2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoHey, 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.