Fryboyter @ Fryboyter @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

12

Comments

81

Joined

2 yr. ago

Issues on Github consist not only of bug reports, for example, but also of feature requests. If, for example, you only display issues with the label "Enhancement" at https://github.com/Eugeny/tabby, there are already over 300 of them. In addition, I have made the experience that often reported issues arise from Layer 8 problems. And that some issues, unfortunately, are not closed when they are outdated. Generally speaking and not related to this terminal emulator.

By the way, according to https://github.com/vim/vim/issues, the editor vim has over 1,300 issues. Also in this case, not all of them are actual problems that need to be fixed.

Yes, and PKGBUILD files with bad intentions have been published there in the past (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-July/034151.html).

But both Manjaro (https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository) and vanilla Arch (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository) point out the possible dangers clearly enough in my opinion. Apart from that, it is definitely easier for users to check for example the PKBUILD files in the AUR than ready-made packages in a PPA for Ubuntu.

Personally, I currently prefer Arch for the following reasons.

• AUR
• The Wiki
• The many vanilla packages
• Because you can easily create your own packages with the PKBGUILD files.
• Because, based on my own experience, Arch is quite usable despite the current packages.

If I had to choose another distribution, it would definitely be OpenSuse. Their rolling version, Tumbleweed, is also highly recommended.

Arch is also not more lightweight than other distributions.

With Arch, unlike other distributions, there are no extra dev packages. Thus, everything is present in a single package, so they require more storage space.

Arch's packages also have fixed dependencies on other packages, which in turn have other dependencies. So you can't only install what you actually want, which is often claimed. For example, I would like to uninstall various Bluetooth packages, but I can't because they are dependencies for packages I use.

The basic installation including base-devel requires more than 1 GB of storage space without the GUI. Some distributions need less including the GUI.

How do you notice that you are not really awake yet? By thinking for several minutes about what LXD has to do with containers and then realising that you yourself had LXDE in mind.

AUR however, is untrusted (or rather shouldn’t be trusted), often out of date

So basically like a PPA which are used by many users of Ubuntu. The only difference is that the PKBUILD files used to build the packages are easier to check than the final packages in a PPA. And that's exactly what is a big advantage for me.

sometimes requires compilation,

This is often because a project does not offer ready-made packages that can be downloaded from Github, for example. There are also people who do not trust ready-made packages from unknown third parties. I wouldn't necessarily download and execute a binary file from a Dropbox of a user I don't know. Compiling is the safer way if the source code is downloaded from a more trustworthy source.

and doesn’t even have any good pacman wrappers since yaourt (that I’m aware of).

Personally, I don't think aurutils, paru and yay are bad. I currently use aurutils myself. But as far as AUR helpers are concerned, everyone has their own preferences. That's why there are so many ;-)

when it’s the main reason why so many people use Arch Linux?

AUR is one reason why I use Arch. But not the reason. Besides AUR, Arch has many other advantages from my point of view. Like for example the wiki that also users of other distributions use. Or the many vanilla packages. Or that you can easily create your own packages through the PKGBUILD files. Or that, based on my own experience, Arch is quite problem-free to use despite the current packages.

One reason why other distributions don't have something like AUR could be that AUR is not an official offering, so no verification is done in advance either. Thus, it has happened at least once that someone has manipulated PKGBUILD files in bad faith (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-July/034151.html). The Wiki does not warn against the use for nothing.

However, it is much easier for the user to check the files in the AUR in advance than it is, for example, with ready-made packages in an unofficial PPA.

With https://build.opensuse.org and https://mpr.makedeb.org there are also at least two offers that are somewhat similar to AUR.

However, I would not use the storage boxes as the only backup. The offer has two disadvantages.

• The boxes are regularly unavailable for some time due to maintenance work. But these maintenance times are announced in advance.
• Hetzner does not specify what kind of RAID is used.

I therefore only use my box as an additional offsite backup and to swap out less important files.

You will almost certainly be able to use KDE Connect under Xfce. However, some dependencies will most likely be installed during the installation, which in turn have their own dependencies. With a bit of bad luck, you will install half of Plasma, so to speak.

The amount of data I backup offsite is significantly less than 20 TB. Therefore, my answer to your question will probably not help you.

I store my offsite backups at rsync.net and in one of Hetzners Storage Boxes. For backups in general, I use Borg.

Changing the label should also work during operation.

For example, it should be sufficient to run sudo btrfs filesystem label / newlabel to change the label of the root partition (/) to newlabel.

If I'm not mistaken (can't test it right now), you have to specify the mountpoint when the partition is mounted. And in unmounted state the device (e.g. /dev/sda).

The problem of systemd is that it hasn’t been just a replacement of init as they initially claimed

Apart from the PID 1 part of systemd, almost all tools are optional.

Although I have a positive opinion about the systemd project, I used netctl instead of systemd-networkd for a long time without any problems. And even today I don't use systemd-resolved because I use a combination of unbound and Pi-Hole in my private LAN. And so on.

So you can't say that the systemd project has replaced various solutions in such a way that you don't have a choice anymore.

Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they’ve improved a lot)?

In my experience, the same arguments against systemd (not systemD) are still used. No matter how often they have been disproved or whether the problem has been fixed in the meantime. With many users I am sure that it is only about making the project systemd bad.

Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?

I would prefer it if there were no rants at all. No matter what the topic. Because that doesn't help in any way. It would make more sense to invest the energy in the projects in question or in alternative projects to improve them.

I would recommend always testing shell scripts with https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck. Often there is room for improvement that you don't think of yourself.

You guessed wrong. I speak here from experience that I have made with third parties but also myself.

In the two decades I've been using Linux myself, I've broken quite a few Linux installations because I played around with something in the terminal emulator that I had no or too little knowledge of.

If I now imagine that these but also other advanced settings would be possible in the Mandriva control center or in the control center of Plasma with a few clicks, I would have destroyed my installations much more often. From therefore I remain with my opinion. Some settings should not be made easily accessible in pre-installed standard tools. Especially since beginners often do not know how to undo these changes if there are problems. I also think that the developers of e.g. the System Settings of Plasma have already thought about why one only has the configuration options that the tool offers. And also a warning that is displayed when you start the advanced mode, for example, will not be useful. Nowadays, this will be often ignored.

And as already written, it is not so easy for some tools to offer a graphical interface at all. For example because they have a lot of parameters. Usually a GUI becomes so confusing in these cases that it is still easier to use them in the terminal emulator.

If such settings are easy to change via a graphical interface, I see the danger that users with insufficient knowledge will tinker with them, which may lead to problems.

In addition, there are often so many setting options that it is not possible to manage them with a graphical user interface, or at least not in a reasonable way.

Maybe Borg is a possibility. However, I have not yet backed up an entire system with it, but only certain files.

• The file permissions have always been correct when restoring files in my case.
• Which compression (LZ4, zlib, LZMA or zstd) and which compression level is used can be specified when creating a backup.
• Backups can be mounted via FUSE, so that you can restore individual files with an file manager or a terminal emulator, for example.

With the command hdparm -I /dev/sdX you can check if ATA Secure Erase is supported by the respective hard disk. If the output shows among others things supported: enhanced erase this is the case. Instead of sdX you must of course specify the respective hard disk.

Edit: You should run this command anyway to make sure that the hard disk in question is not frozen (https://archive.kernel.org/oldwiki/ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ATA_Secure_Erase.html#Step_1a_-_Ensure_the_drive_is_not_frozen:).

In my experience, there are no problems with either VirtualBox or VMware when it comes to Arch. Personally, I mainly use VirtualBox.

In my opinion, users who already use vim are not the primary target audience of Helix. I see the target group more among users who want to switch from a "normal" editor to a modal editor. The selection → action model and the easier shortcuts probably make the switch easier for many. I personally don't like vim at all because of the handling (purely subjective view). Helix will definitely not be my default editor but I get along much better with it than with vim or neovim.