Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
You know, we had OS that were difficult to install 30 years ago. I had to set fucking jumpers and DIP switches manually. That got me the interrupt and IO port settings. Then I had to make the OS match the hardware settings. Plug and play was not yet invented, memory was scarce, CPU power also.
Today, this is a solved problem. We have the RAM, we have the disk space, we have plug and play. The only reason why installing an OS could be hard is because the SW is fucked up.
Mucking around with OS installation in 2019 is about as much of an exciting "achievement" as discovering that the American continent exists.
Computers are a commodity, just like cars. You know, the first ones took half an hour to start, with tons of manual levers and shit. Today, you turn around a key because a car isn't about a car anymore. People are on another level - they just use the car to get from A to B.
Welcome to the future, we're there. Well, most of us at least.
@Fast-Nop wtf kinda of future you're talking about?
I just demonstrated that windows is basically a product from the past.
it drags on unscrutinized software from ages ago that eventually gets vulnerabilized.
it doesn't boot fast, it forces updates with reboots, it's closed source (while every major software project out there is nowadays open)
all this fucking response is broken as fuck, because you do that preface of all that legacy bullshit that you had to do with older system, as if you have a similar scenario with linux.
End users want a car that just runs? I understand that. You on the other hand are not an end user, and you have a choice to learn more modern and transparent systems, but no, let's just keep using vulnerable and slow windows because it has a better out of the box experience.
arch is too "unfuture" to you? fine, there are other distros much easier to install that are still way better pieces of software than windows.
would you rather powershell than bash?
Yeah, arch is the other way around: might work much more nicely and gracefully than Windows, but it's only recommended if you don't care about the stability of its bleeding edge repos, and have tons of time to spare to configure your system. If you haven't used Linux before and want your sanity, don't use arch. Debian is there for a reason: to be one of the most stable OSes and ecosystems out there. Ubuntu is there for a reason: to make stuff in the Linux world a little easier. Elementary OS is there for a reason: to make the most beautiful and functional ecosystem possible. Arch' reason is to basically squeeze all the potential out of a PC. And that does not align with what most people do with their PC. Nobody who just wants something that works wouldn't get his hands dirty with it. So, don't recommend it to newbies, it will just push them away back to Windows. If you still want to squeeze everything out of a PC but don't have time to spare, I recommend Solus.
The vast majority of computer users (even developers) need their computer to be a commodity. They will choose hardware/OS accordingly.
The flaw in that reasoning is that nobody who has never used Linux would consider it to replace a major component of their workflow, unless they were forced to use it. There is a stigma, especially among people ignorant to it, about Linux: it's esoteric, it's obfuscated, it's unstable, it's difficult.
The vast majority aren't going to treat Windows and Linux as commodities. Given their own choices, they're going to use the tool they already know. Some may get curious and decide to try Linux in some form, but most just carry on using the tool they know.
@aggelalex see, I used to think this a couple of months ago but a friend of mine got me to try it out in my summer vacation and I thought "might as well see what this is all about. If it breaks I can easily go back to ubuntu". But it didn't, it actually works like a charm. It was piss easy to install as well since it's basically just copying and pasting a bunch of commands. Then when it is installed, well it just works.
My favourite thing is how like everything is in pacman, and the two things that aren't are in the AUR which I use a program called "yay" to install shit from. Which is fun because when I need something from the AUR, like Dropbox, I just type "yay dropbox". The same with updating all my software and system, I just type "yay" :v
I also like how I can actually use KDE and not have VLC installed. Had to have that with Ubuntu since apt is kinda fucked
I also thought I'd have problems since I have to dual boot with Windows, but nope, os-prober to the rescue
@inaba exactly, people blah shit about arch from the non experience.
exceptionally hard? wtf? the bar is too low for these guys. they either didn't try to install at all, or gave the laziest try ever.
the average dev out there is too damn lazy or terrible. if they can't find everything figured out for them on stackoverflow, then it's exceptionally hard.
i heard people say linux from scratch is harder IS hard, but it wouldn't shock me to find out it's not really that hard either.
@inaba ok. Acceptable. But when I'm installing an OS, or any package, or anything at all, I don't want to deal with shell. GUI exists for a reason. You can't tell me that retyping commands is easier than eg. the Debian installer or the Ubuntu installer. Because with commands you can mess up things much easier. And you can't tell me that issuing yay or apt commands is something a new user can get used to faster than GNOME software in Ubuntu or Debian, or AppCenter in elementary OS. Also don't forget that because arch packages are exceptionally bleeding edge, things might break much easier. Eg. A friend of mine who was using arch wanted to make some .vapi files from his existing gobject c code, and he had problems because of an error that was produced by a very recent commit, whilst I, in elementary OS, could do it flawlessly, because things were a little older and more stable.
@jesustricks If my job as a Dev was to maintain an arch system, I would have no particular problem. But using arch as my daily driver is just extra work for nothing. You can't blame Devs for choosing the least time consuming way to do things, if they didn't development would take ages. There is a video on YouTube of Linus saying why he prefers Fedora instead of Debian. The reason? Simple: Fedora is much easier to install. Now if you tell me Linus is some kind of trivial dev I would say you have no logic. But he actually chose something because he thought it made life easier for him. Choosing something over something else because it's faster and easier is not something to be ashamed of, provided that it does it works properly. And arch as a desktop OS is not something that will make your life easier.
@aggelalex I have never said it was easier I said it was piss easy. Doing "sudo pacman -S discord" to install discord is piss easy. Upgrading your system by typing "yay" and then your password is also, piss easy.
"Might" is also a very very vague keyword to use. Might also mean 1 in every 10000 packages.
bahua131912yCan't you set your repos in pacman to use older software?
@aggelalex @aggelalex at no point in my comments or post did I say that everyone should use arch.
What I did say was that most devs shouldn't use windows.
And I also said that arch is nowhere near as hard as people make it to be. In fact, I described it as intermediate level.
Like I said to fast-nop and I'll add emphasis this time, if people wants to use a friendlier distro, I'm DOWN with that. That is way better than keep using windows.
You saying that arch won't make your life easier sounds like you talking from non-experience. It sure is making my life easier, otherwise I wouldn't use it.
every single argument you're adding seems to be based on non-experience or just lack of personal skill, so I really lost interest in responding to you.
@jesustricks I don't overly care about the OS. I don't even care about the computer. I care about what I can do with this machine. I've switched between Windows and Linux multiple times, whatever was less crappy at the time.
I certainly won't use an OS that requires more reading up in wikis how to install in 2019 just to show how dev I am. Being a dev doesn't mean I'd use shitty and unfinished installers.
Also, I'm so dev and my dick is so big that I can develop even on Windows.
@aggelalex and stop spreading that idea that "arch linux is extremely cutting edge".
a comment from the arch linux sub
"For the umpteenth time(no offence), arch isn't bleeding edge. It's cutting edge. We test the packages in [Testing] before we actually put them in the main repo, that means you aren't on the bleeding edge."
I use the stable repo for example.
@Fast-Nop yeah I don't care about your unprofessional "I don't care" mentality either, in fact most comments I read from you scream of poor ethics or skills. so not interested in your feedback really.
is your reference to your dick funny? maybe, but it sure makes you just another edgy shitty dev/sysadmin.
you didn't reply my question of "do you rather powershell than bash?"
@jesustricks You're suffering from Dunning Kruger. You wouldn't recognise competence even if someone shat it in your face. Go on with your stupid teenage arch fanboy mentality - maybe you'll grow up some day.
I also don't care about bash or even Windows cmd batch files. I can get shit done on both, which I have to anyway when I cross-develop stuff both for Windows and Linux.