- Joined
- Aug 2, 2019
The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice
- Thread starter tehpope
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
To rice with window managers and to run neofetch, fortune, and sl in the terminal.
Bongsnake McGee
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
I have a burning hatred of systemD, so I hang out in the Artix world when I need bleeding edge software, and I run Slackware when I need stability.
Or I run a *BSD when I need something that's actually a good OS
Or I run a *BSD when I need something that's actually a good OS
Coffee Anon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2019
Do you run those all simultaneously, or do you mean you've switched between on various machines? If the former, may I ask why?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
I have several machines running 1 distro each. I've never actually needed to dual-boot 2 different linux distros, although the idea is interesting.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
99.9% of the time, its fine. If you use the stable branch of Manjaro, it takes a few weeks for the new updates to come through as they test it. And its easy to switch to the other branches if you want. IIRC, I'm on unstable atm and no issues. Its basically running vanilla arch but with some Manjaro branding. The only real issue I've had was with Budgie screwing up one time and I had to switch to the git branch to get it back working.
The reason I switched over to Arch based distros in the first place was because Steam had issues on Debian and I've never encountered any issues with Steam on Arch/Antergos/Manjaro.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
Debian, it works. I've probably tried all the common flavors over the years, dont need alot. I just need telnet/ssh and tabbed terminal.
I also enjoy vanilla ice cream and sex in the missionary position.
I also enjoy vanilla ice cream and sex in the missionary position.
Shoggoth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
Interesting. Did someone ever bother to run comparisons for the latest goodies on the steam client on different hardware with different distros? Seems like there should be a definite answer there.
Admittedly, most of my animosity for Arch comes from Arch users, but I still don't get the point / main difference between using Arch over another rolling release like Tumbleweed, except for a bigger headache.
I see you are a man of taste and culture.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2017
While I still like Debian on the server. I've grown annoyed with Debian recently with how out of date some packages can get, even on sid/experimental. They just don't the maintainers, and they seem to be losing more than they're gaining: https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-winding-down/
I'll probably be going to Arch on my next installation, just because every time I check they have the package I want at the upstream version.
I'll probably be going to Arch on my next installation, just because every time I check they have the package I want at the upstream version.
Coffee Anon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2019
But why not use just 2 or 3? It seems like it would make your life simpler and allow for applying knowledge you gain of the system from one machine to the others?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
I use Gentoo, Arch, Kali, and BlackArch.
I've used most of the major distros stretching back 20 years. Windows 98se pissed me off, so I switched. Never really looked back.
For window manager, I switched to i3 some years back. I've been very happy with it.
Now for the flame war : vi or Emacs? nano
I've used most of the major distros stretching back 20 years. Windows 98se pissed me off, so I switched. Never really looked back.
For window manager, I switched to i3 some years back. I've been very happy with it.
Now for the flame war : vi or Emacs? nano
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2019
I seem to oscillate between Arch and Debian myself, for similar reasons.
Right now I'm currently running Debian Sid. I used to run Testing as a named non-rolling release that I'd upgrade every now and then, but got tired of getting fucked over by freeze. "Oh, you didn't fix this little bug in your package in time for hard freeze? Tough shit, you don't get to be included in the release packages anymore and now Yotsubaaa has to pull your package from Sid if she even wants to use it."
But as you said, even Sid isn't as current as you'd like it to be. So inevitably I'll get to a point where I say "Fuck it! If I'm doing this much source-compiling/configuring/doing all of this extra work to get stuff set up anyway, I'll just reinstall Arch." So that'll be an exhilarating weekend going back through the Arch
And each time I reinstall Arch I get a bit better at it, but inevitably I'll fuck up a configuration or package installation somewhere. So I'll fix it. Then I'll do that again... and again... and eventually I'll get to a point where I say "Fuck it! I just want this shit to work on the first try, is that so hard? Screw this, I'm going back to Sid."
So I'll reinstall Debian. And the system won't feel as much like it's mine anymore, but soon the Stockholm syndrome will kick in and I stop caring. Until the next time I need to compile a package from source or go hunting through documentation to fix some weird problem I'm having. At which point my never-ending cycle of torment begins anew.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
>using vi, ever
Come on man, at least use neovim.
I currently use Linux Mint 17.3 on my computer and I have Kali on my laptop. When I manage to build my media server, I'll be using minimum CentOS 7 and then upgrade it to CentOS 8.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
You're a monster. It was shockingly so civil thus far.
Machinist
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2019
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.
Ed, man! !man ed
ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed
because it's ED!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem> ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
"edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely
you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?
*and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like,
'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor
that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.
Ed, man! !man ed
ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed
because it's ED!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem> ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
"edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely
you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
I'm not really running them to gain any knowledge. I have different distros implemented because they met a need for a particular machine. In a couple of cases it's what was available to me at the time, it worked on the hardware, and so the machine is just running it now despite there being something that would work better or be more uniform. Keep in mind I'm not using most of these as desktop operating systems. 99% of my use on these machines is via terminal over SSH.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
I use ne, the nice editor.
I've used both vim (and several offshoots of vim) and (micro)emacs for years and ultimately found them all to be too complicated. ne is a lot like nano but less retarded, also I really like that the creators want to keep it simple and mostly just maintain/fix bugs and don't add new features. Many other FOSS projects sooner or later succumb to feature creep. All I need from an more advanced text editor is simple macros (as in the original meaning of literally recording input steps) and the ability to pipe selected text through external programs. Some regex if things get super fancy. ne is also simple and static enough to make small patches to the source code without having to keep up constantly. Whipping some script/code up in the language of your choice that does something to piped-in text and outputs the modified version is also usually easier than to deal with any editors' scripting language and particularities. It's more portable if you ever change your editor and it's also the UNIX way too.
Last few months I've been playing around with Textadept for a more advanced, X-based editor but it also has more stuff than I'll ever need.
I've used both vim (and several offshoots of vim) and (micro)emacs for years and ultimately found them all to be too complicated. ne is a lot like nano but less retarded, also I really like that the creators want to keep it simple and mostly just maintain/fix bugs and don't add new features. Many other FOSS projects sooner or later succumb to feature creep. All I need from an more advanced text editor is simple macros (as in the original meaning of literally recording input steps) and the ability to pipe selected text through external programs. Some regex if things get super fancy. ne is also simple and static enough to make small patches to the source code without having to keep up constantly. Whipping some script/code up in the language of your choice that does something to piped-in text and outputs the modified version is also usually easier than to deal with any editors' scripting language and particularities. It's more portable if you ever change your editor and it's also the UNIX way too.
Last few months I've been playing around with Textadept for a more advanced, X-based editor but it also has more stuff than I'll ever need.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
Looks interesting, I'll check it out now.
{EDIT}
Sticking with nano (along with the alias of nano -c)
a_lurker
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2019
I too am a man of culture and enjoy nano with slightly better shortcuts and menus