I kinda getcha. Design-wise, you could get a very close copy (but I don’t think 1:1. Never tried it tbf), but if we take the workflow into account, yeah it won’t be 100% the same (also, QT apps can be a turnoff depending on the person)
I recently moved to Fedora and tried gnome first. Absolutely no thanks. I just can’t get down with it, and I had numerous issues in just a few days. KDE spin has been pretty painless.
If you don’t mind me asking, was it because of the vanilla look, the customization being based on extensions (which may or may be updated for a while when a new version releases–if at all), or was it the Gnome philosophy of “One Window per workspace”?
Just curious really, I’m more of an XFCE and KDE user myself, and i can see the appeal of Gnome (and I’m NGL, it looks nice IMHO), but yeah…not a big fan of extensions breaking every version update and the “throw unused Windows in a new workspace” thing
I don’t mind the workspaces idea, but I’m just so used to a windows-like philosophy that I just can’t adjust easy.
If I had one monitor, maybe gnome would be better. Workspaces could organize myself better. But I have 3, and almost never use other workspaces in KDE. And my mint XFCE laptop isn’t a big work machine so it doesn’t matter much.
Also I had technical issues on gnome that didn’t happen on KDE.
My first distro was pop, and their version of gnome I do like. But I’m not willing to customize it enough to suit myself. I’m more of a “stock experience with small mods” kinda dude. I do enjoy Unix porn but don’t have desire to do it myself. That’s kinda why I’m not a massive fan of xfce. The default layout is really bad.
Ditto. I’ve just never found the use for workspaces myself (like, i understand why they’re there but they never really worked for me). I tried them, didn’t like the flow of it, so i just ignored them (and Gnome for the most part, save Pop_OS, but I’ve a love/hate relationship with it cuz it’s always caused me problems when i try it out. Hopefully the Cosmic Desktop they’re making will run better on my systems) in favor of the windows philosophy myself
Agreed on Vanilla/stock XFCE being rough (and i love XFCE), and vanilla Gnome being divisive, but i’m the opposite of you and love to tinker with my stuff–even KDE, which lools good OOTB i can’t just leave it alone lol
I have the complete opposite experience. I’ve never had a good fedora kde install. It always had issues out of nowhere. I’ve hopped so much until I settled on endeavourOS for over a year now. Beautiful distro
Could be. To be fair to fedora kde, I’ve only tried it on a laptop that has hybrid graphics Intel/Nvidia. I now have a desktop PC that is all AMD, but I built it with EndeavourOS and never anything else.
I use Plasma for a bit but instability, odd bugs, or visual inconsistency just becomes too much for me.
Gnome was a pain for a couple of weeks when I kept trying to use it like a Windows PC, but once the Gnome workflow “clicked” it just made so much more sense than the Win95 UX paradigm.
And it’s particularly annoying when kwin crashes, because it takes everything else down with it (that’s getting fixed in Plasma 6 though!) For me that’s an absolute show-stopper. I don’t want to lose hours of work across multiple programs because something caused kwin to crash.
5.27 is better to a ridiculous degree compared to how Plasma 4 and early Plasma 5 was, though. KDE is doing a lot of work to put the meme of their software being a buggy mess to bed.
I was just trying to boot it up on bare metal yesterday, on an AMD Phenom II machine but Kernel Panic’d on not finding a device to boot from, which was a bit puzzling. Unfortunately had no time to investigate, but I won’t give up, I make it boot somehow on that PC.
There’s nothing like that is enabled AFAIK, I"m not even sure this board has UEFI (only Legacy BIOS). It’s an Acer Veriton M421G brand PC, with a Phenom II X4 945 CPU.
Not even sure it’s compatible with the OS, but this boot device issue was strange, tho. (had the same problem booting up a partition manager software from floppy that is based on Visopsys)
But will double check everything. Thanks for the tip!
I dd-ed the image straight to the HDD. grub started and booted off from it. lots of messages of PCI devices, I guess some kind of scan. after a while the screen went white, and a bit later the logs of the kernel panic appeared at the top, with the message it could’t find a device to boot from.
so, it seems that the kernel itself didn’t see the hdd it just booted from - standard IDE PATA disk, 120GB. Used dd from a gparted live disc.
First, I resized the partition on the disk to the full, at the next try I left it, as-is.
Both times the same result; the BIOS boots into Serenity, white screen, then kernel panic, couldn’t find a device to boot from.
Thing is, there are 2 DVD drives (IDE and SATA) and a floppy drive attached to the PC, dunno if they can cause any problem. And 1GB memory.
this was yesterday, and since then I haven’t got tieme to fiddle with it, but will. :)
At the weekend I’ll have some time to fiddle with it.
I think I’ll try to boot Serenity first from USB, check if it wants to boot at all. Maybe I’ll got an Arduino to use as serial monitor to check the log.
Then move on to flashing the grub image to the HDD, again, with a different IDE drive. if thst doesn’t work, I’ll find a SATA HDD and flash that.
I really wanna see this OS boot on real hardware. Then take a good lookaround and develop or port something for it :)
you might want to maybe try a different distro image to verify, maybe a simple kernel with a net image or something.
This part actually makes me wonder… Do you think SerenityOS uses the Linux kernel? Because it does not, it’s its own completely separate thing. And the hardware support for anything other than the standard emulated machine is very iffy, so it doesn’t seem too surprising that it would get tripped up by something on an old computer.
If anything went wrong with its USB stack for example, the kernel would have no way to find the root filesystem that’s stored on a USB drive.
I don't know about the creators of this project, but in general: So that they can use the stuff in their closed source applications while finding enough contributors to write software for them for free.
After reading your link, they can absolutely be used interchangably in a comparison with copyleft licenses. Your own link says that they are very similar.
For some software, where EEE tactics aren’t a concern, but corporate adoption matters, these licenses make perfect sense. However. that’s not the case here: an OS is a prime target for EEE.
Because I like the 2-clause BSD license. I am not a fan of “copyleft” or forcing obligations on people in general. I want my software to be available for anyone who wants to use it.
He missed the entire point of copyleft which is a bit disappointing.
All well, at least it is libre. I respect his choice in the end as pressuring or forcing someone to use a copy left license us just as bad as proprietary software
The GPL is a better choice if you want to make money from the software. With a pushover license, your competitors can extend the program and profit from it in a way you can’t because they aren’t required to give the changes back. The GPL evens the playing field. Of course, you often see the original company requiring a CLA so they retain copyright over all of the code.
On the other hand, it does enable possibilities that you would be very unlikely to get otherwise. For example, Cedega (formerly WineX) forked Wine when it used a pushover license and brokered deals with game companies to make the DRM compatible with WineX/Cedega. That meant you could play these games on Linux-based OSes with Cedega, but not Wine. I really wonder if it would have been possible to make Wine compatible with some of these DRM schemes otherwise. Consequently, however, Cedega could not incorporate any changes from LGPL’d Wine, as that would have required them to license Cedega under the LGPL, too.
That’s another issue. You can incorporate MIT-licensed software in GPL software, but you can’t incorporate GPL software in MIT-licensed software. So going with the GPL gives you more options. As SerenityOS is building everything from scratch, this isn’t an issue, but you can well see how it could be. The LGPL is far less disruptive to people who want to release their software under a pushover license. It only requires you give back any changes to the LGPL-licensed part, and does not cover other parts of your program. Personally, I really like the LGPL. It levels the playing field while being quite compatible. It’s not perfect either, of course.
It’s a tricky question, and there are no right answers. Ultimately, the decision is up to the developer and I can’t fault any choice, including the decision to use a proprietary license.
I personally won’t use any proprietary software and I especially won’t use any DRM. The purpose of the GPL isn’t to force companies to pay up to get out of copy left. The purpose is to keep the code free no matter what so that people can control there own computing
That’s also my preference, but very few games are free software. And most of the games I want to play are encumbered with DRM or cost ten times as much to get DRM-free. Of course, I buy them DRM-free because the DRM doesn’t work with Wine, but if it worked with Cedega…well, I might re-evaluate.
The purpose of the GPL isn’t to force companies to pay up to get out of copy left.
That’s why it was created, but in practice, many companies make money by selling exceptions. See Cal.com and CKEditor5, for instance. I didn’t mention this at all in my comment, though, so I’m not quite sure which part you’re responding to. By “level playing field”, I meant that everyone can improve Sourcehut and sell a service with more features, but they need to release those new features under the same license, meaning they will make it back to Sourcehut proper. Selling exceptions isn’t the only way to make money from free software.
First, Fedora is not Red Hat but their own community. (Although heavily sponsored by Red Hat) Second, Red Hat is FOSS.
The ones hostile to FOSS are all the freeloading companies, which used the work of Red Hat to increase their own profit, w/o contributing anything back.
If it is so easy, cheap and so much fun to support a stable Distribution for 10 years with backports for security vulnerabilities and drivers, I am very surprised that we don’t have hundreads of community distributions which do this.
Finally, over the years Red Hat contributed a load of the things we take for granted now.
(Writing this as a happy Debian user. I am just tired of reading this kind of bullshit again and again and again.)
I’m with you on this. I’ve been using openSUSE since it was SuSE Linux, and I still here bs on occasion about how they sold out open-source to MS. I’m not a huge fan of what Novell did back in the day, although it did end up costing MS more money. That said the opensuse community is not whichever corporation owns SLE currently, and they still contribute back to the community.
Thanks! And I totally agree with you: We don’t have to defend or like what the corporations/companies do, most of their moves I don’t like. OTOH Linux would not be anywhere w/o their investment. (Sad look over to the *BSDs, Haiku and ReactOS.)
There is so much crazy good and innovative output from the communities around Fedora and openSUSE (I like what is happening with Aeon right now, very cool and innovative)… so IMHO it should be the default for every FOSS user to project the communities which produce great products free of charge from bullshiters. :-)
This is why I hate Linux fanatics. They think everything that isn’t Foss is malware or something. I’ve been using Fedora for months now and it was my first time using Linux. Is probably the most modern and best working distro right now. Like it or not is amazing, and with 39 it’s even smother. Never had any problems, works perfect with Gnome and nothing has ever broken. Even games play just like in windows with a bit of tweaking in proton. You should maybe try things first and not be so paranoid about Red Hat. It’s a company just like many others. You think Arch or Mint wouldn’t become just like Red Hat if they had the user’s numbers? This world is all about money, so stop complaining and just let people enjoy
I’ve been using Fedora for months now and it was my first time using Linux. Is probably the most modern and best working distro right now.
I’m not gonna suggest to you to switch distros or whatever. But most of the modern feeling you are seeing is just the DE, which you can use whichever one with whatever distro. As far as Fedora’s own stack the centerpiece which is the package manager is actually really slow comparing with anything else.
You think Arch or Mint wouldn’t become just like Red Hat if they had the user’s numbers?
Yeah. They wouldn’t. I think they actually already do have higher number of users than fedora actually. If they don’t, then Debian surely does.
Red Hat is a for profit company, and their first goal will always be that even if that means squeezing you and making the experience worse for you.
Community distros are explicitly about the community and not about profit, and it works quite well.
Red Hat’s business is mostly in servers and service to host for companies. Fedora is a side project at most. That’s why I find it funny that people think Red Hat is going to destroy Linux or something. My point was that companies want to make money, and if a distro becomes really really popular is inevitable that sooner or later some kind of corporation will put it’s hands on it.
I know Fedora is mostly just Gnome, but you can’t deny it’s probably the best implementation of it in any distro. I tried KDE and wasn’t for me. I got used to gnome’s workflow real quick, I have trouble using Windows even. And Arch is definitely not easy to install for a newbie. Idk, I guess all this drama with Fedora is just pointless to me
if a distro becomes really really popular is inevitable that sooner or later some kind of corporation will put it’s hands on it.
Not how it works. And more so in general if you’re interested and curious do some reading on copyleft licenses. It’s truly a marvelous thing and they work quite well at keeping projects open.
I know Fedora is mostly just Gnome, but you can’t deny it’s probably the best implementation of it in any distro.
I absolutely can, what. It’s about the same as all other distros that don’t add much or at all to the upstream version.
And Arch is definitely not easy to install for a newbie.
If you are interested in trying it some time, once you’re in the installer type “archinstall”. It’s a default installation script that makes it easy to install. There isn’t nearly as much upkeep as the memes would suggest.
I tried archinstall. It’s still not easy, specially if you are not very well versed in os installs. As long as Fedora works it will be fine for me.
In any case, whatever you install will be better than Microsoft’s Windows, now thats a predatory company! I’ll never go back to Windows. And maybe in the future I will try my luck with another distro
Fedora IS the most modern distro. First to adopt pipewire, systemd, enables flatpaks by default and btrfs. Probably other things I don’t know. Being first is one of their core goals
Afaik, Fedora is a free software. I don’t deny that, and I’m a free software fan. I don’t have any problems with fedora besides that it is too heavy for me.
It looks you also care about your freedom because you use gnu/linux and lemmy. However, it seems you have a different meaning of malware.
Softwere is a recipe. Any unwanted step is malicious. You can only determine a step as unwanted by seeing its source code.
Besides this, a softwere can have other functions that are not coming from the code but the license. Similarly they can be malfunctions. For example preventing you from modification.
So yes, propriatory software is malware. I use some malwares also, because they have no alternatives yet. But let me call them malwares.
Copyright is the example of capitalism polluting water to be able to sell clean water to people.
You’re not wrong. But you are talking about the extreme who won’t use anything non-FOSS. In general, it is fair to say that all proprietary software is malware.
No one is allowed to change and fix it but the developer, thus you are harmed by being dependent on the will and motivations of the dev. Increasing dependence is always malus
Yes and they implement EVERYTHING in house. In case you haven’t heard they also started implementing a browser engine from scratch ladybird.dev just for fun. It kinda took off and they even got some nice donations, just to keep it going and see where it leads.
The “founders” youtube channel is quit interesting. Especially the monthly update videos if you want to keep up to date with the latest developments. inv.tux.pizza/channel/UC3ts8coMP645hZw9JSD3pqQ
The browser was at first only available in serentyOS itself but lately is available as a stand alone program running on other OSs as well. It’s still pretty early days, I am exited to see where all this leads tho!
It’s a work in progress. Most sites won’t work but some do. Check out this latest development update video: inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=giq5iXJntgQ&t=911 That link leads directly to the “demo segment” where he opens some sites.
To be fair, fedora 38 is already on the latest version of KDE Plasma unlike with gnome. I’m sure once we get Plasma 6 we’ll see the fedora spin support it not long after.
Just going off how things are setup in the KDE spin, the tracker is what allows you to search and find files on the machine. Disabling it would most likely make it tough to find files. But I’m not familiar with gnome just to be clear. I’d say report it and hopefully someone else can provide better detail.
We really need more marketing of Linux itself. I run ubuntu and run Cyberpunk 2077 natively, with a wireless gamepad… It’s all out of the box, I don’t know why people are afraid of it?
Edit: It does take about 30 seconds to load things into VRAM, but still worth all of it.
No one offered to? Not even the business who runs the site nor the departments within said business who do the testing? From the link:
What we test - Canonical’s QA team performs an extensive set of over 500 OS compatibility focused hardware tests to ensure the best Ubuntu experience. Every aspect of the system is checked and verified.
Regular testing for up to 10 years - Roughly every 3 weeks, Ubuntu releases Stable Release Updates, ensuring a secure and reliable experience. These updates are carefully tested by the Hardware Certification team to make sure that systems work well with Ubuntu.
Our laboratories - Canonical conducts tests in dedicated laboratories, located around the world. The “Ubuntu Certified” label is applied to systems that have been verified and are continuously tested by Canonical throughout the Ubuntu release life cycle.
Sounds like it should be someone’s job at Canonical to update the list/site.
linux
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.