A thorn in everyone’s side.

You wrote “It is a myth that arch is unstable”. Arch, being rolling release, is by definition changing. This is, imho, the opposite of stable. This is why it’s important to use precise words. I have no interest in continuing this discussion since you don’t seem to argue in good faith.

If you have a better word for the concept of unchanging functionality and interfaces, I’m open to using that in this context. In describing distros, I’ve only come across the word stable for this. Reliable is a wider concept to me, and also includes being relatively free of bugs. A stable distro can still be buggy, if it’s the same bugs tomorrow as yesterday.

Well, for the sake of clarity, lets separate stability and reliability? Stability means unchanging. Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways.

Do you think you would have that opinion if you ran arch on mission critical production servers for a couple of years?

Back in the day, ubuntu used to be the most user friendly distro. Linux for humans. It has a faster release cycle by not following stable debian releases. It had hardware support that you had to jump through hoops in debian to get. A great community. It made sense to base mint on ubuntu.

Ubuntu is Debian based yes. Not all ubuntu-based comes with snap (for example Mint). Sometimes I think “why are there so many different distros? We only need like five of them”, but then, sometimes I think it’s a strength, each distro exploring a new direction to see what works.

ANDRUM or FJÄTTRA could work.

Polishing dotfiles for the color schemes and vimrc. Version controlling those dotfiles. Using neovim to edit the dotfiles configuring neovim. Scripting the tiling wm to open neovim in a way that fits editing the neovim config. Configuring ansible to be able to deploy the neovim dotfiles quickly from codeberg after reinstalling arch because it’s the weekend and the kernel had some bloat parts so the whole system felt wrong.

You can always use sid. Or debian stable but you do everything that needs bleeding edge in a distrobox.

I was thinking more about legal actions. But then again torrents need trackers and search sites. It seems like it’s hard to shut down pirate bay though. I just have a feeling that usenet flies under the radar a bit, but if it became mainstream, it might be easier to shut down a server than a shifting swarm of peers?

Doesn’t this also mean that the server can be a single point of failure? Whereas in a torrent swarm it’s distributed and more resilient?

What does Mint bring that makes you choose it over Debian on the desktop?

Beginning of the end should mean that it’s still part of the end, just, the beginning of it, like “början på slutet”. To me “startslutet” sounds like the end of the start.

I with they would align LMDE with regular Mint in one aspect though, that there would be an out of the box btrfs layout that matches what Timeshift expects (iirc @ and @home?) which is different from how debian and therefore LMDE sets it up automagically. Maybe this has changed in recent years.

I really liked Ubuntu back when the color scheme was more brown/orange, it seemed so friendly. The last ten years I’ve been on Debian though, but LMDE seems interesting.

The words stable and reliable should have formal definitions.

It certainly seems like public opinion changed the tast ten years or so. As an ubuntu user, could you confirm or deny these claims I’ve seen? One is that firefox is a snap even if you try to install it with apt. Another is that they show ads to get paid ubuntu in the terminal output?

I looked for it on openbsd, but then realized I can just open the source and put the openbsd relevant parts in a script without all the unnecessary parts.

This is a feature to me. I can fix issues and document workarounds, knowing that once it works it will probably continue to work until next release. With rolling or faster moving distros, every day is “I wonder if anything will break today with an update.”