Most of my Debian machines I use daily are headless, so the command line is the interface but I can cross-compile using Netbeans on a X86 server for writing software in ARM or other types of SoC Debian machines.
My daily driver is a two display headed DL380 server that netboots and mount nfs driver from another Debian X86 HP server.

If you can program complex applications on 8-bit controllers with ASM, then Debian administration is easy.

 

If you can program complex applications on 8-bit controllers with ASM, then Debian administration is easy.

Never said it was hard.

It is time consuming and, on Ubuntu, unnecessary.

Edit: my first surprise was when Alt-Ctrl-T did nothing. I had to create my own terminal hotkey.

The second was that I wasn't automatically added to the sudo group (as the first and only user), yet that there was a loggable root user.

Just little stuff like that.

 

It's only time consuming the first time. I don't sudo as a habit from Unix-like systems long before modern Linux.

https://wiki.debian.org/sudo/

Reasons people do and do not use sudo

Why some people do not use sudo

Historically, Unix-like systems did not use sudo. Allowing sudo access creates the risk of damage, whether through mistakes, bugs in the sudo program itself and may encourage people to run commands as root by making it 'too easy' to gain privileges.
Lot of Debian administrators do not install sudo. Instead, they run commands as root (for example with su - from a normal user account) when they need. This avoids needing to type "sudo" in front of every command.

 

It's only time consuming the first time. I don't sudo as a habit from Unix-like systems long before modern Linux.

https://wiki.debian.org/sudo/

Reasons people do and do not use sudo

Why some people do not use sudo

Historically, Unix-like systems did not use sudo. Allowing sudo access creates the risk of damage, whether through mistakes, bugs in the sudo program itself and may encourage people to run commands as root by making it 'too easy' to gain privileges.
Lot of Debian administrators do not install sudo. Instead, they run commands as root (for example with su - from a normal user account) when they need. This avoids needing to type "sudo" in front of every command.

I've heard it both ways, and I'm used to sudo.

 

I've heard it both ways, and I'm used to sudo.

It's easy to setup the way you like it, with Debian.

 

What exactly is all this "administration" I hear Linux folks always talking about endlessly?

I worked on mainframes and minis for years and always found Unix (and derivatives like AIX, Linux etc) to be so terribly needy and idiosyncratic compared to other operating systems, the almost intentionally obfuscating command names and stuff was unbearable (like typing "help" in a terminal session always eliciting an error message and reprimand from the system).

 

Unix/Linux is not for everyone, you don't like, don't use it. It's a simple concept that some are confused about.

 

Unix/Linux is not for everyone...

Linux is for everyone. Everyone just doesn't know it -- or won't believe it.

 

right, and the "administration" that I hear people discussing a lot?

 

Hello,

For simple users the "administration" can be adding/ removing programs , adding/removing printers and scanners and taking care of updates.
The OpenSuse that I use has the yast help programs to take care of the administration.

Bertus

 

Windows is for people who like to work "with" their computers.

Linux is for people who like to work "on" their computers.

Apple is for snobs that think their PC is a status symbol.

 

Hello,

For simple users the "administration" can be adding/ removing programs , adding/removing printers and scanners and taking care of updates.
The OpenSuse that I use has the yast help programs to take care of the administration.

Bertus

I see, so on Windows when I just add a printer by clicking a mouse a few times, I must jump though hoops and run cryptic commands to do the same thing on Linux?

I recall Unix many years ago and some of the guys that worked on them, they always seemed to delight in the complexity, as if they were a priestly caste that ordinary mortals were unfit to question, every few days they'd say "Oh, well we need to rebuild the kernel and reboot before we can do that" I'd always laugh because never did I find it necessary to modify an OS kernel (let alone reboot) just to accommodate something like adding a network card or even processor.

 

Hello,

In OpenSuse you have the Yast Control Centre. From there you can manage a lot of settings for linux:


Bertus

 

I see, so on Windows when I just add a printer by clicking a mouse a few times, I must jump though hoops and run cryptic commands to do the same thing on Linux?

Your perceptions are extremely dated.

Yes, Linux is different than Windows. But it is also far easier -- in almost every respect -- for those who know both.

In point of fact, a modern Linux distribution like Ubuntu requires zero clicks or CLI commands for printer installation. They are automatically detected and configure and ready to go -- without any user input at all (and, believe it or not, this disturbs me).

 

Hello,

A little fun:




Bertus

 

Hello,

A little fun:
View attachment 358247

View attachment 358251

Bertus

And, just like infants, they have no idea how limited their lives and capabilities are.

 

Well .Net now runs on Linux, so there's hope for it yet.

 

https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2021/0...sprinkled-with-fine-dust-from-crumbled-turds/

Wow; and there's that other curse word I always see "distro", it really didn't have to be this way...

 

How quaint.

Dave thinks Redmond might listen.

 

How quaint.

Dave thinks Redmond might listen.

I agree there are usability irritants, no product can be free of those and Linux (and its many offshoot "distros") is no exception.

Windows (NT) was designed, by an experienced team led by a respected OS architect. That team had delivered systems to demanding customers for years, DEC had a well earned reputation. The OS project had very clear goals, targets that were carefully chosen to help meet expected future demands and markets.

Linux was not designed, it was a clone of some variant of Linux that avoided reusing AT&T Unix source code. It has a clumsy device driver policy (I won't use the word architecture). Linux has all of the terrible aspects of Unix because it was a clone of Unix, itself never really designed.

Now I happen to have deep insights into OS design so I can see these things, but the typical Linux devotee does not, they live in the same kind of hippies with sandals world that plagued Unix development. There's no impressive engineering in Linux, it's a hack job, total mess of inconsistent coding policies.

https://slugcat.systems/brain_dump/linux-desktop-issues/

Quote:

Memory Management

Outside of the obvious jerk that Windows wastes memory by being bloated compared to most Linux distros, Windows has far superior memory management for desktop use.

Windows has no overcommit crap, so there’s no OOM killer nonsense either. All memory can be backed either by physical RAM or by page file. It is also much better at swap management. If on Linux you run out of memory and the OOM killer doesn’t fire its blindfolded drunk shotgun in time, your system is probably gonna completely grind to a halt and has to be REISUB’d. Windows has much better swap management and isn’t as prone to this.

This is because Windows was designed by engineers not stoned hippies.

OOM Killer? seriously? you can't see how utterly f****d up that is?