USE LINUX

thoughts on the current release of open suse?

>2019
>using the file picker like a savage
Just drag and drop the file from the file manager to the browse button like a civilized man.

Real men use CentOS/RHEL 7.
Everyone else is just a Windows safespace pussy LARPing as a Linux user.

>not using gentoo
poser.

ProTip:
The US Department of Defense & Intelligence agencies completed the transition last year to using 100% RHEL.
There were 2 good reasons for that decision:
Security & Stability.

I use slackware and Arch

>not debian

What’s KDE ?

a type of graphical user interface or GUI, if im not mistake

You think anyone has interested in my porn collection on my pc if I use Ubuntu or windows 10 even? They will ha k my pc for that? Who cares

Krashes all the time Desktop Environment
Krap Desktop Environment

>not TempleOS
Its like you want to go to hell

Long time ago it did. Now it's very stable and very good.

Give Neon a try, stable base, up to date desktop, all good.

I don't like how it has so many buttons.
I don't have an issue with Qt.
I have an issue with the KDE putting a button for every option with logic or organisation.
Xfce is what I want.
Simple and customisable.
KDE is made for people who are afraid of the command line.

>xcfe
Based post

Fuck Nvidia for their Linux drivers. Had to terminal in to my own laptop to remove them. Also, fuck laptops with hybrid graphics.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SIQtofOaUYk

Why?

...

Good post

A desktop environment that Bill Gates wants to punch in the dick.

No love for Gnome here?

>Gnome
Not for me, this is a positive thread, I'm not going to rant about Gnome.

i do user

Attached: 2019-05-01-10:21:09_1920x1080.png (1920x1080, 408K)

Maybe I'm a degenerate but I use Gnome with cardapio launcher and Nemo.
I have used KDE, unity and cinnamon and didn't really like them. However gnome is buggy AF sometimes.

What is your favorite desktop environment?

Who is linux and how do I use her?

Using manjaro kde right now. Playing Games with a buddy.
Kde looks very promising to me, though theres something odd about it and i cant pin it.
I tried gnome and used it since ubuntu 6.06, switched to budgie last year.

Xfce

Attached: 1556133797366.jpg (1079x1194, 116K)

Forgot to add I use Cairo dock too but my wife prefers docky

I3 not bad
But mine is definitely also nice
Arch with i3wm and auto theming

Attached: e-compressor.png (2560x1440, 1.23M)

That is very similar to maybe windows 7 for layout correct? What do you like about it compared to gnome. I know it is lighter weight

>degenerate because he uses a different de
I don't like gnome but I wouldn't go that far, use whatever you like

>i3
fucking why, you don't need this at all

yes i do? my computer is a fucking toaster, bloated DEs just waste resources

Simplicity and lightness and customisability.
It just gets out of the way.
I don't like how window manager and panel in gnome is a single process.
I don't like the idea of js extensions in gnome.
I use xfce panel and conky and my own scripts and shortcuts to customise xfce exactly how I want.

Centos with either kde or wmaker depending on what I'm doing

How hard is it to setup a different DE on Arch as a possiblity for login under GDM ? Or would I need to switch to XDM?

Xfce is very light weight, and uses the classic desktop type environment.

Gnome uses a new desktop shell that is different from the traditional desktop. It gets a lot of hate because of that.

I like gnome because it's the default for most big distros now and so everything just werks. Also it can be driven almost entirely from the keyboard which is nice.

The only way to tell which one you like is to try each for a weeks or so and then make your decision. The best part about Linux is you're not tied to either one.

Yeah I have a tricked out conky running too. It is just to damn nice having IP and process info on the desktop. The windows and application manager in one is kinda why I like gnome. Different strokes

I think it recognises automatically. But it's been years since I used gdm. Also gdm loads a gnome session and keeps it running after login so it's bloated and complicated. I use lightdm with xfce on debian and I have no complaints so far.

Yes I do but I'm not a GUI fag unlike you

Attached: Unbenannt23.png (915x451, 32K)

>ellipse with same w/h
>fill
holy fuck that was hard

1: 2: I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux

Oh come off it. People that use GUIs doesn't mean they don't know how to work in shell. I use guake terminal for most everything but it is pretty nice to be able to click on a web browser or drag select music to listen too.

Love linux, can't use it as a daily as it lacks support or comparable options for software I use.

I need to try lightdm. I installed XFCE mint on a friend's old ass windows laptop. Shit saved it. So much faster and they liked that it still did everything for school.
Anyone using BTRFS?

1: Yea Forums is fine
2: nice copy pasta that is even more aspie than usual for Yea Forums given this is a Linux thread.

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

sure. for a server.

almost useless for desktop with it's complete lack of support for all the big named productivity software.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

Yeah. I am forced to use web based QB for my buisness as the local one doesn't run native. However it seems like the options are improving. Valve support for Linux on steam has been a game changer

I exclusively use mac bc it's hands down the best for super users like myself.

Everyone is just left in the dust.

I cannot install the damn thing

You seriously had that pre typed and on a file to be copied? I get your passion but man...

There is definitely a segment of command line elitism is the Linux community. Fuck those people. The command line is good for interacting with software programmatically, but the GUI is superior for casual usage and almost everything else you aren't automating.

Command line usage is a valuable skill, no doubt. But to completely eschew GUI usage so you can feel like a leet haxor is retarded.

True, I remember trying to push everything through wine and getting fed up.

Approximately 15 seconds of googling.

Depending on the software, you might be able to run it using wine, or a windows virtual machine. You can also dual boot if you only need to use that software some of the time.

Yeah. You want a shit show talk about SystemD... I dislike the departure from ethos but it is faster and it works fine.

The elitist shit is a problem in the community. It turns off new users. GUIs make life easier. Eventually we may even surpass the GUI into something else and they will still be pounding the keyboard to play a song when everyone else just speaks

install gentoo you faggots

>BTRFS
No, avoid it. It's almost deprecated. Complicated stuff and incompatible. For laptop go with the standard ext4. Have a nice incremental backup strategy like rdiff-backup or borg. XFS is a good file system for server shit but it has some issues like cannot change size or something so be careful.

I don't dual boot because i dont want to pay M$ for thier bloatware..

WINE has improved greatly. I was able to do taxes this year under WINE. Just not my accounting.

Unfortunately I setup my home network using it for my media server and home computers etc when it was still in beta. I have liked it. I have had it repair a problem before. I also like how easy adding new drives onto a volume was.

How hard will it be to switch over ext4?

Do people actually still pay for windows?

What a shame.

The whole systemd thing was a complete clusterfuck. Imagine being so autistic about the design of your upstart system that you send real life death threats to the guy developing it (for free I might add).

Systemd doesn't even violate the "unix philosophy" because its many small processes all bundled together into a single project. A single PROJECT, but many individual PROGRAMS. This replaces the mess of ad hoc startup scripts that came before it. Either way, upstart systems are inherently highly coupled so it's basically a wash on architecture.

Implementation is a different issue although people like to conflate the implementation problems with the architecture.

But the whole flame war about systemd really turns off new users. And it shouldn't, because from a user's perspective almost nothing changes.

>switch over ext4
You'd have to copy all files in another drive, reformat the partition in ext4 and copy back the files. If btrfs works stay with it, I avoid it on principle. Just have a good backup strategy regardless.

I use Fedora + MATE

feels comfy desu

If Linux is supposedly so secure, you figure every single data breach that ever happened such as PSN and all the others, that they were already using Linux on their servers. I think that's a safe assumption because virtually no one uses Windows for their servers. So if Linux is so secure, why is virtually every single big data breach running on Linux?

The data breech wasn't because of vulnerabilities in the operating system. It was vulnerabilities in the web service running on the operating system (written by Sony code monkeys).

Also a single example of an exploit proves nothing. You have to consider the rate at which windows vs Linux servers are compromised due to operating system vulnerabilities. You also have to correct for selection bias (most servers run Linux)

macOS for general computing
Windows 7 for gaming
Linux for servers and embedded

/thread

Attached: 47584981_385204915562699_(...).jpg (1080x1349, 227K)

Because no system is really secure. The worst thing for computer security is a false sense of security. The truth is though that if you know what you are doing Linux can be more secure, for example firewall and there are many packets to customise and test it, while Windows firewall while not having bugs is a configuration swiss cheese.
Don't trust anyone but your judgement.
Systems are secure, their configuration isn't by default.
Security is hard and continuous process.

>macOS for general computing
No
>Windows 7 for gaming
No, Windows 10 is better in every way now and I used to hate 10
>Linux for servers and embedded
GNU/Linux is the greatest system of all and for every use if you can customise it to your liking.
For programming and server use it's miles ahead of everything.

The only shitty bit about SystemD that violates the principle is the fact that logs are in binary and aren't human readable without an interpreter. It works great though and is easy to parse.

Currently got Lubuntu running on my school laptop, its bitchin