I tried to give this video a real chance, but it’s just… really bad.

Their first main point, as best as I can tell through the fluff, is that choice is actually bad because choices have pros and cons - their example being desktop environments. I don’t think I need to explain why this is a bizarre take; that’s the whole point of choice. It’s like saying the whole concept of choosing an ice cream flavor is a joke because you don’t like chocolate ice cream.

Then they start talking about using outdated packages in Linux. Which, of course, isn’t an inherently bad thing in all situations, despite their anecdote about having to use an outdated version of software with a memory leak. Amusingly they say you should keep everything 100% updated all the time because breakage basically never happens (and that updates breaking things is a myth perpetuated by Microsoft) then say Arch Linux is prone to breakage. The real kicker is that this whole point of theirs not only has nothing to do with ‘choice on Linux being a joke’, choice is actually the solution to this problem - being able to choose stability vs cutting edge is a core part of Linux. What’s hilarious is that they actually say if you want stability you should choose a distro focused on stability.

Then they talk about how proprietary software often doesn’t support Linux. Which sucks to be sure, but has little to do with the central thesis of the video (as much as it has one) and is just a pointless snipe at low-hanging fruit.

The video is generic pop clickbait composed from a mix of criticisms everyone has heard and complete nonsense. It’s a meaningless collection of ideas and gripes that neither contribute to the larger conversation nor serve to educate people.

I love it. I think that should be the official title for our mini generation.

And after that he goes directly into a tedious story that does more to make me dislike him than actually build up the point he’s trying to make. I agree with the basic premise of the article, but the endless passive aggressive anecdotes really don’t help.

Hah, are we the same person? My family was poor too. I’m a bit younger (born 2000) but I grew up using a VCR, and my first console was a GBA where I played a lot of SNES ports. The internet has existed my entire life, but I still remember before smartphones were a thing. It’s a really weird place to be socially. I don’t connect with Gen Z culture in almost any way, but I’m also distinctly not a millennial.

Interestingly my older sister (1998) who has zero interest in anything tech is actually pretty tech savvy for how little she cares about it. I think she crossed that threshold of learning how to learn, where even when she comes across something she doesn’t understand she knows how to approach the problem.

Oh you’re right, no wonder this looked kinda weird but kinda normal.

ngl I actually really like that. the start button popping out over the taskbar is a nice touch. what’s the setup?

Garuda has a Lite edition that doesn’t include any of the theming, just vanilla KDE Plasma. It’s been my daily driver for a year or two now, I really like it. What sets it apart are the GUI tools for system maintenance and tweaking, in which it’d be easy to mess things up, but they make doing common changes and adjustments easy. I don’t know if that makes it good or bad for beginners, I guess it depends on the person.

You’re underrepresenting the complications of NixOS and overrepresenting the complications of Arch. For example, to install Steam I would run sudo pacman -Syu steam. On a typical Arch setup that’s all that’s needed.

Another example is how to install Steam. In Arch, the wiki must tell you all the manual steps required to enable multilib, install the steam package, install 32bit dependencies, yada yada.

And that’s why the Arch wiki is so great - it has details and links about everything that goes into making something work. If you want to learn more or if something goes wrong it’s all right there.

But yes, I think you hit the nail on the head at the end there - hackability is Arch’s strength, everything is exposed and flexible to tinkering. It’s easy to make almost anything work, and easy to learn how it works. That’s very different from NixOS’s core philosophy of stability and reproducibility.

There are inherent pros and cons to both approaches - it really comes down to a mix of personal preference and using the right tool for the right job. They’re apples and oranges, and the article framing NixOS as a superior successor to Arch is as silly as the reverse would be.