4 ms·

Debian and Ubuntu are nice, but not exactly bleeding edge. IMHO arch is far better, and comes with an extra bonus: you can use pacman just like on MSYS2 (Windo

by csdvrx 4y ago

Debian and Ubuntu are nice, but not exactly bleeding edge. IMHO arch is far better, and comes with an extra bonus: you can use pacman just like on MSYS2 (Windows)

culopatin 4y ago
I use arch btw. It’s better because we the arch users say so. I’m an arch user btw.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  That's not arguing in good faith. Here's a simple example: you want hyprland, patheon and interception-caps2esc on ubuntu? Good luck! On arch, it's just a pacman away. You don't like how arch is perceived as elitist? Use manjaro. Ubuntu had its place in the last century, but with most development happening on git you need a rolling release.
  - culopatin 4y ago
    It’s not funny if you have to explain it but it was mostly a joke, without rolling eyes. Also making fun a bit about how easy it is to make a claim that something is better than another thing and leave it at that, which is very common in every population but in particular something you hear from the arch one. I use Arch btw.
    - csdvrx 4y ago
      > It’s not funny if you have to explain it but it was mostly a joke, without rolling eyes. Poe law strikes again! My apologies then, because I known how Arch can have this reputation. But Arch is just so good! Ubuntu and RedHat seem to be stuck in the past: it's not just about rolling releases, but many small details that pile up. FYI I also find Alpine very interesting.
      - alex_smart 4y ago
        > Ubuntu and RedHat seem to be stuck in the past Like offering users a GUI click-through installer?
        csdvrx 4y ago
        > Like offering users a GUI click-through installer? I can't say if it's a joke or if you are serious. But if you like an installer, there's manjaro. Personally, I think install shouldn't need a click-through installer: it should be done by a commandline, to have a finer control over all the details. With Ubuntu, I only used the installer iso to type Control-Shift-A to get a terminal, install rsync and do my tinkering.
        nortonham 4y ago
        you can't control details with a GUI?
        csdvrx 4y ago
        Then can you tell me how to use the ubuntu GUI install to a ZFS encrypted root, without zsys, without grub but with a .efi packed kernel? Or how can you mount the efi partition to new systemd location /efi instead of /boot/efi (ex: if you're not using grub) without breaking the install? There are just too many choices for too many people. It's best not to play, and let it be a commandline problem. You rarely have to reinstall without another OS or boot media, so doing a chroot and copy-pasting the right commands (or rsync or untar a working master image) is just simpler.
        alex_smart 4y ago
        I was obviously being sarcastic, but the sarcasm was earnest. For the most part, there shouldn't be any details to control. Just pick defaults that work for 99% users and let them get on with their life. >But if you like an installer, there's manjaro. Manjaro is not Arch. My comment was a criticism of Arch Linux, not Manjaro.
rc00 4y ago
If you want bleeding edge Debian as a rolling release, sid is there. It's all a matter of preference.
- nortonham 4y ago
  and sid has proved to be very "stable" for me
Lindby 4y ago
In a lot of situations, stable is better than bleeding edge. It depends on the use case. For example, my personal computer is running Debian Sid (i.e bleeding edge, dev track) while my computer for work is using the latest Debian stable.

by csdvrx 4y ago

Debian and Ubuntu are nice, but not exactly bleeding edge. IMHO arch is far better, and comes with an extra bonus: you can use pacman just like on MSYS2 (Windows)

culopatin 4y ago

I use arch btw. It’s better because we the arch users say so. I’m an arch user btw.

csdvrx 4y ago
That's not arguing in good faith. Here's a simple example: you want hyprland, patheon and interception-caps2esc on ubuntu? Good luck! On arch, it's just a pacman away. You don't like how arch is perceived as elitist? Use manjaro. Ubuntu had its place in the last century, but with most development happening on git you need a rolling release.
- culopatin 4y ago
  It’s not funny if you have to explain it but it was mostly a joke, without rolling eyes. Also making fun a bit about how easy it is to make a claim that something is better than another thing and leave it at that, which is very common in every population but in particular something you hear from the arch one. I use Arch btw.
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    > It’s not funny if you have to explain it but it was mostly a joke, without rolling eyes. Poe law strikes again! My apologies then, because I known how Arch can have this reputation. But Arch is just so good! Ubuntu and RedHat seem to be stuck in the past: it's not just about rolling releases, but many small details that pile up. FYI I also find Alpine very interesting.
    - alex_smart 4y ago
      > Ubuntu and RedHat seem to be stuck in the past Like offering users a GUI click-through installer?
      - csdvrx 4y ago
        > Like offering users a GUI click-through installer? I can't say if it's a joke or if you are serious. But if you like an installer, there's manjaro. Personally, I think install shouldn't need a click-through installer: it should be done by a commandline, to have a finer control over all the details. With Ubuntu, I only used the installer iso to type Control-Shift-A to get a terminal, install rsync and do my tinkering.
        nortonham 4y ago
        you can't control details with a GUI?
        csdvrx 4y ago
        Then can you tell me how to use the ubuntu GUI install to a ZFS encrypted root, without zsys, without grub but with a .efi packed kernel? Or how can you mount the efi partition to new systemd location /efi instead of /boot/efi (ex: if you're not using grub) without breaking the install? There are just too many choices for too many people. It's best not to play, and let it be a commandline problem. You rarely have to reinstall without another OS or boot media, so doing a chroot and copy-pasting the right commands (or rsync or untar a working master image) is just simpler.
        alex_smart 4y ago
        I was obviously being sarcastic, but the sarcasm was earnest. For the most part, there shouldn't be any details to control. Just pick defaults that work for 99% users and let them get on with their life. >But if you like an installer, there's manjaro. Manjaro is not Arch. My comment was a criticism of Arch Linux, not Manjaro.

rc00 4y ago

If you want bleeding edge Debian as a rolling release, sid is there. It's all a matter of preference.

nortonham 4y ago
and sid has proved to be very "stable" for me

Lindby 4y ago

In a lot of situations, stable is better than bleeding edge. It depends on the use case. For example, my personal computer is running Debian Sid (i.e bleeding edge, dev track) while my computer for work is using the latest Debian stable.