Thanks for clarifying!
One of the breakages was caused by an expired signature or something from Universal Blue, which hit all users. I'm surprised that one doesn't get talked about more.
Yeah, this was a big one. Though, I have to give them credit for how they handled the situation. I believe a lot of other projects got a lot to learn from them in that aspect.
One of them was caused by Bazzite changing how Steam itself is handled and not transitioning my system over properly.
Was this caused by layering?
What distro did this happen on?
How long ago did you install it?
One was it being immutable, meaning for any software that wasn't in the flatpak store, I have to spin up a container running a mutable version and use that.
Sorry for being that guy, but please allow me to nitpick the above:
my only real point is that looking problems up on a small distro is harder
While I agree that Aurora definitely is a small 'distro'^[The uBlue team doesn't refer to their images as such 😅. Frankly, I agree that the daily pipeline their images go through to deliver system updates screams everything but the traditional model. To be clear, in uBlue's model, the daily-delivered base system is rebuilt from source every single time. So, my base system of Bazzite is identical to yours (unless either one of us created their own image).], I'm not comfortable to refer to Bazzite as a small project. Both Steam's own metrics as well as ProtonDB's suggest that it holds a moderate chunk. Sure, with just over 25k users it isn't quite comparable to (say) Fedora's 300k+ user base. But it definitely ain't a slouch either.
As for the looking problems up part, honestly, if a quick search doesn't help ya, you should just go over to their Discord or Discourse and ask the friendly maintainers and community for help/support. ~~Heck, even their subreddit seems to be doing a commendable job.~~
but I guess its a rather small distro that not many people know?
It's true that it's not as well-established as many of the other distros discussed here; it probably has like 1k users or so. Which is quite literally just a small fraction of Fedora KDE's over a 120k user base. Granted, it's a relatively new distro built on Fedora's latest/'future' tech. Usage numbers should follow eventually^[Based on Fedora's (current) intentions to default to said latest/'future' tech when the time is right.].
Thankfully, that same tech enables Aurora (and other projects like it) to be very robust and reliable; tangibly more so than the more popular 'traditional' alternatives. I assume you'll come to cherish and value this reliability, especially as stability seems to be a concern of yours.
This was originally intended as a longer comment, but the previous draft unfortunately blinked out of existence... Though, I'm more than willing to shed some light on the distros discussed below if you're interested.
Or any other Good KDE Distros out there.
I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned them yet. Thus, for the sake of completeness, consider Aurora and Bazzite. It's what I would personally install/recommend for/to relatives/friends that would like to make the switch to Linux.
Thank you for the quick response!
I don't know if raw package counts is the best comparison.
You're probably right. Do you think we got anything better to go by?
Unlike say Fedora, Arch bundles everything related to a project in the same file. If you want Qt6-base on Arch, that is one package. If you want it on Fedora, it is going to have a lib, header, docs, and maybe a few other packages.
Can't comment on this. Though, the list of packages with qt6 in their name is considerably longer in Fedora. However, I wonder if this simply reflects that Fedora, by virtue of having a larger repository, also has more stuff related to qt6. Or, as you posited it, chooses to package the same content over multiple packages instead of bundling them like it's supposedly happening on Arch.
Just from personal experience, I do not have issues with finding packages in the main repos, with only a handful of my packages coming from the AUR. This is not the case with others, like Fedora where extra repos need to be added, like EPEL and RPM Fusion.
Hmm..., I feel you might be conflating stuff. Please allow me to elaborate on what I mean.
Fedora is not able to include some packages in its own repository due to legal reasons. As such, these are relayed to RPM Fusion instead. Which means that a well-functioning Fedora installation (almost necessarily) desires to install some packages from RPM Fusion. So, RPM Fusion exists as a 'hack' of sorts to protect Fedora from legal charges and NOT because they're too lazy (or something) to ship those packages themselves. To be clear, RPM Fusion is accepted as a trusted third-party repository.
Arch, on the other hand, is rather lenient on what they can include in their repositories. Basically enabling them to package within their repositories all codecs and whatnot without them being visibly worried about the legal consequences of this ordeal.
To be honest, I don't know exactly where this discrepancy comes from. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's related to how Arch is basically a genuine community distro while Fedora has official ties to Red Hat.
Btw, small correction, AFAIK you're not supposed to install packages from the EPEL on Fedora. Perhaps you meant COPR (basically Fedora's AUR) or Terra instead?
The arch maintainers package more software than most other distributions.
Sorry, but I fail to see this.
I suppose if you're accounting literally all independent distros, then you're probably right. However, if we'd be more realistic and compare it to other well-established independent distros^[I'm basically counting Alpine, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, openSUSE, Slackware, Solus and Void. I didn't count Guix System and NixOS for how their 'repositories' are built different and therefore not easily comparable to the others.], then we notice that the vastness of the packages found in Arch's repository is rather lackluster at the very least. Heck, by virtually all metrics, Arch together with its derivatives undoubtedly belong in the upper echelons of usage stats; only being second to the Debian-family of distros. IMO, however, the size of its repository absolutely doesn't reflect this; as it's only bigger than Slackware, Solus and Void. The inclusion of these smaller projects is arguably charitable on my side*. But to drive the point home very clearly: Arch's repository is smaller than Alpine's, Debian's, Fedora's, openSUSE's and Gentoo's with a ratio of (about) two to one (except for openSUSE).
Because, and I quote:
"Warning: AUR packages are user-produced content. These
PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk."
Thankfully, there's a mailing list that covers issues like these. Heck, OP's PSA was probably originally propagated from there.
I use secureblue, because it offers the (AFAIK unique) intersection between:
Idk about the browser thing it was because the kde wallet or something? It stores passwords and the browser has a login so it would force me to do that every time. Same with email and such, very annoying. I think I have it all working fine now.
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification! I have heard of that interaction elsewhere. Unsure if it's KDE Plasma misbehaving or otherwise. Regardless, I'm glad to hear that you were able to resolve the issue. I did find this discussion (which you may have found yourself as well). In their case, they (somehow) didn't properly create an account, which opens multiple can of worms you'd much rather not deal with. Thankfully, the fact that you were able to deal with the problem suggests that you should be fine 😉.
Fam, I loathe saying this, but -please- if you desire engagement, then at least put some honest effort into proofreading your writings before posting them. I'm just assuming stuff at this point because I can barely grasp your intent/writing. *sigh*
Which distros even come by default -so installed OOTB- with "good backup options"? Which atomic distros is this statement even based on?
Because their atomicity barely goes beyond updates. The 'atomic' in "atomic distros" mostly describes how its updates are atomic; i.e. the system either updates successfully or doesn't update at all. Thus, by design, we have two possible states after an update: a 'successfully' updated system or a 'failed' update resulting in the same state as the previous. Atomic distros aren't smart enough to catch all 'breakage' occurred by 'successful' updates. As such, most of these breakages will only show them after trying to boot into updated system. Deleting/erasing the previous known good state without verifying that the new/upcoming state works well is foolish. Especially on a distro that's got robust updates otherwise. Hence, the functionality of rollbacks on updates is almost trivially done/applied to atomic distros, as it (almost) follows by design.
So, what I'm interested in is the following:
I think my previous paragraph should be enlightening in this regard. If you disagree (or something/otherwise), then please feel free to elaborate why you think so. Btw, what do you even mean with "true backups?