Quixzlizx posted:

It would be great if someone in this thread will ever respond to something I actually wrote instead of arguing against the strawmen you are used to arguing against in the great OS fanboy wars. Complete with the "akshually, the command line is great and user-friendly for normies!" derail.

Klyith posted:

My dude you're arguing with strawmen yourself. I don't think that post was celebrating the pain points. It was acknowledging the pain points exist and asking why someone would do linux if they weren't ready to do some effort rather than get frustrated and bitch on twitter at the first hurdle. I mean, I've seen plenty of people say "linux is better now" (I've said it myself), but never "linux is easy and problem-free".

Which is also a kinda stupid question: probably they need it for a job or some practical purpose. A gamedev might want a system to help make games ready for steamdeck or something.

Nobody said that it's a good thing. It's unfortunate. But it's not linux's fault that he used an old imager that doesn't support UEFI properly. (It is unetbootin's fault that they don't prominently say "this software doesn't support UEFI" at the top of their page in big font.)


"Linux should be just as easy to use as Windows" is a false premise. Windows isn't easy, you're just used to it through many years of gradual learning. Just ask anyone who has only ever used Macs. I don't find a command line hostile and alien-- not because I'm a nerd, because I'm over forty. Today's kids don't know what files are.

quote:

To me, if you aren't kind of infatuated with the idea of your daily computing being lowkey annoying some days and highkey frustrating on others + the idea of searching around for solutions or hacking poo poo together sometimes doesn't sound fun to you then why are these people even trying to install linux in the first place?

quote:

So your example of mapping a drive is unintentionally pretty much the ideal case for "sucks on linux for reasons that are hard to fix". The problem is that fstab *is* the way to mount drives at the system level. An automated tool to write new entries needs to be both bulletproof and make some important decisions that are more complicated than "pick a drive letter". There is some irreducible complexity that doesn't exist on windows.

Meanwhile, most GUI tools in your desktop environment are doing things at the user level. It would be pretty easy to have a GUI to mount a network share into a user mount location, same as removable storage is handled. But that's kinda useless -- 90% of the time if you want a network share permanently mounted, it's at the system level. If you only care about user desktop level just add it to your KDE Places / Gnome Favorites.

And then you get into the network shares most people are using being SMB, which isn't native on linux. A GUI button for mounting NFS shares would be far easier to have, but totally useless for people who need a GUI button. I doubt you've have been happy with that. So nobody bothers.

The GUI button on Windows can't mount a NFS share. Seriously, google mount nfs share windows. Is it any different?

Quixzlizx posted:

It would be great if someone in this thread will ever respond to something I actually wrote instead of arguing against the strawmen you are used to arguing against in the great OS fanboy wars.

ExcessBLarg! posted:

It's rich that you accuse folks in this thread of representing the toxic aspects of the Linux community, but your post history suggests you're the one occasionally barging into this thread with a chip on your shoulder when trying to get help with your Plex server.

That was my entire point. If you engage with this thread in a friendly and inquisitive manner you'll generally get helpful and supportive responses. But if you engage in this thread with accusations and attitude, I'm not sure what you really expect to get in response.

Quixzlizx posted:

This sounds like spinning it as a positive to me, I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.

Quixzlizx posted:

And "Windows should be easy to use as Linux" is in fact a strawman, since I never even said that. One of the posts I quoted supporting the above quote said "works out of the box like Windows," which made me laugh, but I didn't say it. I brought up the SMB share example to illustrate a different point about the different types of feedback new users might have, and that has made all of your heads explode like Scanners guy.

Quixzlizx posted:

It's cracking me up that two replies have brought up NFS shares on Windows, like they have to defend Linux' honor point-by-point, or that it matters at all. I just brought up an example (mounting an SMB share) of one thing that's probably easier for a clueless new user to do on Windows than it is on Linux, as an example, not as proof of Windows' superiority. If it will soothe your FOSS soul, I'll say that for a Linux person switching to Windows, they will be wondering why Windows users are not pointing them to centralized software repositories to install/update their software, even though they are actually available.

Quixzlizx posted:

And I'm not sure why it's technically impossible to have a GUI tool that can give sudo access that basically maps changes to fstab, with fields to fill in and comforting tooltips explaining what needs to be entered in, rather than reinventing the wheel with a whole new solution.

Quixzlizx posted:

I was perfectly polite in my initial encounter with this thread until people started telling me that I was doing Linux wrong by wanting to have XRDP available on a server, or to even have a DE installed on a server. I wasn't asking for opinions on my use case, I was asking specific technical questions. And I did appreciate the people who actually tried to help me, rather than the people who just wanted to condescendingly editorialize.

ExcessBLarg! posted:

I remember the XRDP conversation (and I looked it up too). Nobody was being condescending. There were some thread regulars that suggested as part of their advice that XRDP likely was going to be more of a headache than it was worth, and you attacked them for being patronizing. They were just sharing their opinions based on their own experiences and past headaches.

RFC2324 posted:

My bad, nomachine.

And I am just telling you, adding a remote gui is adding extra layers of complexity that aren't worth it if it can be avoided. I'm not here to sell you on the os, take it leave it, but be realistic about the amout of cli level janitoring it requires. I use opensuse because it has ncurses guis for alot of stuff to simply organization, but no matter what you are going to need to be comfortable (not necessarily proficient) on the command line, so if you are just not gonna deal with that then yeah, use something less server oriented.

RFC2324 posted:

Sorry, "if I can't have a GUI then I dont want it" is a but misleading then.

Good luck!

Methanar posted:

I don't think you actually want to use linux tbh.

The problems you're having now will never go away.

Quixzlizx posted:

And then I made my actual rear end in a top hat post in response to this rear end in a top hat post, which was also quoting the above one:

Quixzlizx posted:

It's amazing you read through all of that and came away with "Why is this person being randomly aggressive in our very peaceful Linux thread?" My other dozen posts while troubleshooting were completely polite and grateful to the posters attempting to help me, and I was also polite to RFC224 until they started with "use the command line or GTFO." Weirdly enough, misattributing statements to me I didn't make, much like what's happening at the moment.

ExcessBLarg! posted:

RFC didn't make an "rear end in a top hat post". He genuinely wished you luck!

BlankSystemDaemon posted:

I'm not sure that's the correct pronoun.

ExcessBLarg! posted:

RFC didn't make an "rear end in a top hat post". She genuinely wished you luck!

BlankSystemDaemon posted:

I think Quixzlizx is just running up against the wall that is as a top-five company in the tech industry, Microsoft-has-a-literal-license-to-print-money-and-fund-development-for-all-their-lossleaders, which is something that no opensource project (not even Linux, which is at this point funded and developed almost exclusively by corporations) can match in terms of polish.
And considering how much Microsoft gets wrong, it's a testament to how good of a job opensource developers do do (heh).

Quixzlizx posted:

Quixzlizx posted:

lmao, this has to be a troll. And I said the post quoting that one was the rear end in a top hat post, but I'm actually laughing out loud if that's your genuine interpretation of the post you quoted.

There is no wall, if you look at my original post in this tangent, I was bringing up mapping network shares as a potential pain point for new users as part of a discussion of how to react to new users asking for help/making criticisms (whether justifiable or not). The replies took this as an attack on Linux and derailed the conversation to that specific statement in my post, so I explained what I thought might be an easier to use UI for a new user. I was able to edit the fstab without issue, that was nothing close to a deal-breaker for me. (Edit: The initial issue for me was that I had to go down a Google rabbit hole of "How to get Plex server to recognize network shares in Linux" searches because I didn't even know what the problem was to start with, since my file explorer was able to recognize the share. Eventually I found a post on the Plex forums that explained what I had to do, and I did it with no issue, but I wouldn't say that was a new user-friendly way of discovering the solution).

People are conflating what I personally need and feel entitled to in my workflow and what I perceive would be a useful GUI utility for users who would rather minimize their interaction with the command line.

And also bringing up incredibly relevant information like "WELL, ONLY POWER USERS CAN MOUNT NFS SHARES IN WINDOWS," because my OP was obviously the opening salvo in a Microsoft raid on the SA Linux thread, when it had absolutely nothing to do with comparing the relative quality or ease-of-use of different operating systems.

Klyith posted:

Heyo, you've generally escalated the hostility way more yourself than other people have been hostile to you. The first several posts I replied to you with were discussion. No more, no less.

The last one was not, but that's because you're being a poo poo.

Quixzlizx posted:

Isn't wanting and/or believing that the product should only be accessible to tinkerers and hobbyists the definition of insular?

There's a difference between "Why do I have to do x instead of y like in Windows?" and "Why do I have to do x, y, and z when normies should really only have to do x?"

An example of the first type of question would be "Why can't I just download and install .exes?," an example of the second would be "Why do I need to go into the terminal and manually edit fstab instead of having an easy GUI button to permanently map network drives?"

Quixzlizx posted:

and then a second response saying that you can't expect Linux to work out of the box like Windows (I DIDN'T SAY THIS, IT WASN'T ME, HOLD YOUR FIRE):

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

Am I a cause of this slapfight?

I shouldn't have said that, then. A lot of distros do work just fine out of the box; Mint certainly did when I switched to Linux last year. If you're new to Linux you probably shouldn't pull a Linus Tech Tips and wade right into using something like Arch or Gentoo anyway.

What I meant and didn't express clearly is this: the use case of Windows and Linux tend to be different. Windows is designed for your average "normie" (I hate that term, but it fits) who may not know much about computing but just need something that works. Linux can be used that way too, but the reason techier people tend to like it is that it gives you control over your system so that customize your system - even when you end up tweaking something that fucks up your computer.

But at the same time, there are things like driver issues that make the switch to Linux harder than they would be on Windows or Mac.

Subjunctive posted:

what the actual hell people

Quixzlizx posted:

Seriously, please tell me how this response to my post, in context, makes any sense whatsoever:

ExcessBLarg! posted:

It's when people presume "the Windows way" is canonical and correct and anything else is deviant and weird that people get snippy.

Quixzlizx posted:

Seriously, please tell me how this response to my post, in context, makes any sense whatsoever:

Klyith posted:

The important part is this: ... and then his counters about package managers and NFS are showing the futility and unreasonableness of reversing that presumption and a linux user asking why windows doesn't do things the linux way.

Klyith posted:

The important part is this:

and then his counters about package managers and NFS are showing the futility and unreasonableness of reversing that presumption and a linux user asking why windows doesn't do things the linux way.

Both of your questions are presuming the windows way is the normal default. You intended the first one to be silly and the second to be reasonable, but neither are reasonable. "Why isn't there a GUI to do ____" isn't a very useful question to ask a bunch of people who aren't responsible for the absence of said GUI. Like, what do you expect the answer to be? "Oh certainly sir, I can't believe we overlooked that! One GUI button coming right up!"



OTOH both of those questions can be actually interesting questions, if asked in non-hostile and open phrasing. (Which can be hard in text, and might need some preamble stating that you want to learn why linux does things a certain way.)

Like, why can't you just download and run exes? Well, you could if you wanted. Nobody does, they use package managers, for some reasons with real depth. The differences in how linux and windows handle dependency conflict have a lot to do with it.

I tried to divert that by explaining some of why a GUI tool for mounting a network share in fstab is not a simple request, but you read it as the linux defense force. That's on you. You didn't really want to learn, you wanted to be mad.

Subjunctive posted:

what the actual hell people

cruft posted:

I'm new to SH/SC. Am I allowed to emptyquote?

Storm One posted:

for real

i can't believe no one's yet answered the very important question i posted in the previous page

Twerk from Home posted:

Both at work and at home, I have machines with a ton of RAM but using network storage that is better at continuous reads rather than low latency IOPS. When I've needed random read access to a file, I've found that it's much faster to start a "cat /path/thefile > /dev/null" as I start accessing it to get the whole file into page cache. This feels like a terrible hack, is there a better way to tell the OS that I want a whole file preloaded into page cache to better consolidate reads?

Twerk from Home posted:

Both at work and at home, I have machines with a ton of RAM but using network storage that is better at continuous reads rather than low latency IOPS. When I've needed random read access to a file, I've found that it's much faster to start a "cat /path/thefile > /dev/null" as I start accessing it to get the whole file into page cache. This feels like a terrible hack, is there a better way to tell the OS that I want a whole file preloaded into page cache to better consolidate reads?

VostokProgram posted:

If it's a really big file that might be slow. Maybe a C program that can mmap the file and then read one byte from each page would be better?

VostokProgram posted:

If it's a really big file that might be slow. Maybe a C program that can mmap the file and then read one byte from each page would be better?

Twerk from Home posted:

Both at work and at home, I have machines with a ton of RAM but using network storage that is better at continuous reads rather than low latency IOPS. When I've needed random read access to a file, I've found that it's much faster to start a "cat /path/thefile > /dev/null" as I start accessing it to get the whole file into page cache. This feels like a terrible hack, is there a better way to tell the OS that I want a whole file preloaded into page cache to better consolidate reads?

VostokProgram posted:

If it's a really big file that might be slow. Maybe a C program that can mmap the file and then read one byte from each page would be better?