this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
284 points (95.5% liked)

Linux

48634 readers
1587 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You're about to take your first steps in the wonderful world of Linux, but you're overwhelmed by the amount of choices? Welcome to this (I hope) very simple guide :)

The aim of this guide is to provide simple, clear information to ease your transition as a beginner. This is not a be-all-end-all guide nor an advanced guide. Because there is a lot of info and explanations everywhere, I will often (over-)simplify so as to keep the information accessible and digestible. Please refrain from asking to add your favorite distro/DE in the comments, I feel there is too much choice already ;)

Preamble

Make sure your hardware is compatible

Nowadays most relatively recent hardware works perfectly fine on Linux, but there are some edge cases still. If you don't use niche hardware and your wifi card is supported, chances are you're golden. Please note that nVidia is a bad faith player in the Linux world, so if you have a GeForce GPU, expect some trouble.

Make sure your favourite apps are either available or have a good replacement on Linux

If some proprietary app is essential to your workflow and is irreplaceable, consider running it in a VM, keeping a Windows partition for it or try and run it through Wine (this is advanced stuff though).

Be aware that Linux is not Windows/MacOS

Things work differently, and this is normal. You will probably struggle at the beginning while adjusting to a new paradigm. You may have to troubleshoot some things. You may break some things in the process. You will probably get frustrated at some point or another. It's okay. You're learning something new, and it can be hard to shed old habits forged by years on another system.

When in doubt, search for documentation

Arch Wiki is one of the greatest knowledge bases about Linux. Despite being heavily tied to Arch, most of its content is readily usable to troubleshoot most modern distros, as the building blocks (Kernel, systemd, core system apps, XOrg/Wayland, your DE of choice etc.) are the same. Most distros also maintain their own knowledge base.

Understanding the Linux world

What is Linux?

Linux, in the strictest definition, is the kernel, ie. the core component that, among other things, orchestrates and handles all interactions between hardware and software, of a large family of operating systems that, by metonymy, are called "Linux". In general understanding, Linux is any one of these operating systems, called distros.

What is a distro?

A distro, short for "Software Distribution", is a cohesive ensemble of software, providing a full operating system, maintained by a single team. Generally, all of them tend to provide almost the same software and work in a very similar way, but there are major philosophical differences that may influence your choice.

What are the main differences between distros?

As said above, there are a lot of philosophical differences between distros that lead to practical differences. There are a lot of very different ways the same software can be distributed.

  • "Point Release" (OpenSUSE Leap) vs. "Rolling Release" (OpenSUSE Tumbleweed): Point release distros are like traditional software. They have numbered releases, and between each one no feature updates take place, only security updates and bug fixes. Rolling Release distros package and distribute software as soon as it's available upstream (the software developer's repos), meaning that there are no versions and no specific schedule.
  • "Stable" (Debian Stable) vs. "Bleeding edge" (Arch): Stable distros are generally point release, and focus on fixing bugs and security flaws at the expense of new features. Each version goes through a lenghty period of feature freeze, testing and bug fixing before release. Stability here not only means trouble-free operation, but more importantly consistent behavior over time. Things won't evolve, but things won't break. At least until the next release. Bleeding edge distros, which often follow the rolling release model (there are outliers like Fedora which are mostly bleeding edge yet have point releases), on the other hand, are permanently evolving. By constantly pushing the latest version of each software package, new features, new bugs, bug fixes, security updates and sometimes breaking changes are released continuously. Note that this is not a binary, there is a very large continuum between the stablest and the most bleeding edge distro.
  • "Community" (Fedora) vs. "Commercial" (RHEL): Despite the name, Community distros are not only maintained by volunteers, but can also be developed by some company's employees and can be sponsored by commercial entities. However, the main difference with Commercial distros is that they're not a product destined to be sold. Commercial distros like Red Hat's RHEL, SuSE Linux Enterprise or Ubuntu Pro are (supposed to be) fully maintained by their company's employees and target businesses with paid support, maintenance, fixes, deployment, training etc.
  • "x package manager" vs. "y package manager", "x package format" vs. "y package format": It doesn't matter. Seriously. apt, dnf or pacman, to name a few, all have the exact same purpose: install and update software on your system and manage dependencies.
  • "general purpose" (Linux Mint) vs. "niche" (Kali Linux): General purpose distros are just that: distros that can do pretty much anything. Some are truly general purpose (like Debian), and have no bias towards any potential use, be it for a server, a desktop/laptop PC, some IOT or embedded devices, containers etc., some have various flavors depending on intended use (like Fedora Workstation for desktops and Fedora Server for, you guessed it, servers) but are still considered general purpose. They aim for maximum hardware compatibility and broad use cases. At the opposite end, niche distros are created for very specific and unique use cases, like pentesting (Kali), gaming (Nobara), music production (AV Linux) etc. They tend to have a lot of specific tools preinstalled, nonstandard defaults or modified kernels that may or may not work properly outside of their inteded use case.
  • "team" (Any major distro) vs. "single maintainer" (Nobara): Pretty self explanatory. Some distros are maintained by a single person or a very small group of people. These distros do not usually last very long.
  • "traditional" (Fedora Workstation) vs. "atomic" (Fedora Silverblue): In traditional distros, everything comes from a package. Every single component is individually installable, upgradeable, and deletable. Updating a package means deleting its previous version and replacing it with a new one. A power failure during an update lead to a partial upgrade and can make a system unbootable. Maybe a new package was bad and breaks something. Almost nothing prevents an unsuspecting user from destroying a core component. To mitigate risks and ensure a coherent system at each boot, atomic (also called transactional or immutable) distros, pioneered by Fedora Silverblue and Valve's SteamOS, were born. Like mobile phone OSes, the base system is a single image, that gets installed, alongside the current running version and without modifying it, and becomes active at the next reboot. As updates are isolated from one another, if the new version doesn't work the user can easily revert to a previous, functional version. Users are expected to install Flatpaks or use Distrobox, as installing (layering) packages is not as straightforward as with standard distros.
  • "OG" (Debian) vs. "derivative" (Ubuntu): Original distros are directly downstream of their components' source code repositories, and do most of the heavy lifting. Because of the tremendous amount of work it represents, only a few distros like Debian, Arch, Slackware or Fedora have the history, massive community and sometimes corporate financial backing to do this. Other distros reuse most packages from those original distros and add, replace or modify some of them for differenciation. For example, Debian is the parent of almost all deb-based distros like Ubuntu, which itself is the parent of distros like Mint or Pop!_OS.

What are the main components of a distro, ie. a Linux-based operating system?

All distros provide, install and maintain, among other things, the following components:

  • Boot and core system components (these are generally out-of-scope for beginners, unless you need to fix something, but you should at least know they exist):
    • A boot manager (GRUB, systemd_init, etc.): Boots the computer after the motherboard POSTs, lets you choose what to start
    • An init system (systemd, etc.): Starts everything needed to run the computer, including the kernel
    • A kernel (Linux): Has control over everything, main interface for software to discuss with hardware
  • Command-line environment, to interact with he computer in text mode:
    • A shell (bash, zsh, fish etc.): The main interface for command-line stuff
    • Command-line tools (GNU, etc.): Standard suite of command-line tools + default tools chosen by the distro maintainers
    • User-installable command-line tools and shells
  • Graphical stack for desktop/laptop computers:
    • Display servers (X11, Wayland compositors): Handle drawing stuff on screens
    • A Desktop environment (Plasma, Gnome, XFCE etc.): The main graphical interface you'll interact with everyday.
    • User-facing applications (browsers, text processors, drawing software etc.): Some are generally installed by default and/or are part of a desktop environment's suite of software, most are user-installable.
  • A package manager (apt, dnf, pacman, yast etc.): Installs, deletes, updates and manages dependencies of all software installed on the machine.

Which are the main Desktop Environments and which one should I choose?

As a new user, this is basically the only thing you should concern yourself about: choosing a first Desktop environment. After all, it will be your main interface for the weeks/years to come. It's almost as important as choosing your first distro. These are a few common choices that cater to different tastes:

  • Gnome: Full featured yet very minimalist, Gnome is a great DE that eschews the traditional Desktop metaphor. Like MacOS, out of the box, it provides its strongly opinionated developers' vision of a user experience. Fortunately, unlike MacOS, there are thousands of extensions to tweak and extend the looks and behaviour of the DE. Dash-to-dock or Dash-to-panel are great if you want a more MacOS-like or Windows-like experience, Blur My Shell is great if you love blurry transparent things, Appindicator is a must, and everything else is up to you. Gnome's development cycle is highly regular and all core components and apps follow the same release schedule, which explains why a lot of distros choose it as their default DE.
  • KDE Plasma: Full featured and maximalist, Plasma does not cater to a single design philosophy, is very flexible and can be tweaked almost ad infinitum. This may be an advantage for people who like to spend hours making the perfect environment, or a disadvantage as the possibilities can be overwhelming, and the added complexity may compromise stability, bugginess or completeness. There is not yet a single development cycle for core components and apps, which makes it a bit more difficult for distro maintainers and explains why there are so few distros with Plasma as the flagship DE. The KDE team is however evolving towards a more regular update cycle.
  • Cinnamon: Forked from Gnome 3 by the Linux Mint team who disliked the extreme change of user experience it introduced, Cinammon provides a very traditional, "windows-like", desktop-metaphor experience in a more modern software stack than the older DEs it takes inspiration from. Cinnamon still keeps a lot in common with Gnome by being simple and easy to use, yet heavily modifiable with themes, applets and extensions.
  • Lightweight DEs for old or underpowered machines: The likes of XFCE, LXDE, LXQt are great if you want to ressurect an old machine, but lack the bells and whistles of the aforementioned DEs. If your machine is super old, extremely underpowered and has less than a few Gb of RAM, don't expect miracles though. A single browser tab can easily dwarf the RAM usage and processing power of your entire system.

As for which one you should choose, this is entirely up to you, and depends on your preferences. FYI, you are not married to your distro's default desktop environment. It's just what comes preinstalled. You can install alternative DEs on any distro, no need to reinstall and/or distro-hop.

How do I install stuff on Linux?

Forget what you're used to do on Windows of MacOS: searching for your software in a seach engine, finding a big "Download" button on a random website and running an installer with administator privileges. Your package manager not only keeps you system up to date, but also lets you install any software that's available in your distro's repositories. You don't even need to know the command line, Gnome's Software or Plasma's Discover are nice graphical "App Stores" that let you find and install new software.

Flatpak are a great and more recent recent alternative to distro packages that's gaining a lot of traction, and is increasingly integrated by default to the aforementioned App Stores. It's basically a "universal" package manager system thet sits next to your system, that lets software developers directly distribute their own apps instead of offloading the packaging and distribution to distro maintainers.

Choosing a first distro

As discussed before, there is a metric fuckload (or 1.112 imperial fucktons) of distros out there. I advise you to keep it as mainstream as possible for your first steps. A distro with a large user base, backed by a decently large community of maintainers and contributors and aimed at being as fuss-free as possible is always better than a one-person effort tailored to a specific use-case. Choose a distro that implements well the DE of your choice.

What are great distros for beginners?

The following are great distros for beginners as well as more advanced users who just want to have a system that needs almost no configuration out of the box, just works and stays out of the way. Always read the installation documentation thoroughly before attempting anything, and follow any post-install requirements (for example, installing restricted-licence drivers on Fedora).

  • Fedora Workstation: Clean, sensible, modern and very up to date and should work out of the box for most hardware. Despite being sponsored by Red Hat (who are getting a lot of justified hate for moving RHEL away from open-source), this is a great community distro for both beginners and very advanced users (including the Linus Torvalds). Fedora is the flagship distro for the Gnome Desktop Environment, but also has a fantastic Plasma version. Keywords: Point Release, close to Bleeding Edge, Community, dnf/rpm, large maintainer team, traditional, original.
  • Linux Mint: Mint is an Ubuntu (or Debian for the LMDE variant) derivative for beginners and advanced users alike, that keeps Ubuntu's hardware support and ease of use while reverting its shenanigans and is Cinammon's flagship distro. Its main goal is to be a "just works" distro. Keywords: Point Release, halfway between Stable and Bleeding Edge, Community, apt/deb, smallish maintainer team but lots of contributors, traditional, derivative (Ubuntu or Debian).
  • Pop!_OS: Backed by hardware Linux vendor System76, this is another Ubuntu derivative that removes Snaps in favor or Flatpaks. Its heavily modified Gnome DE looks and feels nice. In a few months/years, it will be the flagship distro for the -promising but still in development- Cosmic DE. Keywords: Point Release, halfway between Stable and Bleeding Edge, commercially-backed Community, apt/deb, employee's maintainer team, traditional, derivative (Ubuntu).
  • If you want something (advertised as) zero-maintenance, why not go the Atomic way? They are still very new and there isn't a lot of support yet because they do things very differently than regular distros, but if they wort OOTB on your system, they should work reliably forever. Sensible choices are uBlue's Aurora (Plasma), Bluefin (Gnome) or Bazzite (gaming-ready), which are basically identical to Fedora's atomic variants but include (among other things) restricted-licence codecs and QOL improvements by default, or OpenSUSE's Aeon (Gnome). Keywords: Point Release, Bleeding Edge, Community, rpm-ostree, large maintainer team, Atomic, sub-project (Fedora/OpenSUSE).

Which power-user distros should I avoid as a beginner, unless I reaaaally need to understand everything instead of being productive day one?

These are amongst the very best but should not be installed as your first distro, unless you like extremely steep learning curves and being overwhelmed.

  • Debian Stable: as one of the oldest, still maintained distros and the granddaddy of probably half of the distros out there, Debian is built like a tank. A very stringent policy of focusing on bug and security fixes over new features makes Debian extremely stable and predictable, but it can also feel quite outdated. Still a rock-solid experience, with a lot to tinker with despite very sensible defaults. It is an incredible learning tool and is as "Standard Linux" as can be. Debian almost made the cut to "beginner" distros because of its incredible reliability and massive amount of documentation available, but it might be a bit too involved for an absolute beginner to configure to perfection. Keywords: Point Release, Stable as fuck, Community, apt/deb, large maintainer team, traditional, original.
  • Arch: The opposite of Debian in philosophy, packages often come to Arch almost as soon as the source code is released. Expect a lot of manual installation and configuration, daily updates, and regularly fixing stuff. An incredible learning tool too, that will make you intimate with the inner workings of Linux. The "Arch btw" meme of having to perform every single install step by hand has taken a hit since Arch has had a basic but functional installer for a few years now, which is honestly a good thing. I work in sofware. A software engineer who does every single tedious task manually instead of automating it is a shit software engineer. A software engineer who prides themself from doing every single tedious task manually should seriously reconsider their career choices. Arch's other main appeal is the Arch User Repository or AUR, a massive collection of user-created, automated install scripts for pretty much anything. Keywords: Rolling Release, Bleeding-edge, Community, pacman/pkg, large maintainer team, traditional, original.

Which distro should I avoid, period?

  • Ubuntu: despite having a huge mind-share as the beginner distro, Ubuntu suffers from it's parent company's policy to make Ubuntu kinda-Linux-but-not-really and a second-rate citizen compared to their Ubuntu Pro commercial product. Some of the worst takes in recent years have been pushing Snaps super agressively in order to get some "vendor-lock-in", proprietary walled-garden ecosystem with exclusive commercial apps, forcibly installing snaps even when explicitely asking for a .deb package through apt, baking ads and nags into major software or only delivering critical security patches to Pro customers. Fortunately, there are some great derivatives like Mint or Pop!_OS cited above that work equally well but revert some of the most controversial decisions made by Canonical.
  • Manjaro: Manjaro might seem appealing as a "user-friendlier" Arch derivative and some of its tools are fantastic to remove some configuration burden, but ongoing mismanagement issues and the fact that it needs Arch-style regular maintenance as updates often break stuff prevent it from being a truly beginner distro. Manjaro also has a highly irregular update schedule that's weeks behind Arch, making using the AUR extremely dangerous, as it always expects a fully up-to-date Arch system.
  • Any single-maintainer or tiny team distros like Nobara or CachyOS. They might be fantastic distros made by exceptional people (I have mad respect for Nobara's maintainer Glorious Eggroll and his work on Proton-GE), they are most often derivatives so the heavy lifting is already done by their parent distro's maitainers, but there is too much risk involved. Sometimes life happens, sometimes people move on to other projects, and dozens of small distros get abandonned every year, leaving their users dead in the water. Trusting larger teams is a much safer bet in the long term.
  • Anything that refuse to use standards for ideological reasons like Alpine Linux, Devuan or Artix. Don't get me wrong, not using any GNU tools or systemd is a cool technological feat and developing alternatives to the current consensus is how things evolve. However, these standard tools have a long history, hundreds if not thousands of maintainers and are used by millions, meaning there's a huge chance your specific issue is already solved. Refusing to use them should be reserved to very advanced users who perfectly understand what they're gaining and losing. As a beginner to intermediate level, it will at best make most of the documentation out there irrelevant, at worst make your life a miserable hell if you need to troubleshoot anything.

Philosophical questions, or "I've seen people arguing over the Internet and now I'm scared"

You've done your research, you're almost ready to take the plunge, you even read a lot of stuff on this very community or on the other website that starts with a "R", but people seem very passionately for or against stuff. What should you do?

Shoud I learn the command line?

Yes, eventually. To be honest, nowadays a lot of things can be configured on the fly graphically, through your DE's settings. But sometimes, it's much more efficient to work on the command line, and sometimes it's the only way to fix something. It's not that difficult, and you can be reasonably productive by understanding just about a dozen very simple commands.

I have a very old laptop/desktop, should I use a distro from its era?

Noooo!. Contrary to Windows and MacOS which only work correctly on period-correct computers, Linux runs perfectly well on any hardware from the last 20 to 30 years. You will not gain performance by using an old distro, but you will gain hundreds of critical security flaws that have been since corrected. If you need to squeeze performance out of an old computer, use a lightweight graphical environment or repurpose it as a headless home server. If it's possible, one of the best ways to breathe new life into an old machine is to add some RAM, as even lightweight modern sofware will struggle with less than a few Gb.

Should I be concerned about systemd?

No. In short, systemd is fine and all major distros have switched to systemd years ago. Even the extremely cautious people behind Debian have used systemd as default since 2015. Not wanting to use systemd is a niche more rooted in philosophical and ideological rather than practical or technical reasons, and leads to much deeper issues than you should concern yourself with as a beginner.

Should I be concerned about XOrg/Wayland?

Yes and No, but mostly No. First off, most distros install both Wayland and XOrg by default, so if one is not satisfying to you, try the other. Remember in the preamble when I said nVidia was a bad actor? Well, most of people's complaints about Wayland are because of nVidia and their shitty drivers, so GTX/RTX users should stay on XOrg for now. But like it or not, XOrg is dead and unmaintained, and Wayland is the present and future. XOrg did too many things, carried too many features from the 80's and 90's and its codebase is a barely maintainable mess. X11 was born in a time when mainframes did most of the heavy lifting and windows were forwarded over a local network to dumb clients. X11 predates the Internet and has basically no security model. Wayland solves that by being a much simpler display protocol with a much smaller feature set adapted to modern computing and security. The only downside is that some very specific functionalities based on decades of X11 hacking and absolute lack of security can be lost.

I want to play some games, should I look for a gaming distro?

No. General purpose distros are perfectly fine for gaming. You can install Steam, Lutris, Heroic, Itch etc. and use Proton just fine on almost anything. Even Debian. In short, yes, you can game on Linux, there are great tutorials on the internet.

Should I be concerned about Flatpaks and/or Snaps vs. native packages?

Not really. Flatpaks are great, and more and more developers package their apps directly in Flatpak format. As a rule of thumb, for user facing applications, if your app store gives you the choice between Flatpak and your native package manager version, choose the most recent stable version and/or the one packaged by the developer themselves (which should often be the Flatpak anyway). Snaps however are kinda bad. They are a Canonical/Ubuntu thing, so as long as you avoid Ubuntu, its spins and its derivatives that still include Snaps, you should be fine. They tend to take a lot longer to startup than regular apps or Flatpaks, the snap store is proprietary, centralized and Canonical controls every part of it. Also, Canonical is very aggressive in pushing snaps to their users, even forcing them even when they want to install an apt package. If you don't care, have fun.

I need/want program "x", but it is only available on distro "y" and not on mine. I've been told to ditch my beloved distro and install the other one, should I?

No. Generally, most software is intallable from your distro's package manager and/or Flatpak. But sometimes, your distro doesn't package this program you need, or an inconsiderate developer only distributes a random .deb on their Github release page. Enter Distrobox. It is a very simple, easy to use command line tool that automates the creation of other Linux distros containers using Docker or Podman (basically, tiny, semi-independant Linuxes that live inside your regular Linux), and lets you "export" programs installed inside these containers to you main system so you can run them as easily and with almost the same performance as native programs. Some atomic distros like uBlue's variants even include it by default. That .deb we've talked about before? Spin a Debian container and dpkg install the shit out of it. Absolutely need the AUR? Spin an Arch container and go to town.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to everyone who helped improve this guide: @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected] ...and many others who chimed in in the comments <3

Link to version 1: https://lemm.ee/post/15895051

(page 2) 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

Very good write up overall. I'll start by admitting that I didn't read all of it. But from the parts that I did read, I have some small comments. I think that Debian Stable is a great beginner distro, since it's essentially unbreakable. With something like KDE Plasma as a DE, it's perfect for noobs. EndeavourOS is another great one. Maybe not for beginners, but for semi-advanced usecases.

Also, I'm not sure about suggesting the Atomic family of dostros to newcomers. It might be my relative unfamiliarity with them, but I don't think immutable distro are a good place to start. They're definitely great to try when you're familiar with Linux, but they're still kind of fringe. It's hard to get support using those.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

but I don’t think immutable distro are a good place to start.

FWIW, the first distro I used and subsequently daily-drove^[1]^ was Fedora Silverblue over two years ago. The try-hard in me immediately started off (or at least tried) applying the hardening outlined in Madaidan's article. After banging my head for a week, I started actually using the system and it has been a very smooth ride ever since. The uBlue images are straight up better when it comes to the OOTB-experience without even mentioning the associated 'managed'^[2]^ aspect that comes with it. Therefore, I believe that they're perfectly suitable. They're not for everyone, but no distro is anyways.


  1. I forgot to mention how simultaneously I quit Windows cold turkey as well.
  2. The uBlue images are able to 'prevent' breakages that would otherwise affect everyone.
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I want to translate this into spanish (and probably esperanto) little by little if that's ok

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Maybe mention tiling WMs too. Beginners may not directly be interested but it's still a very important benefit of Linux.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Very good write up. If I not agree with all, I probably agree with most that is in here. On the DE section, I think we should help drive the beginner choice. In the recent past, KDE and Gnome were the early adopters of Wayland and the ones introducing the new features. They are also the choice of most distros. Therefore, I'd recommend one of those two.

I'd open a new section worth of scrutinies, dedicated about security. I believe it may worth advising that as a criteria of selection is recommended to not use distros that freezes regular releases for more than 1 year in desktop installations. Like is explained here. At least in your first distro selection. Advise about restricting privileged access with SELinux or AppArmor. Perhaps, also add a note about secure boot as well and some guide of how to harden your installation, Madaidans, Privacy Tweaks, PrivSec and PrivacyGuides.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It'd be nice to mention Pantheon and elementaryOS.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I'm well aware that both elementaryOS and its Pantheon DE were innovative and made major strides for user-friendliness a couple of years back. Hence, they rightfully earned a spot among the newbie-friendly distros. However, I might be wrong, but it feels as if they haven't been able to keep momentum. And therefore lost their significance.

If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me; I would love to be educated on how elementaryOS has kept relevance (if they actually have).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Recommending Fedora and especially its atomic spins without much documentation to a new user? Expected but still bad. Downvoted.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Recommending Fedora and especially its atomic spins without much documentation to a new user?

To be clear; while OP does mention "Fedora Silverblue" to introduce and contrast atomic distros to traditional ones, they only explicitly recommend uBlue images.

And while it's by no means as exhaustive as the ArchWiki or Gentoo Wiki, uBlue's documentation isn't a slouch either; I've seen far worse. If possible, could you name what's crucially missing?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If possible, could you name what's crucially missing?

User-friendly articles and answers on forums to absolutely all more or less common issues like what Mint, Arch, Ubuntu and other extremely popular distros/bases have. It's very important for a new user imo. We shouldn't overwhelm them with choices and technical documentation. If you don't believe me, check some content creators. They all agree that we should just give them a popular distro like Mint or Ubuntu and let them progress as fast as they can.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for the reply!

Disclaimer: After a couple of revisions and rewrites, I concluded that directness and conciseness was required. If my tone seems confrontational at times, I would like you to know that that's not my intent. Therefore, in such cases, I would like to friendly request you to assume the best. Thank you.

User-friendly articles

How is uBlue's documentation not user-friendly? Be specific and come with an example.

forums

Naive in a post-Discord world.

User-friendly ~~articles an~~d answers ~~on forums~~ to absolutely all more or less common issues

Based on what do you imply that uBlue's discourse and Discord has failed this? Again, be explicit and give an example.

It's very important for a new user imo. We shouldn't overwhelm them with choices and technical documentation.

Assumes new users to be sufficiently homogeneous in this regard. The silent majority is not accounted for.

choices

What choices?

If you don't believe me

I believe there's definitely some truth in your earlier made statements.

check some content creators. They all agree that we should just give them a popular distro like Mint or Ubuntu and let them progress as fast as they can.

Even if that's true, I think it's hilarious to appeal to their consensus 😂.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even if that's true, I think it's hilarious to appeal to their consensus 😂.

Imo this shows your aggressive inability to accept opinions different to yours, even if they are obviously more true. At this point I'm asking you to stop stalking me and making fun of me or I will be forced to report you and/or contact law enforcements.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Your reply is much appreciated! Even though I am saddened by the content. And apologies for the upcoming long reply. I thank you in advance for reading through it all.

Imo

Thank you for weakening it with "Imo"! To clarify; it seemed as if the "authority" in "appeal to authority" was conflated with content creators. If this wasn't an appeal to authority in the first place, then please feel free to dismiss my earlier stated sentence.

Normally, I would have asked for clarification in order to prevent possible miscommunication. Unfortunately, after our first serious attempt at reconciling our differences failed miserably, I have instead chosen for a more direct approach in hopes of making it more accessible. It's also more prone to being misunderstood as confrontational, aggressive et cetera. But, if even my super sweet approach in the earlier mentioned conversation failed, I don't see why I should make it less accessible for all involved parties if it doesn't benefit either of us.

this shows your aggressive inability to accept opinions different to yours

I may as well accuse you of doing the same. But..., I don't. But somehow I'm perceived as the villain. I simply fail to understand.

On Lemmy, I engage for one reason, and for one reason only; to arrive at a mutual understanding. This manifests itself in multiple ways:

  • I'm interested in the communities output on a certain query and engage with them through a post I create.
  • I'm introduced to a new concept through a post/comment -> Search engines don't yield anything useful -> I ask a question in hopes of learning something new -> And hopefully that engagement yields new information for me; I'm primarily on the receiving end of 'profit'
  • Someone poses something that I don't agree with or don't understand -> I engage in hopes of my understanding being proven wrong; as that results in the most new information; hence most profit -> Most often, it's somewhere in between; I might get a new perspective on something, but not too crazy. At times, though, the person I was engaging with had some notions that were not entirely backed up; hence, we both end up learning a thing or two
  • Misinformation or fake news or misunderstanding or whatever known false fact is shared -> I engage in hopes of combating false notions. No profit; but you gotta do what you gotta do
  • Question is asked, I happen to know an answer that might be helpful -> I contribute. No profit; but contributions are required to foster a nice community

To be clear; I love to accept valid criticism. Especially, if they provide me with new insights and polish my own ideas/notions. Heck, I've even been complimented on how I engage with them in one of our first interactions. And, if you've noticed, this very conversation below our current post is not very different. I just ask you to back up your claims so that I may learn from them. I want to accept them; new knowledge/insights/profit et cetera. But I can't simply accept your claims on the basis of nothing. That doesn't make any sense. That's not how epistemology works.

even if they are obviously more true.

If they're "obviously more true", then it should have been obviously easy to prove their truth. But, I've yet to receive a proof, even after I've explicitly asked you. Or, conversely, proof my falsehood. That's basically the problem at hand: you're less sensitive to back up your claims; even when pressed to do so. Instead, you choose to do whatever you did (or tried) in your most recent reply.

Or, I don't know, ask me how I'm so sure of my own convictions/judgements/ideas. But, and that's very curious; I don't recall you ever asking me a question. Isn't that the most obvious indication that I'm actively trying to engage with your ideas and your output? While you seem to be completely devoid of that. And, somehow, I've become the one that's regarded as possessing "aggressive inability to accept opinions different to yours, even if they are obviously more true.". Sorry, I simply can't take this serious 😅.

At this point I'm asking you to stop stalking me and making fun of me

Fam, you got some hate-boner towards Fedora, 'immutable' distros and especially their intersection; Fedora Atomic. Either educate yourself on them and act accordingly, or simply stop spreading misinformation. Either way, you'll never hear from me again. Related point; simply don't spread misinformation. Period.

making fun of me

I fail to see how I am even making fun of you. If you perceive 'pressing to back up claims' as making fun of you, then... I simply don't know what to say.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

As a BSD user, I'm downvoting for the implication Alpine and Devuan are less standardized and portable than Redshat distros; did IBM pay you well, OP?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Wow, basically everything you wrote about Manjaro was wrong:

  • It doesn't need constant maintenance, and it doesn't break. The whole point of it is to be a stable variation of Arch.
  • It doesn't have a highly irregular update schedule, it's quite regular — every two weeks. There are also updates for outstanding security issues which can come faster (as needed). Occasionally very large updates can take longer in order to weed out all the issues, such as the recent example with Plasma 6 — those are announced in advance.
  • AUR doesn't "expect" anything, it's a dumping ground where anybody can put anything. I successfully run about 100 AUR packages on Manjaro without any issues, but nobody can guarantee anything when it comes to AUR. It's officially unsupported on Arch and every Arch-based distro. If you want to call it dangerous that's fine (if a bit hyperbolic) but don't blame that on Manjaro, it just shows that you don't understand how AUR works.
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›