NEW YORK (AP) — On a recent afternoon, Mahmoud Khalil sat in his Manhattan apartment, cradling his 10-week-old son as he thought back to the pre-dawn hours spent pacing a frigid immigration jail in Louisiana, awaiting news of the child’s birth in New York.
For a moment, the outspoken Palestinian activist found himself uncharacteristically speechless.
“I cannot describe the pain of that night,” Khalil said finally, gazing down as the baby, Deen, cooed in his arms. “This is something I will never forgive.”
NEW YORK (AP) — On a recent afternoon, Mahmoud Khalil sat in his Manhattan apartment, cradling his 10-week-old son as he thought back to the pre-dawn hours spent pacing a frigid immigration jail in Louisiana, awaiting news of the child’s birth in New York.
For a moment, the outspoken Palestinian activist found himself uncharacteristically speechless.
“I cannot describe the pain of that night,” Khalil said finally, gazing down as the baby, Deen, cooed in his arms. “This is something I will never forgive.”
Wait so the targeted ship wasn't even going to Israel? Wasn't that the whole point of the blockade, not just attacking anyone vaguely related to Israel?
A man who became "pen friends" with a top terrorist responsible for 9/11 has been given a senior role by Reform UK, the Express can reveal. Rory Green, who was elected as a Reform UK county councillor in May, made national headlines in 2014 when he began corresponding with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “architect” of the terror attacks that killed 3,000 people.
Mr Green has now been appointed as the council cabinet member responsible for children and families on Nottinghamshire County Council. At the time, Mr Green said he wrote to Mr Mohammed because he “had this compassion for him” as a result of his Christian faith. He told the media: “He is obviously an educated individual, an intellectual. It must be so lonely in that prison. I just had this compassion for him."
The Reform councillor received a 27-page handwritten reply from the top Al Qaeda organiser, who has been in captivity at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
So, I have this new laptop I got which has an NVIDIA RTX 4090M GPU, and also an integrated Intel GPU. Obviously, I only want to use the Intel GPU for less intensive apps, and to use the NVIDIA GPU for games or other intensive applications, such as AI.
Through trial, error, and lucky searches on the internet, I figured out some things that do and don't work.
Plugging in the laptop makes the NVIDIA GPU run much faster
The default Fedora NVIDIA drivers work fine, I don't need to install any alternatives
To make a normal app use the GPU, all I have to do is right click the icon and click 'Launch with discrete GPU' (on GNOME), or to make it open with discrete GPU by default (and launching with the integrated GPU would be an option in the context menu), I have to copy the desktop file to ~/.local/share/applications, and edit the .desktop file so it contains the line PrefersNonDefaultGPU=true
For Steam apps, the previous method doesn't work (for some reason - maybe it uses a custom launch process?), but after trying many different ways, I was able to get most Steam apps to use the correct GPU (GPU 0) by adding the custom launch option PROTON_USE_WINED3D=0 %command%
For some reason, this doesn't work for Hogwarts Legacy. It, of all games, really wants to use the Intel graphics - even with the custom launch command, PrefersNonDefaultGPU=true, and in game setting the preferred GPU to my NVIDIA one - yes, it is listed and recognised in game - I can tell both from the Resources app and the abysmal performance that my NVIDIA GPU is not being used and my Intel GPU is
Other apps like Portal RTX, The Witcher 3, ComfyUI (running through Krita AI Diffusion), Blender, and Civilisation 6 are running great with the NVIDIA GPU
I do not have prime-run installed and do not need it
So the UK is going to start requiring IDs to view adult content. I'm in the US, but I've got a friend in the UK who obviously doesn't want to deal with this.
I suggested he use a VPN, but he's apparently heard they sell your personal data. Can anyone recommend a reliable VPN that collects as little data as possible?
ETA: thanks for the suggestions, everyone! I'm gonna research em and pass the info along. 😀
Neither of us are very techy and I told him I'd look into this for him because he's juggling 100 different things right now. I think my dumb ass relaying instructions on how to do this, to his dumb ass, would end in tears.
I use Surfshark and have done for years -- but I'm not seeing it recommended really, am I missing something important that discourages people from using it?
Hello all. I've recently installed Fedora 42 on my laptop, it's a microsoft surface laptop studio so it's running with the custom surface kernel. The feature matrix on their github page says that everything should be supported for my laptop and that's pretty much been my experience so far but I've been having issues when testing out games.
The laptop has a 3050TI and is more than capable of running most of the games that I usually play on windows, and I've almost gotten it working on Fedora. They'll launch and run just fine, everything even looks pretty decent graphically, but it just has really bad stuttery input lag, even in more lightweight games that I've tested such as balatro and stardew valley.
I'm not sure what would be causing this, as far as I'm aware I'm running the right gpu driver, I've double checked that they're using the dedicated gpu rather than the integrated one with nvidia-smi, but honestly that's about the extent of my knowledge. Does anyone have any thoughts / suggestions? It would be much appreciated.
This kind of problem is going to require some deep debugging of the surface kernel drivers. This isn't going to be a simple or quick fix. Somebody is going to need to do some extensive debugging and analysis to chase down an issue like this. A solution to this problem could take a few hours, or it could take a few months of meticulous trial and error to narrow down the problem space and gather enough data to enable somebody to zero in on the problem.
If you want to dive into tracking down the problem yourself, I suggest starting with the kernel's own docs on the driver architecture and debugging tools, etc.
Two things: - What input device(s) are you using? Are you using the built-in laptop keyboard, or a gamepad of sorts. (By Balatro, I'd assume it might even be happening with mouse.) - Are you running these games on a platform like Steam, or are you running another way? (I'm assuming the answer is yes to Steam, by Balatro and Stardew.)
For Steam, try messing around with Steam input settings and see what happens.
The testing that I've done was just with the built in keyboard and a mouse, everything through steam. I'll take a look at the input settings and see if that helps, thanks
I think I was in 7th grade. We were watching. Right in front of our eyes and could hardly believe it. Everyone inhaled sharply and then a couple of short screems, then silence. After a good 5 minutes, our teacher came to his senses, turned off the TV, and started talking about being right with god because you never know when it's your turn.
We watched it live in elementary school, most of the kids didn't get what had happened right away. Our teacher was just standing there stunned until an announcement came on the intercom asking all the teachers to turn it off. They didn't say anything to us, just tried to pretend like we didn't just watch people blow up live.
It's the "not handling" part that gets us as kids. We knew better. Adults didn't. In my case, I was in high school, but it was on a "Teacher workday, student holiday" we had each semester. I watched it live on NASA TV, which we had on channel UHF 55 in the DC area. Even the voice of mission control delayed about a minute or two. I remember thinking, "THAT didn't look good..." but then they said nothing but normal speed and temp readings, so I thought it was just the angle of the chase plane. Only when the famous "forked cloud" appeared that the announcer said, "we have an apparent major malfunction," or something.
The engineers knew! They begged them to stop the launch, but of course, no one makes the wheels not capitalism stop rolling! ~~profit~~ progress at all costs!
Nedelin was a part of the millitary rocketry program, not the space program. If you want to include Nedelin, then the ICBM disasters in the US should also be included. The space programs and ICBM programs were very closely related on both sides, but if we strictly keep it to the space program the soviets were safer.
ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it's best to count them. The US hasn't had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.
Even if we exclude those it's not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.
Spaceflight rockets are ICBMs, if we are being pedantic. The space program was the civilian-facing part of the broader rocketry programs.
Either way, if we exclude them, it is still true, but you can also measure by ratio. It just goes to show that you can manipulate real data to be presented in any way you want, and add or subtract context as needed for your angle.
Fewer human lives—sure, if you only include verified deaths—but the Soviet space program had considerably more deaths overall once you factor in other animals.
Both sides sent animals into space, and many didn't return. Animal testing in particular isn't something unknown to science, nor was it done out of intentional cruelty nor for the purpose of profits, like the cosmetics industry. I feel like you're narrowing in on something that ultimately isn't an equivalent comparison, especially when compared to the scale of the food industry and its systematized mass brutality every second of every day.
American and Russian scientists utilized animals—mainly monkeys, chimps and dogs—in order to test each country’s ability to launch a living organism into space and bring it back alive and unharmed.
Before humans actually went into space, one of the prevailing theories of the perils of space flight was that humans might not be able to survive long periods
I'm a Marxist, sure, very openly so. I don't really think anyone cares about who you've sniffed out to be a commie or not, especially considering I have it plastered all over my profile and frequently outright state it. I wouldn't say "pro-Russian," either, the Russian Federation is deeply flawed and has tragically fallen from their far more progressive Soviet heritage.
I'm very anti-NATO, like the vast majority of Marxists, and I don't fall for the hysteria around the Russian Federation as some ultimate evil, though, so if that's all it takes to be "pro-Russian" for you then that's funny.
Being anti-NATO and not falling for the current hysteria that overplays the negative aspects of the RF and underplays the negative aspects of NATO-aligned countries is being "pro-Russian?" I'm far more willing to say I'm pro-PRC, or pro-Cuba, than I would be to say I'm pro-Russian, but I do understand that a lot of countries I support, like Burkina Faso, do rely quite a bit on the RF, and if the RF fell, the west would have a much stronger position in terrorizing the global south.
Maybe it's because it's because I just finished reading this section in Range, but I think it's more than the engineers knew.
When sociologist Diane Vaughan interviewed NASA and Thiokol engineers who had worked on the rocket boosters, she found that NASA’s own famous can-do culture manifested as a belief that everything would be fine because “we followed every procedure”; because “the [flight readiness review] process is aggressive and adversarial”; because “we went by the book.” NASA’s tools were its familiar procedures. The rules had always worked before. But with Challenger they were outside their usual bounds, where “can do” should have been swapped for what Weick calls a “make do” culture. They needed to improvise rather than throw out information that did not fit the established rubric.
Roger Boisjoly’s unquantifiable argument that the cold weather was “away from goodness” was considered an emotional argument in NASA culture. It was based on interpretation of a photograph. It did not conform to the usual quantitative standards, so it was deemed inadmissible evidence and disregarded. The can-do attitude among the rocket-booster group, Vaughan observed, “was grounded in conformity.” After the tragedy, it emerged that other engineers on the teleconference agreed with Boisjoly, but knew they could not muster quantitative arguments, so they remained silent. Their silence was taken as consent. As one engineer who was on the Challenger conference call later said, “If I feel like I don’t have data to back me up, the boss’s opinion is better than mine.”
I think most of us believe decisions should be data driven, but in some edge cases gut instinct is valuable.
It is easy to say in retrospect. A group of managers accustomed to dispositive technical information did not have any; engineers felt like they should not speak up without it. Decades later, an astronaut who flew on the space shuttle, both before and after Challenger, and then became NASA’s chief of safety and mission assurance, recounted what the “In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data” plaque had meant to him: “Between the lines it suggested that, ‘We’re not interested in your opinion on things. If you have data, we’ll listen, but your opinion is not requested here.’”
I think most of us believe decisions should be data driven, but in some edge cases gut instinct is valuable.
What you call gut instinct, I call the output of an immensely complex yet efficient organic neural network that has been trained on years to decades of relevant experience.
If business leaders think AI is so great, they need to get in on this shit while they can still afford it!
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
It's the system that affects people's clear thinking that is the issue. Not everything is about money or efficiency. Hence the use of capitalism in their sentence.
The flight, and the astronauts’ lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch. After Challenger was torn apart, the pieces continued upward from their own momentum, reaching a peak altitude of 65,000 feet before arching back down into the water. The cabin hit the surface 2 minutes and 45 seconds after breakup, and all investigations indicate the crew was still alive until then.
We were led out of our classrooms to watch it since we lived in FL. When the launch went pear-shaped, nobody really understood what had happened, we just thought it was part of the fuel tanks dropping away. We went back in, sat down and continued our day. I don't think the teachers ever told us something went wrong and I found out about it that night at home.
A quarter-century after the Challenger shuttle tragedy, the disaster is often remembered in ways that owe more to myth and misconception than to the truth.
The crew didn't blow up instantly at all, at that exact moment! They spent another three minutes falling back to Earth, where they blew up instantly upon hitting the surface!
There were no explosive materials onboard the crew pod so no, still no explosion when hitting the water. If anything, it would be closer to an implosion.
I mean, it would be pretty undeniable. When Henson died, he died in a hospital room, not while performing Kermit or Rowlf or any of his beloved characters.
If Caroll Spinney had been on Challenger, in character as Big Bird, on live TV, in front of a nation of schoolchildren, it would be crass to pretend it had never happened.
I was living on the Florida Gulf Coast at the time. From the Gulf Coast, a shuttle launch was just a bright bead drawing a thin line up from the horizon, so it wasn't any sort of spectacle, but it was something interesting to watch if you happened to be outside, which I was.
And it was obvious even from there what had likely happened, since the bright bead suddenly flashed, then went out, and the line went off sideways.
There's speculation that Reagan was the impetus behind the "go fever" that caused the Challenger disaster. The idea is that he wanted to have a live uplink to Challenger during his State of the Union, and that his desire to use them as props was why NASA was in such an all-fired hurry to launch no matter the consequences.
No idea how grounded in reality the speculation is, but it tracks for Reagan.
I was only 4 years and 4 months old, I can barely remember anything of that time.
But when Columbia was en route to enter the atmosphere, I was outside on the front lawn watching, since it was re-entering over my area of Texas at a pretty favorable viewing angle.
I was so fucking happy to see such a momentous occasion...until it started breaking up. I knew something was wrong, but my brain couldn't piece it together, until the ship started breaking apart into visibly distinct fireballs. It passed over the horizon, and I was stunned. I ran back into my friend's living room, and continued watching the coverage, now very sombre.
It was 17 years and 4 days after Challenger. I was 21. That shit is burned into my memory. Especially since 9/11 was less than 18 months prior, which I also watched live.
The soviet space program took fewer lives than the US's program, yet the US constantly made it seem like it was the soviets that didn't care about human lives.
You can certainly blur the space race with missile development as they were intimately tied on both sides, and if you want to include it then the deaths from the US ICBM disasters need to be included as well, but I do think it's a bit absurd to uncritically report that 100+ people died in Nedelin when official numbers revealed it to be 54. Plus, wherever you sourced this from is clearly generally biased against the soviets beyond the scope of this report.
It's true that all deaths on both sides were caused by people with JEWISH names. Coincidence? Not likley. Hitler killed less people. Elon is god. Sieg. Sieg!1!!!1
Gotcha, I'll be sure to only repeat word for word what's in the post. No new angles, no new ways of looking at the post content, just a single 👏 emoji.
Can you elaborate? I'm certainly very pro-Soviet, as I'm a communist. I don't hide that. I'm pro-communism, I support the PRC, Cuba, AES in general. The main purpose of my Lemmy.ml account is to talk about socialism and communism through a Marxist-Leninist lens.
I'm very anti-NATO, like the vast majority of Marxists, and I don't fall for the hysteria around the Russian Federation as some ultimate evil, though,
You in another comment. The Russian federation is currently occupying multiple neighbouring countries, bombing civilians, and generally having a war crime of a time. And you're saying they're not evil?
Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass region, is very pro-Russia and very anti-Ukraine. Western Ukraine was shelling them for a decade, post-2014 coup, due to the hard shift from being aligned with Russia to being aligned with NATO. For these citizens, Russian presence is a good thing. Western Ukraine certainly hates that Russia has invaded, but the "hysteria" I am referring to is the kind that thinks even Eastern Ukraine opposes the Russian Federation.
So no, this isn't a "pro-Russian" stance, in my opinion. Recognizing western-Ukraine's shelling of civilians in eastern-ukraine for a decade, and the overwhelming support for Russian annexation of the Donbass region among Donbass residents in Donetsk and Luhansk, is something that even pro-NATO people need to recognize in order to figure out how to best deal with that underlying fact.
I can't believe you've fallen for the "dey dombed bombas" story, you really are that brainwashed. All of Ukraine voted to leave Russia, most of it quite overwhelmingly.
And there was no coup, that was entirely orchestrated by Russia.
You really need to read some media from outside your bubble.
All of these are pro-Western sources that do a better job of acknowledging the reality of the situation better than you do. You seem to not only only accept pro-western news, but exclusively pro-western news that goes against the western consensus on the Donbass Region.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Oh don't worry, I read it. Pro-western outlets like Kyiv Post reported that story, while at the same time failing to produce evidence that the referendums were unpopular after all.
The Donbass region is largely pro-Russian, and is ethnically Russian.
The Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics have been fighting Kyiv for a decade
Kyiv has been shelling Donetsk and Luhansk for a decade.
All of these are not only widely reported in non-western media, but also acknowledged by western media as well. It's something the west and non-west can agree on, which means you rejecting it is akin to conspiracy theory.
Which could have been the weirdest tangent on a Wikipedia page. Jim Henson, Muppets, Sesame Street, retired characters, Big Bird, oh was that an early version of Abelardo?, Challenger shuttle dis-- what. What? What the fuck?!
When the guy who played Mr. Hooper died, they worked that into the show. The cast, sincerely grieving, had to explain to a seven-foot-tall canary that he wasn't coming back. That's not really he same kind of intrusion from reality, as acknowledging the same giant fowl fucking exploded on national television.
The only possible comparison would be if some show had a gimmicky live episode that happened to be scheduled for 9 AM, on a Tuesday, in September of 2001.
i wasn't born back then, but i remember watching a punky brewster episode rerun when i was a kid that was about it. probably the first time i heard about the challenger disaster.
Can't be 'ruined' in the sense that they were important for military purposes before they created the ridiculous space force. Even Boeing, a private company that with all their failures and criminal behavior should definitely be bankrupt, gets massive help bcs they're a military contractor.
The issue was that they knew there were issues with the shuttle and had been warned by several engineers about launching in the cold weather they were having at the time, but NASA ignored them and sent the Challenger on its way anyways. It's been awhile so I forget the details of exactly what it was that was wrong, but I think it ~~was the metal in some screws~~ that wasn't able to deal with the differences in temperatures and the engineers said shit would go wrong if they didn't replace them and nobody listened. It was a very preventable disaster that only happened due to laziness and impatience on NASA's part.
it was the rubber in the O-ring seals that couldn't handle the differences in temperature.
That more of a problem with the manufacturer, (Morton Thyiokol) telling NASA the o-rings were fine to fly coupled with NASA's desire to prove the shuttle could fly in that low temp condition.
Cecil Houston, the manager of the KSC office of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, set up a three-way conference call with Morton Thiokol in Utah and the KSC in Florida on the evening of January 27 to discuss the safety of the launch.
Morton Thiokol engineers expressed their concerns about the effect of low temperatures on the resilience of the rubber O-rings. As the colder temperatures lowered the elasticity of the rubber O-rings, the engineers feared that the O-rings would not be extruded to form a seal at the time of launch. The engineers argued that they did not have enough data to determine whether the O-rings would seal at temperatures colder than 53 °F (12 °C), the coldest launch of the Space Shuttle to date. During this discussion, Lawrence Mulloy, the NASA SRB project manager, said that he did not accept the analysis behind this decision, and demanded to know if Morton Thiokol expected him to wait until April for warmer temperatures. Morton Thiokol employees Robert Lund, the Vice President of Engineering, and Joe Kilminster, the Vice President of the Space Booster Programs, recommended against launching until the temperature was above 53 °F (12 °C).
When the teleconference prepared to hold a recess to allow for private discussion amongst Morton Thiokol management, Allan J. McDonald, Morton Thiokol's Director of the Space Shuttle SRM Project who was sitting at the KSC end of the call, reminded his colleagues in Utah to examine the interaction between delays in the primary O-rings sealing relative to the ability of the secondary O-rings to provide redundant backup, believing this would add enough to the engineering analysis to get Mulloy to stop accusing the engineers of using inconclusive evidence to try and delay the launch. When the call resumed, Morton Thiokol leadership had changed their opinion and stated that the evidence presented on the failure of the O-rings was inconclusive and that there was a substantial margin in the event of a failure or erosion. They stated that their decision was to proceed with the launch.
When McDonald told Mulloy that, as the onsite representative at KSC he would not sign off on the decision, Mulloy demanded that Morton Thiokol provide a signed recommendation to launch; Kilminster confirmed that he would sign it and fax it from Utah immediately, and the teleconference ended. Mulloy called Arnold Aldrich, the NASA Mission Management Team Leader, to discuss the launch decision and weather concerns, but did not mention the O-ring discussion; the two agreed to proceed with the launch.
Dunno about you, but it sounds a lot like NASA, especially Lawrence Mulloy, practically twisted Morton Thiokol's arms until one of them (Joe Kilminster) relented and signed off on the launch. Mulloy even lied by omission at the end there to get his way. I wonder how he could sleep at night after this stunt.
I feel you don't know what you're talking about in this situation. It is well documented that if NASA had followed their own safety guidelines and listen to their own people, this would not have happened. So many people were waiting to watch the launch that NASA leadership felt they couldn't abort. That is the sole reason this tragedy occurred, not "whoopsie daisy that sucks but we learned something" science.
Not only did they broadcast the explosion they also caused it. Haha(not funny)
Richard Feynman was the one who let slip innocently what the cause was during an international press conference and made a lot of people in Washington very very mad.
Basically, the Whitehouse pushed NASA to launch despite the weather being too cold and that caused an expansion joint of an SRB to fail.
Feynman showed the world what happens to the expansion joint material by putting it in some ice water for five minutes during the press conference and showed it crumbled after he took it out of the glass.
That man was an international treasure and I miss him very much.
A viral research study led by Rababe Saadaoui, a PhD planning student in Arizona State University's School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, has uncovered a link between car dependency and life satisfaction in the United States.
So I have things working for me at this point. I was never able to get Samba worling properly. My initial issue was not having a / at the end of my folder path in the Samba config file. After fixing that issue I was able to see the shared folder but was prompted to log in each time, which was an issue in my use case. I ended up abandoning Samba and setting up Jellyfin which has been a much smoother experience, but also is providing many more features. So, if you are looking to share media on your local network, my recommendation would be Jellyfin!
Thank you so much to everyone that commented and helped me a long. I hope I get to return the favor in some way.
Hello, I've been working towards fully migrating to linux, but this is one issue I'm having a hard time with. I have a couple of folders on a storage drive that I share on my local network to stream movies and TV, but I can't figure out how to do it in my Linux install. I'm running Linux Mint 22, have installed Samba, and have tried a few different walkthroughs with no success. Can anyone point me in the right direction to get this set up?
Well I tried the UI approach of right clicking the folder and going to share options, which is when I was prompted to install Samba, but there is warning that states "The permission for prevent othersl users from accessing this share". I did some digging on that error, and everything I came across basically said that wouldn't work. My next attempt was modifying the Samba config file, I added
[FolderName]path = (file directory path I see in properties, /media/username/lettersandnumbersfordrive?/FolderName)
browseable = yes
read only = yes
guest ok = yes
create mask =0775
As instructed by a tutorial I found. When running testpram I don't get any errors, but I'm not seeing the folder in VLC like I do when sharing from Win10. That's as far as I have gotten. If there's anything else that I can provide please let me know, and on that note, the drive I'm sharing from is NTFS if that has any impact.
So I added the forward slash and now the folder shows up, but it's asking me for login credentials now. I thought "guests ok = yes" would handle that but apparently not. Any suggestions?
i know i will be like a meme of "answers completely different question", but jellyfin does this natively, so if you strictly need this for movies/media, maybe try it out?
Yeah use some sort of selfhosted mediashare, imo runtipis the easiest way to get it up and running, becuase im lazy and it has a one click installer, auto uodates, backups, etc.
All I'm trying to do is play videos on Xbox/Roku, so whatever makes that happen easily is fine with me for now. I would like to build a stand alone media pc/NAS later but for now just want to keep hosting it on my pc.
I meant jellyfin on xbox, they seem to have some version of it. If it works, then you are kinda golden, install jellyfin on pc, add a folder with movies as a library, and install clients where you need them, and it would work (if your ip on home network is fixed that is, would need some router fixing if not, cause it talks by ip:port to server (your pc)). Think jellyfin fixed sketchiest issues with transcoding, so it kinda not that involved on server side
This is actually what I did. I never could get Samba working, so I setup Jellyfin and it's been a breeze ever since. What an amazing piece of software! I just wanted to access my files, but having them categorized with images, cast and crew, ratings, and even recommended is just fantastic. The Xbox app works fine but it's basically just a web wrapper, and the cursor never goes away which is mildly annoying, but it's still a way better experience than the VLC Xbox app.
Just ran into this the other night myself. Turns out I didn't have the path the correct way, cause samba is picky. My original config was set up with the path = /home/user/Public but I had to change it to path = /home/user/Public/ You're path in your reply looks like it's missing that / at the end. After you update, don't forget to restart the service.
Well that made it show up thankfully, but it's asking me to log in. Any idea how to handle that? I don't want it to ask at all so family members have ready access.
Give them a genetic login? On read access? I unfortunately haven't set this up for a family. I've just set it up for myself and reused my logon. So, sorry for that my friend.
Thumbing through the feed, the news on how this or that organization letting go of commercial options for day to day operations are mounting.
This led me to wonder what would be the impact if FOSS, be it on the OS front, productivity front or whatever, was to become truly a relevant option.
I'm painfully aware of the difficulties I've faced trying to take a few online courses to be faced with borderline desdain for not using Windows/Office/Etc and opting for FOSS solutions.
Paying/supporting a FOSS solution does not offend me. I'm happier when giving money directly to a developer or project than to an opaque company. But I'm just one.
But what could happen if the ones became millions, actively contributing with a few coins per year to projects we use daily?
What could/would happen in the short term (under a year), medium-long (one to three years) and the long term (over ten years)?
Realistically, probably not much for people outside of the tech industry. People will use the best tool for the job, and whether it's foss or not won't matter.
A significant decrease in the amount of surplus value society produces going towards tech companies producing proprietary software, whicj is most of them. Basically the costs of using software for a whole lotta things are gonna get lower. This would make that society's products cheaper for itself and export. It would allow its labour to do more useful things, one of which could be new FOSS software. But also helping out with the green transition, taking care of the ageing population, education, etc.
From enduser perspective the most visible change would be that all software wouldn't be hostile to users because with propreitary you have to be very picky to get that.
In the long term we would see that companies could not build walled gardens to block off competition. Contrast Windows & MacOS vs Linux with its different distros, DEs, toolkits etc.
The least difference would be for enterprise because support is expensive either way.
The scalability problem with FOSS is monetary and motivation.
The successful products need longterm financial security in order to plan and support their peoduct(s) - so, do we start seeing more subscriptions as corp. sponsorship fades away?
And, just like XKCD 2347, FOSS needs to step up and support the components they rely on
That's going to need some more maturity from the developers too: it's a great feeling doing something new and interesting, but - like having a pet - you can't just abandon something when you're bored of it, or too busy, without rehoming your project(s)...
That's where I see the industry needs to improve before they're really ready for the big time.
One huge impact mass FOSS adoption would have is that there would be a lot less software and hardware churn. Commercial nature of proprietary technology is the main driver for constant upgrade cycles we see. Companies need to constantly sell products to stay in business, and this means you have to deprecate old software and hardware in order to sell new versions of the product.
Windows 11 roll out is a perfect example. Vast majority of Windows 10 users are perfectly happy with the way their computer works currently, they're not demanding any new features, they just want their computer to continue to work the way it does currently. However, Microsoft is ending support for Windows 10 and now they're forced to buy a new computer to keep doing what they've been doing.
This problem goes away entirely with open source because there is no commercial incentive at play. If a piece of software works, and there is a community of users using it, then it can keep working the way it does indefinitely. Furthermore, in cases where a software project goes in a directions some users don't like, such as the case with Gnome, then software can be forked by users who want to go in a different direction or preserve original functionality. This is how Cinnamon and Mate projects came about.
Another aspect of the open source dynamic is that there's an incentive to optimize software. So, you can get continuous performance improvements without having to constantly upgrade your hardware. For most commercial software, there's little incentive to do that since that costs company money. It's easier to just expect users to upgrade their hardware if they want better performance.
I would argue that non technical software users would be far better off if they had the option to fund open source software instead of buying commercial versions. Even having to pay equal amounts, the availability of the source puts more power in the hands of the users. For example, building on the example of Gnome, users of an existing software project could also pull funds together to pay developers to add features to the software or change functionality in a particular way.
This is precisely what makes licenses like GPL so valuable in my opinion. It's a license that ensure the source stays open, and in this way inherently gives more power to the users.
FEMA missed two-thirds of calls from Texas flood victims after DHS Sec. Kristi Noem allowed hundreds of call center employees to be fired. "They are intentionally breaking government," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Head to https://squarespace.com/thelinuxexperiment to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code thelinuxexperiment Grab a brand new laptop or desktop running Linux: https:/...
The previous attempts were about freeing themselves from an abusive unprincipled data-hungry big data monopoly,
This attempt is about freeing themselves from an abusive unprincipled data-hungry big data monopoly operating in a fascist country and in cahoots with the regime.
Life long windows user. I switched to Arch a few months ago and I'm not looking back. Will only be using windows in a sandboxed VM if absolutely necessary. Which, I haven't needed to yet.
Installing Arch might be a hassle, I tried it once and couldn’t figure it out so a kept on using Ubuntu and its derivatives. But when I got a Steam Deck I found Steam OS to be easy and the Arch documentation to be thorough and useful.
That might not be so much down to how serious people are but rather just how good Linux has gotten lately (especially for games). Although I do think people are more serious now.
In any complex system or "wicked problem" involving positive and negative feedback cycles, a combination of factors that push into the same direction can cause the system to flip over - sometimes in dramatic ways.
People are downvoting you, but they're too scared to actually argue against it. I'm obviously hoping this isn't the case, but you'd be sticking your head in the sand if you said there was no chance of it happening.
We're already seeing a massive surge of the far right in Europe. Giant media blitzes on social media such as Twitter shoving far right content in their faces.
While the former seems to be the obvious trend and Europe has historically leaned towards it. I don’t see how one results in the other. Whether they stick with Microsoft or not is more economical than political.
The European Union regulates the market so much it's hard to call it capitalism, the biggest european companies are basically EU projects like Airbus (every government funds it) or too big too fail like Siemens and/or they would use: "strategic industry" and be done with it.
Edit oh and I almost forgot it, or they are like Inditex, basically not European it's just an European getting rich while exploiting poor people all around the world, but I think this is actually capitalism and that guy isn't exactly appreciated by ruling dictator, I mean party, in Spain.
Thank you for the article. It brought up something quite interesting that i wasn't aware off before:
But why does Spain rely so heavily on Russia despite the almost global disapproval? The answer lies in this country’s extensive regasification capacity, which stands at 67.1 bcm - the largest in all of Europe. This enables Spain to receive LNG shipments on behalf of other countries that lack the necessary infrastructure, making it a critical hub for European energy trade.
So it seems that Spain is also taking the flak here for other EU countries that want to profit from Russian gas but not be directly associated with it.
How Spain Uses Natural Gas Europe is one of the most important markets in terms of natural gas and is home to some of the largest consumers of the fuel in the world.
The same stuff over 200% increase in 2023 so others can say we dont buy stuff to Russia we buy it to Spain (who bought it to Russia). This source even points out the liquid gas that arrived by boat from Russia wasn't sanctioned.
As we say in Spain "hecha la ley, hecha la trampa"
Attacking the source instead of disproving the article.
You have hands, you can sources of your favorite side of the political spectrum, or ask an LLM.
But here are morejust because it's Saturday and I like the apple I am eating for breakfast and I am trying to make lemmy a better place than reddit: 20minutos.es/noticia/5168224/0…
It looks like the problem are the contracts. They could go faster breaking the contracts? Yes. But it's Naturgy and Repsol, both private, not the government. Or are you suggesting that the government has to do a take over of the energy enterprises? 😉
Prohibirá importaciones en virtud de nuevos contratos desde el 1 de enero de 2026 y cortará por completo en 2027 BRUSELAS, 17 (EUROPA PRESS) La Comisión
First you doubt the claim. Then you attack the source, now you find excuses.
Did they or didn't they increase almost 200% the acquisition of energy from Russia in 2023? Is the Russian Federation a major provider of gas and oil for Spain (and other European countries) or not?
If you notice I am here only to point the hypocrisy of Europe, which they undoubtedly are and Spain is no different.
I don't know if you work for a company with business in Russia, I did when this whole thing started and contracts didn't matter much when sanctions came but I guess we weren't big enough to make excuses.
You gave your sources and I gave you mine. And sadly I'm not working.
About the hypocrisy of the Union and the Spanish government, I know both have a truckload of it. But to each its own. The main problem are Naturgy and Repsol. And yes, the Spanish government should grow some balls and tell them to stop at one. But there aren't balls enough in this government to do the right thing.
[Some*] Europeans just can’t get over their Arab and Muslim-hate despite neither Qatar nor Saudi Arabia posing any threat to Europe and actually being good trading partners. No tariffs, no restrictions, no unfair competition. They adopt many European standards and are a huge market for European goods and services. Yet still the hate is constantly being peddled.
* hopefully a minority but the hate seems to be universal regardless of the political leaning.
Are they democracies? No. Do they respect human rights? Also no.
I don't care as much about them as I care about pointing out the hypocrisy of my people. I have a thing against islam but that has nothing to do with this conversation.
You must have forgotten about why people were so mad at qatar in particular a while back. Remember how many workers died building the stadiums there for the world cup? If you're american i can understand you weren't aware of it since european football isn't exactly popular in america, but it was a huge deal over here with people protesting.
Hell, I'm in Silicon Valley here in California, and some of my friends are also jumping off the proprietary ship because those large firms are willing to work hand in hand with federal agencies.
If you've read the NSA document disclosures by Edward Snowden, it's apparent that there is an open door for data requests. The current administration isn't a huge fan of California's diversity, so we might as well minimize our chances of being targetted...
They didn't just give them a discount, and it was only a very small part of Europe you are talking about. It was Munich, and MS also moved a lot of workplaces to the city, to bribe it...
In the video, he talks about examples of European governments specifically switching to Linux, like a police station using an Ubuntu based distro, and foss software like LibreOffice. I don't think android, Mac or BSD are mentioned.
What's wrong with going back to pen and (e-)paper for office? My point is, if you are going to post something in the community, the word "linux" shall at least be in the title.
Good title example: Europe is slowly ditching Microsoft for Linux
It's nobody's fucking business when someone ditching Microsoft, then adopt BSD, Solaris whatnot. What matters to this community is someone adopting or ditching Linux, or they do something remotely related to it.
Point is (again), it takes zero effort to cross post a video or article here. Windows is historically having a high market share ratio, and people are migrating to Linux nowadays. That's good news to the Linux world. Even someone merely mentioning ditching Windows has an implication of adopting Linux instead.
But what if more and more posts implying this by only mentioning how bad Windows is? Is this a community for Windows circlejerk, or do we share informative stuff that's directly related to Linux? How about we share more article about how great Linux is (or can be), instead of how bad the competitors are becoming?
Actually, most of them already do have deals for a limited time. Skype is still available; they needed a new contract since teams does not work without communicating with Microsoft.
OTOH most things they do is via webclient.
If Microsoft was to release a mandatory update that has a single thing that required it to communicate with the organization, by law the whole governmental EU would not be able to use it.
The German state of Bavaria once did something in the direction of moving away from MS. When Microsoft put their German headquarters into Munich the idea was scraped.
And at the same time we have the Jugendmedienstaatsvertrag in Germany (and with Germany as a strong force in the EU most likely everywhere in the EU soon) that will make all operating systems without fully integrated age restrictions illegal heise.de/en/news/Minors-protec…
Manufacturers of operating systems must then ensure that "only apps that correspond to the age specification or that have been individually and securely activated can be used". The installation of programs should only be possible via distribution platforms such as app stores that take the age rating into account and have an automated rating system recognized by the Commission for the Protection of Minors in the Media (KJM).
This part of the law alone is impossible to implement on a open platform like Linux.
According to the revised Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media, operating systems must soon ensure they include a "youth protection device".
To make something illegal by law it is needed to have a valid reason for that law to exist. This is the case at least in every jurisdiction that has a somewhat functional separation of powers.
Due to this can't just make it illegal to use Linux, but with a Law like the Jugendmedienstaatsvertrag it comes as a free bonus.
Ok, but how to prevent programs installed as Appimage, by source compilation or just downloaded binaries from running? You need a way to prevent this methods of installation to be legal
Microsoft already has the S-Mode in Windows 11 that only allows to execute apps that come from the Microsoft Store. So it is already possible in Windows.
The law doesn't say that the option has to be active for everyone and all the time, but it has to be fully integrated into the OS so it can be activated fast and easy when children/teenagers want to use the PC.
Since it is impossible to implement on Linux, it may just be flagged as adult-only software.
This would render Linux unfit for use in Schools, Public Libraries, Youth Centers and other places where Children and Teenagers have access to PCs.
It is, in addition to that, possible that internal regulation of government offices prohibit the use of adult software. Not sure about it, but it would IMHO fit the mindset of bureaucrats
Hopefully this helps increase adoption. Maybe in a few years GNU+Linux will have 10% of the desktop operating systems market. Maybe even Wine won’t be necessary anymore except for legacy software.
I think that if Linux is to be more widely adopted a more easily used distro needs to become mainstream. Let's face it, the average computer user barely knows how to use Windows, just because you find Linux easy doesn't mean they will.
Do you think you could teach Linux to your grandmother?
Do you think you could teach Linux to your grandmother?
Yes. Set automatic package updates, Install firefox with ublock and put it on the taskbar, and bookmark Facebook and Youtube for her. It is the same thing as under Windows.
I would argue that for the most "tech illiterate" users the Linux experience can be made even easier than the windows experience, because you have to set up everything for them anyways.
Completely "tech illiterate" broser-only users are fine. It gets difficult once they happen to actually want to do something.
I have an older relative in that boat, and she was doing fine until she wanted to install some VPN to access foreign Netflix libraries. That was more difficult. Especially because she already paid for the service and that service didn't support her distro, thus there was no guide on how to use it.
Both of my grandmothers are dead, but I did teach my aunt to use Linux. She had a laptop that "ran" Windows 10. It would take 30 seconds to open the Start menu. One SSD, one RAM upgrade and one install of Mint later it's a whole new machine. She can Firefox and Mahjongg just fine.
Teaching people without computing skills to use linux is actually easier than teaching windows. Most trouble people have with linux comes from being used to windows and having difficulty to adapt.
Do you think you could teach Linux to your grandmother?
My 50+ yo mother uses Linux Mint daily with fewer problems that when she used Windows. Her crowning achievement in IT is learning how to use email.
I helped my 93 yo friend switch from Windows 10 to Linux 2 years ago. He called me 3 times in the first 2 weeks to ask how to do something, but hasn't had a single problem since that's related to the OS.
Linux Mint, Bazzite, Fedora, and several other Linux distros are already easier to use than Windows. The only thing holding most people back is fear of change.
There are some people who have specific setups in Windows or a large number of "Windows only" apps, but these people are in the minority. The average person can't even tell you which operating system they're currently using, and wouldn't notice the difference if you swapped the OS but kept the same web browser.
Actually, my mother knew how to use Debian before she could use Windows. Her first pc came with Windows XP, switched that for Debian as its been my main OS since 2000.
We already have those. Arguably Windows is much more of a hassle to use than your average "works out of the box" distro. And don't start talking about the terminal, that's comparing apples and organges. A more apt comparison to the need of using the terminal on Linux is the need to apply registry tweaks or use powershell on Windows. As if "average users" would need to do that. They install software via the "app store", change settings via the GUI and run updates when prompted, all of which are seamless on most of these distros. If something breaks, they can't fix it themselves, but then they just go to someone else to help them, just like on Windows, which they also can't fix by themselves. Maybe they manage to reinstall, which isn't any harder than on Windows, if not easier these days.
The group you're actually talking about (and likely belong to) are the Windows power-users that would need to rethink things, and would be capable of rethinking things, if they wanted, which they don't. I know some of these people myself, complaining all day about Microsoft and the privacy nightmare that they put in huge effort to mitigate, but sadly they absolutely need to rely on this one "critical" piece of freeware from the 2000s that they are sure won't run on wine (not that they've tried) or a cracked copy of Photoshop they use for cropping and changing the brightness of desktop backgrounds, but it's the industry leader, so they obviously won't use "inferior" software for that, face the facts Linux users. They think package managers are much harder than downloading and clicking through Setup.exe for the 100th time in a row, and they've had this one bad experience with "rm -rf /" 10 years ago which is why they don't "trust" the terminal, yet routinely double-click on downloaded .bat files without thought. 🤷
Any bit of user base growth helps get the ball rolling for future MS/USA missteps. Linux has just been getting better and easier year after year. It's been a 30 year marathon ready for another 30+ years of development
I can't wait until Lemmy's Peertube integration is released ^[1]^. Then, iiuc, this comment section should be able to happen directly on The Linux Experiment's videos within Lemmy.
Requirements Is this a feature request? For questions or discussions use https://lemmy.ml/c/lemmy_support Did you check to see if this issue already exists? Is this only a feature request? Do not p...
A change regarding Peertube federation with Lemmy certainly does appear to be coming in Lemmy 1.0 ^[1]^, but it's currently unknown to me if it does actually fix the issue.
::: spoiler References 1. Type: Comment. Author: "Nutomic". Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: "Better federation for Peertube content". Author: "Kalcifer" ("K4LCIFER"). Publisher: ["GitHub". "LemmyNet/lemmy".]. Published: 2023-08-06T21:41:29.000Z. URI: github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issu….]. Published: 2025-03-27T08:28:52.000Z. Accessed: 2025-07-14T06:03Z. URI: github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issu…. - > #5509 fixes this, it will be released as part of Lemmy 1.0 - This is referring to code that was pushed to the repository that allegedly fixes the issue with Peertube federation. :::
Requirements Is this a feature request? For questions or discussions use https://lemmy.ml/c/lemmy_support Did you check to see if this issue already exists? Is this only a feature request? Do not p...
I think we are looking in the wrong direction. China is the place to watch for an explosive growth of Linux and the exclusion of M$-Mossad. They have committed to replacing Windoze on all government computers and servers with KylinOS by 2026. This is not a city here and a city there, but the entire country. PC and Laptop makers will then offer units with openKylinOS. Not sure if phones will follow suit, or switch to Harmony Next.
The university where Amelia Earhart taught is going to find out if her legendary plane is sitting at the bottom of the ocean near her likely final resting place.
Not quite, PC gets hacked, on hacked machine someone does something like cd, but on that PC cd has been set up as an alias for some sort of command that downloads a malicious executable to the hackers machine and executed it.
That executable very well could be a keylogger, but doesn't necessarily have to be. It could be be rm -rf --no-preserve-root / or a reverse shell or whatever really.
I imagine cd would be a terrible choice to alias given how much it's used, but maybe something else more obscure could be used that is frequently used when bots/attackers are rummaging through files for stuff to steal.
Is there anything that is specific to ssh that would allow for this? Like a command that would allow something to execute back to the other machine similar to downloading? I'm not well versed just kind of a napkin idea I thought of.
Partially for sure. Other part of this would be somehow executing a command on the attackers machine that originated as their own input, but they wouldn't be privy to that due to the alias.
I've seen some videos where people will willingly let scammers into their machine, and Honeypot them with a file that they execute, typically named like credit card info or bank info or something. But they knowingly click that and open it, I don't know what needs to be done on the "make this code execute on the attackers machine" part.
If someone is ssh'd into your machine, are there any escalated privileges you'd already have back to their machine because they've willingly come to yours?
I kind of figured it would be a shot in the dark, some scripting could definitely be done to assess that, and even run code per major OS depending on some automated recon.
Let's say you've got that figured out, and the user is running putty on windows as an administrator. Is there anything that could take advantage of that fact?
I feel like this would be way easier/more feasible to run a script on your own machine as a defensive measure like OC mentioned early, but just more asking our of curiosity. I'm not skilled enough to even imagine what to do with this or write it, but I am fascinated by security stuff.
I've þought about how to do ðis myself. Ðe best idea I've had is to build a virus, or simply someþing destructive, or a program ðat downloads CP and emails it to the FBI; and use Justine's APE to build an executable and call it "bitcoin_wallet.exe". Entice ðe hacker to download a malicious program and execute it on ðeir computer.
Ðen I lose interest and spend the time instead doing someþing to furðer tighten security on my VMs.
I think you won't regret it. If the container startup installs stuff, you might lock yourself out when the remote server has issues, your network has issues, or if the package you install changes due to an update.
With it baked into an image, you have reproducible results. If you build a new image and it doesn't work anymore, you can immediately switch back to the old one and figure out the issue without pressure.
Hi Mozilla community, I’m a long time Mozilla supporter, I’ve published free (as in freedom) and open-source software, and I desperately want Mozilla to charge for Firefox. If that sounds like a contradiction, please keep reading.
Google is paying a pittance to achieve vendor lock-in.
The training may be free but there will be other services which will not be free and the other services will integrate better with the existing 'free' Google services better than anything else.
In practice, SUSE's Sovereign Premium Support is tailored for enterprises and public sector organizations that require strict data residency, privacy, and operational control within the EU. The service ensures that:
All support personnel and data are based in the EU, with named premium support engineers and service delivery managers assigned to each customer.
Customer support data is stored exclusively on EU-located networks and servers, addressing both regulatory and geopolitical concerns.
Access to sensitive data is strictly limited to EU-based staff, with a commitment to encrypting all data required for troubleshooting.
Agreed. I hope this gains even more traction. Building a digital economy around support and service of free open source software with the requirement of personnel being local seems like the best way for Europe to finally become competitive.
I mean in the server space Linux has already won and is doing just fine. Imo it is actually the reverse and sad that it needs this level of turmoil to get Europe to even think about software and digital infrastructure as fundamental. And even with all that's going on they are just dipping their toes into it rather than properly comitting to a radical shift. Hell, even with all that's going on some parts of the police here in Germany are still getting into bed with companies like Palantir.
Look, folks, I’ve been hearing a lot, a lot, about this thing called Linux. Ever heard of it? Sounds European, doesn’t it? Probably invented in Brussels, or Sweden, maybe Russia, I don't know. Total disaster. I call it Socialist Windows, because that’s what it is! It’s chaotic, no one’s in charge. Total mess. Bernie Sanders running an IT department, terrible. Meanwhile, Windows, great American company, by the way, very successful, very strong.
That's a joke...I remember downloading opensuse, there was a warning that forbids me to use if I was in a country targeted by the USA something like that 😆 IMO, If you really want independance dont use things from corporations. Many people complains about overstaffing in administrations, so why not have them work on a distro from scratch ?
I made the unfortunate post about asking why people liked Arch so much (RIP my inbox I'm learning a lot from the comments) But, what is the best distro for each reason?
RIP my inbox again. I appreciate this knowledge a lot. Thank you everyone for responding. You all make this such a great community.
Imo, the best one is the one that fits the user's needs the best. Though it sounds like a non-answer, distros are usually tailored for specific needs, so not necessarily the features or lack thereof from one distro disregard another.
My Debian is the best for my work laptop My Arch is the best for my private laptop My Asahi is the best so that I don't have to deal with f*cling macos crap
Why my distro (pop!_os) is the best? Well it's probably not, but here's why I went with it:
ubuntu based, so lots of applicable tech support online
looks nice out of the box (imo)
comes with nvidia drivers. Not a major point cause they aren't hard to get, but it was one of the things I considered when I unintentionally ended up with with nvidia
tiling (the big one imo)
Aand that's kinda it :3.. at the moment it's kinda behind all the other stuff cause they're working on the new COSMIC DE, which im hoping is gonna be an upgrade to the GNOME with extensions the current version has
While COSMIC is certainly an upgrade, current gnome extensions won’t be compatible. COSMIC uses applets instead of extensions. Fortunately, there’s already an ecosystem of applets for COSMIC, many of which have been ported from GNOME extensions.
Ye :3.. honestly as someone who doesn't use that many extensions other than the pop-shell ones, im not too worried about the extensions, since basically all of that is coming as a base part of COSMIC's interface.. I think the only extension that im hoping gets a COSMIC applet soon after release is KDEconnect lol
Same. I think there’s one extension I run in my top bar that lets me individually stop, start, or restart specific system services. It’s very handy, and I’ll miss it.
Aeon desktop is the best indeed: - Crazy fast install. - System configuration is done on the first boot. - Supports ignition and combustion. - The install USB can become a $HOME backup if you re-install. - Full disk encryption by default and mandatory. - Latest GNOME, looks clean and pretty. - Rolling. - Immutable, with Distrobox by default.
As far as desktop Linux goes, I don't see why I would use anything else atm. Give it a try!
I just want to learn more about what are the differences between distros, so that they will be better or worse? Are all the distros having the same GNU/Linux kernel so that if I replace all the Arch userland files into Debian's, the system will become Debian?
Are all the distros having the same GNU/Linux kernel
Yes. Different distros have different versions, patches and so on, but the underlying kernel is the same.
if I replace all the Arch userland files into Debian’s, the system will become Debian?
If by "userland" you mean files which your normal non-root user can touch, then no. There's differences on how distributions build directory trees, file locations, binaries, versions and so on. You can of course replace all the files on the system and change distribution that way, a convenient way to do that is to use distros installer but technically speaking you can also replace them manually by hand (which I don't recommend).
Arch is the best, the arch wiki is massive, pacman is just amazing, no nvidia drivers bullshitting, and rolling release has only broken one thing once, life under the arch is pretty great
Also PKGBUILD's are the superior packaging format. Back in the day people use to talk about preferring debian or redhat based distros based on how much they liked debs or rpms. Building packages on Arch is easier than pretty much any distro I have ever tried to build packages on.
I recently needed to build newer versions of some packages for Debian. Now, they're go based so the official packaging is super complicated and eventually I decided to try and make my own from scratch. After a few more hours of messing with the official tooling I start thinking "there must be a better way."
And sure enough, after a bit of searching I found makedeb which allows you to make debs from (almost) regular PKGFILEs. Made the task a million times simpler.
Sorry, I misread your comment on my first reply. Yes, you can have gnome and hyprland installed side by side, you would just use SDDM to choose what session you’re starting at login.
But is it also possible to have the gnome login screen (so after startup) and then automatically login using Hyprland? Because I dislike any other login screen. (The gnome one is pretty asf)
My choice of distro is just a compromise and close enough to serving my needs. All distros have pros and cons, and I use different distros for different use cases.
I'm vegan, german and into fitness. There really was no other choice. /s?
Also, it's lightweight, you always get the most recent software, pacman is superb and it's super stable. In about 10 years on multiple systems, I never had anything break. The worst of it are simple problems during updates, which are always explained on their website.
Lastly, there is the wiki. The single best source of Linux information out there. Might as well be using the distro that's directly explained there, albeit a lot of information can be used on other ones as well.
With arch-install, you don't even need to learn much, but learning is never a bad idea and will be great if something does break. Every system can break. Arch prepares you for that.
having tried many distros over the years, Arch (and most derivatives) is best for me pacman is the best i've used, packages are very up to date, and it's pretty easy to troubleshoot with the enormous amount of info on the wiki and elsewhere
I (maybe) ended distrohopping last year when I gave NixOS a shot. I can't recommend it for beginners but once you understand generally how things work on Linux (and have an interest in programming) it's a superpower to be able to define your entire setup as a single git repository. If something ever breaks, I can reboot into an older commit and keep using my computer, or branch off in a different direction... I've only scratched the surface of NixOS and yet I can already make a live USB containing my setup with a single command, or deploy it ("infect") to another machine and manage e.g my work desktop and my personal laptop sharing most settings. Also it taught me about Nix (the package manager, which also runs on any distro and macOS independent of NixOS) which I now use to set up perfect development environments for each of my projects... if I set up dependencies once (as a flake.nix shell), it'll work forever and anywhere.
Same for me. I distro-hopped for about 20 years with OpenSuse, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch and Fedora being the most memorable desktop setups for me. While all that was a valuable experience, NixOS feels like graduation.
For the Nix-curious: I wish someone would have told me not to bother with the classic config and build a flake-based system immediately. They're "experimental" in name only, very stable and super useful in practice.
Absolutely +1 for flakes. It's got some annoying UX sometimes (make sure you git add any new files before building!) but absolutely makes up for it by its features.
Same for me, I stopped distro-hoping 2 years ago when I moved to NixOS.
It was tough at first, setting it up took a while and i genuinely felt stupid like i haven't felt for a while; but now I love having the same config on my two laptops. I have one that stays at work and another one for traveling. With one word/line added into my config I can as a software, configure the VPN, change the wallpaper on both my laptop, or not. Some stuff like gaming goes only on the traveling laptop.
Also, another big thing for me is the feeling of having a cleanly built system all the time. I haven't felt the urge to do a clean reinstall since I started with NixOS.
Some more points about Nix: - It's a fast way to get to a specific setup, like a particular DE or Vulkan gaming support, thanks to abstraction that NixOS modules provide - There are tons of packages - Because packages are installed by adding a config entry you don't accumulate random software you forgot you installed - Immutable updates and rollbacks - this is similar to benefits of atomic ostree distros, but the nix solutions are more general, so you have one system that does more things with a consistent interface - in addition to updating the base system, rollbacks also roll back user-installed packages, and configurations if those are managed via Nix - devshells provide per-directory packages and configuration using the same package repos as the host system, without needing to manage docker images - Nix is portable - much of what it does on NixOS can also be used in other distros, or even on Macos or Windows with the Linux subsystem - Configurations often combine NixOS and Home Manager parts. The Home Manager part can be used à la carte on other OSes is a way that is fully isolated from the host OS package management. For example on Macos this is a much nicer alternative to Homebrew. - devshells also work on other OSes - similar to Guix - but NixOS uses systemd, and is (from what I understand) more tolerant of non-free software (whether these are pros or cons is up to individual interpretation)
Nixos Is my first distro I use on desktop. I’m not sure why but I guess the fact that it won’t build till it checks Is a huge plus for me. I love to f up things to learn from them but I don’t like broken things and oh boy. Nix keeps me in the clean, safe. Don’t get me wrong im doing stupid stuff all the time but just cus i have a few configs written down i can learn a lot. Or a little that amazes me lol
Endeavour OS is the best because you get all the benefits of Arch combined with a familiar and friendly installer, a good out of the box setup with the desktop of your choice. Not to mention the outstanding community that's built up around it.
I really like CachyOS: 1. Arch based a. Pacman package manager b. AUR c. Rolling release distro 2. Graphical installer 3. Extensive software repo. Things that I used to only be able to get as a flatpak are available in the repo, such as SurfShark VPN as an example 4. Super fast. 5. Updates are tested before they are made available and the delay is only a few days.
Mint. It just works and Cinnamon is a good DE (ui design peaked in the Windows XP days). Plus you also get all the software built and tested for Ubuntu without the bullshit of using Ubuntu.
For my server I use NixOS, because having one unified configuration is so nice.
MX Linux (Debian based), using it for almost 10 years now (before, it was Ubuntu). Based on Debian, very stable, always up to date for every kernel/apps, use native .deb no snap no flatpak no systemd. Also it is using Xfce by default, the best DE.
For your info, it was a kind of "square" picture, I used yce.perfectcorp.com/ai-image-e… to extend it left and right, it created new clouds/flowers, not bad
Seamlessly extend your photos beyond their original boundaries in one-click. Enlarge images and adjust to any aspect ratio (over 20 options available). Resize your photos to perfectly fit Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube dimensions.
My way of thinking and working is incompatible with most premade automatism, it utterly confuses me when a system is doing something on its own without me configuring it that way.
That's why I have issues with many of the "easy" distributions like Ubuntu. Those want to be to helpful for my taste. Don't take me wrong, I am not against automatism or helper tools/functions, not at all. I just want to have full knowledge and full control of them.
I used Gentoo for years and it was heaven for me, the possibility to turn every knob exactly like I wanted them to be was so great, but in the end was the time spend compiling everything not worth it.
That's why I changed to Arch Linux. The bare bone nature of the base install and the high flexibility of pacman and the AUR are ideal for me. I love that Arch by default is not easy, that it doesn't try to anticipate what I want to do. If something happens automatically it is because I configured the system to behave that way.
Linux is so great, because there is a distribution for nearly everyone out there (unless you are blind, then things are not that great apparently, but it seems to get better).
I switched from pop os to Fedora a while back. I did like pop, but it gave me problems regularly and I think it just needs to cook for a few more years probably. Fedora fixed every issue I was having 👍
Seeing all the arch praise here is definitely giving me distro fomo though. Lol
With Guix you have reproducibility, freedom, good docs and peace of mind, also when configuring things more deeply. You also have a powerful programming language (Scheme / Lisp) with which to define your system config as well as your dotfiles. This is my insight after years of GNU/Linux usage. I run Guix on laptops, desktops and servers, and I never have configuration drift, as well as the benefit that I have a self documenting system.
By default it is, but there are many non-free channels you can use to add the OG Linux kernel to your Guix install as well as nonfree drivers. A famous one is nonguix, which i also use in my config. They also make custom ISOs with the Linux kernel, which helps some hardware indeed. So the libre only policy is a non issue if you read into it a little, but unfortunately most people stay at surface level
Arch. I tried other distros and always came back to Arch. Other distros are very bloated and honestly I can't be bothered with removing them manually. I also love the AUR and the wiki.
Another interesting distro was NixOS, but that is a bit of a pain in the ass to learn.
For newbies, Fedora KDE Plasma edition or Mint Cinnamon is my recommendation. Kinoite is Fedora KDE Plasma edition but immutable for the ones that keep breaking the system because they keep following some absurd guide online for whatever.
With x11 gnome it can run the Rustdesk client and pass all the keys properly to the Windows host. And it doesn't boot to a black screen like many other distros on my Asus laptop.
Was on Fedora with similar results but it started taking ages to boot looking for a non existent tpm chip.
Mine is the best for me because I like it the best. It does what I need with a minimum of configuration or customization. My needs and preferences are probably different from yours though, so Linux Mint Debian Edition with Cinnamon desktop environment might not be the best for you.
I use fedora silverblue for a couple reasons. After jumping from elementary to Ubuntu to Manjaro to Artix I got tired of dealing with distro specific modifications and weird issues. With the Ubuntu based distro I never enjoyed how out of date some packages were. I’d hear about a cool new update for a program I use and realize it would be a while till that would be in my repos.
I really liked artix and Arch’s rolling release nature and I would probably enjoy arch if I still used my computer daily like I used to but now I can be away from it for a couple months at a time and I need updates to be stable.
I’ve found Fedora (silverblue in particular) to be a perfect middle ground between rolling release and having a more regular update schedule. I use silverblue because I never wanted to have to worry about an update breaking my install ever again.
I will admit that because silverblue uses flatpaks almost exclusively, my appreciation for software being up to date could be achieved on almost any other distro, but the vanilla style of fedora is what keeps me now. I’m a big fan of vanilla gnome and not too many distros ship it like that.
Honestly, having tried both atomic and regular Fedora, I ended up with regular, as it allows you to do all the same things without limiting you to them.
Install flatpak? Sure. Use Distrobox? Of course. But if you have to use native package, you can simply install it without jumping through the hoops with rpm-ostree (which doesn't even always work properly).
Fedora itself is great, though - a healthy release cycle, high stability, and mature base.
ZorinOS is the best for me, because it works out of the box, looks a lot like Windows which i'm used to, is relatively configurable and is free (the paid version is just cosmetics and prebundled additional software). I consider looking into Arch though, thanks to your post and the comments there ;)
Gentoo works best for me because I'm a control freak. It lets me tune my system in any way I want, and I don't mind leaving my computer on while I'm asleep so that it can compile its way through libreoffice, webkit, and a couple of browsers. Plus, based on complaints I hear from people using other distros, Portage beats other package managers in every way except speed.
This doesn't mean that it's best for everyone, mind you, just that it's best for me.
I use Fedora. I like that it's very up to date and that it doesn't change the GNOME defaults. It also has a big community and many resources to look into if anything goes wrong.
Any RPM-based system has exemplary validation and, as long as we don't throw it out with flatsnappimages, it presents a very clean and maintainable install.
Extra points for PCLinuxOS which has avoided lennart's cancer.
No points for SuSE as they continue to exist as the over engineered bastard child of slackware and RPM, like slackware met 73deJeff on a trip and let the tequila do the talking. Mamma mia!
It's my plan. Not in the mood to distro-hop on my laptop right now, and I got to get through my Epic Games backlog (and also the Steam demos I can't be bothered downloading again) before I swap over my Windows 10 desktop.
Arch. I think when people say "bloat" they don't mean it in the traditional sense of the word. Most people are installing plasma or gnome and pulling all the "bloat" that comes with them. To me at least it's more that no one is deciding what they think you're likely to need/do, and overall that makes the system feel much more "predictable". Less likely to work against what I'm trying to do.
Ignore all the comments about Arch being hard to install or "not for beginners". That view is outdated. When I first installed Arch when you had to follow the wiki and install via the chroot method. Now it's dead simple to install with the script and running it isn't any more difficult than any other distro.
Since I'm old and need to deal with administrating a bunch of machines for work, I settled on the most dull and unsurprising distros of all: debian. Sure, when I was younger and eager to learn and with much time on my hands, I used gentoo (basically what is now arch) and all the others too.
Tumbleweed is the only bleeding-edge rolling release distribution that just works and never fails and is super easy to install and manage without any expertise. And it is massively underrated and forgotten for no good reason.
All Tumbleweed packages go through extensive and to this day unrivaled automatic system testing that ensures no package is ever gonna bork itself or your system.
If you're still worried about stability, there is Slowroll - currently testing, but in my experience very stable distribution. It makes rolling release updates...a bit slower, so that they're only pushed after Tumbleweed users absolutely ensure everything is great and stable (not that it's ever otherwise). It does the same job as Manjaro, but this time around it actually works without a hitch.
Both deliver great experience and will suit novice users.
Why? - I guess I'm too lazy for distro hopping now 🙁
Besides, this was the 1st Linux distro I tried back in 2005. After the usual ditro hopping phase was over, I settled on it; somehow (irrespective of snap and other controversies) I feel at home.
I agree. I tried Fedora first, then Pop!OS, and then settled on Kubuntu.
Kubuntu has been the most stable so far, no big issues. I chose it for that and its Wayland support. Snaps can be disabled or even have auto update turned off which is what I did and I had no real issues with Ubuntu past that so overall a good distro.
Widely supported, plenty of tutorials, has my favorite DE as a spin, it just does what I need it to.
Everybody think they are a special snowflake who needs bleeding edge, or a specific package manager or DE or whatever. Truth is 99.99% do not. They just like to believe they do, claim they do, try it, inflict self pain for longer than they need, convince themselves that truly they are, because of the pain, special.
As someone who ran Debian Stable for a while, this is not a distro for "99.99%".
First, Debian, while very stable in its core, commonly has same random issues within DE's and even programs that may likely just sit there until the next release comes along.
Second, a release cycle of 2 years is actually a giant and incredibly noticeable lag. You may love your system when it just releases, but over time, you will realize your system is old, like, very damn old. It will look old, it will act old, and the only thing you can do is install flatpaks for your preferred programs so that they'd be up to date.
This isn't just programs. It is your desktop environment. It is Wine (gamers, you're gonna cry a lot unless you work it around with flatpaks like Bottles, which will feel like insane workaround you wouldn't have to have with a better fitting distro).
It is the damn kernel, so you may not even be able to install Debian on newest hardware without unsupported and potentially unstable backporting tricks.
Don't get me wrong, Debian is absolutely great in what it does, and that is providing a rock solid environment where nothing changes. But recommending it for everyone? Nope.
I feel like a lot of your points were true at one point, but are becoming lest relevant.
For one, at least with XFCE, I found myself not really running into DE bugs.
Also, I don't think two years is as obnoxious anymore. During the era of the GTK 4 transition a couple, it drove me nuts, but now that a lot of APIs like that have stabilized, I really don't notice much of a difference between Debian Testing and Stable. I installed and daily drove Bookworm late in its lifecycle on my laptop, and in terms of DE and applications, I haven't noticed anything. I get the feeling Debian's gotten better at maintenance in the past few years - I especially see this with Firefox ESR. There was a time where the version was several months behind the latest major release of ESR, but usually it now only takes a month or two for a new ESR Firefox to come to Debian Stable, well within the support window of the older release.
Also, I don't think Flatpaks are a huge dealbreaker anyway - no matter what distro you're using, you're probably going to end up with some of them at some point because there's some application that is the best at what it does and is only distributed as a Flatpak.
Frankly, I probably am a terrible reference for gaming, as I'm a very casual gamer, but I've found Steam usually eliminates most of these issues, even on Debian.
Also, the official backports repository has gotten really easy. My laptop had an unsupported Wi-Fi chipset (it was brand new), so I just installed over ethernet, added the repo, and the install went smoothly. There were a few bugs, but none of these were specific to Debian. Stability has been great as ever.
In conclusion, I think right around Bookworm, Debian went from being the stable savant to just being an all-around good distro. I'll elaborate more on why I actually like Debian in a comment directly replying to the main post.
I might disagree with 99.999% like you - maybe I'd put it in the 50-75% range.
As a KDE fan, I had some bugs on some devices (like on one of the laptops, wallpapers did not install correctly and the setting to always show battery charge didn't work) even on Debian 12.
XFCE is well-known for stability, but seems to be increasingly irrelevant for the average/newbie user because the interface looks outdated and configuring is relatively complicated.
Interesting you mentioned Firefox ESR - iirc, even at release the version shipped with Debian 12 was considered very old, prompting many to install Firefox as a flatpak. Two years later, it's two years older.
Flatpaks are good and suitable options for many tasks - no argument here! But some things are just better installed natively, and there Debian just...shows.
Steam is a godsend, but there are many non-Steam games and, importantly, programs out there, and launching them through Steam often feels like yet another bloated and slow workaround; besides, you cannot choose Wine over Proton, and sometimes (granted: rarely) you may want to use Wine specifically.
To conclude - it's alright to choose Debian anyway, it is good! But I just feel like newbies and casual users could save a lot of trouble and frustration simply going with something that doesn't require all that - say, Fedora (non-atomic), or OpenSUSE, and then go from there to whatever they like. There are plenty of distributions that are stable, reliable, but without the tradeoffs Debian sets.
If you feel like stability is your absolutely biggest priority ever, and you have experience managing Linux systems - by all means, go Debian. But by that point you'll already know what you want.
Debian Stable actually updates Firefox ESR through the typically on by default security channel.
The current ESR version in there is 128, which is about a year old, which replaced the 115 that came with Debian 12 by default.
The newest ESR, 140 just came out 2 weeks ago. 128 still has 2 months of security updates, and 140 has already been packaged for sid. I have no doubts 140 will come before those 2 months are up.
even programs that may likely just sit there until the next release comes along. ... the only thing you can do is install flatpaks for your preferred programs so that they’d be up to date. ... Wine (gamers, you’re gonna cry a lot unless you work it around with flatpaks
I already posted on this a while ago but that's is a recurring misconception. No distribution, literally 0, provides all software to the latest version or to the version one expects. Consequently IMHO it is perfectly acceptable to go beyond what the official package manager of the distribution offers. It can be flatpaks, am, build from source, etc but the point precisely is that the distribution is about a shared practical common ground to build on top of. A distribution is how to efficiently get to a good place. I also run Debian stable on my desktop and for gaming, I use Steam. It allows me to get Wine, yes, but also Proton and even ProtonFix so that I basically point and click to run games. I do NOT tinker to play Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, Clair Obscur, etc and my hardware is well supported.
So... sure if you consider a distribution as something you must accept as-is and NOT rely on any of the available tools to get the latest software you actually need, can be games but can be tools e.g. Blender, Cura, etc, then you WILL have a tough time but that's the case for all distributions anyway.
TL;DR: a distribution is the base layer to build on. Its package manager, on Debian and elsewhere, is not the mandatory and sole way to get the software you need.
Debian. Truly the universal operating system. Runs on all of my laptops, desktops, servers, and NAS with no fuss and no need to keep track of distro-specific differences. If something has a Linux version, it probably works on Debian.
Granted, I am a bit biased. All of my hardware is at least 5 years old. Also came from Windows, where I kept only the OS and browser up to date, couldn't be bothered with shiny new features. A package manager is already a huge luxury.
Because I don't have a fickle heart, and My distro is the best, right now, for me. There's nothing more to it. I do like Mint - but a few apps are out of date, and that's annoying. But it's stable, looks great, and works like a charm.
NixOS. - I have access to more packages than with any other package manager. - everything to get my setup in the exact state I want is in my config, which is 90% useable on any other distro thanks to home manager - My config is all in one place and easy to share - If I ever break something, I can always roll back - I don't need Docker
slackware the og linux distro. super stable, sane package management etc. i've wanted to try void/arch/gentoo/crux for a pretty long time but still haven't because this just works perfectly
IDGAF if it's the best (mint), it was easy to install, easy to transition to from Windows, and in 6 months hasn't given me any trouble. I just wanna use my computer.
Yeah I was gonna say, I dunno if my distro is the best (Arch BTW) but it's the best for me. Doesn't give me any nonsense and lets me tinker as much as I want. Other people just want their OS to get out of their way, which of course is equally valid. Whatever works for you!
NixOS makes me feel so safe making low-level changes to Linux and making sure that my work laptop, gaming desktop, and personal laptop all have the exact same shit on them and I'm gonna use them the exact same way.
I wish that nixlang was decoupled from the concept of a build system bc it's such a great DAG config DSL and I can think of so many cooler uses for it but I just don't have time to focus on it.
Hopefully none, why do you like Gnome? I thought it was okay, but I really love KDE more. I don't hate Gnome. It seems really good for anyone who uses a touchpad or touchscreen.
I can't speak for anyone else but I can tell you what I personally love about Gnome.
I like that it's Spartan. I like that it looks good without me having to customize a thousand different settings.
I like that It has client side decorations, so every window doesn't have to have an obscene, chunky, mostly useless title bar.
I don't miss every single application having 100 different options packed into a menu bar. Once you get used to it, you realize that it was mostly getting in the way the whole time.
It's just a really streamlined workflow for 98% of what you do. The problem is that 2% where it's too spartan and God do you wish you had some options.
But I also think KDE is a great desktop environment. If I were more of a gamer I'd be using KDE. I think XFCE is an excellent desktop environment for aging hardware and Windows converts. It is very much a matter of taste, Use cases, and your preferred workflow.
I've discovered that I don't much care which distro I'm using, it's the DE that matters most. I have Fedora GNOME, Debian GNOME, and openSUSE GNOME running on different machines. I can't really tell much difference until I enter the command line or package manager, and even then, it's the front end of the command that changes while the backend stays mostly the same. Flatpak has made the difference between distros even fewer.
While I still care somewhat of distro differences for functional reasons, I completely agree that DE's are the most important part in terms of user experience.
Both my machines use KDE, and while they run two different distros, they look and feel pretty much the same since I use a very similar layout on both of them. This, along with file sync through my NAS and similar apps, makes switching from one computer to the other a breeze (pun not intended), despite some differences under the hood.
I've been using Ubuntu for years and I like KDE, so I'm using Neon. Ubuntu is familiar, easy to fix, easy to find out how to fix, and neon doesn't come with snaps.
EndeavorOS. It runs smooth, i dont get errors, all my games work, the taskbar and notifications work like I would expect them too. Switching from Windows 2 months ago, I cycled through a few distros but they all were giving something up until i found EoS.
I wanted the awesomeness of pacman and like the way Gardua comes pre-configured as well as packages it installs from the get go. The only thing I hate about it is the "gamer" universal KDE theme it comes with.
Man, I wanted to try Garuda a couple of weeks ago and the thing would never even boot into the live environment. Went ahead and installed Cachy OS and it's been great.
Mint Cinnamon. All my hardware works, and it can do the few things I require my work PC to do. It even remembers things like my default audio device - something Ubuntu refused to do for years.
I like the way Pop!_OS looks. Not gonna pretend it's the best. But as far as default UIs, it clicked with the most. Default gnome seemed too spartan and all of the Windows-like DEs remind me too much of Windows. Which I don't like. If that makes sense.
Most packages have sane defaults, and it's so stable. It's true that it sometimes means older software versions, but there's also something to be said for behavior staying the same for two years at a time.
If hardware support is an issue, using the backports repo is really easy - I've been using it on my laptop for almost a year with no problems that don't exist on other distros. If you really need the shiniest new application, Flatpak isn't that bad.
It also feels in a nice position - not so corporate as to not give a darn about its community, but with enough funding and backing the important stuff gets maintained.
I just moved to Debian trixie (soon to be stable) because I needed an upgrade after ~15 years of Gentoo.
I was a proud Gentoo user. I learned a lot about systemd and kernel configuration. Many advances in portage made it possible to find the time to maintain my Gentoo setup. On my laptop I gave up Gentoo even earlier, because updating my system was just too time consuming. I actually learned less and less about the software I was using, because I was trapped in dependency conflict management. The new binary repos did save some compile time, but the actual time sinks are decision for your systems, use flags and the forementioned dependencies.
So, I installed Debian on my main workstation (two days ago). I am already using Debian on on my Raspberry Pis. I did choose a more challenging way using debootstrap, because I want to use systemd-boot, encrypted btrfs and have working hibernation. I am still busy with configuring everything.
One could argue, that I could've used the time on Gentoo to solve my current python_targets_python3_13 issues and do a proper world update. No, this is a future investment. I want the time to configure new stuff, not wait for dependency resolution or waste time solving blocking packages.
The main reason to switch from Gentoo to Debian is being able to install security updates fast without blocking packages in the same slot.
Obligatory "There is not a single distro that's the absolute best for each and every one." disclaimer aside, my personal favorite is definitely secureblue for being a hardened-by-default distro that adheres to the ~~'immutable'~~ reprovisionable, anti-hysteresis paradigm while enjoying a healthy stream of improvements pushed out by an active group of contributors.
I love Pop OS because it got me back into Linux after ditching it for windows for the last 10 years, partly to do .net development and partly because I hated the state of Ubuntu/Unity.
As soon as cosmic is stable and easy to install on Nix I'll switch to it.
I used to use Determinate Nix on Pop!_OS before I switched to NixOS for good. You can still get a lot out of Nix on a traditional distro, granted you have to deal with few things manually (nixGL being one of them). But it still works, especially for development; it's just unparalleled.
Arch btw, only been using it for a couple of weeks, only installed it because of the meme. Got my hands on a few years old thinkpad for practically free, so why not. It's actually quite good so far, been struggling a bit with external monitors, but I don't miss windows
Arch, everything it does provide works extremely well, I can configure everything how I want it without having to fight a distro maintainer trying to be clever, I get new features and bugfixes whenever they go in without having to worry about a distro maintainer deciding whether it’s relevant or whether I should just live with crashes and security issues for another two years because they figured it wasn’t important or critical enough.
OpenSUSE tumbleweed: Up-to-date, unbreakable due to Btrfs+snapper, very secure defaults (firewall), based in Germany. It works perfectly on my Thinkpad, so I couldn't ask for better.
Linux Mint because it's extremely simple and has caused me no issues for over a year. It's the best distribution to get someone who is afraid to switch from Windows or MacOS to understand that using Linux can be just as easy.
I use Kubuntu. It is defintly not the best Distro. I am just used to it and too lazy to get used to another distro. My days as a distro jumper lie 15 years back...
Tbh though, I might switch to Debian stable whenever Trixie comes out.
It isn't. I'm on PopOS 24.04 Alpha 7 (soon to be Beta 1), because of COSMIC (and because I was having some bugs with Fedora a few months back).
I recently wanted to tinker with a piece of software that wasn't packaged, and I couldn't compile it because of outdated libraries. I could return to Fedora specifically to tinker with it but as an ex-distrohopper, I know it isn't worth the effort.
Even though Fedora or some version of it will likely be my forever distro, I will stick to PopOS for now because I can't be bothered to distrohop and back up months' worth of files, including game saves and a ton of stuff in my Downloads directory.
I was a Nix user (more specifically, nix-darwin user) but after being away from the computer for like one year (to study for the university entrance exam), I completely forgot how to use it and resulted in erasing the computer. Nix/NixOS is fun, but it was too complicated for me.
I use Nobara with KDE for my gaming computer, Mint with Cinnamon for pretty much everything else.
Mint is the closest to a "Just Works" experience for me. Cinnamon is rock stable, especially on Mint Debian Edition. I don't remember the last time Cinnamon crashed or had any major bugs for me.
I use Debian for most of my servers, stable and simple. Arch on a junker Thinkpad to test and mess around with new programs and window managers.
Tumbleweed. Rolling release with automated testing (openQA), snapper properly setup out of the box.
Honestly the entire openSUSE ecosystem. Tumbleweed on my main PC that often has some of the latest hardware, Slowroll on my (Framework) laptop because it's rolling but slower (monthly feature updates, only fixes in-between), and Leap for servers where stability (as in version/compatibility stability, not "it doesn't crash" stability) is appreciated.
openSUSE also comes in atomic flavors for those interested. And it's European should you care.
With all that being said, I don't really care much about what distro I'm using. What I do with it could be replicated with pretty much any distro. For me it's mostly just a means to an end.
Gentoo because it is as stable as Debian, less bloated than Arch, has more packages than Ubuntu, is rolling release, can mix and match stable, testing and unstable on a whim.
Even its one downside, compile times, is now gone if you just choose to use binary packages.
And less stable than Arch, and more bloated than Ubuntu... If that is something you want for whatever reason! It is the most versatile distro in existance because it's literally anything you want it to be - clean and nice, or total chaos. What is there not to love?
Since I mostly use computers for entertainment these days I keep coming back to Bazzite. It’s fast, stable, kept up to date, reliable, and “just works”. I’ve created custom rpm-ostree layers to faff around, but it’s not actually necessary for anything I need.
I used to keep a second Kubuntu Minimal partition around but I realized I just don’t need it. If I wasn’t so happy with Bazzite, I would probably go with openSUSE or Endeavor.
Yes, but also I had to run through proton off steam and the modding process is less streamlined. I unironically have had a less complicated time running windows and dealing with its "special" features than running Linux and having a custom setup for every other game.
I've been using (X)Ubuntu for ages. I just wanted something that "just works". Tired of too much tinkering and there's plenty of (non commercial) support. Mixing it with i3 as my window manager.
For me it's openSUSE Tumbleweed on my Desktops/Laptops and openSuse Leap on my Servers. The killing Feature for me was the propper BTRFS integration with Snapper for seamless rollbacks in case I borked the system in some way.
One "downside" for me is the mix of Gnome Settings and Yast on my Desktop. But I like yast on my servers for managing everything (enabling ports in firewall, network config, enable autoamtic isntall of security updates, etc.). Also openSuse is not that common, so sometimes it is hard to find a solution if you have a distribution specific question.
Personally never looked to closely into openSuse Build Services (OBS). But I know some people who really like it.
I am using Bluefin, based on Fedora Silverblue. I realized that I was already exclusively using flatpaks for everything except one random app, so I thought why not go all-in?
Haven't had to worry about updates or system breakages since, and it's been great so far.
I used to use Debian Stable, but since doing SysAdmin work I've just become used to the way Fedora / RHEL does things.
I think linux distros are a coinflip on if they like your hardware or not, sometimes it feels like they just don't like you individually as a person.
When I use fedora for example, everything that can go wrong does go wrong. It's in theory not any more complicated than debian, but I've never had good luck keeping a fedora system healthy.
With Debian, usually the best troubleshooting tip I can give people is try installing testing instead of stable. Sometimes the kernel in stable is just too damn old for the hardware you want to install on.
What tips about setting up my stock Android phone would you give me? It's not factory unlocked so I'm sticking with Google Android.
Things I've done: - Stopped and disabled all apps that I don't use or need. - Replaced all apps that I can with FOSS alternatives from github using Obtainium. - Not installed things that I can just check on my laptop like email.
Is there anything else that I can do? Thanks in advance
Edit I've also: - Changed my DNS to Mullvad DNS - Restricted app permissions to only what they need - Not signed into the phone. I don't even have Gmail account.
I assume you are using F-droid app manager, and also added IzzyonDroid repo to it? There you can get a lot of apps, like firewalls to block apps that call home when you don't really use them. Replace most of your apps with open source alternatives from F-droid. Get an email hosting alternative that isn't one of the big (spy, data mining) companies. Use decentralized privacy focused social media options. What type of phone manufacturer do you use and is it unlocked? You could use an android privacy rom like CalyxOS, that is what I use, completely de-googled, uses MicroG instead of Google Play services. A VPN would be my last option to add, especially when connecting to outside wifi.
So one of the gotchas about stopped/disabled apps is that other apps can still call and launch them. I frequently saw my apps pop back up even after being disabled, since I used SuperFreezZ to monitor them. f-droid.org/packages/superfree…
The alternative to that would be an ADB disable. IIRC it takes the app away from userspace completely. It doesn't touch the system-level though, so a factory reset will bring it back.
If you can't handle setting up ADB and it's hoops, there is an app combo that can set up a bridge and run the ADB disable for you: f-droid.org/en/packages/io.git…
With Shizuku and Canta, you can remove the spying system apps. You can break your phone though (fixable with a factory reset), so do be careful. If you want to play it safe, use the recommended list in Canta. These should be safe to remove.
I like NetGuard, but think that TrackerControl is a bit more privacy focused. It had tracker detection, includes a traffic log as a free feature (NG requires purchase), and a few of the other NG Pro features are implemented in TC as well. In the end having either is better than neither.
Rethink DNS is both a firewall app, and you can run a VPN at the same time using a wireguard configuration.
I use a VPN system wide, and for some apps like Fennec or a Torrent app (yes I torrent on my phone lol), I use a different wireguard config for each one of these apps. For the systemwide VPN, its using a server in my country, for individual apps, it goes to switzerland or iceland (So the IP used to check for system updates isn't correlated to the IP used for everyday browsing, watch youtube videos, or torrenting). I block everything from internet access unless it needs internet to function, like a phone app for example (for VoLTE). Enable "block connections without VPN".
Mullvad has the cheapest VPN at €5 Euro per month, and ProtonVPN have some free servers, but free servers have slower speeds.
As I said, it doesn't protect, it changes who can see the data.
Your ISP might not be able to see it, but your VPN provider will instead. VPN providers are hardly ever under any kind of regulation, except those run by secret services, of which there are many.
And there are more than enough VPNs that sell customer data while claiming to be amazing for your privacy.
I''d argue changing who can see your data from either a large group to a smaller one or one you do trust vs one you do not trust precisely is protecting your privacy.
Also FWIW you can host your VPN, you do not have to rely on a commercial VPN provider.
I’'d argue changing who can see your data from either a large group to a smaller one or one you do trust vs one you do not trust precisely is protecting your privacy.
It's always astounding to me that people put more trust in an intangible rando from the internet than into organizations governed by law. Like those people who don't accept mainstream medicine but eat random supplements they imported from India by the kilogram.
Also FWIW you can host your VPN, you do not have to rely on a commercial VPN provider.
Sure you can. And where does that traffic go?
If you e.g. host a VPN in your home network and you connect to it from your phone, and then you use this connection to access the internet, then your traffic will just be visible to your home network's ISP instead of your phone's ISP.
No idea what your analogy about non conventional medicine is about. Feel free to explain.
just be visible to your home network’s ISP instead of your phone’s ISP.
Indeed, which is already what I mentioned, namely another group. It's about the threat model namely if you trust one ISP more than another. I believe your understood that but chose not to acknowledge it and I'm not sure why but maybe it related to your analogy that I didn't get.
Edit: if you and others are interested in the topic I recommend splintercon.net/ plenty of resources on the topic.
PS: FWIW I didn't suggest VPN is the solution to all problems but they do alleviate some. The point is one must understand both how they work and their OWN threat model rather than an idealized one.
The analogy is that on the one hand you have a corporation where you know who they are, where you know which laws they are governed by, where you know how to file a privacy complaint, where you know who to sue in case something goes wrong. And you don't trust them.
Instead you choose to trust some rando from the internet. Where anyone with a sane mind knows they will get screwed over.
Even if you have encrypted your traffic with a VPN, advanced traffic analysis is a growing threat against your privacy. Therefore, we have developed DAITA – a feature available in our VPN app.
You can't. Some might say that the less adversaries monitor you the better. But you will never be private unless you ditch all the proprietary software and practice good opsec on the internet and in real life. Hate to break it to you, but privacy is fundamentally a binary thing: you are either spied upon or you are not, regardless if it's one hundred companies or just one.
To the extent that you still need to use standard apps, consider disabling your advertising ID. EFF has a guide to this at eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/how-…
This won't stop google of course. You should probably also install a firewall, like other people here have suggested. And keep in mind, disabling features entirely is different from not using them. For example, if location services is turned off, then even google maps doesn't know your location (in theory anyway), whereas if it is merely unused then google will still check periodically.
Myanmar is ruled by an illegitimate military junta which literally seized power by simply jailing its democratically elected leader in 2021 and declaring "no more democracy". Rebel forces have been fighting against the junta since. In the northernmost state of Kachin, China is putting pressure on a rebel group to stop fighting the junta. China wants access to the region's heavy rare earth minerals. Unrest and instability make that more difficult.
Oh, I'm not putting this on any individual citizen, I'm genuinely sorry if it came out that way!
Sharing is virtuous, and everyone should most certainly try to share more (within their means, of course!), but the game was rigged long before those who are alive now ever existed. Unfortunately, as long as the system itself doesn't change, individual action can only achieve so much in terms of offering fair conditions and opportunities for everyone...
Again, no such issue, I'd actually have a bit more respect for LLMs were they this eloquent and pleasant!😀) Glad to have generated a crumb of something good!😁
To be perfectly frank, I can relate... Not gonna give up trying, just that I've never had much use for optimism given how things have been going overall.
Nope... zero. It's just what I feel is the right thing to do, regardless of results. And, on a more self-serving note, I will at least die with a clear conscience knowing that I did all I could do to follow and respect my principles, to be at least a quasi-decent human being.
What did they say? They deleted their account, so we all feel like assholes trying to figure out what you are replying to.
Don't feel obligated to respond, you aren't the "c u next Tuesday" in this situation
Edit: go figure, they didn't delete their account, just whatever they said. This is an incredibly META thing for someone with an 'umbrella emoji as a username' to do.
That's not enitirely true. The American Dream was (and is) settler-colonialism. Early settlers were promised free land if they killed indigenous peoples living there already, which led to a mostly self-sufficient labor class that could use its self-farmed land as a means to support themselves while bargaining for higher wages. If you were a white man, this dream was attainable, period, even if it meant enslaving and genociding millions of people.
Then came the post-war period. The wartime economy was still fairly planned, and aimed at full employment. Further, the US was emerging as world hegemon and de-facto empire. Imperialism and social safety nets largely expanded due to needing to provide better metrics than the Soviet Union was providing again kept the white men of the US living in the American Dream.
Now that imperialism is decaying, and social safety nets have been gutted along with the fall of the USSR as the main rival power, even white men are starting to fall into genuine proletarianization at large. The US is still a settler-colony, but its one where finance capital has dictatorial control yet imperialism is waning, and where many industries have been hollowed out and shipped overseas because imperialism was more profitable. The US is working its way to its own demise.
Agreed, that was the "advertised" goal, and the overall shape things took once it was set into motion. But looking at things now, in retrospect, I genuinely believe that's just what everyone was told to sell them on the idea, with the actual plan being very different for those who had access backstage, y'know?
I mean, it's much easier to motivate people to uproot their lives (regardless of how abysmal their living conditions were at the time) by promising a Land of Opportunity For Everyone, instead of telling them "yeah, we're a bunch of rich guys who want to get even richer, and we need cheap labour to get things started, then work for us, so that we may accumulate all of the wealth."
My point is that, initially, labor-power wasn't cheap. That's why there were slaves and indentured servants, to make up for the fact that the commodity labor-power was pricier. That's what's so dangerous about settler-colonialism, it "works" for a far larger portion of society, which is why it has led to some of the most horrendous crimes of all time.
It's only now that the system is starting to genuinely unravel, but the US Empire's history as one of the most far-right and brutal countries ever is directly tied to its large settler-colonial class relations.
Well, yeah, it's the pyramid scheme to end all pyramid schemes, not arguing against that. But that was the Dream.
And "not cheap" as in "had a wage," as opposed to not being paid at all as a slave (although there were some costs involved with that as well, so not entirely free - I am not arguing for slavery in any way, I was just boiling down the expenditure). But wealth was clearly still pooled at the top, while most people were no better off than they are now, when talking strictly about wealth distribution ratios.
Edit: the only advantage they had was that land was "free for the taking" (if they were willing to do a little genocide beforehand), but even that ended up pooling around a handful of people once things and people settled in.
The disparity is actually skyrocketing moreso now, and steadily has been for the last century. The New Deal, as a response to the USSR, did manage to temporarily lower inequality, but corporations weren't nearly as monopolized. The status we are in today took a long time, and for hundreds of years, disparity was actually much lower than England and other countries that had started capitalism in earnest. The semi-yeoman worker in the US had bargaining power and land, which slowed down tge process of disparity.
None of this is in defense of settler-colonialism. I bring it up because it points to the class character of the US, and helps explain why it's so far-right and reactionary, as well as why leftist radicalization is increasing rapidly.
Yet again, I agree! But wouldn't you also agree that the system always had this in-built inequality? What I meant to say was that, while it was less immediately obvious at the start, the subsequent pooling and acceleration of said pooling were always going to happen within this system.
And that's why I suspect that this was the plan all along, because it has been visible from the start, it didn't require a retrospective if one was paying enough attention. And those who did got very, very rich.
But even if everyone would have been paying attention*, there would be no room for equality, otherwise the entire pyramid would collapse, taking everyone's "more than" with it.
Yes, I absolutely agree that the disparity we see today is a direct result of the former social relations. The agrarian slave-driven economy in the south was certainly going to result in conflict with the industrial economy based on wage labor in the north, especially as the north needed new wage laborers to expand industrially. Historical progression is a process of endless spirals, tendencies and trajectories accumulate over time until a quantitative buildup results in a qualitative change.
However, I don't see it as something that was intentionally planned. Capital doesn't think that way. Capitalist production is an ever-expanding circuit that must constantly be repeated, anything going against that system of voracious profit gets dashed. Long-term planning is characteristic of socialism, not capitalism, nor the semi-yeoman style of settler-colonial capitalism or slave driven agrarian economy.
This is important, because understanding how we got here today can tell us where we are headed. The historic task of the US proletariat in the age of dying imperialism is to topple the capitalist state and replace it with a socialist state, focusing on decolonization and anti-imperialism. The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. This is only increasingly possible because the US working class is becoming increasingly proletarianized due to monopolist capture of the land, and imperialism is weakening to the point where we cannot be bribed as much by its spoils.
We aren't here because of some 5-D chess from the old bourgeoisie, nor did the settlers have ignorance of the system. The US settler class was bribed using the spoils of genocide, and its only increasingly true now that there isn't really a semi-yeoman class. The immense brutality of settler-colonialism can't keep the US afloat anymore, nor can imperialism.
I'm just trying to help provide a Marxist perspective, as it genuinely gives us a chance of completing the US proletariat's historic duty. I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just so completely lacking any faith in greedy humans that I now suspect everything was a ploy. I dunno, maybe it's one of the pitfalls of hindsight, that it can easily seem to have intentionality when the string of failures is so smooth and perfect. I mean, at the end of the day, Capitalism is, to my mind, uniquely insidious as a system.
Either way, I really don't want you to think I was disagreeing with you about anything else, whether planned or not, it is most certainly worth learning everything we can from its evolution. As you've said, we need to have the future in mind, because this thing'll be around for at least a bit longer...
Sincerely thank you for the theory! I'm not as versed in these aspects for now, so I don't know where I'd land on the political/philosophical spectrum exactly. All I know is that I sincerely want everyone to have a truly fair chance at life without having to worry about being persecuted for who they are, without having to be relatively rich to afford basic healthcare (I'm including the various hormone therapies here because it's well past time we grew the fuck up and stopped obsessing about other people's genitals, as... uuh... someone smarter than me put it) and without the fear that they may starve or become homeless, ffs... And I also know that what we've been doing so far obviously ain't it...
Modes of production are historical phenomena, guided by technological advancements. Capitalism wasn't a choice, but a result of growing industrial bourgeois production resolving its contradiction with feudal agrarian production. The steam engine is what accelerated this process. Zooming out, capital is the real master of capitalists, capitalists are merely the high priests of capital best guessing at what it wants, but ultimately are slaves to the profit motive and how to best extract it.
And no worries! One thing that's helpful, is that the centralization of capitalism over time is exactly what creates a large class capable of collectively planning and running production in the interests of all. The profit motive destroys the profit motive. I try to maintain revolutionary optimism, doomerism is more of a product of the capitalist class trying to remove revolutionary fervor.
Based on your final paragraph, you'd do well with reading leftist theory! I already said I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I actually made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want to spend some time on theory, but you can explore whatever leftist tendencies you want to. The two biggest umbrellas are anarchism and Marxism, the former being about decentralization and horizontalism, the latter being about centralization and collectivization (to massively oversimplify), and the biggest tendency in Marxism is Marxism-Leninism. If you want to learn more about what makes these distinct, feel free to ask, I used to be an anarchist myself.
Also, if you can, join an org! If you're US-based, I recommend something like The Party for Socialism and Liberation. There are probably other orgs local to you, though, so do some shopping around. Getting organized is the only way out of this mess, and into the new. A better world is possible!
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a national organization of revolutionaries fighting for socialism in the United States. Our home is in the working class.
Most definitely have a lot of Leftist reading to do! If nothing else, I at least know I'm well Left of Center:))
Now that I've mulled it over some more, I think it feels very intentional to me because I do see a lot of similarities between it and Feudalism, yes! It's like Capitalism is comprised of multiple smaller monarchies, referring to Corporations and any organisation/person with a large amount of capital at their disposal, and thus influence. But, yeah, we're talking orders of magitude of complexity above traditional feudalism, so it would stand to reason that it's most likely just a mathematical whirlpool of sorts. I do agree that capital is the main point of power in Capitalism and that everything else has formed around it.
Which, on a personal side note, is so sad when looking at the big picture! It means that the people in power aren't actually driven by anything concretely Human™, so to speak, they've ceeded full control of themselves and their lives over to the accumulation of something entirely fictitious... It'd be lamentable if it wasn't so damned dangerous...
Thank you so much for the reading list! It's so nice to have a quasi-curriculum for these things! And I probably will drop a line or two once I get started with the reading! Truth be told, I'm at the point where I know enough to understand just how little I know about the subject, so I can't even think of relevant questions at the moment. I've focused more on existential philosophy and such so far, needed to fix myself first:))
As for joining an org, that's in my 2-year plan (life got upended, again, so it's running alongside several other need-to-do stuff). I will lean very heavily into volunteer work, hopefully that'll open up some political networks as well. If nothing else, it is urgently clear that it's time to act as a citizen. Thank Christ we've managed to pull another 4 years of European Union (Romanian)... We have a lukewarm Centrist now, but at least it's not a raging Fascist...
Yep! Marx himself said that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, after all. Feudalism does have a lot in common with capitalism, but what makes Marx interesting is how he analyzed how capitalism is different. Many leftists of his era were focused on the similarity between capitalism and feudalism, Marx focused on the opposite, how it's different, and this is what propelled him into scientific socialism, socialism as it emerges from capitalism.
And no problem for the reading list! It's designed to be completed in order, and is focused on taking someone freshly radicalized but with no experience with leftist theory, and leave them as someone with a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and how to behave as an organized leftist! It also has audiobooks, queer and feminist theory, a good dose of basic history, and more. Since you mentioned philosophy, the 2nd section goes over Dialectical Materialism, so it might be a really good fit for you if that's your current interest! Still read section 1 before 2, but 2 is a fun section once you get there!
And great to hear you plan on getting organized! Really, that's step 1, but obviously not everyone can do so immediately due to life events and whatnot. Just do what you can!
Yep, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, it's much easier to change things if said change is built upon what's useful from the old. No use throwing out the things which actually do work (whether by design or incidentally, doesn't matter, happy accidents are still happy), plus it has the added benefit of maintaining some degree of familiarity, so I would imagine that makes the pill easier to swallow.
I'll most definitely take it in the order given, the new is always prioritised:)) Sounds delectably thorough, my brain will be happy, thank you! And, yeah, that's pretty much the basis on which I've started pulling hard to the Left (used to be Undecided, a.k.a. I'm Severely Depressed And Don't Have The Space For It). Existentialism steered me toward an understanding of what a satisfying life means for the human psyche, which then shoved me into "well, hey! Sounds like something which would be nice for everyone!" Then I finally saw the world for what it is and... yeah...
Completely agreed, change starts from home, always. It looks daunting, but the fact that so many people remember that Fascism is objectively bad, actually, means it's not impossible.
Thanks so much once again, both for the resources and the conversation! And sorry again if I came off as hostile, I've been struggling to manage a hefty case of misanthropy for the past almost-decade.
No worries, and have fun with it! Feel free to ask any questions or give feedback for it if you want to. It's also an intro list, there's a ton you can read beyond it once you finish, but you should be able to figure out what you want to read when you finish it.
Saw this video on another platform and I thought let me go to YouTube so I can share it, only to hear AI voices. I'm like WTF? I investigate and find out that it's auto dubbed and that there's no option to disable it. Huh?
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
A 19-year-old Lviv resident was detained in Zakarpattia for the thirteenth time attempting to illegally cross the border. He was
trying to get to Hungary, seeking better living conditions.
Don't forget to thank our Lord and Saviour Mr. Zelensky (and the brave heroes protecting Ukraine's borders!) that this criminal was caught!
Just imagine what would happen if he actually managed to escape, and god-forbid lived a happy life instead of being kidnapped in a few years (or earlier..) off the streets and sent into meat grinder to die? That would be terrible!
God bless western democracy.
And some people are really surprised how can people say that Russia is liberating Ukraine... Yeah, those must be tankies. Obviously freedom is slavery.
imagine the pandimonium taking place if all of these criminals got away scott free to live the rest of their lives instead of patriotically dying in the war that the united states fooled the country into starting with russia.
and just like the american ice agents, the border guards don't want the public to know what their faces look like.
War sucks but lets not elevate Russia from starting this invasion. They have the possibility to end the meat grinder. Even if the US had a hand in it, starting war can never be the correct awnser. In the end the regular people suffer for the rich oligarchs power games.
I have never seen security and privacy checklists used for any other purpose but deception. After pondering this observation, I’m left seriously doubting if comparison checklists have any val…
Interesting article, and I feel that it's pretty fair. At first, I thought they were talking about this checklist, but I see they're different. The version I followed doesn't seem to have the same issues (lists jurisdiction but doesn't give it a rating, doesn't list or rate encryption methods at all, no summary at the beginning, etc.).
I think checklists/matrices still have their place, as listing all the branches/options might get too cluttered for a diagram, but I do understand why flowcharts (or the neat venn diagrams that get posted here often) can express information better. I don't think checklists are inherently biased, I just think you need a good decision maker behind the list.
I think the article was an interesting read. From a laymen's perspective it felt like it got to side tracked by the examples mentioned in the intro (the initial list example and signal vs mls).
When I initially started reading I had thought there would be more information for how someone that is new to a subject could spot and differentiate these lists from the ones the author says the article isn't about without being an expert.
Instead it feels like the title of the article ends up being more of a sub header and the sub header "How Do You Compare Signal to MLS?" was actually a more appropriate title.
I think so. I lost count of the little things, it really was death by a thousand paper cuts.
I was a pretty rabid fan of Ubuntu, still have an x86 and ppc CD of 5.04 somewhere.
But by the time snaps started appearing, and then Ubuntu pro, Ubuntu decided to revert some of my customized configs in /etc after an upgrade, I had had enough. When snaps were reinstalled after an upgrade in 2021, I just flipped over to Debian, which has come a long way in being usable out of the box.
I have been using ffmpeg to convert audio files to MP3 format for my commercial web service and have found out that ffmpeg is no longer available in my version (12.
At the time, canonical was throwing its weight around and essentially bullying Debian upstream repos. Around this time, there was a mass exodus of the Debian leadership over this kind of thing.
The old guard of Debian wasn't as... enthusiastic about systemd either, but look what they use now.
Firefox has instructions on their website for adding their PPA and pinning it over Ubuntu's. I find it interesting that they made an official response that seems to say "yeah nonconsensual snaps are bad, here's another option"
I switched from Ubuntu to Debian, and it's basically the same thing, just faster since it uses native packages instead of Snaps. Ubuntu might as well run all it's apps in Docker containers.
You could rebrand Debian to Ubuntu and most users wouldn't even notice.
I've been enjoying CachyOS as well. I haven't gone digging into documentation too much but when I search I typically end up on Arch related forums. Chatgpt helps a lot too.
Arch requires reading the manual to install it, so installing it successfully is an accomplishment.
It's rolling release with a large repo which fits perfectly for regularly used systems which require up-to-date drivers. In that sense it's quite unique as e.g. OpenSUSE Tumbleweed has less packages.
It has basically any desktop available without any preference or customisations by default.
They have a great short name and solid logo.
Arch is community-based and is quite pragmatic when it comes to packaging. E.g. they don't remove proprietary codecs like e.g. Fedora.
Ubuntu is made by a company and Canonical wants to shape their OS and user experience as they think is best. This makes them develop things like snap to work for them (as it's their project) instead of using e.g. flatpak (which is only an alternative for a subset of snaps features). This corporate mindset clashes with the terminally online Linux desktop community.
Also, they seem to focus more on their enterprise server experience, as that is where their income stream comes from.
But like always, people with strong opinions are those voicing them loudly. Most Linux users don't care and use what works best for them. For that crowd Ubuntu is a good default without any major downsides.
Edit: A major advantage of Ubuntu are their extended security updates not found on any other distro (others simply do not patch them). Those are locked behind a subscription for companies and a free account for a few devices for personal use.
Not really with archiinstall, but indeed as you say reading the manual is an expectation. Their philosophy is "creating an environment that is straightforward and relatively easy for the user to understand directly, rather than providing polished point-and-click style management tools", as well-summarized by Wikipedia.
wants to shape their OS and user experience as they think is best
tbh that goes for every distro. It's just that Canonical is more hands-on with its approach. The major complaint with Snap besides performance issues is Canonical making it so that only the Snap versions of popular apps (most famously, the bundled Firefox) are available by default.
I don't know about everyone else, but the last couple of years has had the most unstable Ubuntu releases, with the most unrecoverable releases when issues happen.
I've since moved to Fedora for desktop and straight Debian for server.
I used it a little way back in 2005-2006ish, and decided to give it a try again after a third reinstall of ubuntu within a year last year.
though, I'm about to get a "new" laptop and may toy around with Arch on the old one. I had previously tried setting up Arch in a VM but that's not supported and ended poorly.
I can't speak to Arch but I use Ubuntu every day. I hate on Ubuntu because I use it every day. They make terrible choices. They've got common, serious issues people have reported at least as far back as 2009 with no acknowledgement or plan to address. I'm on LTS and they push through multiple reboot requiring sets of updates a week, heedless of the impacts.
I don't feel like learning a totally new environment so I'll be switching my main computer to Mint whenever I get the time. So I can deal with someone else's annoying decisions for a while.
I feel your pain with Ubuntu, though last time I used it was about a decade ago. As bad as it is (relative to some other distros), it's still miles ahead of Windows. So, you've got that going for you!
I like arch because: - it is rolling release and I like having up to date software and not having to deal with distro upgrades breaking things - it is community run and not beholden to a company - packages are mostly unmodified from their upstream - the wiki and forums are the best of any distro
the wiki ~~and forums~~ are the best of any distro
If you don't participate in it that is. If you veer only a little off of their strict rules, then Arch forum will ban you and they won't allow you to even read the forum.
I don't really have a concise answer, but allow me to ramble from personal experience for a bit:
I'm a sysadmin that was VERY heavily invested in the Microsoft ecosystem. It was all I worked with professionally and really all I had ever used personally as well. I grew up with Windows 3.1 and just kept on from there, although I did mess with Linux from time to time.
Microsoft continues to enshittify Windows in many well-documented ways. From small things like not letting you customize the Start menu and task bar, to things like microstuttering from all the data it's trying to load over the web, to the ads it keeps trying to shove into various corners. A million little splinters that add up over time. Still, I considered myself a power user, someone able to make registry tweaks and PowerShell scripts to suit my needs.
Arch isn't particularly difficult for anyone who is comfortable with OSes and has excellent documentation. After installation it is extremely minimal, coming with a relatively bare set of applications to keep it functioning. Using the documentation to make small decisions for yourself like which photo viewer or paint app to install feels empowering. Having all those splinters from Windows disappear at once and be replaced with a system that feels both personal and trustworthy does, in a weird way, kind of border on an almost religious experience. You can laugh, but these are the tools that a lot of us live our daily lives on, for both work and play. Removing a bloated corporation from that chain of trust does feel liberating.
As to why particularly Arch? I think it's just that level of control. I admit it's not for everyone, but again, if you're at least somewhat technically inclined, I absolutely believe it can be a great first distro, especially for learning. Ubuntu has made some bad decisions recently, but even before that, I always found myself tinkering with every install until it became some sort of Franken-Debian monster. And I like pacman way better than apt, fight me, nerds.
Arch has a very in-depth wiki that's the go-to resource for a lot of Linux users, and it offers a community-driven way to have access to literally anything that's ever landed on Linux ever through the AUR. It's also nice to have an OS that you never have to reinstall (assuming all things go well).
Why that turned into such a cult-meme is anyone's guess though.
About 10 years ago it was The Distro for first time linux users to prove they were a True Linux Enjoyer. Think a bunch of channers bragging about how they are the true linux master race because they edited a grub config.
Before Arch that role belonged to Gentoo. Since then that role has transitioned to NixOS who aren't nearly as toxic but still culty. "Way of the future" etc.
All three of have high bars of entry so everyone has to take pride in the effort they put in to learn how to install their distro. Like getting hazed into a frat except you actually learn something.
The Ubuntu hatred is completely unrelated. That has to do with them being a corporate distro that keep making bad design decisions. And their ubiquity means everyone has to deal with their bad decisions. (snap bad)
This is it mostly for sure. I used to be that True Linux Enjoyer. I still install arch sometimes but I only ever use an arch-derived distribution now that comes with an installer. I already feel like there’s not enough time in the day without having to manually copy files off a USB stick
I have a similar need for a "niche" install. I need Arch for it. I'm doing a laptop installation with LUKS2, TPM2, Secure Boot, systemd-boot with UKI, BTFRS, Apparmor and it has a Oculink eGPU dock station.
Last time I used EndeavourOS, I managed to get the graphical installer to install BTRFS on LUKS, it did require custom partitioning in the graphical installer, snapper just worked after that.
Zram (or was it Zswap?) was pretty easy to enable after installatiok
The bootloader might be beyond what the graphical installer can do though... I never really bothered switching...
To add, before the change the Gentoo wiki was a top resource when it came to Linux questions. Even if you didn't use Gentoo you could find detailed information on how various parts of Linux worked.
One day the Gentoo wiki died. It got temporary mirrors quickly, but it took a long time to get up and working again. This left a huge opening for another wiki, the Arch wiki, to become the new top resource.
I suspect, for a number of reasons, Arch was always going to replace Gentoo as the "True Linux Explorer", but the wiki outage accelerated it.
And here I am, just planning on going to Mint or something whenever win 10 support finally actually ends. I had Ubuntu like 15 years ago for a while, but I'm at a point where I want to do less learning about my operating system.
The way I see it, you can have an OS that breaks less often and is hard to fix, or an OS that breaks a little more often that is easy to fix. I choose the latter. 99/100 times, when something breaks with an update, it's on the front page of archlinux.org with a fix.
The problems I've faced with other distros or windows is the solution is often "reinstall, lol", which is like a 3 hour session of nails on a chalkboard for me.
How user friendly is the installation process? I've never tried, so I don't know. I'm curious now; just based on how people talk about it, I always perceived it as as distro that requires a lot of technical knowledge to use like Gentoo, which I unsuccessfully tried to install way back in 2010. I'm more knowledgeable and patient these days, so I may be able to work with arch.
You can use archinstall and it is dummy simple. Just have another computer or phone around to look things up and go down the menu like a checklist. My admittedly limited arch experience has so far been "run archinstall, use pacman to install tools as I run into things I'd like to have". I have a Framework 16 with the built in GPU, I imagine some hardware complicates this process but just look stuff up it's all out there unless you're on some really wild hardware. Even without archinstall you can follow the arch wiki and you're basically replicating what the tool does but using the wiki as your checklist and needing to type more
Well, Ubuntu uses Snap, which is a rather poor packaging solution that basically no other distro has adopted. By default it's a little bloated, it's made some controversial decisions (rust coreutils), and other distros just do what Ubuntu does better (like Mint)
People that got into Linux when most of the main distributions were easier to install than windows in most cases. Some people wanted to show off that they can install a Linux like it was when we did it back in the 90s for some reason I still don't understand till this day. I do like their wiki though. Works great for debian as well as arch.
I've been a slackware user since the late 90s. I take for granted how easy it is to install today. I've been tinkering with a socket 7 build, and nothing is easy. Installing slackware 8 is a pain in the ass. I can't even get half my hardware working on win95! It's not like riding a bicycle.
It's funny because I see the same cult behavior, but for Fedora. I've never understood the point of this distribution that has never worked well for me.
I'm on Manjaro by the way, because I love everything about Arch except the release style.
Funnily enough, I feel the opposite. Manjaro never worked reliably for me, but Fedora works great for my use case. Is it perfect? Fuck if I know. But it's a good, no-nonsense, extremely low maintenance, super reliable distro that I use daily with zero issues.
Also, they pioneered the atomic distro concept that has amazing use cases, and some fantastic projects are based on this technology. My gaming PC runs Bazzite for a zero-maintenance, immediate gaming experience. My dads laptop runs Bluefin and he hasn't broken it yet, and he's capable of breaking every single OS.
That said, never heard of fedora being a cult at all. Hell I feel it gets far less recognition than it should honestly for being cutting edge and stable.
But you're still getting updates every day, just two weeks later than Arch. The "testing" is just two other branches somewhat closer to the Arch package releases.
I'm using Fedora, but I'm not going to say it's my favorite. I liked MX and OpenSUSE a lot. Just had a hard time with running them on a computer. Fedora just worked out the box.
When I got fed up with windows 8.1 (and windows update bricked it), I first used ubuntu. How well or not it worked depended on the version. In version 19 it got some ugly white message boxes. I searched for how to change their color and found an angry dev saying no you cant change that. This was the final bullshit. Then I switched to arch, which lets me choose how my stuff looks and doesn't have the whole 3/4 versions are buggy thing. It works and ubuntu does not.
Arch is amazing for what it is, hence the love. It’s what you make of it; by default there’s nothing and you design your own system from scratch. This leads to a very passionate and enthusiastic community who do great work for one another, for everybody’s benefit. Anything under the sun can be found in the AUR, the distro repos are fresh and reliable, and every issue that arises has a hundred people documenting the fix before it’s patched.
Ubuntu has a bad reputation for inconsistency, privacy invasive choices, etc. I don’t think all the hate is deserved, as they corrected course after the Amazon search fiasco, but I still won’t use it because of Snaps. They have a proprietary backend, so even if I wanted to put up with their other strange design decisions I can’t unless I wanted closed source repos. That goes against my whole philosophy and reasoning for being on Linux to begin with, and many feel the same.
Normal people who use Arch don't bring it up much, because they're all sick of the memes and are really, REALLY tired of immediately being called rude elitist neckbeard cultists every time they mention it.
The Ubuntu hate is because Canonical has a long history of making weird, controversial decisions that split the Linux community for no good reason.
Unity would be the first example, and although Unity was actually a good DE, it was too bloated and almost non-modifiable.
People jumped ship to Linux Mint that had its priorities straight.
Mir and Snap were bigger issues though as Wayland and Flatpak were great replacements for X11 and AppImage and did not need another competitor.
But the privacy issues were the straw that broke the camel's back. People left windows for linux so they wouldn't have to deal with this kind of nonsense.
I actually jumped when Ubuntu jumped to Gnome 3. Gnome 3 was too bloated for me and it looked ugly.
I decided to see what Arch Linux was about and eventually settled for Manjaro Linux. Arch + Xfce for the win.
I left Ubuntu after Unity, it could have been the greatest thing ever, but Canonical deciding what was best for me felt too much like Microsoft just shoving whatever garbage they wanted to my system.
I'm quite experienced in Linux but I wouldn't use either. Arch is great if you like to tinker, Ubuntu sucks for the not so libre approach , corporate ties, telemetry etc. I distrohopped before but today I just install my debian based distro and shit works.. Ubuntu I've installed twice before when I was new to Linux, and have had a major issues every time due to official updates that broke internet drivers and other things, that's a fun one when you only have one PC . Not to mention its so bloated that shitty computers that I like to thinker with it have a hard time catching up. The arch thing is also mostly a kind of meme, targeting the more unbearable nerds. People I hated when I was a noob (they will let you know you are) But they are found everywhere and in general I don't think there's more of those people in arch community than anywhere else. It's more of a stab at elitism than arch specifically.
I feel like it isn't really specific to arch, every distro has a following, but some are more "passionate" about it than others. I think arch, NixOS, and gentoo are the most notable.
It has: - a great wiki - many packages, enough for anything you want to do - its the only distros that is beetween everything done for you and gentoo-like fuck you. - and the Memes.
pacman, seriously, I don't hear enough of how great pacman is. Being able to search easily for files within a package is a godsend when some app refuses to work giving you an error message "lib_obscure.so.1 cannot be found". I haven't had such issues in a long time, but when I do, I don't have to worry about doing a ten hour search, if I'm lucky, for where this obscure library file is supposed to be located and in what package it should be part of.
rolling release. Non-rolling Ubuntu half-year releases have broken my OS in the past around 33% of the time. And lots of apps in the past had essential updates I needed, but required me to wait 5 months for the OS to catch up.
Hmm, finding what package a file is in is absolutely possible on Ubuntu/Debian too. You can use the online Ubuntu/Debian packages search, or use apt-file.
"I run Arch btw" became a meme because until install scripts became commonplace you had to have a reasonable understanding of the terminal and ability to read and follow instructions to install Arch Linux to a usable state. "Look at my l33t skills."
Dislike of Ubuntu comes from Canonical...well...petting the cat backwards. They go against the grain a lot. They're increasingly corporate, they did a sketchy sponsorship thing with Amazon at one point, around ten years ago they were in the midst of this whole "Not Invented Here" thing; all tech had to be invented in-house, instead of systemd they made and abandoned Upstart, instead of working on Wayland they pissed away time on Mir, instead of Gnome or KDE they made Unity, and instead of APT they decided to build Snap. Which is the one they're still clinging to.
For desktop users there are a lot better distros than Ubuntu these days.
I left Ubuntu for Arch because I got sick of Arch having everything I wanted and Ubuntu taking ages to finally get it. I was tired of compiling shit all the time just to keep up to date.
Honestly glad I made the change, too. Arch has been so much better all around. Less bloat and far fewer problems.
I installed arch before there was the official install script. It's not that is was THAT difficult, but it does provide a great sense of accomplishment, you learn a lot, customize everything, and you literally only install things you know you want. (Fun story: I had to start over twice: the first time I forgot to install sudo, the second I forgot to install the package needed to have an internet connection)
All of this combined mean that the users have a sense of pride for being an arch user so they talk about it more that the rest. There is no pride in clicking your way though an installer that makes all the choices for you
IMO Despite some unjustified rumors Arch is a very stable distro. For me it feels the same as Debian stability wise while still being on the cutting edge side. The Arch wiki is the second most important reason.
The problem there is that stable vs unstable distro uses a slightly different meaning of the word stable than you would use to talk about a stable vs unstable system.
In distro speak, a stable distro is one that changes very little over time, and an unstable one is one that changes constantly. That's sort of tangentially related to reliability, in that if your system is reliable and doesn't change then it's likely to stay that way, but it's not the same thing as reliability.
I think Arch is so popular because its considered a middle of the road distro. Even if not exactly true, Ubuntu is seen as more of a pre-packaged distro. Arch would be more al a carte with what you are actually running. I started with Slackware back in the day when everything was a lot more complicated to get setup, and there was even then this notation that ease of access and customization were separate and you can't have both. Either the OS controls everything and its easy or you control everything and its hard. To some extent that's always going to be true, but there's no reason you can't or shouldn't try to strike a balance between the two. I think Arch fits nicely into that space.
I also wouldn't use the term "cultists" as much as "aholes". If you've ever been on the Arch forums you know what I'm talking about. There is a certain kind of dickish behavior that occurs there, but it somewhat is understandable. A lot of problems are vaguely posted (several times over) with no backing logs or info to determine anything. Just "Something just happened. Tell me how to fix it?". And on top of that, those asking for help refuse to read the wiki or participate in the problem solving. They just want an online PC repair shop basically.
I'm not sure either. I think arch used to be one of the less popular distros (because of the more involved install process, solved now by the arch-based distros with friendly installers), despite having some of the best features, so it required more "evangelism", that's unecessary now. Arch-based distros are now some of the most popular ones, so its not necessary.
Others have commented on why its so great, but the AUR + Rolling releases + stability means that arch is one of the "stable end states". You might hop around a lot, but its one of the ones you end up landing on, and have no reason to change from.
That is the main reason I use Arch. I am not a Linux expert but I am able to solve most of my problems reading the wiki. I used to use Ubuntu and Mint but those ended with me copy pasting stuff into the terminal and not really learning anything. When I switched back to Linux this time I went with Arch.
Because there are still people who have not yet seen the light. Once everyone has joined the fold they will not be able to remember why anyone resisted in the first place.
There are a lot of different reasons that people hate Ubuntu. Most of them Not great reasons.
Ubuntu became popular by making desktop Linux approachable to normal people. Some of the abnormal people already using Linux hated this.
In November 2010, Ubuntu switched from GNOME as their default desktop to Unity. This made many users furious.
Then in 2017, Ubuntu switched from Unity to Gnome. This made many users furious.
There's also a graveyard of products and services that infuriated users when canonical started them, then infuriated users when they discontinued them.
And the Amazon "scandal".
And then there's the telemetry stuff.
Meanwhile. Arch has always been the bad boy that dares you to love him... unapproachable and edgy.
Nix is great but not the saving grace I thought it would be. I daily it. Like it. Run cinnamon coming from Mint. But to be fair. It takes real effort and time to setup your config file, comment it thoroughly and then master the system. Once it's fully automated backups and all you can hop machine to machine and it's like you never left your OG machine. There's pros and cons for sure.
If there was a simple Debian based distro that I could declaratively manage via a single config file, I think I'd try it. I.e. not using Puppet or Chef that can only bootstrap a system state, but something to truly manage a system's entire life cycle, including removing packages and anything littering the system file tree. But since there isn't, I'm using NixOS instead.
Having a DSL to declare my entire system install, that I can revision control like any other software project, has been convenient for self documenting my setup and changes/fixes over time. Modularizing that config has been great for managing multiple host machines synchronously, so both my laptop and desktop feel the same without extra admin work.
Nixpkgs also bolsters a lot of bleeding edge releases for the majority of FOSS packages I use, which I'm still getting used to. And because of how the packaging works, it's also trivial to config the packages to build from customer sources or with custom features. E.g. enabling load monitoring for Nvidia GPUs from btop that many distros don't ship by default.
I've started with ubuntu/mint and it was always a matter of time before something broke then i tried everything from then all the major distros and found that I loved being on a rolling release with openSUSE Tubleweed (gaming and most new software works better) and BTRFS on Fedora (BTRFS let's you have boot time snapshots you can go back to if anything breaks).
After some research I found I can get both with arch so installed arch as a learning process via the outstanding wiki and have never looked back. Nowadays I just install endevourOS because it's just an arch distro with easy BTRFS setup and easy gui installer was almost exactly like my custom arch cofigs and it uses official arch repos so you update just like arch (unlike manjaro). It's been more stable than windows 10 for me.
Tldr: arch let's you pick exactly what you want in a distro and is updated with the latest software something important if you game with nvidia GPU for example.
I had moved from Slackware to Debian but by 2004 the long release cycles of Debian were making it very hard to use any Debian with current hardware or desktop environments. I was using Sid and dealing with the breakages. Ubuntu promised a reskinned Debian with 6 month release cycles synced to Gnome. Then they over delivered with a live cd and easy installation and it was a deserved phenomenon. I very enthusiastically installed Warty Warthog. Even bought some merch.
When Ubuntu launched it was promoted as a community distro, "humanity towards others" etc despite being privately funded. Naked people holding hands. Lots of very good community outreach etc.
The problem for Ubuntu was it wasn't really a community distro at all. It was Canonical building on the hard work of Debian volunteers. Unlike Redhat, Canonical had a bad case of not invented here projects that never got adopted elsewhere like upstart, unity, mir, snaps and leaving their users with half-arsed experiments that then got dropped. Also Mint exists so you can have the Ubuntu usability enhancements of Debian run by a community like Debian. I guess there is a perception now that Ubuntu is a mid corpo-linux stuck between two great community deb-based systems so from the perspective of others in the Linux community a lot of us don't get why people would use it.
Arch would be just another community distro but for a lot of people they got the formula right. Great documentation, reasonably painless rolling release, and very little deviation from upstream. Debian maintainers have a very nasty habit of adding lots of patches even to gold standard security projects from openbsd . They broke ssh key generation. Then they linked ssh with systemd libs making vulnerable to a state actor via the xz backdoor. Arch maintainers don't do this bullshit.
Everything else is stereotypes. Always feeling like you have to justify using arch, which is a very nice stable, pure linux experience, just because it doesn't have a super friendly installer. Or having to justify Ubuntu which just works for a lot of people despite it not really being all that popular with the rest of the linux community.
I don't really understand either. Where are the Gentoo and LFS elitists? It seams like there should be more of those than arch elitests. Maybe it's just because more people use arch.
Ok, I think I can provide some insight into this that I think it's missed on other replies.
I switched to Arch back when Arch had an installer, yup, that's right, Arch used to have an installer, then they removed it and you had to do most of the process manually (yes, I know pacstrap is technically an installer, but I'm talking about the original ncurses installer here).
After Arch removed its installer it began to attract more purists, and with that the meme was born, people online would be discussing stuff and someone would explain something simple and the other would reply with "I use arch BTW", which meant you didn't need to explain trivial stuff because the person had a good idea on how their system works.
Then Arch started to suffer from being too good of a distro, see those of us that were using it consistently saw posts with people complaining about issues on their distros that never affected us, so a sort of "it doesn't happen on my distro" effect started to grow, putting that together with the excellent wiki that people were linking left and right (even for non Arch users) and lots of people became interested.
This new wave of users was relatively new to Linux, they thought that by following a tutorial and running a couple of command lines when installing arch they had become complete experts in Linux, and they saw the "I use Arch btw" replies and thought they meant "I know more than you because I use Arch", so they started to repeat that. And it became common to see posts with people being L337 H4ck3r5 with no clue whatsoever using "I use Arch btw".
That's when the sort of cult mentality formed, you had experienced people who liked Arch because it was a good distro that didn't break on its own with good documentation to help when you screw up, these people suffered a bit from this and told newbies that they should use Arch. Together with that you had the other group who thought because they installed Arch they were hackers telling people Arch was waaaay too hard, and that only true Linux experts should use it. From the outside this must have felt that we were hiding something, you had several people telling you to come to our side or they couldn't help you, or pointing at documentation that looked specific for their distro, and others saying you weren't cool enough for it probably felt like a cult recruiting.
At the end of the day Arch is a very cool distro, I've tried lots of them but prefer Arch because it's a breeze to maintain in the long run. And the installation process is not something you want to throw at a person who just wants to install Linux to check it out, but it's also not complicated at all. There are experts using Ubuntu or other "noob" distros because at the end of the day it's all the same under the hood, using Arch will not make you better at Linux, it will just force you to learn basic concepts to finish the installation that if you had been using Linux for a while you probably already know them (e.g. fstab or locale).
As for Ubuntu, part of it stems from the same "I use Arch btw" guys dumping on Ubuntu for being "noob", other part is because Canonical has a history of not adoption community stuff and instead try to develop their own thing, also they sent your search queries to Amazon at some point which obviously went very badly for their image in the community.
I used Ubuntu as my first distro out of curiosity sometime around 2006. I've tried others (Mint, Pop OS, Debian, Fedora) but mostly settled with Ubuntu because it was just kind of ok for me and as another user said, there was a lot of articles that helped with getting things working because it became popular.
I had heard of Arch and to your point the it's complicated thing very much kept me away from it even though I have been using computers for around 30 years and was comfortable using a terminal.
The other thing is gaming, I consistently had problems with the nvidia cards that I've had over the years and never really cared to dig into trying to get things to work so Linux was kind of my testing ground for other things and just general learning about how things work.
Then I finally just had enough of Windows a couple of years ago, and with gaming support getting better I went back to Ubuntu and it just didn't feel good, I wanted something different that was setup how I wanted it so I looked into Arch.
I tried a couple of times to manually install it but my attention span (ADHD) kept me from focusing on the documentation enough to actually learn what I was doing. In comes the archinstall script, it was basic enough for me to follow and understand to get my system up and running.
I went through roughly 3-4 installs using it and testing stuff after I had it running and breaking stuff and just doing a fresh install since the script made it very easy. Since then I have learned a good bit more, and honestly don't think I will ever use another distro for my desktop. Just the ability to make it exactly what you want and things just work. Not to mention the documentation is massive and the AUR is awesome.
I do use Pop OS on my wife's laptop since it decided to automatically upgrade to W11 which crippled it and I just wanted something that I could just drop on there that would work with no real configuration since the only thing it needs is Citrix which works ootb and she can use all her office tools through that and has libre office if she wants to do something locally.
I do have a separate drive with W11 on my desktop, its used for one thing, SolidWorks. Which I use enough to merit having windows.
Arch was and still kind of is seen as the "I use Arch BTW" crowd, but it really shouldn't be that way. The install script isn't fancy, but it works. I think that would be one of the biggest barriers to break that mindset and open it to more people that are still fresh to Linux. I think that having even the most basic "GUI" for installing Arch would do wonders.
I don't use either now. I have tried both. When I started with Ubuntu i was great; fast, light, all the good stuff. Then it started to get bloated and wouldn't run on my old machine... So I moved to Arch and it saved me and I used it for years.
My way of thinking and working is incompatible with most premade automatism, it utterly confuses me when a system is doing something on its own without me configuring it that way.
That's why I have issues with many of the "easy" distributions like Ubuntu. Those want to be to helpful for my taste. Don't take me wrong, I am not against automatism or helper tools/functions, not at all. I just want to have full knowledge and full control of them.
I used Gentoo for years and it was heaven for me, the possibility to turn every knob exactly like I wanted them to be was so great, but in the end was the time spend compiling everything not worth it.
That's why I changed to Arch Linux. The bare bone nature of the base install and the high flexibility of pacman and the AUR are ideal for me. I love that Arch is not easy, that it doesn't try to anticipate what I want to do. If something happens automatically it is because I configured the system do behave that way.
Ubuntu? Its a can't make up its mind what it is trying to be while always becoming a crashy mess. When it first came out I remember trying it and immediately broke it.
The last time I installed it recently it had issues out of the box.
So I love Debian but it prides itself on stability so packages tend to be older. I think this is good for a server but probably not great for a desktop. Ubuntu came along and was like we'll be like Debian but newer packages. Everything was cool for a while but then they started doing shitty things. The first that I can think of was ads in the terminal. This was not great for an open source app. Then when you did apt install firefox it installed Firefox as a snap. WTF?!?!? (apt should install .deb files, not snaps). Because of this, lately I've decided to avoid Ubuntu.
I used Gentoo for a while and it was great but configuring and compiling everything took forever. I'm getting too old for that. Arch seems like a good alternative for people who want to mess with their system. So it's become a way for people to claim they know what they are doing without having to recompile everything. (Note: I haven't used Arch, this is just my perception)
Recently I got a new laptop and I had decided to put Linux on it and had to decide what distro. Arch was in consideration but I ended up going with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed because it's got the latest but I don't really have to configure anything. If I had more time, I might go with something like Arch but I don't really want to do that much fiddling right now.
I wonder if it's just me or if other people who were around before Ubuntu feel the same way but the reason I hate Ubuntu is that it seemed to take over the Linux world.
A lot of the information about how to do something in Linux was drowned out by how to do it in Ubuntu. When searching for information you have to scroll down in the search results for something that sounds unrelated to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu material was often titled "how to do it in Linux" and you thought you had a good long tutorial until you read a few paragraphs in and realized it was for Ubuntu and wouldn't work for you for whatever reason.
Even some software that says it's available on Windows and Linux just means they have a Ubuntu package and if you're really good there's a chance you might be able to figure out how to use it on a non Ubuntu system.
It's like when Ubuntu came out, people just assumed that Linux was Ubuntu. I've never used Ubuntu so a lot of the information I've came across regarding it has just been in the way of me finding useful information.
Arch has a cult like following because it emphasizes simplicity and customizability. If you have the time to fully administer your own system, there is no better choice.
Ubuntu is corporate, frequently out of date, and sometimes incompetent. They got big a long time ago when they were a significantly easier option than their competitors, but I really don't think there's compelling reason for a new user to install Ubuntu today.
To add to the arch management, after a while you learn the golden rule - set it and don't fiddle with it too much. Nowadays there is very little maintenance to it. I run an update followed by shutdown. Once every 2-3 months there is some issue, that takes a forum search to fix and once a year it breaks to the level where I need about half an hour to an hour to fix it.
Maybe it's masochism, but I like Arch because it forces me to make mistakes and learn. No default DE, several network management choices, lots of configuration for non-defaults. These are all decisions I have to make, and if I try to cut corners I usually get punished for it.
However, I think the real reason I stick with arch is because this paradigm means that I always feel capable of fixing issues. As people solve the issues they face, forum posts and wiki articles (and sometimes big fixes) get pushed out, and knowledge is shared. That sense of community and building on something I feel like Arch promotes.
For me, Ubuntu is ugly as all hell and comes with so much I dont need. It also ran slow on the first machine I ever installed it on. I like Arch because I got my feet wet there. It was my classroom.
The Arch users being so vocal is more of a trope to me. Never fails to make me smile.
Ubuntu started as a great endeavour. They made Linux much more approachable to the less tech inclined user.
It is an achievement to get a distro capable of basically work out of the box that hides the hard/technical stuff under the hood and delivers a working machine, and they did it and popularized Linux in the process.
Unfortunately, they abused the good faith they garnered. The Amazon partnership, their desktop that nobody really enjoyed, the Snap push. These are the ones I was made aware of but I risk there were more issues.
I was a user of Ubuntu for less than six months. Strange as it may sound, after trying SUSE and Debian, when I actively searched for a more friendly distro, I rolled back to Debian exactly because Ubuntu felt awkward.
Ubuntu is still a strong contributor but unless they grow a spine and actually create a product people will want to pay for, with no unpopular or weird options on the direction the OS "must" take, they won't get much support from the wide user community.
I don't know if that ever was true but I definitely disagree with that nowadays because Arch is in my opinion significantly more approachable and easier to daily-drive than Gentoo.
I have to use Zoom for a online class and I was wondering how I can make my Zoom experience more private? Is there a Zoom client that I can use like how there are privacy-focused Discord clients? What privacy tips would you recommend?
Not much really. Separate profile on your machine or run it in a VM. Then maybe use a vpn. But that doesn’t really hide anything from zoom itself. Maybe use a throwaway email.
I refuse to use the Zoom client on my computer and instead use the web client. There might not be 1:1 feature parity, but it's never been a problem for me with other people.
That being said, they did just send an unrequested marketing notification to my phone out of the blue... So might have to look elsewhere tbh 🤷♂️
always.
geneva_convenience
in reply to Davriellelouna • • •SkyezOpen
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience doesn't like this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to SkyezOpen • • •