bismuthbob

Arch offers a combination of rolling software updates, a simple but easily customized base, pacman for the package manager, the AUR, a barebones installation process by default, good documentation, and active development. That may or may not be a good combination based on your goals.

Other distros offer a different combination of characteristics. Those characteristics are a starting point and you can get to the same destination no matter what you use. The trick is figuring out what starting point is closest to your destination or which starting point makes the journey fun for you. For some people, Arch is that. For plenty of people, Arch isn't that.

Easy if you go step by step and don't accidentally skip anything. Archinstall will get you to the same result with lower risk of failure, in a tenth of the amount of time spent. And unless you install operating systems for a living, it doesn't matter how you get there. Source: Installed Arch on about a dozen different devices, twice without Archinstall.

If you're looking to learn something, do Linux from Scratch instead. The process is way more granular, way more documented, and way more educational than parroting the steps of installing Arch from the wiki.

That multicolor combo is amazing! Makes me wish I had more separate parts to paint when I coated mine.

My take: Ride as is if you can stand it, but there's no wrong answer.

I powder-coated a Motobecane of similar age and I don't regret it. The original paint job with hand-painted details must have been great, but decades of sun, rain, and neglect obliterated it. Restoration would have been starting over from scratch so I sandblasted and turned it into an electric blue beast of burden.

Somebody else can restore the original paint job 50 years from now. I'm just keeping the frame safe for them until they're done being born and growing up somewhere. It'll be waiting for them when they're ready.

I think that phrases like 'anti-consumer' can stick to any target, so long as they're thrown with a sufficient amount of bullshit.

I played around with Mandrake and Debian around the turn of the century. A bit of a break, but then I started dual-booting Ubuntu in the Windows Vista/X86 OSX era. I jumped to Xubuntu and started running Linux by itself on several machines around 2012.

I largely shifted to Arch around the time that snaps came out because they weren't playing nice with some of my low-end machines. Nowadays, mainly Arch. Exceptions: Fedora on my M1, Debian Bookworm on an old x86 tablet and any time I set up WSL on a Windows machine.

Agreed. My old pebble lasts for over a week, not that I use it for much more than an alarm clock/metronome nowadays.

It does those jobs extremely well, though.

I upgraded in place from 39 and didn't experience any hiccups on my M1 MBA. Works fine for me.

I owe myself a fresh install of freebsd on decent, well-supported hardware sometime. I end up shoving it on niche, constrained or old hardware to see if I can get better results than linux. One day, I'll give it a real rundown on modern hardware.

When I played around with FreeBSD I was fascinated by Securelevels and file flags. I don't have any real use for that functionality on the systems that I run, but I probably would've thought of something by now if it was a Linux feature.

I agree.

A part of me misses the days of dual-using a rock solid professional server OS for business and a cobbled-together similar OS for home computers and older hardware.

Cobbled-together became good enough. Then it became better in some cases. Then it became better in most cases. Now I haven't bothered with a non-Linux for over half a decade.

I always assumed that a lot of this boils down to semantics and trademark law.

OpenIndiana is a direct code-line descendant of Unix System V through OpenSolaris via Solaris. Thank you for that, Sun Microsystems. I understand (but haven't looked) that a lot of code these days is simply ported over from BSD or Linux. If you compare the source code to an old copy of the Lions book, you're probably not going to see any line-by-line overlap. Thank goodness - we shouldn't be literally running old operating systems from the '80s. I don't think that OpenIndiana is Unix-certified by the Open Group (Trademark).

The BSDs started out as a sort of 'Ship of Theseus' rebuild of an academic-licensed copy of Unix around the time that AT&T was getting litigious and corporate Unixes (Unices?) were starting to Balkanize.

GNU/Linux started out as a work-alike (functions the same but with totally different code) inspired by MINIX, which in turn was an education-licensed Unix work-alike designed to show basic operating system principles to students. I think that one or more linux-based operating systems have obtained UNIX certification from the Open Group, just like Apple did for MacOS (paying money and passing some tests). It doesn't seem like any of them are still paying to keep up the certification. Does it matter if they did at one point?

Going back to proprietary corporate Unixes, I believe that IBM AIX and HP-UX still exist as products. They started out as UNIX and have been developed continuously since then. They are both Certified Unix. By now, their codebases probably diverge substantially both from one another and from all of the Unix-likes. IBM also has a mainframe OS with a fascinating history that has nothing to do with UNIX. It is Certified Unix because it passes the right tests and IBM paid for certification. It is not UNIX code and doesn't descend from UNIX code.

Simple as.