Looks very nice the colors @MidnightRose 
Edit: My new toy to play with, got released yesterday.
1 Like
Proof that I don't always need the latest, is the fact that I am still on OS 16.3. I typically skip a Zorin OS version, then buy the next. I can do this, because Zorin uses LTS releases, not rolling releases. I don't need the latest and greatest, I just need something that works.
Yes its true, when I bought my computer in 2021, Zorin OS 12 was too old to support it, and just like now days, wasn't going to install OS 15 which was soon to be replaced by OS 16, so I waited. Just like today, I won't install OS 17 just to get longer support updates.
I will patiently wait for OS 18.
2 Likes
I don't need it either, just wanted to test EndeavourOS and i was even more blown away then i was with Pop! OS. The usage of pacman/aur it's pretty simple. If i have to compare it with ubuntu based distro's then Arch is way easier.
A sample: In ubuntu based distro's when a nvidia driver does not get released on time (or not released at all/skipped) then you can add a PPA to resolve this (if it is available), the same counts for mesa drivers.
Pop! OS does take time too these days, the first 570 driver took them over 6 weeks to make it finally available. First they didn't wanted to add it duo failed test, yet the ubuntu repo added it so they also added it. In the end, i cannot even decide if that version gets installed on my system. The "choice" was taken away.
In EndeavourOS when it's not available with sudo pacman -S nvidia you can search in the aur and install it with yay -S nvidia
The search for an application is great to, no store just a terminal. pacman -Ss steam and it shows everything that is available. The latest nvidia driver is not in the aur so it might be up tommorow or 2-3 days later (who knows)
If i look back at ubuntu based distro's, it's way more complicated. Rolling releases can break a system yes, but the same counts for updates on ubuntu based distro's. So which one is safer in the end ? a rolling release with all the security fixed and so on ? or a ubuntu based distro that's using older stuff.
I am hooked for 2 weeks behind endeavour os on the 13 years old notebook to configure everything i like, so far it's a breeze. Not a single issue and very stable.
If my system would break which i hope it will, i want to learn how to fix it without reinstalling the entire system.
It's a good thing people have CHOICES, it's your choice and yours only!.
When it failed in Tests, it is better when it isn't available because it could make the System unstable. Stability stands in the first Place in a LTS Distro. So, there will not simply land Software in it because it's new.
Ubuntu. Because of the older Stuff. When You get continuosly newer Software Versions the Chance is higher that it comes to Compatiblity Issue, Problems with other Programs and new Vulnerabilities.
But when you like how Endeavour Os handles the Things, then maybe the LTS Concept isn't Your Thing - which isn't something bad. When it suits Your Usage and what You want, then use it.
And other People doesn't want that their System breaks and they have to repair it. They want simply a System that wuns and works.
I disagree on that, vulnerabilities can also be in LTS and has nothing to do with rolling releases.
Yet i see more and more messages on this forum about users who can't enter the system. I even see people recommending a clean install while in Arch based distro's you can chroot into your machine and just fix your stuff without reinstalling. So again, ubuntu based reinstalling while arch based can fix it from outside.
There can be vulnerabilities in LTS releases, but there are much fewer chances as there are more checks in place before an end user gets the updates. For example, the xz backdoor was applicable to most rolling distros (although slower ones like pclinuxos were ok, i think) had to issue immediate fixes and warnings, whereas it was not applicable to older LTS models due to the speed (slower) and testing of packages).
More often than not you could do a similar fix to Ubuntu distros as well, but it's sometimes easier as a new user (especially if they just installed) to reinstall and set it properly at first, than make them go through a lot of hoops when they're just starting out.
In addition, being able to easily access a users system without credentials is not very secure in the sense of the business world (and even end users, albeit to a lesser extent). As Ubuntu is by an order of magnitude larger than Arch in terms of daily usage and install in both end user and business, this approach makes much more sense for them. But as an end user, the other approach can make more sense in other ways as well.
Each have pros and cons. Neither are going to be perfect. Both can have exploits, but LTS will generally have less.
EDIT: I'm also closing the topic. It appears to get off topic fairly regularly, and I don't want the original intent of the poster to get lost.
4 Likes
