I love Pop!_OS and I think it’s a much better choice than fedora for people who aren’t as worried about security and just want to stop supporting surveillance capitalism.
I understand that there are numerous security issues with frozen release cycles and with Ubuntu-based distros in general. However, based on my experience with Fedora, it is not a great recommendation for people new to linux. You don’t get basic features by default like a dock or tray icons. You have to dig around figuring out how to install codecs to watch simple videos online. The software manager makes you reboot every time there’s any update, no matter how small. And, in my experience, kernel updates seem to break random hardware every other update (tbf this is on a 10 year old machine, but still). It doesn’t seem like these kernel updates go through much testing.
I’ve used Pop!_OS on multiple machines with very few issues. When I have had problems, the refresh OS feature, which I haven’t seen in any other linux OS, was an absolute lifesaver. Pop!_OS was just extremely simple and intuitive compared to stock Fedora, and seemed much more appropriate for newcomers to linux.
For your average person who just wants to stop supporting surveillance capitalism and isn’t too worried about OS security, it’s an excellent option. You can put all the warnings you want about security and stuff, but I hope you’ll consider adding Pop!_OS to the linux section.
I wonder when was your last experience if Fedora was. I tried it around version 32-34 and I would agree with you then but at version 36 to 37, I would agree with the current recommendation as it is. Couple that with Secure Boot (which Pop_OS! doesnt have).
Granted, my desktop also has an Nvidia card and has an obligatory disabled Secure Boot, I feel like I can trust Fedora more (especially with its Silverblue variant), on my laptop which has AMD graphics and full disk encryption.
Here in PG, they don’t even recommend F-Droid. Pop!_OS uses the stable kernel instead of LTS supplied from Ubuntu. Can you confirm that all packages are compiled against the Pop!_OS supplied kernel instead of LTS one? It brings new issues to users.
I see F-Droid as a little different, because Neo Store is as easy to use or perhaps easier than F-Droid. Based on my experience as a linux newb who tried using fedora because of the pguides recommendation, I don’t see fedora as something people new to linux should attempt as a daily driver.
As for your comments about Pop!_OS, all I can say is I haven’t had many issues installing apps in the couple years I’ve been daily driving it, which I could not say about fedora, where it was often hard to find rpms of apps I wanted (though this may not be as much of an issue anymore since flatpak has gotten a lot better).
I think this gets into broader questions I have about the role of a resource like Privacy Guides. I appreciate the high bar for privacy and security set by Privacy Guides- it means that for most threat models, the software listed is trustworthy and safe no matter what. However, I also don’t think everyone needs such a high bar.
Take the surveillance capitalism threat model for example- I believe regular people can avoid surveillance capitalism with an acceptable level of risk by using less secure things like Jitsi and F-Droid and Pop!_OS to achieve that goal.
So, I understand this desire to recommend only things that people can completely trust, but I wonder there are other ways to organize the website, with different recommendations or “paths” for different threat models.
I don’t know the right answer, and this might not even be the right place to discuss it. Just trying to offer my perspective
The way F-Droid is building apps on their platform is by compiling it against android 7.1 API level, in market we have android 13 running now. So apps itself are good, but not the way they are built by the platform is not good.
No Community is attacking F-Droid, I use it personally on my phone. But community members are very edgy, it may look like toxic, but writer has no intention of attacking the project. Words written on the screen don’t harm anybody. Do what is best for your threat model, most important thing in your life is you.
Pop!_OS is good distribution but does not confirm to PG’s criteria for linux, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use it. You have no obligation read this post or follow us. Chill man don’t get upset. Do what you think is best for you.
This community is made for people like you to give suggestions and improve PG. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Even with the new desktop environment and Wayland enabled, Pop will still have the problem of old Ubuntu packages. Pop does backport some core components, such as the kernel and mesa, but most software in the repos is stuck at the Ubuntu base.
PG doesn’t recommend Ubuntu, which (last I checked) has Wayland supported and enabled by default. Any Ubuntu fork almost certainly has the same old software problem of Ubuntu.
I am looking forward to trying Cosmic, but installed on a Fedora or Arch base.
So thinking this through again PG criteria allows distros to hold packages for not more than a year so a non-LTS Ubuntu variant that uses wayland should meet the criteria. Even tho Fedora would be preferred.
As for pop_os, I wouldn’t hold Ubuntu’s packaging against them because:
They have a separate repo and test things separately
They bundle Flatpak instead of snaps
Those aren’t always on their flavors because I had seen them hold packages/kernel for longer than Ubuntu to keep compatibility for nvidia drivers on their nvidia iso, but this is the reason I would like them to still be considered after they get Cosmic because they are in my experience the most stable distro on devices with those graphic cards. VS Fedora that usually breaks when kernel gets ahead nvidia support.
Are there any others reasons not to recommend Pop!_OS if Wayland is now enabled by default, other than the COSMC DE? Is there a specific reason why we should wait until the COSMIC DE is released anyway?