# Create a warning for OpenSUSE and NixOS due to low package availability **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/create-a-warning-for-opensuse-and-nixos-due-to-low-package-availability/38249 **Category:** Site Development **Tags:** completed **Created:** 2026-05-31T06:48:50Z **Posts:** 37 ## Post 1 by @xra — 2026-05-31T06:48:51Z The site recommends OpenSUSE and NixOS, both of which are much less used distributions without as much package support. This is not to say that they aren’t private or secure, they are, but there’s downsides that just aren’t touched on in the article recommending them mainly, that a lot of the most important tools Privacy Guide reccomends just aren’t natively available on them. For example, I use OpenSUSE, and I can’t use Mullvad, a recommended tool, because the package for the VPN is broken on my system, and I can’t even access the error message logs. I am sure there is a lot of software Privacy Guide recommends that is available on Arch- or Fedora- or Debian- based systems that aren’t available on other systems they recommend. I think the fix to this would just be a warning or note, such as “Only use these if you are willing to give up certain programs due to their limited package availability.” I love privacy guides and have been an active member for years, and want it to be effective at getting people into privacy, but this hinders it. I also still love OpenSUSE and I am honestly tired of distrohopping so I might just switch to IVPN or wait for the issue to be fixed. --- ## Post 2 by @anon19752758 — 2026-05-31T07:52:31Z Doesn’t NixOS (Nixpkgs) have the largest package repository in the Linux ecosystem though? --- ## Post 3 by @eteszi — 2026-05-31T08:57:52Z I understood about OpenSUSE, but what exactly is wrong with NixOS? Mullvad actually works there. --- ## Post 4 by @xra — 2026-05-31T20:25:53Z Maybe, but (to my knowledge) not a lot of first party support. Should I revise the request so it only has OpenSUSE? I’m less experiences with NixOS. --- ## Post 5 by @xra — 2026-05-31T20:27:01Z Do other tools PG recommends work there? Genuinely asking if there’s equal package availability compared to Debian or Fedora or Arch. If there is, then NixOS should not have a warning, but if there isn’t, then I think it should. --- ## Post 6 by @eteszi — 2026-05-31T21:06:19Z This is the Site Development category, not Questions. You’re the one who’s supposed to name the packages that don’t work on NixOS, instead of just opening a thread with assumptions. Everything I use works fine for me. --- ## Post 7 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-06-01T00:04:28Z Doesn’t OpenSuse uses rpm packages from Fedora? --- ## Post 8 by @seize — 2026-06-01T00:58:58Z AFAIK using RPM just means that OpenSuse and Fedora use the same packaging formats, but **not** the same repositories. --- ## Post 9 by @xra — 2026-06-01T05:03:50Z Okay. > [@xra](#): > > If there is, then NixOS should not have a warning, but if there isn’t, then I think it should. So then I don’t think there should be a warning. I haven’t used NixOS in a long time, I think I tried it out like four or five years ago for a school project, and I had this issue back then. If it’s changed since then, then I think the warning should just exist for OpenSUSE, as stated previously. --- ## Post 10 by @Regime6045 — 2026-06-02T13:33:43Z Just because one specific app (Mullvad) isn’t packaged for OpenSUSE doesn’t mean there has to be warning. As per [Repology](https://repology.org/repositories/statistics) : | | Total packages | Up to date | | --- | --- | --- | | Arch | 12k | 9.6k (86.9%) | | OpenSuse Tumblweed | 16k | 9.9k (75.1%) | | Fedora 44 | 23k | 15k (70.0%) | | nixpkgs stable 26.05 | 115k | 71k (85.0%) | | for comparison: Debian 12 | 34k | 9.6k (33.5%) | By this logic, Arch should get a warning for having the lowest number of packages\* and Fedora a warning for being less up to date than the other recommended distros. Silly, right? \*_which is a bit meaningless anyway because some distros split the same thing into many small packages and others don’t_ --- ## Post 11 by @fiqiluvo.epileto — 2026-06-02T19:49:07Z > [@Regime6045](#): > > (Mullvad) isn’t packaged for OpenSUSE but suse supports rpm’s and the official repo can be used. On Fedora, arch linux, you’re also encouraged to use the developer signed build from the AUR/side repo. > [@Regime6045](#): > > doesn’t mean there has to be warning. I agree. --- ## Post 12 by @xra — 2026-06-02T21:45:09Z > [@fiqiluvo.epileto](#): > > the official repo What does this mean? There’s no official repo from Mullvad that supports OpenSUSE as @seize said, it’s the same packaging formats but not the same repos. Unless you mean the official repo from OpenSUSE, which you can’t use, because it doesn’t work. --- ## Post 13 by @xra — 2026-06-02T21:48:27Z But Fedora DOES have a warning for being less up to date than other recommended distros, > Fedora has a semi-rolling release cycle. While some packages like the desktop environment are frozen until the next Fedora release, most packages (including the kernel) are updated frequently throughout the lifespan of the release. Each Fedora release is supported for one year, with a new version released every 6 months. And Arch has the AUR, which none of the other distros have. --- ## Post 14 by @Bumbashirovich — 2026-06-03T00:54:35Z If Mullvad can’t set up a repository for specific distributions, that’s its fault, not the distribution’s. --- ## Post 15 by @xra — 2026-06-03T02:00:31Z Somewhat? Mullvad doesn’t have a profit incentive to put time into less-used distributions, like OpenSUSE, because a lower amount of their users use them. Is that OpenSUSE’s fault, or Mullvads? --- ## Post 16 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-06-03T02:07:39Z This shouldn’t turn into a discussion about Mullvad’s applications distro availability, but did you know they don’t make their app available for Arch Linux either? Do you consider the Arch user base small? --- ## Post 17 by @seize — 2026-06-03T02:39:17Z I believe what @fiqiluvo.epileto was referring to is the official _third party_ repo for Mullvad Browser on Fedora Linux. ``` # Fedora 41 and newer # Add the Mullvad repository server to dnf sudo dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://repository.mullvad.net/rpm/stable/mullvad.repo # Fedora 40 and earlier # Add the Mullvad repository server to dnf sudo dnf config-manager --add-repo https://repository.mullvad.net/rpm/stable/mullvad.repo # Install the package sudo dnf install mullvad-browser # And to install the alpha version sudo dnf install mullvad-browser-alpha ``` See: [Mullvad Browser for Linux](https://mullvad.net/en/download/browser/linux) Note that while the `dnf` steps here would need to be replaced with `zypper` the actual repository “[https://repository.mullvad.net/rpm/stable/mullvad.repo](https://repository.mullvad.net/rpm/stable/mullvad.repo)” should work on OpenSuse if added properly. --- ## Post 18 by @sahqw — 2026-06-03T03:40:33Z The focus on OpenSUSE and Mullvad puts blinders on this discussion in my opinion. @xra, correct me if I’m wrong, but maybe a simpler solution would be a warning that recommended software may not be packaged for your Linux distribution of choosing. This could be as simple as adding a statement to the first paragraph on the [Desktop/PC](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop/) page. I did look at the [Linux Overview](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/os/linux-overview/) page and such a warning didn’t seem to fit the purpose of that page. --- ## Post 19 by @Regime6045 — 2026-06-03T09:52:22Z > [@xra](#): > > And Arch has the AUR, which none of the other distros have. Aren’t Fedora’s COPR and OpenSuse’s OBS comparable? All three allow users to access packages not officially supported by their distro. --- ## Post 20 by @xra — 2026-06-05T00:18:08Z Good idea, I did not think about that. I agree completely, because simpler is better (UNIX/KISS). --- ## Post 21 by @xra — 2026-06-05T00:20:08Z Mullvad Browser is packaged as a flatpak, so it’s available on OpenSUSE regardless, but Mullvad VPN isn’t, and the files aren’t cross compatible as far as I’m aware. If it works for you, let me know so I can do it. --- ## Post 22 by @xra — 2026-06-05T00:22:06Z No, but there is significantly more community support in Arch from the AUR compared to OpenSUSE with OBS. --- ## Post 23 by @seize — 2026-06-05T00:39:08Z > Mullvad Browser is packaged as a flatpak This may be the case but generally it is recommended to not install browsers as flatpaks because it can negatively affect their built-in sandboxing. Additionally the Mullvad Browser flatpaks is unofficial, meaning it is not maintained by the folks at Mullvad and you’ll have to trust the maintainers of this flatpak (like you have to trust Linux distribution repository maintainers). I don’t have OpenSuse installed, though I could potentially spin up a VM of it later to test the MullvadVPN package using Fedora installation files/instructions. --- ## Post 24 by @Bumbashirovich — 2026-06-05T04:30:01Z > [@xra](#): > > Mullvad Browser is packaged as a flatpak Is a native installation (without Flatpak) not possible on this distribution either? --- ## Post 25 by @crossroads — 2026-06-05T04:30:27Z Mullvad’s .rpm didn’t work in openSUSE without modifications, but now it does, at least on Leap16. I don’t know for Tumbleweed --- ## Post 26 by @seize — 2026-06-05T04:37:55Z It is possible via the third party RPM repository provided for Fedora by Mullvad. However at this point I think the discussion of whether or not we can install Mullvad VPN and Mullvad Browser has gotten a little off topic from the original question in this thread of if a warning on the recommendations for NixOS or OpenSUSE is something _ **Privacy Guides** _ should consider since some packages _may not be available out of the box_ on those distributions. --- ## Post 27 by @sahqw — 2026-06-05T19:38:08Z I’m not sure how we would go about getting a change like this implemented though. I’m unfamiliar with the process. --- ## Post 28 by @seize — 2026-06-05T20:00:13Z > [@sahqw](#): > > but maybe a simpler solution would be a warning that recommended software may not be packaged for your Linux distribution of choosing. This could be as simple as adding a statement to the first paragraph on the [Desktop/PC](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop/) page. If you are referring to the process for getting a “warning” approved for the Privacy Guides OS - Desktop/PC as described in the above quote, then we are already in the _right_ place since this topic thread is already under the #Site Development category. --- ## Post 29 by @sahqw — 2026-06-05T20:06:13Z Yes, but now what? Do we just wait for a moderator to read it and think its a good idea? --- ## Post 30 by @seize — 2026-06-05T20:06:47Z More or less yes. --- ## Post 31 by @sahqw — 2026-06-05T20:07:23Z Well that seems inefficient. --- ## Post 32 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-06-05T22:27:54Z It would probably help if it receives a few votes. > [@sahqw](#): > > Well that seems inefficient. Do you have some advice to improve? --- ## Post 33 by @sahqw — 2026-06-05T22:42:45Z Maybe consensus within a thread should lead to the thread author creating a feature request or submitting a pull request on [GitHub - privacyguides/privacyguides.org: Protect your data against global mass surveillance programs. · GitHub](https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org) --- ## Post 34 by @xra — 2026-06-11T01:20:13Z Vote count / threshold? Like if x users agree it gets implemented or if there’s like a 2/3 consensus? --- ## Post 35 by @seize — 2026-06-11T01:22:11Z If a #Site Development post gets more community votes it is _more likely_ that the Privacy Guides team will look at/and make a decision on the topic, but it is not a guarantee of anything. --- ## Post 36 by @sahqw — 2026-07-22T15:46:52Z Hello all (specifically @xra). I simply created a pull request (PR) to add the line “Please note that some of our recommended software may not be packaged for your Linux distribution of choice.” to the first paragraph of the Desktop/PC page. It is now live: [Desktop/PC - Privacy Guides](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop/) It took months to get through review, but I did include a link to this thread in the reasoning behind the PR. So I would recommend if you have site recommendations that the community has discussed, just go ahead and do it and see if the site managers agree. --- ## Post 37 by @xra — 2026-07-22T21:40:45Z Thank you so much! --- ## Post 38 by @redoomed1 — 2026-07-23T08:20:36Z #completed in > > > Added a note about software packaging for Linux distributions. > > List of change…s proposed in this PR: > > - Simply adds a note that some of the recommended software on the site are not packaged by default by certain Linux distributions. Based on the site recommendation discussion in: https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/create-a-warning-for-opensuse-and-nixos-due-to-low-package-availability/38249