To clarify I'm not incompetent at computers, I'm sure people don't tend to install Linux if they aren't familiar with technology in a decent capacity. But for instance I can't code, can't operate the command line short of copying and pasting command, and don't really know what I'm doing with the technical aspect other than following online guides. I have used windows all my life. I'm Linux illiterate for lack of a better description.

I decided I wanted some form of USB bootable computer, i'm familiar with chrome books, enjoy the light weight OS, and am bed bound to the google ecosystem so I when I saw how you could plug in a USB and have the computer boot into Chrome OS running off the USB I thought that sounded perfect. But during my research of discovery I found that Linux seemed like a very good alternative, I had always had it in my head that it was very technical and finicky system where to do a simple google search you had to code in half a dozen lines into the control terminal in some bizarre 2018 text adventure to use the web, I do exaggerate of course but the image I had conjured up over the years was of a very non-user friendly experience and a system made for those running technical aspects such as web servers and system management.

I decided you can't knock it to you try it and besides turns out you can't get chrome OS on a 32GB USB it has to be 8GB or 16GB apparently. So I installed Ubuntu on my USB, no clue if this is some snooty distro, or a version of Linux that's mocked in the community, or the perfect distro but after minimal research it seemed the most popular and well received version to put it on a USB and booted into it.

Instantly all my preconceived notions we're erased. It's clean, modern, simple, light weight, and easy to use with a very intuitive and familiar UI. It's pretty much a more open and degooglified (That's a nice word) version of Chrome OS. Since Firefox Quantum was released I emigrated over to try break some ties with google for privacy reasons like it's some pervy conjoined twin of mine, I know it's not good for me, I don't want it there but I can't get rid of it without harming me.

It's got a simple UI that's familiar to windows albeit without all the bloatware and ads spread everywhere, it doesn't track you like window does (that's as far as I'm aware it did ask to collect anonymised telemetry data which I opted out of). With windows I'm so used to having to go through 3 different pop up windows to change a setting that in Ubuntu it feels like I'm missing features although I'm yet to find one that's not there. The best bit about Linux, is if theirs a setting you want to change and can't find, than someone online has wrote a guide giving you a command line code to copy paste into the terminal to fix it.

Although to me it feels more on par with Chrome OS than Windows as a bare bones OS with simple apps and a web browser to use the internet with, in this regard Linux wins easy, way more open, no profit based motivation, and more accessible allowing itself to be used anywhere.

All though that comparison holds up for the normal user and if you are someone who just browses the web and uses apps like Spotify than Linux is amazing it's not complex or difficult, truly wonderful.

What makes Linux even better is the fact it's not a fair comparison, sure to me it's like Chrome OS due to the simple purposes I use it for but what's truly great is all that nerdy technical stuff I thought Linux was for you can do, if you are hosting a web server than linux gives you a free platform to do it, it feels like you are directly modding the PCB of the computer it's that open.

In retrospect to typing all that I feel I've just blurted out a generic description of Linux and for those that use it I'm sure they just think I was naive, but this is more aimed at the average user, Linux, or at least Ubuntu, is great, it's: simple, easy, fresh, clean, open, modern, intuitive, versatile, multi-purpose, and free. It's not some difficult to use system, it's alarmingly simple, but infinitely useful

It's easy to learn and difficult to master.

I'm curious as to what the Tildes Linux/BSD community (and I suppose other answers like Windows or MacOS would be acceptable, though they may feel a bit more dry) use for their desktop. I imagine that Ubuntu and Gnome will dominate the answers as you would expect, but maybe you'll surprise me. Personally, I'm on Arch Linux with i3-gaps. I use Arch because I enjoy the DIY aspect of Linux as well as the aur and slim nature of Arch. I'd also be lying if I didn't say I use it partially just because I like the "pacman" pun.

As for i3-gaps, I think that WMs are generally more customizable and good for 'ricing', plus they go with my workflow and are convenient in that they load faster and the likes, though I have to admit I have only ever used i3 (I've been considering trying out bspwm). So, what do you guys use? You can also of course share more information such as your shell or DM if you wanted, though I highly doubt anyone cares what display manager you us or anything.

There seems to be a trend lately of people switching over to BSD operating systems. Having read some blog posts on the matter and now given the recent system-d controversy, I'm genuinely curious to give FreeBSD or OpenBSD a go as my main OS.

For those who have switched over to BSD, what are some problems you've encountered and/or what are some things you miss?

I was using Antergos for like 15 days and I really loved it! Not Antergos but Arch, I like how simple everything is in arch. Before installing antergos I tried to install arch on vm but failed. so i installed antergos with i3wm. somewhere i wanted to install vanilla arch.

Initially I was referring to the wiki with elinks and doing it carefully but failed. my setup was going to be arch + grub + luks, for some reason grub didn't show up while booting. i also encountered other error which made grub-mkconfig to hang. later i decided to drop luks so arch + grub, but again same error.

i've used debian family distros for a long time and grub was the most used bootloader so i wanted to install that. next i looked for a guide online and followed another guide which had same commands as arch wiki. again that failed.

after some more searching i found archfi, so basically it is a script that will ask me questions and install everything. again that grub thing failed so i went with systemd for the second time with this script. & voila!

later i used archdi to setup lightdm-gtk-greeter and installed i3wm.

i didn't install it myself but i am happy with my arch and probably someday would do it myself.

btw, i use arch

^{For the uninitiated, you can visit puppylinux.org to get to know more about it.}

My first experience with Puppy wasn't good, since, for the life of me, I couldn't get the saves working. I still didn't, but I found that xenialpup does work for some reason, so I stuck with it.

After that, it's been great, and although I don't like the UI and some of the default apps, it worked on every computer I've tried it on, and it's light enough to run well on ancient computers.

As far as the tools go, it has everything I need to do my work, even if I'd prefer different tools (like vim and ranger).

That is, of course, only a problem with the default configuration, and Puppy has a very convenient tool to remaster itself, which I'll be using these holidays. It's great to be able to build a more welcoming version for yourself without needing any knowledge or spending a lot of time.

So, I just wanted to see what was your experience with Puppy, or, if you haven't tried it, what you think about it.

So I am reading the cgroups manpage because I want to learn about... cgroups. It tells me that for CGroups V1, if I want to use specific features, my kernel needs to be configured. Either I missed a section or it isn't there, because I don't see much mention of kernel requirements for CGroups V2.

So, my question is, is my kernel ready for CGroups, or should I recompile? Should I be able to support both V1 and V2? The manpage says V1 was a heap, so I was thinking I might continue without it... ... ...

CONFIG_CGROUPS=y

# CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP is not set

CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y

# CONFIG_CGROUP_PIDS is not set

# CONFIG_CGROUP_RDMA is not set

CONFIG_CGROUP_FREEZER=y

# CONFIG_CGROUP_HUGETLB is not set

# CONFIG_CGROUP_DEVICE is not set

CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT=y

# CONFIG_CGROUP_PERF is not set

# CONFIG_CGROUP_DEBUG is not set

# CONFIG_NET_CLS_CGROUP is not set

# CONFIG_CGROUP_NET_PRIO is not set

# CONFIG_CGROUP_NET_CLASSID is not set

edit: wowie markdown fix

I just gave up on installing Gimp via flatpack because it required a 2GB download. I run i3 on top of Xfce. I have lots of Gtk libraries already. Storage is cheap and my internet has no limits, but this seems very inefficient to me. What if I had to install all my software that way?

The first point release came out July 26, and enables upgrades from 16.04 LTS.

https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/07/26/first-point-release-of-18-04-lts-available-today

Have you upgraded your desktop? Server?

Happy with it? Any pitfalls?

Or phone, or after an OS reinstall, etc. Just got to thinking about it because I did a fresh install of Arch on my chromebook the other day, and I'd be curious what other people's priority software installs are. For me, after the basics like drivers, it's xfce, Firefox, Transmission, Libreoffice, and VLC on linux. Pretty much the same on Windows, plus a few utilities like 7zip, PuTTY, and notepad++. For Android installs I grab nova launcher, Hangouts Dialer, F-Droid, NewPipe and MoonReader before anything else.

EDIT: Forgot firefox on android, as well as ublock origin on all platforms.

Also not completely sure if this belongs more in ~tech or ~comp.