Ubuntu lots of the promised customizability and deep control wasn't there (if you are a first time user who don't know about the 4-5 places config files can be located,
How's arch any different?
often differing between distros so google doesnt always hekp
It's either following FHS or not. I've never seen them dropped in random places and also differing between distros.
Not knowing about FHS is not distro specific.
you have no idea what sysctl is, how compiling works, how to manage dependencies)
And why would a brand new beginner touch any of those? If you need to enable something specific, the guide will most likely include systemd instructions. If you need something that's not in the repo, use flatpak for example. If you're not pointlessly compiling, you don't need to manage dependencies, your PMs are doing it for you.
When I got manjaro for the first time, I was blown away about how much you could do with Linux even when not a programmer, because smart people on the AUR have paved the way.
You can do the same things, and AUR doesn't change that, it only gives you an additional source of packages that can't be blindly trusted.
Also you had things like btrfs which are just plain better then win NTFS or linux ext.
They can be set up on other distros, if you don't like timeshift or other solutions. Btrfs is also not really necessary on a stable distro. A security patch is far less likely to break your system when compared to random bleeding edge releases.
But you are right, it broke way to often, that's why I settled for debian after all, as it has the right amount of stability and options imho
Check out MX, it's Debian with some desktop improvements, and a far more sensible default DE for the distro. I'm using it and it's pretty great, nix makes it a lot better, but flatpak does the job as well.
Also, it's really funny that a Debian user goes all fangirl over plasma 6
Plasma 6 - soon on a desktop near you (in 1-3+ years when it stops being a broken mess early enough to be tested and included in the new release)
Dude writes code, that makes me a lot more comfortable recommending an arch install of some kind.
You drive trucks for a living, so you should commute in a rocket car that breaks down randomly. Or are you going to be a chicken and choose something slower, but far more dependable?
Agreed on flatpak, it's fine.
It's pretty counterproductive to suggest something that requires significantly more maintenance if the features are not required. So if flatpak is fine, there's no need for arch, unless the OP is FOMOing for plasma 6 or something.
Dude is just starting out, no matter what arch derivative you're suggesting, it's a bad idea. Flatpak is perfectly fine for installing fresher versions of those packages AFAIK.
Pro tips: research the distro you're trying to install. And try not to follow any random instructions blindly, that's the quickest way to mess something up.
Ubuntu server is made for actual servers, and they don't need features like a GUI or WiFi.
Just use Mint instead if that's what you're comfortable with. It'll use up some extra storage, but you might want to use a GUI at some point instead of SSH.
If you're planning on self-hosting and opening it up to the internet, invest in VLAN first. It's pretty dangerous to have the server running on the home network. More expensive routers have it built in, but you can DIY a solution using software like openwrt or pfsense, and a thin client. There are useful instructionals on YouTube.
You most certainly can customise it, the previous version of Nobara had GNOME looking like windows. Not only can, but need to. Try starting out from default GNOME, and then compare it to what comes with distros. It's essentially unusable if you don't spend a lot of time and effort to customize it in order to have the basic functionality you'd expect coming from Windows.
This is what Linux needs. One single user experience for all. It needs a champion to sell it to normal less tech savvy people. As much I love KDE and QT, Gnome is the way to go.
GNOME is bad, and even if it wasn't, you most certainly don't need a one true DE. If you want that, you can go right back to win or mac.
Here's an example. The main difference to my current setup is that I'm installing nixGL through nix-channels because then I don't have to use --impure that way, although I still haven't gotten around to automating its usage so that might still change.
Basically I just have list of packages that I want installed (home.nix), and I run updates a couple of times a week. If something breaks (it hasn't yet), I could just roll back to a previous generation.
Do the Nix packages have their own isolated dependency resolution?
Each package has specified dependencies, nix downloads them separately and then symlinks them in order for the package to access it. If two packages require the same version of the dependency, based on the hash of the output, they'll each get a symlink of the same dependency. If they require different versions, it will download the correct ones for each of the packages.
That way you're theoretically never get mismatched dependencies, but it uses a bit more space.
Now that I think of it, a guix fork would be far more useful than a nix one. You could forgo some of the FOSS extremism, and allow your users to install it without an ethernet cable, and maybe even on the infidel Operating Systems (even though guix is in the official repo for Debian + wsl).
And I bet guile could really use the attention. AFAIK it's mainly developed by one dude, and he made some impressive improvements. Just check out the release speeches on youtube, massive jumps between versions.
Best of all, the GNU people could focus on building a better core, and choose to adopt only some changes, while preserving the purity of their system.
for using debian testing, been daily driving it for years on my gaming desktop. stable for server’s and hardware that isn’t booted up daily.
Why even use debian at that point?
Half of all of my packages are from nix unstable, but the system itself is still debian stable. That means I've got the bleeding edge user packages, but my system always boots. Casuals can use flatpak instead.
The only downside is for bleeding edge hardware, but again, why use debian at that point.
If anyone is willing to learn a little bit of Guile Scheme - look, the language is great, the project isn't contaminated with multiple scripts, project skeleton is much better, the modules are well written, so why not move over there?
The language is great, but the ecosystem is on life support, and I don't see it getting anywhere close to nix soon. I believe it's especially crippled by being Linux only and forcing free software to the point you're not allowed to even mention the non-free repo in the guix irc.
Random Devs and companies aren't going to use it for their projects, and so there far less maintainers to solve issues like having a node version that's not in maintenance for half a year and 4 major versions behind, or having automated npm package conversions.
Realistically it's currently only useful for a few languages with abysmal PMs, most of which are lisps, and like Haskell.
A total of 156 vehicle series from around 20 car brands were evaluated in the current breakdown statistics. All breakdowns during 2023 that affected vehicles between three and ten years old (first registered from 2014 to 2021) were taken into account. In order to be used statistically, the series must have at least 7,000 registrations in two years . If this requirement is met, all vehicle model years with at least 5,000 registrations will be displayed.