Thanks for mentioning Helix! I've definitely considered Helix. But as 'its Vim implementation' messes the structure of its 'sentences', it seemed somewhat detrimental with respects to improving my Vi(m)-game. Furthermore, I am not confident that it will continue to thrive 20 years down the line; while both Emacs and Vi(m) have already proven with their respective track records how robust their ecosystems are.

It is missing a few features still (e.g.plugins) but I have been using helix for a while and it is really fun.

Which is another concern 😅. For whatever it's worth, I believe Lapce to be more promising.

I think that one of emacs’ surprising great points is that there is a plugin for a lot of smaller languages. If you’re working with a language that has no special text editor love at all you’re likely better off using vim but if the language authors made a plugin for their language, it’s likely either going to be for emacs or vscode.

Very interesting. I didn't know that Emacs was better at providing plugins. Would you happen to know to what that is attributable?

Spacemacs has a bespoke customization system involving layers that is not all that friendly towards copy & pasting code from the internet. Doom emacs customization leans more to the vanilla side which can help if you need to solve a problem in your workflow.

Did I understand you correct in that customizing Spacemacs is a completely different beast. So knowledge acquired related to it doesn't translate well to Vanilla/Doom Emacs and vice versa?

I tend to use both, depending on the situation, with a lighter nvim config. Sometimes the 3 second emacs startup time is annoying so I use vim then. I think its fine to try both.

Could you elaborate more upon your workflow? Like, in which situation do you prefer Emacs and when do you prefer Neovim? I get that the lighter option is preferred when you want to perform a quick edit or can't be bothered with startup time. But I want to know it beyond that and -if possible- what led you to favor one over the other in each situation.

Regarding emacs declining popularity, I think that in the long term it could be a problem, since most people don’t want to learn elisp just to configure their editor. Elisp is very powerful in emacs, but its design is very different to other languages, so as emacs contributors get older, it could possibly lead to less and less new contributors.

How do you envision Emacs' future? Would, at some moment in the future, some kind of compatibility layer of sorts be developed that lower the entrance barrier? To my knowledge, Emacs has -contrary to Vim- been more open to community development. So I don't expect something like NeoVim to be developed for Emacs as there's less need for it. But I don't know how much they'd be willing to change Emacs for the sake of making it more attractive for new users.

Idk about the vim distros, but I think Doom Emacs is easier for beginners to get into.

Compared to Spacemacs I assume*. If so, would you mind elaborating?

I saw that there were some controversies but honestly if I avoided everything in my life over every little bit of bad press or disagreement I would have nothing left to eat and nowhere to live.

The choices we make and the actions we take mostly come with compromises anyway; just because it's on topic: Manjaro probably continued to function as you were used to and thus you didn't see any reason to change that which "just works". Which, I somewhat alluded to in my earlier comment with:

the continued use of Manjaro is at least justifiable.

Moving on.

I am not sure why any distro that attracts new users is an issue considering we want Linux as a desktop to keep growing as it improves the lives of all having both more users, contributors, and devs building software.

That's not what I said, nor what I implied. What you just said assumes/implies that people start using Linux because they want to try Manjaro, which is just simply not the case. You might have mistaken Manjaro for Valve's Steam Deck. Perhaps this chart does a better job at conveying my thoughts. As you can see, the search "install Manjaro" has for a considerable period in the last 5 years been more than half times as often searched as "install Arch". By comparison, it just dwarfs the hits for "install EndeavourOS" and "install Garuda". That's the problem. To put it onto perspective, I'll follow it up with charts for Ubuntu with its popular derivatives and Debian with its popular derivatives. I tried doing the same for Fedora and openSUSE, but their respective graphs just showed me why their derivates aren't talked about that often 😅. Even Nobara is absolutely dwarfed compared to Fedora.

Something that hasn't quite been touched upon but might be important to note is that both Zorin and Linux Mint run 'old' kernels (almost two years old in fact). While this does not necessarily have to affect you, there's a considerable chance that you might not reap the benefit from improved performance and other good stuff that would be found on a newer kernel.

Generally speaking, you should be fine regardless. However, if you intend to primarily engage in high-fidelity gaming, then I'd argue it's at least worth benchmarking your performances on Zorin and/or Linux Mint and compare that to a Fedora(-based distro; like Bazzite or Nobara) or an openSUSE Tumbleweed (or perhaps even an Arch(-based distro) if you're feeling brave). If the differences are negligible, then you shouldn't let this be a factor to take into consideration. But if it isn't, then you might want to (at least) consider switching over to a distro with a newer kernel (eventually).

Finally, the 'old' kernel is -in a sense- one of the reasons why both Zorin and Linux Mint are even popularized for newer users. But, that's something I won't be able to go over in this comment for the sake of brevity.

I use it to orchestrate Docker containers for my infrastructure and then some.

Very interesting. I will definitely look into this! Much appreciated!

Aight. Thanks, regardless 🙂 !

While great as a last resort, to me this seems overkill. Though, I would love to be wrong on this. Is it even container-friendly?

Glad to hear that I was able to contribute 🙂 ! And thank you for your great reply!

I prefer KDE over gnome (I think that’s what’s bothering me about my install of popos at the moment)

That could definitely be it. No worries, even the community is somewhat polarized on GNOME; with a big chunk of the community favoring it over all the other desktop environments, while another big chunk doesn't tolerate it at all. However, the reason that everyone has an outspoken opinion on it comes primarily from the fact that a lot of distros come with GNOME by default; with both Ubuntu and Fedora being the big ones (sure; both have flavors/spins with other desktop environments, but their main ISO defaults to GNOME). Regarding recommendations; while any major (independent) distro should technically suffice, I would argue that Kubuntu and openSUSE (contrary to the others; openSUSE actually defaults to KDE) are both excellent choices, with both Fedora's KDE Spin and Debian (on which you can pick KDE during first install) are very good choices as well if you lean more towards minimalism. While Arch deserves a mention regardless, I don't think you're ready (yet).

Typing command line doesn’t bother me (on the opposite: I feel like I understand what is going on better if I can actually type in commands)

That's great to hear!

but I don’t fully understand the difference and advantages/disadvantages between pacman, apt, yum, etc. I’m more used to apt and I feel like there’s more information available, but that’s it.

I won't be able to be exhaustive on this, so I instead I'll lean more towards being somewhat oversimplistic for the sake of brevity.

• pacman is the package manager on Arch(-based distros)
• apt is the package manager on Debian(-based distros)
• yum used to be the package manager on Fedora(-based distros), but has since been replaced by dnf. You can still install packages using yum on these distros, however it's just an alias for dnf.

These are not the only package managers out there, as almost all independent distros come with their own package manager; apk (on Alpine), eopkg (on Solus), xbps (on Void) and zypper (on openSUSE) etc. The tasks of the package manager are varied, but all of them are to be interacted with when installing, upgrading and removing software. As the feature-set is different, so too are their performances. A rolling release distro like Arch will receive a constant stream of updates, thus having access to a package manager that's very fast is beneficial. Thus we find that pacman is very optimized for speed. To perhaps illustrate how much difference this can make, I compared Alpine's apk with openSUSE's zypper. Note that Alpine is one of the most minimalist distros out there, and its apk might be the fastest package manager that's in active use. So here are the results:

• sudo apk add firefox 0.01s user 0.02s system 0% cpu 8.216 total
• sudo zypper install -y firefox 0.02s user 0.06s system 0% cpu 33.727 total

On which the number before total reveals how much time it took in seconds. These tests were done in distrobox containers btw*.

Speed is not the only important metric, however as ultimately one can not engage with packages without waiting for them to be installed/updated/removed, a lot of the discourse is about how fast the package managers are at installing, updating and removing packages.

Cassidy Glass is aptly named after Cassidy James Blaede's feedback found over here.

Thank you for being quite elaborate!

dell xps 13 9310 laptop with Intel i5 evo processor and I think 8 GB of ram

That should be fine.

I am currently using linux mint 21.2 with cinnamon desktop.

That should be fine as well.

I believe I have installed apps outside of official repos, sometimes successfully other times not. I try not to do that though.

Have you considered installing those apps inside of a container? Distrobox is worth mentioning as it streamlines a lot of this process and even allows one to set a 'distrobox' with its own custom HOME directory. It should make experimentation a whole lot less painful, so you should definitely think about it if you haven't yet.

I'd argue that if you reinstall Linux Mint with TLP -for what it offers in terms of battery life- and install the exotic packages within a distrobox, then most of your concerns would be resolved. Maintaining a healthier system like that should also decrease the rare bugs that you might be facing right now and thus enable you to run a system over a longer time period.

If this course of action makes running your distro too boring, then it's probably worth exploring either Arch or Gentoo as a dualboot alongside Linux Mint. Linux Mint would be used for school/work or whatsoever, while Arch/Gentoo is where all the 'fun' happens. Both distros also play a lot nicer with packages not found in the official repos, so they should necessarily offer a better experience.

Not sure which one you're talking about, but there are multiple copr repos that have very up to date packages.