HayadSont @ HayadSont @discuss.online

Posts

10

Comments

159

Joined

3 mo. ago

Sure fam. This is actually a situation that might come up a lot. Basically any instance of dependency hell caused by conflicting dependencies would be resolved if two different versions of the same software could coexist.

• Peeps that are maintaining packages probably have to deal with this every once in a while as well. Especially if the packaged software relies on some very niche (and possibly questionable) dependencies*. To point towards one of the most openly discussed cases of this, consider watching this video by Brodie in which the takedown of the unofficial packages of Bottles is being discussed.
• E.g. whenever one tries to compile software themselves OR install/use them as/from binaries/tarballs.
• E.g. installing packages as PPAs or other third party repositories (like e.g. the AUR) can also come with dependency hell and are often the reason why breakage occurs.

Q: Would a normal system (read: I'm not talking about Guix System or NixOS) allow you to install multiple branches/versions of the same software natively without introducing a lot of headaches?

A: No. This is literally unsupported.

Then, if using containers (or any other similar platform) allows one to breach that limitation, would it be fair to call containers (and their like) to be strictly limited/limiting in customization?

First of all, thank you for that response!

Do you think I am using this thread and this thread alone as my only source of information on these distros?

No, I don't think that. I'd even challenge that notion as your query didn't start with a simple "What's best?" but instead asked for a comparison between three distros that were (somehow) selected by you. Please feel free to enlighten me on what made you even consider the premise of your above question. Though, as this is not that important to begin with, it's also perfectly fine to ignore that 👍.

I feel as though this thread has delved into the essence of the matter perfectly well. That matter being, of course, people’s opinions on the three distros I laid out.

If you lay it out like that, then; yeah, surely. However, it seems we fundamentally differ on what the essence of the matter is. And, perhaps I'm at fault for thinking this is a beneficial exercise to begin with. Regardless, I feel I at least owe you an explanation that goes over where I'm coming from:

Fundamentally, literally none of your original three distros serve you well for the purposes of "I’m starting to want to delve into my OS more to see what I can customize". Each one is pretty opinionated (by default^[Garuda is exempted from this through its KDE Lite offering.]) and -heck- both Bazzite and Nobara come with (highly) specialized tools required for system maintenance. This is because they've identified that there's a very serious disconnect between the freedom they'd like to allow their users and the (otherwise almost insurmountable) complexity this adds to how upgrades are managed. Bazzite trusts Fedora Atomic's tooling for this, while Nobara has created their own.

Being (highly) opinionated isn't necessarily bad. But it's undeniably easier to tweak/tinker/configure a more minimal system. Hence, you're better served by a lean install (with sane defaults). Thankfully, community members either recognized this and tried to sway you towards other options. With success*. Or, you were able to discern distros that better serve you from the communities' input. However it may be, both CachyOS and Solus are definitely better in that regard. Though, crucially, if the community strictly kept to discussing the original three distros and didn't go out of their way to venture into unexplored waters, then you wouldn't have arrived where you are right now.

Anyhow, all of the above could as well be disregarded the very moment you (hypothetically) state that your idea of customization is limited to the avenues KDE Plasma offers. Because, the original three are perfectly suited for that. So, your ideas on what tweaking/tinkering/customization entails is fundamentally linked to the distro that's most fit for the job.

And thus, I would distill the essence of the matter to be a clear idea on what kind of balance between "stability" and "customization" is envisioned as desirable by you. And, while at it, proper delineations of what is and isn't understood as stability and customization. Is the requirement of stability only satisfied if you can easily rollback to a proper working state? Or, is borking on a random update simply unforgivable? On the other hand, do you really want to compile your own kernel and install it? Or were you merely interested in KDE's knobs? Etc. etc.

and start an in-depth discussion

Not necessarily, answering "Or…, like could you perhaps be more clear on what it is you’d like to tinker/tweak/customize in the first place?" would probably have been sufficient.

something I can crack open and break while tweaking - for the learning experience

There's so much we could go over in the paragraph the above text is found, but I'll instead limit myself to just the above text. I find myself in a conundrum when you present that the above was implied and that (somehow) you came to consider Bazzite. While Bazzite is a lot more customizable than people give it credit for, I would not describe any part of the experience as "cracking it open". So, when met with an oxymoron as such, I literally have to ask for a clarification.

Fedora has lost my favor due to being a fixed release distro.

You've stated somewhere that you "Love the idea of rolling releases". So, if Solus passes as a rolling release distro ^{[To be clear, technically, it absolutely does.], but [has less uptodate packages than Fedora's previous release](https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/pnewest)}[So I'm not even comparing it to Fedora 42 or Fedora Rawhide (i.e. its rolling release branch).]. Then, what is it intrinsically that makes it favorable as a rolling release? And I haven't even delved into why Fedora's release cadence is referred to as semi-rolling or how the latest updates to packages like GNOME arrive earlier in Fedora compared to even Arch. Btw, this is not meant as one big advertisement for Fedora. Instead, I want to point out the many many nuances that exist within the Linux landscape.

After CachyOS was brought to my attention, and I researched it a little bit, it seemed to fit my desires pretty well. It’s optimized for speed, which is perfect for games, and it’s rolling release so I still get to feel like an uber haxx0r.

But, I think I’ll stick with CachyOS for now, I’m excited to use Arch btw.

I agree that CachyOS is one of the better fits. And if you're not interested to check out Arch, EndeavourOS or openSUSE Tumbleweed(/Slowroll), then I can't even think of another rolling release worth considering for you.

I love that it’s a small team.

I don't know why this would be preferred over a big team 🤔. Mind helping me understand this?

Btw, to be clear, Solus, as a project, is currently not very healthy. While it could compete with Fedora and openSUSE in the past, the last couple of years haven't been very kind to it. I'd propose the idea that the departure of its founder (i.e. Ikey Doherty) from the project has left it (relatively) visionless. And the turbulent times that followed made nurturing its community a great challenge. One, I'd argue, they weren't able to handle gracefully. Regardless, it's undoubtedly a shell of its former glory. This is also reflected by how relatively bare-bones its repository is. Or how absent it is within the discourse. Hopefully it will be able to bounce back after goodies from Doherty's latest project (i.e. AerynOS) trinkle down to benefit Solus. But, until then, it would be very irresponsible of me if I didn't discourage you from daily-driving it...

the performance will take a hit

This is not entirely true. Is there overhead? Sure. But, if the distro used for the container provides (somehow) faster or more performative packages to begin with, then running software within a fast container can be faster that running it natively on the slower host. Link to the comment in which the link to the above benchmark can be found as proof. As can be seen, the Clear Linux container performs better in 90% of the benchmarks. And, the Fedora container is only negligibly (so within margin of error) less performative than the Fedora host.

I suppose that's fine, and please feel free to act however way you wish.

The fact remains, however, that no one actually delved into the essence of the matter.

Furthermore, I find it rather troublesome that you deflected the question rather than answering it head-on. Perhaps you didn't think it through yet, and are just waiting to be swayed by whoever advertises best.

To illustrate my point, would you (at least) be so kind to explain me where/why Fedora has lost your favor? While, on the other hand, what Solus provides (in contrast) to justify your interest in it?

But, now that I’m familiar with how to set up any game that needs a little help besides Proton, I’m starting to want to delve into my OS more to see what I can customize, and I think picking a new distro with slightly different architechture will be very nice.

Don’t get me wrong, I still want something that works by itself more often than not. But I would love to have something a little more cutting-edge that gives me a little more control.

Fam, did I understand you correctly that you want to tinker/tweak/customize the system to your heart's content? Yet, you also wish that the system "just works". At least, mostly. Is that right? Or..., like could you perhaps be more clear on what it is you'd like to tinker/tweak/customize in the first place? Please, if possible, be explicit.

After I got a better idea on what it actually is that you seek, I'll try to answer your other(/remaining) questions.

FWIW, Proton has acquired SimpleLogin. As such, I perceive/regard it as an extension to Proton rather than a third party.

Upgrading between major versions is not a trivial task. Did you adhere to the instructions/tutorials found on this page?

Thanks fam for the wonderful conversation! Wish ya the best!

I feel this, but never had any pains related to it, it's just more comfortable.

FWIW, my biggest pains had been related to that. Though, more recently this has been rivaling it.

What have you switched to?

Again, I want to establish that I've learned a ton and really appreciate your writings. Thank you!

That looks interesting, although I would be weary of learning a layout that only works on specific keyboards, it will make it hard for you to use a laptop on the go, work in an office with a normal keyboard or any other similar situation.

Thanks for the reminder! While I can't completely ignore the main takeaway, I do find myself only rarely (read: less than 5%) engage with normal keyboards. And, AFAIU, by only adopting the exotic layout for splitting keyboards, I can keep the muscle memory for QWERTY on regular keyboards. Though, please feel free to correct me if I say something that goes against your own experiences.

which btw I strongly recommend you check out wrist and finger stretching exercises as they help a lot

Would you be so kind to share what has worked for your wrist? While there's no reason to assume that your exercises work out for me, I can at least discuss them with the physiotherapist. BTW, to be clear, I've already visited the physiotherapist a number of times and we've discussed exercises that I've eventually incorporated in my daily routine.

Lots of the changes I made (e.g. split ortholinear keyboard) were probably not needed

Question: If we focus on the split ortholinear keyboard, is only the ortholinear aspect (possibly) redundant? Or..., the split itself?

Bazzite is a lot less user friendly than mint in major ways.

Would you be so kind to substantiate the above claim beyond what's found below?

KDE is too deep unnecessarily so.

Unfortunately, based on what I saw on the Proton website, if I want to use it on linux it looks like the only way is to get it on Ubuntu, Debian, or Fedora using the console.

For official support, yes. Thankfully, ProtonVPN is also available as a flatpak. As such, any distro that allows installing (unverified) flatpaks through its GUI software store suffices. Though, not all distros are created equally in this respect. Focusing on Kubuntu and Linux Mint specifically:

• Kubuntu requires the use of CLI to set this up.
• Linux Mint, on the other hand, supports it by default. Though, by default, unverified flatpaks are hidden. Thankfully, you can change that in the preferences window of its software manager.

Thank you! Great answer!

For some reason, perhaps because I'm an absolute shill/sucker for free services, I always forget about mailbox.org. Thank you for bringing it to my attention and talking about its features!

Though, if I understand correctly, we basically don't have a privacy-respecting email provider that offers auto-forward and auto-reply functionality in its free plan/tier:

• Proton Mail requires a paid plan for auto-forwarding/replying and its free plan doesn't support IMAP. BUT?!, crucially, IIUC, the issue can already be circumvented with a custom domain that sits in front of Proton Mail. Which, isn't entirely free, but 1$ for the domain ain't bad.
• Tuta Mail doesn't even offer the functionality AFAIK nor does it support IMAP. Furthermore, I don't know if the custom domain trick works for this one.
• Finally, mailbox.org doesn't even have a free plan. Though, at 1 euro/month, it's at least very competitively priced.

This is pretty cool and definitely has use, but IIUC this is strictly a free forwarding address, right? I don't think it tries to compete with Proton Mail or Tuta Mail.

Thank you for raising this point.

Are there even other privacy-respecting email providers that are fit for the job? I'm genuinely curious.

EDIT: I absolute hate doing this, but I want to understand: Why is this getting downvoted?

Thank you so much for your elaborate and well-articulated reply! As I don't want these messages to spiral into an ever-expanding wall of text, I've chosen to refrain from reacting to every single valuable thing you've written. Nonetheless, everything, including the parts I'm explicitly not reacting to, has been a joy to read and has been very informative. So, again, thank you! Much appreciated!

Which alternate layout are you considering?

Hehe, currently, I've landed on Night.

I recommend grabbing something you typed and feeding it here to check heat map of keypresses you would have done to have some visual representation of your usage.

This is pretty cool! Unfortunately, (perhaps unsurprisingly) Night isn't included within its layout options. I would otherwise have loved to check this out.

switch stuff on the early signals because that first wrist pain was an eye opener on how bad things can get if you ignore them.

Would you like to elaborate on this? As the pains and discomfort have increased over time, I have been more conscious than previously. But, I'm sure there's still a lot of mileage to be had. Like, what do you perceive as an early signal? Exhaustion and/or fatigue after a day of work? Or perhaps something more specific?

Furthermore, how bad did things become?

Do you feel pain now though?

After a couple of hours, I do experience strange sensations that border on pain. Furthermore, there's (almost) always some level of unease/discomfort. Thankfully, resting continues to feel good and I get especially revitalized after sleeping well. But I acknowledge that this isn't sustainable.

If so what?

Wrist pain and fingers that feel wacky. So, this is basically carpal tunnel 101. This has been confirmed/diagnosed by both the general practioner as well as the surgeon. Thankfully, the damage is relatively tame still; the surgeon didn't see much distortion/damage in the x-rays (yet). There's also no need (yet) for a surgery and (hopefully) there'll never be. Which is very much reliant on me putting in the work and effort to make this as comfortable and (by extension) sustainable as possible.

You should address that immediately. At most points I would have answered that I felt no pain with my setup, because those things build up gradually, if you're at the point of feeling pain the time to take action is now.

I have taken some action; but I'm still very much in the process. I'm aware it's just not enough (yet). But, the steps I've taken so far have thankfully led to significant relieve already. Like, I was a lot worse last year. And, as hinted at previously, I already have plans to address the remaining issues.

my point is that the plugin ecosystem for it might be a bit less extensive, and not sure how to set shortcuts that use vim key bindings for other plugins.

You could be right on the plugin ecosystem; even beyond the integration of evil-mode*. It doesn't matter which metric I throw at it, the Neovim ecosystem seems to be more vibrant. Though, at least for the time being, org-mode seems to be Emacs' forte. Which..., just happens to be the very thing I'm using it mostly for. While I'm far from being comfortable with it, it has already provided a much better experience compared to all other text editors I've tried.

I would only try out Emacs or Neovim through a opinionated config.

Why?

My apologies, perhaps I should have been clearer. I didn't stress enough how this was mostly for trying it out and get going initially. I'm still on Doom Emacs, but I do intend to build my own config after I've gotten a better grasp IF it's beneficial.

And that's another point for Nvim for me, their configs are very easy, I followed this guide and had a working config that I could easily expand in no time.

Hahaha 🤣, I would have loved to have an up-to-date video guide like that for Emacs. Alas... 😅.

I miss org-mode

Hehe 😜, though I wonder: have you tried out Neorg or nvim-orgmode to see how they fare by comparison?

Virtual Machine Manager's GitHub page for its flatpak includes the following lines:

NOTE: By default, this Flatpak only includes the Virtual Machine Manager client application and does not include the libvirt daemon or QEMU. Depending on your use case, you may have to install other applications or extensions:

• Connecting to a remote libvirt instance: nothing else needed
• Connecting to a libvirt system instance: make sure that libvirtd is installed on the host, either via your package manager or using a system extension on image based systems for example
• Connecting to a libvirt user instance: install the QEMU extension using flatpak install org.virt_manager.virt_manager.Extension.Qemu

So, in this case, have you either installed libvirtd on the host^[Technically, you could also install libvirtd as a sysext.] (i.e. have you installed it with rpm-ostree) OR have you installed the QEMU extension as per its own instruction?

If neither, then you should at least do one of them and report back.

EDIT: While what's written above remains relevant beyond Bazzite, Bazzite's ujust scripts do provide handholds for a myriad of situations including this one:

• (Step 0: Uninstall^[The ujust script will likely install another instance of VM Manager. As such, the flatpak is no longer needed and would only cause confusion.] the flatpak of Virtual Machine Manager)
• Step 1: Install Virtual Machine Manager with ujust, i.e. invoke the ujust setup-virtualization command

I suppose the ujust way handles a bunch of gotchas you'd otherwise have to tackle yourself. And, thus, is most likely preferred over all other methods.

As a side note, please consider consulting Bazzite's excellent documentation first. We'll be more than happy to help out regardless, but I'm sure there are a bunch of gems you'll be missing out on otherwise.

My pleasure fam! Btw, I'm in no place to dictate what's right or wrong (or whatsoever). I just wanted to add their perspective on the matter*.

Article by a Red Hat engineer that also makes a ton of contributions to FOSS in their free time: Don't change your login shell, use a modern terminal emulator