Pls no I just did a minimal Ubuntu install on my MS Surface and I guarantee I’m going to need to reinstall it at least 2 more times as I bork the entire OS trying to customize GNOME.
I think the fact that you’re so bothered by me using default GNOME but wanting to pick my own apps is reason enough to keep it. Cry more about my personal decisions 😄
I’m bothered by the fact that you made a statement that’s not internally consistent and contradicts itself. Like whatever you like, but if you’re going to cite a reason, be accurate.
Bit of a hot take, but I’m really hoping for china to go windows-free. Even if it’s OrwellOS and sends ungoldy amounts of data to the government (pretty sure they already do that on windows too), just make it linux-based.
Compnaies would finally start taking linux in serious consideration to not being left out of the chinese market, we would start seeing laptops sold with linux and all the good stuff.
This has actually been a long time coming. The first iteration was a FreeBSD-based distro back in 2013. Then an Ubuntu variant replaced it shortly after. The DE is UKUI, and it’s what « makes a Kylan » it seems. openKylin seems to be an all-around improvement over Ubuntu Kylin, and it uses APT as well. It looks pretty, but things still need some serious polish.
Yes! Having the worlds largest country run on Linux would do wonders for its adoption. If all the western business partners just stopped accepting windows files and started distributing Linux packages, it would accelerate adoption elsewhere.
I was thinking population, and therefore users of the OS. I feel like a lot of western companies are already bending over to tap into the Chinese markets, so if they had to support Linux to do that for software, maybe they would.
Have you tried it with a different enclosure or directly connected to your PC? My last two “faulty” HDDs actually just had a faulty controller in the enclosure. Drives were fine.
The old answer is a chroot jail, the new answer is a Docker container or VM if Docker won’t cut it.
I’m lazy, so Virtualbox is my VM software of choice. I keep a machine with a fresh debian install and just Clone it to make throwaway VMs.
Keep in mind that malicious software on a VM might be isolated from the host in many ways, but if it’s allowed to communicate on your network then it can still be dangerous, especially if you have samba shares, or services you don’t expose to the outside internet with weak or default passwords. (Did you change the admin password on your router’s Web interface?)
Creating a VM with no network interfaces is “mostly safe”, but you hear about VM bust out exploits now and then.
In reality, gold standard is a separate physical computer with no network connections to anything but other untrusted physical computers, and no wireless adapters (Bluetooth or WiFi). This is an “air gapped” network, but if you’re dealing with shit that makes you want an air gap, either you already know more than you’re gonna learn on Lemmy, or you’re bout to get your door kicked in by men in black suits :D
To go x86_64-only was a mistake for Arch. Distros like Fedora or Debian, or openSUSE have universal building systems and infrastructure for building packages for different architectures. Arch just creates unnecessary fragmentation for the GNU/Linux landscape: software need to be packaged for the distro and for the same time PKGBUILDs cannot be reused in general for anything to go full Arch Linux. Not for other architectures, not for servers or LTS. Only for a x86_64 desktop niche. Arch Linux doesn’t scale.
The development team of Arch is comparatively small compared to other distributions.
To support platforms other than x86_64 one should have access to appropriate hardware to test the packages. I for one have not had i686 hardware for a while. This is probably true for many other users as well.
Therefore, from my point of view, they have done everything right. Just like other, non-Arch based distributions, which are also now only offered for x86_64.
Distros like Fedora or Debian, or openSUSE have universal building systems and infrastructure for building packages for different architectures.
Right. And all have more collaborators and more money. For example, according to nm.debian.org/members/, nearly 1000 people participate in Debian.
Arch’s core development team, on the other hand, consists of just 28 people without being paid for it. In addition, there are some “trusted users” (a bit more than 60 iirc) and some people responsible for support (wiki and IRC moderators etc.).
Arch just creates unnecessary fragmentation for the GNU/Linux landscape: software need to be packaged for the distro and for the same time PKGBUILDs cannot be reused in general for anything to go full Arch Linux.
Fragementation has always existed. Before Arch I had used Mandrake / Mandriva. With it I often could not use Redhat packages although they technically used the same format (RPM).
By the way, in the case of Arch or distributions based on it, you can in many cases use PKBUILD files for other platforms as well. Often it is sufficient to modify the line arch=(‘x86_64’) accordingly. I have done this in some cases where a software for Alarm (Arch Linux ARM) was not officially offered. I simply took the PKBGUILD file from Arch Linux and changed it accordingly. And yes, this does not always work.
linux
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.