• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • aleq@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.mlLinux middle ground?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    For private use? Hot take, but Arch. It’s easy to maintain and not easy to break at all. I think I spend zero time on maintenance other than running package updates. I only reinstall when I get a new computer.

    (I say for private use only because you’ll be getting weird looks from people if you use arch on a server in a professional setting, and it might break if you try to update it after five years of not doing it since there aren’t any “releases” to group big changes - in practice I run arch on my home server too with no issues)



  • aleq@lemmy.worldtoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldWhy docker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    the biggest selling point for me is that I’ll have a mounted folder or two, a shell script for creating the container, and then if I want to move the service to a new computer I just move these files/folders and run the script. it’s awesome. the initial setup is also a lot easier because all dependencies and stuff are bundled with the app.

    in short, it’s basically the exe-file of the server world

    runs everything as root (not many well built images with proper useranagement it seems)

    that’s true I guess, but for the most part shit’s stuck inside the container anyway so how much does it really matter?

    you cannot really know which stuff is in the images: you must trust who built it

    you kinda can, reading a Dockerfile is pretty much like reading a very basic shell script for the most part. regardless, I do trust most creators of images I use. most of the images I have running are either created by the people who made the app, or official docker images. if I trust them enough to run their apps, why wouldn’t I trust their images?

    lots of mess in the system (mounts, fake networks, rules…)

    that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? stuff is isolated



  • I’m on arch, which I consider one of the larger distros, where most such configuration is very simple. Not sure what rolling mesa is. I probably wouldn’t recommend Ubuntu to anyone who is against using Snap, but there are many distros to choose from if you want KDE as well? It’s more a question of why people would go for Hannah Montana Linux (figuratively speaking, some very niche distro).

    But to respond to your core point, sure. If you do have a lot of customization needs for whatever reason, then by all means. (I still don’t get it)


  • I generally don’t understand why people go for the smaller ones at all. I guess it’s good that someone does to prevent the whole scene being dominated by a single distro, but with some exceptions (e.g. you hate systemd for some reason and really want systemd-less arch, or you have a super niche preferences). For 99% of distros it makes very little difference which one you use, except that you’ll have fewer resources at your disposal (fewer packages, fewer stack overflow threads, fewer everything).


  • I’m well familiar with EEE, I’ve used Linux off and on for something like 20 years, back when Microsoft really was the boogeyman. I don’t think VS code qualifies for this category since it was originally (ish, has roots in Atom I think) open source and Microsoft. It was never embraced/extended, and extinguishing their own product makes no sense. (btw I don’t even use VS Code, shit vim plugins in my experience, jetbrains all the way)

    WSL IMO is a concession on Microsoft’s part, because most dev tools nowadays are being made primarily with Linux in mind. It’s what makes Windows at all usable as a development platform in many situations. And pretty much nothing developed specifically for WSL. All WSL has on a normal Linux distro is integration with the host system AFAIK.