{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigpv2mmag3dzkahq5t74pahm4ylilna3enqfnmnuvrdwpjn3kgbta",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmk3bs57vux2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=32872&p=274555#p274555",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-23T18:10:32.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> > I'd say Fedora's kind of a middle ground between a fast-moving distro like Arch with a rolling release, and something a bit slower like Debian stable.\n>\n> Fedora is an experimental testing area for finding bugs in packages prior to landing in CentOS Stream, which itself is the beta for RedHat. And yes, Fedora is widely acknowledged to be bleeding edge. If you are going to use a bleeding edge distro you would be much better off using Arch, which itself is a final product and not a testing ground for anyone. A true middle ground between Debian and bleeding edge would be MX, which has Debian stable plus about 2.5k additional packages that the MX devs (mostly Steve Pusser) backport from their latest releases.\n\nAgree.\nPersonally I wouldn’t use Fedora because I dislike systemd, Wayland and Rust.\nI also think it might be hard to find another Pale Moon user on Fedora. Pale Moon users tend to be in the “legacy” camp, even on Windows.\n\nThe MX Linux base and all the MX tools made it possible for me to create a FOSS Windows clone. Also, on the Debian base I have never run into a situation where I can’t run the newest version of a piece of software. All the necessary package managers and repos are available.\n\nOnly thing lacking is that it can be hard to install the latest version of all desktop environments if you aren’t able to compile them yourself.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "General Discussion • Re: Linux has over 6% of the desktop market",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-23T18:10:32.000Z"
}