Examples could be things like specific configuration defaults or general decision-making in leadership.

What would you change?

  • @[email protected]
    6•11 months ago

    For Arch Linux:

    • support a different process supervisor
      • dinit, or
      • s6 with some high level sugar
    • don’t use Bash anywhere
      • port down to POSIX, and
      • port up to Zsh
      • port minimal launchers to execline
    • replace PKGBUILD format, maybe with
      • nearly identical but Zsh
      • NestedText containing Zsh snippets
        • use this to render Zsh based on templates
          • my favorite template engine: wheezy.template
    • build packages with more optimizations, like the CachyOS repos
    • include or endorse something like aconfmgr
    • port conf files to NestedText
    • @Falcon
      3•11 months ago

      I couldn’t agree more with this, projects like artix are undermined by all the hard dependencies on systemd and Bash.

      Void attracted me because of the support for posix, runit and musl (plus good zfs support). It’s unfortunate that Arch doesn’t have that greater portability.

    • Baut [she/her] auf.
      2•11 months ago

      But why zsh? I thought it’s basically just bash?
      Why not fish, oil shell or whatever is up with ddevault’s shell?

      • @[email protected]
        1•11 months ago

        There are many advantages relative to bash, especially much better array handling, and comprehensive globbing and expansion expressions. You can reduce your reliance on external tools, which may have multiple alternative implementations (a source of unpredictability).

        Some defenses are written up at

        https://www.arp242.net/why-zsh.html

        (not my post)

        For me, fish’s differences from older shells count against it without offering any compelling benefits.

        Newer shells like nushell and oils/ysh are exciting and have a lot going on, but are not mature or familiar.