3 ms·

I wonder why Arch as well, because it's a rolling distro so a terrible model for a commercial/production product/service, but why no *BSD is easy: bad modern hw

by kkfx 2y ago

I wonder why Arch as well, because it's a rolling distro so a terrible model for a commercial/production product/service, but why no *BSD is easy: bad modern hw support, Debian because of a rock solid base but extremely old distro with many issues especially in customizing it (I'm serious D/I and preseed are HORRIFIC). So I wonder why not NixOS since it's safe updates (an update essentially can't break anything, not necessarily true for database etc outside Nix but still much saver than any other non-declarative distro) and effortless rollbacks, customization etc. It's community is problematic right now, but it's still the most complete modern distro we have, with Guix due to the GNU design a bit behind and all the others FAR behind.

mmis1000 2y ago
Steam does a lot of upstream graphic/proton works. A distro like debian that update once a year is going to be a bad idea. It means a fix in graphic stack or proton will either, 1. deliver after a whole year, and get actually feedback after two years. 2. require a lot of backport so steam can actually use it. Rolling update in the other end, suits well with the changing nature of graphic stacks.