I loaded pop os years back for the nvidia support and since i bought hardware from the same manufacturer that supplies system76. Its been fine, no complaints other than the battwry life…to be expected.
I found out that sys76 keeps most its software and drivers only for machines it sells. When i try to install things, i get unknown system. Fyi
I made the mistake of going with Pop_OS for one of my stores workstations. Its been an almost endless amount of frustration with all the stupid shit Pop has done. Is it better then windows? sure, but its down there with arch as a usable OS in anything outside of an LTT video.
Seems a bit of a self report that you’ve never used Arch IMO. I use it on a daily basis on 2 PCs and never have any issues. Arch is as good as the person using it.
When did I say I never used it? Its just not a good choice unless you really like to configure your Linux. For workstations that my staff (who are not interested in Linux or PCs at all) have to use, I go with things that are stable and easy like mint.
Its just not a good choice unless you really like to configure your Linux.
Yep, you have no clue.
For workstations that my staff (who are not interested in Linux or PCs at all) have to use
Nice Motte & Bailey fallacy retreating from the ridiculous statement that “…its down there with arch as a usable OS…” to try and seem more reasonable now.
If I don’t want to fuck with the OS and if setting it up takes more then 15 min then its not a good choice, but please tell me to “get gud” about what I value in an OS. I am sure that is why so many people use arch over other distros, the kind support.
Nice Motte & Bailey fallacy retreating from the ridiculous statement that “…its down there with arch as a usable OS…” to try and seem more reasonable now.
That is why it is not a useable OS, 100% the fact that laypeople have to daily drive it. There was no retreating from me, not at all, I stand by my statement that arch is not a usable OS for workstations. And before you try and say that “for workstations” is some sort of moving the goalposts, I made the statement on arch not being usable in a comment about putting distros on my stores workstations.
The problem is that you didn’t state your premises very well, making your argument harder to follow. (You also argue very broadly.)
You first argued that Arch is not a usable operating system, which is a bold claim given that it’s one of the most popular Linux distros. While you did mention a workstation before, the claim regarding Arch wasn’t obviously connected to that, implying that Arch is not useful for any purpose.
When asked to back up that claim you talked about workstations for nontechnical users (which hadn’t been mentioned before). That didn’t match your earlier claims; you made a broad statement and then defended a narrower one. That’s indeed a motte and bailey argument even if you simply forgot to mention some details.
Also, if the users are nontechnical they’re probably not the ones who administer the workstations so they don’t need to care about technical details as long as you can provide a desktop and the applications they need.
After that you declared that any OS that needs more than 15 minutes to set up is useless, which amounts to pretty much all of them unless you don’t engage in any configuration at all. And, well, it’s another bold claim. It’s basically on par with “Mint is completely pointless because unlike Alpine I can’t use it to ship 5 MB Docker images”; you’re basically declaring that your specific use case is equivalent to any use case any Linux user will ever have.
A coherent version of your argument would be “I don’t like Arch because when I set up workstations for Linux-averse users it was much more work than Mint and I prefer something that’s quick and easy to set up”. And fair enough, that’s a perfectly valid reason for you to prefer Mint over Arch. But it’s not an indication that Arch is worse in general or even unusable. It’s just a bad fit for this specific use case.
Pop_OS! is fine, even if COSMIC is unrefined. It will get there eventually. Comparing it to Windows is libel.
I loaded pop os years back for the nvidia support and since i bought hardware from the same manufacturer that supplies system76. Its been fine, no complaints other than the battwry life…to be expected.
I found out that sys76 keeps most its software and drivers only for machines it sells. When i try to install things, i get unknown system. Fyi
I made the mistake of going with Pop_OS for one of my stores workstations. Its been an almost endless amount of frustration with all the stupid shit Pop has done. Is it better then windows? sure, but its down there with arch as a usable OS in anything outside of an LTT video.
Seems a bit of a self report that you’ve never used Arch IMO. I use it on a daily basis on 2 PCs and never have any issues. Arch is as good as the person using it.
When did I say I never used it? Its just not a good choice unless you really like to configure your Linux. For workstations that my staff (who are not interested in Linux or PCs at all) have to use, I go with things that are stable and easy like mint.
Yep, you have no clue.
Nice Motte & Bailey fallacy retreating from the ridiculous statement that “…its down there with arch as a usable OS…” to try and seem more reasonable now.
If I don’t want to fuck with the OS and if setting it up takes more then 15 min then its not a good choice, but please tell me to “get gud” about what I value in an OS. I am sure that is why so many people use arch over other distros, the kind support.
That is why it is not a useable OS, 100% the fact that laypeople have to daily drive it. There was no retreating from me, not at all, I stand by my statement that arch is not a usable OS for workstations. And before you try and say that “for workstations” is some sort of moving the goalposts, I made the statement on arch not being usable in a comment about putting distros on my stores workstations.
The problem is that you didn’t state your premises very well, making your argument harder to follow. (You also argue very broadly.)
You first argued that Arch is not a usable operating system, which is a bold claim given that it’s one of the most popular Linux distros. While you did mention a workstation before, the claim regarding Arch wasn’t obviously connected to that, implying that Arch is not useful for any purpose.
When asked to back up that claim you talked about workstations for nontechnical users (which hadn’t been mentioned before). That didn’t match your earlier claims; you made a broad statement and then defended a narrower one. That’s indeed a motte and bailey argument even if you simply forgot to mention some details.
Also, if the users are nontechnical they’re probably not the ones who administer the workstations so they don’t need to care about technical details as long as you can provide a desktop and the applications they need.
After that you declared that any OS that needs more than 15 minutes to set up is useless, which amounts to pretty much all of them unless you don’t engage in any configuration at all. And, well, it’s another bold claim. It’s basically on par with “Mint is completely pointless because unlike Alpine I can’t use it to ship 5 MB Docker images”; you’re basically declaring that your specific use case is equivalent to any use case any Linux user will ever have.
A coherent version of your argument would be “I don’t like Arch because when I set up workstations for Linux-averse users it was much more work than Mint and I prefer something that’s quick and easy to set up”. And fair enough, that’s a perfectly valid reason for you to prefer Mint over Arch. But it’s not an indication that Arch is worse in general or even unusable. It’s just a bad fit for this specific use case.