help choosing OS - need Qt libs, want full disclosure
by X-LFS-2010 from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5FE2D)
I want to run Mathematica more stable than apple or win10 (ps. not hard to do, they both have tons of bugs, Qt is what the app wants).
Redhat I like but I think they ship "bogus src rpm" that cannot compile fedora from scratch. If I'm wrong please tell! Othewise Redhat is my choice.
Ubuntu: too euro controlled too much anonymous submitts. maintainers lock me out, ip ban me, they hate americans (my kind certainly - i'm so LFS)
freeBSD: has gone CentOS-only support, I asked maintainers to give me an orphan they sent me "dirty messages and insults" on forum and didn't answer email. forum maintainers IP ban. really man?
Compile a linux OS from scratch** .. again. In 2016 I did 32-bit + gcc (to support old software). I'm thinking 64 + Clang. But I'm totally undecided. I could go 64+gcc. I'm worried gcc is "too euro, abusing power, need 'google `go', .py' to compile kernel", I hate worrying is the problem. I know of LFS, believe I released a first "actually automated build before they did" (if they have yet). I know people have built LK using Clang, may go that way. I'm unsure - I don't mind extra work compiling, say, 350 pkgs but don't want to be clobbered either ! :)
IF I MAKE MY OWN LINUX I NEED STABLE FILE POSITIONS. WUT? I NEED A DOWNLOAD LIST OF SOURCE THAT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR and "isn't deleted, backward hacked" etc. Every project needs that, anyone compiling ultimately needs to know where the parts are. Problem is: Microsoft just bought GitHub and they are doing the shuffle and have hugely hacked $$$ price.
I might go with LFS! Why not? But I'm unsure if they are really an automated build or if they are "heres ubuntu bins dressed up like LFS, and if you follow the book to actaully redo it from scratch you'll have to do it all manually one by one not automated by following the book". Thing is I aleady have an automatited 350pkg build, don't need no book by hand build. This is a question obviously.
-------------------------
SUMMARY:
Need Qt and Xorg (prefer X11R6, but dang, canceled).
I refused to run BIG TECH controlled stuffs and hoards of CI update scripts (my PC isn't going into debug mode and talking to foreign computers unless I check a box opting in to do that, pls). It's why i'm kicking out win10 (moreso win10 Qt bugs).
I'm not running Oracle linux Rehat anyone unless I have source and it compiles (hands free - no bs compiling fails source). (if I do then IDK if I use their bins or mine: it's about insuring i can remove malware I do not favor)
(** i'm 100% sure some linux projects have code I delete when making my own linux compiled from source, but that's a long discussion i really don't ask to discuss in this post)
I really DO NOT want to build an LFS for health reasons. But I see no choice (redhat laughs at LFS yet uses binary blobs from who knows where - i'm never doing that on my PC). One reason I can't is: if Qt is broke I need it fixed to run Mathematica, no exceptions, it just needs to work no matter why.
Redhat I like but I think they ship "bogus src rpm" that cannot compile fedora from scratch. If I'm wrong please tell! Othewise Redhat is my choice.
Ubuntu: too euro controlled too much anonymous submitts. maintainers lock me out, ip ban me, they hate americans (my kind certainly - i'm so LFS)
freeBSD: has gone CentOS-only support, I asked maintainers to give me an orphan they sent me "dirty messages and insults" on forum and didn't answer email. forum maintainers IP ban. really man?
Compile a linux OS from scratch** .. again. In 2016 I did 32-bit + gcc (to support old software). I'm thinking 64 + Clang. But I'm totally undecided. I could go 64+gcc. I'm worried gcc is "too euro, abusing power, need 'google `go', .py' to compile kernel", I hate worrying is the problem. I know of LFS, believe I released a first "actually automated build before they did" (if they have yet). I know people have built LK using Clang, may go that way. I'm unsure - I don't mind extra work compiling, say, 350 pkgs but don't want to be clobbered either ! :)
IF I MAKE MY OWN LINUX I NEED STABLE FILE POSITIONS. WUT? I NEED A DOWNLOAD LIST OF SOURCE THAT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR and "isn't deleted, backward hacked" etc. Every project needs that, anyone compiling ultimately needs to know where the parts are. Problem is: Microsoft just bought GitHub and they are doing the shuffle and have hugely hacked $$$ price.
I might go with LFS! Why not? But I'm unsure if they are really an automated build or if they are "heres ubuntu bins dressed up like LFS, and if you follow the book to actaully redo it from scratch you'll have to do it all manually one by one not automated by following the book". Thing is I aleady have an automatited 350pkg build, don't need no book by hand build. This is a question obviously.
-------------------------
SUMMARY:
Need Qt and Xorg (prefer X11R6, but dang, canceled).
I refused to run BIG TECH controlled stuffs and hoards of CI update scripts (my PC isn't going into debug mode and talking to foreign computers unless I check a box opting in to do that, pls). It's why i'm kicking out win10 (moreso win10 Qt bugs).
I'm not running Oracle linux Rehat anyone unless I have source and it compiles (hands free - no bs compiling fails source). (if I do then IDK if I use their bins or mine: it's about insuring i can remove malware I do not favor)
(** i'm 100% sure some linux projects have code I delete when making my own linux compiled from source, but that's a long discussion i really don't ask to discuss in this post)
I really DO NOT want to build an LFS for health reasons. But I see no choice (redhat laughs at LFS yet uses binary blobs from who knows where - i'm never doing that on my PC). One reason I can't is: if Qt is broke I need it fixed to run Mathematica, no exceptions, it just needs to work no matter why.