If you’re not into tiling, install openbox and a panel of your choosing. You will quickly find that you don’t need a DE at all.

The maintenance is too high.

acquired knowledge spotted

I will let you on a little secret.

The best “support” you can get is support from upstreams directly (I’m involved in both sides of that equation). But upstreams will often only “support” you when you 1. run the latest stable version 2. the upstream source code wasn’t patched willy-nilly by the packager (your distro).

So the best desktop linux experience comes with using rolling distro that gives you such packages, with Arch being the most prominent example.

The acquired knowledge that argues stability and tells you otherwise is a meme.

• C++ offers no guaranteed memory safety.
• A fictional safe C++ that would inevitably break backwards compatibility might as well be called Noel++, because it’s not the same language anymore.
• If that proposal ever gets implemented (it won’t), neither the promise of guaranteed memory safety will hold up, nor any big C++ project will adopt it. Big projects don’t adopt the (rollingly defined) so-called modern C++ already, and that is something that is a part of the language proper, standardized, and available via multiple implementations.

would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++

bent as expected

This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.

The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

it’s theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++

Maybe try to write more humbly and less fanatically, since you don’t seem to be that knowledgable about anything (experienced in other threads too).

* It’s “theoretically possible” to write memory-safe assembly if we bend contextual meanings enough.

Monthly Reminder: High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

Ask yourself:

• Where do these stats come from?
• What do they actually measure?
• How can the total number of all Desktop Linux users or devices be known to anyone?

​
The fact of the matter is, none of these stats actually measure the number of users. Most of them are just totally flawed guestimates based on what is often limited web analytics data collected by them.

In fact, not even the developers of a single distribution can guess the number of people/devices using/running that specific distribution. A distribution like Debian for example has mirrors, and mirrors to some mirrors, and maybe even mirrors to some mirrors to some mirrors. So if Debian developers can’t possibly know the number of Debian users, do you think OP’s site knows the total number of Desktop Linux users?

And let’s not get into the fact that the limited data they collect itself is not even reliable. View desktop site on your Android phone’s browser. Congratulations! Now you’re a desktop Linux user. No special user-agent spoofing add-on needed. You’re even running X11. Good choice not following the Wayland fad too soon.

High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

sublemmy

Lemmy communities. Mbin/kbin magazines.

I appreciate the attempt at comedy. But I have no problem with Alpine (other than the snail oldmalloc performance). I even contributed a port fix or two.

The more interesting part that should have been read from my comment was that Chimera DOES NOT use GCC. Not to mention that it ships non-GNU coreutils that are usable by desktop users. While Alpine has it’s GNU coreutils package overriding busybox because that’s what most users would want. So that’s another GNU component any non-meme non-turbo-minimalist desktop user would be using on Alpine.

Alpine uses GCC at least.

OpenBoozy/OpenBooza
BundleGreen

The freeze-the-world “stable distro” concept is an outdated meme, especially when it comes to desktop usage.

In server usage, at least there is the idea of not breaking things by avoiding major version upgrades of used services/daemons. But even then, freezing the used services alone, while letting other system components have what may amount to thousands of fixes for some of them (and yes, a few bugs), is probably better, at least conceptually. But it’s admittedly not a well supported setup, unless you’re willing to basically maintain a distro yourself.

And no, the “stable” distro maintainer is not going to magically backport all the “important” changes, unless backport means applying an almost full diff from a later version of the source package.

(I actually mention this because I remember Debian doing this a long time ago with what I think was ffmpeg. lol.)

Many desktop users know this.
Upstream developers definitely know this, and occasionally write about it even.

(I was a Debian user many moons ago. That was before systemd came to existence, or PulseAudio became default in any distro. Went from stable to testing to sid. Testing was the worst, even stability wise. Sid was the best for desktop usage. Then a sid freeze came because a stable release cycle was near. Went to a rolling-release distro and never looked back.)

The Rust hype at least makes sense.

In technical context, yes. I’m a Rustacean myself.
In business/marketing context, …

It’s not you who needs it.
It’s for buzzword chasers and cost cutters.

Rust (=> fast and hip)
Shared (=> outsourced)
AI generated (=> robot devs)

Get it?