5 ms·

I would 100% agree with this list. Linux as a desktop has come so far, KDE is great for people who prefer the windows-like workflow, and Gnome for people who p

I would 100% agree with this list. Linux as a desktop has come so far, KDE is great for people who prefer the windows-like workflow, and Gnome for people who prefer a mac-like workflow. (Keyword there is like, for everyone who is about to nitpick) The dumbest thing is as you said the infighting over the same things.. that and the "This is better because it's harder, and thus I'm better than you because I'm using the harder option". Those need to go away. Like Arch could offer the user a choice at the start.. do a manual install or use arch-install (the guided option).. that would go a long way.. also put the AUR helpers in the main repo... Why i have to manually install Yay every new install... It's beyond me. Flatpak is amazing, Gnome is amazing, Linux app support now is amazing. Proton is amazing. Seriously it's just remove the two barriers of entry 1. The "Linux is hard" rhetoric which turns users away 2. The easier install of applications (this is happening with flatpak and other things)

pdimitar 4y ago
I have the same problem with Arch so I gave up and started using Manjaro. It's a much better experience for my burned out brain.
- 3np 4y ago
  I'd encourage you to check out EndeavorOS. While they did have a breaking update of their own, I have much higher confidence in them delivering a consistent experience than Manjaro.
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    Can you summarize the differences and why are they favoring Endeavor? I only heard some hand-wavy claims about Manjaro maintainers being non-constructive or some such, and I openly admit that I find those claims unconvincing.
    - silisili 4y ago
      I can, but my info may be slightly out of date, but I was in the space. Manjaro's head is cluless, and that's putting it nicely. More than once their SSL cert expired, and rather than fix it, just told everyone to set their system clock back. He effectively stole a bunch of code and s/myname/manjaro the entire codebase. To the point I had to add serverside code blocking their users hitting my server. They did not have(and may still not have) anyone who knew anything about the linux codebase, but still decided to hold packages in the name of 'security.' So zero days took much longer to fix. And introduced bugs still got introduced, just later. It's not like RedHat or Ubuntu who have real professionals checking things... it's just a hold. Endeavor guys were super nice. They contacted us asking to work together, telling us their goals, etc. By that point we were mostly moved onto other things so couldn't offer much help. Endeavor's system is much smarter and safer. It puts you on Arch repos, and doesn't hold packages. That's ideally what an Arch installer should do, no matter what the neckbeards on arch forums squeal about.
- intothemild 4y ago
  I personally went to Fedora. I'm not a fan of Manjaros very fast package testing, there's apparently issues there. I'd stay with mainline arch. That said. My point wasn't that Arch is hard or something. But that Arch could do some small things to make it much easier to have wider adoption... Its an example. There's things that other distros could do to solve this too. The amount of "you use Ubuntu? That's a babys distro, I use Gentoo because I'm smarter!" That shit needs to go.
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    > That shit needs to go. 120% agreed. Much like you I want distros to be a bit more ergonomic and easy to start with, and that's why I chose an Arch derivative because I wanted Arch plus some convenience on top. RE: short / shallow testing, that's likely true but I interpreted it as: "we will monitor if a breaking bug is posted somewhere and if that doesn't happen in 2-4 weeks then we deem the package good enough". While many might find that not professional, I don't care as much. I need a fast-moving distro for my dev machines. I can't afford to be several versions behind on a number of packages. For my servers it's still 50/50 because kernel updates have legitimately improved the performance of one of them and I really wouldn't want to wait for that update for some 2-3 years like Debian does. But then again I'm not protected against sudden breakage either so maybe there's a distro out there that sits in between the two extremes. Perhaps Fefora?
    - intothemild 4y ago
      Hey, if you're ok with the packages in Manjaro that's fine... Kind of my whole point of this thread is, you do you... If you like it, that's all that matters. As for servers.. that's where I kind of shift from bleeding edge to stability. I have a homelab, and it's a mix of debian and FreeBSD VMs. I love both of those options for servers.. debian because it supports cloudinit a little better and is stable, and FreeBSD when i don't need all the cloudinit support.. As for fedora as an OS Desktop yes, Server ... Probably not. There's better choices out there. Its good yeah. But it just seems to be a bit bloated for my needs. Fedora Desktop is really really good. Its not Arch levels of bleeding edge, (it can be with Fedora Rawhide) but it's close enough. Especially when you enable the repos that have the latest packages.

pdimitar 4y ago

I have the same problem with Arch so I gave up and started using Manjaro. It's a much better experience for my burned out brain.

3np 4y ago
I'd encourage you to check out EndeavorOS. While they did have a breaking update of their own, I have much higher confidence in them delivering a consistent experience than Manjaro.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  Can you summarize the differences and why are they favoring Endeavor? I only heard some hand-wavy claims about Manjaro maintainers being non-constructive or some such, and I openly admit that I find those claims unconvincing.
  - silisili 4y ago
    I can, but my info may be slightly out of date, but I was in the space. Manjaro's head is cluless, and that's putting it nicely. More than once their SSL cert expired, and rather than fix it, just told everyone to set their system clock back. He effectively stole a bunch of code and s/myname/manjaro the entire codebase. To the point I had to add serverside code blocking their users hitting my server. They did not have(and may still not have) anyone who knew anything about the linux codebase, but still decided to hold packages in the name of 'security.' So zero days took much longer to fix. And introduced bugs still got introduced, just later. It's not like RedHat or Ubuntu who have real professionals checking things... it's just a hold. Endeavor guys were super nice. They contacted us asking to work together, telling us their goals, etc. By that point we were mostly moved onto other things so couldn't offer much help. Endeavor's system is much smarter and safer. It puts you on Arch repos, and doesn't hold packages. That's ideally what an Arch installer should do, no matter what the neckbeards on arch forums squeal about.
intothemild 4y ago
I personally went to Fedora. I'm not a fan of Manjaros very fast package testing, there's apparently issues there. I'd stay with mainline arch. That said. My point wasn't that Arch is hard or something. But that Arch could do some small things to make it much easier to have wider adoption... Its an example. There's things that other distros could do to solve this too. The amount of "you use Ubuntu? That's a babys distro, I use Gentoo because I'm smarter!" That shit needs to go.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  > That shit needs to go. 120% agreed. Much like you I want distros to be a bit more ergonomic and easy to start with, and that's why I chose an Arch derivative because I wanted Arch plus some convenience on top. RE: short / shallow testing, that's likely true but I interpreted it as: "we will monitor if a breaking bug is posted somewhere and if that doesn't happen in 2-4 weeks then we deem the package good enough". While many might find that not professional, I don't care as much. I need a fast-moving distro for my dev machines. I can't afford to be several versions behind on a number of packages. For my servers it's still 50/50 because kernel updates have legitimately improved the performance of one of them and I really wouldn't want to wait for that update for some 2-3 years like Debian does. But then again I'm not protected against sudden breakage either so maybe there's a distro out there that sits in between the two extremes. Perhaps Fefora?
  - intothemild 4y ago
    Hey, if you're ok with the packages in Manjaro that's fine... Kind of my whole point of this thread is, you do you... If you like it, that's all that matters. As for servers.. that's where I kind of shift from bleeding edge to stability. I have a homelab, and it's a mix of debian and FreeBSD VMs. I love both of those options for servers.. debian because it supports cloudinit a little better and is stable, and FreeBSD when i don't need all the cloudinit support.. As for fedora as an OS Desktop yes, Server ... Probably not. There's better choices out there. Its good yeah. But it just seems to be a bit bloated for my needs. Fedora Desktop is really really good. Its not Arch levels of bleeding edge, (it can be with Fedora Rawhide) but it's close enough. Especially when you enable the repos that have the latest packages.