Fetishizes overpriced BS. At that price point it’s just irrelevant for the vaaaast majority of people. Do the extremely ultra wealthy even make their own coffee?
If I had that kind of money I’d buy a car, wtf.
He addresses that concern. This is no machine for you or me to “just add to the countertop”. I think of it as a big proof of concept.
But there are two kinds of people who spend tons of money on small improvements:
rich people with a hobby to fill their life but don’t want starter stuff or are grown out of it
people neck deep in a hobby (i.e. cyclists “regularly” spend 6k on a single bike and hundreds on clothing and accessories) that can afford it.
I know there’s overlap between the groups but it’s something I can think of.
Also, I could think of high end offices that want to really splurge on the coffee kit. The advantage that the machine is instantly hot lends itself to office environments where people want coffee in different intervals.
I was initially going to do a snarky TL;DW because of the click bait title, but instead the video impressed me. She first talks about the science behind microwaves and water molecules, and with that understanding she explains the benefit of microwaving certain things at 50% power. Later she gives a tip about frying stuff in the microwave. Worth the 10+ minutes!
For me there is only two distros. They are Arch an Debian. But that is only me. I don’t think that any of those distros are overreted they just have their own user types and needs.
Gonna go with Manjaro. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why it gets the support it does. It’s not fantastic to begin with, with an apparently incompetent management team. Add in that all the theming is flat and lifeless, and I’m just confused.
I mean, any Arch derived distro with an “easy installer” kinda confuses me. Archinstall is fairly easy to use (although a bit ugly), and most other Arch based distros seem to miss what I see as the main point of Arch: getting to know and personalize your system. So things like Endeavor, Xero, etc. Don’t make a lot of sense to me either. But at least they’re not effectively accidentally DDOSing the AUR…
One good reason to have distros like EndeavourOS is if you have to use an Enterprise WiFi network while installing Arch. Pain in the ass to get iwd to work with them.
I’m very critical of all the immutable distrubtions - as an old timer in tech I’ve seen so many things come and go. I’m also curious, ofcourse, and already tried out a VM with NixOS and everything seemed fine. But I’m going to wait it out before something like that becomes my main driver, I have a job to do (development, systems, stuff) and I cannot afford to say “sorry little to no progress today, my OS needs tinkering”.
(Feel free to tell me I’m wrong :-) I love to tinker with new stuff).
I still need to give NixOS the college try. The docs are slowly getting better but other than that I have heard great things from all over the Internet about it once you get your head around it. I failed at figuring it out on my own but the day will come where it makes sense I’m sure.
I feel like it is too complicated for a desktop user. Linux is already complicated enough. On Silverblue I had to do some mental gymnastic to make some things work because everything is just made for Workstation. I don’t think the advantages outweigh the benefits
All of them: communities are so used to blow their own horn that every Distro becomes overrated in the public debate.
Each single distro is “fine” at best.
Except for Debian.
Debian is Great, Debian is Love.
I realized Arch was overrated when I got a brand new 7900 XT and it didn't work on Arch at all because their LLVM was a version behind. It was up-to-date on Fedora and even Ubuntu, but not Arch. Then there was the whole broken grub thing. Bleeding edge and unstable I get, but you can't be unstable and also behind. You can run Arch in any distro with distrobox, I don't see why you wouldn't just do that.
Ubuntu has ads in the terminal when you update. Runs a highly modified GNOME that doesn't play well with some extensions. Snaps by default (although maybe not that bad now that they seem to launch a bit quicker). Unfortunately so many things only have Ubuntu support if they have Linux support at all, it's such a shame.
LLVM was held back for a good reason, it was breaking things left and right. Even so, if you really needed it there were always AUR packages for it, or lcarlier’s mesa-git repo if you prefer prebuilt packages, so it’s not as if you were just SOL. I got my 7900XT in december, and instructions on how to get it running were already all over the forums and subreddit at the time and it was working on the same day that I got it.
I don’t know when you got your 7900XT, but it was broken on Ubuntu too for a good while, I’m not even sure that it currently works on 22.04 without using external PPAs. In the mean time, it now works with Arch out of the box.
As for the grub thing, I’m not sure how that could have been handled differently. Upstream introduced a change that created a compatibility issue, so Arch could either not update to a newer version of grub ever, or update anyway and tell its users how to handle the compatibility issue. The latter is what they did.
Ubuntu: They break shit, it’s half baked, snaps, and Canonical is really into vendor lock in.
Arch: I really have better things to do then baby sit my install.
RHEL: Containers were created for reasons, and one of them was RHEL.
Any Linux without systemd or glibc: Mistakes were made, and then different mistakes were made trying to prove systemd made mistakes. Musl based Linux distros are going to have compatibility problems, so I might as well run a different OS. The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
Having gone through the Arch install myself, what part dod you find you had to babysit? Boot the install media, format the drive, mount the mounts, install system, configure the system, and done. Maybe it’s just a more involved process than you’d like?
I know you're making a joke but I was convinced recently to try out Arch. I'm running it right now. I was told it's a DIY distro for advanced users and you really have to know what you're doing, etc etc. I had the system up and running in 20 minutes, and about an hour to copy my backup to /home and configure a few things. I coped the various pacman commands to a text file to use as a cheat sheet until muscle memory kicked in.
..and that was it. What is so advanced about Arch? It's literally the same as every other distro. "pacman -Syu" is no different from "zypper dup" in Tumbleweed. I don't get the hype. I mean it's fine. I don't have any overwhelming desire to use something else at the moment because it's annoying to change distros. It's working and everything is fine. As I would expect it to be. But people talk about Arch like its something to be proud of? I guess the relentless "arch btw" attitude made me think it would be something special.
I guess the install is hard for some people? But you just create some partitions, install a boot loader, and then an automated system installs your DE. That's DIY? You want DIY go install NixOS or Void, or hell, go OG with Slackware. Arch is way overrated. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it's just Linux and it's no different from anything else. KDE is KDE no matter who packages it.
Wasn’t Manjaro supposed to be the stable version of Arch? That’s what I’ve heard.
The few years I had with Arch was pretty nice, but when something broke, it was pain to get it back working because downgrading wasn’t (isn’t?) supported. I guess I should have used snapshots of my whole system back then.
youtube.com
Newest