bsergay

I don't know how old your father is or what they do on their systems. However, for elderly people, for which I just want to setup the system and forget, I tend to go with Endless OS. It's more limited and more mature than Vanilla OS. But, if that's exactly what you want, I'm simply unaware of anything better out there.

And yet they did so using the package manager.

So, Davinci Resolve's .run file used for installation definitely somehow interacted with the package manager. Otherwise, the system wouldn't break the way it did. While, technically the package manager was in use (at least at some point), the user -i.e. OP- did not intentionally invoke its use consciously. So, I wouldn't refer to this as "using the package manager".

They just installed a apt.source

What is an apt.source? Search engines and LLMs failed at resolving this. They did explain what apt source is or could refer to, though*. Regardless, what leads you to understand that they've installed an apt.source? Please be elaborate as I'm not a Debian/Ubuntu user; consider shedding light on it through the RPM world.

THAT I would say one should not do unless one really knows what they are doing.

How does one know which apt.source they should and should not install? Doesn't this imply "expert skills" (using my understanding of your logic)? On Windows, you can install software with almost no fear; as long as the source is trusted.

If they had just installed some .appimage

Assuming they've installed libfuse2. Which actually is not present in modern Ubuntu installations.

or compiled something from source they would have been fine.

So, in this case, you believe that compiling a gargantuan program like Davinci Resolve would not have caused a ton of issues related to dependencies even if it was supported on Ubuntu?

So... I'm not going to nuance your stance if it shouldn't be nuanced.

I thought that my writing was sufficiently easy to comprehend and would not lead to any misunderstandings. Therefore, within that context, nuance was not needed. However, your engagement in the conversation implies that some actually did misunderstand it. Thus, nuance was (seemingly) needed and I only became aware of it afterwards.

It's a bit up to you to be clear about your nuance. And in this case you're being very ambiguous about it.

My stance is pretty simple:

• Use whatever is provided, intended and supported by the 'distro'.
• For that which goes beyond this, you're on your own and should be prepared to face the consequences.

So, if one can't deal with the consequences, like how OP had to come here for help, then one should stick to the first point.

It just had its first Stable release (as Vanilla OS 2). Therefore, consider to wait it out a bit until it has been well-tested at large. Until then, please feel free to choose something else that is to your liking. Like, what is it that attracted you to this one in the first place?

Very curious. I didn't know this. I tried verifying this, but didn't manage to do so.

So, I got to ask; Was this just a joke? Or is there (some) truth to this claim?

Zsh

FWIW, the excellent ZSH Quickstart kit has been splendid for my transition.

Thanks for clarifying!

That’s pretty strong language

I agree. But in this case it was 100% justified as OP just (hopefully reversibly) destroyed their installation.

and what I was responding to.

Thanks for properly nuancing my stance. Though, perhaps consider to do so right away next time 😜.

Perhaps you were being hyperbolic.

It was deliberate. But I wouldn't refer to it as hyperbolic. Perhaps more in the style of an elder sibling scolding their younger sibling to be better next time 😉. Apologies if I missed the mark, though.

😂. Thanks for the clarification!

Yes. Not everything I have is installed through the Google store.

I understand from this, that it is implied, that the majority of what you have installed, has been done through the Google store though. By extension, I assume that -by default- you entrust installing software to the Google store. Hence, if all of the above is correct, then you actually don't commit to 'the Windows-way' by default; but only by exception. Which is exactly my point.

But you're acting like one needs to have some expert skills to install things outside of the package manager.

I feel you're reading too much into it. In my first comment, I didn't even mention package managers. In the second comment, I only wrote -and I quote- "Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.". I don't see where expert skills are implied if one chooses to go outside of it. Please feel free to help me understand where I did.

It's generally preferred for a number of reasons but it's not bad "per se" to install something outside of it.

I never implied otherwise.

On your phone, do you search the software you want to install through your browser? After which, do you download the install script and try to run it?

No, of course not. Instead, you pay a visit to the accompanied software center. Searching, installing and upgrading all occur through that.

Similarly, on Linux, your chosen distro comes with a (or perhaps multiple) package manager(s) and a software center. Those should first and foremost be consulted. And for 99% of the cases; this is the intended, supposed and supported way of installing said software.

This should suffice for the sake of brevity. If you've still got questions, please feel free to ask them.

1, directly from the website Link

I hope you've now understood why -on Linux- you should never try to install stuff like how you were used to on Windows. Unless, you 100% know what you're doing.

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

May I ask you what made you pursue an Arch installation in the first place?

Thank you for the reply!

Disclaimer: After a couple of revisions and rewrites, I concluded that directness and conciseness was required. If my tone seems confrontational at times, I would like you to know that that's not my intent. Therefore, in such cases, I would like to friendly request you to assume the best. Thank you.

User-friendly articles

How is uBlue's documentation not user-friendly? Be specific and come with an example.

forums

Naive in a post-Discord world.

User-friendly ~~articles an~~d answers ~~on forums~~ to absolutely all more or less common issues

Based on what do you imply that uBlue's discourse and Discord has failed this? Again, be explicit and give an example.

It's very important for a new user imo. We shouldn't overwhelm them with choices and technical documentation.

Assumes new users to be sufficiently homogeneous in this regard. The silent majority is not accounted for.

choices

What choices?

If you don't believe me

I believe there's definitely some truth in your earlier made statements.

check some content creators. They all agree that we should just give them a popular distro like Mint or Ubuntu and let them progress as fast as they can.

Even if that's true, I think it's hilarious to appeal to their consensus 😂.