8mo ago

So now what distro are we running for LTS desktops?

Ubuntu has too many problems for me to want to run it. However, it has occurred to me that there aren't a lot of distros that are like the Ubuntu LTS.

Basic requirements for a LTS:

at least 2 years of support
semi recent versions of applications like Chrome and Firefox (might consider flatpak)
a stable experience that isn't buggy
fast security updates

Distros considered:

Debian (stable)
Rocky Linux
openSUSE
Cent OS stream
Fedora

As far as I can tell none of the options listed are quite suitable. They are either to unstable or way to out of date. I like Rocky Linux but it doesn't seem to be desktop focused as far as I can tell. I would use Debian but Debian doesn't have the greatest security defaults. (No selinux profiles out of the box)

83 comments

Tbo, that's a little bit to little research you provided considering you want to use it for work.
E.g. why do you need more than 2 years of support for a workstation?
Stating that debian isn't secure enough really confuses me as it is one of the most solid distros out there.
- Agree, also confused because Debian seemed to get security updates rather frequently when I've used it.
  That's like their whole thing, stable and security updates. I would be curious if there are examples of exploits that weren't patched quickly on Debian stable.
- E.g. why do you need more than 2 years of support for a workstation?
  Enterprise isn't rolling out the new release on release day.
  Enterprise is waiting until the ".1" release so that the most glaring bugs can be identified and resolved. And enterprise is doing gradual rollouts after that, with validation, training, hardware refreshes, etc.
  For a release with only two years of security updates, it would not be surprising for a given enterprise to only have the chance to take advantage of, at most, one year of them.
  A two-year LTS release cadence with a five-year tail of support and security updates is much more practical. That leaves enough overlap in support for enterprises to maintain their own two-year refresh cadence without having to go through periods without security updates and support.
  Stating that debian isn't secure enough really confuses me as it is one of the most solid distros out there.
  Where is the toggle to enable NIST-certified FIPS compliance in Debian? On Ubuntu you just enable it using the pro client and reboot.
- Debian makes it a little tricky to meet security standards. It isn't insecure from lack of updates but it doesn't ship with selinux out of the box.
  
  Not “out-of-the-box” but adding selinux to Debian is pretty simple.
  https://reintech.io/blog/securing-debian-12-with-selinux
  
  As I see on debian and derivatives apparmor is the way, but not sure if that's preinstalled.

Mint is built on Ubuntu LTS but removes some of the problematic bits, it has a recent Firefox and Chrome is of course available, Fletpak support is also integrated.
I’ve run Alma and RHEL as a desktop and it was fine, my main use case was “like Fedora but stable” (more than a year of support). However the repositories are very limited, even with EPEL and third parties, so it eventually irked me enough to switch away. Also no btrfs support without replacing the kernel and adding support from third party places.
- This is the response I was expecting
- is there gnome mint?
  
  Not officially, you can install it separately but you'll probably have to tie up some loose ends (haven't tried)
  You can look into Fedora if you want a good gnome experience or Debian if you prefer. The latter will have an old gnome version.
  
  Not as a spin but both vanilla and Ubuntu versions of Gnome are available in the repositories.

Linux Mint Debian Edition

Debian stable + Flatpak
- Debian Testing + flatpak
  Testing is shockingly stable, kind of up to date, and rolling. Since you will use Flatpak for all your apps it really removes a lot of risk that dependencies will break an app.
  I use this combo as my daily driver for my work PC, knock on wood it's been super solid!
  
  I also use Debian Testing as a work computer. But I am used to more bleeding edge distros. So if somebody strives for rock solidness, I think default debian stable is even a better choice.

For a desktop I'd use Debian + Gnome (you won't get cutting edge on stable but it is not that important) and flatpack for most of the apps. Sincerely I don't see why selinux is so important on a workstation.
- IT director probably requires it.
- I find it interesting that people think things like selinux aren't important, but at the same time appreciate(?) the isolation in flatpak or wayland.
  
  The reason I don't like selinux is that it's quite complicated.
  I don't like flatpak, prefer wayland, but also apparmor, even if I haven't used that much yet.

If you want to run Linux on enterprise workstations and expect enterprise level release cycles and support durations, you're not shopping for one of the free (as in beer) distros.
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is the best offering. It comes with 7 years of standard support and another 3 years of extended support.

As far as I can tell none of the options listed are quite suitable. They are either to unstable or way to out of date. I like Rocky Linux but it doesn't seem to be desktop focused as far as I can tell. I would use Debian but Debian doesn't have the greatest security defaults. (No selinux profiles out of the box)
Check your requirements ... I get that you may need 2 year support and you cannot control that, but are you really going to dismiss one of the greatest Linux distros of all time because the "defaults" are not to your liking? You know you can configure it however you want after the installation right?
If you are going to value stability and nice wallpaper with the same importance, you'll never find a "quite suitable" match

I've found a nice home with Mint Debian edition. It has the right balance between stable and current that I prefer.

Enterprise environment in what sense, desktop or server deployment?
I ask because I wouldn’t want a “semi recent .. Chrome or Firefox” installed on a production server
- I wouldn't want any GUI installed on a production server.
- Enterprise was probably the wrong word choice. I updated my post to be more clear.

If I didn't use Ubuntu LTS, I'd be using Debian.

what is the actual use case of LTS on regular desktop non-workstation anyway?
- Enjoying a stable OS?
  
  Except, that older versions of desktop environments tend to be less stable...
- Is the system working after the install? If yes, it'll work for years until the next version and you don't need to worry about it. With rolling release every update can mess up your system.
  
  it's software, every update can mess up your system. your only guaranteed good media is the install ISO, after that it's only as good as the packager, even for LTS
- Low maintenance and repeatability
- what is a regular desktop non-workstation??

As suggested elsewhere, I think your requirements map quite well to Linux Mint. I prefer the Debian Edition but it has a shorter support window ( not LTS ).
If you want / need selinux then you may prefer the RHEL camp. Others have proposed Rocky. I would do Alma ( especially given your security focus ). Either way, the desktop software is going to be ancient and package selection limited. One solution is Flatpak. Another is distrobox.
An Alma desktop with applications coming from an Arch install via Distrobox would be the best of both worlds. The desktop and overall environment would be rock stable, secure, and boring. Yet the library of applications would be huge and, once installed, they would stay very up-to-date.”
SELinux is available on Debian though: https://reintech.io/blog/securing-debian-12-with-selinux

Debian.

What problems do you have on Ubuntu? What software is too out of date? Why do you need LTS for a workstation?

What issues does Ubuntu LTS have that you need to overcome?
What use case ? - desktops for office work, music production, a student lab?
FWIW. Kubuntu is my favorite, generally used for research and reading, light web mail.
- I have been using Xubuntu for about 2 years now, I love that it doesn't get in the way of doing stuff. It just works, it is stable and I can focus on things I want to use my PC for instead of focusing on keeping it usable.
- This is more of a general discussion post as I've scene many reviews complain about Ubuntu
  
  In contrast to those "many reviews", this reviewer says that Ubuntu is fine and always has been.
  Seriously, Ubuntu hate is mostly just Snap hate. The Snap problem is overstated and easily worked around if necessary. Ubuntu remains a very solid choice on desktop.

They are either to unstable or way to out of date.
Just use flatpak/appimage/distrobox/nix. Half of my packages are Debian stable (MX), the other half are nix unstable.
Debian doesn't have the greatest security defaults. (No selinux profiles out of the box)
It does have apparmor though. If you need selinux specifically, then that's going to limit your choices to like RH and Suse distros.

I'd say or OpenSUSE Leap or Debian

Honestly, we (a large Fortune 500 company hosting sites serving between 250m and 500m unique monthly visitors) have standardized on Ubuntu LTS and Rocky Linux. Both have been rock solid. Kubernetes and other things that need regular updates and patches (aka things that directly power forward facing apis/sites) tend to be Ubuntu and the rest Rocky. We do NOT however run any ui’s or browsers or the like on them. I highly recommend against doing so on any server.
If you mean desktop, we tend to not use Linux for desktop apps, instead going with MacOS and Windows with group policies and forced updates. Definitely prefer the stability of MacOS over Windows, but both have their place in the enterprise. When I was running a Linux desktop there, it was Fedora Silverblue. Snaps are not my friend.
- Hey just to ptich in my two cents. Our shop is running a very similar setup (Enterprise FinTech, MAU is around 100-200m across all sites), with Ubuntu and Rocky on k8s with all workstations running MacOS and Windows since compliance policies are easy to apply to both. I can vouch for Ubuntu LTS given other options. Doesn't require a support contract, really solid security patch cycles and everything runs without issues.
  Also unsure of using Linux as a workstation solution since at the time of setup, all the viable distos required you to either manually roll a compliance solution, or use their specific sometimes built-in solutions (see RHEL). That may have changed in the passed few years though.

My wife's laptop absolutely has to work. For some mad reason I decided on Arch for it. Actually a rolling distro is not so mad. You get the latest stuff and in general issues are fixed as quickly as a LTS jobbie or you get a work around in the forums or you dig out the source and a compiler. It's no accident that the Arch wiki is an oft cited resource. Its not for everyone!
I've been looking at a similar thing for my company and Kubuntu so far is my choice and I've already ditched the LTS bit. I need to run AV and the usual corporate bollocks to pass silly tick box exercises, so my options are rather limited.
There is no perfect one size fits all distro, that's what we have rather a lot of them to choose from - they rise and fall according to natural selection and not artifice. Imagine if all computers were sold with a free/libre OS or none at all and Windows or Apples were a paid for add on. Monolithic OSs are completely deluded about being able to cater for all, without some dreadful contortions.
Anyway, back to the job in hand! If you want a LTS then you must accept older software or you use an LTS as a base and add newer stuff yourself. Most Linux distros allow you to run your own add-ons formally or informally. Gentoo has a rather nifty user patching mechanism for distro ebuilds and you can have your own ebuilds take over entirely. RPM and pkg distros can handle user packages and Ubuntu has PPAs too. I could go on. Also you can go off piste and put stuff into /opt and/or /usr/local!
Please reconsider your use of the term "unstable". I suggest you write down a list of your requirements and score them according to importance. Then grab a list of OSs and distros - all of them, don't preclude Windows and Apples: they have their uses. Then score the OSs/distros against your requirements. The scoring might be in the form of a matrix (table). I suggest keeping it simple with a score of -1 to 1 for each item (-1=dislike, 0=neutral/whatevs, +1=like)
Do a pilot project and see how that goes. Take your time. If it is for personal use then run your tests in a VM. Most modern hardware can easily run a VM or two. Virtualbox or VMware Worskstation or KVM (libvirt is a good effort)
The choice is yours. Note that word "choice" - its very important.
- Yeah I do not want Arch or recent packages. I want something I can set and forget.
  Right now Pop OS and Linux mint seem like the best options even though they both lack the support of a larger company.
  
  Both Pop and Mint offload much of the heavy lifting to Ubuntu. They are not rolling everything from scratch.
  
  I run Mint Cinnamon. It's been Rock solid for me. You can modify, add, remove whatever you want. With Flatpacks you are mostly up to date. If you want to install a newer kernel you can, and if you have Timeshift running and something breaks, you just roll back.
  I see Mint as an Un-enshittified Ubuntu.
  I find cinnamon very frienly and comfortable, which I need in a daily driver. To play I have things like NixOS. I could Arch, but I'm not vegan. :)
  That said, I'm giving Fedora Kinoite (Atomic) a try in a VM
  
  Arch can definitely be a "set & forget" type of distro. Just install it, use it correctly, and that's really it. No need to upgrade to new releases; just keep the system up to date....

A Universal Blue derivative and rollback if there's an issue is LTS enough for me.
For an LTS LTS, I'd be looking at Alma or Debian.
What is "way" out of date, in your mind? I thought all LTSes were on kernel version 5-something at the moment.
- The latest Ubuntu LTS ships with a 6.8 kernel.
  Debian Stable ships with a 6.1 kernel.
  Even RHEL ( and so Alma too ) ships with a 5.14 kernel ( RHEL 9 ) but it is newer than that really as Red Hat back ports stuff into their kernel.

“I would use Debian but Debian doesn't have the greatest security defaults. (No selinux profiles out of the box)”
https://reintech.io/blog/securing-debian-12-with-selinux
Depending on where you fall in the release cycle, Debian Stable will give 2- 3 years of support.
There is also the Debian LTS effort:
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

Debian or Alma

Rocky linux is definitely for desktop too. It was designed as a successor of Centos, which was widely used in medium and big companies. We currently use Rocky 8 where I work. It works fine.

Rocky Linux would meet all of your needs easily and give you 10 years of support.

Kubuntu and other Ubuntu derivatives are okay. they still use apt/flatpak on their software center
- Not the official ones
  
  as long you stayed away from Ubuntu GNOME made by canonical and stick to other Ubuntu derivatives like Kubuntu,Xubuntu etc. they are good and stable distros without forced snap (I know Thunderbird,Chromium and Firefox got snapped because of the backend side. So, this is not their fault and you can switch to other ppas to mitigate this) and their software center app like discover still prioritise apt and flatpak.

I'm running Garuda as a daily driver for work and casual gaming. No problems
Before I was running debian and loved it as well
Ubuntu was a good intro but I left them when they made Unity default (and not ready imo) and was surprised to find I never missed it

Tails. It may not be designed for LTS, but it appears to be stable and secure.

83 comments