3 ms·

> I gave up on Linux a while back after I bricked my computer because I missed an update on Arch Linux (no joke) if you did not want a high maintenance distro

by graemep 5mo ago

> I gave up on Linux a while back after I bricked my computer because I missed an update on Arch Linux (no joke) if you did not want a high maintenance distro why choose Arch? Its meant for the opposite of a Mac user - people who want to control everything, vs people who want it all taken care of for them. There are lots of things in the middle. > I don’t have time to futz around installing Linux distros instead of getting laid like I did as a teenager. Install one and resist the temptation to distro-hop. Even better, buy a machine with Linux preinstalled.

Gud 5mo ago
What are these Linux distributions “in the middle”? I use FreeBSD and Arch primarily. FreeBSD gives me a lot of customisation options(ports ftw) while at the same time, it’s remarkably stable. With Arch I find myself praying shit won’t break with every update, and a lot of 3rd party software just don’t work. Hence why I keep returning to FreeBSD for my servers.
- graemep 5mo ago
  Depending where on the rather broad spectrum between Arch and MacOS you want to be (GP switched from Arch to MacOS because Arch needs maintenance and can break) I would say any of Manjaro, Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, RH and many more. > Hence why I keep returning to FreeBSD for my servers. It sounds like you were using Arch on a sever. You use Arch if you are happy fixing breaking changes. its not for something you just want to keep running. Specifically for servers Debian is an obvious choice. Suse and a few others are fine too. Possibly Alpine if you want something lighter. Nix if it appeals to you. Void is supposed to be a stable rolling distro and is probably appealing to a BSD user. Many more.
  - Gud 5mo ago
    I have never used Arch on a server. I have yet to find a suitable Linux distribution for the server. The distributions you mention, Debian as an example, are not at all comparable to FreeBSD. What many Linux users(that I presume that you are), don’t realise about FreeBSD is that while it’s base is stable and well built, ports and packages are well supported and gives me supreme flexibility. I have not yet seen such a Linux distribution.

by graemep 5mo ago

Gud 5mo ago

What are these Linux distributions “in the middle”? I use FreeBSD and Arch primarily. FreeBSD gives me a lot of customisation options(ports ftw) while at the same time, it’s remarkably stable. With Arch I find myself praying shit won’t break with every update, and a lot of 3rd party software just don’t work. Hence why I keep returning to FreeBSD for my servers.

graemep 5mo ago
Depending where on the rather broad spectrum between Arch and MacOS you want to be (GP switched from Arch to MacOS because Arch needs maintenance and can break) I would say any of Manjaro, Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, RH and many more. > Hence why I keep returning to FreeBSD for my servers. It sounds like you were using Arch on a sever. You use Arch if you are happy fixing breaking changes. its not for something you just want to keep running. Specifically for servers Debian is an obvious choice. Suse and a few others are fine too. Possibly Alpine if you want something lighter. Nix if it appeals to you. Void is supposed to be a stable rolling distro and is probably appealing to a BSD user. Many more.
- Gud 5mo ago
  I have never used Arch on a server. I have yet to find a suitable Linux distribution for the server. The distributions you mention, Debian as an example, are not at all comparable to FreeBSD. What many Linux users(that I presume that you are), don’t realise about FreeBSD is that while it’s base is stable and well built, ports and packages are well supported and gives me supreme flexibility. I have not yet seen such a Linux distribution.