I use docker myself on my RPi4, but the OS is on a 128 GB SSD connected through USB3. These SSD are pretty cheap nowadays and (likely?) more resilient than sdcards…
Keep notes on what you do including outcomes. You can always reinstall, skip all of the extra crap you didn’t need to mess around with and have a good clean system without having to back track.
It’s easy to forget the steps you took to do something on your computer, especially several months later when you’re trying to upgrade. Sometimes when you try several different ways of solving a problem, it’s easy to forget which method was successful the next day!
It’s a very good idea to take notes about the software you’ve installed and configuration changes you’ve made. When editing configuration files, it’s also a very good idea to include comments in the file explaining the reason for the changes and the date they were made.
This has saved me so much grief. If ever I mess up a system so badly that I want to re-install or when I want to set up a new machine, having a clear set of notes makes it a breeze.
It’s easy to forget the steps you took to do something on your computer, especially several months later when you’re trying to upgrade. Sometimes when you try several different ways of solving a problem, it’s easy to forget which method was successful the next day!
I'm not sure why Docker would be a particularly good (or particularly bad) fit for the scenario you're referring to.
If you're suggesting that Docker could make it easy to transfer a system onto a new SD card if one fails, then yes that's true ... to a degree. You'd still need to have taken a backup of the system BEFORE the card failed, and if you're making regular backups then to be honest it will make little difference if you've containerised the system or not, you'll still need to restore it onto a new SD card / clean OS. That might be a simpler process with a Docker app but it very much depends on which app and how it's been set up.
Unless you make your host OS read-only, it itself will keep writing while running your docker containers. Furthermore slapping read-only in a docker container won’t make the OS you’re running in it able to run correctly with an RO root fs. The OS must be able to run with an RO root fs to begin with. Which is the same problem you need to solve for the host OS. So you see, it’s the same problem and docker doesn’t solve it. It’s certainly possible to make an Linux OS that runs on an RO root fs and that’s what you need to focus on.
I think Docker is a tool, and it depends on how you implement said tool. You can use Docker in ways that make your infra more complicated, less efficient, and more bloated with little benefit, if not a loss of benefits. You can also use it in a way that promotes high uptime, fail-overs, responsible upgrades, etc. Just “Docker” as-is does not solve problems or introduce problems. It’s how you use it.
Lots of people see Docker as the “just buy a Mac” of infra. It doesn’t make all your issues magically go away. Me, personally, I have a good understanding of what my OS is doing, and what software generally needs to run well. So for personal stuff where downtime for upgrades means that I, myself, can’t use a service while it’s upgrading, I don’t see much benefit for Docker. I’m happy to solve problems if I run into them, also.
However, in high-uptime environments, I would probably set up a k8s environment with heavy use of Docker. I’d implement integration tests with new images and ensure that regressions aren’t being introduced as things go out with a CI/CD pipeline. I’d leverage k8s to do A-B upgrades for zero downtime deploys, and depending on my needs, I might use an elastic stack.
So personally, my use of Docker would be for responsible shipping and deploys. Docker or not, I still have an underlying Linux OS to solve problems for; they’re just housed inside a container. It could be argued that you could use a first-party upstream Docker image for less friction, but in my experience, I eventually want to tweak things, and I would rather roll my own images.
For SoC boards, resources are already at a premium, so I prefer to run on metal for most of my personal services. I understand that we have very large SoC boards that we can use now, but I still like to take a simpler, minimalist approach with little bloat. Plus, it’s easier to keep track of things with systemd services and logs anyway, since it uniformly works the way it should.
Just my $0.02. I know plenty of folks would think differently, and I encourage that. Just do what gives you the most success in the end 👍
Use Nix expressions or flakes for that - just copy a simple example of default.nix or shell.nix from a git host and tweak it to your liking. Personally, I am not a fan of how Nix handles Python, and still can’t get used to how Python packages have to be included in expressions, so I create a temporary virtual environment for the time-being.
3 and 4 are nice but as something someone would set themself. Too much character and detail to be the default when Plasma do not target any specific demographic.
1, 2 and 5 are nice abstract wallpapers, but honestly boring as we have stuff like that for years.
6 is the best. This is wallpaper with some style, but not too much character.
Edit: Just in my opinion and for my eye of course.
It’s a bit of an unpopular opinion, but if you pick a mainstream distro there isn’t a lot of difference between them. Especially to somebody who is new to linux.
With most any distro you can use KDE, gnome and other desktop environments. You can pick which one you want to use when you login. So don’t think you’re tying yourself to KDE if you install kubuntu or something.
If you want an easy way to switch to a new distro make sure you create a separate partition for /home. Then if/when you want to install something new you can have it overwrite everything except your home directory. So all your steam configs and games will be left untouched (for example). Alternatively just backup /home somewhere and restore as you need.
Is a home directory similar to the users folder in windows, or like the program files folder? Is it ‘everything but the OS’? I’m still trying to get a grasp on how the OS operates conceptually.
Yeah - the home directory in Linux pre-dates the windows Users directory by a long time. You’ll see the multi-user nature of your OS exposed much more in Linux than you will in Windows.
Every user will have a /home/username directory on Linux (often referenced by “~” or by the environment variable “$HOME”). By default this is the only directory that user will have any permissions to create things (with some exceptions like /tmp which is used for temporary file creation - but nothing long-term). So all of your configuration, user-created files, etc. will be created there.
Configurations are often stored in ‘dot-files’ or in directories that begin with a period. These are “hidden” by default with most file-browsing tools (it’s just a tradition - there’s nothing otherwise special about files or directories that begin with a period). So you’ll have a .bashrc which is the script that runs when you start a bash shell for example. Or .local which is where you will find a lot of application configurations these days.
So if you copy /home/username somewhere you will copy all of your configurations.
Some applications will install there as well. Steam, for example, will install your programs under $HOME/.steam.
Things you install “system-wide” will be installed to /usr/bin or /bin. This will typically be things that you use a package manager to install. So the steam application may be /usr/bin/steam but then all of its configurations, installed apps, etc. go in your home dir.
If you’re curious where a command lives you can use which cmd or type cmd from the command-line and it will show you (something I often wish Windows had).
NOTE: There are exceptions to everything I’ve said above. But those are the “general” guidelines. In short - if you installed it without needing root permissions it’s likely somewhere in $HOME.
If you’re curious where a command lives you can use which cmd or type cmd from the command-line and it will show you (something I often wish Windows had).
A command can ‘live’ in different places? And this might be a dumb question…but what is a command in this context?
This is the actually the thing same as Windows - in Linux you’ve got the which command, and it’s equivalent is where in Windows. Both do the same thing - find out where a program lives.
OP meant a “program” in this context. Both Linux and Windows have specific paths where programs typically lives. For example, in Windows, if you type “notepad” in a command prompt or the ‘Run’ dialog, it’ll search for it in known system paths such as C:Windows, C:Windowssystem32 etc. These paths are declared in the PATH environment variable - which you may have encountered when certain applications try to (or ask you to) add their program folder to the PATH, such as say Java or Python. If a program is added to the PATH, typing ‘java’ or ‘python’ from anywhere will automatically launch it, so you don’t need to specify the full path or the program.
Now whilst this is convenient, sometimes it can cause unwanted issues. For example, say you installed some other program that uses a specific version of Java or Python, and it installed that version in your system, and added that folder to the PATH - now when you type java or python in a command prompt, you wouldn’t know which version you’re executing. This is what OP meant by a program living in multiple places. As you can imagine, this can now cause issues, and can even break some scripts expecting a particular version of Java/Python etc and some other version is being picked up. This is where the where command in Windows comes in handy, as it tells you where exactly that program is located. And it’s Linux equivalent is which.
So at least in this department, the behavior of Windows and Linux is virtually identical. :)
The home directory is like the Windows users directory, yes.
In the shell/terminal it’s represented by ~ or $HOME, it’s path is likely /home/$USER/
First / = Root $USER = current user account you’re using.
You should check out this Arch Wiki page & this Arch man page.
Don’t worry it’s pretty distro agnostic.
Essentially, yeah. Most programs will install to your root directory, but all your personal configs and personal files will be in your home directory.
What I’d personally recommend is using Timeshift to automatically keep backups if your home directory on a separate partition, then if you want to switch distros or if you need to reinstall for whatever reason you can use Timeshift to restore your home directory pretty easily, as long as your new install uses the same file system.
Timeshift was designed for system snapshots not home files. You can force it to cover home but it’s better to use BackInTime which was designed specifically for home snapshots.
My big question would be why are you starting with a dual boot? I would recommend trying each one with a liveUSB or in a virtual machine and simply do a single boot with the one you like better. There’s likely little need for you to actually maintain two distros unless you have a very niche use case that one distro can’t solve.
My advice would be to just relax and realize that the underlying OS is 90% the same regardless of what distro you choose. All the discussion you see on different distros, package managers, snaps, wayland, etc. are all the other 10%. It really doesn’t matter what distro you start on as long as it’s a general purpose distro (both of the ones in your OP are): once you learn the first 90% of linux, you’ll develop your own tastes, and then you’ll be able to decide on the remaining 10%.
That’s an even worse idea imo. If you’re not very familiar with bcd and grub you will find it hard to boot into Linux once windows decides to “fix the boot issue”.
Better to have a separate drive so you can select by picking boot device on startup.
I know it’s possible to dual boot, but it will be some issues at some point
I have an SSD I’m using for windows and a separate one that I want to install Linux on. I want the ability to remove one of them and keep using the other. From what I understand I can set the BIOS boot order to load Linux first and use the Grub to select which OS to boot?
I realize now I should have been way more specific with how I worded things in the beginning.
Yeah that’s exactly how I do it. Never had a problem with dual booting Windows, just make sure your Linux drive is the default boot drive and then you can select Linux or Windows in GRUB/systemd-boot
I want to maintain my Windows 10 install for now as a sort of fallback. I have a lot of random software installed for my university classes, and I don’t know about all the compatibility issues I might face with those. And letting it sit there in the background in case I need it for something feels safer than jumping head first into a new OS.
Trying out liveUSB or VM stuff seemed like it would be an extra hurdle in transitioning to Linux. Like, I want to get settled in and actually use it as a daily thing, not just browse the internet a bit here and there. If I don’t like the distro I choose, I can always just install another one, right?
You can indeed always install another distro. You can also run many distros in “live cd” mode, just boot from the install media and choose the live option without installing. It’s actually a great way to see if a distro will play nice with your hardware and LAN and peripherals out of the box.
Oh, my misunderstanding, I thought you wanted to dual boot OpenSuse and KDE Plasma. Dual booting Windows 10 and one of those makes way more sense, especially if you have niche university software that was probably written 20 years ago for Windows XP service pack 2, is already barely compatible with Windows 10, and almost certainly never had a linux version. You definitely don’t want to gamble on abandoning Windows completely until after you graduate.
And yes, once you get comfortable installing a distro, it gets pretty easy to just install a new one.
Can you easily switch drives in your system? I’ll often do that on my computer because little m.2 SSDs are so darn cheap now. It’s easier and cheaper to pick up a little 64GB drive for one off projects than it is to do a proper backup and restore.
Also, I’d just go with Tumbleweed. I don’t distro hop like I used to, but that’s because as everyone else is saying, most of the distros have gotten really good. Most of the time, my little projects are trying out specific features of a different distros. So I’ll just pop a new drive in, test drive it, then either switch back or not.
A live USB would let you play around in a desktop environment for a bit to see if you like it before jumping in the deep end with it. But if you’ve already tried out KDE plasma and know you’ll like it, then you’re probably fine. I agree that you won’t become familiar with a full distro without data persistence and repeated use.
Maybe at least live boot gnome if you haven’t tried that one yet. Gnome and KDE are the most fully featured desktop environments, so they’re natural choices for users coming from win/mac.
Yeah, you can always install another, but if you are going to do that every day or two before settling on one, maybe consider installing virtual box and trying out the distros like that first. Of course, if you’re in a VM, it can be a challenge to get proper hardware acceleration if you’re going to try out gaming.
At the end of the day, I think dual booting is a good idea, as long as you only use windows when it’s your only option. That’s what I do. It’s easy enough to reboot if I need to play a game or use a windows specific app. More consistent than dealing with QEMU or something.
This is the sensible thing to do. Try a bunch of distros using either USB or as Virtual Machines.
It’ll save you a lot of heartache when you eventually kill the bootloader, the display driver or both (and you will, it is part or the learning process).
I don’t understand the issue here. Does that mean I can kill my BIOS bootloader somehow? Or the display driver? And how would screwing up drivers on one SSD with Linux affect my other SSD with Windows? Sorry if these are dumb questions, I’m just trying to get my head around as much of this as I can.
Windows likes to pretend it’s the only OS in the world so it can overwrite the bootloader and you lose access to the Linux install.
But if you use separate disks for each there’s a simple solution if your BIOS has a quick boot selection: install each bootloader on its respective disk and use the BIOS selector at boot.
Alternatively, install the Linux bootloader on the Linux disk; it will autodetect Windows and offer it as a boot option, but Windows won’t be aware of Linux. In BIOS you set Linux as permanent boot disk in this case.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.