throwawayish

So, initially I stuck to bash and tried to get improved functionality through ble.sh etc. However, for reasons unknown to me, it always seemed to be a buggy mess that was prone to break. Eventually I switched after breaking one last time, where I only had installed ble.sh on a fresh/stock bash; which was the primary contributor that made bash bearable. So if I couldn’t use ble.sh, I had no reason to stick to it.

When faced with the choice of where to go next, I quickly dismissed fish for not being POSIX-compliant. Furthermore, as bash is standard on Linux, so too is zsh standard on macOS. And that enables it to have legs beyond fish. However I also kept fish in mind as somewhat of a last resort if all else failed.

So I began venturing into zsh and was obviously overwhelmed by the myriad of plugins and plugin-managers. People generally go out and somehow stick to ohmyzsh, however it was clearly poorly managed and couldn’t quite deal with the feature-creep in an elegant way.

Many plugin-managers have come out over the years as alternatives that promised to resolve those issues. However, while some of them succeeded initially, they weren’t able to keep that up throughout their lifespan.

When I almost lost hope and had started to gravitate towards learning how I should manage my plugins on my own without any plugin-managers I stumbled upon ZSH Quickstart Kit. Which is a project that’s clearly well-maintained and offered must-have functionality like automatically updating the the plugin-manager, plugins and more while still trying to maintain a high standard of reliability, performance, customization and minimalism. So obviously I had been sold on it and the rest has been history.

Ultimately it’s for you to decide whichever one of the two suits you best. But if you gave zsh a try and wasn’t quite sold on ohmyzsh or any of the other plugin-managers out there, then perhaps consider ZSH Quickstart Kit.

I just started using Linux

Welcome!

I have not tried running WINE yet but I plan on doing so soon.

Don’t feel pressured in any way to use Wine. Sure; if you’re in need of certain software that’s only available on Windows, then feel free to engage with Wine to get said software working on your system. However, note that a lot of alternatives exist, so make sure to check them out through something like alternativeto.net before getting involved with Wine.

What are some really important basic commands I can use to start branching out into Terminal command structures and learning more about how I can edit and customize my computer?

Broad question; arguably it makes sense to start out with something like linuxjourney.com if you haven’t yet. After which, you might proceed to plunge deeper into some of the subjects that have been introduced through more expansive resources. Assuming that you might prefer something like a video guide of sorts; it’s worth pointing out that the videos made by the Learn Linux TV channel on YouTube are excellent. One might argue that the ArcoLinux distro might be worth exploring as a platform to learn Linux on; it’s literally one of its design goals. Though, once again, you shouldn’t feel pressured in any way to use a certain distro to learn Linux on. We’ll delve into distros later on.

And if Cinnamon has shortfalls or weaknesses that I may run into eventually, what are some good alternative distros that I could leapfrog to eventually?

Cinnamon is just a Desktop Environment, and it happens to look and function close to how Windows does, which is one of the main reasons it is often recommended to newer users that seek a familiar experience. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with Cinnamon, really. Though, it’s worth pointing out that it’s not one of the top dogs in the realm of Desktop Environments; those would be GNOME and KDE. Those two have put in considerable work and effort to have proper Wayland support, which we’ll call the ‘successor’ of X11; this is a very oversimplified description and thus somewhat false, but it would be out of scope for this comment to delve deeper into this. What’s worth pointing out is that Cinnamon -due to its reliance on X11- is (very likely) to be deprived of features like HDR support and superior security standards as long as they don’t put in the necessary time and effort to get proper Wayland support for themselves.

In case your question was meant to ask if Ubuntu LTS is the best platform/distro to learn Linux on, then the only correct answer would be that it depends on your needs. Ubuntu is definitely a decent choice, but you’re not protected from unintentionally borking your system when you try to install Steam. Jokes aside, even though Pop!_OS is only based on Ubuntu and thus I don’t know for 100% sure if said bug stems from Ubuntu or Pop!_OS, it’s still worth pointing out that this is not necessarily a very bad showing for Ubuntu or Pop!_OS. Unfortunately bugs happen, though it’s great to have a system that might be better protected…, though unfortunately nothing comes without a cost… compromises… compromises…; moving on.

In case you’re interested to explore other distros, perhaps take a look at distrochooser.de. It’s not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s decent as a first orientation. If you share your result, then we might even give our opinion on the matter based on said results. If you do end up sharing the result, consider answering the following questions as well (feel free to give non-binary answers):

• Sane defaults or Blank slate?
• Full control or Little to no control?
• Secure or Convenient?
• Tool to get work done or Tool to explore/play around?

any great tips?

You might come across a piece of software that’s not available within the repo of your distro. However, if you know that it’s available in another distro’s repo, then perhaps you should use Distrobox (or similar container-solutions) to access said software. Refer to videos on YouTube if you’re interested to know how it works, though its documentation is quite excellent as well.

I wouldn’t call a project with over 6k upvotes (and counting) on Github underappreciated. Perhaps what you tried to convey is that -surprisingly enough- the community is split on how they view Distrobox within the grand scheme of things. I simply can’t fathom anyone to be unappreciative of what it achieves and how. However, there are those that might regard it as one of the rising stars that represent a big upcoming change that might even be -in their eyes- an existential threat to Linux. They fear that containers, immutable distros and all of that ‘mumbo jumbo’ will threaten the freedom in which they interact with their systems. They don’t see them as (potential) solutions to long-held problems, but instead they are viewed as invasive to Linux and an attempt to <insert proprietary OS>-ify Linux and thus as an assault to Linux’ uniquely strong qualities. I wonder if if this might be somehow philosophically rooted in how some people lean towards conservatism, while others lean towards progressivism instead.

But yeah, Distrobox is excellent.

In the past year or so, literally everybody and their mother, decided to join the immutable bandwagon that has been going strong for quite some time. About half of these rely on Distrobox (or very similar solutions) to ensure the desired feature set functions properly. Unsurprisingly, it has also been featured on conferences.

Furthermore, Distrobox itself has been featured in some capacity in a lot of different Linux-related news outlets. And I haven’t even mentioned how many times Linux content creators on YouTube have featured it in their videos.

It would be awesome if people that are still bereft of the features that are provided through Distrobox would somehow get to learn about it. Today has been ‘your awakening’, so feel free to spread the good word and perhaps others will follow suit.

Linux is a platform that allows you the freedom to acquire the perfect OS for your needs; Linux Mint for your elderly mother, ChimeraOS for the Steam Deck of your son, Debian for your server, Ubuntu on your laptop you use for work and we can’t forget your fully customized Arch/Gentoo on your self-built PC that has been optimized to perfection for your workflow. Whatever problem/use-case/need you might have for your device, Linux offers solutions that are quite possibly the best there is; your mileage may vary depending on your knowledge and experience*.

has anyone here used this who can comment on it?

I’ve been on uBlue since a couple of months. Initially, I just rebased to their silverblue-main image because it offered a more sane image to build upon as all of their images have already applied every relevant step everyone does to their ‘Silverblue-systems’ anyways; codecs, enabling hardware-acceleration, support for nvidia + secureboot when applicable etc. But recently I’ve started building my ‘own’ image using their toolkit and it has been a blast. I’m a huge fan of what NixOS and Guix do in the space of declarative distros. However, unfortunately, I had my reasons to not go down that route. The toolkit offered by uBlue enables me to have (pretty much) a declarative system on a more traditional -albeit ‘immutable’- distro. If one desires reproducibility, atomic updates, very high security-standards and a pinch of declarativity to eliminate bitrot, configuration drift, unknown states etc; then one simply can’t ignore uBlue’s offerings as one of if not the best solution out there.

i see a lot of recommendations for nobara, but this seems to do a similar thing in a more convenient and reversible way

Nobara is great and does indeed have similar design goals; namely improving the stock experience. To put it bluntly; Nobara is to Fedora Workstation what uBlue (thus including Bazzite) is to Fedora Silverblue. To be clear; uBlue offers a fleet of different (base-)images; thus enabling everyone to use their favorite desktop environment on their ‘Immutable’ Desktop; even those beyond GNOME, KDE and Sway that Fedora itself supports on their ‘Immutable Desktops’. So in that sense -perhaps paradoxically- Nobara is more rigid on install than uBlue, while the latter is the one referred to as ‘immutable’. It’s perhaps important to note that uBlue is not a distro; at least not in the traditional sense:

“This isn’t a distribution, you can always rebase back to Fedora without reinstalling. This is a unique relationship between an upstream and downstream that is popular in cloud, but still new to the Linux desktop. “Custom images” seems to be a decent place to start since that’s what people call them in cloud.”

The very same ones when one compares Fedora Workstation to Fedora Silverblue. Which mostly come down to Bazzite offering more stability, improved security, reproducibility, atomic updates and a pinch of declarativity^[1] at the expense of relearning a thing or two and actually being limited in some (rather niche) actions that are currently not supported on Silverblue (and thus -by extension- Bazzite). Chances are rather slim that the average Nobara-user would delve into any of those unsupported actions. So if you ever happen to stumble upon something you’re not able to do/perfom on Silverblue/Bazzite/uBlue then it’s safe to assume that you’re not approaching it correctly and that a different approach would have resulted in the desired outcome.

1. Regular Silverblue is not very declarative, if at all. However, the toolkit that uBlue offers -and which is used by Bazzite to create its image- enables one to have some degree of declarativity. It’s by no means comparable to the likes of NixOS or Guix, but it’s only going to get better from here.

First of all: thank you! The necessary info is there and it’s written splendid. I think it or a future iteration should definitely be considered as a sticky post in the long run.

A few nitpicks which you may or may not agree with:

• In the section in which you talk about update frequency, you end the paragraph with something along the lines of “new and stable”. While this is correct technically, you should define what you mean with ‘stable’ here. Because there exist two (somewhat related) definitions for ‘stable’:

  1. “(Certain) resistance to breaking” - which is used in the context of “stable rolling release” when one refers to something like openSUSE Tumbleweed. This definition does not necessarily oppose new.

  2. “Release model in which packages are frozen over a long(er) period of time and primarily only continue to receive security updates” - which is e.g. used in the name of the “Debian Stable” distro. This definition does oppose new.

• In the section about desktop environments you mentioned something along the lines that Fedora defaults to GNOME. This applies only to their Workstation and Silverblue distros. For which both other “Spins” exist, which happens to be the recommended method of installing another desktop environment on Fedora; similar to how “Flavors” work for something like Ubuntu. While one can technically install it like how you’ve mentioned it, I wouldn’t recommend it to a newer user.

I agree that having better GUI is a generally good thing and that most of us would benefit from it. However it’s false to state or believe that Linux in its totality is bereft of this. Distros like openSUSE, MX Linux and Garuda Linux have put in considerable effort into offering tools that enable one to config a lot of stuff through a GUI. However, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to complain about the lack of GUIs if you (or whosoever for that matter) don’t use one of these distros. Arch has minimalism as one of its design goals, so you either have to find the binaries/apps/packages (or whatsoever) that allow you to config through a GUI or you’re out of luck.

The GUI elements missing in Arch are missing in Mint and Ubuntu, Fedora, PopOS, all of them.

I would agree that they’re roughly in the same ballpark as long as you had picked KDE Plasma on Arch. Though I would argue that Mint and PopOS have a noticeable lead, though I don’t think that point deserves more discussion. However, none of them come close to something like openSUSE’s YaST or MX’ Tools. That’s why I deliberately mentioned them. Perhaps worth a watch for those wondering how Windows compares to different Linux distros GUI-wise.

I happen to be struggling through an audio issue right now. Can you find an OS that lets you change the Audio sample and bit rates without messing with config files ? This is basic function, and the PulseAudio and Pipewire have been around long enough for a GUI to have been created, but no, it doesn’t exist.

I’m unfortunately unaware of any solution for that. Wish you good luck!