The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
HootersMcBoobies said:
I did. I had Gnome 1.x running on LFS. I remember printing out the book in my university's computer lab, and going into the TA room to discretely grab more printer paper and hope my boss didn't notice that I was printing out a book. It took a week to setup LFS. Then I accidentally screwed up a bunch of permissions and had to built it again. This time it took 2~3 days. I think this was all on a Pentium III 667Mhz.

LFS was how I learned everything about Linux. I had a text file with all my ./configure flags and watched FreshMeat for new packages. I ran that thing for almost two who semesters before I went back to a real distro and I have never been more appreciative of package management.

LFS is what taught me the skills I needed to take jobs doing everything from embedded systems to big data center migration contracts.

I'm glad it's still around, and seems more active than Slackware (my first distro). I can honestly understand why a maintainer would target systemd if they only had time for one init system, despite how garbage it is. Maybe someone will fork and maintain a runit version.

Despite the change, I imagine it's still a valuable tool in understanding how Linux distributions are put together.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I don't know if you're mentally retarded or something, but there is a difference between Gnome 1 and Gnome 49 or whatever the current version is, you know?
 
HootersMcBoobies said:
Maybe someone will fork and maintain a runit version
Click to expand...
I think openrc might be the the way to go for a fork. I like them both, but I feel like openrc will give you something that covers all the same bases you would get with systemd, while still being able to either use a sysvinit base. Or using openrc-init if someone so chooses.

Runit is super simple (as in the suckless kind of simple), which isn't bad necessarily if that's what someone wants. I think openrc just gives a better middle ground.
 
I recently thought about moving from Debian Trixie to Debian Sid (or possibly Devuan Ceres since systemd has pissed me off lately) for more up-to-date packages (Nvidia/NVK drivers, I'm looking at you) and having .deb package software at once, however I'm worried that it will break more easily than anything Arch-based (I used Manjaro once, it was okayish but not good enough for me at the time with all of its Pamac issues and frequent reinstalls). Is installing Debian Sid/Devuan Ceres or anything Arch-based more worth it?
(I'm mostly looking for X11 compatibility and overall work experience/performance.)
 
Big Fish said:
anything Arch-based
Click to expand...
The only Arch-based distro to consider is Arch. Okay, maybe EOS (friendlier installation and... idk?) or Cachy (aggressively optimized for gaymers), but the former is basically Arch anyway and the latter is riskier. Avoid Manjaro at all costs.
Sid might be less stable technically, if it's more like Arch-testing than Arch proper, but someone better correct me on this one. @analrapist runs Sid, I think?
Bear in mind that if you want installers, you won't get them for Arch. Best you can do is use Flatpaks/AppImages or hope the software you need has a PKGBUILD in AUR (which most likely just takes the .rpm/.dev and unpacks it, you can write one yourself with basic bash knowledge or after seeing a few)
 
Max Weber said:
The only Arch-based distro to consider is Arch. Okay, maybe EOS (friendlier installation and... idk?) or Cachy (aggressively optimized for gaymers), but the former is basically Arch anyway and the latter is riskier. Avoid Manjaro at all costs.
Sid might be less stable technically, if it's more like Arch-testing than Arch proper, but someone better correct me on this one. @analrapist runs Sid, I think?
Bear in mind that if you want installers, you won't get them for Arch. Best you can do is use Flatpaks/AppImages or hope the software you need has a PKGBUILD in AUR (which most likely just takes the .rpm/.dev and unpacks it, you can write one yourself with basic bash knowledge or after seeing a few)
Click to expand...
And what exactly is wrong with manjaro? I've used it before and it was not so bad
 
The Big Bad D said:
It's run by retards that let their certs expire. Delaying updates breaks the AUR. The added value over Arch with archinstall is minor.
Click to expand...
hmm good to know. I tried arch directly but my experience was soured when i wrestled with hyprland lol.

I think i am to tired(lazy) for all that manual customizing

Linuxbros, got any recs for a good and consistent distro?
 
babyDunk said:
And what exactly is wrong with manjaro? I've used it before and it was not so bad
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit overblown if you wanna know the truth about it.

There are a few reasons though. The main thing is how they handle package updates. They're held back for a couple weeks to make sure no breakages occur (which these days I don't think is really necessary.), but that can cause problems with packages from the aur, which aren't held back. So if an aur package has dependencies on the normal arch packages. Then those are updated to work properly with a package from the normal repository. In some cases it can cause some issues. I think most of the time people will be fine though. Especially since there is a good chance you are building things from source from the aur. There are some cases where it's been known to cause problems though in the past.

The other issues are just complaints about some problems manjaro has caused in the past, and letting their web certificates lapse on their site.

I do think something closer to vanilla arch is better. I think most of the time manjaro will work fine.. They've definitely killed almost all the good grace they've had at this point through their various fuck ups though. Now days cachyos, or endeavoros are the main recommendations people give for an arch system with a desktop set up for you, and a graphical installer now.

Big Fish said:
or anything Arch-based more worth it?or anything Arch-based more worth it?
Click to expand...
I like arch based distributions personally. I've tried everything, but I always ended up back on arch. I think people get the idea that arch is more complex than it really is. It gets the reputation of being advanced, or super technical, and difficult to use. It really isn't though. At least if you are able to use the terminal. People that are allergic to the cli might not want to use it. Outside of that, if you can use debian, with apt, you can use arch.

I like it because it's simple, and it gets out of my way. Also I heavily prefer the rolling release style of updates. Most distros I end up feeling like I'm fighting them to make it work how I want. Arch has just been nice. It's nothing special, which is kind of the goal really. They don't do too much to change the packages from upstream, and tend to update shortly after upstream does. They don't make too many assumptions about what the system will be used for, they just give you a base for you to do what you want with. But they make it pretty easy for you to do most things, with mimimal effort.

If you do want to use arch, you can use the archinstall script, and now days they have a variety of desktops you can choose from, and other things that you can install from the tui. If you want a graphical installer. I think the two mentioned above are probably the best bet.
 
babyDunk said:
hmm good to know. I tried arch directly but my experience was soured when i wrestled with hyprland lol.

I think i am to tired(lazy) for all that manual customizing

Linuxbros, got any recs for a good and consistent distro?
Click to expand...
Manual customization is tiring, but personalization and manual configuration is the whole point of most window managers (as opposed to desktop environments). What drew you to Arch & Hyprland?

What do you mean by "good and consistent"? With such a vague question you might as well just skim/search through the many existing posts in this thread discussing and recommending distros.
Mint and Ubuntu are both popular. They don't have the "unstable" reputation that Arch does.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:
This is one of the many problems I have with debian. The "version freeze" they do. And refusal to patch in any bug fixes, only security fixes. It means if they just so happen to freeze on a shitty version of some software that has a bug, guess what? You are stuck with a broken version for years
Click to expand...
Debian Backports addresses this issue.
 
Willy McGilly said:
What drew you to Arch & Hyprland?
Click to expand...
I took an interest in Ricing, and hyprland builds seemed the most appealing to me(Yes, i was on reddit)
Willy McGilly said:
What do you mean by "good and consistent"?
Click to expand...
Well a replier brought up issues manjaro had like letting their certs expire, having updates delayed/bad and the developers/maintainers being retarded.

I would like to avoid all that is all
Willy McGilly said:
With such a vague question you might as well just skim/search through the many existing posts in this thread discussing and recommending distros.
Click to expand...
I shall!
 
Max Weber said:
Sid might be less stable technically, if it's more like Arch-testing than Arch proper, but someone better correct me on this one. @analrapist runs Sid, I think?
Click to expand...
I am on Gentoo these days. I ran Sid most of a decade.

My experience is that Sid was generally more stable than Arch proper, but not substantially so. My experience may be an outlier. The big problem with Arch always comes back to the AUR. When it works right, it's all right. But given that most of the software I use has to be built from scratch anyhow on Arch, may as well just bite the bullet and use Gentoo. If you're fucking around in the AUR to any substantial extent, just switch to a distro that's properly source-based and stop pulling your hair out. The AUR/official dichotomy in Arch is its worst feature. I never really got into DIYing my own Debian packages with checkinstall, I always just did the default autotools/Makefile PREFIX install to /usr/local.
 
babyDunk said:
Linuxbros, got any recs for a good and consistent distro?
Click to expand...

Linux Mint is impressively consistent, few things under the hood change at any given time and what's changing on the surface is practical and relevant to a desktop-minded user experience. The biggest two changes as of recently are the system information panel and a fingerprint scanner utilities, the former is a cleaned up improvement and the latter is a nice new feature for laptop users.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:
This is one of the many problems I have with debian. The "version freeze" they do. And refusal to patch in any bug fixes, only security fixes. It means if they just so happen to freeze on a shitty version of some software that has a bug, guess what? You are stuck with a broken version for years, or you need to use sid, or some other way of installing the program. I'm not a fan of that approach at all for a desktop os.

Also I don't really want pedophile hands touching the operating system I use, I know troons are working on all the linux distros, but I can look over that. Knowingly having Biche work for you is a lot worse.
Click to expand...
Other than backports, what I think is a good idea is to have a stable Debian/Devuan base and if you want some specific piece of software with a fresh version you can download the .deb package and install it in ~/.local/

In general IMO rolling release makes no sense, unless you want your system to break so you can learn fixing it.
 
If you're good at reading and troubleshooting then go for arch. (I installed with endeavour and my only biggest problem was not having home folder backups)
 
The Big Bad D said:
It's run by retards that let their certs expire. Delaying updates breaks the AUR. The added value over Arch with archinstall is minor.
Click to expand...
prollyanotherlurker said:
The other issues are just complaints about some problems manjaro has caused in the past, and letting their web certificates lapse on their site.
Click to expand...
It's not only that Manjaro let their cert expire. It's the proposed workaround they put on their website: set your system clock back before the expiration date so you won't get cert errors.

It is a mark of utter retardation that anyone in the Manjaro team thought that was an appropriate solution.

Edit: Fix quote.
 
Last edited:
Manjaro could have just made an independent "Arch Linux Competitor" without breaking the scope and structure of Arch Linux and the AUR, and that would have saved so much trouble. Being retards wouldn't help things but at least it wouldn't be at the expense of Arch's reputation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom