Para_lyzed @ Para_lyzed @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

185

Joined

2 yr. ago

Adobe software will not run in WINE (with few exceptions). Here is the AppDB page for Premiere:

https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?iId=128&sClass=application

You can search for any other programs you're looking to run on that page to find compatibility. If you want to edit videos in Linux, you'll have to use a different program, like Kdenlive, OpenShot, or DaVinci Resolve. DaVinci Resolve has a free version for Linux, but it isn't open source. I don't know how cut down the free version is, but the paid version is used by professional studios. Otherwise you have to use an alternative program or use Windows, either in a VM or by booting into Windows (there are easy ways to set up a VM, but that's outside the scope of this comment). There are many productivity programs that will not run in WINE, as it is not a silver bullet.

I recommend you check the AppDB for any programs you'd want to run in WINE. It'll save you the time of trying to run things that are known to not work. Here's the link to search WINE's AppDB:

https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&sTitle=Browse%20Applications&sOrderBy=appName&bAscending=true

Just use the "Name" filter to search for a specific program.

As for Rufus, I'd just recommend using BalenaEtcher on Linux, as it's native. You can search for Rufus on WINE if you want to check (I checked out of curiosity and it has a "garbage" rating, so it's unusable in WINE), but it would be easier to run a native package regardless. Or if you're on Fedora, you'll already have the Fedora Media Writer installed which will also work. Both have simple GUI interfaces to flash ISO files onto USB drives.

Here's the link to BalenaEtcher's website:

https://etcher.balena.io/

Or if you want to install it to your OS instead of using an AppImage (installing makes it easier to find since it would add an entry to your applications menu), you can go to their GitHub and download the right package for your distro (they provide installation instructions):

https://github.com/balena-io/etcher

Finding alternative software is usually just a quick search in a search engine for " for Linux", or similar.

Another lie. That is very clearly not what I asked for. You even said yourself already that it's not right here:

Your question in the post is the following:

Is it not possible to create an OS that just does the same thing as Steam but for the entire OS?

The user specified a way to do that, implying that it is indeed possible to do it. They answered your question by providing the solution to how one would do about creating an OS that does that: include the WINE package, as it does that automatically.

Yes, there is. Several, in fact, as many others have actually helpfully pointed out at this point.

First off, I corrected that segment a couple minutes after posting that reply (feel free to check the edit timestamp) as I was doing my initial read-over. You're replying to a part of a comment that no longer exists, and didn't exist at the time of your reply. Feel free to reply to the corrected section that was available to you at the time you posted your comment, not that I expect it to matter.

More lies. Never happened. At no point did I ask for, "demand" or even want an explanation, and even after I've stated this several times here you are STILL trying to explain and put this forward as a solution.

Perhaps you misunderstand how your original reply reads, but insulting someone by saying they didn't elaborate inherently implies that you want elaboration. If you didn't want elaboration, why does your comment specifically insult Linux users by saying they don't elaborate?

Several of you have decided you don't want to be helpful but instead choose to deride and insult me because I don't want to do it your way, as if I don't deserve it unless I've spent dozens of hours trying to make it work.

I (and the others in this thread), don't care how you choose to do something. It's Linux we're talking about, after all; there are many different ways to do any task. But dismissing a solution that is in fact very easy and you can do in a matter of minutes depending on how long it takes your package manager to download the WINE package, is ridiculous. If you don't want to do it that way, don't. But don't insult the solution by saying it's wrong when it in fact is not. I even tested it on my install and it took me 2 minutes with no setup other than installing WINE from the app store and downloading an installer .exe file for a Windows program. Just right make sure the .exe is marked as executable (it shouldn't be by default, so right click, properties/permissions, and tick the executable box), then right click and open with WINE (may have to use choose application menu depending on distro). From then on, any double click will automatically open a .exe file in WINE given it has executable permissions. It takes a couple minutes, not "dozens of hours".

If you're really so dead set on not doing it, simply stop replying. You aren't being held prisoner here, after all. You have the choice to choose what you reply to, and if you don't think it's worth your time (which is contrary to what you've shown by your numerous replies), then don't bother replying. I can't think of a simpler solution.

I don't understand how you can take the time to write this out without understanding that it's not what I'm asking for.

In fact you already spelled out all of the additional configurations required to make this "kinda work" without understanding that I'm not interested in that shit.

You asked if it's possible to make an OS to open .exe files by default. You were met with the original reply in this thread, which told you exactly how it would be possible. If you want to go through all the trouble of installing a completely new distro instead of spending 2 minutes following the instructions to apply this to your own, knock yourself out. But that's irrelevant to the fact that your question was answered (albeit indirectly) by giving you exactly how it would be done. If you're going to use Linux, I highly recommend you understand that installing a different distro will not solve all your problems. It's much easier to install a single package.

And yet you are incapable of understanding why I'm not being polite anymore.

I'm not expecting you to be polite in response to me, and I never said that I would expect that. I met the hostility that you already had shown in your first 2 replies with hostility because I don't have the patience to try to be polite to you. My problem with your hostility is from before I started this conversation, when you insulted the entire Linux community. I don't see how that isn't clear given how specific I've been.

I did no such thing. The hostility came with the accusations of "bitching and moaning" because I said I didn't want to do it the way they suggested, which was also not what I asked for.

I'll quote your first reply verbatim:

Linux users have a habit of saying "Sure! you can just..." without ever elaborating on how ridiculously complicated it is or the level of knowledge required.

That is coming into the conversation with hostility. You generalize a population (Linux users), insult them, and then complain about their comment by implying it isn't helpful. The solution to this is to simply ask something like "Okay, how do I do this?" and not start your reply with what is essentially "You Linux users are never helpful, tell me how to do it instead of just suggesting an option".

You're just lying. That never happened.

Need I repeat? Here's the generalizing insult:

Linux users have a habit of saying "Sure! you can just..." without ever elaborating on how ridiculously complicated it is or the level of knowledge required.

Perhaps you fail to grasp how this is an insult, so let me elaborate (because clearly you'll get mad and whine that I didn't elaborate if I don't). You open with a generalizing statement that implies that all Linux users are unhelpful. You imply that the solutions they give are all, in your own words, "ridiculously complicated", and you impolitely demand that they explain further. Any normal person who has any respect for other people would politely ask them to explain in more detail; it's as simple as that. If you don't think that it answers your question, either don't reply at all, or reply by saying politely that you don't think this is a solution, and why.

I don't want to do what they said I can do. It's not what I asked for.

They actually provide a trivially easy solution to exactly what you're asking. All you do is install the base WINE package from your software repository like any other app, and then right click on the .exe and run in WINE. It will be saved as a default action, so any .exe you click on past that point will automatically open in WINE. You asked if it was possible to create an OS so that all .exe files automatically open in WINE, and that's the solution; yes it is possible and here's how, essentially. Most mainstream OSs don't do this by default, as WINE is not a default package since you're expected to run applications designed for your distro, not ones packaged for Windows. ZorinOS does this by default, so yes it is possible to create one, or you can convert your existing OS to do exactly this by simply installing WINE (no configuration needed, just install from your app store or package manager), as the user suggested. WINE will automatically manage the installs and add entries to your application manager so you can run applications installed in WINE like any other program in your machine. If you're using an installer, it will add the entry after installation, but if you're using portable .exe files, you will just double click on them (or single click if you use one of those distros that uses single click instead of double click to open a file). You just need to make sure that you give permission to the file to be executable (right click and go to properties or permissions depending on your file manager, then tick the box that suggests allowing the file to be executable). For most people, having WINE installed by default is just needless bloat, which is again why you don't see it installed as a default package in almost any distro.

Lying again...Lies...More lies...Still lying

This is so childish and unnecessary that it doesn't even warrant a response.

That's a good question.

Then answer it. If you're going to ask for help here, you should show an ounce of respect to the people here who are trying to help you. You clearly aren't going to be popular in this community if all you do is insult everyone else in it.

Simply because I have more disdain for MS and Apple but I need a computer to do things.

Then you better change your attitude. If you're going to treat the people helping you here like shit, no one will want to help you. Or you could just figure things out on your own somewhere else.

It makes no sense because it's not happening. You're imagining it.

Ah, the classic gaslighting. You know that doesn't work when we can see your previous comments, right? Or are you delusional? Are you so paranoid that everyone is out to get you that you're incapable of recognizing that you're the one creating this problem?

Also they weren't helping me. If I ask you for cheese and you hand me an Apple and say "Eat this, dumbass!", is that helpful?

I don't see the analogy here. Your post asks if it's possible to create an OS that runs .exe files through WINE like how Steam lets you run games through Proton. The user replied saying that WINE does this by default, and adds entries into your application shortcuts so you can run then like any other program. That's how Steam does it with games, too. How is that not a solution? They answered your question exactly.

the aggressive tone is unnecessary.

Sorry, but I throw politeness out the window when I'm conversing with people who are disrespectful and insulting to the community I'm a part of. You met us with aggression, you shouldn't expect anything but the same from our replies. I'm not going to be polite and reserved with someone who clearly won't reciprocate it. If you want polite discourse, don't open up by generalizing and insulting the entire community that you're posting to.

I agree with everything here, except for maybe the last part. Most Windows users I know have only ever used a single application for any given purpose, and having to find all the open source alternatives (or figuring out how to run them in WINE) can be quite a change. Granted, that isn't really a Debian issue; that's just part of moving to Linux to begin with. I'm not familiar with all the default packages in Debian, but so long as the desktop version has an image/video viewer, some default web browser for the user to look things up with, and basic utilities to open files with (mp3, doc files, etc.), I imagine the default packages will be fine for most. The lack of a GUI for Nvidia driver installs will of course be a point of friction for most, and maybe some missing media codecs (correct me if I'm wrong about those not being installed by default). I certainly think it's not right to say Debian is "too lean", just that it is "lean".

You came into this with hostility, insulting the commenter instead of nicely asking how to do what they said you can do, and then you have the audacity to complain that they answered your question? Sorry, but it's very clear that you're the problem here. If you're going to complain that Linux users assume you know something when they answer, and then continue to complain when they provide clarification upon realizing they missed some information you needed to know after you complain to them about assuming you know what they're talking about, then the problem here is not the Linux users, and I'm not sure why you're in this community. This goes for every aspect of life, but you can always just politely ask for clarification like a normal person, instead of acting like a child throwing a tantrum. Most people will be conservative with their answers as to not insult you by assuming you don't know anything and bloating the comments with detailed instructions that could be unnecessary. Just ask for clarification.

If your view of Linux users is so negative, then why are you here? Why are you asking us for help? Why are you using Linux in the first place if you have such disdain for it? It makes no sense to me why you are being so hostile to people who are simply trying to help you.

Yes, that is exactly where perfect forward secrecy fails in Element. It allows all of the message keys to be downloaded by attacking a single point of failure. Perfect forward secrecy would necessitate that all messages and their encryption keys be completely independent, and each message would need to be broken one-by-one, as each key is completely different. What Element does with their cloud backup solution is it adds a single point of failure that results in every single message being compromised, without physical access to any device. Real perfect forward secrecy would make that impossible, as you have to break the encryption of every message independently (again, ignoring physical access to the device, because the device will always have access to all the messages anyway). It essentially invalidates many of the benefits of using a double-rachet key exchange protocol to begin with, as you can attack a single point of failure that would compromise all messages instead.

Granted, whether or not that matters to you is entirely up to you. I'm just clarifying that Element lacks perfect forward secrecy, so I have an ideological objection to my own personal use of it for anything sensitive, since there are more secure messengers out there (like SimpleX) that do have perfect forward secrecy, and many more security and privacy features (like the whole no user identifiers thing and no server side storage with SimpleX). That does of course come with the tradeoff that you can only use it on one device at a time, but everything is a list of pros and cons. Is anyone going to target you and attack you by attempting to gain access to your cloud backup keys? No, most certainly not. But the fact that it exists as an attack vector to begin with is troubling from a security perspective (again, that's where SimpleX shines with all data being stored locally, so there is no way to access those messages on demand without physical access to the device). I personally think that the metadata issues are much worse with Matrix from an immediate privacy perspective, as that is an avenue that can be actively exploited in a much easier capacity.

If I understand correctly though, I believe we're both on the same page. Element is still a much better option than something like Discord, but it is not without its own flaws.

The idea with perfect forward secrecy is that by breaking one key, you aren't able to read all the other messages. The way Element works (allowing users to share encryption keys for messages stored server-side across devices, using a shared storage system), allows for a single key to allow access to all messages. All you need is your backup phrase (or a valid login session), and suddenly not just one message is visible, but all messages are. That is fundamentally in complete opposition to perfect forward secrecy.

The way to work around this is by storing all messages locally so they cannot be decrypted simply with server access, but Element stores messages on their servers, not locally (like SimpleX does, for instance). That would allow robust backup and syncing without breaking PFS.

Do you have any sources for that, preferably their own documentation

https://github.com/element-hq/element-meta/issues/1296

I got that from the privacyguides.org website, at:

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/#element

If you look carefully on the Element website, there are never any claims that it provides perfect forward secrecy. This is intentional, and unless they change their backup keys, it will continue to stay that way. As the issue is still currently open, I can only assume it is still currently an issue.

I believe that the TPM will refuse to provide keys after secure boot is disabled, but I didn't intend to imply that it could be used to bypass TPM decryption or anything. Just as an aside that BIOS passwords are effectively useless at preventing access to the BIOS.

You don't seem to understand how TPM works at all. You cannot extract keys from the TPM, it provides protection against any attack that involves removing the hard drive from the computer it is installed in. This is not like storing an encryption key on a USB drive, as you seem to think. I recommend you actually do some reading on TPM before you attempt to talk with any authority. I don't personally think it's a great solution (for me, at least), but not for any of the reasons you've listed in your comments.

LUKS encrypted portable backup drive

You can't use TPM-based encryption on a portable drive, that isn't even possible. That's exactly the point of TPM to begin with. You know, the whole Trusted Platform Module? That exists to ensure your hard drive (or whatever other use you have for the TPM) cannot boot or be read by any machine other than the one it was set up with. That's the entire premise of establishing a root of trust. What are you on about?

Please, read about how TPM works.

Just wanted to add that your BIOS password can be circumvented by taking out the CMOS battery. That will clear all your settings and allow unrestricted access. A BIOS password should absolutely never be used as a form of security, it is trivial to bypass.

Granted, I don't believe that the TPM will give the key if secure boot were disabled, I just wanted to mention that BIOS passwords don't do anything against any real attack.

How did yours break?

I'm going to clarify that I never used AUR while on Manjaro, as that's an important distinction that is often a cause for issues. The most notable issues I remember having were that my grub config changed after an update, and my boot entries were removed. I had to boot manually through the grub command line, then manually fix the grub config. The second was a combination of issues that likely stemmed from a single cause, but I didn't care enough to fix it because it was just the last straw. My system went from working perfectly fine one day, to being a laggy disaster the next. Programs took excessively long to open, battery drain rapidly increased, and performance was horrible. Seemed like a really bad memory leak, and rebooting didn't fix it, so I just installed base Arch which I had already prepared a flash drive for anyway. The timing couldn't have been better honestly, it was like a going away present. Other than that, I remember having driver issues multiple times, occasional crashes that (usually) went away after a reboot or update, but not much specific past that. It's been a few years, so I only remember a handful of experiences. I've never had a distro crash more often than Manjaro.

But so far whenever I ask this I just get vague hand-waving.

There are probably going to be bandwagoners who join in to hate on Manjaro, and most of them definitely won't have anything constructive to say, but that happens with everything. Then you have people like me who used it years ago and can only remember a handful of experiences, and some who can't remember anything useful at all, just remembering being frustrated.

From the article, it seems that there will be a DRM-free version available on the game's website for Linux (and that will be the only place to get the Linux native package). So no need to go through Epic. Plus, most Epic exclusives eventually end up on Steam anyway, it's just a matter of time.

Not the original commentor, but I wanted to share my experience.

I've been daily driving Linux for over a decade now, about 6 months of that was with Manjaro. I have never had a worse experience with a distro than I did with Manjaro, period. I tried it off a recommendation, and figured my initial issues were just flukes, but I couldn't keep coming back to a broken system, so I switched distros. I've used Ubuntu, Debian, Linux Mint, Manjaro, Void Linux, Gentoo, Kali Linux, EndeavorOS, base Arch, Alpine, and my current favorite is Fedora Workstation (though I'll switch to Kinoite/Fedora Atomic KDE when Fedora 40 releases). I have never had a distro break itself like I experienced with Manjaro, and it was consistently breaking. My experience is not unique; many users have the same issues, and that is constantly echoed in this community. I had 8 years of Linux experience under my belt entering Manjaro, so experience has nothing to do with it. Plus, the issues I experienced were never the result of my actions; Manjaro broke itself. Configs I have never touched in my life were broken.

My suggestion to anyone who wants a better user experience with Arch and doesn't want to set it up themselves is EndeavorOS. That's a distro that's capable of keeping its shit together. If you want to stick your head in the sand and deny the problems everyone else has with Manjaro, I can't change your mind, and it isn't worth my time to try. Just wanted to come in and clarify that it has nothing to do with experience. That's just Manjaro, and it isn't just an Arch thing, either. I spent about 2 years with Arch-based distros and never had the issues I did with Manjaro. It's been 3 or 4 years since I last tried it, but everything I've heard has indicated that no improvement has been made in the entire system being broken occasionally department.

I'd like to add SimpleX to this list, as Matrix based messengers hemorrhage metadata, and Session doesn't have perfect forward secrecy. Also, while the Matrix protocol technically supports perfect forward secrecy, Element does not currently use it.

https://simplex.chat/

/etc/fstab is a file that controls auto mount points at boot. You can read about it with the command man fstab, or search up how to add something to it in a search engine. There are plenty of resources to help you online with creating a mount in the fstab.

If you're referring to ROCm, that's completely open source (AMD's CUDA competitor). I didn't notice anything proprietary mentioned in the linked article. Unless I'm missing something, in which case, please do let me know.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to stand up for Red Hat in any of the following, just explaining the relationship between Red Hat, CentOS, and Fedora. My stance on Red Hat has historically been neutral, but recently is erring towards negative after the IBM aquisition. My stance on Fedora has always been positive.

Probably because of what happened to CentOS.

Red Hat bought out CentOS in 2014. They took over their trademark, hired their development team, and placed Red Hat developers on the CentOS team. CentOS was downstream of RHEL, so Red Hat had an invested interest in it, since it actually resembles RHEL.

That's an important distinction: CentOS was downstream of RHEL, and could be used to replace it in enterprise applications. Fedora is upstream of RHEL, and not suitable for enterprise applications (too many package and kernel updates, everything changes frequently, short term release lifetime, etc.). When CentOS was discontinued in favor of CentOS Stream, it no longer had the same value in enterprise use as RHEL, and its competition to RHEL was mostly eliminated. Again, the most important distinction there is that CentOS competed with RHEL, which is why Red Hat took it over and killed it.

Fedora is entirely community managed and developed, with FESCo being community-elected and making decisions in the interest of the community, not in the interest of Red Hat. Red Hat sponsors Fedora, but that relationship is merely financial. It provides money to the Fedora Project because RHEL is downstream of Fedora, and benefits from its continual development. Fedora does not compete with RHEL, so Red Hat has no interest in controlling Fedora, nor could they if they wanted to with the way the project is managed.

Who owns the Fedora trademark?

Red Hat, of course. But again, Red Hat does not have the means to control the development of Fedora, and they would get nothing but backlash from trying, and gain nothing from it. If Red Hat tried to take over Fedora and were somehow successful, the project could easily be forked and rebranded, with the community currently managing it taking over the new fork and developing from there. Fedora would become stale, and Red Hat would have to manage it entirely, which they clearly don't want to do in the first place. The only significant difference would be that the new Fedora fork would not be sponsored by Red Hat, and development would slow down as a result. But again, this has nothing but disadvantages for Red Hat. Red Hat benefits from the Fedora Project's active development, and since it doesn't compete in their market, they get nothing from destroying it.

How independent is Fedora really?

That depends on what aspect of independence you question. Red Hat has no control over the development of Fedora, as that is managed by FESCo. So in that way, Fedora is completely independent. FESCo and the Fedora Project don't develop for the sole interests of Red Hat; they develop for the community. Of course, Red Hat still benefits from that development regardless, but RHEL specific development is handled by Red Hat, not the Fedora Project, and changes to Fedora from Red Hat developers that would stains against the interests of the community would not be approved. The members of FESCo were elected because the community trusts them to make decisions the benefit everyone.

Financially, the Fedora Project is quite dependent on Red Hat. That's where the vast majority of their funding comes from. That funding is given to the Fedora Project because its development is mutually beneficial for both the Fedora community and Red Hat. That fact won't change anytime soon. The testing, bug fixes, security patches, and feature upgrades from the Fedora community are incredibly valuable for Red Hat, and without a consumer desktop platform to test those changes, Red Hat would be greatly disadvantaged.

I am not saying anyone should avoid Fedora, I can just understand why someone would.

Personally, I can't. At least I certainly can't understand if their reasoning had anything to do with Red Hat or IBM. The Fedora Project is independently developed, and does not seek to satisfy the interests of either of those companies. I can understand someone not liking how frequently the kernel is updated, but then again, you don't have to update immediately if you don't want to. I can understand someone being apprehensive because there is some software available on Ubuntu or Debian, but it isn't released for Fedora. I can understand someone not liking the dnf package manager; it is quite slow. I can understand someone not liking the folder structure of Fedora over Debian based operating systems. But I cannot understand someone disliking Fedora because they hate Red Hat or IBM. As fas as the end user is concerned, Fedora might as well have nothing to do with Red Hat or IBM. Yes, RHEL is downstream of Fedora, but that doesn't affect Fedora in any way, it's downstream, not upstream. Fedora is, always has been, and always will be a community driven project that primarily has the interests of the community in mind. The Fedora Project doesn't care about what Red Hat wants or does with RHEL, as it doesn't affect Fedora in the slightest. CentOS was destroyed because it competed with RHEL (or at least Red Hat believed that it did), and Fedora does not. If you don't like Red Hat then don't use RHEL, CentOS, or any of their downstreams, but don't falsely associate the development of Fedora as being at risk of damage by Red Hat.

Anyone who avoids Fedora because they dislike Red Hat or believe it is at risk from Red Hat is misinformed at best.

Just to clarity the relationship between Red Hat, IBM, and Fedora, Fedora is only sponsored by Red Hat. They make all their own decisions, and while they receive financial support from Red Hat and Red Hat owns the Fedora trademark, their decisions and development are independent of Red Hat (and by extension IBM), with the single exception that they cannot risk violating the law (i.e. copyright infringement), else it risks Red Hat legal trouble (and Fedora would risk losing their sponsorship as a result). Red Hat benefits from Fedora's development by the community, given that Fedora is RHEL's upstream, hence why it continues to sponsor Fedora. But it isn't Red Hat that is in charge of Fedora's development, it's FESCo, which is entirely community elected, and does not stand for the interests of Red Hat, but rather for the interests of the community.

Eliminating Fedora from contention in that regard is essentially like eliminating Debian because you don't like Canonical, who makes Ubuntu, a downstream of Debian.

Add on top of that the fact that IBM and Red Hat are major contributors to the Linux kernel, and you absolutely cannot avoid connections to them while using Linux. I mean, that's quite frankly a ridiculous exclusion criteria in the context of Linux. If you're looking to avoid an operating system OWNED by Red Hat or IBM, then Fedora should not be included in that list. Neither of them have any say or pull in the development of Fedora, which is a completely community-driven project (no, owning the trademark doesn't change that fact; if Red Hat tried to take over, the Fedora community would simply fork the project, rebrand, and continue on their own). Besides, Red Hat has no interest in controlling Fedora, because it doesn't benefit them. Their only interest is in enterprise applications, which is not a good use case for Fedora. The only operating systems Red Hat actually has any control over are RHEL, CentOS, and any derivatives of those operating systems like Rocky Linux, Oracle Linux, and such (though Red Hat's control over derivatives was only the result of those projects being downstream, not actual ownership).

So with that in mind, I'd recommend the Fedora KDE spin if you want a normal, stable, snap-free, no DIY required distro with KDE, or if you want the immutable version, Fedora Kinoite is what you'd be looking for. And Fedora has the major advantage over Debian-based distros of actually receiving package and kernel updates regularly, so you can stay up to date and enjoy new features, all while maintaining stability.

Fedora Kinoite is absolutely the best immutable distro fitting your criteria. Anything else will have a much smaller community and less support as a result. rpm-ostree has great documentation, and all of the Fedora Atomic Spins have a huge userbase available in case you ever have questions.

Proper touch typing is a dramatic increase to ergonomics and efficiency, and will reduce strain overall. Your wrists shouldn't be moving much if at all while touch typing. There are lots of free online resources available for you to learn how to touch type quickly (and properly). When I first learned how to touch type after years of looking at my keyboard, I got from 0 to 30WPM in a few days of spending a couple hours each day. After a week, I had almost doubled my WPM before learning touch typing, at 60WPM. It's a very important skill that you will be glad you learned if you have regular interactions with computers.

But I understand that this is beyond the scope of your original post.

As far as portability is concerned, you will find vi (the predecessor to vim) on basically any Linux system you will ever run across. It works consistently and is installed by default basically everywhere. I used to hate vim, but after taking the minimal amount of effort to learn neovim, creating my own keybinds, and installing plugins, I've come to absolutely love it. It just takes a small amount of time to wrap your head around switching between insert mode and command mode (i to enter insert mode, escape to leave insert mode back into command mode, :w to save in command mode, and :q to quit in command mode (can combine to save and quit with :wq)), but after that it becomes quite intuitive.

You could even use a mouse with vim/neovim, though I would recommend keeping that usage to when you are scrolling through a large file quickly, looking for errors, etc. where you don't need to be actively typing. You can even turn it into an IDE with the use of language servers that will find compilation errors in files, similar to what you can achieve in something like VS Code. The possibilities are endless. Yes, it has a steep learning curve if you want to get incredibly efficient with it, but you can pick up basic editing in vim very quickly.