But.... Relative to MacOS Ubuntu is certainly not as user-friendly. It's worth noting that Linux distros will force you to confront the command line at some point. If you come from OS-es where the most technical thing you have to do is pop open settings to set screen-share permissions or "right-click -> open" to install a package, you'll notice a stark difference.
Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#12Linux comes in a wide range of distributions, so it is hard to make universal claims. One area where security defaults need to improve is sandboxing. If security is a major concern, bwrap or firejail can easily provide that extra sandboxing. NixOS and GuixSD make it quite trivial to sandbox applications in a declarative fashion using firejail. An alternative is to use e.g. Flatpak, which gets you sandboxing for free…
Additionally, any thoughts on snap? (presently looking into Flatpak)
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#13Generally the out-of-the-box experience of Ubuntu and Fedora is at least as secure or better than that of Windows. macOS tends to lean towards a more hardened configuration. Matching that is possible (Android being a great example), but will require some work on your part and is generally not worth it unless you download and run untrusted software.
And one area where desktop Linux really shines is how easy it makes it to only limit yourself to software you can generally trust: that in the default repositories. If you use a well-maintained distribution, keep your system up to date, and only use software that your distribution delivers, chances of your machine getting compromised by anything other than a strictly targeted attack are very slim.
It's understandable that eventually you might want to run third-party software. In that case, I'd definitely advise against running random scripts or commands from the Internet, especially the `curl | bash` kind, and adding third-party repositories to your system unless you absolutely trust their source. This and running out-of-date Internet-facing software are the most common attack vectors.
For third-party software, consider using Flatpak (desktop) and Podman/Docker (server). These sandbox software by default, limiting the damage it can do to your system. With Flatpak, always pay attention to what permissions your application will be granted (those are listed at installation time) and try to limit their scope as narrowly as possible. You can manage the permissions with `flatpak info -M` and `flatpak override`. There's also Flatseal, a GUI alternative which I personally haven't tried.
One more thing to watch out for: extensions. Some software, such as Visual Studio Code and derivatives, has very lax policies on extensions. Even if you install it from a trusted source, but then install an untrusted extension, the extension will run with full access to your files! If you're using such programs, I recommend installing them in Flatpak and limiting their permissions as well. I've been burned by some VSCode extensions in the official marketplace that immediately contacted Chinese IPs upon installation.
Of course, those are tips for those looking to get started. Long-time users interested in hardening should definitely look into SELinux, seccomp, namespaces, dm-verity, and their associated utilities.
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#14Try something from universal blue!
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#15Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#16Linux out of all those three is very specific in that it can be configured to be perfectly secure and, at the same time, if you explicitly ask it to shoot you in the foot, it will. Generally the out-of-the-box experience of Ubuntu and Fedora is at least as secure or better than that of Windows. macOS tends to lean towards a more hardened configuration. Matching that is possible (Android being a great example), but wi…
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#17Safe in what sense? As someone who's been daily running it since 2008, I'm gonna say yes anyway though. It's secure (one definition of safe) and no more likely to eat your data than any other OS. Still back things up though, hardware failures happen. What to config? Nothing. Don't touch shit if you don't know what you're doing. That's the secret to having a stable system, not messing with it.
Of course, some things will randomly break unexpectedly, but you get that with Windows and MacOS, too.
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#18It is possible to get Linux into a state where it becomes a huge headache to update
Source: Personally got it into a state where it became a huge headache to update.
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#19Ubuntu is going to strong-arm you into Snaps, the snap-ectomy is nontrivial, and they have a habit of reappearing. Some people don't have a problem with Snaps - so non-issue if you don't care. Otherwise I'd go with a downstream distro that removes them: pop os, mint, or even upstream (Debian).
XFS is an extremely mature file system if you don't need anything fancy, and you're probably less likely to lose data compared to $proprietary. The other major ones (ext4 and btrfs) are probably just as good, but XFS honestly does stand out in terms of maturity and simplicity.
A common trap is trusting the installer with partitioning. My last Ubuntu installation ran out of space on EFI. 5gb is overkill, but given how abundant disk space is, who cares. Separating / and /home is a good idea for rescue/reinstalling but without btrfs subvolumes (Ubuntu uses btrfs subvolumes by default) it becomes a bit challenging to figure out how to dice things up: e.g. docker containers are stored in /var, so they can deplete your system drive space. Last time I didn't use btrfs, 200gb for / never caused issues for me.
Oh, and Windows has a habit of removing other boot loaders from its drive. If you dual boot, use a different disk for the entire installation.
That's really the extent of the gotchas I'd give to a person literate enough to install an OS. I would slightly urge towards immutable (Silverblue), but Ubuntu is just fine.
Re: Ask HN: Is Linux Safe to Daily drive in 2026?
#20Linux comes in a wide range of distributions, so it is hard to make universal claims. One area where security defaults need to improve is sandboxing. If security is a major concern, bwrap or firejail can easily provide that extra sandboxing. NixOS and GuixSD make it quite trivial to sandbox applications in a declarative fashion using firejail. An alternative is to use e.g. Flatpak, which gets you sandboxing for free…
I heard about the sandboxing being especially sketchy, thanks for a point in the right direction for mitigation. Additionally, any thoughts on snap? (presently looking into Flatpak)