I’m feeling more tired about Windows, and the reason I haven’t switched yet to Linux is because I need some programs that only exist on Windows. But, at this point, I’m focusing on ditching these programs and finding alternatives for them…

Last year, I experienced Linux Mint, but, at least on my PC, it feels clunky when I need to do some little video editions and I found it more stable on Windows.

However, I’m going to try again Linux distros with a virtual box, but I’m a little “”“scared”“” to move on again to Linux Mint since my last experience with editing videos.

I don’t need an extremely powerful program to make these editions. Olive, or something like that, suits me perfectly. So, in your opinion, which distro should I try on one virtual box for my daily use for these purposes?

Making a dual boot, from your point of view, is problematic? I see so many different opinions about dual boot, but at this time, I don’t know what to think.

My pc

  • Processor: AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2100GE with Radeon veja graphics

  • RAM: 8gb

  • Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
    0·
    9 months ago

    You can try Fedora Atomic.
    There’s a project called universal-blue.org, which gives you a huge choice of available images, that all “just work”.
    I personally recommend the Silverblue version, since Gnome looks and behaves very professional. You can use KDE too if you like that more.

    Here’s a link to my post I made with more information on why you should choose an immutable distro: https://feddit.de/post/8234416

    Btw, 8 GB of RAM isn’t much for video editing. I recommend you to upgrade the RAM if you are able to.

    Edit: maybe consider installing it on a second drive if you can. Even with better hardware than yours, VMs usually feel a bit clunky.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      9 months ago

      Did you ever notice, how, after some time, may it be weeks, months, or years, your Linux install or programs become ever so slightly less reliable?

      …no.

      That article is terrible. Misleading at times, exaggerating at others times…

      The first reason why IBDs are more secure is the point from above. If there are the same loop holes on every install, the devs can reproduce it and fix it immediatelly.

      Like this doesn’t happen with “mutable” distros? This is a gross exaggeration. IBDs are updated the same way as other distros, it’s just that they’re released as a snapshot.

      They’re way overstating the benefits of containerization.

      • Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
        0·
        9 months ago

        Just as a small information, I’ve written the post myself. I didn’t copy-paste it from someone else.

        Could you please do me the favour and elaborate on your critic points more? Then I could edit the post a bit more.

        Also, in the beginning of it, I even put the disclaimer that I had to “lie” a bit to simplify everything, so that it is better understandable by everyone, including newcomers.

        IBDs are updated the same way as other distros, it’s just that they’re released as a snapshot.

        No. If you take Tumbleweed as example, it also gets released as snapshot. But, IBDs are referencing one image and then copy that, while on traditional package managers, every install is individual and drifts over time.
        I’ve seen many posts and Git-issues where the devs or other users said “closed, can’t replicate”. Or people periodically reinstalling every year because the installs became cluttered and unstable.

        There’s a reason why immutable distros were developed a few years ago. Even back than they were very promising, and there weren’t even remotely as many Flatpaks available and technologies like Distrobox and much more weren’t there too.
        From now on, they will only become better and better!

        Still, thank you for your critique :)
        It hurt a bit, because it took a long time to write the post, but I will always try to be open to it and correct my statements in it.