Fryboyter @ Fryboyter @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

12

Comments

81

Joined

2 yr. ago

However, one should first read through https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/official_repositories#Testing_repositories and consider whether it is really worth the risk.

For my part, I will simply wait until Plasma 6 arrives in the official package sources.

and I’m glad that they took extra time to release rather than quickly shoving it out, a la Plasma 4 and early Plasma 5.

As far as I can remember, this was also the fault of some distributions that wanted to release Plasma 5 quickly, even though the developers of Plasma pointed out existing bugs.

TIL SDDM hasn’t gotten to 1.0 yet.

Many projects also deliberately avoid publishing a version 1.0. For example, the static website generator Hugo continued with 0.100.0 after version 0.99.1. The current version is 0.123.3.

This is mostly due to the fact that some users have the wrong expectations. For example, that version 1.0 is as good as error-free and fully developed.

How long has it been the de facto default greeter for KDE Plasma?

Since Plasma 5 if I'm not mistaken. Before that, KDM was the standard.

In my opinion, just because someone is behaving incorrectly is no reason to behave in the same way. One can also disagree with someone without using terms like moron or whiny bitch.

How does pacman work compared to apt-get ?

Roughly speaking, pacman is faster, but offers fewer functions. And the parameters take some time getting used to. For example, you can update the system with pacman -Syu.

and how to find in which package an command lies.

You can either use the command pacman -F or the tool pkgfile.

• https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/pacman
• https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Rosetta
• https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/pkgfile

I am struggling a bit with Zsh, like I ended up starting bash to configure an environment variable, any ressources on-it.

Without a more detailed description of the problem, it is difficult to help you. As I have been using ZSH for many years (also under Arch), I can only say that you have done something wrong. But if you don't want to work much with the shell anyway, Bash is perfectly adequate.

But do yourself a favour and stay away from Manjaro. The team responsible for this distribution has already made so many avoidable mistakes and strange decisions that I don't trust this distribution. And I'm not alone in this opinion. If you want a distribution based on Arch, there are better alternatives. Like EndeavourOS, for example.

Nowadays, servers that are not connected to a monitor, keyboard or mouse are often referred to as headless. Regardless of whether they have a graphical user interface (which can be used with tools such as Guacamole, for example).

I'm not trying to say that this is correct, but simply to point out that the term "headless" is now often interpreted differently.

It's more than just a simple tool with which you can tweak audio. Some features are listed at https://valvesoftware.github.io/steam-audio/. The tool is mainly intended for the development of games (also under Linux).

And yes, it's basically just about the fact that Steam Audio is now completely open source.

I'm only referring to Arch now because I have no idea about NixOS.

Arch and NixOS Those two are in the “pain” category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they’re fed up with Windows

In my opinion, you are making the mistake of equating all Windows users. But not every Windows user is the same.

An acquaintance of mine, who works full-time as a Windows administrator, was able to install and configure Arch manually on his first attempt, for example. But yes, other Windows users would despair.

But that's exactly why you shouldn't make blanket recommendations, but rather recommendations based on the wishes and knowledge of the person who wants to use Linux.

high demanding

Basically, you should be able to read and willing use a search engine. That's all you really need.

hard to set up and use

If you use archinstall, which has long been an official part of the Arch iso file, you can install Arch within a short time. But I don't think manual installation is very difficult either. Because if you follow the official instructions, you can simply execute many of the commands mentioned therein without having to change them beforehand.

And what do you mean by hard to use?

I've been using Arch for over 10 years, almost like any other distribution. Apart from only 3 things, 2 of which can be automated.

• Before an update, I check whether something has been published at https://archlinux.org/news/ that affects my installations. If so, that has to be taken into account. The check itself can be automated with https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/informant, for example.
• The cache of pacman must be cleaned regularly. This can also be automated with a hook (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman#Cleaning_the_package_cache).
• From time to time, I synchronise my configuration files with the pacnew files. There are tools for this (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave#Managing_.pac*_files)

requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he’s doing

Not necessarily. The most important thing is that the user is willing to read, that he is willing to use a search engine and that he is willing to learn something new. And that is often the problem these days.

And shall I tell you something? Even after several decades with Linux, I often have no idea what I'm doing. But I'm still trying to acquire new knowledge.

don’t hold the users’ hand

I agree with you here. Arch is, among other things, intended for users who want to solve their problems themselves. But that doesn't mean that you can't get help. However, it is expected that you first try to solve your problems yourself. And if that doesn't work, you should ask smart questions. However, this guide does not only help with Arch. Basically, it is (even if it is now partly outdated) still one of the most important pieces of knowledge you can have.

and don’t tolerate user error well.

I have been using Linux for over 20 years and have therefore already used several distributions. Basically none of them tolerate errors. If I make a mistake when configuring Alacritty under Ubuntu, for example, basically the same thing happens as under Arch.

Edit: Please don't take this post the wrong way. My point is not to claim that Arch is like Ubuntu, for example. But these myths that have formed around Arch (e.g. that you can only learn Linux properly with Arch (which is complete nonsense)) are a bit annoying.

https://vifm.info

In this case, however, it cannot be said that I am using it as intended. The AUR helper I use, aurutils, uses Vifm to display the respective PKBUILD file during an update, for example.

I’m particularly amused by the pro-NVIDIA “it just works” comments. Compared to what exactly?

Compared to nothing. I have used Nvidia graphics cards under Linux for many years. The last one was a GTX 1070. In order for the cards to work, I had to install the driver once with the command pacman -S nvidia-dkms. So the effort was very small.

By the way, I am currently using a 6800 XT from AMD. I therefore don't want to defend Nvidia graphics cards across the board.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Nvidia, many people do not judge objectively. Torvalds' "fuck you", for example, referred to what he saw as Nvidia's lack of cooperation with the kernel developers. And i think he was right. But it was never about how good or bad the graphics cards were usable under Linux. Which, unfortunately, many Linux users claim. Be it out of lack of knowledge or on purpose.

Since then, some things have changed and Nvidia has contributed code to several projects like Plasma or Mesa to improve the situation regarding Wayland.

How can you be sure it doesn't affect popular images? The probability may be lower, but I don't think you can rule it out.

At https://blog.frehi.be/2023/04/23/the-security-risks-of-flathub/ someone has published an article about Flathub in which he addresses a few problems.

Therefore, the answer is that Flathub is not always safe to use. However, I do not know of any package source that is always safe to use. Is Flathub more insecure than other package sources? I can't answer that because I don't use solutions like Flatpak, AppImage etc. myself.

I don't particularly like the graphic interface as shown at https://demo.archivebox.io/public/. In my opinion, too much is displayed at once.

For my part, I use Wallabag to save single Internet pages. I think its graphic interface is better. But it is not perfect either.

• Virus scanners only detect a fraction of the harmful programmes.
• Virus scanners can often be tricked.
• Virus scanners often have security vulnerabilities themselves, which are usually quite serious, since such programmes embed themselves quite deeply in the operating system.
• Virus scanners cause many users to become careless because they rely too much on such tools.

Therefore, from my point of view, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Therefore, I do not have such a tool permanently installed, neither under Linux nor under Windows. However, every 6 months I scan my Windows installation with a USB-bootable virus scanner. No actually harmful programme has been found for years.

In my opinion, the following things are much more important than any security software.

• Install updates as soon as possible. Under Windows, you can use tools like Chocolatey for this.
• Only install software from trustworthy sources.
• Only install software that you really need.
• Only use root or administrator rights if you have to. For everything else, the rights of the user account are sufficient.
• Create backups regularly.
• Think before you act.

Especially the last point is a problem for many users. I can't tell you how many times I've witnessed someone receiving an alleged invoice from mobile provider A by email and opening it, even though they had a contract with provider B.

Ran sudo pacman -Syu; sudo pacman -Syy like I do every few days

Syy forces the package database to be updated even if no updates are available.

In my opinion, this makes no sense, especially after you have already run pacman -Syu before. Basically, you only generate additional, unnecessary traffic on the mirror you are using. Pacman -Syu is normally always sufficient.

The journal was really long so I moved past it

The display of the systemd journal can be easily filtered. For example, with journalctl -p err -b -1, all entries of the last boot process that are marked as error, critical, alarm or emergency are displayed.

Has anyone else ran into this issue when updating?

Not me. But other users do. Some of them also use a distribution other than Arch (or a distribution based on it). When I look at the problems, the current kernel is probably quite a minefield as far as problems are concerned.

Any advice for preventing future crashes or issues like this so I don’t fear updating?

As other users have already recommended, you could additionally install the LTS kernel. And if you use BTRFS as a file system, create snapshots before an update (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/snapper#Wrapping_pacman_transactions_in_snapshots).

And it should be obvious that important data should be backed up on a regular basis.

When it comes to SBC, the choice has always been a Raspberry Pi. Why? A Raspberry Pi may not have the best performance. But in return you can be sure that it will still be supported after a kernel update. And that is exactly the problem with many alternatives. They support a certain, mostly old, kernel. And that's it. Furthermore, the community around the Raspberry Pi is simply huge.

I am using Borg for years. So far, the tool has not let me down. I store the backups on external hard drives that are only used for backups. In addition, I save really important data at rsync.net and at Hetzer in a storage box. Which is not a problem because Borg automatically encrypts locally and for decryption in my case you need a password and a key file.

Generally speaking, you should always test whether you can restore data from a backup. No matter which tool you use. Only then you have a real backup. And an up-to-date backup should always additionally be stored off-site (cloud, at a friend's or relative's house, etc.). Because if the house burns down, the external hard drive with the backups next to the computer is not much use.

By the way, I would advise against using just rsync because, as the name suggests, rsync only synchronizes, so you don't have multiple versions of a file. Which can be useful if you only notice later that a file has become defective at some point.

• This meme is absolutely low effort trash.
• Memes are generally annoying from my point of view.
• The meme could be considered a violation of rules 1 and 4 that apply to this community.
• The meme is absolute bullshit because Windows is not blanket garbage. Windows, just like Linux, has advantages and disadvantages.

That might be some reasons why the post got some downvotes.

GNU password store

The tool, unless something has changed in the meantime, has one major drawback for me. The filename of the encrypted files is displayed in plain text. However, I don't want people to be able to see, for example, which Internet sites I have an account with. Sure you can name the files otherwise. But how should I remember for example that the file dafderewrfsfds.gpg contains the access data for Mastodon?

In addition, I miss with pass some functions. As far as I know, you can't save file attachments. Or define when a password expires. And so on. Pass is therefore too KISS for me.

Pgp+git and a nice cli to wrap them onto an encrypted password store that’s pretty easy to move around these days.

A matter of opinion, I would say. I prefer my Keepass file which I can access via my Nextcloud instance or which is stored on a USB stick on my keychain.

By the way, the file is secured with a Yubikey in addition to a Diceware password. So saving it in the so-called cloud is no problem. Just as a note, in case someone reading my post wants to make smart remarks about the cloud.

That would be my recommendation as well. I've been using a Zowie mouse on Linux for years now.

However, the switches with which you can make the changes are at the bottom of the mouse. Changing the DPI, for example, with one click is therefore not possible. For some users, this is apparently a problem, for whatever reason.