What is the recommended practical starting point to learn Linux as I am distracted by resources

Sure but once you rollback because an update messed things, then you have the choice of stop updates, or employ your time to figure out what went wrong.

The latter is surely a great way to learn Linux internals, but if you intend to keep Linux as a main OS for a reasonably long time (let alone server things), rolling releases are a no GO.

The matter is getting worse now than it was few years ago given the trend of removing old stuff from the kernel, and all the Wayland and systemd crap, constantly evolving/changing, the removal of 32 bit stuff and alike that adds troubles to the habit of moving configuration files around which is as old as Unix.

 

I just want a solid and reliable system with plenty of available software. I think this is what the vast majority of users want, I have learned all I need to know about Linux to be comfortable using it. I have had some issues with Mint, usually a dodgy Ubuntu update but the system has always been bootable and easily fixed with Timeshift. The problems I have encountered have been pretty minor compared to Windows and some other distros I have used in the past.

 

Myself started from ubuntu, took me like half a year to learn it then i discovered backtrack not even sure if it still exists. been playing with backtrack for a few years breaking into neighbours wifi. Breaking into 3G networks to get net for free. Then i learned about antennas was able to connect my 2.4ghz wifi to someone mile and more away.
thats what Linux is good at pen testing programming but it aint so good if you want to use after effects 3ds max maya zbrush and such. latest gpus and in general gpus arent to well supported and i believe its still like that.
then i went back to windows and never used linux again.

wish ubuntu was as well supported as windows when it comes to hardware then I wouldn't be using windows at all.

 

back when i was using ubuntu gtx 295 was top gpu, it took me lots of hassle to make it work in ubuntu. just as today you will struggle to make 4090 work in ubuntu not much has changed over the years when it comes to hardware support in ubuntu.
and im not even talking about gaming but simply lack of gpu drivers for modern cards


cant remember to well but back then they have been changing display servers and you could choose which one you want old one or modern x something maybe it was x11.

if someones is interested in programming pentesting building guis or simply to write a letter on some old 2gb ram laptop ubuntu is the way to go but as i said earlier if you use after effects zbrush and many other software's or games windows is much better.
myself i enjoyed learning Linux but as a daily os its not for me.

 

Installing Ubuntu (a current relese) on a old PC is naive, to say the best.

Current Ubuntus are likely more taxing than Server 11 (or cleaned up Win11), let alone a 32bit W10 LTSC.

Ubuntu as is is just a monster, filled with nonsense like snaps, Gnome, wayland and alike.

If you want a decent, full featured speedy, light, newby friendly, well supported OS Q4OS (in the TDE flavor) is one of the few options that deserves attention.


Everything else lacks one of the features above, there are light distro that lacks functionality or newbie friendliness

There are nice distros that run on exotic package management, or that are supported by a small group of people making difficult to get uncommon apps w/o resorting to compile a github version

There are the macOS wannabe monsters: mainstream distros like Ubuntu or Fedora

There are the windows wabbabe monsters like Kubuntu or Suse

There are really nice projects like Void, but it's a rolling release like Arch or Manjaro, and we already discussed about them

Q4OS, is light, Is friendly to people used to Windows, is Debian based so the SW available is enormous and stable, It comes with the unmatched Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE), which comes with a custom theme which looks modern, but W/O massacring the functionality and usability, unlike what happened to practically everything else from Win11 to Gnome 3, and even the latest KDE 5/6

Last but not least it's still available in the 32 bit flavour.

 

I wouldn't use Q4OS for online shopping or banking and i do use windows to do that never had issue even Microsoft likely have all my details on their servers.

i have used for a bit ghost spectre light snappy no issues at all defender mbam nothing reported any viruses but i wouldnt use it for important things.

the same goes for linux distros.

i have tried linux for a few years and not going back there anymore, got everything i need.

 

What has supposed to do the Os with online banking?

The browser matters for 95%.

Here we aren't talking of a backported browser to XP or macOS X Leopard, possibly filled of hacks to make it working on a old OS

Here, we are talking of using, say, Vivaldi on Linux, which is as safe as Vivaldi on Windows 10/11 or Macos Sonoma, possibly safer. Just like a spyware like Chrome is as dangerous on Linux as it is on Windows (albeit less dangerous than using it on android or chrome OS, for obvious reasons)_

 

I agree, but although it hasn't been said I think we are talking about old and low/mid range PCs that cannot function under Window 10/11. The sort of PC you just wouldn't buy if you knew anything about the subject but are sold in the thousands by the likes of PC World.

 

Obviously.

But aside that I wrote "old" for simplicity, there is a relation between the two, there are machines that are both old and powerful, because they were top notch when new, the vast majority of machines are middle and low tier no matter of the era, so an old machine is usually also a fairly low powered one.

That's true for most of the productivity work, but Surfing is a different matter, given how demanding are the current browsers and the modern websites are, but that isn't the point here, and there is little one can do, no matter the OS, no matter the browser.

Well, Xubuntu is likely the next best thing after Trinity. But pay attention, lightweight is always relative, modern XFCE is mostly migrated to the recent GTKs which means isn't as lightweight as it was a decade ago, trinity on the other hand still uses the QT3 which are mostly the same as they were in 2003, and that had just bugfixes since then, the same is applicable to the whole desktop environment.

Yes and no, once a desktop environment uses 3D features that needs to be emulated via SW because the VGA isn't modern enough, all the additional work ends on the shoulder of the CPU that spend its time doing transparencies or fancy animations.
Just an example, but when a distro is built from the ground with the intent of being a jack of all trades competitor to windows, it ends to be bloated as windows.

And that's what Ubuntu is.

As an analogy

Ubuntu is like Win 11 Pro/Home

Xubuntu is like Win10 LTSC


Q4OS is like an hypothetical Win XP 2024 updated to manage all modern HW / network protocols / filesystems and so on

For the record there is now a (somewhat experimental) distro, called Quark, made by the Q4OS guys that is build on top of ubuntu packages instead of Debian's.

I tested it briefly and seem working reasonably well, from the desktop POV is almost identical to Q4OS, worth a try for people who need/prefer a *buntu distro for whatever reason.

Sure

I use to say that RAM is like money, there is a minimal amount you need to barely survive, there is a minimal amount you need to live, but there isn't a upper limit, the more the better.

 

You need to login to view this posts content.

 

Bloat is, for sure an unwanted program/service running in background, but bloat is also the storage space used / wasted.

Yes and no, it all depends on how the dependencies are managed, and given *buntu is aimed more to the average Joes than experienced people the dependencies are usual overkill.

Ubuntu packages are usually like cherries, where you take the first, and a long chain of others is dragged after it, most of them aren't really needed, most of them once installed are impossible to be removed quickly using apt autoremove or alike.

That's more a corner case than anything else.

I mean, for example, install a KDE based distro like kubuntu, use df -h to see the used space, then install something like synaptic, it will drag a world of GTK libraries and components, including themes icons and so on. Then decide that you don't want synaptic anymore, remove it, use apt autoremove and use df -h again you will be surprised about how much cruft is left by this simple operation.

Easy? No. Keeping the system clean requires skill and a lot of time
Frankly is easier to recover space from Windows. Given the scripts need to be aimed to few iterations, while Linux is a super fragmented world where a hypothetical cleanup script must take in account at least 5 years, a dozen of package management systems, 4/5 snapflatpack like flavours and so on.
A mission impossible.

Sure, but this may be more or less effective depending how the dependencies are managed, here Arch and Arch based distros are usually better than rpm and deb based ones. But the mileage varies.

For sure the best way to install a debian or ubuntu based distro is using debootstrap and chroot, but although it's a well known practice is obviously more complicated than pushing OK 10 times to install an image from a live distro.

That's for sure, but I'm sure that in 5 years will be way worse.

 

Me: at the 'systemd cancer' part = nodding furiously.....at the 'more skill than 2 years' part = spits my "covfefe" all over my screen. Yup!