All things Linux

[Monica Dream]

I would still just use Ubuntu, since applications for Ubuntu may end up depending on that "invasive BS". You already can't remove systemd and that's the worst of it.

BSD is for servers, unless you need Docker.

Windows is not an option. Seriously. It is fundamentally broken at a low level and can not be depended on. Ubuntu is at the very least the fallback for when Apple finally goes completely mad and we have to shoot it.

That's, what, 1998?

It's cheaper than Mac OS, and it's not Windows.

I ran Macos when it was osx, it's really over-rated in my opinion.

Yes, 1998 -I tried installing it in 1996 but the 386 I had was seriously underpowered and it took a couple years to get something which could run it.

Most places which run BSD (eg Netflix) do so because of the license and not technical considerations. Mind you, I've used NetBSD off and on for almost 20 years. It was my Unix of choice until 07 when it choked on my new-at-the-time SATA drives and I started using Ubuntu instead. Everything I hear tells me that Linux is a lot more popular/has a lot more support and installs than BSD (of any stripe) does in terms of servers, but that's also going off into the weeds.

There's still really no compelling reason to use Linux for your desktop -doing so will always be a barely-supported series of kludges at best and expecting it to be as smooth of an experience as Windows or Macos is misguided.

 

[Monica Dream]

I'm not a fan of Gnome, neither the user interface nor their software development philosophy. But ESH.

Personally, I'm in the MATE camp

 

[Monica Dream]

I want to second this, basically all of it including tinkering off and on with Linux for almost 20 years. I had it running as the only OS on my laptop a few times.

It's absolutely great for server style tasks. I run my webserver VPS on Linux. I also have a couple of Raspberry Pis that run Raspbian. They are great for unattended automated things. One of them runs a webserver that just hosts WordPress so I can archive copies of my main website stuff. It also runs some bash and python scripts on a schedule nicely doing different things. runs that Pihole Ad Blocking DNS distro. Another I use for just screwing around, like I tried running a Minecraft server on it and currently have an OpenSIM server on it.

But. Day to day can be kind of iffy. This is extra true with the Linux integration that Windows 10+ has now. I can now easily get the main advantage of Linux, the terminal, in Windows, using the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Plus the new Windows Terminal with tabbed interfacing and the ability to pre configure tabs is absolutely perfect. I can just click the little +sign and SSH to anything I have set up easily. It's beautiful.

I mean, if you have an extra machine, by all means do all the testing you want. Or just older hardware you want to use, then Linux is good for that. But I am not sure I can advise it for every day use.

This matches my experience too. I have an 2011 imac running debian sitting the in the corner, basically I log in once a month, update my NetBSD sources and build a few arches, download the isos and then forget about it for another month. I've thought about installing OpenSim on it but dealing with the router issues and bandwidth/quota issues has discouraged me so now it's just a build box.

That's about how I use WSL too, except i haven't really tried out the tabs feature of Windows Terminal. I'll have to give that a shot!

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Some more feedback, again from the perspective of a Windows user exploring Linux for viability:

1. Again, a community criticism: STOP touting the "customizeability" of Linux as a feature and how much you can "make it your own", and then criticizing new users' choices when they try to ask for help. Why are you even posting in a tech support thread if your contribution is "why are you even using that" or "why are you trying to do that"?

2. This is not a "community toxicity" thing, more of just a general honesty thing: When promoting Linux to non-Linux users, please, please, PLEASE stop telling people who are reluctant about the thought of using the terminal for everything that "you can use Linux completely in the GUI without needing the terminal". This is a vicious, vicious LIE. The only way it could possibly true is if the user resolves to accept the fact that he just can't use some programs or extensions or whatever if they ever encounter a problem trying to install them or get them to work. Steam not wanting to install from the distro's GUI store? Well, sorry but that means you can just never have Steam for your computer, ever, plain and simple. A program you want that isn't in the distro's store at all? Can't have it, period. This is because if you have an issue with anything - and I mean ANYTHING, in ANY flavor of Linux - and you go to look up a solution for it, the solution is going to come in the form of console commands. This is a practical consideration more than anything else - because the Linux desktop is so "customizeable", nobody's desktop is ever going to look the same as anyone else's, so you can't just give visual screenshots showing the step-by-step resolution in the GUI because most people wouldn't be able to follow it; whereas console commands work fundamentally the same across Linux. Not ever having to use the terminal is a positive goal that people making desktop environments for Linux SHOULD strive for; but you're not there yet, not even close, and self-appointed ambassadors for Linux to the community of people who are curious about leaving Windows NEED to stop pretending it's true. Because those users will install Linux having been assured that's the case, they will very quickly learn that it was a lie, they will feel bait-and-switched, and they will quit.

 

[danielravennest]

either forks from these or indepent with different goals.

This is what Linus Torvalds had to say about it: "Could you also fork gnome, and support a gnome-2 environment?

So somebody just did that, he forked GNOME2

Another project forked from GNOME is Cinnamon desktop .

So Linux in a single image:

 

[Ashiri]

Not ever having to use the terminal is a positive goal that people making desktop environments for Linux SHOULD strive for;

So should windows.

 

[Spirits Rising]

If your idea of a good OS is to never need to go "under the hood" ... don't ever bother owning a PC.

 

[Free]

If your idea of a good OS is to never need to go "under the hood" ... don't ever bother owning a PC.

Stick to your smart phones!

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

If your idea of a good OS is to never need to go "under the hood" ... don't ever bother owning a PC.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to open the command line in Windows - to actually solve a problem or do a task, not just for fun or curiosity - in the last maybe four years.

But there's a difference between having it there and needing it occasionally, and it being the default way of solving almost every minor hiccup in the OS. The reason I almost never need to use the terminal Windows isn't because Windows is this awesome well-oiled machine that never has problems - far, far from it, lol - it's because almost every problem you can encounter in Windows (that can be solved) is solvable using the GUI.

But you know, it's not even that there's anything WRONG or BAD about having to do a lot of work in the terminal. It's just that as long as terminal use is so essential to using Linux even casually, people promoting Linux need to stop pretending it's not.

 

[Noodles]

. I've thought about installing OpenSim on it but dealing with the router issues and bandwidth/quota issues has discouraged me so now it's just a build box.

I toyed with using OpenSIM on OS Grid but anymore I just use it as a private sandbox, though I don't use it a lot.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

It might be a mistake to ask this because it's kind of inviting people to give contrarian answers; but I'll ask it anyway and just be honest about it. Here goes:

Whenever a person installs a brand new build of Linux-whatever - any distro at all - after all of the stuff the installer makes you do, signing in for the first time, etc etc and you get dropped onto your new Linux desktop for the first time, set free to do whatever you want. There is ONE (or maybe you could call it two) task that all of the websites, all of the videos, all of the tutorials, tell you that you should do before you do ANYTHING else, change anything, install anything, whatever. The general consensus is that the very first thing you need to do in Linux is open the terminal and run "sudo apt update" and "sudo apt upgrade". This is not a very controversial thing to say, right? And it's not just the FIRST thing you should do, it's something that you are told to do often - like, anytime you're going to install something.

This whole process is something that can be done with a GUI. Click a button, get the list of updates, click another button to confirm or cancel the updates. Boom, done.

I've seen that Mint's Cinnamon desktop comes with a default update manager that does exactly this, and does it well. It even checks for the updates automatically and gives you a little taskbar notification so that you're not wasting time running these commands when there's nothing to pull. It CAN be done. But most GUIs seem to neglect GUI'ing this common and critical function - or if there is a GUI procedure, they neglect to expose it. Why?

 

[Spirits Rising]

Yeah, no. Not every Distro has you do as you've stated.

The only reason (outside of a singular package consolidation update recently) I have ever needed to open the terminal to run the update system has been when PAMAC's AUR functionality has gone flaky and been unable to track down a particular package and that does not happen often.

I do not even have APT on this system - nor do I have YAY either. PAMAC and PACAUR are what I have - came with PAMAC and I installed PACAUR rather early on as a "workaround" for just such situations as noted above. I also use at least two different package sets from the primary Arch Repository: Their nVidia implementation and the Linux-Zen kernel as a backup in case something screwy happens with Liquorix.

That said, there are some functions that are better off being run in the terminal as doing so can reduce potential screw-ups or otherwise present some information quite quickly: Disk cloning or checking the system journal for example (I have done that latter on the rare occasion that a program has crashed without any warning whatsoever or on the incredibly rare occasion that one simply refuses to start).

People need to get over their fear/dislike of the Terminal/Command Line/Command Prompt.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to open the command line in Windows - to actually solve a problem or do a task, not just for fun or curiosity - in the last maybe four years.

True, most Windows users rarely have to use the command line in order to do tasks... instead many have to use the Registry Editor sooner or later instead.

 

[Essence Lumin]

True, most Windows users rarely have to use the command line in order to do tasks... instead many have to use the Registry Editor sooner or later instead.

I was about to type that. Also, the command line seems to usually be needed when dealing with unexpected errors. I just pulled up this semi random web page of how to deal with a bsod of critical process died. Its troubleshooting steps include:


msdt.exe -id DeviceDiagnostic

DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth

sfc /scannow

Usually these sorts of articles have more than three console commands but that is all this one had.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Yes. Another classic example would be an USB stick with corrupt partition table, often you can only recover that using DISKPART.EXE under Windows.

There are tons of how tos around for that case.

 

[Kokoro Fasching]

I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to open the command line in Windows - to actually solve a problem or do a task, not just for fun or curiosity - in the last maybe four years.

But there's a difference between having it there and needing it occasionally, and it being the default way of solving almost every minor hiccup in the OS. The reason I almost never need to use the terminal Windows isn't because Windows is this awesome well-oiled machine that never has problems - far, far from it, lol - it's because almost every problem you can encounter in Windows (that can be solved) is solvable using the GUI.

But you know, it's not even that there's anything WRONG or BAD about having to do a lot of work in the terminal. It's just that as long as terminal use is so essential to using Linux even casually, people promoting Linux need to stop pretending it's not.

Try dealing with O365 - at least half the tasks require opening a powershell command window, and running script in there. There is no web or GUI interface into many of the areas.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

There's still really no compelling reason to use Linux for your desktop

It's not Windows. That's compelling.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to open the command line in Windows - to actually solve a problem or do a task, not just for fun or curiosity - in the last maybe four years.

Technically you can use the GUI to diagnose network problems, but CMD is infinitely easier and faster.

The general consensus is that the very first thing you need to do in Linux is open the terminal and run "sudo apt update" and "sudo apt upgrade". This is not a very controversial thing to say, right? And it's not just the FIRST thing you should do, it's something that you are told to do often - like, anytime you're going to install something.

Ubuntu supports this in the GUI and the last time I did a fresh install it did it for me.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Try dealing with O365 - at least half the tasks require opening a powershell command window, and running script in there. There is no web or GUI interface into many of the areas.

I believe you, but that's not my use case. I use my computer for web browsing, playing games, and my 3D modeling/digital art stuff. I do have O365 - or well, I guess the home-tier plans of O365 are called "Microsoft 365" now - but I mostly only have it for the OneDrive space, and using Excel for my personal bank and budget stuff. I also do the typical mail and calendar stuff of course.

That's all I need Linux to do for me too. If I can get them to work AS WELL on Linux as they already do on Windows, I would be happy to switch to Linux full time since my hardware is too old for W11.

 

[Monica Dream]

People need to get over their fear/dislike of the Terminal/Command Line/Command Prompt.

For. Real.

I always do a double-take when people talk about wanting a desktop they never need to use a terminal on. I'm the opposite -one of the first things I do after I install windows is install WSL/WSL2.

There's a time and place for point-and-click, but there's a lot of times where ...to me, at least... it's a lot quicker, easier and more efficient to open up a DOS or BASH shell and give something a quick edit.

There's a reason why Windows began including Powershell[1] by default!

[1]Not an endorsement. I don't use it, I don't know it, I use cmd.exe instead

 

[Clara D.]

For. Real.

I always do a double-take when people talk about wanting a desktop they never need to use a terminal on. I'm the opposite -one of the first things I do after I install windows is install WSL/WSL2.

There's a time and place for point-and-click, but there's a lot of times where ...to me, at least... it's a lot quicker, easier and more efficient to open up a DOS or BASH shell and give something a quick edit.

There's a reason why Windows began including Powershell[1] by default!

[1]Not an endorsement. I don't use it, I don't know it, I use cmd.exe instead

Command prompt always gets added to my start menu