Artix with OpenRC, Arch with alternative init systems.
Linux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
This has been beaten to the ground.
I like Void because it makes me quirky.
Just kidding.
I like Void because it makes me quirky, doesn't require me to learn how systemD works, AND it is lightweight! Plus it has literally never broken on me.
Ubuntu because it requires the least amount of hack fixes to get working.
And snap has vastly simplified software installation.
That is a bold opinion my friend.
been rockin kde neon for the last little while, but also really like mint
Artix. I went Void -> Arch -> Artix. I can't help but feel that Artix is what Arch should be. Perfect blend between the Arch and Void experience.
Arch is great, but it needs longer explanations considering the user needs to do a lot more. Sometimes you find them, but other times you find a snarky superuser with zero people skills.
It's a shame they aren't government standard, so I could take a local course to become a snarky superuser too.
Most of it involves everyday Linux usages, but some of it is specific to Arch and it breaks so hard. It's not a great thing when you're stupid busy and don't have the headroom to get to the bottom of it. Sometimes all you get is vague theories on how a fix might occur. After that you're playing shell games trying to debug your problems.
Definitely recommend for pro-Linux people that have a breakable laptop that can go on the backburner.
I might have missed the part why you prefer it over others
In working through the installation I was the least disappointed I've ever been with an OS. The result was something I truly liked. If I nail down every single problem it could be my all time favourite machine.
I don't really have a "better distro" preference -- all distros can be tweaked and optimized equally, with no benefits from one another. And yes, even Ub(l)untu.
That is factually incorrect. I bring to you the one and only - 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇹 🇴 🇴 :)
It may be a little behind on updates at this point, but HML is still the best.
Fedora Kinoite because it doesnt suck and doesnt break. Actually switched to ublue kinoite main, very close to upstream with minimal changes that always stay the same (its always the same difference, not weirdly diverging more and more from upstream).
But I dont know if it is the best model, as Fedoras BTRFS snapshots + ostree without the image based thing would sound better ? But this is not existing.
Btw Nix, Flatpak, Distrobox/Toolbox, Distrobox/Toolbox with root, Podman, Docker, layering, removal, are all things that work on Fedora Atomic. Maybe even snap if someone is brave enough to try
zorin os. most out of box functionaility of any distro I know. its a lazy os and im lazy. just want to install and go.
Manjaro, because it's rolling release and it's built on Arch, only the necessary stuff is installed (including a desktop environment), you can set it up with just a few clicks, and it works out of the box, and even proprietary GPU drivers are easily installable with mhwd. Stable and reliable.
In case anything breaks, there's quick help on their forum, which (when it happened to me once) outperformed customer support of proprietary software.
It's been my daily driver for almost 8 years without any major issue.
So in short, robustness, rolling release, simplicity, community.
Edit: I have to add, my use case is for a desktop PC for software design/development + a little gaming.
I've moved to Ubuntu after getting burned pretty badly with CentOS's getting mistreated and eventually killed. Ubuntu feels stable enough, both in terms of their updates/quality and in terms of their corporate proceedings (such that I won't get absolutely blasted by mandatory repos being closed down, for example).
I prefer Arch (btw) due to the fun of installing it and If it breaks then you that process again with onother de or a different setup
void linux. it uses runit and it's a rolling-release. i like runit because i don't like the systemctl
command for some reason. doing ln -s /etc/sv/serv_name /var/service
and sv up serv_name
is way nicer imo.
I was Arch for a long time but now I'm on Fedora. Most of my servers are Ubuntu server, but I'm switching some stuff to fedora server. I've always disliked Ubuntu for some reason.
Arch, because I can never be happy except when I'm bickering with a machine.
Seriously, though, I like the control and the learning factor. I enjoy knowing what my computer is doing and why, AUR is great, and the documentation is generally top-notch. Once you get past the point in the learning curve where everything is on fire and you don't know why (don't forget the 'linux' package when you pacstrap, kids!), it's a delight to use
Fedora Silverblue! 😊
Immutable Linux is the future (and any container-based filesystem )
Immutable Linux are just a path for yet another ecosystem twisting the developer/sysadmins workflow to the point things will require further centralization and/or subscriptions to something.
I'm in the same boat but the future is distant and there are still a lot of stones blocking the way
I started at Sarge, went to Ubuntu Warthog until Eft, and went Suse and Fedora but then changed to Xubuntu Ibex. I stayed until Vervet and since then have found a very comfy home in Arch.