Let's Discuss Operative Systems

[JackFrost]

I kinda have a dilemma where I want to switch to Linux but I don't really have a reason to? I don't really know how to explain it, its to seem more smart? Like I constantly hear Linux users acting like they're better and like I wanna be better too! All the stuff I use doesn't work on it tho so I'm kinda stuck using windows, feeling bad about it, switching to Linux, hating it, and switching back. Any advice? I tried fedora linux but didn't really like it all too much. Someone said to switch to Arch but I don't really trust that guy, Ill explain it later.

[Icey!]

I kinda have a dilemma where I want to switch to Linux but I don't really have a reason to? I don't really know how to explain it, its to seem more smart? Like I constantly hear Linux users acting like they're better and like I wanna be better too! All the stuff I use doesn't work on it tho so I'm kinda stuck using windows, feeling bad about it, switching to Linux, hating it, and switching back. Any advice? I tried fedora linux but didn't really like it all too much. Someone said to switch to Arch but I don't really trust that guy, Ill explain it later.

You shouldn't feel bad about using Windows, it's just that some people puffer something else. However even with that said I do have some tips about switching:

1. The distro that you end up with doesn't matter much as you can customize it. (Note: Many distros tend to be just Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, or Fedora but with tweaks that can be easily done by just using the terminal. But some of these "second hand distros" for a lack of a better word are handy if you want a better "out of the box" experience. for example: Nobara, Pop OS, etc.)
2. If you still want to use Windows while trying out Linux, use a unused computer or Virtual Machine. (Note: If you have a spare desktop or laptop lying around you can use that to try Linux out, or you can use a VM like VirtualBox.)
3. The live preview is your friend. (Note: You know that live preview you get when you boot to a Linux install? It's recommended to test things first in there to get a feel for the distro before installing it.)
4. Wine is very useful for gaming. (Note: if you game a lot, using Wine or Steam's built-in Proton is very handy for playing Windows only games. But be mindful that this does require some tinkering for some titles or it might just not work for others.)
5. If you are a beginner do not use Arch, get familiar with Linux first.

If Linux just ends up being not for you then that's ok! Even I still use Windows from time to time.

[JackFrost]

You shouldn't feel bad about using Windows, it's just that some people puffer something else.

Its not really as much as I feel bad about it, its that I want to feel better than people who don't use it.

2. If you still want to use Windows while trying out Linux, use a unused computer or Virtual Machine. (Note: If you have a spare desktop or laptop lying around you can use that to try Linux out, or you can use a VM like VirtualBox.)
3. The live preview is your friend. (Note: You know that live preview you get when you boot to a Linux install? It's recommended to test things first in there to get a feel for the distro before installing it.)

Why didn't I think about that! Now I really gotta try again with that information! Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into it after all. Ill try things more slowly.

5. If you are a beginner do not use Arch, get familiar with Linux first.

You see, I kinda already know that and still want to use it. Its not really about usability, as much as it is doing things win users cant do. Granted, I cant do it either but that's besides the point.

Some guy on soulseek got me into thinking about this. He believed that I should be ashamed for using Windows, not because of the spyware but because "big corporations use it and its not free." I both pirated it, and debloated it. Yeah his entire argument is that McDonalds cash registers use win 98 which makes me a bad person. Obviously I don't believe that, but its still really funny to me someone actually thinks that.

Also that guy thought I shouldn't use mp3s, not because of compression or it sounds different, but instead because its somehow disrespectful to the artists and they would get mad (Btw none of said musicians know I'm using mp3s) because the file type is not "keeping the artistic vision" Reminder that he's not saying it sounds worse, but the file ending is rude somehow, and if I renamed my .mp3s to .flacs, it would be ok.

Anyways I just thought of something while typing this, why are linux users so pretentious and think they're better than windows users? Idk why I haven't thought of that despite it being the entire reason why I want to switch. I'm not the sharpest too in the shed 

[Icey!]

Anyways I just thought of something while typing this, why are linux users so pretentious and think they're better than windows users? Idk why I haven't thought of that despite it being the entire reason why I want to switch. I'm not the sharpest too in the shed 

My best guess comes from the fact that Linux is best experienced with "as much FOSS software as you can", anything proprietary that is on your distro is a stability and security risk because no one can check the code to quickly fix bugs that might end up breaking something crucial and no one can check the code for "backdoors" like spyware. This "mob-mentality" against proprietary software immediately gets many Linux Users "distasted" by anything that doesn't have it's source code open.

Some guy on soulseek got me into thinking about this. He believed that I should be ashamed for using Windows, not because of the spyware but because "big corporations use it and its not free." I both pirated it, and debloated it. Yeah his entire argument is that McDonalds cash registers use win 98 which makes me a bad person. Obviously I don't believe that, but its still really funny to me someone actually thinks that.

Also that guy thought I shouldn't use mp3s, not because of compression or it sounds different, but instead because its somehow disrespectful to the artists and they would get mad (Btw none of said musicians know I'm using mp3s) because the file type is not "keeping the artistic vision" Reminder that he's not saying it sounds worse, but the file ending is rude somehow, and if I renamed my .mp3s to .flacs, it would be ok.

Lmao

[Memory]

[removed by author]

[starbreaker]

I kinda have a dilemma where I want to switch to Linux but I don't really have a reason to? I don't really know how to explain it, its to seem more smart?

TL;DR: don't switch yet; try it in a virtual machine first or get a shell account on sdf.org or some other pubnix if you want to try a UNIX environment.

As somebody who's been using Linux since 1998, I'd like to suggest that you don't have to switch, especially if you just want other people to think you're smart. In fact, I think that's one of the worst reasons to do anything, but that's because my parents got it into their heads that I was the second coming of Albert fucking Einstein because I managed to teach myself to read before I got into kindergarten (whoop-de-fuckin-doo!) and the only thing I got praised for was my intellect.

Outside of academia, nobody really gives a shit how smart you are as long as you exceed the "not a schmuck" baseline. The baseline can be different depending on the social circle, workplace, etc, but there generally isn't much upside to exceeding it by too large a margin.

Like I constantly hear Linux users acting like they're better and like I wanna be better too!

They aren't better. Their shit stinks as much as yours does. But they've probably gotten a lot of grief in the past for using an operating system that isn't what the majority of people use, and projecting a sense of superiority can be a useful defense mechanism. Don't fall for it.

All the stuff I use doesn't work on it tho so I'm kinda stuck using windows, feeling bad about it, switching to Linux, hating it, and switching back. Any advice? I tried fedora linux but didn't really like it all too much. Someone said to switch to Arch but I don't really trust that guy, Ill explain it later.

Like I said before, you don't have to switch. Back in the day people in your situation used to set up dual-boot environments, where you could choose which OS to use when starting your computer. But that was a complicated setup, easy to foul up (especially because Windows expects to be able to monopolize a computer), and necessarily mainly because PCs weren't powerful enough for virtualization until relatively recently so you had to run your other OS on bare metal.

In your case, however, you could try using Windows Subsystem for Linux or install VirtualBox. You could also get a shell account on a public Linux server in the tildeverse or, if you want to try a different UNIX environment like NetBSD, get a shell account on http://sdf.org/.

Or, if you've got a little spare cash, why not get a second computer? It doesn't have to be uber-powerful or brand new; you can probably get a decent refurbished desktop or laptop for less than $200 and try Linux on that. Or, if Raspberry Pis are available at a reasonable price, get one of those. Or a single-board computer or laptop from PINE64.

As for which Linux to use: I'd suggest starting with one of the OGs: Slackware or Debian. They're both really old-school; Slackware has no GUI installation, and they both demand at least a little skill with the command line, but having that skill will serve you in good stead because UNIX is the lingua franca of the internet. Arch isn't terrible, but it's also kind of a meme distro that edgy Linux d00dz brag about using. It doesn't really offer much that you can't get with other distributions.

[starbreaker]

i've seen this too, especially on IRC.
FWIW: i'm a Linux user, i use tinycore.
i turn on my laptop when i need to, and i get a command line... and that's it.
that works for me, but that wouldn't work for a lot of people. to each their own.

I've seen this too. For some reason techies are especially prone to tribalism and holy wars. Back in the day you had your UNIX people against your VMS people, UNIX people vs Windows people, UNIX and Windows people vs Mac people, etc. And there's always the classic editor wars: vi vs Emacs, vi and Emacs vs Visual Studio Code, etc.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't pathetic, because a lot of techies pride themselves on their rationality even though their ideal of rationality is basically pretending to be a Vulcan from Star Trek.

it sounds vague and unhelpful, but if i started my Linux experience all over i would probably offer myself
advice that past me would decline: learn things yourself by the book and through experimentation;
only ask people things when you absolutely need to.

I think this is a good way to learn operating systems or programming. But it worked for me, so I'm biased.

ironically: the same way i learnt to code; and like coding, i used to struggle with obsession, something
@starbreaker exceptionally summarized here.

Thanks. I still struggle with obsession myself.

why does Linux have to be this interactive grindstone which you grind your nose on, become hateful of
any other operating system, and then persecute folks using other things because you approached things in
a bad way?

It shouldn't have to be like that, but a lot of people make it like that, which is unfortunate.

my distro came with a book, something i'm still yet to finish
reading. but it describes the basics of using tinycore within the first couple of chapters.

I just skimmed the TOC for that manual, and there's a lot of stuff that might not be relevant for your use case. For example, you probably aren't planning to repackage TinyCore or build your own TinyCore-based distribution. And that's perfectly fine.

Also, that manual reminds me of the printed manuals that used to come with SuSE Linux when SuSE would put out boxed sets of their distro on multiple CDs. I had SuSE Linux 6.3 back in the day, and its manual taught me a lot. Some of it's still relevant, too.

i guess if you have the means to try Linux and want to, then go for it, but do it in a way that authentically
aligns with the way you learn and have fun.

Hell yeah.

[Memory]

You get into Linux for one big reason I think, and that's shown in the little photo in the attachments. My daily choice of operating systems on boot-up: Windows XP or Salix 14.1.
So to have a free alternative, that's why it is worth to get into Linux.

Please let Microsoft Windows not be the last choice we have on computers! The Macs? A bit expensive, aren't they, and similar big company politics as well. However lots of the creatives here on the board will share the experience, that MacOS is worth it and the good programs are helpful.

All I can say is, that every second spent on Linux was well spent. Lots of knowdledge was gained in the process and (no kidding) it led to a job in IT for me.

And one word about the elitist thing: There are lots of things that can be done far better on a Windows machine. In the same way that there were lots of things, that could be done better on an Amiga or Atari machine plenty of years ago.

[urgellx]

Hello,
among the Linux talk i wanted to ask a question.
Why would anyone want Artix instead of Arch or Devuan instead of Debian ?
The Devuan folks talk about init freedom, some talk about bloat, but i just can't seem to understand
what's the problem with systemd outside of it being a large program and its creator being the devil.
I've ran Artix for a few months and it felt pretty limited for anything outside of the most basic
use of an init system, it was quite clunky too. (It was the OpenRC edition).
But even if you have a more basic need than me, would the bloat really be on Systemd ?
Why not choose a more light browser then too ? Wouldn't qute be better than Firefox or Brave too ? I understand
wanting less "bloat" when you have similar features but removing systemd just removes a lot of quality-of-life impr.
that a lot of people probably need. Like journalctl for example. Feels like there's a lot of weird
fears in the tech ecosystem, also how are some people almost hating Wayland when it's just another
tool (that actually works pretty well now, at least for me) that is less weird to use than X11 if you're a thinkerer.

Please enlighten me and have a good day  !

[Icey!]

Hello,
among the Linux talk i wanted to ask a question.
Why would anyone want Artix instead of Arch or Devuan instead of Debian ?
The Devuan folks talk about init freedom, some talk about bloat, but i just can't seem to understand
what's the problem with systemd outside of it being a large program and its creator being the devil.
I've ran Artix for a few months and it felt pretty limited for anything outside of the most basic
use of an init system, it was quite clunky too. (It was the OpenRC edition).
But even if you have a more basic need than me, would the bloat really be on Systemd ?
Why not choose a more light browser then too ? Wouldn't qute be better than Firefox or Brave too ? I understand
wanting less "bloat" when you have similar features but removing systemd just removes a lot of quality-of-life impr.
that a lot of people probably need. Like journalctl for example. Feels like there's a lot of weird
fears in the tech ecosystem, also how are some people almost hating Wayland when it's just another
tool (that actually works pretty well now, at least for me) that is less weird to use than X11 if you're a thinkerer.

Please enlighten me and have a good day  !

The distros are more of a protest against how systemd is designed which goes against a UNIX philosophy. Which is "Do one thing and do it well". Systemd is designed to handle multiple things which angered some users. These alternative init systems are only designed to simply boot the distro nothing else. You won't gain much of an advantage using no systemd. But good if you don't want Systemd and want to use your own tools (a.k.a packages) to replace systemd's feature set which is closer to how UNIX is supposed to be used.

Although I will admit I am currently running fedora which uses systemd. There isn't anything wrong with using systemd it's just that not everyone likes having a "multi job" package when they might not use many of the features.

[starbreaker]

The distros are more of a protest against how systemd is designed which goes against a UNIX philosophy. Which is "Do one thing and do it well". Systemd is designed to handle multiple things which angered some users. These alternative init systems are only designed to simply boot the distro nothing else. You won't gain much of an advantage using no systemd. But good if you don't want Systemd and want to use your own tools (a.k.a packages) to replace systemd's feature set which is closer to how UNIX is supposed to be used.

Apparently systemd still works according to the UNIX philosophy; "systemd" is just a catch-all term for all of the individual tools in this suite.

I've been using distributions that stick to sysvinit because they're good enough for my use case. Also, I've had a lot of bad experiences with distros that rushed into switching to systemd when it wasn't as mature a toolkit and a lot jankier. I tend to start my system and keep it running; it only gets rebooted after a kernel update or a power failure that outlasts my UPS.

[Icey!]

Apparently systemd still works according to the UNIX philosophy; "systemd" is just a catch-all term for all of the individual tools in this suite.

I've been using distributions that stick to sysvinit because they're good enough for my use case. Also, I've had a lot of bad experiences with distros that rushed into switching to systemd when it wasn't as mature a toolkit and a lot jankier. I tend to start my system and keep it running; it only gets rebooted after a kernel update or a power failure that outlasts my UPS.

if that's the case then idk why it's even hated then besides """""""""bloat"""""""""".

[NacreousDreams]

See, as an actual OS, I think Linux is probably my favorite. It's the easiest to navigate since it doesn't hide anything from its user, and as such is also the easiest to customize. I've been using Linux for over a year and a half now, and I can safely say it feels weird and restrictive to go back to Windows now that I have all this raw POWER at my fingertips.

The only problem, for me- and it's a big one- is software. Linux-compatible software is scattershot in how they're installed, and on what distros they can be installed on. AppImages, .deb, .rpm, install from a file, install from console, install by compiling source code, cut your hand and offer blood to the sacrificial rune to install Krita. Meanwhile, The only windows-compatibility software I can get to work is Proton, which is fine but only works with Steam games (and not all of them, at that). I know you can use Wine, but I'm consistently bad at actually using it. I'm not really sure what I need to do to make the software compatible and usable, so it's just like, "what am I doing?"

Frankly, I could invest more time into it and actually learn how to use the software I currently can't. But as someone who uses Linux out of necessity (My college stopped allowing Windows 7 computers access the internet, so I swapped to Linux Mint), and doesn't really care about being better than others, I find it difficult to find resources to help me with my issues when they arise.

With that said, I do really like what Linux offers! The Plasma desktop environment may be one of my favorites in terms of its sheer customization potential, though I do still wish I had even more control over everything. I really dig the security feature where, to install anything, you have to type in your password and confirm "yes, I did want to install that", that's a good security measure. The file system isn't quite intuitive, but it's intuitive enough that once you hear what each folder is for, it sticks in your head pretty easy.

And while the software I may prefer to use isn't always available, there are always alternatives that I can work with. MuseScore, for instance, has become a fine music notation alternative to the likes of Sibelius and Finale, and their 4.0 update is absolutely astonishing. I even uploaded the MIDIs I made back in my music comp major to it just so I could save them with the new MuseSounds library they made, it sounded that good! I've also found fine replacements for a lot of apps I used to use. I don't know how viable they all are for professional work, but for my more casual use, it's A-OK.

[starbreaker]

if that's the case then idk why it's even hated then besides """""""""bloat"""""""""".

Probably because it wasn't offered as a choice in most distros. If you wanted to upgrade to the next version of your distro, you were stuck with systemd; you didn't have the option to continue using sysvinit.

[PurpleHello98]

The thing about Windows that drives me NUTS is the infantilization and complete lack of control.

...

I'd take Mac over Windows any day.

Coming from a Mac user at home since 2018 and at school since before that, in recent years Apple hasn't been much better with that either. The warnings that you get after downloading many programs outside of Apple's App Store if it's not pre-approved, along with the inability to run 32-bit apps and to customize the interface almost at all. You use Apple's few pre-installled abilities, or have to get into some dubious terminal command or whatever to change stuff. There's no Windowblinds equivalent, so if you don't like Apple's workflow than sucks to be you. And in recent years the infantilization has gotten worse when they redesigned everything to look and act like an iPad instead of being purely a real computer experience.

Edit: and on the hardware end, the now complete inability to boot into a non-Apple OS on M(1, 2, 3...) machines since Boot Camp is gone. You get a VM (of an ARM version of Windows, with little compatibility) or squat. On a Windows machine, you can wipe it and replace it with literally any other x86 OS---even, if you're willing to Hackintosh, the Mac OS! I mean, even Chromebooks have Linux.