The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

Been looking through the thread and seems like some of you are using Fedora Silverblue. I tried it on my PC to replace Vanilla OS (also an immutable distro), but the performance is TERRIBLE.
Launching apps is slow, updates take forever and gaming is almost impossible. TF2 doesn't even launch.
I found some posts saying Fedora doesn't come with good Nvidia drivers and I found some guides online to change those (even though that kinda goes against the idea of an immutable OS), but that didn't help.

Anyone else had that kind of experience?
Is Silverblue, or Fedora in general, just slow?
I daily-drive Fedora Silverblue and I have not had any of the problems you describe. Updates install quickly, even faster than regular Fedora, and I haven't noticed any app startup issues. Can't remark on gaming though, I don't use this machine for gaming, I have a separate Windows machine that is dedicated to gaming.
 
After re-reading the instructions three times and following the guides and doing three complete reinstalls I still can't get SDDM or KDE to launch
1699767196313.png

fuckit
 
After re-reading the instructions three times and following the guides and doing three complete reinstalls I still can't get SDDM or KDE to launch
View attachment 5487197
fuckit
The error says that there is no X11 server active. I think you would have a slightly better time if you tried using some sort of wrapper script like startx to create an X server and start Plasma. You have to write a small shell script to create a session in your favorite DE, but it might work. SDDM not working is concerning, though. It may be caused by your VM software.

I've also had lots of trouble with Arch in VirtualBox before. If you use VirtualBox, try not using VirtualBox.
 
The error says that there is no X11 server active. I think you would have a slightly better time if you tried using some sort of wrapper script like startx to create an X server and start Plasma. You have to write a small shell script to create a session in your favorite DE, but it might work. SDDM not working is concerning, though. It may be caused by your VM software.

I've also had lots of trouble with Arch in VirtualBox before. If you use VirtualBox, try not using VirtualBox.
I was using Hyper-V. After googling I had tried installing the fbdev video driver. I've tried starting x and was unsuccessful.
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I had the same problem when I was trying to install Manjaro in Hyper-V. I'll try a couple other things before giving up. Archfi didn't seem to give me the option of installing Wayland but I'll try some things.
 
Anyone else had that kind of experience?
Is Silverblue, or Fedora in general, just slow?

Silverblue is an oddball because it's the only Red Hat distro that shuns RPMs entirely for Flatpaks. If you're trying to mix non-Flatpak applications with Flatpak applications, I think you'll run into problems. Don't take that as some authoritative statement; it's more conjecture than anything else.

Pivoting over to Fedora more generally, the Red Hat family of distros has a few extra steps that the Debian family of distros more or less did away with. Fedora, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and all variants thereof, strictly adhere to the principles of software freedom. Proprietary software is entirely absent from the base installs of Fedora and RHEL, and all the repositories directly managed by Red Hat and/or the Fedora Project do not distribute proprietary software. Similarly, actual free software that would be problematic to distribute in certain countries are also not shipped in the base system or available for install via default repos (software like libdvdcss, for example). There is one exception made for binary firmware within the Linux kernel, but that's your lot on a default Fedora/Red Hat clone install.

Third-party repositories have existed since Red Hat first sprang about in the 90s, if I'm not mistaken. They've all more or less merged over the years to form the RPM Fusion project. OSTree variants of Red Hat systems are also supported, but with some extra strings attached due to the OSTree manner of doing things compared to the 'traditional' way of system administration.
 
What hard drive type/brand is the best for low write storage? I'm going to build an archive covering ~45 tb of data.
Looking for longevity, stability, and recoverability. ATM I'm looking at the Toshiba MG Enterprise drives.

I have also read online about the +/- of RAID and other configurations. Some say it's best to just buy a NAS/DAS, others claim the user should build and configure it. If anyone has experience there your thoughts would be appreciated.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Doctor Neo Cortex
Depends how often and how quickly you want your data back.
Tapes are still a thing: $5-$10/TB (compressibility is a factor) will sit on your data until 2050 but it's a bit of a pain trying to remember what's where unless it's time-based data (plus a few thousand for the drive, but at least they will fit in a normal PC case).
For a a local disk-based system I'd slap 7x10TB (or 6x14, or whatever adds up nicely) into a NAS, set it to raid 6, and hope someone else was buying. I like Synology boxes, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say they're crap. Such is life... With that much data you are going to have to do some config, but it's not rocket surgery.
(Raid 6 gives you double redundancy, which can be a factor with a new system: The chances of two identical new drives failing at the same time is higher than I'd like. If it's a mission-critical system I'd be asking for a tape back up as well, if only to cover my ass when it all goes bang.)
The third option, if you only need to keep it for emergencies (say, disaster recovery) is chuck it onto the cloud. AWS (for instance) will keep your 45TB very safe, forever, for peanuts. The downside is that downloading it all back would bankrupt a small country so don't make a habit of it.

Edits for words, it's too early here and I need more coffee.

Another edit after more coffee: If it's an archive, rather than a production system, I'd go with standard drives and buy a spare with the savings, I don't think you'll see a benefit with "enterprise" specs. And for what it's worth, I don't feel there's a lot, if any, difference between the main drive manufacturers. Toshiba, Seagate and WD are all good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: blur
Like Synology boxes, but someone will be along shortly to say they're crap.
They're fine, as long as you don't let them reach outside your network. The main problem with them is the cost for what you get, but they're solid otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blur
They're fine, as long as you don't let them reach outside your network. The main problem with them is the cost for what you get, but they're solid otherwise.
I've not had any issues putting mine on the net, but then I wouldn't put anything important on a net-connected NAS anyway. That's a hanging offense.
 
i plan to buy a drive to install and duel boot linux mint about how much memory should i get?
Anything over about 64GB should be fine. If you're dual booting, also account for the amount of space Windows needs. For RAM, get the amount Windows will need (Linux Mint isn't as much of a memory-guzzling piece of shit.)
 
AWS (for instance) will keep your 45TB very safe, forever, for peanuts. The downside is that downloading it all back would bankrupt a small country so don't make a habit of it.
More specifically, about $4000 for a single download. For that price, I think whatever you come up with yourself is going to be far cheaper.
 
Back