I have a swedish keyboard because I am swedish, we have three extra letters compared to the english alphabet. Which means that the standard swedish keyboard layout had to tuck away some symbols into very awkward places using AltGr to type. Programming and using Vim is a bad experience with a swedish keyboard imho.

Maybe a quarter was all the crow had, and the human took it as partial payment.

I used to switch a lot, and created scripts that install distroboxes with all the stuff needed for various purposes like java programming etc. Now on a fresh install I can get back to having all third party libraries and IDE set up with extensions, git configured etc in a couple of minutes. Debian distroboxes for things where versions don’t matter, tumbleweed for latest versions when needed. I looked forward to distrohopping all the time. But now I’m just on debian as the “host” system, no need to switch.

What does this mean?

Many people find Debian to be a “boring” OS. After years of distrohopping some come to the conclusion that a boring OS is exactly what they want.

Time for Navidson and some cameras to document it!

A thorn in everyone’s side.

Oh I know the reason, nobody knew git and had just worked alone before.

Aha. I was part of a project where each dev had their own long running branch for non-specific work and this was the norm, but it always felt clunky. And often resulted in merge issues.

Is it ok to continue on a branch if you also merge back main into it? Like, branch gets merged into main on remote, local main pull, local merge main into local branch, push branch?

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.

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.

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

It makes perfect sense.