They could host a Lemmy/Kbin accounts, although I feel like Twitter will be their next choice, since it's algorithm-ridden and has a huge amount of people in it.
I've gotten used to adding extra drives in fstab, myself. I do wish adding permanent secondary drives was a more straightforward process though. I understand the Windows approach of making them instantly accessible has security implications, but I feel like that's something distros could implement as an optional setting.
I think little things like this hinder Linux adoption among end users. The purists may cry foul at this idea, but I think there should be more and better GUIs for system management tasks, so users don't have to use the terminal or muck around editing text files as much.
EDIT: Apparently gnome-disk-utility might be a solution if you're looking for something more straightforward than manually editing fstab. I don't know whether it can do permanent mounts or not though.
EDIT2: Turns out gnome-disk-utility can create fstab entries, but it can't remove them if you've used it to delete a partition.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson. I had help from other figures before I discovered peterson personally. Aba and preach I've seen a lot of their channels and I like how nuanced they are with their takes. Of course I don't agree with all of them, but they were the first dudes who got me on the right mental track.
I was in a similar situation; I was a windows power user and I jumped straight into nixos. I do not recommend it for someone completely new to linux.
Having to deal with new concepts and confusing terminology like window/display/login managers, a new file system, bash, desktop environments, etc., and then having to learn nix (my first dive into a functional language), nixpkgs, NixOS, AND all the noise surrounding flakes was incredibly frustrating. After a week I gave up and jumped ship.
I played around with void linux for a bit (followed jake@linux's playlist on YT, it's a fantastic guide), had a blast ricing my desktop, got comfortable running without a desktop environment, then went back to nix a month later. By that point I was familiar enough with linux and just had to learn the nix ecosystem (still difficult, but bearable).
Things started to click, especially once I had read the nix pills in its entirety. Now with my entire system configured with flakes I just can't see myself ever going back :>
I never tried the beginner friendly distros like mint or ubuntu so I can't comment on them, but I was really happy with void. Yes it's doesn't hold your hand, but it very quickly taught me a lot about how everything fits together. I'm sure arch provides a similar experience.
NixOS is a bad choice for a new user. EndeavourOS is okay, but arch-based distros (even ones with nice graphical installers) can get overwhelming for a beginner if an update breaks something and you have to figure out why and fix it, which isn't an irregular occurence for me. Wouldn't recommend tumbleweed for similar reasons.
I think the best mix of easy customizability, beginner-friendliness, and stability are probably offered by fedora and mint, personally.
One I haven’t seen here is Arco Linux. It’s designed as a kind of learning path from getting to know basic Linux concepts to being able to install Arch on your own, so I think it’s a pretty good early choice, tho probably not that good for the first choice.
General recommendation is that you choose something with good community support or at least good documentation. You might also not want a rolling release, because they tend to be more on the unstable side.
Have distro hopped over the years - most recently Manjaro to Fedora to Endeavour, but haven't found the one that's quite perfect for me.
That said, I'd make a few recommendations based on the person I'd be "marketing" to:
New to Linux, looking for polish: Mint
Mint is built off the well-known Ubuntu, polished a step further. It's in my experience the simplest to use and most generally polished of the Linux offerings. The community generally isn't as catered to power users, but if you care more about your time than about customization, I'd recommend Mint.
Looking for Stable/Modern, willing to jump thru a few hoops: Fedora
Fedora has come a long way over the years. It's far more stable, polished, and accessible than ever before. I'd hazard to call it my top recommendation, BUT, third-party software management and installation can be something of a nightmare. COPR is approximately equivalent to the AUR of Manjaro/Endeavour/Arch below, but at this time very obtuse and difficult to learn or work with. Some day you'll want a package that exists in COPR, and that day won't be fun for you.
Need apps you can't find anywhere else: Endeavour/Manjaro
Forget bleeding-edge packages and rolling release - the Arch User Repository (AUR) is hands-down the greatest feature on offer from Arch-based distros. The AUR is a repository of packages created by users that aren't supported by the main repos. If ever there's a time you need a piece of software and you can't find it anywhere else, the AUR's your best bet.
That said, I found/find both Manjaro and now Endeavour to be a little rough around the edges, and the consequence of rolling-release and bleeding-edge software is a system that isn't always working just right.
Looking to learn, straight into the frying pan: Arch
Same benefits and drawbacks of Endeavour/Manjaro above, but if you want to set up your system service-by-service, as lean as you want, Arch is there for you. A great experience if you just need an excuse to "try" putting an OS together piece by piece, even if you don't ultimately keep it in the long run.
Desktop Environments
The great DE debate. Nobody can tell you what's right and wrong here, but I have a few general breakdowns of the "big three". GNOME: If simplicity and elegance is your style. You sacrifice customization potential for cohesion and polish. KDE: Modern. Powerful. Usually polished out the gate. Can be a bit much if you're trying to tweak it tho. My personal choice. XFCE: Less modern, more friendly to lower-end systems.
Red Hat's source code for RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) was previously publicly accessible, even if you were not a customer. Now only customers may get access to the source code (which is allowed by the GPL since source code only has to be delivered to those who have received binaries generated from it). But there are Linux distributions who use Red Hat's publicly available sources to create RHEL "clones" (in quotation marks because they obviously don't pretend to be RHEL), except without providing the corporate support one would receive for being a RHEL customer. They do have community forums though.
The superficial issue is that those "clone"-distros would have to either purchase a RHEL license or apply to one of Red Hat's other programs to access the sources for their own distro. The actual issue is that Red Hat's terms for being a customer are that they'll kick you out if you use that code to redistribute your own versions of it (or, god forbid, even create a full distro from it).
Since CentOS proper was killed off years ago, many people who wanted a Red Hat compatible server distro but didn't want or need commercial support shifted their systems to the aforementioned other "clone"-distros, which are now in danger of disappearing because of that change.
Is Red Hat legally able to do it? Yes. Is it a dick move? Absolutely. Will it help spread the popularity of RHEL or other Red Hat distros? Absolutely not.
No trying to be explicitly contrarian, but the EEE strategy (embrace, extend, extinguish) is well known by this point and it always ended up with the open standard not being used anymore and falling into irrelevance (as it happened to XMPP after google and Facebook embraced).
I do think it is a design failure, but it’s one that is necessary for it to be open: anyone can enter the space and build features on top of it. So they bring a lot of people, with features exclusive to them and then lots of people migrate because the experience feels broken if you can’t “florp” a post from someone else. It’s the nature of open source vs closed platform that enables the strategy to exist.
It may not happen this time, and I surely hope you’re right, but it would be a shame for the monopoly to win one more time when we had the chance do to something about it but we didn’t. Bringing more people do the fediverse sounds like a dream, but I’m not holding my breath expecting everything will work for the best. There’s a reason they’re doing this, it’s not because they need more users, they already have all of them.
Let me preface this by saying that I disagree with your viewpoint in its entirety, and that I am not an admin nor an instance moderator on Kbin.
Here’s the thing. If your intention is to come into Kbin, or Lemmy, or any other space here, and start spouting your viewpoint anywhere and everywhere - for example, in Pro-Trans spaces, or in spaces that have nothing to do with gender, you can expect some heavy pushback, including (likely) removal from those spaces. If your intention is to come in here and find or create a community that is conducive to posting about your viewpoint, you probably won’t really have much trouble.
You sound like someone who is looking to make trouble, though, which is the only reason I can see for you to have posted this in this particular manner. If that’s your intention, I think I can safely say, on behalf of the Lemmy / Kbin community, fuck right off. There’s plenty of Lemmy instances that you can join that won’t kick you out for this viewpoint, so probably go find one of those.
kbin.social
Active