I was introduced to Linux in the mid 2000s. I hated it, and by "it", I mean everything. Still, every once in a while I'd check it out again and even try it out. If it wasn't Ubuntu it'd be a similar flavor. I still hated it.
Last year I tried installing Arch on a VM for fun. And I actually did have fun to the point it made me want to install it on bare metal, and so I did. Within a week I bricked the system but I had a great time.
Today I still daily drive Arch, haven't bricked it a second time and it's the sole reason why I love Linux now. If you're white and straight, it's great.
I was introduced to Linux in the mid 2000s. I hated it, and by "it", I mean everything. Still, every once in a while I'd check it out again and even try it out. If it wasn't Ubuntu it'd be a similar flavor. I still hated it.
Around that time I was running a dual stack OpenBSD IPv4/v6 w/ thttpd in 64MB just to prove it was possible. Now I've got a multi-layer cached Grav instance w/ nginx in 256MB.
"Pure Arch" implies the wiki guide installation that leaves you in just the CLI. Now add to that:
-Xorg
-any form of WM/DE (i3/Xfce)
-Pipewire
To have a baseline desktop experience and it's gonna be at least twice that. Not to mention any modern web browser, that'll eat another gigabyte just to spin up. As long as it's not a genuinely prehistoric machine with 2-4GB of RAM though, it should be fine.
I have been using Alpine on a 4GB Chromebook, with Pipewire, and it works just fine (the 'DE' is LXDE, which is uh, basically functionally equivalent to using FVWM95 25 years ago anyway).
Of course, I don't have the overhead of using any really awful malware like systemd, as 'Pure Arch' does. There's no reason you can't use modern Linux normally on 4gb of RAM, as long as you have zram and some swap space on something that isn't a SD card when things do overflow slightly.
Yeah... Fedora really does not make an easy case for itself. I would also argue that Fedora's most ardent defenders are arguably its worst exemplars. Fedora's one of those Linux distributions where it comes just shy of being "good enough," and the devil always remains in the details. Either way man, I'm grateful you at least gave it a fair shake.
I tried Fedora exactly once because I heard it was "good for beginners" and the first thing it did on install was have the normie baby GUI partition manager literally eat my windows partition with zero prompting after I had specified that I wanted to dualboot. Thank God I was doing it on a throwaway thinkpad but it immediately turned me off.
I tried Fedora exactly once because I heard it was "good for beginners" and the first thing it did on install was have the normie baby GUI partition manager literally eat my windows partition with zero prompting after I had specified that I wanted to dualboot. Thank God I was doing it on a throwaway thinkpad but it immediately turned me off.
Were you using this? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blivet-gui How did you fuck it up? The partition managers on linux have gotten so advanced and stable I trust them more than the windows disk management tool
For example, I used ubuntu's live CD to repartition and resize a hard drive that has windows xp which took up the entire drive so that I could transfer it to a smaller partition on a smaller SSD drive to dual boot. It worked and now it has a dual boot system with a pre-PAE distro. It uses a puppy linux installed to the other partition and boots from the bios startup or from windows in to the linux partition. Fucking magic.
Is Guh-nome still complete shit? Hoooooooly fuck I hated Guuuh-nome.
I jumped into Linux via ubuntu and I loved it, I actually liked gnomes look too, being a less is more type but the thing just slowly kills itself. I always ended up with leaks or losing the DE randomly on reboot, sometimes unable to get it back (nvidias fault tbf) and the way it runs so janky on scaled x11 just bothered me too much eventually.
Cinnamon was what ultimately ended up as home for me, everything Guuuuuuuuuh-nome did well but stable and running like butter on x11 on a big screen.
I also add that KDE Plasma is complete troon shitware and I have no idea how anyone lasts more than an afternoon on that bag of unpolished turds.
I remembered liking XFCE too, but it scaled pretty poorly.
Xfce is barebones and that's a good thing. It reminds me of Windows 2000 that was peak WinNT. Fuck-all by default, no bullshit, simple customization, does exactly what it needs to do. Sets up a GUI framework for GNU+Linux for you to run the software that you want to run and get out of your way. It comes with a nifty control panel so that you don't have to go through the humiliation ritual of doing things the Unix Way™ whenever you want to do menial shit like adjust your monitor's resolution, it comes with a start menu, a taskbar, what else do you want? If you want to waste your time ricing your DE more than actually using it then you have a metric fuckton of other options to keep your mind off the fact that you'll never be a woman and that you should kill yourself.
Bruh I didn't realize Debian doesn't backport security fixes
Apparently they have a separate repo for security related issues and if you want your system considered stable you don't use that repo at all
I thought that must be wrong id never heard that from Debian people before but no that's the official debian stance given to me by their community admin, who also had to look up how backports worked
Bruh I didn't realize Debian doesn't backport security fixes
Apparently they have a separate repo for security related issues and if you want your system considered stable you don't use that repo at all
I thought that must be wrong id never heard that from Debian people before but no that's the official debian stance given to me by their community admin, who also had to look up how backports worked
This is total nonsense. They backport security fixes from the newer package to the older package according to the FAQ.
Q: The version number for a package indicates that I am still running a vulnerable version!
A: Instead of upgrading to a new release we backport security fixes to the version that was shipped in the stable release. The reason we do this is to make sure that a release changes as little as possible so things will not change or break unexpectedly as a result of a security fix. You can check if you are running a secure version of a package by looking at the package changelog, or comparing its exact version number with the version indicated in the Debian Security Advisory.
