Oxford University is older than calculus.

Unfortunately for many, even in this day and age, there is not much choice. I main linux but also keep Windows on my PC as there are still tines when something will only work in Windows. Usually work related or gaming (VR in particular for me) and in fairness its increasingly rare.

Many other users aren't motivated to change. For Microsoft, its a bit like boiling a frog - if you turn up the heat slowly the frog just puts up with it. That's what Microsoft is doing to its customers - a slow constant enshittification, seeing what it can get away with. Try something and it causes outrage? Don't worry, just undo it and just try again in a few years! Many are already used to no privacy and being sold as a commodity that they don't even question it happening on their own personal computer.

Unless you're specifically wanting to play with a different OS then Debian again. Makes much more sense to be using the same version of Linux and all the software ypu use rather than potentially different versions.

Also it will be simpler to maintain as everything is the same.

If you do want to play / test another distro then Mint has a low learning curve. FreeBSD is more different but you could easily try it and switch to something else if you don't like it. Its different but not so much that linux users would feel totally lost.

Probably the most confusing thing for linux user trying FreeBSD is that Bash is not installed, and BSD uses sh instead by default. Bash can be easily installed and set as the default shell which will give a lot more familiarity. But otherwise it'll feel like a familiar modern complete system, and you can use the same desktop environments you're familiar with already in linux.

EDIT: You did say "backup" in your title. If that's the main use case then definitely Debian again. If your laptop breaks or is stolen it makes sense to have a familiar system to pick up. Also important to sync and backup your data so it can be picked up on the other laptop. If backup machine is your focus then I'd say same OS and look more into data retention and retrieval between the two laptops, and ensure your important data is continuously backed up.

As a kid Amiga Workbench was my first desktop environment, and then later Win 3.11 in MS DOS.

I remember my dad toying with Linux but can't remember which one (he did settle on SuSE though I recall). My first linux distros was Ubuntu.

People are still using twitter? Why?

It kind of makes sense except the vast majority of software in all distros is not being packaged by the developers, its being packaged by volunteers in the relevant project. Most software is being used on trust that it is built off the original code and not interfered with.

Its very difficult for any distros to actually audit all the code of the software they are distributing. I imagine most time is spent making sure the packages work and don't conflict with each other.

The verified tick is good in flatpaks but the "hide anything not verified" seems a little over the top to me. A warning is good but most software is used under trust in Linux - if you're not building it yourself you don't know you're getting unadulterated software. And does this apply to all the shared libraries on flathub? Will thebwarn you if your software is using shared libraries that ate not verified?

And while Flatpak is a potential vector to a lot of machines if abused, it is also a sandboxed environment unlike the vast majority of software that comes from distros own repos.

Also given the nature of Flatpaks, any distros could host its own flatpaks but everyone seems to use flathub. If they're not going to take on the responsibility of maintaining flathub and its software then their probably needs to be some way of "verifying" packages not coming directly from the developers. Otherwise users may lose put on the benefits of a shared distros agnostic library of software.

I get why mint are doing this but i think its a bit of a false reassurance. Although from mints point of view they would be able to take direct responsibility for the software they distribute in their own repos (as much as you can in a warrentyless "use as your own risk" system)

If you look into the data Steam OS Holo s listed and it is 45.3%. Arch separately is second at 7.9% and then third is the Flatpak installs across all Linux versions at 6%.

The changes are more difficult to interpret as Linux is growing overall so changes between Linux distros are difficult. For example a small decline in overall share may still represent an increase in total numbers. While Steam OS is up another 3% points, other distros combined are up more - Ubuntu and PopOS combined are up 5% points. That suggests the Linux growth is split between Steam Deck and PC users rather than purely one or the other dominating.

Yeah wishful thinking but also a bit reassuring that this is then a meaningful if small shift. People are choosing Linux via steam decks or personally, and its been enabled via proton and wine rather than necessarily people fleeing win 11.

I do think win 11 changes contribute to people trying Linux more but I think it is Linux that is keeping people that is what has changed. I don't see some huge move to Linux though - just its growing faster as it supports gaming well and is increasingly easier to use and maintain (which has been a long trend). But win11 being increasingly anti user can't be a bad think for Linux long term.

You can keep windows and install Linux next to it.

The best way would be to add a new ssd or m.2 card to your pc and install Linux on that. Make that the main boot device and Linux normally will detect Windows and give you a boot menu where you can chose between Linux and Windows each time you boot.

Alternatively you can resize the windows partition and install Linux onto free space on your main drive. This is more fiddly and things can go wrong with this if you don't know what you're doing.

You can also boot Linux on an external USB drive but this will be slower and may guge you a false impression of Linux. You can also try Linux in a virtual machine like Virtualbox but again this will be slower and will give you a false impression of Linux as a daily driver OS.

I personally run a dual boot system - I have two m.2 nvme drives, one with windows and one with Linux. I barely use the windows partition now but I keep it around for rare work stuff or the rare occasion I have a game I can't get to run in Linux. And I mean rare - booted Windows maybe 3 times in last 6 months.

PPAs are flawed and limited to the Debian/Ubuntu ecosystem. They're a security issue as you really need to trust to the person or group who has set up the PPA (yet many people just added PPAs for all sorts of random software based on a Google search). They need to be maintained which is variable depending on the size of the project and for developers they're only a route to support part of the entire Linux ecosystem. They can also conflict with the main system provided packages and repost which can break entire systems or break upgrades (happened to me on Mint, and I needed to do a complete system reinstall to remove legacy package conflicts).

They've fallen out of fashion and rightly so.

There are other ways to get software to users. Arch has its AUR which is basically a huge open repo. OpenSuSE has its OBS which is also a huge open repo. These are also not without their risks as it's hard to curate everything on such an expansive repo. However others can take over packages if the original developer stops updating them, and you can see how the package was built rathe than just download binaries which allays some security concerns. They are also centralised and integrated into the system, while PPAs are a bit of a free for all.

Flatpaks are a popular alternative now - essentially you download and run software which runs in a sandbox with its own dependencies. Flatpaks share their sandboxed dependencies but it does lead to some bloat as you'll have system level libraries and separate Flatpak versions of the same libraries both installed and running at the same time. However it does mean software can be run on different systems without breaking the whole system if library dependencies don't match. There are issues around signing though - flathub allows anyone to maintain software rather than insisting on the original devs doing so. That allows software to be in a Flatpak that might otherwise not happen but adds a potential security risk of bad actors packaging software or not keeping up to date. They do now have a verified tick in Flathub to show if a Flatpak is official.

Snap is the Canonical alternative to Flatpak - it's controversial as it's proprietary and arguably more cumbersome. The backend is closed source and in canonical control. Snaps are also different and for more than just desktop apps and can be used to in servers and other software stacks, while Flatpak is focused only on desktop apps. Canonical arr also forcing Ubuntu users to use it - for example Firefox only comes in a snap on Ubuntu now. It has similar fundamental issues around bloat. It has mostly the same benefits and issues as Flatpak, although Flatpaks are faster to startup.

Appimage are another alternative way to distribute software - they are basically an all-in-one image. You are essentially "mounting" the image and running the software inside. It includes all the libraries etc within the image and uses those instead of the local libraries. It does and can use local libraries too; the idea is to include specific libraries that are unlikely to be on most target systems. So again it has a bloat associated with it, and also security risks if the Appimage is running insecure older libraries. Appimage can be in a sandbox but doesn't have to be, unlike Flatpak where sandboxing is mandatory - which is a security concern. Also Appimages are standalone and need to be manually updated individually while Flatpaks and Snaps are usually kept up to date via an update system.

I used to use PPAs when I was still using Ubuntu and Mint. Now I personally use Flatpak, and rarely Appimages, and occasionally apps from the OBS as I'm on OpenSuSE Tumbleweed. I don't bother with snaps at all - that's not to say they don't have value but it's not for me.

Edit: in terms of permissions, with Flatpak you can install Flatseal and manage software's permissions and access per app. You can give software access to more locations including system level folders should you need to or all devices etc for example. I assume you can do the same with snap but I don't know how.

Also you can of course build software form source so it runs natively , if you can't find it in a repo. I've done that a few times - can be fiddly but can also be easy.

Jellfin can be configured to use specific installed versions of ffmpeg.

If you do need the jellyfin-ffmpeg (which is needed in specific installs) then you can download releases from github or build it yourself. They do have portable releases.

You do not necessarily need root access to use software on Linux unless you're trying to install it to be available to all users. Users can often install their own software either binaries or compile themselves (unless the system has been locked down). They could sit within your /home/username/bin directory instead of the system level folders like /usr/bin normally used for non-root executable. Your home bin folder is only accessible and so runable by you, and is viable if you do not have access or permission to install into /usr/bin.

You can configure jellyfin to run within your home bin folder or run other software within that folder.

You can get the jellyfin ffmpeg source and releases including portables from their git: https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin-ffmpeg

There is no reason other than greed that tech companies have to have their fingers in so many pies. Regulators could split Google up - search separated from ads and separated from other services.

It's not the size so much as the breadth of it's influence. We've gotten used to the idea that tech companies like Google and Microsoft do everything. But they're only doing everything so they can get at every bite of our data. An email service doesn't need to be run alongside a search engine or a news aggregator or an ad company. And certainly doesn't need integration between all those things.