HN Explorer

Ask HN: An OS for people who hate changes?

48 points by thrwwy_grump ↗ HN
I really don't like any changes to my OS (and software) once set up, unless I choose to install some change. I understand the need for security updates but I wish they were not bundled with features, i.e. how Windows 10 updates everything compared to Windows 7 specific update selection.

So, I migrated from Windows 7 to Ubuntu, but now Ubuntu is down the same path where everything changes and breaks by itself all the time.

Where should I migrate next? How is Mac with updates; is security tradeoff better when staying on old major versions? What flavor of Linux is most like Ubuntu before snaps?

67 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] thread
WallyFunk
Try Vanilla OS:

https://vanillaos.org/

> Vanilla OS is an immutable and atomic Ubuntu-based distribution that receives updates at the right time without sacrificing security or functionality.

> Vanilla OS is an immutable operating system. Core parts of the system are locked down to prevent unwanted changes or corruption caused by third-party applications or faulty updates. Some paths such as the home and configuration directories are still writable, allowing the user to keep and modify their files and application data.

> Core components are updated via controlled and atomic transactions, which are only applied when successful and made available on reboot.

Anecdotally I've been running Ubuntu 18 since it came out and updates don't mess with my system. They're not designed to mess with your system. They're mostly security patches for modular pieces of the OS.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
zenogantner
Maybe try Debian stable?

Ubuntu is based on Debian, and the releases receive mostly security updates ... so this might be really something for you.

Also, no snaps as far as I know.

doubled112
Debian Stable + XFCE would probably be my go to.

I've heard XFCE described as "the Debian of DEs" and I think it's pretty accurate. Slow careful changes over years, but the good things stay.

I'm not sure how Debian's LTS support works. Stable becomes old-stable in 2 years. It's supported for a while longer. If it is Debian and XFCE though, it's likely that the end user hardly notices the upgrade.

I suppose RHEL based distros have a 10 year support term, and could be a good choice too.

lockhouse
This! If you truly do not want your OS to change other than bug and security fixes for 10 years it’s hard to beat a RHEL based distro. If you don’t mind making an account for it, you can even run RHEL itself for free for personal use.

https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/overview

doubled112
You have to renew the RHEL developer license yearly.

I'm way too lazy for that, so I tend to recommend the other options. The account is 100% worth access to their documentation though.

Also, RHEL changes. They have even rebased to a new GNOME release on a point release before.

jmclnx
I would suggest Slackware, but may be a bit of work for you.

But if I understand you, OpenBSD may be the one. upgrades are simple, install is simple (unless you need GUIs) and patches are simple. I never had a patch break anything.

To upgrade non-base (installed) software just do a "pkg_add -u" once in a while. You decide when to do that. Plus docs are never out of date.

If you go with OpenBSD you should subscribe to mail list "announce@openbsd.org"

But you may or may not have hardware for it, if you have Nvidia Graphics, you really cannot use OpenBSD.

good luck

anonymousnotme
I can second this; I have a few boxes that I have upgraded from 5.7 to 7.3; minimal issues. Upgrades just seem to work. (One warning is some really old versions sized /usr or /usr/local (I think) too small for some of the newer versions, so I had to some clean up by hand to make space because the kernel relinking after each boot takes a decent amount of disk space that those older smaller partition have trouble handling.) One can also do "pkg_add -vnUu" before upgrading to know what will be done (v=verbose, n=don't install, say what will be done, U=update dependencies). One can also use sysclean to help clean up old libraries and shared libraries left behind to get more disk space back. Also, run "pkg_delete -a" to remove unused dependencies.
loxias
I've been using the same debian stable setup, mostly unchanged, for almost 20 years.

The most recent "new bullshit" I had to learn was figuring out EFI/GPT enough to boot onto a new thinkpad. If you prioritize stability and reliability over features, debian stable might be right for you as well. :) I'd avoid any whiz bang GUI layers. I have a simple window manager which runs xterms, which can then run firefox and emacs.

The next time I imagine being forced to make a change is to move to Wayland, but that's years away.

theyknowitsxmas
Which release? I get you'd only update sources over time?
vincent-manis
I used to be an Ubuntu user, but I've gradually become disenchanted with it. So I switched to Debian; I'm now on Bookworm (Debian 12) on most of my devices, but it behaves pretty much as previous versions did; I intend to stay there as long as it's still getting updates. I did switch from X11 to Wayland, but that was because I could go from i3 to sway with very little effort.

Anyone watching me using my ThinkPad would see very little difference from how I used a Sun workstation 30 years ago: the majority of the windows I have open are either terminals or Emacs. (Though I didn't know about tiling window managers back then.)

comfypotato
Would running a container of your choice (Docker, etc.) allow testing/developing tools that require newer versions of things?

When I say “things” here, I’ll give you an example. If I wanted to develop for Emacs 29 and work on most of the new flashy tech, could I do all of this in a container on top of an old-faithful Debian? (I’d be satisfied even if I didn’t get GUI functionality but rather just all the back end Emacs stuff.)

This question really extends to: does an older Debian allow working with cutting edge stuff inside containers?

loxias
Absolutely. Keeping a testing or unstable chroot, explicitly for the purpose of running or developing bleeding edge versions of things without disturbing your real install, is a time honored tradition, decades old.

Many, many people do this (to such an extent that there's light tooling and sugar to make the experience easy), including me. :)

(is 29 when native comp comes in?)

comfypotato
Uh, I’m not sure. I’ve been compiling from source with native comp for a while, but I’ve definitely heard rumors that it’s getting bundled into the default configuration

Mostly just a good example of an app that doesn’t run on older Debian setups.

Thanks for clarifying!

blizarre
My setup: a laptop with Arch Linux that I set up 3 years ago. I didn't touch the daemons/services, so it's all the basic stuff auto-maintained and auto-upgraded by arch linux. It just works (I only installed the services I needed).

But for the user facing parts, I am using my own forks of the suckless tools: dwm (Windows manager), st (terminal), slock (screen locking) It took me a little while to set it up to my liking, but I haven't had to change anything to my workflow, it just works. It's very barebone, but with vscode and a browser, I have all I need.

And I only need to run pacman -Suy once in a while.

cjbprime
Ubuntu 22.04 LTS will receive security updates until April 2027.

(So, if you're upgrading to new Ubuntu releases every six months, it sounds like that you're not following the upgrade strategy that would be suggested by your requirements.)

johnea
I don't think any version of ubuntu meets the criteria.

Ubuntu has a really persistent update mechaism built in.

Arch derived distos would be good, updates are only when you manually run them...

I use arch + fluxbox and I've been able to move my configuration from computer to computer by simply copying my home directory. When the new computer boots, I have the exact same desktop environment that I prefer. It only changes when I change it.

cjbprime
> Ubuntu has a really persistent update mechaism built in.

The OP doesn't object to updates, but to unexpected breaking changes, where th change is caused by different design decisions rather than bugs. LTS releases should not have those.

thrwwy_grump
No, I specifically object to updates, because in my experience you cannot separate one from the other. I don't want any updates that I don't have reason for... if there's new feature or better performance I don't care about them 99% of the time. If I care after research, I can install myself.
ArcMex
It sounds like you would find benefit from Linux Mint[0]. I recommend using it for a few days and seeing if it fits your workflow.

0 https://linuxmint.com/

jdworrells
Seconded. I’ve used Mint on and off for over a decade now. It’s stable and changes release to release are subtle. It’s boring and that’s why I keep coming back to it.
brainchild-adam
I concur. Used to be an Ubuntu user, and for me Mint fixed quite a few of the problems I started having with Ubuntu (e.g. snaps). Plus, I find their defaults quite usable. If you like choice, give it a go using a live system.
davidhyde
Agreed, Linux Mint feels like Windows 7 to me, the last version of Windows that I actually enjoyed using. It’s got a nice traditional start menu without crap on it. All the UI widgets are clear, consistent and not hidden behind many layers. I’ve set my Mint up for automatic updates but it never bothers or notifies me about it. Feels like it doesn’t even happen but every now and again I double check that it is indeed up to date and it always is! The only thing that’s ever broken for me was when I manually updated the nvidia graphics drivers.

And when you don’t touch the mouse and keyboard for a while it doesn’t start scanning your system like other operating systems do. Turning on those fans and buzzing your spiny disks. It also never turns on in the middle of the night to do stuff. No matter how much I tried I could never get Windows 10 under control.

And, of course, Mint doesn’t have Snaps, yay for that. Most of my UI software comes in the form of an AppImage.

polotics
Linux with xfce is, I think, the answer you're looking for. I guess Fedora on Qubes.
haunter
Windows 10 LTSC is that too. Everything is removed, including the MS Store, only Edge remains so it's pretty much a vanilla Windows 10 version. Feature updates released every ~2 years or so (for example it was 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021 so far).

I use it for all my Windows PCs, even for gaming.

ofalkaed
I have been using slackware with ion/notion WM for about two decades now and little has changed which is why I stick with it, I have no interest in having to relearn my system every update. In all these years I have only encountered one system change that caused me any grief, when they finally gave into PulseAudio I had some headaches but it was only an issue for me because I use my computer for music/recording and not really that big of an issue since Pulse had been out a good many years by that point and the solutions were easy to find.
toast0
Mac OS will move stuff and restyle stuff for no reason. It's not the answer for you. The ecosystem tends to move quickly and it becomes hard to get software unless you're running an Apple release less than 18 months old but also at least 2 months old.

Maybe try FreeBSD with Mate or a less intense wm like fvwm?

FreeBSD does make changes over time, but most of them aren't without good reason. FreeBSD does have three firewalls, but it's the same three firewalls its had for decades. Most of the time, new functionality will be added to existing appropriate tools rather than through tool replacement. Netstat was changed to run faster, rather than replaced with a faster, but different tool. Ifconfig configures network interfaces, including wifi (although if wifi is important to you, tread carefully). Open Sound System was fixed rather than replaced. Etc, etc.

The separation of base and ports/pkg means updates to ports are really up to the upstream developer --- some do value stability and some don't, but at least the base is pretty good.

m463
What I don't understand is why didn't apple just do virtualization and rosetta longer?
Aaron2222
To answer your question about macOS, major version updates are yearly, things don't change much within the same major version, and you're never forced to update by the OS. However, major versions only get 2 years of limited security updates after the next major version comes out, and major versions do tend to change things (i.e. the major redesign in Big Sur, or the new System Settings in Ventura). So probably not what you're looking for.
snovymgodym
Tangentially, I really lament the current state of desktop OS's.

In a perfect world, you should be able to buy an operating system that's basically Windows 7, with all the security and kernel updates which have been applied to 10/11, and none of the ads, telemetry, and smartphone-esque UI that modern Windows tries to force on you.

yuppie_scum
There’s got to be dozens of Linux distros that meet all these requirements for you.
warrenm
...but probably not that also run whatever software he's got (or wants) to run
xigoi
If they want to run proprietary software, they have to deal with the consequences of running proprietary software.
MichaelZuo
The parent did say "In a perfect world".
xigoi
In a perfect world, proprietary software doesn't exist, so there's no reason why you'd want to run it.
MichaelZuo
Why wouldn't it exist?
xigoi
Because in a perfect world, everything is (by definition) good, and proprietary software is bad.
MichaelZuo
This seems circular, why would proprietary software be 'bad' by default in a perfect world?
xigoi
Because being unable to see how software you're using is implemented is a bad thing.
MichaelZuo
Why must proprietary software be opaque in a perfect world?
i_hate_pigeons
maybe try nixos? assuming you are happy to handle the conf management
dadoum
I think Ubuntu MATE is maybe the right choice here, since it’s kinda its purpose.
wolfgang42
It’s not necessarily what I would choose, but my mom had the same problem and after a lot of research decided on OpenBSD, plus classic X utilities (xv, xpdf, gvim, xterm, etc). It’s something of a learning curve, but they all change very slowly and are big on backwards compatibility, so once you figure out how things work and get them set up for your needs it’ll probably keep working that way for a long time to come.
dmbche
I've been very happy with Manjaro. It's a just-works version of Arch linux. When downloading, take the less cutring edge option, and you should be fine.

I have not had anything break in the last year and a half, and the AUR is a nice plus.

squarefoot
> I've been very happy with Manjaro.

I second that. Although I'm still a Debian guy on my main machine, and use Alpine on smaller ones, I chose Manjaro on my laptops, also installing it on less technical people machines with great results, no problems or complaints, just the occasional need to explain the few differences to new users coming from Windows, but that wouldn't be the OP's case.

TheCapeGreek
Happy Manjaro user here too. Settled on it after some Cinnamon bugs got me annoyed enough.

Only issues I've had are between xorg and wayland. Had to switch to xorg on a fresh Manjaro GNOME install last month, because Wayland screensharing still requires hopes and prayers to get working.

Also: Be careful switching GPU types.

ipcress_file
Another Debian stable user. I've been using LXDE for years. Nothing changes. I like it that way.

LXQT or XFCE would be my next choices.

costco
Debian Stable with just a window manager (like cwm), xbindkeys, and maybe a shortcut to a program like rofi to open a run menu for programs not used frequently enough to justify a shortcut. You memorize all the keyboard shortcuts once and they will never change on you.
nathants
arch linux or alpine edge. it’s ground hog day.
muzani
Mac owners used to make fun of Windows updates a decade ago, but honestly I find it to be the worst.
taraharris
Haiku! I run it in a VM and spend all my time porting SolveSpace to it. https://twitter.com/realTaraHarris/status/164989272422757990...

X512 (a prolific contributor) got accelerated Vulkan graphics going on it recently (on one old Radeon card), and it has an active community of people constantly working to improve it.

Sore spots:

- driver support is good if you've got old hardware, but I have to run it in a VM on my machine (a Surface Pro 8)

- the available web browsers are old. I use a newer WebKit built for it, but you have to build it from source. The snapshot I downloaded is 1.5 GB of code + an hour of compilation

- alt-tab only works if you put the keymapper in Windows mode (which forces ctrl for cut, copy and paste)

I run Debian 11 to host the VM, run FireFox and watch YouTube. Once I get to a certain point with SolveSpace for Haiku, I might try my hand at writing a device driver or two to make it possible to dump Linux.

Haiku has a very bright future in my opinion. This is due to its simplicity, excellent architecture and user friendliness. It is the true successor to the original Macintosh, built on the kind of solid foundation the Mac never had. In terms of adoption, it feels like where Linux was in 1995.

dgellow
Windows 10 doesn’t really change much anymore, no? Other than fixed and security patches. I think you can be quite sure it won’t fundamentally evolve in the future.