I like Mate-Terminal; it's nicely customizable for my tastes and does the basics well. I also quite like LXTerminal for similar reasons.
But generally I use Konsole as I'm using KDE a lot now, and it's the default terminal.
BananaTrifleViolin
joined 2 years ago
Yeah not sure I agree with all of this.
When it comes to KDE this feels out of date. The GTK issues are not what they once were; KDE Plasma has good GTK themes that match the KDE ones. Nowadays I find the main issues are with Flatpak software not matching DE themes because they're in a sandbox. I've had that issue on both KDE and gnome 2 derived environments (I've never really gotten into Gnome 3). KDE also used to have a reputation for being slow and a resource hog; that's inverted now - KDE has a good reputation including for scaling down to lower powered machines, while Gnome 3 seems to have a reputation as a resource hog?
I have a KDE desktop environment and it's very attractive, and I haven't had any glitches beyond issues with Flatpak (VLC being a recent one that I managed to fix). I would say the mainstream themes for DE work in the same way as a windows theme works. The problems are when you go to super niche attempts to pretty up the desktop - but you'd get similar issues if you tried that in windows.
I agree regarding the professional apps. If you are tied into specific proprietary Windows software then Linux is difficult. The exception is Office 365 which is now both Windows and Web App based, and the web apps are close to feature parity with the desktop clients. The open source alternatives to windows proprietary software can be very good, but there are often compromises (particularly collaboration as that is generally within specific softwares walled gardens). Like Libre Office; it's very good and handles Office documents near seamlessly, but if your work uses Office then it you lose the integration with One Drive and Teams.
In terms of Linux not supporting old software, I would caveat that that is supporting old linux software. It is very good at supporting other systems software through the various open source emulators etc. Also Flatpak has changed things somewhat; software can come with it's own set of libraries although it does mean bloat in terms of space taken (and security issues & bugs albeit it limited to the app's sandbox). And while Wine can be painful for some desktop apps it is also very robust with a lot of software; it can either be a doddle or a nightmare. Meanwhile Proton has rapidly become very powerful when it comes to gaming.
I disagree that it takes a lot of time to make basic things work. Generally Linux supports modern hardware well and I've had no issues myself with fresh installs across multiple different pieces of hardware (my custom desktop, raspberry Pi, and a living room PC). Printing/Scanning remains probably the biggest issue but I've not had to deal with that in a long time. But problem solving bigger issues can be hard.
To answer your questions:
When it comes to other distros; I currently use Linux Mint with KDE Plasma desktop. The debian/ubuntu ecosystem is pretty easy to use and there are lots of guides out there for fixing/tinkering with Linux Mint (or Ubuntu which largely also works) because of their popularity. Lots of software is available as ".deb" packages which can be installed easily on Linux Mint and other Debian based systems including Ubuntu.
I've also been trying Nobara on a living room PC; that is Fedora based. I like that too, although it has a very different package manager set up.
Whatever distro you choose, Flatpak is an increasingly popular way of installing software outside the traditional package managers. A flatpak should just work on any distro. I would not personally recommend Snap which is a similar method from Cannonical (the people behind Ubuntu) but not as good in my opinion.
In terms of desktop environments, I like Linux Mint's Cinnamon desktop, but have moved over to KDE having decided I prefer it after getting used to it with the Steam Deck. KDE has a windows feel to it (although it's very customisable and can be made to look like any interface). I've also used some of the lightweight environments like LXDE, XFCE etc - they're nice and also customisable but not as slick. You can get a nice look on a desktop with a good graphics card with KDE. The only desktop environment I personally don't like is Gnome 3 (and the Unity shell from Ubuntu); that may just be personal preference but if you're coming from Windows I wouldn't start with that desktop environment - it's too much of a paradigm shift in my opinion. However it is a popular desktop environment.
I've been dual booting between Linux and Windows for maybe 10 years or so (and tinkered with linux growing up before that). I think maybe similar to you, I'm technically apt when it comes to computers but not a programmer; I'm good at problem solving issues with my computer and am not afraid to "break" it.
A few key things:
- Make sure your important personal data, files etc are kept secure and always backed up. This is probably obvious, but it does lower the threshold for tinkering and messing with the computer. I've reinstalled Windows and Linux multiple times; whether that's getting round broken Windows updates, or Linux issues or just switching up which Linux distro I use. If you are confident you have your data backed up, then reinstalling an OS is not a big deal
- Use multiple drives; don't just partition one drive. Ideally each OS gets it's own SSD; this will make dual booting much easier and also allows complete separation of issues. I have 4 hard drives in my PC currently - A 1TB C Drive SSD for Windows, a 500 GB Linux SSD drive, and two 4TB data drives (one is SSD one is just a standard HD). SSD is faster but you can of course use a mechnical drive if you want.
- When it comes to dual booting, if you have a separate linux hard drive, then linux will only mess around with it's own boot sectors. It will just point at the Windows boot sector on the windows hard drive and not touch it but add it as an option to it's boot menu. Then all you have to do is go into your Bios and tell it to boot the Linux drive first, which will get you a boot menu to chose between Linux and Windows. Tinker with that boot menu (Grub2 usually) - I set mine to always boot the last OS selected, so I only have to think about the boot menu when I'm wanting to switch. Separate drives saves you having to mess around with Windows recovery disks if things go wrong with the boot sector. One drive with a shared or multiple boot sectors can be messy.
- Try a few Distros using their live images. Most Linux distros you flash onto a USB stick, boot onto that (OR use VirtualBox in Windows to try Linux in an emulated environment) and it takes you into the full desktop environment running from the stick. You can then install from that. But you can also use linux that way. You can even run linux entirely from those USB sticks (or an external drive) and get a feel for it, including installing more apps, upgrading etc all using the USB stick as storage.
- Also try a few different different desktop environments and get a feel for which one you like. Most distros default to a desktop environment (Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, etc). You only really need to test the desktop environments with one distro as they'll feel mostly the same in each distro.
If you know you want to use Pop_OS, then follow their guide on how to install. It's generally very similar for all linux OSs (there are other methods but this is the simplest and most common):
- Download a disk image (ISO)
- Flash the disk image onto a spare USB stick. Balena Etcher is a very commonly used tool for this.
- Restart your computer and go into your bios (usually the Del key just after reboot, sometimes Escape or F2) and change the boot order to that USB is 1st, above your hard drives
- Insert the USB stick and restart the computer
- You should load into the Linux live environment set up by that distro. Pop_OS loads you directly into the installer; you can go to the desktop by clicking "Try Demo Mode" after setting up langauge and keyboard. You can just continue installing.
- Select the hard drive you want to install onto. BE CAREFUL at this step; most installers are good at making clear which drives are which. The last thing you want to do is wipe a data drive or your main OS. Know your computer's drives well, and if in doubt the safest thing is to unplug all the hard drives except the one you're going to install Linux onto.
- Follow the installer set up (to create the main user account, etc) and install.
- After installing reboot the system and go back into the bios. This time put your linux drive at the top of the boot order (or below USB if you still want to boot other live images - remember to take out the stick! But generally more secure to boot to a hard drive and password protect your bios so people can only boot to USB when you decide). That's it! Reboot, and select linux from the new boot menu.
Linux has come a very long when it comes to installing and setting up; installers are generally easy to use, work well and generally hardware is recognised and set up for you. The exception will be the Nvidia graphics card - you will need to set up the Nvidia drivers. Pop_OS's install guide shows how to do it.
Hope that helps! Run out of characters!
That doesn't make sense? How would you have the "add from search bar" feature in the settings screen?
It's a context specific method of adding a search engine - you add it when you're at the site. Meanwhile the setting screen is global for the browser.
If I was laid off by a company I wouldn't go back unless I had no other choice. If a company didn't see your value previously and now it supposedly does, what is to say it will not change again in the future and fire you again? A lot of companies do a last-in first-out approach and are cyclical about hiring and firing to please shareholders. That's where these tech companies are at now.
Also who wants the potential of a CV where you were laid off twice by the same company? It'd be like them taking your CV and wiping their arse with it before handing to back to you as security escorts you out of the building.
Don't go backwards, keep moving forward.
The BBC article that this article is a bizarre summary of is far better (the Gizmodo article even links directly to the BBC article). It give a far better overview of the issues; the main crux is they cost most than anticipated through both theft and cost of the machines themselves. The consumer's disliking it is a less point and more naunced essentially "customer's want the technology to work but it isn't" which is also what you've said.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240111-it-hasnt-delivered-the-spectacular-failure-of-self-checkout-technology
Personally I preferred the self checkouts because I don't want to interact with someone, but th they fail so much (because of the weighing which is to stop me being a supposed thieving scumbag, not to benefit me) and you end up standing around waving at a random stranger to come and fix the machine awkwardly while a massive queue waits impatiently for a machine. I've recently switched back to the manned checkouts for bigger shopping trips.