HayadSont @ HayadSont @discuss.online

Posts

10

Comments

159

Joined

3 mo. ago

Thank you for mentioning Kate! The GNOME-fanboy inside of me would probs like to resist it, but sometimes KDE's offering is strictly better^[I absolutely adore Okular.] at least IMO*. I'll look into it and see if it satisfies my needs.

It’s a GUI and not a TUI though. Not sure if that was a requirement as well

That wasn't a requirement. Regardless, thank you for the heads up!

Apologies for not being clear, and thank you for probing me to answer the right questions:

• I'm not married to Markdown or any other markup language, but it is true that Markdown makes up my primary use case.
• Though, with emacs installed, I've also dabbled into org-mode. And while I've been liking it so far, I understand that it's mostly an emacs thing.
• I suppose my current needs would mostly be fulfilled with Markdown + LaTeX.

Here’s Eclipse, for example.

Thank you for mentioning Eclipse! Will look into it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_text_editors

This has a "text folding" and "code folding" column.

Wow, that's pretty neat! Very much appreciated!

That's a lot of options! Thank you.

Sorry, I don't understand. It seems others have already recommended text editors that probably fit the bill.

Perhaps my post was unclear or causing confusion? If so, please allow me to correct myself.

Thank you for the clarification!

While I didn't mention it explicitly in the post, I do intend to stick to open source.

Hopefully it will receive it soon*; my Helix-installation has been collecting dust ever since the folding-workflow has been growing on me.

Interesting. First time reading about it*. Were it not for you, this might have been completely off the radar. So thank you for mentioning it!

But I’d guess that for most tasks, Emacs org-mode is the most powerful option.

Yeah, it has been slowly growing on me 😜. But I would like to explore all other options before I fully commit.

Looks cool. Thanks!

Uhmm..., did I understand correctly that it's not open source?

Would you mind pointing out which animations are allegedly not disabled?

Sure, can they consider stopping wasting money / time actually develop useful stuff? For a DE that got €1M from the Sovereign Tech Fund they’re not showing results.

It is a fact that GNOME is the only other DE (besides KDE Plasma) that has modern features. So, frankly, I don't know what you're talking about.

Furthermore, GNOME's ways lends itself a lot better to the secure by default/design paradigm(s) as illustrated by this table from secureblue.

however a “disable animations” toggle on the settings that doesn’t disable ALL animations…

Do you mean the one that used to be in accessibility? Though, FWIW, I couldn't even find it this time 😅. Instead, consider to evoke the following command:

gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface enable-animations false

I'll grant you that it might feel archaic for some to do this through a terminal. Though, this setting is also accessible through Dconf Editor. Regardless, at least it works as desired.

Mind elaborating?

While I don't enjoy the fact that this introduces a ton of maintenance issues on systemd-less systems that would like to continue supporting GNOME, I do think leveraging systemd to elegantly revive the session save/restore functionality bodes a lot of optimism for the set of features that will follow.

I'm at least thankful that this maintainer/contributor dedicated about half of their announcement on how systemd-less systems could alleviate this issue.

Please consider to stop hating on GNOME or its design choices the very moment it's brought up.

And if GNOME is considered “not very customisable” in the linux world, KDE, Cinnamon, etc. must be even more customisable

It's more like GNOME doesn't come with a lot of customization options OOTB. You need extra tools -be it Tweaks, Extension Manager or the somewhat archaic Dconf Editor- to unleash the plethora of customization options in a palpable manner.

On the upside, GNOME's extensions do allow for extensive customization with 'ease'. Heck, this often goes beyond what other DEs are capable of (see e.g. PaperWM^{[Which has inspired a full-blown WM in [Niri](https://github.com/YaLTeR/niri).] or [Material Shell](https://material-shell.com/#material-shell)}[For which Nicco, a KDE developer that also makes content on YouTube, said that its customization (likely) goes beyond what was possible on KDE Plasma at the time.]).

i did have to roll back there

I think this is pivotal!

Updates can come with breaking changes. Therefore, the way a distro handles its updates is perhaps more important than its update cadence:

• Some choose to outright freeze packages and only come with security updates
• Others have (almost) excessive testing to prevent breakage
• Yet others employ rollbacks to ensure that the (eventual/inevitable) breakage can easily be deflected
• Finally, there are distros that fall on a spectrum in regards to their more radical state management in hopes of minimizing breakage
• (Though, I'm sure I've forgotten some other methods...)
• And, of course, we find combinations of the above employed on the very same distro/system

Sorry for my ramblings, but with M$ sunsetting W10, I feel there's a great opportunity for Linux to capitalize on this event. Yet, as your own experience clearly shows, the 'default' to recommend Mint/Ubuntu/Pop!_OS (or your average Ubuntu-based distro) isn't always a guarantee for success. And were it not for your insistence on trying out different distros, we might have 'lost' you 😭. Hopefully we will ever-adapt as a community to better accommodate the needs of to-be M$-refugees.

but I think I would always wonder if other distros were ‘more’ right for me.

Hahaha, very recognizable.

Your reply is much appreciated as it is yet another piece of (anecdotal) evidence that Arch-based distros can be picked up by complete newbs with success. While I don't think it's necessarily for everyone, the almost militant opposition by naysayers isn't warranted either.

Though I wonder, do you think you're more 'tech-savvy' than the average newcomer? Or, at least, more willing to read/understand/work for your system?

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

Do you think your experiences on Pop!_OS and Kubuntu were instrumental for EndeavourOS working out for ya? Or do you think you could have jumped straight to EndeavourOS successfully?

I was under the impression Arch was more for “hardcore” users, is that an outdated mindset (or was it ever true)?

It's more nuanced than that.

Arch Linux, the distro Garuda Linux is derived from, is definitely not a distro that holds your hand like e.g. Linux Mint does. It (somewhat) demands you to read extensively through its excellent^[Arch Linux is not unique in its extensive documentation. This is more of a trend we find on other distros that come with (almost) no defaults; e.g. Gentoo also sports a(n arguably even more) comprehensive Wiki. This makes total sense as these systems require from their users to set it up. Which, unsurprisingly, is a nonstarter without proper guidance.] ArchWiki.

However, Garuda and other derivatives^[This includes but is not limited to the likes of CachyOS and EndeavourOS. A more exhaustive list is found here.] are opinionated takes on Arch that try to fulfill a specific goal that its respective maintainers have in mind. This can range from using Arch Linux as a base for delivering:

• a scrutinizingly optimized distro that at (the very) least inches out every other distro in performance (i.e. CachyOS)
• a distro that functions as a glorified installer^[Historically speaking, the hardest part about Arch Linux was its installation. This has since been mostly alleviated with the introduction of archinstall.] for Arch. But with that, remains very close in spirit to what Arch is all about (i.e. EndeavourOS)
• a ready-to-go gaming distro (i.e. Garuda Linux)
• (and everything in between and beyond...)

(Note that the oversimplified descriptions found above don't quite do justice to the enormous effort that is put into these projects. Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that each of these distros proud themselves on the amazing communities they've built.)

Finally, it goes without saying that having an Arch base continues to pose a (potential) maintenance burden^{[I think the [**Upgrading the system** section of its **System maintenance** wiki entry](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance#Upgrading_the_system) is one of the most striking examples of what I mean. I'm simply unaware of any other distro that requires/demands something similar. Note that -on Arch- you're encouraged to update daily or at least weekly.] with the constant stream of updates. While some of the above distros include some of the available protections by default, none claim to provide a silver bullet}[In Arch Linux' defense, this is a hard problem to solve without introducing radical changes. Even openSUSE that pioneered the BTRFS + Snapper workflow in its Tumbleweed, is actively seeking and working on an even more powerful solution. But let's not get down that rabbit hole for now 😜.]. Thankfully, problems 'should' only act up every once in a while. And (almost surely) deflecting them with a working snapshot provides an evergreen magical experience.

So, to conclude, Arch Linux as a distro definitely is more demanding than e.g. Linux Mint. However, the derivatives mentioned above definitely bridge the gap to a remarkable extent. So much so, perhaps, that you might not even notice much of a difference (besides the constant stream of updates).

What is the kernel version on your system? On both Linux Mint and Ubuntu*

Penguins-eggs to the rescue.