biribiri11

Am I wrong in assuming that both OS’s should be sharing the EFI and /boot partitions?

Shared ESP is fine as long as you don’t run out of space. Nothing in /boot should conflict but that’s not guaranteed, although having 2 potential boot partitions means having 2 potential grub configs. I’d make sda3 a ~2GB ext4 boot partition just for Fedora (mounted at /boot), and an sda5 with btrfs with a home subvolume mounted at /home, and a root subvolume mounted at /, then mount sda1 at /boot/efi (this is the default layout iirc, albeit with different partitions, ofc). This might be easier to do in the advanced blivet gui.

And yes, Linux’s boot process is a convoluted, fragile mess and there are currently multiple ongoing discussions on how to improve it.

So you want to build something like apko (alpine packages/repos, used in chainguard’s images) or rules_oci (used in google’s Debian-based distroless images) but for portage?

I think it’d be cool. Just keep in mind:

1. Container scanning tools (like trivy), afaik, tend to look for a package db. Going distroless breaks them. I believe this is why chainguard generates a SBOM (software bill of materials).
2. Container images are already de-duplicated, and often, the gains in pull times aren’t worth the additional debugging effort (for example, you won’t be able to have dig/curl installed without rebuilding and deploying the whole image, or even a bash prompt in most cases). They’re even more not worth it because lazily pulling OCI images is now a thing, though it’s in its infancy. See: eStargz and I believe dragonfly which uses nydus. More generally though, zstd:chunked will probably eventually become mainstream and default, which will all but eliminate the need for “minimal” starting images.
3. If you wanted to go really small, there’s stuff like slim which makes tailor made images.
4. Gentoo, afaik, doesn’t really do LTS releases, making it undesirable for server use, which is the main place containers are.
5. Distroless containers don’t share common base images because they are normally scratch-built. This breaks image deduplication, leading to increased disk usage instead of decreased disk usage, and why I personally swapped off chainguard’s images.

I actually do use quadlets on my server which are absolutely fantastic and hook into systemd, but I don’t see any reason why a similar init system couldn’t do similar or even contribute something like podman generate systemd but for a different init system.

The guy replying is a total dick, and for people that like to encourage change to create software that evolves with needs, they sure do refuse to change when needs evolve.

This is definitely just a dangerous cause of that one xkcd. At the very least, Debian unstable caught something before it could reach everyone else. That works, I guess.

I sometimes hear that it is a different story on servers.

Wonder what their usages are, especially in a container-focused world, where most containers simply don’t have an init, and the base system just needs, at most, to have a container runtime (+/- a few other things, see: talos linux and their 130MB bare-metal ISOs).

Why are you being inflammatory for no reason? I’m just saying I don’t think it’d be correct for an OS 3 years in the past to be neck and neck with modern stuff. Log off the computer and go outside lmao

Mfw CentOS Stream 9, using a kernel, compiler, and glibc version from 3 years ago, still manages to pull ahead of software released a few weeks ago on hardware released years after Stream 9’s original release.

I’m not sure how much I’d buy into phoronix benchmarks in this case. CentOS Strea, 9 was performing as good, if not better than, the recently released Ubuntu 24.04 and 2 week old FreeBSD 14.1 despite having a 3 year old kernel and being compiled with an equally old version of GCC. Linux is currently suffering from a pstate bug with AMD, too.

There’s a reason the BSDs are hardly used in HPC.

It’s not brave, it’s just outright wrong. As in, wrong to use in this situation, and the LLM itself is wrong.

So basically ostree deploy fails if you have an existing populated ESP (EFI System Partition), so you’ll have to partition manually atm (in my case, I just made another ESP on the same disk). Other than that, I haven’t run into any problems with Win11 + Fedora on the same disk, mostly because I don’t boot into windows.

You can read about the issue here: https://github.com/fedora-silverblue/issue-tracker/issues/284

Here’s the docs on manual partitioning: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-silverblue/installation/#manual-partition

It’s definitely a pain. One of many papercuts you’ll find with an “emerging” desktop edition on a distro already known to push new stuff before the Linux ecosystem is ready.

Just be sure to make a backup of your windows data in a separate disk, keep boot drives for normal fedora (in case this ends up being too difficult), windows (in case you give up), and Fedora Kinoite (because duh), and ffs, don’t trust ChatGPT with your sensitive data on your main PC :)

From what I gather, it’s very similar.

They are both just wrappers for podman(/docker). Distrobox is more feature rich, and is far better documented, but is closer to a collection of bash scripts rather than a fully cohesive program. Toolbx is… definitely something. Their only real claim to fame is being less “janky”? IDK, it reeks of NIH, and in my experience, it’s a lot more fragile than distrobox (as in, I’ve had containers just become randomly inoperable in that I can’t enter them after a bit).

If you want to be pedantic, technically, distrobox is a fork of toolbx before it was rewritten.

Can’t believe he figured it out. What a shame. Guess we’ll have to go provoke another country to invade our fellow flourishing independent democracies, who play a key role in the world’s trade.

Seriously though, I hope he’s just giving himself an easy out here. There’s always too much war going on.