• dotslashme@infosec.pubEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    I stopped distro hopping pretty much after trying arch. I still love arch, but my new love is chimera Linux.

    For servers I used to run Debian stable, but these days I’m pretty set on alpine.

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    5 months ago

    I’m enjoying Linux Mint so far

    I’m thinking I may hope around to a distro using a newer kernel but meh

    Mint is pretty nice

    Edit: My “meh” is because Mint has been super stable for me and I’m not really sure that the effort to switch distros is worth it given that my systems are already rock solid.

  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    0·
    5 months ago

    EndeavourOS. Arch, but easy to install. I’m thrilled with it, although I suspect I’d be even happier if I’d have tried one of the convenience installers for the base. Endeavor is has prettier defaults, so less fussing with basic stuff.

    Otherwise, I’m thrilled. I have Artix on my laptop, and while I like not having systemd on it, some things are a bit more kludgey, and I spend more time on maintenance and working to fill gaps. Like, there are not dinit entries for every service, and I have to write them myself; which is absurdly easy, but still. Maybe in a couple years Artix will be less of a chore; in the meantime I’m preferring EndesvorOS.

    I do not like the frequency of reboots necessitated by kernel upgrades. I know that I could mask it, but IME that eventually causes problems with packages than make .ko kernel modules; it’s just more things to fail, and it makes me really wish Linus would have just based Linux on MINIX.

    Anyway, I have 4 computers I deal with which are Debian based, and I never love Arch more than when I have to do something on Debian. Two are Mint, which are infected with flatpack, and I really hate those.

    • Kabe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      I do not like the frequency of reboots necessitated by kernel upgrades. I know that I could mask it, but IME that eventually causes problems with packages than make .ko kernel modules; it’s just more things to fail, and it makes me really wish Linus would have just based Linux on MINIX.

      Here’s a tip that you might not be aware of: Arch has an LTS kernel. It may seem counter intuitive to run Arch and not have the latest, bleeding edge kernel, but the upside is that you get a stabler, less breakage-prone system.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        0·
        5 months ago

        I didn’t know about the LTS kernel. How does that interact with module packages, like the fscking Broadcom support packages, or bcachesfs (before it for mainlined)? That’s where I’ve historically run into issues with pinning the kernel.

        I will absolutely look into this, though. If it prevents the “you need to reboot or else” messages after every Syu, I’m in. On Arch, when you get a message like that, it’s best heeded.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          2·
          2 months ago

          Another pro tip: You don’t need to update Arch every day.
          I update about once a month. Just make sure you read the news and deal with your .pacnew files.

          • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
            2·
            1 month ago

            I’ve gone months between updates. On servers, that’s a little more risky because it CVEs, which can also apply to the kernel, but LTS is probably safe enough there: if there’s a kernel CVE, LTS will be updated.

            I’ve had trouble with pinning the kernel before, though. Last time I did it, I went several months and forgotten I’d done it, and my system got itself wedged because some package was expecting a newer kernel; it took me a while to figure out.

            LTS might be a better option, since that will be caught be dependency management. Pinning can cause version dependency mismatch issues.