Using the same Arch Linux installation for a decade

Post by nullwarp » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

axby wrote: post #106

zdragnar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that some people don't like tinkering. They want something that will always Just Work. Some of my friends who were long time linux uses switched to macs and stayed there. MacOS wasn't that for me- brew was the cause of no shortage of pain, but even that could have been lived with. It's also not exactly stable- one company I worked for (about 7 years total) had a blanket request that people not update OSX to new…

I recently got a macbook for work and I can't believe how many minor things just can't be changed. I don't think you can change the date format in the top right. It seems like you can't get rid of that damn dock entirely without killing important processes and breaking things. (I'm able to hide it and put it in the left, so it's mostly out of the way, but it seems so anti-user to force this interface on everyone). I…

Post by bananaowl » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

bstamour wrote: post #28

malermeister wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Arch is basically the final destination all that distro hopping gets you to. No reason to hop once you've arrived.

I used arch around 2008 or so, then distro-hopped to Slackware, when I remain to this day. Some of us escape.

Post by adamdusty » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #34

I recently switched to an arch flavor because the AUR had a lot of little small utilities that make life better on wayland. Also, it's quite easy to install the latest version of golang and rust, etc. Pros: Documentation is excellent. Better than even Gentoo or Ubuntu's docs. Cons: Arch doesn't have an installer, and seems almost militantly against providing one, or a lot of other little utilities that could improve…

Post by ratorx » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

giantrobot wrote: post #79

Skunkleton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to defend arch here. In my experience, Arch's main focus is on upholding a simple consistent architecture. There are tools that do something like the bare minimum required work, and then excellent documentation so that the end user can correctly perform the remaining required work manually (or via their own scripts). As a result, there are certain features that will probably never be implemented. For exa…

> Another example is installers. Writing a basic installer for a single machine is easy. Writing an installer that covers any machine is very hard. Writing an installer that covers any machine with any configuration the user might want is impossible. This is a cop out. An installer doesn't need to cover every option a user might want. An installer only covering popular options/configurations is only a problem if the…

Post by gspr » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

jcelerier wrote: post #93

wooque wrote: post #90

>my experience doesn’t match the common notion that Arch Linux is unstable Arch is unstable, as in, package versions constantly change and can (will) introduce bugs and regressions. Debian is considered stable because apart from security updates package versions are set in stone til the next release, so there won't be any surprises. This is stable/unstable difference, that doesn't mean that you can't break your OS an…

> Debian is considered stable because apart from security updates package versions are set in stone til the next release, so there won't be any surprises. which is not what the rest of the world means by "stable" when talking about software, so there is in practice a lot of surprise for users coming to Debian when they hear "stable" thinking that it means "no bugs" when it actually means "no changes"