Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

From: Marc Collin <marc.collin7_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:26:52 -0300

Arch Linux was suckless maybe in 2008. Today it's messy, confused and bloated.
For once, it was one of the first distributions to embrace Systemd.
I think these emails about "what's a suckless distribution" are always
bad, but I'll give my advice (research is on you).

From most usable to least usable (as of today)
--- Alpine Linux
--- OpenBSD
--- 9front
--- stali



On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 May 2016 at 06:56, Nick <suckless-dev_AT_njw.me.uk> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> A few nights ago my too-expensive laptop met with too-cheap wine and now
>> it is a far-too-expensive brick. As it's therefore time for me to
>> install a new OS on a new laptop, I was wondering what people would
>> recommend. I've been using Debian Stable for years now, which while it
>> sucks does work well enough that I don't have to think about it very
>> much, so I can do more interesting things with my time. But particularly
>> after reading a few good articles about issues with debian [0] [1] I
>> find myself wondering if there's a better option out there. A rolling
>> release distribution would be fine with me, but only if it didn't break
>> often at all; I enjoyed using Gentoo years ago when I was a student, but
>> keeping it working took a lot of time that I do not want to dedicate to
>> keeping a working system these days. I'd like to try something like
>> morpheus [2], but I suspect that would take quite a lot of time and
>> energy to get going and maintain.
>>
>> Any suggestions / thoughts?
>
> I highly recommend archlinux. The biggest benefit is the no-bullshit
> packaging. They don't patch, they don't fix software, they simply
> package it. If something is a problem, take it up with the software
> developers, not the packagers. Compare that to debian who patches very
> many packages.
>
Received on Thu May 12 2016 - 00:26:52 CEST