Guix is source base rolling release if you plan to keep it up to date weekly, so I don’t know why you feel it so distant from Gentoo. Binaries updates are still rolling released but their pace is slower.

Well, before wayland I always used fluxbox (eventually with picom compositor, which previously was compton). Then now on wayland I’m using sway with fuzzel, yambar and others.

I’ve always felt both gnome and kde, as well as most other DEs really bloated. Gnome used to be more stable on wayland, and as of Today with better support for nvidia AFAIK, but KDE is quickly catching up.

Not sure why the hate on gnome (and I guess on GTK as well). It doesn’t offer all the customization by default, but you can get it through extensions while available. But on KDE one really needs to see a pletora of dependencies each time one adds a simple module or application. Both are improving gradually to become less intense on resources being KDE more advanced on that.

But hey, both are bloated compared to non full DE compositors such as sway or labwc. BTW I use sway with tabbed mode (not actually tiling) and some tweaks, and I prefer that over stacking compositors, but if wanting one labwc is pretty cool.

On X11 there’s a huge amount of window managers plus compositors plus several other applications which altogether can give a similar sense to a DE but way less intense on resources, and for sure way less bloated. To me DEs are overrated to answer your title, but perhaps that’s just me, :)

I know most don’t care. I initially stated most people don’t agree with me. This is just my take on universal packages in general. I really like and appreciate the typical shared libraries native to most distros. It’s OK we disagree, I only hope we don’t end up with empty shells with systemd and everything else on app stores…

I’ve tried in the past flatpak packages, they are terrible in many senses the proponent (vast majority AFAIK) don’t say, among them:

• They create huge static binaries
• One gets many libraries embedded in the static libraries or local static libs to the package which are often repeated among many static binaries, even the same version of them. This is totally avoided when building against dynamic native libraries.
• When installing a pletora of static dependencies for a package, lets say liri, a bunch of the stuff it requires might already bi installed natively in your system, but they need the static deps locally part of the package.
• Care must be applied, there are statistics available about abuse on vulnerabilities infection on pypi, npm and so on, this no different on these packagers repos/hubs.

Good that they provide an alternative way to install packages not available in your distro repos, but for that user repositories building against native libraries are a much better option, like AUR in the case of Arch, and even their binary packages coming from other distros or from upstream might be even better than those universal static binaries providers.

There are political aspects involved in the past claim from the proponents, and it’s that in their view gnu+linux echo-system should become like the windows one, where everyone company or org (to them doesn’t matter) should be able to provide their binary packages, and then there’s no reason to think of anyone being able to build their staff.

There’s a tendency actually on providers on those hubs, to ignore problems on people who tries to build their stuff on their own, claiming they only support those universal packages. Which to me it’s dangerous, since it goes in detriment to the ability to build and distribute the software, which might not be due to licenses, but rather practical reasons. This might actually be against the licenses they use, but now a day who cares, right, it’s available on that packager repo…

Lastly one argument provided in favor of the apps coming from those universal packages is sandboxing. But there’s firejail which can be install on most gnu+linux distributions, and comes with profiles for a pletora of apps, and if sandboxing is not enough, it can easily be combined with apparmor, or if you prefer selinux might be used… No need for those universal packages to have a sandboxed experience.

One final note, so far gnu+linux has been characterized by having a diversity, which is good, that diversity offers people options to choose from, and a lot of different solutions for different purposes. Not so long ago the claim was that it was not good, that meant fragmentation, and fragmentation is bad for adoption and maintenance. I see it the other way around, this diversity allows for choosing for what aligns better with the user intends, like easy to use, or rolling release, or as vanila as possible, or as up to date as possible, or as hardened as possible, etc, etc. Systemd is another example of this universalization intended. Perhaps some distros prefer to be a shell for systemd and get packages just from universal packages, that’s bad news to me.

Of course having universal packagers present an oportunity for corps and orgs to also provide stuff on the gnu+linux platform, but in my mind the best would be for them to offer free/libre and open source software, that would build on any system and be provided by any packager that wants to offer it. Though I believe that to be too idealistic perhaps. Jeje.

Artix (current)

• Vanilla as much as possible (same as Arch)
• Rolling release (same as Arch)
• No systemd (my personal preference)
• AUR availability (still an Arch derivative)

Guix (as soon as I have the time)

• Similar reason as for Artix
• Reproducible builds
• Guile
• Static configs

What do you mean by unstable? I don’t get what this means. Install? Perhaps choosing a graphical install if available for your distribution of choice. I’ve heard nice things about Mint (can’t tell, I’m using Artix, and Guix is in my plans).

That said, US or EU are not that different. Actually the EU is little by little deteriorating the data privacy it used to say it protected, but moreover, even if the data is kept in EU, what does it prevent US gov or corps to get access to the data? Did people forget about the 5 eyes, the extended ones (not sure how many, there were several extensions)? Did people forget that no matter the current differences, the EU and the US are allies (not just politically) any ways?

Linux (kernel) itself has already identified itself as a US org, since it complies with the US requirements and law, to the point of banning developers from countries the US doesn’t like to be cooperating with US orgs (whether gov or not).

So, focusing on country based software developers shouldn’t be the main motivation. Looking for free/libre software if possible, so that you get some freedoms of yours sort of intended to be protected through licenses, or if not available then open source, is what we should be looking for. On top of that, communication software should be e2ee, and if possible distributed or peer to peer, or at least decentralized, and so on. Also we tend to forget that the data kept in the cloud is no longer yours anymore, no matter the cloud, neither the country, and if in need to keep personal data on some cloud we should make sure it’s encrypted, but still the data keeps being the cloud owner hands, so having personal backups is important, and clouds usually don’t advertise what metadata they leak.

Having said that Fedora sounds OK to me while Ubuntu sounds too commercial to me and actually now a days looking for users to get packages from its own “app store”. Instead of the “country of origin” for a distro, perhaps more importantly it is to see what your needs are, for example do you prefer rolling release vs. stable releases? Do you prefer vanila kind of packages (as close to upstream as possible) or your fine with the distro making changes to the upstream software as that serves better your purposes? How user friendly the distro is? Though perhaps you’re out of options if the framework laptop requires firmware or patches not found upstream, then you might better stay with the “officially supported” distros, unless what you miss by not having such firmware or patches is something you can live with, but usually x86 laptops are “easily” used with gnu+linux on top, except for some drivers not fully working with your hardware or missing firmware, but people usually still uses those laptops with gnu+linux on top. For arm laptops (I believe framework has laptos with arm CPUs, and actually is offering some initial ones with risc-v cpus) that tends to be a little more involved and I personally have no experience with that, and actually I’m waiting for a cheap enough and not so low level risc-v laptop or mini-pc to start experimenting with it (not all distributions support arm and even less risc-v).

Again, I’ve heard nice things of Mint, particularly for people new to gnu+linux, and it’s not a rolling release distribution. Though I’m one of those thinking that rolling relase distributions are easy to live with, at least not on the server spectrum (there are actually servers running on top of rolling release distributions such as Arch, but that’s not the majority of them) given they can’t afford reboots (very few updates actually require reboot on gnu+linux, linux/kernel itself being one of those which better get a reboot ASAP but not necessarily immediately) or changes requiring a service to drop even for a little while. But with rolling releases one doesn’t have to deal with big differences between distribution major versions upgrades, and the changes requiring using intervention when upgrading packages are distributed on time, so no need to focus on a lot of them at once.

Just my two cents, :)