Yes I know that Cuba, the DPRK, and China have their own distros, but they’re pretty specific to the language and networks of those countries. I use linux because it’s free and open source but I use one of those distros that is privately owned and I’m thinking of upgrading to something that is truly communally owned but also has good compatibility with software, especially scientific software. Any good recs please?

Thanks!

    • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      10·
      3 months ago

      Any experience with Fedora? I ask because apparently it’s the one Torvalds uses and because there are a few science-based Fedora variants.

      • Inui [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        8·
        3 months ago

        I use the atomic/immutable community variants of Fedora. Bazzite if you’re a gamer, Bluefin or Aurora if not. Immutable is a whole other workflow, mainly in how you install packages (using flatpaks/brew or distrobox), but the system itself is essentially 0 maintenance because updates are automated and the OS rebuilt on reboot (while keeping your programs and user files). So its more stable than Arch nd you don’t have packages that are 2 years out of date like on Debian. The only downside is updates take a lot of bandwidth if thats a problem for you. But they’re the only distros I recommend to anybody now outside of Debian for servers.

        https://universal-blue.org/

      • tombruzzo [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        7·
        3 months ago

        The makers of Fedora, Red Hat, were acquired by IBM. So whilst there may be nothing wrong with the distro, they are part of your typical evil corpo. And I say this as a Fedora user

      • bumpusoot [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        4·
        3 months ago

        I can’t contradict the fact that Fedora is owned by IBM and used as an upstream for their Red Hat software, it is slightly concerning but not inherently problematic. I’ll at least say I personally have yet to experience any negatives for that fact, and I’ll also add that it does like Debian, and defaults to a “free” software repository, you have to manually enable the non-free ones.

        It probably isn’t the “most socialist”, but it’s open source, absolutely prioritises open source fundamentally, and consequently it’s controllable by the people the second a corp fucks it over (like most Linux distros). I don’t think it’s turned in service of evil (yet).

        • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          Do you consider Ubuntu evil, and why? I know it’s owned by a private company (ugh) but searching around apparently it’s still open source

          • bumpusoot [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            I don’t think I consider any open-source Linux to be evil. As I say, by being fully and properly open-source, it’s copyable at a moment’s notice. So any of them are inherently held to a much higher standard than any closed ecosystem. It’s like giving people the ability to seize the means of OSing with the click of a button.