throwawayish

It seems as if the uBlue images ship the required OpenRazer kmod by default. Therefore, I would suggest you to take a look at those. You still need to follow some additional steps though 😅. Which might not be very intuitive... Thus, I propose the following: if you'll rebase to uBlue, you might as well rebase to Bazzite. After the rebase has been completed, the (post-)installation software should already give you the option (it's just a simple toggle) to install OpenRazer. The toggle is clearly visible in this frame.

If you perceive Bazzite as too opinionated for your taste, then perhaps you might opt to the following instead:

install-openrazer:
    sudo wget https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/hardware:/razer/Fedora_$(rpm -E %fedora)/hardware:razer.repo -O /etc/yum.repos.d/hardware:razer.repo && \
    ublue-update --wait && \
    rpm-ostree install -y openrazer-meta razergenie && \
    if ! grep -q "plugdev" /etc/group; then \
      sudo bash -c 'grep "plugdev" /lib/group >> /etc/group' \
    ; fi && \
    sudo usermod -a -G plugdev $USER && \
    echo "Please reboot to apply needed changes."

Which should be the just-entry (and thus responsible) for whatever happens after the toggle is enabled*.

I will simply list a couple of the images^[1]^ I've used over time and provide some personal insights (in alphabetical order):

• Alpine; when I'm restricted in bandwidth and/or disk space. FWIW, apk is even faster than whatever is found on Arch.
• Arch; if I just need a certain package and can't be bothered to look up if it's available on any of the others. Yup, the AUR strikes yet again. Furthermore, if I'm troubleshooting and I find myself on the ArchWiki, then in order to prevent edge cases from happening and thus the provided solutions to not work on the non-Arch distrobox; I rely on the Arch distrobox. It doesn't hurt that pacman (or any of the AUR helpers) are blazing fast. However, if I intend to rely on said AUR packages over longer periods of time, then I often do look for an alternative distrobox to grab the package from instead. While the AUR is excellent for the amount of packages it has, the security standards aren't the best. Thus, if you're security-conscious, then it's better to rely on AUR packages sparingly, unless you're willing to get into the nitty gritty and check how they're built, how the package is maintained and if its maintainer(s) is reliable.
• Bazzite-Arch; my go-to for gaming.
• Fedora; as I'm already on Fedora Atomic, relying on Fedora distroboxes makes the most sense security-wise. Fedora is also known to take security very seriously themselves, so in general this is just very pleasant to rely on for security reasons. The only reason why one should not rely on Fedora for security reasons would be if they're already on something from openSUSE (like Aeon/Kalpa/Tumbleweed etc). In that case, going for an openSUSE distrobox makes more sense for security. Furthermore, if the package I need is one that's widely accessible, then I also rely on Fedora distroboxes. Lastly, currently, my development environments are all Fedora distroboxes. I might eventually change these to Wolfi distroboxes or simply rely on Nix, but that's still WIP for me.
• Ubuntu; I've had to rely on these a couple of times to use software that's known to target Ubuntu. Most recently it was with Matlab IIRC.
• Wolfi; For the security-conscious, this is probably the best choice. Unfortunately, I've only experimented with it so far without too much success. Thankfully, the Bluefin project has made some good use out of it. So I'll try to emulate their ways in the near future.

Notable mention goes out to Davincibox. Unfortunately my laptop doesn't have a dedicated GPU, so I can't make use of it. But it's something I'm keeping my eyes on.

NixOS is not a supported container distro, but I do have Nix installed through The Determinate Nix Installer. It's somewhat underutilized currently, though 😅.

1. The images will be the toolbox ones if available.

Oh wow! This is excellent news! I hope they'll also provide other privacy/security related features like Heads, the removal of the camera and/or microphone modules, pre-installed privacy screen, tamper-evident screws and packaging.

Thank you for your response. But our conversation seems so far somewhat inefficient. And I fear it might be due to reasons related to the XY problem. Therefore, before I reply to the points made in the above comment, I would like to ask you if you could state the following:

• Ultimately, what are you trying to achieve (and why); what is the problem even?
• What is your solution to this problem? And where does adding Distrochooser to the sidebar come into plan? Have you perhaps thought of other possible solutions and why they might be inferior to the suggested one?

Thank you in advance!

Fedora must’ve been during COVID, because I can’t remember the year.

That explains a lot of why you felt that way about Fedora. Thank you for enlightening us on that!

If things are better now, then maybe distrochooser has to be updated.

Can't agree more.

It’s on github, so if you believe it’s become user-friendly, do contribute.

Honestly, I've tried to contribute in the past; but it didn't feel as if they got implemented. Perhaps the maintainer has implemented them without making it noticeable to met, but in its current iteration it doesn't feel as if that's case. I've since given up on it.

Your experience

Just in case*, I’m just the middle-man that connects this specific article by Solène to the audience on Lemmy 😅. I’m sure you’re aware of this, but I just wanted to make sure.

I can’t believe you tried

Just in case*, I'm just the middle-man that connects this specific article by Solène to the audience on Lemmy 😅. I'm sure you're aware of this, but I just wanted to make sure.

But yes, Solène has done an excellent work with her review! Which is precisely why I felt the need that it needed some more exposure 😜.

It is a little sad that OpenBSD can’t optimize by P/E cores, I have been wanting to switch to OpenBSD but obviously Linux supports the most hardware, so I stay with Linux.

Could you elaborate on your willingness to switch to OpenBSD?

It is nice that the makers NovaCustom seem to have done a good job creating a mostly open, standards compliance x86_64 computing platform.

Definitely! I feel as if they might be somewhat underappreciated currently, but I hope their efforts to open source will receive similar mainstream reach like what we've seem for System76 etc.

I agree that Fedora's habit for pushing (sometimes breaking) changes is definitely something to keep an eye out. However, it has been so good over the last (almost) two years. I would even argue that Fedora has become more self-conscious of the consequences and (especially) how this might affect their more casual user base.

Btw, how long ago did you try out Fedora? FWIW, Fedora (Silverblue; to be more precise^[1]^) was the first distro that I've tried and while I've had some experiences with other distros over time (mostly through dual boot), Fedora (Atomic) seems to have become the distro I call home.

1. It's probably not as masochistic as you might think for a new user 😅. Though I'd have to say that it took some effort, control and discipline to not instantly go back to Windows (or any other Linux distro for that matter).

While I get why distrochooser.de is romanticized, in its current iteration it's simply not very good and anyone that is somewhat well-versed in how different distros operate and how Distrochooser works, will tell you the same. At best, it provides some orientation into what some of the more common distros are. But it fails to answer some fundamental questions in the process; like:

• What is the relation between a distro and its derivative and (more importantly) how does that matter to a user?
• How exactly does a distribution's chosen release model affect software and updates? And while we're into that, what's even the difference between the "stable" used when talking about point release distros that opt to freeze packages over longer periods of time vs the "stable" that's brought up in conversations regarding update concerns and how they might break software (I'm honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves)^[1]^.

There are a lot of other fundamental questions that are involved in the decision for picking a distro that would have made a lot more sense than the ones found on Distrochooser. E.g. Do you use an Nvidia GPU and want this to cause no issues in the process of installation and is this your biggest concern? If yes: then just use Pop!_OS. Otherwise, move on to the other questions etc. I think the fact that a flowchart isn't used for some uses and that ultimately priorities aren't brought up to finalize the decision are the two biggest issues that Distrochooser has in its current iteration.

And we haven't even gone over the many distros that despite having little to no user base are still included in the results, while (more recent) 'staples' like Garuda and Nobara are clearly left out for reasons most likely related to the maintainers not being able to keep up with the Linux landscape. Which, to be fair, is quite hard; so I don't blame them. I, in fact, applaud them for their continued contributions and hope that some day it will become something that we can proudly present to others for their first orientation.

Allow me to end this with a question to OP:

• Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?^[2]^
  • If yes; Why didn't you make a similar post for either of the two instead?
  • If no; Why not?

1. Sure, there is some overlap in what they mean and how they're used, but it's a very important distinction; otherwise openSUSE's stable rolling release designation for their Tumbleweed wouldn't make any sense.
2. If anything, I think these two actually make more sense to be included.

OP, my request/suggestion would be the following:

In order for us to better help you consider the following:

• Inform us on your hardware specs. You could even rely on the software found on linux-hardware.org for a (so-called) probe.
• Inform us on which distros you've tried. If possible, for each one of them list the following:
  • What exactly didn't work?
  • Did you try any troubleshooting?

On a more general note, you shouldn't feel the need to switch distros even if other distros might offer more convenient solutions.

Moral of the story would be that there are a lot of different ways that enable one to overcome challenges like these. And unless you feel the need to go with a system that's (mostly) managed for you (à la uBlue)^[1]^, you will face issues every now and then. And the only way to deal with them would be to either setup^[2]^ (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper (or similar solutions) such that it automatically snapshots a working state that you might rollback to whenever something unfortunate befalls your system or to simply become ever so better equipped in troubleshooting them yourself.

1. But therefore demands from you to engage with the system in a specific (mostly unique) way.
2. Or rely on a distro that sets it up for you.

Also, from what I understand, they accept Monero for their laptops.

That's very cool. I didn't even know that. Thank you for mentioning that!

Good to see more laptops being release with Dasharo/Coreboot.

Can't agree more. I hope that Framework will soon follow suit.