General questions thread


Feels good that I didn't get it completely wrong :) I have nothing against an app center. I actually prefer it as you then know it should just work and it will be free of viruses and malware and whatnot. But when you see something you like and it doesn't exist in the app center (like Brutal Doom) there seems to be little else to do but to give up as I have no idea how to manually install or compile things on Linux. I really don't get why there hasn't been made a bigger effort to autoinstall independent files you find on the internet. The Amiga has an installer that ask you to accept certain parts during the installation or cancel so you know what it's getting installed. You can also chose your level (beginner, mediate and expert). Beginner installs everything for you automatically, mediate lets you chose stuff like where to install a file if you have options and expert forces you to look at everything. You can also pretend to install so you see what would happen if you did. I like that solution.

Installers also exist in the linux world. you simply could write one for your own. If there is no installer for your desired application, then maybe nobody has written one yet or doesn't want to give it away, or the application is simply not designed to run on linux (e.g. depends on Windows system libraries), or you just didn't find it in the internet.

Not every piece of software runs on every operating system.
Especially game support on Linux is not the best, symply because of the fact, that games are written to run on Windows by their developers.

I'm working with Linux for more than ten years now, and I'm not missing anything regarding software. To be honest, I'm annoyed, when I'm forced to use Windows 7 at work :)
 
@Yasu:
Just a cautionary note:
You should generally avoid this whenever possible. It's a (mild) form of abusing the package manager.
As a rule of thumb: If you don't know, why this would be necessary in a certain situation, don't do it!

You should install anything you build to /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/include etc. rather than /usr/bin, /usr/include. In all linuxes I've used recently, the package manager knows to ignore these folders, but they're still in the default path, so they're designed for stuff you've built outside of the package management system (be they your own projects or something else). It's up to you to rebuild and modify where necessary if your dependencies break, which in the case of your own projects is probably a good thing anyway, but is the downside to downloading a load of tar files and building your own stuff.
 
I have nothing against an app center. I actually prefer it as you then know it should just work and it will be free of viruses and malware and whatnot.
Careful!
Software from repositories isn't any safer than other software per se. It's only the trust you put into the repository maintainer than makes it feel safer.
By adding 3rd-party repos (e.g. Ubuntu PPAs) or loading 3rd-party software via an otherwise trusted package (flashplugin-nonfree in Debian), you give up on that safety.
If you use a trusted Amiga emulator from your distro's repository to load a 3rd-party Amiga software, you need to trust the maintainer of that software too.

This doubtable chain of trust (and the technical problems that often come with mixing repositories) is, why experienced Linux users usually discourage newbies from using 3rd-party sources.
Most of Linux' reputation for being a safe system is either outdated (Windows has caught up a lot), or due to the behavior of its users rather than the technology.
 
I really don't get why there hasn't been made a bigger effort to autoinstall independent files you find on the internet. The Amiga has an installer ...
But as you said, that installer is specific to the Amiga. Windows has it's own installer system and so does MacOS.

The thing is that with Linux distributions is that there are tons of them, so it becomes difficult to make an autoinstaller which works for all of them. Typically when there is some autoinstaller it either works for specific distributions (Ubuntu being a typical target) or the installer includes everything the program needs to have very little dependence on the underlying OS.
 
Well, I guess I just wish Linux wasn't so damn complicated when it comes to such a basic thing as installing a program :)
 
It isn't. Pick any distro, and you get program and OS updates, translation improvements and everything else, in one unified update-manager. No more applet this running process that nagging you here and there.

You can have it either easy or simplistic. None of which is available in osx or windows.

Careful!
Software from repositories isn't any safer than other software per se. It's only the trust you put into the repository maintainer than makes it feel safer.
By adding 3rd-party repos (e.g. Ubuntu PPAs) or loading 3rd-party software via an otherwise trusted package (flashplugin-nonfree in Debian), you give up on that safety.
If you use a trusted Amiga emulator from your distro's repository to load a 3rd-party Amiga software, you need to trust the maintainer of that software too.

This doubtable chain of trust (and the technical problems that often come with mixing repositories) is, why experienced Linux users usually discourage newbies from using 3rd-party sources.
Most of Linux' reputation for being a safe system is either outdated (Windows has caught up a lot), or due to the behavior of its users rather than the technology.

Careful!
Trusting advice from users just because they are users, is not safer per se.
With reproducible builds and signed packages, its actually a chain of events you can follow straight down to the source code of free software. The idea with trust isn't to make you feel safer, its to have something to trust.

Not only is there a vetted process of becoming a maintainer, there is also the option of not using it. Does not in any way validate anything worthy of trust.

Any yes, flashplugin-nonfree is shit. Fortunately you do not need it. Also it is from the non-free repository, which you specifically have to enable in Debian. You have to go out of your way to harm yourself with that.
If you chose to do so, it does open yourself up for attack, but in doing so, doesn't invalidate a secure chain of events. It my compromise your security, but that was the security you had. It is one attack-vector atop a system.

On the basis of any rational security being the integrity of your data, windows10 is a joke. It is fundamentally broken, being closed source, and will happily spy on you.

And no, the security of Linux|Gnu is not dependent on what windows does, let that idea stay in the confused mind that wrote it. Just because a user is a user, doesn't mean a user is in an equally good position with a garbage OS. You can not argue something on a technical basis on the merit of its users. That is a non-sequitur comparison. The last argument is unsubstantiated, historically, at present, and by you. It lacks any falsifiable semblance of content. It is vague where it should be clear, and incorrect where it shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess I just wish Linux wasn't so damn complicated when it comes to such a basic thing as installing a program :)

Linux distros are not complicated to install, remove or update programs. With package managers like Synaptic on Debian, or PNDManager on OpenPandora, it's easy.

The lack of some packages on repositories, like Brutal Doom, has more to do with copyright and licences that don't allow redistribution, than a maintainer wanting to upload them.

Classic distros like Debian/Ubuntu have very old packages, in contrast with rolling release distros (Antergos, Arch) where you get the last stable release, but not enough testing as old ones.
I used to be a Debian/Ubuntu user, but the need for PPAs and having to reinstall the OS after each release (updating was hit and miss), was too much pain and hassle.

Now we have Snaps, Flatpack, Appimage, etc, that makes installing programs as easy as PND, EXE or DMG.
And it seems they already have package managers for this, ;)
 
With reproducible builds and signed packages, its actually a chain of events you can follow straight down to the source code of free software. The idea with trust isn't to make you feel safer, its to have something to trust.
That still requires you to trust the source code in the end.
Sure, in principle, you can check all of that yourself, but it is unrealistic that any single person knows what every single line of code does, his system was made of. At one point or another you need to blindly trust the work of others.

Not only is there a vetted process of becoming a maintainer,
... that is by no means bullet-proof.
Debian had it's fair share of "maintainer fuck-ups". Some were harmless, some were not. But they all showed, that after all, even approved Debian maintainers are just human. Humans make mistakes.

Any yes, flashplugin-nonfree is shit. Fortunately you do not need it. Also it is from the non-free repository,
It's from contrib, because the Debian package itself conforms to the DFSG.

which you specifically have to enable in Debian. You have to go out of your way to harm yourself with that.
No, you don't (have to go out of your way). It's one checkbox in the installer. This is unchecked by default, but many users have a habit of checking it for no good reason. Because this is so easy is part of the reason why the FSF doesn't recommend Debian.

On the basis of any rational security being the integrity of your data, windows10 is a joke. It is fundamentally broken, being closed source, and will happily spy on you.
This is a different topic. If you don't trust the manufacturer of your core OS, then there is no chain of trust to begin with that can be broken. It makes no sense to argue on that ground. You should change your OS right away when you've reached that point. In principle you have the same problem with every OS. Talking about chains of trust only makes sense, if you trust your core OS in the first place.

And no, the security of Linux|Gnu is not dependent on what windows does,
I didn't say that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That still requires you to trust the source code in the end.
Sure, in principle, you can check all of that yourself, but it is unrealistic that any single person knows what every single line of code does, his system was made of. At one point or another you need to blindly trust the work of others.
True enough, but it also provides a trail to follow when anybody does spot a screw up. I don't know how they validate their build env, but presumably they take some steps to make sure they don't have a compromised compiler, linker or signing tool introducing exploits.
 
The reason it is called blind trust, is because it is different from the concept of trust. To which trusting something, for reasons other than having absolute knowledge, to absolute ability, is a thing.

Reasons being accountability, in one form or another.

Thus, things that can only be blindly trusted, are not equivalent to things you can put trust in.

This is true for repos, distros, software.

There is a bit about the relation of trust between them in the middle of this post too.

Here is a rule of thumb, if you put trust in something, you have, to the ability of your own rationality, a verifiable metric in which you can account for that trust.

If one part is a weak link, to your ability to find and survey it, the whole thing becomes irrational.

If you put faith in something, you are on that slippery slope of becoming a Windows 10 user.
If you put trust in something, in the sense that you heard it was safe. You may or not be safe, depending on whether that was true or not.

If English was a stricter language, we could make distinctions between putting faith, having faith, putting trust, and having trust in something.

With the aware and protected accounted for,
whether arrogantly religious, or ignorantly unaware, the notion of your safety depends. It depends on what happens.

Being a danger to yourself or avoiding seeing danger, however it comes about, can be safe.

My dog in this race is to avoid people being a danger to others. Together we can help matters. Come by the friendly Linux|Gnu thread.

That still requires you to trust the source code in the end.
Sure, in principle, you can check all of that yourself, but it is unrealistic that any single person knows what every single line of code does, his system was made of. At one point or another you need to blindly trust the work of others.
Yes, with software you have to trust the source code, and the compiler. What your argument hinges on, is that free software isn't safe, because it isn't bulletproof. You are arguing against the most safe approach, on account of what exactly? The merits of not being able to? If you don't wan't to trust the work of others, don't. Nobody forces you to use free software.

In the sense that interaction is the danger, yes, but go where you want, and make amends.
... that is by no means bullet-proof.
Debian had it's fair share of "maintainer fuck-ups". Some were harmless, some were not. But they all showed, that after all, even approved Debian maintainers are just human. Humans make mistakes.

It's from contrib, because the Debian package itself conforms to the DFSG.

No, you don't (have to go out of your way). It's one checkbox in the installer. This is unchecked by default, but many users have a habit of checking it for no good reason. Because this is so easy is part of the reason why the FSF doesn't recommend Debian.
And nobody said it was bullet-proof. What I said was it was a verifiable chain of events. Anyone can audit that, which is short of nobody. The premise that humans can be helpful or malicious doesn't change the premise that software is built by people before you have a singularity, or automatically generated code. Yes humans can also be err in ways even unbeknownst to themselves, but it all works because humans are egalitarian. These are the principles we apply to software, but not how software actually works. In more of a game-theory way. While imperfect, it is the imperfections we have. Over time these can adapt and be adapted into workable premises, futile and perfect results. Notice here the relation between science, genetics, and best of breed software.

You need to one, enable it, and two, install it. People package software, yes. If you want to get source-code from your repo, do that, yourself, all the way. There is no avenue where you are prevented from any approach here. Also, for the rational expectation that software is bulletproof, you can share it freely. It is still an assumption, but one that is possibly vetted.
There are plenty other distros than Debian. If you are worried about accidentally enabling repos, and installing software from them, get a FSF distro. Where they take the approach of no nonsense, nor any third-party reccomendations of nonsense. https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
This is a different topic. If you don't trust the manufacturer of your core OS, then there is no chain of trust to begin with that can be broken. It makes no sense to argue on that ground. You should change your OS right away when you've reached that point. In principle you have the same problem with every OS. Talking about chains of trust only makes sense, if you trust your core OS in the first place.
Which is why your original argument was incoherent. A chain of trust makes sense for every single chain you make, regardless of the state of your core OS. Putting trust where it doesn't belong is worthless. If your core OS is untrustworthy, you are still hinging on that benefit of the doubt for everything else you do. If it is compromised and you know about it, you do something about it, you don't make this theoretical position of known-bad out to be a normal for considering between good and unknown-good.
My body is inherently unsafe, yet I don't walk into traffic on the notion that I could have cancer anyway.
I didn't say that.
No, you wrote it. Nice try though.
"Most of Linux' reputation for being a safe system is either outdated (Windows has caught up a lot), or due to the behavior of its users rather than the technology."

To which I said:

"And no, the security of Linux|Gnu is not dependent on what windows does, let that idea stay in the confused mind that wrote it.
Just because a user is a user, doesn't mean a user is in an equally good position with a garbage OS. You can not argue something on a technical basis on the merit of its users. That is a non-sequitur comparison."

Notice the period. When you make one flawed assumption, and incoherently try to string it together with something else, it is warranted to deal with the two misconceptions as is, because that is what it might create. Also, you wrote "or", so in any event, unless you were guessing, that part is wrong. Premise A is wrong to statement B. A is wrong, B is wrong. There is a unrelated claim in the middle of it. Which is true but false on account of thinking it a polar scale, and doesn't accord for the general trend. It is dubious. And for how it is presented, erroneous.

This whole thing manages to be egregiously wrong.

Even IF statement B made sense, it would still be a non-squiteur argument, because you are suggesting that the reputation of Linux relies on user behaviour, which is a unjust metric for an OS, and also not why the reputation of Linux is what it is. The irony strikes you down.
The hinge of the branch you extended your argument onto, is the tangent that broke off and took you down with it, and then in a mental upheaval hit you on the head long after you yourself hit the ungrounded plains flat.
There are a few ways to go with the last part of what you wrote, which when explored point to the last part of what I wrote.

"The last argument is unsubstantiated, historically, at present, and by you. It lacks any falsifiable semblance of content. It is vague where it should be clear, and incorrect where it shouldn't."
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess I just wish Linux wasn't so damn complicated when it comes to such a basic thing as installing a program :)

It's not complicated. As already said using a package manager makes it really easy to install a program! It's just a click.
I think the difficulty is more, that you need to look for an alternative of the program you were used to use on your previous operating system. Don't try to port all programs from your previously used OS. Try to find replacements which run well on Linux. This is hard in the beginning, because you have to learn a lot in the beginning, but believe me, you will start to love using it and after some time you will think: Damn it, how could I live without Linux, for such a long time... :)
 
I think you all know what I'm referring to. If it's not in the app center or repo you have to either install it manually and find all the dependencies or you have to compile the program yourself. I know perfectly well that this is due to the fact that there are a million different distros, or more accurately, a million different slightly incompatible OS's out there. So what I'm saying here is that I think it would be good to make an effort to make them less incompatible. Maybe that is what is actually happening and I'm just not knowing about it, but for me that would be a more valuable endeavour than trying to make another GNOME fork :)

Last time I used Linux I didn't get it and got stuck so I returned to Windows. But this time I have to learn as I don't plan to return to Windows or switch to OSX. I really don't like where MS and Apple is heading and the only practical option left is then one of the Linux distros. So it doesn't matter if it's complicated or not, I'm gonna learn anyway :)
 
you have to either install it manually and find all the dependencies or you have to compile the program yourself.
This literally hasn't been an issue in about 15 years.
There are some obscure programs that needs to be compiled, and if you need to use one of those then you should already be fully aware of what you're getting into, but for the most part everything the average person needs it installable with a search and a click. Sometimes you need to download a package file and double click that to install: it's no worse than an exe installer. The absolute worst that you should ever need to do is unzip something: the program is then there, in the zip, and you just run it. So you need to know a little bit about directory structures

incompatible OS's
Also not an issue. There's been a fairly standard set of libraries for a long, long time, and as long as the distro includes those libraries 95% of applications will work between them. There's a number of games for linux which are just "uncompress, execute" and they work on everything just fine. I run Arch linux because I hate myself a little (but not as much as people running gentoo hate themselves ;) ) and I make a habit of installing packages from other repos, debian and redhat mostly, and they work just fine. About 10 years ago I used to run Redhat (or maybe it was already fedora at that point? I can't recall) and distinctly remember needing some applications that were only available in Debian: alien converts the deb to a yum, install that, badaboom and it works. Just gotta make sure the CPU architecture is the same: x86 to x86, arm to arm, 32bit to 32bit and 64bit to 64bit (although a lot of work has gone on to make 64bit OSs compatible with 32bit software in the last 7 or 8 years so that shouldn't be a major issue either)
But none of that really applies to the average user: stick with a well known distro, something in the Debian or CentOS family, and you'll never have these problems.

I really hate being "that guy" because I seriously applaud you for wanting to try something new, whether you stick with it or not, but both of these arguments are the same (entirely false) anti-linux arguments that have been floating around for decades. It reads like you tried some distro, got stuck on how different it was from Windows, and just accepted that all the other rhetoric you'd heard must be true. That just isn't fair; it's not fair to the linux community that works so hard for acceptance, and it's especially not fair to yourself, all you're doing is setting yourself up for a hard time and potential failure.

Linux is a different beast, and every distro looks and acts slightly differently, and there are a lot of arguments as to why Linux sucks compared to Windows and OSX, but these two are not them. Repository access and cross platform compatibility are two of the most important features of modern linux distros.
Saying that you didn't like Linux because getting applications was too difficult is like saying I didn't like commander amarao because his eyebrows were too narrow: it's obviously false on an easily defined relative scale and makes it seem like I've not actually watched the show at all.
 
I would prefer not to have my experiences dismissed like that. I know fully well that Linux distros aren't Windows and it's not like I downloaded a file, stared at it for a moment and gave up. Five years ago I tried out Ubuntu on my mini laptop (it barely worked but it worked) and I wanted to install a program I found off the internet (can't remember what anymore). I unzipped it. And I didn't understand what I was looking at. Tried to find a manual. It was incomprehensible. I looked it on the internet. Same thing there. What was I suppose to do now? I went to a forum and asked. "Google it" they said. "I don't understand what I'm reading. I just want to install this program and run it, nothing fancy. You guys should be able to help me with ease here." "Do it yourself. It's good practice." Well, at that point I just stopped caring. That laptop never got used again.

There are things I don't like about Linux, but I don't confuse the things I don't like with the things I don't understand. I understand what you are saying but try to look at it from the perspective from someone who is completely new. It really is not that simple.
 
"Google it"
Got that a lot when I was a beginner, too. Nowadays I sometimes say it myself (and shortly after apologize to the person and at least send them a link if I don't have time for personal support). Sometimes people forget that they started out as newbies too, and sometimes they answered the same question so many times that they don't want to repeat their answer over and over again.
The nice part about researching a problem is that you figure out where the most useful answers are posted and which communities are truly helpful (some forums are very rude towards new users and their questions). It takes more time than getting an answer directly, but at least you might stumble upon some good resources in case you really can't find anything or don't even know what to search for.

but not as much as people running gentoo hate themselves ;)
Aww, but Gentoo is so much fun! There's nothing better than waiting three hours for portage to update the kernel sources xD And being too lazy to install any WM because there's lynx, vim and console tetris, so who needs a UI anyway? Had to install i3 though because my friends didn't want to watch movies in ASCII on the command line.
 
Aww, but Gentoo is so much fun! There's nothing better than waiting three hours for portage to update the kernel sources xD And being too lazy to install any WM because there's lynx, vim and console tetris, so who needs a UI anyway? Had to install i3 though because my friends didn't want to watch movies in ASCII on the command line.
Three hours? It takes 20 minutes for me and I didn't think my computer was that powerful.

As for movies without X, what about fbdev?
 
It takes more time than getting an answer directly, but at least you might stumble upon some good resources in case you really can't find anything or don't even know what to search for.

Even as a newbie, I tended to find out the answer myself by the time anyone replied. Usually I spent hours, or sometimes days, to try figure something out. Then I gave up and asked somewhere. While waiting for an answer, I got some more ideas or tried to figure it out some more. Very rarely did a forum or an IRC person give me a relevant answer before I figured it out myself, or gave up completely with a ragequit following :v
 
Three hours? It takes 20 minutes for me and I didn't think my computer was that powerful.
Very shitty internet and a Pentium III that was saved from the garbage truck. The poor thing took forever to install anything. The three hours were the worst case scenario where everything went to hell and I had to start over a few times (aka the transition from old working kernel to new working kernel took three hours). My wording was a bit off, sorry :S

As for movies without X, what about fbdev?
I didn't hear about about framebuffer after i3 was up and running. Wanted to try it at some point but forgot.
 
I wanted to install a program I found off the internet (can't remember what anymore).
Without meaning to give offence, that's probably where you went wrong. And to be fair, it's different to how almost all commercial OSes work. Linux maintainers decided that it was better to design a system where you can get your software from as few different sources as possible, all signed so you can automatically verify everything you download (against what was sent, at least). Most of these systems predate google, so being able to search for software using a text fragment was better in every way than yahoo's folders or even altavista's limited search. In today's internet you need to learn something to get those benefits, compared to just googling things.

On my Arch Linux installs, getting a web browser running was one of the later things I did - I had to use the package manager to even install links (a text mode web browser, if you can imagine such a thing), so I could recheck some instructions. Although it's fair to say Arch is a fair distance from a mainstream Linux distro.
 
Very shitty internet and a Pentium III that was saved from the garbage truck. The poor thing took forever to install anything. The three hours were the worst case scenario where everything went to hell and I had to start over a few times (aka the transition from old working kernel to new working kernel took three hours). My wording was a bit off, sorry :S


I didn't hear about about framebuffer after i3 was up and running. Wanted to try it at some point but forgot.
Oh, yeah I can imagine that would take a while.
 
Back
Top