jamesbunagna

I have daily driven (a) Fedora(-based distro) ever since I started using Linux. So I'm absolutely biased towards it. However, as Fedora is a semi-rolling release distro that really likes offline updates that involves a reboot, it simply falls flat when it comes to satisfying OP's needs. They would have a very similar experience to their current one with openSUSE Tumbleweed, the very same they actively want to get rid of.

As such, this distribution would need to be able to handle running for weeks on end without a reboot.

So, it has to be something stable (i.e. receive little to no updates) that's capable of updating without requiring a reboot. That makes any stable distro a candidate. As such, choose either:

• Debian or something based on it
• Gentoo (stable branch)
• Nixos (stable channel)
• openSUSE Leap
• Ubuntu or something based on it

As I noted in the footnotes of this comment, Qubes OS is technically not a Linux distro as it's based on Xen instead. But yeah, it's without a doubt the gold standard when it comes to secure by default desktop operating systems; far surpassing even Kicksecure and secureblue.

As for Tails, while its amnesiac property is excellent for protection against forensics, it's not meant as a daily driver for general computing; which was also touched upon in the aforementioned footnotes.

For this writing, I'll focus on the OOTB experience. Furthermore, a daily driver for general use is assumed. I'll also try to keep it (relatively) brief and concise for the sake of brevity. The tier list found below goes from worst to best.

• Tier -1 : Actively detrimental distros. Joke/meme distros, abandoned/discontinued projects and even outright malicious products. Simply don't use for production. The likes of Hannah Montana Linux and Red Star OS comes to mind.
• Tier 0 : Unopinionated distros. These should be regarded as blank canvases from which it's expected that you meld and forge it to your liking. As such, at least by default, they offer nothing in this regard. However, it's possible to build a fortress if you wish. Both Arch and Gentoo fall under this category.
• Tier 1 : Distros that have put in some work into security, but ultimately fall short. These distributions include security features and maintain regular updates, but their implementation choices can introduce security compromises. This tier often includes derivatives that modify their parent distribution's security model, sometimes prioritizing convenience over security best practices. While it may be suitable for general use, they may not provide the same security guarantees as their upstream sources.
• Tier 2 : Distros with sane security defaults that rely on backports for their security updates. These distributions prioritize stability while maintaining security through careful backporting of security fixes. Rather than updating entire packages, they selectively patch security vulnerabilities into their stable versions. This approach provides a good balance of security and stability, though it means newer security features might take longer to arrive (if at all). Debian and Ubuntu are prime examples of this.
• Tier 3 : Distros with excellent security defaults and a (semi-)rolling release. For most normies, this is as secure as it needs to be. As it's on a (semi-)rolling release, it receives security updates as soon as they come. Furthermore, this also allows them to benefit from new security features as soon as they appear. Curiously, the two distros that most resonate with this, i.e. Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed, are also known to innovate (and thus are pack leaders) when it comes to security solutions. FWIW, their respective atomic/immutable distros also belong in this tier.
• Tier 4 : Security-first distros. The crème de la crème. These are probably overkill for most people. This is also the first (and only) tier that may sacrifice usability and function for the sake of security. If your highest priority is security, then you can't go wrong with this one. Kicksecure and secureblue are its flag bearers.

I'd personally grant Linux Mint a position in tier 2, though perhaps others would go with tier 1 instead. As such, a step-up would be a distro from either Fedora or openSUSE.

Thanks for the clarification!

If you trust both the source and the file, then downloading by itself shouldn't constitute a problem. Supply-chain attacks are still possible, but that's a hard problem to solve anyways. I suppose I'd only trust Qubes OS to handle that gracefully.

For general browsing, GrapheneOS-folk would advice against Firefox(-based browsers). Instead, they'd recommend (something based on) Chromium. Personally, I do follow that advice. But I understand if you'd like to stick to Firefox(-based browsers).

Coming back to Linux Mint, I won't go over my (personal) qualms with the security model of the distros it's based on. But as Linux Mint offers one of the best onboarding experiences, it would be a disservice to lead you elsewhere. Become comfortable with Linux through it. And, perhaps one day, if you feel like venturing elsewhere, you can try out distros that offer better security. Thankfully, Linux Mint's OOTB security should be sufficient until then.

As for the article, everything except for the fourth recommendation is a W. Utilizing ClamAV could be cool, but it's based on a very naive understanding. You wouldn't want an untrusted file on your system in the first place. Obviously, a lot more mileage^[1]^ is possible. But one has to learn to walk before they can run 😉.

1. Note that the information and instructions found on the excellent ArchWiki often work on and/or apply to other distros as well.

GNU-Linux hardening is useless

This opinion isn't shared by the author in their actions, as they are known for their contributions to Whonix; both as a security researcher (by their own admission) and (are to this day accredited) as a developer.

Is this a good list?

The link definitely provides some good info. It's better than nothing. However, it may or may not fall short based on how secure you'd like to make your system.

Anything else I should do to secure a Mint install?

What is it you're trying to protect and from whom? Whenever the topic of security comes up, one simply can't engage meaningfully without mentioning a threat model.

In this case, I'll assume you're just your average Joe. And, depending on how you engage with your system, Linux Mint might be fit from the get-go. However, if you actively engage in downloading random jank from the internet and have 'survived' with the help of Microsoft Defender Antivirus, then you should know that a safety net as such doesn't exist over on this side. Sure, security through obscurity might save your ass a couple of times. But it's inevitably a losing battle.

So, without knowing your threat model, note the following important advice that the article somehow hasn't touched upon:

• Know that you, the user, are the largest attack surface. Even if some distros like Fedora and openSUSE (with the latter AFAIK scoring the best^[1]^ according to Lynis) actually put in great work to offer pretty secure systems, they absolutely won't be able to protect you against yourself.

1. It's important to mention that this excludes security-first distros like Kicksecure and secureblue. Nor is Qubes OS considered as it's technically not even a Linux distro. Other distros like Tails or Whonix are also not considered as they're not meant to be used as daily drivers and/or for general use.

Unfortunately, I don't know either. From my understanding, X11 as a whole is supported. Therefore, you should be able to hack your way through this. I suppose the installation instructions for Ubuntu should closely align to what's required for Debian. So that's your starting point.

what does the community think of it?

It's important to note how the Linux community interacts with change. In the past, whenever a change has been significant enough to influence individual workflows, it often provoked strong reactions. This was evident when systemd was introduced and adopted by distros like Arch and Debian. Even though systemd was arguably superior in essential aspects for most users, it failed to meet the needs of at least a vocal minority. Consequently, community endeavors were set up to enable the use of Debian or Arch without systemd.

Similarly, the introduction of immutable distributions seems to upset some people, though (at least to me) it's unjustified. Immutable distributions don't necessarily alter the traditional model. For instance, the existence of Fedora Silverblue doesn't impose changes on traditional Fedora; let alone Arch or Debian.

But, overall, most Linux users aren't bothered by it. Though, they often don't see a use for themselves. Personally, I attribute this at least in part to existing misconceptions and misinformation on the subject matter. Though, still, a minority^[1]^ (at best ~10%) actually prefers and uses 'immutable' distros.

Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?

Depends entirely on what you want out of your system. For me, they absolutely do. But it's important to note that the most important thing they impose on the user is the paradigm shift that comes with going 'immutable'. And this is actually what traditional Linux users are most bothered by. But if you're unfamiliar with Linux conventions, then you probably won't even notice.

As a side note, it's perhaps important to note that the similarities between traditional distros are greater than the similarities between immutable distros. Also, Fedora Atomic is much more like traditional Fedora than it is similar to, say, openSUSE Aeon or Vanilla OS. Grouping them together as if they are a cohesive group with very similar attributes is misleading. Of course, they share a few traits, but overall, the differences are far more pronounced.

Therefore, it is a false dichotomy to simply label them as traditional distros versus immutable distros. Beyond these names, which we have assigned to them, these labels don't actually adequately explain how these systems work, how they interact, how their immutability is achieved (if at all), what underlying technologies they use, or how they manage user interactions. The implications of the above. Etc.

Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?

The success of the Steam Deck and its SteamOS are the most striking and clear proof of this. So, yes. Absolutely.

1. Not accounting SteamOS users.

Nixos tends to lean on the term reproducible instead of immutable, because you can have settings (e.g files in /etc & ~/.config) changed outside of nix's purview, it just won't be reproducible and may be overwritten by nix.

Interesting. If possible, could you more explicitly draw comparisons on how this isn't quite the same over on say Fedora Atomic? Like, sure changes of /etc are (at least by default) being kept track of. But you indeed can change it. libostree doesn't even care what you do in your home folder. Thus, changes to e.g. ~/.config (and everything else in /var^[1]^) are kept nowhere else by default.

1. Which happens to be more crowded than on other distros as folders like /opt are actually found here as well.

In your opinion, when can we refer to a distro as being immutable? How do you regard the likes of Fedora Atomic, openSUSE Aeon or Vanilla OS? Are any of these immutable in your opinion?

Thanks for the nice chitchat! Have a nice day!