People who expect an effortless transition from Windows to Linux, are better off sticking to Windows. You are expected to be able to read stuff, and make some effort to understand it. It shouldn’t be any less than what you’d expect if going from Linux to Windows.
Many things will be different. You’ll get a long way with learning some fundamentals. If you make the effort, it’ll be well rewarded. If it’s not worth the effort, stick to windows.
This was news to me as well, but I assume that the Arch Linux logo in question suggests that it might be strange to use an Arch Linux specific illustration, for something that isn’t mentioning Arch Linux.
Did that clear it up, or were you just being rude?
Use arch with AUR, and cross your fingers that at least someone checks the changes. I sure don’t.
Last I used Ubuntu, removing snap was a one time thing that took 5 minutes, of which 4 of them was looking for my notes from the time before.
I ditched Ubuntu, but it wasn’t because of snap. Maybe this has changed in the last 3 years?
It saddens me that the best to have compatibility is to never touch MS Office. They are the largest player by far. Subtly removeding up or deviating from open document standards will always be seen as “well, the issue is non MS office”.
Don’t know why you were downvoted. In any case, all terminals can be configured to start with a specific command and arguments. So, depending on your terminal, you might need to read the documentation, and/or search the web.
In alacritty config, this is:
shell:
program: <CMD>
args:
- <ARGS>
Then one of these:
<CMD> is the path to tmux, and you have configured tmux to run the shell of your choice. Search the web for how.<CMD> is the path to your shell, and it supports launching in tmux. Search the web for how.For me, it’s the second one. I use fish, and I launch it with fish --command=tmux. So the above config looks like this:
shell:
program: /usr/bin/fish
args:
- --command=tmux
Alacritty, launching tmux with fish shell. The latter shell could easily have been zsh. But a good and fast terminal w/tmux is such a nice thing to have.
Any time to wish you had bothered with tmux, is when it’s already too late. If you go for this, you’ll never look back.
I suppose. If your criticism is that it could have been more specific as to what you are a supposed “beginner” in, then I agree.
Makes as much sense as saying “I’ll definitely avoid Windows now. I had heard that Windows was supposed to be easy to use”, since most of this also applies to WSL2.
A good answer to “Where to start”, is not likely to be “determine your Linux distro of choice”.
Which isn’t to say that what you’re doing is not a good way help with getting a quick idea of what to expect from the different distros.
But the original question, might be better answered by explaining some concepts instead:
These concepts, IMHO, are much more important, than what distro. Because it gives them the tools to understand how easy it is to just try stuff out, without having to commit to anything. Picking the wrong distros then isn’t a big of a deal.
If I were to make a comment on the chart itself. I think there is some value in describing what some distros are tailored for. But I find it curious how little that would matter to me. Things that matter to me are:
Many distros are different by only having a different list of software installed by default. That… Is nice if you want to try it out with a live USB. But, it doesn’t matter all that much. For example, Arch is considered one of the least advisable for beginners, but, it also has the AUR that covers a lot more than most other package systems. Some things are easier to get ahold of than say Ubuntu.
Isn’t that trope getting a little bit boring?
Do you know if flatpak leverages the memory side of this? With shared libs, you only keep one copy in memory, regardless of how many applications use it. Makes application launch faster, and memory usage lower.
For flatpak, it of course will load whatever it needs to load, but does it manage to avoid loading stuff across other flatpaks?
It reached the point of being very much intentional. But hey, your reading comprehension is better than I gave you credit for. Good on you.
I see. I should have been clearer. You went from seeing this statement by me:
Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds
To then this next reply by me:
By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds
Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like.
And then reading that the it in “Guns are made for it” is referring to crime… and not “sending projectiles at lethal speeds”, and that “when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like” is something other than “crimes / gun violence”? I might be wrong here. It’s hard to understand how it is you are reading it, that is different from what is clarified so many times.
In any case, I don’t think we think sufficiently in the same way in order to have any hopes of a productive conversation. The stuff I’ve written is congruent enough that you should be able to get my point, if you either read it enough times, or ask a friend. To help you along: this doesn’t mean that I expect you to agree with me, but at least you know what it is you would be disagreeing with.
Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.
You have to state your arguments in a way that are relevant to my arguments. Which requires you to first understand my arguments. I’m not avoiding your arguments, I’m just ignoring them because they are not relevant to my arguments. I hope you see the difference. Not addressing a red herring is ignoring something irrelevant to the original premise.
I will not reply to anything beyond this. (Again, this is meant as a courtesy. I don’t want to waste your time). Have a good one.
Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?
Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that it’s not not relevant to the argument, and a straw-man, because the supposition of me not liking self defense is not stated by me, or implied.
There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes.
You’d… be surprised to find that this is in part the first one, and clearly the still the second, with yet another straw-man argument, this time only implied. Perhaps go through my argument again. It isn’t saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please don’t confuse that with the argument presented.
Other than that, I don’t see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument. The only relevant part, if I understood correctly, you suggest that for X=“3d printer” and Y=“gun crime” that… there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you don’t believe there should be restrictions there… so, I’m confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: “neither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the other”… something like that?
So, a clarification… for your sake here, so please to take this with good intentions. These are the relevant points I was making:
The first one of those is clearly also your point. So, we agree on that one. But it seems you disagree with the second one. Is that the gist of what you’re saying? You object to the second point, in that if one should be restricted, the other makes similar sense, as to be in the same ballpark?
Because if so… I find that strange.
I don’t see how you could disagree with me, without also disagreeing with one or both of these. They seem like pretty obviously true statements to me.
By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds, or: this bill.
Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like. Have those be in proportion to that. Conceptually, this should be easy enough to understand, and it just describes the foundation for the argument of what is a “reasonable hoop”, when it comes to “crime prevention”. That’s what’s being discussed here no? I responded to someone arguing that gun owners need to go through “similar hoops”. To which I only called BS on it being in the same ballpark.
Simplified… “What is a reasonable measure, regarding purchase of X, when it comes to what that measure, can help with problem Y.”
Place X=“cars”, and Y=“car related deaths and injuries”, sure… I can see some hoops there making sense. Americans seem fine with the concept of a driver’s license.
Place X=“guns”, and Y=“crime / gun violence”, yeah… I can see some level of hoops making some sense. (I’d suggest a lot more,… but that would offend too many over there)
Place X=“3d printer” and Y=“crime / gun violence”… my argument: It doesn’t make much sense at all..
You seem to think that my argument was to suggests hoops on X, based on the maximum capability of X, when it comes to Y. I don’t know why you would think that, because I said that it must be in the correct proportion to the problem at hand. A bag of sand can be used to cause injury. But if what you want is to “reduce injuries”, you don’t restrict access to bags of sand. You can revisit that once you start having a bag-of-sand-causing-injury-problem. Similarly, if you want to reduce “gun violence / crime”, you don’t restrict “access to 3d printers”. I have a hunch that normal guns outnumber 3d printed guns, in crimes, at least at a generous 10000000:1. And you can make a better one with a metal tube and some welding. Hence… “not in the same ballpark”. Which is why you also don’t need any hoops to buy a kitchen knife.
So, either you are arguing the same point as me, or you didn’t get my point.
(PS: There’s also a third option of disagreeing with my argument, in which case you would believe the hypothetical that if 3D printing technology was removed from existence, that it would reduce crime, or whichever Y is in question. That’s the loosest possible hypothetical, which would be in your favor to argue.).
Not entirely a fair comparison. Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds. There is a good reason why some of those hoops might be tied to “crime prevention”. Because it is a tool remarkably well suited for it…
Adding such loops for 3D printers would make as much sense as for a bag of sand, because you could drop it on someone… But that’s not what it’s used for… and the extra hoops should be in proportion.
edit: Have I stumbled on some gun-loving easily offended part of lemmy? Let’s see some congruent argument against anything I wrote. I encourage it. Be a brave snowflake.
Gnome is weird. A dusted off a laptop that has Gnome 40, and it felt better. Nautilus didn’t have broken folder trees that don’t refresh, and workspaces were vertical so that movement travel is shorter (much more so on ultrawide monitors).
I miss the days with Opera. Not only could it group tabs, but it had previews too. Mouse gestures. Keyword searches. Page link filters and batch operations. RSS-reader. Chrome didn’t even exist back then, and IE and Firefox are still playing catch up. Kinda amazing to think about it.
Vivaldi is the spiritual successor, but having to use chromium rendering engine, it’s so many concessions and steps back. Has the mouse gestures, tho.
I think that’s a bit unfair here. What I’m saying is that expectations often seems to be that “Linux should be effortless, but it isn’t, so Linux sucks”, and then we quickly talk past each other on which aspects we are referring to. Let me make up three categories:
For users transitioning to Linux from Windows, and …
So, I assume people who just thought I was calling people lazy and dumb thought I meant categories 1. and 2. I just mean category 3. If you expect everything to be the same as Windows, and the effort required to understand the differences is too much, then only Windows will fit your needs. The impression I get is a general unwillingness to “figure stuff out”. Not knowing removed is fine, complaining and not wanting to put in the effort to know stuff… how is that not being lazy?
It was intended as kind advice without any the implied judgement of calling people dumb or lazy. If you don’t want to have to figure stuff out related to the third category, Linux will likely not be a good experience, or even a productive or good change. If you move to another country, you should make the effort to learn the culture. It’s not a good look to complain that things are different.
If I were to try to suggest “a point” with all of this: Don’t suggest to people that Linux is effortless for Windows users. Linux is immensely better, in almost every way (though mind examples in first category). But, it requires learning the basics of how removed works. It’s not hard… the information is well put together and available.