• We had to restore from a backup today after a failed software update. Backup was from 0000 EDT and restored it at 0800 EDT so we lost about 8hrs. Today is 07/20/2024. More info here.

Give your thoughts about Linux.

linux_anand

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2024
Messages
15
Reaction score
8
Credits
150
I transitioned from Windows to Linux a week ago and am quite pleased with the decision. It fosters a sense of connection with the open-source community and enables a more profound investigation of packages, along with an enhanced grasp of the file system. However, the range of applications is not as extensive as on Windows. It appears that the battery life is not as long on Linux as it is on Windows, but the customizability of Linux is truly excellent, which I absolutely adore.
 


the range of applications is not as extensive as on Windows
Most people complain, there are too many choices
It appears that the battery life is not as long on Linux
you can optimise the power https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/improve-battery-life-linux

but the customizability of Linux is truly excellent
yes you own your machine, you can configure it as you need it, if you take 100 people using the same distribution, you will find that most of them will have chopped and changed bit so no 2 users have the same configuration
 
I have read on the internet that there are other Operation Systems out there.But I think it's a vast conspiracy. ;)

But hey those are just my thoughts.
 
However, the range of applications is not as extensive as on Windows.
Heh. I suspect that, by this statement, you're referring to official, recognised, brand-name applications.....like Photoshop, Office, Dragon Naturally-speaking, etc. Stuff like that.

No, these haven't been ported to Linux, and likely never will be. The Linux ethos is free-to-download, free-to-use and free-to-modify. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft are in it to make money.....and the Linux eco-sphere grates on them. They cannot understand anybody wanting to put in hours of their time without receiving remuneration.....simply because they want to.

However, as m'colleague @Brickwizard says - quite rightly! - most folks complain that the choice of stuff is just TOO much. Distros like Debian have well over 60,000 packages in their repositories - all curated, audited and security-checked & maintained - and I can guarantee there will be a Linux equivalent for anything you might want to do. Yes, there'll be a learning-curve; buttons will be in different, perhaps unexpected places, and the work-flow will probably be different, too - plus they'll ALL have strange names! - but it's perfectly possible to do everything under Linux that you did under Windows.

The main difference is that unlike Windows - where it's all about support contracts and paid-for help - in the Linux community it's all about everybody helping each other for free, via forums like this, chat-clients, etc. Just remember this, and you'll not go far wrong; you haven't paid any Linux developer for their time and efforts.......so they don't "owe" you anything. Thus, you're in no position to make demands of any kind.

BUT.......once you've got the hang of what you're doing, you'll have a system you can make sit-up, beg, dance, make you a cup of coffee (okay; maybe NOT that last one!) YOU will be in full control.....and you will NOT be at the mercy of some huge, anonymous corporation with its own aims in mind.

Good 'ere, ain't it? :p


Mike. ;)
 
Not a lot of people like my take on Linux.

TLDR: Don't ask Linux users for opinions, you'd be better off gouging out your eyes. The Linux community can be great, but equally so, it can be hands down one of the most nonsensical and irrational community I've ever experienced.

Now, for the gluttons for punishment. I gush here. It's been a while since I've vent my linux frustrations.

When I first started using Linux (long before I fully committed as a daily driver some years ago), even the Linux community went on about how complicated and difficult Linux can be.

I'm unsure as to why the seeming majority of Linux Veterans treat new users as incompetent incapable goons that simply won't be able to comprehend operating Linux. They get so caught up over the dumbest crap that it's truly mind boggling sometimes. If you've never witnessed something like this before, call Linux a "desktop" and kick back with some popcorn to watch the thread blow up with veterans armed to the teeth with every explanation they can slap you with as to why Linux is NOT a desktop.

They're not wrong. Linux is a Kernel, not a desktop. BUT, getting caught up in semantics that most users will NEVER care about, even if they're using Linux as a daily driver is just down right goofy to me.

The only people that care about that kind of crap are the people who are actively working on projects that require a far more technical understanding than is required in simply daily computing.

There was a time that if you wanted to get into Linux, you were doing so because you either actively worked in the field (likely servers and production) and it just made more sense to do so. You had to be technical about it because the only people really developing on Linux were a bunch of VIM CLI junkies that believed you must save EVERY SINGLE KB OF RESOURCE you possibly can or you were being "inefficient"; logical thinking in production.

But over the past 10 years or so Desktop Environments for Linux like KDE and GNOME have had an absolute explosion in QoL development that truly makes end users simply using linux as a "desktop' a legitimate option outside of mac and windows.

Long gone are the days where you had to be well versed with the infrastructure of the system, be familiar with locations for dozens upon dozens of configuration files, and living like a blind hermit in the CLI 24/7. No, today, pretty much every single distro out there comes with a highly featured Desktop Environment that ultimately provides that "plug and play" experience a lot of people seek.

You'll find some of the most foolish of arguments out there, many of which I don't understand. My most prime example is the long standing distaste for NVIDIA.

You'll find that when using Linux there is a die hard FOSS freedom fighter group out there that will nearly burn you at the stake if you mention the use of ANY proprietary software. NVIDIA has a long history of being tight lipped, but if you tell someone you've never had an issue with NVIDIA proprietary drivers, you'll soon have a line of FOSS Freedom Fighters ready to string you up by the neck.

A large portion of the community would rather have basic users master every Linux fundamental and concept out there, forcing them to essentially become IT Guru's to earn their place in the community, so they'd rather have you run NVIDIA open source drivers, which in my experience absolutely need to be tinkered with every...single... time... but they'd rather you have to know how to do that than to simply use the Proprietary drivers that "just work" in my experience.

I'm not even kidding. I've got 3 different PC's in my house hold that all have AMD CPU's and NVIDIA GPU's. 2060s, 3080, and 4090 and while I've since learned to deeply configure my system (I'm a glutton for punishment and have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge) I still opt to just install the proprietary drivers simply because I can do so and forget about it rather than having to dig through configurations, tweak and modify to obtain stability.

Some of the cult like perceptions and beliefs in the linux community are so mind numbingly toxic and retarded that I typically try not to even discuss it. I tend to mind my own business, merely trying to help others where I know the linux community will typically ignore.

The linux community, mostly the long standing veterans, will down right tell you how dumb you're being if you're asking a question that has been asked 100000x before. Now while to an extent I'll be honest, I agree; I think responding to inquiry with "Hey stupid, a simple google search answers this". I'm of the mind that the same stupid google search would take me 5 seconds to find, hyperlink, and break down an explanation too in order to help a new user.

Yes, in defense of the community, new users should be willing to google things if they're going to get into Linux. It's inevitable so users otta make practice of it from the moment the commit linux to bare metal. That said, I'm a bit of an optimist in that I believe the more times you answer a question, the more the answers become readily available to future users actually searching the answer.

Think of it like this.

You're trying to resolve an issue and you're googling your tail off. And with the current way of life in Linux, you're struggling to find answers because every post you go to takes you to some douche telling some newcomer they're being lazy and ignorant and how they could just google the problem. Now you've just wasted time reading a pointless forum post simply because it's akin to the issue you're trying to resolve, getting nowhere.

In contrast, if these people would instead of insulting the user making inquiry, simply answer. Suddenly those willing to google go from having a vast amount of dead ends because the veterans have gotten lazy with the momontany of responding to the same questions over and over that they're directly contributing to their own frustrations.

I for one asked a LOT of basic questions when I first started using Linux. I did so much googling it was insane. But more often than not, I got so tired of trying to sift through the hatred and the gate keeping that I'd just hit a forum up and ask my question direct in hopes that someone like (now myself) would be willing to take the time to elaborate on the issue.

So now, when I contribute to inquiry. I just try to get to the damn point. I don't care how many times I've seen the inquiry. I don't care how obvious it is the lack of effort a user put into actually finding the answers themselves. Nope, I'm just going to answer the inquiry and trust that in doing so, there's just ONE more post out there that, ideally, provides a resolution to the issue and as a result, provide just one more possible resolution for those of the future who are actually willing to put in the work.

Not everybody can do as I do. Most don't even care too because well, your problems aren't their problems. Most of the OG Linux Veterans will gladly help out if they can see a user is clearly trying to find answers on their own. They're sharing logs, steps taken to resolve an issue, they're sharing information that proves they're clearly taking it upon themselves to learn it on their own and have been forced to post inquiry only after having exhausted their every option based on their current level of expertise.

Linux is an awesome system. A huge portion of the community is VERY good, and many are very kind. But until the old hats kick dust, and the new generation of IT is allowed to leave the confinements of the gate kept requirements, Linux won't really be able to reach it's "full potential" if you will.

As long as we have these old dudes farting dust screaming at the top of their lungs that you can't do this or that because it's a waste of resources like we're still operating on the desktop calculators of the 90s, and the new generation is able to fully embrase the ever growing reality that Linux is evolving into a BASIC operating system; thing's are going to be endlessly and needlessly dramatic.

I'll finish this aimless vent with this. When I joined, the Linux community overcomplicated EVERYTHING. To this day I still can't comprehend how people can so easily discourage users from using Linux. Arch linux is a prime example, my distro of choice for various reasons, but it took me a full year to build up the courage to use it because EVERYBODY said it was an "advanced" distro.

The best thing I ever did was to STOP listening to everything the community said, and stop asking opinions. I'll ask questions in hopes to find a resolution to a problem, but I wont ask for opinions because as far as I'm concerned; everybody is wrong. Arch linux took me all of maybe 2 weeks of study (prior to Archinstall) when everything had to be done manually from scratch. I didnt' use no automated installation scripts the community had built, I just built it myself. 2 weeks. After that, I had a system I was able to use for all of my "desktop" needs. From gaming, to documentation, content creation and more. Basic "desktop" stuff.

The icing on the cake is that I had 0.... ZERO IT experience. Prior to learning Linux, I turned on my Windows PC, I updated the system through Windows update, I browsed the web with firefox and I played games on Steam. That's it.

2 weeks..... and I was able to learn how to use Arch Linux. It's "too advanced for beginners" they'd say. Ugh, it's infuriating. Keep in mind I'm of the mind that all distro's are the same; because they are. Yes they all have their quirks and differences but at their foundation they are identical. Therefore, Arch linux is no more "advanced" than that of Linux Mint. And now with archinstall the entire process is automated with lazy man's convenience.

The only way to screw up an Arch Install is to have no idea what time zone your in or which hard drive you want to install the OS on. You'd practically have to be labotomized to fail an arch install at this point. No doubt there's some clown out there that will read this and think I'm sitting here saying "arch is the best" because that's traditionally what Arch users do. Personally I don't care about Arch, or any other distro. I use Arch because I like the Logo and I know how to build a minimal system with it, and it literally "just works".

It's a war between practicality and ideology, a foolish one at that.

Anyway, time to end this novel. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 
Last edited:
The only way to screw up an Arch Install is to have no idea what time zone your in or which hard drive you want to install the OS on. You'd practically have to be labotomized to fail an arch install at this point.

KVM/QEMU and VMware won't boot Arch in EFI mode. Arch is one of the few distro's that doesn't support secure boot.
I can get Arch to boot in EFI mode, on a physical computer if I disable secure boot.

Once I've done all of this, it boots to a command line prompt.
This is fine if you're an experienced Linux user, but for the lobotomized beginner, it's daunting and scary.
I have to manually create new partitions and format them.

I have to set my date manually, set my keyboard map manually, set my timezone manually.
None of this is hard, and if you've done it before it's easy. But for a beginner? I don't think so.

Newbies want a GUI, they want everything automated as much as possible. Click an install button.
Type my username and password in, then click install. Arch is a great distro, I use it sometimes,
I have it installed on a VM currently. But it's certainly not the easiest Linux to install by a long shot.
 
Once I've done all of this, it boots to a command line prompt.

yes. once the installer initializes, and you're met with the command prompt. Type

Code:
archinstall

And press enter. You'll be presented with the ARCH install text based menu system. No damn VIM needed, just up, down, and enter keys. Done.

Setting time zone? Easy, it's a menu option. down arrow to time zone, press enter, read teh basic instruction to press / to search, type your region, press enter. Done.

Partitioning? Easy. Enter partitioning and select "use best effort partitioning" select drive and boom. Beginner mode activated. Same goes for keyboard layout.

If you're a new user (I know you're not), you'll have your installation done in about 5 minutes. Advanced users should be configured and installing in about 60 seconds.

I've never met anyone intimidated by light reading, but I don't socialize much. The only difference between arch install and say manjaro install is that manjaro has GUI windows. Essentially same text and dialogue, exact same process. Only difference is that arch does it in plain text on a black background.

I've walked many aspiring arch users through this and they literally laugh when they realize it was done with a single command and a few moments of basic reading skills.
 
Last edited:
One thing Windows will always rule at gaming especially when it comes to Flight Simulators.

What I'd give to have access to GIFs on this one lol. I literally can't take this one seriously lol.

Literally the ONLY thing windows does better in gaming at this point is having support for VERY select anti cheat software like DENUVO or other invasive anti-cheat software. This means that some of the major MMO or competitive titles out there wont work. Everything else runs primo. I can't even imagine going back to windows for "Gaming" as it would quite literally be large back pedaling leaps.

Keep in mind I utilize AMD CPU's and Nvidia GPU's. It's a whole different ball game if you're running intel CPUs or some APU's, those guys are ALWAYS having trouble. So I do suppose in that respect, you're right.

As for AMD/NVIDIA builds. Tis minty fresh.
 
An interesting thread, i will read the whole thing later.

Linux is computing: it has had such an extreme effect on the way we use computers, from everything to androids, to servers, to government super computers, and even more.

Being free monetarily, it takes a little more work and flexibility to use it as a desktop OS. However, if everyone used linux, this would not be the case. There's that saying "you get what you pay for", and for certain kinds of proffesions, FOSS does not cut it.

It is definetly faster than windows, and linux users/devs tend to drive that with a more minimalist state of mind.

Yet, computers will always be little bit of a pain, and bugs are an ongoing problem for linux distros.
 
archinstall

I will have to try that. The "official" installation guide is here.


It doesn't have that command. You would think that would be much easier.

Then there are lines like this
/etc/locale.conf
Create the locale.conf(5) file, and set the LANG variable accordingly:

/etc/locale.conf
LANG=en_US.UTF-8

There is no vim, or nano, or any editor installed yet. If you're experienced, you can do
something like ...
echo "LANG=en_US.UTF-8" > /etc/locale.conf

But if you're newbie, who has never used echo, you're screwed.

Same for the hostname, keyboard.map, timezone, etc...
 
I will have to try that. The "official" installation guide is here.


It doesn't have that command. You would think that would be much easier.

Then there are lines like this


There is no vim, or nano, or any editor installed yet. If you're experienced, you can do
something like ...
echo "LANG=en_US.UTF-8" > /etc/locale.conf

But if you're newbie, who has never used echo, you're screwed.

Same for the hostname, keyboard.map, timezone, etc...

You're not wrong. As I responded to you it dawned on me that they likely don't even include the archinstall command in the wiki which is just mind boggling to me. That should be the first thing on the web page for those in search of a streamlined arch install.

The installation guide is how I used to do it for the first year I used Arch Linux. I literally had the entire process printed out on paper so I could just have it there next to me. Then after I think it was eh, Brodie(?) made a video about archinstall I pretty much never looked back. No more taking 15-20 mins configuring every dang line in the installation but 60 seconds in arch install (which comes with the arch installer by default btw), and I'm installing, <5 minutes later I'm logging in and using my system; barring any advanced tweaks I desire to make (which is all just preference stuff).

With archinstall I can literally just set the parameters using the simple system, install, and be using the system immediately upon login.

I have absolutely no idea why the archinstall command does not preface the official archinstall instructions. My only conclusion is that they begrudgingly implemented archinstall for those griping about arch needing to modernize arch installation with a more streamlined approach. So they added it, but have no desire to turn people onto it as it goes against their ideology. The irony in that Arch's motto is "keep it simple stupid" yet they'd rather force users to learn a complete manual compilation than to simply run archinstall and be done with it. What an oxymoron.

It's nonsense imho, and that's why I dont' typically float around the arch linux forums. For those like myself who enjoy learning, it's no big deal. But to force ideology like that is asinine.

Just another prime example of old farts forcing new users into old hat ways merely because "well, we had to do it the hard way, so do you! It's good for you!". And they're not wrong, but forcing it upon people is.
 
Last edited:
You're not wrong. As I responded to you it dawned on me that they likely don't even include the archinstall command in the wiki which is just mind boggling to me. That should be the first thing on the web page for those in search of a streamlined arch install.
There is a wiki page, but the recommended way to install Arch is still by using the official guide.
 
There is a wiki page, but the recommended way to install Arch is still by using the official guide.

Yep. It boils down to the latter part of that post.


Just another prime example of old farts forcing new users into old hat ways merely because "well, we had to do it the hard way, so do you! It's good for you!". And they're not wrong, but forcing it upon people is.

The archinstall does the exact same thing as the "recommended" manual compilation process. The only logical reason I can foresee Arch Linux not including archinstall as a "recommended method for installing arch linux" is because doing so eludes the Arch Philosophy that you should be intimately acquainted with the Linux Fundamentals. Again, not something I disagree with.

But, the arch installer does the exact same thing. It just goes against their ideaology that everyone should be an IT guru, therefore archinstall may never be "recommended". Rest assured, in the past 3 years I've been using exclusively Arch Linux, there's no difference between the two aside of manual/automatic installation.

This delves into the issue of all the nonsense the Linux Communities get into; forced ideology being one of the most ridiculous things that certain distro's do and insist on trying to justify.

I've always figured progress was meant to move us forward. Every time a new tool comes out to optimize a work flow, why must we always insist that spite having said tools, every end user is expected to master the fundamentals. Easily one of the largest reasons I believe Linux is so slow to grow.

It's my belief that the intricate fundamentals should be left to the experts and enthusiasts; and said experts and enthusiasts should encourage new users to use the easiest, most trouble free methods of deploying their desired systems.

Because we all know that not a single one of us wants to waste our time explaining theory and process to someone who just wants to browse p-hub on firefox and shoot bad guys in COD while watching something stupid on netflix. "End Users" will never have a desire to understand the systems, so why force them too?

The common end user has every right to use the tools readily made available to them, and for those kind (or lazy) enough to create automation scripts for things like an arch install, these basic end users should be encouraged to use it instead of being told it's beyond their comprehension.|

If someone wants to learn the Linux fundamentals, use the recommended manual installation process. It'll acquaint users with the file structure and configurations. WOOT!

If someone just wants to use Arch Linux because it's light weight, they should just use the arch installer and be done with it.
 
But, the arch installer does the exact same thing. It just goes against their ideaology that everyone should be an IT guru, therefore archinstall may never be "recommended". Rest assured, in the past 3 years I've been using exclusively Arch Linux, there's no difference between the two aside of manual/automatic installation.

This delves into the issue of all the nonsense the Linux Communities get into; forced ideology being one of the most ridiculous things that certain distro's do and insist on trying to justify.
The Arch Forums just don't want to deal with people who don't put any effort into understanding Arch. For example you don't see many post like the following examples there, but here you do.
"Need help, how do I create a bootable usb so I can install Arch"
"Need help, booting from my arch live usb doesn't work"
"Need help, how do I install package X"
"Need help, need help after updating my system Nvidia drivers don't work anymore"
"Need help, I can't login anymore"
etc.
Also Arch is a distribution for advanced users or people who are willing to put in the time to read and learn how to do it themselves, because Arch is all about the DIY philosophy. The idea of going through the manual installation process is so that if something breaks you know how to fix it yourself and if you can't you will know enough about your system and will know what details to share so that someone there will be able to help you.

If you want to use Arch Linux and have good installer just use EndeavourOS. If you install EndeavourOS remove the EndeavourOS repo and packages and then reinstall all the packages you will be left with an Arch installation that uses Dracut. Even then, Arch-based distributions are still not meant for beginners because you will still need to know how to fix something. Although on the EndeavourOS forums they are a lot friendlier but after using EndeavourOS for a while it can be expected that you work towards being able to do it yourself and not treat the forums like a free personal support desk.

If you are talking about user friendly, better to go to a distribution that is know for having a philosophy of keeping things simple and trying to make their distribution easy for the every day person. Such as Ubuntu, Mint, PopOS, ElemantaryOS, etc.
 
Last edited:
The governments of the world fancy the Chinese model of digital governance, it is very effective at controlling the zoo we call society. Even in Europe we are moving towards the Chinese model, they want it and they will enforce it. Linux principles doesn't fit in that model, ''What do you mean by owning your computer?'' I think it is now a good time for free thinking people to move to Linux. Linux has a role to play in this transitioning society but it's not clear yet, I believe it will become clear the years to come
 
I'm unsure as to why the seeming majority of Linux Veterans treat new users as incompetent incapable goons that simply won't be able to comprehend operating Linux. They get so caught up over the dumbest crap that it's truly mind boggling sometimes. If you've never witnessed something like this before, call Linux a "desktop" and kick back with some popcorn to watch the thread blow up with veterans armed to the teeth with every explanation they can slap you with as to why Linux is NOT a desktop.
There are the "true believer" types, but i do not think this is in any way isolated to linux users. For example, try using Reddit: if you ask questions about various subject matters with no inhibitions, people will be mad that you didn't do it the "right" way, or that you didn't think to research first, or that your understanding is not correct. Part of it is understandable: they don't want to help with something they have seen before, part of it is that internet users frequently take themselves too seriously.
 

Members online


Top