of development recently. Though, its maintainer does provide hardening scripts for Fedora’s Atomic distros that are worth looking into. Hopefully, we might even expect a collaboration of sorts between these projects early next year 🤞.

I don’t own any devices with an Nvidia GPU. Therefore, I can’t share my own experiences but only the ones from the community. If my memory serves me right, it should work. However, as usual, expect some strange behavior at times. Thankfully, getting back to a working system shouldn’t cause you any troubles on Jovian-NixOS. Nonetheless, it’s something to keep in mind.

I’d definitely like to get some of the classic multiplayer games running on emulators as well.

Bazzite does allow easy install of EmuDeck and RetroDECK during first installation, which should cover most of your emulation needs. For completeness’ sake; Batocera does exist. However, I’m not sure if it runs e.g. Steam games as good as Bazzite runs retro games.

to use as a media centre and multiplayer gaming system in my living room

Based on this, you’re basically looking for the ‘game console experience on your couch’. If that’s the case, honestly you shouldn’t look beyond^[1] Bazzite.

If, instead, you actually wanted to play retro games primarily, then please let us know.

1. While ChimeraOS and HoloISO also offer the ‘game console experience’, they don’t support Nvidia GPUs. So you would be on your own at best; which would be a horrible experience for a new user. If you feel particularly adventurous, then Jovian-NixOS is actually another option. But arguably less newbie-friendly compared to Bazzite.

Ow wow, that’s a lot! Unsure to what degree you’ve used them; but if you feel confident talking about (at least some of) them, would you be so kind to offer us a rundown of what you liked and didn’t like? Thanks in advance!

Basically, you want to not disable kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone.

For a temporary solution that has to be redone after reboot, there is sysctl kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1.

For a lasting solution, consider echo kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1 | sudo tee /etc/sysctl.d/99-enable-unpriv-userns.conf.

In either case you’re foregoing security for the sake of convenience/functionality, so I understand why you would rather not act upon either of them.

I don’t know what the solution is that would be analogous to installing bubblewrap-suid. Perhaps, it’s worth exploring the projects found within the github page of Awesome Fedora Security for some pointers.

I don’t know by heart if it’s able to do your bidding, but perhaps it’s worth checking out penguins-eggs. I guess the following would be its elevator pitch:

"penguins-eggs is a console tool, under continuous development, that allows you to remaster your system and redistribute it as live images on usb sticks or via PXE.

The default behavior is total removal of the system’s data and users, but it is also possible to remaster the system including the data and accounts of present users, using flag --clone. It is also possible to keep the users and files present under an encrypted LUKS file within the same resulting iso file, flag --cryptedclone.

You can easily install the resulting live system with the calamares installer or the internal TUI krill installer."

The link for uBlue didn’t work for me. For those interested: uBlue

Understandable! Please consider coming back to this at some point (also possible in private) as I’m genuinely curious to hear from you.

I disagree with most of the benefits you list

I’m curious to hear your objections.

chief among them “increased security”

Do you deny that specific protection to some attacks is provided through the chosen model of ‘immutability’ on at least one of the atomic distros?

not to mention half of them are already supported by traditional package managers

Hmm…,:

• atomicity; nope
• reproducibility =/= reproducible builds for some packages (if that’s what you meant)
• declarative system configuration; ansible (and any other solution that I’ve witnessed being mentioned in such discussions) succeed (at best) at convergent system management, while e.g. NixOS does congruent system management by default. Consider taking a look at this page if you’re interested in what these are and how they’re different. (Spoiler alert) congruent is better and therefore more desirable.
• increased security; security is not limited to chosen model for ‘immutability’ if at all; as Qubes OS (read: most secure and private desktop OS) doesn’t rely on it for its security. So I can understand where you’re coming from, but I have yet to see any non-security focused distro that provides the elevated protection against particular attacks that some atomic distros offer by default.
• built-in rollback functionality; sure, this is not exclusive to atomic distros. Perhaps I should have done a better job at making clear that it isn’t a feature provided necessarily by atomicity. But, the fact that I listed it at the very end, alludes that it isn’t as exclusive and consequential as atomicity is. At this point, however, it has become almost synonymous with atomic distros, while the same can’t be said about traditional distros.
• regarding the consequences; I’m unaware of any distro that does those out of the box (barring Pop!_OS with their factory reset). Though, I’d love to be educated on this.

I was genuinely curious so thanks for the rationale.

It has been my pleasure ☺️! I’m also genuinely curious to read your reply to this comment😉.

Not OP. But for me, atomic updates, reproducibility, (to some degree) declarative system configuration, increased security, built-in rollback functionality and their consequences; rock solid system even with relatively up to date packages, possibility to enable automatic updates in background without fearing breakage, (quasi) factory reset feature, setting up a new system in just a fraction of the time required otherwise are the primary reasons why I absolutely adore atomic^[1] distros.

1. I prefer referring to the so-called ‘immutable’ distros as atomic distros instead. It’s more descriptive, because the distros aren’t actually ‘immutable’ but instead they’re atomic.

Distrobox is directly inspired from Toolbx and was created because of limitations of Toolbx and how Toolbx’ maintainers didn’t want to implement some features at that moment in time.

Currently, Distrobox is almost a superset of Toolbx. Though, I’ve come to the understanding that Toolbx does better at some tasks.

If you would like to stick to just one of them, then Distrobox is probably still the better one and should be preferred. However, if its added functionality doesn’t do it for you, then please feel free to continue using Toolbx.

Why is toolbox preinstalled and not distrobox?

Because Toolbx predates Distrobox and is developed by developers that are associated with Fedora and even specifically designed in hopes of solving some issues pertaining to Fedora’s Atomic distros.

Thanks for the explanation!

I didn’t like Runit

Unfortunate, but not very surprising 😭. I hope it (or another init) will one day be more than a viable alternative to systemd, so that the hegemony will cease to exist.

the package selection wasn’t great

While not applicable in all cases, I’ve had great success with relying on Distrobox in case I had to rely on the repos of another distro to get my software.

As for siduction, it was just a touch too buggy (i.e. XScreensaver caused the laptop to freeze when I closed the lid) and too preconfigured to be able to resolve easily. It also played havoc with my school’s BYOD internet.

Interesting! I didn’t know that siduction is relatively unpolished.

I’ll probably go back to it at some point, though.

I wonder if perhaps SpiralLinux does a better job.

Of course, the main reason for this new install is that I just bought an SSD, and I’d rather start fresh than try to flash my old hard disk across.

Relatable 😜.

Looks good!

Are you just exploring the waters? Or were you discontent with Void and siduction?

Thanks a lot for this excellent write-up! I believe it has successfully fulfilled its purpose.

To make myself absolutely clear: I believe that we agree on our general sentiment towards systemd; I don’t like how it has almost ostracized other inits, nor do I like how ever-impactful it has become across the board so much so that even the most established DE (read: GNOME) has had hard dependencies to systemd in the past^[1].

And this is where i think you’ve contradicted yourself. IMO, the only reason opponents use it is not because it’s so great but because it’s so entrenched in whichever distro they’re using.

Got it! I see now why you might have perceived that as a contradiction. And honestly, you might be correct! I assumed that systemd is used for how it might enable the full system AppArmor policy^[2] and other features that Kicksecure has become known for. Honestly, I’m not an expert on Kicksecure myself. I just like the project and even try to import some of their systemd-related features and/or configs on my daily driver.

Based on past readings, the idea that systemd was (ironically) still preferred on Kicksecure for security-related features stuck with me. But, honestly, it could have been my misunderstanding and instead they might have chosen to make the best out of it as not using systemd would have increased the maintenance burden tremendously.

This conversation has opened the possibility to me that Kicksecure’s maintainers might have stuck to systemd for non-security reasons. Ultimately, your contribution by addressing that point has been immense. Thank you so much for the insight and for being patient with me 😊!

1. I believe this has since been resolved.
2. Based on the following statement: “AppArmor can do this by loading a profile for systemd in the initramfs.” found here

Thanks for the answer! I got some pointers 😉.

the best os-design there is: the unix-like system.

Couple of questions:

1. Is there even any scientific basis to this statement?
   • If yes, would you be so kind to cite sources as I got trouble finding peer-reviewed articles on the matter.
   • If not, would you be able to make a logically sound argument on why that is the case?
2. Why Unix-like and not Unix? Wouldn’t Unix be the actual “original vision”?