I’d rather use some sbc on rk3588, tho. It shouldn’t be too hard to pack one of SBCs with it into a laptop case given they often expose eDP (which laptop displays use) or mipi dsi (which is convertible to eDP, but I’m not sure here).
Otherwise, it’s good to have an option to run a proper os on such a low-spec machine. Windows on 4gb ram, eesh
If you can run the Raspberry Pi Desktop that would be good. Wayland and I think very light.
I am thinking about installing that on Fedora, rebranding and all, to have an actually small Wayland Desktop, because the current options are either WMs or bigger Desktops
Always reminds me of the console wars… people attach their whole identity to all kinds of things nowadays and fight for it like it was a religion. Did not see much good come out of such threads yet.
NixOS and nix in general is incredibly complicated imo and the documentation is… let’s just say sub par. I’d go with arch unless you really just wanna learn nix.
It’s incredibly complicated in the same way that ubuntu is incredibly complicated to a lifelong windows user.
It just requires a bit of a paradigm shift which includes a learning curve but IMO once you’re past that point it’s intuitive and even easier than other distros.
You cannot compare NixOS to ubuntu… even for as a new user to more adept user comparison, NixOS is really complicated. I’m not saying it’s bad, just that the documentation on how it works could be better. I’ve tried to use NixOS and nix itself multiple times and they were a nightmare to setup each time, especially NixOS (nix itself isn’t as complicated to me but it has some annoying things with proprietary software and not integrating with desktops at all without using hacky scripts).
Did you truly read what I said? The only logical way I can frame your comment is that you glanced at what I wrote down and started writing a reply.
To a regular average windows user, ubuntu is incredibly complicated. When you learm how it works and how you’re supposed to use it, it becomes incredibly easy. The “hard” part of ubuntu is the paradigm shift from windows to the linux ecosystem.
Similarly, to an average linux user nixos is “hard” because it does things completely differently from other linux distros. But once you’re used to it, it just makes sense and is easy.
So the comparison is average windows user -> ubuntu vs average linux user -> nixos. Not average user -> ubuntu vs average user -> nixos.
Finally: Nixos documentation is IMO 100x better than ubuntu documentation. Whenever I experience any issue with ubuntu it’s easier to just load up the arch wiki and hope it’s similar than it is to try and find anything specific for ubuntu that isn’t either 10 years out of date, a massive gaping security risk or just plain dumb. The nixos wiki may not be perfect but it has always been sufficient for my needs, and I have to run a decent amount of very niche pieces of software.
It’ll really depend on your local job market. I was on a serious job hunt earlier this year and I couldn’t find a single Linux job which asked for LFCS certs. There were a couple which asked for Red Hat certs though. Of course, this could be specific to where I live, so I’d recommend looking at some popular job sites for where you live (+ remote jobs too) and see how many, if any, ask for LFCS, and you’d get your answer.
Should I focus more on dev ops? Security? Straight SysAdmin?
From what I’ve seen so far, the days of “traditional” Linux sysadmin roles are numbered, if not long gone already - it’s all mostly DevOps-y stuff. Same with traditional security, these days it’s more about DevSecOps.
As a modern Linux sysadmin, the technologies you should be looking at would be Ansible, Kubernetes, Terraform, containers (Docker mainly, but also Podman/LXD), GitOps, CI/CD and Infrastructure as Code (IaC) concepts and tools.
Some Red Hat shops may also ask for OpenShift, Ansible Tower, Satellite etc experience. IBM shops also use a lot of IBM tools such as IBM Could Paks, Multicloud Management, and AIOps/Watson etc.
And finally there’s all the “cloud” stuff like AWS, Azure, GCP specific things - and they have their own terminologies that you’d need to know and understand (eg “S3”, “Lambda” etc) and they have their own certs to go with it. I suspect a “cloud” cert will net you more jobs than LFCS.
So as you’d probably be thinking by now, all of the above isn’t something you’d know from just using desktop Linux. Of course, desktop Linux experience is certainly useful for understanding some of the core concepts and how it all works under the hood, but unfortunately that experience alone just isn’t going to cut it if you’re out looking for a job.
As I mentioned before, start looking for jobs in your area/relevant to you and look at the technologies they’re asking for, note down the terms which appear most frequently and the certs they’re asking for, and start preparing for them. That is, assuming it’s something you want to work with in the future.
Personally, I’m not a big fan all this new tech (I’m fine with Ansible and containers, but don’t like the industry’s dependency on proprietary techs like Docker Desktop, Amazon or Red Hat’s stuff). I just wanted to work on pure Linux, with all the all standard POSIX/GNU tools and DEs that we’re familiar with, but sadly those sort of jobs don’t really exist anymore.
Sorry, I guess I meant Docker Desktop, and some of their other proprietary business/enterprise tools (like Docker Scout) that companies have started to use, the stuff that requires a paid subscription. The Docker engine itself remains opensource of course, but a lot of their stuff that’s targeted at enterprises isn’t. These days when companies say “Docker” they don’t mean just the engine, they’re referring to the entire ecosystem.
Also, I have a problem with Docker itself. My main issue is that, on Linux, native container tech like Podman/LXD work, perform and integrate better (at least, from my limited experience), but the industry prefers Docker (no surprises there). As a Linux guy, naturally I want to use the best tool for Linux, not what’s cross-platform (when I don’t care about other platforms). But I can understand why companies would prefer Docker.
Ah I see what you mean, that stuff is pretty annoying.
Well at least the core tech remains open, though I agree, I would like to see more agnosticism from the industry in regard to the tool implementing the containers, since they’re pretty much all interoperable to a certain extent, as I understand
Don’t move to Fedora. They are Red Hat and recently shat all over Free Software principles and broke the GPL by making Red Hat Enterprise CLOSED SOURCE.
They are dead to the Linux and Free Software world. You’ll be going from bad to worse.
I HIGHLY recommend Linux Mint Debian Edition 6. It’s based directly on Debian (one of the oldest distros ever and the best), is Free Software loving and 100% Community. No Greedy Corp Inc in sight.
It runs the excellent Cinnamon desktop and the Mint team have set up all the apps etc perfectly. And because it’s Debian it’s super reliable and has massive amounts of apps etc .
It’s basically the opposite. Fedora is the community based upstream, and some of it reaches RHEL, but Fedora isn’t Red Hat.
What Red Hat did was limit who they distribute the source code to to paid customers, and add provisions to their TOS to give them the right to end their paid contract with you if you redistribute it. You aren’t prevented from doing so, but choosing to do so prevents you from getting future versions, which you were only entitled to through said contract. They also still open-source to CentOS Stream, just upstream of RHEL.
Now, do I think it was a good move by RH, no. Was it legal, probably, yes, but IANAL, eventual courts will tell. Did it go against the “spirit” of the GPL, maybe, yes. But is RHEL closed-source? No, it’s objectively not. Please, don’t spread misinformation.
Read. Then read again. Then read again until you get it.
From gnu.org “What is free software?”
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
As you can see Free Software (and the GPL) says that the end user has the right to FREELY USE AND REDISTRIBUTE the software, AS IS.
In other words, I could get a copy of RHEL and without making a single change, could redistribute it or even sell it.
Yet Red Hat calls this “freeloading”. Yet that is PRECISELY what Free Software is about!
Rocky Linux, Alma Linux etc were well within their rights to rebrand and redistribute RHEL bug for bug to others. Red Hat had no right to shut them out. Yes they could have made them a customer and charged them for it, but they didn’t do that. And if I’m not mistaken they made the binaries available, not the source code. Meaning that Rocky and Alma would need to spend weeks compiling the code before they could even make it ready for distribution.
Now, someone could become a client of Red Hat, get the code and then host it on a server for anyone to download. But I have a feeling Red Hat would drop them as soon as they found out.
Basically RH now have a closed source mentality.
As for Fedora, stop being so naive. Were you born yesterday? I’m an IT Pro and I can tell your if my company set up a working group full of full time employees to work on a “community” distro which then gets directly absorbed into it company and used in our enterprise products, that working group is to all intents and purposes a part of my company since I’m freaking paying their salaries, and they are working on my freaking product!
The last time the project leader measured it, only about 40% of Fedora contributors were known to be Red Hat employees. So while it’s a big chunk, it’s not a majority.
Imagine working on big parts of the Linux desktop and projects just use your source code and build exact clones off your Distro, while all the developers you pay need the income to keep contributing to awesome modern software.
It is difficult but businesses are asked if Linux Desktop needs money, not hobby users.
They shouldn’t have used Linux in that case because according to GNU, the FSF and Richard Stallman, if you use Free Software under the GPL you are agreeing to the following:
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
As you can see, they are required by the principles of free software to let others distribute it, when without changing a single line of code… Don’t go calling us freeloaders when were practicing Free Software principles.
You better hope that Cinnamon migrates to Wayland before Red Hat stops supporting Xorg. Despite the deeply researched and evidence based opinion above, Red Hat is the the primary contributor to many of the technologies propping up Mint. Xorg is MIT licensed of course and Red Hat has no obligation to share their changes for Xorg with Mint but they do. Most of the original software Red Hat writes is released under the GPL and used by every other distro. The very first program that Debian runs when it boots was written and is maintained by Red Hat. Fedora was founded by Red Hat to explicitly be community based and they pay the salaries of many of the prominent contributors. Regardless of what you think of Red Hat’s behaviour, I am embarrassed for anybody that honestly believes Red Hat is closed source, even without the all caps.
Can you read? Have a read of what Richard Stallman says Free Software is:
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Read carefully. Several times if you don’t get it at first. Then go cry in a corner for being a jackass
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.