Might give Nix a go in a vm too, I've splurged on keycaps again so the thinkpad is on hold now.>>1572>>1574
I wrote up a big reply about Plan 9 but lost it… oh well. My main point was that I found Plan9/9front most interesting as a system where all parts work together in ideological unison, in this case under the 'everything is a file' banner, much more cohesively than say most GNU/Linuxes. Other stuff it does is interesting, but the cohesiveness that it executes it with is the best bit. Makes me think of a well set up Emacs or the BSDs.
Recently I was thinking about how despite easily having the knowledge and technology, our computers are still very isolated from one another. E.g. sharing a .mp4 of a movie file across a local network has been possible for decades, but I still find the easiest way is to dig out a USB stick. I suppose this speaks to more of a societal/economic cause than what's innately possible with our computers of the day. Sharing CPU, storage, and the likes across a network as Plan 9 and co (Lisp Machines, Inferno, a bunch of research OS's) do would be fascinating. Imagine getting home, opening your laptop, and immediately having access to 10x the processing power, and seamlessly accessing your at home media storage.
I am kind of a zealot about microkernels though, so couldn't quite say a Plan 9 world is a utopia hehe.
Thank you for the detailed response, helps a lot :)
So I started using linux some time ago but dropped it because of some driver problems, now I'm back at it again with debian on a vm and enjoying the experience so far
But most of the time it feels like I have no idea of what I'm doing, I'd like to get more familiar with the operating system my computer runs and how it works, if that makes sense. What would be the best way to accomplish this? man of tastely by using it, or is there any useful resource you guys would recommend?
You learn Linux by solving problems you encounter while doing common tasks. Copying solutions from stackoverflow is alright, as long as you read explanation. You will not learn how computer works just by using Linux. I suggest you to learn bash, vim/emacs and system structure - all of that is just basics. Then you are all set for programming.
Helpful resources: man command and archwiki.
Came across this a while back, maybe it'd hit the spot:https://linuxjourney.com/
thanks for the helpful advice :D
Are there any really stable distributives? I tried to use Ubuntu, but it's very unstable. Even LTS version has many bugs that i found. So which stable distrubutive you'll recommend? Also it would be very cool if this distrib hadn't problems with usage of PC's resources. I hope this board still alive. I like it.
I'm biased towards Arch, I have managed to have arch based installs last for years with little to no issue, but not everyone shares this sentiment. I would still give it a try, although Manjaro does seem to be buggier than most.
Another distro I have a bit of experience with is CentOS. It is very very stable, but the software selection from the repos is not good at all for my use case.
Well, I'm very biased towards NixOS. You need to setup your system once, and then it will just work.
Also nix prides itself for being the most up-to-date repository with as much packages as AUR has, yet with an order of magnitude less maintainers, which nicely showcases how amazing nix truly is.
Thank you for advices, I'll give these OSs a try.
I'm not sure why Ubuntu would seem unstable since supposed to be among the more stable desktop distros, at least below the hood. I haven't used it since version 11 or 12 though so I may be wrong.
Debian Stable is a popular choice for servers and is pretty rock-solid, but a lot of the software in its repository is pretty old. Fedora is also very stable and another good choice for servers since it's basically just upstream RHEL which is a commercial product, and has much more modern software due to being a rolling release.
Actually most of the popular distros are pretty stable. If you just want a nice user experience steer clear of the more hobbyist-oriented ones, though if you really want to learn how Linux works you can try Arch or my favorite, Slackware, which are both stable and easy to configure but will require you to learn to use the command line and can easily be screwed up if you aren't careful.
System resource use is usually more an issue with your desktop environment and/or window manager and stuff than under the hood. If you're don't want to hack together a UI with a WM and some other custom stuff I suggest switching to xfce or LXDE instead of whatever flashy crap your distro might come with out of the box.
I managed to >install gentoo yesterday, today I was compiling X and the power was interrupted and I'm afraid to turn it back on!
Tell me about CRUX. What's it like? How does the pacman work?
I use NixOS btw.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of that system-to-system fragmentation is a direct result of the walled-garden approach that many proprietary operating systems had in mind and somewhat still do. I'm hoping that we will see more OS operational unity down the line. In the meantime Huawei seems to be doing something like what you're envisioning with their Harmony OS. I hope that trend will continue until there is a unified interface or some other means for all operating systems to interface like Linuxes can.
Good on you for keeping the original dream of the internet alive with multi-system computational collaboration.
The CRUX ports are similar to the Arch pkgbuild system, but binary packages are uncommon. So there isn't really much of a pacman alternative. It is a basic recipe based system that build a package based on the maintainers chosen configure and make options. Dependencies tend to be minimal, and they are specified in the pkgfile, and built/installed by prt-get. You can handle all of that manually with pkgmk/pkgadd if you want (don't know why anyone would outside of testing)
I couldn't dream of using this distro in production. I mostly use it for some simpler systems at home. Got a basic laptop with i3, and a simple fileserver with samba. Fully features systems with KDE or GNOME becomes a bit too complicated and tedious to maintain, especially when it is the kind of distro that expects its users to maintain stuff on their own.
The distro isn't for everyone, but I like it.
As an intermediate user, is NixOs going to be way too difficult for me to manage? Im mostly familiar with Debian/Ubuntu based systems, but im running manjaro right now. Im incredibly interested with Nix but was having trouble getting anything running on my hardware let alone Nix so I just took what I could get.
Depends on how used to manual install you are. Take a read of the OS manual installation process and if you think you can do it, give it a try. You can also try home-manager if you want to give nix a try without giving the OS a fullblown install.https://nixos.org/manual/nixos/stable/#sec-installation
Hi fellow CRUX user. You can install pacman (the Arch package manager) from deepthoght's repo. As for the use in production, if you keep and maintain your own repo with all dependent ports is actually rock solid. It requires dedication for obvious reasons.
Hi. I couldn't find this at a glance on the crux webpage, is it source-based like gentoo?
I tried gentoo recently but didn't get too far because to get X I needed lots of other very bloated
heavy packages like rust and some mozilla thing. Not to mention LLVM.
Pls respond. I remember liking crux a few years back and there are a very reduced number of decent distros but all are source based and I have limited power.
Nevermind me, I know now
I forgot to reply ;_;
Some heavy packages already have -bin packages in contrib and opt (like rust and firefox). Saves some time, but there are other big packages still. Compiling is still time consuming with old and slow hardware, depending on what you install.
As an alternative to compiling, Romster maintains some precompiled packages on his site.https://crux.ster.zone/packages/3.5/
Remember to try appimages fellow cruxers. I use libreoffice and calibre, no need to compile these.
what do sushis recommend for stupid lightweight riceable distros? My dad has an old cd with "hack" written on it but its unused, so I thought it would be good fun to jam some programming languages and hacking tools on its very limited 4GB of space to fulfill its destiny.
It only needs to be able to run on at least 512MB RAM, and be able to boot on most common architecture/hardware (i386, x86_64, arm). GUI can be sacrificed if necessary, but Ghidra doesn't play well with TUI.
>>1734>very limited 4GB of space to fulfill its destiny
Are you sure it's not a DVD+RW or something? CDs shouldn't have more than 700MB and are read-only.
Assuming you mean you want to do a live CD install the vast majority of distros are less than 2GB and plenty are less than 1GB but to boot on multiple architectures you'd need a separate partition for each version which you probably don't have space for and partitioning optical discs isn't much of a thing.
If all you want is to be 1337 I guess you could put Kali with xfce on there, though to rice it you'd probably want a liveUSB instead for the persistence.
Yeah its an optical disk/DVD+RW.
> Assuming you mean you want to do a live CD install the vast majority of distros are less than 2GB and plenty are less than 1GB
I've already tried persistent live CD's with most normal distros and its been unable to handle the brunt well. The goal of this project is to follow the philosophy that every KB counts.
> boot on multiple architectures you'd need seperate partitons
aren't there hardware-detecting boot partitions that allow you to boot a given system? I understand that for some programs the assembly instructions/byte code won't be the same so there will have to be concerns in that regard, but limiting it to just those three archetectures I'm sure that I can find a way with a script to link the correct binaries to /usr/bin for the given hardware (I just don't know how to do so).
I certainly would want a liveUSB image (which I assume can run on floppies and DVD's). Don't really need kali, This system is still a 'hacker' system if it has basics like netcat, john the ripper, and some programming language environments (python, c compilers, linkers, assemblers).
If it's too much hassle I can reduce it to just x86_64 since that is currently the most common hardware architecture.
I mean a liveUSB install, not the image (which is usually the same either way). Rewritable DVDs are a lot less reliable and can be written to far fewer times without errors and failures than USB drives. They're really not good for persistent installs.
regardless its not as funny if the hack disk is a hack stick (even though it would be more practical).
>>1734>unused DVD+RW named hack
You sure it´s not just empty rather than unused?
If you didn´t write over it yet you could probably recover the actual “hack” files with file recovery software.
But as a tip for distro, easiest if it´s already molded for liveboot use, maybe something like Slax.
Happy for you sushi roll! I use debian every day, but I ever need to reinstall I'll try out arch. I'm pretty jealous of you for getting the AUR.
Yeah, the AUR is great! It contains many niche packages that would never be available on the official repos of any distro. I used Debian too for a short while. I think it's great for servers and low maintenance PCs, but it's not very good for desktop users that wanna do some more "high tech' stuff, that's just my opinion though. If you do plan on switching to Arch, I will say that after reinstalling Arch a few times (reinstalling it after hopping to another distro but then deciding to switch back to Arch), I've installed it the "official" way through the command line many times, but I've also installed it with the anarchy installer, and let me just tell you that you don't really miss out on anything for installing it with anarchy. So, if you find it's too difficult to install it through the command line, use the anarchy installer! It saves you a lot of time.
as another arch (manjaro) user, I just want to tell you you have no idea how much of an improvement pacman is to apt-get. Its not even funny. It takes a bit more time to learn how it works and all its features, but it is more than worth it in the end.
Also, arch has also been one of the easiest distros I have ever installed. I tend to run into install issues all the time, but not with arch.
I've been using Linux as my main OS since 2012, although I only stopped dual-booting and went Linux-only about a year and a half ago. Before that, I only ever used Windows for video games, and Linux for literally everything else.
My first distro was Ubuntu, then Mint, then Arch, which I used for most of the time I've been using Linux (although when I built my first desktop PC I decided to install Mint on my laptop). Then when I stopped dual-booting I switched to Manjaro.
I've gotta say, I wouldn't really recommend Arch. Like, there was one time I ran an update and it just stopped booting altogether. I had to completely reinstall it from scratch, and I ended up losing everything I had on my Linux partition (for some reason I'd decided to reinstall Arch at the time, since I apparently hadn't learned my lesson). And while I certainly don't regret having the experience of having to configure everything from scratch myself, installing Manjaro made me realize how nice it is to be able to just install the OS and start doing stuff immediately.
Even then, I'm thinking I'm gonna go back to either Mint, or try popOS or something next time I build a new PC (which will probably be pretty soon, considering mine is about 5 years old at this point). It's true that Manjaro is a hell of a lot better than base Arch in a lot of ways, and it won't break your system entirely, but it still has a lot of little problems here and there. Like, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I needed to print something, and no matter what I tried I couldn't connect to the printer on my Manjaro PC, but when I tried transferring the file to my Mint laptop and tried printing it from there it worked perfectly. It's true that the AUR is something I'll miss, but at this point I feel like it's worth leaving it behind.
My debian install is fucked, I'll need a working computer for a couple of days but after I'm gonna take your advice and try out arch. I'd like to try the proper way but I'll probably use anarchy installer since I don't want to accidentally lose my home partition.
Well that was stressful as fuck. Fucked up in several important ways and spent hours staring at grub rescue>
but at least now I can look at my anime pictures again.
Does anyone know of (good) solutions for multiple monitors on linux with differing DPIs? I'm seriously considering getting an intel nuc and using it for the 2nd monitor (with a virtual kvm, so I can just use 1kb and mouse)just to get 2 displays that aren't blurry. The problem I suspect is not fixable unless I get an amd graphics card and use wayland, but with current prices that's not an option.>>1571
I love NixOS, I just wish I could understand flakes and some of the more advanced concepts. I guess I should take a proper look at the manual one day.>>1813
You should use gummiboot (old name) / system d boot, it's a much less frustrating experience than fighting against GRUB to make it detect OS installations and in general to work.
I don't intend to come off as mean or uncomfy but why is guix 2.5 times less popular than nix is? Was the choice of a lisp to configure the system ill-informed? What does guix offer that nix doesn't, and why is guix not popular?
Not that poster, but AFAIK Nix has been around for quite a bit longer?
Which translates to more time for people to opt to use it, and breadth of software, a fast check nets that Nix has 60k packages while Guix has 16k. And also less time to iron out kinks, at the time I tried Guix it had a bug where using my native keymap would render it unable to boot.
Sorry to hear that, sounds like a pain. That said, that's such a implied-story-humor (?) pair of posts
Do you suppose more people will start using Guix in the next 5 years, or will the userbase remain relatively stable?
I've been wanting to add a seperate user to my debian machine as a "blank slate". Minimal programs, no internet; just somewhere to write stories and play with code without distractions.
When I ran Mint before, I remember easily creating a user account that only had the default programs and hadn't had its internet connection set up. When I add new users on my current Debian setup, they'll still have the same programs and (wifi) settings. I know I could manually chmod programs and futz with settings to restrict access, but is there an easier way to set up a seperate, minimal user?
Sorry if its a newbie question, my g**gle-fu isn't coming up with results that address what I'm looking for.
make a vm for it, it lets you trash and rebuild if you want. maybe that's too "heavyweight" for what you want though.
I think you can do it by changing the groups the user is part of
I use Debian and manage my connections with the program nmtui - I believe it came installed by default. In nmtui, when you edit a connection, you can set it to not be available to all users - see picrel. Maybe you'd want to do that.
However, I also like >>1823
idea about making a VM for your minimal setup. Once you've set it up (it's very easy if you use a GUI like virt-manager), you can just go fullscreen in your VM and pretend you're on a different system entirely.