My current view of Linux

Darc Sceptor

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2024
Messages
95
Reaction score
30
Credits
1,090
First I want to begin by saying that I am a retired software engineer/architect and my current project after retirement is to write a new game.
I was on the Microsoft Technical Beta Team who tested and reported bugs on Operating Systems DOS 6 - XP. As a company Architect I also investigated Linux many times over the years but my last five years of work was for the Department of Defense. With the software I wrote our waterways are safe from terrorist attacks on them. And, trust me, some of the secret stuff we have in that would make you poop in your pants in fear.

So now comes this year. I got really sick of Windows. If I switched to Linux for 4 hours and returned to Windows my clock was off by that 4 hours. And I won't even begin to voice my objections to Recall. So I finally reached the point where I wiped out my drives, I wiped out my Windows Install USB, I installed Linux mint as well as creating a Ventoy disk with (I think) 4 other variants I'm interested in.

So after a year of use this is what I've learned:

If you get help from people (and that help is very very good) it comes from someone that only knows the Terminal. Which has it's drawback IMHO. For example: to mount that drive and make it mount at bootup there is about 3 or 4 steps to follow in the Terminal and VOILA it mounts at startup. This includes, of course, editing the etc/fstab file manually as root.

Issue 1: there is one editor command used by many variants...EXCEPT Linux Mint. Every time I want to edit via Terminal I have to google how to do it.
Issue 2: manually editing a system file which I have always viewed as bad

Now you might think "what is the alternative" and I will say that here:
1) Run Disks
2) Select the drive you want mounted
3) Click the gears and choose the option "Edit Mount Options"
4) Turn off "User Session Defaults"
5) Click OKAY and then exit DISKS

Note that a) Disks should be on most variants b) it involves no command line tasks which can be screwed simply with not Capitalizing one letter and c) not editing system files directly. And the one time I was getting help from someone they stated that they have never used DISKS so they know nothing about it. So while I know how it is when you are an expert in a system, as that system evolves we need to evolve with the systems. Hell, I began as an assembly level programmer on the IBM mainframe and taught myself C# and went to programming on the LAN. Since that time I wrote a system to use XML to represent objects, wrote two compilers, and wrote code to fly a top secret air force jet. I was excited when one CTO left her Fortune 50 company after moving it off the mainframe and onto LAN servers and she said 1 down and 49 to go.

The second thing I found with Linux is all of these variants. "This variant took this other variant and made his own variant" which to me seems odd. It feels to me as if many people said "Linux lets me do it so I'm doing it even though it changes very little on the surface." Now please note: this is my view of it and other people have their own reality of why these variants exist. But to me it seems it is at an extent of ridiculousness. The variants that make sense are Arch (aimed at security and an OS that cannot be altered) and one variant aimed to make Arch easier to use. Ubuntu came along to aid Windows users in moving to Linux with a Windows-like interface. Pop OS came along to make it easy for gamers and Zorin is being developed from scratch to provide ease of transition regardless of your former operating system. And there have been other implementations that were coded to be easier to use or easier to game on or ready for Linux and Windows application. Pop OS with their new UI is a variant that makes sense as they are exploring the "what if"s of a UI on a gaming variant of Linux.

While there are many reasons (I'm sure) for these variants it creates problems for new people coming to Linux. The number alone is overwhelming to many people and they may not think to come to a great forum such as here. And even if someone points them to a favored variant for beginners (using Linux Mint as an example) even there you can have variants for the User Interface which again leads to "what does Cinnamon give me and what does KDB mean?". But having these Linux variants means that a) you may not have a consistent way to install it or the install process may be alien to other processes. (I'm thinking of YOU Zorin OS) And without a consistent install process you end up with confused users. Now being involved with Linux since 1996 I know how Linux forums used to be. If you were new to Linux and something didn't work it was YOUR fault not the fault of Linux. I'm so happy that, at least here in the Linux.Org society it isn't like that at all. Which is why this is the only forum I post to now. But it sounds like the Arch forum is like the old days.

So the variants mean that the internals installed are whatever that person felt was the latest and greatest thing or that they have a dislike of one implementation so they refuse to install it. With one application I needed to install it required on library and when you use the standard commands that module could not be found, could not be installed, could not be used. Aggghhh. I searched the internet for a week, because I refuse to give up and return to Windows, and kept using different variants of my google searches. Finally I found a discussion at the end of that week that said Linux Mint did not install these two packages. Included in those two packages is the library I needed according to him. So I followed his directions and installed those two packages. VOILA I was able to finally install what I needed. It should not be that hard. The reason that many people stay with Windows or return to Windows is because (for the most part but not always) it just works. Now I was very impressed with Linux Mint because It. Just. Worked.

And that is the other side of my time here in Linux. Most of my games just run and work. Though I am anxious to see them on my new mini computer that is on it's way as it has an eGPU instead of my current iGPU. And my printer was there, my network was there, my wireless headphone were there, my wireless mouse was there and the only networking problems I see is that the Network Manger sucks as it fails to tell me if the internet is active or dead. And here in Colombia the internet can die for many different reasons. And with the WIFI once again I cannot get connected to it. But since I'm wired I only wanted wireless to bridge the two connections for faster internet. (here in Colombia our backbone is only about 500GB ATM with a new project to improve it more)

So my comments are not so much as one that just stuck a toe in the water. And for the most part everything JUST WORKS. Unless you follow general instructions for running the editor from the Terminal. ;-) And I will not buy a system without a direct LAN connection so I can forgo the use of bridging without problems. Personally, looking back at 1996, Linux has come a really long way and I'm extremely impressed and happy with it. But I will be the loud voice in the back that keeps asking "Why can't we do this with a GUI in Linux?" in the hopes that either a) someone actually writes it or b) I finally have the time to learn how to program in Linux. The time I spent as an architect for a huge, soul-sucking bank I was the one that kept asking "We always did it this way but why hasn't anyone explored doing it like this?" I was the guy managers hated because they would say "this system is great" and I'd say "but there are these problems that may be insurmountable". That would lead to meetings with that company and I would have an engineer come to me and say "yup you know all our bugs".

So I want to expand my thoughts on Linux Mint Network Manager. So there was a loud explosion outside my house and within seconds our internet was dead. But the lights were still on so I couldn't understand why the internet became "slow". I did what I always do ... I floated my mouse over the Network Manger and all it said is that the wired connection is Active. What? So I spread my monitors apart and looked at my router...the light was red. So my internet was dead. But according to Network Manager it was fine.

My expectations are this: Network Manager creates and destroys the connections. I can see I have a wire to the router. I can see I have a wireless entity in my computer that is active. But it should also let me know the other important thing : is the internet active? Now I know that right now there are Linux gurus pounding the keyboard to say all the utilities that exist in the terminal to know if the network is active on the internet. However I see this as "old Linux ways" not the necessary new Linux way. The GUI way is just simpler, faster, and convenient. I have seen a few variants of Network Manager that has extended itself not only saying (using my slang description) "ya got a wire stuck in the hole in your computer and it is hot" but saying you have a network connection and here are the current up/down speeds that I'm sensing. And if I knew how and remembered where I saw it and how to isolate that code, I would definitely install that Network Manager over what is in Linux Mint right now. While it does not directly say Internet : Connected it tells me so by seeing data movements over the connection. But I think there is still a large old school contingency in the Linux development area that are the same ones that screamed bloody murder when the first full GUI version of Linux came out. I was there then and I remember it. An advantage of being a young, old fogy.

So I will continue to push for improvements as I see where improvements are needed. And if I ever learn programming in Linux (I'm taking RUST classes) maybe I will make my own implementations. And I expect that the first responses will be : what took so long for this? And I will push for these improvement not because I hate Linux, not because I hate Linux developers, but because I love Linux and believe it is sooooooo close to being the perfect OS for EVERYONE not just the Linux guru's that have used the Terminal for the past 10 years.
 


@Darc Sceptor :-

Thanks for an interesting 'take' on the whole eco-system. A good read!

I'd used Windows all the way from 2 through to XP. Come EOL 4 XP, I'd honest-to-God had it with Microsoft. I thought to myself, "There HAS to be something better than this I can use. Let's see what's out there, shall we?" So I did....

I Googled "Alternative, free operating systems" (see, I'd already decided MS weren't getting any more money out of me!), annnd.....well; to say I was gobsmacked at what came up in the search results was putting it mildly. Fact is, I was freakin' amazed......as you say, the sheer choice WAS a wee bit overwhelming, though to me, choice is GOOD.

Like so many, I started off with Ubuntu - everybody seemed to recommend it - this was May of 2014, so 14.04 LTS 'Trusty Tahr' had just been released. I burnt an Ubuntu ISO to DVD, wiped Windows off the HDD and out of my life, and dived-in head-first. Perhaps rashly from the POV of some, but I'd never had any ties to Windows work-wise, so I had nothing to lose.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

I kept expecting the steep learning-curve everybody mentioned to manifest itself....but ya know what? It never appeared. If anything, I found Linux simpler to set-up and use than Windoze. I mogged along with Trusty for about 6 months, then the first fly appeared in the ointment; Canonical had decided, quite arbitrarily, that their customized kernels were no longer going to support the graphics adapter in my ancient Compaq desktop rig. Every day became a series of freezes & crashes, which I rapidly became disenchanted with!

I moaned about this to a few acquaintances on the Ubuntu Forums. One suggested I take a look at Puppy Linux; their version of Trusty had not long been released, called 'Tahrpup'. Apparently, Puppy was explicitly designed to keep very old hardware still functional & useful. It sounded just what I needed; I downloaded their current ISO, burned it to disc and tried it out. Lo & behold, absolutely everything worked, OOTB........it also rejuvenated an even older P4-powered Dell laptop we'd bought back in 2002, and which had struggled with XP for years.

That was it; by the end of the day, Ubuntu was already fading into the distance, and Puppy had taken pride of place on both machines....which immediately started earning their keep again.

I've been there ever since.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Puppy suits me down to the ground, 'cos she's designed for "tinkerers". A single-user, 'hobbyist' system, she flies in the face of so much that's 'standard' about Linux, even 'running-as-root' by default. Yet because of her unique construction & operation, she's probably more secure than 95% of mainstream distros out there.

All changes are saved to a directory, which at boot time is 'layered' into the virtual file-system created in RAM from compressed, 'read-only' squash file-system packages. You can choose whether to 'save' at session's end, or not. If you think you might have inadvertently picked up summat 'nasty' during the session, then don't save it at shutdown. Just let it evaporate into cyberspace.....

Backups are a doddle. No need for specialist apps like Clonezilla or owt like that; Puppy handles these via simple copy'n'paste, because in every case, what you're copying is a compressed, single file anyway...

In my decade with Puppy, I've gone from raw noob to creating an entire 'portable app' eco-system for Puppy, with invaluable assistance from other Puppy community members. I script utilities and other stuff, re-package apps into Puppy's unique .pet & SFS formats, moderate on the community forum AND help out with the noobs in my own turn. Life's good!

In every case - where I'm creating utilities from scratch, I bear in mind how much I like my GUIs, and how ex-Windows 'refugees' are used to them.....so every utility has it own GUI, along with help-files, and tips on how best to use them. We want to attract new users to Puppy, NOT drive them away.....so I do what I can to help the community to prosper & thrive.

From being utterly fed-up with Windows multiple, infuriating foibles, I now look forward to booting into 'our Pup' each day. I'd forgotten computing CAN be fun.....


Mike. ;)
 
Last edited:
Canonical had decided, quite arbitrarily, that their customized kernels were no longer going to support the graphics adapter in my ancient Compaq desktop rig.

To be fair, choices like this aren't arbitrary. They're heavily discussed among the developers. They drop stuff that's old not because it's old but because they don't have anyone willing to provide QA testing.

While it surely would happen eventually, that's even why they stopped supporting 32 bit systems. It wasn't malice, but rather a lack of volunteers.
 
First I want to begin by saying that I am a retired software engineer/architect and my current project after retirement is to write a new game.
That was a fun read for me @Darc Sceptor, so thanks for that.

It was quite surprising to read of your deep experience with coding, yet having a preference for the GUI over the terminal command line. The following experiences you outlined do seem to me to involve very considerable experience of coding syntax of a similar sort that is used in reduced form on the command line:

reported bugs on DOS6 and XP
software written to keep waterways safe from terrorists
assembly level programmer on the IBM mainframe
taught yourself C#
programming on the LAN
wrote a system to use XML
wrote two compilers
wrote code to fly a top secret air force jet

There's very good reasons why the command line is so ubiquitous in linux. As an example, if you read a manual page such the one for "find", the number of options with combinations of options, and the functional capability of the command, is rather large, and for a GUI to cover all the possible combinations would involve hundreds of click boxes in perhaps hundreds of windows. Multiply that by thousands of commands on the average linux installation, and the number of GUI windows, widgets and boxes needed to cover the field would be so massive, in the end it's self-evidently a matter of economy, or the "costs versus benefits" to the system. Hence GUIs in linux have limited capability, and in the end they depend on there being developers to create them, though if they are not created, the operating system is no less functional for that, other than for the specifically graphical applications like gimp, imagemagick etc. which is an area that linux is often regarded as inferior.
 
Last edited:
reported bugs on DOS6 and XP

LOL A long, long time ago - I was nominated and awarded the Microsoft MVP and took part in that program.

It was good for a bunch of swag and a free MSDN subscription. I took part for a few years.

Helping people learn and solve problems is not something new for me. I already had a background in Unix (and had tinkered with Linux, while my company also used Linux on servers) so it was only natural that I continue this when I moved to Linux full-time.

Also, it's amazing what you'll learn when you're actively trying to help people solve problems.

That last statement applies to more than just Linux, the Internet, forums, or computers.
 
Also, @Darc Sceptor, is this topic most suited for 'getting started'?

There might be a more appropriate sub-forum and I'll be happy to move it there.
 
Hoooo boy, lotta text... I feel deja vu... TL;DR: another thread complaining about how Linux isn't intuitive enough for you... Okay, for brevity, here goes:

1. There is no single Linux OS. There are many (not 400+ as plenty are just respins). Apart from "Linux is a kernel..." GNU with Linux is only an OS so far as it boots and lets you interact with the system. A graphical shell and apps are optional components. You should know this if what you say is true.

2. Because of the above, there's no common applications. Some distros use Disks/gParted, some do not. And you don't get to enforce that. Some distros don't ship with anything but a base system, and some are just scripts to buid a system. It's called "choice" and I'll concede it's a double-edge sword. Windows is not just an OS; it's an OS + software.

3. As @MikeWalsh pointed out, some distros (Puppy in this case) go very against convention. As @osprey pointed out, there are some utilities that make no sense being GUI-based. I'm sure there's plenty in Powershell.

4. Given the above, where's you "click that" going to end up: if you're running X distro in Y environment and have Z package... The CLI is a common interface and the best thing about UNIX-ey OSes; if you know one, you can find your way around another. You don't need to remember what menu where and if the icon changed... and so forth. So...
It makes helping people easier!

5. Having a CLI shell allows customization, control and ease-of-use. Be it calling a program up quickly while doing something else to scripting.

Now let me just say I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I'm only trying to explain two things I think you fail to grasp: a) How Linux as a concept works, and b) the value of a common interface.

Take-homes:
1. Just learn the CLI. If you're 10% the dev you claim to be, it'd be easy. The CLI is not for gurus. It's easy enough for anyone willing ro learn.

2. Consider making your own distro.
3. It's quite an assertion that everyone is gonna agree with your way. There's a reason why we do things "the old way": it works better. Linux is about freedom. So I'm sure plenty will and won't be in your camp.
4. You say you want to make linux better... that's great. But no OS is perfect for anyone/everyone.

So I'm glad you have opinions and are willing to put effert into places you could improve. Just don't expect everyone to agree.

Good luck with Rust.

Edit: Everything posted here is in good faith (in case I come across in any other way). Peace.
 
Last edited:
@Fanboi :-

4. Given the above, where's you "click that" going to end up: if you're running X distro in Y environment and have Z package... The CLI is a common interface and the best thing about UNIX-ey OSes; if you know one, you can find your way around another. You don't need to remember what menu where and if the icon changed... and so forth. So...
It makes helping people easier!
Oh, I couldn't agree more......yet, despite having used Linux for years, I'm definitely not a "terminal jockey". I couldn't live there the way some folks do; when it comes to "picturing" my system, I need more than an abstract, text-based definition of the thing. I prefer the way we do stuff in Puppyland; diving into the thing via the FM, so's I can actually "see" what I'm doing.....and physically moving/copying/altering/linking/deleting stuff to suit. For which reason, I'd never make it as a sysadmin, working with headless systems via CLI from hundreds, even thousands of miles away.

(I had one of those workplace assessment years ago, on my preferred way of learning things. They came to the conclusion that I was one of those who responded far more positively to visual stimuli than I did by trying to grasp something just from reading about it. (And this from a guy who learnt to read at the age of 3.....and whose nose was buried in a book almost constantly for at least the next 20 years!) Give me a demonstration of something, and I've got it immediately. Try to describe something to me, and I find it a lot harder to "get my head round it"....)

You couldn't make it up, could you?

Most of the time, TBH, I studiously avoid the terminal whenever I can, BUT.......as you say, it very definitely has its uses. In certain situations - like with utilities, etc, that have a TON of options - it's the only way of interacting with the system that makes any kind of sense.

And for trouble-shooting, you can't beat it. Even I'll admit that!


Mike. :D
 
Last edited:
@Darc Sceptor :-

Thanks for an interesting 'take' on the whole eco-system. A good read!
;)

Thank you for the response. My viewpoint of Linux is a mix of the experiments way in the past to a fullblown user. It really surprised me when I run Mint and everything was just there. Things just worked. Well almost. But the little things not there I'm willing to overlook or learn to change.
 
That was a fun read for me @Darc Sceptor, so thanks for that.

It was quite surprising to read of your deep experience with coding, yet having a preference for the GUI over the terminal command line. The following experiences you outlined do seem to me to involve very considerable experience of coding syntax of a similar sort that is used in reduced form on the command line:

reported bugs on DOS6 and XP
software written to keep waterways safe from terrorists
assembly level programmer on the IBM mainframe
taught yourself C#
programming on the LAN
wrote a system to use XML
wrote two compilers
wrote code to fly a top secret air force jet

There's very good reasons why the command line is so ubiquitous in linux. As an example, if you read a manual page such the one for "find", the number of options with combinations of options, and the functional capability of the command, is rather large, and for a GUI to cover all the possible combinations would involve hundreds of click boxes in perhaps hundreds of windows. Multiply that by thousands of commands on the average linux installation, and the number of GUI windows, widgets and boxes needed to cover the field would be so massive, in the end it's self-evidently a matter of economy, or the "costs versus benefits" to the system. Hence GUIs in linux have limited capability, and in the end they depend on there being developers to create them, though if they are not created, the operating system is no less functional for that, other than for the specifically graphical applications like gimp, imagemagick etc. which is an area that linux is often regarded as inferior.

Thanks for your response. Actually I think that my programming is WHY I hate using the Terminal. In many cases when there was something no one wanted to program they gave it to me. And (by the way) all of my programming once I left the mainframe has been graphical. Even with the flight program, we had a UI where the course of the jet to it's target, what ordinance to deploy and when to deploy it was all in a UI that fed into the generation of the code to perform the flight. This included even scheduled refueling of the jet and planned exodus of the arena. So I learned there are a lot of things you can have a GUI represent to generate very complex stuff in the background. So whenever I got home from all of that programming I wanted to sit down at my computer and do things without having to think much. I guess that habit continues. :)
 
LOL A long, long time ago - I was nominated and awarded the Microsoft MVP and took part in that program.

It was good for a bunch of swag and a free MSDN subscription. I took part for a few years.

Helping people learn and solve problems is not something new for me. I already had a background in Unix (and had tinkered with Linux, while my company also used Linux on servers) so it was only natural that I continue this when I moved to Linux full-time.

Also, it's amazing what you'll learn when you're actively trying to help people solve problems.

That last statement applies to more than just Linux, the Internet, forums, or computers.

Funny you should mention that. I have begun browsing the forums for Beginners to see if I could help (and learn) with others. I never got my MVP ranking -- I just never had the time they wanted us to spend. But we did support Win 95 when it first came out. I remember this one guy complaining about not warning when they empty the trash. I responded not so politically correct: So what you are saying is that first we warn you when you put something in the trash. Then we warn you when you are about to empty the trash. And now you want a third layer to be warned once again you are going to permanently remove your files???
 
There might be a more appropriate sub-forum and I'll be happy to move it there.

Agree. Moving this to General Linux Questions.

Wizard
 
Hoooo boy, lotta text... I feel deja vu... TL;DR: another thread complaining about how Linux isn't intuitive enough for you... Okay, for brevity, here goes:

1. There is no single Linux OS. There are many (not 400+ as plenty are just respins). Apart from "Linux is a kernel..." GNU with Linux is only an OS so far as it boots and lets you interact with the system. A graphical shell and apps are optional components. You should know this if what you say is true.

2. Because of the above, there's no common applications. Some distros use Disks/gParted, some do not. And you don't get to enforce that. Some distros don't ship with anything but a base system, and some are just scripts to buid a system. It's called "choice" and I'll concede it's a double-edge sword. Windows is not just an OS; it's an OS + software.

3. As @MikeWalsh pointed out, some distros (Puppy in this case) go very against convention. As @osprey pointed out, there are some utilities that make no sense being GUI-based. I'm sure there's plenty in Powershell.

4. Given the above, where's you "click that" going to end up: if you're running X distro in Y environment and have Z package... The CLI is a common interface and the best thing about UNIX-ey OSes; if you know one, you can find your way around another. You don't need to remember what menu where and if the icon changed... and so forth. So...
It makes helping people easier!

5. Having a CLI shell allows customization, control and ease-of-use. Be it calling a program up quickly while doing something else to scripting.

Now let me just say I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I'm only trying to explain two things I think you fail to grasp: a) How Linux as a concept works, and b) the value of a common interface.

Take-homes:
1. Just learn the CLI. If you're 10% the dev you claim to be, it'd be easy. The CLI is not for gurus. It's easy enough for anyone willing ro learn.

2. Consider making your own distro.
3. It's quite an assertion that everyone is gonna agree with your way. There's a reason why we do things "the old way": it works better. Linux is about freedom. So I'm sure plenty will and won't be in your camp.
4. You say you want to make linux better... that's great. But no OS is perfect for anyone/everyone.

So I'm glad you have opinions and are willing to put effert into places you could improve. Just don't expect everyone to agree.

Good luck with Rust.

Edit: Everything posted here is in good faith (in case I come across in any other way). Peace.

Thank you for your response though I feel that I never really complained about Linux but rather kept voicing it's worth.

I realize there are many distros that are made for specific purposes but my viewpoint of an OS is what you stated; a kernel for the hardware, drivers sitting on top of that, and software at the USER level. Few people would want to run server software on a laptop for daily use. And I am trying to learn the CLI but just like the Spanish I'm learning I pick up a few things then walk away and quickly forget them. And I'm positive everything you've said is true and well meaning my thinking is not for those who are deep into Linux. My thinking is for the 95% on Windows that I hope see the light and come to Linux. For them the GUI is more important than anything else. And once they have to use the Terminal they may not be as interested as I was.

So lately I have been jumping on the forums looking to help other beginners. My focus being more with the people coming from Windows and using an Ubuntu variant or a variant similar. I am working to learn but at the same time I have Spanish I'm learning because I retired from America to Colombia. I am working to learn Unreal Engine 5 and it's processes. And I'm trying to learn the Terminal commands. I still have to google "how do I do that again?" but less and less.

But at the same time, why do Linux people keep questioning my programming history? Why would anyone come onto a forum and make up crap they never did? That stuff comes out sooner or later. And I worked ****ing hard to grow to the level I did.

Peace
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny you should mention that. I have begun browsing the forums for Beginners to see if I could help (and learn) with others. I never got my MVP ranking -- I just never had the time they wanted us to spend.

I'm old. I used Microsoft's public (and private) Usenet servers. They did eventually have a web-interface but it wasn't very good and was just a front-end for the NTTP service.

Also, I suffered from extreme insomnia for a good portion of my life. I'd sleep about 3 hours out of every 72 hours. Every few weeks I'd crash and sleep for six hours. This was something I used to my benefit but it's treated these days. (I take a heavy dose of a psychotropic medication known as Seroquel. It's usually used for mental illnesses but it's an off-label sleep aid.)

Meh... I don't mind if folks know.

Every now and then I switch to Ambien. I don't stay on it because it's extremely habit forming. Also, it only works for a few weeks and then my tolerance builds up. My PCP is enlightened enough to let me make my own decisions.

These days, I get the best sleep I've ever had.

And it is awesome.

It's not 'perfect' and I wake up at weird hours sometimes. This si why you might see me log in at odd hours. I'm both awake and at a computer - which I can do from the comfort of my bedroom. I've had a computer in my bedroom since the wreck back in 2018.

I suppose only the first two paragraphs are on-topic - or at least on-topic as a response to your post. You can ignore the rest, though I felt the first couple of paragraphs had some holes in it.
 
Just thought I'd offer this opinion from a "casual user". I am no programmer. Unless you count writing batch files and simple programs in Basic way "back in the day". Ok, I used to do a lot of G & M code programming for CNC machines. But that was done at the machine, not with a CAD/Cam program.
Anyway, as I see it, the GUI was created as a tool for non programmers to get things done. That is, the whole point of the thing is to be able to do things without having to learn all the commands, variables, syntax, etc.
As such, when a casual user asks for help, this user anyway, I'm hoping the responses will start with using the GUI method. And if that doesn't work, we can then move on to the command line. With the distro identified, either in the initial question or supplied when needed, the advisor, more than likely, will know what tools are available to the one asking for help.
A lot of skull sweat went into creating all the available programs that use a GUI. They didn't go to all that work creating the things just for fun. They weren't included in the distribution just to take up drive space. Why the resistance to using them?
Here's a simple example of how it really goes on this computer.
Got a problem, ask for help. Help answers. "Open terminal and type cd /this/is/ the/path/to/the/problem. Then type xed problem." Looks fine to the helper that does everything from terminal.
But what happens on this end, is the user prefers using a GUI as much as possible, it's easier. So, instead of going straight to the terminal, spending five minutes hunting and pecking all over the keyboard, ( no typing or keyboard training, fingers that don't work all that well anymore, diminished eyesight ), the user uses the mouse, clicks open the file manager, navigates to the designated file, right clicks it and choses "open with text editor". Why is that not the default answer? I mean, that's why the GUI file manager was put there to begin with. Why the disdain for using it?
Mind you, I am not complaining here. Not at all. Just offering an observation from a grumpy old vet. :)
 
My file systems are mounted at boot time, not because they are in /etc/fstab, but because /etc/init.d/boot does this job, along with checking them first, and setting up the firewalls afterwards. It's a custom script that I wrote. I had so much trouble with Network Manager that I had to disable it. I use ifupdown instead. With the exception of the web browser, most of my interaction with Linux uses an XTerm.

Signed,

Matthew Campbell
 
Terminal based solutions are often the most readily provided because they tend to cover the vast majority of Linux distributions out there, they tend to be Desktop Environment and even Distribution agnostic, save for exceptions such as distributions or setups that use Init Systems other than SystemD (for an example).

With GUI based solutions, you have to take Desktop Environment into account, as just one of the myriad of factors that could enter into play and change 'how' to achieve what you want.

For example, accomplishing the same task in GNOME and KDE via the GUI, the method may differ greatly between the two:

Changing your cursor's appearance in KDE is a really straight-forward process supported OOTB in KDE, whereas in GNOME the process (as far as I know) requires a fair bit of manual hands-on work and setup involved, plus the installation of a third-party program or the manual modification of GNOME system configuration files in order to enable your newly-added cursor.
 
Also, it's amazing what you'll learn when you're actively trying to help people solve problems.

That last statement applies to more than just Linux, the Internet, forums, or computers.
Greetings all,
That statement is very true. I remember {vaguely} a teacher of mine in high school saying that.
I was a flight instructor for 11 years and learned more about flying by teaching it to others than I did on my own.
OG TC
 
I switched to Linux for 4 hours and returned to Windows my clock was off by that 4 hours
If you're dual-booting Linux Debian/Ubuntu based OS and Windows, you may find that changing time in one system affects the other and the two systems can't display the same time.
This happens as Linux Debian/Ubuntu based OS interprets the hardware clock or real time clock (RTC) in universal time (UTC) by default while Windows 10 maintains the clock in local time.
You can fix this by keeping RTC in local time in Linux Debian/Ubuntu Based OS, same as Windows, by running a command in the terminal below.
timedatectl set-local-rtc 1 --adjust-system-clock
Welcome to your Linux journey - great fun
 
Greetings all,
That statement is very true. I remember {vaguely} a teacher of mine in high school saying that.
I was a flight instructor for 11 years and learned more about flying by teaching it to others than I did on my own.
OG TC

I've done quite a bit of teaching (it's expected when you're working on your Ph.D. and I later taught mathematics at UMF) and one of the more interesting adages was this:

You know you understand the material when you can explain it to someone who knows nothing about the subject matter.
 

Members online


Top