Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
PS. This is not a critique to Debian-based distros. And i'm not suggesting you to skip Ubintu for Arch either. Arch is a bit advanced and not too easy to new users, so that won't do for some people...
... just install Linux Mint instead.
Arch gives me flashbacks to compiling kernels on really old salvaged hardware. Mint is good enough these days
As an Arch user I hate these memes. Guys, the only difference between distros is effectively the versions of packages you're getting, and what the defaults packages and configs are. In Ubuntu you are completely free to have a very minimal i3 setup (I did for several years!) while in Arch you can use some bloated Gnome UI. This "Arch is fast and Ubuntu is slow" really isn't true if you compare Arch-Gnome vs Ubuntu-Gnome, or Arch-i3 vs Ubuntu-i3.
really isnβt true if you conpare Arch-Gnome vs Ubuntu-Gnome,
So what I'm hearing is "Fuck Gnome"?
This shitpost was bought to you by the KDE/XFCE gang collab
Is Gnome even bloated? I've settled on it because it mostly just works and stays out of my way.
IDK if it's bloated or not, I'm just capitalising on the opportunity to shit on Gnome because I dislike its design choices.
I mean no ill will to the devs or the users of gnome. It's a bit of banter
Ubuntu bad am I rite guys!
Mint user: I don't care how much RAM my system uses as long as it works.
I dunno. There are some of us who run Mint not because we don't know what we're doing but because we do* and we don't want to have to deal with any more nonsense than we absolutely have to.
From that small cohort, there are those of us who'll frown when all we have open is a few browser tabs and the system's using 8GB of RAM, twice the "recommended" spec. On startup with nothing running it's over 1GB.
It's hard not to see it as wasteful when you're old enough to remember perfectly good machines running on single-digit megabytes. **
* Or at least, think we do.
** Yes, things are much more complex these days. But are they really a thousand times more complex?
Consider trying void. If you can live without system d, it's quite comfy though still low on ram usage. Also, the package repos ship closer-to-latest software. Mostly you'll get all the way there on release day with just a few relatively niche things here or there that you'll have to wait a bit for; ime, go's compiler is a common example; after a very annoying, though admittedly forgotten by me, bug was introduced a couple of years ago we usually only get new versions after the first bug fix has come out. Another is skim, the fzf alternative but that's technically not seen a new version since the auto-selecting-empty-lines bug was fixed.
The "free (physical) RAM is wasted RAM" adage rules.
The βfree (unused) RAM is wasted RAMβ
here you go
I was pointing out that swap space, sometimes known as virtual RAM, requires more careful management because of bandwidth and write cycle limitations (for example, it does not make sense to cache files there if they exist on the same physical medium) so full use of space on it is a lower priority.
I use Arch with KDE and a bunch of always open applications. At rest it uses 8GB. I paid for the whole 64GB kit, and I'm going to use the whole 64GB.
Iβve got NixOS with KDE and I run several containerized services through podman. System idles at 5.8gb.
The typical path: Mint -> Arch -> Fedora.
That's me, if settling on an atomic Fedora (Bluefin DX) counts.
It's the most painless setup I've used, and everything I need to be productive is ready to go. Tweaking everything doesn't have the appeal it used to.
I'm on Aurora DX, so yeah I would count that.
Why go past Arch? What's the use case/flavor?
When you want to do work on the OS instead of working on the OS. Arch was a fun learning experience but eventually an nvidia driver or something shit the bed on me and I never went back. Outsource the unit testing to others. Fedora still has very new packages and you can still roll from release to release. Even better if you're using one of the Fedora Atomic flavors.
As someone who uses arch, its just stability. Arch is great for a hobby, if you want to do work, use fedora. Its so much simpler. That being said, I love arch because of the tinkering, and that lack of tinkering is why I switched off fedora.
I "do work" just fine on Arch but maybe I've just gotten used to the quirks and the DIY aspect of it. None of it is an obstacle to productivity anymore.
I do realize I'm not the average person and am some kind of freak that likes to take working stuff apart and put it back together for funsies.
Some people just need an OS that works and don't have time to waste on tinkering and fixing it every so often
That's what I'm trying to say though, I'm at the point to where it's not a waste of time for me because I know immediately what to do if something goes wrong or I need to make some sort of config change or install/remove software. I'm no longer "tinkering" with it, I'm using it. It's just as fast for me as it is for someone on a more "user friendly" OS.
In other words, I have scaled most of the learning curve cliff.
I'm always surprised by that kind of statements. I had more to tinker with Fedora than Arch, by a huge margin.
Ah, got it. Thanks. :)
People losing their voice from telling everyone they use Arch?
3 years later and I'm still on Mint.
Also a sensible choice tbh.
Same. No reason to switch as I have no desire to tinker
Ibwish more linux people had this mentality of "if its not broke don't fix it". After years of floating around different distros, I just want something that works, is stable, and the OOTB is easy and works. So I've just gone back to mint debian edition. Idc, I don't have time to be tinkering with my computer
Fresh breath -> curved spine -> m'lady
Yeah that's me, but I started on Ubuntu. Arch is awesome, but Fedora does most of the same things and it's so much easier to maintain an installation of
I know this is just a meme but has Ubuntu fallen that bad?
Ubuntu did welcomed me to the Linux fam 16 years ago or so, so I am grateful but I have not used it for at least 12 years by now
Been using it at work for LAMP stack dev for like 3 years and it never gave me issues.
The only trouble I have with it, is that my company bought an arrow lake lenovo thinkbook and all the firmware is proprietary or too new... My camera doesn't work well, I get crashrs, graphics glitches... But that is on Lenovo and my company not on Ubuntu afaik.
Good to know, thanks for taking the time to reply
Arch is nice, I noticed slightly higher fps in a few games after switching. Not sure how much overhead there is on it, but I use AwesomeWM which I launch from the commandline since I don't have it run at startup, and I must say I do like the interface for launching programs, I can either do the commandline name or the name of the program will often be fuzzy find away in the launch bar...
If only windows had some kind of menu where you could find programs to launch (and not search the web), and not cram adds down your throat.
They've done the menu dirty. Used to just list apps. Now it shows you everything but the apps.
I was going to stack 4 to 6 Arch VMs inside each other.
Now I'm wondering if I can go further...
Tell me how deep the rabbit hole can go.
I'll try. But if I forget, I'll probably post about it on my Mastodon and an appropriate community here (got any recommendations?)
Arch, btw
Arch is love. Arch is life.
Arch is like your psychotic ex. Sex is great, but one day, you wake up because she's burning the sheets of your bed while you're still inside.
I've had Arch on a laptop for like 4 years now, its also my main gaming rig. The only issue I ever had was my own fault, I didnt put enough memory on the system partition (and just partitioning a terminal use-case device at all). I'm really interested in what's happened to others cause I have yet to experience it lol
Tiny core Linux: i can run on 64 MB of ram. (with GUI)
Does it get security updates?
probably