For a second I thought that the first field was:
IRL nickname: I don't use IRL
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
624 points (98.6% liked)
linuxmemes
20686 readers
845 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nobody should use IRL, it sucks and is way too humid.
Floridean detected
h--how did you manage that
What's wrong with btrfs?
This is a rather old form and in its early days btrfs was not very stable.
People don't know how CoW FSes work 🤷.
My only gripe with btrfs is that I've had systems come down from a single drive failure in raid quite "often" when compared to other FS.
ZFS is a ram hog but I always could do a live resilvering without downtime.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Nothing these days
I don’t think I’d call it anything wrong, but the subvolumes definitely do make it different for installation purposes so that following ext4 instructions for bootloader configs or kernel arguments could put you on the wrong path
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fucking Allan, always fucking shit up.
I liked using Arch, but i got tired of Allan breaking into my house and bricking my computers all the time, so i ended up switching
All we wanted was some detail.
😬
That’s funny and sadly accurate 🤣
Please return completed form to /dev/null in order for your fuck-up to be assessed by a professional.
Lol
Can we make it real?
I asked for the source, we'll see if we get it 😁.
Thank you kind stranger 😊.
- lol
- My rootfs has been btrfs up to 2 days ago, when I switched back to TKFS (The King File System, AKA ext4) because I realized I have no use for the features of BTRFS.
What is the problem with using BTRFS for rootfs?
I think that this form is actually old, from when BTRFS was quite unstable. That point on the list made me chuckle.
It tends to break when you force power off the machine in my experience, where ext4 is super resilient to that kind of stuff.
Thats my experience at least.
Ext4 can't detect data corruption while btrfs can. Btrfs has only bee stable for a handful of years now. It had way to many early adopters that were burned
I get the feeling. I had a fuck-up directory with solutions for my failed android rooting efforts. I tried to flash my phone with a random recovery image I found in an old FAQ section.
Pacman -Syyu when you're feeling extra desperate XD
I've been trying to decide what distro I want to go with for my desktop (Microsoft recently pushed copilot onto my windows 10). While I like the idea of Arch (fast, lightweight) and the fact that it'd be fully compatible with whatever I get on my steam deck, stuff like this makes me think a Debian-based distro would be better.
(That and the fact that most Linux stuff is designed for Debian and I don't have enough experience to try and rebuild Debian stuff for Arch)
The aur usually has what I need, only have had to manually build once... Before I found the aur package. Endeavoros is a good easy way to get into arch if you are worried about the manual configuration.
load more comments
(10 replies)
The Deck is configured by Valve in a way uniquely suited to it, and they also make sure it works properly. It's not going to be the same on vanilla Arch installed by you on your own PC.
Common wisdom for a beginner is to use something like Debian or Debian-based like Mint or Ubuntu because they're popular and stable so you can get a safe start. I wouldn't recommend Arch or Arch-based to a complete beginner.
Honestly I’ve found the opposite of what you said, where on Debian based distros I commonly had to go to a project’s git repo and follow readme instructions to build when it wasn’t in an apt repository. Meanwhile on arch, the only thing you have to install manually is yay and then afterwards everything is in the AUR. Not saying that makes arch more user friendly than Debian (obviously), but that one aspect I do actually find easier on arch at least if you’re willing to use an AUR helper.
It's mostly game-related tools that I've discovered typically have Debian versions but no apparent (official) Arch support. Seems like most people who develop modding tools, save editors, stuff like that, mainly use windows and if you're lucky will have a Mac and maybe Debian version
Edit: the windows binaries aren't a huge issue, they usually work in Wine just fine; I just prefer not having to use wine.
I use mint. Everything works without too much fuss. Certainly easier than dealing with an endless stream of corpo shenanigans. It works quicker than windows ever did.
Oh and another point: on Debian every package you get is Debian. On Arch the stuff in AUR is not Arch and is not supported by Arch, it's unstable experimental stuff and you take your chances with it.
In practice, generally, the AUR stuff trends to mostly work fine but it's never guaranteed. It can and it does break spontaneously from time to time.
This applies to ALL Arch-based distros. So if you plan on counting on AUR to supplement your app needs, please reconsider.
Debian stable has ~100k stable packages included. Arch has ~15k bleeding edge packages included and ~80k "varies wildly" in the AUR. It will not be the same experience.
Debian with Steam and other popular desktop apps (like LibreOffice and Firefox) installed from Flatpak will be a much more reliable experience.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Linux Mint
Debian is nice.
There's always Fedora as well
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›