71–80 of 153 posts
Recently made the jump to NixOS though and been really happy with the additional features it offers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"For this reason, I’m planning to install Debian instead on the new laptop I’ve ordered" Maybe have a look at manjaro, it is based on arch, but comes prepackaged, so you can just boot up the luve image and install, if everything works.
I’ve heard of Manjaro, but on the occasions when I’ve brought it up in conversation, people have almost unanimously warned me off from it in fairly strong terms… not entirely sure why, but that alone makes me reluctant to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikis take a lot of maintenance by a determined core of contributors, or else the pages deteriorate into a pile of incoherent edits. Occasionally I see this even on the Arch wiki. Main text says “do this.” That’s followed by some text saying “I tried this and it didn’t work.” That’s followed by a text box saying “that method is deprecated.”
But that's still better then just having the main text saying "do this" where "this" is wrong. And that's often the case for non-wiki documentation.
My main point was as a response to the original question, which was: why aren’t more docs in wiki form? I think one reason for that is that good docs require dedicated contributors, and I think a wiki does little to nothing to reduce their burden.
The myth of the wiki is that by erecting it, drive-by contributors will build a great product. I don’t think any quality wiki was built that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? In what way is Alpine more minimal than Arch? (I really just don't know) Also are you suggesting that Debian netinstall is not minimal?
Debian is not minimal at all, it emphasizes compatibility over all else. There are many custom scripts to wrap around systemd so you can still use old style commands. Apt is pretty slow (and again packages come with custom scripts) and stuff like apt-xapian-index will just gobble up all your CPU if you are on a slow system. Debian has many scripts to automate things for a nice experience, but it's certainly not minim…
Most defaults are sensible and close to what app itself provides, again with exceptions to play nicely with rest of the system.
Most packages also come with bunch of recommended ones that extend functionality which means a bit extra space used, but just
APT::Install-Recommends "0";
And most important thing is that upgrade works. I installed my desktop in ~2008 and just upgraded across the ages, the install older than every single component in my machine.
> There are many custom scripts to wrap around systemd so you can still use old style commands.
That's just not breaking old stuff, minimal doesn't really need to mean "just breaks your old scripts that worked fine up until now".
And it's kinda required for transitionary period, some packages still use /etc/init.d/* to start for example and AFAIK Debian still haven't said "systemd is the only way forward" which means many packages provide both /etc/init.d/* for SysV boot and /lib/systemd/system/* for Systemd boot.
> and stuff like apt-xapian-index will just gobble up all your CPU if you are on a slow system
How is tool that's not even in standard install relevant to anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we could combine Ubuntu's easiness of use with Arch's simplicity and performance, that'd be my ideal distro for work. I love Arch for its simplicity and performance. But it just wasn't productive for me to get everyday tasks done. I'm not advanced Linux user, occasionally I'd need hours to get seemingly simple stuff done. For a hobby desktop, fine. For a work tool as a developer, I moved back to Ubuntu (though I h…
I've been installing Ubuntu this week. Checking download updates during install gave me a broken libc dependency graph which blocked installing ssh or gcc. Libpci-dev conflicts with gnome as far as I can tell, installing that took down X and the network. Changing to the server iso of the same version gave me an OS that can't use the builtin intel NIC, though the desktop version can. The driver errors on modprobe, -2.…
With arch, sometimes it breaks (not that often), it always is quite clear what went wrong (pacman errors are limpid, logs are clear). You'll find the fix on the Arch Linux News, in the wiki or the forums. Bonus you probably know your system better and as a side effect be more efficient in fixing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been installing Ubuntu this week. Checking download updates during install gave me a broken libc dependency graph which blocked installing ssh or gcc. Libpci-dev conflicts with gnome as far as I can tell, installing that took down X and the network. Changing to the server iso of the same version gave me an OS that can't use the builtin intel NIC, though the desktop version can. The driver errors on modprobe, -2.…
I'm now firmly confirmed that it is Ubuntu that fucks something up. Upgrades seem to work much better with plain Debian. We've seen many failures during upgrade, from both novice and advanced linux users, meanwhile one of our sysadmins accidentally upgraded Debian by two releases at once (From Debian 9 to 11) and it still "just worked"...
I run pure Debian stable everywhere I can in my personal life (laptops, desktops, servers). It's predictable and there's not a lot of planning at update OR upgrade time. Backup, push the button, reboot, done.
Just kidding, backups happen daily automatically, so it's just update and reboot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid simple and easy don't go well together. You either have automation to make things easy to the user, but then it's no longer simple. Or you require the user to do everything manually, but then it's no longer easy.
True. Maybe there's a viable middle ground between Ubuntu & Arch. Perhaps with a focus on the audience (e.g. a web dev distro), it becomes viable to make sensible compromises on both (easiness & simplicity) that result in a good combination for the user.
Pop_os! is coming from the other direction, but I found I prefer using i3/sway instead as I had trouble configuring certain things about pop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"For this reason, I’m planning to install Debian instead on the new laptop I’ve ordered" Maybe have a look at manjaro, it is based on arch, but comes prepackaged, so you can just boot up the luve image and install, if everything works.
I’ve heard of Manjaro, but on the occasions when I’ve brought it up in conversation, people have almost unanimously warned me off from it in fairly strong terms… not entirely sure why, but that alone makes me reluctant to use it.
> The installation process, and the documentation behind it, lead to the third virtue: a complete installation tends to be very small and simple, because you only install the bits you need. If you don't know what bits you need, the documentation will help you to work it out, and the result is something that is both fairly minimal and that, with luck, you understand. You know what's in there because you installed it.…
If we could combine Ubuntu's easiness of use with Arch's simplicity and performance, that'd be my ideal distro for work. I love Arch for its simplicity and performance. But it just wasn't productive for me to get everyday tasks done. I'm not advanced Linux user, occasionally I'd need hours to get seemingly simple stuff done. For a hobby desktop, fine. For a work tool as a developer, I moved back to Ubuntu (though I h…
You're describing endeavourOS. It's Arch, but with an installer that gets you a sane default desktop quickly.
It's what I use now that I'm too old to waste all that time it takes to get Arch running properly