• 1 Post
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 20th, 2023

help-circle






  • aleq@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.mlLinux middle ground?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    For private use? Hot take, but Arch. It’s easy to maintain and not easy to break at all. I think I spend zero time on maintenance other than running package updates. I only reinstall when I get a new computer.

    (I say for private use only because you’ll be getting weird looks from people if you use arch on a server in a professional setting, and it might break if you try to update it after five years of not doing it since there aren’t any “releases” to group big changes - in practice I run arch on my home server too with no issues)










  • I use SauceCode Pro (variant of SourceCode Pro with nerdfonts stuff). I’ve given up on changing it because everytime I do I find stuff that’s “non-standard” in the fonts I test and it bugs the hell out of me. @ signs are the absolute worst offenders, which is weird because they have a very uniform look everywhere that’s not a specialized “programming” monospace font.


  • I’m on arch, which I consider one of the larger distros, where most such configuration is very simple. Not sure what rolling mesa is. I probably wouldn’t recommend Ubuntu to anyone who is against using Snap, but there are many distros to choose from if you want KDE as well? It’s more a question of why people would go for Hannah Montana Linux (figuratively speaking, some very niche distro).

    But to respond to your core point, sure. If you do have a lot of customization needs for whatever reason, then by all means. (I still don’t get it)


  • I generally don’t understand why people go for the smaller ones at all. I guess it’s good that someone does to prevent the whole scene being dominated by a single distro, but with some exceptions (e.g. you hate systemd for some reason and really want systemd-less arch, or you have a super niche preferences). For 99% of distros it makes very little difference which one you use, except that you’ll have fewer resources at your disposal (fewer packages, fewer stack overflow threads, fewer everything).


  • Given your background it should come to no surprise that it doesn’t really matter much.

    That said, I recommend Arch with some caveats, mainly with regards to the “very little effort to start using” requirement. If you know how to follow instructions, it should only be about 30-45 minutes to install it. It will on the other hand fit your other requirements of good defaults and not shipping with loads of applications. When you install an app you will get that app and nothing else, and the defaults will either be exactly what the upstream defaults would be if you built it yourself or something very close to that. You also have everything available through the AUR, and after using it for years I’ve yet to run into an update not going smoothly.



  • I’m well familiar with EEE, I’ve used Linux off and on for something like 20 years, back when Microsoft really was the boogeyman. I don’t think VS code qualifies for this category since it was originally (ish, has roots in Atom I think) open source and Microsoft. It was never embraced/extended, and extinguishing their own product makes no sense. (btw I don’t even use VS Code, shit vim plugins in my experience, jetbrains all the way)

    WSL IMO is a concession on Microsoft’s part, because most dev tools nowadays are being made primarily with Linux in mind. It’s what makes Windows at all usable as a development platform in many situations. And pretty much nothing developed specifically for WSL. All WSL has on a normal Linux distro is integration with the host system AFAIK.