I think it’s cool to have a reference edition where you can go to experience the latest version of a desktop environment with defaults setup by the team behind it. Also very useful for development, e.g. when I’m testing and tweaking my apps for a specific edition.
Reading this I find myself asking: what is the point of making gnome os accessible to the broader public? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see anything that a stable release of gnome os provides that other distros with gnome don't? The landing page for gnome os doesn't really explain a whole lot in this regard either
Gnome OS basically aims to be a batteries-included, image-based, replicable system. This means ditching traditional packages, aside from toolpak. In terms of OSes that do this already, what come to mind are ParticleOS, Vanilla OS, Silverblue, and Nura (Duranium).
ParticleOS is I think a bit complex for many users. Vanilla OS isn't moving too fast, from what I can tell? Also it's not huge. I'm not too sure about Silverblue. And Nura is more mobile-geared, it being musl-based sometimes posing problems for some programs that expect glibc.
See A Desktop for All as well, also linked in the Gnome OS announcement.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see anything that a stable release of gnome os provides that other distros with gnome don't?
Some possible advantages for GNOME of which I can think:
If users who donate switch from other distros to this, then presumably their donations shift from other distros to GNOME.
Distros might disagree with GNOME's decisions and change GNOME software before it reaches the end-user. Being the distro itself would allow GNOME to exercise stronger control over their product.
Both KDE OS and GNOME OS are immutable distributions. KDE OS base comes from Arch, not sure about GNOME OS.
What I find interesting is that neither support traditional package management, although you can install flatpaks (and snaps and appimage, at least in KDE OS).
Used to more traditional distros, I don't completely understand this. For now GNOME OS is clear "Forward compatibility is not guaranteed. You may have to re-install in the future." But KDE OS supports updates already.
In the future, will you be able rely on these for day to day computing or are these more like a demo?
I Install a new OS when I buy a new machine, then I upgrade several times until the hardware dies, but another machine, and start over. These feel more like a Chrome OS type of deal.
I’m waiting for any of these to become stable enough, to switch away from Fedora Silverblue.
And not because it’s bad. I just don’t like RPMs, but I have ran immutable distros for 5 years now and I’m not going back to the mess that are traditional distros. Give ‘em a spin, you might like what you see.
What I find interesting is that neither support traditional package management, although you can install flatpaks
The trick (and source of friction for new users) is learning to use flatpaks, containers and toolboxes for all your custom software. On my workstation, all my custom crap is installed within an ArchLinux toolbox.
I've been using Debian stable for the last 10+ years and I've never had a problem. I install once, upgrades are reliable, and other than that I don't generally interact with the distro but with the software it distributes. Oh, and a couple of flatpaks too.
I have used Linux full time since 2001 and I’ve never had a problem either, but conceptually an immutable distro makes more sense than undeterministically accumulating changes across the filesystem until something borks because of a change in /usr/lib you have made 5 years prior.
NixOS solves the same problem, among others. With nix shell/direnv, one can even do per-project/directory environments without spoiling anything or needing containers, which are another abstraction layer introducing problems.
zofx | 16 hours ago
Is this similar to the KDE Linux “OS” (https://linux.kde.org/)?
I think it’s cool to have a reference edition where you can go to experience the latest version of a desktop environment with defaults setup by the team behind it. Also very useful for development, e.g. when I’m testing and tweaking my apps for a specific edition.
baetylboy | 23 hours ago
Reading this I find myself asking: what is the point of making gnome os accessible to the broader public? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see anything that a stable release of gnome os provides that other distros with gnome don't? The landing page for gnome os doesn't really explain a whole lot in this regard either
pixl_xip | 18 hours ago
Gnome OS basically aims to be a batteries-included, image-based, replicable system. This means ditching traditional packages, aside from toolpak. In terms of OSes that do this already, what come to mind are ParticleOS, Vanilla OS, Silverblue, and Nura (Duranium).
ParticleOS is I think a bit complex for many users. Vanilla OS isn't moving too fast, from what I can tell? Also it's not huge. I'm not too sure about Silverblue. And Nura is more mobile-geared, it being musl-based sometimes posing problems for some programs that expect glibc.
See A Desktop for All as well, also linked in the Gnome OS announcement.
5d22b | 23 hours ago
Some possible advantages for GNOME of which I can think:
If users who donate switch from other distros to this, then presumably their donations shift from other distros to GNOME.
Distros might disagree with GNOME's decisions and change GNOME software before it reaches the end-user. Being the distro itself would allow GNOME to exercise stronger control over their product.
PuercoPop | 5 hours ago
Gnome likely wants to have more control over the user's experience. They are against downstream customization
https://stopthemingmy.app/
reidrac | 15 hours ago
Both KDE OS and GNOME OS are immutable distributions. KDE OS base comes from Arch, not sure about GNOME OS.
What I find interesting is that neither support traditional package management, although you can install flatpaks (and snaps and appimage, at least in KDE OS).
Used to more traditional distros, I don't completely understand this. For now GNOME OS is clear "Forward compatibility is not guaranteed. You may have to re-install in the future." But KDE OS supports updates already.
In the future, will you be able rely on these for day to day computing or are these more like a demo?
I Install a new OS when I buy a new machine, then I upgrade several times until the hardware dies, but another machine, and start over. These feel more like a Chrome OS type of deal.
sph | 14 hours ago
I’m waiting for any of these to become stable enough, to switch away from Fedora Silverblue.
And not because it’s bad. I just don’t like RPMs, but I have ran immutable distros for 5 years now and I’m not going back to the mess that are traditional distros. Give ‘em a spin, you might like what you see.
The trick (and source of friction for new users) is learning to use flatpaks, containers and toolboxes for all your custom software. On my workstation, all my custom crap is installed within an ArchLinux toolbox.
reidrac | 14 hours ago
I've been using Debian stable for the last 10+ years and I've never had a problem. I install once, upgrades are reliable, and other than that I don't generally interact with the distro but with the software it distributes. Oh, and a couple of flatpaks too.
It works for me.
sph | 14 hours ago
I have used Linux full time since 2001 and I’ve never had a problem either, but conceptually an immutable distro makes more sense than undeterministically accumulating changes across the filesystem until something borks because of a change in /usr/lib you have made 5 years prior.
It’s all about containing the sources of entropy.
fazalmajid | 6 hours ago
I looked at Silverblue, but no ZFS means no deal. Currently using a mix of Ubuntu and CachyOS on my laptops/desktops, but I am looking at NixOS.
diktomat | 3 hours ago
NixOS solves the same problem, among others. With nix shell/direnv, one can even do per-project/directory environments without spoiling anything or needing containers, which are another abstraction layer introducing problems.