161
Tips for getting better at Linux. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I am a Linux beginner/amateur and I have sort of had enough of copy and pasting commands I find on the internet without having a good understanding of how they actually work.

I guess my end goal is to be able to comfortably install and use arch Linux with my own customization's and be able to fix it when things go wrong.

What tips/ideas do you have for getting better at navigating the terminal, and getting a better understanding of how the os works. What is a good roadmap to follow? And how did you, advanced Linux user, get to the stage your at now?

Edit: my current distro is bazzite just in case you were interested and thanks for all the replies you are all really helpful.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Is bash ultimately better than dolphin or another file manager? I always thought that it just seamed slow having to read things out with no icons and having to type the filename instead of double clicking. And I have been avoiding installing applications through terminal because I can't find how to properly uninstall them including all data (the fedora software center does this really easily) I have also had some trouble going further back that my user folder in the terminal I still havn't figured out how to do that. Lastly what are some "user friendly by virtiue of having few moving parts" distro's that you recommend?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    Is bash ultimately better than dolphin or another file manager?

    1. Yes. (Disclaimer, some statements contain opinion.)

    2. OP was specifically asking how to learn more about Linux. And it's nearly unquestionable that OP is going to learn more about how Linux works if they use the lower-level tools rather than take-you-by-the-hand point-and-click-adventure programs your grandmother could probably figure out.

    I always thought that it just seamed slow having to read things out with no icons and having to type the filename instead of double clicking.

    So, again, this is just me spouting my own preferences here, but I don't often touch the mouse. Moving my hand from keyboard to mouse takes time. I can use a keyboard shortcut to open a terminal, cd into the proper directory (using tab complete and set -o vi to make things quicker still), and start dealing with files much quicker than I could navigate a menu to get to, say, Dolphin, wait for it to load (if you use a minimal terminal, it should load basically instantaneously), and then start navigating.

    And I have been avoiding installing applications through terminal because I can't find how to properly uninstall them including all data (the fedora software center does this really easily)

    Not sure I can help you there. I've never used Fedora. I used CentOS once for a short time, but it was a long time ago and I basically don't remember it at all.

    I have also had some trouble going further back that my user folder in the terminal I still havn't figured out how to do that.

    Like, to the parent directory of your home directory? cd .. should always go to the parent directory of your current working directory. (/ is its own parent, I believe, so you can't go any further up the chain than that.)

    Lastly what are some "user friendly by virtiue of having few moving parts" distro's that you recommend?

    Gentoo and Arch. I've never used Void, but it sounds to me like Void is very minimal (has few moving parts) while also being much less of a learning curve than Gentoo and Arch.

    When I say "few moving parts", I mean, roughly speaking, fewer lines of source code. KDE (just for instance) is a huge beast. It tries to accomplish user friendliness by adding layers upon layers of abstraction, in the process obscuring what's really going on at lower levels from the user. It... doesn't really work. What it gains you in reduced learning curve becomes an obstacle the moment something goes wrong or you want to peek under the hood. Ubuntu (just as another example) installs tons of stuff to try to shield you from the nitty gritty details. But again, that causes more problems than it solves unless you're dead set against ever looking under the hood for any reason.

    The term "user friendly" tends to mean "my grandmother can use it without having to learn anything in the process." In the comment about "user friendly by virtiue of having few moving parts", I didn't mean "user friendly" in the same sense. I don't think "user friendly" in the more common sense id mutually exclusive with "fewer moving parts." At least not in theory. But in practice, that does seem to be the trend.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    OP was specifically asking how to learn more about Linux. And it’s nearly unquestionable that OP is going to learn more about how Linux works if they use the lower-level tools rather than take-you-by-the-hand point-and-click-adventure programs your grandmother could probably figure out.

    Yes I am op.

    and thanks for the reply. So I guess I should just skip anything with a desktop environment like manjaro and just figure out how to install bare arch?

    Like, to the parent directory of your home directory? cd .. should always go to the parent directory of your current working directory. (/ is its own parent, I believe, so you can’t go any further up the chain than that.)

    Yes cd .. was what I was looking for thanks!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yes I am op.

    Ha! That's what I get for posting on Lemmy at 2:00 am. Lol.

    So I guess I should just skip anything with a desktop environment like manjaro and just figure out how to install bare arch?

    You can certainly start with a bare Arch install and install on top of that a graphical environment. (Without a graphical environment, you wouldn't be able to run a full-featured browser like Firefox or Chromium or whatever, for instance. I'd think if you intend to use this system as your daily driver -- and I'd recommend you do for learning sake -- you'll probably want a graphical environment.) But, yeah. I'd say Arch isn't that unapproachable to install without going the Manjaro route or the "archinstaller" route.

    With Arch, everything's just packages. The difference between non-graphical Arch and graphical Arch is just that non-graphical Arch doesn't have any graphical system packages installed.

    Now, I keep talking about "graphical systems". There are two ways to go with that. There is X11 which is mature but a bit dated. And there's Wayland which is the new hotness but support for it is still a bit lacking, so some features like screen grab may not be supported by all programs and some programs won't work as straightforwardly on Wayland. (Basically, any time a program grabs an image or video of any portion of the screen of your graphical environment, that uses the "screen grab" API. Wayland does that differently than X11, so a lot of programs aren't updated to use Wayland's way yet.)

    I guess I'd probably lean toward recommending X11 at this point. I personally use a Wayland compositor (Sway, specifically), but I don't think running Wayland is going to teach you much that X11 won't, and running Wayland at this point is likely to introduce frustrating wrinkles. If after you have your Linux "sea legs" you want to try switching, that's always an option as well.

    As for minimal X11 environments, first off, I'd say avoid things that describe themselves as "desktop environments". They're likely to hide details from you. Prefer "window managers." Tiling window managers tend to be more minimal, but if you want to go with a more draggy-droppy, mouse-driven window manager that feels more like what you're probably used to (but also doesn't hide details), I'd recommend IceWM.

    And, finally, as far as a "bare Arch install", the place to start is the install guide on the Arch Wiki. It goes step-by-step on how to do things. And take the time to understand the commands you're running as you're running them. There are a lot of links in the install guide to more in-depth articles. For instance, the "partitioning" section links to an article called "partitions" that goes in depth on what a "partition" even is.

    There's a lot to learn, but it also pays off. Both in terms of just having the power to do the stuff you want with your own systems and in terms of benefits to your career. And it's just plain fun!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Thanks, I guess I will go with x11 with a tiling window manager, I've had enough of windows being on top of each other and I like the idea of using my mouse the least amount possible. One last question most apps and packages don't support pacman sometimes the only option is to install with apt and you download a .dev file is there a way to get around this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Great question!

    So, first off, if I knew what app(s) specifically you have in mind, that'd help me answer better, but in general:

    • First off, I'll say it's mostly less that they support pacman than that Arch supports them. There may be some exceptions, but it's usually Arch developers building the pacman packages rather than the author of the software in question. Even when it's a proprietary application, it's usually bundled into a packman package (or at least a PKGBUILD for it lives on AUR, but we'll get to that) by one of the Arch developers or other volunteers.
    • Your first option for software that isn't in the official Arch repositories is AUR. It's for packages that aren't as officially supported as those in the official Arch repositories. Anything in AUR, you'll have to build the package itself (which usually involves compiling, unless it builds the package from an already-compiled binary), but the process is usually pretty straightforward. (Download and unzip the tarball from AUR somewhere, cd into the directory, and then makepkg -sf && sudo pacman -U <something>.tar.xz. You can also get some helper scripts that do some of those steps for you for convenience. Definitely worth having the experience of doing it manually a few times first, though, I'd say.) Even if the only way to get the software in question from the publisher is in .deb form, you may still find a package on AUR that will unpackage the .deb and package the result up into an Arch package.
    • You can run the software in an isolated way. There are snap packages and flatpacks, but... well, there are good reasons why they get a bad rap. Lol. Another option is to build an Ubuntu chroot in which to install the package in there. The cleanest and most straightforward option for running software isolated like this is probably Docker. (Running graphical apps in Docker can definitely be done, though it is a little tricky.)
    • You can grab the software in question and install it manually somewhere in your home directory. Somewhere like $HOME/install/<softwarename>. This can work even if the software is only available as a .deb file. You can just extract the .deb without installing it with the command ar x <blah>.deb and a tar -xf data.tar.gz and then put the files from within that .deb file where you want them.
    • There are some other options that I've never tried (and only learned of just now by googling) that... aren't recommended. Here's a link for reference, but to somewhat explain the problems that those approaches there can cause, when you install a package from any particular package manager, the package manager installs dependencies. (Typically those dependencies are shared libraries. Think ".dll"s.) And those dependencies live in specific places. But if, say, you had pacman and apt-get installed on the same system and install the same dependency (including if that dependency is installed automatically as part of installing something else) via both package managers, it's likely to get one version of the dependency from one package manager and another from the other. Either one package manager is going to error out ("these files already exist in the filesystem, I think something's wrong that a human should fix") or overwrite files potentially breaking things. (Now, all that said, I know that pacman is actually in the official Ubuntu repositories and can be installed on Ubuntu alongside apt get. I have to admit I don't know if and if so how it goes about avoiding problems if both are installed. Maybe it's not a good idea to install pacman on Ubuntu for the same reason. Who knows!)
    • So, there is also the option to write your own PKGBUILD. (A "PKGBUILD" is a script that tells your Arch system how to build a Pacman package. They're what you download from AUR when you want to build/install something from AUR. A couple of reference links.) It does require doing a little Bash programming, but It's not as hard as it sounds. (And it's easier than building Ubuntu packages.) I'll talk about what to do if you truly can't get the package in question anyhow except in .deb form. But first, if you can get the source code, you can typically grab a PKGBUILD from the official Arch repositories or from AUR that installs something "similar" to what you're wanting to install and modify it. (Like, for a simple example, if you're trying to install something written in C, you can look for a PKGBUILD for something written in C that would probably have similar dependencies.) If you can't get the source code but can get a compiled distribution of the software in question, you can still write a PKGBUILD, and you'll probably be able to find some PKGBUILDs to start from that would be pretty similar to what you need.
    • If you truly can't get the software in question except in .deb form and you want to write a PKGBUILD for it, that can be done. It just involves writing a PKGBUILD that extracts the files from the .deb file and then packages them back up into an Arch package. I've done this before and I have a funny personal story about that. More info here in an answer to another question in this same Lemmy community.

    Just in case it's useful to you, I'll share the PKGBUILD I wrote for converting the Ubuntu kernel into an Arch package. It demonstrates how you'd go about extracting files from a .deb file in order to build them into an Arch package.

    pkgname='linux-ubuntu'
pkgdesc='The Ubuntu kernel, modules, and headers'
pkgver='5.15.0'
_pkgver="$(cut '-d.' -f 1,2 <<< "${pkgver}")"
_firmware_ver='1.187.29'
_suffix_ver='20.04.2'
pkgrel='25'
arch=('x86_64')
options=('!strip')
url='http://ubuntu.com/'
source=(
    'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-firmware/linux-firmware_'"${_firmware_ver}"'_all.deb'
    'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'/linux-headers-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'/linux-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'-headers-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_all.deb'
    'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-signed-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'/linux-image-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'/linux-modules-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'/linux-modules-extra-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'linux.preset'
)
noextract=(
    'linux-firmware_'"${_firmware_ver}"'_all.deb'
    'linux-headers-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'linux-hwe-'"${_pkgver}"'-headers-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_all.deb'
    'linux-image-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'linux-modules-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
    'linux-modules-extra-'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'-generic_'"${pkgver}"'-'"${pkgrel}"'.'"${pkgrel}"'~'"${_suffix_ver}"'_amd64.deb'
)
sha256sums=(
    '22697f12ade7e6d6a2dd9ac956f594a3f5e2697ada3a29916fee465cc83a34a1'
    '595794e8ad28ed130af60e6ec8699313e1935ae70f7530a00b06dff67fb4d40e'
    '22dbdc1895f91d3ad9d4c5b153352f1cc8359291dba6ea1a0e683cc6871b0f58'
    '5705cefab39dd5512bcc515918d09153715c7bb365d6bc29cc9b0580e5723eef'
    '3d207388812e957447162c067fb637b4d06eccb4f303b801e8402046a7d3cf48'
    '2f1214dbb04cb47ce8d096bff969fca9c78c26ec21a395c12922eca43cc18e26'
    '75d7d4b94156b3ba705a72ebbb91e84c8d519acf1faec852a74ade2accc7b0ea'
)

package() {
    for f in "${noextract[@]}" ; do
        ar x "${f}"
        tar -xf "data.tar.xz" -C "${pkgdir}"
    done
    rm -r "${pkgdir}"'/usr/share'
    rm -r "${pkgdir}"'/usr/lib'
    mv "${pkgdir}"'/lib' "${pkgdir}"'/usr'
    install -Dm644 'linux.preset' "${pkgdir}"'/etc/mkinitcpio.d/linux.preset'
}

    (I omitted the linux.preset file. It's just in the same directory with the PKGBUILD and it gets bundled into the Arch package. But it's not really important for what you're doing unless you're trying to install a different kernel than the official Arch kernel on an Arch system.)

    The part that extracts the files from the .deb packages is the ar x command and the tar -xf command. The package() function there is what decides exactly what files will be in the Arch package and where. And makepkg builds the package archive after running package().

    That covers all the options for installing software not in the Arch repos that I can think of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •