[HN Gopher] The flaws of distro hopping and asking other people ...
___________________________________________________________________
The flaws of distro hopping and asking other people about their OS
of choice
Author : WhyNotHugo
Score : 43 points
Date : 2022-04-11 08:19 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (unixsheikh.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (unixsheikh.com)
| le-mark wrote:
| One benefit of distro hopping is that to do it you must have all
| your data and projects available externally somewhere, so that's
| a great starting point in general. Me, I found vanilla xubuntu
| fit my needs perfectly so I just reinstall every couple of years,
| and keep working.
|
| I wager there are a lot of us "just getting work done" with
| desktop Linux, it's really great imo.
| Koiwai wrote:
| Using test driving cars as analogy is terrible, at least I think
| test driving cars is very useful.
| yeetsfromhellL2 wrote:
| Maybe I'm more set in my ways now, but I feel like distro hopping
| is largely a thing of the past. There used to be a ton of small
| distros with their own communities but they've pretty much
| disappeared. I don't know if it's the decline of the web forums
| as they used to be (which killed the small communities), or if
| people realized these were mostly just Debian/Fedora derivatives
| with a cool Openbox theme and some preinstalled packages, or if
| everyone just migrated to Arch.
|
| To me, Crunchbang was the last of the fun distros.
| joeberon wrote:
| marcosdumay wrote:
| There used to be all kinds of distros runnable in tiny systems,
| localized to your wishes, optimized for speed, and with
| specialized compatibility.
|
| But then tiny systems disappeared, the mainstream distros got
| all of those localization options, the optimizations got
| generic enough for everybody to adopt, and the all the crappy
| enumerable compatibility hardware converged on Red Hat. That's
| why the distro diversity disappeared. Nowadays we can get one
| distro to cover all use cases.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| After a decade or more of using Linux honestly I don't think it
| matters. After a while you get your environment, it's set up, as
| long as you can update and install compilers and shit you're
| good.
|
| Anything "production" is going to be in some sort of reproducible
| environment anyway.
|
| The kernel has all of the drivers unless you use weird AF
| hardware.
|
| It's like cars. They all get you from A to B, beyond a few basics
| there's not even anything to optimize unless you choose to care
| about that.
| case0x wrote:
| I think the article encapsulates the problem perfectly.
|
| When I started to switch from Windows to Linux, I've constantly
| changed distros picking whatever I saw "cool" people in my online
| circle use. I switched between Ubuntu, Debian, Arch and it's 100%
| FLOSS siblings all the time, sometimes using a distro just for
| one or two days.
|
| It is a stupid Endeavour as you have no time getting used to your
| environment and so you lack the skills required to solve any
| problems that occur.
|
| What fixed my habit was actually having to use my laptop for
| university, where I ran Ubuntu, and later at work, where we used
| Fedora. It helped me get used to it and tailor it to my needs.
|
| Recently, I've switched at home and work to MacOS ( couldn't
| resist the new M1 chips). It fulfills my requirements and works
| like a charm.
| dagw wrote:
| _It is a stupid Endeavour_
|
| Installing and switching between a half dozen distros (plus a
| couple of BDSs and Open Solaris) when first learning to use
| *nix really taught me a lot about all kinds of different
| aspects and philosophies of the *nix world and getting all
| those distros to actually install and run gave me lots problem
| solving skills.
|
| Now I've settled on Ubuntu, been using it basically exclusively
| for the past 10+ years (minus a short affair with Arch a few
| years ago) and have no plans on switching. But having that
| initial experience with lots of different OSs was very
| educational.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| As a long-time user of Ubuntu (and derivative distros) who
| has always wanted to checkout Arch, what made you get back to
| Ubuntu from your fling with Arch?
| case0x wrote:
| Quite interesting to see how our experiences differentiate as
| I never got the chance to really understand what I was doing
| or what is going on but maybe that depends on our different
| approaches when switching distros
| dagw wrote:
| I think it also depends on which distros you choose.
| Installing 6 different Debian/Ubuntu flavours, might not
| teach you much. Installing Debian, Gentoo and OpenBSD will
| at least open you up to several different ways of solving
| the same problem.
|
| I also think it really depends on what your end goal for
| doing it is. Do you just want to get to the point where you
| have a working dev environment as quickly as possible or do
| you want to learn about Operating Systems and hardware for
| its own sake. For me, at the time, getting NetBSD working
| on a 'no name' PowerPC dev board I bought off of eBay was a
| fun goal in it self.
| smoldesu wrote:
| It really is a matter of perspective. I ended up doing the
| same thing as the parent comment, switching to Linux after
| being fed up with Windows and MacOS. It took me a few tries
| to find a package manager that worked for me (and I
| certainly borked my fair share of systems in the first few
| months), but Linux _just worked_ in ways that MacOS and
| Windows never really did for me. Software installed quickly
| and flawlessly. Dev tools like git, docker and make were no
| longer second-class experiences. My coreutils were up-to-
| date, out-of-the-box. I could test and compile stuff on my
| own system and reliably deploy it to the cloud without
| needing to account for different architectures, kernel
| breakage or ABI incongruity. Virtual machines and
| containers executed faster than any other system I had
| tried. Microsoft Edge wasn 't begging me to leave it as
| default. I didn't get notifications about The New Safari.
|
| It ultimately comes down to workload, I suppose. If you're
| a creative professional or build iPhone apps for a living,
| I doubt you'll enjoy your time on Linux very much. As
| someone who does neither of those things very often, Linux
| feels like home to me.
| andrelaszlo wrote:
| I went with Ubuntu when I switched from Windows some time
| around "Dapper". Stuck with it until "Karmic" or something like
| that. I only switched to Arch because I was getting tired of
| the big upgrades, and not having the latest versions of things
| I needed for work.
|
| This decision makes sense for me and for the laptop that I use
| daily as a developer. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a
| regular user, and even less for a server environment.
|
| Is it really so complicated? If you have very specific needs,
| you'll know what to look for. If you're not that special - why
| not just go with something common until you see what
| limitations you can live with and which ones are deal-breakers?
|
| I think a lot of "distro hopping" is also just being interested
| in the OS itself. I don't see the problem.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| As an entreaty to choose software _effectively_ I can endorse
| this post.
|
| This IS about understanding the inevitable compromises every
| distribution makes (e.g. security vs performance) and choosing
| what fits your needs.
|
| This is NOT about trying them all until you like something.
| neogodless wrote:
| How do you understand "the inevitable compromises _every_
| distribution makes "?
|
| Aren't there hundreds to choose from?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| By compromises every distribution makes, I am referring to
| cases where one choice precludes another, and any
| distribution can choose just one. Security costs performance.
| It's hard to support 3d hardware with pure open-source
| drivers. Most distributions are fairly up-front about their
| project values so you can understand which way they will make
| these compromises.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _Using popularity as a determining factor is a flawed strategy,
| still it 's not so obvious._
|
| Making unsupported declarations is an equally flawed strategy.
|
| A big problem for any business decision maker is the inability to
| fully define the problem. The future is an unknown that can never
| be fully quantified. Requirements can and do change over time ---
| in ways that are difficult to predict. Businesses must adapt to
| such change in order to grow and survive.
|
| What core product offers a business the best chance of being able
| to aquire the tools and talent needed to adapt to changing and
| unforseen requirements? One with the most marketplace presence
| and economic momentum --- aka the most popular.
|
| Going with the flow may well be the option that provides the
| highest probability of long term success. Proving this is
| virtually impossible due to the unknowns involved. But so is
| proving otherwise.
|
| This is the proverbial "judgment call" --- and business is full
| of these types of decisions.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Paralysis by analysis is what happens not when there are a wide
| variety of choices. It is what happens when one feels one has to
| do a deeper and broader analysis than they have time, energy,
| know how, or mental fortitude to undertake.
|
| If one felt they had to understand the managerial structures,
| maintenance schedules, and just a smattering of aeronautical
| engineering in order to pick which flight you were going to take
| to Hawaii you would experience the same thing.
|
| The author is correct that listening to 100 expert beginners on
| Reddit is a poor way to pick a distro or learn anything about
| anything but wrong I think in his dismissal of distro hopping.
| One doesn't need to drive every make and model of car but its
| actually expected to read some reviews then drive several.
| Learning how to use your distro beyond clicking the icon for your
| web browser and reading your distros docs will actually give you
| the background to understand the different tools at your
| disposal.
|
| If one spends 6 months using Ubuntu before discovering that
| Debian Arch or Mint would be a better choice instead of starting
| with Mint Arch or Debian off the bat is this really a huge loss?
| thargor90 wrote:
| I chose debian, because it is mostly boring and "outdated", but
| quite secure. My focus is to solve problems, not bother with new
| distribution software.
|
| Also nowadays with containers its quite hard not to get some
| software running.
| b5n wrote:
| `stable` is not the only release, I wouldn't consider any of my
| Debian workstations outdated because they're not. `testing` and
| `unstable` are oftentimes more dependable than other distro's
| idea of stable.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I think the problem with distro hopping is that you are not
| really solving a problem. For example, you are going to try out
| distros until you find one where you Nvidia card or wifi works,
| or the one with your preferred desktop environment, the one with
| this or that tool etc... But in most cases, these are things you
| can change, Linux is open, distros are essentially just the set
| of defaults the maintainers like. There are some oddballs, like
| Gentoo, but most are just variation on the same base. In fact, a
| minimal Ubuntu and a minimal Debian are almost identical.
|
| If you are constantly distro-hopping you probably have some
| specific needs than no distro fulfills, and your time is probably
| better spent picking one (preferably of the minimal kind) and
| actually solving your specific problems than trying to find a
| perfect match when there is none.
|
| I use Debian (minimal) BTW.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Agreed. "My nvidia doesn't work" "Switch to
| Mint/Arch/Fedora/Void" is a common sequence in online
| discussions. And it persists because it sometimes solves the
| problem by forcing the user to re-tread the steps again and
| again until they get it right.
| bluedino wrote:
| In the real world (HPC) I don't get to choose my distro. The
| software vendors do. Which, really throws a wrench into things.
|
| Some of them have decided to go with Ubuntu LTS. A few are moving
| to CentOS stream. Some are stuck on the last version of CentOS
| and won't support stream. Rocky? Alma? Sounds good but you don't
| hear a peep from the vendor about them. Some of them are going to
| SuSE. It's irritating because CentOS 7 is very old and there's
| just no clear path to go right now.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| HPC is the real world and not an incredibly small academic
| niche? Did I read that right?
| bluedino wrote:
| HPC is present in a lot of industries. But by the real world
| I meant not my personal machine where I can run whatever
| distro I feel like for the week.
|
| I will admit I had a lot of fun trying out a lot of different
| distros in the old days!
| unixbane wrote:
| I was lucky enough to realize early that all UN*X software is bad
| and no distro will overcome this bottleneck. For instance, even
| if you use the only few GUI toolkits that work reasonably fast,
| like Motif, these programs will still be broken on another axis.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| Years ago, I started using ArchLinux because I _wanted_ to spend
| a lot of time tinkering with it. I was a student so had plenty of
| free time, and Arch 's installation process and lack of any
| assumptions about what DE/WM you might want to use was a great
| opportunity to get to know Linux a bit better. And using
| AwesomeWM was even better; now I had to learn a new programming
| language just to configure my desktop!
|
| Years later, I stick with the same setup for exactly the opposite
| reasons. I don't have as much time to tinker about with my setup
| and in those intervening years I have gotten Arch + Awesome
| running just the way I like them.
|
| Distro hopping can be fun if treated as an end in itself, but as
| a means to an enjoyable and stable OS experience, it is self-
| defeating. Chances are you can probably achieve roughly the same
| user experience with any of the major distros, if you try.
| Package managers are different, but all ultimately adequate. It
| might be the case that some distros are more or less compatible
| with certain hardware, but I feel like that problem has become
| less significant over time. The main thing to differentiate
| distros these days is probably where they lie on the spectrum
| between highly stable and bleeding edge.
| jimmydeans wrote:
| jarofgreen wrote:
| > I ask a client why they are running the OS they have chosen,
| surprisingly the answer is that their choice was made based upon
| popularity in the industry.
|
| > Using popularity as a determining factor is a flawed strategy
|
| Is it tho? I think it depends on what the context is.
|
| If you have really specialist needs then yes, you should spend
| time working out the best solution. Totally agree.
|
| But if you have bog standard needs that everyone else has maybe
| just use what everyone else uses? Every time you run into a
| problem you will probably find someone else has run into it and
| fixed it already.
|
| eg Linux desktop? Maybe just use Ubuntu? Every time you want to
| install a Linux app from someone you will probably find they
| provide a Ubuntu package these days.
|
| I'd recommend people check out wardley mapping for a good tool
| for thinking about this type of issues.
| bombcar wrote:
| Use what everyone else is using protects you from all sorts of
| issues that you may not even realize.
|
| At the same time, if you find yourself fighting it continually
| it may be worth looking again.
| kstenerud wrote:
| > When a friend of mine started his first business a couple of
| years or so ago, and he asked me for advice regarding the choice
| of operating system for the company service and product, I
| recommended a specific Linux distribution with a very high level
| of control, i.e. you need to set everything up yourself (no gui
| click-click solution)
|
| This is terrible advice. Fiddling with system files in an OS is
| not their core business, so why would you ever recommend they
| waste precious business time & effort doing so?
|
| The most important questions to consider when installing an
| operating system for a business are: Does it run the software I
| need stably, how much work is it to set up & maintain, and what
| kind of support can I get/buy?
|
| As for the rest of the article, distro hopping is a great way to
| "shake out" various operating systems to discover what you like
| and what you don't like about each. Reading the brochure is not
| enough; you want to get opinions and advice from various sources
| (even Reddit) to build a narrowed down list of promising avenues,
| and then test drive a few until you find one that you can be
| overall comfortable with. It's a lot like buying a car.
|
| Maybe a distro won't work with the hardware you need to use.
| Maybe a feature you need is broken or unavailable with no
| estimated fix date. Maybe it's too bleeding edge and suffers more
| breakage than you're comfortable with. Maybe the distributed
| software is too old and updates too slow. Maybe it's too much
| work to maintain. Maybe it won't let you customize the things you
| care about.
| rvz wrote:
| Yet another reason why Linux and BSD distros, were never taken
| seriously on the Desktop. Alternatives of alternatives of a
| similar but tweaked distros further confuses the user into
| thinking their desktop will (just work) but will start to be
| quickly unsatisfied that a single tweak or issue in something in
| that desktop, will make them migrate and distro hop constantly
| only to waste time fiddling with their computer.
|
| The only proper qualifying example of OS uniformity other than
| Windows or macOS is ChromeOS, which is going to be replaced by
| Fuchsia in the future anyway. There is only one of that, like
| there is only one Windows or macOS.
|
| That's just the tip of the iceberg of issues with the Linux
| Desktop and also without getting to the discussion of 'defining'
| Linux support.
|
| Downvoters: You know it is true. Perhaps that is why this very
| long time veteran Linux user got fed up and moved to macOS: [0]
| After realising that they were spending more time fixing their
| computer, OS and apps in order to get things done.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30821580
| southerntofu wrote:
| > Yet another reason why Linux and BSD distros, were never
| taken seriously on the Desktop
|
| I think you're overblowing this point. Many administrations,
| non-profits and companies actively use GNU/Linux or BSD
| desktops and are quite happy with it. Red Hat, Ubuntu and Suse
| are famous example providing good levels of support and
| customization if you can afford it. Mandriva in its time was
| very user-friendly and popular (at least here in France) but
| unfortunately they were shut down for business reasons if i
| remember.
|
| But i agree with your critique that switching distro just
| because you want to switch desktop environment is the wrong
| answer because it introduces so many layers of complexity you
| know your tiny distro is gonna fall behind in terms of
| features/security.
|
| I wish more distros exposed higher-level knobs to customize
| everything without learning the specifics of every piece in the
| stack. That's for me the strongest selling point in nix/guix
| even though i feel it's not as user-friendly as it could be.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Also that the things change like every other year or at least
| every few years. And something might or might not break when
| updating. Windows did stay pretty consistent for long time.
| Windows 8 broke this, but after that it hasn't been too bad
| again.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| It's true, the rather ludicrous number of distros out there
| causes many issues for people used to more homogeneous OSs.
|
| Probably the worst thing about it is that any time you have a
| problem someone will tell you that you chose the wrong distro
| and you'll be pushed to switch to another one, where you will
| of course encounter a different problem and repeat the cycle.
|
| Personally I think the proliferation of distros is itself a
| symptom of a greater problem with the Linux Desktop software
| ecosystem. If there were more stable ABIs, no such thing as
| library conflicts, less interaction complexity, etc. then one
| could mix and match software to fit their needs with little
| effort and a distro would be unnecessary.
| goosedragons wrote:
| >Test out each of the distributions for a couple of weeks or
| months with your regular usage cases. I recommend taking notes if
| you run into any kind of problem, no matter how small it is, and
| then compare later with another distribution
|
| Is this not just distro hopping? I can kind of understand
| avoiding it for business/work contexts but for home computing who
| cares? Trying out different distros and OSs is a bit like a
| hobby.
|
| Popular distros are often popular for a reason and if you use
| something like Ubuntu it's very easy to find guide how to do
| something vs. a more obscure exotic distro like GoboLinux.
| teh_klev wrote:
| > Is this not just distro hopping?
|
| Not really, it's product research, especially important if
| you're going to rely on a distro that's a long term critical
| part of your business. This is not a _hobby_ activity and can
| apply to any process in deciding which software is the right
| fit for your organisation.
|
| Distro hopping is different. I've worked with a couple of folks
| who endlessly distro hopped to the extent that they seemed to
| spend more time installing their distros than actually using
| them in any productive way.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Choose a job. Choose life. I chose Debian.
|
| Now, what I mean is; I made a commitment.
|
| As Linux strains under complexity I am wondering whether to make
| a full-commitment life switch to BSD. But it's been 20 years with
| Debian and it's like a relationship I almost feel afraid to
| leave.
|
| Operating systems are something I know a little bit about. After
| going through the whole build Minix for 68000 from AT's book,
| then Linux From Scratch and compiling kernels thing, and building
| Slackware over a whole weekend, once I matured into needing a
| practical operating system in my 30s I was attracted to Debian by
| its social contract and "wholesome family atmosphere of Debbie
| and Ian."
|
| I ended up building distros myself, learning the ropes of Debian
| development (though I never actually joined the DD community).
| It's been a rodeo ride. I loathe systemd and the whole "mother
| knows best" Poettering schism. The CoC dramas and virtue parades
| in front of the neighbours are just embarrasing. And then there's
| Uncle Ubuntu who sometimes touches us inappropriately.
|
| But in the end I keep coming back "to the family", because in the
| end all families are dysfunctional and weird, so may as well pick
| one and try to work with it.
|
| So I agree with the OP's admonition of distro hopping. It feels
| like restless promiscuity. Whenever I need to install a new OS I
| pick the latest minimal Debian and go from there.
| Paianni wrote:
| I switched all but two active machines (I have five) from
| Debian to OpenBSD from 2017 to 2019.
|
| If you can live with everything OpenBSD+ports can't offer in
| comparison, then switch, you won't regret it.
|
| If you don't have the right hardware for OpenBSD then aspire to
| change it in the future, you won't regret that either.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > But it's been 20 years with Debian and it's like a
| relationship I almost feel afraid to leave.
|
| I was shipping Debian 1.2 CDs by the hundreds in the nineties!
|
| I'm using Debian or derivaties/forks everywhere (desktop /
| laptop / server / Raspberry Pi (raspbian).
|
| > It's been a rodeo ride. I loathe systemd and the whole
| "mother knows best" Poettering schism.
|
| A few months ago I switched my main desktop to "Devuan" (a
| Debian fork without systemd) and I do really dig it.
|
| I'm still running Debian on servers, on the laptop, on the
| other desktop, etc.
|
| But honestly: Devuan, for my use case on my dev machine, is
| really just Debian without the Poettering stuff and it works
| fine. YMMV.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I was actually debating Devuan, but I am kinda afraid of
| jumping ( maybe I will put it in VM first ). How
| difficult(long it took to) was it to create a good working
| environment for you?
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| I tried. Maybe too close to the debacle when Devuan was
| newborn. Ran just like a regular Debian, without init-
| hijack as advertised. But I soon ran into maintenance
| problems. The box I put it on soon couldn't be upgraded and
| (through my own fault of pulling in dubious backports and
| fsking my apt-sources file) I ended up back in the ninth
| circle of systemd. Probably due for a fresh try.
| jcadam wrote:
| I'd like to try Devuan, but I'm assuming a lot of
| software these days assumes the presence of systemd?
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Most software is below the level of systemd and agnostic
| to what you are running. Even services are only systemd
| specific insofar as they provide a systemd unit file
| which amounts to calling an executable with certain
| arguments which is convertible to a different system in
| about 10 seconds.
|
| Presumably like void Linux this has been done for you.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| The systemd haters are right about their complaints, but
| there's a ton that systemd does right, like making the
| interface expected of a daemon "Run forever and send
| output to stdin and stdout" rather than "Double fork and
| rotate your own logfiles" while also having support for
| the latter.
| m463 wrote:
| > It feels like restless promiscuity.
|
| It might be like rumspringa which might be a stepping stone
| before you choose your level of commitment.
| yabones wrote:
| BSDs are very interesting, I highly recommend checking some of
| them out. I think the most compelling case for them is the very
| tightly integrated kernel & OS which is largely decoupled from
| the user-space packages. I have completely hosed my Linux
| installs to the point of being unbootable a few times (to be
| clear, it was my fault every time!) by making mistakes with the
| package manager, but this isn't really possible with BSDs since
| the core operating system uses a completely separate method of
| updating and patching.
|
| The other thing to keep in mind is that the systems are
| brutally minimalist. As in, Bash is considered a "fun bonus"
| rather than the core part of the system that is installed in
| /usr/local. That can be a substantial turn-off for some who see
| it as archaic or old-fashioned, but there's something to be
| said for the "stability" not deprecating such an old piece of
| software :)
|
| Something you will probably appreciate is the consistency and
| documentation, even with little things like manpages. Every
| detail is ironed-out and perfected in a way that we're not
| really used to as Linux users.
|
| There are some good guides out there for installing &
| configuring OpenBSD on an old laptop, and it's absolutely worth
| a try. It's without a doubt simpler and lighter than any
| mainstream Linux distro, and frankly just really fun to play
| with!
| jcadam wrote:
| My file server is running FreeBSD. The biggest sticking point
| for using it on my dev machine is lack of docker support on
| BSD. These days, my dev box is running Arch.
| tharne wrote:
| OpenBSD makes for a fantastic desktop OS. The major issue
| you'll run into is the availability of software (e.g. no
| electron apps).
| andi999 wrote:
| Why not? Isnt there a linux compatibility layer?
| Paianni wrote:
| It was removed before 6.0.
| uuyi wrote:
| Lack of choice can often be a blessing.
| yeetsfromhellL2 wrote:
| >I am wondering whether to make a full-commitment life switch
| to BSD.
|
| I tried NetBSD for a small project a while ago and was very
| pleasantly surprised. The documentation was great and
| everything worked as advertised. I've spent more time trying to
| figure out a single package on Linux than I did getting up and
| running on NetBSD for the first time.
| 3np wrote:
| While there are several useful insights here, I think the
| absolutist stance misses the mark and is overgeneralizing. While
| yes, you could (in theory) research the sources, the policies,
| the procedures, the contributors, the organization... It can save
| a lot of time (and be a lot more fun) to try things out in
| practice. Just be ready to wipe and start from scratch when you
| realize it's time to cut your losses.
|
| The advice to stick with independent distros is a good one, in
| most situations. But the only way I can confidently agree with
| the author is through experience with the alternatives. That was
| not time lost.
|
| If I'd recommend a daily driver for a very non-technical friend
| who wants to keep using their laptop that's effectively EOL under
| Windows? A non-independent distro makes sense. And how would I be
| able to make an informed recommendation? I could try it out
| myself. Maybe on an isolated mediaplayer, a use-case specific VM,
| or an embedded dev project, where stability and security don't
| matter that much. When the stakes are low and I enjoy trying new
| things to get a feel for the community and ecosystem, distro-
| hopping can be nice.
|
| Many when I got new hardware in the past, I installed a new
| distro either on that or whatever it was replacing. Most of them
| didn't stick but some did - this is how you can learn.
|
| You also get to know about the ways of the other independent
| distros. If you're mostly an Arch+Fedora person, for example,
| maintaining a Debian installation is great to widen your
| experience and understand where each makes sense and fits.
|
| I've installed more derivatives than I can remember and I can
| tell through experience why I wouldn't recommend most of them.
| When Mint had zero issues during the same timespan that system
| upgrades completely broke the vanilla Manjaro desktop for the
| third time, I can now make more informed decisions. I would have
| no idea about the difference in quality, testing and maintenance
| if I hadn't actually been running them for a significant time
| myself.
|
| Asking someone about their dist of choice can absolutely be
| useful - if you understand where they're coming from and/or they
| understand your situation and needs. It all depends on context.
|
| It can make sense to outsource some of the bootstrapping and user
| configuration. Just be aware of the tradeoffs. And do it because
| it's fun, not (just) because you believe the grass is greener.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > Asking other people about their choice of operating system
| makes no sense. You have a specific problem to solve, so in what
| way do you think asking other people about their choice is going
| to help you solve your specific problem?
|
| Don't agree here. People can give valuable experience on their
| chosen solution. Even if they chose it for different reasons or
| even incorrect reasons, they can still share their experience.
| wccrawford wrote:
| Exactly. This is like saying that customer reviews make no
| sense.
|
| Of _course_ they make sense. Even with all the fraud, and all
| the idiots, you can still learn a _lot_ about a product from
| people who have actually used it, rather than just listening to
| the manufacturer and their happy path narrative.
| a_square_peg wrote:
| I feel like there is a lot of condescending tone in the article
| that's really not helpful to many people who are not as versed in
| the topic. Maybe like a wine connoisseur who can't give a simple
| answer to what wine he might recommend for a dinner without
| spending an hour explaining all the things I need to consider to
| make the right choice.
|
| A lot of engineering decisions are based on what can be
| considered 'good enough' option to progress to the next stage on
| time because you don't often have the leisure to study and
| consider all the options available.
| Zhyl wrote:
| Yes, the article is chastising people for research and getting
| opinions from others, and suggesting that the solution is to do
| research and to get advice from others.
| Zhyl wrote:
| >If e.g. you're mainly using the computer for gaming, playing the
| latest and most demanding games, then you can easily eliminate
| any other operating system than Microsoft Windows from the list,
| because almost nothing will work as well on any other operating
| system.
|
| I think this needs to be qualified. There are many reasons to not
| want to use Windows, and if the want to use something other than
| Windows outweighs the cost, then Linux still may be a better
| choice.
|
| Linux can run games now, even those developed for Windows [0],
| and even having anti-cheat isn't an absolute blocker anymore [1].
|
| While I understand the sentiment Mr Sheikh is trying to express,
| this kind of unqualified sweeping statement is helping to keep
| misconceptions spreading even though much progress has been made.
|
| [0] https://www.protondb.com
|
| [1] https://areweanticheatyet.com/
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| While Linux has made a lot of progress in terms of being able
| to run games[0], the article is correct that it is still quite
| lackluster for a lot of the latest and greatest. In particular,
| the VR support is terrible according to everything I've read,
| with only the Index and some models of Vive being supported at
| all and Steam VR being a bit of a shitshow on Linux. So if you
| care about VR, it isn't a good option. I don't play many new
| demanding games at all, but a friend is trying to get me into
| DCS and is thus far partially successful. DCS is a fiddly
| enough bitch on Windows, but apparently it's that much worse in
| Wine.
|
| [0] Linux is such a terrible target for games because of its
| fragmentation and tendency to break library ABIs frequently.
| Valve tries to deal with those but if it weren't for the hard
| work of the WINE community re-implementing the Windows ABIs
| then gaming on Linux would still basically be limited to
| emulators, tech demos, and Nethack.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > Linux is such a terrible target for games because of its
| fragmentation and tendency to break library ABIs frequently.
|
| Linux ABI itself is pretty stable. That unfortunately can't
| be said of anything that depends on anything not-strictly-
| kernel, non-strictly-glibc library.
|
| > Valve tries to deal with those.
|
| Valve attempt to handle those issues is pretty interesting,
| it's a kinda of "linux standard base" / "python manylinux"
| hybrid where they strictly freeze portions of the userland.
|
| Because of that, you will have some fronzen, kinda buggy
| years-old libraries, but the resulting binaries works, on
| several computers, over a reasonably long time, without
| recompiling anything, most of the time.
| neogodless wrote:
| I'd like to qualify his statement. I like the idea of moving
| away from Windows, but playing certain kinds of games with
| close friends and family is a big part of my leisure time. And
| as much as I want Linux to be ready, some of the games I like
| to play simply don't work on Linux. At all. All of the games I
| like work on Windows. (MacOS is, of course, much worse. Of the
| games I've spent most of my time on over the past 2 years, only
| about 20% even run at all, let alone with decent quality
| settings and frame rates.)
|
| None of the games I like rely on anti-cheat. I think Linux is
| leaps and bounds closer to being capable of being used as a
| gaming desktop than it was just 10 years ago, but it's still
| very much true that game developers (and hardware engineers)
| focus on Windows first, and make sure it works there, while
| Linux is largely an afterthought.
|
| If I had chosen to run exclusively Linux, there would be
| countless times I'm left in the dark while my friends and
| family were playing games without me. Obviously this might not
| apply to certain classes of game players, but for me, that's
| way too high a cost to give up Windows.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| Call me surprised if most game studios still develop Windows
| first those days. Console pays better in general, and mobile
| platforms have a much larger market base, so games get
| developed for those other platforms first. Whatever "PC
| release" we get is often now a bunch of half-assed scraps,
| that barely work "on Windows" in the first place, it's a
| miracle they work on Wine/Proton (and even a better miracle
| when Proton manages to undo said brain-damaged port bugs).
| Karunamon wrote:
| It's still unreasonable to suggest Linux as a mainstream gaming
| OS when more than half of the top ten per [1] (so,
| statistically, the games you likely want to play) are either
| totally unplayable or have moderate-to-severe problems, with
| precisely zero having a platinum (perfect) rating.
|
| This is changing, but we're not there yet. When Linux gamers
| can expect an experience on par with Windows, rather than a
| degraded one involving glitches and arcane tweaking, it'll be
| safe to recommend in good faith.
| nukemaster wrote:
| I've been using Linux since I was 10 (so almost 20 years now) and
| there still isn't a distro that I can say I _like_ (although
| Alpine is closest.) If you want to be picky then learn to do it
| from scratch, otherwise find a distro with a good group of people
| behind it and stick with it.
| KronisLV wrote:
| Used Debian for a while, but the relatively short life cycle is
| sub-optimal, as is the situation with drivers sometimes.
|
| Eventually just gave up and am now using Ubuntu LTS on all my
| servers and either Ubuntu or something like Linux Mint on my
| personal devices - things mostly just work, documentation is
| abundant and breakages aren't too often. My personal advice would
| be to just pick whatever most other people are using, the best
| documented and supported option.
|
| For when i actually want to get things done in a passable manner,
| it's good enough. The longer EOL is also great, far less churn to
| deal with, as long as you don't need the latest packages.
|
| Actually, it's why i recently moved all of my container images
| from Alpine Linux as a base to Ubuntu as a base, about which i
| wrote on my blog: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-
| as-the-base-fo...
|
| Kind of sad that CentOS died the way it did (as a LTS distro, at
| least) and having to use Oracle Linux in its stead in certain
| enterprise settings doesn't feel great either, though most RPM
| distros are also vaguely passable. May Rocky Linux fill that
| niche properly some day and be as abundant as CentOS was.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-11 23:02 UTC)