this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
418 points (95.0% liked)
linuxmemes
21272 readers
422 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's the deal with Arch/CLI/"complicated" linux distro hate? GUIs generally suck more than CLI/TUI tools. If Arch distributed an official GUI installer ISO, nobody would ever use it; the ISO would be huge compared to its current size and the archinstall TUI is the best installer I've come across so far. Just stop being afraid of the terminal.
Debian also doesn't come with a GUI package manager as far as I'm aware.
Also stop shilling Linux Mint to new users. Fedora, OpenSUSE TW, Debian, Ubuntu, and I'd even say Clear Linux are all more attractive operating systems to use for anyone who switches over. Cinnamon is just not as good as the alternatives and if you're not using Cinnamon, you might as well use Debian.
Of course it has one.
May I know why Linux Mint is that bad of an OS? For me I feel like Mint is more refined than Ubuntu (especially with how canonical is going). There's only one app center, one update manager, familiarity with windows, fast enough and has essentials pre installed (even if it is bloat for veterant Linux users).
I can accept the argument that there is no Wayland and packages are a bit behind, but for the average user, that's fine
There are a couple of issues with Mint, the biggest one by far, in my opinion, is the slow update schedule, anything more than 6 months really isn't usable for the desktop, this leads to a reliance on Flatpak and the inability to compile and use a lot of packages. The second biggest issue is Cinnamon, it's outdated, very restrictive, lacks a lot of important features, and is generally ugly (in my opinion of course) you can't even really change the default desktop since the others ones are extremely outdated in the repos. It's still ok to use but just not very compelling beyond it's similarities to Windows when compared to other distros.
I'd generally say that the non-immutable spins of Fedora are way nicer to use due to the larger repos and newer packages. You also don't really lose anything on Fedora that you'd get on Mint, you still have a GUI package manager and installer so even new users can use it intuitively.
If people didn't need Arch with GUI, distributions like EndeavourOS, Manjaro, Garuda wouldn't exist
The best CLI installer I used was from FreeBSD, the arch CLI installer didn't even run on bare metal and I'm not afraid of the terminal, I often use it to configure dot files and use programs that don't have a GUI, I just think that the lack of choice between GUI and CLI is bad
I do not want a distro with garbage pre installed, you have the choice to not use Arch, it is the "CLI choice."