3 ms·

I don't think the post does an adequate job of why-not-linux. A distro like arch would be a natural choice for someone leaving OSX for a clean open-source (but

I don't think the post does an adequate job of why-not-linux. A distro like arch would be a natural choice for someone leaving OSX for a clean open-source (but pre-free) lifestyle, so I was surprised to see it (or something similar) not compared. Otherwise, some nice choices there I have to admit. i3 is my favorite WM. Going back to a desktop environment is like using a computer with missing fingers (works, but less efficient human-computer interface). The X220 is one of the best thinkpads around, make no bones about it.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The author listed non-invasiveness as a requirement, so that would presumably disqualify Arch on grounds of using ambiguously-named-software-that-provokes-flame-wars. Admittedly, I'm not entirely sure how well Arch is on the "doesn't break" and "doesn't waste my time" scales. I've been using Slackware for too long to know. (Also, he mentioned: "I tried running various Linux on my MacBook, but discovered everything I hate about managing Linux on a server platform is in fact amplified in a desktop context. It was less bad than I remembered from 10 years ago, but it was still a poor comparison to when OS X was good – again, for my requirements.")
- compactmani 11y ago
  It need not be arch that is compared as I would personally prefer to compare only free distros. The quote provided would be fine if the author explained what he/she didn't like about managing linux on a server and how it is amplified on the desktop.
kybernetyk 11y ago
Arch is really not the distro you want to run on your daily work machine. I played around with Arch and three times the system got wrecked by a simple update. It's just too much overhead to study the daily release notes to find out if the official update will break your system or not. Arch is a great system for people who like to work on linux. Just like oldtimers are great cars for people who like to to get their hands dirty.
4ad 11y ago
Not the author, although I do know the author. But I'd chose FreeBSD as well for ZFS and DTrace.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The author listed non-invasiveness as a requirement, so that would presumably disqualify Arch on grounds of using ambiguously-named-software-that-provokes-flame-wars. Admittedly, I'm not entirely sure how well Arch is on the "doesn't break" and "doesn't waste my time" scales. I've been using Slackware for too long to know. (Also, he mentioned: "I tried running various Linux on my MacBook, but discovered everything I hate about managing Linux on a server platform is in fact amplified in a desktop context. It was less bad than I remembered from 10 years ago, but it was still a poor comparison to when OS X was good – again, for my requirements.")

compactmani 11y ago
It need not be arch that is compared as I would personally prefer to compare only free distros. The quote provided would be fine if the author explained what he/she didn't like about managing linux on a server and how it is amplified on the desktop.

kybernetyk 11y ago

Arch is really not the distro you want to run on your daily work machine. I played around with Arch and three times the system got wrecked by a simple update. It's just too much overhead to study the daily release notes to find out if the official update will break your system or not. Arch is a great system for people who like to work on linux. Just like oldtimers are great cars for people who like to to get their hands dirty.

4ad 11y ago

Not the author, although I do know the author. But I'd chose FreeBSD as well for ZFS and DTrace.