We use Alma Linux at work and it’s fine, I suppose. I see two main reasons why you’d choose an EL linux distro:

1. You have (professional) software that officially supports it. RHEL’s release model makes it an attractive target for proprietary software and many vendors choose to support it.
2. You need/want very long support cycles. You can run 10-year-old software even though you probably shouldn’t.

Apart from those, it’s a competent distro, Red Hat know what they’re doing. If you want the equivalent to an Ubuntu LTS / Debian in the Fedora world, it get’s the job done. I quite like their approach of keeping the core OS stable while updating drivers, tools, and compilers (e.g., the kernel version number has very little meaning in RHEL).

Is the experience very different from Fedora?

Yes. the age of the core packages is very noticeable. The number of fully supported packages is also very small and you need to go to EPEL very quickly (at which point you’re no longer getting enterprise support…). On the plus side, it’s much more stable than Fedora in my experience.

Edit: My main recommendation for a stable distro would probably be Debian unless one of the above points applies.

It sounds like Proton VPN (or its repo) is causing issues for you. Given that it’s a paid service, you can probably contact their support.

Alternatively, you can also look for the repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d, something like /etc/yum.repos.d/file_name.repo, for Proton VPN. You can then disable it by renaming it to .repo.disabled and try again (sudo dnf upgrade in the terminal). Note: This is not really a permanent solution, as it will disable updates for Proton VPN.

It sounds like the criterion is “is newer microcode available”. So it doesn’t look like a marketing strategy to sell new CPUs.

Nice, congrats on getting it to work! :) Native Debian packages are also nice. It can just get difficult if you want the latest stuff.

I used the docker compose template from https://hub.docker.com/_/drupal and mostly changed the image:

# Drupal with PostgreSQL
#
# Access via "http://localhost:8080"
#   (or "http://$(docker-machine ip):8080" if using docker-machine)
#
# During initial Drupal setup,
# Database type: PostgreSQL
# Database name: postgres
# Database username: postgres
# Database password: example
# ADVANCED OPTIONS; Database host: postgres

version: '3.1'

services:

  drupal:
    # image: drupal:10-apache
    # image: drupal:10.3.7-apache-bookworm
    # image: drupal:10.3.6-apache-bookworm
    image: drupal:11.0.5-apache-bookworm
    # image: drupal:10-php8.3-fpm-alpine
    ports:
      - 8080:80
    volumes:
      - /var/www/html/modules
      - /var/www/html/profiles
      - /var/www/html/themes
      # this takes advantage of the feature in Docker that a new anonymous
      # volume (which is what we're creating here) will be initialized with the
      # existing content of the image at the same location
      - /var/www/html/sites
    restart: always
    environment:
      PHP_MEMORY_LIMIT: "1024M"

  postgres:
    image: postgres:16
    environment:
      POSTGRES_PASSWORD: example
    restart: always

The details for the v11 image are here: https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/drupal/11.0.5-apache-bookworm/images/sha256-0e41e0173b4b5d470d30e2486016e1355608ab40651549e3e146a7334f9c8f77?context=explore

Yes, the docker images don’t use the sury.org php packages (they use the php docker image).

“11.0.5-apache-bookworm” also seems to work, maybe you can try that version?

I wanted to recommend using a Docker container but I ran into the same issue with the default config for “drupal:10-apache” (aka “drupal:10.3.7-apache-bookworm”). Opening “node/add/article” results in the OOM error. Downgrading to “drupal:10.3.6-apache-bookworm” resolved the issue. Looks like a Drupal regression to me. Maybe you can also try an older version of Drupal 11?

If you don’t want to reinstall the OS, you can probably use Clonezilla: https://clonezilla.org/show-live-doc-content.php?topic=clonezilla-live/doc/03_Disk_to_disk_clone

Maybe you need to update the drive ids for your bootloader (grub) afterwards, not sure about that.

Edit: Maybe the advanced “-g auto” option does that for you.

It seems that 18.04 was the last release for 32-bit x86 (i386): https://askubuntu.com/questions/1376090/latest-version-of-ubuntu-for-i386-architecture-32-bit

But you could just go for Debian which still supports it.

This seems very one-sided. Sure, the disclosure was not handled perfectly. However, this post completely ignores the terrible response by the CUPS team.

The point on NAT is certainly fair and prevented this from being a much bigger issue. Still, many affected systems were reachable from the internet.

Lastly, the author tries to downplay the impact of an arbitrary execution vulnerabilty because app armour might prevent it from fully compromising the system. Sure, so I guess we don’t need to fix any of those vulnerabilities /s.

This article is conflating terms that I need help distinguishing between. The other commenter mentioned that Ubuntu is a type of Debian but this article lists Debian and Ubuntu as distributions.

I’d say that the article is correct in calling them separate distributions.They are certainly related (both part of the Debian family), but I think most people would consider them to be separate distributions. Software built for Ubuntu 24.04 may work on Debian 12, but it might also not. For a beginner, I think it’s most useful to consider them to be separate things.

I think when I messed it up, it worked when I tried switching to the proprietary drivers for the second time. I think you can try that without much risk.

In my case I ended up disabling Secure Boot anyway because it just got too annoying (a BIOS update breaking it was the final straw for me). The security benefit after you’ve enrolled a MOK seems dubious anyway. It would be nice if distros could ship signed kernels with the open-source Nvidia driver but I guess that’s not happening.

Did you perform a full shutdown of Windows (Windows doesn’t fully release the partition on a normal shutdown)?

Edit: adding some context. I am planning to setup a dev machine that I will connect to remotely and would like to babysit very little while having stable and fresh packages. In the Ubuntu world we would go to an LTS release but on the RPM/Dnf world is there any other distro apart from CentOS Stream? And also is CentOS Stream comparable to an LTS release at all considering that they do not have release number?

Wanting both stable and fresh packages is unfortunately somewhat difficult in my experience. I think the primary choice within the Fedora ecosystem is if you want to have fresh packages (Fedora) or if you prefer a slower update cycle and more stable packages (RHEL/Alma/Rocky). In the second case you can also choose if you wish to pay Red Hat for support (RHEL) or not (Alma or Rocky).

One thing that’s quite different in RHEL vs Ubuntu/Debian ist that it gets minor releases that include substantial new features. For example you’ll get new compilers, python versions, drivers, … CentOS Stream gets those slightly ahead of RHEL/Alma/Rocky (a cynical person might say that CentOS Stream is a rolling beta for RHEL). But, IMHO that’s not really a strong reason to use CentOS Stream.

If you’d go with an Ubuntu LTS release, then I’d look into RHEL/Alma/Rocky.

The driver should already be installed but there seems to be an issue with brltty registering the corresponding USB ID when they shouldn’t. You can probably fix it by following this guide: https://koen.vervloesem.eu/blog/how-to-stop-brltty-from-claiming-your-usb-uart-interface-on-linux/ (or this one: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/670637)

Edit: Perhaps this has since been fixed in Mint 21 / Ubuntu 22.04.

You can make this work using ext and Timeshift rsync. I have also opted to exclude /var/lib/flatpak/ because it’s quite large. With that, my 5 snapshots currently take up about 34 GB.

However, I would recommend backing up your deb applications/packages (typically installed under/usr), as those can be critical for your system.

This “new law” was passed more than a year ago… But, it’s still a step in the right direction.

That looks like a software issue… I would try a different distro or a different version of Ubuntu (e.g. 22.04).

Thanks for trying it out on your own system!

In my case, the problem was that the disk never showed up in the Fedora installer. I’ve quickly reproduced the issue in a VM (but I originally noticed it on bare metal):

As you can see in fdisk, the disk (/dev/sda) has been recognized correctly by the kernel and works as expected. But somehow the installer only shows the “internal” /dev/vda.

• Available Disks
• Blivet

After some further investigation, this seems to be related to the specific USB drives. I tried three different ones. It failed on a USB stick and the original external NVME enclosure. However, it did accept my USB to SATA adapter. So I guess I could install Fedora on my 10-year old HDD… 😐