Hello, this is argument absolutely not correct.

I use KDE Neon user edition, which is based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS:

- It adds cutting edge KDE/Plasma application, its Plasma 5.9 here.
- the libraries are well-updated using built-in backports repo.
- its possible to install whole range of kernels using LTS, HWE(equivalent of BPO in Debian) or Mainline versions.

- user applications are well-updated using backports, webupd8 ppa and getdeb repo.
- graphics driver stack is available via daily updated oibaf(1) and padoka unstable(2) PPA or discretely updated padoka stable(3), which also offer gallium9 wine PPA.
- finally I use a few ppas from application developers themselves.

So it comes to package management, and in this regard the "apt/dpkg" with its hook system is much more automatic/safe, than stock pacman.
The problem is that Arch upstream often relies on changelogs to inform users to manually change things in system configuration files (like passwd, grub.cfg(.d), sysctl.d/ ), where Debian/Ubuntu use dpkg to do this automatically.
So even if Antegros implements pacsave 4-way merger, users are still required to read changelogs and modify their system manually - and Arch updates at far more frequent rate (not version) than Ubuntu.


Here is glxinfo|grep -i opengl:
penGL vendor string: X.Org
OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on AMD TAHITI (DRM 2.46.0 / 4.8.0-53-generic, LLVM 4.0.0)
OpenGL core profile version string: 4.5 (Core Profile) Mesa 17.1.1 - padoka PPA
OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 4.50
OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
OpenGL core profile profile mask: core profile
OpenGL core profile extensions:
OpenGL version string: 3.0 Mesa 17.1.1 - padoka PPA
OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30
OpenGL context flags: (none)
OpenGL extensions:
OpenGL ES profile version string: OpenGL ES 3.1 Mesa 17.1.1 - padoka PPA
OpenGL ES profile shading language version string: OpenGL ES GLSL ES 3.10
OpenGL ES profile extensions:

I'd still recommend Mint, I'm not having any major problems with my Ryzen + RX480 build with it :) Can get updated drivers on Ubuntu/Mint easily enough, just needed a kernel update + the addition of one of the updated Mesa PPAs (I'm currently using [url=https://launchpad.net/~paulo-miguel-dias/+archive/ubuntu/pkppa]Padoka's stable Mesa PPA[/url], but there's also [url=https://launchpad.net/~paulo-miguel-dias/+archive/ubuntu/mesa]Padoka's unstable Mesa PPA[/url], [url=https://launchpad.net/~oibaf/+archive/ubuntu/graphics-drivers/]Oibaf's graphics drivers PPA[/url] or the [url=https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+archive/ubuntu/updates]Ubuntu-X PPA[/url]).

On the other hand though, it's nice to have a stable base with the option to easily update specific components as required/desired. I don't find PPAs to be a problem as adding them only needs to be done once, and since I only add them as required there aren't that many of them that I need either.

I'd like to mention this here, this topic and learning about the Linux world made me to update PCGaming Wiki's page about Linux https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Linux after using this system for 2 years and seeing how poor the article was.

Nice work!! Can I ask you to copy-paste few corrections?

Debian Stable is fixed release. Reliable, with upgradable kernel, but software is aged. Its biggest letdown is absence of PPA, although it can automatically source-compile from Ubuntu PPAs.

Debian Testing / Unstable are rolling. Testing is really not reliable. Sometimes changes make it into its repo, that break the system or leave apt (package manager) confused. This never happens with "Stable".

Gentoo:
Source-based Distro with unique package manager (portage) with upfront configuration: the user specifies which components and with which features he/she wants to have - and the package manager automatically compiles the software accordingly (in the background). This approach allows maximum flexibility, but requires more knowledge to operate the system. While the software installation time is longer, availability of new versions is almost instant. There are precompiled packages and Portage supports their installation and generation. In addition, several Gentoo-based distributions come pre-configured and include binary repositories (Sabayon, Calculate Linux).

Really, its not more difficult than Arch, and maintaining Gentoo is actually easier than Arch. At least, it was for me.


Also please mention KDE Neon if you have time... Its very nice for people who use KDE and need newest Plasma. Ubuntu LTS has a 6 month+ delay. Mint even longer.

I just wanted to let you guys know that I recently had my life saved by a pendrive with Linux (Ubuntu, more precisely).

Due to some meddling I did trying to fix a video card problem, I broke Win 10's startup sequence to the point that only wiping everything and reinstalling it was going to fix it.

But I was able to use the pendrive to boot it up and backup the important personal stuff. :)

Yup. Live sessions made a lot for Linux expansion, I suppose.

I don't remember what exactly brought me to Linux, but I think the first Linux I've booted up on my PC was one of early Ubuntu live cds and the first one I was really using was Slax - very nice modular distro made by Czech developer, which was designed to be placed on pendrive. Slax was my personal mobile desktop before I actually bought my own laptop and installed Linux on HDD for the first time.

Anyone can register to PCGamingWiki and make any changes or add their own article. Right now i am concentrating on the WINE article, cause it seems to be poor as well.

I've had some really bad experiences with linux. Things like having to use gentoo, grub and installing ubuntu and fedora in an assessed environment at uni. I'm a Windows power user but having zero experience and being forced to use Linux for no reason with limited or poorly written guides is a massive headache. I can see the potential with ubuntu and fedora but the experience has seriously put me off

Once more ,i have updated the PCGW's Wine article as it was poor.
Done.

You are like a boss!! Thanks!

I was Windows power user in 2010 (installers, VC6 MFC programming, inf scripts) and installed Ubuntu 8.04 easily, used for few years as main system, then installed Gentoo from stage3 - used it a few years as main system.

After 2010, I never booted or installed Windows.

Either you don't use a note manager,.. or you are not really a power user,.. or you never really did it with full determination. Or perhaps your teachers were really really awful...

<span class="bold">Here</span>.

It's not a letdown, it's just a different concept. Some distributions contain a rather small set of software and compensate it with additional user repositories. Debian is the distribution with the largest software repository and the highest number of packages, more than 50000 for stretch. Actually the amount of available software is one of the advantages of Debian. So you do not need to add 3rd party repositories. Personally I even consider that a big advantage as adding 3rd party repositories to a system is the by far most reason I've seen for confusing the package manager and breaking a system.
But if you really want, there are 3rd party repositories for Debian which you can use. They just may not be named PPA. ;)

Debian testing is not a rolling release distribution and not intended as such. It has a clear development cycle and is, what the name says, the testing bed for the next stable release. There are rolling release distributions available which are based on Debian testing and unstable, though.

Outside of the heavy migration phase after a Debian release testing is as stable as rolling releases are. It "breaks" about as often as e.g. Arch does. You perhaps mean unstable, which indeed is not always reliable.

Which is not much of a challenge as installing Arch requires quite some knowledge of Linux and the hardware.

This is not correct. Ubuntu has more packaged in repostory, it has similar backports (BPO) repo and also expandable by PPA on demand. Usually, one do wants PPA - or one has to compile from sources. Compiling from sources is not an advantage. Adding to repository is optional. Your arguments are simply invalid here, sorry.

This is also not correct, Debian Testing is rolling. It will roll unstable glibc5 and break a lot of packages. It will roll unstable LibreOffice5 and break interface without going back. It will roll libkde5decorations and break KDE desktop. It will periodically roll-in portion of stack, which Sid considers "stable" enough, but in reality its not. Very often it rolls-in stuff partially, leading to dep. ressolve issues. It does all this from time to time. I lived on Testing and Sid pretty long to understand that its absolutely useless for Desktop user, even with apt-listbugs. The breakage can happen at unexpected time. Unlike Ubuntu - which has regular versions that usually do not roll, rolling version from -"updates" or -"hwe", PLUS numerous optional PPA. Debian Stable is actually good at this with backports, but it lacks in readily available "user software".

Arch is broken nearly daily, so I don't see your argument here. Sid is constantly broken. Both are useless for a user, who wants some stack stability.

Arch still lacks maintenance tools that Gentoo had years ago (like cfg-update and versioned tree, Arch tries to help with ALA) and Gentoo actually has common policy leading to fire-and-forget behavior, where Arch sees itself as a stack of individual packages and due to this nature having many custom PKGBULDS is time consuming, and if you multiply with the fact that you don't have to run the constantly updating testing branch for whole stack on Gentoo, but have to do it on Arch , but can stay on rarely updated stable - Gentoo comes clearly way easier to maintain. Also Arch does not support partial upgrades, Gentoo does.