>using a rolling release distro (like arch linux) as your daily driver
>knowing something could break because you want to feel special and have a "bleeding edge" system
Real productive people would not go for a rolling distro. I don't get why these are praised so much. Sure you dont need to re-install but then again Ubuntu has in place upgrade options and is more stable.
Why would you risk using a rolling release for work? Rolling releases are only good for shitposting and testing.
>series of smaller upgrades you can pick on your own terms, easier to figure out what goes wrong if something does
>builds on stable packages rather than reinventing the wheel most of the time
vs
>makes the same changes to packages
>But suddenly releases a major distro upgrade with a bunch of big changes
I am using debian testing on my desktop, arch on my laptop. I've also used Ubuntu. Arch has given me the least headaches while debian has fought me at every corner in terms of packages.
Pacman is also a great package manager, while apt is kind of a pain in the ass.
>But I don't see it
ok? It's not anybody on this board's job to justify their choice in OS. Use what works for you. Obviously I'm in a minority when I say debian isn't good for me, and neither was xubuntu.
I have installed Arch with XFCE and the damn file manager keeps crashing every time I copy and paste from it. The bug has been there for at least two years and not fixed. The only solution is to use another file manager, which is retarded to use anything but Thunar in XFCE.
You can't fix everything.
Weird, >werks for me
Then again I use Manjaro. Removes the pacman aftertaste a bit with the convenience of a dedicated aur downloader.
This was happening in Antergos, pretty much Arch Linux.
>Not using Funtoo
Why?
honestly, rolling release makes sense to me
project/s dev(s) make a new release there's a period of testing and you get it
it's what you'd want on a desktop
and a bit of a brain for a server
Personally, I agree. If you want to dedicate extra time like a hobby to maintaining a work system, that's fine, but I have better things to do, or I'd do it, too. I like doing it, but I'm often too busy with life or tired, also from life. I want my systems to just work (reliably) when I want to relax, which is about half the time.
That's why I'm using Debian stable as my server and Ubuntu MATE (of course, altered to behave more like a traditional Linux distro for security) on both laptop and desktop. While I CAN do some pretty advanced administering, I like the fact that I can just sit back and let it run. The server I do some heavy admin on, but I have been careful to ensure that it still falls within a normal Debian install, no compiling or anything, so that APT can candle upgrades, taking a good bit of the load off of the admin process.
I just don't have the time anymore to play with Arch, Gentoo, Slack, etc.
>I just don't have the time anymore to play with Arch, Gentoo, Slack, etc.
Then Windows 7/8.1/10 would be more your speed.
>using a linux distro (like arch linux) as your daily driver
>knowing something could break because you want to feel special and have a "linux" system
Real productive people would not go for a linux distro. I don't get why these are praised so much.
Why would you risk using a linux for work? Linuxes are only good for shitposting and testing.
Never had that problem, but I'm using thunar on awesomewm.
Install an LTS distro
Not being an Arch autsist and instead being a regullar person who doesn't have to slobber over point increments daily is his speed.
Use MATE then.
Xfce hasn't had a serious update in a long time. In fact as near as I can tell, this isn't a unique to arch problem. (See: 16.04)
Personally, as a relatively Linux noob I find Debian to be way more complicated and harder to maintain than Arch.
I'm by no means a power user or anything, but even so I just kinda stick with Arch because it's just so user friendly to me. More so than stuff like Debian, and possibly even stuff like Ubuntu.
I sometimes go, "man, I should get Ubuntu or something because it's easier" but I always end back on Arch because it's just so easy.
>ITT
I definitely agree with this. I installed debian last night and between the focus on "muh freedoms" and lack of documentation like the arch wiki, I just keep hitting roadblocks that take forever to fix.
I was up and running on my laptop with arch in a few hours because I had to restart due to a major fuckup I completely missed.
dubs tell the truth
Debian really isn't that great tbqh
/thread
Yeah, I'm honestly thinking of ditching it and going to arch. Which is a shame because I like the debian mindset and base, but it's a tad convoluted to how much arch "just werks" for me.
I also like the logo kek
Eh, I have bits of time. Enough to play a little. Just not enough reliable time to play a lot.
Also, no thanks. Linux meets my requirements better, especially with ALSA, which has helped me solve my issues of multiple simultaneous separate audio streams across different outputs (my desktop is also my HTPC, I have it do both at once, in different rooms).
Also, I am actually autism spectrum and have genuine OCD, so certain patterns and behaviors piss me off, which Windows does. The only reason I have tolerated it in the past is for gaming, which I don't do at all, anymore. Lost interest, and have life stuff to do.
Also, pirating. No, thanks, Windows.
Oh, and Windows has problems with some of my hardware. It will work for a while, then break on driver updates. Tired of reinstalling every month.
Eh, distros with a solid background and conservative upgrade cycle like Debian stable work well. Even the Ubuntu (various) LTS releases work well. We used it at my workplace until we needed some hardware that the company refused to support if we stayed on Ubuntu. Every one of us wishes we'd just dumped that hardware, since Ubuntu worked so much better than Windows 7 (which we are on now) for our application.
If that is easiest for you, then congrats. I've been using Linux (often in conjunction with Windows) for over 10 years. I started when getting widescreen to work required manually setting up shit like 915resolution, and Ubuntu was looked at weird for having root disabled. I'm pretty comfortable with Linux. To me, with my comforts, Debian is best. It lacks a lot of features and support, but I've always had a love of the old administration style, where sudo is genuinely a granted privilege, not the de facto admin technique. I also just like APT. It might not be the BEST package management tool, but I like it, and I'm comfortable with it.
>the focus on "muh freedoms"
if adding "contrib non-free" to a repository is too difficult then linux aint for you mate, any distro
Totally understandable. The support available today to new(er) Linux users is amazing compared to last decade. I think it's a good thing people are getting a more... internal "hands-on" initiation to Linux. It means less tech-ignorant people in the world.
This is also a good example of the distro-model seen in Linux. Different distros for different jobs and preferences.
There's a good reason why I rarely end up running Debian on non-servers. I think that's where it does best.
And I agree about the logo, too. Fuck yeah, spirals.
Real productive people are actually using Arch instead of arguing on a cantonese cartoon image board about it.
I've run into driver issues and weird dependency problems with testing when it comes to non-free.
Eat shit, user.
Yeah, debian stable does what it does well - being fucking stable. Testing and sid are far from being a perfect solution for an up to date system though, which kind of is a shame. I have no experience with SID, but i might give it a shot since "why not?"
>cantonese cartoon image board
>cantonese cartoon
Lost.
why do you even give a shit what other people use? As long as their os allows them to install a live gnu+linux image so they can install gentoo, that's all that matters
DESU, I've never messed around with testing or Sid. I've always just gone to another distro if I wanted more up-to-date. Because Debian is best as stable, being...well, stable.
kek
>DESU
I genuinely have no fucking clue how that got there.
summerfag detected
another kiddy being upset because they couldn't install arch, btw arch isnt even that unstable unless you go testing which can be kinda edgy
i hope you are all just pretending
Nah, oldfag who recently returned. It's been years since I've been here.
Also, I'm an idiot. I see, now.
I've been using it for a year, haven't had anything break.
Not sure why it attracts so much shitposting.
Probably the installation process, like Gentoo.
Pretty much. And some people just don't like the rolling release model.
ITT butthurt tech illiterate failures who couldn't figure out a real distro (arch) and had to restort to babys linux (noobuntu)
I just shitpost and watch chinese cartoons so im fine with rolling release
Rolling isn't prone to more bugs than LTS.
LTS suffers from its own types of bugs because an updated piece of software might not be compatible with the not-updated one, thus causing breakage, especially in really old packages that devs don't know to fix.
The main thing is that if you run rolling release, your system might have downtime; for instance if you want to update the kernel and use the new features of the kernel, you will have to reboot. Whereas for servers, you might want to forsake the new features to keep uptime.