FAQ ​

Only if you choose to do so. Neither Depthboot nor EupneaOS will remove your ChromeOS(Ubuntu, etc.) installation from your Chromebook, unless you explicitly choose to do so.

Yes, neither EupneaOS nor Depthboot modify the firmware in any way. Just download the correct recovery image for your Chromebook and boot it. Official guide from Google

• All of our code is open source.
• All binaries/prebuilt packages/etc... are built with GitHub actions and uploaded to GitHub releases. You can check the workflows under .github in each repo.
• All the development is done in the open, specifically on our Discord server. The dev-talk channel is open to be read by anyone, and we do not use a private channel for development related discussions.
• Both Depthboot and EupneaOS, as well as all of our packages and binaries can be built locally from source.

We don't know. We are working on it, but we have no ETA.

Here is a full page comparing the two kernels: Eupnea Kernels

If you have completely replaced your Chromebooks firmware with a custom BIOS/UEFI, you will not be able to boot Depthboot. You can however still boot EupneaOS. To be able to boot Depthboot, you will need to revert your firmware to stock.

Installation of rw_legacy/alt_fw that can be accessed with ctrl+L/"Select alternate bootloader" does not affect your Chromebooks ability to boot Depthboot. Just follow the instructions as usual.

Read all pros and ons of each method of booting Linux on a Chromebook here.

Yes, but we only make the minimal amount of changes required to make them bootable and work properly on Chromebooks, such as installing our custom kernels and adding our own repository to the distribution, which includes the eupnea-utils and eupnea-system packages, along with some others. You can find more information about the packages in the respective eupnea package repositories. No other modifications are made, meaning all distribution 'quirks' are kept intact (such as Snap on Ubuntu or no Tap-to-click by default on GNOME, etc.).

First off, there are no feasible differences between the distros. They all boot the same 2 kernels (see above), which are responsible for most of the possible performance differences. You will have the same "Depthboot experience" on all of them (i.e. the Depthboot scripts/apps will work the same on every distro).

The differences among the distros are mostly in terms of development philosophy. Here is a brief list of pros and cons:

• Pop!_OS: LTS release (currently)
  • Pros: Based on Ubuntu, but without the Canonical Quirks (Snap replaced by flatpak, core packages get updates). Developed by System76. Has a customised GNOME desktop.
  • Cons: Based on 22.04 -> not all packages are the latest versions. Has a customised GNOME desktop.
• Ubuntu: LTS release + 6 months release
  • Pros: Most popular distro -> more packages, more support. Developed by Canonical.
  • Cons: Not rolling release -> not all packages are the latest versions. Has some Canonical Quirks (i.e. Snap).
• Fedora: 6 month releases
  • Pros: Recent-ish packages (somewhere in the middle between rolling and LTS). Backed by Red Hat.
  • Cons: Has some Quirks (i.e. no hardware decoders out-of-the-box, no proper flatpak). DNF is slow out-of-the-box.
• Arch: Rolling release
  • Pros: latest package versions, AUR. Has no corporate backing.
  • Cons: Requires more maintenance, might break more often. Has no corporate backing.

There is no best desktop enviroment (short: DE) on Linux, all have their pros and cons. Generally, there is 2 kinds of DEs; the ones that aim to look good and/or have a lot of features and the ones that try to be as light as possible.

Here is a brief list of the pros and cons of every desktop environment available:

• Gnome (GTK based)
  • Pros: Most popular DE on Linux. Best touch + pen support. Minimalistic UI. Aims to be intuitive to use. The developers have a strong vision in mind.
  • Cons: Not as much customization (requires additional software). Workspaces oriented workflow -> not a Windows replacement. Developers prioritize their vision over user feedback.
• KDE (QT based)
  • Pros: Second most popular DE on Linux. Windows-like workflow. Lots of customization/behavior options.
  • Cons: Can be overwhelming due to the amount of options. Not as good touch + pen support as on GNOME (but still very much usable).
• Xfce (GTK based)
  • Pros: Very light (compared to GNOME/KDE), i.e. less RAM & CPU usage.
  • Cons: Looks very dated. Native apps are not as polished/user-friendly as on GNOME/KDE. No wayland support -> touch & pen unsupported/very limited.
• LXQt (successor to LXDE; QT based)
  • Pros: Very light (compared to GNOME/KDE), i.e. less RAM & CPU usage. Windows-like layout.
  • Cons: Less effects and polish. Native apps are not as polished/user-friendly as on GNOME/KDE. No wayland support -> touch & pen unsupported/very limited.
• Deepin (KDE; QT based)
  • Pros: Very beautiful UI, multiple layouts (MacOS, Windows). Has native apps with matching themes.
  • Cons: Main developers are Chinese -> language translation can be inconsistent. No wayland support YET -> touch & pen unsupported/very limited.
• Budgie (GNOME; GTK based)
  • Pros: Utilizes the GNOME stack, but has a more Windows-like workflow.
  • Cons: May have fewer features and customization without extensions/external software. Same layout can be achieved by using Extensions in "stock" GNOME. No wayland support YET -> touch & pen unsupported/very limited.

The Depthboot base distros all allow image/iso/rootfs sharing, but only in an unmodified form. The Depthboot script customizes some internal distro behavior (for example it adds our eupnea packages) and thereby creates modified images. To allow modified images to be shared, all trademarked content would have to be removed, i.e. all Distro logos.

EupneaOS does not have the same restrictions as the Depthboot base distros, as all trademarked content has been removed. The Eupnea Project disallows sharing of EupneaOS images, to prevent unofficial modded versions from being distributed. If you want to create a fork of EupneaOS, remove all EupneaOS branding, i.e. the name and logos.

No, setting up telemetry services is too much work.
Keep in mind that the distros themselves might collect telemetry and send it to their respective developers.