Fuck it, give me your most OVERRATED Distros
Fuck it, give me your most OVERRATED Distros
For me
Mint
Manjaro
Zorin
Garuda
Neon
You're viewing a single thread.
307 comments
-
My list overrated list additions:
- Ubuntu: They break shit, it’s half baked, snaps, and Canonical is really into vendor lock in.
- Arch: I really have better things to do then baby sit my install.
- RHEL: Containers were created for reasons, and one of them was RHEL.
- Any Linux without systemd or glibc: Mistakes were made, and then different mistakes were made trying to prove systemd made mistakes. Musl based Linux distros are going to have compatibility problems, so I might as well run a different OS. The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
-
The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
You can run programs requiring glibc on musl-based distros using a simple chroot though (not to mention using Flatpak/Snap or similar solutions).
Also, as someone who uses a distro without systemd (Void) - my boot and shutdown are both very fast and service management is simple (I didn’t need to read any documentation to define new daemons, I just looked at existing definitions); this is in contrast to my experience the last few times I used systemd distros.
I even had a Debian setup I used regularly with SysV init a few years ago, which also had way better boot/shutdown times than with systemd (on the same exact setup otherwise). Service management was a pain with SysV though.
-
“It’s Linux with extra work!” isn’t a convincing argument for musl based distros.
I ran FreeBSD as my desktop for a long time, and I’m quite fond of it. However, most new software is written for GNU/Linux, and I got tired of fighting against it. (I still run FreeBSD on my personal servers.)
I ran Alpine for a while, and as much as I wanted to like it, software had to be ported to it. It’s the same problem the BSDs have. Software has to be ported to them, and if that’s the case, there’s not much of a point in running Linux for me.
It’s cool people are trying an alternate libc with the Linux kernel. Alpine seems to have made some good progress on porting software, and musl has progressed from what I’ve heard.
That life isn’t for me. If I wanted that, I know where to get it.
Runit still uses shell scripts to start the services, like most alternate init systems, and I’d rather not write shell scripts for services.
There are other niceties with systemd, like timers are an upgrade over cron, as well as some very idiotic decisions, especially for the server side. Overall it’s a nice init for desktops.
-
-
Having gone through the Arch install myself, what part dod you find you had to babysit? Boot the install media, format the drive, mount the mounts, install system, configure the system, and done. Maybe it’s just a more involved process than you’d like?
-
It’s everything after the install I don’t have time for. The install is the easy part. 😆
There are distros which are semi-rolling (Fedora) or rolling (Tumbleweed) which make it easy to maintain the install without lots of configuration.
-
Of course, there's always the special cheat code called
archinstallthat you can invoke immediately after login if you have a wired connection. Honestly, installing GNU/Linux isn't hard, maintaining it is. Installing Gentoo is following a handbook, maintaining gentoo requires rigorous application logic and configuring.-
Archinstall also works on wireless using iwctl, that's what I did
-
-
307 comments