I’m not the one you asked your question, but I think I understood what they meant.

First of all, technically MicroOS is the non-desktop version of openSUSE’s take on an atomic/immutable distro. The desktop variants are referred to as Aeon (for GNOME) and Kalpa (for KDE).

Secondly, while Aeon/Kalpa definitely is to openSUSE what Silverblue/Kinoite is to Fedora, there’s a clear difference in vision and maturity.

Vision

Fedora Atomic is a very ambitious project; everything points toward it being Fedora’s take on NixOS. But, unlike NixOS, it couldn’t start from scratch nor did they intend to. Instead, it’s the process of evolving their existing products into something special. As such, it has been over two years since Fedora has even explicitly stated that they intend for Fedora Atomic to become the default eventually (without saying anything about sunsetting the old). While, AFAIK, openSUSE has yet to make similar statements regarding Aeon/Kalpa.

Maturity

Everything points towards Fedora Atomic being more mature than openSUSE MicroOS; work on the project has started earlier, Fedora Atomic is almost done with their transition (from image-based) to OCI while I don’t recall openSUSE mention anything regarding their transition (from ‘snapshots’) to image-based since they mentioned it briefly last year. Furthermore, Bazzite (based on Fedora Atomic) has become the face of Gaming Linux while openSUSE’ MicroOS fails to deliver on anything but Aeon. Which, to be fair, is absolutely fine. But not everyone is fan of GNOME.

So, use Tumbleweed if:

• You prefer the traditional model
• You like YaST
• You like the rolling release model and not being tied to GNOME

Use Aeon if:

• You like GNOME and an atomic distro on a rolling release distro
• You prefer the opinionated, hands off, little to no customization path that openSUSE has currently chosen for its Aeon
• You like a containerized future

Use Fedora Atomic if:

• You want an atomic distro, but don’t like any of the decisions made for Aeon; i.e.
  • prefer to use KDE, Budgie or Sway (or any other desktop environment through uBlue)
  • aren’t that big of a fan of container workloads
  • prefer having the choice of installing native packages
• Prefer atomic on top of a point release distro

Finally, regarding containers specifically; let’s say you want to install package X.

• On Tumbleweed, you just do sudo zypper install X and you’re done with it.
• On Aeon, if it’s available as a Flatpak, you do flatpak install X. If there’s no Flatpak of it, you install it within a container that you access through Distrobox. Within the container, use the package manager corresponding to the container. Technically, while inside the container, the environment is very similar to Tumbleweed. So, say you got a Tumbleweed container, then you can continue using sudo zypper install X.
• On Fedora Atomic, you can layer onto the system through rpm-ostree install X; this is very close to how installing packages work on Tumbleweed. And, you can continue using both Flatpak and Distrobox; like how it’s done on Aeon. Note that Tumbleweed also allows access to Flatpak and Distrobox. So, Aeon is most restricted as it can’t install packages onto the base system. Btw, Fedora Atomic accomplishes this through layers that can also be peeled off later on (through uninstalling for example). With this, the base system actually isn’t affected, but the end user doesn’t notice it.

By default, Fedora Atomic envisions the following in regards to installing packages/software:

• First, try the Flatpak.
• If that doesn’t work, use Toolbx(/Distrobox).
• If all else fails, resort to rpm-ostree.

This works pretty fine, but isn’t perfect:

• Flatpak has become pretty good for software with a GUI. However, while it can do CLI, it’s underutilized.
• Toolbx/Distrobox has its merits, but not everyone enjoys consuming CLI through containers.
• Besides the fact that installing all your CLI tools through rpm-ostree will negatively impact how fast you can update your system, it also requires you to (soft-)reboot before you can access the newly installed package (unless you enjoy living on the edge with --apply-live). This can be pretty cumbersome, especially if you’re in flow.

Thus, the situation around CLI on Fedora Atomic became a sore to the eyes. Within the community, there were multiple attempts to tackle this problem:

• Nix; For some time, this was the perfect solution. Unfortunately, in its current iteration, installing Nix on Fedora Atomic requires SELinux’ enforcing mode to be turned off. As turning enforcing mode off is unacceptable for uBlue’s maintainers, this was eventually dismissed.
• Better tooling around Toolbx/Distrobox; There have been made some efforts in this regard, perhaps most notably Ptyxis. But, we’re not there yet. Though, some are hopeful of what podmansh will bring to the table.
• Homebrew; It behaves as any other package manager used for installing packages from the repository on any Linux distro out there. Except, in this case, it’s exclusively utilized for CLI. Currently, it’s simply the most straightforward in use. You just have to teach people to replace their apt/dnf/ pacman with flatpak (for GUI) and brew (for CLI). Furthermore, it comes with a big and healthy repository. Finally, it utilizes technologies related to the ones found on Fedora Atomic.
• systemd-sysext; This has only very recently been added to systemd. I wouldn’t be surprised if this will play a prominent role going forward. Though, I’m unsure if CLI will benefit most of it.

Several posters have argued that LMDE, like debian, is barebones, whereas LM is ideal for an end user with not much idea about linux

I believe I’m the only one in the previous post that used the term. But, I believe a misunderstanding has occurred. Debian, plain old Debian, is (relatively) bare-bones. And with this, I mean that extra tooling and what not is absent. Sure, these extra tooling etc come at the cost of what some might regard as bloat. But, ultimately, its absence should not affect performance in any significant way (so not positively, nor negatively). Thus, LMDE and Linux Mint are actually pretty close to one another. LMDE is basically just Linux Mint (Cinnamon edition) but with a Debian base instead of being based on Ubuntu.

I also want to future proof it as much as possible, which would mean using the OS/DE that uses less resources.

Excellent OP. Thank you for providing this insight on what’s important for you. With this information we’ll be able to offer better help. So, as you’ve excellently noticed already, Xfce is pretty good if you want a very functional machine that doesn’t suck a lot of resources. So, I totally support your decision for Xfce over Cinnamon as Xfce is simply less resource intensive. However, 8 GB of RAM should be pretty fine. Even GNOME should run wonderfully on 8 GB of RAM, so Cinnamon should not cause any troubles. But, if you’ve still got concerns and if you’re already on an SSD, then continue using Xfce as it’s otherwise one of the better DEs out there. But, if you’re not on an SSD yet, then consider slipping one inside; it will matter a lot.

Regarding your actual query, installing Xfce in retrospect to LMDE should work, but you might get yourself into more trouble than it’s worth. Therefore, I’d advice you to simply get Linux Mint Xfce Edition and call it a day. Going for the Edge ISO (which by default comes with Cinnamon) for the latest (and greatest) kernel and retroactively trying to setup Xfce should (once again) cause you more troubles than it’s worth it. So, in the end, I’d like to recommend you either Linux Mint Xfce Edition or MX Linux (which is based on Debian Stable (so not Ubuntu) and actually defaults to Xfce). Honestly, they’re mostly two flavors/interpretations that try to accomplish very similar goals. So, you should be fine with either one of the two.

Thank you for the response!

the wikipedia linux article with the linux development tree

Aight. Understood. Therefore your interest is still pretty juvenile. Thus, I recommend you to either install FreeBSD on a device to revert right away or dismiss the thought of FreeBSD for the foreseeable future.

I have no idea

Aight. It will be (on average) (a bit) more troublesome until you’re past the learning curve. Which is steeper and broader than the one found on Debian/Mint/Ubuntu.

So, all in all, I would forego going for FreeBSD for the time being. Thank me later.

what linux OS should I install on a backup notebook if my main one is debian?

It depends:

• If your backup notebook will only rarely be used, then just make it Debian as well. I can’t think of a reason why you’d make it harder on yourself for those spare times you’d have to rely on the backup notebook. (As a side note, if your main system was on a rolling release (like e.g. Arch), then there would be merit in going for a different (i.e. more stable^[1]) distro (like e.g. Debian Stable) on the rarely used backup. This is tied to the fact that rolling release distros somewhat require you to update every so often for proper functioning. This hassle is simply absent on distros like Debian Stable etc.)
• However, if the backup notebook will be used as a second system of sorts for all kinds of needs and does not have to be reliable per say, then please be my guest and quench your distrohopping thirst to your hearts content.

Install linux mint, so I get ubuntu but without them throwing their subscription services down my throat.

Linux Mint does indeed provide you some Ubuntu goodies without its associated negatives. But, perhaps it’s worth mentioning LMDE; i.e. Linux Mint Debian Edition.

I’m unsure about other advantages

Linux Mint does a lot of heavy lifting to provide a seamless and polished experience. This does come with being more opinionated than either Debian or Ubuntu is. However, one might argue that they’re just offering the bare minimum that your average Linux user would want on their systems anyway. Hence, it’s unsurprising that Linux Mint has become the go-to distro for many newbie and veteran Linux users alike. You don’t know what you’re missing if you’re unsure of other advantages…

maybe the more frequent program updates? Kernels are also updated more often than with debian as far as I know.

FWIW, Debian also has its testing and unstable releases.

Do you know of other advantages?

As has been previously alluded, Debian is pretty bare-bones compared to Linux Mint. So, if you’re mostly interested in setting up things exactly as you’d want to, then you should go for Debian and build it up as you go. However, if you’re more in favor of sane and opinionated (albeit bloated to some) defaults, then Linux Mint takes the cake. Ultimately, you’d have to experience it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Go for FreeBSD

😅

this might require a learning curve, because this is an OS I’ve never used.

Yup.

Are commands that different from debian?

Debian (and its commands) are more similar to Arch, Fedora or any Linux distro for that matter than it is to FreeBSD. Like, it’s a pretty significant departure. And one, I’d argue, you’re simply not equipped for (yet).

Overall, I think making the move to FreeBSD doesn’t seem like the logical next move for ya. Its ecosystem (unfortunately) is a lot less developed compared to Linux. And while there are definitely some pros and cons to it, I just can’t fathom why your average user would use it without properly knowing what they’re getting into and why they’re deliberately and consciously making that choice. If you allow me, may I ask you where this interest to FreeBSD stems from?

other more niche linux OSs seem too much a hassle and I guess won’t be as supported as the main ones.

Do Arch, Fedora or openSUSE (to name a few) fall under “other more niche linux OSs”? Furthermore, do you think that FreeBSD will be less of a hassle compared to “other more niche linux OSs”?

1. The term “stable” is used here to mean slow cadence of change which manifests most commonly as little to no updates in-between point releases. These point-releases occur annually/biennially and come with big updates/changes. As you might expect, a distro with a release cycle as such comes with the added benefit that (little to) no breakage should occur until the next point release. Hence, these distros are (rightfully) associated with providing reliable and robust experiences. Though, this does not mean that they have a monopoly on this. When used responsibly, all (if not most) mainstream/popular distros are able to provide reliability and robustness.–