Exciting. Never been a huge Fedora fan (I’m a Debian man through and through) but anything that lets Unraid work better/faster and allows the team to innovate more rapidly and safely is a win in my book.
Wholeheartedly support this and am looking forward to it. But part of me is sad to lose Slackware. Entirely for nostalgia reasons. It was the first Linux distro I really dug in on and used regularly. First distro I set a server up on so very long ago. It was kind of nice always having there in the background on Unraid.
So, it’s free, now?
Maybe I’m reading more into your comment than you intended and if so, sorry in advance.
But I don’t know why people don’t understand that the distribution, maintenance, and marketing of things is not free. We’re not entitled to other people’s time just because the tools they’ve used are based on FOSS. If you don’t think those things are worth money then you’re free to fork and do it yourself, that’s the beauty of FOSS.
It was always running on a free base (Slackware). Unraid sells because of its ease of use and reliability. It’s selling the features on top of the OS. It wouldn’t be as popular or as functional as it is if it wasn’t running Linux under the hood.
If there is one piece of software I’ve not regretted buying a lifetime license for, it’s been Unraid.
It may not be for everyone. And it has its quirks like anything else. But I’ve been running it for years now and have even had to experience the dead drive recovery process. It’s solid.
Could I use something free? Probably. But, I’m getting old. I just want something that has good community support, has an nice interface, and also still allows me to get my hands dirty with bash or programming when I need to.
Why not debian?
Because they decided to go with Fedora.
When the enterprise OS company I worked for in 2k1 was considering forking a Linux distro to offer as a freemium product, they evaluated enterprise Linux and Debian.
Debian lost then as its package format had weaker validation and consistency guarantees. It’d’ve been harder to support.
The packaging in both hasn’t changed much, except RH forgot how to use /etc/alternatives properly and now has some ungodly rinkydink thing supplementing it like a colo bag on the side, but the validation difference is still there.
Maybe that was why. Both are riddled with fridge art - oh hi Systemd, network manager, et al - but both are generally similar other than packaging and pipeline.
It’s in the post. They wanted immutability:
“Unraid has always been a so-called immutable OS— however you modify your server, if you go in there, you type the wrong command, you delete all the files from your root, you still could just reboot and you’re back to the virgin release… and that’s a big reason why we’ve chosen Fedora [uCore].”
— Tom Mortensen, creator of Unraid
I really like immutable distros tho. Even I switched to Bazzite for daily driver.
Same and same! I don’t think it’s fully sunk in for a lot of Linux die-hards the game changer that is immutability/flatpaks.
It has been Slackware based since inseption I think just because that’s what fit when it was created.Fedora particually Silverblue and in turn some of the Ublue projects have shown you can create a super stable environment for container based workloads.
Updates are seemless and targetable a fedora backend gives them an easier switch to podman should docker not be viable in the future.
From the article it looks like they’re focusing on Faster security updates Better hardware support through the Linux kernel There’s a clear seperation of the base os and the apps,plugins etc that Silverblue/Ublue can offer that Debian couldn’t do as easily and they’d be better off just sticking on Slackware.
The reason is simple: we want to get you security updates faster, and give you more control over your own machine.
Security work has sped up across the entire Linux world; vulnerabilities are found faster than ever, in packages and in the kernel itself. A Fedora base lets patches reach you more quickly, and on your own terms.
Sorry if my question is dumb, but do security patches arrive in debian slower than fedora? Is there any stats on this?
yes, fedora gets kernel updates very close to their release. debian waits a bit.
so arch is bleeding edge (rolling release) which is so new, it can cause instability.
fedora waits a minute to make sure the release doesnt blow anything up
debian waits fir it tk be out in the field before it updates.
fedora has always been my goldilocks os
Not security patches no, debain is quite up to date on these. (would be a kinda awful choice to run the internet otherwise, unpatched security updates are essentially free login credentials to the whole WAN)
New features they tend to be behind on though, in case they introduce any new vulnerabilities.
Often arch gets newer stuff at the same time or later than fedora.
I like the analogy of Arch is bleeding edge, fedora cutting edge. Did the Arch thing (and recommend it to learn, still use archwiki) now happy with ublue after a year or two of fedora. Guess I like stuff that just works.
Why yes debian?
Nice, going to be great to get away from Slackware. I’m glad they’re finally implementing native docker compose as well. I do wish they’d offer rootless containers, maybe that’s coming down the pipe since Fedora supports them?
Makes sense but I didn’t see it coming.
Slackware is becoming a bit long in the tooth. Updates are slow, which means security fixes are slow.
