jlesage
commented
4 months ago I already thought about archlinux (in fact it was already requested here: https://github.com/jlesage/docker-baseimage-gui/issues/29). I'm just not sure what would be the expectations of users, since the rolling-release model of archlinux means that the baseimage will quickly be out-of-date. Also, archlinux is limited to x86_64, while all other distros supports multiple architectures.
I have tested this series and added some apps like Polybar and Emacs, which I liked a lot.
I'm opening a feature request to see if it's possible to release a branch that also supports Arch. While Debian/Ubuntu and Rocky/Fedora are often seen as stable versions of Linux, Arch stands out as a cutting-edge option that actually fits well in a Docker environment. This way, users can enjoy the advantages of Pacman and AUR, which potentially offer the newest and broadest versions of apps, without worrying about the instability that often comes with bleeding-edge software.
Additionally, I was surprised to find that after installing the same set of apps (e.g., Polybar, Emacs, and some fonts like Terminus/DejaVu), the Alpine base Docker images are actually larger than those of Ubuntu. This makes Ubuntu/Debian more advantageous in scenarios where a GUI environment like xvnc, Openbox, and additional apps/services like Polybar and Emacs are running, especially since Alpine's glibc is not widely supported. Perhaps I did not handle things properly? However, Alpine still has its advantages when dealing with single apps, such as Node and projects like Docusaurus, as it is secure, concise, and fast.