bsergay

Thank you for giving me the opportunity for a refresh 😛. And thank you for the very civilized conversation. I wish you a great day!

Yes. Not everything I have is installed through the Google store.

I understand from this, that it is implied, that the majority of what you have installed, has been done through the Google store though. By extension, I assume that -by default- you entrust installing software to the Google store. Hence, if all of the above is correct, then you actually don't commit to 'the Windows-way' by default; but only by exception. Which is exactly my point.

But you're acting like one needs to have some expert skills to install things outside of the package manager.

I feel you're reading too much into it. In my first comment, I didn't even mention package managers. In the second comment, I only wrote -and I quote- "Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.". I don't see where expert skills are implied if one chooses to go outside of it. Please feel free to help me understand where I did.

It's generally preferred for a number of reasons but it's not bad "per se" to install something outside of it.

I never implied otherwise.

On your phone, do you search the software you want to install through your browser? After which, do you download the install script and try to run it?

No, of course not. Instead, you pay a visit to the accompanied software center. Searching, installing and upgrading all occur through that.

Similarly, on Linux, your chosen distro comes with a (or perhaps multiple) package manager(s) and a software center. Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.

This should suffice for the sake of brevity. If you've still got questions, please feel free to ask them.

Sure, but even in those “few cases” Testing will get them soon.

Didn't I allude to that with:

"it doesn’t receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does.

Though I do notice that the above sentence contains an error that is perhaps misleading. By definition, Unstable/Sid doesn't receive security backports. Instead, the updates related to security are (usually) first received in Unstable/Sid. So, the above sentence tried to portray the following picture related to security:

Unstable/Sid ~ Stable >> Testing

I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.

That's basically the point I've been making 😉.

I think the only remaining point of contention is the degree by which Stable does receive security backports right after Unstable/Sid does while Testing only receives it later.

Honestly, I don't know the specifics. But Debian Testing's wiki entry notes security concerns multiple times. And it's all related to the fact that they don't receive the security backports as soon as Stable receives them. The explanation related to security updates concerning the three distinct branches is covered in even more detail over here.

Basically, after I've read all of that, it's clear as day that security is not a priority on Testing. And while band-aid solutions do exist, it's simply not designed to be secure.

Found on the same page you cited from (even same paragraph):

"Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable. Because the package is also present in the next Debian release, you can easily upgrade your stable+backports system once the next Debian release comes out. (In a few cases, usually for security updates, backports are also created from the Debian unstable distribution.)"

Thanks for the reply!

Devuan Ceres probably makes the most sense indeed. Wish ya good luck with it!

FWIW, while it defaults to runit instead, I still felt the need to mention Void Linux.

1, directly from the website Link

I hope you've now understood why -on Linux- you should never try to install stuff like how you were used to on Windows. Unless, you 100% know what you're doing.

Read this for the most complete and comprehensive answer on the matter.

TL;DR: Like Fedora Atomic, it utilizes OCI images for its immutability. However, while Fedora Atomic combines this with libostree/OSTree for git-like management of your system, Vanilla OS (instead) keeps it relatively simple with just A/B partioning; which indeed is somewhat reminiscent to what's found on Android.

Am upgrading from thinkpad to framework 16 with amd. Looking for distro reccommendations.

I would start looking at what's supported to begin with.

I did the whole distro chooser quiz but didnt help much.

FYI, it isn't as helpful as you would hope and hasn't been updated in quite a while. Don't be too much bothered with the result. But thanks for sharing some tidbits from the quiz as it helps the community to better help you!

avoid systemd

Are you sure you want this?

stable

Does this refer to unchanging (for long periods of time except for security updates)? Or, instead, for being less inclined to break after an update?

Is testing/unstable got wayland?

I don't recommend going for (Debian's/Devuan's) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesn't receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.

are they reliable enough?

Depends on how reliable you want them to be. OOTB, their reliability definitely ain't great, though.

If so what do I go with.

Consider answering all questions found in this comment and we'll be better equipped to help you out with this.

Also hows the hardware comparability with framework i assume it wont be too bad to get set up.

Overall, it's pretty good; epecially so on the supported distros.

Btw, you strike me as a (relatively) new user that doesn't seem to have a good understanding on Linux yet. Is this correct?

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

May I ask you what made you pursue an Arch installation in the first place?

Your reply is much appreciated! Even though I am saddened by the content. And apologies for the upcoming long reply. I thank you in advance for reading through it all.

Imo

Thank you for weakening it with "Imo"! To clarify; it seemed as if the "authority" in "appeal to authority" was conflated with content creators. If this wasn't an appeal to authority in the first place, then please feel free to dismiss my earlier stated sentence.

Normally, I would have asked for clarification in order to prevent possible miscommunication. Unfortunately, after our first serious attempt at reconciling our differences failed miserably, I have instead chosen for a more direct approach in hopes of making it more accessible. It's also more prone to being misunderstood as confrontational, aggressive et cetera. But, if even my super sweet approach in the earlier mentioned conversation failed, I don't see why I should make it less accessible for all involved parties if it doesn't benefit either of us.

this shows your aggressive inability to accept opinions different to yours

I may as well accuse you of doing the same. But..., I don't. But somehow I'm perceived as the villain. I simply fail to understand.

On Lemmy, I engage for one reason, and for one reason only; to arrive at a mutual understanding. This manifests itself in multiple ways:

• I'm interested in the communities output on a certain query and engage with them through a post I create.
• I'm introduced to a new concept through a post/comment -> Search engines don't yield anything useful -> I ask a question in hopes of learning something new -> And hopefully that engagement yields new information for me; I'm primarily on the receiving end of 'profit'
• Someone poses something that I don't agree with or don't understand -> I engage in hopes of my understanding being proven wrong; as that results in the most new information; hence most profit -> Most often, it's somewhere in between; I might get a new perspective on something, but not too crazy. At times, though, the person I was engaging with had some notions that were not entirely backed up; hence, we both end up learning a thing or two
• Misinformation or fake news or misunderstanding or whatever known false fact is shared -> I engage in hopes of combating false notions. No profit; but you gotta do what you gotta do
• Question is asked, I happen to know an answer that might be helpful -> I contribute. No profit; but contributions are required to foster a nice community

To be clear; I love to accept valid criticism. Especially, if they provide me with new insights and polish my own ideas/notions. Heck, I've even been complimented on how I engage with them in one of our first interactions. And, if you've noticed, this very conversation below our current post is not very different. I just ask you to back up your claims so that I may learn from them. I want to accept them; new knowledge/insights/profit et cetera. But I can't simply accept your claims on the basis of nothing. That doesn't make any sense. That's not how epistemology works.

even if they are obviously more true.

If they're "obviously more true", then it should have been obviously easy to prove their truth. But, I've yet to receive a proof, even after I've explicitly asked you. Or, conversely, proof my falsehood. That's basically the problem at hand: you're less sensitive to back up your claims; even when pressed to do so. Instead, you choose to do whatever you did (or tried) in your most recent reply.

Or, I don't know, ask me how I'm so sure of my own convictions/judgements/ideas. But, and that's very curious; I don't recall you ever asking me a question. Isn't that the most obvious indication that I'm actively trying to engage with your ideas and your output? While you seem to be completely devoid of that. And, somehow, I've become the one that's regarded as possessing "aggressive inability to accept opinions different to yours, even if they are obviously more true.". Sorry, I simply can't take this serious 😅.

At this point I'm asking you to stop stalking me and making fun of me

Fam, you got some hate-boner towards Fedora, 'immutable' distros and especially their intersection; Fedora Atomic. Either educate yourself on them and act accordingly, or simply stop spreading misinformation. Either way, you'll never hear from me again. Related point; simply don't spread misinformation. Period.

making fun of me

I fail to see how I am even making fun of you. If you perceive 'pressing to back up claims' as making fun of you, then... I simply don't know what to say.

Can I run KDE and Gnome on bazzite?

Both GNOME and KDE Plasma are supported on Bazzite.

How can I install and manage multiple images?

Multiple images can only coexist as follows:

• Dual-boot
• Rebase to second image -> pin second image with sudo ostree admin pin <insert digit> -> rebase back to original image. From now on, you can access this second image from GRUB. It's recommended to designate a different user to the second image; and only access it through that. While what has been just described technically works, and you could even keep the second image up to date with a super cumbersome upgrade path, managing a system like this is not supported and could lead to unforeseen circumstances. Though, it is valid to pin your original image -> test another image through rebasing (and a new designated user) -> rollback to original image. Pinning the original image is not necessary, but I like to play safe. Note that rpm-ostree reset might be needed sometimes for rebasing.

Now I suspect that perhaps the game freeze wouldn’t happen with Gnome either. So I want to have both on bazzite, but can’t figure it out.

So, IIUC, you're just interested to know if this problem persists on GNOME or not. So, consider the following:

• Pin your current deployment with sudo ostree admin pin 0.
• Create a new user, but don't use it yet.
• Rebase to Bazzite's GNOME image.
• Reboot
• Enter through the new user (or create a new one).
• Test out whatever you want.
• Rollback through rpm-ostree rollback
• Reboot
• Continue using your original user.