5 ms·
I'm 100% the opposite side of this argument. Running your entire stack locally is a silly trend that cost us a decade of productivity. In the early to late 2000
by berkle4455 4y ago
I'm 100% the opposite side of this argument. Running your entire stack locally is a silly trend that cost us a decade of productivity. In the early to late 2000's the remote-dev approach was very common. It wasn't "push a button and you have a dev instance!" easy but it yielded similar results.
- aaomidi 4y agoI'm slowly getting to the point of "I want my computers to be a thin client around some config files". Treat your computer like cattle, rather than a pet, etc etc.
- intelVISA 4y ago[Obligatory Nix stanning here]
- eikenberry 4y agoSame. I'm considering using a flatpak for this as it seems to have an interesting feature set to build a pre-setup development environment on top of. Just want my shell setup, tooling configs and a few other things bundled up in an easy to use fashion. Currently I just have a git repo with my setup mostly in it (sans executables) with a way to get it going on a new machine. It works but is rather hackish and requires a bit of work to keep in sync.
- raverbashing 4y agoUnless your dev environment literally took one decade to set-up, then it didn't take "a decade of productivity" ;) For people who knew how to run vms or even chroots, this was not a big issue