Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From macOS to Arch Linux

juxt.pro

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 256 posts

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#231

Post by diffeomorphism »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #205
diffeomorphism wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not PP, but to me it means much less manual intervention/more hooks etc. . For instance, for debian I can just turn on automatic updates and basically never need manual intervention. For arch I am not supposed to use automatic updates and have to (!) read the news. Why? Why does arch need more manual intervention? Sure, I can do that but it just seems like a pointless waste of time.

> For instance, for debian I can just turn on automatic updates and basically never need manual intervention. I question what sort of updates you're actually getting. Debian is known for being extremely outdated. This is a major reason for its stability. Sometimes things change way too much. Sometimes they change in incompatible ways. Sometimes changes come from upstream and there's nothing the distribution can do ab…

> years old.

where years> users are expected...

The difference is what is considered "unavoidable". In particular, on other distros packagers are supposed to ... and only if that is not possible users are supposed to ...

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#232

Post by jorgemf »

simion314 wrote: post #176
jorgemf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when gnome doesn't start up in arch it is due extensions which are not supported either gnome or arch. But you usually find them in AUR, which fix your issues quite quickly. I haven't had any issues with gnome 3 in arch since they move to it, apart from extensions and a couple of things not well integrated in Wayland+gnome. Said that, it has been much more a nightmare for me to install packages in docker imag…

My point is that in Arch you can't start your work day by updating your system, you might have to fix shit instead of working. With an LTS distro I know when teh notification for updates appears that is a security thing and it is safe to update. >Said that, it has been much more a nightmare for me to install packages in docker images of Ubuntu. I am assuming you are trying to install something outside the official re…

My point is that will lose more time installed unsupported packages than losing some time when arch breaks, because it rarely breaks (less than once a year). And fixes usually take 5 minutes

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#233

Post by randomluck040 »

SxC97 wrote: post #226
randomluck040 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got my first Mac ever: a MacBook Air M1. Coming from Arch I thought I would handle it easy. How bad can it be? It just works, right?… right? So I wanted a laptop instead of a desktop computer and Framework isn’t available where I’m from so I went for the MacBook. In terms of performance, all is fine. Some OS based decisions make me want to put everything back into the packaging and send the thing back. 1) I mi…

Fn+Backspace operates as forward delete and can be combined with shift, command, and option for text editing. I’m pretty sure Option + Clicking on a dock icon will minimize it. If you are confused with how the keyboard shortcuts work, here’s a quick guide. The command key is the main operator for system wide shortcuts and major application shortcuts. Command + shift is for secondary app shortcuts Command + option is…

Thanks for the "option + dock icon", that helps a lot!

I knew about the forward delete shortcut but it's just another shortcut I have to remember each time I want to use it. The only reason I don't get the design decision is because I've learned it in a different manner I guess.

Outside of that, thanks for the reply. I think I got the option key better. It just gives you alternative stuff you can do in the same menu/with the same shortcut. I don't even remember why I had to use control but the positioning is also very awkward in my opinion.

Thank you!

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#234

Post by wyclif »

foobarian wrote: post #103
sunaurus wrote: post #10

I just completed my migration in the opposite direction after using Arch Linux as my daily driver for ~10 years. I think Arch Linux is by far the better OS for pretty much all power users, but when using multiple devices, the benefits of the "Apple Ecosystem" outweigh the benefits of an amazing desktop OS for me, which is why I ended up switching to Mac OS. Some key points which I believe are much worse on Mac: * No…

The Alt-Tab behavior on MacOS across multiple screens is really annoying. Also window resizing behaviors. If there was a way to override those it would be an unmatched system/environment.

I've said this many times on this forum, but the fact that macOS doesn't natively allow users to snap windows to the edge is incredibly annoying, and is one of those indications of the wrong and stubborn choices made in the design of the OS.

Most Linux distros don't assume they know how users want their windows arranged. macOS says, "We, in fact, do know better than users how large windows should be and where they should be placed."

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#235

Post by randomluck040 »

least wrote: post #208
randomluck040 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got my first Mac ever: a MacBook Air M1. Coming from Arch I thought I would handle it easy. How bad can it be? It just works, right?… right? So I wanted a laptop instead of a desktop computer and Framework isn’t available where I’m from so I went for the MacBook. In terms of performance, all is fine. Some OS based decisions make me want to put everything back into the packaging and send the thing back. 1) I mi…

> The keyboard shortcuts feel complicated for the sake of complicatedness. Mac's shortcut paradigms developed independently of IBM's CUA so they're definitely not complicated for the sake of complexity. I actually think for use with a unix-based operating system, they're much more sensible. There's no overlap with terminal commands that are mostly based on control, thus you don't need to remap basic things like pasti…

I've discussed the shortcut thing with a friend who prefers the shortcuts on Mac, too. At the end it comes down to what you're used to and what you've learned and used for the past years I guess.

I'll definitely take a look at karabiner elements - I've seen it being mentioned in some kind of Apple subreddit as well alongside software for window snapping or at least "dividing" the screen as in Linux and Windows. Thanks for the answer!

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#237

Post by [deleted] »

lgunsch wrote: post #81
apetresc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing Arch with Gentoo or something - the Arch package manager is not from-source, it ships binaries just like apt. Perhaps you're thinking of the AUR, which does usually just host the PKGBUILD which you run makepkg on directly to compile, but that's analogous to something like an Ubuntu PPA, not the core package manager. The main thing that people like about it is the rolling release model; new pa…

I have used Arch Linux for the past 8 years. I've had 3 installations on four different laptops (I migrated one installation to a second laptop). Your comment would be a really great description of my experience.

[deleted]

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#238

Post by HKH2 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #220
lgunsch wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have used Arch Linux for the past 8 years. I've had 3 installations on four different laptops (I migrated one installation to a second laptop). Your comment would be a really great description of my experience.

Same here. I really don't understand why it has a reputation for instability. I use it on my home server.

With Arch, I've had several times on separate machines when after updating I have had to mess around with recovery stuff, manually boot and reinstall grub or whatever.

I really don't need cutting edge packages, so I don't use it any more, but I understand why people would want a lean system by default.

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#239

Post by matheusmoreira »

pxc wrote: post #227
matheusmoreira wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they both have more robust dependency resolvers (and dnf's is actually complete[1]) > 1: See the discussion of completeness here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.07851.pdf That's interesting. In what ways are these resolvers superior to pacman? I never had dependency resolution issues. Can you help me understand with concrete examples? Pacman is not cited anywhere on that paper. > you don't need to resort to one of a do…

> That's interesting. In what ways are these resolvers superior to pacman? One good example is that even though PKGBUILDs can contain version constraints (see an example here[1]), that metadata is not always present and so it is underutilized. Pacman doesn't support ‘partial upgrades’[2] (once you refresh your package lists, installing anything is ‘unsupported’ until you upgrade everything ), and this is why. (I also…

> Pacman doesn't support ‘partial upgrades’[2] (once you refresh your package lists, installing anything is ‘unsupported’ until you upgrade everything), and this is why.

> Another depsolver related issue in Pacman (related to the lack of partial upgrades) is the lack of distinction between upgrades and dist-upgrades.

Yes. Personally, I believe that these are features rather than issues. I don't ever want my system to be in a partially upgraded state. I treat inability to fully upgrade as a maintenance problem that I have to solve.

I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who get a lot of use out of these partial upgrades. I'm not one of them. Stuff like apt updates vs upgrades only confused me when I used those systems. I suspect other Arch users have similar opinions.

> every single time you upgrade, if you've installed anything from the AUR, it can leave your system with broken packages

> there's no CI that tests for ABI changes

Yes, those are fair points. I suppose I don't feel this pain because I don't actually use the AUR very often. When ABIs are broken, Arch maintainers will recompile and update all affected packages. Naturally, AUR packages will not be included...

Re: From macOS to Arch Linux

#240

Post by simion314 »

jorgemf wrote: post #232
simion314 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that in Arch you can't start your work day by updating your system, you might have to fix shit instead of working. With an LTS distro I know when teh notification for updates appears that is a security thing and it is safe to update. >Said that, it has been much more a nightmare for me to install packages in docker images of Ubuntu. I am assuming you are trying to install something outside the official re…

My point is that will lose more time installed unsupported packages than losing some time when arch breaks, because it rarely breaks (less than once a year). And fixes usually take 5 minutes

I think it depends on the user and hardware. Many years ago I had a laptop with an AMD GPU and CPU, it was new like 1 year old when AMD drop support for the driver. If I wanted decent compositing on Linux I had to stay with an older kernel and Xorg version so I used old Ubuntu LTSes and debian at that time. And i decided to never use AMD, I got an Intel+NVIDIA PC, but now it seems NVIDIA is the one with shit drivers, and I don't change my hardware often so I will continue using my GTX-970 as many years it will hold.
Post reply on HN